Imaging of surface nanobubbles by atomic force microscopy in liquids: Influence of drive frequency on the characterization of ultrasoft matter

Abstract

Imaging of soft matter with atomic force microscopy (AFM) is challenging due to tip-induced deformation, which convolutes with the measurement. The challenges are generally more serious in liquid environments due to a severe loss of sensitivity of the vibrating microcantilever to external forces, as well as due to the presence of undesirable mechanical resonances when piezoelectric excitation systems are used. Furthermore, the choice of imaging parameters can have a significant impact on the quality of the results, such that the customary practices used for tuning the cantilever are not always appropriate. Here we explore the influence of the chosen drive frequency on the imaging of ultrasoft matter, using surface gas nanobubbles on gold-coated glass and highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) as a test platform. We carry out single- and multifrequency AFM experiments using both the traditional amplitude-peak method and the recently proposed phase-slope-peak method for tuning the cantilever, as well as piezoelectric and photothermal excitation, providing an extensive discussion on the factors governing the level of tip-induced sample deformation and the quality of the phase contrast obtained for each of the methods. The general conclusion is that there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach for tuning the cantilever for low-impact tapping-mode AFM, although rational optimization of the imaging process is generally possible, whereby the choice of the drive frequency plays a prominent role. The physical insight and guidelines provided here can be extremely useful for the gentle imaging of a wide range of biological and other soft materials in liquid environments. Microsc. Res. Tech. 80:41-49, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Sink or float? Characterization of shell-stabilized bulk nanobubbles using a resonant mass measurement technique

“…Traditional characterization techniques such as dynamic light scattering (DLS), electro-impedance volumetric zone sensing (Coulter counter), and nanoparticle tracking analysis are unable to differentiate between gas-filled nanobubbles and similarly sized solid contaminates, leading to inaccurate/misleading bubble concentrations and size measurements 13–15. Imaging techniques such as atomic force microscopy (AFM) or electron microscopy (EM) are expensive, sample dependent, and involve processing steps that inhibit them from directly visualizing fragile nanobubbles 16–18…”

Gas nanobubble dispersions as the important agent in environmental processes – generation methods review

“…The focus of this work was to examine the generation of gas bubbles in the liquid which are not adhered to the surface (‘bulk nanobubbles’). Surface nanobubbles, that is, bubbles which are adhered to the solid surface, mostly bottom and walls of the container were investigated thoroughly (Sun et al ., 2016; Che and Theodorakis, 2017; Eslami and Solares, 2017; Xiao et al ., 2017). In this work, the term ‘nanobubbles’ is used to denote spherical gaseous domains in bulk liquid, both with and without additional liquid shell formed by surfactant.…”

Theory of Single-Impact Atomic Force Spectroscopy in liquids with material contrast

“…Acquiring material information in highly damped environments is of great interest in applications that demand imaging at liquid interfaces (e.g. studies of electrode/electrolyte interfaces in lithium-ion batteries 20 , 21 , imaging of surface nanobubbles 22 ). This technique is also promising in providing compositional mapping of ultrasoft matter whose structure is prone to collapse after more than one impact, which would rule out standard tapping techniques.…”