English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

On the magnetic anisotropy and nuclear relaxivity effects of Co and Ni doping in iron oxide nanoparticles.

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons194882

Orlando,  T.
Research Group of Electron Paramagnetic Resonance, MPI for Biophysical Chemistry, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

2281396.pdf
(Publisher version), 3MB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Orlando, T., Albino, M., Orsini, F., Innocenti, C., Basini, M., Arosio, P., et al. (2016). On the magnetic anisotropy and nuclear relaxivity effects of Co and Ni doping in iron oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Applied Physics, 119(13): 134301. doi:10.1063/1.4945026.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-002A-529F-F
Abstract
We report a systematic experimental study of the evolution of the magnetic and relaxometric properties as a function of metal (Co, Ni) doping in iron oxide nanoparticles. A set of five samples, having the same size and ranging from stoichiometric cobalt ferrite (CoFe2O4) to stoichiometric nickel ferrite (NiFe2O4) with intermediate doping steps, was ad hoc synthesized. Using both DC and AC susceptibility measurements, the evolution of the magnetic anisotropy depending on the doping is qualitatively discussed. In particular, we observed that the height of the magnetic anisotropy barrier is directly proportional to the amount of Co, while the Ni has an opposite effect. By Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Dispersion (NMR-D) experiments, the experimental longitudinal r(1) and transverse r(2) relaxivity profiles were obtained, and the heuristic theory of Roch et al. was used to analyze the data of both r(1) and, for the first time, r(2). While the experimental and fitting results obtained from r(1) profiles were satisfying and confirmed the anisotropy trend, the model applied to r(2) hardly explains the experimental findings.