The largest database of trusted experimental protocols

Su8020

Manufactured by JEOL
Sourced in Japan

The SU8020 is a high-resolution field emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM) manufactured by JEOL. It is designed to provide high-quality imaging and analytical capabilities for a variety of applications. The SU8020 features a large specimen chamber, advanced optics, and a range of detectors to enable detailed examination of samples at the nanoscale level.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

7 protocols using su8020

1

Catalyst Characterization Using Advanced Techniques

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The surface morphologies and elemental compositions of the catalysts were analyzed using field-emission SEM (FE-SEM; Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan, SU8020) and TEM (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, JEM-2100F), respectively. Raman spectroscopy (WITec, Ulm, Germany, alpha300s) was performed to identify the changes in the defects in srGO; the wavelength of the incident light was 532 nm. The electrical characteristics of the catalysts were evaluated using a source measure unit (Tektronix, Beaverton, OR, USA, Keithley 2400) in a pressure cell (M&S Vacuum, Goyang-si, Korea) under a uniaxial pressure of 5 MPa at room temperature. The crystallinities of the catalysts were determined using X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis (Rigaku, Tokyo, Japan, Ultima IV/Rigaku), which was performed using Cu-Kα (λ = 0.15406 nm) radiation in the 2θ range of 10–85° at a scan rate of 1°/min. The Pt (wt%) concentration of the catalysts was measured using thermogravimetric analysis (Mettler Toledo, Greifensee, Switzerland, TGA/DSC1), which was performed in an air flow. The samples were heated from 3 °C to 850 °C at 10 °C/min and held at 200 °C for 2 h.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Comprehensive Material Characterization

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The morphologies and elemental components of the samples were characterized by SEM (Hitachi SU8020) and TEM (JEOL JEM‐2100F) equipped with energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS) at an acceleration voltage of 200 kV, respectively. The XRD patterns were recorded on an X‐ray diffractometer at 40 kV and 40 mA using Cu Kα radiation (Bruker D8 Advance). XPS spectra were collected on the ESCALAB 250Xi, (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., USA) equipped with Ar ion etching (2 kV; 2 µA). To obtain Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) specific surface areas of the materials, nitrogen adsorption–desorption isotherms were recorded by nitrogen adsorption apparatus (ASAP2020, Micromeritics). FTIR characterization was carried out on a Bruker Vertex V70 spectrometer in the diffuse reflection mode with a Spectra Tech Collector II accessory. Depth profiling and chemical analysis data of the sample were collected on a TOF‐SIMS instrument (IONTOF GmbH, Germany 2010). The data were recorded in ultrahigh vacuum at a pressure of 10−9 Torr in a negative model.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Characterization of Structured Catalysts

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The crystal structure of as-prepared structured catalysts was characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD) (Japan, D/max 2500) with Cu-Kα radiation (2θ = 5–90°) at 40 kV and 30 mA.
The pore size distribution, pore volume and the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) surface areas of as-prepared structured catalysts were measured by using a Micromeritics ASAP2020 at −196 °C. Before the tests, all structured catalysts were degassed at 120 °C for 2.5 h.
The surface morphology and microstructure of as-prepared structured catalysts were carried out by using scanning electron microscopy (SEM, SU-8020) and transmission electron microscope (TEM, JEOL 2100F), respectively.
The H2 temperature programmed reduction (H2-TPR) measurements were carried out on an Automated Catalyst Characterization System (Autochem 2920, MICROMERITICS). Prior to H2-TPR, the structured catalyst (1 cm × 3 cm) were heated under a gas flow of 5% O2/He (25 mL min−1) from indoor temperature to 300 °C. After cooling to room temperature, the structured catalyst was reduced under a gas flow of 10% H2/Ar (30 mL min−1) with at a heating rate of 10 °C min−1.
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) measurements were recorded by using an XLESCALAB 250Xi electron spectrometer from VG Scientific with monochromatic Al Kα (1486.6 eV) radiation, and the peak positions were calibrated by the C 1s peaks at 284.6 eV.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Comprehensive Material Characterization

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The morphology characteristics and microstructure of the materials were determined by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM, SU8020) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM, JEOL JEM 2100). The crystalline attributes of the as-obtained products were determined by X-ray diffraction (XRD, Rigaku D/Max 2500 diffractometer) using Cu Kα radiation (40 kV, 100 mA, λ = 1.5406 Å) in a scanning angle range of 5°–80° at a scanning rate of 5° min−1. Raman spectroscopy of the as-obtained products were recorded with a laser Raman spectroscope (inVia Reflex, 523 nm laser wavelength). Nitrogen adsorption and desorption isotherms were obtained at −196 °C with an adsorption setup (Micromeritics ASAP 2020 2.02). The specific surface area was determined via the Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) method and the pore size distribution was calculated using a nonlocalized density functional theory (NLDFT) model. The surface elemental composition and chemical states were obtained by an X-ray photoelectron spectrometer (XPS, Thermo Fisher Scientific) with a monochromatic Al Kα X-ray source (1486.6 eV).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Characterization of Reduced Graphene Oxide

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The surface morphologies and elemental compositions of the samples were analyzed using field-emission SEM (FE-SEM; Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan, SU8020) and TEM (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan, JEM-2100F). The chemical compositions and functional groups of rGO and srGO were examined via XPS (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA, K Alpha+) analysis was then conducted using Al-Kα radiation. The binding energy was normalized according to the position of the C 1s peak as a result of the adsorbed hydrocarbon fragments. Raman spectroscopy (WITec, Ulm, Germany, alpha300s) was conducted to identify any changes in the defects within rGO and srGO using a DXR Raman microscope with incident light at a wavelength of 532 nm. We analyzed the extent of crystallinity using XRD (Rigaku, Tokyo, Japan, Ultima IV/Rigaku) with Cu Kα (λ = 0.15406 nm) radiation over the 2θ range of 10° to 85° at a scan rate of 1°/min. The electrical characteristics of rGO and srGO were measured with a SMU (Keithley, Tektronix, 2400) in a pressure cell (M&S Vacuum) under uniaxial pressure (5 MPa) at room temperature. The Pt nanoparticle contents of the prepared catalysts were measured using TGA (Mettler Toledo, Greifensee, Switzerland, TGA/DSC1) under air flow at temperatures ranging from 3 to 200 °C, which were maintained for 2 h and subsequently increased to 850 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Nitrogen Adsorption of FTHSB Bricks

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The nitrogen adsorption capacity of FTHSB A and FTHSB B were tested in lab-scale experiments by the following procedure. Briefly, two FTHSBs (A and B) were selected, and small cubes with a length, width and height of 1 cm were cut from their middle parts. 1 g ml-1 urea added to FTHSB A and FTHSB B. Then two bricks without urea and two bricks with urea were selected for the characterization of surface morphology and elemental distribution. The electron microscope image of FTHSB was scanned by SU8020 (JEOL, Japan) and the nitrogen content was determined by Horiba ex-350 energy spectrometer (JEOL, Japan).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Characterization of Ca@H Nanoparticles

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The morphology of Ca@H was visualized by SEM (Hitachi SU8020, Japan) and TEM (JEM-1200, JEOL, Japan). The average hydrodynamic diameter and surface zeta potential of Ca@H NPs were measured by a Malvern Nanozetasizer (Nano ZS90, Malvern Panalytical, UK). And the UV-Vis spectra of HMME samples (0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0 and 6.0 μg/mL) were collected using a SpectraMax Paradigm Multi-Mode Microplate Reader (Molecular Devices, Silicon Valley, USA). The loading efficiency of HMME was calculated by the following equation.
Loading efficiency = (weight of HMME input – unloaded HMME)/weight of HMME input
+ 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!