Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(3)
Sandpapers with three different roughness scales were used to create 10 to 100 micron rough surfaces.
Conventional Ti surfaces were largely micron rough, with few nanometer surface features.
Pure Ti possessed micron rough surface features and lacked obvious nanocues; by contrast, NT10, NT30, and NT60 had highly ordered nanotubes with diameters of about 30, 100, and 200 nm, respectively.
Similar(57)
Our results demonstrate that films of thin and intermediate thickness (60 and 160 µm) adhered best to a sub-micron rough surface, with a pull-off stress of about 50 kPa.
Bacterial adhesion at micro-rough (2.6 μm) surfaces was independent of the surface composition and structure, contrary to the observation in sub-micron (0.5 μm) rough surfaces, where the crystalline oxides (TiO2 > ZrO2) surfaces exhibited higher numbers of attached bacteria.
These techniques result in differential surface geometries in the micron and nanometre scale, producing "rough" surfaces based on protrusions, such as pillars, posts, gratings, and ridges, or dentations, such as pits and dots [ 104, 299– 301].
Normal impact of micron-scale copper particles onto a rough copper surface is investigated in the 25 150 m/s impact velocity range, by the finite element method.
Because of the rough and porous nano-micron sized spherical particles, the Li4Ti5O12 obtained at relatively low calcined temperatures of 650 and 700 °C show better rate capabilities than them of the Li4Ti5O12 obtained at higher temperatures of 750 and 800 °C.
The results showed that the surface of mature media was rough and consisted of micron-sized porous particles (Fig. 2A).
The sizes of most asperities on actual rough surfaces range from nanometers to microns.
This loss affected a few microns of the depth and could be responsible for the porous, rough and opaque appearance, due to a change in the macromolecular structure.
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