1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Superconducting quantum interference device measurements of dilute magnetic materials in biological samples
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.1868272
/content/aip/journal/rsi/76/4/10.1063/1.1868272
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/rsi/76/4/10.1063/1.1868272

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Plot of the relative observed moment as a function of the length of the sample. The empirical polynomial fit is of the form .

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Sample is pressed into a cylindrical shape into the first straw and held in place by two inner straws.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The effect on the diamagnetic slope due to the size of the gap in the inner straw. The solid symbols show the hysteresis curve for freeze-dried mouse brain tissue which was packed down to and a gap of the same size. The open symbol shows the hysteresis curve for a different sample which was packed down to and a gap of the same size.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Plot of the linear slope, mainly diamagnetic, and antidiamagnetic contribution, as a function of the ratio of the gap length over the wet mass of the sample. The slope would vanish for a gap over a mass ratio of .

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Typical raw data from a SQUID magnetometer for a magnetically dilute biological sample; in this case mouse brain tissue, measured at .

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

Hysteresis curve measurements of a mouse brain tissue sample (as in Fig. 5) where a diamagnetic slope of has been subtracted. Measurement (a) gives the best result and was done in no-overshoot mode with waiting time. Measurement (b) is no-overshoot mode with waiting time. Measurements (c) and (d) were done in hysteresis mode and in oscillate mode, both with a waiting period.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Error bar analysis of the hysteresis curve measurements of Fig. 6. The error was averaged over the four points of the same absolute field and was further averaged at low field between 0–1, 1–2, and for clarity purpose. Measurements (a) and (d) give the best result and are similar. Measurements (b) and (c) give the worst error bar as expected.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Percentage error of the magnetization. Measurement (a) was done in no-overshoot mode with waiting time. Measurement (b) is no-overshoot mode with waiting time. Measurements (c) and (d) were done in hysteresis mode and in oscillate mode, both with a waiting period.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/rsi/76/4/10.1063/1.1868272
2005-03-16
2014-04-23
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Superconducting quantum interference device measurements of dilute magnetic materials in biological samples
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/rsi/76/4/10.1063/1.1868272
10.1063/1.1868272
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM