Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(5)
Exact(8)
No significant difference was found between the two extraction methods in total extractables (Table 1).
By comparing the ultrasound and reflux extraction, no obvious difference in the efficiency was observed between the two extraction methods, so the ultrasound extraction was adopted.
Indeed, extraction of olive leaf phenolics with aqueous glycerol was found to extract more polar substances compared with water/ethanol mixtures, a phenomenon attributed to the difference in polarity between the two extraction solvents [4].
However, at class level, all top 4 classes of bacteria changed their proportion between the two extraction methods.
The primary difference between the two extraction protocols was the inclusion of a 5 min 95°C incubation in ASL buffer in the Stool kit, which according to the manufacturer has an increased effect in lysing bacteria.
For L929 and RAW 264.7 cells, no significant differences were found among materials or between the two extraction periods.
Similar(51)
A comparison of DNA yield between the two extractions shows that the 8-month storage had no significant effect, because the amount of DNA obtained from each μL of Oragene·DNA/saliva samples was not lower in the second extraction, which agrees with the statement of the manufacturer [ 19], although it has been analyzed only the period of 8 months of storage.
The results show that the two extraction methods recover between 67 and 110 % of the four OPAHs, as is shown in Table 3.
Statistical comparison demonstrated no significant differences between the three extraction techniques.
Furthermore, whether a dominant (sample A) or minor (sample C) group, gram-positive bacteria were detected by all three platforms with only minor variation between the three extraction methods.
The two extraction methods had very similar extraction efficiencies, and gave essentially identical results (Figure 1A).
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