Presentation Information
[7p-P03-39]A Comparison of Electrical 1/f Noise in Magnetic Tunnel Junctions with MgO and Mg-Al-O Barriers
Shintarou Nii1, 〇Chaoliang Zhang1, Haoxiang He1, Yupeng Wang1, Takayuki Hojo1, Takafumi Nakano1,2, Mikihiko Oogane1,3 (1.Department of Applied Physics, Tohoku Univ., 2.Green X-tech, Tohoku Univ., 3.CSIS, Tohoku Univ.)
Keywords:
TMR sensor
The biomedical applications of Magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ)-based tunnel magnetoresistance (TMR) sensors involve sensing magnetic fields in the sub-100 Hz frequency range, where electrical 1/f noise becomes a limiting factor. This noise originates from charge trapping/detrapping at the tunnel barrier or its interfaces. Although MgO is widely used, its lattice mismatch with Fe-based electrodes often introduces interfacial defects. In contrast, magnesium aluminum oxide (MAO) offers a better lattice match to Fe, making it a potential alternative. Although previous studies have focused on the TMR properties, detailed comparison of their 1/f noise is still required. Here we perform a direct comparison of the electrical 1/f noise characteristics of MgO- and MAO-based MTJs.
The MTJ stacks are MgO(001) substrate/Cr(60)/Fe(50)/Mg(0.2)/MgO or MAO(2)/Fe(5)/IrMn(10)/Cr(5) (thickness in nm). MgO or MAO are deposited via electron beam evaporation, while the remaining layers are formed using sputtering. Devices with MgO barriers (MgO-MTJs) exhibited TMR ratios ranging from 140-180%, whereas those with MAO barriers (MAO-MTJs) showed TMR ratios between 60-100%. The power spectra density of MgO and MAO-MTJs is measured to assess their noise electrical 1/f noise, which is quantified with the Hooge parameter. MgO-MTJs shows a value of 5.74×10-8 μm2, while MAO-MTJs showed a substantially lower value of 5.69×10-9 μm2, confirming the noise suppression capability of MAO. To further investigate the underlying cause, scanning transmission electron microscopy is utilized to examine interfacial defect densities. The analysis reveals that the MAO/Fe interface had approximately 1% defect density, significantly lower than the 4% observed at the MgO/Fe interface, pointing to the superior lattice compatibility and structural quality of MAO, which is considered to contribute to the noise suppression.
The MTJ stacks are MgO(001) substrate/Cr(60)/Fe(50)/Mg(0.2)/MgO or MAO(2)/Fe(5)/IrMn(10)/Cr(5) (thickness in nm). MgO or MAO are deposited via electron beam evaporation, while the remaining layers are formed using sputtering. Devices with MgO barriers (MgO-MTJs) exhibited TMR ratios ranging from 140-180%, whereas those with MAO barriers (MAO-MTJs) showed TMR ratios between 60-100%. The power spectra density of MgO and MAO-MTJs is measured to assess their noise electrical 1/f noise, which is quantified with the Hooge parameter. MgO-MTJs shows a value of 5.74×10-8 μm2, while MAO-MTJs showed a substantially lower value of 5.69×10-9 μm2, confirming the noise suppression capability of MAO. To further investigate the underlying cause, scanning transmission electron microscopy is utilized to examine interfacial defect densities. The analysis reveals that the MAO/Fe interface had approximately 1% defect density, significantly lower than the 4% observed at the MgO/Fe interface, pointing to the superior lattice compatibility and structural quality of MAO, which is considered to contribute to the noise suppression.
Comment
To browse or post comments, you must log in.Log in