Kenji Ueda et al. (1) fabricated a
ferromagnetic double perovskite compound
La2FeCrO6, which they built as a single atomic
layer superlattice along the [111] crystallographic direction of the known antiferromagnetic perovskites LaFeO3 and
LaCrO3. The unusual behavior of the material bears a strong
resemblance to my theoretical predictions (2) for precisely
that artificial compound, so it is instructive to follow the comparison as far as the current data allow.
My objective was specifically to predict, entirely from first
principles computational theory, new compounds that would have the
property of being half-metallic. This designation (3) means
that, in a magnetically ordered material where electrons with different
directions of their spin (up and down) are not equivalent, materials
with one spin direction would be metallic, while those of the other
spin direction would be insulating. Although discussed for over a
decade, such half-metallic behavior only now seems to have been clearly
observed (4). I chose to search in the class of
double perovskites, one member of which Ueda et al. has
succeeded in constructing.
For La2FeCrO6, I obtained three magnetically
ordered states that were electronically metastable (at least) and
differed rather little in energy. The ferromagnetic one (where the Fe
and Cr spins are parallel) involved high-spin Fe and Cr ions, had a
total magnetization corresponding to 7.15 Bohr magnetons
(µB) per Fe-Cr pair, and was not half-metallic. Two
separate ferrimagnetic phases (antiparallel Fe and Cr spins)
were obtained, both of which are half-metallic. The most stable one
again involved high-spin ions, but because they were antiparallel, the
net moment was 2 µB per Fe-Cr pair. Ueda et
al. report a saturation magnetization around 6 µB
per pair, suggesting that it is the ferromagnetic state that is most stable. In my calculation, one of the ferrimagnetic phases was lower in
energy than the ferromagnetic phase. This extra energy gain that
stabilizes the ferromagnetic phase could come from a structural
distortion, which was not included in my calculations and has not yet
been measured. The difference between 6 and 7.15 µB may
be a result of the imperfect crystallinity of the films.
Progress on understanding these double perovskites will
occur quickly if experiment and theory interact closely. I predict, for
example, that this material will be conducting; transport properties
have not yet been reported. Fabrication of
La2FeCrO6, however, demonstrates that this
class of novel materials can be stabilized in an ordered crystal
structure, even if the ordered structure is thermodynamically
unstable (as this one is), and even if the two cations are similar in
size and have equal charges (unequal sizes and charges are known to
enhance ordering tendencies). Further pursuit of new members in this
class of double perovskites may turn up realizations of stoichiometric
half-metallic ferromagnets.
Warren E. Pickett
Department of
Physics,
University of California,
One Shields Avenue,
Davis, CA
95616, USA
E-mail: pickett{at}physics.ucdavis.edu
REFERENCES
-
K. Ueda,
H. Tabata,
T. Kawai,
Science
280,
1064
(1998)
[Abstract/Free Full Text]
.
-
W. E. Pickett,
Phys. Rev. B
57,
10613
(1998)
[CrossRef].
-
R. E. Rudd and W. E. Pickett, ibid., p. 557.
-
J.-H. Park
et al.,
Nature
392,
794
(1998)
[CrossRef]
.
11 June 1998; accepted 20 July
1998
In their report (1), Ueda et
al. seem to use the magnetic units incorrectly in interpreting
their magnetization data.
They state that the saturation magnetization of the
LaFeO3-LaCrO3 superlattice is 2 emu/g [figure
3 in (1)]. This does not, however, correspond to a
macroscopic moment size of 3 µB per site, but only to
0.09 µB per site. In fact, 1 emu/g = 1 emu/g · 10
3 Am2/emu · 481.6 g/mol · 1/2NA · 1 µB/9.27 × 10
24 Am2 = 0.043 µB per site.
Moreover, one could argue that the value of the saturation
magnetization is not 2 emu/g, as stated, but rather 0.2 emu/g
[magnetization M at T = 100 K minus
M(T > Tc)]. Thus, the
macroscopic moment size of the superlattice is as small as 0.009 µB per site.
This correction makes it questionable that ferromagnetic order occurs
in the LaFeO3-LaCrO3 superlattice. The small
macroscopic moment might well be explained with canted
antiferromagnetic or ferrimagnetic order, but not with ferromagnetic
order resulting from a 180° Fe3+-O-Cr3+
superexchange interaction, as proposed by Ueda et al.
G. I. Meijer
IBM Research
Division,
Zurich Research Laboratory,
8803
Rueschlikon,
Switzerland, and
Laboratory for Solid State
Physics,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology,
(ETH), 8093 Zürich, Switzerland
E-mail: inm{at}zurich.ibm.com
REFERENCES
-
K. Ueda,
H. Tabata,
T. Kawai,
Science
280,
1064
(1998)
.
15 June 1998; accepted 20 July
1998
Response: With regard to the comment by
Pickett, we have measured the conductance of our samples
[LaCrO3-LaFeO3 (1/1) superlattice]. The
material is an insulator, and sufficiently large saturation magnetizations (>2 µB per pair site) have been observed
in our sample. We agree with the possibility that the structural
distortion stabilizes the ferromagnetic state, as Pickett points out.
We would like to exploit new members in the double-perovskite
materials. Pickett's prediction and suggestion is encouraging for the
design of half-metallic ferro(ferri)magnets.
With regard to the comment by Meijer, the saturation magnetization
value of 3 µB per site was determined from the result of a saturation magnetization-hysteresis (M-H)
measurement at 6 K, shown in figure 4B of our report (1).
The saturation magnetization of ~3 µB per site was
estimated by using 2 · 10
5 emu and the size and
thickness of our sample (1 mm · 1 mm · 550 angstrom as measured by
a superconducting quantum interference device). Other samples with
different sizes and thickness (2 mm · 3 mm · 700 angstrom) also
showed saturation magnetization between ~2 to 3 µB per
site at 6 K, 1 T. The value of ~3 µB per
site is large enough for us to determine that the interaction between Fe3+ and Cr3+ is ferromagnetic. The
ferrimagnetic order does not explain the observed macroscopic moment.
In figure 3 in (1), the magnetization is not saturated
because of a low magnetic field of 0.1 T and high
temperature of 100 K. This figure should not be used for calculating
saturation magnetization. As Meijer points out, the ordinate (emu/g) of
that figure was miscalculated; however, this error does not affect the
conclusion of our report.
Kenji Ueda
H. Tabata
Tomoji Kawai
Institute of Scientific and
Industrial Research,
Osaka
University,
8-1 Mihogaoka,
Ibaraki, Osaka 567, Japan
E-mail:
ueda32{at}sanken.osaka-u.ac.jp
REFERENCES
-
K. Ueda,
H. Tabata,
T. Kawai,
Science
280,
1064
(1998)
.
2 July 1998; accepted 20 July
1998