Hindered rotation and phase transition in sodium gallohydride according to the NMR data
- 31 Downloads
Polycrystalline sodium gallohydrides with different hydrogen isotope compositions, NaGaH4, NaGaH2.56D1.44, and NaGaD4, were studied over the temperature range 100–375 K by the 2H, 23Na, and 69,71Ga NMR methods in magnetic fields of 1.4, 1.88, and 7.04 T. The data on spin-lattice deuteron relaxation T 1(2H) were used to determine the activation energy (∼35 kJ/mol) of anion rotational motions and quadrupole coupling constant (QCC) χ Q 0 (2H) = 90 kHz for the rigid lattice. To within measurement errors, the activation energy and 2H QCC were independent of the isotope composition. The low-temperature 2H NMR line was a doublet with 2H QCC χ(2H) = 70 kHz. The difference between χ 0 and χ(T) was interpreted in terms of the librational averaging of the electric field gradient (EFG) according to the Bayer equation. The frequency of librations at 113 K was estimated (31 cm−1). The shape of the 69,71Ga NMR line was indicative of second-order quadrupole interaction with a nonzero asymmetry parameter η of the EFG tensor. Temperature variations in the QCC and η parameter at gallium were considered using the distorted tetrahedron model. The η value changed from 0.65 to zero (axial EFG tensor symmetry characteristic of tetragonal lattices) over the temperature range 140–295 K and again increased to 0.3 at 300–365 K, which was evidence of a change in the orientation of the distorted tetrahedral anion in the lattice. Changes in the asymmetry parameter were in agreement with the phase transition in sodium gallohydride recorded as a heat capacity jump.
KeywordsElectric Field Gradient Asymmetry Parameter Quadrupole Coupling Constant Hydrogen Isotope Composition Electric Field Gradient Tensor
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 2.A. Aguayo and D. J. Singh, Phys. Rev. B: Condens. Matter 69, 155 103 (2004).Google Scholar
- 3.O. P. Charkin and A. I. Boldyrev, Itogi Nauki Tekh., Ser. Neorg. Khim. 8 (1980).Google Scholar
- 4.V. P. Tarasov and G. A. Kirakosyan, Zh. Neorg. Khim. 42(8), 1349 (1997) [Russ. J. Inorg. Chem. 42 (8), 1223 (1997)].Google Scholar
- 6.L. M. Kovba, V. E. Gorbunov, and K. S. Gavrichev, Zh. Neorg. Khim. 31(1), 260 (1986).Google Scholar
- 7.A. V. Irodova, V. A. Somenkov, S. I. Bakum, and S. F. Kuznetsova, Z. Phys. Chem. (Leipzig) 163, 239 (1989).Google Scholar
- 8.V. E. Gorbunov, K. S. Gavrichev, and S. I. Bakum, Zh. Neorg. Khim. 27(8), 1915 (1982).Google Scholar
- 9.V. P. Tarasov, G. A. Kirakosyan, S. I. Bakum, and A. A. Shamov, Zh. Neorg. Khim. 37(5), 1153 (1992).Google Scholar
- 10.S. I. Bakum, M. B. Bychkovskaya, S. F. Kuznetsova, and N. T. Kuznetsov, Zh. Neorg. Khim. 32(9), 2293 (1987).Google Scholar
- 12.A. Abragam, The Principles of Nuclear Magnetism (Clarendon, Oxford, U.K., 1961; Inostrannaya Literatura, Moscow, 1963).Google Scholar
- 14.D. T. Edmonds, M. J. Hunt, and A. L. Mackay, J. Magn. Res. 9, 66 (1973).Google Scholar
- 15.E. A. C. Laucken, Nuclear Quadrupole Coupling Constants (Academic, New York, 1969).Google Scholar