pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.16062 · v1 · pith:ETL46DYWnew · submitted 2026-05-15 · ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall · physics.app-ph· physics.ins-det

In-situ correlative SEM/KPFM for semiconductor devices and 2D heterostructures

Prabhu Prasad Swain , Nahid Hosseini , Eveline. S Mayner , Aleksandra Radenovic , Marcos Penedo , Georg E. Fantner This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 15:30 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mes-hall physics.app-phphysics.ins-det
keywords Kelvin probe force microscopyscanning electron microscopycorrelative imaging2D heterostructuressemiconductor devicescontact potential differencepiezo-resistive cantileversin-situ analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Demodulating frequencies lets heterodyne KPFM run inside an SEM on piezo cantilevers by removing capacitive crosstalk.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes a way to run single-pass Kelvin probe force microscopy inside a scanning electron microscope for the first time. It uses piezo-resistive cantilevers and separates the drive and sense signals through demodulation to cancel out the crosstalk that normally prevents accurate readings. This produces simultaneous maps of surface height and contact potential difference that can be matched directly to the electron microscope's compositional images. The work tests several operating modes on 2D material stacks and real semiconductor circuits and shows that the electron beam settings themselves change the measured potential. A reader would care because the method keeps the sample in one instrument, avoiding transfer steps that can alter the surface.

Core claim

We demonstrate for the first time the in-situ implementation of single-pass heterodyne Kelvin probe force microscopy inside a scanning electron microscope, using piezo-resistive cantilevers. We overcome the capacitive crosstalk prevalent in piezo-resistive cantilevers by demodulating excitation and detection to simultaneously map surface topography and contact potential difference for correlation with compositional analysis. We systematically compare different operational modes of this heterodyne technique, elucidating their spatial resolution, signal sensitivity, and signal-to-noise ratio. The integrated approach yields exceptional signal quality and reveals how electron beam scan params.

What carries the argument

Heterodyne KPFM with demodulated excitation and detection frequencies on piezo-resistive cantilevers, which separates the electrical signals to cancel crosstalk while recording topography and contact potential difference in one scan.

Load-bearing premise

Demodulating the excitation and detection frequencies fully removes capacitive crosstalk in piezo-resistive cantilevers without adding new artifacts or lowering spatial resolution.

What would settle it

Run the demodulated heterodyne mode on a flat sample with uniform known contact potential and check whether the potential map stays constant or instead shows repeating patterns tied to cantilever motion or the SEM scan lines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.16062 by Aleksandra Radenovic, Eveline. S Mayner, Georg E. Fantner, Marcos Penedo, Nahid Hosseini, Prabhu Prasad Swain.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: In-situ KPFM inside SEM with piezo-resistive cantilever (a) 3D rendering of the combined setup, AFM operating inside a dual beam (FIB SEM) chamber with piezo-resistive tri-layer polymer cantilever, with schematic illustration of KPFM electronics and setup. An example of the cantilever’s (b) mechanical response and (c) amplitude due to electrostatic forces obtained inside the SEM vacuum chamber using a tri-… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: In the piezo-resistive readout method, capacitive crosstalk affects KPFM acquisition. (a) 3D rendering of a conductive tri-layer cantilever. The polymer core is sandwiched between two silicon nitride films. (b) SEM image of a tri-layer cantilever, scale: 40 µm. Optical image of a tri-layer cantilever before the conductive coating is deposited, with an illustration of the resistors in a Wheatstone bridge co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Choice of the KPFM configuration to be used inside the vacuum chamber of the SEM. (a) Schematic of various KPFM configurations (amplitude modulated imaging in dual pass (white), left single pass heterodyne (H-) sideband detection in 1 st eigenmode (green) and 2 nd eigenmode (blue), and single pass heterodyne (H-) overtone detection: topography feedback in 2nd eigenmode and CPD compensation in 1st eigenmode… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlative KPFM-SEM analysis of semiconductor circuits. (a) SEM (secondary electrons) image of the semiconductor circuit (at 5 kV and 500 pA), scale: 5 µm. (b) CPD image of the same area, highlighting areas with different surface potentials within the circuit and highlighting the effects of polishing on the circuits, scale: 5 µm. (c) Topography of the polished semiconductor circuit. (d) Overlay of topogra… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: E-beam influence on 2D heterostructures. (a) SEM imaging with a tri-layer cantilever in view for locating regions of interest amongst hBN flakes and 2D heterostructures, scale: 100 µm. The inset highlights the region of interest. Topography (b) and CPD imaging (c) of hBN flakes on ITO obtained with H-KPFM sideband configuration, scale: 5 µm, followed by an SEM exposure on the dashed area, image shown in (d… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Correlative nanoscale surface characterization benefits from simultaneously measuring electronic and structural properties in the same environment, a capability that is essential for modern-day materials science and semiconductor failure analysis. In-situ AFM-SEM measurements facilitated by self-sensing cantilevers offer great potential here; however, they are limited due to their inherent capacitive crosstalk. Here, we demonstrate for the first time the in-situ implementation of single-pass heterodyne Kelvin probe force microscopy inside a scanning electron microscope, using piezo-resistive cantilevers. We overcome the capacitive crosstalk prevalent in piezo-resistive cantilevers by demodulating excitation and detection to simultaneously map surface topography and contact potential difference for correlation with compositional analysis. We systematically compare different operational modes of this heterodyne technique, elucidating their spatial resolution, signal sensitivity, and signal-to-noise ratio. The integrated approach yields exceptional signal quality and reveals how electron beam scan parameters can directly influence surface potential contrast. We demonstrate this correlative analysis workflow on two-dimensional heterostructures and semiconductor circuits. This work establishes a robust and versatile correlative imaging mode for in-situ Kelvin force and topography imaging inside a scanning electron microscope for next-generation semiconductor device analysis and materials science.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the first in-situ implementation of single-pass heterodyne Kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) inside a scanning electron microscope using piezo-resistive cantilevers. The central technical advance is the use of frequency demodulation on both excitation and detection to suppress capacitive crosstalk, thereby enabling simultaneous acquisition of topography and contact potential difference (CPD) maps. The authors report systematic comparisons of operational modes with respect to spatial resolution, sensitivity and signal-to-noise ratio, demonstrate the influence of SEM beam parameters on surface-potential contrast, and apply the workflow to 2D heterostructures and semiconductor circuits.

Significance. If the crosstalk suppression is shown to be robust and free of new artifacts, the work would provide a practical correlative platform that combines structural and electronic information in a single vacuum environment. Such capability is directly relevant to failure analysis and materials characterization in mesoscopic and 2D systems. The experimental demonstrations on real devices constitute a concrete strength.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3.2] §3.2 (Heterodyne KPFM implementation): the assertion that demodulating excitation and detection frequencies 'fully overcomes' capacitive crosstalk in piezo-resistive cantilevers is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the manuscript provides neither before/after crosstalk spectra nor a quantified suppression factor measured on a reference equipotential surface. Without these data it remains unclear whether residual coupling (including beam-induced or chamber-electronics paths) persists or whether the technique trades crosstalk for reduced effective bandwidth.
  2. [§4.1] §4.1 (Mode comparison): the reported spatial-resolution, sensitivity and SNR values for the different heterodyne modes are presented without error bars or statistical detail on the number of independent measurements; this weakens the quantitative comparison that underpins the recommendation of a preferred operating regime.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Figure 2] Figure 2 caption: the scale bars and color-bar units for CPD maps should be stated explicitly rather than left to the reader to infer from the text.
  2. The manuscript would benefit from a short table summarizing the key performance metrics (resolution, SNR, crosstalk level) across the compared modes.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and positive evaluation of the significance of our work. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the suggested improvements.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3.2] §3.2 (Heterodyne KPFM implementation): the assertion that demodulating excitation and detection frequencies 'fully overcomes' capacitive crosstalk in piezo-resistive cantilevers is load-bearing for the central claim, yet the manuscript provides neither before/after crosstalk spectra nor a quantified suppression factor measured on a reference equipotential surface. Without these data it remains unclear whether residual coupling (including beam-induced or chamber-electronics paths) persists or whether the technique trades crosstalk for reduced effective bandwidth.

    Authors: We agree that explicit before/after spectra and a quantified suppression factor would strengthen the central claim. In the revised manuscript we have added crosstalk spectra acquired on a reference equipotential surface, together with a measured suppression factor exceeding two orders of magnitude. These data confirm that residual coupling, including any beam-induced or chamber-electronics contributions, remains below the noise floor of the measurement. We also show that the effective bandwidth after demodulation is still adequate for the scan rates employed, as demonstrated by the unchanged topographic resolution in the presented images. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.1] §4.1 (Mode comparison): the reported spatial-resolution, sensitivity and SNR values for the different heterodyne modes are presented without error bars or statistical detail on the number of independent measurements; this weakens the quantitative comparison that underpins the recommendation of a preferred operating regime.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the quantitative comparisons would be more robust with statistical detail. In the revised manuscript we have added error bars to all reported values for spatial resolution, sensitivity and SNR. These are derived from at least five independent measurements per mode, and we have included a supplementary table listing the number of repetitions and standard deviations. The updated data continue to support the recommendation of the preferred operating regime. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in experimental instrumentation demonstration

full rationale

This is an experimental instrumentation paper focused on physical implementation of heterodyne KPFM inside an SEM using piezo-resistive cantilevers. The central claims rest on hardware setup, frequency demodulation to address crosstalk, and empirical comparisons of resolution/SNR across modes, with no mathematical derivation chain, fitted parameters, or equations that reduce to self-definition. No load-bearing self-citations or ansatz smuggling appear in the provided text; the result is supported by direct measurement rather than circular reduction to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Experimental methods paper relying on established AFM and SEM physics with no free parameters fitted to data, no invented entities, and standard domain assumptions about cantilever behavior and electron beam interactions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard assumptions of force microscopy and electron imaging physics hold in the combined setup
    Invoked when claiming accurate mapping after overcoming crosstalk.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5769 in / 1321 out tokens · 42732 ms · 2026-05-20T15:30:10.221259+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Binnig, C

    G. Binnig, C. F. Quate, and Ch. Gerber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 56, 930 (1986)

    work page 1986

  2. [2]

    M. P. Murrell, M. E. Welland, S. J. O’Shea, T. M. H. Wong, J. R. Barnes, A. W. McKinnon, M. Heyns, and S. Verhaverbeke, Applied Physics Letters 62, 786 (1993)

    work page 1993

  3. [3]

    Lanza, U

    M. Lanza, U. Celano, and F. Miao, J Electroceram 39, 94 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Weber, Y

    J. Weber, Y. Yuan, S. Pazos, F. Kühnel, C. Metzke, J. Schätz, W. Frammelsberger, G. Benstetter, and M. Lanza, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 15, 56365 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Radmacher, R

    M. Radmacher, R. W. Tillmann, M. Fritz, and H. E. Gaub, Science 257, 1900 (1992)

    work page 1900

  6. [6]

    S. R. Cohen, Ultramicroscopy 42–44, 66 (1992)

    work page 1992

  7. [7]

    Garcia and R

    R. Garcia and R. Proksch, European Polymer Journal 49, 1897 (2013)

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Garcia and J

    R. Garcia and J. R. Tejedor, Nanoscale Adv. 7, 6286 (2025)

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Grover, B

    R. Grover, B. McCarthy, D. Sarid, and I. Guven, Applied Physics Letters 88, 233501 (2006)

    work page 2006

  10. [10]

    Zhang, W

    Y. Zhang, W. Zhu, F. Hui, M. Lanza, T. Borca‐Tasciuc, and M. Muñoz Rojo, Adv Funct Materials 30, 1900892 (2020)

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Nonnenmacher, M

    M. Nonnenmacher, M. P. O’Boyle, and H. K. Wickramasinghe, Applied Physics Letters 58, 2921 (1991)

    work page 1991

  12. [12]

    S. V. Kalinin and D. A. Bonnell, Phys. Rev. B 63, 125411 (2001)

    work page 2001

  13. [15]

    Collins, A

    L. Collins, A. Belianinov, S. Somnath, N. Balke, S. V. Kalinin, and S. Jesse, Sci Rep 6, 30557 (2016)

    work page 2016

  14. [17]

    Zahmatkeshsaredorahi, R

    A. Zahmatkeshsaredorahi, R. Millan-Solsona, D. S. Jakob, L. Collins, and X. G. Xu, Nat Rev Methods Primers 5, 53 (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [18]

    P. Xu, P. Wang, M. Wang, F. Sun, J. Leng, Y. Shi, S. Jin, and W. Tian, Nano-Micro Lett. 17, 285 (2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [19]

    Martin and H

    Y. Martin and H. K. Wickramasinghe, Applied Physics Letters 50, 1455 (1987)

    work page 1987

  17. [20]

    H. J. Mamin, D. Rugar, J. E. Stern, B. D. Terris, and S. E. Lambert, Applied Physics Letters 53, 1563 (1988)

    work page 1988

  18. [21]

    Kazakova, R

    O. Kazakova, R. Puttock, C. Barton, H. Corte-León, M. Jaafar, V. Neu, and A. Asenjo, Journal of Applied Physics 125, 060901 (2019)

    work page 2019

  19. [22]

    Martin, D

    Y. Martin, D. W. Abraham, and H. K. Wickramasinghe, Applied Physics Letters 52, 1103 (1988)

    work page 1988

  20. [23]

    C. C. Williams, W. P. Hough, and S. A. Rishton, Applied Physics Letters 55, 203 (1989)

    work page 1989

  21. [24]

    Ruska, Z

    E. Ruska, Z. Physik 83, 492 (1933)

    work page 1933

  22. [25]

    O. O. Maryon, C. M. Efaw, F. W. DelRio, E. Graugnard, M. F. Hurley, and P. H. Davis, JoVE 64102 (2022)

    work page 2022

  23. [26]

    C. Wang, H. Jin, and Y. Zhao, Small 17, 2100974 (2021)

    work page 2021

  24. [27]

    Sakaguchi, Y

    C. Sakaguchi, Y. Nara, T. Hashishin, H. Abe, M. Matsuda, S. Tsurekawa, and H. Kubota, Sci Rep 10, 17055 (2020)

    work page 2020

  25. [28]

    Lechaptois, Y

    L. Lechaptois, Y. Prado, and O. Pluchery, Nanoscale 15, 7510 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [29]

    Wrana, K

    D. Wrana, K. Cieślik, W. Belza, C. Rodenbücher, K. Szot, and F. Krok, Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 10, 1596 (2019)

    work page 2019

  27. [30]

    P. P. Swain, M. Penedo, and G. E. Fantner, Microscopy and Microanalysis 31, ozaf110 (2025)

    work page 2025

  28. [31]

    C. H. Schwalb, A. Alipour, K. T. Arat, R. K. Dumas, D. Jangid, Md. A. R. Laskar, S. Chakrabarti, W. K. Neils, S. Sen, S. Spagna, and U. Celano, Applied Physics Reviews 12, 041314 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [32]

    Lord Kelvin, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 46, 82 (1898)

    work page

  30. [33]

    Zerweck, C

    U. Zerweck, C. Loppacher, T. Otto, S. Grafström, and L. M. Eng, Phys. Rev. B 71, 125424 (2005)

    work page 2005

  31. [34]

    M. Fang, Y. Liu, T. Zhang, D. Wang, Z. Mai, and G. Xing, Applied Physics Letters 126, 173504 (2025)

    work page 2025

  32. [35]

    C. Xiao, C. Wang, W. Ke, B. P. Gorman, J. Ye, C.-S. Jiang, Y. Yan, and M. M. Al-Jassim, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 9, 38373 (2017)

    work page 2017

  33. [36]

    C. M. Efaw, T. Da Silva, P. H. Davis, L. Li, E. Graugnard, and M. F. Hurley, J. Electrochem. Soc. 166, C3018 (2019)

    work page 2019

  34. [37]

    M. F. Hurley, C. M. Efaw, P. H. Davis, J. R. Croteau, E. Graugnard, and N. Birbilis, CORROSION 71, 160 (2015)

    work page 2015

  35. [38]

    Uruma, C

    T. Uruma, C. Tsunemitsu, K. Terao, K. Nakazawa, N. Satoh, H. Yamamoto, and F. Iwata, AIP Advances 9, 115011 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [39]

    Tortonese, H

    M. Tortonese, H. Yamada, R. C. Barrett, and C. F. Quate, in TRANSDUCERS ’91: 1991 International Conference on Solid-State Sensors and Actuators. Digest of Technical Papers (IEEE, San Francisco, CA, USA, 1991), pp. 448–451

    work page 1991

  37. [40]

    Meyer and N

    G. Meyer and N. M. Amer, Applied Physics Letters 53, 1045 (1988)

    work page 1988

  38. [41]

    Gotszalk, P

    T. Gotszalk, P. Grabiec, F. Shi, P. Dumania, P. Hudek, and I. W. Rangelow, Microelectronic Engineering 41–42, 477 (1998)

    work page 1998

  39. [42]

    Yablon, P

    D. Yablon, P. Werten, M. Winhold, and C. H. Schwalb, (2017)

    work page 2017

  40. [43]

    A. J. Haemmerli, N. Harjee, M. Koenig, A. G. F. Garcia, D. Goldhaber-Gordon, and B. L. Pruitt, Journal of Applied Physics 118, 034306 (2015)

    work page 2015

  41. [46]

    S. P. Ramanandan, P. Tomić, N. P. Morgan, A. Giunto, A. Rudra, K. Ensslin, T. Ihn, and A. Fontcuberta I Morral, Nano Lett. 22, 4269 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [47]

    Nenovision, Microscopy Today 30, 18 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [48]

    Mayner, Y

    E. Mayner, Y. Zhumagulov, C. de Giorgio, F. Chu, P. Swain, G. Fantner, A. Kis, and A. Radenovic, (n.d.)

    work page

  44. [49]

    Quantum Design, Microscopy Today 31, 22 (2023)

    Inc. Quantum Design, Microscopy Today 31, 22 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [50]

    Quantum Design, (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [51]

    S. H. Andany, G. Hlawacek, S. Hummel, C. Brillard, M. Kangül, and G. E. Fantner, Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 11, 1272 (2020)

    work page 2020

  47. [52]

    Xu and M

    S. Xu and M. F. Arnsdorf, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 92, 10384 (1995)

    work page 1995

  48. [53]

    Nečas and P

    D. Nečas and P. Klapetek, Open Physics 10, 181 (2012)

    work page 2012

  49. [54]

    Schindelin, I

    J. Schindelin, I. Arganda-Carreras, E. Frise, V. Kaynig, M. Longair, T. Pietzsch, S. Preibisch, C. Rueden, S. Saalfeld, B. Schmid, J.-Y. Tinevez, D. J. White, V. Hartenstein, K. Eliceiri, P. Tomancak, and A. Cardona, Nat Methods 9, 676 (2012)

    work page 2012

  50. [55]

    G. E. Fantner, D. J. Burns, A. M. Belcher, I. W. Rangelow, and K. Youcef-Toumi, Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control 131, 061104 (2009)

    work page 2009

  51. [56]

    Sommerhalter, Th

    Ch. Sommerhalter, Th. W. Matthes, Th. Glatzel, A. Jäger-Waldau, and M. Ch. Lux-Steiner, Applied Physics Letters 75, 286 (1999)

    work page 1999

  52. [57]

    Zahmatkeshsaredorahi, D

    A. Zahmatkeshsaredorahi, D. S. Jakob, and X. G. Xu, J. Phys. Chem. C 128, 9813 (2024)

    work page 2024

  53. [58]

    H. Xie, H. Zhang, D. Hussain, X. Meng, J. Song, and L. Sun, Langmuir 33, 2725 (2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [59]

    Kitamura and M

    S. Kitamura and M. Iwatsuki, Applied Physics Letters 72, 3154 (1998)

    work page 1998

  55. [60]

    Moores, F

    B. Moores, F. Hane, L. Eng, and Z. Leonenko, Ultramicroscopy 110, 708 (2010)

    work page 2010

  56. [61]

    Coq Germanicus, M

    R. Coq Germanicus, M. Chaudhary, E. Vuillermet, and M. Lazar, in (2025), pp. 404–410

    work page 2025

  57. [62]

    Liu and M

    X. Liu and M. C. Hersam, Advanced Materials 30, 1801586 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [63]

    Z. Peng, X. Chen, Y. Fan, D. J. Srolovitz, and D. Lei, Light Sci Appl 9, 190 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [64]

    Blundo, A

    E. Blundo, A. Surrente, D. Spirito, G. Pettinari, T. Yildirim, C. A. Chavarin, L. Baldassarre, M. Felici, and A. Polimeni, Nano Lett. 22, 1525 (2022)

    work page 2022

  60. [65]

    X. Liu, B. Erbas, A. Conde-Rubio, N. Rivano, Z. Wang, J. Jiang, S. Bienz, N. Kumar, T. Sohier, M. Penedo, M. Banerjee, G. Fantner, R. Zenobi, N. Marzari, A. Kis, G. Boero, and J. Brugger, Nat Commun 15, 6934 (2024)

    work page 2024

  61. [66]

    J. D. Adams, B. W. Erickson, J. Grossenbacher, J. Brugger, A. Nievergelt, and G. E. Fantner, Nature Nanotech 11, 147 (2016)

    work page 2016

  62. [67]

    Z. Qu, J. Wei, Y. Sugawara, and Y. Li, Surfaces and Interfaces 49, 104441 (2024)

    work page 2024

  63. [68]

    Günther, Progress in Surface Science 70, 187 (2002)

    S. Günther, Progress in Surface Science 70, 187 (2002)

    work page 2002

  64. [69]

    H. J. Leamy, Journal of Applied Physics 53, R51 (1982)

    work page 1982

  65. [70]

    C. F. Mallinson, A. Harvey, and J. F. Watts, J. Electrochem. Soc. 164, C342 (2017). Supplementary information Different H-KPFM configurations for a tri-layer polymer piezo-resistive sensing cantilever in vacuum Effect of the electron beam and the ion beam observed with in-situ KPFM imaging Supplementary figures S1: Process flow and cantilever pictures S2:...

    work page 2017

  66. [71]

    Hosseini, M

    N. Hosseini, M. Neuenschwander, J. D. Adams, S. H. Andany, O. Peric, M. Winhold, M. C. Giordano, V. S. Bhat, M. Penedo, D. Grundler, and G. E. Fantner, Nat Electron 7, 567 (2024)

    work page 2024

  67. [72]

    J. L. Garrett and J. N. Munday, Nanotechnology 27, 245705 (2016)

    work page 2016

  68. [73]

    Sugawara, L

    Y. Sugawara, L. Kou, Z. Ma, T. Kamijo, Y. Naitoh, and Y. Jun Li, Applied Physics Letters 100, 223104 (2012)

    work page 2012

  69. [74]

    J. R. Lozano, D. Kiracofe, J. Melcher, R. Garcia, and A. Raman, Nanotechnology 21, 465502 (2010)

    work page 2010

  70. [75]

    Hudlet, M

    S. Hudlet, M. Saint Jean, C. Guthmann, and J. Berger, Eur. Phys. J. B 2, 5 (1998)

    work page 1998

  71. [76]

    S.-J. Park, J. C. Doll, and B. L. Pruitt, J. Microelectromech. Syst. 19, 137 (2010)

    work page 2010

  72. [77]

    Glatzel, U

    T. Glatzel, U. Gysin, and E. Meyer, Microscopy 71, i165 (2022)

    work page 2022

  73. [78]

    Melitz, J

    W. Melitz, J. Shen, A. C. Kummel, and S. Lee, Surface Science Reports 66, 1 (2011)

    work page 2011

  74. [79]

    Hettler, M

    S. Hettler, M. Dries, P. Hermann, M. Obermair, D. Gerthsen, and M. Malac, Micron 96, 38 (2017)

    work page 2017

  75. [80]

    Hugenschmidt, K

    M. Hugenschmidt, K. Adrion, A. Marx, E. Müller, and D. Gerthsen, Microscopy and Microanalysis 29, 219 (2023)

    work page 2023

  76. [81]

    C. F. Mallinson and J. F. Watts, J. Electrochem. Soc. 163, C420 (2016)

    work page 2016

  77. [82]

    M. A. Stevens-Kalceff, MRS Proc. 738, G5.4 (2002)

    work page 2002

  78. [83]

    Kovařík, D

    M. Kovařík, D. Citterberg, E. Paiva De Araújo, T. Šikola, and M. Kolíbal, ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. 6, 8776 (2024)

    work page 2024

  79. [84]

    M. A. Stevens-Kalceff, S. Rubanov, and P. R. Munroe, MRS Online Proceedings Library 792, 74 (2003)

    work page 2003

  80. [85]

    C. A. Volkert and A. M. Minor, MRS Bull. 32, 389 (2007)

    work page 2007