8 research outputs found

    Surface Structure, Adsorption, and Thermal Desorption Behaviors of Methaneselenolate Monolayers on Au(111) from Dimethyl Diselenides

    No full text
    To understand the effect of headgroups (i.e., sulfur and selenium) on surface structure, adsorption states, and thermal desorption behaviors of self-assembled monolayers (SAMs) on Au(111), we examined methanethiolate (CH<sub>3</sub>–S, MS) and metheneselenolate (CH<sub>3</sub>–Se, MSe) monolayers formed from dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) and dimethyl diselenide (DMDSe) molecules by ambient vapor-phase deposition. Scanning tunneling microscopy imaging revealed that DMDS molecules on Au(111) after a 1 h deposition form MS monolayers containing a disordered phase and an ordered row phase with an inter-row spacing of 1.51 nm, whereas DMDSe molecules form long-range-ordered MSe monolayers with a (√3 × 3√3)<i>R</i>30° structure. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy measurements showed that MS or MSe monolayers chemisorbed on Au(111) were formed via S–S bond cleavage of DMDS or Se–Se bond cleavage of DMDSe. On the other hand, we monitored three main desorption fragments for MS and MSe monolayers using TDS monomers (CH<sub>3</sub>S<sup>+</sup>, CH<sub>3</sub>Se<sup>+</sup>), parent mass species (CH<sub>3</sub>SH<sup>+</sup>, CH<sub>3</sub>SeH<sup>+</sup>), and dimers (CH<sub>3</sub>S–SCH<sub>3</sub><sup>+</sup>, CH<sub>3</sub>Se–SeCH<sub>3</sub><sup>+</sup>). Interestingly, we found that thermal desorption behaviors of MSe monolayers were markedly different from those of MS monolayers. All desorption peaks for MSe monolayers were observed at a higher temperature compared with MS monolayers, suggesting that the adsorption affinity of selenium atoms for the Au(111) surface is stronger than that of sulfur atoms. In addition, the desorption intensity of dimer fragments for MSe monolayers was much lower than for MS monolayers, indicating that selenolate SAMs on Au(111) did not undergo their dimerization efficiently during thermal heating compared with thiolate SAMs. Our results provide new insight into understanding the surface structure and thermal desorption behavior of MSe monolayers on Au(111) surface by comparing those of MS monolayers

    Reconstructed 3-D RI distributions of RBCs.

    No full text
    <p>(a–d) Cross-sectional images of 3-D RI tomograms of RBCs (along the <i>x</i>–<i>y</i>, the <i>x</i>–<i>z</i>, and the <i>z</i>–<i>y</i> planes) exposed to diluted blood solutions of (a) 0.0, (b) 0.1, (c) 0.3, and (d) 0.5% ethanol concentrations; (e–h) 3-D rendered RI isosurfaces (<i>n</i> > 1.355) of the four representative RBCs in (a–d).</p

    Morphological parameters for RBCs exposed to 0.0, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5% ethanol concentrations

    No full text
    <p>(a) Volume, (b) Surface area, and (c) Sphericity. Each circle indicates individual RBC measurements. Each circle indicates measurements of an individual RBCl measurements. The mean value of each morphological RBC parameters is denoted as the horizontal line with the vertical bar for the standard deviation.</p

    List of mobile element regions in the genome of <i>Lactiplantibacillus plantarum</i> PMO 08 predicted by mobile genetic finder.

    No full text
    List of mobile element regions in the genome of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum PMO 08 predicted by mobile genetic finder.</p

    List of antimicrobial resistance genes analyzed by BlastKoala and their locations in the genome of <i>Lactiplantibacillus plantarum</i> PMO 08.

    No full text
    List of antimicrobial resistance genes analyzed by BlastKoala and their locations in the genome of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum PMO 08.</p
    corecore