No abstract

Contact and non-contact based atomic force microscopy (AFM) approaches have been extensively utilized to explore various nanoscale surface properties. In most AFM-based measurements, a concurrent electrostatic effect between the AFM tip/cantilever and sample surface can occur. This electrostatic effect often hinders accurate measurements. Thus, it is very important to quantify as well as remove the impact of the electrostatic effect on AFM-based measurements. In this study, we examine the impact of the electrostatic effect on the electromechanical (EM) response in piezoresponse force microscopy as a model AFM mode. We quantitatively studied the effects of increasing the external electric field and reducing the spring constant of a cantilever. Further, we explored ways to minimize the electrostatic effect. The results provide broad guidelines for quantitatively analyzing the EM response as well as, eventually, for obtaining the electrostatic-free EM response. The conclusions can be applied to other AFM-based measurements that are subject to a strong electrostatic effect between the AFM tip/cantilever and sample surface, regardless of contact and non-contact modes.

CH3NH3PbI3(MAPbI3) perovskite thin films were applied for piezoelectric generators under various applied pressures, poling field conditions, and switching polarity test.

Piezoresponse force microscopy (PFM) has been used extensively for exploring nanoscale ferro/piezoelectric phenomena over the past two decades. The imaging mechanism of PFM is based on the detection of the electromechanical (EM) response induced by the inverse piezoelectric effect through the cantilever dynamics of an atomic force microscopy. However, several non-piezoelectric effects can induce additional contributions to the EM response, which often lead to a misinterpretation of the measured PFM response. This review aims to summarize the non-piezoelectric origins of the EM response that impair the interpretation of PFM measurements. We primarily discuss two major non-piezoelectric origins, namely, the electrostatic effect and electrochemical strain. Several approaches for differentiating the ferroelectric contribution from the EM response are also discussed. The review suggests a fundamental guideline for the proper utilization of the PFM technique, as well as for achieving a reasonable interpretation of observed PFM responses.