Impact of disorder outside the CuO2 planes of electron-doped superconductors: Different effect on localization and Tc between Gd and Sm doping
Chenghai Sun, Hongshun Yang, Lu Cheng, Jianbin Wang, Xiangyi Xu, Shaoqing Ke, Liezhao Cao
DOI 10.1103/PhysRevB.78.104518 · Physical Review B
Active bibliographic source — not scientific approval
Bibliographic access preserves source history; it does not approve extracted materials or validate reported claims. Review warnings on each occurrence separately.
Abstract
The thermopower S(T), Hall coefficient RH, and resistivity ρ(T) are studied for Nd1.85−xMxCe0.15CuO4±δ (M=Gd and Sm) single crystals. Disorder is introduced into the cation sites outside the CuO2 planes in the two systems and its degree is controlled by changing M content. Such doping nominally does not change the doped carrier density, which is confirmed by RH. S(T) is analyzed in terms of a semiempirical model above 120 K for both doping, which assumes the coexistence of a narrow electron band and a broad one. In this model, both the bandwidth for the density of states and the bandwidth of the effective conductivity broaden with increasing x for both doping, while the tendency for localization is increased for Gd doping but nearly unchanged for Sm doping, which could be understood by stronger electronic disorder for Gd doping than that for Sm doping. This may be resulted from the difference in ionic radius (Gd3+<Sm3+<Nd3+). Furthermore, for Gd doping the superconducting Tc is strongly depressed with increasing the doping concentration, while for Sm doping Tc is nearly unchanged with increasing Sm content, which implies that the superconducting Tc may be related to the localization and the band structure of the itinerant carriers.
Source-reported materials — not catalogue approval
| Formula | Reported Tc (K) | Pressure (GPa) | Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nd1.85-xGdxCe0.15CuO4±δ Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | unknown |
| Nd1.85-xSmxCe0.15CuO4±δ Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | unknown |
| NdGd0.85Ce0.15CuO4±δ Archive — visibility unverified Source-occurrence policy only; no material identity or catalogue acceptance is inferred from the formula. | — | Pressure not reported | unknown |
Similar papers
Giant resistive peak close to the superconducting transition in L2−xCexCuO4 single crystals
similarity 0.94M. A. Crusellas et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Upper critical field of a Sm1.85Ce0.15CuO4−y single crystal: Interaction between superconductivity and antiferromagnetic order in copper oxides
similarity 0.94Y. Dalichaouch et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Pressure dependence of Tc in L2−xMxCuO4−y (L=Pr,Nd,Sm,Eu; M=Ce,Th): Antisymmetric behavior of electron- versus hole-doped copper-oxide superconductors
similarity 0.94J. T. Markert et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Unconventional transport and superconducting properties in electron-doped cuprates
similarity 0.93Y. Krockenberger et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Origin of the Anomalous Low Temperature Upturn in the Resistivity of the Electron-Doped Cuprate Superconductors
similarity 0.93Y. Dagan et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified
Structural distortion and superconductivity in (Nd1−xTbx)1.85Ce0.15CuO4
similarity 0.93M. Braden et al.
Source status unknown — claims are unverified