| description abstract | Quantitative studies of material properties and interfaces using the atomic force microscope (AFM) have important applications in engineering, biotechnology, and chemistry. Contrary to what the name suggests, the AFM actually measures the displacement of a microscale probe, so one must determine the stiffness of the probe to find the force exerted on a sample. Numerous methods have been proposed for determining the spring constant of AFM cantilever probes, yet most neglect the mass of the probe tip. This work explores the effect of the tip mass on AFM calibration using the method of (1995, “Method for the Calibration of Atomic Force Microscope Cantilevers,” Rev. Sci. Instrum., 66, pp. 3789) and extends that method to account for a massive, rigid tip. One can use this modified method to estimate the spring constant of a cantilever from the measured natural frequency and Q-factor for any mode of the probe. This may be helpful when the fundamental mode is difficult to measure or to check for inaccuracies in the calibration obtained with the fundamental mode. The error analysis presented here shows that if the tip is not considered, then the error in the static stiffness is roughly of the same order as the ratio of the tip’s mass to the cantilever beam’s. The area density of the AFM probe is also misestimated if the tip mass is not accounted for, although the trends are different. The model presented here can be used to identify the mass of a probe tip from measurements of the natural frequencies of the probe. These concepts are applied to six low spring-constant, contact-mode AFM cantilevers, and the results suggest that some of the probes are well modeled by an Euler–Bernoulli beam with a constant cross section and a rigid tip, while others are not. One probe is examined in detail, using scanning electron microscopy to quantify the size of the tip and the thickness uniformity of the probe, and laser Doppler vibrometry is used to measure the first four mode shapes. The results suggest that this probe’s thickness is significantly nonuniform, so the models upon which dynamic calibration is based may not be appropriate for this probe. | |
