,) .. ...

Surface Science 299/300 (lYY4) 980-995

surface science
North-Holland
: .. .: .:.;:
.,., ., ;

The AFM as a tool for surface imaging

Received 2.5 June IYY3; accepted for publication 5 August IYY3

The atomic force microscope was introduced in IYXh as a new instrument lor examining the \urtace (11 Insulating cl_~atal\. I‘hr~-c.
was a clear implication in the first paper that it was capable of resolving single atoms. Unambiguous evidence lor atomic rc\olut~on
with the AFM did not appear until 1993. In the intervening years the AFM evolved into a mature instrument that prcrvidcr u\ with
new insights in the fields of surface science, electrochemistry, hiology and the technology. In thih paper WC nilI discus\ the cwlution
of this new high resolution microscope and describe some of the events that led up to the present state-of-the-art In\trument

1. Introduction In the Summer of 19x5 the small S’l‘M COIT~~LI-

nity gathered in the Austrian Alps. It was ;I
In the Fall of 1985 Gerd Binnig and Christoph marvelous setting with a marvelous Icadcr. Heini
Gerber used a cantilever to examine insulating Rohrer [4]. It was a Icarning cxpericncc tar each
surfaces. A small hook at the end of the can- of us. We were confronted and confounded uith
tilever was pressed against the surface while the the images of atomic structure. The atomic ar-
sample was scanned beneath the tip. The force rangemcnt on the reconstructed (I 11) surface ot
between tip and sample was measured by track- silicon appeared with great clarity when Jot DC-
ing the deflection of the cantilever. This was done muth presented his large area images of the 7 ,n: 7
by monitoring the tunneling current to a second structure. John Pethica stood on the podium to
tip positioned above the cantilever. They could describe the forces encountered when small par-
delineate lateral features as small as 300 A. The ticles were in close proximity to each other. Hc
force microscope [I] emerged in this way, but it argued that these forces should be included in
evolved under the tutelage of three people: Gerd the interpretation of the images from the tunncl-
Binnig, Christoph Gerber and Tom Albrecht. ing microscope. This was a distraction for man>
Binnig and Gerber were veterans of the STM [2]. of us since we wcrc struggling with tunneling
They fashioned the first instrument. Albrecht was current and sub&gstriim motion. But not t’o~
a fresh graduate student. He fabricated the first Binnig, he was comfortable with the principlch
silicon microcantilever [3]. underlying tunneling current and ready for new
In the Spring of 198.5 we arranged for Binnig ideas. He knew that insulators rcpresentcd a huge
to spend a year at Stanford. In exchanges of this region in the world of materials inaccessible to
kind between industry and universities the central the STM. Within a few months of the Obcrlcch
issue is always intellectual property. I resolved meeting he introduced in a system for imaging
this in a conversation with Binnig when I said insulating surfaces with force as the main ingrcdi-
“Gerd, please don’t invent anything while you arc ent.
at Stanford.” He replied, “Don’t worry, I want to Picasso on teaching:
spend the year doing science. There will be no “So how do you go about teaching them some-
work on devices.” thing new? By mixing what they know with

0039~6028/94/$07.00 0 1994 - Elsevier Science B.V. All rights resewed

.SSDI Ol)39-h028(93)EO4XO-I
 CF. @ate / The AFM as a tool for surface imaging
what they don’t know. Then, when they see
vaguely in their fog something they recognize,
they think, “Ah, I know that.” And then it’s
just one more step to, “Ah, I know the whole
thing.” And their mind thrusts forward into
the unknown and they begin to recognize what
they didn’t know before and they increase their
powers of understanding [S].”
The lectures at Oberlech are hazy in my mind,
but the walk led by Heini Rohrer is still vivid. It
was to begin at 9:30 on Saturday morning. Heini
told us that we should be well rested, it would be
a strenuous walk over at least one mountain pass.
When I turned in Friday evening, Gerd and Heini
were deep in conversation. On my way to break-
fast the next morning I encountered Heini and
Gerd in the same position discussing their philos-
ophy of experimental science. When he saw me,
Heini jumped up saying, “I must get some rest”.
Two hours later he showed up at the meeting
place ready to go. Indeed, it was a strenuous walk
but Heini insisted on maintaining a good pace at
the head of the pack. Sunday I sat in front of the
TV watching Boris Becker winning the Wimble-
don. It was 2 o’clock in the afternoon when Heini
emerged from his room muttering, “Sleep is such
a wonderful thing”.
The atomic force microscope emerged from its
cocoon more slowly than the STM. When the
Zurich group released the image of a silicon (111)
7 x 7 pattern, the world of surface science knew
that a new tool for surface exploration was at
hand. With the force microscope it was a series of
incremental steps. I realized the strength of the
force microscope when Albrecht measured the
atomic structure of boron nitride. I began to
believe when the results started to emerge from
Paul Hansma’s laboratory in Santa Barbara. Mc-
Clelland [6] with the group at IBM/Almaden
studied the force on the cantilever as the tip was
brought into close contact with the sample sur-
face. The force versus distance curve for the
withdrawal cycle was distinctly different from that
of the approach cycle. They concluded that there
must be a thin liquid film covering the surface,
and when the tip penetrated this liquid film a
capillary was formed around the tip. The capil-
lary force on the tip is large. It dominates the
981
other forces and produces hysteresis in the force
versus distance curve.
The group with Paul Hansma in Santa Barbara
reasoned that if imaging was possible with the tip
penetrating the film, it would be equally possible
for the system to operate with the entire can-
tilever immersed in fluid [7]. Their observation
was profound. It carried the force microscope
into electrochemistry and biology.
I was introduced to electrochemistry by the
work of A. Gewirth at the University of Illinois.
While he listened to Hansma describe his liquid
microscope, Gewirth designed an experiment to
observe the deposition of copper on gold. He
traveled to Santa Barbara, and in two weeks time
performed the copper on gold experiment IS]
with the results shown in Fig. I. It was a dramatic
event with manifest repercussions.
We are optimistic about the prospects for
molecular biology because of the work with the
DNA molecule. The group with Bustamante, first
in New Mexico and now in Oregon, collaborating
with Helen Hansma in Santa Barbara and Keller
in New Mexico have recorded meaningful and
definitive images of biological molecules [9]. In a
different setting Eric Henderson at Iowa State
found that the liquid instrument could produce
images of whole cells and delineate the internal
fibril structure in the living cells [lo].
Fig. 1. The AFM image illustrating deposition of copper on
gold (courtesy of A. Gewirth).
 In another sector of the world of science and
technology, Professor T. Ohmi [I I] was con-
cerned with the roughness of silicon wafers. In
modern devices the width of the lines and the
thickness of the oxide beneath the gate electrodes
continue to shrink. The E-field that an oxide film
can sustain before breakdown is a measure of the
dielectric strength of the film. If thin oxides are
grown on rough silicon substrates, the gate oxide
Spacmg between Particles a.”
integrity is comprised by a reduction in the di-
Fig. 2. Interatomic force between two small particle\
electric strength. It is, therefore, imperative to
measure the roughness of silicon wafers and Pro-
fessor Ohmi selected the force microscope for The geometry of the force microscope does
this task. It was a wise selection. He has deter- not correspond to two closely spaced atoms.
mined that the RMS value of roughness must be rather it resembles a small sphere above a plane.
reduced to 1-2 A to maintain the integrity of the The force versus distance curve for this configu-
gate oxide. ration comes from the calculation in Ref. [12].
Seven years have passed, and the atomic force Section 10.2. The general features depicted in
microscope has emerged as a commercial instru- Fig. 2 remain intact with a repulsive force for
ment. The microcantilevers have been perfected. small spacings and an attractive force for large
The instrument has been embraced by scientists spacings. The majority of the force microscopes
and technologists. Electrochemists use the device operate in the contact mode where the tip moves
to study electrolytic deposition processes, bio- against the “hard core” potential of the sub-
physicists use it to observe biological molecules in strate. Even though the forces are small (10 7-
aqueous solutions. Surface scientists use it to 1OY” N), surface damage is still encountered with
study structures on non-conducting surfaces. some samples. For those applications the attrac-
Technologists use it to study fabricated structures tive mode is preferred since there is no contact
on silicon substrates. Others believe it can be between tip and sample.
used for new high density storage devices. All of The attractive force, known as the van der
these are interesting areas but we will only exam- Waals force [ 131, originates from the polarization
ine a partial list in this paper. of the electron cloud surrounding the atomic
core. The van der Waals force for the sphcrc
above the plane varies as the inverse square of
2. Section of forces the distance between tip and sample.
There is no known example where the van de1
The forces measured with the force micro- Waals force has been measured with the force
scope are discussed in the book by Israelachvili microscope. The reason is quite simple. This force
[12]. Force, as the negative gradient of the inter- diminishes as the physical volume decreases. In
action potential, is easily measured with physical the force microscope with a tip of nanometer
apparatus. For two closely spaced atoms, or small dimensions the attractive forces due to the in-
molecules, the interaction energy is described by duced polarization are small and stronger forces
the Lennard-Jones potential. The force between control the motion of the tip. The force micro-
the particles as a function of their separation is scope normally operates in ambient air where
illustrated in Fig. 2. There are two regions, one to electrostatic charges can accumulate. Furthcr-
the left of the potential minimum where the more the humidity of the air leads to the forma-
particles are repelled from each other and one to tion of a thin layer of liquid over the surface oL
the right where the particles are attracted to each the sample and a capillary forms when the tip
other. dips into the film. The capillary [14] and electro-
 C.F. Quate / The AFM as a tool for surface imaging 983

static [15] forces dominate the polarization forces over the surface with a spacing of 50-200 .&. This
of van der Waals. spacing is controlled by monitoring the I‘esonant
In the attractive mode [16] the tip is scanned frequency of the cantilever. This feature iis impor-

Fig. 3. (a) The heart of the AFM - the cantilever with integrated tip. (b) Enlarged view of integrated tip and cantilever (courtesy of
S. Akamine).
tam, and we divert the discussion to describe the force field. In turn, resonant frequency changes
primary feature of the method. to
The cantilever spring constant, k, relates the
w, = V-(k - 3F/h)/i-. (4)
displacement, AZ, of the end of the cantilever to
the force, F, applied to the end of the cantilever This change provides a method for controlling
by the relation [17], the spacing between tip and sample. The can-
tilever, as mounted on a piezoelectric motion
F=Az. (1)
device, can be moved in z in such a manner as to
The resonant frequency, wr, of a cantilever with a keep the resonant frequency constant. This means
mass, m, is given by the relation, that the tip moves in a region where the force
gradient is constant. This implies that the tip
w,. = (k/m (2) spacing is constant since the gradient is a single-
This situation prevails if the force at the end of valued function of the z-spacing.
the cantilever does not vary with the z-position of
the cantilever. In general, this is not the case.
The force does vary with the distance between tip 3. Cantilevers and tips
and sample. We can express it thus,
The cantilevers and tips used in the FM arc
F=F,,+(i)F/az)Az=k AZ, fabricated with anisotropic etching of silicon. This
art is part of the emerging field of micromachin-
F,, = (k - aF/az)Az. (3)
ing [IS]. When silicon is etched in a solution of
We see from this that the effective spring con- KOH, the (111) face etches slowly in comparison
stant changes in the presence of a gradient in the with the other faces. This characteristic makes it

Fig. 4. Classical systems for detecting the motion of cantilevers in the AFM
 C. F. Quate / The AFM as a tool for surface imaging
easy to etch pyramidal shapes into the (100) face
of silicon. The pits are in the form of inverted
pyramids. A thin film of silicon nitride deposited
on this surface will conform precisely to the to-
pography and fill in the inverted pyramid. Subse-
quent to the nitride deposition, the underlying
silicon can be completely removed leaving only
the deposited film of nitride. This forms the
cantilever where the tip extends outward toward
the sample.
Conversely the anisotropic etching characteris-
tic can be used to form a tip of silicon extending
outward from the surface as shown in Fig. 3. This
configuration is intriguing since the tip can be
sharpened with further etching. This procedure
follows from the work of Marcus and Sheng [19]
where they observed that the oxidation rate of
silicon was dependent on the curvature of the
silicon substrate. They found that a planar sur-
face will oxidize at a faster rate than a surface
with curvature. The flat sloping face of a pyramid
tip oxidizes faster than the other regions. When
the oxide was removed by etching, the induced
curvature on the pyramidal faces results in a
sharpened tip. Akamine and Quate [20] used this
principle to sharpen the apexof a silicon pyramid
to form a tip for the force microscope.
Fig. 5. The piezoresistive
985
Beyond that a more refined technique has
evolved to the point where pillar-like tips can be
grown on top of the pyramidal tip. The new tips
are formed when the surface is bombarded with
the electron beam for an SEM. Presumably this
comes from the polymerization of the residual
hydrocarbons in the atmosphere of the SEM.
Recently David Keller [21] in New Mexico has
demonstrated the utility of this type of tip in
connection with his work with biological mol-
ecules.
4. Detection of cantilever motion
The FM does not measure force; it measures
the deflection of the microcantilever. The linear
relation expressed in Eq. (1) between force and
displacement permits us to use the displacement
data to measure the force. The detecting systems
for monitoring the deflection fall into several
categories illustrated in Fig. 4. The first device
introduced by Binnig was a tunneling tip placed
above the metallized surface of the cantilever.
This is a seasitive system where a change in
spacing of 1 A between tip and cantilever changes
the tunneling current by an order of magnitude.
cantilever for the AFM.
It is straightfoyard to measure deflections smal- has a strong effect on the laser output, and this is
ler than 0.01 A. Subsequent systems were based exploited as a motion detector.
on optical techniques. The interferometer The change in capacitance is ;I classical and
sketched in the upper right of Fig. 4 is the most scnsitivc method for measuring small deflccti~~ns,
sensitive of the optical methods, but it is some- and it is not surprising that it too has been
what more complicated than the beam-bounce exploited in the force microscope [ZS].
method sketched in the lower figure. The beam- The most recent system is a miniature strain
bounce method was introduced by Meyer and gauge based on the piezoresistive coefficient in
Amer [22] at Yorktown, and it is now widely used crystalline silicon and fahricatcd as an integral
as a result of the excellent work by Alexander et part of the cantilever. This cffcct has been used
al. [23] at Santa Barbara. In that system an opti- as a strain gauge for more than 40 years [Xl, and
cal beam is reflected from the mirrored surface it is natural to find that it is used to monitor the
on the back side of the cantilever onto a deflection of cantilevers in the force microscope.
position-sensitive photodetector. In this arrange- The cantilever is made on silicon oriented in the
ment a small det‘iection of the cantilever will tilt (100) direction. The cantifever has two Icgs whcrc
the reflected beam and change the position of the current flows in one leg and out the other as
beam on the photodetector. A third optical sys- shown in Fig. 5. The change in current corrc-
tem, introduced by Sarid et al. [241 in Tucson. sponding to the change in stress in the cantilcvcl
uses the cantilever as one of the mirrors in the is used to monitor the detlcction. In the Iatcst
cavity of a diode laser. Motion of the cantilever device as reported by Tortonesc ct al. [77] the

Fig. 6. ‘I’he molecular structure of didodecylbenzene (DDB) molecules on graphite imaged with the AFM in the contact mc~ic
(courtesy of H. Fuchs).
 C.F. Quate
sensitjvity is sufficient to detect a deflection of
0.25 A with a bandwidth of 1000 Hz in the output
circuit. This sensitivity is inferior to that of the
optical systems but it is sufficient for applications
in technology.
5. Contact mode
The contact mode where the tip rides on the
sample in close contact with the surface is the
common mode used in the force microscope. The
force on the tip is repulsive with a mean value of
10e9 N. This force is set by pushing the can-
tilever against the sample surface with a piezo-
electric positioning element.
A few instruments operate in UHV [28] but
the majority operate in ambient atmosphere, or
in liquids. It is a boon for biologists to have a
Fig. 7. The surface of an unpatterned silicon wafer in the AFM. The rms roughness
/ The AFM as a tool for surface imaging 981
high resolution microscope operating in liquid
which is the natural environment for living cells
[lo]. It is also useful to surface scientists since
liquids serve to protect surfaces from the contam-
inates coming from the atmosphere. In spite of
these advantages most of the work has been done
in air. It is a convenient environment, and the
information gained from imaging in air is impor-
tant. A molecular pattern of DDB molecules on a
graphite substrate is shown in Fig. 6.
There is an element of controversy surround-
ing the high resolution images recorded in the
contact mode. Many of the published images
show atomic resolution, and this implies that the
tip is sharp enough to interact with a single atom
of the surface. The controversy is related to the
force exerted on this atom by the tip. Ferrante
and Smith [291 have calculated the adhesive force
for several metals and show that the maximum
is 1.5 A (courtesy of B. Doris).
adhesive force for Mg-Mg is 5 X 10” N/m’, or
about 5 x lO_“’ N/atom. This force applied to a
single atom in the Mg crystai would resuft in
brittle fracture. At most temperatures Mg fails in
plastic flow, and we must thcreforc reduce the
force of a single atom tip ttr IO--“I N to avoid
def(wmation of the surface through plastic flow.
The imaging force used to recwd atoms with the
AFM is greater than IO ” N. With 2 lilnitjn~
pressure of 5 x 10” N/m’ WC conclude that the

Fig. 9. The profile of a surface feature of a 16 MB DRAM. The trenches <ire 0.5 pm in width and 1 pm in depth (courtry of
K. Wickramasinghe).
 CJ. @ma ,I’ The AFM as a tooi for suijkc~ imaging
contact area must extend over several atomic
sites. ISow then do we rationahze the images that
report atomic resolutions Heretofore, the pub-
lished images have dispIayed perfect periodic&y
without defects, and the lack of defects is the key
to the dilemma. We know that multiple images of
periodic structure are also periodic. It is not
possible to distinguish between a single image
and superimposed multiple images that arise from
broadened tips or from multiple tips. To resolve
the ~mbi~ui~ and demonstrate true atomic reso-
lution it is necessary to reduce the imaging force
to 10-i* N and image atomic detaif on surfaces
with fat&e im~rf~t~ons~ such as step edges, or
lattice vacancies. This has n5w been accom-
phshed [30] in a way that we discuss in a later
section.
We will bypass the marvelous work done by
the electrochemists and the biophysicists and turn
989
to the studies of surface roughness (see Fig. ‘7)*
Roughness of silicon wafers can increase during
the fabrication of microchips, and it is necessary
to monitor this parameter as the wafer moves
through the FAIL The example from Uhmi’s work
[llf, shown in Fig, 8, illustrates that surface
roughness can increase when excess ammonia is
used in one of the standard wafer cleaning steps.
Surface roughness is one facet, surface profil-
ing is another, The ilhrstration in Fig. 9 is typicai.
With the advancing state of art in microchips the
line widths will shrink to 0.25 iurn while the
thickness of the photoresist Layers will remain at
f pm, Via’s with this aspect ratio are diffi~~It to
profife with avaiiabje tools. We know that the
force microscope will play a role because of the
work carried out by groups such as those with
Wickramasi~~h~ at IBM and Griffith at AT&T,
The IBM group has used the non-contact mode
 70

35

b
O- \ 0.2

0
Fig. 10 (continued).

to profile trenches 0.45 pm in width and 1 pm in .lNm

depth. Their goal [31] is to profile contact via’s

0.25 pm in diameter (and 1 pm in depth) since
these will be encountered in the microchips of
the future.
The force microscope wit1 become an indis-
pensable tool for monitoring and profiling in the -0.6
manu~dctu~-e of silicon microchips [32].

.o.*
6. The non-contact mode

A new era in imaging was opened when micro- -0.2

scopists introduced a system for implementing
the non-contact mode. This mode, where the tip
hovers 50-150 A above the surface, is used in
situations where tip contact might after the sam-
Fig. 11. The surf&e of poiysilictm imaged with ihc AFM in
ple in subtle ways. The spacing between tip and the non-contact mode. The image six is I pm bq I pm. Htc
sample is controlled by monitoring the resonant height in -_ is 150 i from dark to light regions (ccturtes~ oi
frequency of the cantilever as described previ- Park Scientific Instruments).
 C.F. Quate / The AFM as a tool for surface imaging
ously in Section 2. The essence of this idea is
contained in the work of Israelachvili and Tabor
[33]. It was introduced to the force microscope in
the work of Martin, Williams and Wickramas-
inghe [16] and Albrecht et al. [34].
The non-contact mode is essential for examin-
ing soft samples where tip contact could change
the topography. A striking example is shown in
Fig. 10. This soft sample is a layer of photoresist
that has not been hardened with baking. A sec-
ond example of the utility of the non-contact
mode is illustrated in Fig. 11. It is a polysilicon
surface with the structure of the grains as the
prominent feature. Grain structure of polysilicon
is easily recorded in other modes but the fine
60 70 6@ 50 40
urn
Fig. 12. Image of the magnetic field pattern
991
detail on the rounded hillocks is only visible with
the non-contact mode.
The shift in resonant frequency of mechani-
cally vibrating elements is a powerful method for
controlling narrow spacings. It is used routinely
in the magnetic force microscope where a mag-
netic tip is used to image magnetic field patterns.
We will return with more details in the next
section. The principle is also used in the near
field optical microscope when it is combined with
the force microscope for the purpose of control-
ling the spacing between the optical aperture and
the sample [35].
The non-contact mode is now available in
“large sample” instruments. There the probe can
80
60
urn
30 20 10 @
on a hard disk (courtesy of I. Smith).
be positioned over any segment of an 8 inch in Fig. 12 is typical of the work that can bc done
silicon wafer. Imagine the response when this with the instrument.
mode is introduced to the semiconductor indus- The magnetic resonance force microscope [4O]
try, “The scanning probe, with nanometer resolu- is the offspring of the magnetic force microscope.
tion, allows the operator to examine the full area In this instrument a small particle of paramag-
of an 8 inch wafer without touching the silicon nctic material is mounted on a cantilever. The
surface.” This indeed must be the threshold of unit is then immersed in a magnetic field which
the 21~ century. polarizes the spinning electrons. The electric field
from a small RF coil is used to drive electron spin
resonance (ESR). The magnetic field fixes the
7. Other modes resonant frequency, and when this field is modu-
lated. the force on the cantilever is modulated in
Just as the STM spawned the AFM so it is that a corresponding manner. If the modulation frc-
the AFM spawned other forms of scanning quency of the magnetic field is adjusted to excite
probes. The friction force microscope [36] which the mechanical resonance of the cantilever. the
measures the lateral force on the scanning tip has amplitude of motion in the cantilever builds to a
been used to great effect by workers such as detectable level. The modulating frequency is
Mate at IBM and Kaneko at NTT to study the equal to one-half the resonant frequency since
coefficient of friction for various surfaces. The the driving force on the cantilever is proportional
capacitance microscope [37] is used to measure to the square of the gradient of the field. In the
the variation in capacitance between the tip and system studied by Rugar et al.. the noise floor of
sample. It has been used to profile the doping the vibrating cantilever was 10 ” N. This was in
levels in silicon. The interfacial microscope [38] vacuum at room temperature. They predict that
uses a double ended cantilever to measure the the sensitivity can be improved by several orders
curve of force versus distance at various points in of magnitude if the cantilever is redesigned and
the image. cooled to liquid helium temperatures.
Among the members of this family the mag- The magnetic resonance force microscope has
netic force microscope [39] (MFM) has special some remarkable features. Electron spin rcso-
significance since it has spawned an offspring of nance at 1000 MHz can be detected with a me-
its own, one that responds to signals from mag- chanical device resonant near 10 kHz. The spatial
netic resonance. The magnetic force microscope,
operating in air, images magnetic patterns with-
out special preparation of the sample. The MFM
is used to image the gradient of the magnetic
field with a lateral resolution that is better than
0.1 pm. A spacing of 100-200 A between tip and
sample is maintained throughout the scan. In the
magnetic force microscope a magnetic tip with
the magnetization aligned with the axis of the tip
is mounted on a flexible cantilever. The magnetic
dipole of the tip interacts with the stray magnetic
fields from the sample. The stray magnetic fields
exert a force on the magnetized tip, and this is
the information displayed in the image. In reality
the gradient of stray fields alters the resonant
frequency of the cantilever as described in Sec-
tion 2, and it is the change in resonant frequency
that is used for the information signal. The image
 CF. Quate / The AFM as a tool for surface imaging 993

position of spins in the lateral plane can be magnetic resonance with a sensitivity sufficient
imaged when a gradient is introduced into the for the imaging of a single spin may be within
magnetic biasing field. A microscope based on their grasp!

4.5 nm

distance (MI)
Fig. 14. True atomic structure with the AFM in the contact mode. This is the surface of calcite immersed in purified water showing
the oxygen atoms as the bright spots (courtesy of F. Ohnesorge).
 A second example where microwave frequen- nig [30] of the IBM Laboratory in Munich ap-
cies arc used to deflect a mechanical cantilever peared in June 199.3. They used the AFM im-
comes from the group with D. Bloom at Stanford mersed in water to study the cleaved (lOi4) fact
[4I]. They worked with a conventional tip of calcite. With this arrangement they reduced
mounted on a metal coated cantilever and the force exerted on the sample to IO I” N which
scanned over the surface of an integrated circuit. is a factor of IO less than that LISCCI in convcn-
The stray electric fields from the IC exerts a force tional microscopes. Their images not only show
on the cantilever. The mechanical cantilever can- the atomic arrangement of the uppermost oxygen
not respond to microwave frequencies, neverthe- atoms but they also show atomic scale dcfccta.
less the group with Bloom devised a system to Atomic structure and atomic steps between tcr-
monitor the spatial variation of electric fields at races are common in the images from the tunnel-
microwave frequencies. They applied two RF sig- ing microscope but they did not appear in the
nals, ,f, and fi, to the circuit beneath the can- images from the AFM until Ohnesorgc and Bin-
tilever. The force on the cantilever is propor- nig published their results. Their images of cal-
tional to the square of the E-field. It is a cite are shown in Fig. 14.
“square-law” detector for force, and this is used It has been a grand time for those associated
to generate a force at ,f, -fr. When the differ- with this era. The era is not over, there is more to
encc frequency is adjusted to the mechanical come as this form of instrumentation is moved
resonance, the amplitude of cantilever motion beyond imaging and employed in the fabrication
reaches a level that is detectable. The tip is of nanostructures.
scanned over the active circuit to record the
spatial variations in the E-field.

8. Summary

The AFM appeared in the Winter of 1086 in a

paper titled “Atomic Force Microscope” with
“images” that were not images but traces from
the chart of an .\--_v recorder as reproduced in
Fig. 13. In that original paper, Binnig, with his
remarkable insight, made two predictions - prc-
dictions that were heavily challenged during the [hj <;.M. Mc(‘trtl~md. K. Erl;and\\on and S. (‘hi;~ng. f<e\ ICM
process of peer review. He predicted that the ~,t Progress in Vuantitativc Nondcstructi\e 1-\aluarlotl.
\‘(~I. hH. E!tl\. D.0 Thompscm 2nd I>.f (‘hlmcnli
instrument could be used to measure .‘. forces
(Plenum. Neu Yorh. lYS7) 317.
on particles as small as single atoms”. He went 171 0. Mxti. 13. I>!-ake ;ind P.K. H;~n\ma. Appl. I%\\ t cl{.
on to predict that a cooled system could be used 51 (IYH7) 184.
to measure forces as small as IO Is N. [S] S. Marine. P.K. Il;~nama. J. Ma\\ie. \‘.I3. Cling\ and :\.,\
No one has yet measured forces this small but Gcwirth. Science 75 t ( I YY I ) I.%
[Y] WA. Rre, R.W. Keller. J.P. Vewnka. G Yang and (‘.
the group at IBM/Almaden is close. Their prc-
13u\tamante. Science I60( I Wi) I (dh.
sent apparatus with conventional cantilevers at 1IO] C. Henderson. P.G. 1laydon and D.S. S;ihaguchl, Sclcncc
room temperature has a noise floor of 10 ” N. It 757 (IYY2) lY3-t.
is straightforward to reduce this floor with re-
designed cantilevers operating in liquid helium.
Atomic resolution in the AFM has been the
[I?] J.N. Israclachvili. Intermolecut;1t- and Suriaw I.(ncc\
goal of many studies over the years but those (Academic Prcs\, Ne\\ Yorh. 19x5) ch. IO.
reports were suspect. WC had to live with that [Ii] J.N. Israetachvili. Proc. R. Sot. (I.ondon) A ,331 ( lY71)
suspicion until the study by Ohnesorge and Bin- 30.
 C. F. Quate / The AFM as a tool for surface imaging 995

[14] R. Erlandsson, G.M. McClelland and S. Chiang, .I. Vat. [29] J. Ferrante and J.R. Smith, Phys. Rev. B 19 (1979) 3911.
Sci. A 6 (1988) 266; [30] F. Ohnesorge and G. Binnig, Science 260 (1993) 1451.
H.W. Hao, A.M. Baro and J.J. Saenz, Proceedings of the [31] H.K. Wickramasinghe, private communication.
STM ‘BO/NANO I Conference, Baltimore, MD, July [32] D. Rugar and P. Hansma, Phys. Today (Oct. 1990) 23.
23-27, 1990. [33] J.N. Israelachvili and D. Tabor, Proc. R. Sot. (London) A
[15] Y. Martin, D.W. Abraham and H.K. Wickramasinghe, 331 (19721 19.
Appl. Phys. Lett. 5 (1988) 1105; [34] T.R. Albrecht, P. Grutter, D. Horne and D. Rugar,
J.E. Stern, B.D. Terris, H.J. Mamin and D. Rugar, Appl. Proceedings of the STM’90/NANO I Conference, Balti-
Phys. Lett. 53 (1988) 2717. more, MD, July 23-27, 1990.
[16] Y. Martin, C.C. Williams and H.K. Wickramasinghe, J. [35] E. Betzig, P.L. Finn and J.S. Weiner, Appl. Phys. Lett. 60
Appl. Phys. 61 (1987) 4723. (19921 2484;
[17] D. Sarid, Scanning Force Microscopy (Oxford University R. Toledo-Crow, P.C. Yang, Y. Chen and M. Vaez-
Press, New York, 1991). Iravani, Appl. Phys. Lett. 60 (19921 2957.
[18] W. Trimmer, J. of Microelectromech. Syst. 1 (1992) 1. [36] C.M. Mate, G.M. McClelland, R. Erlandsson and S.
[19] R.B. Marcus and T.T. Sheng, J. Electrochem. Sot. 129 Chiang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 1942;
(1982) 1278. T. Miyamoto and R. Kaneko, J. Vat. Sci Technol. A 9
[20] S. Akamine and CF. Quate, J. Vat. Sci. Technol. B 10 (1991) 1336.
(1992) 2307. [37] C.C. Williams, W.P. Hough and S.A. Rishton, Appl.
[21] D. Keller, D. Deputy, A. Alduino and K. Luo, Ultramis- Phys. Lett. 55 (1989) 203;
croscopy 42-44 (1992) 1481. J.R. Matey and J. Blanc, J. Appl. Phys. 57 (1985) 1437.
[22] G. Meyer and N.M. Amer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 53 (1988) [38] J.A. Joyce and J.B. Houston, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 62 (1991)
2400. 710.
[23] S. Alexander, L. Hellemans, 0. Marti, J. Schneir, V. [39] Y. Martin and H.K. Wickramasinghe, Appl. Phys. Lett.
Eling, P.K. Hansma, M. Longuire and J. Gurley, J. Appl. 50 (1987) 1445;
Phys. 65 (1989) 164. D. Rugar, H.J. Mamin, P. Guethner, S.B. Lambert, J.E.
[24] D. Sarid, D. Iams, J.T. Ingle, V. Weissenberger and J. Stern, I. McFadyen and T. Yogi, J. Appl. Phys. 68 (19901
Ploetz, J. Vat. Sci. Technol. A 8 (19901 378. 1169.
[25] R.V. Jones and J.C.S. Richards, J. Phys. E 6 (1973) 589. [40] D. Rugar, C.S. Yannoni and J.A. Sidles, Nature 360
[26] C.M. Harris and C.E. Crede, Shock and Vibration Hand- (1992) 563.
book (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961). [41] A.S. Hou, F. Ho and D.M. Bloom, Electron. Lett. 28
[27] M. Tortonese, R.C. Barrett and CF. Quate, Appl. Phys. (1992) 2302;
Lett. 62 (1993) 834. G.E. Bridges and D.J. Thompson, Ultramicroscopy 42-44
[28] G. Myer and N.M. Amer, Appl. Phys. Lett. 56 (1990) (1992) 321.
2100.