Specific Process Knowledge/Characterization/AFM: Atomic Force Microscopy/Workspaces: Difference between revisions

From LabAdviser
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
Bghe (talk | contribs)
DCH-Employees-701, NLAB-Employees-701, NLAB-LabmanagerAllUsers, Bureaucrats, Administrators
7,018 edits
Bghe (talk | contribs)
DCH-Employees-701, NLAB-Employees-701, NLAB-LabmanagerAllUsers, Bureaucrats, Administrators
7,018 edits
 
(14 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Feedback to this page''': '''[mailto:labadviser@danchip.dtu.dk?Subject=Feed%20back%20from%20page%20http://labadviser.danchip.dtu.dk/index.php/Specific_Process_Knowledge/Characterization/AFM:_Atomic_Force_Microscopy/Workspaces click here]'''
'''Feedback to this page''': '''[mailto:labadviser@danchip.dtu.dk?Subject=Feed%20back%20from%20page%20http://labadviser.danchip.dtu.dk/index.php/Specific_Process_Knowledge/Characterization/AFM:_Atomic_Force_Microscopy/Workspaces click here]'''
''This page is written by Berit Herstrøm @ DTU Nanolab ''


=What scanning mode, experiment/workspace and probe should I select=
=What scanning mode, experiment/workspace and probe should I select=
Line 20: Line 22:
!Recommended mode
!Recommended mode
|Roughness measurement can be done in both Contact, Tapping and ScanAsyst mode. We recommend '''ScanAsyst mode''' because of less chance of (non-uniform) deformation of the sample and less tip wear - and because of ease of use. However it also works fine in tapping mode.
|Roughness measurement can be done in both Contact, Tapping and ScanAsyst mode. We recommend '''ScanAsyst mode''' because of less chance of (non-uniform) deformation of the sample and less tip wear - and because of ease of use. However it also works fine in tapping mode.
|For Topographic measurements with no steep/abrupt steps we also recommend '''ScanAsyst mode''' due to less chance of (non-uniform) deformation of the sample and less tip wear - and because of ease of use. We also recommend '''Tapping mode''' because we experience less problems when the tip end is slightly broken.  
|For Topographic measurements with no steep/abrupt steps we also recommend '''Tapping mode''' on most samples. Only on very soft samples (e.g. cells) we recommend ''ScanAsyst'' due to less chance of (non-uniform) deformation of the sample - or if you need QNM data. We mainly recommend '''Tapping mode''' because we experience less problems when the tip end is slightly broken.  
|For Steep/abrupt steps but no high aspect ratio structures we still recommend '''Tapping mode''' or '''ScanAsyst mode" .  
|For Steep/abrupt steps but no high aspect ratio structures we still recommend '''Tapping mode''' unless you need need QNM data.  
|For High aspect ratio measurements we recommend Tapping mode. There is not yet a ScanAsyst probe developed for high aspect ratio. Therefore we recommend '''Tapping mode'''.
|For High aspect ratio measurements we recommend Tapping mode. We do not have experience with ScanAsyst therefore we recommend '''Tapping mode'''.
|For large scan areas where you prioritize to scan fast then you can use '''contact mode'''. Here you can scan with scan rate of up to 2.43 Hz
|For large scan areas where you prioritize to scan fast then you can use '''contact mode'''. Here you can scan with scan rate of up to 2.43 Hz
|-
|-
Line 42: Line 44:
!Recommended experiment/Workspace
!Recommended experiment/Workspace
|
|
'''QNM in air*'''
Check the user manual in LabManager
|
|
'''QNM in air*'''
Check the user manaual in LabManager
|'''QNM in air*'''
|Check the user manaual in LabManager
|'''TappingMode 300nm trench''' (for steps <~1µm)
|'''TappingMode 300nm trench''' (for steps <~1µm)
'''Tappping mode in air - 6µm Deep Trench''' (for steps >1~µm)
'''Tappping mode in air - 6µm Deep Trench''' (for steps >1~µm)
Line 59: Line 61:
==More information about de different modes==
==More information about de different modes==
===Contact, Tapping and Peak Force Tapping===
===Contact, Tapping and Peak Force Tapping===
Please flowing this link to down load the file from LabManager (for DTU Nanloab users): <br>
Please flowing this link to down load the file from LabManager (Requires login): <br>
[https://labmanager.dtu.dk/view_binary.php?fileId=5340 Introduction to Bruker ScanAsyst and PeakForce tapping AFM technology]
[https://labmanager.dtu.dk/view_binary.php?fileId=5340 Introduction to Bruker ScanAsyst and PeakForce tapping AFM technology]


===PeakForce tapping and quantitative nanomechanical mapping===
===PeakForce tapping and quantitative nanomechanical mapping===
Please flowing this link to Brukers homepage:
*Application note on QNM: [https://labmanager.dtu.dk/view_binary.php?fileId=5404 requires login]
*[http://www.bruker.com/fileadmin/user_upload/8-PDF-Docs/SurfaceAnalysis/AFM/Publications/AL_Foster_April2012.pdf PeakForce tapping and Nanomechanical option] - NOT WORKING ANYMORE
*[https://www.bruker.com/fileadmin/user_upload/8-PDF-Docs/SurfaceAnalysis/AFM/ApplicationNotes/AN128-RevB0-Quantitative_Mechanical_Property_Mapping_at_the_Nanoscale_with_PeakForceQNM-AppNote.pdf Quantitative_Mechanical Property mapping at the Nanoscale with PeakForceQNM] - NOT WORKING ANYMORE


===Peak Force KPFM (Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy)===
===Peak Force KPFM (Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy)===
*Application note on KPFM: [[:File:PeakForce-Kelvin-Probe-Force-Microscopy-App-Note-BRUKER.pdf]]
*Application note on KPFM: [[File: PeakForce-Kelvin-Probe-Force-Microscopy-App-Note-BRUKER.pdf]] - used with permission


=Evaluation of used probes=
=Evaluation of used probes=

Latest revision as of 15:33, 28 April 2023

Feedback to this page: click here

This page is written by Berit Herstrøm @ DTU Nanolab

What scanning mode, experiment/workspace and probe should I select

Roughness measurements Topographic measurements with no steep/abrupt steps Steep/abrupt steps but no high aspect ratio High aspect ratio measurements Large area fast scan
Recommended mode Roughness measurement can be done in both Contact, Tapping and ScanAsyst mode. We recommend ScanAsyst mode because of less chance of (non-uniform) deformation of the sample and less tip wear - and because of ease of use. However it also works fine in tapping mode. For Topographic measurements with no steep/abrupt steps we also recommend Tapping mode on most samples. Only on very soft samples (e.g. cells) we recommend ScanAsyst due to less chance of (non-uniform) deformation of the sample - or if you need QNM data. We mainly recommend Tapping mode because we experience less problems when the tip end is slightly broken. For Steep/abrupt steps but no high aspect ratio structures we still recommend Tapping mode unless you need need QNM data. For High aspect ratio measurements we recommend Tapping mode. We do not have experience with ScanAsyst therefore we recommend Tapping mode. For large scan areas where you prioritize to scan fast then you can use contact mode. Here you can scan with scan rate of up to 2.43 Hz
Recommended probes Tap150Al-G or ScanAsyst in air Tap150Al-G or ScanAsyst in air Tap150Al-G or ScanAsyst in air for ScanAsyst mode

Tap150Al-G or TAP300Al-G for Tapping mode

AR5T-NCHR or

FIB6-400A

SNL
Recommended experiment/Workspace

Check the user manual in LabManager

Check the user manaual in LabManager

Check the user manaual in LabManager TappingMode 300nm trench (for steps <~1µm)

Tappping mode in air - 6µm Deep Trench (for steps >1~µm)

Standard Contact mode

*By choosing the work space/experiment QNM in air (Mechanical properties - QNM in air) scanAsyst is included and so are the nanomechanical properties like modulus, adhesion, dissipation and deformation.


More information about de different modes

Contact, Tapping and Peak Force Tapping

Please flowing this link to down load the file from LabManager (Requires login):
Introduction to Bruker ScanAsyst and PeakForce tapping AFM technology

PeakForce tapping and quantitative nanomechanical mapping

Peak Force KPFM (Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy)

Evaluation of used probes

Box number and probe number User Initials Explanation SEM images Conclusion
Box1 no. 1 bghe A lot of triangles in the image Tip end has broken off
Box1 no. 2 bghe/smurthy Round pillars became misshaped Tip end has broken off or maybe if was not good to begin with
Box1 no. 3 bghe/zhongli Force curve bad, could not get the tip off the surface Tip end has broken off
Box1 no. 4 mattod Used dirty sample, force curve very bad, tip probably broken The hole cantilever has broken off
Box1 no. 5 mattod Tip broken during tip change Tip/cantilever has been damaged
Box1 no. 6 abshir Bad force curve (fluctuates) Tip end has broken off
Box1 no. 7 bghe Was OK on large structures but they got larger
Box1 no. 8 mattod Bad force curve Tip end has broken off
Box1 no. 9 kabi Blunt tip . Definitely (triangles) Tip end has broken off
Box1 no. 10 kabi Blunt tip. Definitely (triangles) Tip end has broken off
Box2 no. 1 mattod Bad force curve Tip seems ok, or at least very close to okay
Box2 no. 2 mattod Broken tip It looks like the tip end has been contaminated
Box2 no. 3 bghe Got large triangle scanning the tip checker Tip end has broken off
Retrieved from "https://labadviser.nanolab.dtu.dk//index.php?title=Specific_Process_Knowledge/Characterization/AFM:_Atomic_Force_Microscopy/Workspaces&oldid=45973"