Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
We present a comparison of common electron microscopy sample preparation methods for studying crystallisation processes from solution using both scanning and transmission electron microscopy (SEM and TEM). We focus on two widely studied inorganic systems: calcium sulphate, gypsum (CaSO·2HO) and calcium carbonate (CaCO). We find significant differences in crystallisation kinetics and polymorph selection between the different sample preparation methods, which indicate that drying and chemical quenching can induce severe artefacts that are capable of masking the true native state of the crystallising solution. Overall, these results highlight the importance of cryogenic (cryo)-quenching crystallising solutions and the use of full cryo-TEM as the most reliable method for studying the early stages of crystallisation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jmi.13300 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!