journal article·2011-06-01Open access

Comparison of photothermal and piezoacoustic excitation methods for frequency and phase modulation atomic force microscopy in liquid environments

A. Labuda, K. Kobayashi, D. Kiracofe, K. Suzuki, P. H. Grütter, H. Yamada

AIP Advances· Volume 1· Issue 2

Abstract

In attempting to perform frequency modulation atomic force microscopy (FM-AFM) in liquids, a non-flat phase transfer function in the self-excitation system prevents proper tracking of the cantilever natural frequency. This results in frequency-and-phase modulation atomic force microscopy (FPM-AFM) which lies in between phase modulation atomic force microscopy (PM-AFM) and FM-AFM. We derive the theory necessary to recover the conservative force and damping in such a situation, where standard FM-AFM theory no longer applies. Although our recovery procedure applies to all cantilever excitation methods in principle, its practical implementation may be difficult, or even impossible, if the cantilever is driven piezoacoustically. Specifically, we contrast the piezoacoustic excitation method to the photothermal method in the context of force spectroscopy of hydration structures at the mica-water interface. The results clearly demonstrate that photothermal excitation is superior to piezoacoustic excitation, as it allows for accurate quantitative interpretation of the acquired data.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Force Microscopy Techniques and Applications · Mechanical and Optical Resonators · Acoustic Wave Resonator Technologies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

McGill University 1 Department of Physics, , Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T8, Canada

Kyoto University 2 Department of Electronic Science and Engineering, , Japan

Purdue University 3 Birck Nanotechnology Center and Department of Mechanical Engineering, , West Lafayette, Indiana, USA .

References (25)

Show source-provided references
1. J. Appl. Phys. · 1991 · 69 · 66810.1063/1.347347 ↗
2. Phys. Rev. Lett. · 1986 · 56 · 93010.1103/PhysRevLett.56.930 ↗
3. Phys. Rev. B · 2006 · 74 · 19542410.1103/PhysRevB.74.195424 ↗
4. Rev. Sci. Instrum. · 2011 · 82 · 03370210.1063/1.3557416 ↗
5. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2007 · 90 · 19410410.1063/1.2737907 ↗
6. Rev. Sci. Instrum. · 2006 · 77 · 12370310.1063/1.2405361 ↗
7. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 1998 · 72 · 191110.1063/1.121224 ↗
8. J. Chem. Phys. · 2010 · 132 · 1947010.1063/1.3408289 ↗
9. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2005 · 87 · 03410110.1063/1.1999856 ↗
10. Phys. Rev. Lett. · 2010 · 104 · 01610110.1103/PhysRevLett.104.016101 ↗
11. Rev. Sci. Instr. · 2001 · 72 · 438310.1063/1.1416104 ↗
12. Phys. Rev. B · 2010 · 81 · 05430210.1103/PhysRevB.81.054302 ↗
13. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2001 · 78 · 12310.1063/1.1335546 ↗
14. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2004 · 84 · 180110.1063/1.1667267 ↗
15. J. Appl. Phys. · 1996 · 80 · 362210.1063/1.363308 ↗
16. Nanotechnology · 2010 · 21 · 45570510.1088/0957-4484/21/45/455705 ↗
17. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 1998 · 72 · 261310.1063/1.121434 ↗
18. J. Appl. Phys. · 1998 · 84 · 6410.1063/1.368002 ↗
19. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A · 2009 · 106 · 1365510.1073/pnas.0902240106 ↗
20. 2011
21. Phys. Rev. B · 2009 · 80 · 13410410.1103/PhysRevB.80.134104 ↗
22. Phys. Rev. E · 2010 · 81 · 04630610.1103/PhysRevE.81.046306 ↗
23. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2007 · 91 · 05310110.1063/1.2767173 ↗
24. Phys. Rev. Lett. · 2004 · 92 · 23550110.1103/PhysRevLett.92.235501 ↗
25. Phys. Rev. E · 2010 · 81 · 04630610.1103/PhysRevE.81.046306 ↗