Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy of Periodic Ferroelectric Domain Structure in KTiOPO<sub>4</sub> Crystals

Shvebelman, M.; Agronin, A.; Urenski, Ronen P.; Rosenwaks, Y.; Rosenman, G.

doi:10.1021/nl025523e

Cited by 32 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[63][64][65][66][67][68][69] However, the nature and quantitative mechanisms of the observed signal remained highly uncertain. In parallel, several groups explored ferroelectric domain imaging using Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy (KPFM) and similar techniques, 29,30,[37][38][39][71][72][73] which are variants of non-contact SPM techniques sensitive to long-range electrostatic interactions. Early successes included visualization of domain structures, with the contrast attributed directly to the stray electrostatic field above the surface due to (unscreened) polarization bound charges.…”

Section: Iia Basic Pfmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ferroelectric or non-ferroelectric: Why so many materials exhibit “ferroelectricity” on the nanoscale

Vasudevan

Balke

Maksymovych

et al. 2017

Applied Physics Reviews

270

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ferroelectric materials have remained one of the foci of condensed matter physics and materials science for over 50 years. In the last 20 years, the development of voltage-modulated scanning probe microscopy techniques, exemplified by Piezoresponse force microscopy (PFM) and associated time-and voltage spectroscopies, opened a pathway to explore these materials on a single-digit nanometer level. Consequently, domain structures, walls and polarization dynamics can now be imaged in real space. More generally, PFM has allowed studying electromechanical coupling in a broad variety of materials ranging from ionics to biological systems. It can also be anticipated that the recent Nobel prize 1 in molecular electromechanical machines will result in rapid growth in interest in PFM as a method to probe their behavior on single device and device assembly levels. However, the broad introduction of PFM also resulted in a growing number of reports on nearly-ubiquitous presence of ferroelectric-like phenomena including remnant polar states and electromechanical hysteresis loops in materials which are non-ferroelectric in the bulk, or in cases where size effects are expected to suppress ferroelectricity. While in certain cases plausible physical mechanisms can be suggested, there is remarkable similarity in observed behaviors, irrespective of the materials system. In this review, we summarize the basic principles of PFM, briefly discuss the features of ferroelectric surfaces salient to PFM imaging and spectroscopy, and summarize existing reports on ferroelectric-like responses in non-classical ferroelectric materials. We further discuss possible mechanisms behind observed behaviors, and possible experimental strategies for their identification.3

show abstract

Section: Iia Basic Pfmmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ferroelectric or non-ferroelectric: Why so many materials exhibit “ferroelectricity” on the nanoscale

Vasudevan

Balke

Maksymovych

et al. 2017

Applied Physics Reviews

270

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…37 Measurements of potential screening on BaTiO 3 and charged grain boundaries in SrTiO 3 indicate that the lateral resolution is limited to ~300 nm related to the non-contact nature of the measurements.…”

Section: E Electrostatic State Of Surfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Nanoscale piezoelectric response across a single antiparallel ferroelectric domain wall

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surprising asymmetry in the local electromechanical response across a single antiparallel ferroelectric domain wall is reported. Piezoelectric force microscopy is used to investigate both the in-plane and out-of-plane electromechanical signals around domain walls in congruent and near-stoichiometric lithium niobate. The observed asymmetry is shown to have a strong correlation to crystal stoichiometry, suggesting defect-domain wall interactions. A defect-dipole model is proposed. Finite element method is used to simulate the electromechanical processes at the wall and reconstruct the images. For the near-stoichiometric composition, good agreement is found in both form and magnitude. Some discrepancy remains between the experimental and modeling widths of the imaged effects across a wall. This is analyzed from the perspective of possible electrostatic contributions to the imaging process, as well as local changes in the material properties in the vicinity of the wall.

show abstract

“…The elec- tron affinity at a semiconductor surface is a function of the surface dipole induced by various surface effects such as surface termination, surface reconstruction, surface orientation, local stoichiometry changes, atomic steps, and adsorbates. 2,15 We are suggesting that for a ferroelectric semiconductor, the screening of the polarization charges by adsorption of charged molecules or ions on a surface (external screening) will give rise to an additional surface dipole 1,6,16,17 and result in a variation in the electron affinity. This effect is modeled schematically in Fig.…”

Section: Polarization-dependent Electron Affinity Of Linbo 3 Surfacesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Polarization-dependent electron affinity of LiNbO3 surfaces

Yang

Rodriguez

Gruverman

et al. 2004

Applied Physics Letters

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polar surfaces of a ferroelectric LiNbO3 crystal with periodically poled domains are explored using UV-photoelectron emission microscopy (PEEM). Compared with the positive domains (domains with positive surface polarization charges), a higher photoelectric yield is found from the negative domains (domains with negative surface polarization charges), indicating a lower photothreshold and a corresponding lower electron affinity. The photon-energy-dependent contrast in the PEEM images of the surfaces indicates that the photothreshold of the negative domains is ∼4.6eV while that of the positive domains is greater than ∼6.2eV. We propose that the threshold difference between the opposite domains can be attributed to a variation of the electron affinity due to opposite surface dipoles induced by surface adsorbates.

show abstract

Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy of Periodic Ferroelectric Domain Structure in KTiOPO₄ Crystals

Cited by 32 publications

References 18 publications

Ferroelectric or non-ferroelectric: Why so many materials exhibit “ferroelectricity” on the nanoscale

Ferroelectric or non-ferroelectric: Why so many materials exhibit “ferroelectricity” on the nanoscale

Nanoscale piezoelectric response across a single antiparallel ferroelectric domain wall

Polarization-dependent electron affinity of LiNbO3 surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy of Periodic Ferroelectric Domain Structure in KTiOPO4 Crystals

Cited by 32 publications

References 18 publications

Ferroelectric or non-ferroelectric: Why so many materials exhibit “ferroelectricity” on the nanoscale

Ferroelectric or non-ferroelectric: Why so many materials exhibit “ferroelectricity” on the nanoscale

Nanoscale piezoelectric response across a single antiparallel ferroelectric domain wall

Polarization-dependent electron affinity of LiNbO3 surfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy of Periodic Ferroelectric Domain Structure in KTiOPO₄ Crystals