Stability and contrast in bimodal amplitude modulation atomic force microscopy for different mode combinations in ambient air
Source abstract
Abstract
Bimodal amplitude modulation atomic force microscopy (AM-AFM) is widely used in nanoscale topography and mechanical property imaging for a variety of materials. In this paper, the stability of the amplitude/phase spectroscopy curves and the imaging contrast in bimodal AM-AFM for different mode combinations are investigated computationally in ambient air. The results show that with the second mode amplitude used for topography feedback on a stiff material, the amplitude/phase spectroscopy would probably undergo volatile fluctuation, leading to unstable imaging. With the third mode amplitude set for topography imaging, it would be difficult for the feedback to maintain the prescribed amplitude since a large cantilever position variation is required for different sample moduli. With the first mode amplitude set for topography feedback, the amplitude and the phase of the second mode vary monotonically with sample modulus or viscosity in comparison with the third or the fourth mode, which is suitable for compositional contrast imaging. These results would provide useful guidelines for optimum imaging in bimodal AFM measurements.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Force Microscopy Techniques and Applications · Mechanical and Optical Resonators · Near-Field Optical Microscopy
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
College of Energy and Mining Engineering, Shandong University of Science and Technology 1 , Qingdao, Shandong 266590, China
Hubei Key Laboratory of Theory and Application of Advanced Materials Mechanics, School of Science, Wuhan University of Technology 2 , Wuhan, Hubei 430070, China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (33)
Show source-provided references
1. Phys. Rev. Lett. · 1986 · 56 · 93010.1103/physrevlett.56.930 ↗
2. Nat. Nanotechnol. · 2012 · 7 · 21710.1038/nnano.2012.38 ↗
3. Nanoscale · 2017 · 9 · 503810.1039/c7nr00993c ↗
4. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2004 · 84 · 44910.1063/1.1642273 ↗
5. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2006 · 89 · 15311510.1063/1.2360894 ↗
6. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2006 · 89 · 11312110.1063/1.2345593 ↗
7. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2011 · 99 · 07410310.1063/1.3626847 ↗
8. Eur. Polym. J. · 2013 · 49 · 189710.1016/j.eurpolymj.2013.03.037 ↗
9. Phys. Rev. Lett. · 2011 · 106 · 19810110.1103/physrevlett.106.198101 ↗
10. Phys. Rev. Lett. · 2008 · 100 · 07610210.1103/physrevlett.100.076102 ↗
11. Phys. Rev. B · 2009 · 79 · 01411010.1103/physrevb.79.014110 ↗
12. Meas. Sci. Technol. · 2010 · 21 · 12550210.1088/0957-0233/21/12/125502 ↗
13. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2009 · 94 · 06310910.1063/1.3080209 ↗
14. ACS Nano · 2017 · 11 · 865010.1021/acsnano.7b04381 ↗
15. Nanoscale · 2019 · 11 · 1528910.1039/c9nr04396a ↗
16. Nat. Commun. · 2014 · 5 · 312610.1038/ncomms4126 ↗
17. ACS Nano · 2017 · 11 · 1009710.1021/acsnano.7b04530 ↗
18. Nanotechnology · 2013 · 24 · 47570610.1088/0957-4484/24/47/475706 ↗
19. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. · 2013 · 4 · 38510.3762/bjnano.4.45 ↗
20. J. Appl. Phys. · 2014 · 116 · 10490110.1063/1.4894837 ↗
21. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. · 2015 · 6 · 107210.3762/bjnano.6.108 ↗
22. Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. · 2012 · 3 · 45610.3762/bjnano.3.52 ↗
23. RSC Adv. · 2017 · 7 · 1176810.1039/c6ra27902c ↗
24. J. Appl. Phys. · 2016 · 119 · 08490110.1063/1.4942360 ↗
25. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2014 · 104 · 14310910.1063/1.4870998 ↗
26. J. Colloid Interface Sci. · 1975 · 53 · 31410.1016/0021-9797(75)90018-1 ↗
27. Phys. Rev. B · 1999 · 60 · 496110.1103/physrevb.60.4961 ↗
28. Appl. Phys. Lett. · 1997 · 71 · 239410.1063/1.120039 ↗
29. J. Appl. Phys. · 1997 · 82 · 96610.1063/1.365935 ↗
30. ACS Nano · 2013 · 7 · 1038710.1021/nn404845q ↗
31. Meas. Sci. Technol. · 2008 · 19 · 01550310.1088/0957-0233/19/1/015503 ↗
32. J. Appl. Phys. · 2011 · 110 · 09490410.1063/1.3657940 ↗
33. J. Appl. Phys. · 2010 · 108 · 03432010.1063/1.3457143 ↗