Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
After decades of research, superconductivity was finally found in nickel-based analogs of superconducting cuprates, with infinite-layer (IL) structure. These results are so far restricted to thin films in the case of IL-nickelates. Therefore, the nature of the interface with the substrate, and how it couples with the thin film properties is still an open question. Here, using scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM)- electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS) and four-dimensional (4D)-STEM, a novel chemically sharp p-type interface is observed in a series of superconducting IL-praseodymium nickelate samples, and a comparative study is carried out with the previously reported n-type interface obtained in other samples. Both interfaces have strong differences, with the p-type interface being highly polar. In combination with ab-initio calculations, we find that the influence of the interface on the electronic structure is local, and does not extend beyond 2-3 unit cells into the thin film. This decouples the direct influence of the interface in driving the superconductivity, and indicates that the IL-nickelate thin films do not have a universal interface model. Insights into the spatial hole-distribution in SC samples, provided by monochromated EELS and total reflection-hard x-ray photoemission spectroscopy, suggest that this particular distribution might be directly influencing superconductivity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Raji et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: