Full text loading...
AFM images of different thickness BMO films grown on STO and DSO substrates: (a) 10 nm-thick BMO on STO (root mean squared (rms) roughness = 0.137 nm); (b) 10 nm-thick BMO on DSO (rms roughness = 0.140 nm); (c) 60 nm-thick BMO on STO (rms roughness = 0.925 nm); (d) 60 nm-thick BMO on DSO (rms roughness = 1.771 nm).
θ-2θ x-ray diffraction on (a) 60 nm-thick BMO film deposited on (001) STO, (b) 10 nm-thick BMO grown on STO, and (c) 10 nm-thick BMO grown on DSO substrates. Finite size effect oscillations can be observed on the pseudo-cubic films in (b) and (c). (d) A sketch of a plausible structural model of pseudo-cubic and monoclinic BMO deposited on STO.
Temperature dependence of the magnetization obtained using sum rules applied to XMCD spectra acquired on 10 nm-thick BMO films deposited on STO (black open circle) and DSO (full red square). The data have been acquired warming up of the samples from 8 K to 300 K in a field of 2T, almost parallel to the surface. The inset shows an example of Mn edge XMCD spectra (10 K, 3 T).
(a) PFM amplitude image obtained over a 5 μm×5 μm area on a 10 nm-thick BMO film on STO, showing a complex pattern created by applying positive (bright regions) and negative (dark regions) tip bias voltages of ±8 V. (b) Phase vs. bias voltage and amplitude vs. bias voltage hysteresis loops obtained on a given location of the sample. (c) PFM amplitude as function of the time acquired on a 10 nm-thick BMO thin film grown on DSO. The red line is a fit using Eq. (2) .
Article metrics loading...