Free access supported by contributions and sponsoring — share your knowledge or support us financially
Search / Compare / Validate Lab equipment & Methods

Jem100cx 2 transmission electron microscope

Manufactured by JEOL
Sourced in Japan, United States
About the product

The JEM100CX-II is a transmission electron microscope (TEM) manufactured by JEOL. It is designed to produce high-resolution images of thin specimens by focusing a beam of electrons through the sample and onto a detector. The JEM100CX-II provides users with the ability to observe and analyze the internal structure and composition of materials at the nanoscale level.

Automatically generated - may contain errors

46 protocols using jem100cx 2 transmission electron microscope

1

Ultrastructural Analysis of Surgical Samples

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
For SEM, the samples collected during the surgery were fixed in 2.7% glutaraldehyde (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA) for two hours, washed with phosphate-buffered saline and then with distilled water, and were then left to dry. The dried samples were glued to a support with silver paste and sputter-coated with a 10 nm thick Au layer before imaging (Agar Auto Sputter Coater, Agar Scientific Ltd., Stansted, Essex, UK). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was conducted on a Hitachi SU8230 cold field emission gun (Tokyo, Japan) at 30 kV. All samples were examined by the same experienced investigator (L.B.T.).
For transmission electron microscopy (TEM), the samples, also collected during the surgery, were fixed in 2.7% glutaraldehyde (Electron Microscopy Sciences) in 0.1 M PBS for two hours, rinsed three times with 0.15 M PBS for one hour each, and postfixed in 2% osmium tetroxide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) in 0.15 M phosphate buffer. Dehydration was accomplished in an acetone series (30, 50, 70, 80, 90, and three times at 100%). Inclusion was made in EMBed-812 epoxy resin (Electron Microscopy Sciences), which was polymerized for two days at 60 °C. Ultrathin sections of about 80 nm were cut on a Bromma 8800 ULTRATOME III ultramicrotome (LKB Produckter AB, Stockholm-Bromma, Sweden) with glass knives. The sections were collected on 300-mesh copper grids covered by a thin layer of Formvar (Electron Microscopy Sciences). The sections were double-contrasted with 13% uranyl acetate (Merck, Billerica, MA, USA) for 15 min and with 2.8% lead citrate (Fluka AG, Buchs, Switzerland) for five min and examined with a Jeol JEM-100CX II transmission electron microscope (Jeol, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with a Mega View G3 camera (emsis, Münster, Germany). All TEM samples were examined by the same investigator (A.F.).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
2

Characterization of Pd Catalysts and Intermediates

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
A series of instruments
were used to characterize the prepared Pd catalysts and their intermediates.
The palladium solutions before and after immobilization were scanned
in the range of 200–600 nm using a Cary 60 UV–vis spectrometer
(Agilent, USA). A TENSOR 27 FT-IR spectroscope (Bruker, Germany) was
used to analyze the Pd nanocatalysts and their intermediates. The
particle size, dispersion, shape, fine structure, and lattice fringes
of the Pd catalysts were observed by a Nanosem 430 scanning electron
microscope (FEI, USA) and a JEM100CXII transmission electron microscope
(JEOL, Japan). A 7404-vibrating sample magnetometer (LakeShore, USA)
was used to detect the magnetic properties of Fe3O4@SiO2–FPBA–DTPA–Pd and silica-coated
iron oxide MNPs (Fe3O4@SiO2). Elemental
analysis of the catalyst was performed using a Tecnai G2 F20 energy-dispersive
spectrometer (Thermo Fisher, USA). TGA was carried out with a TA 550
analyzer (Discovery, USA) under N2 flow at a heating rate
of 10 °C/min ranging from 30 to 800 °C to determine the
weight loss of Fe3O4@SiO2–FPBA–DTPA–Pd
as a function of temperature. The binding energies of Pd catalysts
were characterized by a PHI-1600 X-ray photoelectron spectroscope
(Thermo Fisher, USA). The content of Pd in Fe3O4@SiO2–FPBA–DTPA–Pd was determined
by an ICAP7400 inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer
(Agilent, USA). The reaction products were analyzed using a HPLC-3000
HPLC (Chuangxintongheng, China), and the structures of the reaction
products were identified by a 400 MHz Ascend 400 NMR (Bruker, Germany).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
3

Transmission Electron Microscopy of Myocardium

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) analysis was conducted on samples of left ventricular myocardium. Samples were prefixed for 2 h with 2.7% glutaraldehyde (Agar Scientific, Stansted, UK) and postfixed for 1.5 h with 1% OsO4 (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA) in 0.15 M phosphate buffer (pH = 7.4). After graded dehydration of samples with acetone (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) (30–100%, 15–30 min each bath), they were infiltrated with a series of EMBED 812 (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA) epoxy resin in acetone (30–90% 1–2 h each bath, and 100% overnight). Ultrathin sections were collected and double contrasted (15 min with 13% uranyl acetate (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and 5 min with 2.8% lead citrate (Fluka, Buchs, Switzerland)) and examined with a JEOL JEM 100CX II transmission electron microscope (JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) operating at 80 kV, and relevant images were recorded with MegaView G3 camera (EMSIS, Münster, Germany).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
4

Ultracentrifugation-based EV Fixation and TEM

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
After ultracentrifugation, EVs were resuspended in fixation solution (2% glutaraldehyde, 2% paraformaldehyde, 0.1 M sodium cacodylate at pH 7.4) and kept at room temperature for 2 h. After that EVs were centrifuged at 119,700 × g for 70 min to remove the fixation solution. The formed pellet was then resuspended the buffer solution (0.1 M sodium cacodylate at pH 7.4).
Then the sample was placed on a copper grid coated with Pioloform and allowed to air-dry (approximately 30 min). Subsequently, 2% uranyl acetate was added to the grid for 3 min for staining. Excess solution was removed with a filter paper and the sample was analyzed by the JEM 100CXII transmission electron microscope (JEOL) at 80 kV.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
5

Cardiac Muscle Ultrastructure Preparation

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Samples of approx. 2 mm3, collected from the left ventricular myocardium, were prefixed 2 h with 2.7% glutaraldehyde (Agar Scientific, Stansted, UK) in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH = 7.4), washed 4 times (3 × 1 h, 1 overnight) with the same buffer, and postfixed 1.5 h with 1% OsO4 (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA) in 0.15 M phosphate buffer (pH = 7.4). They were then dehydrated with an acetone series (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) (30–100%, 15–30 min each bath) and infiltrated with an EMBED 812 epoxy resin series (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA) in acetone (30–90%, 1 h each, and pure resin overnight). The resin was polymerized for 72 h at 60 °C. Ultrathin sections of 70–80 nm were cut with an ultra 45° diamond knife (DiATOME AG, Nidau, Switzerland) on a Bromma 8800 ULTRATOME III ultramicrotome (LKB, Stockholm, Sweden), collected on 300 mesh copper grids (Agar Scientific, Stansted, UK), and covered with a formvar (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA) film. The sections were double contrasted, as follows: 15 min with 13% uranyl acetate (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) and 5 min with 2.8% lead citrate (Fluka, Buchs, Switzerland). Then, they were examined with a JEOL JEM 100CX II transmission electron microscope (JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) at 80 kV. Images were recorded with a MegaView G3 camera and Radius 2.1 software (both from EMSIS GmbH, Münster, Germany).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
6

Transmission Electron Microscopy of Cell Ultrastructure

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The FB, CACO2 and A375 cells were incubated for 24 h with DHBH@MNC and PDHBH@MNC in concentrations of 50 µg/mL, and were, with their corresponding controls, exposed to normal medium and processed for transmission electron microscopy (TEM) examination. Briefly, after tripsinization, the cells were resuspended into an ice-cold 2.7% glutaraldehyde (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA, USA) solution in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) and centrifuged for 5 min at 500× g. The fixative was changed and prefixation continued for 1.5 h at 4 °C. The cells were next washed four times (1 h each at 4 °C) with 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4), and post-fixation was performed for 1.5 h at 4 °C with 1.5% osmium tetroxide (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) solution in 0.15 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4). The samples were next dehydrated in ethanol series (30–100%, 30 min each), and infiltrated with ethanol solutions of EMBed-812 (Electron Microscopy Sciences) of increasing concentrations (30%, 50%, 70% 1 h each and 3 × pure resin, 12 h each) at room temperature. Sections of 60–70 nm were cut with a DIATOME diamond knife (Hatfield, PA, USA) on a Bromma 8800 ULTRATOME III (LKB, Stockholm, Sweden) and were collected on 300 mesh copper grids (Agar Scientific Ltd., Stansted, UK) and contrasted for 5 min with 13% ethanol solution of uranyl acetate (Merck, Billerica, MA, USA). Sections were examined with a JEM 100CXII transmission electron microscope (Jeol, Tokyo, Japan) at 80 kV equipped with a MegaView G3 camera controlled by a Radius 2.1 software (both from Emsis, Münster, Germany).
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
7

Negative Staining for Tomato Virus

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
Infected tomato fruits of YNAU335 from 2021 to 2022 were chosen for negative staining. The parts ~0.2 cm below the tomato fruit surface were chopped into smaller pieces before being fixed with 2.5% glutaraldehyde. Transmission film was placed on the samples to absorb for 3–5 min, dried with filter paper, and placed on a surface with the virus facing upwards and air dried for 1 min. Two percent of ammonium molybdate (pH 5.5) was added to the dried films for 3 min and was dried to dye the virus material, which was then observed under a JEM100CX-II transmission electron microscope (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) [32 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
8

Ultrastructural Analysis of Tomato Tissues

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The parts ~0.2 cm below the tomato fruit surface were cut into small pieces of 1 mm × 1 mm × 3 mm and fixed in 2.5% glutaraldehyde solution for 12 h at 4 °C. A phosphate-buffered solution (0.2 mol/L, pH 7.2) was used to rinse the sample, which was then fixed in 1% OsO4 solution at 20 °C for 2 h. After ethanol gradient dehydration, epoxy resin Ep812 embedding, AO ultrathin microtome sectioning, and staining with 5% lead citrate and 1% uranyl acetate, the samples were observed and photographed under a JEM100CX-II transmission electron microscope (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) [33 (link)].
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
9

Ultrastructural Analysis of Gastric Tissue

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
The standardized specimens of gastric tissues (three per group) were fixed into glutaraldehyde at 4 °C for 2 h, fixed with 1% osmium tetroxide for 1.5 h, and stained with uranium dioxide acetate at room temperature for 1 h. A 15 min gradient dehydration process was performed with various concentrations of ethanol. Then, samples were immersed in epoxy resin and acetone for 2h, embedded, and polymerized with epoxy resin. The slices were made by ultra-thin microtome (Leica EM UC6) and dyed with uranium acetate and lead citrate. Investigation was carried out using a JEM-100CXII transmission electron microscope (JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and representative images were presented.
+ Open protocol
+ Expand
10

Characterization of SiO2–CHO–APBA Composite

Check if the same lab product or an alternative is used in the 5 most similar protocols
A series of instruments were used to characterize SiO2–CHO–APBA and its intermediates. Fourier-transform infrared spectra were analyzed with a TENSOR 27 FT-IR Spectroscopy (Bruker, Germany) by the KBr method. The morphology of SiO2–CHO–APBA was characterized by Nanosem 430 Field emission scanning electron microscope (FEI, USA) and JEM100CXII transmission electron microscope (JEOL, Japan). Its specific surface was measured using a Brunauer–Emmett–Teller surface area analyzer with NAVO Station (Quantachrome, USA) based on the nitrogen adsorption and desorption method. The content of B element in SiO2–CHO–APBA was determined by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (Agilent 5110, USA). Thermal analysis of SiO2–CHO–APBA was carried out with a TGA 550 analyzer (Discovery, USA) under N2 flow at a heating rate of 10 °C min−1 in the range of 30–600 °C. The concentration of Cr(vi) and Cr(iii) in the supernatant was measured by Cary 60 UV-Vis spectrophotometer (Agilent, USA).
+ 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!

🧪 Need help with an experiment or choosing lab equipment?
I search the PubCompare platform for you—tapping into 40+ million protocols to bring you relevant answers from scientific literature and vendor data.
1. Find protocols
2. Find best products for an experiment
3. Validate product use from papers
4. Check Product Compatibility
5. Ask a technical question
Want to copy this response? Upgrade to Premium to unlock copy/paste and export options.