No Access Submitted: 16 December 2014 Accepted: 26 February 2015 Published Online: 11 March 2015
Journal of Applied Physics 117, 104303 (2015); https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4914354
more...View Affiliations
The friction force between nanoparticles and a silicon wafer is a crucial parameter for cleaning processes in the semiconductor industry. However, little is known about the pH-dependency of the friction forces and the shear strength at the interface. Here, we push polystyrene nanoparticles, 100 nm in diameter, with the tip of an atomic force microscope and measure the pH-dependency of the friction, adhesion, and normal forces on a silicon substrate covered with a native silicon dioxide layer. The peak force tapping mode was applied to control the vertical force on these particles. We successively increased the applied load until the particles started to move. The main advantage of this technique over single manipulation processes is the achievement of a large number of manipulation events in short time and in a straightforward manner. Geometrical considerations of the interaction forces at the tip-particle interface allowed us to calculate the friction force and shear strength from the applied normal force depending on the pH of an aqueous solution. The results clearly demonstrated that particle removal should be performed with a basic solution at pH 9 because of the low interaction forces between particle and substrate.
We thank Lam Research AG (Villach, Austria) for the financial support.
  1. 1. G. E. Moore, Proc. IEEE 86(1), 82 (1998). Google Scholar
  2. 2. ITRS Executive Summary, International Technology Roadmap For Semiconductors, 2013 ed. ( Executive Summary, 2013). Google Scholar
  3. 3. M. Sitti, IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 5, 199 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1109/3516.847093, Google ScholarCrossref
  4. 4. S. Darwich, K. Mougin, A. Rao, E. Gnecco, S. Jayaraman, and H. Haidara, Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2, 85 (2011). https://doi.org/10.3762/bjnano.2.10, Google ScholarCrossref
  5. 5. D. Guo, J. Li, L. Chang, and J. Luo, Langmuir 29(23), 6920 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1021/la400984d, Google ScholarCrossref
  6. 6. D. Peter, M. Dalmer, A. Lechner, A. M. Gigler, R. W. Stark, and W. Bensch, J. Micromech. Microeng. 21(2), 025001 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/0960-1317/21/2/025001, Google ScholarCrossref
  7. 7. M. H. Korayem and M. Zakeri, Int. J. Adv. Des. Mansuf. Technol. 41(7–8), 714 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1519-0, Google ScholarCrossref
  8. 8. A. Tafazzoli and M. Sitti, IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 1, 35 (2004). Google Scholar
  9. 9. M. Sitti, IEEE/ASME Trans. Mechatronics 9(2), 343 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1109/TMECH.2004.828654, Google ScholarCrossref
  10. 10. B. Pittenger, N. Erina, and S. Chanmin, Bruker Application Note 128, 1–12 (2009). Google Scholar
  11. 11. K. O. Vanderwerf, C. A. J. Putman, B. G. Degrooth, and J. Greve, Appl. Phys. Lett. 65(9), 1195 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.112106, Google ScholarScitation
  12. 12. P. J. de Pablo, J. Colchero, J. Gomez-Herrero, and A. M. Baro, Appl. Phys. Lett. 73(22), 3300 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.122751, Google ScholarScitation
  13. 13. A. RosaZeiser, E. Weilandt, S. Hild, and O. Marti, Meas. Sci. Technol. 8(11), 1333 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/8/11/020, Google ScholarCrossref
  14. 14. P. M. Spizig, Ph.D. thesis, University of Ulm, 2002. Google Scholar
  15. 15. M. E. Dokukin and I. Sokolov, Langmuir 28(46), 16060 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1021/la302706b, Google ScholarCrossref
  16. 16. T. J. Young, M. A. Monclus, T. L. Burnett, W. R. Broughton, S. L. Ogin, and P. A. Smith, Meas. Sci. Technol. 22(12), 125703 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/22/12/125703, Google ScholarCrossref
  17. 17. Y. F. Dufrene, D. Martinez-Martin, I. Medalsy, D. Alsteens, and D. J. Mueller, Nat. Methods 10(9), 847 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2602, Google ScholarCrossref
  18. 18. A. Voss, R. W. Stark, and C. Dietz, Macromolecules 47(15), 5236 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1021/ma500578e, Google ScholarCrossref
  19. 19. H. J. Butt and M. Jaschke, Nanotechnology 6(1), 1 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/6/1/001, Google ScholarCrossref
  20. 20. K. L. Johnson, K. Kendall, and A. D. Roberts, Proc. R. Soc. A 324(1558), 301 (1971). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1971.0141, Google ScholarCrossref
  21. 21. R. Garcia, Amplitude Modulation Atomic Force Microscopy ( Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2010), p. 179. Google ScholarCrossref
  22. 22. J. T. Seitz, J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 49(8), 1331 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1002/app.1993.070490802, Google ScholarCrossref
  23. 23. P. H. Mott, J. R. Dorgan, and C. M. Roland, J. Sound Vib. 312(4–5), 572 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2008.01.026, Google ScholarCrossref
  24. 24. R. Kono, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 15(4), 718 (1960). https://doi.org/10.1143/JPSJ.15.718, Google ScholarCrossref
  25. 25. B. V. Derjaguin and L. Landau, Acta Physicochim. URSS 14, 633 (1941). https://doi.org/10.1016/0079-6816(93)90013-L, Google ScholarCrossref
  26. 26. E. J. W. Verwey and J. Th. G. Overbeek, Theory Of The Stability Of Lyophobic Colloids ( Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1948), p. 205. Google Scholar
  27. 27. H. J. Butt, B. Cappella, and M. Kappl, Surf. Sci. Rep. 59(1–6), 1 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfrep.2005.08.003, Google ScholarCrossref
  28. 28. R. J. Hunter, Zeta Potential in Colloid Science: Principles and Applications ( Academic Press, New York, 1981). Google Scholar
  29. 29. B. J. Kirby and E. F. Hasselbrink, Electrophoresis 25(2), 203 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1002/elps.200305755, Google ScholarCrossref
  30. 30. C. C. Dupont-Gillain, Y. Adriaensen, S. Derclaye, and P. G. Rouxhet, Langmuir 16(21), 8194 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1021/la000326l, Google ScholarCrossref
  31. 31. H. J. Butt, K. Graf, and M. Kappl, Physics and Chemistry of Interfaces ( Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2003). Google ScholarCrossref
  32. 32. J. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces ( Academic Press, London, 1994). Google Scholar
  33. 33. B. Davies and B. W. Ninham, J. Chem. Phys. 56(12), 5797 (1972). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1677118, Google ScholarScitation
  34. 34. G. Toikka, R. A. Hayes, and J. Ralston, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 180(2), 329 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1006/jcis.1996.0311, Google ScholarCrossref
  35. 35. H. Barhoumi, A. Maaref, and N. Jaffrezic-Renault, Langmuir 26(10), 7165 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1021/la904251m, Google ScholarCrossref
  36. 36. J. H. Saavedra, S. M. Acuna, and P. G. Toledo, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 410, 188 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2013.08.001, Google ScholarCrossref
  37. 37. H. Guleryuz, A. K. Royset, I. Kaus, C. Filiatre, and M. A. Einarsrud, J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 62(3), 460 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-012-2750-6, Google ScholarCrossref
  38. 38. P. Troncoso, J. H. Saavedra, S. M. Acuna, R. Jeldres, F. Concha, and P. G. Toledo, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 424, 56 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2014.03.020, Google ScholarCrossref
  39. 39. See supplementary material at http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4914354 for parallelogram of forces splitting Fpush into Fn and Fthresh. Google Scholar
  1. © 2015 AIP Publishing LLC.