Date post: | 27-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | william-jensen |
View: | 216 times |
Download: | 2 times |
Ringberg seminar AK Butt : 24.05.04 – 28.05.04
Tip characterisation
Uwe Rietzler
The influence of tip geometry
imaging of surfaces
adhesion rapture forces
lipid penetration
Self-Assembled Monolayers
Different possibilities for tip characterisation
SPIP Software
SEM-basedSPM-based
Tipcheck sample SiGrating TGT01 sample
Nanoscope Software
Method 1 TipCheck
1. Acquire a picture
2. Analyse the datawith the SPIP Software
SPIP Software
TipCheck
TipCheck
Method 1 TipCheck
1. Acquire a picture
2. Analyse the datawith the SPIP Software
SPIP Software
TipCheck
SPIP, the Scanning Probe Image Processor software
y-axis
x-axis
11 11
radius 28nm
radius 20nm radius 38nm
Method 2 SiGrating TGT01
SiGrating TGT01
1. Acquire a picture
2. Analyse the datawith the SPIP software
3. Or analyse the datawith the NanoScopesoftware
Grating TGT01
Method 2 SiGrating TGT01
SiGrating TGT01
1. Take a picture
2. Analyse the datawith the SPIP software
3. Or analyse the datawith the NanoScopesoftware
Method 2 SiGrating TGT01
3. Analyse the data with the NanoScope software
Method 2 SiGrating TGT01
3. Analyse the data with the NanoScope software
1x1 aspect ratio
1 2 34
Method 2 SiGrating TGT01
3. Analyse the data with the NanoScope software
Method 3 SEM
r=31nm
Data interpretation
SEM
Tip [r]
1µm [nm]
5µm [nm]
1µm [nm]
5µm [nm]
1µm [nm]
standard deviation
[nm]
SEM value [nm]
1 13,8 369,1 320,9 628,9 80,2 30,7 84,851,6 352,7 210,8 685,0 89,4 32,9
2 132,6 491,5 148,0 663,4 71,3 40,2 103,5118,0 496,5 218,7 507,4 93,3 83,0
1 112,2 466,6 6,9 31,2 91,8 31,8 46,0193,0 608,2 71,1 41,5 81,9 26,9
2 29,6 23,6 5,4 27,6 41,7 14,3 23,022,9 25,2 6,3 40,7 67,4 26,6
1 11,2 40,6 5,2 37,5 55,0 16,1 21,614,5 39,7 13,4 30,2 79,3 89,3
2 15,8 23,0 4,1 46,8 74,1 33,5 46,013,9 42,0 32,9 34,6 72,8 51,2
1 15,0 25,6 6,3 53,4 468,9 193,1 132,36,9 19,6 17,4 54,5 158,3 167,8
2 6,3 53,4 4,3 23,2 135,4 102,0 40,317,4 54,5 5,9 67,9 161,4 45,0
Tipcheck SiGrating SiGratingSPIP NanoScope
NP
NPS
NPS with Au bad
NPS with Au good
1 2 3 4
±±±±±±
±±
±±
±±
±±
±±
Radius 20-60 nm
Radius 5-40 nm
Correlation
0
100
200
300
400
500
0 50 100 150
SEM [nm]
Nan
oS
c-S
iGra
tin
g 1
µm
[n
m]
Correlation
Correlation
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 50 100 150
SEM [nm]
SP
IP-S
iGra
tin
g 1
µm
[n
m]
Correlation
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150
SEM [nm]
SP
IP-T
ipC
hec
k 1µ
m [
nm
]
Conclusion
Advantages of the software based methods
• no additional equipment
• powerful software tools
• offline evaluation
Disadvantages of the software methods
• change of the sample and second approach (tip crash)
• take a long time ~ 30 min
• large errors
Conclusion
Advantages of the SEM method
• checking quality of the whole tip (i.e. coatings) and measure radius at
the same time
• each takes 5min, measuring 50 tips in one SEM session
• recommended by cantilever manufacturers
Disadvantages of the SEM method
• metal coating if standard SEM is used (SiN-tips)
• contaminate or damage the tip if standard SEM is used
• limited tilt angle using Leo-Gemini SEM
Acknowledgements
Nice atmosphere and help:
AK Prof. Butt and in particular to my office colleagues: Gabi, Candie and Susana
Rüdiger Berger SPM and proof-reading Marco Möller SPIP and TipCheck
Gunnar Glaßer SEMRüdiger Stark NanoScope-SoftwareMarkus Wolkenhauer proof-reading
... and you for your attention
SEM value 84,8nm
SiGrating TGT01 TipCheck
SPIP, the Scanning Probe Image Processor software
Data interpretation
Deviation
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1 2 3 4 5 6
Measure point
[nm
] Scan 1
SEM
Scan 2