Molecular Dynamics Simulation of Atomic Force Microscopy at the Water–Muscovite Interface: Hydration Layer Structure and Force Analysis

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Kazuya Kobayashi ; Yunfeng Liang ; Ken-ichi Amano ; Sumihiko Murata ; Toshifumi Matsuoka ; Satoru Takahashi ; Naoya Nishi ; Tetsuo Sakka
• 刊名：Langmuir
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：April 19, 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：32
• 期：15
• 页码：3608-3616
• 全文大小：602K
• 年卷期：0
• ISSN：1520-5827

文摘

With the development of atomic force microscopy (AFM), it is now possible to detect the buried liquid–solid interfacial structure in three dimensions at the atomic scale. One of the model surfaces used for AFM is the muscovite surface because it is atomically flat after cleavage along the basal plane. Although it is considered that force profiles obtained by AFM reflect the interfacial structures (e.g., muscovite surface and water structure), the force profiles are not straightforward because of the lack of a quantitative relationship between the force and the interfacial structure. In the present study, molecular dynamics simulations were performed to investigate the relationship between the muscovite–water interfacial structure and the measured AFM force using a capped carbon nanotube (CNT) AFM tip. We provide divided force profiles, where the force contributions from each water layer at the interface are shown. They reveal that the first hydration layer is dominant in the total force from water even after destruction of the layer. Moreover, the lateral structure of the first hydration layer transcribes the muscovite surface structure. It resembles the experimentally resolved surface structure of muscovite in previous AFM studies. The local density profile of water between the tip and the surface provides further insight into the relationship between the water structure and the detected force structure. The detected force structure reflects the basic features of the atomic structure for the local hydration layers. However, details including the peak–peak distance in the force profile (force–distance curve) differ from those in the density profile (density–distance curve) because of disturbance by the tip.