4.6 Article

An NMR study on the F-doping evolution of the iron oxypnictide LaFeAs(O1-xFx)

期刊

NEW JOURNAL OF PHYSICS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/1367-2630/11/4/045004

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) [20102006]
  2. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report the experimental results of As-75 and La-139 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in the layered oxypnictide system LaFeAs(O1-xFx) (x = 0.0, 0.04, 0.07, 0.11 and 0.14) where superconductivity occurs at x greater than or similar to 0.03. In the undoped LaFeAsO, 1/T-1 of La-139 exhibits a distinct peak at T-N similar to 142K below which the La-NMR spectra become broadened due to the internal magnetic field attributed to an antiferromagnetic (AFM) ordering. In the x = 0.04 sample, 1/T1T of As-75 exhibits a Curie-Weiss temperature dependence down to 30 K, suggesting the development of AFM spin fluctuations with a decrease in temperature. At x = 0.11 and 0.14, in contrast, pseudogap behavior is observed in 1/T1T at the As-75 site with a gap value of Delta(PG) similar to 175 and 165 K, respectively. The spin dynamics vary markedly with F-doping, which is ascribed to the change of the Fermi-surface structure because of the electron doping. As for the superconducting properties for x = 0.04, 0.07 and 0.11, the 1/T-1 of As-75 in the three samples does not exhibit a coherence peak just below T-c and follows a T-3 dependence at low temperatures. These results may suggest unconventional superconductivity with a zero gap along the lines, but neither the field-induced extra relaxation rate nor the residual density of states at the low temperatures is incompatible with the presence of the line nodes. We discuss the similarities and differences between LaFeAs(O1-xFx) and cuprates and also discuss the relationship between spin dynamics and superconductivity on the basis of the F-doping dependence of T-c and 1/T-1.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据