Fig. 1. Thermo-Calc calculations: the amount of all phase vs temperature for (a) Fe-Mn-5Cu alloy and (b) Fe-Mn-10Cu alloy; the mass percentage of elements in (c) FCC_A1 phase and (d) FCC_A1#2 phase of Fe-Mn-10Cu alloy.

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of the material processing technique and the tests.

Fig. 3. X-ray diffraction patterns of Fe-Mn-xCu (x = 0.9, 5 and 10 wt.%) alloys.

Fig. 4. (A(a-d)) Optical, (A(e-h)) SEM-BSE microstructure and (B) elemental mapping and composition of the precipitates in Fe-Mn-Cu alloy.

Fig. 5. (a) Vickers Hardness of Fe-Mn-xCu (x = 0.9, 5 and 10 wt.%) alloys and (b) potentiodynamic polarization curves measured in Hank's salt solution.

Fig. 6. (a) SEM micrographs of surface morphology, (b) AAS ionic concentrations (blue bar: Mn and pink bar: Fe ion concentration) and (c) GI-X-ray diffraction patterns of the degraded surface of Fe-Mn-xCu (x = 0.9, 5 and 10 wt.%) alloy after immersion in Hank's salt solution at 37 ℃ for 15, 30 and 45 days.

Fig. 7. (a, b) Time-dependent antimicrobial effects of Fe-Mn-xCu (x = 0.9, 5 and 10 wt.%) alloys extract on E.Coli bacteria (E: Extract; H: Hank's solution). Alamar blue assay in terms of (% of initial cell density) of (c) MG-63 cells and (d) MC3T3-E1 cells at 4, 12, and 72 h post exposure of Fe-Mn-xCu (x = 0.9, 5 and 10 wt.%) alloys extract.

Fig. 8. Representative 3D/2D micrograph from Micro-CT of bone-implant interface of Fe-Mn-Cu alloy (white arrow: sample, dotted circle: degraded area).

Fig. 9. (A) Representative micrographs of histological H&E stained sections of the implanted samples (scale bar =200 μm, black circles indicate R.B.Cs), (B) fluorescence images of bone-implant interface of Fe-Mn-Cu alloy (scale bar =500 μm) and (C) percentage of new bone formation in the control and defect site implanted with Fe-Mn-Cu alloys (*P < 0.05, ** P > 0.05).