Quantifying QCM mass, there are two different approaches to choose from depending on whether the layer is rigid of soft - the Sauerbrey equation or viscoelastic modeling. But what if the wrong model is applied, what happens then? How critical are the consequences? Here we describe what happens if the wrong quantification approach is used.

Of the two situations, using the Sauerbrey approach on a viscoelastic layer is the most severe one. Since the Sauerbrey equation is not valid for viscoelastic layers, the calculated mass will be incorrect. Not only will the mass be underestimated, but it will also vary depending on which harmonic that was used for the calculation. An example of this situation is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the results from Sauerbrey quantification and viscoelastic modeling of a soft layer are compared. As shown in the figure, the calculated Sauerbrey mass depends on which of the harmonics that was used as input. A key signature of a soft layer is that the harmonics are spreading, and the Sauerbrey mass will, therefore, depend on which harmonic that was used for the calculation.

As can also be observed in Fig. 1, none of the calculated Sauerbrey masses are close to the viscoelastic modeled one, they are all underestimated. This means that for soft layers, the Sauerbrey approach cannot even be used to get an estimation of the mass.

- The calculated mass depends on which harmonic that was used as input
- The calculated mass is underestimated for all harmonics

*Figure 1. Mass calculated for a viscoelastic layer, comparing the results from Sauerbrey calculations using harmonics n = 1 - 13 and viscoelastic modeling.*

Using viscoelastic modeling on a rigid layer is less severe than the other way around. In this situation, the biggest problem will be for the modeling software to find a good fit. To model the QCM-D data, unique input from at least two harmonics is needed, and since the overtones are overlapping for rigid films, they will not provide enough unique information to use as input in the model. The consequence can sometimes, therefore, be that the software will not succeed in finding a solution. If it does, the modelled viscosity and shear values may be random.

- It can be difficult to model the data and find a good fit
- Modeled viscosity and shear values may be random

If the layer to be analyzed fulfills the modeling requirements, there are two approaches that can be used depending on whether the layer is rigid or soft. Applying the rigid layer approach on a soft layer will give the wrong result and is more severe than the other way around where the main consequence is that it can be difficult to find a good fit.

Download the guide to get a summary on how to assess which analysis method to use.

Cover photo by Jamie Street on Unsplash

Topics:

In QCM instrument specifications and experimental descriptions, there is always a reference to the fundamental frequency. But does the fundamental frequency really matter? Here we sort out the details and explain how and why it matters in a measurement situation.

One of the key factors to achieve reliable and reproducible QCM measurements is temperature stability. Here we list the top four factors that will help you eliminate temperature induced artifacts in your QCM data.

On the topic of QCM, the different resonance harmonics, i.e., the fundamental and the overtone harmonics, are often subject to discussion. So, what is the deal with the overtones? Are they really needed, and if they are, when and why are they important?

Get updates from the blog directly to your inbox.

You have only scratched the surface.

- QCM-D (26)
- Technology (13)
- QSense (12)
- Contact Angle (9)
- Biomaterials (7)
- Nanoparticles (7)
- Surface tension (7)
- Thin Film Deposition and Characterization (7)
- Nanoparticle deposition (6)
- Superhydrophobic surfaces (6)
- Wettability (5)
- Combined QCM-D and Ellipsometry (4)
- Enhanced oil recovery (4)
- Nanoparticle thin film (4)
- Surface Roughness (4)
- Adhesion (3)
- Dynamic contact angle (3)
- Polymers (3)
- Protein Adsorption (3)
- Surface science (3)
- Transformer oil (3)
- Biomembranes (2)
- Cleaning (2)
- Interfacial rheology (2)
- Paper and Board (2)
- Surface Free Energy (2)
- Attension (1)
- CO2 sequestration (1)
- Clean tech (1)
- Critical micelle concentration (1)
- Environment (1)
- Protein Aggregation (1)
- Thin film characterization (1)
- graphene (1)

- Susanna Laurén (31)
- Malin Edvardsson (18)
- Anna Oom (6)
- Gunilla Rydén (4)
- Jyrki Korpela (4)
- Gabriel Ohlsson (3)
- Maiju Pöysti (3)
- Alaric Taylor (2)
- Brian Rodenhausen PhD (2)
- Déborah Rupert (2)
- Fredrik Andersson (2)
- Jennie Ringberg (2)
- Matthew Dixon (2)
- Prof. Bengt Kasemo (2)
- Eva Ekerot (1)
- Fredrik Pettersson (1)
- Kenneth Olesen PhD (1)
- Olivia Uddenberg (1)
- Prof. Robin Ras (1)
- Ville Jokinen (1)

- December 2018 (3)
- November 2018 (4)
- October 2018 (6)
- September 2018 (4)
- August 2018 (5)
- July 2018 (5)
- June 2018 (5)
- May 2018 (6)
- April 2018 (4)
- March 2018 (4)
- February 2018 (4)
- January 2018 (4)
- December 2017 (2)
- November 2017 (3)
- August 2017 (2)
- May 2017 (1)
- April 2017 (1)
- March 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (1)
- November 2016 (1)
- October 2016 (1)
- June 2016 (1)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (3)
- January 2016 (1)
- December 2015 (2)
- November 2015 (2)
- October 2015 (3)
- September 2015 (2)
- August 2015 (2)
- July 2015 (1)
- June 2015 (2)