1.Dietl T. et al. , Science 287 (2000) 1019 as well as T. Dietl and H. Ohno, Materials Today 9 (2006) 18.
2.Sharma P. et al. , Nature Materials 2 (2003) 673.
3.Noice L. et al. , Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 891 (2005) 0891-EE10-10.1.
4.Noice L. et al. , Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. Vol. 941 (2006) 0941-Q08-14.1.
5.Moeck P. et al. , Proc. Mater. Sci. and Technol. (MS&T) 2006: Fundamentals and Characterization, Vol. 1 (2006) 517.
6.Seipel B. et al. , J. Mater. Res. 22 (2007) 1396.
7.Employing the computer programs SIGMAL3 and SIGMAK3 (by Egerton R.F., Electron energy-loss spectroscopy in the electron microscope, Plenum Press, 1996, pp. 485), the partial inelastic cross-section of the Cu L-excitation was calculated to amount to 0.016 pm2 (for a collection angle of 3 mrad and an energy window of 60 eV). Because the simulated partial inelastic cross-section of the O K and N K-excitations are by larger a factor 2.4 and 5.2 than the Cu-L cross section, we assume that a small amount of Cu (in oxidized states with partly filled 3d sub-shells) could be present in our samples without resulting in clearly distinguishable L2,3 “white lines” in the EELS.
8.These simulations employed the WebEMAPS software, developed by J.M. Zuo and J.C. Mabon, University of Illinois at Urbana – Champaign, and openly accessible at URL: http://emaps.mrl.uiuc.edu/.
9.Hovmöller S., CRISP: crystallographic image processing on a personal computer, Ultramicroscopy 41 (1992) 121.