4.4 Article

Verification of water presence in graphene liquid cells

Journal

MICRON
Volume 149, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2021.103109

Keywords

Transmission electron microscopy; TEM; STEM; Bubble; Electron energy loss spectroscopy

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The article discusses methods for verifying the presence of water in graphene liquid cells (GLCs), emphasizing the need to critically consider liquid filling in GLC sample preparation due to the limitations of using a single criterion. The most reliable method is direct observation of the water exciton peak using electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS), but alternative methods include analyzing image contrast, presence of bubbles, and an oxygen signal in the EEL spectrum. Nanoparticle movement in GLC is not always guaranteed.
Graphene liquid cells (GLCs) present the thinnest possible sample enclosures for liquid phase electron microscopy. However, the actual presence of liquid within a GLC is not always guaranteed. Of key importance is to reliably test the presence of the liquid, which is most frequently water or saline. Here, the commonly used methods for verifying the presence of water were evaluated. It is shown that depending on the type of sample, applying a single criterion does not always conclusively verify the presence of water. Testing liquid filling for a specific GLC sample preparation protocol should thus be considered critically. The most reliable method is direct observation of the water exciton peak using electron energy loss spectroscopy (EELS). But if this method cannot be carried out, water filling of the GLC can be verified from a combination of higher contrast in the image, the presence of bubbles, and an oxygen signal in the EEL spectrum, which can be accomplished at a high electron dose in spot mode. Nanoparticle movement does not always occur in a GLC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available