EEE3037 Nanoscience and Nanotechnology Assignment Questions | 2025/26

EEE3037 Instructions – please read carefully the entire document (4 pages)

1. Attempt both questions. Question 1 is marked out of 100% and is associated with exploring the properties of quantum wavefunctions in nanostructures, and question 2, also marked out of 100%, is associated with the exploration of the applications of nanomaterials of your choice. The assignment mark is the mathematical average of Questions 1 and 2.
2. The assignment is worth 20% of the marks for this module. Assignments must be submitted via SurreyLearn into the Assignment Folder by 4 pm on Tuesday 6th November 2025.
3. This is an individual assignment, and your answers must be typed. Please save the assignment as a single PDF file. Please do not include your name or URN to keep marking anonymous.
4. Only pdf file formats are acceptable and must be a single file. Only the latest version of the assignment will be retained and you must double-check that you have submitted the correct file.
5. Please include page numbers on each page.
6. References used must be cited in the IEEE format
7. You are advised to use a popular referencing software, such as Endnote, RefWorks or Mendeley, rather than Word’s built-in referencing.
8. Where relevant, you must include the appropriate SI units.

QUESTION 1

Design a single rectangular quantum well (QW) structure on a commercially available substrate such that the fundamental interband transition (e1–hh1) at 300 K is 𝜆 ≈ 1.30–1.55 µm. Your exact target wavelength must be chosen using the URN last digit lookup below (state your chosen value clearly at the start)

Wavelength look-up allocation table

Hint: telecom-band QWs often use InGaAs(P)/InP or InGaAs/AlInAs on InP. Alternatives (e.g., GaAs/AlGaAs) may miss the longer wavelengths unless strain or composition is engineered. Part of the exercise is deciding a feasible stack from literature.

In you answer, you must:

1. Pick & justify two candidate material systems (e.g., Iny Ga1-y As/InP, Inx Ga1-xAs/Alx In1-x As on a suitable substrate that you specify, strained InGaAs/GaAs option etc). For each candidate, you must quote parameters (eg. as a table) for bandgaps vs composition, effective masses relevant to the well, band offsets, lattice constants and mismatch, where applicable. These must be derived from journal articles (IEEE citations) and not simply just textbooks or unattributed web resources. (Independent research evaluation)
2. Determine the well width and barrier compositions to satisfy the brief requirements and prove that the correct wavelength is emitted. State all assumptions and show that the formulas applied result in the correct units (show all units working, in addition to all arithmetic calculations – just adding the correct unit at the end result is unacceptable). (Technical mastery and calculation accuracy).
3. Compare your two candidates on: lattice match/strain & critical thickness, offset depth & number of bound states, monolayer thickness sensitivity (±1 atomic crystal layer to the well length), interface roughness impact on linewidth, and growth feasibility (MBE/MOCVD). Using a prioritisation tool such as MoSCoW (please see EEE3035 or widely available online tutorials), make a final choice between the two candidates at (i). (Engineering Judgment)
4. For your final design, consider two sections of the well, each 2 nm wide (for example 1-3 nm and 4-6 nm) or any other equal slices, as long as they are 2 nm long (will depend on your L). Comment on how the results are influenced by the effective mass and the barrier penetration, and contrast this against the infinite barrier model expectations.

Marking (100% total):

• Understanding of the design problem & constraints (16%)
• Evidence of independent literature use for material parameters (24%)
• Technical mastery of finite-well calculations & sound engineering judgement (50%) Presentation, labelled figures, IEEE references (10%).

General requirements: 300 K unless stated; use IEEE referencing; include units and show working

QUESTION 2 – APPLICATIONS OF NANOMATERIALS

You are given a single nanomaterial based on your URN’s last digit and you must confine your answer to a single specific application. (e.g. not general medicine, but a single, specific use or role in medicine)
Nanomaterial look-up allocation table

Typical applications are: Transparent conductors for flexible displays; RF/high-speed transistors; electrochemical biosensors; thin-film transistors; interconnects; composite reinforcement; membranes; photodetectors; catalysts for hydrogen evolution; EMI shielding; supercapacitors; energy storage; sensors; LEDs; lasers; photodetectors; photovoltaics. Stick to a single application.

In your answer, include

1. a clear statement of the application for which your nanomaterial is being used and which intrinsic property or properties (electrical, mechanical, thermal etc) of your nanomaterial is/are being specifically harnessed. Include a brief overview/description of other competitor materials and why they would under-perform your nanomaterial. The comparison must be quantitative, with facts, numbers and any relevant figures referenced in IEEE style and sourced from peer-reviewed research articles and not unverified web sources.
2. a critical discussion of the added benefit to the application that they produce, including a comparison with the
   theoretical ‘promise’, using figures of merit. Assess if the gains are uniquely due to your chosen nanomaterial.
3. Explain the physics/engineering origin of the scientific or engineering benefit that occurs, using schematics where appropriate. Include a schematic description, where appropriate.

NOTE: an appropriate use of figures is where the figures replace text by simplifying descriptions or reducing wordy descriptions (hint: captions should be descriptive of the science that the figures convey), and not be simply used to break up text or for ‘decorative’ purposes.

Guidelines and Marking Criteria

1. The total word count should be about 1000 words excluding references, table or figure captions. You must include the total word count. Up to 5% of the marks are awarded for including the total word count and being at most 10% above or below the word count.
2. This is an open-ended question and you will be marked according to the following Marking Criteria

(i) Is there a clear statement of the application area being discussed? 5%
(ii) Is the added benefit of using your nanomaterial made clear in the discussion?
-you should include a brief statement on current competing material/s used in the application area and
-why you nanomaterial is a credible candidate for that application, what is the improvement, including figures of merit or performance indicators;
-the discussion should look at the evidence critically, including an assessment of whether the improvement is uniquely due to your nanomaterial.

(iii) Is the origin of the scientific or engineering benefit that occurs made clear in the discussion?
Hints:
-you should make it clear what is the reason for the improvement and 40%
-your explanation should include sufficient discussion of the science or engineering to show you understand it. 40%

(iv)Overall presentation including labelled figures and correct use of complete references, and the word count constraints at point 1 of question 2. 15%

You must use IEEE referencing. It is highly recommended that you use a referencing software, such as Endnote/Myendnoteweb, Mendeley or RefWorks and that you use Web of Science as a source of research article basic-search .

Example of IEEE referencing:

[1]    S. J. Henley, M. J. Beliatis, V. Stolojan, and S. R. P. Silva, "Laser implantation of plasmonic nanostructures into glass," Nanoscale, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 1054-1059, 2013 2013, doi: 10.1039/c2nr33629d.
Note on GenAI usage.

Whilst usage of GenAI is not discouraged, please note that all claims (eg. improved mechanical strength) must be qualified and quantified, with evidence (i.e. real peer-reviewed references) and placed in context (i.e. comparisons with other solutions, and other values). Critiques, as part of critical analysis, must also be qualified and quantified, with evidence. Not doing so usually leads to an effort below the pass mark.