This search combines search strings from the content search (i.e. "Full Text", "Author", "Title", "Abstract", or "Keywords") with "Article Type" and "Publication Date Range" using the AND operator.
Beilstein J. Nanotechnol. 2018, 9, 2999–3012, doi:10.3762/bjnano.9.279
Figure 1: Interphase detection, approach 1: schematic representation of the samples to be compared, and metho...
Figure 2: Approach 1 (PS + 100 nm Al2O3 and PS + 100 nm Al2O3 + PVAc samples): (a) average topography profile...
Figure 3: Interphase detection, approach 2: schematic representation of the samples to be compared, and metho...
Figure 4: Approach 2: EFM images of PS + 50nmSiO2 (upper) and PS + 100 nm Al2O3 + 50 nm SiO2 (middle panel) s...
Figure 5: The three steps of approach 3: compared samples and methodologies.
Figure 6: Tip calibration using the signal vs z curve. Experimental data fit simulations (tip radius of 29 nm...
Figure 7: PS calibration – average cross-sectional profiles measured using a typical reference PS sample. (a)...
Figure 8: Approach 3 (step A) PS + 100 nm Al2O3 and PS + 100 nm SiO2 samples: (a) Average topography profiles...
Figure 9: Approach 3 (step B) PS + 50 nm Al2O3 + 50 nm SiO2 and PS + 100 nm SiO2 samples: (a) Average topogra...
Figure 10: Approach 3 - Step C (PS + 50 nm SiO2 + 50 nm Al2O3 and PS + 100 nm Al2O3 samples). a) Average topog...
Figure 11: Typical simulation of the electric field map obtained with a 2D axisymmetric model of the EFM tip a...