Transmission electron microscope (TEM) was employed to trace the morphology evolution of the GNMs with a JEM-2100 microscope working at 200 kV. The Atomic force microscopy (AFM) was utilized to confirm the detailed morphology using a SPM9700 (Shimadzu, Japan). X-ray diffraction (XRD) was obtained from GNMs powders using a Philips X′pert X-ray diffractometer with Cu Kα1 radiation (λ = 1.5406 Å) in the 2θ range from 5° to 40°. A Kratos XSAM800 spectrometer was employed for X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) using Al Kα radiation (1486.6 eV) and Ultraviolet Photoelectron Spectroscopy (UPS) using He(Ι) (hν = 21.2 eV) discharge lamp as the energy source. Raman spectrum was carried out with a HORIBA Jobin Yvon Lab RAM HR operating at 532 nm wavelength at room temperature, scanning from 1000 cm−1 to 2000 cm−1. The peak intensities were employed directly to calculate the ID/IG without the further processing of the initial data, such as integration and baseline subtraction. And ten parallel sampling data of each sample were collected to determine the error bars through the formula of standard deviation. The UV–Vis adsorption spectra was measured by using a PerkinElmer Lambda 35, scanned from 200 cm−1 to 1100 cm−1.
Xsam800 spectrometer
Manufactured by Shimadzu
Sourced in United Kingdom
The XSAM800 is a spectrometer designed for X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analysis. It provides high-resolution elemental and chemical state information about the surface of a sample.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
Hr800, by Horiba (2 mentions)
D8 advance, by Bruker (2 mentions)
Lambda 35, by PerkinElmer (1 mentions)
X pert x ray diffractometer, by Philips (1 mentions)
Spm 9700, by Shimadzu (1 mentions)
X pert diffractometer, by Philips (1 mentions)
S 4800, by Hitachi (1 mentions)
D8 focus, by Bruker (1 mentions)
F 4600 fluorescence spectrophotometer, by Hitachi (1 mentions)
Tristar 3000 analyzer, by Micromeritics (1 mentions)
S 4800 scanning electron microscope, by JEOL (1 mentions)
Jsm 7500f microscope, by JEOL (1 mentions)
Dma q800 dynamic mechanical analyzer, by TA Instruments (1 mentions)
Miniflex 600, by Rigaku (1 mentions)
Jem 100cx, by JEOL (1 mentions)
90 plus, by Brookhaven Instruments (1 mentions)
Physical properties measurement system (ppms), by Quantum Design (1 mentions)
Fei talos f200x microscope, by Thermo Fisher Scientific (1 mentions)
Smartlab, by Rigaku (1 mentions)
Uv 2401pc, by Shimadzu (1 mentions)
15 protocols using xsam800 spectrometer
1
Characterization of Graphene Nanomaterials
2
Comprehensive Characterization of Sample Microstructure
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The morphology and microstructure of the samples were characterized by field-emission scanning electron microscopy (SEM, Quanta 400, FEI NanoPorts) and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM, Tecnai G20, FEI NanoPorts). X-ray diffraction (XRD) measurements were obtained by a TD-3500 X-ray powder diffractometer (BRUKER AXS GMBH, D8 ADVANCE A25). X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was performed using a Kratos XSAM 800 spectrometer (Manchester, UK). Raman spectroscopy analysis was performed using HR800 (Horiba Jobin Yvon) with a 514.5 nm laser source. The pore structure was determined through N2 adsorption/desorption isotherms at 77 K using an automatic physical sorption analyzer (Autosorb IQ, Quantachrome). Before the adsorption measurements, all samples were degassed at 200 °C for more than 6 h under high vacuum conditions.
3
Characterization of SnO2 Nanoparticles
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
SnO2 nanoparticles were analyzed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) performed on a Philips X’Pert diffractometer (2θ from 20° to 80°, λ = 1.5406 Å) with Cu Kα radiation. Micromorphology and element distribution of pure SnO2 and Pt-decorated SnO2 were characterized by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM, Hitachi S-4800, Tokyo, Japan) and an energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS, Hitachi S-4800, Tokyo, Japan). TEM images were obtained by a JEOL 2100F microscope (Tokyo, Japan). The X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) test was conducted by a Kratos XSAM800 spectrometer (Manchester, England).
4
Comprehensive Characterization of Nanomaterials
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
TEM was performed on a JEOL JEM 2100F electron microscope operating at 200 kV. The photoluminescence (PL) spectrum was performed on a Hitachi F-4600 fluorescence spectrophotometer. Crystalline structures were evaluated by XRD analysis using a Bruker D8 Focus operating at 40 kV and 40 mA equipped with nickel-filtered Cu Kα radiation (λ = 1.54056 Å). The BET surface area and pore structure of catalysts were measured using a Micromeritics Tristar 3000 analyzer by nitrogen adsorption at 77 K. The specific surface areas were calculated from the isotherms using the BET method. The pore distribution and the cumulative volumes of pores were obtained by the BJH method from the desorption branch of the adsorption isotherms. XPS was performed under ultrahigh vacuum (<10–6 Pa) on a Kratos XSAM 800 spectrometer with Mg Kα X-ray source (E = 1253.6 eV).
5
X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Analysis
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was performed with a Kratos XSAM 800 spectrometer operating in the fixed analyzer transmission mode (pass energy 40 eV), using a Mg Kα1.2 (1253.6 eV) excitation. Survey spectra were recorded in the kinetic energy range of 150–1300 eV with 0.5 eV steps. Photoelectron lines of the main constituent elements (O1s, N1s, C1s and Si2p) were recorded with 0.1 eV steps. The spectra were referenced to the C1s line (binding energy: BE = 285.0 eV) of the hydrocarbon-type carbon. A quantitative analysis and layer thickness calculations were performed with the XPS MultiQuant 7.8 program [47 (link)], based on the peak area intensity after removal of the Shirley type background, with the use of the cross section data of Evans et al. [48 (link)] and asymmetry parameters of Reilman et al. [49 (link)]. A correction for surface contamination was performed with the method of Mohai [50 ].
6
Comprehensive Characterization of Nanomaterials
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The morphological characterization of the as-prepared sample was performed with a Hitachi S-4800 scanning electron microscope (SEM) and a JEOL-2100F transmission electron microscope (TEM) at an acceleration voltage of 200 kV. Raman spectra were measured on an HR800 (Horiba Jobin Yvon) with a 514.5 nm laser source. XRD analysis of the sample was done using an XRD Bruker D8-ADVANCE. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) was performed using a Kratos XSAM 800 spectrometer (Manchester, UK). Nitrogen adsorption–desorption isotherms were obtained at 77 K on an Autosorb IQ Quantachrome Analyzer. Before the adsorption measurements, all samples were degassed at 200 °C for more than 6 h under high vacuum. The SSA was calculated by the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method. The pore size distribution was analyzed by the nonlocal density functional theory (DFT) method.
7
X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Surface Analysis
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
For the surface analysis, a KRATOS ANALYTICAL XSAM800 spectrometer employing nonmonochromatized Al Kα radiation (hν = 1486.6 eV) was used. The base pressure in the analytical chamber was lower than 2 × 10–7 Pa. The energy scale of the system was calibrated according to the Au 4f7/2, Cu 2p3/2, and Ag 3d5/2 peak positions. The C 1s, O 1s, Mo 3d, and Sr 3d spectra were acquired at the 20 eV pass energy and 0.1 eV energy steps (for survey spectra, 40 eV pass energy and 0.5 eV energy steps were used) and with the analyzer working in the fixed analyzer transmission (FAT) mode. After Shirley’s background subtraction, relative atomic concentrations were calculated from the peak areas using the original KRATOS software and relative sensitivity factors. Spectra deconvolution was performed by employing the XPSPEAK 4.1v software, where a symmetrical peak shape and a product of Gaussian and Lorentzian functions with a 70 to 30 ratio were used.
8
Characterization of SiCWPU Membranes
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Fourier-transformed infrared (FTIR) spectra were collected using a Nicolet 560 FTIR spectrometer (Nicolet, Waltham, MA). The sizes of SiCWPU dispersions were measured via dynamic light scattering (DLS). The static contact angle of water was measured on the surfaces of films using a DSA30 contact angle system (KRUSS Co.). Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) was carried out using a DMA Q-800 dynamic mechanical analyzer (TA Instruments). X-ray photoelectronic spectroscopy (XPS) was performed using an XSAM 800 spectrometer (Kratos, UK). Scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) data from the SiCWPU membranes were measured with a JSM-7500F microscope (model JEOL). The mechanical properties of the SiCWPU films were measured with a material testing machine (5967, Instron, USA).
9
Characterization of Synthesized Semiconductors
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The crystallographic parameters of the synthesized materials were examined by using an X-ray diffractometer (XRD, Rigaku Miniflex 600) equipped with a monochromatic Cu Kα radiation (λ = 0.154 nm) at a scan rate of 2° min−1 in the range of 20–80°. The surface morphological features of the synthesized semiconductors were analyzed using transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM, JEOL/JEM 2100). A Kratos XSAM800 spectrometer equipped with an Al Kα source was used to record the X-ray photoelectron spectrum (XPS) to study the surface chemistry and valence states of the material. The specific surface area was determined using the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method (BEL SORP II, JAPAN). The pore size distribution was determined using the Barrett–Joyner–Halenda (BJH) method. The diffuse reflectance (DR) spectra were recorded using a UV-visible spectrometer (DRS, DR SPECORD S600 Analytic Jena). The photoluminescence (PL) spectra were recorded at room temperature (LS-55, PerkinElmer).
10
Nanoparticle Characterization Techniques
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The particle size and size distribution of the drug loaded NPs were measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS, 90Plus, Brookhaven Instruments Co, Holtsville, NY, USA). Transmission electron microscopy (TEM, JEM-100CX; JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) was used to observe the micelle morphology at an operating voltage of 100 kV. Each result was an average of triplicate measurements. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy spectra (XPS, Kratos XSAM800 spectrometer; Kratos, Manchester, UK) was employed to investigate the surface chemistry of the NPs, using Mg Kα radiation (1,253.6 eV) as the exciting source operated at 11.5 kV and 17 mA.
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!