|
|
★ ★ ★
小木蟲(金幣+0.5):給個紅包，謝謝回帖
kanavaro11(金幣+2): 很詳細！ 2011-08-04 12:24:12
kanavaro11(EEPI+1): 追授！ 2011-08-04 12:24:19
zlwtj09(金幣+4): 多謝指點！ 2011-08-04 14:52:51
1. The authors need to present much more microbiological evidences to support their claims that lit was a superior medium. Additionally, important information such as nutrients and growth compounds was missing.
作者需要補充微生物學(xué)的證據(jù)來支持lit was a superior medium這一論斷. 另外, 還缺少關(guān)于營養(yǎng)物和生長物質(zhì)的信息. nutrients and growth compounds我猜是不是你用的天然植物載體生長時用的營養(yǎng)液培養(yǎng)基之類的.
2. the removal efficiencies presented in Fig. 4 did not differ significantly to draw conclusive remarks.
你在fig.4里提到的去除效率并沒有顯著差異, 不足以提出總結(jié)性觀點.
3. results such as those presented in Fig 5 do not necessary qualify as shock resistant since the authors did not allow longer acclimation period.
作者沒有用更長一點兒的馴化時間, 結(jié)果(比如在fig.5里的那些)不足夠證明抗沖擊負荷能力
4. Result discussion needs a substantial enhancement. The last conclusion is not sustained.
意思就是你的討論部分還要深化, 最后一條總結(jié)不是很靠譜 |
|
+1/188
回復(fù)此樓
