|
|
¡ï ¡ï ¡ï Сľ³æ(½ð±Ò+0.5):¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû kanavaro11(½ð±Ò+2): ºÜÏêϸ£¡ 2011-08-04 12:24:12 kanavaro11(EEPI+1): ×·ÊÚ£¡ 2011-08-04 12:24:19 zlwtj09(½ð±Ò+4): ¶àлָµã£¡ 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.
×÷ÕßÐèÒª²¹³ä΢ÉúÎïѧµÄÖ¤¾ÝÀ´Ö§³Ölit was a superior mediumÕâÒ»ÂÛ¶Ï. ÁíÍâ, »¹È±ÉÙ¹ØÓÚÓªÑøÎïºÍÉú³¤ÎïÖʵÄÐÅÏ¢. nutrients and growth compoundsÎÒ²ÂÊDz»ÊÇÄãÓõÄÌìȻֲÎïÔØÌåÉú³¤Ê±ÓõÄÓªÑøÒºÅàÑø»ùÖ®ÀàµÄ.
2. the removal efficiencies presented in Fig. 4 did not differ significantly to draw conclusive remarks.
ÄãÔÚfig.4ÀïÌáµ½µÄÈ¥³ýЧÂʲ¢Ã»ÓÐÏÔÖø²îÒì, ²»×ãÒÔÌá³ö×ܽáÐÔ¹Ûµã.
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.
×÷ÕßûÓÐÓøü³¤Ò»µã¶ùµÄѱ»¯Ê±¼ä, ½á¹û(±ÈÈçÔÚfig.5ÀïµÄÄÇЩ)²»×ã¹»Ö¤Ã÷¿¹³å»÷¸ººÉÄÜÁ¦
4. Result discussion needs a substantial enhancement. The last conclusion is not sustained.
Òâ˼¾ÍÊÇÄãµÄÌÖÂÛ²¿·Ö»¹ÒªÉ, ×îºóÒ»Ìõ×ܽ᲻ÊǺܿ¿Æ× |
|