X-ray photoemission spectroscopy of La(0.67)Ca(0.33)MnO(3) films
Extracted source text · arXiv cond-mat/9705064
\documentstyle[tighten,12pt,aps]{revtex}
\begin{document}
\draft
\title{X-ray photoemission spectroscopy of La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ films}
\author{P. R. Broussard, S. B. Qadri and V. C. Cestone}
\address{Naval Research Lab, Washington, DC 20375}
\bigskip
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
We have performed x-ray photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) on thin films of
(001) and (200) oriented La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ grown on (100)
and (110) SrTiO$_{3}$
substrates by off-axis sputtering. The films were examined by XPS without
exposing them to air. We have compared the core levels and the valence
spectra between the two different orientations, as well as after the
effects of air exposure and annealing in UHV. We find that the surfaces
are very stable against exposure to air. Comparing the measured intensity
ratios to a model for the uniform termination of the film shows the
terminating layer to be MnO$_{2}$ for both the (001) and (200) oriented
La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ films.
\end{abstract}
\bigskip
\pacs{75.70.-i, 79.60.-i, 81.05.Je, 82.80.Pv}
\narrowtext
\section{Introduction}¥
The colossal magnetoresistance (CMR) behavior seen in thin films of the
lanthanum based manganese oxides\cite{Jin} has resulted in a great deal of
interest in thin film growth of the materials. X-ray photoemission studies
have been carried out on these systems to understand the change in
electronic structure as a function of
doping.\cite{Taguchi,Chainani,Saitoh} Valence-band
structure has also been studied for a La$_{0.65}$Ca$_{0.35}$MnO$_{3}$ film using
angle-resolved photoemission;\cite{Zhang} however, there has been no x-ray
photoemission spectroscopy (XPS) studies of the core states for thin films
of these materials. In this paper, we present {\it in situ} and {\it
ex situ} XPS
measurements for films of La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO$_{3}$ (LCMO) grown
on SrTiO$_{3}$
substrates. We have examined how the core lines are affected by exposure
to air and subsequent annealing in UHV, and we have compared our measured
intensities to a quantitative model for the terminating surface of the
films. We have also compared the differences between LCMO films grown on
different orientations of SrTiO$_{3}$.
\section{Sample preparation and characterization}
Our samples were grown by off-axis sputtering using a composite target of
LCMO material mounted in a copper cup. The substrates were (100) and (110)
oriented strontium titanate (SrTiO$_{3}$), silver-pasted onto a stainless steel
substrate holder that was radiatively heated from behind by quartz lamps.
Although there was no direct measurement of the holder temperature for the
runs used in this study, previous runs (under nominally the same
conditions) using a thermocouple clamped onto the front surface of the
holder indicated a temperature of 670 C. The films were rf-sputtered at
80 W in a sputter gas composed of 80\% Ar and 20\% O$_{2}$ (as measured by flow
meters) and at a total pressure of 13.3 Pa. These conditions gave
deposition rates of $\approx$ 17 nm/hr, with film thicknesses being typically 50
nm. After deposition, the samples were cooled in 13.3 kPa of oxygen.
After the samples had cooled to below 100 C, the chamber was pumped out to
below 10$^{-4}$ Pa, and the samples were moved by a manipulator arm into an
adjacent chamber that has the XPS analytical equipment. After the sample
was placed into the XPS stage, the chambers were isolated, and the XPS
chamber pressure evacuated below 3 x 10$^{-7}$ Pa. For characterization after
exposure to air, the sample surfaces were cleaned by UHV anneals to 600 C.
Such anneals are known to have a detrimental effect on the oxygen content
in other perovskite materials (such as the high T$_{c}$ superconductor
YBa$_{2}$¥Cu$_{3}$¥O$_{7-\delta}$). For the case of LCMO, we have seen in
anneals on {\it in situ} films
(not shown here) and in our {\it ex situ} film results (shown later) that such
anneals do not cause any significant reduction in the measured oxygen
levels.
The XPS spectra were taken at room temperature with a Vacuum Generators
CLAM 100 analyzer using Mg K$\alpha$ radiation (12 kV, 20 mA). The emission angle
of the photoelectrons was 15$^{\circ}¥$ to the surface normal, unless otherwise
stated. The pass energy was set to 50 eV, giving a full width at half
maximum (FWHM) of 2.0 eV for a Pt 4f$_{7/2}$ line. For the transmission
function we use what is commonly seen in VG ESCALab detectors
($T(E_{k}¥) \propto
1/\sqrt{E_{k}¥}$), which are also 150$^{\circ}¥$ sector angle hemispherical analyzers.
The collected XPS peaks were fit by multiple Gaussian curves after
subtracting away an S-shaped background\cite{Shirley} to obtain the peak positions
and peak areas. The energy scale for the system was calibrated using an
ion-milled Pt foil sample, and has an absolute accuracy of $\pm$0.5 eV and a
relative energy accuracy of $\pm$0.1 eV for all samples.
In addition to the XPS studies, the samples were characterized {\it ex situ} by
standard $\theta-2\theta$ x-ray diffraction scans, electrical resistivity measurements
(using the van der Pauw method\cite{VdP}) for zero applied field, and
magnetization measurements at low fields using a Quantum Design SQUID
Magnetometer.
\section{Results and Discussion}¥
\subsection{Film properties}
On (100) and (110) SrTiO$_{3}$ we get smooth, well-oriented LCMO films. In
Figure \ref{XRD} we show the x-ray diffraction patterns along the film growth
direction for LCMO films on (100) and (110) SrTiO$_{3}$. We find (001) LCMO on
(100) SrTiO$_{3}$, with a c-axis lattice constant of 7.60\AA . For the LCMO film
on (110) SrTiO$_{3}$, we had to use x-ray diffraction in the plane of the film
since it can be difficult to distinguish between the (200) and (112) LCMO
reflections. What we find for this film is that it is oriented as (200)
LCMO, with an a-axis lattice constant of 5.44\AA . Furthermore, we find that
the LCMO is oriented in the film plane with (001) LCMO $\parallel$ (001)
SrTiO$_{3}$ and
(010) LCMO $\parallel$ (1$\bar{1}$0) SrTiO$_{3}$, with b and c-axis lattice constants of
5.52 and 7.77\AA , respectively.
SEM micrographs (not shown) show no evidence of second
phases or particulates. In Figure \ref{rho} we present the resistivity data in
zero applied magnetic field and magnetization data (at 50 Oe) for the LCMO
films on the two substrates. We see a maximum in resistivity near 200 K
and a magnetic transition that occurs slightly above the resistivity peak
in temperature.
\subsection{XPS characterization}
\subsubsection{{\it In situ} vs. {\it ex situ} studies}¥
Photoemission data for all the samples was collected around the Mn 2p
doublet, the La 4d and 3d doublet, the O 1s, Ca 2p, C 1s, Mn 3p lines, and
the valence region. In the following figures of XPS spectra, the core
level spectra are shown along with their deconvolution into different
Gaussian contributions. In Figures \ref{XPS1} and \ref{XPS2}, we show scans around the
location of the above core lines and valence region for a LCMO film on
(100) SrTiO$_{3}$ after insertion into the spectrometer (A), after exposure to
room air for approximately 5 minutes (B), and after annealing to 600 C for
1 hour in UHV (C). The curves are offset for clarity.
For the {\it in situ} measurement (A) we see no evidence of carbon on the surface
of the film, therefore no cleaning procedures were needed for the {\it in situ}
studies. The {\it in situ} surfaces have not undergone any ion milling or
thermal cycling, and are thus representative of what would be used in
further film processing. The O 1s line has a main peak at 529.1 eV with a
broad satellite of $\approx$ 71 \% intensity located at 529.5 eV. The Mn
2p$_{3/2}$ line
is also composed of a low binding energy component at 641.3 eV and a high
binding energy component with $\approx$ 90\% intensity at 643.3 eV. The spin orbit
splitting of the Mn 2p lines is 11.7 eV, similar to that seen in
MnO$_{2}$,\cite{Perkin}
but our binding energy is lower. The La 3d$_{5/2}$ line is well fit by a double
Gaussian, with peaks at 833.7 eV and 837.4 eV, and with the high binding
energy peak having 115 \% of the intensity of the low peak. The La 3d
series is very similar to that of La$_{2}$O$_{3}$, with our spin orbit splitting
being 16.7 eV.\cite{Perkin} However, as in the case of the Mn 2p lines, our binding
energy is lower than that seen in La$_{2}$O$_{3}$. The Mn 3p line is similar to the
Mn 2p$_{3/2}$ line, with a high binding energy component of 119\% intensity of
the low binding energy component, and with peak positions of 50.1 and 48.3
eV respectively. The La 4d doublet is composed of two spin-orbit doublets
with binding energies of the 4d$_{5/2}$ line at 101.9 and 104.1 eV, with the
higher binding energy component having 122\% of the intensity of the lower
component. The Ca 2p doublet, in contrast to the other lines, is well fit
by a standard p-like doublet, with no need for satellite terms. The Ca
2p$_{3/2}$ line is located at 346.3 eV. Finally, the valence region shows
contributions from the La 5p, O 2s, Ca 3p, and La 5s lines, as well as Mn-O
bonding below 10 eV. We find overall good agreement when we compare the
binding energies of our core levels to that seen by Taguchi et al. for
bulk La$_{1-x}$Ca$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$.\cite{Taguchi}
For the case of a 5 minute exposure to room air (B), we see the appearance
of a carbon line at 285 eV, indicating the presence of hydrocarbons on the
surface, along with a reduction in intensity of the remaining lines.
Comparing the lines to those for the {\it in situ} case (A), we do not see a
great deal of modification in the lineshapes. A numerical comparison shows
the greatest modification to be in the O 1s line, where there is an
increase of 30\% in the relative intensity of the high binding energy
component compared to the low binding energy peak. For the valence
structure, a peak near 9-10 eV is usually associated with
contamination.\cite{Saitoh}
We do not observe a change in this region after exposing the sample to air;
however it may be that this peak does not have a significant cross section
for Mg K$\alpha$ radiation. After annealing the film to 600 C in UHV (C), we see
a reduction in the carbon level, and again, no major modification in the
line shapes. What we find most interesting about this series is that the
surface of the LCMO film seems very robust and does not undergo a rapid
reaction under exposure to room air.
\subsubsection{Surface layer issues}¥
In XPS studies on the high temperature superconductors,\cite{Ziegler} it was customary
to assign the high binding energy component seen in the core lines with a
surface layer having a different chemical environment than the bulk. By
making XPS measurements at different angles to the surface normal, it is
possible to distinguish bulk and surface contributions to a photoemission
line. We have compared scans of the La 3d$_{5/2}$, Mn 2p$_{3/2}$, O 1s,
and La 4d
lines at two different angles, $\theta$, where $\theta$ is the angle between
the sample
normal and the plane defined by the x-ray source and detector. Due to
limitations of the sample holder, the maximum angle we were able to use was
45$^{\circ}$. In Figure \ref{O1sXPS} we show a comparison for the O 1s line for
our {\it in situ}
film (A). What we find here is true for the other lines: there is very
little change in the lineshape as one goes to different angles. If either
component were a surface feature, we would have expected at least a
60\%
change in relative intensity ratio of the two components. Even for the
case of the LCMO film exposed to air for 5 minutes (B), where we saw an
increase in the relative intensity of this high binding energy peak for the
O 1s line and would interpret it as a possible surface component, we find
that there is very little change between the 0$^{\circ}$ and 45$^{\circ}$ spectra. This
implies that the high binding energy components are not due to surface
layers, and instead are representative of the bulk of the LCMO material.
\subsubsection{Effects of different orientations and termination study}¥
We also performed {\it in situ} XPS measurements for the LCMO film grown on (110)
SrTiO$_{3}$. What we observe first for this film is that the core lines are
nearly identical to our LCMO film on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$, with only the relative
intensity ratios varying. So rather than present the curves for this
sample, we instead look at the variation in intensity ratios, which are
presented in Table \ref{Table1}. To study the variation quantitatively, we use the
model of Frank et al.\cite{Frank} (applied here to the case of LCMO) which models
the XPS intensities as being due to a perfect termination of the film
surface and takes into account the contribution from each layer. For the
crystal structure of LCMO we used data from LaMnO$_{3}$ based
structures\cite{Gilleo,Elemans}
and our values of the lattice parameters. For the films on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ we
use a sequence of layers along the (001) direction, which gives a
.../O/Mn/O/La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$O/... sequence. However, in our calculation,
the
difference between this more exact sequence compared to the approximate
sequence .../MnO$_{2}$/La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$O/... is not significant, so we
have used
the latter sequence. We then have two possible configurations, S$_{(001)}$1
(MnO$_{2}$/La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$O/...)
and S$_{(001)}$2 (La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$O/MnO$_{2}$/...). For the
film on (110) SrTiO$_{3}$ we also have only two possible configurations for
(100) oriented LCMO, S$_{(100)}$1 (La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO/O$_{2}$/...)
and S$_{(100)}$2
(O$_{2}$/La$_{0.67}$Ca$_{0.33}$MnO/...). The values for photoelectron cross sections and
inelastic mean free path are taken from the usual
sources.\cite{Scofield,Tanuma} The
calculated values of relative intensities for a specified termination layer
were then compared to the experimental values and the termination layer
varied to minimize $\chi^{2}$, where
\begin{equation}
\chi^{2}=\frac{1}{N} \sum_{i} \frac{(R_{i,m}-R_{i,p})^{2}}{R_{i,m}} ,
\end{equation}
with N the number of ratios compared, R$_{i,m}$ the measured intensity ratio and
R$_{i,p}$ the predicted intensity ratio for peak ÒiÓ. The results of this
analysis are shown in Tables \ref{Table2} and \ref{Table3} for the LCMO films
on different
orientations of SrTiO$_{3}$, where we also compare the intensity ratios to what
would be expected for a random matrix.
For the films on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$, we see a clear preference for the films
terminating in a MnO$_{2}$ configuration. The scans taken at 45$^{\circ}$ also show a
significant enhancement of the Mn and O signal levels, which would imply a
MnO$_{2}$ surface layer. However, what we see for all the samples on (100)
SrTiO$_{3}$ is a significantly higher O 1s/La 3d$_{5/2}$ ratio than that predicted,
even for case (C) for which the specimen was annealed in UHV to 600 C. If
we assume that the top layer has an enhanced oxygen content, we would
require an increase in the oxygen level of 150\% to get agreement with our
measured values. Clearly this is not reasonable. Requiring a higher
oxygen content throughout the film does not give a more reasonable picture,
especially in consideration of the fact that our films are oxygen-deficient
as shown by annealing them in oxygen. The reason for the substantially
increased O 1s signal level is not understood.
For the film on (110) SrTiO$_{3}$ we find that the values of
$\chi^{2}$ for the S$_{(100)}$
models are much poorer than those for the S$_{(001)}$ models on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$,
and that the random model gives a better agreement. If we compare to the
models for (001) oriented LCMO, however, we find that the best fit is with
the S$_{(001)}$1 termination, or the MnO$_{2}$ layer. This would not be expected
given the observed orientation of the film, and would seem to imply that
the MnO$_{2}$ layer is an energetically favorable free surface. What maybe
happening is that the Mn atoms tend to form a MnO$_{2}$ terminating layer,
causing a distortion in the layers near the top surface, which might
explain the low value of $\chi^{2}$ found for these fits. Attempts to model
a MnO$_{2}$
layer artificially placed onto a (100) oriented LCMO film also gave good
results, but not better than that seen for the S$_{(001)}$1 termination.
In Figure \ref{valence} we present detailed scans of the valence region for our {\it in situ}
films on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ and (110) SrTiO$_{3}$. For the film on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ we
see two dominant contributions near 4 and 6.5 eV. The data are similar to
that seen by Chainani et al.\cite{Chainani} for
La$_{1-x}$Sr$_{x}$MnO$_{3}$, but are less similar to
the data on a La$_{0.65}$Ca$_{0.35}$MnO$_{3}$ film taken at 50 eV photon
energy by Zhang
et al.\cite{Zhang} In that work the dominant peak was seen at 5.8 eV compared
to our
6.5 eV. Zhang et al. also see a high binding energy shoulder at 7.8 eV.
For the film on (110) SrTiO$_{3}$ we see that there is a loss of intensity at
the peak positions seen for the film on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$. It might be
initially assumed that the change in the spectrum is due to the different
crystal orientation. However, in light of the results from the termination
study it is more likely that what we are seeing here is the result of the
distortion present in the top surface as it orders in a MnO$_{2}$ structure. If
the Mn atoms come from deeper layers, the local distortion in the Mn-O
bonds may result in a smearing of the local density of states, resulting in
a valence curve as seen on (110) SrTiO$_{3}$.
\section{Conclusions}
We find from quantitative analysis of XPS data that {\it in situ} films of LCMO
on both (100) and (110) SrTiO$_{3}$ terminate with MnO$_{2}$ layers, even though the
film on (110) SrTiO$_{3}$ has an orientation clearly different than the film on
(100) SrTiO$_{3}$. We do not see any significant difference in the binding
energies between the two different films, but only a variation in the
relative intensity ratios for the core levels. There is a change in the
valence structure, which we feel is due to a possible distortion in the top
surface of the LCMO film grown on (110) SrTiO$_{3}$. Exposure to air for 5
minutes and subsequent annealing at 600 C in UHV does not significantly
modify the shape of the core levels or the valence structure. Comparing
scans at 0$^{\circ}$ and 45$^{\circ}$ to the surface normal shows that the core level peaks
are not composed of a surface and bulk component, but are representative of
the bulk.
\begin{references}
\bibitem{Jin}
S. Jin, T.H. Tietel, M. McCormack, R.A. Fastnacht, R. Ramesh and
L.H. Coben, Science {\bf 264}, 413 (1994); M. McCormack, S. Jin, T.H.
Tiefel, R.M. Fleming, J.M. Phillips and R. Ramesh, Appl. Phys.
Lett. {\bf 64}, 3015 (1994); S. Jin, M. McCormack, T.H. Tiefel and R.
Ramesh, J. Applied Physics {\bf 76}, 6929 (1994).
\bibitem{Taguchi}
H. Taguchi and M. Shimada, J. Sol. St. Chem. {\bf 67}, 37 (1987)
\bibitem{Chainani}
A. Chainani, M. Matthew and D.D. Sarma, Phys. Rev. {\bf B47}, 15397 (1993).
\bibitem{Saitoh}
T. Saitoh, A. E. Bocquet, T. Mizokawa, H. Namateme, M. Abbate, Y.
Takeda, and M. Takano, Phys. Rev. {\bf B51}, 13942 (1995).
\bibitem{Zhang}
Jiandi Zhang, D.N. McIlroy, P.A. Dowben, S.H. Liou, R.F.
Sabirianov and S.S. Jaswal, Sol. St. Comm. {\bf 97}, 39 (1996).
\bibitem{Shirley}
D. A. Shirley, Phys. Rev. {\bf B5}, 4709 (1972).
\bibitem{VdP}
L. J. van der Pauw, Phillips Res. Rep. {\bf 13}, 1 (1958).
\bibitem{Perkin}
{\it Handbook of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy}, edited by G.E.
Muilenberg (Perkin-Elmer Corporation, Minnesota, 1979).
\bibitem{Ziegler}
Ch. Ziegler, G. Frank and W. Gpel, Z. Phys. {\it B81}, 349 (1990).
\bibitem{Frank}
G. Frank, Ch. Ziegler, and W. Gpel, Phys. Rev. {\it B43}, 2828 (1991).
\bibitem{Gilleo}
M. A. Gilleo, Acta. Cryst. {\bf 10}, 161 (1957).
\bibitem{Elemans}
Jacqueline B. A. A. Elemans, B. Van Laar, K. R. Van Der Veen, and B.
O. Loopstra, J. Solid State Chem. {\bf 3}, 238 (1971).
\bibitem{Scofield}
J. H. Scofield, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. {\bf 8}, 129 (1976).
\bibitem{Tanuma}
S. Tanuma, C. J. Powell, and D. R. Penn, Surf. Interface Anal. {\bf 11}, 577 (1988).
\end{references}
\begin{figure}
\caption{X-ray diffraction scans along the film normal for LCMO films grown
on (a) (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ and (b) (110) SrTiO$_{3}$. The reflections due to the
substrate are labeled by ÒsÓ.}
\label{XRD}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\caption{(a) Electrical resistivity and (b) relative magnetization vs.
temperature for LCMO films grown on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ and (110) SrTiO$_{3}$.}
\label{rho}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\caption{XPS spectra and peak fit analysis of (a) C 1s and La 4s, (b) O 1s,
(c) Mn 2p$_{3/2}$, and (d) La 3d$_{5/2}$ lines. Spectra are shown for (A)
an {\it in situ}
film, (B) after exposure to air for 5 minutes, and (C) after annealing to
600 C in UHV. All are for LCMO on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$.}
\label{XPS1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\caption{Same as Figure 3 but for (a) Mn 3p, (b) La 4d, (c) Ca 2p, and (d)
the valence region.}
\label{XPS2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\caption{XPS spectra around the O 1s line for the {\it in situ} film on (100)
SrTiO$_{3}$ (A) taken at 0$^{\circ}$ and 45$^{\circ}$ relative to the
surface normal.}
\label{O1sXPS}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\caption{XPS spectra in the valence region for {\it in situ} LCMO films grown on
(100) and (110) SrTiO$_{3}$. The curves are offset for clarity.}
\label{valence}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\caption{Comparison of relative XPS intensities for LCMO films}
\label{Table1}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
Sample & $\frac{Mn 2p_{3/2}}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{O
1s}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{Ca 2p}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{La
4d}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{Mn 3p}{La3d_{5/2}}$ \\
\hline
(A) {\it In situ} on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ & 0.51 & 0.45 & 0.087 & 0.26 &
0.050 \\
(B) {\it Ex situ} on (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ & 0.49 & 0.49 & 0.11 & 0.28 &
0.054 \\
(C) 600 C UHV (100) SrTiO$_{3}$ & 0.49 & 0.46 & 0.098 & 0.27 &
0.051 \\
{\it In situ} on (110) SrTiO$_{3}$ & 0.54 & 0.56 & 0.13 & 0.28 &
0.063 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Calculated Intensity Ratios for (001) oriented LCMO}
\label{Table2}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
Model & $\frac{Mn 2p_{3/2}}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{O
1s}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{Ca 2p}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{La
4d}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{Mn 3p}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\chi^{2}$(A) &
$\chi^{2}$(B) & $\chi^{2}$(C) \\
\hline
S$_{(001)}$1 & 0.51 & 0.35 & 0.091 & 0.23 &
0.079 & 0.0090 & 0.014 & 0.0109 \\
S$_{(001)}$2 & 0.35 & 0.27 & 0.083 & 0.20 &
0.058 & 0.028 & 0.035 & 0.028 \\
Random & 0.44 & 0.32 & 0.094 & 0.24 &
0.077 & 0.012 & 0.018 & 0.014 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{Calculated Intensity Ratios for (200) oriented LCMO}
\label{Table3}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
Model & $\frac{Mn 2p_{3/2}}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{O
1s}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{Ca 2p}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{La
4d}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\frac{Mn 3p}{La3d_{5/2}}$ & $\chi^{2}$ \\
\hline
S$_{(100)}$1 & 0.41 & 0.28 & 0.081 & 0.20 &
0.062 & 0.044 \\
S$_{(100)}$2 & 0.43 & 0.33 & 0.086 & 0.21 &
0.066 & 0.031 \\
Random & 0.44 & 0.32 & 0.094 & 0.24 &
0.077 & 0.028 \\
S$_{(001)}$1 & 0.51 & 0.35 & 0.091 & 0.23 &
0.079 & 0.021 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{document}