[Journal logo]

Volume 56 
Part 5 
Pages 918-919  
October 2000  

Received 21 June 2000
Accepted 11 July 2000

X-ray structure of barium titanate - missed opportunities

K. S. Chandrasekaran,a S. K. Mohanlal,a* R. Saravanana+ and S. Israela

aSchool of Physics, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai 625021, India
Correspondence e-mail: saravana@pronet.net.in

Anomalous X-ray scattering effects are quite extensive in the noncentrosymmetric ferroelectric structure of barium titanate, and typical estimates for three published X-ray diffraction experiments are computed. These data show that the Bijvoet pairs should not be averaged before least-squares refinement for this polar crystal with small atomic displacements from a higher symmetric space group.

In the tetragonal ferroelectric structure of barium titanate, the heavy atoms have the dispersive components f'Ba = -0.613, f''Ba = 2.28, f'Ti =0.28 and f''Ti = 0.446 (International Tables for X-ray Crystallography, 1974) for Mo  K[\alpha] X-rays used in three extensive structure analyses, namely Evans (1961[Evans, H. J. Jr (1961). Acta Cryst. 14, 1019-1026.]), Harada et al. (1970[Harada, J., Pederson, T. & Barnea, Z. (1970). Acta Cryst. A26, 336-344.]; HPB) and recently Buttner & Maslen (1992[Buttner, R. H. & Maslen, E. N. (1992). Acta Cryst. B48, 764-769.]; BM). For the point group 4mm, any reflection with l [\neq] 0 can exhibit a Bijvoet difference [\Delta] = 0.5(I - [\bar I] )/(I + [\bar I]) between the intensities of inverse reflections.

In Table 1[link], our estimated dispersive effects for a few reflections are displayed for the above three reported structures. The structure magnitudes |F+|, |F-|, the phase angles [\alpha]+, [\alpha]- and the [\Delta] values are listed along with |Fc| and [\sigma](Fo), as reported by the above three authors. [\sigma]([\Delta]) can be up to four times larger than [\sigma](Fo) and therefore such dispersive scattering estimates should have been measurable.

Table 1
Our dispersion estimates for the three experiments

aOur dispersion estimates (Chandrasekaran & Mohanlal, 1965) applying an average isotropic Debye-Waller term, exp(-2Bsin2[\theta]/[\lambda]2) for the intensities. See text. bEstimates for ambient room temperature.

  Evans (1961[Evans, H. J. Jr (1961). Acta Cryst. 14, 1019-1026.] Our dispersion estimates (1965)a HPB(1970) Our dispersionestimates for HPBb BM (1992) Our dispersion estimatesb for BM (1992)
hkl |Fc|;[\sigma](Fo) [\Delta]% |Fc| |F+| |F-| [\Delta]% |Fc|;[\sigma](Fo) |F+| |F-| [\Delta]% [\alpha]+ [\alpha]-
000 102 - 101.6 101.6 101.6 - 102 101.6 101.6 -    
003 21;0.32 8.4 N.M. 19.2 18.5 -7.4 19.1;0.06 17.6 18.4 8.9 13.9 -3.3
005 15.5;0.26 10.3 14.8 14.7 13.7 -13.8 13.8;0.1 11.9 13 17.6 18.9 -5.9
007 11.2;0.1 16 10.3 10.5 9.2 -25.9 9.2;0.13 7 8.3 34.5 25.7 -9.2
009 8.1;0.11 21.7 7.9 8.1 6.7 -36.8 N.M. 4.3 5.6 50 29.4 -10.2
207 10.4;0.07 15.1 9.9 9.9 8.6 -27.7 9;0.08 6.6 7.9 26.2 25.8 -8.8
307 18;0.05 16.7 17.9 16.7 18 15.4 14.8;0.27 13 11.6 -22.4 -7.2 20.3
407 9.3;0.09 17 8.2 8.4 7.1 -32.7 7.7;0.09 5.7 6.8 36.4 25.8 1.3
507 15;0.09 18.6 N.M.# 13.7 15 17.6 11.9;0.27 10 8.9 -25.3 -6.1 20.4
108 18.2;0.06 0.55 9.7 9.9 8.8 -22.9 7.7;0.09 5.5 6.8 42 33.3 -16.2
208 17.4;0.1 1.08 17.3 18.1 18.7 5.7 14.8;0.2 14 13.3 -9.7 -1.4 13.6
308 9;0.08 0.66 8.2 8.9 7.9 -25.1 7.1;0.09 5.1 6.3 42 32.5 -14.7
408 15.2;0.08 1.28 15 15.9 16.4 6.5 N.M. 12.1 11.5 -10 -0.4 13.5
#N.M. - Not measured.

We have in fact computed the |F+|, |F-| and [\Delta] values at ambient temperature for all reflections up to [\sin\theta/\lambda \simeq1.4]  Å-1 for the BM (1992) structure. The trends are summarized in Table 2[link].

Table 2
Summary of compound dispersion values for reflections with sin[\theta]/[\lambda] [\le] 1.4  Å-1

Description No. of reflections
Total up to 1.5  Å-1 for Mo  K[\alpha] 912
With l = 0 index 112
With l [\neq] 0 and |F| [\gt] 4 electrons 735
|[\Delta]| [\gt] 20% 268 (+ve = 181, -ve = 87)
|[\Delta]| [\gt] 10% 187 (+ve = 94, -ve = 93)
|[\Delta]| [\gt] 5% 145 (+ve = 68, -ve = 77)
|[\Delta]| [\lt] 5% 312 (+ve = 108, -ve = 204)
Thus, the dispersive scattering effects are quite appreciable for a large number of reflections, with both positive and negative signs for [\Delta] (negative, -ve for I [\lt] [\bar I]).

Evans (1961[Evans, H. J. Jr (1961). Acta Cryst. 14, 1019-1026.]) measured approximately 350 h0l reflections using a Geiger counter fitted to a Weissenberg instrument and Mo  K[\alpha] X-rays up to [\sin\theta/\lambda\simeq1.4]  Å-1. He reported an `impasse' in the structure determination, even with residuals as low as 0.03, owing to parameter interaction in the least-squares refinements with such a polar space group deviating by small atomic displacements from a higher symmetric space group. In a discussion we pointed out (Chandrasekaran & Mohanlal, 1965[Chandrasekaran, K. S. & Mohanlal, S. K. (1965). Acta Cryst. 19, 853.]) our estimates of the very appreciable [\Delta] values for a large number of reflections. In a rejoinder Evans (1966[Evans, H. J. Jr (1966). Acta Cryst. 21, 182.]) stated that his raw expermental data for h0l, [\bar h] 0l and h0[\bar l] , [\bar h]0[\bar l] had not shown any such differences, which he attributed to `antiparallel twinning', with l+ and l- intensities tending to average out. In HPB (1970) a single C domain crystal was used for the X-ray studies; dispersive scattering effects were noticed in that only the refinements using an l index of positive sign yielded the best standard errors for the parameters with low residuals.

BM (1992) recorded two independent sets of measurements on the same sample with [\sim]3500 data in each set, up to 1.08  Å-1 for Mo  K[\alpha]. They stated that `Friedel pairs were averaged and merged even in case 3 (the correct noncentrosymmetric P4mm structure), because the effects of anomalous dispersion are very small (Buerger, 1960[Buerger, M. J. (1960). Crystal Structure Analysis. New York: John Wiley.])'. It is not clear to us from this quote whether they had sought to measure Bijvoet differences at all in their experiment or merely cited the text (Buerger, 1960[Buerger, M. J. (1960). Crystal Structure Analysis. New York: John Wiley.]) to justify their merging and averaging of the Friedel pairs. Also, BM (1992) had probably taken the magnitudes |f + f' + if''| for the atomic scattering factors, which procedure would eliminate any [\Delta] values in the structure-factor calculations and, in addition, lead to large errors in the structure-factor magnitudes and phases. Furthermore, Buerger (1960[Buerger, M. J. (1960). Crystal Structure Analysis. New York: John Wiley.]) devotes four pages to anomalous scattering, with Argand diagrams for F+ and F-, a table for f' and f'' for different targets and several examples of the actual experimental measurement of Bijvoet differences.

The least-squares and Fourier procedures for noncentrosymmetric structures with appreciable dispersive scattering have been extensively discussed in a previous review (Srinivasan, 1972[Srinivasan, R. (1972). Advances in Structure Research by Diffraction Methods, edited by W. Hoppe & R. Mason, pp. 105-197. Oxford: Pergamon Press.]) and an International Conference Report (Ramaseshan & Abrahams, 1974[Ramaseshan, S. & Abrahams, S. C. (1974). Anomalous Scattering Proc. Int. Congress Conference, Madrid. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.]). Here, therefore, we only cite Ibers & Hamilton (1964[Ibers, J. A. & Hamilton, W. C. (1964). Acta Cryst. 17, 781.]), who recommend that Friedel pairs should be treated independently in the least squares, using the actual observed values and corresponding calculated values |F+(H)| and |F-(H)|. For the effects of domains in BaTiO3, tending to average out l+ and l- intensities, the Flack enantiopole parameter (Flack, 1983[Flack, H. (1983). Acta Cryst. A39, 876-881.]), namely |F([\bar h])|2 = (1 - x) |F(h)|2 + x|F(-h)|2, is called for to account for the intensities, with x as a parameter for refinement.

Acknowledgements

One of us (KSC) wishes to dedicate this work to the memory of the late Professor M. Buerger, with whom he had a pleasant personal acquaintance and another (RS) acknowledges the CSIR for financial assistance.

References

Buerger, M. J. (1960). Crystal Structure Analysis. New York: John Wiley.
Buttner, R. H. & Maslen, E. N. (1992). Acta Cryst. B48, 764-769. [details]
Chandrasekaran, K. S. & Mohanlal, S. K. (1965). Acta Cryst. 19, 853. [details]
Evans, H. J. Jr (1961). Acta Cryst. 14, 1019-1026. [details]
Evans, H. J. Jr (1966). Acta Cryst. 21, 182. [details]
Flack, H. (1983). Acta Cryst. A39, 876-881. [details] [ChemPort]
Harada, J., Pederson, T. & Barnea, Z. (1970). Acta Cryst. A26, 336-344. [details]
Ibers, J. A. & Hamilton, W. C. (1964). Acta Cryst. 17, 781. [details]
Ramaseshan, S. & Abrahams, S. C. (1974). Anomalous Scattering Proc. Int. Congress Conference, Madrid. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Srinivasan, R. (1972). Advances in Structure Research by Diffraction Methods, edited by W. Hoppe & R. Mason, pp. 105-197. Oxford: Pergamon Press.


Acta Cryst (2000). B56, 918-919   [ doi:10.1107/S0108768100009733 ]