Recently, I am reading papers related to Surface Force Apparatus (SFA), and learning the principle and experimental process of SFA.
I realized that there should be systematic errors to some extent when measuring the force curves, which will affect the fitting results of the DLVO theory.
I am curious to learn what possible sources of systematic errors exist and what the ranges of systematic errors are in SFA experiments, but have difficulty finding relevant literature.
There are two sources of systematic errors that I can think of: the effective radius of curvature R of the curved mica, and the spring constant (stiffness) k of the cantilever spring. But I'm not sure about the magnitude of the systematic errors.
Could researchers who are familiar with SFA or relevant literature kindly provide materials about sources and extent of systematic errors in SFA?
Bo Feng
See section 6.6 of my book
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/295699203_Aqueous_Hydrocarbon_Systems_in_Science_and_Engineering
You can read: Article Role of electrochemical reactions in pressure solution
Bo Feng
See the formula in section 6. 6.Imagine that you got F/2 different numbers for 0.26, 0.30, 0.39, 0.25, 0.30., 0.40 calculate the statistical error parameters σs, f = σs/√ s for these numbers. Compare with s=0.32, σs=0.06, f=1.33. Do this for your numbers.
Bo Feng
In the article
https://avs.scitation.org/doi/10.1116/6.0000611
I read this sentence
"Such forces would not appear in classic SFA measurements, where distance and force measurements are entangled".
You are looking for classic SFA measurements errors. If you study the hydrophobic interaction, then it is accompanied by a nuclear quantum effect. Read in our article how quantum effects differ from ordinary errors.
Preprint Nuclear quantum effect in aqueous micellar surfactant solutions
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Engineering
- Materials Engineering
- Powders