The phrase "average size value" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts where you are discussing a statistical measure that represents the typical size of a set of data points.
Example: "The average size value of the samples collected was significantly larger than previous studies indicated."
Alternatives: "mean size" or "typical size measurement".
The average size values are approximately 7.2 and 3.4 nm calculated for sample B (T b = 152 K) and sample C (T b = 16 K), respectively.
The average size values are 32 and 43 nm; this result may suggest that the size of the particles decreases as lower and lower R values are chosen (from 100% to 0%).
The mean hydrodynamic size and its standard deviation were calculated by averaging the reported z-average size values and determining their standard deviation.
The deterioration of mechanical properties after the elevated temperature treatment was attributed to the formation of a thick compound layer (~6 µm) on the surface followed by an α-Case (~20 µm) and phase transformation in the bulk microstructure from fully equiaxed to bimodal with coarse grains (~5 times higher average grain size value).
Table 1 also provides the average size of valued projects within each category.
The monolayer sorption and average pore size values were estimated by applying BET and GAB models.
Due to this broadening effect, the FWHF values used to calculate the average crystalline size could not be determined precisely, which is responsible for the discrepancy in the calculated lattice parameter and average crystalline size values.
The average grain size values as estimated using the full width at half maximum of the XRD pattern are given in Table 1. Figure 4 shows the surface morphology of the sputtered Pd films studied by using atomic force microscopy.
When studying this type of systems, one of the variables that must be considered carefully in first place is the sample polydispersity because usually, the average particle size values declared to characterize samples are only rough approximations, and definitely, a non-negligible size distribution is always present for real samples, producing noticeable changes in thermal behavior.
At station W1000, the sediment became finer with increasing sediment depth, whilst at the other stations average grain size values declined slightly with sediment depth (Fig. 3).
