3.3. Magnetic Properties of the Samples
Figure 6A illustrates the M(
H) magnetization loop of the pure CoFe
O
nanowires at 295 K, exhibiting a coercivity (
) of 468 Oe, with the saturation field at 4700 Oe. When compared to the electrospun CoFe
O
nanowires from another study [
25], the coercivity of these nanowires is relatively lower, possibly due to lattice defects induced during the thermal treatment. Nevertheless, these nanowires still fall into the category of ’hard magnetic’ materials. Surprisingly, a striking transformation occurs when a paramagnetic shell of BaTiO
is introduced. As depicted in
Figure 6C, the coercivity of the CoFe
O
@BaTiO
coaxial nanowires reduces significantly to 5 Oe, and the saturation field is now at 495 Oe. In essence, the incorporation of a BaTiO
shell causes a shift from hard magnetic to soft magnetic behavior in the CoFe
O
nanowires.
As previously discussed, the reduction of coercivity in these coaxial nanowires cannot be explained solely by the superparamagnetic effect. Instead, the CoFe
O
@BaTiO
coaxial nanowire can be seen as a multilayer system, with paramagnetic (PM) layers (BaTiO
) at the top and bottom, and a ferromagnetic (FM) layer (CoFe
O
) at the center. When an external magnetic field is applied to the system, the magnetizations of the different layers align parallel to the field direction. However, when the external magnetic field opposes the magnetization of the FM region, the PM region develops a magnetic moment proportional to its susceptibility. These induced moments decay exponentially with distance away from the interfaces [
26]. In this configuration, the magnetization of the FM region becomes antiparallel to the induced PM magnetization. Such a setup is energetically unfavorable, leading to an increase in the interlayer exchange energy. Interestingly, this energy facilitates the magnetization reversal process of the FM region, favoring the parallel alignment of the magnetizations of the PM and FM regions. Consequently, a reduction in the coercivity field is observed. Based on this analysis, it becomes evident that the interface energy plays a crucial role in assisting the magnetization reversal process of the FM region, especially when the magnetization of the FM region and the external magnetic field are opposite to each other.
For comparison, we attempted to exchange the core material to BaTiO
while the shell material became CoFe
O
, resulting in a coercivity (
) of 79 Oe for the new coaxial nanowires as shown in
Figure 6D. The reduction of coercivity still persists, although it is not as pronounced as in the previous configuration. This is attributed to the system transforming into an FM/PM/FM multilayer setup, where the magnetization reversal process is constrained by the presence of the shell FM layer.
In our further investigation, we sought to understand the magnetization behavior of the coaxial nanowires as we varied the phase ratio. Achieving this was simple by decreasing the BaTiO
concentration in the corresponding precursor.
Figure 7 presents the magnetization results of the coaxial nanowires with different phase ratios. When CoFe
O
: BaTiO
= 1 : 1 (
Figure 7A), the coercivity of the samples remained small at
= 6.7 Oe. However, this value increased to 146.3 Oe when the molar ratio of the BaTiO
phase was doubled. This observation indicates that as the ratio of the BaTiO
phase decreases, the magnetization reversal effect from the FM / PM interface weakens progressively. This explains why in the work of Raidongia et al., the coaxial nanowires synthesized via hydrothermal treatment exhibited a coercivity comparable to pure CoFe
O
nanowires [
21]. The low ratio of BaTiO
phase led to the absence of the magnetization reversal effect.
In the subsequent stage, we aimed to investigate whether the magnetization reversal effect was specific to CoFe
O
@BaTiO
coaxial nanowires or not. To explore this, we replaced the core material of CoFe
O
with NiFe
O
and Fe
O
, and then measured the magnetization behavior of the newly formed coaxial nanowires. As depicted in
Figure 8A–D, the NiFe
O
nanowires exhibited a coercivity of 210 Oe. However, upon adding a BaTiO
shell, the coercivity reduced significantly to 9.5 Oe. A similar trend was observed with the Fe
O
nanowires, where the coercivity decreased from 133 Oe to 8.5 Oe after incorporating a BaTiO
shell.
Through occasional attempts, we made an intriguing discovery that BaTiO
is not the sole material capable of serving as the paramagnetic (PM) layer for magnetization reversal in the coaxial nanowire system. As demonstrated in
Figure 8E, a noticeable reduction in coercivity also occurs with the GdBa
Cu
O
shell (
= 48 Oe). At 5 K, the hysteresis loop of the CoFe
O
@GdBa
Cu
O
coaxial nanowires displays a ferromagnetic loop. However, it is evident that the shape of the hysteresis loop is influenced by the superconducting component, as shown in the inset of
Figure 8F.
3.4. Magnetic Impedance Measurement of the Coaixal Nanowires
Figure 9 illustrates the magnetic impedance results of the CoFe
O
@BaTiO
coaxial nanowires across the frequency range from 10 MHz to 3 GHz. At 20 MHz, a single peak emerges with a maximum at 57.5 Oe, and the ratio increases with frequency up to 370% at 3 GHz. Another peak appears at 40 MHz, reaching a maximum at -53.8 Oe, and its ratio increases with frequency up to 77% at 3 GHz.
The small misalignment of the nanowire (not precisely perpendicular to the connected pattern) causes an angle between the current and external field, resulting in the occurrence of a second peak. Additionally, the written contact pads may inadvertently catch more than one nanowire, leading to a mixed signal. Moreover, since the wires are not field treated, the magnetization becomes randomly oriented.
In conclusion, the nanowires exhibit a high GMI ratio that can be utilized for magnetic field sensing. However, the preferred configuration is the double peak, as the linear range between those two peaks can be employed. To achieve this, the following options can be utilized: 1. Preparing the nanowires with an external field perpendicular to the length dimension during heat treatment; 2. Inducing helical anisotropy through joule heating.