X-ray structure of barium titanate – missed ­opportunities

Chandrasekaran, K.S.; Mohanlal, S.K.; Saravanan, R.; Israel, S.

doi:10.1107/S0108768100009733

letters to the editor

STRUCTURAL SCIENCE
CRYSTAL ENGINEERING
MATERIALS

ISSN: 2052-5206

Volume 56| Part 5| October 2000| Pages 918-919

doi:10.1107/S0108768100009733

X-ray structure of barium titanate – missed opportunities

K. S. Chandrasekaran,^a S. K. Mohanlal,^a ^* R. Saravanan ^a ‡ and S. Israel ^a

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

(Received 21 June 2000; accepted 11 July 2000)

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 ), Harada et al. (1970 ; HPB) and recently Buttner & Maslen (1992 ; 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, 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 |F_c| and $[\sigma]$ (F_o), as reported by the above three authors. $[\sigma]$ ( $[\Delta]$ ) can be up to four times larger than $[\sigma]$ (F_o) 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)	Our dispersion estimates (1965)^a	HPB(1970)	Our dispersionestimates for HPB^b			BM (1992)	Our dispersion estimates^b 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.

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) 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 ) our estimates of the very appreciable $[\Delta]$ values for a large number of reflections. In a rejoinder Evans (1966 ) 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 )'. 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) 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) 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 ). Here, therefore, we only cite Ibers & Hamilton (1964 ), 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 ), 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.

Footnotes

‡Present address: The Madura College, Madurai 615011, Tamil Nadu, India.

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. Google Scholar
Buttner, R. H. & Maslen, E. N. (1992). Acta Cryst. B48, 764–769. CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Chandrasekaran, K. S. & Mohanlal, S. K. (1965). Acta Cryst. 19, 853. CrossRef IUCr Journals Web of Science Google Scholar
Evans, H. J. Jr (1961). Acta Cryst. 14, 1019–1026. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Web of Science Google Scholar
Evans, H. J. Jr (1966). Acta Cryst. 21, 182. CrossRef IUCr Journals Web of Science Google Scholar
Flack, H. (1983). Acta Cryst. A39, 876–881. CrossRef CAS Web of Science IUCr Journals Google Scholar
Harada, J., Pederson, T. & Barnea, Z. (1970). Acta Cryst. A26, 336–344. CrossRef CAS IUCr Journals Web of Science Google Scholar
Ibers, J. A. & Hamilton, W. C. (1964). Acta Cryst. 17, 781. CrossRef IUCr Journals Web of Science Google Scholar
Ramaseshan, S. & Abrahams, S. C. (1974). Anomalous Scattering Proc. Int. Congress Conference, Madrid. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Google Scholar
Srinivasan, R. (1972). Advances in Structure Research by Diffraction Methods, edited by W. Hoppe & R. Mason, pp. 105–197. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Google Scholar

© International Union of Crystallography. Prior permission is not required to reproduce short quotations, tables and figures from this article, provided the original authors and source are cited. For more information, click here.