PPLN Λ = 6.82 µm · 1064 → 532 nm · 2 px/µm

1.10 Domain walls up close

L1 Thin wall, wide halo

Gopalan et al. 2007; Volk & Wöhlecke 2008; Werner et al. 2017

An ideal 180° wall in LiNbO3 is only one or two unit cells wide P(abs), yet around a freshly written wall the crystal stays strained and slightly birefringent over micrometres, enough to see walls in a polarizing microscope P-comp.

If a wall is tilted away from c, the polarization on its two sides no longer meets it edge-on and leaves a sheet of bound charge; mobile electrons gather to screen it, and the wall conducts (charged wall). In MgO-doped LN such tilted walls conduct more than 1013 times better than the surrounding crystal P.

Powers of ten across a 180° wall; view 8 scale bars wide, wall at the centretemplate derived

A X-ray shear-strain region: up to 10 µm across the wall P-comp

X-ray topography; attributed to defect clusters pinning the wall

B Birefringent region: within 2 µm; Δn 10−5–10−4, congruent P-comp P(abs)

polarizing microscopy; about 10× less after annealing, much less near stoichiometry

C Wall width by PFM: 65–150 nm P-comp

probe-limited: the tip, not the wall, sets this width

D 10 nm: wall width assumed by Werner et al. 2017 P

no measured wall feature here; the assumption converts current to conductivity (1 nm gives about 10× more)

E Ideal wall: 1–2 lattice units, about 0.5–1.0 nm P(abs) derived

approximate: drawn with a = 0.5148 nm; the source does not name the lattice length

F Wall width by TEM: not exceeding 0.28 nm, LiTaO3 P-comp

measured on LiTaO3, not LiNbO3

AX-ray shear strain, up to 10 µmP-comp
Bbirefringent region, within 2 µmP-comp
CPFM width 65–150 nm, probe-limitedP-comp
D10 nm, assumed (Werner et al. 2017)P
Eideal, 1–2 a ≈ 0.5–1.0 nmderived
FTEM ≤ 0.28 nm, LiTaO3P-comp
Scale bar / view 10.0 µm  80.0 µmtemplate
Wall tilt from c0.00 deg
σb = 2Ps sin θ0.0000 C/m²derived
σb / e      0 e/cm²derived
Mean charge spacing    nonederived
Wall, θ ≈ 1°, MgO:CLN0.02 (Ω cm)−1P
Bulk dark conductivity<< 10−15 (Ω cm)−1P
 10.0 µm
Go to
0.00 deg
Presets
conflict
θ 0.00 deg σb 0.0000 C/m²       0 e/cm²
= # ~ sourced extent, inner end of a range, assumed width< > beyond the view. narrower than one columnL N o Li Nb O, s = ±1 derived+ bound charge templatePs 0.71 or 0.80 C/m2 conflict
NbLiObound charge, +X-ray strain region; assumed widthwall planedisplay radii
 10.0 µm view  80.0 µm

A X-ray shear-strain region: up to 10 µm across the wall P-comp

X-ray topography; attributed to defect clusters pinning the wall

B Birefringent region: within 2 µm; Δn 10−5–10−4, congruent P-comp P(abs)

polarizing microscopy; about 10× less after annealing, much less near stoichiometry

C Wall width by PFM: 65–150 nm P-comp

probe-limited: the tip, not the wall, sets this width

D 10 nm: wall width assumed by Werner et al. 2017 P

no measured wall feature here; the assumption converts current to conductivity (1 nm gives about 10× more)

E Ideal wall: 1–2 lattice units, about 0.5–1.0 nm P(abs) derived

approximate: drawn with a = 0.5148 nm; the source does not name the lattice length

F Wall width by TEM: not exceeding 0.28 nm, LiTaO3 P-comp

measured on LiTaO3, not LiNbO3

  1. P-comp
  2. P-comp
  3. P-comp
  4. P
  5. derived
  6. P-comp
0.00°
Ps
conflict
σb = 2Ps sin θ derived
0.0000 C/m2
Screening electrons derived
          0 cm−2
One charge every derived
    none
012345θ, deg00.050.10C/m²246810¹³ e/cm²10⁻¹⁵10⁻¹⁰10⁻⁵1(Ω cm)⁻¹Ps 0.71Ps 0.80Werner et al. 2017, 0.02 (Ω cm)⁻¹10 nm assumed; 1 nm: about 10×bulk, well below 10⁻¹⁵
Drag the scale bar or press the zoom button; tilt the wall to grow the bound-charge sheet microscope view template PFM profile template atoms P-db derived charge marks template wall conductivity: one point, no curve P

Zoom from 10 µm to 0.1 nm: the micrometre halo that a polarizing microscope sees narrows to the probe-limited PFM width, then to the seam one to two lattice units wide where lithium sits above its oxygen plane on one side and below it on the other. Tilt the wall by 1° and a bound-charge sheet of 0.0248 C/m2, 1.55 × 1013 electrons per cm2 to screen it (Ps = 0.71 C/m2; 1.74 × 1013 for 0.80), appears along the wall: one charge per 2.54 nm square. Conductivity enters only as the single Werner et al. 2017 point.

L2 Widths and bound charge

wall quantities; one charged-wall example
QuantityValueStatus
Ideal wall width1–2 lattice units (about 0.5–1.0 nm with a = 0.5148 nm; approximate)P(abs) derived
Wall width by piezoresponse force microscopy (PFM)65–150 nm (probe-limited)P-comp
Wall width by TEM, LiTaO3not exceeding 0.28 nmP-comp
Switching-induced birefringence near walls, congruent10−5 to 10−4; reduced about 10× by annealing; much smaller near stoichiometryP-comp
Width of the birefringent regionwithin 2 µm; shear-strain region by X-ray topography up to 10 µmP-comp
Wall energy, from wall bowing between pinning centres0.2–0.4 J/m2 (calculated)P-comp
Bound charge on a wall inclined by θ to cσb = 2Ps sin θ; at θ = 1°: 0.0248 C/m2 = 1.55 × 1013 e/cm2 (Ps = 0.71 C/m2), 0.0279 C/m2 = 1.74 × 1013 e/cm2 (0.80 C/m2) conflictderived
σb=(P1−P2)·n^=2Pssinθ,ne=σbederived

Charged-wall conduction: one sourced example

The numbers below describe one crystal and one writing method; they are a data point, not a material constant (domain-wall conduction).

QuantityValueStatus
Crystalz-cut congruent LN + 5 mol% MgO, 300 µmP
Wall writingroom-temperature tip (“calligraphic”) poling with current feedback at about 30 nA; lines about 10 µm wide, mm longP
Wall inclinationabout 1°P
Wall conductivity (wall width 10 nm assumed)about 0.02 (Ω cm)−1; bulk dark conductivity well below 10−15 (Ω cm)−1P
Currentsingle wall about 0.55 µA at 50 V; 732 parallel 1 mm walls approach 10 mAP
Stabilitystable at ≤ 70 °C (about 1% fluctuation over 35 h at 30 °C); activation energy 0.10 ± 0.01 eV below 70 °CP
Earlier demonstrationmm-thick LN single crystals; wall conduction switched by super-bandgap light and tuned by wall tiltP(abs)

L3 Probes and assumptions

defect pinning; wall-imaging methods; assumed width

Why walls are “thick” in congruent crystal. The extended strain and space-charge fields are attributed to defect clusters pinning the wall P-comp P(abs): extrinsic point defects and their clustering control the local wall structure and change macroscopic properties by orders of magnitude. PFM profiles are symmetric across walls in stoichiometric crystal and asymmetric in congruent crystal, read indirectly as a trace of the internal field P-comp. The mechanism remains qualitative.

Measuring walls. Selective etching (the Miller-Savage wall-velocity method), polarizing microscopy of wall birefringence, electro-optic imaging, near-field optics, PFM, SHG microscopy, X-ray topography P-comp. The measured width depends on the probe; the 0.28 nm TEM value is for LiTaO3, not LiNbO3 P-comp.

Conduction numbers depend on the assumed wall width. 10 nm gives 0.02 (Ω cm)−1; 1 nm gives about ten times more P. In Schröder et al. 2012, wall transport in undoped crystal was switched by super-bandgap illumination P(abs).

How the figure is computed. Each scale feature is drawn at its sourced full width around the wall; the feature named at a scale is the one whose representative length is nearest the scale bar on a log axis template. The atom strip repeats one octahedral column of the Hsu et al. 1997 cell along a1, with the refined structure (s = +1) left of the wall and its inversion (s = −1) right of it; Li sits 71.3 pm above or below its O3 face derived. The bound charge is σb = 2Ps sin θ with Ps = 0.71 or 0.80 C/m2 conflict derived; the microscope halo and the PFM profile shape are display renderings template template.

Sources

7 cited in 1.10
  1. Volk & Wöhlecke 2008T. Volk, M. Woehlecke, Lithium Niobate: Defects, Photorefraction and Ferroelectric Switching, Springer Series in Materials Science 115 (Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70766-0
  2. Gopalan et al. 2007V. Gopalan, V. Dierolf, D. A. Scrymgeour, "Defect-domain wall interactions in trigonal ferroelectrics", Annu. Rev. Mater. Res. 37, 449-489 (2007). doi:10.1146/annurev.matsci.37.052506.084247
  3. Werner et al. 2017C. S. Werner, S. J. Herr, K. Buse, B. Sturman, E. Soergel, C. Razzaghi, I. Breunig, "Large and accessible conductivity of charged domain walls in lithium niobate", Sci. Rep. 7, 9862 (2017). doi:10.1038/s41598-017-09703-2
  4. Hsu et al. 1997R. Hsu, E. N. Maslen, D. du Boulay, N. Ishizawa, "Synchrotron X-ray studies of LiNbO3 and LiTaO3", Acta Cryst. B 53, 420-428 (1997). doi:10.1107/S010876819600777X
  5. Gopalan et al. 1998V. Gopalan, T. E. Mitchell, Y. Furukawa, K. Kitamura, "The role of nonstoichiometry in 180 ° domain switching of LiNbO3 crystals", Appl. Phys. Lett. 72, 1981-1983 (1998). doi:10.1063/1.121491
  6. Kitamura et al. 1998K. Kitamura, Y. Furukawa, K. Niwa, V. Gopalan, T. E. Mitchell, "Crystal growth and low coercive field 180 ° domain switching characteristics of stoichiometric LiTaO3", Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 3073-3075 (1998). doi:10.1063/1.122676
  7. Schröder et al. 2012M. Schroeder, A. Haussmann, A. Thiessen, E. Soergel, T. Woike, L. M. Eng, "Conducting domain walls in lithium niobate single crystals", Adv. Funct. Mater. 22, 3936-3944 (2012). doi:10.1002/adfm.201201174