Ai Feedback
Exact(5)
Figure 11 Comparison of concentrations of filtered cadmium at WDP1 vs. predicted values based on solubility models from literature sources.
Figure 13 Comparison of concentrations of filtered arsenic at WDP1 vs. predicted values based on solubility models from literature sources.
For the following reactions: Figure 12 Comparison of concentrations of filtered iron at WDP1 vs. predicted values based on solubility models from literature sources.
Such a correlation is absent in the WDP1 data shown in Fig. 10. Figure 10 Comparison of concentrations of filtered copper at WDP1 vs. predicted values based on solubility models from literature sources.
Predicted solubilities based on the experiments of Daskalakis and Helz[51] and Hayashi et al.[52] are virtually identical, and for the conditions of WDP1 are influenced mainly by the following reaction: Figure 9 Comparison of concentrations of filtered zinc at WDP1 vs. predicted values based on solubility models from literature sources.
Similar(55)
We used an approach that models the behavior of the surfactant-oil-water-microemulsion system based on solubility data.
For similar reasons, the activity coefficients were based on solubility in methanol and the partition ratio to the PDMS.
These sections were designed based on solubility data from the literature as shown in Table 1 with lysozyme solubility data at 4% NaCl.
The volume was adjusted to get accurate amounts of the compound for treatment based on solubility factor.
At pH 10, the observed crossover in arsenic speciation from oxyanionic to sulfoxyanionic forms shifted to a slightly higher ΣH2S concentration of about 10-3.5 M. Based on the solubility model for amorphous As2S3,[15] the crossover point at pH 10 is predicted to be ΣH2S = 10-2.5 10-2.5
(66) The thermodynamic solubility product (Ksp) was calculated for the saccharin cocrystal (piroxicam) and the nine saccharinate salts based on one solubility value at a known pH and the p K of each component reported in the literature.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com