| Literature DB >> 29152033 |
Lorena Martín-Olivera1, Dmitry G Shchukin1, Gilberto Teobaldi1,2.
Abstract
Magnetic hardening and generation of room-temperature ferromagnetism at the interface between originally nonmagnetic transitionEntities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29152033 PMCID: PMC5682901 DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcc.7b08476
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Chem C Nanomater Interfaces ISSN: 1932-7447 Impact factor: 4.126
Figure 1Monomer atomic structure for the polymers considered: (a) polyethylene (PE), (b) polyacetylene (PAC), (c) polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and (d) polyurethane (PUR). Schematic representation of the two interface models used: (e) in-plane (∥) geometry with the polymer chain inserted parallel to the Cu(111) plane and (f) perpendicular (⊥) geometry with the polymer chain inserted perpendicular to the Cu(111) plane.
Figure 2Computed (a) Stoner exchange integral (IS) and (b) density of states at the Fermi level [DOS(EF)] as a function of both the lattice parameter for bulk FCC Cu and the sum of the 12 shortest nearest-neighbor (NN) Cu–Cu distances. (c) Computed IS as a function of DOS(EF). (d) Change of IS × DOS(EF) as a function of the lattice parameter. Vertical red line marks the values for the optimized lattice parameter (3.649 Å). Horizontal continuous (0.15 spin–1 atom–1) and dashed (0.19 spin–1 atom–1) magenta lines in d mark the largest computed IS × DOS(EF) product at the same level of theory for the interfaces between Cu and as-deposited (1.7 g/cm3) and annealed (2.3 g/cm3) amorphous carbon measured to be ferromagnetic in ref (31).
Figure 3Optimized geometries for the considered in-plane (left subpanels, side view) and perpendicular (right subpanels, top view) models of the interface between Cu and (a) PE, (b) PAC, (c) PET, and (d) PUR. Cu–polymer cutoff (dCu–pol, Å) used to prepare the initial geometry is reported in the insets. C, cyan; O, red; N, blue; H, silver; Cu, brown.
Figure 4Polymer-induced loosening of the Cu lattice for the Cu–polymer interfaces considered as quantified by the average sum of the 12 NN Cu–Cu distances in the optimized slabs. Horizontal red line marks the value of the cumulative 12 NN Cu–Cu distance (30.962 Å) for optimized bulk FCC Cu (lattice parameter 3.649 Å).
Figure 5Computed density of states (DOS) for the in-plane (∥, continuous lines) and perpendicular (⊥, dotted lines)) models of the interface between Cu and (a) PE, (b) PAC, (c) PET, and (d) PUR: black, dCu–pol = 1.5 Å; yellow, dCu–pol = 2.0 Å; blue, dCu–pol = 2.5 Å; green, dCu–pol = 3.0 Å. Computed DOS for bulk FCC Cu at the optimized lattice parameter is shown in red.
Figure 6(a) Computed Cu → polymer Bader charge transferred (Q, e) as a function of dCu–pol, and (b) average cumulative 12 NN Cu–Cu distance in the optimized Cu–polymer interface models.
Figure 7Average (a) Stoner exchange integral (IS), (b) density of states at the Fermi level [DOS(EF)], and (c) IS × DOS(EF) product for the Cu–polymer interface models as a function of dCu–pol. (d) Average IS × DOS(EF) product as a function of the average cumulative 12 NN Cu–Cu distance in the optimized models. Horizontal red line marks the values for optimized bulk FCC Cu. Horizontal continuous (0.15 spin–1 atom–1) and dashed (0.19 spin–1 atom–1) magenta lines in c and d mark the largest computed IS × DOS(EF) product at the same level of theory for interfaces between Cu and as-deposited (1.7 gr/cm3) and annealed (2.3 gr/cm3) aC measured to be ferromagnetic in ref (31).