1: \documentclass[prb,preprint,showpacs]{revtex4}
2: \usepackage{graphics}
3: %\documentclass[aps,superscriptaddress,showpacs,preprint]{revtex4}
4: \topmargin 0.1cm
5: \begin{document}
6: \title{Enhancement of low field
7: magnetoresistance at room temperature in
8: La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$/Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ nanocomposite}
9: \author{Soumik Mukhopadhyay}
10: \author{I. Das}
11: \affiliation{Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics, 1/AF, Bidhannagar, Kolkata
12: 700064, India}
13: \begin{abstract}
14: Magnetotransport properties in a nanocrystalline
15: La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$/micron sized Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ granular composite
16: with different concentrations of Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ have been studied.
17: The resistivity curves in absence of magnetic field and the various transport
18: mechanisms which might account for the upturn in resistivity
19: at low temperature, has been discussed.
20: Enhancement of low field magnetoresistance at room temperature with the
21: introduction of Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ has been observed.
22: \end{abstract}
23: \pacs{75.47.Lx, 75.47.-m}
24: \maketitle
25:
26: \noindent
27: Study of granular metal-insulator composites got a real boost in the
28: early seventies when Sheng
29: and coworkers~\cite{sheng,sheng1} published a series of papers where they
30: explained the transport properties of granular nonmagnetic metal-insulator
31: composites. Helman et al.~\cite{abeles} extended the study to granular
32: ferromagnetic
33: metals in $1976$. In $1998$, Mitani et al~\cite{mitani} explained the enhanced
34: magnetoresistance in granular ferromagnetic films considering the grain size
35: distribution and the resulting higher order spin dependent tunneling.
36: Milner et al.~\cite{composite} pointed out the remarkably similar
37: magnetotransport properties of ferromagnet-metal and ferromagnet-insulator
38: composites. Besides the technological importance, granular ferromagnets
39: are very attractive from fundamental point of view in the sense that one
40: can study the interplay between different interesting phenomena like coulomb
41: charging,
42: spin dependent tunneling etc. Recently there is a renewed interest in the
43: field of granular ferromagnets with the increasing popularity of novel magnetic
44: materials like CrO$_{2}$ and perovskite Manganites with extremely high
45: spin polarization and the possibility of
46: enhanced spin dependent transport. So far as the perovskites manganites are
47: concerned, La$_{0.67}$Sr$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ (LSMO) has the highest
48: reported T$_{C}$
49: compared to it's other counterparts. However the spin polarization decreases
50: drastically with increasing temperature and hence the achievement of low field
51: magnetoresistance at room temperature is a challenging task.
52: We have tried to combine the effect
53: of high degree of spin polarization of LSMO and the characteristics of a
54: heterogeneous granular structure to achieve enhancement in magnetoresistance.
55: Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ (ALO) is an inert insulator and a popular choice as the
56: insulator
57: in magnetic tunnel junction devices. In $2001$, there was a report on
58: enhancement of magnetoresistance in nanocrystalline
59: La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$/AL$_{2}$O$_{3}$ composite~\cite{hueso}.
60: However the enhancement was reported to be at low temperature.
61: This articles reports the observation of enhanced low field
62: magnetoresistance in a nanocrystalline LSMO/ microcrystalline ALO composite
63: at room temperature.
64: %\section{Experiment}
65:
66: \indent
67: The LSMO nanoparticles were prepared in the powder form using the sol-gel
68: method with citric acid as the gellifying agent and subsequently heated
69: at $1000^{0}$C for $4$ hrs. The crystallinity of the powder was analyzed
70: by x-ray diffraction (XRD) (Fig:~\ref{fig:xray}) and the grain size with it's
71: distribution was measured using transmission electron
72: microscopy (TEM). The average size of the LSMO grains is
73: about $50$ nm. The LSMO powder obtained from solgel method followed by
74: heat treatment was mixed thoroughly with commercially obtained crystalline
75: ALO powder at different weight concentrations $x$
76: (where $x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5$) of ALO and pelletized. The
77: pellets were given a heat treatment at $1000^{0}$C (the
78: same temperature at which the sol-gel derived LSMO nanoparticles were
79: annealed) for $2$ hr. The microstructures of the composites were
80: observed using a Scanning electron microscope (SEM) (Fig:~\ref{fig:sem}).
81: Energy dispersive
82: x-ray analysis was carried out to analyse the chemical composition
83: of the samples. Analysis of x-ray diffraction patterns (Fig:~\ref{fig:xray})
84: for the
85: LSMO powder, the ALO powder and the pelletized composite shows that all the
86: characteristic reflection peaks of LSMO and ALO are present in the composite.
87: Moreover, the positions of the respective chracteristic x-ray diffraction
88: lines do not shift indicating that there is no chemical reaction at the
89: interfaces between LSMO and ALO. There is no appreciable change
90: in the width of the
91: diffraction peaks as well suggesting that the increase in sizes of the LSMO
92: particles (after the heat treatment of the pellets) is negligible.
93: The magnetotransport properties were studied using four probe method in
94: the temperature range $2-300$ K.
95: The magnetic field was applied in the plane of the applied electric field.
96: %\begin{figure}
97: %\resizebox {8cm}{9cm}
98: %{\includegraphics{aloxray.eps}}
99: %\caption{X-ray diffraction data for LSMO/ALO composite in pellet form with
100: %50\% wt. concentration along with the parent LSMO and ALO powder. All the
101: %characteristic peaks of LSMO and ALO are present in the composite system
102: %and appearence of additional peaks is not observed.}
103: %\end{figure}
104: %\begin{figure}
105: %\resizebox{4.5cm}{4.3cm}
106: %{\includegraphics{alox0b.EPS}}
107: %\caption{SEM picture for the sample with ALO concentration $x=0$
108: %over an area $1 \times 1 \mu m^{2}$}
109: %\end{figure}
110: %\begin{figure}
111: %\resizebox {4.2cm}{4.2cm}
112: %{\includegraphics{aloresfit.EPS}}
113: %\resizebox {4.2cm}{4.2cm}
114: %{\includegraphics{aloresperc.EPS}}
115: %\caption{On the left: Resistivity curves for (LSMO)$_{1-x}$(ALO)$_{x}$
116: %in absence of magnetic
117: %field along with the corresponding theoritical fits. The open symbols are
118: %the experimental data and the continuous lines are the theoritical fits.
119: %On the right: The resistivity as a function of x at $3$ K and $100$ K}
120: %\end{figure}
121:
122: \indent
123: The resistivity vs. temperature curves (Fig:~\ref{fig:res}A)
124: in absence of magnetic field for the samples
125: (LSMO)$_{1-x}$(ALO)$_{x}$ (where $x = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5$) were
126: studied. The metal-insulator transition temperature in the
127: resistivity curves shifts systematically towards lower temperature
128: as ALO concentration increases. This is understandable since
129: increasing ALO concentration hinders metallic transport and hence the
130: shift towards lower temperature. There is an upturn in resistivity at low
131: temperature which gets more pronounced with increasing $x$.
132: The resistivity curves can be explained on the basis of a parallel channel
133: conduction model~\cite{parallel} in which one channel is taken as a metallic
134: path and the other as a thermally activated conduction path.
135: However, it alone cannot explain the low temperature upturn in
136: resistivity with decreasing temperature. The average size of the
137: LSMO nanoparticles being $50$ nm, one cannot rule out
138: coulomb charging effect playing an important role at low temperature.
139: The parallel channel
140: conduction model can explain the resistivity curves over the whole
141: range of temperature if we include a coulomb blockade term in the
142: metallic channel. The coulomb blockade term takes care of the upturn
143: in resistivity at low temperature. The coulomb charging energy $E_{C}$
144: depends not only on the grain size but also on the microstructure around the
145: metallic grains, which might be different for
146: different concentrations of ALO. The temperature ($T$) dependence of
147: the resistivity due to coulomb charging effect is given by
148: $\rho_{C}\propto\exp{b/T^{1/2}}$, where $b$ is a positive constant.
149: However, even if we include a thermally activated conduction term
150: like $\rho_{a}\propto\exp(\Delta/KT)$ in the metallic channel,
151: the fitting is equally good. Such a term could arise due to a
152: small activation barrier observable at low temperature~\cite{parallel}
153: or due to classical Poole-frenkel~\cite{frenkel} type emission where
154: the localized charge carriers are thermally activated over the potential
155: barrier. The electrical resistivity arising out of Poole-Frenkel emission
156: is given by, $\rho_{PF}=\rho_{0}\exp\left(\beta_{PF}E^{1/2}/KT\right)$
157: where $\beta_{PF}$ is a constant and $E$ is the applied electric field.
158: The electric field dependence of conductivity establishes that indeed
159: Poole-Frenkel emission is at play. A detailed discussion on this matter
160: is, however, out of scope for this article.
161: The expression for resistivity according to the parallel channel
162: conduction model is given by,
163: $1/{\rho}=A/{\rho_{M}}+B/{\rho_{S}}$
164: where $\rho_{M}$ is the metallic resistivity part
165: and $\rho_{S}$ is the thermally activated conduction channel represented
166: by a semiconductor like temperature dependence of resistivity.
167: However in our case the modified form of the parallel channel conduction
168: model is given by
169: \[\frac{1}{\rho}=\frac{A}{\rho_{M}+A_{1}\rho_{PF}}+\frac{B}{\rho_{S}}\]
170:
171: \indent
172: The metallic percolation thershold can be identified just
173: by analysing the resistivity data i.e. to identify the transition
174: point at which the temperature coefficient of resistivity changes sign
175: with variation in $x$. However in our case although the metal-insulator
176: transition temperature shifts towards lower temperature with increasing $x$,
177: the metallic conduction is not
178: completely suppressed as metal-insulator transition is observed even
179: for $x=0.5$. This suggests that percolation threshold for the metallic
180: grains is still not achieved at $x=0.5$. The percolation threshold for
181: the insulating grains could possibly be found out
182: by identifying the point at which the resistivity
183: at a certain temperature undergoes a more rapid increase with increase
184: in $x$. We have plotted the reduced resistivity at temperatures $3$ K
185: and $100$ K as a function of $x$ (Fig:~\ref{fig:res}B)
186: and observed an almost exponential increase in
187: resistivity with increase of $x$ at both the temperatures. One can make
188: a rough idea from the above plot that the percolation threshold for
189: the alumina grains is possibly around $x=0.1$ above which the resistivity
190: rises more rapidly.
191: %\begin{figure}
192: %\resizebox {6.5cm}{5.5cm}
193: %{\includegraphics{alomrh300K.EPS}}
194: %\resizebox {6.5cm}{5.5cm}
195: %{\includegraphics{alomrt5kOe.EPS}}
196: %\caption{Above: The magnetoresistance as a function of magnetic field for
197: %different values of $x=0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4$ at room temperature.
198: %Enhancement of low field room temperature
199: %magnetoresistance is observed with introduction of ALO.
200: %Below: The temperature dependence of magnetoresistance for
201: %$x=0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5$ at $H = 5$ kOe. Enhancement of magnetoresistance is
202: %observed with introduction of ALO near room temperature but at low
203: %temperature, the enhancement is not observed. The curves corresponding
204: %to other samples are not shown for clarity.}
205: %\end{figure}
206:
207: \indent
208: The magnetoresistive properties are very interesting. Usually the
209: enhancement in magnetoresistance is observed around the percolation
210: threshold for the insulating grains. Formation of percolation pathway
211: for the alumina grains leads to enhanced spin dependent transport across
212: the ferromagnetic metallic grains.
213: There are a few reports concerning magnetotransport properties in
214: manganite/alumina composites. Hueso et. al.~\cite{hueso} observed
215: enhancement in magnetoresistance at $77$ K
216: for La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$/Al$_{2}$O$_{3}$ composite with
217: the introduction of alumina. There is another study on LSMO/ALO composite thin
218: film~\cite{thin} which also reports the enhancement in magnetoresistance
219: only at low temperature.
220: In the above case the insulator ALO was found out to be
221: amorphous in nature. But nothing whatsoever is known about the
222: magnetoresistive properties at still higher temperature.
223: Till date, no enhancement in low field magnetoresistance at room
224: temperature with the introduction of alumina has been observed in LSMO/ALO
225: nanocomposite. We have observed enhancement
226: in low field magnetoresistance $[\{\rho(H)-\rho(0)\}/\rho(0) (\%)]$ in
227: manganite/alumina composite at room temperature (Fig:~\ref{fig:mr}A).
228: The MR peaks at $x=0.1$ which is consistent with our idea about the percolation
229: threshold for the alumina grains and the enhancement is nearly $100\%$
230: (two times) for $x=0.1$ compared to $x=0$ at $200$ Oe. The percolation
231: threshold depends not only on the concentration of the insulator but also
232: on the packing fraction of the pellet. The low value of the percolation
233: threshold can be understood taking into consideration the packing fraction
234: and the tendancy of the ferromagnetic metallic grains to form chain-like
235: structure due to dipole-dipole interactions. The temperature dependence of
236: magnetoresistance at $5$ kOe (Fig:~\ref{fig:mr}B) reveals that the
237: enhancement in MR with
238: the introduction of alumina is achieved near room temperature
239: whereas at low temperature the low field MR decreases with the increse
240: of $x$. The behaviour at low temperature is unusual and at the moment remains
241: unexplained. For $x=0.1$ the enhancement is sustained down to $200$ K
242: whereas for $x=0.2$ the enhancement is sustainable within the temperature
243: range $250-300$ K.
244:
245: \indent
246: To summarize, magnetotransport properties have been studied
247: in nanocrystalline LSMO/microcrystalline ALO composite.
248: Enhancement in low field magnetoresistance has been
249: achieved at room temperature with the introduction of alumina.
250:
251: \newpage
252:
253: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
254: \bibitem{sheng} P. Sheng, B. Abeles, Y. Arie Phys. Rev. Lett. {\textbf 31},
255: 44 (1973)
256: \bibitem{sheng1} P. Sheng, B. Abeles Phys. Rev. Lett. {\textbf 28}, 34 (1972)
257:
258: \bibitem{abeles} J. S. Helman, B. Abeles Phys. Rev. Lett.
259: {\textbf 37}, 1429 (1976)
260:
261: \bibitem{mitani} S. Mitani, S. Takahashi, K. Takanashi, K. Yakushiji,
262: S. Maekawa, H. Fujimori Phys. Rev. Lett. {\textbf 81} 2799 (1998)
263:
264: \bibitem{composite} A. Milner, A. Gerber, B. Groisman, M. Karpovsky
265: and A. Gladkikh Phys. Rev. Lett. {\textbf 76}, 475 (1996)
266:
267: \bibitem{hueso} L. E. Hueso, J. Rivas, F. Rivadulla and M. A. Lopez-Quintela
268: J. Appl. Phys. {\textbf 89}, 1746 (2001)
269:
270: \bibitem{thin} L. Yan, L. B. Kong, T. Yang, W. C. Goh, C. Y. Tan, C. K. Ong,
271: Md. Anisur Rahman, T. Osipowicz, M. Q. Ren J. Appl. Phys.
272: {\textbf 96}, 1568 (2004)
273:
274: \bibitem{parallel} A. D. Andres, M. Garcia-Hernandez, and J. L. Martinez
275: Phys. Rev. B {\textbf 60}, 7328 (1999)
276:
277: \bibitem{frenkel} Frenkel J. Phys. Rev. {\textbf 54}, 647 (1938)
278:
279: \end{thebibliography}
280: \newpage
281: \begin{figure}
282: %\resizebox {8cm}{9cm}
283: %{\includegraphics{aloxray.eps}}
284: \caption{X-ray diffraction data for LSMO/ALO composite in pellet form with
285: 50\% wt. concentration along with the parent LSMO and ALO powder. All the
286: characteristic peaks of LSMO and ALO are present in the composite system
287: and appearence of additional peaks is not observed.}\label{fig:xray}
288: %\end{figure}
289: %\begin{figure}
290: %\resizebox{4.5cm}{4.3cm}
291: %{\includegraphics{alox0b.EPS}}
292: \caption{SEM picture for the sample with ALO concentration $x=0$
293: over an area $1 \times 1 \mu m^{2}$}\label{fig:sem}
294: %\end{figure}
295: %\begin{figure}
296: %\resizebox {4.2cm}{4.2cm}
297: %{\includegraphics{aloresfit.EPS}}
298: %\resizebox {4.2cm}{4.2cm}
299: %{\includegraphics{aloresperc.EPS}}
300: \caption{{\textbf A}: Resistivity curves for (LSMO)$_{1-x}$(ALO)$_{x}$
301: in absence of magnetic
302: field along with the corresponding theoritical fits. The open symbols are
303: the experimental data and the continuous lines are the theoritical fits.
304: {\textbf B}: The resistivity as a function of x at $3$ K and $100$ K}
305: \label{fig:res}
306: %\end{figure}
307: %\begin{figure}
308: %\resizebox {6.5cm}{5.5cm}
309: %{\includegraphics{alomrh300K.EPS}}
310: %\resizebox {6.5cm}{5.5cm}
311: %{\includegraphics{alomrt5kOe.EPS}}
312: \caption{{\textbf A}: The magnetoresistance as a function of magnetic field for
313: different values of $x=0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4$ at room temperature.
314: Enhancement of low field room temperature
315: magnetoresistance is observed with introduction of ALO.
316: {\textbf B}: The temperature dependence of magnetoresistance for
317: $x=0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5$ at $H = 5$ kOe. Enhancement of magnetoresistance is
318: observed with introduction of ALO near room temperature but at low
319: temperature, the enhancement is not observed. The curves corresponding
320: to other samples are not shown for clarity.}
321: \label{fig:mr}
322: \end{figure}
323: $~~~~~~~~~~~$
324: \vskip 4.5in
325: \newpage
326:
327: \begin{figure}
328: \resizebox {8cm}{9cm}
329: {\includegraphics{aloxray.eps}}
330: %\caption{
331: %X-ray diffraction data for LSMO/ALO composite in pellet form with
332: %50\% wt. concentration along with the parent LSMO and ALO powder. All the
333: %characteristic peaks of LSMO and ALO are present in the composite system
334: %and appearence of additional peaks is not observed.
335: %}
336: %\label{fig:xray}
337: \end{figure}
338: \centering{Fig:1}
339: $~~~~~~~~$
340: \vskip 4.5in
341: \newpage
342: \begin{figure}
343: \resizebox{4.5cm}{4.3cm}
344: {\includegraphics{alox0b.EPS}}
345: %\caption{
346: %SEM picture for the sample with ALO concentration $x=0$
347: %over an area $1 \times 1 \mu m^{2}$
348: %}
349: %\label{fig:sem}
350: \end{figure}
351: \centering{Fig:2}
352: $~~~~~~~~~~~$
353: \vskip 4.5in
354: \newpage
355: \begin{figure}
356: \resizebox {4.2cm}{4.2cm}
357: {\includegraphics{aloresfit.EPS}}
358: \resizebox {4.2cm}{4.2cm}
359: {\includegraphics{aloresperc.EPS}}
360: %\caption{
361: %On the left: Resistivity curves for (LSMO)$_{1-x}$(ALO)$_{x}$
362: %in absence of magnetic
363: %field along with the corresponding theoritical fits. The open symbols are
364: %the experimental data and the continuous lines are the theoritical fits.
365: %On the right: The resistivity as a function of x at $3$ K and $100$ K
366: %}
367: %\label{fig:res}
368: \end{figure}
369: \centering{Fig:3}
370: $~~~~~~~~~~~~~$
371: \vskip 4.5in
372: \newpage
373: \begin{figure}
374: \resizebox {6.5cm}{5.5cm}
375: {\includegraphics{alomrh300K.EPS}}
376: \resizebox {6.5cm}{5.5cm}
377: {\includegraphics{alomrt5kOe.EPS}}
378: %\caption{
379: %Above: The magnetoresistance as a function of magnetic field for
380: %different values of $x=0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4$ at room temperature.
381: %Enhancement of low field room temperature
382: %magnetoresistance is observed with introduction of ALO.
383: %Below: The temperature dependence of magnetoresistance for
384: %$x=0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5$ at $H = 5$ kOe. Enhancement of magnetoresistance is
385: %observed with introduction of ALO near room temperature but at low
386: %temperature, the enhancement is not observed. The curves corresponding
387: %to other samples are not shown for clarity.
388: %}
389: %\label{fig:mr}
390: \end{figure}
391: \centering{Fig:4}
392:
393: \end{document}
394:
395: