The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Quanta 200 electron microscope

Manufactured by Thermo Fisher Scientific
Sourced in United States

The Quanta 200 is a scanning electron microscope (SEM) designed for high-resolution imaging and analysis of a variety of samples. It features a field emission gun (FEG) electron source, providing high-brightness electron beams for high-resolution imaging. The Quanta 200 can operate in high vacuum, low vacuum, and environmental (wet) modes, allowing it to handle a wide range of sample types. It is equipped with advanced detectors for secondary and backscattered electron imaging, as well as energy-dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy for elemental analysis.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

11 protocols using quanta 200 electron microscope

1

Spore Morphology Characterization Protocol

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Specimens were borrowed from Queensland Plant Pathology Herbarium (BRIP) and Herbarium Mycologicum Academiae Sinicae (HMAS) (Table 1). Spores were mounted in lactic acid (100% v/v) and examined under the light microscope. Means and standard deviations (SD) were calculated from at least 20 measurements. Ranges were expressed as (min.−) mean − SD–mean + SD (−max.) with values rounded to 0.5 μm if below 20 μm and 1.0 μm if above 20 μm. Images were captured by using a Nikon Eclipse 80i camera attached to a Nikon DS-Fi1 compound microscope with Nomarski differential interference contrast. For scanning electron microscopy (SEM), dried spores were dusted onto double-sided adhesive tape, fixed on specimen stubs, sputter coated with gold, ca. 20 nm thick, and examined with a FEI Quanta 200 electron microscope. Nomenclatural novelties and descriptions were registered in MycoBank (www.MycoBank.org).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Scanning Electron Microscopy of Bone

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
SEM analyses were performed using a Quanta 200 electron microscope (FEI Company, Hillsboro, OR, USA). Bone samples were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1-M PBS pH 7.3 for 4 h. Samples were then removed and washed three times for 5 min in distilled water. Subsequently, samples were immersed for approximately 40 min in 0.5% osmium tetroxide and washed three times in distilled water; dehydrated in increasing concentrations of ethanol (7.5% to 100%); dried in a critical point apparatus with liquid carbon dioxide, mounted on appropriate chucks, metallized and gold-coated [37 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Bone Sample Preparation for SEM Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Bone samples were fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M PBS pH 7.3 for 4 hours. The samples were then removed and washed three times for 5 minutes in distilled water. Subsequently, the samples were immersed for approximately 30 to 40 minutes in 0.5% osmium tetroxide diluted in distilled water, washed in distilled water (3 × 10-minute washes); dehydrated in increasing concentrations of ethanol, dried in a critical point apparatus with liquid carbon dioxide, mounted on appropriate chucks, metallized and gold-coated. The SEM analyses were performed using a Quanta 200 electron microscope (FEI Company, Hillsboro, OR, USA) [16 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Characterizing Plasmonic Matrices using Electron Microscopy

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) images of HGNPs were obtained with a Tecnai T30 electron microscope (FEI, Hillsboro, OR, USA) operated in the bright field mode at an accelerating voltage of 300 kV. To characterize plasmonic matrices using transmission electron microscopy (TEM), the above-described components for preparing plasmonic scaffolds were mixed and then diluted ten-fold in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). A drop of this dilution was carefully placed on a 400-mesh carbon-coated copper grid and allowed to polymerize for 5 min at 37°C. After removing the excess solution with a filter paper, the sample was visualized using a JEM 1010 electron microscope (JEOL, Peabody, MA, USA). The internal morphology of plasmonic scaffolds, lacking or containing cells, was visualized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Hydrogels were rinsed gently with PBS, fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) and sliced using a scalpel blade. Slices were lyophilized at -80°C and then mounted on aluminium stubs, sputter-coated with carbon and imaged with a FEI Quanta 200 electron microscope.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Ultrastructural Analysis of Infected Malpighian Tubules

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Disrupted Malpighian tubules were smeared on microscope slides, air-dried, fixed in methanol (5 min), and stained with Giemsa solution (Accustain, Sigma-Aldrich; 45 min in a 1:10 dilution). Dried smears were embedded in Entellan (Merck). For scanning electron microscopy, cover glasses with smears of infected Malpighian tubules were air-dried and coated with gold particles using a Baltec SCD 040 sputter device. Micrographs were taken with a Quanta 200 electron microscope (FEI Company). For transmission electron microscopy, samples were fixed for several days with 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M cacodylate buffer at 4 °C, rinsed with cacodylate buffer, and post-fixed for 1.5 h with reduced OsO4 at room temperature without darkening (fresh 1:1 mixture of 2% OsO4 and 3% K4[Fe(CN)6]). The samples were then rinsed with distilled water, and after dehydration in a series of ethanol (15 min each in 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 100%, 3 × 100% water free), they were embedded in Spurr’s resin55 (link). Ultrathin sections were stained with saturated aqueous uranyl acetate for 30 min in the dark, followed by Reynolds’ lead citrate56 (link) for 5 min. During the latter, sodium hydroxide pellets were put next to the grids in order to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and thus prevent precipitation of lead carbonate. The sections were investigated using a Philips CM 120 BioTwin electron microscope.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

SEM Analysis of Sample Pore Structure

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The cross-section SEM micrographs of the samples were obtained with a Quanta 200 electron microscope (from FEI Company, Hillsboro, OR, USA), working at 20 kV in low vacuum mode, without any coating. The samples were fixed on aluminum stubs with double-adhesive carbon tape. The average pore size was calculated using ImageJ software.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Microneedle Array Fabrication and Characterization

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Square pyramidal microneedle arrays measuring 1000 μm tall and 450 μm in width, spaced at 450 μm between needles (edge to edge) were designed using Solidworks 2016. The array was 12 × 12 microneedles, for a total of 144 microneedles per patch. The margin from the last microneedle row to the edge of the array was 450 μm in all directions (Additional file 1: Figure S1). This computer aided design file was exported in a Standard Triangle Language (.STL) format, imported into Autodesk’s Print Studio software, centered on the build area with microneedles oriented along the z axis and exported as a .tar.gz file without introducing additional supports. Layer thicknesses of 10 μm, 25 μm, and 50 μm were investigated. The file was uploaded to the Autodesk Ember and fabricated using Autodesk’s Standard Clear PR48 Resin (formulation given in Additional file 2: Figure S2). All microneedle arrays were imaged without sputter coating using an FEI Quanta 200 electron microscope (Hillsborough, Oregon, United States) in low vacuum mode at 0.028 Torr, 20.0 kV, and 3.0 spot size. Microneedle physical dimensions (height, width, tip radius of curvature) were measured using Image J (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA). Measurements were taken from three needles at random locations on two separate arrays.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

SEM Characterization of Cells on C60 Nanofilms

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Details of cell morphology were evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM: Zeiss, Ultra Plus, Oberkochen, Germany). HS-5, HepG2 and C3A cells were seeded on 6-well plates coated with nanofilm of C60 dots. SEM observations of cells were completed with a Quanta 200 electron microscope (FEI, Hillsboro, OR, USA). Cells were prepared for SEM observation after 7 days of exposure to the C60 nanofilms. The cells were rinsed in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH 7.2), then fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde (G5882, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) for 30 mins. Cells were contrasted and dehydrated according to Wierzbicki et al.47 (link) Samples were placed on aluminum SEM stubs. Subsequently, cells were dehydrated in increasing concentrations of hexylene glycol (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Drying was performed with a Polaron CPD 7501 critical point dryer (Quorum Technologies, Laughton, UK).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Ultrastructural Analysis of AOA Cells

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
For scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis, AOA cells were harvested using 0.22 μm polycarbonate GTTP membrane (Millipore, USA), and then fixed in 2.5% (vol/vol) glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.2) for 24 h at 4 °C, and dehydrated using a graded ethanol series (70 to 100%) and finally 100% tertiary butanol. The samples were examined with a Quanta 200 electron microscope (FEI, the Netherlands). For transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis, cells were collected from 500 ml of culture by centrifugation at 6000 g for 10 min, and then negatively stained with 1% (wt/vol) phosphotungstic acid. Ultrathin sections were produced with an EM UC6 ultramicrotome (Leica, Germany), stained with uranyl acetate and lead citrate, and examined with an H-7650B electron microscope (Hitachi, Japan).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

SEM Imaging of MP Samples

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Eight MP fragments were randomly selected from samples of each site and preserved for SEM. The fragments were washed with fresh ddH2O and dried for 12 h at 70 °C. Dry samples were sputter-coated using a S150A Sputter Coater (Edwards, Irvine, USA) with a gold layer of 2 nm. The coated plastic fragments were visualised and imaged using a Quanta 200 electron microscope (FEI, Hillsboro, United States) with a 10 kV electron beam and varying magnifications.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand

About PubCompare

Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.

We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.

However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.

Ready to get started?

Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required

Sign up now

Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!