1995
DOI: 10.1163/156856195x00897
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Surface roughness and its influence on particle adhesion using atomic force techniques

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
92
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 134 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
4
92
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Evaluation of Eqn 7 with surface energies in this range, predicts a pulloff force of a few micro-Newtons for a 10 m diameter particle. AFM measurements on 8 m diameter spherical particles (of glass, polystyrene, and tin) contacting atomically flat surfaces, however, resulted in lift-off forces which were typically a factor of 50 less than predicted values [Schaefer et al, 1995]. A detailed AFM mapping of the surface asperities and reinterpretation of the contacts as occurring between multiple asperities and the flat substrate, brought the theory and experiments to within a factor of 3 of each other (with the predicted pull-off force still greater than the measured values, but close enough that possible surface contamination could explain most remaining differences).…”
Section: Plastic Deformationmentioning
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Evaluation of Eqn 7 with surface energies in this range, predicts a pulloff force of a few micro-Newtons for a 10 m diameter particle. AFM measurements on 8 m diameter spherical particles (of glass, polystyrene, and tin) contacting atomically flat surfaces, however, resulted in lift-off forces which were typically a factor of 50 less than predicted values [Schaefer et al, 1995]. A detailed AFM mapping of the surface asperities and reinterpretation of the contacts as occurring between multiple asperities and the flat substrate, brought the theory and experiments to within a factor of 3 of each other (with the predicted pull-off force still greater than the measured values, but close enough that possible surface contamination could explain most remaining differences).…”
Section: Plastic Deformationmentioning
confidence: 76%
“…Surface roughness (e.g. detailed surface morphology) has been identified as one major contributor to the discrepancy between measured pull off forces for real par ticles and theoretical predictions for smooth surfaces [Rabinovich, et al, 2000 andRimai & Quesnel, 2001;Mizes, 1994;Schaefer et al, 1995]. Likewise as the particle size (or the radius of curvature in the contact region) decreases, it is possible for plastic deformations to occur at the contact, even with no external loads; however, plastic deformation are usually expected to cause less than a factor of two increase in effective adhesion forces (unless external loads are also applied to the contacting bodies).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Already some of the early measurements of surface/particle adhesion with the colloid probe technique showed much lower values of adhesion than expected for a simple sphere/plate geometry and this was attributed mainly to the roughness of the contacting surfaces [553,554].…”
Section: Influence Of Roughness On Adhesionmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Most common types of glue are epoxy resins like Epicote 1004 or Epon R 1004F resin (Shell) (Ducker 1992), UV-curable glues like Norland Optical Cement No. 68 (Schaefer 1995) or Loctite glass bond (Bowen 2000). For some materials, e.g., polystyrene (Schaefer 1994), or borosilicate glass (Bonaccurso 2005), sintering of the particles to the cantilever is feasible, avoiding possible surface contamination by the glue.…”
Section: Sample Preparation -Attachment Of Particlesmentioning
confidence: 99%