Revision as of 14:09, 9 April 2018

Feedback to this page: click here

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
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.	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.	For Steep/abrupt steps but no high aspect ratio structures we still recommend ScanAsyst mode due to ease of use and lower tip wear.	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.
Recommended probes	ScanAsyst in air	ScanAsyst in air	ScanAsyst in air for ScanAsyst mode TAP300Al-G for Tapping mode	AR5T-NCHR FIB6-400A
Recommended experiment/Workspace	QNM in air*	QNM in air*	QNM in air*	TappingMode 300nm trench (for steps <~1µm) Tappping mode in air - 6µm Deep Trench (for steps >1~µm)

*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 Brukers homepage: Introduction_to_Brukers_ScanAsyst_and_PeakForce_Tapping_Atomic_Force_Microscopy_Technology_AFM_AN133.pdf

PeakForce tapping and quantitative nanomechanical mapping

Please flowing this link to Brukers homepage:

PeakForce tapping and Nanomechanical option

Quantitative_Mechanical Property mapping at the Nanoscale with PeakForceQNM

Peak Force KPFM (Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy)

Please flowing this link to Brukers homepage: pf-kpfm.html

Evaluation of used probes

Box number and probe number	User Initials	Explanation	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

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 ===PeakForce tapping and quantitative nanomechanical mapping===
 Please flowing this link to Brukers homepage:
-[http://www.bruker.com/fileadmin/user_upload/8-PDF-Docs/SurfaceAnalysis/AFM/Publications/AL_Foster_April2012.pdf PeakForce tapping and Nanomechanical option]
+*[http://www.bruker.com/fileadmin/user_upload/8-PDF-Docs/SurfaceAnalysis/AFM/Publications/AL_Foster_April2012.pdf PeakForce tapping and Nanomechanical option]
+[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]
 ===Peak Force KPFM (Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy)===