Danilatos, G. D., Review and outline of environmental SEM at present. J. Microsc. Oxford, 162 (1991), 391–402.Google Scholar

Bogner, A., Thollet, G., Basset, D., Jouneau, P.-H. and Gauthier, C., Wet STEM: a new development in environmental SEM for imaging nano-objects included in a liquid phase. Ultramicroscopy, 104 (2005), 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Abrams, I. and McBain, J., A closed cell for electron microscopy. J. Appl. Phys., 1 (1944), 607–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Thiberge, S., Zik, O. and Moses, E., An apparatus for imaging liquids, cells, and other wet samples in the scanning electron microscope. Rev. Sci. Instrum., 75 (2004), 2280–2289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suga, M, Nishiyama, H., Konyuba, Y. et al., The atmospheric scanning electron microscope with open sample space observes dynamic phenomena in liquid or gas. Ultramicroscopy, 111 (2011), 1650–1658.Google Scholar

Vidavsky, N., Addadi, S., Mahamid, J. et al., Initial stages of calcium uptake and mineral deposition in sea urchin embryos. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 111 (2014), 39–44.Google Scholar

Ominami, Y., Kawanishi, S., Ushiki, T. and Ito, S., A novel approach to scanning electron microscopy at ambient atmospheric pressure. Microscopy, 64 (2015), 97–104.Google Scholar

Jensen, E., Burrows, A. and Mølhave, K., Monolithic chip system with a microfluidic channel for in situ electron microscopy of liquids. Microsc. Microanal., 20 (2014), 445–451.Google Scholar

Demers, H., Poirier-Demers, N., Réal, A. et al., Three-dimensional electron microscopy simulation with the CASINO Monte Carlo software. Scanning, 33 (2011), 135–146.Google Scholar

Kanaya, K. and Okayama, S., Penetration and energy-loss theory of electrons in solid targets. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys., 5 (1972), 43–58.Google Scholar

Goldstein, J., Newbury, D. E., Joy, D. C. et al., Scanning Electron Microscopy and X-ray Microanalysis (New York: Springer, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Liv, N., Lazić, I., Kruit, P. and Hoogenboom, J. P., Scanning electron microscopy of individual nanoparticle bio-markers in liquid. Ultramicroscopy, 143 (2014), 93–99.Google Scholar

Behar, V., Nechushtan, A., Kliger, Y. et al., Methods for SEM inspection of fluid containing samples. US Patent 7230242 B2 (2007).Google Scholar

Fischer, D. A., Alsem, D. H., Simon, B., Prozorov, T. and Salmon, N., Development of an integrated platform for cross-correlative imaging of biological specimens in liquid using light and electron microscopies. Microsc. Microanal., 19 (2013), 476–477.Google Scholar

Thiberge, S., Nechushtan, A., Sprinzak, D. et al., Scanning electron microscopy of cells and tissues under fully hydrated conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101 (2004), 3346–3351.Google Scholar

Venkiteela, G. and Sun, Z. H., In situ observation of cement particle growth during setting. Cement Concrete Comp., 32 (2010), 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Tiede, K., Tear, S. P., David, H. and Boxall, A. B. A., Imaging of engineered nanoparticles and their aggregates under fully liquid conditions in environmental matrices. Water Res., 43 (2009), 3335–3343.Google Scholar

Lorenz, C., Tiede, K., Tear, S. et al., Imaging and characterization of engineered nanoparticles in sunscreens by electron microscopy, under wet and dry conditions. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health, 16 (2010), 406–428.Google Scholar

Joy, D. C. and Joy, C. S., Scanning electron microscope imaging in liquids: some data on electron interactions in water. J. Microsc. Oxford, 221 (2006), 84–88.Google Scholar

Dyab, A. K. F. and Paunov, V. N., Particle stabilised emulsions studied by WETSEM technique. Soft Matter, 6 (2010), 2613–2615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, O., Beery, R., Levit, S. et al., Scanning electron microscopy of thyroid cells under fully hydrated conditions – A novel technique for a seasoned procedure: a brief observation. Thyroid, 16 (2006), 997–1001.Google Scholar

Kolmakova, N. and Kolmakov, A., Scanning electron microscopy for in situ monitoring of semiconductor–liquid interfacial processes: electron assisted reduction of Ag ions from aqueous solution on the surface of TiO₂ rutile nanowire. J. Phys. Chem. C, 114 (2010), 17233–17237.Google Scholar

Wei, C., Lin, W. Y., Zainal, Z. et al., Bactericidal activity of TiO₂ photocatalyst in aqueous media: toward a solar-assisted water disinfection system. Environ. Sci. Technol., 28 (1994), 934–938.Google Scholar

Giocondi, J. L. and Rohrer, G. S., The influence of the dipolar field effect on the photochemical reactivity of Sr₂Nb₂O₇ and BaTiO₃ microcrystals. Top. Catal., 49 (2008), 18–23.Google Scholar

Herrmann, J. M., Heterogeneous photocatalysis: fundamentals and applications to the removal of various types of aqueous pollutants. Catal. Today, 53 (1999), 115–129.Google Scholar

Geisler-Lee, J., Wang, Q., Yao, Y. et al., Phytotoxicity, accumulation and transport of silver nanoparticles by Arabidopsis thaliana. Nanotoxicology, 7 (2012), 323–337.Google Scholar

Schneider, N. M., Norton, M. M., Mendel, B. J. et al., Electron–water interactions and implications for liquid cell electron microscopy. J. Phys. Chem. C, 118 (2014), 22373–22382.Google Scholar

Donev, E. U. and Hastings, J. T., Electron-beam-induced deposition of platinum from a liquid precursor. Nano Lett., 9 (2009), 2715–2718.Google Scholar

Al-Asadi, A. S., Zhang, J., Li, J., Potyrailo, R. A. and Kolmakov, A., Design and application of variable temperature setup for scanning electron microscopy in gases and liquids at ambient conditions. Microsc. Microanal., 21 (2015), 765–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Monat, C., Domachuk, P. and Eggleton, B., Integrated optofluidics: a new river of light. Nat. Photonics, 1 (2007), 106–114.Google Scholar

Erickson, D., Sinton, D. and Psaltis, D., Optofluidics for energy applications. Nat. Photonics, 5 (2011), 583–590.Google Scholar

Potyrailo, R. A., Starkey, T. A., Vukusicb, P. et al., Discovery of the surface polarity gradient on iridescent Morpho butterfly scales reveals a mechanism of their selective vapor response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 110 (2013), 15567–15572.Google Scholar

Unocic, R. R., Sun, X. G., Sacci, R. L. et al., Direct visualization of solid electrolyte interphase formation in lithium-ion batteries with in situ electrochemical transmission electron microscopy. Microsc. Microanal., 20 (2014), 1029–1037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Klein, K., Anderson, I and De Jonge, N., Transmission electron microscopy with a liquid flow cell. J. Microsc., 242 (2011), 117–123.Google Scholar

Mølhave, K., Kallesøe, C., Wen, C. Y. et al., Microfabricated systems for electron microscopy of nanoscale processes: in-situ TEM creation of Si nanowire devices and in-situ SEM electrochemistry. Microsc. Microanal., 16 (2010), 322–323.Google Scholar

Cothren, J. E., Development of techniques and instrumentation for in situ imaging and spectroscopy of working nanodevices using ultrathin membrane based environmental cells. M.Sc. Thesis, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (2011).Google Scholar

Liu, Y., Scanning electron microscopy to probe working nanowire gas sensors. M.Sc. Thesis, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale (2013).Google Scholar

Ueda, S., Kobayashi, Y., Koizumi, S. and Tsutsumi, Y., In situ observation of water in a fuel cell catalyst using scanning electron microscopy. Microscopy, 64 (2015), 87–96.Google Scholar

Meyer, J. C., Geim, A. K., Katsnelson, M. et al., The structure of suspended graphene sheets. Nature, 446 (2007), 60–63.Google Scholar

Wilson, N. R., Pandey, P. A., Beanland, R. et al., Graphene oxide: structural analysis and application as a highly transparent support for electron microscopy. ACS Nano, 3 (2009), 2547–2556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Lee, C., Wei, X., Kysar, J. W. and Hone, J., Measurement of the elastic properties and intrinsic strength of monolayer graphene. Science, 321 (2008), 385–388.Google Scholar

Kraus, J., Reichelt, R., Günther, S. et al., Photoelectron spectroscopy of wet and gaseous samples through graphene membranes. Nanoscale, 6 (2014), 14394–14403.Google Scholar

Meyer, J. C., Eder, F., Kurasch, S. et al., Accurate measurement of electron beam induced displacement cross sections for single-layer graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 108 (2012), 196102.Google Scholar

Meyer, J. C., Girit, C. O., Crommie, M. and Zettl, A., Imaging and dynamics of light atoms and molecules on graphene. Nature, 454 (2008), 319–322.Google Scholar

Pantelic, R. S., Meyer, J. C., Kaiser, U. and Stahlberg, H., The application of graphene as a sample support in transmission electron microscopy. Solid State Commun., 152 (2012), 1375–1382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frank, L., Mikmeková, E., Müllerová, I. and Lejeune, M., Counting graphene layers with very slow electrons. Appl. Phys. Lett., 106 (2015), 013117.Google Scholar

Mutus, J., Livadaru, L., Robinson, J. T. et al., Low-energy electron point projection microscopy of suspended graphene, the ultimate ‘microscope slide’. New J. Phys., 13 (2011), 063011.Google Scholar

Longchamp, J.-N., Escher, C., Latychevskaia, T. and Fink, H.-W., Low-energy electron holographic imaging of gold nanorods supported by ultraclean graphene. Ultramicroscopy, 145 (2014), 80–84.Google Scholar

Jablonski, A. and Powell, C., Practical expressions for the mean escape depth, the information depth, and the effective attenuation length in Auger-electron spectroscopy and x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 27 (2009), 253–261.Google Scholar

Kolmakov, A., Dikin, D. A., Cote, L. J. et al., Graphene oxide windows for in situ environmental cell photoelectron spectroscopy. Nat. Nanotechnol., 6 (2011), 651–657.Google Scholar

Xu, M., Fujita, D., Gao, J. and Hanagata, N., Auger electron spectroscopy: a rational method for determining thickness of graphene films. ACS Nano, 4 (2010), 2937–2945.Google Scholar

Kochat, V., Pal, A. N., Sneha, E. S. et al., High contrast imaging and thickness determination of graphene with in-column secondary electron microscopy. J. Appl. Phys., 110 (2011), 014315.Google Scholar

Krueger, M., Berg, S., Stone, D. et al., Drop-casted self-assembling graphene oxide membranes for scanning electron microscopy on wet and dense gaseous samples. ACS Nano, 5 (2011), 10047–10054.Google Scholar

Park, S. and Ruoff, R. S., Chemical methods for the production of graphenes. Nat. Nanotechnol., 4 (2009), 217–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Li, D., Müller, M. B., Gilje, S., Kaner, R. B. and Wallace, G. G., Processable aqueous dispersions of graphene nanosheets. Nat. Nanotechnol., 3 (2008), 101–105.Google Scholar

Cote, L. J., Kim, J., Tung, V. C. et al., Graphene oxide as surfactant sheets. Pure Appl. Chem., 83 (2010), 95–110.Google Scholar

Dikin, D. A., Stankovich, S., Zimney, E. J. et al., Preparation and characterization of graphene oxide paper. Nature, 448 (2007), 457–460.Google Scholar

Park, S., Lee, K.-S., Bozoklu, G. et al., Graphene oxide papers modified by divalent ions: enhancing mechanical properties via chemical cross-linking. ACS Nano, 2 (2008), 572–578.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Nair, R., Wu, H., Jayaram, P., Grigorieva, I. and Geim, A., Unimpeded permeation of water through helium-leak–tight graphene-based membranes. Science, 335 (2012), 442–444.Google Scholar

Bunch, J. S., Verbridge, S. S., Alden, J. S. et al., Impermeable atomic membranes from graphene sheets. Nano Lett., 8 (2008), 2458–2462.Google Scholar

Xu, M., Liang, T., Shi, M. and Chen, H., Graphene-like two-dimensional materials. Chemical Rev., 113 (2013), 3766–3798.Google Scholar

Büttner, M. and Oelhafen, P., XPS study on the evaporation of gold submonolayers on carbon surfaces. Surf. Sci., 600 (2006), 1170–1177.Google Scholar

Lin, Y.-C., Lu, C. C., Yeh, C. H. et al., Graphene annealing: how clean can it be? Nano Lett., 12 (2011), 414–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Suk, J. W., Kitt, A., Magnuson, C. W. et al., Transfer of CVD-grown monolayer graphene onto arbitrary substrates. ACS Nano, 5 (2011), 6916–6924.Google Scholar

Balandin, A. A., Ghosh, S., Bao, W. et al., Superior thermal conductivity of single-layer graphene. Nano Lett., 8 (2008), 902–907.Google Scholar

Cote, L. J., Cruz-Silva, R. and Huang, J., Flash reduction and patterning of graphite oxide and its polymer composite. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 131 (2009), 11027–11032.Google Scholar

Gilje, S., Farrar, J., Dubin, S. et al., Photothermal deoxygenation of graphene oxide for patterning and distributed ignition applications. Adv. Mater., 22 (2010), 419–423.Google Scholar

Kumar, P., Subrahmanyam, K. and Rao, C., Graphene patterning and lithography employing laser/electron-beam reduced graphene oxide and hydrogenated graphene. Mater. Express, 1 (2011), 252–256.Google Scholar

Liu, G., Teweldebrhan, D. and Balandin, A. A., Tuning of graphene properties via controlled exposure to electron beams. IEEE Trans. Nanotechnol., 10 (2011), 865–870.Google Scholar

Childres, I., Jauregui, L. A., Foxe, M. et al., Effect of electron-beam irradiation on graphene field effect devices. Appl. Phys. Lett., 97 (2010), 173109.Google Scholar

Tao, L., Qiu, C., Yu, F. et al., Modification on single-layer graphene induced by low-energy electron-beam irradiation. J. Phys. Chem. C, 117 (2013), 10079–10085.Google Scholar

Feng, X., Maier, S. and Salmeron, M., Water splits epitaxial graphene and intercalates. J. Am. Chem. Soc., 134 (2012), 5662–5668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Baraket, M., Walton, S. G., We, Z. et al., Reduction of graphene oxide by electron beam generated plasmas produced in methane/argon mixtures. Carbon, 48 (2010), 3382–3390.Google Scholar

Royall, C., Thiel, B. and Donald, A., Radiation damage of water in environmental scanning electron microscopy. J. Microsc., 204 (2001), 185–195.Google Scholar

Stoll, J. D. and Kolmakov, A., Electron transparent graphene windows for environmental scanning electron microscopy in liquids and dense gases. Nanotechnology, 23 (2012), 505704–505711.Google Scholar