4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Insights into the magnetic dead layer in La0.7Sr0.3MnO3 thin films from temperature, magnetic field and thickness dependence of their magnetization

期刊

AIP ADVANCES
卷 8, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.5005913

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [DMR-1608656]
  2. DOE [DE-SC0016176]
  3. Division Of Materials Research
  4. Direct For Mathematical & Physical Scien [1608656] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Experimental investigations of the magnetic dead layer in 7.6 nm thick film of La0.7Sr0.3MnO3 (LSMO) are reported. The dc magnetization (M) measurements for a sample cooled to T = 5 K in applied field H = 0 reveal the presence of negative remanent magnetization (NRM) in the M vs. H (magnetic field) measurements as well as in the M vs. T measurements in H = 50 Oe and 100 Oe. The M vs. T data in ZFC (zero-field-cooled) and FC (field-cooled) protocols are used to determine the blocking temperature TB in different H. Isothermal hysteresis loops at different T are used to determine the temperature dependence of saturation magnetization (M-S), remanence (M-R) and coercivity HC. The M-S vs. T data are fit to the Bloch law, M-S (T) = M-0 (1 - BT3/2), showing a good fit for T < 100 K and yielding the nearest-neighbor exchange constant J/k(B) congruent to 18 K. The variations of T-B vs. H and HC vs. T are well described by the model often used for randomly oriented magnetic nanoparticles with magnetic domain diameter approximate to 9 nm present in the dead-layer of thickness d = 1.4 nm. Finally, the data available from literature on the thickness (D) variation of Curie temperature (T-C) and M-S of LSMO films grown under 200, 150, and 0.38 mTorr pressures of O-2 are analyzed in terms of the finite-size scaling, with M-S vs. D data fit to M-S (D) = M-S(b)(1-d/D) yielding the dead layer thickness d = 1.1 nm, 1.4 nm and 2.4 nm respectively. Brief discussion on the significance of these results is presented. (c) 2018 Author(s).

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

4.4
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