The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

170 protocols using jsm 6510

1

Echinoderm Spine Structure Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Five individuals of each species from each sampling date were examined they were first dissected in order to acquire spines from the middle section of the interambulacral zones and interambulacral plates near the peristome. The plates and spines were then cleaned of internal organs using a 1% bleach treatment in distilled water for 30 min and dried at 60 °C for 3 days [33 (link)]. Specimens were coated in carbon by a Q150R Plus-rotary pumped coater carbon thread evaporator, reducing picture clarity in comparison to a gold coating, but enabling Energy-Dispersive X-Ray Spectroskopy (Figure 2). The samples were examined and imaged by SEM JEOL JSM 6510. For the cross-section of the spines, the middle part of the shaft was selected. Five observations for each species were carried out to determine the number of wedges. To study the chemical composition of the spines and tests, an EDS analysis was carried out by a JEOL JSM 6510 scanning electron microscope, equipped with an Oxford Link ISIS 300 system. Each measurement lasted 240 sec and was made in a 0.102 mm area. The characterization of the various stereom was carried out according to Smith, 1980.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

3D Bioprinted cECM Hydrogel Scaffold Ultrastructure

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The ultrastructure of the cECM hydrogel scaffolds was visualized with a JSM-6510 (JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) scanning electron microscope (SEM). cECM scaffolds of 20 × 9 × 3 mm3 were produced via 3D bioprinting casting
The 3D scaffolds were fixed in 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) in PBS for 48 h and then washed three times with 0.1 M phosphate buffer (PB). Next, the samples were incubated in 4% osmium tetroxide for 90 min and then rinsed with deionized water. Subsequently, samples were dehydrated by washing them with ethanol 80% (×2), 90% (×3), 96% (×3), and 100% (×3) and preserved in absolute ethanol at 4 °C until critical point drying (Autosamdri-815 critical point dryer, Tousimis, Rockville, MD, USA). Samples were then carbon coated and mounted using conductive adhesive tabs (TED PELLA, Redding, CA, USA). Imaging was performed by using an SEM (JSM-6510, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) at 15 kV.
The diameter of the fibers was assessed following the method developed in [47 (link)]. Briefly, 10 fibers of three different zones of each sample were randomly selected, and their diameter was computed with ImageJ Software v1.53 (National Institute of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Analyzing Plastic Surface Erosion After Microbial Degradation

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To observe the plastic surface erosion or decomposition after microbial degradation, we used scanning electron microscopy [39 (link)] (Jeol, JSM-6510, Tokyo, Japan). The SEM sample preparation protocol followed that of the Joint Center for Instruments and Researchers, College of Bio-Resources and Agriculture, NTU. Plastic films cultured with A. fumigatus L30 or A. terreus HC for 30 days were removed from the flask, and each film was cut into 2 pieces and divided into washed and unwashed groups. For the washed group, the plastic film was washed with distilled water to remove the mycelia attached to the plastic surface. The plastic films were immediately soaked in 2.5% (w/v) glutaraldehyde (Sigma–Aldrich Co.) at 4 °C and then shaken overnight for cell fixation. The fixed films were washed with 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH = 7.3) and postfixed in 1% osmium tetroxide (w/v) in an ice bath for 1 h. The samples were dehydrated gradually with different concentrations of ethanol (30%, 50%, 70%, 85%, 90%, 95%, 100%) for 60 min at each concentration, except for 70% and 100% ethanol for which overnight dehydration was conducted. The dehydrated samples were placed in a critical point dryer for critical spot drying, and subsequently, the samples were coated with gold and observed under a scanning electron microscope (Jeol, JSM-6510) [40 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Scanning Electron Microscopy of Samples

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Morphology of the samples was analyzed using a JEOL JSM-6510 scanning electron microscope (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Samples were mounted on a double-faced adhesive tape sputtered with platinum. Scanning electron photographs were taken at an accelerating voltage of 5 kV. The particle size (PS) and PS distribution were determined by microscopic quantitative analysis of at least 150 particles in the SEM image, and these values were used to obtain the corresponding statistics.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Wear Resistance of MAO Coatings

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The wear resistance of the MAO films was measured by a wear test machine (mode: CSM TRB 01-05600 Nano-Tribometer, made by CSM Instruments, Peuseux, Switzerland). According to the ASTM G99-17 test standard [25 ], the wear test was performed against a tungsten carbide ball (hardness: 90HRA) in a pin-on-disk mode, under a load of 3 N at a fixed rotation speed of 0.1 m/s and 6000 cycles with a 12 mm rotation diameter. Then, the friction coefficient and wear rate were measured. The wear track was observed using a scanning electron microscope (JEOL JSM6510, JEOL Ltd, Tokyo, Japan), and the wear track depths were measured by a laser scanning microscope (VK-9710, KEYENCE America, Elmwood Park, NJ, USA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Microstructural Analysis of Produced Samples

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
In order to obtain microstructural images of the produced samples, the P200-400-600-800-1000-1200 grid was sanded with paper backing SiC discs, respectively. After sanding, 3 µm diamond suspension was used for polishing. The etched samples, which were etched by %5 Nital and ammonium persulfate (10 g (NH4)S2O3 + 90 g deionized water) and their dilution with ethanol, were made ready for SEM. The samples were cleaned with ethyl alcohol to avoid any residue on the surface of the samples. Metallographic analysis of the samples was carried out on the JEOL JSM 6510 branded SEM device (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

SEM Analysis of Fracture Surfaces

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The fracture surfaces of the CT-specimens after testing were analyzed with a scanning electron microscope (SEM) from JEOL-JSM-6510 from JEOL (Freising, Germany). The acceleration voltage was set to 10 kV and the samples were sputtered with a 1.3 nm thick platinum layer prior to measurement.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Microscopic Analysis of Dental Restorations

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols

The first cut was transversal on the occlusal face, followed by a sectional cut in the wall of the proximal restoration, and finally an internal longitudinal cut was made in the middle part of the restoration (
Fig. 1). The width of the specimens was 1.5 mm, and the cuts were made with a diamond disc with two lights IsoMet Wafering Blades 15 LC (Buehler, Germany). The specimens were polished with 600-, 800-, and 1,000-grit sandpaper to obtain a smooth surface and were thoroughly dehydrated at intervals of 30 minutes in alcohol at concentrations of 25, 40, 50, 75, 80, 90, and 100%, and were coated with 15 to 20 nm gold particles to be observed by SEM (JEOL JSM-6510; JEOL, Massachusetts, United States).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Characterization of Cement Materials by XRD and SEM

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The crystal structure of the three synthesized materials was determined by X-ray diffraction (XRD; Ultima IV, Rigaku, Japan). The specimens were scanned with a range of diffraction angle of 2θ = 10°–80°, with a rate of 2° min−1 and step width of 0.02°, using Cu Kα1 radiation at 2 kV and 40 mA. ProRoot® MTA and bismuth oxide were also characterized as controls. The surface morphology of each powder was observed by a scanning electron microscope (SEM; JEOL-JSM 6510, Tokyo, Japan) at an accelerating voltage of 10 kV. The powder size distribution was determined using a particle size analyzer (Malvern Mastersizer MS2000; Malvern Instruments, Malvern, UK). Suspensions were prepared with 50 mL of ethanol and 50 μg of C3S, C2S, C3A, and ProRoot MTA. The D50 (a cumulative 50% point of diameter) of MTA, C3S, C2S, and C3A was determined as the representative size of the powder.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Structural Characterization of VM9 and PM9

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
XRD (X-ray diffraction) analyses in the VM9 powder, sintered VM9, PM9 press pellet, and pressed PM9 were performed in a diffractometer (XRD 6000, Shimadzu, Tokyo, Japan) with Cu Kα X-ray scanning from 10 to 80° 2θ degrees with a step size of 0.05° and 3 s step interval.
For the SEM (Scanning Electron Microscopy) analyses (n=3) of VM9, PM9 and PM9 press pellet specimens, the specimens were polished and etched with 2% HF (hydrofluoric acid) for 15 s and sputter-coated with goldpalladium. The specimens were examined in a scanning electron microscope (JEOL -JSM 6510, Jeol, Tokyo, Japan), operating at 10 kV. Three scanning electron micrographs from each group were obtained at a magnification of 500×, 1000× and 2000×. The Image J software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used to analyze the crystalline phase concentration of VM9, PM9 press pellet and pressed PM9. The SEM images of 1000x magnification (n=9) were used to measure the crystalline area, three times per image. The mean of the measurements was used for statistical analysis.
+ 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!