Enhanced mass sensing using torsional and lateral resonances in microcantilevers

Applied Physics Letters

Volumn 84, Issue 23, 2004, Pages 4638-4640

  Sharos, L B ^a   Raman, A ^a   Crittenden, S ^a   Reifenberger, R ^a  

^a PURDUE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LATERAL MODES; MASS SENSING; MASS SENSITIVITY; MICROCANTILEVER TECHNOLOGY;

ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; BOROSILICATE GLASS; FABRICATION; FINITE ELEMENT METHOD; MODAL ANALYSIS; OPTICAL MICROSCOPY; PHOTODETECTORS; SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS;

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS;

EID: 3042596280     PISSN: 00036951     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1063/1.1759379     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. G. Y. Chen, T. Thundat, E. A. Wachter, and R. J. Warmack, J. Appl. Phys. 77, 3618 (1995).
2. H. Jensenius, J. Thaysen, A. A. Rasmussen, L. H. Veje, O. Hansen, and A. Boisen, Appl. Phys. Lett. 76, 2615 (2000).
3. T. Thundat and L. Maya, Surf. Sci. 430, L546 (1999).
4. R. Raiteri, M. Grattarola, H. J. Butt, and P. Skladal, Sens. Actuators B 79, 115 (2001).
5. J. Fritz, M. K. Baller, H. P. Lang, H. Rothuizen, P. Vettiger, E. Meyer, H. Guntherodt, C. Gerber, and J. K. Gimzewski, Science 288, 316 (2000).
6. M. Su, S. Li, and V. P. Dravid, Appl. Phys. Lett. 82, 3562 (2003).
7. T. Ono, X. Li, H. Miyashita, and M. Esashi, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 74, 1240 (2003).
8. NSC12 microcantilever dimensions: Length ∼315 μm, width ∼35 μm, thickness ∼2 μm.
9. S. Prescesky, M. Parameswaran, A. Rawicz, R. F. B. Turner, and U. Reichl, Can. J. Phys. 70, 1178 (1992).
10. Borosilicate microspheres, purchased from Duke Scientific Corporation (Palo Alto, CA), have a certified mean diameter of 2 μm±0.5 μm, a standard deviation of 0.7 μm, a coefficient of variation of 35%, and a mass of approximately 10 pg. The microspheres were certified by a certificate of calibration traceable to the National Institute of Standards and Technology on October 10, 2001. www.dukescientific.com
11. 3, length = 316.06 μm, width varied linearly from fixed to free end 34-36.34 μm, thickness= 1.622 μm. The nominal spring constant for this cantilever is ∼0.2 N/m.
12. The percent difference between experimental and FE results: First bending=0.6%, second bending=7.3%, first torsion=16.1%, third bending=0.6%, first lateral=4%.
13. S. Zum, M. Hseih, G. Smith, D. Markus, M. Zang, G. Hughes, Y. Nam, M. Arik, and D. Polla, Smart Mater. Struct. 10, 252 (2001).
14. M. Reinstaedtler, U. Rabe, V. Scherer, J. A. Turner, and W. Arnold, Surf. Sci. 532, 1152 (2003).
15. N. C. Perkins and C. D. Mote, Jr., J. Sound Vib. 106, 451 (1986).
16. P. T. Chen and J. H. Ginsberg, J. Vibr. Acoust. 114, 141 (1992).
17. Note that the photodetector output is proportional not to the deflection, but rather the slope of the microcantilever at the laser spot location.
18. A side experiment conducted demonstrated that the spectrum peaks magnitude vary by up to two to three times when a bare microcantilever is repeatedly removed and replaced in the AFM. This is due to inevitable variation in cantilever chip orientation and the position of the laser spot.
19. The circle fit method calculates the Q factor of each mode based on the magnitude and phase of the response measured at all 1 Hz increments over the entire half magnitude bandwidth of the specific peak. It is significantly more accurate than the half-power method.
20. D. J. Ewins, Modal Testing: Theory, Practice, and Application, 2nd ed. (Research Studies Press Ltd., Baldock, Hertfordshire, England, 2000), pp. 306-318.
21. J. W. M. Chon, P. Mulvaney, and J. E. Sader, J. Appl. Phys. 87, 3978 (2000).
22. C. P. Green and J. E. Sader, J. Appl. Phys. 92, 6262 (2002).