Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 55 references

Interfacial chemistry meets magnetism: comparison of $Co/Fe_3O_4$ and $Co/{\alpha}-Fe_2O_3$ epitaxial heterostructures

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that interfacial redox chemistry at cobalt/iron-oxide junctions controls whether and how strongly the metal and oxide couple magnetically.

desk verdict Solid comparative interface study with a real but contained soft spot in the XMCD normalization of the headline orbital-moment value. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01388 v1 pith:ZCFOJ4S7 submitted 2025-02-03 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Ewa Madej , Natalia Kwiatek-Maroszek , Kinga Freindl , Józef Korecki , Ewa M{l}yńczak , Dorota Wilgocka-Ślęzak , Marcin Zając , Jan Zawa{l}a
show 1 more author
Nika Spiridis
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords metal/oxideinterfacesmagnetitehematitecobaltoxidationinterfacialironreductionXMCD-PEEMferromagneticcouplingorbitalmagneticmoment
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks what happens chemically and magnetically when ultrathin cobalt is deposited on two epitaxial iron oxides, magnetite Fe3O4(111) and hematite α-Fe2O3(0001). The answer it argues for is that the interface is not a passive junction: roughly one monolayer of cobalt is oxidized, iron at the oxide surface is reduced, and that redox reaction is what sets the magnetic behavior. In both systems the cobalt and the iron layers display identical magnetic domain patterns, which the authors take as direct ferromagnetic coupling; hematite, nominally antiferromagnetic, develops uncompensated iron moments at the interface, and cobalt grown on magnetite shows an enhanced orbital magnetic moment of $m_{\mathrm{orb}} = 0.47\,\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ with $m_{\mathrm{ratio}} = 0.35$ below 1 nm. A sympathetic reader should care because it links interfacial chemistry to magnetic coupling in metal-oxide spintronic structures, and suggests that stoichiometry control, not just the choice of oxide, can tune the magnetism.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is oxygen transfer at the metal/oxide contact: cobalt abstracts oxygen from the oxide surface, forming a roughly one-monolayer CoO-like phase (possibly cobalt ferrite on magnetite), while the oxide surface is left with reduced Fe2+ species. Because hematite supplies more oxygen, the cobalt oxide layer is thicker there, which explains why magnetic order in cobalt starts later on hematite. The measurement machinery is the element-specific pair of XMCD-PEEM domain imaging at the Co and Fe L3 edges and XMCD sum-rule analysis, which together show that the same domains appear in both elements and allow orbital and spin moments to be separated. The biphase superstructure on the oxide surfaces serves as the nucleation template for cobalt, but the interfacial redox reaction is what carries the magnetic conclusion.

What would settle it

An atomic-resolution cross-section of the interface (for example, scanning transmission electron microscopy with electron energy-loss spectroscopy) that maps whether the cobalt oxide forms a continuous layer or broken islands would settle the mechanism: continuous oxide with unchanged coupling would demand magnetic polarization of the oxide, while discontinuous oxide would confirm the paper's preferred explanation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that chemical and magnetic order at these two Co/iron-oxide interfaces are two sides of the same interfacial redox process. X-ray absorption shows that roughly 60% of a 0.2 nm cobalt deposit is oxidized on magnetite and about 90% on hematite, with a simultaneous increase of Fe2+-like spectral weight at the oxide surface. XMCD-PEEM then shows that the Co and Fe domain patterns are identical on both substrates, implying ferromagnetic coupling between cobalt and magnetite and between cobalt and a magnetically modified interfacial iron layer in hematite. On magnetite the coupling stabilizes magnetic order in cobalt deposits as thin as 0.2 nm, while on hematite the onset is 0.5 nm and is accompanied by uncompensated iron moments in the nominally antiferromagnetic oxide. Sum-rule analysis gives an enhanced orbital moment of $m_{\mathrm{orb}} = 0.47\,\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$ and $m_{\mathrm{ratio}} = 0.35$ for the thinnest cobalt on magnetite; the paper interprets these observations as evidence that the interfacial cobalt oxide layer does not block the coupling, either because it is magnetically polarized or, more plausibly, because it is discontinuous.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the ferromagnetic coupling observed through the interfacial cobalt oxide layer is real and that the oxide either is discontinuous or becomes magnetically polarized; the paper acknowledges both options, and because X-ray absorption cannot distinguish CoO from CoFe2O4 and the cobalt thickness estimate is uncertain, the exact chemical and magnetic state of that one-monolayer layer remains undetermined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Co/Fe3O4(111) can carry ferromagnetic order in cobalt deposits as thin as 0.2 nm, because exchange coupling to magnetite suppresses the superparamagnetism the islands would otherwise show.
  • A cobalt overlayer on hematite creates a ferromagnetically ordered interfacial iron layer in a nominally antiferromagnetic oxide, so the Co domain pattern and the underlying antiferromagnetic domains become correlated.
  • The interfacial CoO layer is in a paramagnetic or antiferromagnetic state at room temperature yet does not break the Co–oxide coupling, implying the coupling is mediated by the reduced iron layer or by metallic cobalt in contact through gaps in the oxide.
  • Cobalt on magnetite shows a thickness-dependent orbital moment enhancement ($m_{\mathrm{orb}} = 0.47\,\mu_{\mathrm{B}}$, $m_{\mathrm{ratio}} = 0.35$ at the thinnest films), much larger than in Co/metal systems and tied to the specific Co/iron-oxide interface.
  • The onset of long-range magnetic order (0.2 nm on magnetite vs 0.5 nm on hematite) follows the extent of interfacial oxidation and the stabilizing exchange coupling, giving a design rule for FM/AFM metal-oxide bilayers.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If Co oxidation plus Fe reduction is the controlling interfacial mechanism, the same recipe should work with other transition-metal overlayers on iron oxides; varying the metal's oxygen affinity would tune the coupling strength, a testable prediction beyond this paper.
  • The unusually large orbital moment on magnetite suggests that the oxide interface, not just reduced atomic coordination, enhances magnetocrystalline anisotropy; ultrathin Co/Fe3O4 might therefore display perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, which could be checked by polar magneto-optical measurements.
  • The observed correlation of Co domains with underlying hematite antiferromagnetic domains makes Co/α-Fe2O3 a candidate for writing or reading AFM order, but the paper does not demonstrate switching; that is an extrapolation from its imaging results.
  • Because XAS cannot distinguish CoO from CoFe2O4, a dedicated study combining thickness-dependent XMCD with a structural probe such as EXAFS could separate the two candidates and sharpen the chemical picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a comparative experimental study of the interfacial chemistry and magnetism of epitaxial Co/Fe3O4(111) and Co/α-Fe2O3(0001) heterostructures. Using in-situ STM/LEED, CEMS, XAS, XMCD-PEEM, and XMCD-XAS, the authors find that Co is oxidized at both interfaces (about 60% of the first 0.2 nm on magnetite and about 90% on hematite), that this is accompanied by partial reduction of interfacial iron, that Co and Fe magnetic domains are identical in both systems, that uncompensated Fe moments appear in nominally antiferromagnetic hematite, and that the Co orbital magnetic moment is strongly enhanced for sub-nanometer Co on magnetite (morb = 0.47 ± 0.06 μB, mratio = 0.35). The paper concludes that the interfacial cobalt oxide layer is magnetically silent at room temperature and that direct ferromagnetic coupling between Co and the oxide is preserved either through magnetic polarization or through discontinuities in the oxide layer.

Significance. The multi-technique approach, including direct imaging of element-specific magnetic domains and Mössbauer spectroscopy of the iron layers, gives the study substantial experimental weight. The observation of uncompensated Fe moments in hematite coupled to Co domains and the systematic comparison of two structurally related iron oxides are valuable contributions. However, the headline quantitative claim of an enhanced Co orbital moment rests on a normalization assumption that is not fully tested, and the paper itself notes the chemical ambiguity between CoO and CoFe2O4. If the normalization concern is resolved, the result would be a useful benchmark for theory of metal/oxide interfaces.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2.4, Fig. 9c] The sum-rule moments are normalized by the "relative contribution of metallic Co" obtained from deconvolution of the L3 edge (Fig. 5a). This normalization assumes that the oxidized Co fraction contributes no XMCD signal and no magnetic moment. The assumption is load-bearing for the central quantitative claim of morb = 0.47 μB and mratio = 0.35 for 0.2 nm Co on magnetite, where the metallic fraction is smallest (about 40%). The paper itself states in Section 3.2.2 that the XAS spectrum of CoFe2O4 is practically indistinguishable from CoO and that Co incorporation into magnetite cannot be excluded. CoFe2O4 is ferrimagnetic at room temperature and would contribute to the Co XMCD signal, so the oxide contribution cannot be assumed zero without independent evidence. Please provide direct evidence for the magnetic state of the interfacial oxide (for example, temperature-dependent XMCD or a comparison of the Co L2-edge XMCD lineshape with CoFe2O4 and CoO references), or propagate the chemical assignment uncertainty into the reported moments and mratio values.
  2. [3.2.4, Fig. 5a,b] The metallic fraction is extracted from the L3 edge only, whereas the sum rules use the L2+L3 integrals. If the relative weighting of the L2 and L3 edges in the interface spectra differs from the Co metal and CoO references—for example due to multiplet structure or a different branching ratio—the scaling factor for the metallic contribution is biased. Please repeat the deconvolution on the full L2,3 spectrum and verify that the residual between the linear combination and the data is not systematic across both edges. This check is directly relevant to the magnitude of the reported normalized moments.
  3. [3.2.3.1 and 4] The paper states that the interfacial CoO layer is "in the paramagnetic (or AFM) state at RT" and, in Section 3.2.3.2, that the persistence of ferromagnetic coupling through the oxide layer "can be explained either by magnetic polarization of the cobalt oxide layer or, more plausible, by the discontinuous character of the Co oxide layer." These two statements are in tension: if the oxide is paramagnetic, a continuous layer would block direct exchange, and the coupling would require either discontinuity or a non-zero magnetization in the oxide. The manuscript does not provide independent evidence for either alternative. Please either supply data (for example, STM of the same coverage used in PEEM, or XMCD of the oxide component alone) that distinguishes the scenarios, or explicitly state that the coupling mechanism is unresolved and that the observation of identical domain patterns is the only claim.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.2.2, Fig. 5] The deconvolution shown in Fig. 5a,b uses only pure Co and CoO. Please indicate the goodness of fit and whether any residual can be seen near the L3 peak.
  2. [Fig. 4] The symbols for island and quasi-continuous layer thickness on hematite use the same color scheme; please provide a legend or clarify the symbol definitions.
  3. [3.2.3.2] The sentence presenting the two explanations for the persistence of ferromagnetic coupling should cite evidence if any exists, or otherwise label it as a speculation rather than a conclusion.
  4. [2] The XMCD spectra were measured in ±0.14 T, but the sum-rule analysis is presented without a saturation correction. Please state whether the moments were corrected for incomplete magnetization alignment and, if so, which factor was used.
  5. [3.1] The term "biphase" is used repeatedly without a definition for readers unfamiliar with the iron-oxide surface literature; a brief explanation in the introduction or experimental section would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the paper's central claims rest on direct imaging, externally referenced XAS/XMCD calibrations, and independent CEMS/STM/Kerr checks; only minor non-load-bearing self-citations appear.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The chemical-state decomposition of the Co L3-edge XAS spectra uses published reference spectra for pure Co [32] and CoO [33], not spectra derived from the present paper's own fitted quantities. The XMCD sum-rule moments are calibrated against the literature experimental verification of the sum rules for Fe and Co [27]. The claimed ferromagnetic coupling between Co and the iron oxides is established by direct XMCD-PEEM domain imaging at the Co and Fe L3 edges, showing identical domain patterns, which is an independent observation rather than a consequence of any fitted parameter. The uncompensated Fe moments in hematite are likewise directly imaged at the Fe edge, and the absence of metallic Fe is cross-checked by CEMS. The orbital-moment enhancement for 0.2 nm Co on magnetite (morb = 0.47 μB, mratio = 0.35) is obtained by normalizing XMCD sum-rule moments by the metallic-Co fraction from the L3-edge deconvolution. That normalization assumes the interfacial cobalt oxide is magnetically silent; the paper states this explicitly ('Because the cobalt atoms in interfacial CoO do not contribute to the XMCD signal, the magnetic moments obtained from the sum rule analysis were normalized taking into account the relative contribution of the metallic Co'). The paper also acknowledges that CoFe2O4 is practically indistinguishable from CoO and that Co incorporation into magnetite cannot be excluded. This is an important systematic-uncertainty caveat that could bias the magnitude of the reported metallic Co moments, but it is not a circular step: the metallic fraction is estimated from independent reference spectra, and the claim is explicitly about the metallic-phase Co moment. The self-citations present, e.g., 'According to our standard procedure [20]' for preparing the biphase surface and the CoO/Fe(110) analogy [33], concern preparation methods and interpretive analogies, not the central magnetic or chemical conclusions, and the paper benchmarks its key results against external work (e.g., Zhang et al. [48] and Bezencenet et al. [15,16]). No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is repackaged as a new derivation. The overall circularity is therefore minimal, corresponding to minor non-load-bearing self-citations and an acknowledged normalization assumption that is a robustness limitation rather than a circular reduction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard characterization techniques and literature reference data. The only fitted quantities are the metallic Co fractions from XAS deconvolution, which feed into the XMCD normalization. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Metallic Co fraction in 0.2 nm Co film on Fe3O4 = 0.4 (i.e., 60% oxidized)
    From deconvolution of Co L3 XAS into Co metal and CoO references; used to normalize XMCD sum-rule moments to metallic Co only.
  • Metallic Co fraction in 0.2 nm Co film on α-Fe2O3 = 0.1 (i.e., 90% oxidized)
    From deconvolution of Co L3 XAS; used to normalize XMCD moments.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption XMCD sum rules for Co and Fe are valid with the stated number of 3d holes and polarization degree.
    Standard technique; polarization calibrated using literature values (ref 27).
  • domain assumption Reference XAS spectra for Co metal and CoO are representative of the interfacial species.
    Used for deconvolution; the paper notes CoFe2O4 is indistinguishable from CoO, so the oxide component could be spinel.
  • domain assumption The 3 nm MgO capping layer does not alter the interfacial chemistry or magnetism.
    Capping is standard but its effect is not directly tested.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interfacial chemistry meets magnetism: comparison of $Co/Fe_3O_4$ and $Co/{\alpha}-Fe_2O_3$ epitaxial heterostructures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCFOJ4S7

@misc{pith2026250201388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interfacial chemistry meets magnetism: comparison of $Co/Fe_3O_4$ and $Co/\alpha-Fe_2O_3$ epitaxial heterostructures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCFOJ4S7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01388}
}
abstract

The magnetic and chemical structure of metal/oxide interfaces were studied in cobalt/magnetite, $Fe_3O_4$, and cobalt/hematite, ${\alpha}-Fe_2O_3$, epitaxial heterostructures using the comprehensive selection of microscopic and spectroscopic methods. It was observed that the cobalt nanostructures and ultrathin films were oxidized at both interfaces, with a thicker cobalt oxide layer in the system with hematite. The formation of cobalt oxides was accompanied by the interfacial reduction of iron that modified magnetic properties of the iron oxides layers. In particular, uncompensated magnetic moments appear in antiferromagnetic hematite, and the orbital magnetic moment of Co grown on magnetite is significantly enhanced for thicknesses below 1 nm. Synchrotron magnetic microscopy showed a direct correlation in the domain structures of the cobalt/iron oxides: ferromagnetic coupling between cobalt and magnetite and between cobalt and the magnetically modified layer of hematite.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01388 by the authors.

Figure 3
Figure 3. STM images (85 x 85 nm2 ) of the Fe3O4(111)/Pt(111) (top row), α-Fe2O3(0001)/Pt(111) (middle row), and α-Fe2O3(0001)/Pt(111)/MgO(111) (bottom row) surfaces covered by increasing amount of Co deposited at RT. The cobalt surface coverage and average height of the nanostructures are shown below each STM image. The insets show an autocorrelation pattern (25 x 25 nm2 ) from STM images of 0.2 nm Co and LEED pattern (90 eV… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Co L3 edge (a, b) and Fe L3 edge (c, d) XAS spectra measured for the increasing amount of cobalt deposited on magnetite and hematite substrates, (a,c) and (b,d), respectively. For the 0.2 nm Co L3 spectra, deconvolution into metal-Co and CoO is shown by the blue and green lines, respectively. As we show by measuring XAS spectra on the Fe L3 edge, cobalt oxidation is accompanied by interfacial reduction of iron oxide… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. XMCD-PEEM images (FoV 15 μm) recorded at the Co L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: XMCD-PEEM images recorded at the Co L3 edge (top row) and Fe L3 edge (bottom row) for different amounts of Co (0.5, 1, and 2 nm) deposited on 10 nm α-Fe2O3/Pt(111)/ MgO(111). Photon energy was 707.8 eV and 778 eV for the Fe L3 and Co L3 edges, respectively. Most import…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: XMCD-PEEM images (FoV 10 μm) recorded at the Co L [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a) and (b) Co L3 XMCD spectra for increasing cobalt thickness on magnetite and hematite, respectively, and the corresponding results of the sum rule analysis, (c) and (d), respectively. The lines in (c) and (d) are guides to the eye. (e) and (f) Fe L3 XMCD spectra for…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Picone, M

    A. Picone, M. Riva, A. Brambilla, A. Calloni, G. Bussetti, M. Finazzi, F. Ciccacci, L. Duò, Reactive metal-oxide interfaces: A microscopic view, Surf. Sci. Rep. 71 (2016) 32–

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Kiyomura, Y

    T. Kiyomura, Y. Maruo, M. Gomi, Electrical properties of MgO insulating layers in spin- dependent tunneling junctions using Fe3O4, J. Appl. Phys. 88 (2000) 4768–4771. doi:10.1063/1.1312845

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1312845 2000

  3. [3]

    Ansari, M.H.D

    M.S. Ansari, M.H.D. Othman, M.O. Ansari, S. Ansari, H. Abdullah, Progress in Fe3O4- centered spintronic systems: Development, architecture, and features, Appl. Mater. Today. 25 (2021) 101181. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.apmt.2021.101181

    work page arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    De Teresa, A

    J.M. De Teresa, A. Barthélémy, A. Fert, J.P. Contour, F. Montaigne, P. Seneor, Role of Metal-Oxide Interface in Determining the Spin Polarization of Magnetic Tunnel Junctions, Science (80) 286 (1999) 507–509. doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.507. 29

    doi:10.1126/science.286.5439.507 1999

  5. [5]

    Q. Wang, Y. Gu, C. Chen, F. Pan, C. Song, Oxide Spintronics as a Knot of Physics and Chemistry: Recent Progress and Opportunities, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 13 (2022) 10065– 10075. doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c02634

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c02634 2022

  6. [6]

    Weiss, W

    W. Weiss, W. Ranke, Surface chemistry and catalysis on well-defined epitaxial iron- oxide layers, Prog. Surf. Sci. 70 (2002) 1–151. doi:10.1016/S0079-6816(01)00056-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0079-6816(01)00056-9 2002

  7. [7]

    Q. Fu, T. Wagner, Interaction of nanostructured metal overlayers with oxide surfaces, Surf. Sci. Rep. 62 (2007) 431–498. doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2007.07.001

    work page doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2007.07.001 2007

  8. [8]

    Bibes, A

    M. Bibes, A. Barthelemy, Oxide Spintronics, IEEE Trans. Electron Devices. 54 (2007) 1003–1023. doi:10.1109/TED.2007.894366

    work page arXiv 2007

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Coey, C.L

    J.M.D. Coey, C.L. Chien, Half-Metallic Ferromagnetic Oxides, MRS Bull. 28 (2003) 720–724. doi:10.1557/mrs2003.212

    2003 doi

  2. [10]

    Lebrun, A

    R. Lebrun, A. Ross, S.A. Bender, A. Qaiumzadeh, L. Baldrati, J. Cramer, A. Brataas, R.A. Duine, M. Kläui, Tunable long-distance spin transport in a crystalline antiferromagnetic iron oxide, Nature. 561 (2018) 222–225. doi:10.1038/s41586-018- 0490-7

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Finazzi, L

    M. Finazzi, L. Duò, F. Ciccacci, Magnetic properties of interfaces and multilayers based on thin antiferromagnetic oxide films, Surf. Sci. Rep. 64 (2009) 139–167. doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2008.12.003

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Bliem, J

    R. Bliem, J. Pavelec, O. Gamba, E. McDermott, Z. Wang, S. Gerhold, M. Wagner, J. Osiecki, K. Schulte, M. Schmid, P. Blaha, U. Diebold, G.S. Parkinson, Adsorption and incorporation of transition metals at the magnetite Fe3O4(001) surface, Phys. Rev. B. 92 (2015) 075440. doi:10....

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    Parkinson, Iron oxide surfaces, Surf

    G.S. Parkinson, Iron oxide surfaces, Surf. Sci. Rep. 71 (2016) 272–365. doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2016.02.001

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    Barbier, R

    A. Barbier, R. Belkhou, P. Ohresser, M. Gautier-Soyer, O. Bezencenet, M. Mulazzi, M.- J. Guittet, J.-B. Moussy, Electronic and crystalline structure, morphology, and magnetism of nanometric Fe2O3 layers deposited on Pt(111) by atomic-oxygen-assisted molecular beam epitaxy, Phy...

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    Bezencenet, A

    O. Bezencenet, A. Barbier, P. Ohresser, R. Belkhou, S. Stanescu, J. Owens, M.-J. Guittet, Interfacial reactivity of magnetic exchange coupled Co/α-Fe2O3(0001) interfaces, Surf. Sci. 601 (2007) 4321–4325. doi:10.1016/j.susc.2007.04.114

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Bezencenet, A

    O. Bezencenet, A. Barbier, P. Ohresser, R. Belkhou, S. Stanescu, H. Magnan, J.M. Tonnerre, S. Grenier, M.J. Guittet, Evidence of the exchange coupling in the Co/α-Fe2O3 system, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 100 (2008) 072027. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/100/7/072027

    2008 doi

  9. [17]

    Bezencenet, H

    O. Bezencenet, H. Magnan, C. Mocuta, E. Fonda, S. Stanescu, P. Ohresser, R. Belkhou, A. Barbier, Multiscale investigation of the structure and morphology of the Co/Fe2O3(0001) interface, Phys. Rev. B. 81 (2010) 085419. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.81.085419

    2010 doi

  10. [18]

    Magnan, O

    H. Magnan, O. Bezencenet, D. Stanescu, R. Belkhou, A. Barbier, Beyond the magnetic domain matching in magnetic exchange coupling, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 3–6. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.097204

    2010 doi

  11. [19]

    Bezencenet, D

    O. Bezencenet, D. Bonamy, R. Belkhou, P. Ohresser, A. Barbier, Origin and tailoring of the antiferromagnetic domain structure in α-Fe2O3 thin films unraveled by statistical analysis of dichroic spectromicroscopy (X-ray photoemission electron microscopy) 31 images, Phys. Rev. L...

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    Spiridis, K

    N. Spiridis, K. Freindl, J. Wojas, N. Kwiatek, E. Madej, D. Wilgocka-Ślęzak, P. Dróżdż, T. Ślęzak, J. Korecki, Superstructures on Epitaxial Fe3O4(111) Films: Biphase Formation versus the Degree of Reduction, J. Phys. Chem. C. 123 (2019) 4204–4216. doi:10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b11400

    2019 doi

  13. [21]

    Wojas, N

    J. Wojas, N. Kwiatek, D. Wilgocka-Ślęzak, E. Madej, J. Korecki, N. Spiridis, CO adsorption on Fe3O4(111) with regular and biphase terminations, Appl. Surf. Sci. 507 (2020) 2–7. doi:10.1016/j.apsusc.2019.145069

    2020

  14. [22]

    Condon, F.M

    N.G. Condon, F.M. Leibsle, A.R. Lennie, P.W. Murray, T.M. Parker, D.J. Vaughan, G. Thornton, Scanning tunnelling microscopy studies of α-Fe2O3(0001), Surf. Sci. 397 (1998) 278–287. doi:10.1016/S0039-6028(97)00744-9

    1998 doi

  15. [23]

    Lewandowski, I.M.N.N

    M. Lewandowski, I.M.N.N. Groot, Z.H. Qin, T. Ossowski, T. Pabisiak, A. Kiejna, A. Pavlovska, S. Shaikhutdinov, H.J. Freund, E. Bauer, Nanoscale Patterns on Polar Oxide Surfaces, Chem. Mater. 28 (2016) 7433–7443. doi:10.1021/acs.chemmater.6b03040

    2016 doi

  16. [24]

    Kozioł-Rachwał, N

    A. Kozioł-Rachwał, N. Kwiatek, W. Skowroński, K. Grochot, J. Kanak, E. Madej, K. Freindl, J. Korecki, N. Spiridis, Insight into the structural and magnetotransport properties of epitaxial α-Fe2O3/Pt(111) heterostructures: Role of the reversed layer sequence, Phys. Rev. B. 106 ...

    2022 doi

  17. [25]

    Zając, T

    M. Zając, T. Giela, K. Freindl, K. Kollbek, J. Korecki, E. Madej, K. Pitala, A. Kozioł- Rachwał, M. Sikora, N. Spiridis, J. Stępień, A. Szkudlarek, M. Ślęzak, T. Ślęzak, D. Wilgocka-Ślęzak, The first experimental results from the 04BM (PEEM/XAS) beamline at Solaris, Nucl. Inst...

    2021 doi

  18. [26]

    Szlachetko, J

    J. Szlachetko, J. Szade, E. Beyer, W. Błachucki, P. Ciochoń, P. Dumas, K. Freindl, G. Gazdowicz, S. Glatt, K. Guła, J. Hormes, P. Indyka, A. Klonecka, J. Kołodziej, T. Kołodziej, J. Korecki, P. Korecki, F. Kosiorowski, K. Kosowska, G. Kowalski, M. Kozak, P. Kozioł, W. Kwiatek,...

    2023

  19. [27]

    Chen, Y.U

    C.T. Chen, Y.U. Idzerda, H.J. Lin, N. V. Smith, G. Meigs, E. Chaban, G.H. Ho, E. Pellegrin, F. Sette, Experimental confirmation of the x-ray magnetic circular dichroism sum rules for iron and cobalt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 152–155. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.152

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    Freindl, J

    K. Freindl, J. Wojas, N. Kwiatek, J. Korecki, N. Spiridis, Reversible oxidation-reduction of epitaxial iron oxide films on Pt(111): Magnetite-hematite interconversion, J. Chem. Phys. 152 (2020). doi:10.1063/1.5136322

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Schedin, P

    F. Schedin, P. Morrall, V.N. Petrov, S. Case, M.F. Thomas, E. Dudzik, G. Van Der Laan, G. Thornton, Magnetic properties of ultrathin epitaxial Fe3O4 films on Pt(1 1 1), J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 211 (2000) 266–270. doi:10.1016/S0304-8853(99)00745-3

    2000 doi

  22. [30]

    S. Park, H. Jang, J.Y. Kim, B.G. Park, T.Y. Koo, J.H. Park, Strain control of Morin temperature in epitaxial α-Fe2O3(0001) film, Epl. 103 (2013). doi:10.1209/0295- 33 5075/103/27007

    2013 doi

  23. [31]

    Regan, H

    T.J. Regan, H. Ohldag, C. Stamm, F. Nolting, J. Lüning, J. Stöhr, R.L. White, Chemical effects at metal/oxide interfaces studied by x-ray-absorption spectroscopy, Phys. Rev. B. 64 (2001) 214422. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.64.214422

    2001 doi

  24. [32]

    The pure Co spectrum was measured for a 10 nm thick Co film on Si, (n.d.)

  25. [33]

    Ślęzak, T

    M. Ślęzak, T. Ślęzak, P. Dróżdż, B. Matlak, K. Matlak, A. Kozioł-Rachwał, M. Zając, J. Korecki, How a ferromagnet drives an antiferromagnet in exchange biased CoO/Fe(110) bilayers, Sci. Rep. 9 (2019) 889. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-37110-8

    2019 doi

  26. [34]

    Wakabayashi, Y

    Y.K. Wakabayashi, Y. Nonaka, Y. Takeda, S. Sakamoto, K. Ikeda, Z. Chi, G. Shibata, A. Tanaka, Y. Saitoh, H. Yamagami, M. Tanaka, A. Fujimori, R. Nakane, Electronic structure and magnetic properties of magnetically dead layers in epitaxial CoFe2O4/Al2O3Si(111) films studied by ...

    2017 doi

  27. [35]

    Titov, Y.M

    A.N. Titov, Y.M. Yarmoshenko, P. Bazylewski, M. V. Yablonskikh, E.Z. Kurmaev, R. Wilks, A. Moewes, V.A. Tsurin, V. V. Fedorenko, O.N. Suvorova, S.Y. Ketkov, M. Neumann, G.S. Chang, Charge transfer and band gap of ferrocene intercalated into TiSe2, Chem. Phys. Lett. 497 (2010) ...

    2010 doi

  28. [36]

    Huang, C.F

    D.J. Huang, C.F. Chang, H.T. Jeng, G.Y. Guo, H.J. Lin, W.B. Wu, H.C. Ku, A. Fujimori, Y. Takahashi, C.T. Chen, Spin and orbital magnetic moments of Fe3O4, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 2–5. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.077204

    2004 doi

  29. [37]

    Goering, S

    E. Goering, S. Gold, M. Lafkioti, G. Schütz, Vanishing Fe 3d orbital moments in single- crystalline magnetite, Europhys. Lett. 73 (2006) 97–103. doi:10.1209/epl/i2005-10359- 34 8

    2006 doi

  30. [38]

    Hirooka, H

    M. Hirooka, H. Tanaka, R. Li, T. Kawai, Nanoscale modification of electrical and magnetic properties of Fe3O4 thin film by atomic force microscopy lithography, Appl. Phys. Lett. 85 (2004) 1811–1813. doi:10.1063/1.1784884

    2004 doi

  31. [39]

    Lewandowski, Z

    M. Lewandowski, Z. Miłosz, N. Michalak, R. Ranecki, I. Sveklo, Z. Kurant, A. Maziewski, S. Mielcarek, T. Luciński, S. Jurga, Room temperature magnetism of few- nanometers-thick Fe3O4(111) films on Pt(111) and Ru(0001) studied in ambient conditions, Thin Solid Films. 591 (2015)...

    2015 doi

  32. [40]

    Prieto, L

    M.J. Prieto, L. de Souza Caldas, L.C. Tănase, T. Schmidt, O. Rodríguez de la Fuente, Spectromicroscopic study of the transformation with low energy ions of a hematite thin film into a magnetite/hematite epitaxial bilayer, Ultramicroscopy. 255 (2024). doi:10.1016/j.ultramic.2023.113855

    2024

  33. [41]

    Ambatiello, K

    A. Ambatiello, K. Fabian, V. Hoffmann, Magnetic domain structure of multidomain magnetite as a function of temperature: Observation by Kerr microscopy, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 112 (1999) 55–80. doi:10.1016/S0031-9201(98)00177-0

    1999 doi

  34. [42]

    Voogt, T

    F. Voogt, T. Palstra, L. Niesen, O. Rogojanu, M. James, T. Hibma, Superparamagnetic behavior of structural domains in epitaxial ultrathin magnetite films, Phys. Rev. B - Condens. Matter Mater. Phys. 57 (1998) R8107–R8110. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.57.R8107

    1998 doi

  35. [43]

    Korecki, K

    J. Korecki, K. Krop, Superparamagnetism of very small cobalt particles studied by mössbauer spectroscopy, Surf. Sci. 106 (1981) 444–452. doi:10.1016/0039- 6028(81)90235-1. 35

    1981 doi

  36. [44]

    Tischer, O

    M. Tischer, O. Hjortstam, D. Arvanitis, J. Hunter Dunn, F. May, K. Baberschke, J. Trygg, J.M. Wills, B. Johansson, O. Eriksson, Enhancement of Orbital Magnetism at Surfaces: Co on Cu(100), Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 1602–1605. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.75.1602

    1995 doi

  37. [45]

    Hjortstam, J

    O. Hjortstam, J. Trygg, Calculated spin and orbital moments in the surfaces of the 3d metals Fe, Co, and Ni and their overlayers on Cu(001), 53 (1996) 9204–9213. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.53.9204

    1996 doi

  38. [46]

    Srivastava, F

    P. Srivastava, F. Wilhelm, A. Ney, M. Farle, H. Wende, N. Haack, G. Ceballos, K. Baberschke, Magnetic moments and Curie temperatures of Ni and Co thin films and coupled trilayers, 58 (1998) 5701–5706

    1998

  39. [47]

    Ryan, R.P

    P. Ryan, R.P. Winarski, D.J. Keavney, J.W. Freeland, R.A. Rosenberg, S. Park, Enhanced magnetic orbital moment of ultrathin Co films on Ge (100), (2004) 1–6. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.69.054416

    2004 doi

  40. [48]

    Zhang, X

    Z. Zhang, X. Lu, Z. Li, Z. Li, Y. Yan, Y. Chen, J. Du, F. Zhu, J. Cao, Y. Wang, Y. Li, L. He, J. Wu, R. Zhang, Y. Xu, Enhanced orbital magnetic moment of Co film grown on Fe3O4(001), 4 (2024). doi:10.1063/5.0176740

    2024 doi

  41. [49]

    C.C. D. Weller, Y. Wu, J. Stohr, M. G. Samant, B. D. Hermsmeier, Orbital magnetic moments of Co in multilayers with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy, Phys. Rev. B. 49 (1994) 888–896. doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.49.12888

    1994 doi

  42. [50]

    Nakagawa, Y

    T. Nakagawa, Y. Takagi, Y. Matsumoto, T. Yokoyama, Enhancements of spin and orbital magnetic moments of submonolayer Co on Cu(001) studied by X-ray magnetic circular dichroism using superconducting magnet and liquid He cryostat, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 47 (2008) 2132–2136. doi:10....

    2008 doi

  43. [51]

    Johansson, L.R

    N. Johansson, L.R. Merte, E. Grånäs, S. Wendt, J.N. Andersen, J. Schnadt, J. Knudsen, Oxidation of Ultrathin FeO(111) Grown on Pt(111): Spectroscopic Evidence for Hydroxylation, Top. Catal. 59 (2016) 506–515. doi:10.1007/s11244-015-0521-7. 37 Supplementary material Interfacial...

    2016 doi

  44. [53]

    CEMS analysis was performed ex-situ after synchrotron experiments

    CEMS analysis of the Co/hematite interface. CEMS analysis was performed ex-situ after synchrotron experiments. By shadowing different sample areas, it was possible to measure spectra for the hematite film without and with Co overlayer. Fig. S1a shows a CEMS spectrum for the 10...

  45. [54]

    S2a shows a XMCD-PEEM image measured at the Fe L3 edge for the 10 nm magnetite film on the Pt buffer layer on MgO(111), covered with 3 nm of MgO

    Magnetic domain structure Fig. S2a shows a XMCD-PEEM image measured at the Fe L3 edge for the 10 nm magnetite film on the Pt buffer layer on MgO(111), covered with 3 nm of MgO. Magnetite domains have sub-micrometer sizes and irregular shapes. 39 Fig. S2a Magnetic domains for 1...

  46. [55]

    Kerr magnetometry The Kerr rotation as a function of the external magnetic field for 10 nm Fe3O4 film and 3 nm Co on magnetite is shown in Fig. S3a. Figure S3b shows magnetization curves for different cobalt thicknesses deposited on 10 nm α-Fe2O3 film on Pt(111)/MgO(111). Fig....

  47. [76]

    doi:10.1016/j.surfrep.2016.01.003

    2016 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.