Large magnetic anisotropy of a single atomic spin embedded in a surface molecular network

Science

Volumn 317, Issue 5842, 2007, Pages 1199-1203

  Hirjibehedin, Cyrus F ^a   Lin, Chiung Yuan ^a,b   Otte, Alexander F ^a,c   Ternes, Markus ^a,d   Lutz, Christopher P ^a   Jones, Barbara A ^a   Heinrich, Andreas J ^a  

^a IBM ALMADEN RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c LEIDEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^d EPFL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

IRON; MANGANESE;

COPPER COMPOUND; IRON; LOW TEMPERATURE; MAGNETIC ANISOTROPY; MAGNETIZATION; MANGANESE; SCANNING TUNNELLING MICROSCOPY;

ANISOTROPY; ARTICLE; ATOM; ATOMIC PARTICLE; CONDUCTANCE; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCANNING TUNNELING MICROSCOPY;

EID: 35948945517     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: 10959203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1146110     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. P. Gambardella et al., Science 300, 1130 (2003).
2. M. Bode, O. Pietzsch, A. Kubetzka, R. Wiesendanger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 067201 (2004).
3. R. Sessoli, D. Gatteschi, A. Caneschi, M. A. Novak, Nature 365, 141 (1993).
4. J. R. Long, in Chemistry of Nanostructured Materials, P. Yang, Ed. (World Scientific Publishing, Hong Kong, 2003), pp. 241-315.
5. D. Gatteschi, R. Sessoli, J. Villain, Molecular Nanomagnets, (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2006).
6. R. L. White, J. Mag. Mag. Mater. 209, 1 (2000).
7. J. R. Friedman, M. P. Sarachik, J. Tejada, R. Ziolo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3830 (1996).
8. L. Thomas et al., Nature 383, 145 (1996).
9. W. Wernsdorfer, R. Sessoli, Science 284, 133 (1999).
10. M. N. Leuenberger, D. Loss, Nature 410, 789 (2001).
11. A. Ardavan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 057201 (2007).
12. H. B. Heersche et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 206801 (2006).
13. M.-H. Jo et al., Nano Lett. 6, 2014 (2006).
14. A. J. Heinrich, J. A. Gupta, C. P. Lutz, D. M. Eigler, Science 306, 466 (2004).
15. C. F. Hirjibehedin, C. P. Lutz, A. J. Heinrich, Science 312, 1021 (2006); published online 29 March 2006 (10.1126/science. 1125398).
16. A. Yamasaki, W. Wulfhekel, R. Hertel, S. Suga, J. Kirschner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 127201 (2003).
17. H. J. Lee, W. Ho, M. Persson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 186802 (2004).
18. D. Kitchen, A. Richardella, J.-M. Tang, M. E. Flatté, A. Yazdani, Nature 442, 436 (2006).
19. In the analysis of the perpendicular orientation, we neglected a ∼7° tilt of the sample-surface normal from the magnetic field.
20. F. M. Leibsle, S. S. Dhesi, S. D. Barrett, A. W. Robinson, Surf. Sci. 317, 309 (1994).
21. On the CuN surface, Fe and Mn atoms can bind on top of either the Cu atoms or the N atoms. In this work, we considered only the Cu binding site. Atoms were placed away from both defects in and the edges of the CuN islands, where large deviations in magnetic anisotropy may be expected.
22. P. Blaha, K. Schwarz, G. Madsen, D. Kvasnicka, J. Luitz, WIEN2k (Technische Univ. Wien, Vienna, 1999).
23. J. P. Perdew, K. Burke, M. Ernzerhof, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 3865 (1996).
24. 0 is the Bohr radius. For bare CuN, our results are similar to earlier DFT calculations using pseudopotentials (33). To investigate how much strong correlation U is neglected in GGA, we configured the Fe or Mn atom in the local limit for its 3d electrons. In this limit without hybridization to the other atoms, we calculated the cost in Coulomb energy by moving one electron from the valance to the 3d core (34). We found that U = 5 eV for Mn but was negligible (2 eV) for Fe; therefore, a nonzero U was used only for Mn.
25. ↓)/2.
26. These excitation energies changed by less than ±5% for Fe atoms adsorbed on different CuN islands and measured with different tips. This variation may arise from slight changes in the local environment caused by the inherent strain in the CuN islands (36).
27. J. Lambe, R. C. Jaklevic, Phys. Rev. 165, 821 (1968).
28. Additional results are available on Science Online.
29. An Fe atom adsorbed on a surface could have 0 ≤ S ≤ 5/2. However, only S = 2 is consistent with the number of levels required to produce the three observed excitations at B = 0.
30. J. Krzystek, A. Ozarowski, J. Telser, Coord. Chem. Rev. 250, 2308 (2006).
31. R. Caciuffo et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 4744 (1998).
32. A. V. Postnikov, J. Kortus, M. R. Pederson, Phys. Status Solidi (B) 243, 2533 (2006).
33. Y. Yoshimoto, S. Tsuneyuki, Surf. Sci. 514, 200 (2002).
34. G. K. H. Madsen, P. Novák, Europhys. Lett. 69, 777 (2005).
35. R. F. W. Bader, Atoms in Molecules: A Quantum Theory, (Clarendon, Oxford, 1994).
36. S.-Y. Ohno, K. Yagyuu, K. Nakatsuji, F. Komori, Surf. Sci. 547, L871 (2003).
37. I. Horcas et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. 78, 013705 (2007).
38. We thank D. M. Eigler for his mentoring and stimulating discussions; B.J. Melior for his expert technical assistance; and S. Blügel, H. Brune, and R. Sessoli for stimulating discussions. A.F.O. thanks J. M. van Ruitenbeek for his guidance and acknowledges support from the Leiden University Fund; C.-Y.L. is partially funded by NSF grant PHY-0425897; M.T. acknowledges support from the Swiss National Science Foundation; and A.J.H. thanks Office of Naval Research for partial financial support.