Dynamic simulations of adhesion and friction in chemical force microscopy

Journal of the American Chemical Society

Volumn 124, Issue 39, 2002, Pages 11764-11770

  Leng, Yongsheng ^a,b,c   Jiang, Shaoyi ^a  

^a University of Washington   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CHEMICAL FORCE MICROSCOPE;

FRICTION; HYDROGEN BONDS; MONOLAYERS; RELAXATION PROCESSES; SUBSTRATES;

ADHESION;

ADHESION; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CHEMICAL FORCE MICROSCOPY; CONTACT ANGLE; ENERGY; FORCE; FRICTION; HYDROGEN BOND; HYDROPHILICITY; HYDROPHOBICITY; MOLECULAR DYNAMICS; MOLECULAR MODEL; ROOM TEMPERATURE; SIMULATION; SURFACE PROPERTY;

EID: 0037009969     PISSN: 00027863     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/ja026274z     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. (a) Noy, A.; Frisbie, C. D.; Rozsnyai, L. F.; Wrighton, M. S.; Lieber, C. M. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 7943.
2. (b) Noy, A.; Vezenov, D. V.; Lieber, C. M. Annu. Rev. Mater. Sci. 1997, 27, 381.
3. Thomas, R. C.; Houston, J. E.; Crooks, R. M.; Kim, T.; Michalske, T. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1995, 117, 3830.
4. Green, J.-B. D.; McDermott, M. T.; Porter, M. D.; Siperko, L. M. J. Phys. Chem. 1995, 99, 10960.
5. van der Vegte, E. W.; Hadziioannou, G. Langmuir 1997, 13, 4357.
6. Sinniah, S. K.; Steel, A. B.; Miller, C. J.; Reutt-Robey, J. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1996, 118, 8925.
7. Williams, J. M.; Han, T. J.; Beebe, T. P., Jr. Langmuir 1996, 12, 1291.
8. Wei, Z. Q.; Wang, C.; Zhu, C. F.; Zhou, C. Q.; Xu, B.; Bai, C. L. Surf. Sci. 2000, 459, 401.
9. (a) Skulason, H.; Frisbie, C. D. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 9750.
10. (b) Skulason, H.; Frisbie, C. D. Langmuir 2000, 16, 6294.
11. (a) Florin, H.; Moy, V. T.; Gaub, H. E. Science 1994, 264, 415.
12. (b) Grandbois, M.; Beyer, M.; Rief, M.; Clausen-Schaumann, H.; Gaub, H. E. Science 1999, 283, 1727.
13. Glosli, J. N.; McClelland, G. M. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1993, 70, 1960.
14. (a) Tupper, K. J.; Colton, R. J.; Brenner, D. W. Langmuir 1994, 10, 2041.
15. (b) Tupper, K. J.; Brenner, D. W. Thin Solid Films 1994, 253, 185.
16. (a) Mikulski, P. T.; Harrison, J. A. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2001, 123, 6873.
17. (b) Mikulski, P. T.; Harrison, J. A. Tribol. Lett. 2001, 10, 29.
18. Baljon, A. R. C.; Robbins, M. O. Science 1996, 271, 482.
19. Leng, Y. S.; Jiang, S. J. Chem. Phys. 2000, 113, 8800.
20. Leng, Y. S.; Jiang, S. Phys. Rev. B 2001, 63, 193406.
21. Ercolessi, F.; Parrinello, M.; Tosatti, E. Philos. Mag. A 1988, 58, 213.
22. Luedtke, W. D.; Landman, U. J. Phys. Chem. B 1998, 102, 6566.
23. Hautman, J.; Klein, M. L. J. Chem. Phys. 1989, 91, 4994.
24. Hautman, J.; Bareman, J. P.; Mar, W.; Klein, M. L. J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1991, 87, 2031.
25. Andersen, H. C. J. Comput. Phys. 1983, 52, 24.
26. Mahaffy, R.; Bhatia, R.; Garrison, B. J. J. Phys. Chem. B 1997, 101, 771.
27. 18 using the geometric mean method.
28. Jorgensen, W. L. J. Phys. Chem. 1986, 90, 1276.
29. 26.27 show that the fcc 3-fold hollow site is energetically favorable over the hcp site by 1 kcal/ mol. However, this difference should not have much effect on the calculated CFM force-distance curves.
30. Sellers, H.; Ulman, A.; Shnidman, Y.; Eilers, J. E. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1993, 115, 9389.
31. Beardmore, K. M.; Kress, J. D.; Gronbech-Jensen, N.; Bishop, A. R. Chem. Phys. Lett. 1998, 286, 40.
32. Gronbeck, H.; Curioni, A.; Andreoni, W. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2000, 122, 3839.
33. van Gunsteren, W. F.; Berendsen, H. J. C. Mol. Phys. 1982, 45, 637.
34. For constant-force scanning, eq 3 is given in ref 14.
35. M in Figures 2 and 4.
36. 1/3 = 2.2, which is in the JKR range (μ > 1.0). In CFM experiments, since the apparatus has a finite stiffness, the unstable pull-off point will shift slightly relative to the JKR unstable point (soft machine with load control) (see: Greenwood, J. A. Proc. R. Soc. London A 1997, 453, 1277). Therefore, eq 8 still holds.
37. 1/3 = 2.2, which is in the JKR range (μ > 1.0). In CFM experiments, since the apparatus has a finite stiffness, the unstable pull-off point will shift slightly relative to the JKR unstable point (soft machine with load control) (see: Greenwood, J. A. Proc. R. Soc. London A 1997, 453, 1277). Therefore, eq 8 still holds.
38. Johnson, K. L.; Greenwood, J. A. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1997, 192, 326.
39. 3 pair.
40. Binnig, G.; Quate, C. F.; Gerber, Ch. Phys. Rev. Lett. 1986, 56, 930.
41. 3-terminated SAM chains on the CFM tip by substrate SAM chains divided by the number of chains involved in interactions. In CFM experiments, total interactions are measured and divided by the estimated number of chains at the interface.
42. Similarly, the calculated mean single-molecule force for the OH/OH pair is the total force, i.e., the sum of van der Waals and hydrogen-bonding forces, exerted on SAMs on the CFM tip by substrate SAM chains.
43. Briscoe, B. J.; Evans, D. C. B. Proc. R. Soc. London A 1982, 380, 389.
44. Bowden, F. P.; Tabor, D. The Friction and Lubrication of Solids; Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1958.
45. He, G.; Muser, M. H.; Robbins, M. O. Science 1999, 284, 1650.