Since the publication of the original article,1 we found that some of the DFT-calculated work functions in Tables II and III in the original article were incorrect due to inadvertently including some electronic occupancy smoothing contributions into the Fermi energy. This erratum provides the corrected values of Tables II and III. The maximum change in values is <0.2 eV so this is a minor quantitative, but not qualitative, correction. Aside from the values in the tables shown here, the original results, discussions, and key conclusions are not affected.
TABLE II.
Material . | Experimental . | DFT calculated . |
---|---|---|
system . | value (eV) . | value (eV) . |
= 3.8, 4.0, 4.3–4.8, 4.7 | = 3.8 | |
Nb:STO | ΔΦ14%Sr = −0.78 | ΔΦ12.5%Sr = −0.9 |
Φ(4×1) = 4.47 | Φ(4×1) = 4.5 | |
ΦSrO = 2.7 | ΦSrO = 2.8 | |
Pure STO | = 4.3 | = 5.0 |
Φ(√5×√5) = 3.12 | Φ(√5×√5) = 3.2 |
Material . | Experimental . | DFT calculated . |
---|---|---|
system . | value (eV) . | value (eV) . |
= 3.8, 4.0, 4.3–4.8, 4.7 | = 3.8 | |
Nb:STO | ΔΦ14%Sr = −0.78 | ΔΦ12.5%Sr = −0.9 |
Φ(4×1) = 4.47 | Φ(4×1) = 4.5 | |
ΦSrO = 2.7 | ΦSrO = 2.8 | |
Pure STO | = 4.3 | = 5.0 |
Φ(√5×√5) = 3.12 | Φ(√5×√5) = 3.2 |
TABLE III.
. | Ideal TiO2 . | (2 × 1) . | (2 × 2) A . | (2 × 2) C . | c(4 × 2) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | (eV) . | (eV) . | (eV) . | (eV) . | (eV) . |
Pure STO | 5.0 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 6.4 | 6.2 |
Nb:STO | 3.8 | 5.7 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.6 |
. | Ideal TiO2 . | (2 × 1) . | (2 × 2) A . | (2 × 2) C . | c(4 × 2) . |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
. | (eV) . | (eV) . | (eV) . | (eV) . | (eV) . |
Pure STO | 5.0 | 7.4 | 6.0 | 6.4 | 6.2 |
Nb:STO | 3.8 | 5.7 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.6 |
REFERENCE
1.
T.
Ma
, R.
Jacobs
, J.
Booske
, and D.
Morgan
, APL Mater.
8
, 071110
(2020
).© 2021 Author(s).
2021
Author(s)