4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Structural and magnetic characterization of RCrO4 oxides (R = Nd, Er and Tm)

期刊

JOURNAL OF SOLID STATE CHEMISTRY
卷 171, 期 1-2, 页码 161-169

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-4596(02)00203-7

关键词

lanthanide chromates; zircon-type structure; neutron powder diffraction; magnetic structure; ferromagnetism; antiferromagnetism

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The crystal and magnetic structure of RCrO4 Oxides (R = Nd, Er and Tin) has been studied by owder neutron diffraction. These compounds crystallize with the zircon-type structure, showing tetragonal symmetry, space group I4(1)/amd. In the case of NdCrO4, magnetic susceptibility measurements reveal the existence of an antiferromagnetic ordering in which both Cr5+ and Nd3+ sublattices are involved. This ordering has been explained on the basis of a propagation vector k = 0 and a collinear structure, described by the symmetry mode A(x), the ordered magnetic moments being 0.62 and 0.66 mu(B) at 2 K for Nd3+ and Cr5+, respectively. Magnetic susceptibility and magnetization measurements reveal that both ErCrO4 and TmCrO4 behave as ferromagnetic compounds with a Curie temperature of 15 and 18 K, respectively. Rietveld refinement of the neutron diffraction data for ErCrO4 yields a collinear magnetic structure described with an F-x mode. In the case of the TmCrO4 oxide, the ferromagnetic sublattices of Tm3+ and Cr5+ are aligned antiparallel in the a-b plane, while along the c-axis the magnetic moments point to the same direction. In both compounds, the rather small values obtained for the Er3+ and Tm3+ ordered moments compared with the theoretical ones have been attributed to crystal field effects. The differences in the ferromagnetic structure of these compounds have been explained as the result of the higher rare-earth anisotropy of Tm3+ when compared with Er3+ for which no magnetic component is present along the c-direction. (C) 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

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