2016
DOI: 10.11648/j.nsnm.20160201.12
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quantitative Normal Force Measurements by Means of Atomic Force Microscopy Towards the Accurate and Easy Spring Constant Determination

Abstract: Due to its rapid popularity increase within last three decades, with particular focus on submicrometer quantitative surface's properties imaging, atomic force microscopy (AFM) is still a subject of development and research in terms of both better understanding and efficient utilization of various measurement techniques. Quantitative and comparable measurements at nanoscale are a significant issue, as both: science and industry desire reliable results, allowing to perform repetitive experiments at any time and … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 136 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The AFM user has to keep in mind that all those calibration methods are affected by different error sources (deflection sensitivity determination in first and third, the use of thermal tune in the case of stiff cantilevers for first and second and geometrical parameters and alignment for the third as well as calibration accuracy of K ref in the case reference cantilever is used) and that contact methods are potentially harmful for the tip (especially the third, where calibration imposes the use of two different samples). This implies that the spring constant will always be determined up to a certain precision and so will be the measured/applied forces (see Sikora 19 for a comprehensive review of different calibration methods and their precision. This means that Young's moduli and turgor pressures will also be affected by cantilever calibration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The AFM user has to keep in mind that all those calibration methods are affected by different error sources (deflection sensitivity determination in first and third, the use of thermal tune in the case of stiff cantilevers for first and second and geometrical parameters and alignment for the third as well as calibration accuracy of K ref in the case reference cantilever is used) and that contact methods are potentially harmful for the tip (especially the third, where calibration imposes the use of two different samples). This implies that the spring constant will always be determined up to a certain precision and so will be the measured/applied forces (see Sikora 19 for a comprehensive review of different calibration methods and their precision. This means that Young's moduli and turgor pressures will also be affected by cantilever calibration.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Analysis of the surface properties of deposited coatings was performed using Bruker by atomic force microscope (AFM) working in a contact mode [32,33]. For the analysis of the AFM images a WSxM ver.5.0 software was used [34].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Measurements were carried out using NT-MDT measuring probes made of N-type silicon monocrystalline with antimony doping. The elastic constant was determined using the thermal method. , Mechanical inhomogeneities of the surface of CaCO 3 crystals were recorded in the FMM mode. Surface rigidity maps were used to identify surface areas of potentially different mechanical properties.…”
Section: Experimental Sectionmentioning
confidence: 99%