The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Jsm 6400 sem

Manufactured by JEOL
Sourced in Japan

The JSM-6400 is a scanning electron microscope (SEM) manufactured by JEOL. It is designed to produce high-resolution images of samples by scanning them with a focused beam of electrons. The JSM-6400 SEM is capable of magnifying specimens up to 300,000 times, providing detailed information about the surface topography and composition of a wide range of materials.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

15 protocols using jsm 6400 sem

1

Cuprous Oxide Morphology Characterization

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The morphology of cuprous oxide samples was investigated using TEM and SEM at Friedrich-Schiller University (FSU) and the University of New Brunswick (UNB). A suspension of Cu2O (0.5 mg/mL) was deposited onto a nickel grid (TEM) or ultra-smooth glassy background (SEM). A JEOL JSM-6400 SEM (Jeol Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), equipped with an EDAX Genesis 4000 energy dispersive X-Ray (EDX) analyzer, was used at an accelerating voltage of 15 kV (UNB). High resolution TEM (HRTEM) was carried out with a JEOL 3010 and JEOL NeoARM TEM (Jeol Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

SEM Visualization of Biofilm Morphology

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Biofilm morphology was visualised using the JEOL JSM-6400 SEM machine (JEOL Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) at magnification of × 1500 for fungal biofilms, or × 3500 for bacterial mono-species and triadic model biofilms. Biofilms were processed and prepared for SEM as previously described [38 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Staphylococcal Cell Morphology under APLss

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Reference strains of staphylococci, including MSSA 25923 and MRSA 33591 were examined by SEM to determine the effect of APLss on cell morphology and ultrastructure as described previously [30 ]. Briefly, staphylococcal suspensions were incubated with 0.5× and 1× MIC of APLss for 12 h at 37 °C before being collected and resuspended in PBS (pH 7.4). Bacterial cells were first fixed with a mixture of 2.5% glutaraldehyde and 4% paraformaldehyde for 4 h, and then with a cross-linking reagent, 1% osmium tetraoxide, for 1 h. The specimens were then dehydrated with varying ethanol concentrations, critical point dried with carbon dioxide, stacked on a stub, and sputter-coated with gold. The specimens were examined with a JEOL JSM 6400 SEM (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Gunshot Residue Analysis by SEM

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
All tests were carried out at the Criminal Police Laboratory (KPL in Turkish) shooting room. In the test shots, a 9-mm Sarsilmaz Kilinc 2000 mega brand semiautomatic pistol was used with full metal jacket cartridges that were produced by a 9 mm × 19 mm Parabellum-type MKE, Geco, S&B, WIN, and LIBRA. The sample were collected on double-sided adhesive tape glued to aluminium stubs from shooter's right hand for analysis by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Three shots were fired with each ammunition type. GSR was collected by pressing the stub 30 times to skin on the hand, including the thumb and index finger of the right hand of the shooter. The residues were collected from the shooter’s right hand and analysed with the same strict conditions. This experimental study was conducted in the department of KPL. In the tests, the weapon barrel was cleaned before each shot. The cleaning process started with mechanical cleaning. Then, the barrel was washed in an ultrasonic bath of ethanol and deionized water before being dried with dry nitrogen gas. The collected GSRs were examined using a JEOL/JSM-6400 SEM (JEOL Ltd., Akishima, Japan). The acceleration voltage was 20 kV, the tilt of the sample was 0°, and the working distance was 39 mm. Images were secondary electron images coupled with an INCA energy X-ray spectrometer (Oxford Instruments Ltd., Houston, TX, USA).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Nanofiber Morphological Analysis via SEM

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To image fibers, samples were mounted on 0.5 cm-diameter aluminum mounts. Mounted samples were gold-coated with a BAL-TEC SCD 005 Sputter Coater (BAL-TEC AG, Liechtenstein) for 210 s and observed under a scanning electron microscope (JEOL JSM-6400 SEM; Advanced Microscopy Facility, University of Virginia) at an accelerating voltage of 15 kV and magnification of 2000×. SEM images were acquired using ORION software to assess nanofiber morphology.
The diameters of the fibers were measured using ImageJ software (http://rsbweb.nih.gov/ij/). SEM images from each group were opened in ImageJ and a line was drawn across the center of the image. 50 diameter measurements were taken from nanofibers intercepting the line.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Scanning Electron Microscopy of Fungal Inhibition

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The plates that contained the highest in vitro antifungal activities were viewed under SEM to confirm the fungal inhibition. The plugs (1 × 1 cm) were harvested from the control and DCM-treated plates, respectively. The sample preparation protocol followed that described by Heckman et al. [21 ]. Each plug was fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde for five hours at 4 °C. Next, the plugs were washed with 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer for three changes of 10 min each. One percent of osmium tetroxide was used in the post-fixed process for two hours at 4 °C. Then, the plugs were rewashed with 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer for three changes of 10 min each. A series of acetone was applied every 10-min interval in the dehydration process (35%, 50%, 75%, 95%) including 100% acetone for three changes every 15 min. The specimens were transferred into a specimen basket and put into a critical dryer for 1.5 h. After that, all specimens were stuck onto the stub and sputter-coated (Baltec SCD005) with gold in an ion sputter for two minutes. All sample specimens were viewed by microscope examination using JEOL JSM-6400 SEM.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Scaffold Characterization via SEM Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Examination of prepared scaffolds was done by Scanning Electron Microscopy (JEOL JSM 6400 SEM ATTACHED WITH EDX, Germany). Cutting of the scaffolds into smaller circular and longitudinal sections was done and sent to the Electron Microscopy Unit, Institute of Bioscience, Universiti Putra Malaysia for SEM analysis. The samples were fixed on stubs at various angles and sputter coated with gold (BAL-TEC SCD 005) prior to studies on electron conductivity, Microstructural characterization and average pore diameter of measurement based on 300 measurements that was taken at different positions on the micrograph picture from six replicates [30] , [32] , [33] .
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Collagen Gel Fixation and SEM Imaging

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Collagen gels with and without BV2 cells were processed based on a modified version of Lizárraga and colleagues
[17 (link)]. Briefly, samples were prefixed in 2.5% v/v glutaraldehyde at 4°C for 4 hrs and washed with 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer. After overnight incubation, samples were post-fixated in 1% osmium tetraoxide. Samples were then dehydrated using a graded series of ethanol followed by immersion in 100% acetone. The samples were then transferred to a Baltec CPD 030 Critical Point Dryer for critical point drying. Samples were coated with gold-palladium in a Baltec SCD 005 Sputter Coater and examined under JEOL JSM-6400 SEM.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

SEM Characterization of Thermocycled Specimens

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The specimens were analysed using SEM after thermocycling. They were placed into an electrically conductive polymer mass; grinded at 300 rpm using water cooling and sandpaper (P320, P500, P1000, P2400, P4000); and polished at 150 rpm with 30 N force applied using diamond pastes (3 µm and 1 µm) and lubricant. Subsequently, they were gold sputter-coated and observed under SEM (JSM-6400 SEM, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) at 20, 200, and 1,000 times magnification.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Ultrastructure Analysis of Polymicrobial Biofilms

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To assess the ultrastructure of polymicrobial biofilms formed on coverslips, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used as previously described [27 (link),31 (link)]. Briefly, biofilms were fixed using 2% paraformaldehyde, 2% glutaraldehyde, 0.15% alician blue power and 0.15 M sodium cacodylate. This was followed by counterstaining with uranyl acetate and gradient dehydration in ethanol (30–100%). Samples were then sputter-coated using gold/palladium and visualised using a JEOL JSM-6400 SEM machine at 1000x and 5000x magnification (JEOL Ltd).
+ 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!