MENU
  • Scitation Home
SUBMIT YOUR ARTICLE

Thank you

For your interest in Review of Scientific Instruments

Check for updates on crossmark
Prev Next
No Access Submitted: 22 April 2005 Accepted: 13 August 2005 Published Online: 15 September 2005

  • The ultrasonic/shear-force microscope: Integrating ultrasonic sensing into a near-field scanning optical microscope

Review of Scientific Instruments 76, 093707 (2005); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2052649
A. La Rosaa), X. Cui, J. McCollum, and N. Li
  • Department of Physics, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207
    • R. Nordstrom
  • Mechanical and Materials Engineering Department, Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, Oregon 97207
    • more...View Affiliations
    View Contributors
    • A. La Rosa
    • X. Cui
    • J. McCollum
    • N. Li
    • R. Nordstrom
    ABSTRACT
    An ultrasonic transducer is incorporated into a near-field scanning optical microscope (NSOM) to augment its versatility to characterize the properties of layers adsorbed to a sample’s surface. Working under typical NSOM operation conditions, the ultrasonic transducer—attached underneath the sample—demonstrates sufficient sensitivity to monitor the waves generated by the tapered NSOM probe that oscillates in the proximity of, and parallel to, the sample’s top surface. This capability makes the newly integrated ultrasonic/shear-force microscope a valuable diagnostic tool in the study of sliding friction and surface phenomena in general. Here, it is used to concurrently and independently monitor the effects that probe-sample interactions exert on the probe (that is attached to a piezoelectric tuning fork) and on the sample (that is attached to the ultrasonic transducer). The signal from the tuning fork (TF) constitutes the so called “shear-force” signal, widely used in NSOM as a feedback to control the probe’s vertical position but whose working mechanism is not yet well understood. Tests involving repeated vertical z motion of the probe towards and away from the sample’s surface reveal that the TF and ultrasonic (US) signals have distinct z dependence. Additionally, where the TF signal showed abrupt changes during the approach, the US changed accordingly. A shift in the probe’s resonance frequency that depends on the probe-sample distance is also observed through both the TF and the US responses. Within the sensitivity of the apparatus, ultrasonic signals were detected only at probe-sample distances where the probe’s resonance frequency had shifted significantly. These measured signals are consistent with a probe entering and leaving a viscoelastic fluid-like film above the sample. The film acts as the medium where waves are generated and coupled to the ultrasonic sensor located beneath the sample. To our knowledge, this is the first reported use of ultrasonic detection for detailed monitoring of the distance dependence of probe-sample interactions, and provides direct evidence of sound as an energy dissipation channel in wear-free friction. This newly integrated ultrasonic/shear-force microscope, which can be implemented with any functionalized proximal probe (including aperture and apertureless NSOM), can become a valuable metrology tool in surface science and technology.

    REFERENCES
    Section:
    Previous sectionNext section

    1. 1. M. Ohtsu, K. Kobayashi, and Motoichi Ohtsu, Optical Near Fields: Introduction to Classical and Quantum Theories of Electromagnetic Phenomena at the Nanoscale (Springer, New York, 2004). Google ScholarCrossref
    2. 2. M. A. Paesler and P. J. Moyer, Near-Field Optics: Theory, Instrumentation and Applications (Wiley, New York, 1996). Google Scholar
    3. 3. F. Zenhausern, Y. Martin, and H. K. Wickramasinghe, Science 269, 1083 (1995). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
    4. 4. E. Betzig, P. L. Finn and J. S. Weiner, Appl. Phys. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.106940 60, 2484 (1992). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    5. 5. R. Toledo-Crow, P. C. Yang, Y. Chen, and M. Vaez-Iravani, Appl. Phys. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.106801 60, 2957 (1992). Google ScholarScitation
    6. 6. K. Karrai and R. D. Grober, Appl. Phys. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.113340 66, 1842 (1995). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    7. 7. K. Karrai and R. D. Grober, in Near Field Optics, SPIE Proceedings Series Vol. 2535, edited by M. A. Paesler and P. J. Moyer (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 1995), pp. 69–81. Google ScholarCrossref
    8. 8. M.-P. Bernal, F. Marquis Weible, P.-Y. Boillat, and P. Lambelet, Proc. IEEE 88, 1460 (2000). Google ScholarCrossref
    9. 9. P. K. Wei and W. S. Fann, J. Appl. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.372219 87, 2561 (2000). Google ScholarScitation
    10. 10. M. J. Gregor, P. G. Blome, J. Schofer, and R. G. Ulbrich, Appl. Phys. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.116068 68, 307 (1996). Google ScholarScitation
    11. 11. K. Hsu and L. A. Gheber, Rev. Sci. Instrum. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1149967 70, 3609 (1999). Google ScholarScitation
    12. 12. C. L. Jahncke and H. D. Hallen, J. Appl. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1528307 93, 1274 (2003). Google ScholarScitation
    13. 13. K. Karrai and Ingo Tiemann, Phys. Rev. B https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.62.13174 62, 13174 (2000). Google ScholarCrossref
    14. 14. B. Cavallier and B. Cretin, in Photoacoustic and Photothermal Phenomena: 10th International Conference, edited by F. Scudieri and M. Bertolotti, 1999, pp. 99–101. Google ScholarScitation
    15. 15. G. S. Shekhawat, G. A. D. Briggs, O. V. Kolosov, and R. E. Geer, in Characterization and Metrology for ULSI Technology: 2000 International Conference, edited by D. G. Seiler, A. C. Diebold, T. J. Shaffner, R. McDonald, W. M. Bullis, P. J. Smith, and E. M. Secula, 2000, pp. 449–451. Google Scholar
    16. 16. P. Lambelet, A. Sayah, M. Pfeffer, C. Philipona, and F. Marquis-Weible, Appl. Opt. 37, 7289 (1998). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
    17. 17. R. Stockle, C. Fokas, V. Deckert, and R. Zenobi, Appl. Phys. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.124305 75, 160 (1999). Google ScholarScitation
    18. 18.These values were estimated from the fitting of the experimental data [the “triangles” curve in Fig. 3(a)] to an RLC equivalent circuit of the TF, as described in Ref. 1919. J. Rychen et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1150521 71, 1695 (2000).. The series RLC resonator models the mechanical resonance of the tines, and a parallel capacitance Cp gives the contacts and cables’ capacitance. From this fitting the associated parameters are Cp=7.68×10−12F, L=7.35×103H, R=0.98×106Ω, C=3.22×10−15F. To determine the mechanical oscillation amplitude, it is also necessary to find the piezoelectromechanical coupling constant α (C/m), which can be determined from the expression C=2α2∕Kstat, where Kstat is the spring constant of one of the TF's tines. The TF used here has dimensions L=3.8mm, t=0.6mm, and w=0.35mm, which gives Kstat=(E∕4)w(t∕L)3=26×103N∕m and α=6.5×10−6C∕m. From the harmonic approximation motion ΔI=4πfαu0; at resonance the change in current is ΔI=10nArms, which gives u0=4nmrms. This estimated value agrees well with the values reported in Ref. 77. K. Karrai and R. D. Grober, in Near Field Optics, SPIE Proceedings Series Vol. 2535, edited by M. A. Paesler and P. J. Moyer (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 1995), pp. 69–81., where for a similar experimental setup as ours, for a 1mV driving voltage they observe ΔI=1nA and 0.5nm amplitude. The equivalent driving force in our case turns out to be F=Kstatu0∕Q=60nN.
    19. 19. J. Rychen et al., Rev. Sci. Instrum. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1150521 71, 1695 (2000). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    20. 20. G. He, M. H. Müser, and M. O. Robbins, Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.284.5420.1650 284, 1650 (1999). Google ScholarCrossref
    21. 21. S. Davy, M. Spajer, and D. Courjon, Appl. Phys. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.122516 73, 2594 (1998). Google ScholarScitation
    22. 22. R. Brunner, O. Marti, and O. Hollricher, J. Appl. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.371798 86, 7100 (1999). Google ScholarScitation
    23. 23.Following Ref. 2424. J. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces, 2nd Ed. (Academic, New York, 1995)., liquids that wet surfaces will spontaneously condense from the vapor into pores as bulk liquid. The radius of the water meniscus interface is related to the relative humidity of water p∕psat and the water surface tension γL by the Kelvin’s equation rK=γLV∕[RTlog(p∕psat)], where V is the molar volume. rK ranges from 0.5to10nm for values of p∕psat from 0.1 to 0.9, respectively. Assuming the tip of the probe has a circular shape of radius R, the resulting attractive force pulling the probe and the (flat) surface together is calculated based on the pressure difference across the meniscus, ΔP=γL∕rK, which acts on an effective area πx2≈4πRrK. The attractive force for a tip of radius R=50nm is ∼45nN.
    24. 24. J. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces, 2nd Ed. (Academic, New York, 1995). Google Scholar
    25. 25.At z=10nm the extra horizontal restoring force can be expressed as Fx∼45nN×Δx∕z∼(4.5N∕m)Δx; this additional value of 4.5N∕m in the spring constant would shift the frequency by Δfres=(fresΔkstat)∕2kstat≈3Hz, or greater for smaller z.
    26. 26. L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, 2nd ed. (Pergamon, New York, 1987). Google ScholarCrossref
    27. 27.The drag force on a sphere of radius R=50nm (as it moves with speed v∼4×amplitude∕period=4×4nm×32680Hz=5×10−4m∕s, through liquid water of viscosity ηbulk=10−3Ns∕m2), is given by Fvis=6πηbulkRv=5×10−4nM.
    28. 28. S. Granick, Science 253, 1374 (1991). Google ScholarCrossref, ISI
    29. 29. J. Klein and E. Kumacheva, J. Chem. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.476114 108, 6996 (1998). Google ScholarScitation, ISI
    30. 30. Y. Zhu and S. Granick, Phys. Rev. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.93.096101 93, 096101–1 (2004). Google ScholarCrossref
    31. 31. A. Levent and S. Granick, J. Chem. Phys. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1380207 115, 1498 (2001). Google ScholarScitation
    32. 32. F. Dinelli, S. K. Biswas, G. A. D. Briggs, and O. V. Kolosov, Phys. Rev. B https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.61.13995 61, 13995 (2000). Google ScholarCrossref
    33. 33. X. Cui and A. H. La Rosa (unpublished). Google Scholar
    1. © 2005 American Institute of Physics.

    Article Metrics

    Views
    95
    Citations
    Crossref 15
    Web of Science
    ISI 15

    Altmetric

    Please Note: The number of views represents the full text views from December 2016 to date. Article views prior to December 2016 are not included.