Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
Competing rhombohedral and monoclinic crystal structures in MnPn Ch compounds: 2 4 an ab-initio study 1, 2, 3 4,2, 3 4, 5, 2, 3 S. V. Eremeev, M. M. Otrokov, and E. V. Chulkov Institute of Strength Physics and Materials Science, 634021, Tomsk, Russia Tomsk State University, 634050 Tomsk, Russia Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, 198504, Russia Donostia International Physics Center (DIPC), 20018 San Sebasti´an/Donostia, Basque Country, Spain Departamento de F´ısica de Materiales UPV/EHU, Centro de F´ısica de Materiales CFM - MPC and Centro Mixto CSIC-UPV/EHU, 20080 San Sebasti´an/Donostia, Basque Country, Spain Based on the relativistic spin-polarized density functional theory calculations we investigate the crystal structure, electronic and magnetic properties of a family MnP n Ch compounds, where 2 4 pnictogen metal atoms (P n) are Sb and Bi; chalcogens (Ch) are Se, Te. We show that in the series the compounds of this family with heavier elements prefer to adopt rhombohedral crystal structure composed of weakly bonded septuple monoatomic layers while those with lighter elements tend to be in the monoclinic structure. Irrespective of the crystal structure all compounds of the MnP n Ch 2 4 series demonstrate a weak energy gain (of a few meV per formula unit or even smaller than meV) for antiferromagnetic (AFM) coupling for magnetic moments on Mn atoms with respect to their ferromagnetic (FM) state. For rhombohedral structures the interlayer AFM coupling is preferable while in monoclinic phases intralayer AFM conﬁguration with ferromagnetic ordering along the Mn chain and antiferromagnetic ordering between the chains has a minimum energy. Over the series the monoclinic compounds are characterized by substantially wider bandgap than compounds with rhombohedral structure. I. INTRODUCTION In the present study we scrutinize the crystal structure of compounds of the MnPn Ch series (Pn = Sb, 2 4 Bi; Ch = Se, Te) by means of the density functional The ternary chalcogenides MPn Ch (M = Fe, Mn; 2 4 theory (DFT) calculations with taking into account their 1–9 Pn = Sb, Bi; and Ch = S, Se) which include a large magnetic state. number of synthetic and natural metal chalcogenides are promising for applications in thermoelectricity , 11 12 spintronics , and nonlinear optics . These compounds II. METHODS crystallize in the monoclinic space group C2/m. This structure is characterized by a presence of the M atoms chains along one of the crystallographic directions For calculations we use the Vienna Ab Initio 14,15 where the distances between M atoms are 1.5-2 times Simulation Package (VASP) with generalized shorter than in other directions. As shown by magnetic gradient approximation (GGA) for the exchange measurements, the iron containing chalcogenides are correlation potential. The interaction between the ferromagnetic semiconductors , while the Mn-based ion cores and valence electrons is described by the 9 17,18 compounds are antiferromagnets . However, recently projector augmented-wave method . Owing to a new ternary chalcogenide semiconductor of the presence of heavy Pn atoms (Sb,Bi) in the ternary same series containing a heavier chalcogen atom (Te), chalcogenides MPn Ch the relativistic eﬀects are 2 4 MnBi Te , and possessing diﬀerent crystal structure expected to have a signiﬁcant impact on electronic 2 4 has been reported . It was shown that the and crystal structures. For this reason the relativistic compound crystallizes in the rhombohedral structure eﬀects, including spin-orbit interaction, were taken into (R3m) and can be described as the one composed account in the calculations. To determine equilibrium of septuple layer (SL) slabs with a stacking sequence state of the systems, we accurately optimized the of Te1–Bi–Te2–Mn–Te2–Bi–Te1 along the c-axis and lattice parameters as well as the atomic positions of the with van der Waals gaps between the slabs. The rhombohedral and monoclinic structures of MnPn Ch 2 4 structure may also be described by using the Bi Te in ferromagnetic (FM) and diﬀerent antiferromagnetic 2 3 structure, where the central Te layer is substituted with states. For rhombohedral structure we have considered Te–Mn–Te layers. The obtained phase, as established a collinear antiferromagnetic state with interlayer by using high-temperature XRD analysis, is stable up antiferromagnetic coupling (AFM) and noncollinear to 423 K while above this temperature it starts to antiferromagnetic (NCAFM) state in which three spin be spontaneously decomposed into Bi Te and MnTe sublattices form angles of 120 with respect to each 2 3 2 phases. It should be noted that the magnetic state of other . To consider the FM and AFM ordering in MnBi Te has not been studied. the rhombohedral phase we use doubled along c axis 2 4 arXiv:1809.10343v1 [cond-mat.mtrl-sci] 27 Sep 2018 2 FIG. 1. Rhombohedral (a) and respective hexagonal (b) representations of the crystal structure as was found for MnBi Te 2 4 compound in Ref. 13. Parts of the doubled along c axis hexagonal cells, containing two SL blocks with FM (c) and AFM (d) ordering for Mn atoms (red arrows show mutual orientations of the magnetic moment). (e) NCAFM ordering in the √ √ 3× 3 hexagonal cell. (f) Monoclinic cell as was found for MnBi Te compound in Ref. 8. Triclinic Niggli-reduced cell for the 2 4 monoclinic structure with FM (g) and interlayer AFM (AFM-1) (h) magnetic ordering. (i-k) Intralayer magnetic conﬁgurations: antiferromagnetically ordered Mn chains with ferromagnetic interchain coupling (AFM-2), ferromagnetically ordered chains with antiferromagnetic interchain coupling (AFM-3), and checkerboard-like magnetic conﬁguration with antiferromagnetic both intrachain and interchain coupling (AFM-4). 3 hexagonal cell containing six Mn atoms. The NCAFM TABLE I. Experimental (Ref. 13) and calculated atomic conﬁguration was treated within larger supercell, which is √ √ coordinates for the equilibrium MnBi Te structure. 2 4 3× 3 in the hexagonal plane. For monoclinic phase we studied four AFM conﬁgurations on the base of triclinic site Wyckoﬀ symbol x y z exp. z calc. Niggli-reduced cell, containing two Mn atoms, which Mn 3a 0 0 0.0 0.0 was 2×2 expanded in the basal plane. The considered Bi 6c 0 0 0.42488(4) 0.424306 AFM conﬁgurations are the interlayer antiferromagnetic Te 6c 0 0 0.13333(6) 0.134649 conﬁguration with antiferromagnetic coupling through Te 6c 0 0 0.29436(6) 0.294763 the longest Mn-Mn distance (along monoclinic c axis) between ferromagnetic layers (AFM-1) and three intralayer conﬁgurations: antiferromagnetically ordered Mn chains with ferromagnetic interchain coupling 4.607 μ . The obtained equilibrium lattice constants (AFM-2), ferromagnetically ordered chains with ˚ ˚ a=4.336 A and c=40.221 A as well as the atomic positions antiferromagnetic interchain coupling (AFM-3), and (Table I) agree well with the experimental parameters. It checkerboard-like magnetic conﬁguration where both is worth to note that other magnetic conﬁgurations of the intrachain and interchain coupling are antiferromagnetic rhombohedral structure, FM and NCAFM, are 4.5 meV (AFM-4). DFT-D3 van der Walls corrections were and 11.8 meV per formula unit, respectively higher in applied for accurate structure optimization. To describe energy than the AFM ground state. On the other hand the strongly correlated Mn-d electrons we include the FM (Fig. 1 (g)) and diﬀerent AFM conﬁgurations the correlation eﬀects within the GGA+U method (Figs. 1 (h–k)) of the monoclinic structure have the total in the Dudarev implementation . Since the nearest energy of more than 200 meV higher than that of the neighbors for Mn atom in both rhombohedral and ground state although they diﬀer between themselves monoclinic structures are Te(Se) atoms we have chosen by few meV only. We remind, that all calculations the U = U − J =5.34(5.33) eV values to be the same as 22 were done for the same U value as in bulk MnTe (see in bulk MnTe(MnSe) . Methods section). Additionally, an extensive testing was performed for the rhombohedral phase in order to ensure stability of the results against the U value change. At III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION that, the crystal structure was fully optimized for each U considered. It was found that neither intra- nor interlayer A. MnBi Te 2 4 ∗ magnetic ordering changes qualitatively when U varies from 3 to 5.34 eV and the energy gain for AFM phase as The MnBi Te compound was grown for the ﬁrst time 2 4 compared to ferromagnetic ordering is larger for smaller and its crystal structure was determined in Ref. 13. It U . was found to crystallize in the rhombohedral crystal phase (space group R3m) and have a layered structure 1.0 3.5 composed of septuple layer (SL) slabs with a stacking total sequence of Te1–Bi–Te2–Mn–Te2–Bi–Te1 along the Te hexagonal axis with van der Waals gaps between them 3.0 Mn (Fig. 1 (a,b)). According to the powder X-ray diﬀraction Bi (XRD) data the unit cell parameters are a = 4.334 2.5 ˚ ˚ A and c = 40.910 A. The atomic positional parameters were also determined. The DFT calculations performed 2.0 in Ref. 13 reproduced well the a parameter while 0.5 noticeably overestimated (by 5.06 %) the c one. Such 1.5 an overestimation is typical for the DFT calculations performed for the layered structures without taking the van der Waals corrections into account. Besides, 1.0 only FM state was considered in that calculation. In order to ﬁnd out the ground state of MnBi Te we 2 4 0.5 consider FM, AFM, and NCAFM magnetic ordering in the rhombohedral structure (Figs. 1 (c–e)) as well as 0.0 0.0 FM and four above described AFM alignments in the -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 monoclinic structure (Figs. 1 (g–k)) which is typical for Energy (eV) MnPn Ch (Ch = S, Se). For each conﬁguration the 2 4 lattice parameters and atomic positions were optimized. FIG. 2. Calculated total (black line) and partial density of According to the calculations the lowest energy structure states (color lines) for the rhombohedral AFM MnBi Te . 2 4 is the rhombohedral one with an AFM interlayer coupling Zero energy corresponds to the Fermi level. of the Mn magnetic moments which were found to be partial DOS (states/eV/atom) total DOS (states/eV/f.u.) 4 The calculated total density of states (DOS) for TABLE II. Experimental (recalculated for Niggli-reduced cell the rhombohedral AFM MnBi Te (Fig. 2) shows that 2 4 from the data of Ref. 8) and calculated atomic coordinates the compound is a narrow gap semiconductor with a for monoclinic MnBi Se structure. 2 4 bandgap of 217 meV in which the valence band maximum (VBM) as follows from the atom-projected DOS is x y z composed by Te and Bi p-orbitals while the conduction atom exp. calc. exp. calc. exp. calc. band minimum (CBM) is formed mainly by empty Se 0.01145 0.01540 0.16220 0.15282 0.31490 0.31639 Bi orbitals. The observed experimentally for p-doped Se 0.98855 0.98460 0.83780 0.84718 0.68510 0.68361 sample optical bandgap was estimated by using diﬀuse Se 0.11384 0.11373 0.22719 0.22757 0.04513 0.04494 Se 0.88616 0.88627 0.77281 0.77243 0.95487 0.95506 reﬂectance spectrum via the Kubelka-Munk method at Se 0.34158 0.34263 0.25614 0.25333 0.56070 0.56137 room temperature to be equal to ∼0.4 eV . In view of Se 0.65842 0.65737 0.74386 0.74667 0.43930 0.43863 the p doping in the experiment the calculated energy gap Se 0.34166 0.33676 0.64172 0.64818 0.17496 0.17828 agrees reasonably with the measured value. Se 0.65834 0.66324 0.35828 0.35182 0.82504 0.82172 0.28157 0.29149 0.07399 0.05954 0.86287 0.85749 Bi1 Bi 0.71843 0.70851 0.92601 0.94046 0.13713 0.14251 B. MnBi Se 2 4 Bi 0.35095 0.34844 0.42837 0.43180 0.36973 0.37133 Bi 0.64905 0.65156 0.57163 0.56820 0.63027 0.62867 Mn 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.50000 0.50000 The MnBi Se compound was reported to be 2 4 Mn 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000 0.00000 0.00000 semiconducting antiferromagnet which adopts the monoclinic crystal structure (see Fig. 1 (f)). According to the X-ray Powder Diﬀraction measurements the monoclinic unit cell containing four MnBi Se formula 2 4 in MnBi Te (see Table I). 2 4 units (Z=4) belongs to the space group C2/m and is It is worth noting that in both structures the characterized by parameters: a = 13.319(3) A, b = coordination of Mn atoms by six nearest Se atoms, which ˚ ˚ 4.0703(8) A, c = 15.179(3) A, and β = 115.5(1) . A form MnSe octahedra, is similar. However, while in the triclinic Niggli-reduced cell (Z=2, see Fig. 1 (g,h) for rhombohedral structure the octahedra are hexagonally this structure can be described by the parameters: a = ˚ ˚ ˚ packed, in the monoclinic phase adjacent MnSe share 4.07030 A, b = 6.96350 A, c = 13.85240 A, and α = ◦ ◦ ◦ edges to form one-dimensional chains along b axis (see 87.0360 , β = 81.5520 , γ = 73.0070 . Figs. 1 (b) and (f)). At the same time Mn-Mn bond Our calculations for this structure conﬁrm the lengths in hexagonal layer of rhombohedral structure and antiferromagnetic conﬁguration state for monoclinic that in the chain of monoclinic structure are very close: MnBi Se . However, in contrast to the experimental 2 4 ˚ ˚ 4.0782 A and 4.0640 A, respectively. In this regard, ﬁnding of Ref. the intrachain AFM ordering (AFM-2 the fact that we found interlayer AFM conﬁguration for in our notation, see Fig. 1 (i)) is the second favorable rhombohedral structure and AFM-3 one for monoclinic conﬁguration after AFM-3 (Fig. 1 (j)) being 0.9 meV/f.u. structure the most energetically preferable magnetic higher in energy. The optimized crystal cell parameters conﬁgurations looks reasonable. In both cases the ˚ ˚ ˚ (a = 4.0640 A, b = 6.93876 A, c = 13.81183 A, and α = ◦ ◦ ◦ ferromagnetic ordering along the short Mn-Mn bonds is 87.3886 , β = 81.5400 , γ = 72.9718 ) as well as atomic favorable while along the long bonds (between hexagonal coordinates (see Table II) are in good agreement with the layers in rhombohedral structure and between chains in experimental data. monoclinic structure) the antiferromagnetic coupling is However, the calculations for the MnBi Se compound 2 4 preferred. in rhombohedral structure, performed similar to the The reason for the discrepancy between the MnBi Te case for FM, AFM, and NCAFM magnetic 2 4 experimentally determined and calculated crystal ordering, revealed that the AFM rhombohedral structure structure can consist in that a mixed Mn/Bi occupancy is the lowest energy structure. It is of 39.2 meV where 6 % of Mn occupy Bi sublattice (and vice versa) (per formula unit) lower than the AFM-3 monoclinic was found in the studied sample. Such a disordering in structure. Note that the cell volume in the rhombohedral the Bi and Mn sublattices can presumably stabilize the structure is 1.45 % (per formula unit) smaller than monoclinic phase in the experiment. In other words, the that in the monoclinic MnBi Se . At the same time 2 4 growth of the rhombohedral phase can be achieved under the equilibrium rhombohedral structure with FM and appropriate synthesis conditions providing suppression NCAFM magnetic conﬁgurations has higher energies of the Mn/Bi intermixing. The disordering factor can be than the AFM ground state by only 0.6 meV and 7.8 responsible also for diﬀerent type of antiferromagnetic meV, respectively. The optimized lattice constants a ˚ ˚ ordering (interchain vs. intrachain) in the monoclinic = 4.0782 A and c = 37.8059 A are smaller than the structure. respective parameters of the rhombohedral MnBi Te 2 4 owing to the smaller radius of the Ch atom while the Owing to similarity in the crystal structures equilibrium atomic positions (Se , z = 0.133816; Se , z of rhombohedral MnBi Ch the band structure of 1 2 2 4 = 0.295154; Bi, z = 0.424624) are comparable with those MnBi Se in general is similar to that of MnBi Te . 2 4 2 4 5 1.0 3.5 (a) and thus AFM-3 has the largest gap. At the same total time the electrical transport measurements performed Se Mn 3.0 on MnBi Se single crystals provided a band gap of 2 4 Bi 0.15 eV that is 4-5 times smaller than the calculated value for any AFM conﬁguration. This discrepancy can 2.5 be attributed to non-stoichiometric composition of the measured samples. 2.0 We emphasize again that for both rhombohedral 0.5 and monoclinic phases the interlayer/interchain 1.5 antiferromagnetic coupling is only slightly more favorable than the ferromagnetic one. This result is 1.0 in line with experimental observation which suggests the existence of residual ferromagnetic ordering in the MnBi Se sample. The small energy diﬀerence between 0.5 2 4 magnetic conﬁgurations is explained by the fact that in both phases the distance between Mn layers (Mn chains) 0.0 0.0 is too long for strong magnetic exchange interaction and -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 hence the Mn atoms of adjacent structural blocks are Energy (eV) magnetically coupled by indirect exchange interactions 3.5 1.0 (b) through the Se and Bi atoms. total Se 3.0 Mn Bi C. MnSb Te 2 4 2.5 The reliable data on the crystal structure of MnSb Te 2 4 2.0 are absent with exception of the paper published in 0.5 the early eighties, Ref. 24, where an unusual for the MnPn Ch series tetragonal symmetry of the crystal 1.5 2 4 structure was identiﬁed and nothing about atomic parameters was reported. For this reason we consider this 1.0 compound within the same rhombohedral and monoclinic phases, that are typical for related MnBi Ch . 2 4 0.5 The total energy calculations show that like in the MnBi Te case the rhombohedral phase is strongly 2 4 0.0 0.0 preferred. At the same time, among magnetic -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 conﬁgurations of the monoclinic structure, AFM-3 is Energy (eV) energetically favorable, as in the previously described cases of FIG. 3. Total and atom-projected DOS for the AFM MnBi Ch . The rhombohedral AFM structure is 2 4 rhombohedral (a) and AFM-3 monoclinic (b) structures of by 162.2 meV per formula unit lower in energy than MnBi Se . 2 4 the monoclinic structure with AFM-3 coupling. This result unambiguously indicates that MnSb Te can be 2 4 grown in the rhombohedral phase. At the same time, as in the other MnBi Ch compounds, the energy The calculated DOS for rhombohedral AFM MnBi Se 2 4 2 4 (Fig. 3 (a)) demonstrates semiconducting spectrum diﬀerence between ferromagnetic and antiferromagnetic conﬁgurations is small for both rhombohedral and with very narrow bandgap of 22 meV, where, like in the MnBi Te case, gap edges are determined by monoclinic phases and NCAFM phase is the most 2 4 the p-orbitals of Se and Bi (VBM) and mostly Bi unfavorable among magnetic conﬁgurations of the rhombohedral structure. The optimized lattice constants (CBM). The values of the Mn magnetic moments in the rhombohedral and monoclinic phases are also similar: for the rhombohedral AFM structure are a = 4.2626 A and c = 39.6572 A, and the atomic positions (Te , z = 4.623 and 4.599 μ , respectively. Note that, in the AFM B 1 monoclinic structure the spectrum is semiconducting 0.133900; Te , z = 0.293205; Sb, z = 0.424323; Mn, z = 0) are close to those in MnBi Te (see Table I). too (Fig. 3 (b) shows DOS for the lowest energy 2 4 AFM-3 case) in agreement with experimental ﬁnding . The band structure of the MnSb Te compound is 2 4 It has considerably larger gap (771 meV) and Se/Bi characterized by a bandgap of 123 meV (Fig. 4) that is states dominate at VBM/CBM. Note that for other about two times smaller than the gap in MnBi Te . Alike 2 4 AFM conﬁgurations the DOSs are principally the same, the case of MnBi Te gap edges are contributed by the 2 4 the gap width varies in the range of 600–771 meV Pn and Te (VBM) and Pn only (CBM) states. Owing to partial DOS (states/eV/atom) partial DOS (states/eV/atom) total DOS (states/eV/f.u.) total DOS (states/eV/f.u.) 6 similarity of the crystal structure with the MnBi Te case 2 4 TABLE III. Experimental (recalculated for Niggli-reduced cell and the same local atomic surrounding for the Mn atoms from data of Ref. 9) and calculated atomic coordinates for the Mn magnetic moments, 4.590 μ , are very close to monoclinic MnSb Se structure. 2 4 those in the Bi-containing compound. x y z 1.0 3.5 atom exp. calc. exp. calc. exp. calc. total Se 0.01230 0.01199 0.15530 0.16060 0.32010 0.31550 Te Se 0.98770 0.98801 0.84470 0.83940 0.67990 0.68450 Mn 3.0 Se 0.11430 0.11647 0.22890 0.22199 0.04250 0.04503 Sb Se 0.88570 0.88353 0.77110 0.77801 0.95750 0.95497 2.5 Se 0.34510 0.34087 0.25650 0.25946 0.55330 0.55880 Se 0.65490 0.65913 0.74350 0.74054 0.44670 0.44120 Se 0.34460 0.33405 0.63850 0.65225 0.17230 0.17967 2.0 Se 0.65540 0.66595 0.36150 0.34775 0.82770 0.82033 0.5 0.27380 0.28382 0.08580 0.07050 0.86660 0.86184 Sb1 1.5 Sb 0.72620 0.71618 0.91420 0.92950 0.13340 0.13816 Sb 0.35540 0.35164 0.41520 0.42240 0.37400 0.37437 Sb 0.64460 0.64836 0.58480 0.57760 0.62600 0.62563 1.0 Mn 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.50000 0.50000 Mn 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000 0.50000 0.00000 0.00000 0.5 0.0 0.0 -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 These parameters as well as the atomic coordinates (see Energy (eV) Table III) nicely reproduce the experimental structural parameters. FIG. 4. Calculated DOS for the rhombohedral AFM MnSb Te . 2 4 1.0 3.5 total Se 3.0 Mn Sb D. MnSb Se 2 4 2.5 The MnSb Se compound was synthesized and its 2 4 2.0 structural, electronic and magnetic properties were 0.5 studied in Ref. 9. Single-crystal X-ray diﬀraction 1.5 revealed that MnSb Se crystallizes like MnBi Se in the 2 4 2 4 monoclinic space group C2/m with the parameters a = ˚ ˚ ˚ 13.076(3) A, b = 3.965(1) A, c = 15.236(3) A, and β 1.0 = 115.1(3) (Z=4). This structure can be conveniently represented in the Niggli-reduced form as triclinic cell 0.5 ˚ ˚ (Z=2) with parameters a = 3.96500 A, b = 6.83200 A, ◦ ◦ c = 13.93920 A, and α = 87.3400 , β = 81.8230 , γ = 0.0 0.0 73.1310 . -2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 Similarly to the above considered MnPn Ch 2 4 Energy (eV) compounds we performed the optimization of the crystal structure of MnSb Se within rhombohedral 2 4 FIG. 5. Calculated DOS for the monoclinic structure of and monoclinic phases with taking into account MnSb Se with AFM-3 magnetic ordering. 2 4 the magnetic ordering. Irrespective the magnetic ordering monoclinic phase has the lower energy than rhombohedral structure. Among the considered spin Like in case of other MnPn Ch the antiferromagnetic 2 4 conﬁgurations for monoclinic structure we found out that ordering of the Mn magnetic moments is only slightly the ferromagnetic conﬁguration is less favorable that more favorable than the ferromagnetic conﬁguration. is in agreement with the experimental result. As it According to the magnetic susceptibility measurements happens for the compounds considered above the AFM-3 performed in Ref. 9 the interaction between the Mn conﬁguration has the lowest energy among others. The magnetic moments is predominantly antiferromagnetic, optimized lattice parameters for the Niggli-reduced cell however, the slight increase in the susceptibility ˚ ˚ ˚ are a = 3.98107 A, b = 6.87504 A, c = 13.67025 A, observed below 5 K was explained by the existence ◦ ◦ ◦ and α = 87.6610 , β = 81.6265 , γ = 73.1697 . of a residual ferromagnetic ordering in the sample at partial DOS (states/eV/atom) total DOS (states/eV/f.u.) partial DOS (states/eV/atom) total DOS (states/eV/f.u.) 7 very low temperatures. Our results showing small Thus, our results conﬁrm the structure of MnBi Te , 2 4 energy diﬀerence between ferro- and antiferromagnetic recently determined by the experiment and predict the conﬁgurations conﬁrm the competition between AFM similar crystal structure for MnSb Te , which has not 2 4 and FM ordering in the compound. The calculated been studied in details earlier. For the compound with magnetic moment on the Mn atoms for the most lighter both pnictogen and chalcogen atoms, MnSb Se , 2 4 favorable AFM-3 structure is 4.596 μ , which is almost our result, predicting the lowest energy state for the same as that in monoclinic MnBi Se . monoclinic structure, is in agreement with experimental 2 4 Experimental estimation with using the diﬀuse data. A similar change in the crystal structure from the reﬂectance infrared spectroscopy measurements at room rhombohedral layered phase to the monoclinic structure temperature gave the value of the bandgap in the was reported earlier for compounds with substitution 9 25 MnSb Se sample of ∼0.32 eV . On the other hand, between Se and Te in FeSb Te Se (x = 1,2,3,4) . 2 4 2 4−x x from the temperature dependent electrical resistivity At the same time our total energy calculations for measurements the bandgap value was estimated to be MnBi Se , which contains heavier pnictogen and lighter 2 4 of 0.52 eV . Our calculations of the electronic structure chalcogen atoms, predicting the rhombohedral phase provide a bandgap, which is closer to the experimental as the stable structure contradict the experimentally value derived from the charge-transport data. As can determined monoclinic structure. However, it should be be seen from the calculated DOS for monoclinic AFM-3 noted that the energy gain for the rhombohedral over structure presented in Fig. 5, in MnSb Se the gap is monoclinic structure in MnBi Se is ﬁve times smaller 2 4 2 4 of 757 meV that is comparable with the value in the than in the MnBi Te compound (39.2 vs. 202.7 meV, 2 4 monoclinic MnBi Se (772 meV). Like in the case of see Table IV). This discrepancy can be an indication that 2 4 MnBi Se Se/Bi states dominate at the gap edges. the rhombohedral phase of MnBi Se can be obtained at 2 4 2 4 the growth conditions that are diﬀerent from those used in Ref. . E.g. it could probably be stabilized by using IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING MBE. We have also shown, that irrespective of the crystal REMARKS structure, all compounds of the MnPn Ch family are 2 4 antiferromagnetic semiconductors. In accordance with the experimental ﬁndings for MnPn Se , indicating In summary, we have performed DFT calculations 2 4 of electronic, magnetic and crystal structure of the competition between AFM and FM ordering, the energy gain for the AFM coupling with respect to the MnPn Ch series of ternary transition metal 2 4 chalcogenides (Pn = Sb, Bi; Ch = Se, Te). All ferromagnetic state is very weak – it is just a few meV per formula unit or even smaller. The small energy MnPn Ch compounds were considered within the 2 4 rhombohedral and monoclinic phases, which were shown diﬀerence between antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic conﬁgurations is explained by the fact that in both experimentally to be typical for some compounds of the series. The FM, interlayer AFM and NCAFM phases the distance between Mn layers is too long for strong magnetic exchange interactions. At the same time spin structures have been taken into account in the calculations for rhombohedral structure and FM and among considered antiferromagnetic conﬁgurations for four diﬀerent AFM conﬁgurations for monoclinic phase. monoclinic structure AFM-3, in which ferromagnetically The obtained total energies for MnPn Ch phases are ordered Mn chains couple to each other, is the most 2 4 summarized in the Table IV. We have found that the favorable. Owing to similarity in the local atomic surrounding for the Mn atoms the Mn magnetic moments compounds containing the heavier chalcogen atom, Te, show a strong trend to adopt the layered rhombohedral are almost the same through the MnPn Ch series 2 4 regardless of the structure. On the other hand, the structure. type of crystal structure, rhombohedral or monoclinic, signiﬁcantly inﬂuences the bandgap width. In the TABLE IV. Relative total energies (in meV) per formula rhombohedral MnPn Ch phases the gap is of 22-217 2 4 unit (zero energy corresponds to rhombohedral AFM case) meV while in the compounds with monoclinic structure for diﬀerent magnetic states of rhombohedral and monoclinic this value is signiﬁcantly larger and amounts to about structures of MnP n Ch compounds. 2 4 750-770 meV. rhombohedral monoclinic compound AFM FM NCAFM FM AFM-1 AFM-2 AFM-3 AFM-4 MnBi Te 0.0 +4.5 +11.8 +206.4 +205.6 +204.6 +202.7 +205.2 2 4 MnBi Se 0.0 +0.6 +7.8 +43.0 +41.7 +40.1 +39.2 +40.6 2 4 MnSb Te 0.0 +1.3 +11.2 +165.9 +165.1 +164.7 +162.2 +165.3 2 4 REFERENCES MnSb Se 0.0 +0.8 +8.1 -11.3 -12.7 -13.7 -15.1 -13.3 2 4 8 1 12 K. Bente and A. Edenharter, Z. Kristallogr. 186, 31 (1989). A. A. Ballman, R. L. Byer, D. Eimerl, R. S. Feigelson, M. J. Buerger and T. Hahn, American Mineralogist 40, B. J. Feldman, L. S. Goldberg, N. Menyuk, and C. L. 226 (1955). Tang, Appl. Opt. 26, 224 (1987). 3 13 H. Djieutedjeu, P. F. P. Poudeu, N. J. Takas, J. P. A. D. S. Lee, T.-H. Kim, C.-H. Park, C.-Y. Chung, Y. S. Makongo, A. Rotaru, K. G. S. Ranmohotti, C. J. Lim, W.-S. Seo, and H.-H. Park, CrystEngComm 15, 5532 Anglin, L. Spinu, and J. B. Wiley, Angewandte Chemie (2013). International Edition 49, 9977 (2010). G. Kresse and J. Hafner, Phys. Rev. B 48, 13115 (1993). 4 15 P. L´eone, C. Doussier-Brochard, G. Andr´e, and Y. Mo¨elo, G. Kresse and J. Furthmu¨ller, Phys. Rev. B 54, 11169 Physics and Chemistry of Minerals 35, 201 (2008). (1996). 5 16 S. F. Matar, R. Weihrich, D. Kurowski, A. Pﬁtzner, and J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, and M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. V. Eyert, Phys. Rev. B 71, 235207 (2005). Lett. 77, 3865 (1996). 6 17 C. Tian, C. Lee, E. Kan, F. Wu, and M.-H. Whangbo, P. E. Bl¨ochl, Phys. Rev. B 50, 17953 (1994). Inorganic Chemistry 49, 10956 (2010), pMID: 21038916, G. Kresse and D. Joubert, Phys. Rev. B 59, 1758 (1999). http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ic101351b. D. H. Lee, J. D. Joannopoulos, J. W. Negele, and D. P. M. Wintenberger and G. Andr´e, Physica B: Condensed Landau, Phys. Rev. B 33, 450 (1986). Matter 156, 315 (1989). S. Grimme, J. Antony, S. Ehrlich, and H. Krieg, The K. G. S. Ranmohotti, H. Djieutedjeu, and Journal of Chemical Physics 132, 154104 (2010). P. F. P. Poudeu, Journal of the American Chemical S. L. Dudarev, G. A. Botton, S. Y. Savrasov, C. J. Society 134, 14033 (2012), pMID: 22852825, Humphreys, and A. P. Sutton, Phys. Rev. B 57, 1505 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja303952w. (1998). 9 22 H. Djieutedjeu, J. P. A. Makongo, A. Rotaru, A. Palasyuk, S. J. Youn, Journal of Magnetics 10, 71 (2005). N. J. Takas, X. Zhou, K. G. S. Ranmohotti, L. Spinu, C. Nowka, M. Gellesch, J. E. Hamann Borrero, S. Partzsch, C. Uher, and P. F. P. Poudeu, European Journal of C. Wuttke, F. Steckel, C. Hess, A. U. B. Wolter, L. T. Inorganic Chemistry 2011, 3969 (2011). Corredor Bohorquez, B. Bu¨chner, and S. Hampel, Journal D. M. Rowe, CRC Handbook of Thermoelectrics (CRC of Crystal Growth 459, 81 (2017). Press, 1995). D. Azhdarova, P. Rustamov, I. Aliev, and M. Safarov, S. A. Wolf, D. D. Awschalom, R. A. Journal of Inorganic Chemistry (translated from Zhurnal Buhrman, J. M. Daughton, S. von Molna´r, Neorganicheskoi Khimii) 27, 909 (1982). M. L. Roukes, A. Y. Chtchelkanova, and H. Djieutedjeu, Ph. D. Dissertation: Complex Transition D. M. Treger, Science 294, 1488 (2001), Metal Chalcogenide Ferromagnetic Semiconductor with http://science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5546/1488.full.pdf. General Formula MSb Se (M=Mn,Fe): Synthesis and 2 4 Characterization (University of Michigan, 2013).
Condensed Matter – arXiv (Cornell University)
Published: Sep 27, 2018
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.