A. Stachow-Wojcik et al.

: Magnetic Properties of Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe Epilayers

555

phys. stat. sol. (a) 177, 555 (2000)

Subject classification: 75.30.Kz; 75.40.Cx; 75.50.Lk; 75.70.i; S8.13

Magnetic Properties of Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe

Epilayers with High Concentration of Mn
A. Stachow-Wojcik (a), W. Mac (a), A. Twardowski (a), G. Karczewski (b),
E. Janik (b), T. Wojtowicz (b), J. Kossut (b), and E. Dynowska (b)
_ 69,
(a) Institute of Experimental Physics, Warsaw University, Hoza
PL-00-681 Warsaw, Poland
(b) Institute of Physics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Al. Lotnikow 32/46,
PL-02-668 Warsaw, Poland
(Received March 18, 1999; in revised form July 28, 1999)
Field-cooled, zero-field-cooled and remanent magnetization of Cd1xMnxTe, Zn1xMnxTe (0.5 < x
 1.0) epilayers, including the end-point MnTe, were measured as functions of temperature and
magnetic field. For all diluted systems (x < 1.0) a spin-glass-like behavior was observed. Irreversible effects, typical for the spin-glass, tend to decrease in magnitude with an increasing Mn concentration and vanish in MnTe. This spin-glassantiferromagnet transition is gradual. Magnetic phase
diagrams of Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe are discussed.

1. Introduction
Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe are most typical representatives of diluted magnetic
semiconductors (DMS), i.e., semiconductor mixed crystals in which a controlled fraction
of nonmagnetic cations (e.g., Cd or Zn) is substituted by magnetic ions (e.g., Mn or Fe
or Eu) [1, 2]. An important feature of some DMS systems is that they can be obtained
in a broad concentration range: bulk materials can be successfully grown up to x  0.8
[1, 2], while the MBE-grown epilayers can be obtained in the entire range of x, up to
x = 1.0 [3 to 6]. Generally speaking, DMS retain good semiconductor properties and the
crystalline structure of their nonmagnetic hosts but show also pronounced magnetic
response, bridging in this way the physics of semiconductors and the physics of magnetic materials. In particular, DMS based on IIVI compounds can be regarded as
systems of localized magnetic moments, randomly distributed over a highly-symmetric
nonmagnetic lattice (f.c.c. in most of the cases), coupled by an antiferromagnetic (AF),
long-range (LR) superexchange interaction [7 to 9]. Several different magnetic phases
could be observed in such materials, whose appearance depended on the magnetic ion
concentration and the temperature range [10 to 13]. For high enough temperatures,
DMS exhibit a typical paramagnetic behavior. On the other hand, if the temperature is
lower than a certain Tf (which depends on magnetic ion concentration) the DMS system reveals spin-glass-like properties, including a cusp-like anomaly in ac susceptibility,
a history dependent dc susceptibility and monotonic specific heat behavior around Tf
[10 to 13]. These experimental pieces of evidence of the spin-glass-like (SG) behavior
were further supported by frequency dependent ac susceptibility experiments and studies of nonlinear dc susceptibility [14 to 18]. The full experimental verification of the
SG hypothesis is important since many DMS systems with their purely AF interactions

556

A. Stachow-Wojcik et al.

do not meet the usual criteria for a canonical SG (e.g., competing long-ranged interaction with its sign varying from antiferro to ferro with changing the distance between the
magnetic ions) [19]. Nevertheless the results obtained for the crystals [10 to 18] with
x < 0.6 suggest that DMS may indeed exhibit a transition to a phase, which is experimentally very similar to or even indistinguishable from that observed in canonical SGs
[19]. The situation for highly concentrated crystals is even more complex. Neutron scattering experiments performed on cubic MnTe (x = 1.0) revealed a truly long-range, type
III AF ordering below Tf = 66.7 K [4]. Diluting MnTe with Zn resulted in a decrease of
Tf but also in a shortening of the range of the antiferromagnetic correlation. Below
x = 0.82 the magnetic peaks in the neutron diffraction patterns broadened significantly
as compared to the crystalline peaks, indicating that the magnetic order becomes shortrange [4]. The exact nature of the transition between an antiferromagnet (MnTe) and
the SG (Cd1xMnxTe, Zn1xMnxTe, x < 0.6) appears to be a fundamental problem of
DMS. Already, the preliminary results obtained for Cd1 xMnxTe epilayers showed that
there is a no dramatic change of the magnetic properties in the 0.4 < x < 1.0 range [3].
In order to shed more light on the problem of SGAF transition we performed a
systematic magnetization study of both Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe systems with an
emphasis on the Mn-rich end of the molar fractions.

2. Experimental
The data reported here were obtained on several Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe epilayers (see Table 1). All epilayers were grown by MBE technique on (100) GaAs semiinsulating substrates. The details of the growth method were described elsewhere [20].
The thickness of the epilayers was between 2 and 5 mm (deduced from the growth rate
calibrated by RHEED specular spot intensity oscillations). The crystalline quality was
checked by X-ray diffraction. It was found that only zincblende (ZB) phase was present
in the films. Assuming the fully relaxed crystal lattice, the determined lattice parameters
(perpendicular to the plane) were used to evaluate Mn concentration in the epilayers.
Magnetic measurements of epilayers usually suffer small amount of magnetic material, which results in a relatively small contribution of the epilayer to the total response
of the sample. To obtain a better mass ratio of the mass of magnetic epilayer and that
Ta b l e 1
The investigated samples

epilayers

bulk samples

Cd1xMnxTe

Zn1xMnxTe

x
x
x
x
x
x

=
=
=
=
=
=

0.40
0.55
0.67
0.74
0.88
1.00

x
x
x
x
x
x

=
=
=
=
=
=

0.56
0.68
0.72
0.89
0.90
1.00

x
x
x
x

=
=
=
=

0.49
0.68
0.71
0.76

x
x
x
x

=
=
=
=

0.40
0.50
0.66
0.71

Accuracy of x determination is Dx = 0.01.

Magnetic Properties of Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe Epilayers

557

of the substrate in the measured samples, the substrate was partially removed by polishing with carborundum powder down to about 200 mm. Then, the sample was carefully
washed to remove the polishing powder, divided into five or six pieces and glued into a
stack of dimensions about 2  3 mm2. Typically one sample, having the total mass in the
range 60 to 120 mg, contained 1 to 2 mg of the magnetic material and about 3 mg of
glue. For such mass ratio the magnitude of a paramagnetic contribution of the original
epilayer was typically 2 to 3 times greater than the magnitude of the diamagnetic contribution of the substrate. We stress that although the effort was done to decrease the
substrate/glue contribution, this effect could not be eliminated completely. Thus, any
magnetic contamination in the substrate/glue may also come into play. Being aware of
this we checked our substrate and glue separately and found that they indeed contained unidentified magnetic contamination. Measurements showed that the magnetic
moment due to the contamination is paramagnetic and reveals some history dependence even above 100 K. In general, the magnetic moment of the contaminant was
relatively small: it corresponded to, at most, about 1015 saturated spins S = 5/2 per gram of
the sample (substrate and glue). Thus the contribution of the contamination was visible
only in the case of the lowest magnetic moments measured (such as remanence). The
procedure to overcome this difficulty in remanence measurements is given below.
For comparison, we also measured several bulk Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1 xMnxTe crystals (see Table 1), which could be directly compared to the results obtained in epilayers
with small Mn concentration.
The magnetization of the samples was measured using a SQUID magnetometer with
the sensitivity 10 7 emu, providing a magnetic field up to 6 T and the controlled temperature in the range 2 to 325 K. The magnetization was studied as a function of the
temperature (at a fixed magnetic field) or as a function of the magnetic field strength.
In the first case, both zerofield-cooled (ZFC) and field-cooled (FC) experiments were
performed. It should be noticed that in our magnetometer no real zero of the magnetic
field could be obtained. Setting the system to zero field or performing a special zeroing
procedure (i.e., alternating the coil current direction while suppressing its magnitude to
zero) always left the magnetometer with a residual field Br. The value of Br varied
from one procedure of suppressing the field to zero to the other and ranged from
0.0010 to 0.0040 T. This made measurements at very low fields rather difficult and unreliable. In the particular case of the remanence, a special procedure (described below)
was used to overcome this problem. Since a typical value of the magnetic field at which
our measurements were carried out was B = 0.1 T or more, therefore a possible uncertainty of the absolute value of M due to an uncontrolled presence of Br was less than
5%. This was less than the uncertainty resulting from the inaccuracy of the epilayer
mass determination (described below). We stress that although the absolute value of
the magnetization is not relevant for the present problem, we shall restrict the discussion to the magnetic fields in the range providing sufficient reliability.
The details of the ZFC procedure were the following: the sample was cooled in the
magnetic field B set to ``zero, down to 10 K. Then, the measuring field (e.g., 0.1 T)
was applied and the magnetization MZFC was measured with the temperature rising to
about 200 K.
The FC magnetization (MFC) was measured while increasing the temperature after
cooling the sample at B = 0.1 T. Since the FC magnetization was found to be independent of the fact whether the temperature was increased or decreased, the magnetization

558

A. Stachow-Wojcik et al.

Fig. 1. Field-cooled (FC) and zero-field-cooled (ZFC) magnetization (upper part) and remanence
(MR) of a) bulk Cd0.29Mn0.71Te and b) bulk Zn0.34Mn0.66Te as a function of temperature at B =
0.1 T. The arrows depict freezing temperature Tf. The MR indicated by full points was obtained
with rising temperature, after switching off the magnetic field. The empty points show the magnetic
moment measured after the MR experiment was completed, for falling temperature, without any
change of magnetic field. These data scales with FC magnetization assuming a residual field a)
Br = 0.0038 T or b) 0.0018 T

MFC was usually measured after the ZFC procedure was completed, with T decreasing
from 200 down to 10 K.
On the other hand, the remanent magnetization MR was measured while rising the
temperature, after cooling the sample at B = 0.1 T down to 10 K and, then, suppressing
the field to zero.
Figure 1 shows the reference data for bulk Cd0.29Mn0.71Te and Zn0.34Mn0.66Te. As
reported previously [10, 11], the magnetization M (or the susceptibility, M/B) shows an
anomaly at a certain temperature Tf. Below Tf, the ZFC magnetization (MZFC) deviates
from the FC magnetization (MFC), while above Tf the ZFC- and the FC magnetization
are practically the same (Fig. 1). Moreover a pronounced remanent magnetization MR
(full points) is observed with a sharp onset at Tf. Such behavior was considered to be a
fingerprint of SG-paramagnet phase transition at T = Tf [10]. In the paramagnetic
phase, above Tf, the remanent magnetization MR should vanish, and no magnetic moment should be observed, in the absence of the magnetic field. However, as we already
mentioned, there was always a residual field Br in the superconducting coil, so even in
the paramagnetic phase some magnetic moment Mpara = c(T) Br was observable in the

559

Magnetic Properties of Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe Epilayers

case of our measurements. For example, in the case of the results of the remanence
displayed in Fig. 1, the magnetic moment Mpara (the non-zero value of MR measured
above Tf) can be explained assuming that Br was 0.0038 T for Cd0.29Mn0.71Te and
0.0018 T for Zn0.34Mn0.66Te. To check this possibility, we measured the magnetization
of the sample (empty points) with lowering the temperature, directly after measuring
MR (full points) and without any change of the magnetic field. In this way, the fieldcooled magnetization at B = Br should be obtained. The resulting magnetic moment
(empty points in lower parts in Fig. 1) indeed scales properly with MFC data obtained
for B = 0.1 T (empty points in upper parts in Fig. 1), with the scaling factors 25 for
Cd0.29Mn0.71Te and 56 for Zn0.34Mn0.66Te. Therefore, the actual remanence, which is
in this case a thermoremanent magnetization (TRM), may be estimated as the difference between the magnetic moment measured at Br with rising temperature (full points
in lower parts of Fig. 1) and the magnetic moment obtained at the same Br field with
falling temperature after the warm-up (empty points in lower parts of Fig. 1).
The representative ZFC, FC and MR data for the epilayers are presented in Fig. 2 to 4
for Cd1xMnxTe, Zn1xMnxTe and MnTe, respectively. Note that the value of the magnetization is given per gram of the magnetic layer. The diamagnetic contribution of the sub-

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 2. Similar measurements to Fig. 1 for Cd0.33Mn0.67Te epilayer. The straight line at the MR
graph approximates the substrate/glue contribution to MR (see text)
Fig. 3. Similar measurements to Fig. 2 for Zn0.10Mn0.90Te epilayer

560

A. Stachow-Wojcik et al.

Fig. 4. Similar measurements to Fig. 3 for MnTe

epilayer

strate, calculated as the product of the sample

mass and the susceptibility of GaAs cd
2.3  10 7 emu/g is subtracted. The mass of
the magnetic layer was estimated from its
thickness, which is known with an accuracy of
about 10 to 20%. This uncertainly limits the
accuracy of the determination of the absolute
value of the magnetization per gram of the
epilayer. However, this limitation is of small
importance for the discussion below.
The general behavior of the diluted epilayers (x < 1.0) is similar to that observed in
bulk crystals. The magnetization, both FC and
ZFC, reveals an anomaly at Tf whose value
increases with increasing Mn concentration
up to Tf = 67.0  0.5 K in MnTe, which agrees
well with the antiferromagnetic Neel temperature TN = 66.7  0.3 K obtained from
neutron scattering experiments [4]. The history dependent effects (MZFC 6 MFC) and the
magnetic remanence MR below Tf observed in diluted epilayers (Figs. 2 and 3) are absent
in MnTe (Fig. 4), marking a clear difference between x = 1.0 and x < 1.0 cases. The only
dissimilarity between the bulk crystals and the diluted epilayers is that the difference between ZFC and FC magnetization, as well as excess MR are noticeable also above Tf in
the epilayer. We ascribe the non-reversible effects visible above Tf to the presence of
magnetic contaminants in the substrate/glue, mentioned above. To eliminate this contribution we assumed that the remanence due to the contamination (denoted as Madd) can be
approximated by a linear function of the temperature, as is shown in Figs. 2 and 3. In fact,
Madd is observed to decrease, roughly linearly, with increasing temperature. The actual
thermoremanence magnetization TRM is estimated as the difference TRM = MR Madd
(see Figs. 2 and 3). TRM obtained in this way is exemplified in Fig. 5 for Zn1 xMnxTe
epilayers. It is displayed as a function of the reduced temperature (T Tf)/Tf to enable a
comparison between different samples with different Mn molar fractions. A gradual decrease of TRM with increasing x is evident (cf. Figs. 5 and 2). Ultimately the remanent
magnetization vanishes in MnTe (cf. Fig. 4).
The evolution of magnetic behavior of MnTe with dilution with nonmagnetic ions can
be visualized by analyzing the critical exponents of the magnetization. Such analysis is a
standard procedure for diluted antiferromagnets [21, 22]. The temperature dependence
of excess magnetization DM = MFC MZFC can be described by


Tf T br

M /
;
Tf

Magnetic Properties of Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe Epilayers

561

Fig. 5. Thermoremanence (TRM) corrected for the substrate/glue contribution (see text) as a function of reduced temperature (T Tf)/Tf of Zn1xMnxTe, x = 0.56, 0.68, 0.90 and 1.0. The solid and
dashed lines are guides for the eyes only

where br is an effective critical exponent. Although the above formula applies only in
the vicinity of the critical point, in our case the log (DM) versus log (Tf T) plots
showed a reasonable linearity down to the lowest temperatures. The values of the parameter br obtained in this way are plotted in Fig. 6 for both Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe
as a function of Mn concentration. The parameter br is found to be practically the same
for both bulk crystals and epilayers for a given ternary system. On the other hand,

Fig. 6. Effective critical exponent br of excess magnetization, DM = MFC MZFC, as a function of

Mn concentration. The values br were obtained as fitting parameters of DM  (Tf T)br. The
dashed lines are guides for the eyes only

562

A. Stachow-Wojcik et al.

some slight difference may be noticed between Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1 xMnxTe. An increase of the value of br with a decreasing Mn concentration is clearly observable in
Fig. 6. In the low dilution regime (x > 0.8) br is around 0.4 to 0.5, which is rather a
typical value for dilute antiferromagnets [21, 22]. At about x = 0.7, the exponent br as a
function of x has a step, reaching the values of 0.9 to 1.5 for x < 0.7. Let us note that
the critical exponent of magnetization b = 0.9 is known for DMS spin-glasses [23, 24]. It
is tempting to relate the observed step-like change, in the concentration dependence of
br, to a transition from antiferromagnetic to spin-glass nature of the magnetic phases in
the systems under study.
Another marked difference between MnTe and the diluted systems is found while
measuring the magnetization as a function of the magnetic field at constant temperature. In SG phase the isothermal remanent magnetization (IRM) is observed as a remanence after cooling the sample to a temperature T < Tf in the absence of a magnetic
field, and then measuring magnetization as a function of the magnetic field. Such behavior is exemplified for bulk Zn0.34Mn0.66Te in Fig. 7, where ``up denotes the magnetization measured with an increasing field (after cooling in zero-field) and ``down denotes
the magnetization measured with a decreasing magnetic field. Instead of the magnetiza-

Fig. 7. a) Isothermal remanent magnetization (IRM) of bulk Zn0.34Mn0.66Te plotted as M/B versus
magnetic field B obtained at T = 30 K (below transition, upper part) and T = 50 K (above transition, lower part). Data labeled as ``up were obtained with increasing magnetic field from zero to
6 T, while those labeled ``down with field decreasing from 6 T down to zero. (b) Similar measurements to Fig. 7a are shown for MnTe epilayer at T = 10 K (below transition, upper part) and
T = 100 K (above transition, lower part)

Magnetic Properties of Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe Epilayers

563

tion itself the ratio M/B is plotted in Fig. 7, so the nonzero IRM at B = 0 should
appear as a divergence of M/B with B ! 0. The onset of the divergence is clearly visible
below Tf together with a pronounced difference between the up and down magnetization. The data for B < 0.002 T are not shown in view of the above described problems with the residual coil field. For the diluted systems, the difference between the
up and down magnetization is largest at the lowest temperatures investigated and
it vanishes above Tf (Fig. 7a). In contrast, in MnTe no difference between up and
down magnetization is detected, irrespective of the temperature (Fig. 7b). The curvature of M/B at low fields in the case of MnTe results most probably from the substrate
due to magnetic contamination mentioned above.
Yet another test of the behavior characteristic for a spin-glass system should involve
measurements of nonlinear susceptibility. Unfortunately our magnetometer, with its residual, poorly controlled ``zero of the field between 0.0010 to 0.0040 T, could not be
used to study this effect. It was shown, however earlier, that the nonlinear effects in
bulk Cd1xMnxTe are pronounced below the field of about 0.0060 T [17] i.e., where our
measuring system is unreliable.

3. Discussion
All the data collected for Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1 xMnxTe (x < 1.0) epilayers exhibit
qualitatively the same magnetic behavior. Below a certain temperature Tf the magnetization is history dependent (ZFC magnetization deviates from FC magnetization) and
non-vanishing remanence effects are observed. No qualitative difference was found between the bulk crystals and the epilayers with similar Mn concentrations (x < 0.8),
provided that the substrate/glue impurities are taken into account. The described magnetization features were previously observed for bulk DMS and supported by dynamic susceptibility and nonlinear static susceptibility data [14 to 18] were ascribed
to SG magnetic phase formation. Therefore, we conclude that qualitatively also the
epilayers exhibit a SG-like behavior in the entire concentration range (x < 1.0). The
following evolution with an increase of Mn molar fraction is observed: (i) TRM decreases (down to zero in MnTe) and (ii) the form of the anomaly in M(T) changes
somewhat (cf., Figs. 2 to 4). In principle, the anomaly should have a cusp-like shape in
SG while being of a l-type in antiferromagnets. Both these shapes seem to be indeed
the case for low Mn concentrations (x < 0.4) and in MnTe, respectively. For intermediate Mn concentrations it is difficult to separate the effect of an inherent shape evolution from the effect of the broadening of the anomaly (Figs. 2 to 4), which probably
results from the quality of the samples. Nevertheless, the x-dependence of remanence
effects, as well as of the shape of the anomaly, is gradual and no abrupt changes can be
observed. Purely AF behavior occurs only for x = 1. For all other Mn concentrations in
the investigated samples the phenomena characteristic for SG behavior are present.
The magnetic phase diagrams for Zn1xMnxTe and Cd1xMnxTe are shown in Fig. 8a
and b, respectively. In both diagrams we included the available data for bulk crystals
and epilayers. In the case of Zn1 xMnxTe the Tf values obtained for different types
(bulk and epilayers) as well as obtained by different methods (magnetization or neutron scattering) reveal the same concentration dependence. This is particularly important since it proves that both the magnetization and the neutron experiments probe the
same effect in spite of different time scales of both experiments. As mentioned above

564

A. Stachow-Wojcik et al.
Fig. 8. Magnetic phase diagram of a)
Zn1xMnxTe and b) Cd1xMnxTe. The
phase transition temperatures Tf for
Cd1xMnxTe were obtained from magnetization
measurements,
while
for
Zn1xMnxTe from both magnetization
(M) and neutron scattering (N) measurements. The dashed line is the guide for
the eyes only

the neutron data [4] show a truly

long-range AF order in MnTe, as deduced from the width of neutron diffraction magnetic peaks. This is in
agreement with our observation of a
typical antiferromagnetic behavior.
On the other hand, the long-range
order is also observed for diluted systems down to x = 0.82, while the
AFparamagnet phase transition
changes from the first order in MnTe
to the second order in Zn0.2Mn0.8Te
[4]. The range of the AF order as
determined by neutron scattering
shortens substantially for x < 0.8 when the correlation length drops to about 100 
A [4]
(a similar range was also observed in bulk Zn1xMnxTe and Cd1 xMnxTe [25]). In contrast, our magnetic data for MnTe even very weakly diluted with Zn or Cd with 0.8 < x
< 1 (e.g., Zn0.10Mn0.90Te, Fig. 3) start to reveal non-reversible effects, as in dilute antiferromagnets [21, 22]. Moreover, these effects are found to be quite similar below and
above x = 0.8. Also, the phase diagram shows a gradual Tf(x) dependence, without any
abrupt changes around x = 0.8 (Fig. 8a). The step-like increase of br at about x = 0.7
(Fig. 6) is an exception here. Thus we cannot confirm, on the basis of our data of
Zn1xMnxTe, the existence of a borderline separating SG from AF behavior at x  0.8.
The situation in Cd1 xMnxTe system is somewhat different. Although no qualitative
difference can be noticed in the irreversible effects, the phase diagram reveals a clear
step-like increase of Tf at x  0.6 [3]. Moreover for x > 0.6 the phase transition of our
epilayers (grown on GaAs) occurs at pronouncedly higher temperatures than in bulk
crystals and epilayers grown on sapphire [6] (Fig. 8b).
The anomaly at x  0.6 is also reflected in the fundamental energy gap Eg dependence on x presented in Fig. 9 (the Eg data were obtained from absorption [27, 28] or
reflectance [29, 30] measurements). It was shown that s,pd exchange interaction between the band carriers and Mn ions can substantially modify the band edges in the
absence of the magnetic field. Effectively the fundamental energy gap is reduced with
respect to its value in a nonmagnetic host lattice [26 to 30]. The exchange energy correction roughly reflects the magnetic susceptibility and, therefore, it depends on the Mn
concentration and the temperature.

Magnetic Properties of Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe Epilayers

565

Fig. 9. Fundamental energy gap Eg variation with Mn concentration x of Cd1xMnxTe at T = 2 K.

The dashed lines are guides for the eyes only

The difference of Tf between epilayers with similar x (Fig. 8b) may be related to the
residual strain experienced by the epilayers grown on various substrates. It is known (as
shown to be the case of MnTe [4]) that the presence of strain smoothes the AFP phase
transition. It can change the order of the transition from the first to the second order, and
simultaneously increase the transition temperature. Following this argument one could
expect higher transition temperatures in strained epilayers with a stronger strain. In the
unstrained bulk material the transition temperatures seem to be lowest for a given x. In
general, this expectation is in agreement with experimental observations: for Cd1 xMnxTe
grown on GaAs the lattice mismatch, and thus the strain, is larger than for Cd1 xMnxTe
on sapphire which is reflected by higher Tf in the former system. On the other hand, the
strain effects can hardly explain an abrupt change of Tf(x) around x = 0.6. Also the fact
that there is no difference found between the behavior of the bulk samples and epilayers
below x = 0.6 is inconsistent with the strain hypothesis.
In conclusion, our data emphasize similarities of the magnetic behavior of Cd1 xMnxTe
and Zn1xMnxTe in the entire concentration range. The irreversible effects characteristic
of the SG phase decrease in magnitude smoothly with increasing Mn concentration and
vanish in MnTe, which shows a typical purely AF behavior. The transition between SG and
AF phases, as revealed by ZFC and FC magnetization and TRM, is found to be gradual.
Acknowledgement This work was partially supported by State Committee for Scientific Research, in particular under grant No. 2P03B-2-11.

References
[1] See, for example, J. K. Furdyna and J. Kossut, Semiconductors and Semimetals, Vol. 25, Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors, Academic Press, London 1988.
M. Balkanski and M. Averous (Eds.), Semimagnetic Semiconductors and Diluted Magnetic
Semiconductors, Plenum Press, New York 1991.
J. Kossut and W. Dobrowolski, in: Handbook of Magnetic Materials, Ed. K. H. Buschow,
Vol. 7, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam 1993 (pp. 231 to 305).

566

A. Stachow-Wojcik et al.: Magnetic Properties of Cd1xMnxTe and Zn1xMnxTe Epilayers

[2] J. K. Furdyna, J. Appl. Phys. 64, R29 (1988).

[3] J. Pietruczanis, W. Mac, A. Twardowski, G. Karczewski, A. Zakrzewski, E. Janik, T. Wojtowicz, and J. Kossut, Mater. Sci. Forum 182/184, 687 (1994).
[4] T. M. Giebutowicz, P. Kosowski, N. Samarth, H. Luo, J. K. Furdyna, and J. J. Rhyne, Phys.
Rev. B 48, 12817 (1993).
[5] M. Sawicki, P. A. J. de Groot, M. A. Brummell, G. J. Tomka, D. E. Ashenford, and B. Lunn,
Acta Phys. Pol. A 84, 745 (1993).
[6] K. Ando and H. Akinaga, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 140/144, 2029 (1995).
[7] W. J. M. de Jonge, A. Twardowski, and C. J. M. Denissen, in: Diluted Magnetic (Semimagnetic) Semiconductors, Eds. R. L. Aggarwal, J. K. Furdyna, and S. von Molnar, MRS. Pittsburgh 1987.
[8] J. Spaek, A. Lewicki, Z. Tarnawski, J. K. Furdyna, R. R. Gaazka, and Z. Obuszko, Phys.
Rev. B 33, 3407 (1986).
[9] B. E. Larson, K. C. Hass, H. Ehrenreich, and A. E. Carlsson, Phys. Rev. B 37, 4137 (1988).
[10] R. R. Gaazka, Shoichi Nagata, and P. H. Keesom, Phys. Rev. B 22, 3344 (1980).
[11] S. P. McAlister, J. K. Furdyna, and W. Giriat, Phys. Rev. B 29, 1310 (1984).
[12] S. Oseroff and F. G. Gandra, J. Appl. Phys. 57, 3421 (1985).
[13] A. Twardowski, Physica Scripta T39, 124 (1991), and references therein.
[14] A. Mauger, J. Ferre, M. Ayadi, and P. Nordblad, Phys. Rev. B 37, 9022 (1988).
[15] Y. Zhou, C. Rigaux, A. Mycielski, M. Menant, and N. Bontemps, Phys. Rev. B 40, 8111
(1989).
[16] S. Geschwind, D. A. Huse, and G. E. Devlin, Phys. Rev. B 41, 4854 (1990).
[17] A. Mauger, J. Ferre, and P. Beauvillain, Phys. Rev. B 40, 862 (1989).
[18] P. M. Shand, A. D. Christianson, L. S. Martinson, J. W. Schweitzer, T. M. Pekarek, I. Miotkowski, and B. C. Crooker, J. Appl. Phys. 79, 6164 (1996).
[19] J. A. Mydosh, Spin Glasses An Experimental Introduction, Taylor & Francis, London/Washington DC 1993.
[20] E. Janik, E. Dynowska, J. Bak-Misiuk, M. Leszczynski, W. Szuszkiewicz, G. Karczewski, and
J. Kossut, Thin Solid Films 267, 74 (1995).
[21] T. Fries, Y. Shapira, A. Paduan-Filho, C. C. Becerra, and F. Palacio, J. Phys.: Condensed
Matter 5, 8083 (1993).
[22] P. Nordblad, J. Mattsson, and W. Kleemann, J. Magn. Magn. Mater. 140/144, 1553 (1995).
[23] D. Bertrand, A. Mauger, J. Ferre, and P. Beauvillain, Phys. Rev. B 45, 507 (1992).
[24] P. M. Shand, A. D. Christianson, L. S. Martinson, J. W. Schweitzer, T. M. Pekarek, I. Miotkowski, and B. C. Crooker, J. Appl. Phys. 79, 6164 (1996).
[25] T. M. Giebutowicz, in: Semiconductors and Semimetals, Vol. 25, Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors, Eds. J. K. Furdyna and J. Kossut, Academic Press, London 1988.
[26] R. B. Bylsma, W. M. Becker, J. Kossut, and U. Debska, Phys. Rev. B 33, 8207 (1986).
[27] J. Diouri, J. P. Lascaray, and M. El Amrani, Phys. Rev. B 31, 7995 (1985).
[28] J. A. Gaj and A. Golnik, Acta Phys. Pol. A 71, 197 (1987).
[29] A. Stachow, W. Mac, Nguyen The Khoi, A. Twardowski, G. Karczewski, E. Janik, T. Wojtowicz, and J. Kossut, Acta Phys. Pol. A 88, 913 (1995).
[30] A. Stachow, Nguyen The Khoi, and J. A. Gaj, Acta Phys. Pol. A 88, 909 (1995).