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?

Esben Thormann (Corresponding Author), Torbjörn Pettersson, John Kettle, Per M. Claesson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)313-319
Number of pages7
JournalUltramicroscopy
Volume110
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2010
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

minimal surfaces
image contrast
Materials properties
surface layers
atomic force microscopy
damage
Imaging techniques
Distance measurement
Force measurement
Phase shift
phase response
Adhesives
phase contrast
adhesives
phase shift
elastic properties

Keywords

  • AFM
  • tapping model
  • phase
  • energy dissipation
  • spring constant
  • amplitude
  • set point

Cite this

@article{5abd07d221ed414280cbda286a7d03f7,
title = "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?",
abstract = "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.",
keywords = "AFM, tapping model, phase, energy dissipation, spring constant, amplitude, set point",
author = "Esben Thormann and Torbj{\"o}rn Pettersson and John Kettle and Claesson, {Per M.}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1016/j.ultramic.2010.01.002",
language = "English",
volume = "110",
pages = "313--319",
journal = "Ultramicroscopy",
issn = "0304-3991",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "4",

}

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 journalArticleScientificpeer-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 -