“Charge Leakage” at LaMnO3/SrTiO3 Interfaces
Source abstract
Abstract
Direct evidence for charge leakage at the interface of epitaxial SrTiO3/LaMnO3 superlattices with atomically sharp interfaces is provided. The direction of charge leakage can be reversed by changing the LMO/STO thickness ratio. This result will be important for the understanding of some of the reported limitations of oxide devices involving manganite/titanate interfaces.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Electronic and Structural Properties of Oxides · Magnetic and transport properties of perovskites and related materials · Advanced Condensed Matter Physics
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (35)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1038/nature0230810.1038/nature02308 ↗
2. 10.1126/science.114600610.1126/science.1146006 ↗
3. 10.1038/nature0757610.1038/nature07576 ↗
4. 10.1038/nmat193110.1038/nmat1931 ↗
5. 10.1126/science.113109110.1126/science.1131091 ↗
6. 10.1126/science.116829410.1126/science.1168294 ↗
7. 10.1126/science.115639310.1126/science.1156393 ↗
8. 10.1038/nature0097710.1038/nature00977 ↗
9. 10.1038/nature0245010.1038/nature02450 ↗
10. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.05760110.1103/PhysRevLett.97.057601 ↗
11. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.26680110.1103/PhysRevLett.99.266801 ↗
12. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.19640410.1103/PhysRevLett.99.196404 ↗
13. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.25720310.1103/PhysRevLett.100.257203 ↗
14. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.44.159710.1103/PhysRevLett.44.1597 ↗
15. 10.1103/PhysRevB.34.595510.1103/PhysRevB.34.5955 ↗
16. 10.1103/PhysRevB.45.929210.1103/PhysRevB.45.9292 ↗
17. 10.1016/0956-716X(95)00391-810.1016/0956-716X(95)00391-8 ↗
18. 10.1103/PhysRevB.76.06430310.1103/PhysRevB.76.064303 ↗
19. 10.1016/S0038-1101(03)00205-310.1016/S0038-1101(03)00205-3 ↗
20. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.393610.1103/PhysRevLett.83.3936 ↗
21. 10.1103/PhysRevB.66.17451410.1103/PhysRevB.66.174514 ↗
22. 10.1006/jssc.1997.728710.1006/jssc.1997.7287 ↗
23. 10.1080/00018739924345510.1080/000187399243455 ↗
24. 10.1103/PhysRevB.56.890210.1103/PhysRevB.56.8902 ↗
25. 10.1103/PhysRevB.53.334810.1103/PhysRevB.53.3348 ↗
26. 10.1063/1.221798310.1063/1.2217983 ↗
27. 10.1103/PhysRevB.44.541910.1103/PhysRevB.44.5419 ↗
28. 10.1038/298635a010.1038/298635a0 ↗
29. 10.1103/PhysRevB.79.08511710.1103/PhysRevB.79.085117 ↗
30. The discrepancy between the two methods near the interfaces in the (LMO17/STO12)8sample is most likely due to beam‐broadening. The energy separation must change smoothly across the interface since there is O on both sides. Therefore the Ti oxidation state around +3.5 at the interface obtained by this method is an artifact due to averaging of both materials. On the other hand the Ti edge fine structure does not since there is no Ti in the LMO so the Ti oxidation‐state value at the interface is accurately measured by this method. The reduced overall intensity is normalized out by the MLLS fitting procedure.
31. 10.1046/j.1365-2818.2003.01174.x10.1046/j.1365-2818.2003.01174.x ↗
32. Unfortunately the Sr L2 3edge lies at very‐high energy for EELS measurements near 2000 eV. Therefore the Sr L2 3edges show a very‐poor signal‐to‐noise ratio hindering quantification efforts. To get more‐reliable quantitative data we used two different background‐subtraction methods: the power‐law fit and the spatial‐difference technique shown in Figure 2. The fact that a hint of atomic‐resolution contrast is observed in the LMO side of the interface only for the second methods show that this is most likely an artifact.
33. 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.515610.1103/PhysRevLett.86.5156 ↗
34. 10.1103/PhysRevB.67.21451110.1103/PhysRevB.67.214511 ↗
35. 10.1016/j.ultramic.2006.04.01610.1016/j.ultramic.2006.04.016 ↗