Abstract
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 313-319 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Ultramicroscopy |
| Volume | 110 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2010 |
| MoE publication type | A1 Journal article-refereed |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- AFM
- tapping model
- phase
- energy dissipation
- spring constant
- amplitude
- set point
Cite this
}
Probing material properties of polymeric surface layers with tapping mode AFM : Which cantilever spring constant, tapping amplitude and amplitude set point gives good image contrast and minimal surface damage? / Thormann, Esben (Corresponding Author); Pettersson, Torbjörn; Kettle, John; Claesson, Per M.
In: Ultramicroscopy, Vol. 110, No. 4, 2010, p. 313-319.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Scientific › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Probing material properties of polymeric surface layers with tapping mode AFM
T2 - Which cantilever spring constant, tapping amplitude and amplitude set point gives good image contrast and minimal surface damage?
AU - Thormann, Esben
AU - Pettersson, Torbjörn
AU - Kettle, John
AU - Claesson, Per M.
PY - 2010
Y1 - 2010
N2 - A phase shift between the oscillatory motion and drive motion of an AFM-cantilever used for tapping mode AFM imaging can be related to adhesive and elastic properties of surface layers. In this study it was studied how optimal contrast between hard and soft surface layers can be achieved while minimizing the surface damage. This was investigated by performing classical force-distance measurements while driving the cantilever as in tapping mode imaging. The amplitude and phase response as a function of the average tip-surface separation was recorded. Five different cantilevers with a wide range of spring constants and four different tapping amplitudes were investigated and compared. Based on these experiments it is concluded that too stiff cantilever, high free tapping amplitude and low amplitude set point value often lead to surface damage, while too low spring constant and low free tapping amplitude result in poor phase image contrast. Intermediate values where little surface damage and significant image contrast are obtained were identified. In all cases it was observed that the best image contrast was obtained when the amplitude set point was chosen such that the amplitude during imaging was reduced to approximately 50% of the free amplitude.
AB - A phase shift between the oscillatory motion and drive motion of an AFM-cantilever used for tapping mode AFM imaging can be related to adhesive and elastic properties of surface layers. In this study it was studied how optimal contrast between hard and soft surface layers can be achieved while minimizing the surface damage. This was investigated by performing classical force-distance measurements while driving the cantilever as in tapping mode imaging. The amplitude and phase response as a function of the average tip-surface separation was recorded. Five different cantilevers with a wide range of spring constants and four different tapping amplitudes were investigated and compared. Based on these experiments it is concluded that too stiff cantilever, high free tapping amplitude and low amplitude set point value often lead to surface damage, while too low spring constant and low free tapping amplitude result in poor phase image contrast. Intermediate values where little surface damage and significant image contrast are obtained were identified. In all cases it was observed that the best image contrast was obtained when the amplitude set point was chosen such that the amplitude during imaging was reduced to approximately 50% of the free amplitude.
KW - AFM
KW - tapping model
KW - phase
KW - energy dissipation
KW - spring constant
KW - amplitude
KW - set point
U2 - 10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.01.002
DO - 10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.01.002
M3 - Article
VL - 110
SP - 313
EP - 319
JO - Ultramicroscopy
JF - Ultramicroscopy
SN - 0304-3991
IS - 4
ER -