The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

3 394 protocols using d8 advance

1

Characterization of NCM85 Doped Samples

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The NCM85 undoped and Mo-doped samples were characterized by powder X-Ray diffraction (PXRD) using Bruker D8 Advance diffractometer (Bruker D8 Advance, manufacturer, Bruker AXS GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany) with Cu Kα radiation and a LynxEye detector. PXRD patterns were collected within the range from 10 to 80° 2θ with a constant step 0.02° 2θ. Phase identification was performed with the Diffracplus EVA (version 2, Bruker AXS GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany) [39 ] using ICDD-PDF2 Database. Rietveld refinement procedures were performed with the Topas-4.2 software package (version is 4.1 Bruker AXS GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany) [40 ]. The Rietveld refinement of the crystal structure includes the unit cell parameters, fractional atomic positions, isotropic thermal displacement parameters and occupancies of all atoms in the structure. Mean coherent domain size (crystallite size) of phases was obtained by analysis of the diffraction lines broadening. For this purpose, the profiles of the diffraction peaks were fitted by means of fundamental parameters approach implemented in the Topas-4.2.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Powder X-ray Diffraction Analysis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Powder X-ray diffraction (XRD) (D8 Advance, Bruker, Billerica, MA, USA) analysis of demineralized, deproteinized, and decolorized steps were record using a D8 Advance X-ray diffractometer. Data were collected at a scan rate of 1°/min with the scan angle from 5–40°. The crystallinity indexes (CrI) were calculated using the following equation [57 (link)]: CrI (%)=I110IamI110×100
where I110 is the maximum intensity of the crystalline region at 20° and Iam is the maximum intensity of amorphous diffraction at 16°.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Structural Characterization of Ta2O5/TaC Composite

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The crystallographic phases of all the as-obtained samples were investigated by X-ray diffraction (XRD; Bruker D8 Advance) equipped with Cu Kα radiation, λ = 1.542 Å. The scanning rate and scanning step size were 5° min−1 and 0.033°, respectively. In situ XRD tests were also performed on the Bruker D8 Advance X-ray diffractometer. The in situ cell employed Be foil as an X-ray penetrator window. The corresponding Li+ insertion/extraction potential ranged from 0.01 V to 3 V vs. Li/Li+ during the initial two cycles at a current density of 50 mA g−1. The in situ XRD patterns of Ta2O5/TaC were collected in the two-theta region between 20° and 60° with a step size of 0.02° and a scanning speed of 0.07° s−1. The morphology and structure of products were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM, JSM-7610F PLUS) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM, JEM-2100UHR). The surface chemical states of the products were investigated by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS, Thermo Fischer, ESCALAB 250Xi).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Characterization of Membrane Materials

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
X-ray diffraction (XRD, D8 ADVANCE, Bruker AXS, Karlsruhe, BW, Germany) analysis was recorded on a D8 ADVANCE X-ray diffractometer with Cu Kα radiation (λ= 1.5406 Å). The morphology of the sample was observed using a Leo 1530 vp scanning electron microscope (SEM, Zeiss, Oberkochen, BW, Germany).
The sample was adhered to the test bench with conductive adhesive for gold spraying; the operating voltage range was 10–20 kV. The thermal stability of the membranes was examined using thermal gravimetric analysis (TGA, STA449 C, NETZSCH, Selb, Bavaria, Germany) and differential thermal gravimetric (DTG). The tensile properties of materials were tested on an Instron 5566 universal testing machine (Intron, Boston, MA, USA). The tensile rate is 2.00 mm/min, the spline standard is 10×80 mm, and the film thickness is 0.50 to 0.80 mm.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

X-ray Diffraction Analysis of Mixed and Pure Oxides

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
For the analysis of mixed MOs on SBA-15, a Bruker D8 Advance powder diffractometer, operating with Ge-monochromated Cu Kα radiation (wavelength = 1.5406 Å) and a LynxEye linear detector. Data were collected over the angular range 5–85° in 2θ. For the analysis of pure ZnO and TiO2, X-ray Diffraction (XRD) patterns were collected on a Bruker D8 Advance powder diffractometer with a sealed X-ray tube (copper anode, 40 kV and 40 mA) and a Si(Li) solid state detector (Sol-X) set to discriminate the Cu Kα radiation. Apertures of divergence, receiving, and detector slits were 2.0 mm, 2.0 mm, and 0.2 mm, respectively. Data scans were performed in the 2θ range 5–75° with 0.02° step size and counting times of 3 s per step. Quantitative phase analysis determination performed using the Rietveld method as implemented in the TOPAS v.4 program (Bruker AXS) using the fundamental parameters approach for line-profile fitting.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

In-situ and Operando X-ray Analysis of P2 Phase Synthesis

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
To determine the best synthesis
condition for the desired P2 phase, in situ X-ray
diffraction (XRD) for synthesis was performed using an HTK1200N temperature
chamber installed on a Bruker D8 Advance diffractometer. At each designed
temperature, the temperature was held for 1 h for the XRD pattern
collection. Operando XRD of the samples was performed
on the Bruker D8 Advance diffractometer equipped with a molybdenum
source (λ = 0.709 Å). The in situ cell
was charged/discharged within a voltage domain of 1.5–4.5 V
at a rate of C/30. Each scan covered a 2θ range of 6.5–23°
in a time duration of 5000 s. The electrochemical cell used for the operando XRD measurement is similar to those used in our
previous publication.28 (link) Selected powder
samples were also tested using the synchrotron radiation source (λ
= 0.4539 Å) at beamline 17-BM at the Advanced Photon Source (APS)
at Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). Some additional synchrotron
experiments were also performed using 28-ID-2 beamline of the National
Synchrotron Light Source II (NSLS-II) at Brookhaven National Laboratory
and the 7-2 beamline of Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource
(SSRL). Morphological investigation and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy
(EDS) mapping analysis of the samples was conducted using a field
emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM, Zeiss, Ultra60).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Characterization of Calcium Phosphate Coatings

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The microstructure of deposits was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) (XL30ESEM-FEG; FEL, Amstelveen, Netherlands). The crystal phase and constituents of calcium phosphate coating were investigated by X-ray diffraction (XRD) (D8 Advance; Bruker, Karlsruhe, Germany) and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) (D8 Advance; Bruker, Karlsruhe, Germany), respectively. Further, the hydrophilic property of implants was characterized by measuring the static water contact angles at room temperature.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Quantitative Mineralogy of Dolostone

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The mineralogy of the dolostone samples is determined by a Rigaku RAPID II or a Bruker D8 Advance x-ray diffractometer. The Rigaku RAPID II instrument operates at 50 kV and 90 mA on a rotating Mo anode x-ray source; the Bruker D8 Advance instrument runs at 40 kV and 40 mA with a Cu anode x-ray source. X-ray diffraction data processing and mineral identification are performed using Jade 6.5 software. The relative abundance of dolomite (104), calcite (104), and quartz (101) is estimated from the area of characteristic diffraction peaks (53 ). Textural analysis of the halite samples is performed on a Hitachi SU1510 Variable Pressure SEM, and the chemical compositions are characterized using EDS equipped with SEM.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

X-ray Diffraction Analysis of Co2FeO4 Catalyst

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The X-ray diffraction
patterns were recorded with a Bruker D8 Advance using a Cu X-ray source
in the Bragg–Brentano configuration with a variable primary
divergence slit using an energy-dispersive position-sensitive LynxEye
XE-T detector (Bruker). The powder measurements and the quantification
of the crystallinity were conducted by mixing a CeO2 reference
(NIST SRM674b) and our powder sample in a 1:1 mass ratio. After rigorous
blending, the mixtures were deposited in a Si low background sample
holder. The mass fraction of the X-ray amorphous phase was calculated
via Rietveld refinement, in which the zero error, sample displacement,
lattice parameters, and size-induced broadening were taken into account.
The Rietveld refinement was jointly performed for the diffractograms
of the two Co2FeO4 samples mixed with the CeO2 standard as well as for the pure CeO2 standard
measured alone using the same structural parameters for the CeO2 as well as the zero error and the background signals from
the sample holder.
To record the diffractograms of Co2FeO4 before and after OER, the samples were prepared on
a carbon foil (0.125 mm, 99.95% purity, GoodFellow) and measured with
a Bruker D8 Advance in parallel beam configuration with a Goebel mirror
and an equatorial Soller slit (0.3°). The applied electrochemical
protocol is described in Section 2.3.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Mineralogical Analysis of Sedimentary Samples

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Mineralogical analysis was performed by using X-ray diffraction of diffractometer Bruker Advance D8 (copper Kα1 radiation, λ = 1.5418 Å, V = 40 kV, I = 30 mA) at the AGES (Argiles, Géochimie et environnement sédimentaire) laboratory of the University of Liege in Belgium according to the methodology of Moore et al. (1989) . The average sample of each area (BEK, DIB and LEN) have been sieve at mesh 100 μm. The diffractometer Bruker Advance D8 (copper Kα1 radiation, λ = 1.5418 Å, V = 40 kV, I = 30 mA) the Eva software have been used to identify the different types of minerals present in the studied sample The content of minerals found has been obtain by using the matrix calculation technique developed by Njopwouo (1985) and Yvon et al. (1982) according to the relation (4). Which consist to use the proportion of oxide given to XRF result to obtain the good content of mineral in the sample. T(a)=i=1nMi.pi(a) Where

T(a) = Mass percentage of the oxide of the chemical element (a) in the sample

Mi = Mass percentage of mineral i in the material studied;

Pi (a) = Mass proportion of the oxide of the element (a) in the mineral i deduced from the ideal formula attributed to this mineral i.

+ 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!