How dry are dried samples? Water adsorption measured by STM

When operating scanning probe microscopes, like STM or AFM, under ambient conditions, the presence of water on the sample and the tip always plays an important role. The water not only influences the structure of the sample itself, but also the imaging process; in the case of the STM using a wet etched w‐tip, by interfering with the electron transfer process, and in the case of the AFM, due to the capillary forces in the micro Newton range that dominate the tip surface interaction forces. In this paper, the distribution and the amount of adsorbed water on different surfaces is investigated with the help of the STM, which can provide information by imaging and by current/distance spectroscopy. Hydrophilic and hydrophobic surfaces like titanium, gold, and graphite were studied at a relative humidity between 10 and 90%. Under very dry conditions with relative humidity below 15%, the presence of water was only detectable by the longer decay length of the measured current with distance compared to samples prepared in UHV completely free of water. At less dry conditions on gold surfaces, water was found as droplets. With increasing humidity, the quantity and the size of these droplets increased until the whole surface became covered with water. Above 55% humidity, the thickness of the water film increased with increasing humidity up to several 10 nm. On titanium and graphite, water was always present in the form of closed layers growing in thickness with increasing humidity. Microsc. Res. Tech. 44:327–338, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

[1]  R. Guckenberger,et al.  STM on Wet Insulators: Electrochemistry or Tunneling? , 1995, Science.

[2]  M. Salmeron,et al.  Imaging the Condensation and Evaporation of Molecularly Thin Films of Water with Nanometer Resolution , 1995, Science.

[3]  R. Wepf,et al.  TEM moiré patterns explain STM images of bacteriophage T5 tails. , 1997, Ultramicroscopy.

[4]  M. Davies,et al.  STM of Insulators with the Probe in Contact with an Aqueous Layer , 1997 .

[5]  G. Binnig,et al.  Imaging of cell membraneous and cytoskeletal structures with a scanning tunneling microscope , 1989, FEBS letters.

[6]  Berthé,et al.  Coulomb barriers and adsorbate effects in scanning tunneling microscopy. , 1991, Physical Review B (Condensed Matter).

[7]  J. Ruppersberg,et al.  Imaging of cell membrane proteins with a scanning tunneling microscope , 1991 .

[8]  J. Halbritter,et al.  Tunnel channels, charge transfer, and imaging mechanisms in scanning tunneling microscopy , 1995 .

[9]  Electron tunneling across an interfacial water layer inside an STM junction: tunneling distance, barrier height and water polarization effect , 1998 .

[10]  Stephan Herminghaus,et al.  Imaging of droplets of aqueous solutions by tapping-mode scanning force microscopy , 1997 .

[11]  Gregor Cevc,et al.  Scanning tunneling microscopy based on the conductivity of surface adsorbed water. Charge transfer between tip and sample via electrochemistry in a water meniscus or via tunneling , 1996 .

[12]  A. Berg,et al.  Characterization of tungsten tips for STM by SEM/AES/XPS , 1991 .

[13]  L. Nd Resistance of a one-atom contact in the scanning tunneling microscope. , 1987 .

[14]  P. Russell,et al.  Tip–sample forces in scanning probe microscopy in air and vacuum , 1992 .

[15]  Xudong Xiao,et al.  Scanning polarization force microscopy: A technique for imaging liquids and weakly adsorbed layers , 1995 .

[16]  J. Hörber,et al.  Approaching microtubule structure with the scanning tunneling microscope (STM). , 1994, Journal of cell science.