Proceedings of the 2011 34th International Spring Seminar on Electronics Technology (ISSE) 2011
DOI: 10.1109/isse.2011.6053941
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

AFM nanoshaving: A novel prospect for the structural comparison of bioreceptor layers

Abstract: In this work we present a nanoscale method called AFM nanoshaving (atomic force microscopy) as a prospect for the structural comparison of bioreceptor layers. Upon nanoshaving a biofunctionalized surface -such as DNA receptor chains on a gold thin film substrate -a higher pressing force is applied with the AFM tip during the scan, which removes the previously chemically attached bioreceptor molecules. By analyzing the cross sections of the shaved and untouched regions of the surface it is possible to gain info… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 9 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Minimizing the applied vertical force for a given tip speed, feedback loop responsivity, and area to pixel density is crucial to retaining the probes’ structural integrity during a nanoshaving experiment for as long as possible. Optimizing this force parameter increases the probability of high-resolution imaging upon subsequent scanning. The pixel density was kept constant (unless stated otherwise) in relation to the size of the nanoshaved area at ∼2.6 nm for each pixel.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Minimizing the applied vertical force for a given tip speed, feedback loop responsivity, and area to pixel density is crucial to retaining the probes’ structural integrity during a nanoshaving experiment for as long as possible. Optimizing this force parameter increases the probability of high-resolution imaging upon subsequent scanning. The pixel density was kept constant (unless stated otherwise) in relation to the size of the nanoshaved area at ∼2.6 nm for each pixel.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%