The surface morphology features of NSs, MPH, CUR, and the ICs were analyzed using a Zeiss LEO Supra 35-VP scanning electron microscope equipped with EDS. Acceleration voltages of 2.0 and 5.0 kV were used. The samples were deposited onto a carbon tape stuck to an aluminum stub, following gold coating using a magneton sputtering (pressure of 0.5 mbar, argon atmosphere, and current of 25 mA, for 15 s) to minimize charging effects.
Leo supra 35vp
Manufactured by Zeiss
Sourced in Germany
The Leo Supra 35VP is a scanning electron microscope (SEM) designed and manufactured by Zeiss. It is capable of high-resolution imaging and analysis of a wide range of materials. The instrument features a variable pressure (VP) mode that allows the examination of non-conductive specimens without the need for coating.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
7 protocols using leo supra 35vp
1
Scanning Electron Microscopy of Nanomaterials
2
SEM and FE-SEM Imaging Protocols
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
SEM images were obtained using an LEO 1420VP equipment with an Oxford 7424 energy dispersive spectrometer coupled at an accelerating voltage of 25 kV. FE-SEM images were obtained using a Zeiss Leo Supra 35-VP at an accelerating voltage of 15 kV and 20 kV.
3
Comprehensive Characterization of Px Nanofibers
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The morphology of
the Px powder and the electrospun nanofibers was explored using a
scanning electron microscope (Zeiss LEO Supra 35VP) at 5 kV. The samples
were sputtered with a thin layer of Pd/Au before SEM analysis. The
Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra of the samples were recorded
on a Thermo Nicolet 6700 spectrometer equipped with an ATR sampling
accessory. The spectra were recorded for 128-scan accumulation for
an acceptable signal/noise ratio at a resolution of 4 cm–1. Thermal analysis of the materials was carried out using a Shimadzu
Corp. DTG-60H (TGA/DTA) by heating the samples to 600 °C at a
rate of 10 °C/min under a nitrogen atmosphere. Differential scanning
calorimetry analyses of the samples were performed on a DSC 2000 (TA
Instruments) through a heating–cooling cycle up to 270 °C
with a heating/cooling ramp rate of 10 °C min–1. The data were analyzed using Trios software (TA Instruments). Wide-angle
X-ray diffraction analysis of the samples was performed on a RIGAKU
Smartlab diffractometer in the 2θ range of 4–40°.
The data were analyzed using high X′Pert HighScore analysis
software (version 2.0a). 1H NMR and 13C NMR
analysis of the samples was performed on an Agilent VNMRS 500 MHz
nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer. The samples were dissolved
in D2O. Each spectrum consisted of 128 scans for 1H and 8000 scans for 13C analysis.
the Px powder and the electrospun nanofibers was explored using a
scanning electron microscope (Zeiss LEO Supra 35VP) at 5 kV. The samples
were sputtered with a thin layer of Pd/Au before SEM analysis. The
Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectra of the samples were recorded
on a Thermo Nicolet 6700 spectrometer equipped with an ATR sampling
accessory. The spectra were recorded for 128-scan accumulation for
an acceptable signal/noise ratio at a resolution of 4 cm–1. Thermal analysis of the materials was carried out using a Shimadzu
Corp. DTG-60H (TGA/DTA) by heating the samples to 600 °C at a
rate of 10 °C/min under a nitrogen atmosphere. Differential scanning
calorimetry analyses of the samples were performed on a DSC 2000 (TA
Instruments) through a heating–cooling cycle up to 270 °C
with a heating/cooling ramp rate of 10 °C min–1. The data were analyzed using Trios software (TA Instruments). Wide-angle
X-ray diffraction analysis of the samples was performed on a RIGAKU
Smartlab diffractometer in the 2θ range of 4–40°.
The data were analyzed using high X′Pert HighScore analysis
software (version 2.0a). 1H NMR and 13C NMR
analysis of the samples was performed on an Agilent VNMRS 500 MHz
nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer. The samples were dissolved
in D2O. Each spectrum consisted of 128 scans for 1H and 8000 scans for 13C analysis.
4
Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
A Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (LEO SUPRA 35VP, Carl Zeiss, Germany) was used to image the morphologies of the hybrid compound and the worn surface of the composites. Before imaging, the samples were coated with gold/palladium (Au-Pd) using a vacuum sputter chamber.
5
Visualizing 3D-Printed Mesh Core-Shell Structure
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
We analyzed the core–shell structure
of the 3D-printed meshes through field emission scanning electron
microscopy (SEM, Zeiss Leo Supra 35VP, Germany). After drying, the
printed samples were physically fractured to visualize the core–shell
structure. The samples were fixed onto specimen stubs with a 90°
angle to capture the cross-sectional fracture surface. To prevent
charging, the samples were coated (∼9 nm) with Au/Pd by using
a Cressington 108 sputter coater at a current of 40 mA for 30 s. The
core and shell thickness of the printed meshes were estimated using
ImageJ. The 3D-printed meshes were photographed by a Spot Insight
QE camera (Diagnostic Instruments, Silver Spring, USA) at 5×
and 10× magnifications in optical microscopy (Nikon Eclipse ME600,
Japan) (Figure S2 ). We investigated the
translocation and uptake of C-dots via confocal microscopy (Carl-Zeiss
LSM 710, Zeiss AXIO Observer Z1, Germany) with 10×/03 and 20×/0.8
M27 dry objectives. Images were captured by using Zen imaging software.
The plants were exposed to C-dots for a duration of 15 days. On day
16, the plants were carefully harvested and dissected into their respective
tissue parts (stem, lateral root, and taproot), which were then placed
in a confocal Petri dish and sequentially excited at 405, 488, and
561 nm to validate whether C-dots are capable of accumulating within
the tissues of plants compared to the control group.
of the 3D-printed meshes through field emission scanning electron
microscopy (SEM, Zeiss Leo Supra 35VP, Germany). After drying, the
printed samples were physically fractured to visualize the core–shell
structure. The samples were fixed onto specimen stubs with a 90°
angle to capture the cross-sectional fracture surface. To prevent
charging, the samples were coated (∼9 nm) with Au/Pd by using
a Cressington 108 sputter coater at a current of 40 mA for 30 s. The
core and shell thickness of the printed meshes were estimated using
ImageJ. The 3D-printed meshes were photographed by a Spot Insight
QE camera (Diagnostic Instruments, Silver Spring, USA) at 5×
and 10× magnifications in optical microscopy (Nikon Eclipse ME600,
Japan) (
translocation and uptake of C-dots via confocal microscopy (Carl-Zeiss
LSM 710, Zeiss AXIO Observer Z1, Germany) with 10×/03 and 20×/0.8
M27 dry objectives. Images were captured by using Zen imaging software.
The plants were exposed to C-dots for a duration of 15 days. On day
16, the plants were carefully harvested and dissected into their respective
tissue parts (stem, lateral root, and taproot), which were then placed
in a confocal Petri dish and sequentially excited at 405, 488, and
561 nm to validate whether C-dots are capable of accumulating within
the tissues of plants compared to the control group.
6
Characterizing Nanofiber Composition and Structure
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
HNT-ICG
content of the nanofiber was determined by TGA (Shimadzu Corp. DTG-60H
(TGA/DTA)). ICG powder and PAN, PAN/ICG, and PAN/HNT-ICG nanofibers
were analyzed under a nitrogen flow, with a scanning range of 30 to
1000 °C and a heating rate of 10 °C/min.
Experimental
% weight of ICG in the PAN/ICG nanofibers was calculated by determining
the weight change difference of PAN and PAN/ICG at 1000 °C. Experimental
% weight of ICG in the PAN/HNT-ICG nanofibers was calculated by determining
the weight change difference of PAN/HNT-ICG and HNT-ICG at 1000 °C
and normalizing this difference by the remaining weight of HNT at
this temperature.
The surface morphology and diameter of the
PAN/HNT-ICG nanofibers
were examined using a Zeiss Leo Supra 35VP scanning electron microscope
(SEM). Samples were coated with Au–Pd, and images were collected
at 2 kV by using the secondary electron detector.
content of the nanofiber was determined by TGA (Shimadzu Corp. DTG-60H
(TGA/DTA)). ICG powder and PAN, PAN/ICG, and PAN/HNT-ICG nanofibers
were analyzed under a nitrogen flow, with a scanning range of 30 to
1000 °C and a heating rate of 10 °C/min.
Experimental
% weight of ICG in the PAN/ICG nanofibers was calculated by determining
the weight change difference of PAN and PAN/ICG at 1000 °C. Experimental
% weight of ICG in the PAN/HNT-ICG nanofibers was calculated by determining
the weight change difference of PAN/HNT-ICG and HNT-ICG at 1000 °C
and normalizing this difference by the remaining weight of HNT at
this temperature.
The surface morphology and diameter of the
PAN/HNT-ICG nanofibers
were examined using a Zeiss Leo Supra 35VP scanning electron microscope
(SEM). Samples were coated with Au–Pd, and images were collected
at 2 kV by using the secondary electron detector.
7
Scanning Electron Microscopy of Printed Samples
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The morphological
structures of the printed samples were determined by a Zeiss Leo Supra
35VP scanning electron microscope (SEM) using a secondary electron
detector at 5 kV. For SEM measurements, the samples were first freeze-dried
and then coated with Au–Pd under vacuum. SEM images were visualized
at an accelerating voltage of 10 kV and a working distance of 10–15
mm. The morphological structures were analyzed from SEM images using
ImageJ software.
structures of the printed samples were determined by a Zeiss Leo Supra
35VP scanning electron microscope (SEM) using a secondary electron
detector at 5 kV. For SEM measurements, the samples were first freeze-dried
and then coated with Au–Pd under vacuum. SEM images were visualized
at an accelerating voltage of 10 kV and a working distance of 10–15
mm. The morphological structures were analyzed from SEM images using
ImageJ software.
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
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!