Imaging Ferroelectrics: Charge Gradient Microscopy (CGM) versus Potential Gradient Microscopy (PGM)

TL;DR

This paper compares Charge Gradient Microscopy (CGM) and Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy (KPFM) on ferroelectric materials, revealing that CGM reflects the surface potential gradient and proposing it be called Potential Gradient Microscopy (PGM).

Contribution

It clarifies the fundamental origin of CGM contrast and introduces the concept of PGM, enhancing understanding of ferroelectric surface imaging.

Findings

CGM signals correspond to the surface potential gradient.

Surface potential measured is opposite to expectations for clean ferroelectrics.

CGM can detect in-plane polarization despite being a charge-based technique.

Abstract

In 2014, Charge Gradient Microscopy (CGM) was first reported as a new scanning probe imaging mode, particularly well-suited for the characterisation of ferroelectrics. The implementation of the technique is straightforward; it involves monitoring currents that spontaneously develop between a passive conducting atomic force microscopy tip and Earth, as the tip is scanned across the specimen surface. However, details on the fundamental origin of contrast and what images mean, in terms of associated ferroelectric microstructures, are not yet fully understood. Here, by comparing information from CGM and Kelvin Probe Force Microscopy (KPFM), obtained from the same sets of ferroelectric domains (in both lithium niobate and barium titanate), we show that CGM reasonably reflects the spatial derivative of the measured surface potential. This is conceptually different from measuring local gradients in the surface bound-charge density or in any associated screening charges: after all, we see clear CGM signals, even when polarisation is entirely in-plane. We therefore suggest that CGM in ferroelectrics might be more accurately called Potential Gradient Microscopy (PGM). Intriguingly, in all cases examined, the measured surface potential (determined both through KPFM and by integrating the CGM signal) is of the opposite sign to that intuitively expected for a completely clean ferroelectric in vacuum. This is commonly observed and presumed due to a charge accumulation on the ferroelectric surface which is not easily removed.