The I and Cl concentrations can be explained by the mixing of the hypothetical end-member, meteoric water, and seawater.
However, the isotopic composition of He and Ne in D10IB130 cannot be explained by the mixing of SW, IFSW, and GCR-produced components (Fig. 1b).
The results for the samples from areas A, B, and D can be explained by the mixing of the water with the highest iodine content with the pre-anthropogenic meteoric and seawater (Figure 4).
In contrast, those for samples from areas C and D in granitic basement can be explained by the mixing of the hypothetical end-member with meteoric water.Figure 3 exhibits an interesting correlation among the four areas.
Moreover, the mixing calculations demonstrate that all of the δ13Ccarb values of the Chaotian carbonates can be explained by the mixing of the hypothetical Permian seawater (SW i ) with the deep-water masses where sulfate reduction had occurred (SW1 and SW3) (Fig. 7).
The I and Cl concentrations for some samples from areas A and B can be explained by the mixing of the hypothetical end-member (asterisk), meteoric water (filled black circle), and seawater (filled black square), except for two samples with low I and Cl concentrations (Figure 2d).
Depending on the number of measurements and the complexity of the time trends, more complex change patterns can also be explained by the mixed-effects models.
The development of ΔSO2 and Δ[Lac] in the patient population studied cannot be explained by the mixing of SVC and IVC blood.
The lower values in SO2 and [Lac] measured in the PA could not be explained by the mixing of blood from the IVC with blood from the SVC, as hypothesised, since SO2 and [Lac] were similar in the IVC and SVC.
This variation in diagnostic threshold may partly be explained by the case mix of each study and the fact that patients with Gram-negative infection have significantly higher PCT levels than those with Gram-positive infections [ 11- 13].
