## Size-dependent spatial magnetization profile of Manganese  Zinc ferrite Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 nanoparticles

Mathias Bersweiler,  Philipp Bender,  Laura G. Vivas, 1 1 1 Martin Albino,  Michele Petrecca, 2 2,3 Sebastian Mühlbauer, 4 Sergey Erokhin, 5 Dmitry Berkov, 5 Claudio Sangregorio, 2,3 and Andreas Michels 1

1 Physics and Materials Science Research Unit, University of Luxembourg, 162A Avenue de la Faïencerie, L-1511 Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 2 Università degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Chimica 'U. Schiff', Via della Lastruccia 3, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy 3 ICCOM-CNR via Madonna del Piano 10, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy 4 Heinz Maier-Leibnitz Zentrum (MLZ), Technische Universität München, D-85748 Garching, Germany 5 General Numerics Research Lab, An der Leite 3B, D-07749 Jena, Germany

We report the results of an unpolarized small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) study on Mn-Zn ferrite (MZFO) magnetic nanoparticles with the aim to elucidate the interplay between their particle size and the magnetization configuration. We study different samples of single-crystalline MZFO nanoparticles with average  diameters  ranging  between  8  to  80  nm,  and  demonstrate  that  the  smallest  particles  are homogeneously magnetized. However, with increasing nanoparticle size, we observe the transition from a  uniform  to  a  nonuniform  magnetization  state.  Field-dependent  results  for  the  correlation  function confirm  that  the  internal  spin  disorder  is  suppressed  with  increasing  field  strength.  The  experimental SANS data  are  supported  by  the  results  of  micromagnetic  simulations,  which  confirm  an  increasing inhomogeneity of the magnetization profile of the nanoparticle with increasing size. The results presented demonstrate the unique ability of SANS to detect even very small deviations of the magnetization state from the homogeneous one.

## I. INTRODUCTION

The  Manganese-Zinc  ferrite  (MZFO)  material  system possesses favorable physical properties such as high magnetic permeability, reasonable saturation magnetization combined  with  low  eddy  current  losses,  high  electrical resistivity as well as a good flexibility and chemical stability. These features render MZFO a very promising candidate for many  technological  and  biomedical  applications,  e.g.,  as magnetic  reading  heads [1],  constituents  of  temperaturesensitive ferrofluids [2], microwave absorbers [3], inductors [4], drug delivery [5,6], and MRI contrast enhancing agents [7]. A problem arises because the macroscopic  magnetic  properties  of  MZFO  are  strongly dependent  e.g.  on  their  chemical  composition [8-10],  the synthesis methods [11,12], and on the distribution of cations between interstitial tetrahedral and octahedral sites [9,13,14]. Moreover,  even  for  the  same  chemical  composition,  the magnetic properties  may  sensitively  depend on  the  MZFO particle size  [8,10,15,16].

Previous studies on MZFO nanoparticles along these lines using conventional magnetometry have reported a transition from  single-  to  multi-domain  structure  for  critical  sizes between  about  20-40  nm [8,15].  In  the  present  work,  we employ  magnetic-field-dependent  unpolarized  small-angle neutron scattering (SANS) to obtain mesoscopic information on the magnetization profile within MZFO nanoparticles of different  sizes.  Magnetic  SANS  provides  volume-averaged information  about  variations  of  the  magnetization  vector field  on  a  nanometer  length  scale  of  1  -  100  nm  (see Refs. [17,18] for reviews).

The  SANS  technique  has  been  used  in  several  other studies to investigate intra and interparticle magnetic moment  correlations  in  various  nanoparticle  systems;  for instance, SANS was applied to study interacting nanoparticle ensembles [19,20], including ordered arrays of nanowires [21,22],  it  was  employed  to  reveal  the  domain orientation in nanocrystalline  soft  magnets [23], or to investigate  the  response  of  magnetic  colloids [24-26]  and ferrofluids [27-29] to external fields. In Refs. [20,30-32] the SANS method has been utilized to disclose the intraparticle magnetization  profile  on  different  magnetic  nanoparticle systems. These studies indicate the presence of spin disorder and  canting,  particularly  at  the  nanoparticle  surface.  A nonuniform spin texture obviously affects the macroscopic magnetic  properties,  and  hence  the  application  potential. Here, we also use magnetic SANS to disclose the magnetization profile, however, in contrast to  the previous works we focus our analysis on model-independent approaches. Additionally, we use large-scale micromagnetic continuum simulations to support our findings and to disclose the delicate interplay between particle size and magnetization profile within MZFO nanoparticles.

The  article  is  organized  as  follows:  In  Section  II,  we discuss the nanoparticle synthesis, the characterization methods, and the details of the SANS experiment. In Section III, we summarize briefly the expressions for the unpolarized SANS cross section, the intensity ratio, and the correlation function. Section IV presents and discusses the experimental results  of  the  characterization  of  the  samples  by  X-ray fluorescence  spectrometry,  X-ray  diffraction,  transmission electron  microscopy,  magnetometry,  and  in  particular  the

SANS  measurements;  a  paragraph  on  the  micromagnetic simulation results completes this section. Section V summarizes the main findings of this paper.

## II. EXPERIMENTAL

Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 nanoparticles covered with a monolayer of oleic acid (capping agent) were synthesized by co-precipitation  from  aqueous  solutions  and  by  thermal decomposition  of  iron  and  manganese  acetylacetonates  in high-boiling solvent (benzyl ether) in the presence of surfactants and of ZnCl2 (see Appendix A and B for details on the nanoparticle synthesis). In the following, the particles will be labeled as MZFO-x, where x denotes their average particle size.

The  chemical  composition  of  the  nanoparticles  was determined by a Rigaku ZSX Primus II X-ray fluorescence spectrometer (XRF), equipped with a Rh Kα radiation source and a wavelength dispersive detector. The average crystallite size  and the structural properties  of the nanoparticles were estimated by transmission electron microscopy (TEM), using a CM12 Philips microscope with a LaB6 filament operating at 100 kV, and by X-ray diffraction (XRD), using a Bruker New  D8  ADVANCE  ECO  diffractometer  with  Cu  Kα radiation.  The  amount  of  organic  layer  was  estimated  by CHN analysis, using a CHN-S Flash E1112 Thermofinnigan. The magnetic analysis at room temperature was performed on tightly packed powder samples using a Quantum Design MPMS superconducting quantum interference device (SQUID) magnetometer.

For  the  SANS  experiments,  the  nanoparticles  were pressed into circular pellets with a diameter of 8 mm and a thickness of  1.3  ±  0.1  mm.  The  neutron  experiments  were performed  at  the  instrument  SANS-1 [33]  at  the  Heinz Maier-Leibnitz  Zentrum  (MLZ),  Garching,  Germany.  The measurements  were  done  using  an  unpolarized  incident neutron beam with a mean wavelength of λ = 4.51 Å and a wavelength broadening of Δλ/λ = 10 % (FWHM). All the measurements  were  conducted  at  room  temperature  and within  a q -range  of  about  0.06  nm -1 ≤ q ≤  3.0  nm -1 .  A magnetic field H 0 was applied perpendicular to the incident neutron beam ( H 0 ⊥ k 0 ).  The  experimental setup used for these experiments is sketched in Fig. 1. Neutron data were recorded by increasing the applied magnetic field from 0 T to 4  T  following  the  magnetization  curve.  The  neutron-data reduction (correction for background and empty cell scattering, sample  transmission,  detector  efficiency,  and water calibration) was carried out using the GRASP software package [34].

## III. SANS CROSS SECTION, INTENSITY RATIO, AND CORRELATION FUNCTION

## A. Elastic unpolarized SANS cross section

As detailed in Refs. [17,18], when the applied magnetic field H 0 is perpendicular to the incident neutron beam ( H 0 ⊥ k 0 ), the elastic nuclear and magnetic unpolarized SANS cross section dΣ/dΩ at momentum-transfer vector q can be written as:

$$\frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega } ( \boldsymbol q ) = \frac { 8 \pi ^ { 3 } } { V } b _ { \boldsymbol H } ^ { 2 } \left ( b _ { \boldsymbol H } ^ { - 2 } | \widetilde { N } | ^ { 2 } + | \widetilde { M } _ { x } | ^ { 2 } + | \widetilde { M } _ { y } | ^ { 2 } \cos ^ { 2 } ( \theta ) + | \widetilde { M } _ { z } | ^ { 2 } \sin ^ { 2 } ( \theta ) \\ - \left ( \widetilde { M } _ { y } \widetilde { M } _ { z } ^ { * } + \widetilde { M } _ { y } ^ { * } \widetilde { M } _ { z } \right ) \sin ( \theta ) \cos ( \theta ) \right ), ( 1 )$$

where V is  the  scattering  volume, bH =  2.91  10   A 8 -1 m -1 relates the atomic magnetic moment to the atomic magnetic scattering length, 𝑁 ̃ (𝒒) and 𝑀 ̃ (𝒒) = [𝑀 ̃ (𝒒), 𝑥 𝑀 ̃ 𝑦 (𝒒), 𝑀 ̃ 𝑧 (𝒒)] represent  the  Fourier  transforms  of  the  nuclear scattering length density N ( r ) and of the magnetization vector field M r ( ), respectively, θ specifies the angle between H 0 and q (see  Fig.  1),  and  the  asterisks  '*'  denote  the  complex conjugated  quantity.  Generally,  the  Fourier  components 𝑀 ̃ 𝑥,𝑦,𝑧 depend on both the magnitude and the orientation of the scattering (wave) vector q . This dependence is influenced by the applied magnetic field, the various intra and interparticle  magnetic  interactions,  and  by  the  particle  size and  shape.  It  is  also  worth  emphasizing  that  in  the  smallangle approximation (scattering angle  &lt;&lt; 1) only correlations  in  the  plane  perpendicular  to  the  incoming neutron beam are probed (compare Fig. 1); this means that the above Fourier components are to be evaluated at qx  0.

## B.  SANS intensity ratio

Deviations from  the uniform  magnetization state in nanoparticle systems had already become evident in the early SANS study  by  Ernst,  Schelten,  and  Schmatz [35].  These authors  investigated  the  transition  from  single  to  multidomain  configurations  of  Co  precipitates  in  a  Cu  single crystal and analyzed the following ratio  ( q ) of SANS cross sections ( H 0 ⊥ k 0 ) [35]:

$$\intertext { a n d } \underbrace { \alpha ( q ) } _ { 1 } = \frac { \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega } ( q ) \Big | _ { H _ { 0 } = 0 \, T } } { \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega } ( q ) \Big | _ { q \, 1 \, H _ { 0 } \to \infty } } = \frac { \left [ \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega } _ { n u c } ( q ) + \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega } _ { \text{mag} } ( q ) \right ] \Big | _ { H _ { 0 } = 0 \, T } } { \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega } _ { n u c } ( q ) \Big | _ { q \, 1 \, H _ { 0 } \to \infty } }. \ ( 2 )$$

The  total  unpolarized  SANS  cross  section 𝑑𝛴 𝑑𝛺 / at  zero applied  magnetic  field  equals  the  sum  of  nuclear  and magnetic contributions, while the cross section at a saturating field H 0 applied parallel to the scattering vector q yields (for 𝒌0 ⊥ 𝑯0 ) the purely nuclear SANS cross section 𝑑𝛴nuc/𝑑𝛺 . We  emphasize  that  the  interpretation  of 𝛼(𝒒) is highly nontrivial,  since  it  depends  on a  number of both  structural and magnetic parameters; for instance, on the particle volume fraction, at high packing densities also on the shape and size distribution of the particles, and not the least on the internal spin structure of the nanoparticles, which depends e.g. on the particle size and the applied field, but also on the strength of the magnetodipolar interaction between the particles.

Consider the special case of a dilute assembly of randomly-oriented single-domain particles: if for H 0 = 0, the magnetizations of the particles are randomly oriented, then the two-dimensional 𝑑𝛴 𝑑𝛺 / is isotropic, whereas it exhibits the  well-known  sin 2 θ angular  anisotropy  for  the  saturated case, 𝒌0 ⊥ 𝑯0 , and  for  a  not  too  strong  nuclear  signal

[compare Eq. (1)]. For this particular situation, the ratio α depends only on the magnitude q of the scattering vector:

$$\alpha ( q ) = \frac { \left [ \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega _ { n u c } } ( q ) + \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega _ { \text{mag} } } ( q ) \right ] \right ] _ { q 1 1 H _ { o } = 0 \, T } } { \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega _ { n u c } } ( q ) \Big | _ { q 1 1 H _ { o } \rightarrow \infty } } = 1 + \frac { \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega _ { \text{mag} } } ( q ) } { \frac { d \Sigma } { d \Omega _ { n u c } } ( q ) }, \quad ( 3 ) \quad \text{peak} \\ \text{the } \colon$$

where the isotropic zero-field SANS cross section has also been  averaged  for 𝒒 ∥ 𝑯0 . By  contrast,  for  a  globally anisotropic microstructure, e.g., for oriented shapeanisotropic  particles  or  for  a  system  exhibiting  a  large remanence [33], the α -ratio may depend on the orientation of q . Moreover, if in the dilute ensemble of randomly-oriented single-domain particles the chemical (nuclear) and magnetic particle  sizes  coincide,  then  Eq.  (3)  simplifies  to  the q -independent value:

$$\alpha _ { \text{calc} } = 1 + \frac { 2 } { 3 } \left ( \frac { \varrho _ { \text{mag} } } { \Delta \varrho _ { \text{nuc} } } \right ) ^ { 2 }, \ \ ( 4 )$$

where Δ𝜚nuc is the difference between the nuclear scattering length  densities  of  the  nanoparticles  and  the  matrix,  and 𝜚mag = 𝑏𝐻𝑀𝑆 𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑂 is the magnetic scattering length density of the MZFO nanoparticles. The factor 2/3 in Eq. (4) results from an orientational average of the sin 2 (𝜃) factor in Eq. (1) in the remanent  state (assuming  the absence  of other magnetic scattering contributions in line with the assumption of the presence of only single-domain particles). Under the above assumptions, deviations from the constant value given by  Eq.  (4)  may  indicate  the  presence  of  intra-particle  spin disorder.

## C. Correlation function

To  obtain  real-space  information  about  the  magnetic microstructure, we have computed the following correlation function  [36-39]:

$$p ( r ) = r ^ { 2 } \int _ { 0 } ^ { \infty } I ( q ) j _ { 0 } ( q r ) q ^ { 2 } d q, \ \ ( 5 )$$

where 𝑗 0 (𝑥) = sin(𝑥) /𝑥 denotes the spherical Bessel function of zero order, and I q ( ) represents the azimuthallyaveraged  magnetic  SANS  cross  section.  In  nuclear  SANS and small-angle X-ray scattering p r ( ) is known as the pairdistance distribution function, which provides information on the particle size and shape, and on the presence of interparticle interactions;  for magnetic systems it  may  also indicate the presence of intraparticle spin disorder.

## IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

## A.  Structural and magnetic pre-characterization

XRF analyses confirmed that the synthesized nanoparticle samples all have a similar composition, i.e., Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 (see Table 1). XRD results for the nanoparticle powders are shown in Fig. 2(a). All the diffraction peaks observed can be well indexed with the AB2O4 spinel structure, indicating  a pure  cubic  phase  of  Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4.  Moreover,  impurity peaks  or  secondary  phases  are  not  observed  in  our  XRD pattern, which confirms the high quality of the nanoparticles synthetized by co-precipitation and thermal decomposition. The structural parameters were determined by the method of the fundamental parameter approach (FDA) implemented in the  TOPAS  software,  considering  the  cubic  space  group 𝐹𝑑3 ̅ 𝑚 . The average crystallite sizes are reported in Table 1. The lattice parameter a varies in the range from 0.8407(2) to 0.8421(1) nm, as expected for doped Mn-Zn ferrite nanoparticles [9].

TEM images of the nanoparticles are displayed in Fig. 2(b) and the average particle sizes are listed in Table 1. It should be  emphasized  that  the  small  nanoparticles  look  spherical, whereas the larger nanoparticles seem to have a faceted cubic structure.  This  morphology  evolution  is  the  result  of  the interplay  between  surface  tension  and  preferential  growth along the &lt;100&gt; directions [40]. For all samples, the average particle  size  determined  by  TEM  is  nearly  identical  to  the XRD crystallite  size,  suggesting  that  the  nanoparticles  are single crystals. The CHN analysis indicates that the relative amount of surfactant decreases with the nanoparticle surfaceto-volume  ratio,  from  11.2  %  for  MZFO-8  to  1.1  %  for MZFO-80. For all the samples, this corresponds approximately to a monolayer of surfactant, as evaluated by assuming that each ligand molecule occupies a surface area of  0.5  nm  [19,41].  Figure  3  shows  a  typical  scanning 2 electron microscopy (SEM) image of a MZFO sample after the  powder  has  been  pressed  into  a  circular  pellet;  this microstructure is characteristic of the SANS samples in our study.

The normalized room-temperature magnetization curves M H ( ) of the nanoparticle powders are shown in Fig. 4(a) and in Fig. 4(b), respectively. From these curves, we determined the  saturation  and  remanent  magnetizations  ( M S and M R respectively)  and  the  coercive  field H C  (see  Table  1).  The M H ( )  curve  of  MZFO-8  shows  no  hysteresis,  indicating superparamagnetic  behavior.  However,  for  larger  particle sizes, the M(H) curves start to open up and an increase of M S , M R, and H C is observed.

From the M H ( ) curve of MZFO-8, we have extracted the underlying  effective  moment  distribution P V( μ )  using  the approach outlined in Bender et al .  [42] [see Fig. 4(c)], where a  Langevin-type  magnetization  behavior  is  assumed.  The obtained distribution exhibits one main peak at ~ 10 -19 Am 2 and additional contributions in the low-moment range. We surmise that the main peak corresponds to the distribution of the  individual  particle  moments μ i = M V S i of  the  whole ensemble (where V i is the particle volume), and that the lowmoment contributions can be attributed to dipolar interactions  within  the  ensemble,  similar  as  in  Bender et al .  [42]. As shown in Fig. 4(c), the main peak can be well adjusted with a lognormal distribution function, which can be further  transformed  to  the  number-weighted  particle-size distribution  shown in Fig.  4(d);  for  this  transformation  we assumed a spherical particle shape and used a value of M S = 301 kA/m to relate the particle moments to the particle sizes. This  distribution  is  in  a  good  agreement  with  the  size histogram determined with TEM, which in turn verifies the superparamagnetic magnetization behavior of MZFO-8. For the  larger  particles,  the  same  approach  (which  assumes  a Langevin-type magnetization behavior) results in size distributions that significantly deviate from the TEM results (data not shown). This is in line with the observed transition from superparamagnetic to ferromagnetic-like behavior with increasing size, similar to results reported in the literature [8,10,15].

## B.  Unpolarized SANS measurements

We measured the total unpolarized SANS cross sections d Σ /d Ω of each sample at 10 different applied magnetic fields from 0 to 4 T at room temperature. Figure 5 (left panel) shows some  selected  two-dimensional  SANS  patterns  (remanent state and 4 T), which contain nuclear and magnetic contributions.  According to magnetometry, all the samples are nearly magnetically saturated at a field of 4 T [Fig. 4(a)]. Hence, the sector  average of d Σ /d Ω parallel  to  the  applied field ( q // H 0 ) at 4 T is a good approximation to the purely nuclear SANS cross section d Σ nuc /d Ω [compare also Eq. (1)]. As shown in Fig. 6, d Σ nuc /d Ω in the highq range can be well described by a power law , d Σ nuc /d Ω  q -4 , which is expected in  the  Porod  regime  for  orientationally-averaged  particles with a discontinuous interface [37]. For both the MZFO-27 and  MZFO-38  samples  we  observe  peak  structures  in  the scattering  curves,  which  might  be  related  to  the  narrow particle-size distribution [compare Fig. 2(b)]. By contrast, the MZFO-8  and  MZFO-80  exhibit  a  relatively  broad  size distribution, which results in the absence of such features in the nuclear SANS.

Regarding  the  2D  patterns,  Fig.  5  shows  that  the  total (nuclear and magnetic) SANS cross sections d Σ /d Ω exhibit for all samples a weakly field-dependent (compare top panel in Fig. 7) and a nearly isotropic intensity distribution. This observation  points  towards  the  dominance  of  the  isotropic nuclear scattering contribution. Since in general the nuclear SANS cross section is field independent, the magnetic SANS cross section d Σ M/d Ω can be determined by subtracting, for each sample, the total dΣ/d Ω measured at the highest field of 4 T from the data at lower fields. The field-dependent d Σ M/d Ω obtained in this way are displayed in Fig. 5 (right panel). It is seen that the intensity distributions of MZFO-8 and MZFO80  are  slightly  anisotropic,  elongated  along  the  horizontal field  direction,  while  the  2D  d Σ M/d Ω of  MZFO-27  and MZFO-38 are isotropic. For MZFO-8 the angular anisotropy of  d Σ M/d Ω is  found  in  a q -range  that  corresponds  to  an interparticle  length  scale,  whereas  MZFO-80  exhibits  this anisotropy on an intraparticle length scale. This observation suggests for MZFO-80 the presence of transversal (perpendicular  to H 0 )  spin  components,  in  line  with  the |𝑀𝑦| cos 2 (𝜃) ̃ 2 scattering contribution in Eq. (1).

The used procedure of subtracting  the  total  unpolarized SANS scattering at a field close to saturation from data at lower fields (Figs. 5 and 7) suggests that it may not always be necessary to resort to polarization-analysis experiments in order to obtain the magnetic (spin-flip) SANS cross section. If nuclear-spin-dependent SANS and chiral scattering contributions  are  ignored,  the  comparison  of  the  spin-flip

SANS cross section (Eq. (18) in Ref.  [18]) with the so-called spin-misalignment SANS cross section [obtained by subtracting from Eq. (1) the scattering at saturation ∝ |𝑁| ̃ 2 +

|𝑀𝑧 ̃ | 2 sin 2 (𝜃) ] reveals that the subtraction procedure yields, except for the longitudinal magnetic term, a combination of (difference)  Fourier  components that is very similar to the spin-flip SANS cross section (albeit with different trigonometric weights). If the nuclear particle microstructure of the material under study does not change with the applied field (leaving aside magnetostriction effects), this procedure might  be  a  practicable  alternative  to  time-consuming  and low-intensity polarization-analysis measurements.

The azimuthally averaged (over 2π) d Σ /d Ω and  d Σ M/d Ω for each magnetic field value H 0 are summarized in Fig. 7. The magnitude of d Σ M/d Ω is  reduced  compared  to  d Σ /d Ω , which  is  due  to  the  dominance  of  the  nuclear  scattering contributions  in  our  systems.  In  the  following,  we  will distinguish between  the  intraparticle ( q &gt; q c ) and the interparticle ( q &lt; q c ) q -ranges, which are roughly defined by the average particle sizes D of the respective system (i.e., q c = 2π/ D ). For each sample, dΣM/d Ω exhibits a strong and more pronounced  magnetic  field  dependence  as  compared  to d Σ /d Ω (Fig. 7).

Figure 8 displays the SANS results for the experimental intensity ratio α exp as defined by Eq. (3). Dividing the q -range in regions corresponding to values larger or smaller than q c = 2  / D , we can obtain information on either interor intraparticle  moment  correlations  of  the  nanoparticles  (we note that the highq range may also contain weak features due to  interparticle  correlations).  Regarding  the  interparticle q -range  ( q &lt; q c ),  exp exhibits  for  all  samples  a  strong q -dependence,  which  might  be  explained  by  a  difference between  the  nuclear  and  magnetic  structure  factors [43]. However, within the  intraparticle q -range,  corresponding approximately to q q / c &gt; 1, we observe very distinct features. For the smallest nanoparticles (MZFO-8), α exp is independent of q and almost equals the theoretical limit given by Eq. (4). Based on the considerations of Sec. III. B, this then suggests a single-domain configuration of MZFO-8 with a homogeneous magnetization profile. For the case of nanoparticles with an intermediate diameter (MZFO-27 and MZFO-38), we observe a more or less pronounced peak in the intraparticle q -range, at q  0.34 nm -1 (MZFO-27) and at q  0.22  nm -1 (MZFO-38),  while  for  the  largest  particles (MZFO-80) we observe a weak monotonic decrease of α exp over  the  whole q -range.  Similar  peaks  were  reported  in Ref. [35] and were attributed to inhomogeneous magnetization profiles. By increasing the applied magnetic field,  the  magnitude  of  the  peak  feature  of  the  MZFO-38 sample decreases (Fig. 8 right panel), which  strongly suggests the transition from an inhomogeneous to a homogenous spin structure, where the canted spins tend to align with respect to the magnetic field H 0 .  As we will see below (Sec. IV.C), these observations are consistent with our micromagnetic simulations. In Fig. 8(a,b) the mere deviation from the horizontal line at large q -values may indicate the presence of an inhomogeneous internal spin structure of the larger nanoparticles.

To  analyze  in  more  detail  the  possible  field-dependent transition  from  an  inhomogeneous  to  a  homogeneous  spin structure for MZFO-38, we have extracted the corresponding pair-distance distribution functions p r ( ) [Eq. (5)] from d Σ M/d Ω. We  restricted our  analysis  to  the  intraparticle q -range, as visualized by the dashed vertical line in Fig. 9(a), and obtained the field-dependent p r ( ) profiles shown in Fig. 9(b). Accordingly, these profiles approximately describe the scattering  behavior  in  the  intraparticle q -range.  As  can  be seen in Fig. 9(b), at the highest field of 1.0 T the extracted distribution p r ( ) is nearly bell-shaped [37], which indicates a homogeneous  magnetization  profile  within  the  spherical nanoparticles, whereas with decreasing field the deviation of the profile from this ideal case increases. This feature is an additional strong indication for the transition from a homogenous to an inhomogeneous spin structure within the particle with decreasing field, and vice versa .  We note that there  exist  many  studies  in  the  literature,  employing  other techniques such as Mössbauer spectroscopy, magnetic X-ray scattering, or photoemission electron microscopy, which also report an inhomogeneous nanoparticle spin structure and/or the presence of interparticle moment  correlations (e.g. Ref [44-48]). To further support our experimental observations, we have performed numerical micromagnetic simulations of the size-dependent magnetization behavior of MZFO nanoparticle  ensembles;  these  are  discussed  in  the following.

## C. Micromagnetic simulations

In the micromagnetic simulations we have considered the four  standard  contributions  to  the  total  magnetic  energy: energy in the external field, cubic magnetocrystalline anisotropy  energy,  and  exchange  and  dipolar  interaction energies.  The  nanoparticle  microstructure,  consisting  of  a distribution of Mn-Zn based nanoparticles, was generated by employing  an  algorithm  described  in  Refs. [49-54].  The simulation volume (= sample volume) is a cubic box of size  300  300  300 nm 3 , which was discretized into 4  10 5 mesh  elements  with  an  average  mesh  size  of  4  nm.  The volume fraction of the nanoparticles was kept fixed at 80 %, leaving  20  %  void.  Materials  parameters  are:  saturation magnetization M S = 480 kA/m (typical for ferrites, see page 423 in Ref.  [55]), anisotropy constant K = 3  10  J m  [56], 3 / 3 and exchange-stiffness constant A = 7  10 -12 J m [53]. The / equilibrium magnetization state of the system was found, as usual,  by  minimizing  the  total  magnetic  energy  at  a  given value  of  the  applied  magnetic  field.  Periodic  boundary conditions were applied in the simulations. For more details on our micromagnetic methodology, see Refs. [49-54].

Figure 10 depicts the sample microstructures used in the simulations.  Since  the  sample  volume  is  kept  constant,  an increase in the average particle size D from 14 to 74 nm leads to a reduction of the particle number N , from N  40.000 at 14 nm to N  40 at 74 nm.

Figure  11  shows  the  field  dependence  of  the  quantity  M M  / S for different particle sizes. This parameter is defined as:

$$\frac { | M | } { M _ { S } } = \frac { 1 } { N } \frac { \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { N } \left ( M _ { x, i } ^ { 2 } + M _ { y, i } ^ { 2 } + M _ { z, i } ^ { 2 } \right ) ^ { 1 / 2 } } { M _ { S } }, \quad ( 6 )$$

which is a measure for the average deviation of the particle's magnetization state from the single-domain state, corresponding to  M M  / S = 1. It becomes visible in Fig. 11 that (small) deviations from the uniform particle magnetization state appear for D -values ranging between 2030 nm, which is in reasonable agreement with our conclusions from the SANS data analysis (compare Figs. 8 and 9). Since the micromagnetic algorithm does not take into account superparamagnetic fluctuations, the computed hysteresis curves in the inset of Fig. 11 cannot reproduce the experimentally observed transition from the superparamagnetic to the blocked regime [compare Fig. 4(a) and  (b)]. It is seen  that the quasi-static magnetization decreases with increasing particle size, since larger particles tend  to  be  in  a  more  nonuniform  spin  state  than  smaller particles.  This  is  shown  in  Fig.  12,  which  displays  the evolution of the parameter  M M  / S for each magnetic particle ' '  and  as  a  function  of  the  applied  field.  Also  shown  are i snapshots of the spin structure at selected fields, where the largest deviations from the uniform state are observed.

## V. CONCLUSION

In summary, the structure and magnetic properties of MnZn  ferrite  (MZFO)  single  crystalline  nanoparticles  with average diameters ranging from 8 to 80 nm were investigated using a suite of experimental and simulation techniques. The increase  of  the  remanent  magnetization  as  well  as  the coercive field, determined from the magnetization curves, is a clear evidence for a transition from the superparamagnetic to  the  blocked  state  with  increasing  particle  diameter.  The analysis of the magnetic-field-dependent unpolarized SANS data  demonstrates  that  the  magnetization  profiles  of  the larger nanoparticles deviate from the perfect single-domain state. This conclusion  has  mainly  become  possible  by plotting a special intensity ratio (Eq.  (3) and  Fig.  8), originally introduced by Ernst, Schelten, and Schmatz [35]. Another  important  clue  for  the  nonuniform  internal  spin structure  was  obtained  by  the  computation  of  the  pairdistance  distribution  function p r ( )  (Fig.  9).  The p r ( )  data nicely confirm the field-dependent internal spin structure of the nanoparticles. In reasonable agreement with the outcome of the experimental data analysis, large-scale micromagnetic simulations reveal that slight deviations from single-domain behavior occur for Mn-Zn ferrite particle sizes above about 20-30  nm.  In  general,  we  emphasize  that  a  fundamental understanding of magnetic SANS can only be obtained by comparing experimental data, both in Fourier and real space, to the results of simulations. The used procedure of subtracting the total unpolarized SANS scattering at or close to saturation from data at lower fields suggests that it may not always  be  necessary  to  perform  challenging  polarizationanalysis experiments in order to obtain the magnetic SANS cross  section.  If  the  nuclear  particle  microstructure  of  the material under study does not change with the applied field, this  procedure  might  be  a  practicable  alternative  to  timeconsuming and low-intensity polarized neutron measurements. Finally, we note that our study demonstrates the  unique  ability  of  SANS  to  detect  even  very  small deviations  of the magnetization  configuration  from  the homogeneously magnetized state.

## ACKNOWLEGDEMENTS

The authors acknowledge the Heinz Maier-Leibnitz Zentrum for provision of neutron beamtime. We thank Jörg Schwarz and Jörg Schmauch (Universität des Saarlandes) for the  technical  support  with  the  hydraulic  press  and  for  the SEM  investigations.  It  is  also  a  pleasure  to  thank  Dirk Honecker for fruitful discussions. This research was supported by the EU-H2020  AMPHIBIAN  Project  (n. 720853).  Philipp  Bender  and  Andreas  Michels  thank  the Fonds National de la Recherche of Luxembourg for financial support (CORE SANS4NCC grant).

## APPENDIX

## A. Materials

All the samples were prepared using commercially available  reagents  used  as  received.  Benzyl  ether  (99  %), toluene (99 %), oleic acid (OA, 90 %), oleylamine (OAM, ≥ 98 %), manganese (II) acetylacetonate (Mn(acac)2·2 H2O ≥ 99 %), zinc chloride (ZnCl2, ≥ 98 %), iron (III) chloride hexahydrate (FeCl3·6 H2O, 98 %), iron (II) chloride tetra-hydrate (FeCl2·4  H2O,  98  %),  manganese  chloride  tetra-hydrate (MnCl2·4 H2O, ≥ 99 %), sodium hydroxide (NaOH, ≥ 98 %) were purchased from Aldrich Chemistry. Iron (III) acetylacetonate (Fe(acac)3, 99 %) was obtained from Strem Chemicals and absolute ethanol (EtOH) was purchased from Fluka.

## B. Synthesis

The samples MZFO-27 and MZFO-38 were synthesized by thermal decomposition of iron and manganese acetylacetonates in high-boiling solvent (benzyl ether) in the presence of surfactants (OA, OAM) and of ZnCl2. Instead, the  samples  MZFO-8 and MZFO-80 were prepared by the co-precipitation  method  using  manganese  chloride  tetrahydrate, zinc chloride, iron (II) chloride tetrahydrate,iron(III) chloride hexa-hydrate, and sodium hydroxide as starting materials.

MZFO-27: Fe(acac)3 (0.612 g, 1.733 mmol), Mn(acac)2·2 H2O (0.038 g, 0.133 mmol), ZnCl2 (0.018 g, 0.133 mmol), OAM (2.675 g, 10 mmol), OA (2.825 g, 10 mmol) and benzyl ether (30 mL) ) were mixed and magnetically stirred under a flow of nitrogen in a 100 mL three-neck round-bottom flask for 15 min. The resulting mixture was heated to reflux (~ 290 °C) at 9 °C/min and kept at this temperature for 30 min under a blanket of nitrogen and vigorous stirring. The black-brown mixture was cooled to room temperature and EtOH (60 mL) was added causing the precipitation of a black material. The obtained  product  was  separated  with  a  permanent  magnet, washed several times with ethanol, and finally re-dispersed in toluene.

MZFO-38: The synthesis and purification of this sample was  carried  out  by  following  the  same  protocol  used  for

MZFO-27,  but  using  the  metal/oleic  acid/oleylamine  ratio 1:5:5 and keeping the reaction mixture to reflux for 1 h.

MZFO-80: FeCl3·6 H2O (2.7 g, 10 mmol), FeCl2·4 H2O (0.597 g, 3 mmol), MnCl2·4 H2O (0.198 g, 1 mmol), ZnCl2 (0.136 g, 1 mmol) and degassed water (10 ml) were mixed and  magnetically  stirred  under  a  flow  of  nitrogen.  The resulting mixture was added to a basic solution at 100 °C, obtained  dissolving  NaOH  (1.72  g,  43  mmol)  in  degassed water (100 ml), and kept at this temperature for 2 h under a blanket of nitrogen and vigorous stirring. The black-brown mixture  was  cooled  to  room  temperature  and  the  obtained product  was  separated  with  a  permanent  magnet,  washed several  times  with  water,  2  times  with  ethanol  and  finally dried under nitrogen. The obtained product was annealed at 725 °C for 2 h under N2 in a tubular furnace. The powder was finally  mixed  with  OA  and  toluene,  sonicated  for  30', precipitated  with  a  permanent  magnet,  and  washed  three times with ethanol.

MZFO-8: The synthesis  and  purification  of  this  sample was  carried  out  by  following  the  same  protocol  used  for MZFO-80,  but  using  a  larger  amount  of  NaOH  (2  g,  50 mmol) and OA (2 g, 7 mmol) as surfactant. This sample did not undergo any annealing step.

## REFERENCES

| [1]   | D. Stoppels, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 26 , 306 (1982).                                                                                                                                                                     |
|-------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [2]   | T. Upadhyay, R. V. Upadhyay, R. V. Mehta, V. K. Aswal, and P. S. Goyal, Phys. Rev. B 55 , 5585 (1997).                                                                                                                  |
| [3]   | D. Stoppels, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 160 , 323 (1996).                                                                                                                                                                    |
| [4]   | C. C. Agrafiotis and V. T. Zaspalis, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 283 , 364 (2004).                                                                                                                                            |
| [5]   | A. M. Cojocariu, A. Doaga, W. Amin, P. Bender, R. Hempelmann, and O. F. Caltun, Dig. J. Nanomater. Biostructures 8 , 519 (2013).                                                                                        |
| [6]   | Z. Beji, A. Hanini, L. S. Smiri, J. Gavard, K. Kacem, F. Villain, J. M.Grenèche, F. Chau, and S. Ammar, Chem. Mater. 22 , 5420 (2010).                                                                                  |
| [7]   | U. I. Tromsdorf, N. C. Bigall, M. G. Kaul, O. T. Bruns, M. S. Nikolic, B. Mollwitz, R. A. Sperling, R. Reimer, H. Hohenberg, W. J. Parak, S. Förster, U. Beisiegel, G. Adam, and H. Weller, Nano Lett. 7 , 2422 (2007). |
| [8]   | T. Sun, A. Borrasso, B. Liu, and V. Dravid, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 94 , 1490 (2011).                                                                                                                                        |
| [9]   | Z. Klencsár, G. Tolnai, L. Korecz, I. Sajó, P. Németh, J. Osán, S. Mészáros, and E. Kuzmann, Solid State Sci. 24 , 90 (2013).                                                                                           |
| [10]  | L. Sun, J. Guo, Q. Ni, E. Cao, Y. Zhang, W. Hao, and L. Ju, J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Electron. 29 , 5356 (2018).                                                                                                           |
| [11]  | C. Rath, K. K. Sahu, S. Anand, S. K. Date, N. C. Mishra, and R. P. Das, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 202 , 77 (1999).                                                                                                          |
| [12]  | S. A. Morrison, C. L. Cahill, E. E. Carpenter, S. Calvin, and V. G. Harris, J. Appl. Phys. 93 , 7489 (2003).                                                                                                            |
| [13]  | G. Thirupathi and R. Singh, IEEE Trans. Magn. 50 , 2006704 (2014).                                                                                                                                                      |
| [14]  | R. U. Ichikawa, J. P. R. L. L. Parra, O. Vallcorba, I. Peral, W. K. Yoshito, M. J. Saeki, X. Turrillas, and L. G. Martinez, Europhys. Lett. 124 , 56001 (2018).                                                         |
| [15]  | P. Mathur, A. Thakur, and M. Singh, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 320 , 1364 (2008).                                                                                                                                            |
| [16]  | P. J. Van Der Zaag, M. T. Johnson, and A. Noordermeer, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 99 , L1 (1991).                                                                                                                            |
| [17]  | A. Michels, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 26 , 383201 (2014).                                                                                                                                                                |
| [18]  | S. Mühlbauer, D. Honecker, E. A. Périgo, F. Bergner, S. Disch, A. Heinemann, S. Erokhin, D. Berkov, C. Leighton, M. R. Eskildsen, and A. Michels, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91 , 015004 (2019).                                   |

| [19]      | P. Bender, E. Wetterskog, D. Honecker, J. Fock, C. Frandsen, C. Moerland, L. K. Bogart, O. Posth, W. Szczerba, H. Gavilán, R. Costo, L. F. Barquín, and C. Johansson, Phys. Rev. B 98 , 224420 (2018).                                                          |
|-----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [20]      | Y. Ijiri, K. L. Krycka, I. Hunt-Isaak, H. Pan, J. Hsieh, J. A. Borchers, J. J. Rhyne, S. D. Oberdick, A. Abdelgawad, and S. A. Majetich, Phys. Rev. B 99 , 094421 (2019).                                                                                       |
| [21]      | A. Günther, J.-P. Bick, P. Szary, D. Honecker, C. D. Dewhurst, U. Keiderling, A. V. Feoktystov, A. Tschöpe, R. Birringer, and A. Michels, J. Appl. Crystallogr. 47 , 992 (2014).                                                                                |
| [22]      | T. Maurer, S. Gautrot, F. Ott, G. Chaboussant, F. Zighem, L. Cagnon, and O. Fruchart, Phys. Rev. B 89 , 184423 (2014).                                                                                                                                          |
| [23]      | N. Ito, A. Michels, J. Kohlbrecher, J. S. Garitaonandia, K. Suzuki, and J. D. Cashion, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 316 , 458 (2007).                                                                                                                                  |
| [24]      | P. Bender, A. Günther, D. Honecker, A. Wiedenmann, S. Disch, A. Tschöpe, A. Michels, and R. Birringer, Nanoscale 7 , 17122 (2015).                                                                                                                              |
| [25]      | V. V. Krishnamurthy, G. J. Mankey, B. He, M. Piao, J. M. Wiest, D. E. Nikles, L. Porcar, and J. L. Robertson, Phys. Rev. E 77 , 031403 (2008).                                                                                                                  |
| [26]      | V. V. Krishnamurthy, A. S. Bhandar, M. Piao, I. Zoto, A. M. Lane, D. E. Nikles, J. M. Wiest, G. J. Mankey, L. Porcar, and C. J. Glinka, Phys. Rev. E 67 , 051406 (2003).                                                                                        |
| [27]      | F. Gazeau, E. Dubois, J. C. Bacri, F. Boué, A. Cebers, and R. Perzynski, Phys. Rev. E 65 , 031403 (2002).                                                                                                                                                       |
| [28]      | G. Mériguet, E. Wandersman, E. Dubois, A. Cēbers, J. de Andrade Gomes, G. Demouchy, J. Depeyrot, A. Robert, and R. Perzynski, Magnetohydrodynamics 48 , 415 (2012).                                                                                             |
| [29]      | B. Frka-Petesic, E. Dubois, L. Almasy, V. Dupuis, F. Cousin, and R. Perzynski, Magnetohydrodynamics 49 , 328 (2013).                                                                                                                                            |
| [30]      | S.Disch, E. Wetterskog, R. P. Hermann, A. Wiedenmann, U. Vaino, G. Salazar-Alvarez, L. Bergström, and T. Brückel, New J. Phys. 14 , 013025 (2012).                                                                                                              |
| [31]      | S. D. Oberdick, A. Abdelgawad, C. Moya, S. Mesbahi-Vasey, D. Kepaptsoglou, V. K. Lazarov, R. F. L. Evans, D. Meilak, E. Skoropata, J. Van Lierop, I. Hunt-Isaak, H. Pan, Y. Ijiri, K. L. Krycka, J. A. Borchers, and S. A. Majetich, Sci. Rep. 8 , 3425 (2018). |
| [32]      | K. L. Krycka, R. A. Booth, C. R. Hogg, Y. Ijiri, J. A. Borchers, W. C. Chen, S. M. Watson, M. Laver, T. R. Gentile, L. R. Dedon, S. Harris, J. J. Rhyne, and S. A. Majetich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 , 207203 (2010).                                              |
| [33]      | S. Mühlbauer, A. Heinemann, A. Wilhelm, L. Karge, A. Ostermann, I. Defendi, A. Schreyer, W. Petry, and R. Gilles, Nucl. Inst. Methods Phys. Res. A 832 , 297 (2016).                                                                                            |
| [34] [35] | C. D. Dewhurst, https://www.ill.eu/users/support-labs- infrastructure/software-scientific-tools/grasp/ (2018). M. Ernst, J. Schelten, and W. Schmatz, Phys. Stat. Sol 7 , 477                                                                                   |
| [36]      | (1971). O. Glatter, J. Appl. Cryst. 10 , 415 (1977).                                                                                                                                                                                                            |

| [37]   | D. I. Svergun and M. H. J. Koch, Reports Prog. Phys. 66 , 1735 (2003).                                                                                                                                                   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| [38]   | G. Fritz and O. Glatter, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 18 , S2403 (2006).                                                                                                                                                     |
| [39]   | P. Bender, L. K. Bogart, O. Posth, W. Szczerba, S. E. Rogers, A. Castro, L. Nilsson, L. J. Zeng, A. Sugunan, J. Sommertune, A. Fornara, D. González-Alonzo, L. F. Barquín, and C. Johansson, Sci. Rep. 7 , 46990 (2017). |
| [40]   | A. López-Ortega, E. Lottini, C. D. J. Fernández, and C. Sangregorio, Chem. Mater. 27 , 4048 (2015).                                                                                                                      |
| [41]   | M. Klokkenburg, J. Hilhorst, and B. H. Erné, Vib. Spectrosc. 43 , 243 (2007).                                                                                                                                            |
| [42]   | P. Bender, C. Balceris, F. Ludwig, O. Posth, L. K. Bogart, W. Szczerba, A. Castro, L. Nilsson, R. Costo, H. Gavilán, D. Gonzáley-Alonso, I. de P. L. F. Barquin, and C. Johansson, New J. Phys. 19 , 073012 (2017).      |
| [43]   | D. Honecker, L. F. Barquín, and P. Bender, ArXiv:1904.06243 (2019).                                                                                                                                                      |
| [44]   | J. B. Kortright, O. Hellwig, K. Chesnel, S. Sun, and E. E. Fullerton, Phys. Rev. B 71 , 012402 (2005).                                                                                                                   |
| [45]   | K. Chesnel, D. Griner, D. Smith, Y. Cai, M. Trevino, B. Newbold, T. Wang, T. Liu, E. Jal, A. Reid, and R. Harrison, Magnetochemistry 4 , 42 (2018).                                                                      |
| [46]   | J. Rackham, B. Newbold, S. Kotter, D. Smith, D. Griner, R. Harrison, A. H. Reid, M.Transtrum, and K. Chesnel, AIP Adv. 9 , 035006 (2019).                                                                                |
| [47]   | S. Mørup, E. Brok, and C. Frandsen, J. Nanomater. 2013 , 720629 (2013).                                                                                                                                                  |
| [48]   | A. Fraile Rodríguez, A. Kleibert, J. Bansmann, A. Voitkans, L. J. Heyderman, and F. Nolting, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 , 127201 (2010).                                                                                       |
| [49]   | S. Erokhin, D. Berkov, N. Gorn, and A. Michels, IEEE Trans. Magn. 47 , 3044 (2011).                                                                                                                                      |
| [50]   | S. Erokhin, D. Berkov, N. Gorn, and A. Michels, Phys. Rev. B 85 , 024410 (2012).                                                                                                                                         |
| [51]   | S. Erokhin, D. Berkov, N. Gorn, and A. Michels, Phys. Rev. B 85 , 134418 (2012).                                                                                                                                         |
| [52]   | A. Michels, S. Erokhin, D. Berkov, and N. Gorn, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 350 , 55 (2014).                                                                                                                                   |
| [53]   | S. Erokhin, D. Berkov, and A. Michels, Phys. Rev. B 92 , 014427 (2015).                                                                                                                                                  |
| [54]   | S. Erokhin, D. Berkov, M. Ito, A. Kato, M. Yano, and A. Michels, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 30 , 125802 (2018).                                                                                                            |
| [55]   | J. M. D. Coey, Magnetism and Magnetic Materials (Cambridge University Press, 2010).                                                                                                                                      |
| [56]   | T. Gaudisson, Z. Beji, F. Herbst, S. Nowak, S. Ammar, and R. Valenzuela, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 387 , 90 (2015).                                                                                                          |

## FIGURE 1

Fig. 1: Schematic drawing of the SANS setup. The scattering vector q is defined as the difference between the wave vectors of the scattered and incident neutrons, i.e., q = k 1 -k 0 .  The  magnetic field H 0 is  applied  perpendicular to the incident neutron beam, i.e., k 0 // e x ⊥ H 0 // e z . In the small-angle approximation (  &lt;&lt; 1), the component of q along k 0 is neglected,  i.e., 𝒒 ≅ {0, 𝑞 𝑦 , 𝑞 𝑧 } = 𝑞{0, sin(𝜃) , cos  (𝜃)} ,  where  the  angle θ specifies  the  orientation  of q on  the  twodimensional detector.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-f6e1c90f-984a-4da2-b7ac-611205de804c.jpg)

## FIGURE 2

Fig. 2: (a) X-ray diffraction patterns of Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 nanoparticles (8, 27, 38, 80 nm diameter particle size) compared to the reference pattern of the cubic spinel structure (red color bars; taken from the JPCD database, JCPDS-221086). (b) TEM images of the Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 nanoparticles (8, 27, 38 and 80 nm diameter particle size).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-26e8e88e-aa02-4822-b100-2e9d0b9d482a.jpg)

## FIGURE 3

Fig. 3: Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image of the MZFO-38 sample after pressing into a circular pellet. Inset: SEM cross view at the edge of the pellet.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-b2eadb6e-a0d2-4f93-a48a-8c6d36f2236f.jpg)

## FIGURE 4

Fig. 4: (a) Normalized M H ( ) curves of Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 nanoparticle powders measured at room temperature in a field range of ± 5 T (8 (green), 27 (black), 38 (blue) and 80 (pink) nm diameter particle size). The experimental M S has been approximated by the high-field value (5 T). (b) Zoom in the low-field region of the M H ( ) curves. (c) Extracted magnetic moment distribution P V( μ ) of MZFO-8 determined by numerical inversion of the M H ( ) in Fig. 4(a) (green squares). The main peak has been fitted assuming a log-normal distribution of the magnetic moment μ (red dashed line). (d) Histogram of the particle-size distribution of MZFO-8 determined by TEM (green) and number-weighted log-normal distribution determined by transforming the main peak of the magnetic moment distribution P V( μ ) observed in Fig. 4(c) (red solid line).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-f776f686-eaf2-4200-a2ff-137582a84140.jpg)

## FIGURE 5

Fig. 5: Experimental two-dimensional total unpolarized SANS cross sections d Σ /d Ω (left and middle panel) and magnetic SANS cross sections d Σ M/d Ω (right panel) of Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 nanoparticles. The d Σ M/d Ω in the remanent state were obtained by subtracting the total scattering at the (near) saturation field of 4 T from the data at H = 0 T. The applied magnetic  field H 0 is  horizontal  in  the  plane  of  the  detector  ( H 0 ⊥ k 0 ).  All  measurements  were  performed  at  room temperature. Note that the d Σ /d Ω and d Σ M/d Ω scales are plotted in polar coordinates ( q in  nm -1 , θ in  degree and the intensity in arbitrary units normalized between 0 and 1).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-9b82cc2a-b169-4ba9-80a3-35f80d8aae80.jpg)

## FIGURE 6

Fig. 6: Nuclear SANS cross sections d Σ nuc /d Ω of Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4  nanoparticles as a function of momentum transfer q (8 (green), 27 (black), 38 (blue) and 80 (pink) nm diameter particle size) (log-log scale). The d Σ nuc /d Ω were determined by  10° horizontal averages ( q // H 0 ) of the total d Σ /d Ω at an applied magnetic field of μ0 H 0 = 4 T. Note that the data are displayed as a function of q qc / , where q c = 2π/ D with D the respective mean nanoparticle size. Measurements were performed at room temperature (300 K). Black solid lines: power law fits to d Σ nuc /d Ω ∝ K qD 4 /( ) . Dashed vertical line: q = q c = 2π/ D . The error bars of d Σ nuc /d Ω are smaller than the data point size.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-c4b65080-375d-4cc6-b4ee-ff279352b874.jpg)

## FIGURE 7

Fig. 7: Magnetic field dependence of the (over 2  ) azimuthally-averaged total nuclear and magnetic (top panel) and purely  magnetic (bottom panel) SANS cross sections of Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 nanoparticles (log-log scale). Solid filled circles in the inset: magnetic field values in Tesla decrease from 4.0 T (bottom) to 0 T (top). All measurements were performed at room temperature. The error bars of d Σ /d Ω and d Σ M/d Ω are smaller than the data point size.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-ea0b380b-0bb8-4b8b-b358-4496de50f890.jpg)

## FIGURE 8

Fig. 8: Left: experimental intensity ratio α exp ( q ) determined from the averaged SANS cross sections at zero field and at  0 H 0 = 4 T with q // H 0 [Eq. (3)]. Right: magnetic field dependence of α exp around q = 0.22 nm -1 for MZFO-38. Note that the data are displayed as a function of q qc / ,  where q c =  2π/ D with D the  respective mean nanoparticle size. Dashed vertical lines: q = q c = 2π/ D . Dashed horizontal lines: α calc = 1.027 [Eq. (4)] computed using the Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2O4 bulk density of 4084 kg/m 3 , 𝛥𝜚nuc = 𝜚Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2O4 -𝜚Oleic acid = 5.155 10 -6 Å 2 , and 𝜚mag = 𝑏𝐻𝑀S 𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑂 = 1.046 10 -6 Å 2 , where 𝑀S 𝑀𝑍𝐹𝑂 = 359.4 kA/m corresponds to the mean value of M S (compare Table 1).

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-cab593bd-dd0d-423e-9519-bda80b9f93e4.jpg)

## FIGURE 9

Fig. 9: (a) Selected field-dependent 2π-azimuthal averages of the magnetic SANS cross section 𝑑𝛴M/𝑑𝛺 of MZFO-38 (taken from Fig. 7). Color solid lines: reconstruction of 𝑑𝛴M/𝑑𝛺 in  the  intraparticle q -range (marked by the dashed vertical line) using the extracted p r ( ) profiles from (b). (b) Field-dependent pair-distance distribution functions p r ( ) [Eq. (5)] extracted by an indirect Fourier transform of 𝑑𝛴M/𝑑𝛺 in the intraparticle q -range. Dashed line: expected p r ( ) = r 2 [1 - 3 r /(4 R ) + r 3 /(16 R 3 )] for a homogeneous sphere of D = 2 R = 38 nm size.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-cddf01cd-0bc1-4156-bddf-95f344f3598a.jpg)

## FIGURE 10

Fig. 10: Microstructures used in the micromagnetic simulations. The volume fraction of the particle phase was set to 80 % in all computations. The simulation volume  300  300  300 nm 3 is constant in the simulations (mesh size: 4 nm), so that an increase in the average particle size D is accompanied by a reduction of the number N of particles, from N  40.000 at 14 nm to N  40 at 74 nm.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-96a07ec5-9aec-44b2-959c-1102303497c3.jpg)

## FIGURE 11

Fig.  11:  Applied  field  dependence  of  the  quantity  M M  / S [Eq.  (6)]  for  different  average  particle  sizes D .  Inset: Corresponding normalized magnetization curves.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-63816b8a-4b76-440a-a419-5e729835d3f8.jpg)

## FIGURE 12

Fig. 12: (top panel) Particle-size-dependent evolution of the parameter  M M  / S [Eq. (6)] for each magnetic particle ' ' i and as a function of the applied magnetic field. (bottom panel) Snapshots of spin structures at selected fields, where the largest deviations from the uniform magnetization state are observed.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00343v2-figure-84aa7d76-64a5-41af-af5e-02a9d8405315.jpg)

## TABLE 1

| Sample   | Composition (XRF)           | Particle size (TEM) (nm)   | Crystal size (XRD) (nm)   |   M S at 300 K (Am 2 /kg) |   M R at 300 K (Am 2 /kg) |   μ 0 H C at 300 K (mT) |
|----------|-----------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|---------------------------|-------------------------|
| MZFO-8   | Mn 0.18 Zn 0.25 Fe 2.57 O 4 | 8±2                        | 8(1)                      |                        73 |                         1 |                     0.8 |
| MZFO-27  | Mn 0.24 Zn 0.21 Fe 2.55 O 4 | 27±3                       | 26(1)                     |                        95 |                         1 |                     0.4 |
| MZFO-38  | Mn 0.20 Zn 0.17 Fe 2.63 O 4 | 38±5                       | 38(1)                     |                        90 |                         4 |                     2.7 |
| MZFO-80  | Mn 0.20 Zn 0.25 Fe 2.55 O 4 |  80                       | 79(1)                     |                        94 |                        10 |                     9.4 |

Table 1: Structural and magnetic parameters of Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 nanoparticle powders. The average particle sizes were determined  by  means  of  transmission  electron  microscopy  (TEM)  and  wide-angle  X-ray  diffraction  (XRD).  The saturation and remanent magnetizations ( M S and M R) and the coercive field ( H C) have been determined from the M H ( ) curves.
Mathias Bersweiler Philipp Bender Laura G. Vivas Martin Albino Michele Petrecca Sebastian Mühlbauer Sergey Erokhin Dmitry Berkov Claudio Sangregorio Andreas Michels
Size-dependent spatial magnetization profile of manganese-zinc ferrite Mn0.2Zn0.2Fe2.6O4 nanoparticles
We report the results of an unpolarized small-angle neutron scattering (SANS)
study on Mn-Zn ferrite (MZFO) magnetic nanoparticles with the aim to elucidate
the interplay between their particle size and the magnetization configuration.
We study different samples of single-crystalline MZFO nanoparticles with
average diameters ranging between 8 to 80 nm, and demonstrate that the smallest
particles are homogeneously magnetized. However, with increasing nanoparticle
size, we observe the transition from a uniform to a nonuniform magnetization
state. Field-dependent results for the correlation function confirm that the
internal spin disorder is suppressed with increasing field strength. The
experimental SANS data are supported by the results of micromagnetic
simulations, which confirm an increasing inhomogeneity of the magnetization
profile of the nanoparticle with increasing size. The results presented
demonstrate the unique ability of SANS to detect even very small deviations of
the magnetization state from the homogeneous one.