Log In Sign up
The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Quanta 600 sem

Manufactured by Thermo Fisher Scientific
Visit Supplier

The Quanta 600 SEM is a scanning electron microscope (SEM) designed for high-resolution imaging and analysis of a wide range of samples. It utilizes a field emission gun (FEG) source to provide high-quality electron beams for high-resolution imaging. The Quanta 600 SEM is capable of operating in high vacuum, low vacuum, and environmental (wet) modes, allowing for flexibility in sample preparation and analysis.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

Lab products found in correlation

Osmium tetroxide, by Electron Microscopy Sciences (1 mentions) 108a sputter coater, by Ted Pella (1 mentions) Avance 3, by Bruker (1 mentions) Eds detector, by Thermo Fisher Scientific (1 mentions) Aztec software, by Oxford Instruments (1 mentions) Hexamethyldisilazane, by Merck Group (1 mentions) Phenom prox desktop, by Thermo Fisher Scientific (1 mentions) Sodium cacodylate, by Merck Group (1 mentions)

9 protocols using quanta 600 sem

1

Scanning Electron Microscopy of Plant Surfaces

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The scanning electron microscope (SEM) used in this investigation was an FEI Quanta 600 SEM at the Microscopy Facility at Oregon State University, United States. Sample prepration included placing small samples into a fixative, 1% paraformaldehyde and 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M sodium cacodylate buffer with pH 7.4. The samples were soaked in fixative for 2 h, followed by two rinses in 0.1M Cacodyalte buffer, 15 min each, and dehydration in acetone (10%,30, 50, 70,90, 95, 100-100%), 10–15 min each, followed by critical point drying (two ‘bomb flushes’ at chamber pressure to 5 °C, fill chamber with CO2). The samples were left to vent for 5 min and then the preocedure was repeated. The dry samples were mounted onto an aluminum SEM stub with double stick carbon tape. Samples were sputter coated with a Cressington 108A sputter coater from Ted Pella with Au/Pd, 60/40 mix.
For leaf surfaces, the terminology and classification of Bаrthlott et al. (1998) were used.
For seed morphology description of species, the shape, as well as the structure of the spermoderm were determined. In this case, the terminology and classification described by Barthlott and Ehler (1977) were used. For pollen surface we used the terminology and classification described by Punt et al. (2007) .
Semerdjieva I., Sidjimova B., Yankova-Tsvetkova E., Kostova M, & Zheljazkov V.D. (2019). Study on Galanthus species in the Bulgarian flora. Heliyon, 5(12), e03021.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Fixation and Dehydration of RAW264.7 Macrophages

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
RAW264.7 macrophages were seeded on glass substrates at a density of ~105 cells/ml. After incubation for 6 hours at 37°C, cells were washed with 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer [0.07 M Na2HPO4 and 0.03 M NaH2PO4 (pH 7.2)] before fixing in Karnovsky’s fixative [containing 2% (w/v) paraformaldehyde and 2.5% (v/v) glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.2)] at 4°C for 12 to 18 hours. After being washed three times in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.2) for 10 min each time, the cells were postfixed with 1% (v/v) osmium tetroxide (aqueous solution, Electron Microscopy Sciences) in the 0.1 M sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.2) at room temperature for 1 hour. Following rinsing in Milli-Q water three times for 10 min each, the cells were dehydrated using a series of ethanol solutions with increasing volume fraction (35, 50, 75, and 95 volume %) for 15 min per rinse and washed in pure ethanol three times for 20 min each. The dehydrated sample was immersed in 100% hexamethyldisilazane (HMDS; Electron Microscopy Sciences) twice for 10 min each. Afterward, the HMDS was decanted and the sample was kept in a desiccator to air-dry at room temperature overnight. The dried sample was then mounted onto an SEM sample stub, sputter-coated with 4-nm Au/Pd alloy, and imaged with an FEI Quanta 600 SEM.
Li M., Wang H., Li W., Xu X.G, & Yu Y. (2020). Macrophage activation on “phagocytic synapse” arrays: Spacing of nanoclustered ligands directs TLR1/2 signaling with an intrinsic limit. Science Advances, 6(49), eabc8482.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

SEM Analysis of Plant Morphology

Cited 1 time
Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis was performed using an FEI Quanta 600 SEM at the Oregon State University Microscopy Facility. The samples for SEM analysis were prepared by immersing subsamples into a fixative containing 1% paraformaldehyde and 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M sodium cacodylate buffer with a pH of 7.4. The fixation procedure continued for 2 hours, followed by two rinses in 0.1M cacodylate buffer for 15 minutes each. Afterwards, the samples were subjected to a dehydration series in acetone as described previously [26 (link)]. After dehydration, the samples were left to vent for 5 minutes, and the same procedure was repeated. The dry samples were then mounted onto an aluminum SEM stub with double-stick carbon tape. Samples on the sample holders were sputter-coated with a Cressington 108A sputter coater from Ted Pella with Au/Pd, 60/40 mix. The description of cells, shape, as well as the structure of the surfaces of leaves, stem, and seeds were determined according to Barthlott et al. [38 (link)].
Zheljazkov V.D., Semerdjieva I.B., Borisova D., Yankova-Tsvetkova E., Koleva-Valkova L.H., Petrova G., Dincheva I., Stevens F., Wu W., Astatkie T., Ivanova T., Stoyanova A, & Dzhurmanski A. (2023). Phytochemical and biological investigations on Centranthus kellereri (Stoj., Stef. & T. Georgiev) Stoj. & Stef. and C. ruber (L.) DC. and their potential as new medicinal and ornamental plants. PLOS ONE, 18(11), e0293877.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Polymer Characterization by NMR and SEM

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
NBD and NBE polymers were analyzed via proton NMR using CDCl3 as the solvent (the reaction product was only partially soluble) in a 400 MHz Bruker Avance III spectrometer. Percent composition and morphology of the polymers was determined by an FEI Quanta 600 SEM containing a tungsten hairpin filament electron gun operated at up to 30 keV with E-T and EDS (Oxford Insight) detectors. The surface composition was measured by XPS.
Mantanona A.J., Wood K., Schrodi Y, & Garrett S.J. (2018). Activating Ru nanoparticles on oxide supports for ring-opening metathesis polymerization. Dalton transactions (Cambridge, England : 2003), 47(23), 7754-7760.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Elemental Composition Analysis via SEM

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Elemental composition analysis was done using an Oxford EDS detector on FEI Quanta 600 SEM, and results were analyzed using AZtec software by Oxford Instruments. The powdered sample was exposed to a beam, and imaging was done at 20 kV acceleration voltage.
Arole K., Blivin J.W., Saha S., Holta D.E., Zhao X., Sarmah A., Cao H., Radovic M., Lutkenhaus J.L, & Green M.J. (2021). Water-dispersible Ti3C2Tz MXene nanosheets by molten salt etching. iScience, 24(12), 103403.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Scanning Electron Microscopy Sample Preparation

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The scanning electron microscope (SEM) used in this investigation was an FEI Quanta 600 SEM at the Microscopy Facility at Oregon State University, United States. Sample preparation included placing small samples into a fixative, 1% paraformaldehyde and 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1M sodium cacodylate buffer with pH 7.4. The samples were soaked in fixative for 2 h, followed by two rinses in 0.1M cacodyalte buffer, 15 min each, and dehydration in acetone (10%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90%, 95%, 100%), 10–15 min each, followed by critical point drying (two ‘bomb flushes’ at chamber pressure to 5 °C, fill chamber with CO2). The samples were left to vent for five min, and then, the procedure was repeated. The dry samples were mounted onto an aluminum SEM stub with double stick carbon tape. Samples were sputter coated with a Cressington 108A sputter coater from Ted Pella with Au/Pd, 60/40 mix. For leaf surfaces, the terminology and classification by Barthlott and Ehler [30 ] were used.
Semerdjieva I.B., Zheljazkov V., Cantrell C.L., Astatkie T, & Ali A. (2020). Essential Oil Yield and Composition of the Balkan Endemic Satureja pilosa Velen. (Lamiaceae). Molecules, 25(4), 827.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

SEM Analysis of Nutlet Morphology and Pollen Surface

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The scanning electron microscope (SEM) used in this investigation was an FEI Quanta 600 SEM at the Microscopy Facility at Oregon State University, United States. Sample preparation included placing small samples into a fixative, 1% paraformaldehyde and 2.5% glutaraldehyde in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate buffer with pH 7.4. The samples were soaked in fixative for 2 h followed by two rinses in 0.1 M Cacodylate buffer, 15 min each, and then by a dehydration series in acetone (10%, 30, 50, 70, 90, 95, 100–100%), 10–15 min each, followed by critical point drying (two ‘bomb flushes’ at chamber pressure to 5 °C, fill the chamber with CO2). The samples were left to vent for 5 min and then the procedure was repeated. The dry samples were mounted onto an aluminum SEM stub with double stick carbon tape. Samples were sputter-coated with a Cressington 108A sputter coater from Ted Pella with Au/Pd, 60/40 mix.
The nutlets (seeds) morphological description of species, the shape, as well as the structure of the surfaces were determined. In this case, the terminology and classification described by Barthlott and Ehler [9 ] were used. For pollen surface, we used the terminology and classification described by Punt et al. [58 (link)].
Zheljazkov V.D., Semerdjieva I.B., Stevens J.F., Wu W., Cantrell C.L., Yankova-Tsvetkova E., Koleva-Valkova L.H., Stoyanova A, & Astatkie T. (2021). Phytochemical Investigation and Reproductive Capacity of the Bulgarian Endemic Plant Species Marrubium friwaldskyanum Boiss. (Lamiaceae). Plants, 11(1), 114.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Ultrastructural Analysis of Extracellular Matrix

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
After 14 days of culture, the cell loaded samples were fixed with 2.5% glutaraldehyde (Sigma Aldrich) in 0.1 M Sodium Cacodylate (Sigma Aldrich) buffer for 15 min and washed with 0.1 M Sodium Cacodylate buffer. Control samples without cells and cell loaded samples were dehydrated using 0.5 ml of multiple ethanol series (50% twice, 70% twice, 95% twice, 100% three times for 10 min) and were dried chemically with hexamethyldisilazane (Sigma Aldrich). Then the samples were washed three times with 0.5 ml ultrapure water for 5 min, dried by air and mounted on specimen stubs. To provide better contrast, only the samples for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging were sputter coated with 8 nm gold (Q3150T, Quorum Technologies). SEM images were obtained using a Quanta 600 SEM (Thermo Scientific Breda, The Netherlands), in a high vacuum (<1.3 × 10−4) at 10 kV with a spot size of 3 using the Everhart‐Thornley secondary electron detector (ETD‐SE). Similar sample preparation was utilized to perform energy dispersive x‐ray (EDX) (Phenom ProX Desktop, ThermoFisher) analysis to evaluate regions in which extracellular matrix depositions were identified (10 kV, backscattered electron detector).
Jacobs C.A., Cramer E.E., Dias A.A., Smelt H., Hofmann S, & Ito K. (2022). Surface modifications to promote the osteoconductivity of ultra‐high‐molecular‐weight‐polyethylene fabrics for a novel biomimetic artificial disc prosthesis: An in vitro study. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research. Part B, Applied Biomaterials, 111(2), 442-452.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Scanning Electron Microscopy of Drain Fly

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Body surfaces and hair structures of the drain fly were examined with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). For the analysis, body parts (head, antennae, legs and wing) were dissected carefully from dead individuals and mounted on aluminum stubs using a carbon tape and then sputter-coated with a 4 nm Au layer. The images were obtained on Quanta 600 microscopes. Measurements were made from digital images using the ImageJ software.
The detailed analysis of the wetting phenomena and behaviors of condensed water droplets on the wing surface were observed using Quanta 600 SEM (Thermo Fisher Scientific) equipped with Environmental SEM (ESEM) mode including built-in cooling stage and gaseous secondary electron detector. The wing samples were attached to aluminum stubs using double-sided copper tape. We initiated water droplet formation on the wing surface by gradually increasing the water vapor pressure inside the SEM chamber from 600 Pa to 820 Pa at 2∘C stage temperature. Images were captured every 2 s intervals at an accelerating voltage of 7 kV.
Speirs N.B., Mahadik G.A, & Thoroddsen S.T. (2020). How drain flies manage to almost never get washed away. Scientific Reports, 10, 17829.
+ 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!