Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:02:20.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Artifacts and Non-Local Effects in SPM Potential Measurements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2018

Sergei V. Kalinin  and
Dawn A. Bonnell
Sergei V. Kalinin*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Dawn A. Bonnell
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
*
sergei2@seas.upenn.edu

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the last few years Scanning Probe Microscopy (SPM) has become one of the primary tools of science and technology. In addition to topographical imaging, surface potential, conductivity, optical, ferroelectric and magnetic properties that can be studied down to the nanometer level. However, quantitative and sometimes qualitative studies of fundamental physical phenomena in meso- and nanoscale systems are often hindered by SPM imaging artifacts. Here we briefly discuss the principles of operation and the major sources of artifacts in electrostatic measurements by SPM.

One of the most well known techniques for local potential imaging is Scanning Surface Potential Microscopy (SSPM). SSPM is based on dual pass imaging. The grounded tip acquires surface topography during the first pass.

Type
Research Article
Information
Microscopy Today , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , July 2002 , pp. 16 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America 2002

References

Endnotes:

[1] Kalinin, S.V. and Bonnell, D.A., in Scanning Probe Microscopy and Spectroscopy: Theory, Techniques and Applications, ed. Bonnell, D.A. (Wiley VCH, New York, 2000, p. 205), and references therein.Google Scholar

[2] Digital Instalments listserver,

[3] Kalinin, Sergei V. and Bonnell, Dawn A., Phys. Rev. B 63, 125411 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

[4] In ambience, mobile surface charges and adsorbtion all contribute to measured potential. However, here we consider only measurement artifacts.

[5] Koley, G., Spencer, M. G., and Bhangale, H. R., Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 545 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

[6] It can be easily demonstrated by acquiring topographic and potential images on the clean rough gold surface: topographic protrusions are associated with depressions on potential images.

[7] Efimov, A. and Cohen, S.R., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A18, 1051 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

[8] This is a well known problem for magnetic force microscopy: tip magnetization can distort surface magnetization in the magnetically soft samples. For potential imaging, the relevant reference is: Leng, Y., Williams, C. C., Su, L. C., and Stringfellow, G. B., Appl. Phys. Lett. 66, 1264 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar