English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The data processing regarding AFM nanoindentation experiments on biological samples relies on the basic contact mechanics models like the Hertz model and the Oliver &amp; Pharr analysis. Despite the fact that the two aforementioned techniques are assumed to provide equivalent results since they are based on the same underlying theory of contact mechanics, significant differences regarding the Young’s modulus calculation even on the same tested sample have been presented in the literature. The differences can be even greater than 30% depending on the used model. In addition, when the Oliver &amp; Pharr analysis is used, a systematic greater Young’s modulus value is always calculated compared to the Hertzian analysis. In this paper, the two techniques are briefly described and two possible reasons that accurately explain the observed differences in the calculated value of the Young’s modulus are presented.

Hertz model or Oliver & Pharr analysis? Tutorial regarding AFM nanoindentation experiments on biological samples