No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Enhanced mass sensing using torsional and lateral resonances in microcantilevers
1.G. Y. Chen, T. Thundat, E. A. Wachter, and R. J. Warmack, J. Appl. Phys. 77, 3618 (1995).
2.H. Jensenius, J. Thaysen, A. A. Rasmussen, L. H. Veje, O. Hansen, and A. Boisen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 2615 (2000).
3.T. Thundat and L. Maya, Surf. Sci. 430, L546 (1999).
4.R. Raiteri, M. Grattarola, H. J. Butt, and P. Skladal, Sens. Actuators B 79, 115 (2001).
5.J. Fritz, M. K. Baller, H. P. Lang, H. Rothuizen, P. Vettiger, E. Meyer, H. Guntherodt, C. Gerber, and J. K. Gimzewski, Science 288, 316 (2000).
6.M. Su, S. Li, and V. P. Dravid, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 3562 (2003).
7.T. Ono, X. Li, H. Miyashita, and M. Esashi, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74, 1240 (2003).
8.NSC12 microcantilever dimensions: Length ∼315 μm, width ∼35 μm, thickness ∼2 μm.
9.S. Prescesky, M. Parameswaran, A. Rawicz, R. F. B. Turner, and U. Reichl, Can. J. Phys. 70, 1178 (1992).
10.Borosilicate microspheres, purchased from Duke Scientific Corporation (Palo Alto, CA), have a certified mean diameter of a standard deviation of 0.7 μm, a coefficient of variation of 35%, and a mass of approximately 10 pg. The microspheres were certified by a certificate of calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology on October 10, 2001. www.dukescientific.com
11.The exact dimensions of the specific microcantilever were determined by taking several scanning electron microscopy (SEM) pictures from different angles in the presence of a test gauge structure to accurately calibrate the SEM photos. The FE method took into account the width variation of the microcantilever along its length, the asymmetric corner notches at the free end of the microcantilever, and approximated the probe tip as a conical protrusion. Following a detailed convergence study 50 523 ten node Tetrahedral-187 elements were used. The material and geometric properties chosen for the model were: width varied linearly from fixed to free end 34–36.34 μm, The nominal spring constant for this cantilever is ∼0.2 N/m.
12.The percent difference between experimental and FE results: First second first third first
13.S. Zurn, M. Hseih, G. Smith, D. Markus, M. Zang, G. Hughes, Y. Nam, M. Arik, and D. Polla, Smart Mater. Struct. 10, 252 (2001).
14.M. Reinstaedtler, U. Rabe, V. Scherer, J. A. Turner, and W. Arnold, Surf. Sci. 532, 1152 (2003).
15.N. C. Perkins and C. D. Mote, Jr., J. Sound Vib. 106, 451 (1986).
16.P. T. Chen and J. H. Ginsberg, J. Vibr. Acoust. 114, 141 (1992).
17.Note that the photodetector output is proportional not to the deflection, but rather the slope of the microcantilever at the laser spot location.
18.A side experiment conducted demonstrated that the spectrum peaks magnitude vary by up to two to three times when a bare microcantilever is repeatedly removed and replaced in the AFM. This is due to inevitable variation in cantilever chip orientation and the position of the laser spot.
19.The circle fit method calculates the Q factor of each mode based on the magnitude and phase of the response measured at all 1 Hz increments over the entire half magnitude bandwidth of the specific peak. It is significantly more accurate than the half-power method.
20.D. J. Ewins, Modal Testing: Theory, Practice, and Application, 2nd ed. (Research Studies Press Ltd., Baldock, Hertfordshire, England, 2000), pp. 306–318.
21.J. W. M. Chon, P. Mulvaney, and J. E. Sader, J. Appl. Phys. 87, 3978 (2000).
22.C. P. Green and J. E. Sader, J. Appl. Phys. 92, 6262 (2002).
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...
Most read this month
Most cited this month