I have certain metallic films treated via ion beam irradiation. I am analyzing the evaluation in topographical features. I have used NANOSURF FLEX AFM for the particular characterization. For analysis, I am using the recommended software which comes with the system. We are provided with different options (filters & signals) to present our micrographs. When we change these options, the area roughness changes significantly. For example, choosing the default setting of line fit shows normal roughness, however, changing the filter to derived data also changes area roughness decreases. Similarly, when we change the signal type from the z-axis to amplitude or phase, the roughness also changes.
I have consulted the literature and found that different approaches are used in different studies. I will definitely report the filters and signals I will be using for analysis. My question is which option is most viable for absolute area roughness.
Dear Nisar,
as far as I understand, what you want to present is surface topogrophy roughness. Therefore, you should look at the roughness of the z-axis, not it's derivative or amplitude or phase.
Comparing the absolte roughness between different setups is anyway difficult in my opinion, as the setups are typically not calibrated. Only a comparison of different samples using the same setup (and using the same settings) is meaningfull in my opinion.
Hi,
I am sure a normal height sensor plot should work fine.May be use a feasible color scheme to visualize the topographical differences better.
This answer may sound simplistic, but my natural propensity has always been to use the image format that best displays the data I want to show. If others want specific formats, one can include those as secondary or back-up data.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Instrumentation Engineering
- Instruments