4.8 Article

Integrated Ultramicroelectrode-Nanopipet Probe for Concurrent Scanning Electrochemical Microscopy and Scanning Ion Conductance Microscopy

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 82, 期 4, 页码 1270-1276

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac902224q

关键词

-

资金

  1. Army Research Office [ARO W911NF-05-1-0177, ARO W911NF-08-1-0156]
  2. National Science Foundation [NSF ECS-0609064]
  3. NSF-NSEC
  4. NSF-MRSEC
  5. Keck Foundation
  6. State of Illinois
  7. Northwestern University
  8. NDSEG
  9. UChicago Argonne, LLC [DE-AC02-06CH11357]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scanning ion conductance microscopy (SICM) has developed into a powerful tool for imaging a range of biophysical systems. In addition, SICM has been integrated with a range of other techniques, allowing for the simultaneous collection of complementary information including near-field optical and electrophysiological properties. However, SICM imaging remains insensitive to electrochemical properties, which play an important role in both biological and nonbiological systems. In this work, we demonstrate the fabrication and application of a nanopipet probe with an integrated ultramicroelectrode (UME) for concurrent SICM and scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM). The fabrication process utilizes atomic layer deposition (ALD) of aluminum oxide to conformally insulate a gold-coated nanopipet and focused ion beam (FIB) milling to precisely expose a UME at the pipet tip. Fabricated probes are characterized by both scanning electron microscopy and cyclic voltammetry and exhibit a 100 nm diameter nanopipet tip and a UME with an effective radius of 294 nm. The probes exhibit positive and negative feedback responses on approach to conducting and insulating surfaces, respectively. The suitability of the probes for SECM-SICM imaging is demonstrated by both feedback-mode and substrate generation/tip collection-mode imaging on patterned surfaces. Ibis probe geometry enables successful SECM-SICM imaging on features as small as 180 nm in size.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据