[Spm] Re: Imaging of live osteoblast cells
Sangjin Kwon
kwonsj at gist.ac.kr
Sat Dec 20 09:39:47 EST 2008
Hello Rohit,
Since the plasma membrane of cell is very soft (in the papers, cell's Young modulus has been reported to be from a few kPa to a few hundred kPa differing from cell line), you should apply very small force on cell surface via tip. On the contrary, fixed cell's Young modulus is reported to be increased compared to live cell around 10 fold or or more. So imaging fixed cell is easier compared to live cell.
Since you used cantilever having spring constant of 0.06N/m, if assuming 1nm deflection of cantilever end when it contact with the cell surface, it will press cell with 60pN. And if the cantilever deflection increases with increasing set point (meaning PD's value is increasing compared to initial value due to more deflection angle of laser beam), the pressing force will be increased more. So considering the cell surface is very soft, you may set the setpoint as small as possible like mimimum setpoint which the feedback system can accept without instability.
Hope this would be helpful for solving your problem.
Sangjin Kwon
----------------------------------------------
Ph.D Student
Laser Engineering Lab.
Dept. of Mechatronics, Gwangju Institute of Science and Technology
1 Oryong-dong, Buk-gu, Gwangju 500-712, Korea(South)
Tel: +82-62-970-2402 / Fax: +82-62-970-2384/Mobile: +82-10-2616-7930
http://laser.gist.ac.kr / e-mail: kwonsj at gist.ac.kr
----------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: <spm-request at spmlist.di.com>
To: <spm at spmlist.di.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 6:33 PM
Subject: Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8
>
> Send Spm mailing list submissions to
> spm at spmlist.di.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.veeco.com/library/Community/Metrology_and_Instrumentation/SPM_User_Forum/index.aspx
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> spm-request at spmlist.di.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> spm-owner at spmlist.di.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Spm digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Imaging of live osteoblast cells (Dipak Paramanik)
> 2. Re: imaging of live osteoblast cells (Guillaume Lamour)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 19:38:11 +0530 (IST)
> From: Dipak Paramanik <dipak1205 at yahoo.co.in>
> Subject: [Spm] Re: Imaging of live osteoblast cells
> To: spm at spmlist.di.com
> Message-ID: <971982.74118.qm at web8601.mail.in.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi Rohit,
>
> Here are your answers,
>
> 1. You can use Tapping mode AFM to image the living cell. Actually tapping mode is designed for the purpose to image soft samples like living cells. This mode make very less damage to the surfaces as the tip does not stay in contact with surface. You can do tapping mode imaging in air as well as in liquid environment. First do the imaging with less amplitude set point (generally 1) and gradually increase the value to get a better image.
>
> 2. To measure the volume of the cell: you can measure the height and area of each cell
> in the image using imageJ software. Then accourding to the geometry ( cylidrcal or spherical ..etc) of the cell you aply simple formula to obtain the volume of the cell.
>
>
>
> Hope this would solve your problem
>
> good luck
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Dipak Paramanik
> Postdoctoral Scholar
> Atomic Beam Group
> Quantum Beam Center
> National Institute for Material Science
> 1-2-1 Sengen, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0047
> Japan
> Phone: 81-29-851-3354 ext 2978
> Personal homepage:
> http://www.iopb.res.in/~dipakpk
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 19/12/08, spm-request at spmlist.di.com <spm-request at spmlist.di.com> wrote:
> From: spm-request at spmlist.di.com <spm-request at spmlist.di.com>
> Subject: Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 7
> To: spm at spmlist.di.com
> Date: Friday, 19 December, 2008, 3:36 PM
>
> Send Spm mailing list submissions to
> spm at spmlist.di.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://www.veeco.com/library/Community/Metrology_and_Instrumentation/SPM_User_Forum/index.aspx
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> spm-request at spmlist.di.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> spm-owner at spmlist.di.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Spm digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6 (Rohit Khanna)
> 2. Mica surface charge (J. Xu)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:04:04 -0600
> From: "Rohit Khanna" <rkhanna.iitk at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Spm] Re: Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6
> To: spm at spmlist.di.com
> Message-ID:
> <d92a40270812181704x4f55a67cr5c990de853131252 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> I have two queries.
>
> 1. Imaging of live osteoblast cells (adherent cells).
> - i tried to image these cells using standard contact mode tip (V shape)
> with nominal radius of 20 nm, spring constant = 0.06N/m. Imaging of fixed
> cells on polystyrene substrate was quite easy to do both in air and liquid
> (using fluid cell).
>
> I could not image live cells, as tip while moving on the cell, actually
> shaked the plasma membrane quite a bit and after a few minutes, the cell got
> detached from the substrate.
>
> Can anybody suggest, what should be done...
>
> 2. How to calculate the cell volume from AFM height image.?
>
> Please give your suggestions.
>
> thank you very much.
>
> best,
>
> Rohit
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 3:56 AM, <spm-request at spmlist.di.com> wrote:
>
>> Send Spm mailing list submissions to
>> spm at spmlist.di.com
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>
>>
> http://www.veeco.com/library/Community/Metrology_and_Instrumentation/SPM_User_Forum/index.aspx
>>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> spm-request at spmlist.di.com
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> spm-owner at spmlist.di.com
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Spm digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. "Scanning Probe Microscopy-Principles and Practice"
>> University of Surrey: 12-16 January 2009 (P.Zhdan at surrey.ac.uk)
>> 2. RE: different deflection sensitivity in two phases (Sam Engler)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:08:38 -0000
>> From: <P.Zhdan at surrey.ac.uk>
>> Subject: [Spm] "Scanning Probe Microscopy-Principles and
> Practice"
>> University of Surrey: 12-16 January 2009
>> To: <spm at spmlist.di.com>
>> Cc: G.Moulton at surrey.ac.uk, J.Castle at surrey.ac.uk
>> Message-ID:
>> <
>> 5731AAFEB5E78E4ABBA68279A0FFE1810208E40E at EVS-EC1-NODE1.surrey.ac.uk>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> "Scanning Probe Microscopy-Principles and Practice" University
> of Surrey:
>> 12-16 January 2009
>>
>> The course aims to introduce the principles and practice of the different
>> forms of scanning probe microscopy (SPM). As an outcome, students should
>> understand how the surfaces of various materials can be characterised at
>> nanoscale resolution in terms of topography, friction, atom lattice
> spacing,
>> elastic modulus, conductivity and other physico-chemical properties. They
>> should be able to select the appropriate mode of SPM for the type of
>> characterisation required. They should be able to interpret the acquired
>> data.
>>
>> Web-link:
>>
> http://portal.surrey.ac.uk/portal/page?_pageid=822,1938733&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
>>
>> Dr. Peter A. Zhdan
>> Senior Research Fellow
>> Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences
>> Mail Stop A1
>> University of Surrey
>> Guildford, Surrey
>> GU2 7XH,
>> UK
>>
>> Tel +44 (0)1483 682448 (Office)
>> +44 (0)1483 682449 (Lab)
>> Fax +44 (0)1483 686291
>> Home Phone +44 (0)1483 574693
>> Mobile: +44 (0)79-6760-5736
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>
> http://spmlist.di.com/pipermail/spm/attachments/20081210/787719f6/attachment-0001.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:23:13 +0000
>> From: Sam Engler <smtygtyg at hotmail.com>
>> Subject: [Spm] RE: different deflection sensitivity in two phases
>> To: <spm at spmlist.di.com>
>> Message-ID: <BAY122-W47B7B0036225328A06231CD1F90 at phx.gbl>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>>
>> Hello, Everyone,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you very much for your comments, suggestions etc. In order to be
> sure
>> it's not the type of cantilever (SiN) I'm using, I
>> run experiments using a 20 times stiffer cantilever (Si). And again,
>> the slopes are still changing from phase C to phase A. I am sure the
>> laser spot was in the center, since there was such a small deflection.
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to clarify one thing: the slopes I referred were far from the
>> electrostatic repulsion region. It supposed to be the tip-mica contact
> (the
>> reason I called them deflection sensitivities). The slopes in phase A and
> B
>> are exactly the same as the calibrated delf sensitivity using freshly
>> cleaved mica, so I thought the SiN cantilevers were stiff enough. The
>> stiffness/bending elasticity of phase C was expected to be different than
> of
>> phase A/B. I do
>> obtain larger elastic moduli for phase C. However, I am not expecting
>> phase C is so stiff that can cause the slope changing, which seems to
> imply
>> that the stiffness of this soft fluid-like membrane is comparable to those
>> cantilevers. Maybe some of you have explained me clearly, but you see,
> I'm
>> still puzzled. So would you please kindly help me again?
>>
>> Sam,
>>
>>
>>
>> > Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:37:07 -0500
>> > From: spm-request at spmlist.di.com
>> > Subject: Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 3
>> > To: spm at spmlist.di.com
>> >
>> > Send Spm mailing list submissions to
>> > spm at spmlist.di.com
>> >
>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> >
>>
> http://www.veeco.com/library/Community/Metrology_and_Instrumentation/SPM_User_Forum/index.aspx
>> >
>> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> > spm-request at spmlist.di.com
>> >
>> > You can reach the person managing the list at
>> > spm-owner at spmlist.di.com
>> >
>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> > than "Re: Contents of Spm digest..."
>> >
>> >
>> > Today's Topics:
>> >
>> > 1. Re: different deflection sensitivity in two phases (Yang Gan)
>> >
>> >
>> >
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 1
>> > Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:12:06 +0800
>> > From: "Yang Gan" <ygan at hit.edu.cn>
>> > Subject: Re: [Spm] different deflection sensitivity in two phases
>> > To: <spm at spmlist.di.com>
>> > Cc: smtygtyg at hotmail.com
>> > Message-ID: <002501c954e4$28b13ab0$4df776ca at Lenov07231747>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
>> >
>> > Dear Sam,
>> >
>> > It is very likely that different phases are differing in their
> rigidity.
>> So you are observing different mechanical properties of phases! Thus, I do
>> not believe your problem is really a problem. It might lead to a new
>> direction of your research!
>> >
>> > Technically, you may calibrate the deflection sensitivity of the
> probe
>> and scanner by collecting force curves against a rigid substrate like
> glass
>> or silica. The deflection sensitivity should thus be fixed for following
>> measurements with your membrane samples only if you do not change the
> probe
>> and adjust the lasers. Otherwise, you will find varying sensitivity values
>> by errorly measuring it on soft samples.
>> >
>> > Please contact me offline for further discussions.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Yang
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Yang Gan
>> > Professor, PhD
>> > Department of Catalysis Science & Engineering (Prep.)
>> > School of Chemical Engineering & Technology
>> > Harbin Institute of Technology
>> > No.92, West Da-Zhi Street, Harbin
>> > Heilongjiang 150001
>> > P. R. China
>> > Tel: +86-451-86403239
>> > E-mail: ygan at hit.edu.cn
>> > Web: http://3www.hit.edu.cn/experts/prof.asp?id=1182
>> > Section editor: Chemistry Central Journal (CCJ) (indexed by ISI,
> PubMed
>> Central, Scopus, CAS and Google Scholar)
>> > Home page of CCJ: http://journal.chemistrycentral.com
>> >
>>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Message: 4
>> > Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:28:44 +0000
>> > From: Sam Engler <smtygtyg at hotmail.com>
>> > Subject: [Spm] different deflection sensitivity in two phases
>> > To: <spm at spmlist.di.com>
>> > Message-ID: <BAY119-W10DE244018FB1F05C3000AD1060 at phx.gbl>
>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hello Everyone,
>> >
>> > I have a multiple composition lipid membrane sample, which
>> phase-separated into 3 phases. During the force-displacement measurements,
>> the slopes of the f-d curves within phase C are different than the slopes
>> within phase A and B. I've tried different cantilevers and this is
>> consistent. My questions are (1) why the deflection sensitivity of the
>> cantilever is changing from one phase to another phase? (2) should I
> change
>> to stiffer cantilevers?
>> >
>> > Any comments will be appreciated.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Sam,
>> >
>> > Sam Engler, Ph.D
>> >
>> > -------------- next part --------------
>> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> > URL:
>>
> http://spmlist.di.com/pipermail/spm/attachments/20081203/3ec7cf91/attachment-0001.html
>> >
>> > ------------------------------
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Spm mailing list
>> > Spm at spmlist.di.com
>> >
>>
> http://www.veeco.com/library/community_type.php?type_id=2amp;sub_id=2amp;tech_sub_id=1
>> >
>> >
>> > End of Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 3
>> > **********************************
>>
>> _________________________________________________________________
>> You live life online. So we put Windows on the web.
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL:
>>
> http://spmlist.di.com/pipermail/spm/attachments/20081212/9222d0d8/attachment-0001.html
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Spm mailing list
>> Spm at spmlist.di.com
>>
>>
> http://www.veeco.com/library/community_type.php?type_id=2amp;sub_id=2amp;tech_sub_id=1
>>
>>
>> End of Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6
>> **********************************
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rohit Khanna
> PhD Student
> Biomaterials Research Group
> North Dakota State University
> Fargo, ND
> USA
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://spmlist.di.com/pipermail/spm/attachments/20081218/03bd1b88/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:46:15 -0500
> From: "J. Xu" <xxxuuu at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Spm] Mica surface charge
> To: spm at spmlist.di.com
> Message-ID:
> <6ff3f0e0812151346g7af4a2f9h630af3536c3b8b37 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> hi all.
>
> Anyone has experience with mica surface charge? (e.g. freshly peeled,
> positive or negative, is it stable/consistent)
>
> Some of my recent exp. shows it may be positively charged instead of
> previously believed to be negatively charged...
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Nanotech West Laboratory
> Center for Affordable Nanoengineering of Polymer Biomedical Devices
> Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering
> The Ohio State University
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://spmlist.di.com/pipermail/spm/attachments/20081215/8b3b0082/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spm mailing list
> Spm at spmlist.di.com
> http://www.veeco.com/library/community_type.php?type_id=2amp;sub_id=2amp;tech_sub_id=1
>
>
> End of Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 7
> **********************************
>
>
>
> Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Go to http://messenger.yahoo.com/invite/
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://spmlist.di.com/pipermail/spm/attachments/20081219/9c16058b/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 17:38:10 +0100
> From: Guillaume Lamour <guillaume.lamour at univ-paris5.fr>
> Subject: [Spm] Re: imaging of live osteoblast cells
> To: spm at spmlist.di.com
> Message-ID: <494BCDF2.8060407 at univ-paris5.fr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Rohit,
>
> Have you tried tapping mode? and maybe you could try to enhance the
> adhesion of your cells, using a biopolymer like poly-L-lysine to coat
> the polystyrene substrate.
>
> Good luck,
> Guillaume
>
>
>
> spm-request at spmlist.di.com a écrit :
>> Send Spm mailing list submissions to
>> spm at spmlist.di.com
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://www.veeco.com/library/Community/Metrology_and_Instrumentation/SPM_User_Forum/index.aspx
>>
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> spm-request at spmlist.di.com
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> spm-owner at spmlist.di.com
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Spm digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>> 1. Re: Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6 (Rohit Khanna)
>> 2. Mica surface charge (J. Xu)
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:04:04 -0600
>> From: "Rohit Khanna" <rkhanna.iitk at gmail.com>
>> Subject: [Spm] Re: Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6
>> To: spm at spmlist.di.com
>> Message-ID:
>> <d92a40270812181704x4f55a67cr5c990de853131252 at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> I have two queries.
>>
>> 1. Imaging of live osteoblast cells (adherent cells).
>> - i tried to image these cells using standard contact mode tip (V shape)
>> with nominal radius of 20 nm, spring constant = 0.06N/m. Imaging of fixed
>> cells on polystyrene substrate was quite easy to do both in air and liquid
>> (using fluid cell).
>>
>> I could not image live cells, as tip while moving on the cell, actually
>> shaked the plasma membrane quite a bit and after a few minutes, the cell got
>> detached from the substrate.
>>
>> Can anybody suggest, what should be done...
>>
>> 2. How to calculate the cell volume from AFM height image.?
>>
>> Please give your suggestions.
>>
>> thank you very much.
>>
>> best,
>>
>> Rohit
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 3:56 AM, <spm-request at spmlist.di.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Send Spm mailing list submissions to
>>> spm at spmlist.di.com
>>>
>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>
>>> http://www.veeco.com/library/Community/Metrology_and_Instrumentation/SPM_User_Forum/index.aspx
>>>
>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>> spm-request at spmlist.di.com
>>>
>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>> spm-owner at spmlist.di.com
>>>
>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>> than "Re: Contents of Spm digest..."
>>>
>>>
>>> Today's Topics:
>>>
>>> 1. "Scanning Probe Microscopy-Principles and Practice"
>>> University of Surrey: 12-16 January 2009 (P.Zhdan at surrey.ac.uk)
>>> 2. RE: different deflection sensitivity in two phases (Sam Engler)
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 1
>>> Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:08:38 -0000
>>> From: <P.Zhdan at surrey.ac.uk>
>>> Subject: [Spm] "Scanning Probe Microscopy-Principles and Practice"
>>> University of Surrey: 12-16 January 2009
>>> To: <spm at spmlist.di.com>
>>> Cc: G.Moulton at surrey.ac.uk, J.Castle at surrey.ac.uk
>>> Message-ID:
>>> <
>>> 5731AAFEB5E78E4ABBA68279A0FFE1810208E40E at EVS-EC1-NODE1.surrey.ac.uk>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>> "Scanning Probe Microscopy-Principles and Practice" University of Surrey:
>>> 12-16 January 2009
>>>
>>> The course aims to introduce the principles and practice of the different
>>> forms of scanning probe microscopy (SPM). As an outcome, students should
>>> understand how the surfaces of various materials can be characterised at
>>> nanoscale resolution in terms of topography, friction, atom lattice spacing,
>>> elastic modulus, conductivity and other physico-chemical properties. They
>>> should be able to select the appropriate mode of SPM for the type of
>>> characterisation required. They should be able to interpret the acquired
>>> data.
>>>
>>> Web-link:
>>> http://portal.surrey.ac.uk/portal/page?_pageid=822,1938733&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
>>>
>>> Dr. Peter A. Zhdan
>>> Senior Research Fellow
>>> Faculty of Engineering & Physical Sciences
>>> Mail Stop A1
>>> University of Surrey
>>> Guildford, Surrey
>>> GU2 7XH,
>>> UK
>>>
>>> Tel +44 (0)1483 682448 (Office)
>>> +44 (0)1483 682449 (Lab)
>>> Fax +44 (0)1483 686291
>>> Home Phone +44 (0)1483 574693
>>> Mobile: +44 (0)79-6760-5736
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> http://spmlist.di.com/pipermail/spm/attachments/20081210/787719f6/attachment-0001.html
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Message: 2
>>> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 03:23:13 +0000
>>> From: Sam Engler <smtygtyg at hotmail.com>
>>> Subject: [Spm] RE: different deflection sensitivity in two phases
>>> To: <spm at spmlist.di.com>
>>> Message-ID: <BAY122-W47B7B0036225328A06231CD1F90 at phx.gbl>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>
>>>
>>> Hello, Everyone,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you very much for your comments, suggestions etc. In order to be sure
>>> it's not the type of cantilever (SiN) I'm using, I
>>> run experiments using a 20 times stiffer cantilever (Si). And again,
>>> the slopes are still changing from phase C to phase A. I am sure the
>>> laser spot was in the center, since there was such a small deflection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Just to clarify one thing: the slopes I referred were far from the
>>> electrostatic repulsion region. It supposed to be the tip-mica contact (the
>>> reason I called them deflection sensitivities). The slopes in phase A and B
>>> are exactly the same as the calibrated delf sensitivity using freshly
>>> cleaved mica, so I thought the SiN cantilevers were stiff enough. The
>>> stiffness/bending elasticity of phase C was expected to be different than of
>>> phase A/B. I do
>>> obtain larger elastic moduli for phase C. However, I am not expecting
>>> phase C is so stiff that can cause the slope changing, which seems to imply
>>> that the stiffness of this soft fluid-like membrane is comparable to those
>>> cantilevers. Maybe some of you have explained me clearly, but you see, I'm
>>> still puzzled. So would you please kindly help me again?
>>>
>>> Sam,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 04:37:07 -0500
>>>> From: spm-request at spmlist.di.com
>>>> Subject: Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 3
>>>> To: spm at spmlist.di.com
>>>>
>>>> Send Spm mailing list submissions to
>>>> spm at spmlist.di.com
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.veeco.com/library/Community/Metrology_and_Instrumentation/SPM_User_Forum/index.aspx
>>>
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>> spm-request at spmlist.di.com
>>>>
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>> spm-owner at spmlist.di.com
>>>>
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> than "Re: Contents of Spm digest..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Re: different deflection sensitivity in two phases (Yang Gan)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2008 09:12:06 +0800
>>>> From: "Yang Gan" <ygan at hit.edu.cn>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Spm] different deflection sensitivity in two phases
>>>> To: <spm at spmlist.di.com>
>>>> Cc: smtygtyg at hotmail.com
>>>> Message-ID: <002501c954e4$28b13ab0$4df776ca at Lenov07231747>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
>>>>
>>>> Dear Sam,
>>>>
>>>> It is very likely that different phases are differing in their rigidity.
>>>>
>>> So you are observing different mechanical properties of phases! Thus, I do
>>> not believe your problem is really a problem. It might lead to a new
>>> direction of your research!
>>>
>>>> Technically, you may calibrate the deflection sensitivity of the probe
>>>>
>>> and scanner by collecting force curves against a rigid substrate like glass
>>> or silica. The deflection sensitivity should thus be fixed for following
>>> measurements with your membrane samples only if you do not change the probe
>>> and adjust the lasers. Otherwise, you will find varying sensitivity values
>>> by errorly measuring it on soft samples.
>>>
>>>> Please contact me offline for further discussions.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Yang
>>>>
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Yang Gan
>>>> Professor, PhD
>>>> Department of Catalysis Science & Engineering (Prep.)
>>>> School of Chemical Engineering & Technology
>>>> Harbin Institute of Technology
>>>> No.92, West Da-Zhi Street, Harbin
>>>> Heilongjiang 150001
>>>> P. R. China
>>>> Tel: +86-451-86403239
>>>> E-mail: ygan at hit.edu.cn
>>>> Web: http://3www.hit.edu.cn/experts/prof.asp?id=1182
>>>> Section editor: Chemistry Central Journal (CCJ) (indexed by ISI, PubMed
>>>>
>>> Central, Scopus, CAS and Google Scholar)
>>>
>>>> Home page of CCJ: http://journal.chemistrycentral.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>> Message: 4
>>>> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:28:44 +0000
>>>> From: Sam Engler <smtygtyg at hotmail.com>
>>>> Subject: [Spm] different deflection sensitivity in two phases
>>>> To: <spm at spmlist.di.com>
>>>> Message-ID: <BAY119-W10DE244018FB1F05C3000AD1060 at phx.gbl>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>
>>>> I have a multiple composition lipid membrane sample, which
>>>>
>>> phase-separated into 3 phases. During the force-displacement measurements,
>>> the slopes of the f-d curves within phase C are different than the slopes
>>> within phase A and B. I've tried different cantilevers and this is
>>> consistent. My questions are (1) why the deflection sensitivity of the
>>> cantilever is changing from one phase to another phase? (2) should I change
>>> to stiffer cantilevers?
>>>
>>>> Any comments will be appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Sam,
>>>>
>>>> Sam Engler, Ph.D
>>>>
>>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>>> URL:
>>>>
>>> http://spmlist.di.com/pipermail/spm/attachments/20081203/3ec7cf91/attachment-0001.html
>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Spm mailing list
>>>> Spm at spmlist.di.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>> http://www.veeco.com/library/community_type.php?type_id=2amp;sub_id=2amp;tech_sub_id=1
>>>
>>>> End of Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 3
>>>> **********************************
>>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> You live life online. So we put Windows on the web.
>>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/
>>> -------------- next part --------------
>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>>> URL:
>>> http://spmlist.di.com/pipermail/spm/attachments/20081212/9222d0d8/attachment-0001.html
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Spm mailing list
>>> Spm at spmlist.di.com
>>>
>>> http://www.veeco.com/library/community_type.php?type_id=2amp;sub_id=2amp;tech_sub_id=1
>>>
>>>
>>> End of Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 6
>>> **********************************
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Guillaume Lamour, PhD student
> Laboratoire de Neuro-Physique Cellulaire - EA 3817
> Université Paris Descartes
> 45, rue des Saints Pères 75270 Paris Cedex 06
> 3ème étage, Porte 323
> Tel : +33-(0)1-42-86-21-08
> Fax : +33-(0)1-42-86-20-85
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spm mailing list
> Spm at spmlist.di.com
> http://www.veeco.com/library/community_type.php?type_id=2amp;sub_id=2amp;tech_sub_id=1
>
>
> End of Spm Digest, Vol 53, Issue 8
> **********************************
>
>
More information about the Spm
mailing list