4.6 Article

Modeling the Interaction between AFM Tips and Pinned Surface Nanobubbles

期刊

LANGMUIR
卷 32, 期 3, 页码 751-758

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b04162

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21276007, 91434204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although the morphology of surface nano bubbles has been studied widely with different AFM modes,AFM images may not reflect the real shapes of the nanobubbles due to AFM tip-nanobubble interactions. In addition, the interplay between surface nanobubble deformation and induced capillary force has not been well understood in this context. In our work we used constraint lattice density functional theory to investigate the interaction between AFM tips and pinned surface nanobubbles systematically, especially concentrating on the effects of tip hydrophilicity and shape. For a hydrophilic tip contacting a nanobubble, its hydrophilic nature facilitates its departure from the bubble surface, displaying a weak and intermediate-range attraction. However, when the tip squeezes the nanobubble during the approach process, the nanobubble shows an elastic effect that prevents the tip from penetrating the bubble, leading to a strong nanobubble deformation and repulsive interactions. On the contrary, a hydrophobic tip can easily pierce the vapor-liquid interface of the nanobubble during the approach process, leading to the disappearance of the repulsive force. In the retraction process, however, the adhesion between the tip and the nanobubble leads to a much stronger lengthening effect on nanobubble deformation and a strong long-range attractive force. The trends of force evolution from our simulations agree qualitatively well with recent experimental AFM observations. This favorable agreement demonstrates that our model catches the main intergradient of tip-nanobubble interactions for pinned surface nanobubbles and may therefore provide important insight into how to design minimally invasive AFM experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据