2010
DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2009.12.020
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accurate determination of spring constant of atomic force microscope cantilevers and comparison with other methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
36
0
5

Year Published

2012
2012
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
3
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 55 publications
(42 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
1
36
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…The spring constant of tips was calibrated by the thermal-noise method in a clean culture dish to each experiment [31], which were in the range of 0.3140 N/m-0.5083 N/m. Force curves were fit to the Sneddon model to estimate Young's modulus.…”
Section: Cck-8 Assaymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The spring constant of tips was calibrated by the thermal-noise method in a clean culture dish to each experiment [31], which were in the range of 0.3140 N/m-0.5083 N/m. Force curves were fit to the Sneddon model to estimate Young's modulus.…”
Section: Cck-8 Assaymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This error is constant for all frequencies. The inverse method used for the calibration of the stiffer cantilever is also susceptible to errors greater than 10% (Kim et al, 2010). Another source of error arises from the measurement of the cantilever deflection.…”
Section: Atomic Force Microscopy (Afm)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other studies [36,37] it has been found that the Sader method underestimates the spring constant due to a rounding-off of the free end or from a non-rectangular cross section of real cantilevers. Our results for R-D, R-E and R-F tend to support this, with the fundamental spring constants determined by our method being 5-7% higher than those determined by the Sader method.…”
Section: Cantilever Dimensions and Shapementioning
confidence: 91%