| ²é¿´: 2183 | »Ø¸´: 5 | |||
| µ±Ç°Ö»ÏÔʾÂú×ãÖ¸¶¨Ìõ¼þµÄ»ØÌû£¬µã»÷ÕâÀï²é¿´±¾»°ÌâµÄËùÓлØÌû | |||
cherishenryгæ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
|
[½»Á÷]
ESPR¶þÉóСÐÞ£¬»¹ÊǸúÒ»ÉóÒ»ÑùµÄÎÊÌ⣬Çë´óÉñ·ÖÎöһϱ༵ÄÒâ¼û~~
|
||
|
Reviewers have now commented on your revised paper and they believe the manuscript has been considerably improved. However, before I can accept the manuscript I request the following: 1. The Quality Assurance(QA) / Quality Control (QC) appears lacking from your study. What standards were used and how were instruments / techniques calibrated ? Were replicate samples taken and analysed? Were duplicate analyses made, and if so, how close were the duplicates? What analysis Blanks, replicates and certified reference (CRMs) were analysed as part of the QA/QC? Were the results for the CRMs within the expected ranges? What were the limits of reporting for the various methods ? The quality of the manuscript will be further improved by adding all of these method details, and will provide a clearer indication of the precision and accuracy of the measurements.£¨Õâ¸öÎÒ´óÐÞµÄʱºòÐÞÁË£¬ÎÒ×öµÄÊÇÖØ½ðÊôÎÛȾ£¬Éæ¼°µ½Ô×ÓÎüÊÕ¡¢ICPµÈÒÇÆ÷£¬»¹ÓÐÖØ½ðÊô·Ö¼¶ÌáÈ¡·½·¨£¬´óÐÞµÄʱºò²¹³äÁËÒÇÆ÷ʹÓõĽðÊô±ê×¼Òº¡¢»¹ÓÐÒÇÆ÷У׼·½·¨²ÎÕÕʹÓÃÊֲᣨÕâÑùд̫¼òµ¥ÁË£¿£©£¬·Ö¼¶ÌáÈ¡µÄ»ØÊÕÂʵȵȣ¬½á¹ûÏÖÔÚ»¹ÊÇÕâ¸öÎÊÌâ°¡£¡£©Çë³æÓÑÃÇÖ¸µã~~лллл£¡ 2. Significant figures (in text and Tables): Please report data to 2 or 3 significant figures, maximum. The methods were no more precise than that, e.g. 6210.95 = 6210, 49.12% = 49%, ... 3. Uncertainty estimates (error bars) in Figures. Thank you for carefully providing error bars. Can you also provide a description of what these represent in the caption, e.g. Error bars represent standard deviation of n =3 measurements ... If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision. £¨Õâ¾ä»°ËµÖØÐ¿¼ÂÇÊÇɶ×ÓÒâ˼£¿½ôÕÅ£¡£¡£© |
» ²ÂÄãϲ»¶
Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
265Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
085700×ÊÔ´Óë»·¾³308Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸¼ªÁÖ´óѧ²ÄÁÏѧ˶321Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ12È˻ظ´
286·ÖÈ˹¤ÖÇÄÜרҵÇëÇóµ÷¼ÁÔ¸Òâ¿ç¿¼£¡
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
329Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
ÉêÇë»Ø¸åÑÓÆÚÒ»¸öÔ£¬±à¼Í¬ÒâÁË¡£µ«ÏµÍ³ÉϵÄʱ¼äû±ä£¬¸ø±à¼ÓÖдÓʼþÁË£¬Ã»»Ø¸´
ÒѾÓÐ4È˻ظ´
²ÄÁÏѧ˶318Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ5È˻ظ´
Ò»Ö¾Ô¸Öйúº£Ñó´óѧ£¬ÉúÎïѧ£¬301·Ö£¬Çóµ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ6È˻ظ´
081700»¯¹¤Ñ§Ë¶µ÷¼Á
ÒѾÓÐ3È˻ظ´
zgkdyzz
гæ (³õÈëÎÄ̳)
- Ó¦Öú: 0 (Ó×¶ùÔ°)
- ½ð±Ò: 3.5
- Ìû×Ó: 3
- ÔÚÏß: 2.8Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 2785832
- ×¢²á: 2013-11-07
- רҵ: ÄÜÔ´»¯¹¤
¡ï
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
Сľ³æ: ½ð±Ò+0.5, ¸ø¸öºì°ü£¬Ð»Ð»»ØÌû
|
ÄãºÃ£¬ÎÒ×î½üESPRÒ²·µ»ØÀ´ÁË£¬ ÎÒ×öµÄÊÇÖØ½ðÊô£¬ÎÒÏëÎÊһϵÚÒ»¸öÎÊÌâ The Quality Assurance(QA) / Quality Control (QC) appears lacking from your study. What standards were used and how were instruments / techniques calibrated ? Were replicate samples taken and analysed? Were duplicate analyses made, and if so, how close were the duplicates? What analysis Blanks, replicates and certified reference (CRMs) were analysed as part of the QA/QC? Were the results for the CRMs within the expected ranges? What were the limits of reporting for the various methods ? ÄãÊÇÈçºÎ»Ø¸´µÄÄØ£¿ÎÒÕâ¸öÎÊÌâ¿´²»Ì«¶®°¡¡£¡£¡£ |
5Â¥2016-02-23 15:37:32
chenenslogan
½ð³æ (ÕýʽдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 201 (´óѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 1246.9
- É¢½ð: 148
- ºì»¨: 14
- Ìû×Ó: 631
- ÔÚÏß: 123.4Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 2664352
- ×¢²á: 2013-09-18
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: Ö²ÎïÒÅ´«Ñ§

2Â¥2014-10-07 14:01:18
tiangauyue
Ìú¸Ëľ³æ (ÖøÃûдÊÖ)
- Ó¦Öú: 38 (СѧÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 11269.5
- É¢½ð: 216
- ºì»¨: 4
- Ìû×Ó: 1508
- ÔÚÏß: 164Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 2884712
- ×¢²á: 2013-12-20
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: Ò£¸Ð»úÀíÓë·½·¨

3Â¥2014-10-07 14:03:58
ÔÚ±ÈÓ÷ÈÕÄê
ÖÁ×ðľ³æ (Ö°Òµ×÷¼Ò)
´çÀíÀ³µÂ
- Ó¦Öú: 116 (¸ßÖÐÉú)
- ½ð±Ò: 20968.9
- É¢½ð: 146
- ºì»¨: 8
- Ìû×Ó: 3503
- ÔÚÏß: 231.8Сʱ
- ³æºÅ: 2662169
- ×¢²á: 2013-09-17
- ÐÔ±ð: GG
- רҵ: ¸ß·Ö×Ó²ÄÁϽṹÓëÐÔÄÜ

4Â¥2014-10-07 15:05:59













»Ø¸´´ËÂ¥
10