Abstract
The most common method of characterisation of the morphologies of block copolymers is transmission electron microscopy (TEM) of ultrathin sections because of the nanoscale of the domains in the morphologies of this block copolymer[1]. The contrast of polymer phases is often enhanced by heavy metal element staining using, typically, OsO 4 . TEM provides imaging at high resolution at the cost of time‐consuming and challenging specimen preparation by cryo‐ultramicrotoming and the negative staining which is not only toxic but also introduces artifacts[2]. Furthermore, the 2D projection by TEM imaging makes direct interpretation of a nanoscale complex material difficult when the specimen sections thickness (~100nm) is considered. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) can characterise a multiphase material by detecting localised variation in mechanical properties, e.g. friction, adhesion and modulus, and has been used to identify the morphology in block copolymers in some recent studies without staining [3]. Combined AFM and TEM characterisation of multiphase copolymers has been developed to characterise the complex microstructures of block polymers in a complementary way [3,4]. Novel holders were designed to facilitate sample preparation for both techniques and to direct correlation of the topographical information provided by the AFM better to interpret the two‐dimensional images provided by TEM. However, the lateral resolution of AFM is significantly worse than TEM limited by the scanning tip although the depth resolution is super. An alternative approach is to use the recent energy‐filtered scanning electron microscopy (EFSEM) technique, which is based upon the energy spectroscopy of detected secondary electrons (SE)[5]. In this work, the S‐B‐S triblock copolymer cast from toluene, cyclohexane and ethyl acetate was characterised in order to understand the effect of casting solvent on the solid state morphology of this triblock copolymer. The morphology varies from continuous to spherical and lamella structures ranging from a few nm to ~100nm. Preliminary results have shown complementary morphologies provided by AFM and TEM, as shown in Figures 1 and 2. The contrast mechanisms from the three methods and consequences for the morphology determination will be discussed, as well as the sample preparation methods.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.