SciPost Submission Page
EPR and SQUID interrogations of Cr(III) trimer complexes in the MIL-101(Cr) and bimetallic MIL-100(Al/Cr) MOFs
by Kavipriya Thangavel, Andrea Folli, Michael Ziese, Steffen Hausdorf, Stefan Kaskel, Damien M. Murphy, Andreas Pöppl
This is not the latest submitted version.
This Submission thread is now published as
Submission summary
| Authors (as registered SciPost users): | Kavipriya Thangavel |
| Submission information | |
|---|---|
| Preprint Link: | scipost_202208_00001v1 (pdf) |
| Date submitted: | 2022-08-01 02:34 |
| Submitted by: | Thangavel, Kavipriya |
| Submitted to: | SciPost Physics Proceedings |
| Proceedings issue: | International Conference on Strongly Correlated Electron Systems (SCES2022) |
| Ontological classification | |
|---|---|
| Academic field: | Physics |
| Specialties: |
|
| Approach: | Experimental |
Abstract
Herein, electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy at X- (9.4 GHz), Q- (34 GHz) and W-band (95 GHz), and superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) measurements on antiferromagnetically coupled metal trimers in MIL-101(Cr) and MIL-100(Al0.8Cr0.2) MOFs were investigated. At low temperatures, the Cr(III) trimers exhibit a Dzyaloshinsky-Moriya (D-M) interaction and have a total spin state S_T = 1/2.
Current status:
Reports on this Submission
Anonymous Report 1 on 2023-2-20 (Invited Report)
- Cite as: Anonymous, Report on arXiv:scipost_202208_00001v1, delivered 2023-02-20, doi: 10.21468/SciPost.Report.6769
Report
The authors present EPR and SQUID measurements on two metal-organic frameworks and elucidate their magnetic structures.
The manuscript is clearly written and presents new material, which is timely and relevant to the community. I therefore think publication in SciPost Conference Proceedings is appropriate. However, there are several issues I suggest the authors address before publication.
- Figure 4 (in the appendix) would be useful to have in Section 2, to clarify which spin interactions are referred to in Eq. 1. Also, the link marked "J1" in the figure is described in Eq1 has having interaction "J0+J1".
- In figure 4 (in the appendix), the upper tetrahedron in panel a clearly shows trimers of octahera surrounding each vertex. I suppose these contain the three spins appearing in panel b (it would be good to indicate this explicitly). Since the arrangement looks symmetric around the vertex, what is the origin of J1 (or J0+J1) being different from J0?
- In the same figure, the lower tetrahedron in panel a has hexagons of octahedra surrounding each vertex, rather than triangles. Why is a trimer model still appropriate for that case? Or equivalently, why do the authors need experimental evidence to rule out the existence of trimers in that case?
- In Eqs. 1, 2, 3 and in the text below them, several spin operators and coefficients should be vectors.
- Below Eq. 1, it is mentioned that the spin interactions are antiferromagnetic. The notation "-J0" would suggest J0>0, in which case the interactions in Eq 1 are actually ferromagnetic?
- Below Eq 1: If the authors write that the degeneracy of the JT=1/2 state is lifted for nonzero J1, I assume everything in the preceding sentences applies only to the case J1=0? If so, this should be clearly stated.
- Below Eq 6, what is the assumption J0>>J1 based on?
- At the end of Sec 3.1, the authors write Fig2 panel b shows an "unspecific response" in the inverse susceptibility, while panel a shows a typical response for trimers. It would be helpful if the authors could point out the qualitative feature that distinguishes these curves?