Method · AFM

Atomic force microscopy in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany

Local surface topography and height differences measured with a scanning probe. What it answers, what it cannot establish on its own, what a laboratory will ask, and which Dutch, Belgian and German facilities publish it — named, with their sources.

Probe interaction can disturb soft, loose or fragile surfaces

Laboratories that publish AFM ↓

What it answers

What is the roughness of a small area, down to sub-nanometre height differences?
How high are steps, grains or other nanoscale features?
Did polishing, deposition or etching change the nanoscale topography?

What it cannot establish alone

Determine chemical identity from topography alone; chemical analysis needs a separate or specialised coupled method.
Reproduce every narrow trench or steep sidewall: tip geometry limits access and affects apparent lateral dimensions.
Represent a whole component with a single small scan; roughness depends on scan size and data processing.
Guarantee an undisturbed surface when the sample is soft, mobile or poorly attached.

Before you contact a laboratory

What a laboratory will ask.

A laboratory can say whether it can help only when these are known. Unknowns are fine; say so.

Material, sample dimensions and the location of the surface to scan.
Expected roughness, feature height and lateral size, and the requested scan area.
Whether probe interaction is acceptable and whether the surface is soft, sticky or loosely attached.
Air or liquid measurement, number of locations and the roughness parameters or step heights required.

A question a laboratory can answer

We polish sapphire substrates for thin-film deposition and need roughness over 5 × 5 µm and 20 × 20 µm areas on three substrates, before and after cleaning.

Each laboratory below can turn these into an editable enquiry draft. Go to the laboratories

Laboratory evidence · AFM

Laboratories that publish AFM

Named facilities whose official pages describe AFM, each with its source, the dates behind it and what is still unconfirmed. Up to 12 per search, ordered by review level and then alphabetically — not ranked by suitability.

Start typing to see the cities the catalogue holds for this method. The city must match exactly: “Ede” does not find Enschede, and there is no distance search. Changing the method keeps your country and city.

An independent directory, not a booking service. Laboratories are listed from their own public pages. None has endorsed Argentum Field, paid for its position or seen this search.

For every laboratory below, whether it can accept your sample, external work or a booking — and its current configuration, availability, price and turnaround — needs the laboratory’s own confirmation. Cards show only what differs from this.

12 laboratories · AFM · Netherlands

How to read a result

Access route: How the laboratory’s own page says outside users can work with it, read from that page by an AI assessment. It does not mean your request will be accepted.
Not yet assessed: Nobody has read the practical details from the source yet. Open the source; the access route and sample limits are unknown, not absent.
Public source: Extracted from an official page. A research lead; nobody has checked it.
AI-normalised: Structured by a pipeline from an official page, with its source and retrieval date. Still a lead.
Human reviewed: A named reviewer confirmed the cited source supports this method. The laboratory has not agreed to anything.
Dates: Under “Evidence and dates” on each card. Retrieved: when the catalogue recorded the source. Assessed: when practical text was read. Source updated: the date the page itself shows. None is a check that the instrument runs today.
Attribution: A card says so when a source ties the capability to a wider institution rather than this laboratory. That does not establish who owns the instrument.

More on the levels: what each evidence level means and never means.

Did this help you choose a next step?

Records your choice and basic search counters, not your location or the laboratories shown.

Not sure AFM answers your question? Describe your sample and question and the first answer suggests a method and leads, without an account.

Often combined with

Stylus profilometryContact measurement of step height, film thickness, and surface profile.
Optical profilometryNon-contact areal surface topography, roughness, and step-height measurement.
X-ray reflectivityThin-film layer thickness, density, and interface or surface roughness from specular X-ray reflectivity.
SEM with EDXScanning electron microscopy combined with elemental point analysis or mapping.

Problems where it helps

Coating failure analysis: from symptom to causeHow to analyse a coating that cracks, discolours, corrodes or wears: compare failed and intact parts and test the likely explanations.

Atomic force microscopy in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany

What it answers

What it cannot establish alone

What a laboratory will ask.

A question a laboratory can answer

Laboratories that publish AFM

AMOLF NanoLab Amsterdam

Practical evidence · AI source assessment, not confirmed by the laboratory

Catalogue record

EMMA Micro-Characterisation Laboratory

Catalogue record

ESTEC Physico-Chemical Analytical Services

Catalogue record

Kavli NanoLab Delft

Catalogue record

LaserLaB Amsterdam Access Facilities

Catalogue record

Loi Group Research Facilities

Catalogue record

PhotoConversion Materials Research Infrastructure

Catalogue record

Physical Chemistry and Soft Matter Instrumentation Laboratory

Catalogue record

Scanning Probe in Nijmegen (SPiN) Labs

Catalogue record

Surface and Interface Science Reactor Microscopy Laboratory

Catalogue record

TNO Nano Instrumentation research infrastructure

Catalogue record

Topological Quantum Matter Lab

Catalogue record

Often combined with

Problems where it helps