Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Instrumentation / Journal articles

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Instrumentation.

Journal articles on the topic 'Instrumentation'

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 5 April 2025

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Instrumentation.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

Suherman, Suherman, Ghilma Milawonso, Kinichi Morita, Hitoshi Mizuguchi, and Yuji Oki. "Statistical Evaluation of Conventional and Portable Instrumentations for Cr(VI) Analysis on Chemistry Laboratory Waste Water." Key Engineering Materials 840 (April 2020): 406–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/kem.840.406.

Full text

Abstract:

The development of portable instrumentation for heavy metals analysis was increased rapidly. However, the quality of data from portable methods has so far been questioned when compared to conventional instrumentation. In this research, a comparative study of conventional and portable instrumentations for Cr(VI) analysis on liquid waste water of Chemistry Laboratory at Universitas Gadjah Mada (UGM) was conducted. This research started with validation and statistical evaluation of instrumentation methods which are UV-Visible spectrophotometer, portable spectrophotometer (PiCOEXPLORER) and Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectrometer (ICP-AES). The validation methods consist of determination of linearity, sensitivity, limit of detection and limit of quantification. The results showed that the validation methods of ICP-AES were better than PiCOEXPLORER and UV-Vis spectrophotometer. Based on t-test, it was obtained that the result of Cr(VI) analyses with the comparison of UV-Vis and PiCOEXPLORER, ICP-AES and PiCOEXPLORER, and UV-Vis and ICP-AES; there were no significant difference (tcount< ttable). The ANOVA test (F test) results showed that the Fcount value is less than Ftable so that the results of Cr(VI) analysis in the standard solution and liquid waste samples measured by three instrumentations. Thus, it was concluded that portable instrumentations was good and gives the same quality as conventional instrumentations (UV-Vis and ICP AES).

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Souza, Bianca Katsumata de, Murilo Priori Alcalde, Marco Antonio Hungaro Duarte, Maria Aparecida Andrade Moreira Machado, Thais Marchini Oliveira, and Natalino Lourenço Neto. "Shaping ability of a pediatric motor-driven instrumentation system in primary molar root canal prototypes." Brazilian Dental Journal 34, no. 5 (October 2023): 36–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440202305372.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Evaluate the shaping ability and preparation time using a pediatric motor-driven rotary instrumentation compared to other systems in resin prototypes of primary molars. Methods: Thirty specimens were scanned in micro-CT and divided into three groups according to the instrumentation type: pediatric motor-driven Sequence baby File (SBF); conventional motor-driven (Sequence Rotary File - SRF); manual K file. Instrumentation time was timed. After preparation, the specimens were scanned again. The pre- and post-instrumentation images were superimposed to measure the amount of root canal deviation and the resin remnant thickness. ANOVA followed by the Tukey test analyzed the comparisons between groups (p<0.05). Results: No statistically significant differences occurred in root canal deviation among groups (p>0.05). There were statistically significant differences in the comparison among root thirds (p<0.001) but without significant differences in the interaction group vs. root third (p>0.05). Both motor-driven instrumentations showed statistically greater weariness than manual instrumentation (p<0.001), without significant significant differences between SBF and SRF. Motor-driven instrumentation had a shorter working time than manual instrumentation (p<0.001). Conclusion: Pediatric motor-driven instrumentation demonstrated good outcomes in relation to root canal deviation and amount of remnant structure, with shorter instrumentation time. SBF can be a suitable alternative for endodontic instrumentation in primary molars.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Gaston, Camino Willhuber, Taype Zamboni Danilo, Carabelli Guido, Barla Jorge, and Sancineto Carlos. "Migration of the Anterior Spinal Rod to the Right Thigh, a Rare Complication of Anterior Spinal Instrumentations: A Case Report and a Literature Review." Case Reports in Orthopedics 2015 (2015): 1–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/532412.

Full text

Abstract:

Posterior and anterior fusion procedures with instrumentation are well-known surgical treatments for scoliosis. Rod migration has been described as unusual complication in anterior spinal instrumentations; migration beyond pelvis is a rare complication. A 32-year-old female presented to the consultant with right thigh pain, rod migration was diagnosed, rod extraction by minimal approach was performed, and spinal instrumentation after nonunion diagnosis was underwent. A rod migration case to the right thigh is presented; this uncommon complication of spinal instrumentation should be ruled out as unusual cause of sudden pain without any other suspicions, and long-term follow-up is important to prevent and diagnose this problem.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Darbre, Georges R. "Instrumentation de barrages par accélérographes." Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 22, no. 1 (February 1, 1995): 150–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/l95-014.

Full text

Abstract:

A better understanding of the dynamic behaviour of dams requires strong-motion instrumentations. In particular, it is necessary to observe the free-field motions at the dam sites and the effective motions along the abutments, and to determine the dynamic properties of dams and their response to severe earthquakes. Instrumentation schemes are developed for arch dams, gravity dams and embankment dams, considering specific observational needs and objectives. The technical specifications to be satisfied by the accelerographs and the arrays are developed. Four arrays, which have been installed in Swiss dams ranging in height from 120 to 285 m, for a total of 29 triaxial accelerographs, are also presented. Key words: earthquakes, strong motions, instrumentation, accelerographs, dams.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Shih, Kao-Shang, Ching-Chi Hsu, Shu-Yu Zhou, and Sheng-Mou Hou. "BIOMECHANICAL INVESTIGATION OF PEDICLE SCREW-BASED POSTERIOR STABILIZATION SYSTEMS FOR THE TREATMENT OF LUMBAR DEGENERATIVE DISC DISEASE USING FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES." Biomedical Engineering: Applications, Basis and Communications 27, no. 06 (December 2015): 1550060. http://dx.doi.org/10.4015/s101623721550060x.

Full text

Abstract:

Fusion has been the gold standard treatment for treating lumbar degenerative disc disease. Many clinical studies have demonstrated that adjacent segment degeneration was observed in patients over time. Various instrumentations of pedicle screw-based stabilization systems have been investigated using numerical approaches. However, numerical models developed in the past were simplified to reduce computational time. The aim of this study was to evaluate and to compare the biomechanical performance of rigid, semi-rigid, and dynamic posterior instrumentations using a more realistic numerical model. Three-dimensional nonlinear finite element models of the T11-S1 multilevel spine with various posterior instrumentations were developed. The intersegmental rotation, the maximum disc stress, and the maximum implant stress were calculated. The results indicated that the rigid instrumentation resulted in greater fixation stability but also a greater risk of adjacent segment degeneration and implant failure. The biomechanical performance of the dynamic instrumentation was closer to that of the intact spine model compared with the rigid and semi-rigid instrumentations. The results of this study could help surgeons understand the biomechanical characteristics of different posterior instrumentations for the treatment of lumbar degenerative disc diseases.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Ginjeira, António, Abayomi O. Baruwa, and Karla Baumotte. "Evaluation and Comparison of Manual and Mechanical Endodontic Instrumentation Completed by Undergraduate Dental Students on Endodontic Blocks." Dentistry Journal 12, no. 11 (November 14, 2024): 363. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/dj12110363.

Full text

Abstract:

Background: The shaping of root canal space was completed using manual stainless steel files in earlier decades and with the advent of mechanical nickel–titanium (NiTi) instruments, there is potential for more efficient root canal preparation. Despite the advantages of NiTi instruments, their adoption in undergraduate dental education remains limited. The aim of this study was to evaluate three root canal instrumentation techniques, manual instrumentation using stainless steel hand files, continuous rotation employing ProTaper Gold (PTG) files, and reciprocation with WaveOne Gold (WOG) files, on endodontic resin blocks to assess the quality of preparation and the time required for instrumentation. Methods: A total of 36 third-year dental students, all lacking prior experience in root canal procedures, were divided into six groups to prepare 108 resin endodontic blocks with each student preparing 3 blocks. Images were captured at the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative stages to facilitate comparisons and measurements of the prepared blocks to assess the degree of resin removal, apical deviation, and mid-cervical wear. Furthermore, questionnaires were distributed to assess the students’ experiences and satisfaction with the techniques. The Friedman test, Wilcoxon test with Bonferroni correction, and Kruskal–Wallis test with Mann–Whitney U test were used to analyse and compare techniques, with the level of significance set at p < 0.05. Results: Instrumentation with PTG exhibited significantly reduced apical deviation (0.073 ± 0.003) compared to both the WOG and manual instrumentations (p < 0.001). Significant differences in mid-cervical wear were observed only between PTG and the manual instrumentation. In terms of resin removal, the manual instrumentation displayed greater variability and was five times slower to complete the instrumentation. In total, 90% of students favoured mechanical instrumentation, with substantial preferences for them over manual techniques. Conclusions: Mechanical instrumentation techniques, notably with the PTG system, were significantly faster and more effective in preparation quality. This highlights the potential for the inclusion of mechanical instrumentation in undergraduate dental curricula.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

Schröder, Gesine. "Instrumentation." Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie [Journal of the German-Speaking Society of Music Theory] 1–2, no. 2/2–3 (2005): 239–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.31751/531.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Harvey, Bill. "Instrumentation." Optician 266, no. 6863 (July 29, 2022): 14–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/opti.2022.266.6863.14.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Brauman, J. I. "Instrumentation." Science 260, no. 5113 (June 4, 1993): 1407. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.260.5113.1407.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

&NA;. "INSTRUMENTATION." Clinical Nuclear Medicine 24, no. 10 (October 1999): 827. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003072-199910000-00037.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

&NA;. "INSTRUMENTATION." Clinical Nuclear Medicine 24, no. 11 (November 1999): 909. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003072-199911000-00034.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

&NA;. "INSTRUMENTATION." Clinical Nuclear Medicine 24, no. 12 (December 1999): 1006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003072-199912000-00039.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

&NA;. "INSTRUMENTATION." Clinical Nuclear Medicine 25, no. 1 (January 2000): 83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00003072-200001000-00036.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Honarpisheh, Pedram, Samantha L. Parker, Christopher R. Conner, Sami Anjum, Jessica R. Stark, John C. Quinn, and John M. Caridi. "20-year Inflation-Adjusted Medicare Reimbursements (Years: 2000-2020) For Common Lumbar and Cervical Degenerative Disc Disease Procedures." Global Spine Journal, May 24, 2022, 219256822211001. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21925682221100173.

Full text

Abstract:

Objective Reimbursement trends for common procedures have persistently declined over the past 2 decades. Spinal instrumentational and fusion procedures are increasingly utilized and have increased in clinical complexity, yet longitudinal inflation-adjusted data for Medicare reimbursements of these procedures have not been evaluated. Methods The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool was used to extract Medicare reimbursements for the 5 most common spinal procedures and associated instrumentations from 2000-2020. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes include 22551, 22600, 22633, 63030, and 63047 as well as instrumentation CPT codes 22840 and 22842-6. The nominal values were adjusted for inflation according to the latest consumer price index (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; reported as 2020 USD) and used to calculate average annual percent changes and compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) in reimbursements. Results After inflation adjustment, the physician fee reimbursement decreased by 11.05% ± 8.46% (mean ± s.d., from $2,009.89 in 2011 to $1,787.85 in 2020) for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), 28.38% ± 8.42% (from $1,889.38 in 2000 to $1,353.14 in 2020) for posterior cervical fusion, 7.85% ± 8.20% (from $2,111.20 in 2012 to $1,945.49 in 2020) for transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF), 28.17% ± 13.88% (from $1,421.78 in 2000 to $1,021.22 in 2020) for lower back disc surgery, and 31.88% ± 8.22% (from $1,700.38 in 2000 to $1,158.25 in 2020) for lumbar laminectomy. Instrumentation reimbursements showed an average decrease of 33.43% ± 8.4% over this period. Average CAGR was −1.7% ± .41% for procedures and −2.02% ± .14% for instrumentation. Conclusion Our analysis reveals a persistent decline in reimbursement rates of the most common spine procedures and instrumentation since the year 2000. If unaddressed, this trend can serve as a substantial disincentive for physicians to perform these procedures and can significantly limit access to spinal care at the population level.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Liebsch, Christian, Peter Obid, Morten Vogt, Benedikt Schlager, and Hans-Joachim Wilke. "Spinal instrumentation length affects adjacent segment range of motion and intradiscal pressure." Scientific Reports 14, no. 1 (December 16, 2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82132-0.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractScoliosis instrumentation length depends on the type and degree of deformity and the individual preference of the surgeon. This in vitro study aimed to explore effects of increasing instrumentation length on adjacent segment mobility and intervertebral disc loading. Six fresh frozen human spine specimens (C7-sacrum) with entire rib cage from young adult donors (26–45 years) were loaded with pure moments of 5 Nm. Range of motion (ROM) of all segments was determined using optical motion tracking. Lumbar intradiscal pressure (IDP) was measured using flexible pressure sensors from L1 to L5. The specimens were tested in two groups with increasing posterior instrumentation length in proximal (group 1) and distal direction (group 2). Significant (p < 0.05) adjacent segment ROM increases compared to the condition without any instrumentation and compared to other instrumentations were primarily found proximally to the instrumentation in lateral bending. IDP significantly (p < 0.05) increased in flexion in the distal adjacent segment for T4-L1 instrumentation and by up to 550% at instrumented levels compared to the condition without instrumentation. These findings may explain clinical complications such as adjacent segment disease and associated proximal and distal junctional kyphosis. To reduce loads on adjacent segments, instrumentation should therefore be applied as short as reasonable.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Liebsch, Christian, Peter Obid, Morten Vogt, Benedikt Schlager, and Hans‐Joachim Wilke. "Scoliosis instrumentation alters primary and coupled motions of the spine: An in vitro study using entire thoracolumbar spine and rib cage specimens." JOR SPINE 7, no. 4 (December 2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/jsp2.70028.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractBackgroundEffects of rigid posterior instrumentation on the three‐dimensional post‐operative spinal flexibility are widely unknown. Purpose of this in vitro study was to quantify these effects for characteristic adolescent idiopathic scoliosis instrumentations.MethodsSix fresh frozen human thoracic and lumbar spine specimens (C7‐S) with entire rib cage from young adult donors (26–45 years) without clinically relevant deformity were loaded quasi‐statically with pure moments of 5 Nm in flexion/extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation. Primary and coupled motions of all segments were measured using optical motion tracking. Specimens were tested without instrumentation and with posterior rod instrumentations ranging from T2 to L1 (for Lenke Type 2) and from T8 to L3 (for Lenke Type 5) based on survey results among spinal deformity surgeons. Statistical differences were evaluated using the pairwise Friedman test.ResultsPrimary ranges of motion were significantly (p < 0.05) reduced in all six motion directions in the entire thoracic spine (T1‐L1) for both instrumentations, but solely in extension and axial rotation in the entire lumbar spine (L1‐S) for T8‐L3 instrumentation. Without instrumentation, strong ipsilateral axial rotation during primary lateral bending and strong contralateral lateral bending during primary axial rotation were detected in the thoracic spine (T1‐L1) and slight inverse coupled motions in the lumbar spine (L1‐S). While coupled axial rotation was significantly (p < 0.05) reduced, especially in the upper thoracic spine (T1‐T5) for T2‐L1 instrumentation and in the lumbar spine (L1‐S) for T8‐L3 instrumentation, coupled lateral bending was solely significantly (p < 0.05) reduced in the upper thoracic spine (T1‐T5) for T2‐L1 instrumentation. Coupled motions in primary flexion and extension were non‐existent and not affected by any fixation (p > 0.05).ConclusionsInstrumentation reduces the primary flexibility and diminishes the natural coupling behavior between lateral bending and axial rotation, primarily in the upper thoracic spine, potentially causing correction loss and junctional deformity in the long‐term.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 80, no. 11 (June 2008): 3973–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac086071e.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 62, no. 22 (November 15, 1990): 1180A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00221a733.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 62, no. 23 (December 1990): 1220A—1222A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00222a727.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 62, no. 24 (December 15, 1990): 1266A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00223a727.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 1 (January 1991): 28A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00001a720.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 2 (January 15, 1991): 76A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00002a731.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 3 (February 1991): 186A—194A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00003a768.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 4 (February 15, 1991): 240A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00004a725.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 5 (March 1991): 300A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00005a740.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 6 (March 15, 1991): 354A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00006a732.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 7 (April 1991): 424A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00007a743.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 8 (April 15, 1991): 472A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00008a735.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 9 (May 1991): 516A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00009a730.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 10 (May 15, 1991): 589A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00010a737.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 11 (June 1991): 646A—648A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00011a746.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 13 (July 1991): 686A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00013a725.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 14 (July 15, 1991): 738A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00014a726.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 15 (August 1991): 802A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00015a735.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 17 (September 1991): 840A—842A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00017a730.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 18 (September 15, 1991): 902A—903A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00018a735.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 19 (October 1991): 956A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00019a740.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 20 (October 15, 1991): 990A—991A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00020a723.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 21 (November 1991): 1040A—1042A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00021a727.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 22 (November 15, 1991): 1100A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00022a733.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 23 (December 1991): 1144A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00023a725.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 63, no. 24 (December 15, 1991): 1205A—1206A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00024a723.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 64, no. 1 (January 1992): 42A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00025a735.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 64, no. 2 (January 15, 1992): 102A—103A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00026a726.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 64, no. 4 (February 15, 1992): 280A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00028a730.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 64, no. 5 (March 1992): 343A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00029a730.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 64, no. 6 (March 15, 1992): 406A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00030a728.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 64, no. 7 (April 1992): 456A—458A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00031a738.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 64, no. 8 (April 15, 1992): 498A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00032a726.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

"Instrumentation." Analytical Chemistry 64, no. 9 (May 1992): 546A—547A. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac00033a731.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!