"Figure 2. TEM image of OMMC and imprinted-OMMC: at lower (G and I) and higher (H and J) magnifications, respectively."
In (I), the authors have at least bothered to rotate the reduced copies of (J) to different alignments as well as sizes... in (G), the copies all have the same alignment as the original.
If the scale bars are to be believed, imprinted-OMMCs are about 75 nm across in (I) and 95 nm across in (J), but that is perhaps beside the point.
Notice that when the OMMCs of G and H (magnetic ordered mesoporous carbon) appeared in a Biosensors & Bioelectronics paper, they were much smaller nanospheres of Fe3O4:
"Figure 1. (A) XRD pattern of OMC, OMMC and imprinted-OMMC"
The OMMC and imprinted-OMMC spectra are identical for 2.theta > 27 degrees, apart from the vertical offset and a vertical scaling factor of 140%.
"(C) FT-IR spectra of (i) adduct-OMMC and imprinted-OMMC in the absence (ii) and presence (iii) of template;"
If anyone can discern any difference between these absorption spectra -- apart from the vertical and horizontal offsets -- they are doing better than me.
"(B) magnetic hysteresis loops of OMMC and imprinted-OMMC [Inset: camera picture of imprinted-OMMC in the absence (a) and presence (b) of magnet];"
Please compare (e.g.) https://pubpeer.com/publications/B8D0492AE33C068F7D966C2810650B#3
Retracted May 30th. "The Editor retracts this article (10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b01124) based on duplication of images from DOIs: 10.1016/j.bios.2016.07.04 and 10.1021/acsbiomaterials.8b00123 that were presented as different materials."
Attach files by dragging & dropping, selecting them, or pasting from the clipboard. Uploading your files… We don’t support that file type. with a PNG, GIF, or JPG. Yowza, that’s a big file. with a file smaller than 1MB. This file is empty. with a file that’s not empty. Something went really wrong, and we can’t process that file.
Comment must be at least 15 characters.