<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Yu Y</submitter><funding>National Natural Science Foundation of China</funding><funding>Yunnan Provincial Science and Technology Department</funding><funding>Yunnan Provincial Department of Education</funding><pagination>39582-39588</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC9076083</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>9(68)</volume><pubmed_abstract>The surface passivation of Ge(100) and Ge(111) anodes in Ge-air batteries with different doping types and concentrations is analyzed by density function theory (DFT) calculations. Compared with Ge(111) anodes, the surface passivation is restrained on Ge(100) anodes as they have larger binding energies with GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> layers. Meanwhile, doping would hinder the formation of a GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> layer on Ge anodes, especially for p-type doping, like B. The dissimilarities of the electrostatic potential differences and projected local density of states between the p-type Ge(100)/GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> and Ge(111)/GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> also reveal the origins of their distinct performances in Ge-air batteries. Furthermore, the &lt;i>I&lt;/i>-&lt;i>V&lt;/i> curves show that the Ge(100)/GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>/Ge(100) device h</pubmed_abstract><journal>RSC advances</journal><pubmed_title>The surface passivation of Ge(100) and Ge(111) anodes in Ge-air batteries with different doping types and concentrations.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC9076083</pmcid><funding_grant_id>2017FD085</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>61904073</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>2018JS392</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>11264022</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Yang H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hu S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Jin G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Huang J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Gao S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yu Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chen D</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>The surface passivation of Ge(100) and Ge(111) anodes in Ge-air batteries with different doping types and concentrations.</name><description>The surface passivation of Ge(100) and Ge(111) anodes in Ge-air batteries with different doping types and concentrations is analyzed by density function theory (DFT) calculations. Compared with Ge(111) anodes, the surface passivation is restrained on Ge(100) anodes as they have larger binding energies with GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> layers. Meanwhile, doping would hinder the formation of a GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> layer on Ge anodes, especially for p-type doping, like B. The dissimilarities of the electrostatic potential differences and projected local density of states between the p-type Ge(100)/GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> and Ge(111)/GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub> also reveal the origins of their distinct performances in Ge-air batteries. Furthermore, the &lt;i>I&lt;/i>-&lt;i>V&lt;/i> curves show that the Ge(100)/GeO&lt;sub>2&lt;/sub>/Ge(100) device h</description><dates><release>2019-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2019 Dec</publication><modification>2025-05-18T12:06:57.707Z</modification><creation>2025-04-06T22:55:01.819Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC9076083</accession><cross_references><pubmed>35541391</pubmed><doi>10.1039/c9ra06725f</doi></cross_references></HashMap>