Published December 2011 | Version v1
Journal article

Interlaboratory round robin on cantilever calibration for AFM force spectroscopy

  • 1. Tumor Immunology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen (Netherlands)
  • 2. Scanning Probe Microscopy, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen (Netherlands)
  • 3. Kamerling Onnes Laboratory, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9504, 2300 RA Leiden (Netherlands)
  • 4. Agilent Technologies Austria GmbH, Altenbergerstr. 52, A-4040 Linz (Austria)
  • 5. Applied Physics, Ludwig-Maximilian-University Munich, Amalienstr. 54, 80799 München (Germany)
  • 6. Molecular Materials, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen (Netherlands)
  • 7. Dutch Polymer Institute, P.O. Box 902, 5600 AX Eindhoven (Netherlands)
  • 8. Materials Science and Technology of Polymers, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede (Netherlands)
  • 9. Molecular Nanofabrication, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede (Netherlands)

Description

Single-molecule force spectroscopy studies performed by Atomic Force Microscopes (AFMs) strongly rely on accurately determined cantilever spring constants. Hence, to calibrate cantilevers, a reliable calibration protocol is essential. Although the thermal noise method and the direct Sader method are frequently used for cantilever calibration, there is no consensus on the optimal calibration of soft and V-shaped cantilevers, especially those used in force spectroscopy. Therefore, in this study we aimed at establishing a commonly accepted approach to accurately calibrate compliant and V-shaped cantilevers. In a round robin experiment involving eight different laboratories we compared the thermal noise and the Sader method on ten commercial and custom-built AFMs. We found that spring constants of both rectangular and V-shaped cantilevers can accurately be determined with both methods, although the Sader method proved to be superior. Furthermore, we observed that simultaneous application of both methods on an AFM proved an accurate consistency check of the instrument and thus provides optimal and highly reproducible calibration. To illustrate the importance of optimal calibration, we show that for biological force spectroscopy studies, an erroneously calibrated cantilever can significantly affect the derived (bio)physical parameters. Taken together, our findings demonstrated that with the pre-established protocol described reliable spring constants can be obtained for different types of cantilevers. -- Highlights: ► A reliable calibration protocol for soft and V-shaped AFM cantilevers. ► A round robin experiment on ten AFMs involving eight different laboratories. ► Direct Sader method superior over the thermal noise method. ► Simultaneous application of both methods proves to be accurate consistency check. ► Importance of calibration for derived biophysical parameters in force spectroscopy.

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ultramic.2011.09.012

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.ultramic.2011.09.012;
PII
S0304-3991(11)00230-0;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Ultramicroscopy (Amsterdam)
Journal Volume
111
Journal Issue
12
Journal Page Range
p. 1659-1669
ISSN
0304-3991
CODEN
ULTRD6

INIS

Country of Publication
Netherlands
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
45025468
Subject category
S46: INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;
Descriptors DEI
ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY; CALIBRATION; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; INTERLABORATORY COMPARISONS; MEASURING METHODS; MOLECULES; NOISE; SPECTROSCOPY; SPRINGS
Descriptors DEC
EVALUATION; MACHINE PARTS; MICROSCOPY

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2011 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.