The microstructures on the surface of mulberry were examined utilizing a Zeiss EVO 18 electron microscope with scanning technology (Zeiss, Germany). The powder was spray-gold treated with the SBC-12 Ion Sputtering Coater from Beijing, China. A 20.0 kV voltage source was employed for examining the sprayed material in the Zeiss EVO 18's empty room.
Evo 18
Manufactured by Zeiss
Sourced in Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Japan
The EVO 18 is a high-performance scanning electron microscope (SEM) designed for advanced materials analysis and characterization. It features a high-resolution electron optical column, a user-friendly interface, and a versatile sample handling system to accommodate a wide range of specimen types. The core function of the EVO 18 is to provide high-quality, detailed images and data for research, development, and quality control applications.
Automatically generated - may contain errors
Lab products found in correlation
D8 advance, by Bruker (6 mentions)
Escalab 250xi, by Thermo Fisher Scientific (6 mentions)
K alpha, by Thermo Fisher Scientific (6 mentions)
Uv 1800, by Shimadzu (4 mentions)
X pert pro, by Malvern Panalytical (4 mentions)
Incax act, by Oxford Instruments (3 mentions)
Ultima 4, by Rigaku (3 mentions)
Smartlab, by Rigaku (3 mentions)
Uh5300, by Hitachi (3 mentions)
Multimode 8, by Bruker (3 mentions)
D8 diffractometer, by Bruker (2 mentions)
Cary 60, by Agilent Technologies (2 mentions)
Asap 2460, by Micromeritics (2 mentions)
Dmi3000b, by Leica (2 mentions)
Sc7620, by Zeiss (2 mentions)
Q150t es, by Quorum Technologies (2 mentions)
Sputter coater, by Cressington (2 mentions)
Jem 2200f, by JEOL (2 mentions)
Jem 2100f, by JEOL (2 mentions)
Miniflex 600, by Rigaku (2 mentions)
269 protocols using evo 18
1
Mulberry Surface Microstructure Analysis
2
Characterization of Synthesized Nanoparticles
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The morphological features of the synthesized iron and silver nanoparticles were analyzed using a ZEISS EVO 18 scanning electron microscope. Thin film samples were coated on carbon tape copper grids, and images were recorded. The elemental composition and purity of the iron and silver nanoparticles were examined using Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) with the ZEISS EVO 18 operated at 20 kV [9 ].
3
Microwave-assisted Grape Peel Biosorbent
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The grape peel was obtained by manually peeling Kyoho grapes purchased from a local market. After cleaning with deionized water, the grape peel was squeezed to get rid of the water. A certain amount of the wet grape peel was loaded into a Teflon-lined nylon autoclave, which was installed in microwave-processing equipment (Michem MD6C-6H, Beijing, China) and heated at 180 °C for 3 min. After cooling, the treated grape peel was filtered out, washed by ultrapure water repeatedly and dried at 80 °C. For comparison, grape peel biosorbent was also prepared by conventional hydrothermal treatment at 180 °C for 16 h with the other conditions unchanged. The dried grape peel was manually grinded into powders and then sieved to 60 mesh particles to obtain the biosorbents. To simplify the description, the grape peel biosorbents prepared by microwave-hydrothermal treatment and conventional-hydrothermal treatment were denoted as MGP and HGP, respectively.
The surface functional groups of the biosorbents were analyzed using a Fourier-transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR, Alpha, Bruker, Germany). The Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface areas were measured using a pore size and surface area equipment (Nova 2200e, Quantachrome Instruments, Boynton Beach, FL, USA). The microstructural morphologies were observed by a scanning electronic microscope (SEM, Zeiss EVO 18, Carl Zeiss, Gemerny).
The surface functional groups of the biosorbents were analyzed using a Fourier-transform infrared spectrometer (FTIR, Alpha, Bruker, Germany). The Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface areas were measured using a pore size and surface area equipment (Nova 2200e, Quantachrome Instruments, Boynton Beach, FL, USA). The microstructural morphologies were observed by a scanning electronic microscope (SEM, Zeiss EVO 18, Carl Zeiss, Gemerny).
4
Characterizing Chitosan/Saccharomycetes Microspheres
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The microspheres’ size and the surface morphologies of the chitosan/saccharomycetes microspheres were tested by a ZEISS EVO 18 field-emission scanning electron microscope (Zeiss, MERLIN Compact, Jena, Germany) after coating with a thin layer of gold with the help of an FPMRC-SPT-20 gold sputter (Felles Photonic Instruments, Shanghai, China) with a relative sputtering rate of 1.0.
5
SEM Analysis of Surface Morphology
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The ALPs were fixed on the specimen stage with an electrically conducting adhesive, and the samples were coated with gold sputtering. Then, the surface morphology of the samples was observed using a ZEISS EVO18 scanning electron microscope (Carl Zeiss AG, Bruker Co., Germany) at an accelerating voltage of 10 kV with different magnifications (27 (link)).
6
Scanning Electron Microscopy of Powder Samples
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The morphological characteristics were observed by SEM (ZEISS evo 18, Carl Zeiss AG). The samples powder was fixed onto the working stage with double‐faced glue, and a fine gold layer was applied under vacuum. The scanning observation was carried out at 5 kV, with a magnification of 900–1,200×.
7
Kidney Stone Morphology and Composition
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The Surface morphology of Kidney stone samples (N = 5) was analyzed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM; Model ZEISS EVO 18). The Elemental composition of samples was analyzed using energy disruptive spectroscopy or EDS (Hitachi S 3400N).
8
Carotenoid Protection against UV Damage
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
Cellular structure was examined with and without carotenoid extract. The experiment had 4 treatments comprising (1) N39 cells without radiation, (2) N39 cells with 15 min UV radiation, (3) E. coli cells with 5 min UV radiation, and (4) E. coli cells mixed with carotenoid extract radiated for 5 min. E. coli cells were mixed with carotenoid extract at 10 μg ml–1. A fixative solution was added to the bacterial cells, containing 0.25% glutaraldehyde and 10 mM phosphate buffer saline (PBS) buffer (pH 7.4) for overnight incubation. The fixed sample was rinsed thrice with PBS buffer and followed by dehydration with ascending concentrations of 10, 20, 30, 60, 80, and 100% ethanol for 10 min each. After dehydration, the samples were dried at room temperature for 2 h. Sterilized coverslips were placed and allowed bacterial cells to attach to their surfaces. A scanning electronic microscope (Carl Zeiss SMT Ltd., Zeiss EVO 18) was used to obtain the electron micrographs of cells. The microscope was equipped with a BSD detector and tungsten electron source. The electron high tension (EHT) was in the range of 200 V to 30 kV, and the image resolution was 50 nm.
9
Scanning Electron Microscopy of LLPs
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
LLPs were fixed on the sample table with conductive adhesive, and the samples coated with gold sputtering were scanned at 20 kV with Zeiss tungsten filament scanning electron microscope (ZEISS EVO18, Carl Zeiss AG, Bruker Co., Germany) to observe the sample morphology under different multiples (10 (link)).
10
SEM Analysis of Pellicle Biofilms
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
+ Expand
The formed pellicle biofilms attached on slides cultured using the glass slide attachment method as described above were rinsed with sterile PBS (pH 7.2) to remove the nonadherent bacterial cells and then transferred onto a sterile coverslip (1.0 cm × 1.0 cm) and fixed with 2.5% glutaraldehyde for 2 h. Samples were then rinsed with distilled water and dehydrated in graded ethanol (30%, 60%, 80%, 90%, and 100%) for 15 min each. Finally, the pellicle biofilm architecture was then observed using an SEM (ZEISS EVO 18, Carl-Zeiss, Oberkochen, Germany) after gold spraying. Cultures without linalool served as the control.
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!