Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSimilar(60)
Intake of neutral detergent fiber ranged from 1.09 to 1.30% of BW among the treatments, with that of RS− being 21% greater than that of NS−.
Neutral detergent fiber ranged from 38 to 50 g 100 g−1 among hybrids and total non-structural carbohydrates varied from 18 to 32 g 100 g−100
Changes in transmembrane potentials induced in the second fiber ranged from nonexistent with large intervening volumes to large enough to initiate excitation when fibers were coupled by interstitial currents through a small interstitial space.
The number of stalks per linear meter ranged from 35 to 40, the fiber content ranged from 15.35 to 19.90 against 12.05 of the commercial variety, the stalks productivity ranged from 155 to 236 tons against 148 tons of commercial variety, and the productivity of fiber ranged from 30.63 to 40.25 tons [1].
Prior to detection, the derivatives were enriched by headspace SPME with the extraction efficiency of the SPME fiber ranging between 65 % and 85%%.
The slopes obtained from the plots and the calculated extraction ratios of the analytes are shown in Table 1 with extraction efficiency of the SPME fiber ranging between 65 % and 85%%, with confidence intervals between 5.8 % and 7.1 % and RSD of 4 %–7 %.
The fibers range from 150 nanometers to 5 micrometers in diameter.
The diameters of the fibers range from 50 to 300 nm, and the lengths are up to 7 μm.
The diameters of the PCL and PCL/CA fibers range from 1 to 4 μm while those of CHI/PEO fibers are smaller than 200 nm.
This is also incorrect, as airway (and other visceral) chemosensors that conduct action potentials in the Aδ-fiber range have been identified (analogous to somatic Aδ-nociceptors) [ 13, 32, 33].
Analysis of DTI data becomes more complex at fiber intersections, and estimates of white matter voxels containing crossing fibers range from 63 to 90% depending on the estimation method used [ 75].
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