|
|
★ ★ ★
小木虫(金币+0.5):给个红包，谢谢回帖
kanavaro11(金币+2): 很详细！ 2011-08-04 12:24:12
kanavaro11(EEPI+1): 追授！ 2011-08-04 12:24:19
zlwtj09(金币+4): 多谢指点！ 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.
作者需要补充微生物学的证据来支持lit was a superior medium这一论断. 另外, 还缺少关于营养物和生长物质的信息. nutrients and growth compounds我猜是不是你用的天然植物载体生长时用的营养液培养基之类的.
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没有显著差异, 不足以提出总结性观点.
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.
作者没有用更长一点儿的驯化时间, 结果(比如在fig.5里的那些)不足够证明抗冲击负荷能力
4. Result discussion needs a substantial enhancement. The last conclusion is not sustained.
意思就是你的讨论部分还要深化, 最后一条总结不是很靠谱 |
|
回复此楼
点击这里搜索更多相关资源