Abstract
Understanding quantum tunnelling of the magnetisation (QTM) in singlemolecule magnets (SMMs) is crucial for improving performance and achieving moleculebased information storage above liquid nitrogen temperatures. Here, through a field and temperaturedependent study of the magnetisation dynamics of [Dy(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF, we elucidate the different relaxation processes: fieldindependent Orbach and Raman mechanisms dominate at high temperatures, a singlephonon direct process dominates at low temperatures and fields >1 kOe, and a field and temperaturedependent QTM process operates near zero field. Accounting for the exponential temperature dependence of the phonon collision rate in the QTM process, we model the magnetisation dynamics over 11 orders of magnitude and find a QTM tunnelling gap on the order of 10^{−4} to 10^{−5} cm^{−1}. We show that removal of Dy nuclear spins does not suppress QTM, and argue that while internal dipolar fields and hyperfine coupling support QTM, it is the dynamic crystal field that drives efficient QTM.
Introduction
Individual molecules are attractive candidates as bits for magnetic data storage because they are orders of magnitude smaller than current technologies, cheap to make, monodisperse, reproducible, and solution processable. Singlemolecule magnets (SMMs) are paramagnetic molecules with large magnetic anisotropy that generates an energy barrier to magnetic relaxation, U_{eff}, resulting in slow relaxation of magnetisation and magnetic hysteresis^{1,2}; aside from data storage applications, SMMs have great potential in quantum computing as generalised qubits (known as qudits)^{3}, and have recently starred in the demonstration of Grover’s quantum search algorithm^{4,5}. For SMMs to be economically viable in magnetic data storage, hysteresis should be observable at temperatures greater than that of liquid nitrogen (77 K)^{2}; however, it has become clear that a large U_{eff} barrier is not the sole requirement for this to be achieved^{6,7}. For example, a dysprosocenium SMM that exhibits hysteresis at 60 K has U_{eff} = 1760 K (see ref. ^{2}), while [Dy(^{t}BuO)_{2}(pyridine)_{5}][BPh_{4}] has a higher U_{eff} = 1815 K, but only shows open hysteresis at 3 K (see ref. ^{6}). Detailed studies are needed to understand this discrepancy.
SMM behaviour is governed by two factors: the static electronic structure and the dynamic coupling of the molecule to its environment. The static electronic structure must possess a bistable ground state with a large magnetic moment, and wellseparated excited states with magnetic moments colinear with the ground state. Remarkable U_{eff} values^{6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13} have been achieved for monometallic terbium(III) and dysprosium(III) complexes with strong axial ligand fields^{14,15,16}. The dynamic coupling of the molecule to its environment, known as spinphonon coupling, allows exchange of energy and angular momentum and effects magnetic relaxation^{17,18}. The U_{eff} barrier arises from sequential Direct spinphonon transitions (collectively known as the Orbach process), resulting in an exponential temperature dependence of the relaxation rate (i.e., \(\tau ^{  1} \propto {\mathrm e}^{  U_{\mathrm{eff}}/T}\))^{18}. However, many observations of lanthanide SMMs are inconsistent with solely Orbach relaxation, and other processes such as twophonon Raman relaxation, quantum tunnelling of magnetisation (QTM) and Direct singlephonon relaxation between the ground state (pseudo)doublet must be operational^{7,19,20,21}. Indeed, QTM can manifest when SMMs are adsorbed to surfaces (a prerequisite of making devices with SMMs)^{22}, and thus understanding this process is crucial for commercialising SMM research; recent studies have highlighted the importance of extrinsic effects such as conduction electrons^{23} and the spinphonon coupling^{24} on QTM.
For the most recent lanthanidebased SMMs, U_{eff} is >1000 K and the Orbach relaxation process is irrelevant to the low temperature magnetisation dynamics^{6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13}. Therefore, investigation of largeU_{eff} systems at the lowest temperatures permits study of the alternative relaxation mechanisms. Our present understanding of spinphonon relaxation is largely derived from studies of simple inorganic salts^{17}, assuming Debyelike phonon spectra and ignoring optical phonon modes. This has provided expressions for the field and temperature dependencies of different relaxation processes along with approximate parameter ranges, but it is not obvious that these assumptions will apply to new and exotic molecular species; such shortcomings have been echoed recently by others^{25,26}. For example, the low temperature relaxation rate for dysprosocenium follows a T^{2} twophonon Raman process^{2}, where the exponent of 2 is much reduced from the traditionally expected 7–9 for a Kramers ion^{17}; recent studies suggest this is due to the nature of the Cp^{ttt} ligand^{27}, where the electronic structure of the dysprosium(III) ion is not dictated by any single donor atom but rather by the πelectron system.
Therefore, we have made a concerted effort to determine experimentally the magnetisation dynamics of a dysprosium(III) SMM with large U_{eff}, viz [Dy(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF (1), where U_{eff} is ~1000 K. We have employed both alternating and direct current (AC and DC) magnetic measurements to examine the temperature and field dependence of magnetic relaxation. Studies on pure 1 and two solidstate dilute analogues ~12%Dy@2 (1a) and ~3%Dy@2 (1b) (where 2 is the isostructural diamagnetic complex [Y(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF) allows us to assess the role of internal dipolar fields in the relaxation dynamics. Compound 1 was chosen, in preference to dysprosocenium^{2}, as relaxation can be measured in a reasonable timescale over a wide temperature range, and because 1 exhibits QTM at low temperatures in addition to thermally driven processes.
Results and Discussion
Synthesis and structure
[Dy(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF (1) was prepared based on a modification of published protocols^{28}, by reaction of anhydrous DyCl_{3} with one equivalent of both NaO^{t}Bu and NaBPh_{4} in dry THF, followed by crystallisation by layering with hexane (see Methods). The dysprosium(III) ion is found to be seven coordinate at the centre of a pentagonal bipyramid with pseudoC_{5v} symmetry (Fig. 1a; Supplementary Table 1). The Dy–O(^{t}BuO), Dy–Cl and DyO(THF) bond lengths are 2.043(4), 2.6619(12), and 2.390(3)–2.426(3) Å, respectively. The Cl–Dy–O (^{t}BuO) angle is 178.26(9)°, displaying an essentially linear coordination of the negatively charged donor atoms. The nearestneighbour equatorial O(THF)–Dy–O(THF) angles lie between 71° and 73° (72° for ideal C_{5v}), highlighting the high pseudosymmetry of 1 (Supplementary Table 2). The shortest intermolecular Dy···Dy distance is 8.54 Å. The isostructural yttrium(III) analogue [Y(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF (2) has very similar metric parameters (Supplementary Table 1); we have also prepared two magnetically dilute compounds: ~12% Dy@2 (1a) and ~3% Dy@2 (1b).
Electronic structure
The static electronic structure of 1 was determined by complete active space selfconsistent field spinorbit (CASSCFSO) calculations with MOLCAS 8.0 (see Methods)^{29}. The electronic structure is dominated by the strong axial potential of the transdisposed ^{t}BuO^{−} and Cl^{−} ligands, leading to the lowest two Kramers doublets having well defined projections of the total angular momentum (±15/2> and ±13/2>, respectively) along the main ODyCl axis, and large energy splittings between the excited states (Supplementary Table 3). These calculations suggest that 1 will be an SMM and that Orbach relaxation will be seen via the 3rd and/or 4th Kramers doublets, which are strongly mixed, giving U_{eff} ~ 850 K.
Magnetic measurements
The DC magnetic properties for a restrained polycrystalline sample of 1 are as expected for a monometallic dysprosium(III) complex with large magnetic anisotropy (Supplementary Figs. 1 and 2). The magnetisation exhibits hysteresis at low temperatures with a waistrestricted shape (Fig. 2a; Supplementary Fig. 3) and AC magnetic studies in zero DC field show frequencydependent outofphase signals (Supplementary Figs. 4 and 5); therefore 1 is an SMM. AC studies in zero DC field for the ~12% dilute sample 1a also show frequencydependent outofphase signals (Supplementary Figs. 6 and 7); the most dilute sample 1b is too weak to measure with AC magnetometry. Fitting the AC data with the generalised Debye model^{18} yields the temperaturedependent relaxation rates τ^{−1} (Supplementary Tables 4 and 5). The relaxation rate has an exponential temperature dependence above 40 K, curves with decreasing temperature, and approaches a temperatureindependent regime below 16 K for 1 (Fig. 2b). The AC relaxation rates for 1a are practically superimposable with those for 1 above 30 K (Fig. 2b), however we do not observe these data transitioning towards a temperature independent regime like that observed for 1; we expect that this would occur at lower temperatures, however these timescales are outside the range of our AC instrumentation.
The hysteresis data for 1 indicate efficient relaxation at low temperatures and zero field, and while experiments on dilute samples show that the zero field relaxation is slightly slower than for pure 1, it is still a significant effect. To understand the origin of this enhanced relaxation, we would like to measure the relaxation rate at lower temperatures, however, with our instrumentation AC techniques are not applicable for τ^{−1} < 1 s^{−1} (T < 10 K for 1 and < 20 K for 1a), and DC decay techniques are not reliable for τ^{−1} > 0.01 s^{−1}. Therefore, we adopted a different approach: the sample was magnetised at low temperature (2 K ≤ T ≤ 9 K) and high field (H_{i} = 50 kOe), the field was then reduced to a smaller value (10 Oe ≤ H_{ext} ≤ 15 kOe) and the magnetisation decay to equilibrium was measured under fixed DC field (Supplementary Fig. 8). Fitting the decay curves with stretched exponentials (see Methods) yields τ^{−1} and the equilibrium magnetisation M_{eq} (Fig. 3; Supplementary Figs. 9–12; Supplementary Tables 6–22)^{18}; note that the lowest field at which τ^{−1} can be measured is temperature dependent.
The relaxation rate for 1 is fast near zerofield but is slowed by orders of magnitude in small fields at low temperatures. At 2–4 K the field dependence is weak for H_{ext} < 200 Oe and stronger for 300 Oe ≤ H_{ext} ≤ 600 Oe (Fig. 3; Supplementary Figs. 8–12). As the field is increased further (> 1 kOe), the relaxation rate increases again. At higher temperatures, e.g., 8 K, the field dependence of the relaxation rate becomes far less pronounced (Fig. 3). Data for analogous experiments on the ~12% doped sample 1a show similar features (Fig. 3b; Supplementary Figs. 11 and 12) to 1, including being coincident for H_{ext} > 2 kOe, however the lowfield relaxation rates are almost two orders of magnitude slower than those for 1, and the transition from weak to strong field dependence happens at a smaller field (H_{ext} ~ 60 Oe). Data for the most dilute sample 1b (~3%) is only reliable for T = 2 K (Fig. 3b) and show four notable features: (i) the lowfield relaxation rates are further slowed compared to 1 and 1a, (ii) the highfield data (>2 kOe) are nearly coincident with those of 1 and 1a, (iii) the field dependence for H_{ext} < 300 Oe has a similar gradient (on a log–log plot) as in the strongly fielddependent regimes for 1 and 1a, and (iv) there is no weakly field dependent regime at the lowest fields.
AC studies to obtain temperature dependence of the relaxation rate
The temperature dependence of the relaxation rate from AC experiments shows three distinct regimes for pure 1 (Fig. 2b), a feature observed previously in dysprosium(III) SMMs^{21}. Above 40 K there is an exponential dependence on T, between 40 and ca. 20 K the T dependence of the relaxation rate curves, and below ca. 14 K the relaxation rate is almost independent of T. To fit these data, we use Eq. (1).
Above 40 K the exponential profile suggests that relaxation occurs via an Orbach mechanism over a large U_{eff} barrier; this region is fitted by the first term in Eq. (1). Between 40 and 20 K the curving profile of the relaxation rate suggests the onset of a twophonon Raman process, described by the second term in Eq. (1). The near temperatureindependent regime for 1 is ascribed to QTM (accounted for by the third term in Eq. (1)), a feature that is not observed on the timescale of our AC experiments for 1a, suggesting that the QTM for 1 at least partially owes to internal dipolar fields. The fourth term is included to allow for the field dependence of relaxation (see below) and is omitted for now. Fitting the AC data for 1 and 1a simultaneously (assuming τ^{−1}_{QTM} = 0 for 1a) with Eq. (1) gives (values in parentheses are the standard errors associated with each parameter): U_{eff} = 950(20) K, τ_{0} = 3(1) × 10^{−12} s, C = 2(1) × 10^{−6} s^{−1} K^{−n}, n = 4.6(2) and τ^{−1}_{QTM} = 1.4(1) s^{−1} (Fig. 2b). Notably, the data for 1 cannot be modelled without a temperatureindependent term, nor without the Raman term; therefore, there must be at least three relaxation mechanisms operational in zero field.
DC studies to obtain field dependence of the relaxation rate
To probe the nature of the low temperature relaxation dynamics and QTM, we have measured the field and temperature dependence of the relaxation rate with DC decay studies. The field dependence of the relaxation rates for 1 and 1a (Fig. 3a; Supplementary Figs. 9–12) are similar to profiles observed recently for vanadyl complexes^{30,31,32}. In those cases, the field dependence of magnetic relaxation was ascribed to a combination of a fielddependent Raman process at low fields, originally described by van Vleck^{33}, and to the singlephonon Direct process at high fields^{17}. However, here we observe a transition to a temperatureindependent regime for T < 14 K at H_{ext} = 0 in the AC data for 1, which cannot be a Raman process; this leaves QTM as the only plausible mechanism to explain the field dependence of the relaxation rate for 1 at low temperatures and low fields (T < 10 K, H_{ext} < 1 kOe). Indeed, taking the experimental data points of the slowest relaxation rate at each temperature from the DC data for 1 and 1a and extending the temperaturedependent relaxation plot to lower temperature (n.b. these data points are in nonzero fields and we assume that QTM has been effectively quenched in the relevant field), we clearly observe the characteristic powerlaw profile of a Raman relaxation process that agrees well with the zerofield AC data for 1 and 1a (i.e., τ^{−1} ∝ T^{n}, linear on a log–log plot, Fig. 4a). Because these data points are all at different fields and yet show an excellent τ^{−1} ∝ T^{n} correlation for both 1 and 1a, we do not believe there is significant field dependence to the Raman process. Our observations are in agreement with the recent derivation of Ho and Chibotaru^{34}, who show that the Raman relaxation rate for Kramers ions is independent of the magnetic field strength. Therefore, unlike the conclusions drawn for vanadyl complexes in refs. ^{30,31,32}, we contend that the field dependence at low temperatures and low fields arises from QTM; that there is a difference between S = 1/2 vanadyl complexes and highly anisotropic J = 15/2 dysprosium(III) complexes is not unexpected. Finally, our high field data (H_{ext} ≥ 5 kOe) show a powerlaw dependence on magnetic field (i.e., τ^{−1} ∝ H^{m}, linear on a log–log plot, Fig. 4b) that is characteristic of a Direct singlephonon relaxation process between the two states of the ground doublet, also seen in refs. ^{30,31,32}; this process is accounted for by the fourth term in Eq. (1) (see ref.^{17}).
To model the fielddependent data, we note that the Orbach mechanism (first term in Eq. (1)) has an exponential dependence on T and is therefore insignificant for these data where T < 10 K. However, the Raman term has only been modelled with data above 10 K and therefore must be refined: fitting the data in Fig. 4a for both 1 and 1a simultaneously (U_{eff}, τ_{0} and τ^{−1}_{QTM} are fixed from above), assuming that QTM is effectively quenched under the relevant fields (i.e., τ^{−1}_{QTM} = 0 for the DC data), we obtain C = 7.8(8) × 10^{−8} s^{−1} K^{−n} and n = 5.46(4) (Fig. 4a). [We note that there is a significant change in the Raman parameters from our initial fit of the AC data alone, and thus we suspect that in cases where relaxation data only curve without displaying a clear powerlaw temperature dependence that the Raman parameters are perhaps less reliable.] To avoid overparameterisation when modelling the Direct and QTM processes (see below), we fix U_{eff}, τ_{0}, C and n from here onwards. Hence, fitting the experimental DC relaxation data for 1 and 1a simultaneously (H_{ext} ≥ 5 kOe, T ≤ 5 K) with Eq. (1) (U_{eff}, τ_{0}, C, and n fixed from above and τ^{−1}_{QTM} = 0 for these DC data) gives D = 7(3) × 10^{−13} s^{−1} Oe^{−m} K^{−l}, m = 2.20(5) and l = 1.23(5) (Figs. 4b, c). The fitted parameter values for the Direct process are in reasonable agreement with those suggested by Abragam and Bleaney^{17} who approximated m = 4 and l = 1, and gave an orderofmagnitude guess for D ~ (gμ_{B})^{4} s^{−1} Oe^{−4} K^{−1}; the latter gives ca. 7.6 × 10^{−13} s^{−1} Oe^{−4} K^{−1} for g = 20 (appropriate when the field is along the quantisation axis of the m_{J} = ± 15/2 ground Kramers doublet). The deviation from τ^{−1} ∝ H^{4}T could be because the approximation of \(\left {E_{ + 15/2}  E_{  15/2}} \right \ll k_{\mathrm B}T\) (ref.^{34}) is not satisfied for 1 when the field is along the quantisation axis in this field and temperature regime (H_{ext} ≥ 5 kOe, T ≤ 5 K), or because of the presence of hyperfine interactions which can give rise to τ^{−1} ∝ H^{2}T behaviour^{20}.
The field and temperature dependence of QTM
Focussing now on the low field, low temperature data (H_{ext} ≤ 1 kOe, T ≤ 8 K), we observe that the data in the regions 300 Oe ≤ H_{ext} ≤ 600 Oe for 1, 70 Oe ≤ H_{ext} ≤ 200 Oe for 1a and 20 Oe ≤ H_{ext} ≤ 200 Oe for 1b have powerlaw dependencies on magnetic field with similar slopes (at T = 2 K, Figs. 3b and 5a), and that the isotherms are not superimposed in these field ranges (Fig. 3a; Supplementary Figs. 10–12); the former feature is ascribed to suppression of QTM and is commonly modelled with Eq. (2) (refs.^{20,35,36}.), while the latter feature directly indicates a temperature dependence that is at odds with the usual description of QTM as a temperatureindependent process. While Eq. (2) does not explicitly include temperature, the original form of this expression^{37,38} can be written as Eq. (3), and contains a term η^{−1} representing the characteristic phonon collision rate of the lattice; a term that must have some dependence on temperature. In Eq. (3), ω is a perturbation that allows QTM by mixing the two components of the ground doublet, related to the tunnelling gap ħω.
However, in this strongly fielddependent regime we observe a powerlaw dependence on field that is not τ^{−1} ∝ H^{−2}T as suggested by Eq. (3) (Fig. 5a). To model our data we must vary the field exponent whilst maintaining a dimensionallyconsistent expression (i.e., τ^{−1}_{QTM} must be a rate in units of s^{−1}, even when H = 0), and thus the exponents in the numerator must also be allowed to vary; hence we define \(\tau _{\mathrm{QTM}}^{  1} = \frac{{\left( {2\omega } \right)^i\eta ^{i  1}}}{{1 + \left( {\eta g_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm B}\hbar ^{  1}H} \right)^i}}\), which in this fieldactivated regime can be approximated as \(\tau _{\mathrm{QTM}}^{  1} \approx \left( {\frac{{2\hbar \omega }}{{g_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm B}}}} \right)^i\eta ^{  1}H^{  i}\). Fitting the field dependence of the T = 2 K relaxation rates (the other relaxation mechanisms are insignificant in this field and temperature regime) for 1, 1a, and 1b with \(\tau _{\mathrm{QTM}}^{  1} = AH^{  i}\) (with independent \(A = \left( {\frac{{2\hbar \omega }}{{g_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm B}}}} \right)^i\eta ^{  1}\) coefficients for each sample), we find that i ~ 3 (Fig. 5a). While obtaining a direct measurement of the temperature dependence of the phonon collision rate for 1 is unfeasible, approximate values have been obtained for silicon (Supplementary Fig. 13)^{39,40,41}; these data show that η^{−1} has an exponential temperature dependence, \(\eta ^{  1} = B{\mathrm e}^{jT}\), with B ~ 5 × 10^{7} s^{−1} and j ~ 0.01 K^{−1}. This value of j would lead to QTM with a neartemperatureindependent region, as observed in our AC data for 1 (Fig. 2b); therefore, we fix j = 0.01 K^{−1} based on the silicon data as an orderofmagnitude estimate. In the middle of the strongly fielddependent regimes for 1 and 1a (at H_{ext} = 526(1) and 79(1) Oe, respectively, and T ≤ 5 K where QTM dominates so that \(\tau ^{  1} \approx \left( {\frac{{2\hbar \omega }}{{g_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm B}}}} \right)^i\eta ^{  1}H^{  i}\)), the relaxation rates show an exponential temperature dependence as expected (Fig. 5b), but in this regime we find a value of j that is almost two orders of magnitude larger than that for silicon (Fig. 5b). We do not currently understand why such strong temperature dependence manifests in the presence of strong field dependence; further studies of 1 and other largeU_{eff} SMMs will be required to understand these observations.
With an expression proposed for QTM relaxation, can this model explain the near fieldindependence of the relaxation rate at the lowest fields? Such behaviour could have two origins: (i) small external fields are not strong enough to supress relaxation by QTM (i.e., \(\left( {\eta g_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm B}\hbar ^{  1}H} \right)^i \ll 1\)), or (ii) the internal dipolar field H_{int} acts to mitigate QTM in concert with H_{ext}. Luckily, these two situations are easily distinguishable: for (i) we would have \(\tau _{\mathrm{QTM}}^{  1} \approx \left( {2\omega } \right)^i\left( {B^{  1}{\mathrm e}^{  jT}} \right)^{i  1}\) which has a negative exponential dependence on temperature (as i > 1 and j > 0), and for (ii) we would have \(\tau _{\mathrm{QTM}}^{  1} \approx \left( {\frac{{2\hbar \omega }}{{g_{\mathrm{eff}}\mu _{\mathrm B}}}} \right)^iB{\mathrm e}^{jT}H^{  i}\) which has a positive exponential dependence on temperature. Examination of the temperature dependence of the relaxation rate for 1 at T ≤ 5 K and H_{ext} = 86(1), 126(1), and 176(10) (i.e., in the near fieldindependent region and at temperatures where other relaxation mechanisms are negligible) shows a positive exponential form (Fig. 5c), demonstrating that the lack of strong field dependence here is due to mitigation of QTM by internal dipolar fields. This conclusion is also supported by the movement of the lowfield plateau to a smaller field at ~12% dilution in 1a and loss of the plateau entirely at ~3% dilution in 1b (Fig. 3b). Therefore, we propose to model the overall fielddependent and temperaturedependent relaxation with Eq. (4), where the QTM term is augmented to reflect the internal dipolar field. We consider the internal field H_{int} to have a random orientation and thus, coupled with the random powder distribution of our sample, we define H_{tot} = max(H_{ext}, H_{int}). Furthermore, we assume H_{int} has a Gaussian distribution around its average value μ with standard deviation σ. By examining the field dependence of the 2 K data (Supplementary Fig. 15), we can approximate that μ_{1} = 200 and σ_{1} = 50 Oe for 1, μ_{1a} = 50 and σ_{1a} = 10 Oe for 1a; as we do not observe a lowfield plateau for 1b, H_{int,1b} < 10 Oe.
This QTM model has far too many parameters to find a fullyoptimised parameterisation for our dataset. Therefore, based on the welldefined shapes of the 2 K data, we fix the approximate values for H_{int} determined above (Supplementary Fig. 15, with H_{int,1b} = 0). Furthermore, although the m_{J} = ± 15/2 ground Kramers doublet has 0 ≤ g_{eff} ≤ 20, molecules with H_{ext} perpendicular to their anisotropy axis will not be magnetised and therefore do not contribute to the measured relaxation dynamics; thus we assume g_{eff} ~ 20. Finally, as mentioned above, we fix the value of j to that for silicon (j = 0.01 K^{−1}) as an orderofmagnitude estimate, but we allow the absolute magnitude of the phonon collision rate to vary via the prefactor B. Hence, we fit all of our AC and DC data simultaneously by varying ω, ω_{1a}, ω_{1b}, B and i (with parameters for the Orbach, Raman and Direct processes fixed) to obtain excellent fits of the relaxation dynamics over 11 orders of magnitude (Fig. 6; Supplementary Figs. 16–23; Table 1). [Note: our fits deviate from the experimental data at intermediate fields for 1a and 1b (e.g., in Fig. 6b–d); this is due to an overestimation of the Raman relaxation rate (clearly seen by the red line having too large a value), which we have not rerefined after consideration of the Direct and QTM processes.] We find B = 2.6(7) × 10^{8} s^{−1} which is approximately five times larger than that for silicon; at 50 K, where relaxation via the Orbach mechanism dominates, the phonon collision time scale is \(\eta = B^{  1}{\mathrm e}^{  jT}\) = 2.3(7) × 10^{−9} s, which is on a similar order of magnitude as τ_{0} (3(1) × 10^{−12} s) as suggested by Fort et al.^{34} Of most interest, however, are the QTM perturbations: fitting our experimental data with Eq. (4), we find ω_{1} = 2.4(5) × 10^{7}, ω_{1a} = 0.34(8) × 10^{7} and ω_{1b} = 0.14(4) × 10^{7} rad s^{−1} which correspond to tunnelling gaps of ħω_{1} = 1.3(3) × 10^{−4}, ħω_{1a} = 0.18(4) × 10^{−4} and ħω_{1b} = 0.07(2) × 10^{−4} cm^{−1}. These effective QTM tunnelling gaps are purely empirical and in principle account for all experimental contributions to QTM. However, their small magnitude indicates that only minimal mixing between the two ground state wavefunctions is required to facilitate efficient QTM in this dysprosium(III) SMM.
Origins of QTM
We have found that the magnetic relaxation rate for 1 at T ≤ 16 K and H_{ext} = 0 approaches a temperatureindependent regime (Fig. 2b); this is not compatible with a twophonon Raman process. We have found that for T ≤ 5 K and H_{ext} ≥ 1 kOe the relaxation rate behaves according to a singlephonon Direct process; such a process must vanish for a Kramers ion in zero field. Taking these two observations together, the enhanced relaxation for T ≤ 16 K and H_{ext} < 1 kOe must be a QTM process. We have been able to model this QTM process using a field and temperaturedependent expression, and used this model to show that the lowfield plateau is due to the effect of an internal dipolar field. From fits using this model, we have determined the QTM tunnelling gaps to be 1.3(3) × 10^{−4}, 0.18(4) × 10^{−4} and 0.07(2) × 10^{−4} cm^{−1} for 1, 1a, and 1b, respectively. As ω changes as a function of dilution, QTM must owe, at least in part, to the effect of internal dipolar fields; this can be directly observed by the reduction of the zerofield step in the 2 K hysteresis upon dilution (Fig. 2a) and that a transition to a neartemperatureindependent regime is not observed in our AC experiments for 1a in contrast to 1. Therefore, we have a rather strange situation where the internal dipolar field is both partially responsible for the QTM tunnelling gap, as well as mitigating QTM in the nearzerofield regime. The simultaneity of these two functions is clearly shown by our 2 K DC relaxation data (Fig. 3b): if there was no change in the QTM tunnelling gap upon dilution, and only the internal field was altered, then the 2 K relaxation dynamics for 1a would be coincident with those for 1 excepting at low fields where the rate for 1a would continue to rise with reducing H_{ext} until it plateaued at a smaller field corresponding to the reduced value of H_{int}. However, we observe a clear reduction of the relaxation rate in the stronglyfield activated region upon dilution, which directly indicates a reduction of ω. These observations cannot be explained by the effect of hyperfine coupling: averaging over all Dycontaining molecules in 1, 1a, and 1b, the statistical distribution of spinactive nuclei will be the same, and thus the effects of hyperfine coupling should not change upon dilution. Therefore, we suggest that the internal dipolar field is responsible for these observations. We note, however, that an internal dipolar field is not the only way to mitigate QTM: insulation of an SMM from its environment to reduce the phonon density of states^{24} and to reduce collisions with conduction electrons^{23} are especially important when SMMs are adsorbed to surfaces.
However, given the large difference in zerofield relaxation for the dysprosocenium SMM^{2} compared to other recent largebarrier dysprosium(III) SMMs^{6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13}, including 1, internal dipolar fields cannot be the sole cause of QTM. A common suggestion is that QTM for dysprosium(III) SMMs could also be due to hyperfine coupling with spin active ^{163}Dy and ^{161}Dy nuclei having I = 5/2 (see refs.^{42,43,44,45}); we also do not believe this to be the sole cause of QTM in monometallic dysprosium(III) SMMs for two reasons: (i) the dysprosocenium SMM displays a muchreduced zerofield relaxation step at 2 K compared to other recent largebarrier dysprosium(III) SMMs^{6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13}, all containing naturally abundant Dy, and (ii) enrichment with nuclearspinfree ^{164}Dy does not remove the zerofield step in the magnetic hysteresis of SMMs compared to the nuclearspinactive ^{163}Dy isotope^{42,43,44,45}.
These isotopic experiments show that the relaxation rate at low temperatures and low fields is slowed upon enrichment with ^{164}Dy, however the precipitous zerofield drop is not removed. In order to probe directly the contribution of hyperfine coupling to the QTM of 1, we have prepared the ^{164}Dy isotopomer (96.80% ^{164}Dy) diluted into the diamagnetic yttrium(III) analogue, ~4% ^{164}Dy@2 (see Methods), and performed DC decay experiments at 2 K (Supplementary Table 23). We observe that the relaxation rates are similar to those obtained for the similarly dilute naturally abundant Dy sample 1b at high fields (H_{ext} > 100 Oe, Fig. 7a), indicating that the Direct and Raman relaxation processes are not appreciably influenced by hyperfine coupling with ^{161/163}Dy nuclear spins. Furthermore, we still observe an increase in relaxation rate with decreasing field for H_{ext} < 100 Oe with a similar slope to 1b, and that a fieldindependent regime is not reached down to at least 10 Oe. These two features indicate respectively that: (i) QTM is still active at low temperatures and fields despite ~4% magnetic dilution and no Dybased nuclear spin (this is also exemplified by the presence of a zerofield step in the 2 K magnetic hysteresis trace of ~4% ^{164}Dy@2, Supplementary Fig. 13), and (ii) the dipolar field is still H_{int} < 10 Oe, which is consistent with the natural abundance Dy analogue with a similar dilution, 1b (ca. 3 vs. 4%). However, there is a marked decrease in the absolute value of the relaxation rates in the strongly field active regime at low fields compared to 1b: this must be due to the effect of removing Dy nuclear spins. By fixing all parameters determined above for 1, 1a, and 1b (Table 1), we can fit the relaxation data for ~4% ^{164}Dy@2 with Eq. (4) by varying only the QTM term ω. We obtain an excellent fit of the lowfield data for ω_{164} = 0.06(2) × 10^{7} rad s^{−1} (Fig. 7b, corresponding to an effective tunnelling gap of ħω_{164} = 0.03(1) × 10^{−4} cm^{−1}); clearly this parameter is less than half that for 1b (ω_{1b} = 0.14(4) × 10^{7} rad s^{−1}), even though both samples have a similar magnetic dilution. This directly indicates that Dy nuclear spins must have some influence on the effective QTM rate, as found previously^{42,43,44,45}, however that QTM is still clearly present despite removal of Dy nuclear spins and at high dilutions.
Therefore, we contend that internal dipolar fields and hyperfine coupling (including other nuclei beyond ^{161/163}Dy, such as ^{1}H) play supporting roles in QTM by removing the Kramers degeneracy, such that a more efficient coupling mechanism can have an effect. Far from providing a definitive theorem on the origin of the QTM here, we note that the nonaxial CF operators can mix the ±15/2> states via excited states in low orders of perturbation theory (as these operators mix states with Δm_{J} = ±1, ±2, ±3, ±4, ±5, and ±6), compared to both hyperfine coupling and dipolar fields that can only mix the ±15/2> states in high orders of perturbation theory (as these operators only mix states with Δm_{J} = ±1). Therefore, the nonaxial CF is much more likely to mix the ground state wavefunctions, and we propose that the dynamic CF, as induced by molecular vibrations, has a crucial role in the efficient QTM mechanism for dysprosium(III) SMMs. Under the paradigm that internal dipolar fields and hyperfine coupling play only supporting roles of in QTM, it becomes clear why the zerofield step in magnetic hysteresis loops for dysprosium(III) SMMs can be modified but not completely removed by dilution or isotopic enrichment: the degree to which the Kramers degeneracy is removed is important, but it is practically impossible to ensure the absence of any stray magnetic field (including dipolar and hyperfine fields), and thus the intrinsic QTM driven by the dynamic CF remains prevalent. Thus, we propose that engineering the molecular structure to reduce the facility of vibrational modes that generate nonaxial perturbations in the dynamic CF holds the key to achieving molecular magnetic hysteresis above the temperature of liquid nitrogen; this is the chemical equivalent of reducing the lowenergy phonon density of states that couple to the magnetic centre, which has been shown to completely remove the QTM in lowdimensional molecular or atomic magnets^{24,46}.
Through a field and temperaturedependent study of the magnetic relaxation rate for the large U_{eff} SMM [Dy(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF, we have found four distinct relaxation processes that each dominate in different regimes. Above 16 K, fieldindependent Raman and Orbach relaxation mechanisms dominate, while below 6 K we find a strong dependence of the relaxation rate on the applied magnetic field, providing clear evidence of Direct and QTM relaxation processes. By explicitly including the temperature dependence of the phonon collision rate, we have modelled the QTM process and therefore the relaxation dynamics over 11 orders of magnitude (Fig. 6; Supplementary Figs. 16–23). We find that the perturbation allowing QTM within the ±15/2 > ground doublet is related to the magnitude of the internal dipolar field and to the presence of I = 5/2 nuclear spins from ^{161/163}Dy nuclei, but reason that neither dipolar fields nor hyperfine coupling can be the sole cause of this effect for dysprosium(III) SMMs. We suggest, rather, that efficient zerofield QTM is related to the dynamic nonaxial CF. This suggests that QTM processes in dysprosium(III) SMMs may be modulated by molecular design, rather than by dilution or enrichment, thus returning the future prospects for technologically useful SMMs back into the hands of imaginative synthetic chemists.
Methods
Synthesis and structure
All reactions were carried out under a dry and oxygenfree argon atmosphere by using Schlenk techniques or in a glovebox. Toluene, Tetrahydrofuran and hexane were dried and degassed by standard techniques. Anhydrous DyCl_{3} and YCl_{3} were prepared according to the literature procedure^{47}. ^{164}Dy_{2}O_{3} (^{164}Dy isotopic content 96.80%) was purchased from Eurisotop and used as received to prepare ^{164}DyCl_{3} following literature procedures^{48}. The ^{164}Dyenriched sample was digested with HNO_{3} and analysed by ICPMS with an Agilent 7500cx by Mr Paul Lygoth at The University of Manchester: isotopic fingerprint for the ^{164}Dy sample was: 96.62% ^{164}Dy, 2.27% ^{163}Dy, 0.64% ^{162}Dy, 0.37% ^{161}Dy, 0.05% ^{160}Dy, 0.02% ^{158}Dy, 0.03% ^{156}Dy. NaO^{t}Bu, and NaBPh_{4} were commercial available and used without further treatment. Infrared spectra were collected on a Thermo Fisher Nicolet 6700 FTIR spectrometer using ATR (Attenuated Total Reflectance) method. Absorption maxima (ν_{max}) are reported in wavenumbers (cm^{−1}).
[Dy(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF 1 was prepared by small modification of the synthesis of [Y(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF 2 (see ref.^{28}). Reaction of DyCl_{3} (0.5 mmol, 134 mg), NaO^{t}Bu (0.5 mmol, 48 mg) and NaBPh_{4} (0.5 mmol, 171 mg) in THF gives a cloudy solution, which was filtrate and the solvent was removed by vacuum to give a white powder of the product (480 mg, 87.7% yield). Crystals suitable for Xray diffraction were grown by layering saturated THF solution of 1 with hexane at −35 °C. IR (KBr, cm^{−1}): 3056 (m), 2982 (s), 2883 (w), 1943 (w) 1877(w), 1818 (w), 1752 (w), 1651 (w), 1591 (m), 1580 (m), 1480 (m), 1457 (m), 1428 (w), 1400 (w), 1353 (w), 1240 (m), 1185 (w), 1147 (w), 1068 (m), 1031 (w), 997 (w),870 (m, br), 773 (w), 743 (s), 704 (s), 643 (m), 638 (w).
The synthesis of [Y(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF 2 was the same as 1 with anhydrous DyCl_{3} replaced by 0.5 mmol of anhydrous YCl_{3}. Yield 390 mg, 76.4%. IR (KBr, cm^{−1}): 3055 (m), 2982 (s), 2896 (M), 1947 (w) 1879(w), 1819 (w), 1769 (w), 1645 (w), 1604 (m), 1591 (s), 1562 (m), 1495 (m), 1479 (s), 1457 (m), 1427 (m), 1377 (w), 1354 (m), 1266 (w), 1240 (m), 1198 (m, br), 1146 (w), 1066 (w), 1030 (s), 997 (w), 918 (w), 865 (s), 776 (m), 743 (s), 705 (s), 674 (w), 625 (w).
The synthesis of Dy@[Y(^{t}BuO)Cl(THF)_{5}][BPh_{4}]·2THF was the same as 1 with anhydrous DyCl_{3} replaced by 0.475 mmol of anhydrous YCl_{3} and 0.025 mmol of anhydrous DyCl_{3}. IR (KBr, cm^{−1}): 3057 (m), 2981 (s), 2897 (w), 1959 (w) 1887(w), 1819 (w), 1770 (w), 1646 (w), 1579 (s), 1561 (w), 1480 (s), 1458 (m), 1427 (s), 1398 (m), 1354 (w), 1225 (w), 1185 (m, br), 1152 (w), 1067 (m), 1029 (m), 919 (m),868 (s), 776 (w), 743 (s), 715 (s), 673 (w), 625 (m).
Cation: all the complexes lose cocrystalized and coordinated THF molecule after a few months even stored in a dry glovebox^{28}. All measurements were carried out with freshly prepared crystalline samples.
Xray crystallography
All data were recorded on a Bruker SMART CCD diffractometer with MoK_{α} radiation (λ = 0.71073 Å). The structures were solved by direct methods and refined on F^{2} using SHELXTL^{49}.
CASSCFSO electronic structure
MOLCAS 8.0^{29} was employed to perform CASSCFSO calculations on the cation in 1 based on the Xray structure with no optimisation. Basis sets from the ANORCC library were employed^{50,51}, with VTZP quality for the Dy atom, VDZP quality for the Cl and O atoms, and VDZ quality for all C and H atoms. The two electron integrals were Cholesky decomposed with a threshold of 1 × 10^{−8}. The stateaveraged CASSCF orbitals of the sextets, quartets and doublets were optimised with 21, 224, and 490 states, respectively, with the RASSCF module. The spinorbit coupling Hamiltonian was then constructed and diagonalised in the basis of 21, 128, and 130 sextets, quartets and doublets, respectively, with the RASSI module. The crystal field decomposition of the ground J = 15/2 multiplet was performed with the SINGLE_ANISO module^{52,53}.
Magnetometry
Magnetisation measurements were carried out with a Quantum Design MPMSXL7 SQUID magnetometer, while hysteresis measurements were carried out on a Quantum Design MPMS3VSM SQUID (excepting that for ~4% ^{164}Dy@2, which was measured on a MPMSXL7 SQUID). Freshly prepared polycrystalline samples were embedded in eicosane to avoid any field induced crystal reorientation, and contained in a flamesealed quartz NMR tube. Diamagnetic corrections were applied for the eicosane and for the molecule, the latter being calculated from the Pascal constants.
We extract the magnetic relaxation times from AC susceptibility using the modified Debye model \(\chi \left( \omega \right) = \chi _S + \frac{{\chi _T  \chi _S}}{{1 + \left( {i\omega \tau } \right)^{1  \beta }}}\) (Supplementary Table 4)^{18}. The β parameters range from ca. 0.03 to 0.3, being at the larger end of the range at the lowest temperatures; this indicates a broadening distribution of relaxation times, likely owing to the inhomogeneity of the QTM process.
We extract the magnetic relaxation times from DC magnetisation decay using a stretched exponential \(M\left( t \right) = M_{\rm eq} + \left( {M_0  M_{\rm eq}} \right){\mathrm e}^{  \left( {t/\tau } \right)^\alpha }\) (Supplementary Tables 5–13^{18}. We note that a single exponential is not adequate to model the data, and we have obtained stretch parameters similar to those reported previously^{54,55}. At low and high fields at 2, 3 and 4 K, the extracted M_{eq} values compare extremely well to the theoretical values for a pure ±15/2> state (Supplementary Figure 7). For intermediate fields around 1 kOe, we find that the magnetic relaxation rate is so slow that equilibrium magnetisation could not be reached in an acceptable timeframe; in these cases we fix M_{eq} to the theoretical value scaled to the experimental M_{sat} value at H_{i} = 50 kOe.
Data availability
CCDC 1450752 (1), and 1566471 (2) contain the supplementary crystallographic data for this paper. These data can be obtained free of charge via www.ccdc.cam.ac.uk/conts/retrieving.html (or from the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre, 12 Union Road, Cambridge CB2 1EZ, UK; fax: (+44)1223336033; or deposit@ccdc.cam.ac.uk). Magnetic data is available from N.F.C. on request.
Change history
05 September 2018
This Article was originally published without the accompanying Peer Review File. This file is now available in the HTML version of the Article; the PDF was correct from the time of publication.
References
 1.
Sessoli, R., Gatteschi, D., Caneschi, A. & Novak, M. A. Magnetic bistability in a metalion cluster. Nature 365, 141–143 (1993).
 2.
Goodwin, C. A. P., Ortu, F., Reta, D., Chilton, N. F. & Mills, D. P. Molecular magnetic hysteresis at 60 kelvin in dysprosocenium. Nature 548, 439–442 (2017).
 3.
MorenoPineda, E., Godfrin, C., Balestro, F., Wernsdorfer, W. & Ruben, M. Molecular spin qudits for quantum algorithms. Chem. Soc. Rev. 47, 501–513 (2018).
 4.
Godfrin, C. et al. Operating quantum states in single magnetic molecules: implementation of Grover’s quantum algorithm. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 187702 (2017).
 5.
Morello, A. Quantum search on a singleatom qudit. Nat. Nanotechnol. 13, 9–10 (2018).
 6.
Ding, Y.S., Chilton, N. F., Winpenny, R. E. P. & Zheng, Y.Z. On approaching the limit of molecular magnetic anisotropy: a nearperfect pentagonal bipyramidal dysprosium(III) singlemolecule magnet. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55, 16071–16074 (2016).
 7.
Liu, J. et al. A stable pentagonal bipyramidal Dy(III) singleion magnet with a record magnetization reversal barrier over 1000 K. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 138, 5441–5450 (2016).
 8.
Chen, Y.C. et al. Symmetrysupported magnetic blocking at 20 K in pentagonal bipyramidal Dy(III) singleion magnets. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 138, 2829–2837 (2016).
 9.
Gupta, S. K., Rajeshkumar, T., Rajaraman, G. & Murugavel, R. An airstable Dy(III) singleion magnet with high anisotropy barrier and blocking temperature. Chem. Sci. 7, 5181–5191 (2016).
 10.
Gregson, M. et al. A monometallic lanthanide bis(methanediide) single molecule magnet with a large energy barrier and complex spin relaxation behaviour. Chem. Sci. 7, 155–165 (2016).
 11.
Branzoli, F. et al. Spin dynamics in the negatively charged terbium(III) bisphthalocyaninato complex. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131, 4387–4396 (2009).
 12.
Ganivet, C. R. et al. Influence of peripheral substitution on the magnetic behavior of singleion magnets based on homo and heteroleptic Tb^{III} Bis(phthalocyaninate). Chem. Eur. J. 19, 1457–1465 (2013).
 13.
Blagg, R. J. et al. Magnetic relaxation pathways in lanthanide singlemolecule magnets. Nat. Chem. 5, 673–678 (2013).
 14.
Rinehart, J. D. & Long, J. R. Exploiting singleion anisotropy in the design of felement singlemolecule magnets. Chem. Sci. 2, 2078–2085 (2011).
 15.
Chilton, N. F., Collison, D., McInnes, E. J. L., Winpenny, R. E. P. & Soncini, A. An electrostatic model for the determination of magnetic anisotropy in dysprosium complexes. Nat. Commun. 4, 2551 (2013).
 16.
Chilton, N. F. Design criteria for hightemperature singlemolecule magnets. Inorg. Chem. 54, 2097–2099 (2015).
 17.
Abragam, A. & Bleaney, B. Electron Paramagnetic Resonance of Transition Ions (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1970).
 18.
Gatteschi, D., Sessoli, R. & Villain, J. Molecular Nanomagnets (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006).
 19.
Pedersen, K. S. et al. Design of singlemolecule magnets: insufficiency of the anisotropy barrier as the sole criterion. Inorg. Chem. 54, 7600–7606 (2015).
 20.
Lucaccini, E., Sorace, L., Perfetti, M., Costes, J.P. & Sessoli, R. Beyond the anisotropy barrier: slow relaxation of the magnetization in both easyaxis and easyplane Ln(trensal) complexes. Chem. Commun. 50, 1648–1651 (2014).
 21.
Pugh, T., Chilton, N. F. & Layfield, R. A. A lowsymmetry dysprosium metallocene singlemolecule magnet with a high anisotropy barrier. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 55, 11082–11085 (2016).
 22.
Dreiser, J. Molecular lanthanide singleion magnets: from bulk to submonolayers. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 27, 183203 (2015).
 23.
Wäckerlin, C. et al. Giant hysteresis of singlemolecule magnets adsorbed on a nonmagnetic insulator. Adv. Mater. 28, 5195–5199 (2016).
 24.
Donati, F. et al. Magnetic remanence in single atoms. Science 352, 318–321 (2016).
 25.
Lunghi, A., Totti, F., Sanvito, S. & Sessoli, R. Intramolecular origin of the spinphonon coupling in slowrelaxing molecular magnets. Chem. Sci. 8, 6051–6059 (2017).
 26.
EscaleraMoreno, L., Suaud, N., GaitaAriño, A. & Coronado, E. Determining key local vibrations in the relaxation of molecular spin qubits and singlemolecule magnets. J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 8, 1695–1700 (2017).
 27.
Goodwin, C. A. P., Reta, D., Ortu, F., Chilton, N. F. & Mills, D. P. Synthesis and electronic structures of heavy lanthanide metallocenium cations. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 139, 18714–18724 (2017).
 28.
Evans, W. J., Olofson, J. M. & Ziller, J. W. Synthesis and structure of the cationic tertbutoxide complexes Y_{3}(OR)_{7}Cl(THF)_{3} ^{+}, Y_{2}(OR)_{4}Cl(THF)_{4} ^{+}, and Y(OR)Cl(THF)_{5} ^{+}: representatives of a new class of yttrium alkoxides. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 112, 2308–2314 (1990).
 29.
Aquilante, F. et al. Molcas 8: new capabilities for multiconfigurational quantum chemical calculations across the periodic table. J. Comput. Chem. 37, 506–541 (2016).
 30.
Tesi, L. et al. Giant spin–phonon bottleneck effects in evaporable vanadylbased molecules with long spin coherence. Dalton. Trans. 45, 16635–16643 (2016).
 31.
Atzori, M. et al. Roomtemperature quantum coherence and rabi oscillations in vanadyl phthalocyanine: toward multifunctional molecular spin qubits. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 138, 2154–2157 (2016).
 32.
Tesi, L. et al. Quantum coherence in a processable vanadyl complex: new tools for the search of molecular spin qubits. Chem. Sci. 7, 2074–2083 (2016).
 33.
Van Vleck, J. H. Paramagnetic relaxation times for titanium and chrome alum. Phys. Rev. 57, 426–447 (1940).
 34.
Ho, L. T. & Chibotaru, L. F. Spinlattice relaxation of magnetic centers in molecular crystals at low temperature. Phys. Rev. B 97, 024427 (2018).
 35.
Zadrozny, J. M. et al. Slow magnetization dynamics in a series of twocoordinate iron(ii) complexes. Chem. Sci. 4, 125–138 (2013).
 36.
Goura, J. et al. Heterometallic Zn_{3}Ln_{3} ensembles containing (μ_{6}CO_{3}) ligand and triangular disposition of Ln^{3+} ions: analysis of singlemolecule toroic (SMT) and singlemolecule magnet (SMM) behavior. Chemistry 23, 16621–16636 (2017).
 37.
Abragam, A. The Principles of Nuclear Magnetism (Clarendon Press, 1961).
 38.
Fort, A., Rettori, A., Villain, J., Gatteschi, D. & Sessoli, R. Mixed quantumthermal relaxation in Mn_{12} acetate molecules. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 612–615 (1998).
 39.
Gereth, R. & Hubner, K. Phonon mean free path in silicon between 77 and 250 K. Phys. Rev. 134, A235–A240 (1964).
 40.
Hall, J. J. Electronic effects in the elastic constants of ntype silicon. Phys. Rev. 161, 756–761 (1967).
 41.
Kinsler, L. E. Fundamentals of Acoustics (Wiley, Hoboken, 2000).
 42.
Ishikawa, N., Sugita, M. & Wernsdorfer, W. Quantum tunneling of magnetization in lanthanide single–molecule magnets: bis(phthalocyaninato)terbium and bis(phthalocyaninato)dysprosium anions. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 44, 2931–2935 (2005).
 43.
Pointillart, F. et al. Magnetic memory in an isotopically enriched and magnetically isolated mononuclear dysprosium complex. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 54, 1504–1507 (2015).
 44.
MorenoPineda, E., Damjanović, M., Fuhr, O., Wernsdorfer, W. & Ruben, M. Nuclear spin isomers: engineering a Et_{4}N[DyPc_{2}] spin qudit. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 56, 9915–9919 (2017).
 45.
Kishi, Y. et al. Isotopically enriched polymorphs of dysprosium single molecule magnets. Chem. Commun. 53, 3575–3578 (2017).
 46.
Ganzhorn, M., Klyatskaya, S., Ruben, M. & Wernsdorfer, W. Quantum Einsteinde Haas effect. Nat. Commun. 7, 11443 (2016).
 47.
Reed, J. B. et al. in Inorganic Syntheses (ed. Booth, H. S.) 28–33 (Wiley, Hoboken, 1939).
 48.
Huang, W., L. Brosmer, J. & Diaconescu, L. P. In situ synthesis of lanthanide complexes supported by a ferrocene diamide ligand: extension to redoxactive lanthanide ions. New J. Chem. 39, 7696–7702 (2015).
 49.
Sheldrick, G. M. A short history of SHELX. Acta Cryst. A 64, 112–122 (2008).
 50.
Roos, B. O., Lindh, R., Malmqvist, P.Å., Veryazov, V. & Widmark, P.O. Main group atoms and dimers studied with a new relativistic ANO basis set. J. Phys. Chem. A 108, 2851–2858 (2004).
 51.
Roos, B. O., Lindh, R., Malmqvist, P.Å., Veryazov, V. & Widmark, P.O. New relativistic ANO basis sets for transition metal atoms. J. Phys. Chem. A 109, 6575–6579 (2005).
 52.
Chibotaru, L. F. & Ungur, L. Ab initio calculation of anisotropic magnetic properties of complexes. I. Unique definition of pseudospin Hamiltonians and their derivation. J. Chem. Phys. 137, 064112 (2012).
 53.
Ungur, L. & Chibotaru, L. F. Ab initio crystal field for lanthanides. Chemistry 23, 3708–3718 (2017).
 54.
Pohl, I. A. M., Westin, L. G. & Kritikos, M. Preparation, structure, and properties of a new giant manganese oxoalkoxide wheel, [Mn_{19}O_{12}(OC_{2}H_{4}OCH_{3})_{14}(HOC_{2}H_{4}OCH_{3})_{10}].HOC_{2}H_{4}OCH_{3}. Chemistry 7, 3438–3445 (2001).
 55.
Gatteschi, D. & Sessoli, R. Quantum tunneling of magnetization and related phenomena in molecular materials. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 42, 268–297 (2003).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the EPSRC (EP/P002560/1), the Ramsay Memorial Trust (fellowship to N.F.C.), The University of Manchester, the NSFC (nos. 21473129, 21620102002 and 21773130), “National Young 1000Plan” program, State Key Laboratory for Mechanical Behaviour of Materials, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities and the Cyrus Chung Ying Tang Foundation. N.F.C. thanks Prof. David Collison and Dr Ahsan Nazir for useful discussions.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
Y.S.D., K.X.Y. and F.O. synthesised the complexes. Y.S.D., K.X.Y., D.R. and N.F.C. performed magnetic measurements. D.R. performed CASSCFSO calculations. N.F.C. modelled and interpreted the magnetic data. N.F.C., R.E.P.W. and Y.Z.Z. designed the experiments. N.F.C. wrote the manuscript with input from the other authors.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Ding, YS., Yu, KX., Reta, D. et al. Field and temperaturedependent quantum tunnelling of the magnetisation in a large barrier singlemolecule magnet. Nat Commun 9, 3134 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467018055876
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467018055876
Further reading

Unveiling phonons in a molecular qubit with fourdimensional inelastic neutron scattering and density functional theory
Nature Communications (2020)

Airstable redoxactive nanomagnets with lanthanide spins radicalbridged by a metal–metal bond
Nature Communications (2019)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.