1:
2: \documentclass[prb,twocolumn,showpacs]{revtex4}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4:
5: \begin{document}
6:
7: \title{Strain effect on electronic transport and ferromagnetic transition temperature
8: in La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ thin films }
9: \author{X. J. Chen}
10: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Festk\"{o}rperforschung, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany\\
11: and Department of Physics, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA }
12: \author{S. Soltan, H. Zhang, and H.-U. Habermeier}
13: \affiliation{Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Festk\"{o}rperforschung, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany}
14: \date{Received 13 December 2001}
15:
16: \begin{abstract}
17: We report on a systematic study of strain effects on the transport properties and the
18: ferromagnetic transition temperature $T_{c}$ of high-quality La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$
19: thin films epitaxially grown on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ substrates. Both the magnetization and
20: the resistivity are critically dependent on the film thickness. $T_{c}$ is enhanced with
21: decreasing the film thickness due to the compressive stain produced by lattice mismatch.
22: The resistivity above 165 K of the films with various thicknesses is consistent with small
23: polaronic hopping conductivity. The polaronic formation energy $E_{P}$ is reduced with
24: the decrease of film thickness. We found that the strain dependence of $T_{c}$ mainly results
25: from the strain-induced electron-phonon coupling. The strain effect on $E_{P}$ is in good
26: agreement with the theoretical predictions.
27: \end{abstract}
28: \pacs{73.50.-h, 75.70.Ak, 75.30.Vn }
29:
30: \maketitle
31:
32: \section{Introduction}
33:
34:
35: The discovery of colossal magnetoresistance effect in epitaxial manganite thin films has
36: renewed interest in the doped manganite perovskite materials Ln$_{1-x}$B$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$
37: (Ln=trivalent rare-earth ions; B=divalent alkaline-earth ions) for potential sensor and
38: magnetic recording applications as well as the need to understand the mechanisms underlying
39: their behavior.\cite{helm,sjin,hlju} It has been found that properties such as ferromagnetic
40: transition temperature $T_{c}$, resistivity $\rho$, and magnetoresistance are sensitive to
41: the epitaxial strain due to lattice mismatch of the film with substrate.
42: \cite{sjin2,prel,koo,kwon,raza,arao,shre}
43: When the film is grown on the substrate whose lattice parameter is smaller or larger than
44: that of the bulk material, the epitaxial strain is expected to be compressive or tensile,
45: respectively. Compressive strain usually reduces the resistivity and shifts $T_{c}$ towards
46: the higher temperature. These effects have been confirmed in La$_{0.7}$Ca$_{0.3}$MnO$_{3}$
47: films\cite{koo} and La$_{0.7}$Sr$_{0.3}$MnO$_{3}$ films\cite{kwon} grown on various substrates.
48:
49:
50: The observed strain effect is usually interpreted qualitatively within double exchange model,
51: \cite{genn} since the hopping matrix element $t$ could be altered by epitaxial strain
52: through changing the Mn-O bond length $d$ and the Mn-O-Mn bond angle $\theta$. It has
53: been also proposed that the Jahn-Teller electron-phonon coupling plays an important
54: role in strain effect on $T_{c}$.\cite{mill} However, recent detailed studies show that
55: compressive strain does not always lead to enhancement of $T_{c}$,\cite{arao} while the
56: cationic vacancies due to the oxygen annealing significantly enhance the $T_{c}$ values much
57: higher than any bulk values in the series compounds.\cite{prel,shre} In most cases, tensile
58: strain suppresses ferromagnetism and reduces $T_{c}$ in manganite films. But some anomalous
59: results have also been reported, showing $T_{c}$ enhanced by tensile strain.
60: \cite{gong,prel2,zhan} Most interestingly, there are reports of multiple phase segregation
61: in fully strained epitaxial films.\cite{bibe} The ferromagnetic coupling within the metallic
62: regions accounts for the changes of $T_{c}$ and conductivity. Thus, the strain effect in manganite
63: films is far from being fully understood and challenging.
64:
65:
66: Lightly doped La$_{1-x}$Sr$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$ shows a great variety of intriguing phenomena
67: originating from a pronounced interplay between spin, lattice, charge, and orbital degrees
68: of freedom. As a result many phenomena like charge order,\cite{yama,uhle} orbital order,
69: \cite{endo} and phase separation\cite{zhou} have been recently observed in this regime of
70: the phase diagram. La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ is in the phase boundary of a spin-canted
71: antiferromagnetic insulator and a ferromagnetic insulator.\cite{woll,urus,kawa,dabr}
72: This material has the lowest $T_{c}$ among the series compounds,\cite{urus,morit} which
73: makes it possible to perform systematic investigations of the resistivity in the paramagnetic
74: regime over a broad temperature range without using specialized equipment to extend the
75: temperature range. Meanwhile, the pressure derivative of $T_{c}$, $dT_{c}/dP$, in this
76: material is highest among the manganese perovskites.\cite{morit,senis,tiss} It has been
77: generally believed that pressure changes $T_{c}$ and $\rho$ in a similar manner as epitaxial
78: strain. Thus, transport properties, transition temperatures, and phase transitions are
79: expected to be significantly affected by epitaxial strain in the La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$
80: films. Moreover, these investigations are most important for the understanding of the fruitful
81: phenomena and the use of these films as magnetic devices as well as air electrodes in
82: high-temperature solid oxide fuel cells.\cite{roos,wolf0}
83:
84:
85: In this work we investigate the transport properties by measuring resistivity and magnetization
86: of the epitaxial La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ films on SrTiO$_{3}$. The data clearly show
87: that the high-temperature resistivity of the films can be well ascribed by a model for
88: small-polaron hopping in the adiabatic limit. We experimentally find that the small polaronic
89: formation energy $E_{P}$ decreases with the reduction of the film thickness, which can
90: account for the strain effect on $T_{c}$. We suggest that the electron-phonon coupling is
91: responsible for the strain effect on the high-temperature electronic transport and the
92: ferromagnetic transition temperature.
93:
94:
95: \section{Experimental details}
96:
97:
98: Thin films of La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ were grown using the pulsed laser deposition technique.
99: The target used had a nominal composition of La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$. The substrates were
100: (100) single crystal of SrTiO$_{3}$. The laser energy density on the target was 2 mJ/cm$^{2}$ and
101: the ablation rate was 5 Hz. The substrates were kept at a constant temperature of 850$^{0}$C during
102: the deposition which was carried out at a pressure of 0.40 mbar of oxygen. The films were $in$ $situ$
103: annealed at 940$^{0}$C in oxygen at 1.0 bar for 30 minutes. This procedure always results in films of
104: high crystalline quality and in very sharp film-substrate interfaces. The thickness of the films was
105: varied from 200 to 2000 $\AA$ as measured by Dektak. The chemical composition of the films was
106: determined by microprobe analysis, which showed a (La,Sr)/Mn ratio of 1:1 and a Sr content of
107: $x=0.10\pm 0.01$.
108:
109:
110: The structural study was carried out by x-ray diffraction (XRD) at room temperature by a
111: Rigaku x-ray diffractometer with a rotating anode and Cu $K\alpha$ radiation,
112: $\lambda=1.5406$ $\AA$. The resistivity $\rho$ was measured from unpatterned samples with
113: sputtered chromium gold contacts using a standard four-probe technique. Magnetization $M$ was
114: recorded in a magnetic field parallel to the film plane using a Quantum Design MPMS superconducting
115: quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer as a function of temperature.
116:
117:
118: \section{Results and discussion}
119:
120: Figure \ref{fig1} shows the evolution of the room temperature XRD data for La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$
121: thin films with thicknesses from 200 to 2000 $\AA$. Each sample is single crystal and ($l00$)
122: oriented without other impurity phases. Above $T=105$ K, SrTiO$_{3}$ has a perfect cubic
123: perovskite structure with a lattice parameter $a=3.905$ $\AA$. La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$
124: has a distorted perovskite structure due to the tilting of the MnO$_{6}$ octahedra and the
125: Jahn-Teller distortion, which results in a slightly orthorhombic structure. The bulk lattice
126: parameters for this compound at room temperature are:\cite{cox} $a=5.5469$ $\AA$, $b=5.56033$
127: $\AA$, and $c=7.7362$ $\AA$. The in-plane lattice mismatch between the film and the substrate
128: is given by $\epsilon=[d_{bulk}-d_{strained}]/d_{bulk}$ with $d$ a lattice parameter.
129: Epitaxially grown La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ film on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ substrates are under
130: compressive strain since $d_{bulk}>d_{strained}$ with the bulk value $d_{bulk}=3.927 \AA$. With
131: decreasing the film thickness, the in-plane lattice parameter of the film decreases and the
132: compressive strain is then enhanced.
133:
134:
135: \begin{figure}[t]
136: \begin{center}
137: \includegraphics[scale=0.32]{fig1.eps}
138: \end{center}
139: \caption{ Room temperature XRD of La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ films for various thicknesses. }
140: \label{fig1}
141: \end{figure}
142:
143:
144: Figure \ref{fig2} shows the temperature dependence of the magnetization measured in 0.5 T of
145: the films with various thicknesses, after correction for the magnetization of the substrate.
146: The curves have been measured by warming up in the magnetic field after zero field cooling.
147: The features of the $M-T$ curves are ferromagnetic with $M\sim 230-360$ emu/cm$^{3}$ at 10 K.
148: The magnetization was taken at 0.5 T to avoid the variation due to magnetic domain rotation
149: at lower fields. Both $T_{c}$ and $M$ increase with decreasing the film thickness. The value
150: of $T_{c}$ for 200 $\AA$ thin film is 50 K higher than the bulk value.\cite{senis} We had not
151: observed a magnetization jump occurring at a characteristic temperature $T_{CA}$ as appeared
152: in the La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ single crystals,\cite{senis,koro} which indicates a
153: canted antiferromagnetic state as confirmed by neutron scattering experiments.\cite{yama}
154: This is not surprising since the strained films usually show properties much different from
155: the bulk compounds in manganites.\cite{prel}
156:
157:
158: Although the reduction of film thickness should enhance $T_{c}$ under compressive strain as we
159: observed in Fig. \ref{fig2}, there are few measurements in other manganites films to support this
160: phenomenon. The experiments on La$_{0.8}$Ca$_{0.2}$MnO$_{3}$ films grown on LaAlO$_{3}$ do not
161: always show a correlation between the compressive strain and $T_{c}$.\cite{arao} Interestingly,
162: anomalously high $T_{c}$ and metal-insulator transition temperature $T_{MI}$ (100 K higher than
163: bulk values) have been observed in this strained film with 1000 $\AA$ thickness after annealing
164: under oxygen.\cite{shre} For this La$_{0.8}$Ca$_{0.2}$MnO$_{3}$ film, $T_{MI}$ is 30 K higher
165: than the highest $T_{MI}=260$ K found for $x=0.33$ bulk compound. Thus, the large enhancement
166: of $T_{c}$ and $T_{MI}$ in this film should be dominated by compressive strain. The lack of this
167: enhancement observed previously in La$_{0.8}$Ca$_{0.2}$MnO$_{3}$ thin film may be due to oxygen
168: deficiency.
169:
170:
171: \begin{figure}[t]
172: \begin{center}
173: \includegraphics[scale=0.32]{fig2.eps}
174: \end{center}
175: \caption{Magnetization as a function of temperature measured in a field of 0.5 T of
176: La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ films with various thicknesses. }
177: \label{fig2}
178: \end{figure}
179:
180: The results of the temperature dependence of the resistivity are shown in Fig. \ref{fig3}. The
181: resistivity of our films displays semiconducting behavior at high temperatures, and metallic
182: behavior for $T_{CA}\leq T \leq T_{MI}$. It has an upturn at $T_{CA}$, and then
183: becomes of semiconducting character. The neutron scattering study demonstrates that the
184: point of resistivity upturn is consistent with the onset temperature of the polaron order.
185: \cite{yama} The magnitude of resistivity of our films is smaller than those of the single
186: crystals.\cite{urus,dabr,liu} For example, the resistivity of the 2000 $\AA$ film at $T=100$
187: K is 83.7 $\Omega $ cm. Note that the compressive strain decreases the resistivity in our
188: thin films. This behavior is typical for manganites films under compressive strain.\cite{koo,kwon}
189: The observed $T_{MI}$ (defined as the temperature where $d\rho/dT$ changes sign) of
190: $\sim 100-150$ K in our films are comparable to those of La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$
191: single crystals.\cite{urus,dabr,liu} For films with thicknesses $d=750$ and 2000 $\AA$,
192: $T_{MI}$ almost coincides with $T_{c}$. However, $T_{MI}$ is significant smaller than $T_{c}$
193: for the ultrathin films. The scenario to correlate with this observation could be the existence of
194: microscopic phase segregation due to the formation of small ferromagnetic clusters, which are
195: large enough to give a magnetic contribution in ultrathin films but not to allow metallic
196: conductivity appearing in zones of ferromagnetic insulating behavior. The smaller $T_{MI}$
197: value compared to $T_{c}$ has reported previously in La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ thin films.
198: \cite{gonz} Recent nuclear magnetic resonance measurements in La$_{2/3}$Ca$_{1/3}$MnO$_{3}$
199: films on SrTiO$_{3}$ give strong evidence in favor of the existence of microscopic phase
200: separation.\cite{bibe}
201:
202:
203: \begin{figure}[b]
204: \begin{center}
205: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig3.eps}
206: \end{center}
207: \caption{Temperature dependence of resistivity of La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ films with various
208: thicknesses. }
209: \label{fig3}
210: \end{figure}
211:
212:
213: Additional increase of resistivity on cooling can be seen at low temperatures proceeded
214: by a minimum at $T_{CA}$. The structural data of single crystals show that a phase
215: transformation from a pseudocubic $O^{\prime\prime}$ type to an orthorhombic $O^{\prime}$
216: type structure occurs near $T_{CA}$.\cite{kawa,gavi}The low-temperature phase is known to be
217: a spin-canted antiferromagnetic phase for $0\leq x\leq 0.1$,\cite{woll} which results from
218: competing antiferromagnetic superexchange interaction between half-filled $t_{2g}$ orbitals
219: along the $c$ axis Mn-O-Mn bonds and ferromagnetic double-exchange interaction via $e_{g}$
220: conduction electrons. With the reduction of the film thickness, $T_{CA}$ shifts towards low
221: temperatures and $\rho$ decreases in the insulating low-temperature phase. It has been
222: reported that $T_{CA}$ increases and $\rho$ decreases under pressure in
223: La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ single crystals.\cite{senis} Although $\rho$ behaves in a similar
224: manner under compressive strain and external pressure, the observed variation of $T_{CA}$ is
225: in sharp contrast with the pressure measurements. It has been established\cite{zhou} that
226: pressure influences $T_{CA}$ in the same way as an increase in $x$ with a maximum within the
227: range $0.12<x<0.15$ for the slightly doped La$_{1-x}$Sr$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$. At low-pressures, the
228: thermoelectric power through $T_{CA}$ is sensitive to the charge carrier density. It is indicated
229: that pressure induces the change of carrier concentration, which should account for the
230: dependence of $T_{CA}$ on pressure. The growth conditions such as film deposition and oxygen
231: annealing are same for all films studied here. The carrier concentration in these films should
232: not be different. Therefore, the dependence of $T_{CA}$ on strain is possibly different from the
233: pressure effect on $T_{CA}$.
234:
235:
236: An interesting feature is the absence of the jump in resistivity in films near $T\sim330$ K.
237: The structural analyses on La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ crystals\cite{dabr,cox,gavi} reveal
238: that the system undergoes another structural transition around characteristic temperature
239: $T_{s}=330$ K from an orthorhombic $O$ phase having a dynamic Jahn-Teller distortion to a
240: orthorhombic $O^{\prime}$ phase at lower temperatures where Jahn-Teller distortion becomes
241: static and cooperative. The jump in resistivity at $T_{s}$ in single crystals has been
242: reported by Urushibara $et$ $al.$\cite{urus} The absence of the jump indicates that the
243: compressive strain in films either suppresses the structural phase transition or shifts $T_{s}$
244: towards higher temperatures above 350 K. There is competition between the charge mobility
245: and the structural phase transition in the slightly doped La$_{1-x}$Sr$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$.\cite{uhle}
246: The change tendency of $T_{s}$ and $T_{CA}$ is usually different under pressure or
247: magnetic field.\cite{uhle,zhou} In our films, $T_{CA}$ decreases with decreasing film
248: thickness due to the compressive strain. Thus, the increase of $T_{s}$ is possible under
249: compressive strain.
250:
251:
252: The preconditions for polaron formation, namely, large electron-lattice coupling and low
253: electronic hopping rates, appear to be satisfied for manganites.\cite{millis} In Fig. \ref{fig4}
254: we have represented $\ln(\rho/T)$ versus inverse temperature. A linear behavior is obtained
255: between 165 and 350 K. This is strong support of the mechanism of adiabatic small polaron
256: conduction. The resistivity as a result of hopping of adiabatic small polarons is, within
257: the Emin and Holstein theory,\cite{emin} given by
258: \begin{equation}
259: \label{small}
260: \rho=AT\exp\left(\frac{E_{A}}{k_{B}T}\right)~~.
261: \end{equation}
262: Here the prefactor $A$ depends on the polaronic concentration, the hopping distance, and the
263: frequency of the longitudinal optical phonon. The activation energy $E_{A}$ has the form
264: \cite{jaime} $E_{A}=E_{P}/2+\epsilon_{0}-J$, where $\epsilon_{0}$ is the energy required to
265: generate intrinsic carriers and $J$ is the transfer integral.
266:
267:
268: From the fit to Eq. (\ref{small}), the values of $A$ and $E_{A}$ are obtained. These data are
269: summarized in Table \ref{table1}. The fitting for $\rho$ is valid for temperatures larger than
270: half the Debye temperature $\Theta_{D}$. This is fulfilled for the present films since specific
271: heat measurements show $\Theta_{D}$ in the $255-360$ K range.\cite{wood,okud} We noted that the
272: fitting adiabatic prefactor $A$ is in the range from 1.19$\times 10^{-6}$ to 2.39$\times
273: 10^{-6}$ $\Omega$ cm/K, which is typical for small polaronic conduction as observed in
274: La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ films\cite{worl} as well as
275: (La$_{1-x}$Gd$_{x}$)$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ films.\cite{jaime2}
276:
277: \begin{figure}[t]
278: \begin{center}
279: \includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{fig4.eps}
280: \end{center}
281: \caption{Plot of $\ln (\rho/T)$ versus $1000/T$ of La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ films with
282: various thicknesses. }
283: \label{fig4}
284: \end{figure}
285:
286:
287: There have been studies of high-temperature resistive behavior in La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$
288: bulk materials.\cite{raff,para,mand} The reported conduction mechanism are controversial.
289: Early measurements on the ceramic La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ show that the high-temperature
290: resistivity obeys the small polaron transport behavior in the nonadiabatic limit with an
291: activation energy $E_{A}=0.2$ eV.\cite{raff} In single crystals, some groups found that their
292: data can be well fitted by variable-range-hopping model
293: $\rho =\rho _{0}(T/T_{0})^{1/2}exp[(T_{0}/T)^{1/4}]$ with $T_{0}=1.72\times 10^{8}$ K in the
294: paramagnetic regime,\cite{para} while others\cite{mand} reported the resistivity follows a
295: small polaron model in adiabatic limit above $T_{MI}$ with activation energy $E_{P}=0.3$ eV.
296: The high-temperature resistivity of our films with various thicknesses is consistent with
297: adiabatic small polaron hopping conductivity. It has been generally accepted that the
298: conductivity can be well ascribed by adiabatic small polaron model in
299: La$_{1-x}$Ca$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$ films.\cite{jaime,worl,jaime2,ziese,worl2,tere} Our present data provide
300: clear support for the existence of this conductivity mechanism in La$_{1-x}$Sr$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$
301: films.
302:
303: \begin{table}[b]
304: \caption{ Thickness dependence of the activation energy $E_{A}$, the resistivity
305: coefficient $A$, and the ferromagnetic transition temperature $T_{c}$ in
306: La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ films. }
307: \label{table1}
308: \begin{ruledtabular}
309: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
310: Thickness ($\AA$) & $E_{A}$ (meV) & A ($10^{-6}\Omega$ cm/K) & $T_{c}$ (K)\\
311: \hline
312: 200 & 119.1 & 1.86 & 194.9 \\
313: 300 & 124.8 & 1.28 & 150.0 \\
314: 400 & 126.8 & 1.19 & 116.9 \\
315: 750 & 139.6 & 1.28 & 100.0 \\
316: 2000 & 141.3 & 2.39 & 105.6 \\
317: \end{tabular}
318: \end{ruledtabular}
319: \end{table}
320:
321: At high temperatures and in the adiabatic limit the contribution from $\epsilon_{0}$ and
322: $J$ may be neglected, the variation of $E_{P}$ is approximately affected by the change of
323: $E_{A}$. Taking $E_{P}=2E_{A}$, we have plotted the thickness dependence of $E_{P}$ in Fig. \ref{fig5}.
324: The thickness dependence of $T_{c}$ is also plotted for comparison. It is interesting to
325: notice that the variation of $T_{c}$ with thickness can be well reflected by the thickness
326: dependence of $E_{P}$. For the thick films, the strain is relaxed. Both $T_{c}$ and $E_{P}$
327: scarcely change with the thickness. Below 750 $\AA$, with the reduction of film thickness,
328: $E_{P}$ decreases, whereas $T_{c}$ increases. It is therefore indicated that the electron-phonon
329: coupling possibly dominates the strain effect on $T_{c}$.
330:
331:
332: The polaronic formation energy $E_{P}$ is usually related to the effective bandwidth $W_{eff}$
333: in polaronic models. Zhao $et$ $al.$\cite{zhao} proposed an effective bandwidth of the
334: form $W_{eff}=W\exp(-\gamma E_{P}/\hbar \nu)$, where $W$ is the electronic ``bare''
335: bandwidth, $\nu$ is the characteristic vibration frequency of the optical phonon mode,
336: and $\gamma$ depends on the ratio $E_{P}/W$. According to the model proposed by Varma,
337: \cite{varma} $T_{c}$ can be written as
338: \begin{equation}
339: \label{tc}
340: T_{c}=\frac{0.1}{2}W\exp\left(-\frac{\gamma E_{P}}{\hbar \nu}\right)n\left(1-n\right)~~,
341: \end{equation}
342: where $n$ denotes the carrier concentration. Considering that $\nu$ is related to the isotope
343: mass $M$ through $\nu \propto M^{-1/2}$, the oxygen isotope exponent $\alpha$ ($\equiv -d\ln
344: T_{c}/d\ln M$) is then given by $\alpha=0.5\gamma E_{P}/\hbar \nu$. The strain coefficient of
345: $T_{c}$, $d\ln T_{c}/d\epsilon$, is readily obtained from Eq. (\ref{tc})
346: \begin{equation}
347: \label{dtce}
348: \frac{d\ln T_{c}}{d\epsilon}=\frac{d\ln W}{d\epsilon}-2\frac{d\alpha}{d\epsilon}~~.
349: \end{equation}
350:
351: \begin{figure}[t]
352: \begin{center}
353: \includegraphics[scale=0.35]{fig5.eps}
354: \end{center}
355: \caption{Thickness dependence of the ferromagnetic transition temperature $T_{c}$ (circles) and the
356: polaronic formation energy $E_{P}$ (triangles) in La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ films. }
357: \label{fig5}
358: \end{figure}
359:
360:
361: For La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$, the pressure coefficient of $T_{c}$ has been found by
362: Senis $et$ $al.$\cite{senis} to be $d\ln T_{c}/dP=0.16$ GPa$^{-1}$. Using the lattice
363: compressibility $\kappa_{a}=2.32\times 10^{-3}$ GPa$^{-1}$,\cite{rada} we obtain $d\ln
364: T_{c}/d\epsilon=69$. The electronic bandwidth $W$ of the manganites can be estimated by the
365: average Mn--O bond distance $d$ and the Mn-O-Mn angle $\theta$ by using the relation:\cite{meda}
366: $W \propto \cos \phi/d^{3.5}$, where $\phi=(\pi-<\theta>)/2$. The pressure dependence of
367: $\cos \phi$ has been determined by neutron diffraction measurements\cite{rada} to be
368: $(\cos\phi)^{-1}d\cos\phi/dP=2.1\times 10^{-4}$ GPa$^{-1}$. Taking the value of $\kappa_{a}$
369: as the bond compressibility $\kappa_{d}$, the calculated $d\ln W/d\epsilon$ is 3.6. Thus,
370: $d\alpha/d\epsilon=-32.7$ is obtained from Eq. (\ref{dtce}). In La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$, the
371: oxygen isotope exponent $\alpha=0.2$ reported previously by Zhao $et$ $al.$\cite{zhao} Based
372: on the above determined parameters, one estimated the pressure derivate of $\alpha$,
373: $d\alpha/dP=-0.076$ GPa$^{-1}$. This value is very close to the reported value of --0.05
374: GPa$^{-1}$ in La$_{0.65}$Ca$_{0.35}$MnO$_{3}$.\cite{wang}
375:
376:
377: According to the expression for $\alpha$, $d\alpha/d\epsilon$ is then expressed as
378: \begin{equation}
379: \label{dae}
380: \frac{d\alpha}{d\epsilon}=\alpha\left(\frac{d\ln E_{P}}{d\epsilon}-\frac{d\ln
381: \nu}{d\epsilon}\right)~~.
382: \end{equation}
383: The Raman spectra of La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ have been collected previously by
384: Podobedov $et$ $al.$\cite{podo} The sharp peaks at the top of the wide band are located at
385: 243, 493, and 609 cm$^{-1}$. The high frequency $B_{1g}$ mode at 609 cm$^{-1}$ is suggested
386: as a stretching Mn-O vibration. Recent high pressure studies\cite{cong} show that this
387: stretching mode is the most sensitive to pressure with an initial pressure coefficient,
388: $d\ln \nu/dP=0.01$ GPa$^{-1}$. Thus $d\ln \nu/d\epsilon=4.4$. Equation (\ref{dae}) gives
389: $d\ln E_{P}/d\epsilon=-159$. This follows that $E_{P}$ decreases with increasing
390: compressive strain. This is in good agreement with our experimental fitting parameters
391: as shown in Fig. 5. Combining Eqs. (\ref{dtce}) and (\ref{dae}), we can conclude that the
392: strain dependence of $T_{c}$ mainly results from the strain dependence of the polaronic
393: formation energy though there are also contributions from the electronic bandwidth $W$ and
394: the characteristic phonon frequency $\nu$.
395:
396:
397: \section{Conclusions}
398:
399:
400: We have epitaxially grown La$_{0.9}$Sr$_{0.1}$MnO$_{3}$ thin films on SrTiO$_{3}$ substrates.
401: The high-temperature resistivity of the films with various thicknesses obeys the small-polaron
402: hopping conductivity in the adiabatic limit. We experimentally find that the small polaronic
403: formation energy $E_{P}$ decreases with the reduction of the film thickness, which mainly
404: accounts for the the strain effect on $T_{c}$. By theoretical analysis, we found the
405: contribution from electronic bandwidth is much smaller than that from electron-phonon
406: interaction. We therefore concluded that the electron-phonon coupling is responsible for
407: the strain effect on the high-temperature electronic transport and the ferromagnetic transition
408: temperature in our films.
409:
410:
411:
412: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
413:
414: \bibitem{helm} R. von Helmholt, J. Wecker, B. Holzapfel, L. Schultz, and K. Samwer, Phys.
415: Rev. Lett. {\bf71}, 2331 (1993).
416:
417: \bibitem{sjin} S. Jin, T. H. Tiefel, M. McCormack, R. A. Fastnacht, R. Ramesh, and L. H.
418: Chen, Science {\bf264}, 413 (1994).
419:
420: \bibitem{hlju} H. L. Ju, C. Kwon, Q. Li, R. L. Greene, and T. Venkatesan, Appl. Phys. Lett.
421: {\bf65}, 2108 (1994).
422:
423: \bibitem{sjin2} S. Jin, T. H. Tiefel, M. McCormack, H. M. O'Bryan, L. H. Chen, R. Ramesh, and
424: D. Schurig, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf67}, 557 (1995).
425:
426: \bibitem{prel} W. Prellier, M. Rajeswari, T. Venkatesan, and R. L. Greene, Appl. Phys. Lett.
427: {\bf75}, 1446 (1999).
428:
429: \bibitem{koo} T. Y. Koo, S. H. Park, K.-B. Lee, and Y. H. Jeong, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf71},
430: 977 (1997).
431:
432: \bibitem{kwon} C. Kwon, M. C. Robson, K.-C. Kim, J. Y. Gu, S. E. Lofland, S. M. Bhagat, Z.
433: Trajanovic, M. Rajeswari, T. Venkatesan, A. R. Kratz, R. D. Gomez, and R. Ramesh, J. Magn.
434: Magn. Mater. {\bf172}, 229 (1997).
435:
436: \bibitem{raza} F. S. Razavi, G. Gross, H.-U. Habermeier, O. Lebedev, S. Amelinckx, G. Van
437: Tendeloo, and A. Vigliante, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf76}, 155 (2000).
438:
439: \bibitem{arao} R. A. Rao, D. Lavric, T. K. Nath, C. B. Eom, L. Wu, and F. Tsui, J. Appl.
440: Phys. {\bf85}, 4794 (1999).
441:
442: \bibitem{shre} R. Shreekala, M. Rajeswari, R. C. Srivastava, K. Ghosh, A. Goyal, V. V.
443: Srinivasu, S. E. Lofland, S. M. Bhagat, M. Downes, R. P. Sharma, S. B. Ogale, R. L. Greene,
444: R. Ramesh, T. Venkatesan, R. A. Rao, and C. B. Eom, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf74}, 1886 (1999).
445:
446: \bibitem{genn} P. G. de Gennes, Phys. Rev. {\bf118}, 141 (1960).
447:
448: \bibitem{mill} A. J. Millis, T. Darling, and A. Migliori, J. Appl. Phys. {\bf83}, 1588
449: (1998).
450:
451: \bibitem{gong} G. Q. Gong, A. Gupta, G. Xiao, P. Lecoeur, and T. R. McGuire, Phys. Rev. B
452: {\bf54}, R3742 (1996).
453:
454: \bibitem{prel2} W. Prellier, A. M. Haghiri-Gosnet, B. Mercey, Ph. Lecoeur, M. Hervieu, Ch.
455: Simon, and B. Raveau, Appl. Phys. Lett. {\bf77}, 1023 (2000).
456:
457: \bibitem{zhan} J. Zhang, H. Tanaka, T. Kanki, J.-H. Choi, and T. Kawai, Phys. Rev. B {\bf64},
458: 184404 (2001).
459:
460: \bibitem{bibe} M. Bibes, Ll. Balcells, S. Valencia, J. Fontcuberta, M. Wojcik, E. Jedryka,
461: and S. Nadolski, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf87}, 067210 (2001).
462:
463: \bibitem{yama} Y. Yamada, O. Hino, S. Nohdo, R. Kanao, T. Inami, and S. Katano, Phys. Rev.
464: Lett. {\bf77}, 904 (1996).
465:
466: \bibitem{uhle} S. Uhlenbruck, R. Teipen, R. Klingeler, B. B\"{u}chner, O. Friedt, M.
467: H\"{u}cker, H. Kierspel, T. Niem\"{o}ller, L. Pinsard, A. Revcolevschi, and R. Gross, Phys.
468: Rev. Lett. {\bf82}, 185 (1999).
469:
470: \bibitem{endo} Y. Endoh, K. Hirota, S. Ishihara, S. Okamoto, Y. Murakami, A. Nishizawa,
471: T. Fukuda, H. Kimura, H. Nojiri, K. Kaneko, and S. Maekawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf82}, 4328
472: (1999).
473:
474: \bibitem{zhou} J.-S. Zhou, J. B. Goodenough, A. Asamitsu, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. Lett.
475: {\bf79}, 3234 (1997).
476:
477: \bibitem{woll} E. O. Wollan and W. C. Koehler, Phys. Rev. {\bf100}, 545 (1955).
478:
479: \bibitem{urus} A. Urushibara, Y. Moritomo, T. Arima, A. Asamitsu, G. Kido, and Y. Tokura, Phys.
480: Rev. B {\bf51}, 14 103 (1995).
481:
482: \bibitem{kawa} H. Kawano, R. Kajimoto, M. Kubota, and H. Yoshizawa, Phys. Rev. B {\bf53}, R14 709
483: (1996).
484:
485: \bibitem{dabr} B. Dabrowski, X. Xiong, Z. Bukowski, R. Dybzinski, P. W. Klamut, J. E. Siewenie, O.
486: Chmaissem, J. Shaffer, C. W. Kimball, J. D. Jorgensen, and S. Short, Phys. Rev. B {\bf60}, 7006
487: (1999).
488:
489: \bibitem{morit} Y. Moritomo, A. Asamitsu, and Y. Tokura, Phys. Rev. B {\bf51}, 16491 (1995).
490:
491: \bibitem{senis} R. Senis, V. Laukhin, B. Martinez, J. Fontcuberta, X. Obradors, A. A. Arsenov,
492: and Y. M. Mukovskii, Phys. Rev. B {\bf57}, 14 680 (1998).
493:
494: \bibitem{tiss} V. G. Tissen, E. G. Ponyatovskii, M. V. Nefedova, V. Laukhin, B. Mart\`{i}nez,
495: J. Fontcuberta, A. A. Arsenov, and Y. M. Mukovskii, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. {\bf211}, 145
496: (2000).
497:
498: \bibitem{roos} J. A. M. Van Roosmalen and E. H. P. Cordfunke, J. Solid State Chem. {\bf110}, 106
499: (1994).
500:
501: \bibitem{wolf0} J. Wolfenstine, T. R. Armstrong, W. J. Weber, M. A. Boling-Risser, K. C. Goretta,
502: and J. L. Routbort, J. Mater. Res. {\bf11}, 657 (1996).
503:
504: \bibitem{cox} D. E. Cox, T. Iglesias, E. Moshopoulou, K. Hirota, K. Takahashi, and Y. Endoh, Phys.
505: Rev. B {\bf64}, 024431 (2001).
506:
507: \bibitem{koro} A. V. Korolyov, V. Ye. Arkhipov, V. S. Gaviko, Ya. Mukovskii, A. A. Arsenov, T. P.
508: Lapina, S. D. Bader, J. S. Jiang, and V. I. Nizhankovskii, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. {\bf213}, 63
509: (2000).
510:
511: \bibitem{liu} G.-L. Liu, J.-S. Zhou, and J. B. Goodenough, Phys. Rev. B {\bf64}, 144414
512: (2001).
513:
514: \bibitem{gonz} O. J. Gonz\'{a}lez, G. Bistu\'{e}, E. Casta\~{n}o, and F. J. Gracia, J. Magn.
515: Magn. Mater. {\bf222}, 199 (2000).
516:
517: \bibitem{gavi} V. S. Gaviko, V. E. Arkhipov, A. V. Korolev, V. E. Naish, and Ya. M.
518: Mukovskii, Phys. Solid State {\bf41}, 969 (1999).
519:
520: \bibitem{millis} A. J. Millis, P. B. Littlewood, and B. I. Shraiman, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf74},
521: 5144 (1995).
522:
523: \bibitem{emin} D. Emin and T. Holstein, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) {\bf53}, 439 (1969).
524:
525: \bibitem{jaime} M. Jaime, M. B. Salamon, M. Rubinstein, R. E. Treece, J. S. Horwitz, and D. B.
526: Chrisey, Phys. Rev. B {\bf54}, 11 914 (1996).
527:
528: \bibitem{wood} B. F. Woodfield, M. L. Wilson, and J. M. Byers, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf78}, 3201
529: (1997).
530:
531: \bibitem{okud} T. Okuda, A. Asamitsu, Y. Tomioka, T. Kimura, Y. Taguchi, and Y. Tokura, Phys.
532: Rev. Lett. {\bf81}, 3203 (1998).
533:
534: \bibitem{worl} D. C. Worledge, G. Jeffrey Snyder, M. R. Beasley, T. H. Geballe, R. Hiskes, and
535: S. DiCarolis, J. Appl. Phys. {\bf80}, 5158 (1996).
536:
537: \bibitem{jaime2} M. Jaime, H. T. Hardner, M. B. Salamon, M. Rubinstein, P. Dorsey, and D. Emin,
538: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf78}, 951 (1997).
539:
540: \bibitem{raff} R. Raffaelle, H. U. Anderson, D. M. Sparlin, and P. E. Parris, Phys. Rev. B
541: {\bf43}, 7991 (1991).
542:
543: \bibitem{para} M. Paraskevopoulos, F. Mayr, J. Hemberger, A. Loidl, R. Heichele, D. Maurer,
544: V. M\"{u}ller, A. A. Mukhin, and A. M. Balbashov, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter {\bf12}, 3993
545: (2000).
546:
547: \bibitem{mand} P. Mandal, B. Bandyopadhyay, and B. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. B {\bf64}, 180405(R)
548: (2001).
549:
550: \bibitem{ziese} M. Ziese and C. Srinitiwarawong, Phys. Rev. B {\bf58}, 11 519 (1998).
551:
552: \bibitem{worl2} D. C. Worledge, L. Mi\'{e}ville, and T. H. Geballe, Phys. Rev. B {\bf57}, 15
553: 267 (1998).
554:
555: \bibitem{tere} J. M. De Teresa, K. D\"{o}rr, K. H. M\"{u}ller, L. Schultz, and R. I. Chakalova,
556: Phys. Rev. B {\bf58}, R5928 (1998).
557:
558: \bibitem{zhao} G.-M. Zhao, K. Conder, H. Keller, and K. A. M\"{u}ller, Nature (London) {\bf381},
559: 676 (1996).
560:
561: \bibitem{varma} C. M. Varma, Phys. Rev. B {\bf54}, 7328 (1996).
562:
563: \bibitem{rada} P. G. Radaelli, G. Iannone, M. Marezio, H. Y. Hwang, S-W. Cheong, J. D.
564: Jorgensen, and D. N. Argyriou, Phys. Rev. B {\bf56}, 8265 (1997).
565:
566: \bibitem{meda} M. Medarde, J. Mesot, P. Lacorre, S. Rosenkranz, P. Fischer, and K. Gobrecht,
567: Phys. Rev. B {\bf52}, 9248 (1995).
568:
569: \bibitem{wang} Y. S. Wang, A. K. Heilman, B. Lorenz, Y. Y. Xue, C. W. Chu, J. P. Franck,
570: and W. M. Chen, Phys. Rev. B {\bf60}, R14 998 (1999).
571:
572: \bibitem{podo} V. B. Podobedov, A. Weber, D. B. Romero, J. P. Rice, and H. D. Drew, Phys.
573: Rev. B {\bf58}, 43 (1998).
574:
575: \bibitem{cong} A. Congeduti, P. Postorino, E. Caramagno, M. Nardone, A. Kumar, and D. D.
576: Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf86}, 1251 (2001).
577:
578: \end{thebibliography}
579:
580:
581: \end{document}
582:
583:
584: