Suggestions(1)
Exact(3)
The average injection volume therefore was 11.3 nl.
An average injection volume of 1.5 mL (2 syringes) of Juvéderm™ dermal filler was used for initial treatment and 0.7 mL (1 syringe) for repeat treatment.
LC: Sample (200 pmol RNA dissolved in 30 μL of 20 mM EDTA solution; average injection volume: 30 μL); column (Waters XTerra MS, C18 2.5 μm; 1.0 × 50 mm) at 21 °C; flow rate: 30 μL/min; eluant A: 8.6 mM TEA, 100 mM 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoroisopropanol in H2O (pH 8.0); eluant B: methanol; gradient: 0 100% B in A within 30 min; UV-detection at 254 nm.
Similar(57)
Injection solutions were filtered using 0.45 μm PVDF centrifugal filters (Ultrafree-MC-HV, Millipore) and centrifugation at 12,000 × g for 1 3 min. Average injection volumes were estimated to range from 25to6060 pl per embryo.
Average ACJ injection volume was 2.1 mL (SD 0.7 mL), and the injectate was contained within the ACJ in 174 cases (93%).
Average ACJ injection volume was 2.1 mL (SD 0.7 mL) and 22 of the 153 subjects (14%) in whom the injectate was contained within the ACJ and whose pre-injection pain intensity exceeded 20 mm on the 100 mm VAS scale reported an 80% PAR.
Patients in the control group received on average higher injection volumes in primary treatment session and touch-up.
A comparison of the fluorescence signals of these beads with the injected embryos allowed us to determine the injection volume to 11.3 nl on average.
Open image in new window Fig. 9 Average values of efficiencies of all cases with respect to the cycle rate limit and injection volume Open image in new window Fig. 10 Average values of efficiencies of all cases with respect to soaking and injection periods.
Injection volume was 20 μL and all experimental samples were analyzed in duplicate and averaged.
Additionally, based on the literature (4) an injection volume that is equivalent to daily production (5) an injection rate that is equivalent to the average daily production rate, and (6) a tracer slug around 15%% of the total injected volume are recommended.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com