ARTICLE

pubs.acs.org/Langmuir

Removal of Nanoparticles from Plain and Patterned Surfaces

Using Nanobubbles
Shangjiong Yang and Anton Duisterwinkel*
Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientic Research (T.N.O.), Postbus 155, 2600AD Delft, The Netherlands

bS Supporting Information
ABSTRACT: It is the aim of this paper to quantitatively
characterize the capability of surface nanobubbles for surface
cleaning, i.e., removal of nanodimensioned polystyrene particles
from the surface. We adopt two types of substrates: plain and
nanopatterned (trench/ridge) silicon wafer. The method used
to generate nanobubbles on the surfaces is the so-called
alcohol water exchange process (use water to ush a surface
that is already covered by alcohol). It is revealed that nanobubbles are generated on both surfaces, and have a remarkably
high coverage on the nanopatterns. In particular, we show that nanoparticles arein the event of nanobubble occurrence
removed eciently from both surfaces. The result is compared with other bubble-free wet cleaning techniques, i.e., water rinsing,
alcohol rinsing, and water alcohol exchange process (use alcohol to ush a water-covered surface, generating no nanobubbles)
which all cause no or very limited removal of nanoparticles. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and helium ion microscopy
(HIM) are employed for surface inspection. Nanobubble formation and the following nanoparticle removal are monitored with
atomic force microscopy (AFM) operated in liquid, allowing for visualization of the two events.

INTRODUCTION
It is very dicult to remove particles from nanostructured
surfaces such as extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUV) reticles,
micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), and hard disk
drives.1 Current cleaning techniques involve use of hazardous
chemicals and consume a lot of energy. Also, collapse of the
structures during the drying process is a serious concern. We
propose here a new technique that involves little chemicals or
energy, and reduces the risk of collapse. This technique engages
the deliberate use of nanobubbles, i.e., nanoscopic gas bubbles
located at the liquid solid interface.2 21 Nanobubbles have
been intensively studied over recent years. Most studies employ
atomic force microscopy (AFM),3 7,12 17,19 while other methods
such as rapid cryoxation freeze fracture22 and neutron reectometry23 have been used as well. The popular substrates adopted
are atomically at, including gold,4 silicon surfaces hydrophobized
by silanation,13,22 polystyrene,6,12 highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG),5,7,14 and bare silicon (with a native oxide layer).13
In addition, nanopatterned surfaces are employed for location
control and spatial extent of nanobubbles.12 A number of methods
including solvent exchange, liquid temperature change, heating
substrate, and pressurizing liquid are used to generate nanobubbles.3 For the advantage of a greater control over nanobubble production and a higher tolerance in substrate selection,
electrolysis is preferred in a number of experiments.5,15 Regarding liquid, highly puried water (Milli-Q) is mainly used, though
some experiments are done with alcohols6 or NaCl solutions.3,5
We must highlight the so-called alcohol water exchange process,
i.e., the surface is rst covered by alcohol (ethanol or propanol)
r 2011 American Chemical Society

which is then ushed away by water.3,7,16,17 It is revealed that

the process enhances nanobubble density dramatically. The nding has been conrmed for hydrophilic bare silicon surface13 as
well, although a hydrophobic substrate (contact angle > 90) is
more favored in the formation of nanobubbles.
Nanobubbles are in many ways fascinating objects in surface
science and nanouidics. There has been much eort in understanding their properties. Fundamentally, nanobubbles should
not exist: according to the experimental data, these bubbles
have a radius of curvature R smaller than 1 m, and therefore
they should dissolve on time scales far below a second,24 due to
the large Laplace pressure inside the bubbles, which in a bubble
with radius of, e.g., 200 nm amounts to approximately 5 atm. In
a signicant contrast, the experiments show that nanobubbles
are stable for periods as long as hours, up to even days.3,14,25 On
the basis of the convincing experimental evidence for the
existence and stability of nanobubbles, there are a few mechanisms proposed, e.g., the dynamic equilibrium theory.26 On the
application side, especially in the eld of micro- and nanouidics, nanobubbles are a potential candidate to explain
various phenomena associated with the liquid solid interface,
such as the stability of colloidal systems, the anomalous attraction of hydrophobic surfaces,8,27,28 and liquid slippage at
walls.29 32
Received: March 24, 2011
Revised:
June 14, 2011
Published: August 01, 2011
11430

dx.doi.org/10.1021/la2010776 | Langmuir 2011, 27, 1143011435

Langmuir

ARTICLE

Figure 1. (a) 3D AFM (tapping mode, dry surface) image of the 100 nm polystyrene particles deposited on a plain wafer. Scan size 3 m  3 m, height
range 200 nm. Nanoparticles appear to be randomly distributed on the surface. (b) 3D tapping mode AFM image (in liquid) taken at the same location as
(a), immediately after ethanol water exchange process has been performed. Nanobubbles (the bright dots) are generated on the surface, while
nanoparticles have been removed. Note that liquid rinsing or gas blowing cannot remove these particles. Shown in (b), two objects (dash-arrow pointed)
larger than the nanoparticles are added onto the surface.

compared with conventional methods. In practice, cleaning

eciency is highly inuenced by the dierent contamination surface interaction, e.g., the amount of proteins adsorbed
and the strength of the attachment. Treatment of nanobubbles in
combination with the common methods is suggested to be able
to achieve a higher cleaning result, in the case of removing
proteins from a hydrophilic surface.34 However, the ndings are
still limited, and more studies are necessary. Industrial applications often involve particles of a submicrometer size, which are
challenging to remove with conventional wet methods, because
these methods rely on the interaction of a liquid ow over the
surface. Since the liquid typically does not move at the surface, it
is almost impossible to remove those small particles physically. In
this paper, we elucidate these cleaning issues by performing AFM
measurements (in liquids) of nanobubbles on a plain silicon
surface as well as on a nanopatterned surface which have been
deposited with nanoparticles prior to the nanobubble generation.
To this end, we demonstrate the improvement of the removal
eciency of nanoparticles by the occurrence of nanobubbles, in
comparison with other ushing methods. Surface inspections by
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and helium ion microscopy (HIM) are used to conrm the results.

EXPERIMENTAL SECTION

Figure 2. (a) SEM image of the plain wafer surface deposited with the
100 nm polystyrene particles, the same surface as shown in Figure 1.
There are 65 nanoparticles presented in the image where 12 of them are
paired. (b) SEM image of the same surface after it has been treated with
the ethanol water exchange process and dried again. Clearly, the
nanobubble process completely removed (100% removal rate) the
nanoparticles with no extra damage to the surface. The two triangleshaped objects are thought to be added contaminations, which presumably are introduced by the ushing process. These objects dier
from the deposited nanoparticles in shape and size. The result is
consistent with the previous AFM observation of the surface.

As recently suggested, it is also possible to use nanobubbles in

the processing industry for cleaning a surface.33 36 It has been
demonstrated that electrolytically produced nanobubbles facilitate defouling and antifouling of bovine serum albumin (BSA)
proteins on a hydrophilic surface.33,35 Similar results have also
been shown on both hydrophobic and hydrophilic surfaces, by
the quartz crystal microbalance technique.34,36 With a few cycles
of treatment, the protein can be completely removed and
cleaning eciency of a nanobubble treatment is relatively higher,

Surface Preparation. In our experiments, we employ two types of

substrates. Substrate 1 is a plain silicon wafer (single polished 4 in.
process wafer, rms value 0.15 nm) deposited with spherical polystyrene
particles of diameter 100 nm (see Figures 1 and 2). The surface is
prepared as follows. The bare silicon wafer (with a native dioxide layer
on top) is rinsed with acetone (>99.9%, Sigma Aldrich, Germany), and
then rinsed with ethanol (>99.8%, Sigma Aldrich, Germany). Both
treatments are respectively followed by blowing dry with nitrogen gas.
Thereafter, the substrate is placed into a spin-coating machine (BHG
Hermle Z320, Germany) in which a drop (0.5 mL) of nanoparticle
solvent (polystyrene latex spheres, diameter 100 nm, NIST Standard,
Duke Scientific, USA) is injected. The particles are then spin-distributed
on the surface (speed 6100 rpm, duration 10 s). The sample is dried
naturally during the spinning at room temperature. Substrate 2 is a
nanopatterned silicon wafer covered with spherical polystyrene particles
of diameter 70 nm (see Figures 4 and 5). It is prepared as follows. The
same plain wafer as Substrate 1 is developed with a silicon dioxide layer
of 2 m thickness, which is then litho-etched to achieve periodic
nanotrenches (the depth 150 nm, the trench width 200 nm, the ridge
width 200 nm). The surface is then acetone- and ethanol-rinsed,
respectively. Thereafter, the spherical nanoparticles (diameter 70 nm)
are distributed onto the surface in the same fashion as Substrate 1.
The surface preparations are performed under a clean-room condition
(ISO Class 5, National Van Leeuwenhoek NanoLab, Delft, The
11431

dx.doi.org/10.1021/la2010776 |Langmuir 2011, 27, 1143011435

Langmuir

ARTICLE

in this paper. All experiments are carried out in a general lab environment with a temperature between 20 C and 23 C.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 3. Removal rate of nanoparticles as a function of treatment

cycles, for ethanol water exchange, ethanol rinsing, and water rinsing.
The ethanol water exchange process has removed up to nearly 90%
of the nanoparticles from the plain surface after one cycle of treatment.
The cleaning eciency is further enhanced after more cycles. In marked
contrast, washing only with ethanol or water results in a removal
of nanoparticles less than 5% after the rst cycle and very little
enhancement after more treatments with a total removal rate less
than 10%.
Netherlands). The samples are stored in a clean-room sample cell
thereafter until use.
Fluidic Process. In our experiments, pure water is prepared by a
Milli-Q Synthesis A10 system (Millipore SAS, France). Alcohols, i.e.,
ethanol and isopropanol, are of HPLC grade (>99.8% for ethanol,
>99.9% for isopropanol, Sigma Aldrich, Germany). The experimental
setup is established in compliance with fluidic AFM measurements for
the alcohol water exchange process.3,7 A fluidic cell is connected with a
syringe-pumped inlet and outlet, which creates flows simultaneously
during AFM scanning. The sample is placed underneath the fluidic cell;
the alcohol water exchange process is then performed on the AFM
stage. Thus, AFM measurement can take place in liquid immediately
after the fluidic process where the nanobubbles are produced. To
compare with the results of nanobubble cleaning, other non-nanobubble
methods such as water washing, water alcohol exchange, and alcohol
washing are performed as well.
AFM, SEM, HIM Imaging. Excitation of the tip vibration is done
acoustically, using AFM measurements with the NanoWizard II (JPK
Instrument AG, Germany) in tapping mode with a small piezo-element
in the tip-holder. A hydrophilic Si3N4 ultrasharp AFM tip is used, with
radius of curvature less than 10 nm, height about 22 m, and full tip cone
angle of 30. For scanning in both dry and wet conditions, the scanning
speed is 4 m/s, the tapping mode free amplitude as applied to the
cantilever is 400 mV, the set-point amplitude is 200 mV, and the
frequency of the cantilever and the spring constant are approximately
20kHz and 0.9 N/m, respectively. An integrated live CCD camera gives
good control of the scanning position on the sample. The cantilever is
cleaned by immersion in ethanol and pure water before use. Besides
AFM, surface inspections are done with SEM and HIM, before and after
the treatments, respectively. SEM imaging is performed with the SEM
XL 50 (Philips, Netherlands), at acceleration voltage 5 kV and magnification 25 000. HIM surface inspection is performed with the Orion
Plus (Carl Zeiss SMT, Germany), with an acceleration voltage 25 kV,
magnification 11 430, blanker current 0.5 pA, dwell time 100 s, tilt
angle 0, and working distance 10.7 mm. HIM is capable of imaging and
fabrication of nanostructures thanks to its subnanometer-sized ion
probe.37 The HIM probe is scanned over the sample surface, and the
secondary electron signal is recorded to create an image. The unique
interaction of the helium ions with the sample material provides very
localized secondary electron emission, thus providing a valuable signal
for high-resolution imaging as well as a mechanism for very precise
nanofabrication.38 Statistics of nanoparticle coverage is based on a
number of SEM, AFM, and HIM images. Typical images are presented

Removal of Nanoparticles on a Plain Wafer. In the study of

nanoparticle removal on the plain wafer, the particle-covered dry
surface is first imaged by AFM. Subsequently, the ethanol water
exchange process is performed. At exactly the same surface
location as in the dry measurement, AFM imaging (in liquid)
takes place immediately after the process. We see that nanoparticles are randomly distributed on the surface, as shown in
Figure 1a. At the same surface area, nanobubbles are observed
after the fluidic process (Figure 1b). The size and density of
nanobubbles is similar to the previous findings reported in refs
3,14. At the same time, all of the nanoparticles are removed from
the surface. Two objects as indicated by dashed arrows in
Figure 1b are added on the surface: these are larger (one has
height 105 nm and width 240 nm, the other has height 90 nm and
width 150 nm) than the originally distributed nanoparticles.
They could be clustered nanoparticles, large nanobubbles, or
contaminants from the experimental setup. The ethanol water
exchange process leads to the removal of nanoparticles with no
visible damage to the surface.
SEM characterization provides a larger eld of view. A typical
image of the plain wafer surface is shown in Figure 2. Image (a)
presents the dry surface that is covered with nanoparticles, while
(b) shows the same surface after one cycle of nanobubble
cleaning. We see that the nanoparticles are completely removed
by the treatment. The two triangular contaminations left on the
surfacare are presumably introduced by the liquid ushing. These
two pieces are clearly not the deposited nanoparticles, with
respect to shape and size. SEM and AFM consistently show that
the ethanol water exchange process removes the nanoparticles.
A single treatment removes on average 90% of the particles,
see statistics in Figure 3the removal fraction of nanoparticles
(namely, cleaning eciency) is plotted as a function of treatment
cycles, with respect to dierent methods. By repeated treatment,
cleaning eciency of nanobubbles is even improved to almost
100%. In marked contrast, ushing with either ethanol or water
removes less than 10% of the particles.
Removal of Nanoparticles on a Nanopatterned Surface.
Next, experiments have been performed on the samples with
parallel nanotrenches; see Figure 4. The nanoparticles predominantly are deposited inside the trenches. After the dry imaging,
the isopropanol water exchange process is used to remove the
nanoparticles. AFM (tapping mode, in liquid) measurement
starts immediately when the fluidic process has been performed,
at exactly the same surface area as in Figure 4a. We see that
nanobubbles are produced with a large density, covering nearly
the entire surface (Figure 4b). In comparison to Figure 1b,
nanobubble density is much higher. This may be due to either the
nanostructure or the fact that isopropanol is used rather than
ethanol. Subsequently, the sample is dried by nitrogen gas blow,
and then inspected with SEM and AFM. Most of the contaminationsboth on the nanoridges and inside the nanotrenches
have disappeared (Figure 4c,d). This is remarkable because it is
very difficult to remove the particles inside nanotrenches, since
the particles can attach to several surfaces and the impact of
(local) flow within the trenches is heavily reduced.
Several portions of the surface are imaged with HIM, showing
comparable images to those from AFM. The typical images are
11432

dx.doi.org/10.1021/la2010776 |Langmuir 2011, 27, 1143011435

Langmuir

ARTICLE

Figure 4. (a) AFM tapping mode in air, 3D image of the nanopatterned surface, height range 224 nm. Nanoparticles (examples pointed by arrows) are
shown on the ridges, even more are closely packed inside the trenches. Almost 50% of the trench area is lled with nanoparticles. Isopropanol water
exchange process is then performed on the surface, and AFM imaging (in liquid) takes place immediately. (b) 3D AFM image of the wetted surface
(tapping mode in liquid), with a height range 69 nm. Surface nanobubbles are observed, and the nanostructure is still visible. Nanobubbles are formed on
ridges as well as in trenches, with an extremely large coverage. (c,d) AFM images of the same surface that is dried again, after it has been treated with
nanobubbles (tapping mode in air, height range 66 nm). In comparison with (a), most of the particle clusters inside the trenches are removed. However, a
number of single nanoparticles are still observed. Possibly, these remaining particles are due to the resettlement of the nanoparticles. The cleaning
eciency is enhanced by greater processing times, as image (c) presents the surface after one treatment while image (d) presents it after two treatments,
which indicates a slightly better cleaning result. Note that the other nanobubble-free ushing methods do not or hardly remove the nanoparticles. Scan
size is 10 m  10 m in all images.

shown in Figure 5: (a) presents an initial dry nanopatterned

surface before the isopropanol water exchange process, which is
covered with nanoparticles. Image (b) shows the same sample
after three cycles of the nanobubble cleaning. We nd that the
removal of nanoparticles takes place for the entire area, i.e.,
10 m  10 m. The enlarged view allows good observation
inside the trenches, as shown in image (c). No nanoparticles are
observed on the surface. The HIM and AFM measurements
show good agreement. To compare the nanobubble cleaning
results, rinsing with water or isopropanol was performed. Both
washings do not remove a signicant number of nanoparticles.
Analogous to Figure 3, cleaning eciencies are presented in
Figure 6. Nearly 80% of nanoparticles have been removed from
the patterned surface after the rst treatment with the isopropanol water exchange process. The cleaning eciency is further
enhanced by more cycles of nanobubble treatment. In marked
contrast, washing with either isopropanol or water only, and a
simple water ethanol mixing (this process produces no
nanobubbles) leads to very limited nanoparticle removal, i.e.,
less than 5%. The result of the non-nanobubble method is not
improved by more cycles.
As reported in previous studies,3,14,16 the larger gas solubility
in alcohol compared to that in water is responsible for the
sucient nanobubble density, in an alcohol water exchange
process. This is why we must use water to replace alcohol, in
order to extract gas out of the liquid (in other words, to create an
oversaturation in liquid) to form nanobubbles. Also, the process
is an exothermic reaction releasing heat which enhances the
formation of nanobubbles. Structures on the surface appear to

promote an even higher nanobubble density as well. Observed in

our experiments, the exchange process leads indeed to a large
amount of nanobubble formation which is more pronounced on
the nanotrench patterns. Therewith, we see the dramatic enhancement of nanoparticle removal on the surfaces, which
cannot be achieved by other nonbubble wet cleaning methods.
There are seemingly no other possible eects in the process for
cleaning to this extent, apart from nanobubbles. The ow itself is
far too weak (especially inside the trenches), dissolution does not
occur, and the eect of the dierence in surface tensions of
alcohol and water is not expected due to rapid intermixing. How
do nanobubbles clean then? Previous work has shown that an
emerging nanobubble rapidly expands horizontally on the surface (in other words, a nanoscopic gas layer accumulates on the
surface), increasing its surface coverage on a time-scale of
seconds, and then it develops in height.5 This behavior is thought
to detach the nanoparticle. We estimated the adhesion force
(mostly van der Waals forces) between the polystyrene nanoparticle and the surface, which is in the range of a few nanonewtons, whereas the capillary force of the expanding nanobubble is one or two orders of magnitude stronger, given the same
surface contact area of the nanobubble and the nanoparticle. The
exact principle of nanobubble formation is still under debate;
however, the mechanism of dynamic equilibrium has increasingly
been recognized recently.26 The gas accumulation and outux
over a nanobubble described in this mechanism supports the
cleaning eect of nanobubbles. Moreover, nanobubbles are
stable, which helps to prevent the resettling of contaminants.
However, we see that a number of nanoparticles remain on the
11433

dx.doi.org/10.1021/la2010776 |Langmuir 2011, 27, 1143011435

Langmuir

ARTICLE

cleaning eciency. Furthermore, note that in our experiments

polystyrene particles are used, which are fairly easy to remove. In
real industrial applications, more types of particles, such as
aluminum, aluminum oxide, gold, or copper, are more often
presented. Real structures of EUV reticles, MEMS, and other
functional nanostructures are more complex and contain more
types of all dierent materials. More research is necessary.
Clearly, nanobubble cleaning holds a number of advantages over
conventional methods, which are highly favored in applications.
For example, it contains less chemicals or waste, consumes less
energy, and causes less damage.

Figure 5. (a) HIM image of the initial dry surface prior to an

isopropanol water exchange process, deliberately contaminated with
nanoparticles (examples indicated by arrows). (b) HIM image of the
same sample after three cycles of nanobubble process. Clearly, we see
that removal of the nanoparticles has been achieved, with a good
cleaning eciency. Note that HIM characterizations provide views on
a relatively large surface area with a high resolution. (c) Enlarged view
gives an observation inside the nanotrenches where most nanoparticles
were deposited, as shown in Figure 4a. Nanoparticles are not observed
inside the trenches after the nanobubble treatment.

CONCLUSION
We have presented the experimental studies of surface cleaning by using nanobubbles on both plain wafer and nanopatterned
(periodic ridges and trenches) substrates. Our results have
shown that the spherical polystyrene nanoparticles deposited
on the surfaces are eciently removed with the process of
alcohol water exchange, which leads to massive nanobubble
production. The same cleaning result cannot be achieved with
other uidic processes that generate no nanobubbles. SEM,
HIM, and AFM measurements have been performed for surface
inspection. It is highlighted that tapping-mode AFM operating in
liquid can simultaneously demonstrate the generation of nanobubbles and the nanoparticle removal caused by these nanobubbles. We must stress the cleaning result in terms of the
nanotrenches. These trenches contain a large contamination
density, yet have been eciently cleaned with nanobubbles,
which commonly is very dicult for other cleaning techniques.
In addition, our ndings have shown that increasing treatment
cycles allows an enhancement of cleaning eciency. Finally, we
have not observed any damage to the nanosized surface structures in a nanobubble cleaning process.
ASSOCIATED CONTENT

bS

Supporting Information. SEM, AFM, HIM images of

the surfaces before and after the nanobubble treatments, AFM
images of nanobubbles. Data of nanoparticle coverage, description of nanobubble treatment for surface cleaning. This material
is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Figure 6. Removal percentage of nanoparticles on the nanostructured
surface by dierent cleaning techniques is plotted as a function of
treatment cycle. Nearly 80% of the nanoparticles have been removed
from the surface after the rst treatment with the nanobubble process.
The cleaning eciency is further enhanced up to a removal rate of 90%
after 3 cycles of treatment. As a comparison, washing with isopropanol or
water leads to a very limited removal of the particles, i.e., less than 5%.
This poor cleaning eciency is not further improved after a few more
cycles of treatment.

patterned surface after nanobubble treatments. Presumably, this

is because nanobubbles do not have a 100% surface coverage in
our experiments. In addition, the direction of injecting ow is
random. Therefore, control of ow direction (e.g., parallel to the
trenches), other nanobubble formation processes rather than the
solvent exchange (e.g., electrolysis, temperature increase, gas
supersaturation), or a combination with the conventional cleaning methods can be the following steps to further improve the

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: anton.duisterwinkel@tno.nl.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors thank Detlef Lohse, James Seddon, Jacques
van der Donck, and Harold Zandvliet for stimulating discussions.
S. Y. acknowledges Jetske Stortelder, Anne Heyer, and Emile van
Veldhoven for their experimental support.
REFERENCES
(1) Lithography, In The International Technology Roadmap For
Semiconductors; 2009
(2) Ball, P. Nature 2003, 423, 25.
(3) Yang, S.; Dammer, S. M.; Bremond, N.; Zandvliet, H. J. W.;
Kooij, E. S.; Lohse, D. Langmuir 2007, 23, 7072.
(4) Holmberg, M.; Kuhle, A.; Garns, J.; Mrch, K. A.; Boisen, A.
Langmuir 2003, 19, 10510.
11434

dx.doi.org/10.1021/la2010776 |Langmuir 2011, 27, 1143011435

Langmuir

ARTICLE

(5) Yang, S.; Tsai, P.; Kooij, E. S.; Prosperetti, A.; Zandvliet, H. J. W.;
Lohse, D. Langmuir 2009, 25, 1466.
(6) Simonsen, A. C.; Hansen, P. L.; Klosgen, B. J. Colloid Interface Sci.
2004, 273, 291.
(7) Yang, S.; Kooij, E. S.; Poelsema, B.; Lohse, D.; Zandvliet, H. J. W.
Europhys. Lett. 2008, 81, 64006.
(8) Attard, P. Colloid Interface Sci. 2003, 104, 75.
(9) Vinogradova, O. I.; Bunkin, N. F.; Churaev, N. V.; Kiseleva,
O. A.; Lobeyev, A. V.; Ninham, B. W. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1995,
173, 443.
(10) Neto, C.; Evans, D. R.; Bonaccurso, E.; Butt, H. J.; Craig, V. S. J.
Rep. Prog. Phys. 2005, 68, 2859.
(11) Ducker, W. A. Langmuir 2009, 25, 8907.
(12) Agrawal, A.; Park, J.; Ryu, D. Y.; Hammond, P. T.; Russel, T. P.;
McKinley, G. H. Nano Lett. 2005, 5, 1751.
(13) Agrawal, A.; McKinley, G. H. Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc.
2006, 899E.
(14) Zhang, X. H.; Maeda, N.; Craig, V. S. J. Langmuir 2006,
22, 5025.
(15) Zhang, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Li, Z.; Shen, G.; Ye, M.; Fan,
C.; Fang, H.; Hu, J. Langmuir 2006, 22, 8109.
(16) Borkent, B. M.; Dammer, S. M.; Schonherr, H.; Vancso, G. J.;
Lohse, D. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2007, 98, 204502.
(17) Seddon, J. R. T.; Bliznyuk, O.; Kooij, E. S.; Poelsema, B.;
Zandvliet, H. J. W.; Lohse, D. Langmuir 2010, 26, 9640.
(18) Seddon, J. R. T.; Lohse, D. J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 2011,
23, 133001.
(19) Borkent, B. M.; de Beer, S.; Mugele, F.; Lohse, D. Langmuir
2010, 26, 160.
(20) Craig, V. S. J. Soft Matter 2011, 7, 40.
(21) Zhang, X. H.; Khan, A.; Ducker, W. A. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2006,
98, 136101.
(22) Switkes, M.; Ruberti, J. W. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2004, 84, 4759.
(23) Steitz, R.; Gutberlet, T.; Hauss, T.; Klosgen, B.; Krastev, R.;
Schemmel, S.; Simonsen, A. C.; Findenegg, G. H. Langmuir 2003,
19, 2409.
(24) Ljunggren, S.; Eriksson, J. C. Colloids Surf., A 1997, 129, 151.
(25) Zhang, X. H.; Quinn, A.; Ducker, W. A. Langmuir 2008,
24, 4756.
(26) Brenner, M.; Lohse, D. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2008, 101, 214505.
(27) Attard, P. Langmuir 1996, 12, 1693.
(28) Tyrrell, J. W. G.; Attard, P. Langmuir 2002, 18, 160.
(29) de Gennes, P. G. Langmuir 2002, 18, 3413.
(30) Vinogradova, O. I. Langmuir 1995, 11, 2213.
(31) Bunkin, N. F.; Kiseleva, O. A.; Lobeyev, A. V.; Movchan, T. G.;
Ninham, B. W.; Vinogradova, O. I. Langmuir 1997, 13, 3024.
(32) Lauga, E.; Brenner, M. P.; Stone, H. A. in Handbook of
Experimental Fluid Dynamics, Tropea, C., Foss, J., and Yarin, A., Eds.;
Springer, New York, 2005.
(33) Wu, Z.; Chen, H.; Dong, Y.; Mao, H.; Sun, J.; Chen, S.; Craig,
V. S. J.; Hu, J. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2008, 328, 10.
(34) Liu, G.; Craig, V. S. J. Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2009, 1, 481.
(35) Wu., Z.; Zhang, X. H.; Zhang, X. D.; Li, G.; Sun, J.; Zhang, Y.; Li,
M.; Hu, J. Surf. Interface Anal. 2006, 38, 990.
(36) Liu, G.; Wu, Z.; Craig, V. S. J. J. Phys. Chem. 2008, 112, 16748.
(37) Vladar, A. E.; Postek, M. T.; Ming, B. Microsc. Today 2009,
17, 6.
(38) Maas, D.; van Veldhoven, E.; Chen, P.; Sidorkin, V.; Salemink,
H.; van der Drift, E.; Alkemade, P. Proc. SPIE 2010, 7638, 763814.

11435

dx.doi.org/10.1021/la2010776 |Langmuir 2011, 27, 1143011435