Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T07:23:28.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Improve the Accuracy of Scanning Kelvin Probe Microscopy by Eliminating the Cantilever Effect

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Zhitao Yang
Affiliation:
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, U.S.A.
Michael G. Spencer
Affiliation:
School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14850, U.S.A.
Get access

Abstract

Scanning Kelvin probe microscopy (SKPM) is widely used to measure surface work functions and electrostatic potentials on nanoscale circuits, devices and materials. However, the accuracy of scanning Kelvin probe microscopy is reduced by a cantilever effect, which is due to a large capacitance gradient associated with the cantilever. We introduce an aperture structure to quantitatively moderate the strength of the cantilever effect. In this approach, the cantilever effect is eliminated and the true surface potential can be extracted by solving a set of linear equations. Experimental results show that this approach yields very accurate surface potentials when there is only a single potential source within the aperture. In the case of multiple potential sources, this method significantly improves accuracy as well. A mobile aperture structure mounted on a micromanipulator can make this approach more versatile.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Koley, G. and Spencer, M. G., Enclopedia of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, Volume X: Pages 118 (2003).Google Scholar
2. Jacobs, H. O., Leuchtmann, P., Homan, O. J., and Stemmer, A., J. Appl Phys. 84, 1168(21998).Google Scholar
3. Koley, G., Bhangale, H. R. and Spencer, M. G., Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 545 (2001).Google Scholar
4. Hochwitz, T., Henning, A. K., Levey, C., Daghlian, C., and Slinkman, J., J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 14(1), 457(1996).Google Scholar
5. Sacha, G. M. and Sáenz, J. J., Appl. Phys. Lett. 85, 2610 (2004).Google Scholar
6. Girard, P., Nanotechnology 12, 485 (2001).Google Scholar
7. Colchero, J., Gil, A., and Baró, A. M., Phy. Rev. B 64, 245402 (2001).Google Scholar