Quantitative comparison of two independent lateral force calibration techniques for the atomic force microscope

Two independent lateral-force calibration methods for the atomic force microscope (AFM)--the hammerhead (HH) technique and the diamagnetic lateral force calibrator (D-LFC)--are systematically compared and found to agree to within 5 % or less, but with precision limited to about 15 %, using four different tee-shaped HH reference probes. The limitations of each method, both of which offer independent yet feasible paths toward traceable accuracy, are discussed and investigated. We find that stiff cantilevers may produce inconsistent D-LFC values through the application of excessively high normal loads. In addition, D-LFC results vary when the method is implemented using different modes of AFM feedback control, constant height and constant force modes, where the latter is more consistent with the HH method and closer to typical experimental conditions. Specifically, for the D-LFC apparatus used here, calibration in constant height mode introduced errors up to 14 %. In constant force mode using a relatively stiff cantilever, we observed an ≈ 4 % systematic error per μN of applied load for loads ≤ 1 μN. The issue of excessive load typically emerges for cantilevers whose flexural spring constant is large compared with the normal spring constant of the D-LFC setup (such that relatively small cantilever flexural displacements produce relatively large loads). Overall, the HH method carries a larger uncertainty, which is dominated by uncertainty in measurement of the flexural spring constant of the HH cantilever as well as in the effective length dimension of the cantilever probe. The D-LFC method relies on fewer parameters and thus has fewer uncertainties associated with it. We thus show that it is the preferred method of the two, as long as care is taken to perform the calibration in constant force mode with low applied loads.