Introduction
Among advanced atomic force microscopy (AFM) measurement techniques, kelvin probe force microscopy (KPFM) stands out as the most widely adopted method due to its ability to deliver precise, quantitative data on a sample's surface potential and work function, making it invaluable for both scientific research and industrial applications1. Since its development, KPFM has enabled significant progress in fields such as semiconductor research2, photovoltaics3,4, and materials science5,6, where precise surface potential mapping is critical. Traditional KPFM methods, particularly amplitude-modulation KPFM (AM-KPFM), have provided a foundation for measuring the contact potential difference (CPD) between an AFM tip and the sample. However, as the demands for higher sensitivity and spatial resolution have increased, the limitations of AM-KPFM, including its susceptibility to noise and constrained resolution, have prompted the development of advanced techniques like Sideband KPFM7 and, more recently, Heterodyne KPFM8,9 (Table 1).
Heterodyne KPFM introduces a unique approach by using a heterodyne frequency detection scheme that shifts the KPFM signal away from the cantilever’s resonance frequency. This separation enhances sensitivity and spatial resolution while isolating the CPD signal from mechanical and background noise.
Table 1. Comparison between AM, Sideband and Heterodyne KPFMs. It outlines the key principles, sensitivity, and suitability of the three KPFM modes, highlighting their relative advantages and limitations
Fundamentals of Heterodyne KPFM
Heterodyne KPFM uses an offset frequency to create a heterodyne effect, where the detection frequency is the difference between the applied AC modulation (f1) and the cantilever’s resonance (f0). This heterodyne frequency separates the CPD signal from the resonance frequency and confines the detection to a frequency region free of mechanical noise. The heterodyne effect enables localized detection and clean signal isolation, significantly improving the sensitivity and spatial resolution of surface potential measurements.
To understand the distinctive advantages of Heterodyne KPFM, it is helpful to consider its predecessors. AM-KPFM, the most commonly used KPFM method, measures the electrostatic force at fixed frequency. While simple and widely accessible, AM-KPFM is limited by its noise susceptibility and lower spatial resolution, as it does not isolate the CPD signal from mechanical interference. Sideband KPFM, an intermediate method, detects the CPD signal at sideband frequencies, produced by the sum and difference of modulation and resonance frequencies, partially separating the signal from mechanical noise. This approach enhances sensitivity and resolution over AM-KPFM but still faces potential artifacts from overlapping frequency components10. By shifting the CPD signal entirely away from the resonance frequency, Heterodyne KPFM provides the highest noise immunity and spatial resolution among the KPFM techniques presented in the figure (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Frequency schemes for AM, Sideband, and Heterodyne KPFM. Here, f₀ indicates the cantilever’s resonant frequency. Blue and red arrows represent the excitation and detection frequencies of the AC bias, respectively.
A technical and performance evaluation of AM, Sideband, and Heterodyne KPFM techniques
The goal is to provide an evaluation of the three primary KPFM modes; AM, Sideband, and Heterodyne by examining their performance on common samples. This evaluation compares the modes in terms of their technical capabilities, emphasizing spatial resolution and noise sensitivity.
In AM-KPFM, the entire cantilever is influenced by long-range stray electrostatic forces, meaning the measurement is not confined to localized interactions at the tip apex. This sensitivity to long-range forces reduces spatial resolution, complicating the accurate probing of nanoscale surface features.
In contrast, Sideband and Heterodyne KPFM overcome this limitation by primarily detecting the electrostatic force gradient rather than the force itself. The force gradient is highly localized at the tip apex, responding sensitively to spatial variations within a much smaller region. This gradient-focused approach effectively minimizes the impact of long-range stray electrostatic forces, leading to improved spatial resolution and more precise surface potential measurements.
To experimentally verify these fundamental differences in electrostatic force detection, the same positions on F14H20 (F(CF₂)₁₄(CH₂)₂₀H) were measured and directly compared using AM, Sideband, and Heterodyne KPFM. With nanoscale structures measuring tens of nanometers, F14H20 exhibits distinct surface potential contrasts due to differences between its fluorinated (F-rich) and hydrogenated (H-rich) regions, making it an ideal test material for evaluating the performance of these KPFM techniques.
As shown in Figure 2, the measurements of F14H20 using the three KPFM modes revealed distinct differences in performance and spatial resolution.
AM-KPFM detected the overall surface potential but was significantly influenced by long-range electrostatic interactions. Due to its relatively low spatial resolution, the measured potential largely represented averaged values over broader regions, resulting in limited sensitivity to localized variations at the nanoscale.
In contrast, Sideband KPFM exhibited improved sensitivity and higher spatial resolution, enabling more detailed mapping of the surface potential. This mode clearly distinguished potential variations corresponding to the fluorinated (F-rich) and hydrogenated (H-rich) regions, effectively capturing localized electrostatic heterogeneity.
Among the three techniques, Heterodyne KPFM provided the highest precision and spatial resolution. By effectively isolating surface potential signals from background noise, Heterodyne KPFM produced highly accurate nanoscale maps, distinctly highlighting subtle potential differences and delivering superior image clarity.
Figure 2. Surface potential images of F14H20 measured by AM, Sideband, and Heterodyne KPFM. AM-KPFM exhibits limited spatial resolution and sensitivity, Sideband KPFM shows enhanced mapping of localized potential variations, and Heterodyne KPFM achieves the highest precision and resolution, accurately resolving nanoscale differences in surface potential.
Figure 3 presents an enlarged view of a smaller region of F14H20 highlighting the performance of each KPFM mode in resolving fine structural details. Consistent with the observations in Figure 2, Heterodyne KPFM demonstrates superior sensitivity and spatial resolution compared to the other modes. Notably, Heterodyne KPFM effectively resolves cluster boundaries that are not discernible using Sideband KPFM, demonstrating its capability for precise characterization of nanoscale features and subtle electrostatic signals. This distinction underscores its effectiveness for applications requiring high-resolution surface potential mapping in complex nanostructures.
Figure 3. Surface potential images of smaller region of F14H20. Heterodyne KPFM excels in resolving cluster boundaries and fine structural details in F14H20, surpassing the capabilities of Sideband KPFM and proving its effectiveness for high-resolution surface potential mapping in complex nanostructures.
Another example, in Figure 4, work function measurements of human hair samples using three different techniques of KPFM have demonstrated the superior performance of Heterodyne KPFM compared to AM-KPFM and Sideband KPFM, particularly in terms of image quality and the ability to accurately resolve surface potential variations. As expected, the quality and reliability of the measurements improved progressively from AM- to Sideband, and most significantly with Heterodyne KPFM.
AM-KPFM, while capable of providing basic work function information, suffers from limited spatial resolution and strong susceptibility to topographical crosstalk. These limitations lead to blurred features and potential artifacts, especially when analyzing complex biological surfaces such as hair with heterogeneous textures and morphologies.
Sideband KPFM improves upon this by probing the electrostatic force gradient, offering better spatial resolution and electrical sensitivity. However, Heterodyne KPFM offers a further distinct advantage by producing consistently high-quality work function maps. As a result, it enables a more detailed and reliable characterization of the surface electronic properties of human hair under identical measurement conditions.
Figure 4. Work function measurements of human hair using three KPFM techniques demonstrate that Heterodyne KPFM provides the most reliable and high-resolution characterization of surface potential variations, outperforming AM and Sideband KPFM in both image quality and accuracy.
Advantages of Heterodyne KPFM for high scan speeds
AM-KPFM, while relatively simple to implement but suffers from lower spatial resolution and can be susceptible to topography crosstalk, particularly limiting its performance at higher scan speeds. Sideband KPFM improves upon AM-KPFM by detecting the electrostatic force gradient, resulting in enhanced spatial resolution and electrical sensitivity. However, as both AM and Sideband KPFM operate near the cantilever's resonance frequency and rely on conventional feedback loop bandwidths, which can limit the ability to preserve image quality as scan speed increases.
In contrast, Heterodyne KPFM is engineered to decouple the limitations imposed by the cantilever's resonance frequency and the bandwidth of the feedback loops used in AM and Sideband KPFM enabling better separation of signal and noise 11. This approach takes advantage of enhanced signal clarity and higher Q-factors at the heterodyne frequency, allowing for faster acquisition of surface potential data with minimal loss in image quality. These characteristics make Heterodyne KPFM particularly advantageous for studying dynamic measurements or for high-throughput surface potential mapping12.
Figure 5 clearly demonstrates the scan-speed advantages of Heterodyne KPFM. Even at a scan speed of 1 Hz, Heterodyne KPFM delivers the highest image quality among the compared methods. This distinction becomes even more pronounced as the scan speed increases to 3 Hz. While AM-KPFM and Sideband KPFM encounter significant limitations at scan speeds above 3 Hz, Heterodyne KPFM continues to produce reliable results up to 10 Hz. While AM and Sideband KPFM experience limits in maintaining image quality at higher speeds, Heterodyne KPFM continues to deliver reliable results—up to 10 Hz—demonstrating its robustness and effectiveness under fast scanning conditions.
Figure 5. Scan speed comparison of KPFM Techniques on F14H20. At 1 Hz, Heterodyne KPFM shows the highest quality among the three modes. This advantage becomes more evident at 3 Hz, where AM-KPFM and Sideband KPFM show noticeable limitations in maintaining clarity and detail. Heterodyne KPFM continues to provide reliable and well-resolved results up to 10 Hz, with its image quality at this speed still surpassing that of AM and Sideband KPFM at 3 Hz, demonstrating its superior performance for high-speed scanning.
Conclusion
This application note provides a systematic evaluation of AM, sideband, and heterodyne KPFM techniques, highlighting the superior performance of Heterodyne KPFM across various criteria. Through the analysis of F14H20 with nanoscale features, significant differences in the modes’ spatial resolution, sensitivity, and response to electrostatic forces were highlighted. AM-KPFM, while simple and accessible, exhibited limitations in spatial resolution due to its sensitivity to long-range electrostatic forces, which led to less accurate mapping of nanoscale variations. Sideband KPFM demonstrated a marked improvement in resolution and sensitivity, effectively capturing localized potential differences and mitigating the influence of long-range interactions. However, the most substantial advancements were observed with Heterodyne KPFM, which consistently outperformed the other modes by providing the highest spatial resolution and sensitivity, clearly isolating surface potential signals from noise and resolving nanoscale details such as F14H20's cluster boundaries and human hair’s complex structures.
Furthermore, Heterodyne KPFM reveals significant advantages for high-speed surface potential mapping, providing superior image quality compared to AM and Sideband KPFM, especially at faster scan rates as evidenced in Figure 5. This capability makes it particularly well-suited for dynamic studies and high-throughput surface potential mapping.
In conclusion, Heterodyne KPFM stands out as the optimal technique for applications requiring precision, speed, and nanoscale resolution. Park Systems’ implementation of Heterodyne KPFM achieves this without the need for complex hardware modifications or external amplifiers, offering a robust and accessible solution for the advanced characterization of materials with intricate nanostructures and subtle electronic variations.
References
1. Nonnenmacher, M., o’Boyle, M. P., & Wickramasinghe, H. K. (1991). Kelvin probe force microscopy. Applied physics letters, 58(25), 2921-2923.
2. González-Izquierdo, P., Rochat, N., Charles, M., Sochacki, T., & Borowik, Ł. (2023). Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy under variable illumination: a novel technique to unveil charge carrier dynamics in GaN. The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 127(26), 12727-12734.
3. Bie, C., Meng, Z., He, B., Cheng, B., Liu, G., & Zhu, B. (2024). Exploring photogenerated charge carrier transfer in semiconductor/metal junctions using Kelvin probe force microscopy. Journal of Materials Science & Technology, 173, 11-19.
4. Chen, R., Ni, C., Zhu, J., Fan, F., & Li, C. (2024). Surface photovoltage microscopy for mapping charge separation on photocatalyst particles. Nature Protocols, 1-33.
5. Jaber, A. A., Abu Obaid, A., Advani, S. G., & Gillespie Jr, J. W. (2024). Feasibility of K elvin probe force microscopy to measure the surface potential decay of polystyrene film due to relative humidity. Journal of Applied Polymer Science, 141(10), e55058.
6. Xu, T., Venkatesan, S., Galipeau, D., & Qiao, Q. (2013). Study of polymer/ZnO nanostructure interfaces by Kelvin probe force microscopy. Solar energy materials and solar cells, 108, 246-251.
7. Zerweck, U., Loppacher, C., Otto, T., Grafström, S., & Eng, L. M. (2005). Accuracy and resolution limits of Kelvin probe force microscopy. Physical Review B—Condensed Matter and Materials Physics, 71(12), 125424.
8. Sugawara, Y., Kou, L., Ma, Z., Kamijo, T., Naitoh, Y., & Jun Li, Y. (2012). High potential sensitivity in heterodyne amplitude-modulation Kelvin probe force microscopy. Applied Physics Letters, 100(22).
9. Garrett, J. L., & Munday, J. N. (2016). Fast, high-resolution surface potential measurements in air with heterodyne Kelvin probe force microscopy. Nanotechnology, 27(24), 245705.
10. Ma, Z. M., Kou, L., Naitoh, Y., Li, Y. J., & Sugawara, Y. (2013). The stray capacitance effect in Kelvin probe force microscopy using FM, AM and heterodyne AM modes. Nanotechnology, 24(22), 225701.
11. Garrett, J. L., & Munday, J. N. (2016). Fast, high-resolution surface potential measurements in air with heterodyne Kelvin probe force microscopy. Nanotechnology, 27(24), 245705.
12. Checa, M., Fuhr, A. S., Sun, C., Vasudevan, R., Ziatdinov, M., Ivanov, I., ... & Collins, L. (2023). High-speed mapping of surface charge dynamics using sparse scanning Kelvin probe force microscopy. Nature Communications, 14(1), 7196.
