As mentioned above, we conservatively adopt ā = 0.1 μm as a fiducial value (e.g., Inoue, 2011).
Thus, we adopt 0.4 as a fiducial value (Model A) and also examine 0.3 (Model B) and 0.6 (Model C).
In fact, the effect of a different choice of η can be offset by a different choice of nH and T. This allows us to merge the uncertainties of η, nH, and T into the value of τacc, 0. We set τacc, 0 = 4.0 x 105 yr as a fiducial value (e.g., Inoue, 2011).
This time-scale is very uncertain, but we will obtain τac,0 = 3 × 106 yr as the fiducial value in Section 4.2 in order to reproduce the dust-to-metal ratio in the solar neighborhood with an SN destruction efficiency of ϵmsn = 1000 M⊙.
Recent models for starburst galaxies in the early Universe often assume an effective mass of ϵmsn ~ 100 M⊙ which is a factor of 10 smaller than our fiducial value (Dwek et al, 2007; Pipino et al, 2011; Gall et al, 2011a).
Differences in efficacy were considered significant when 95% FL (fiducial limits) of LC50 values did not overlap.
The adopted values for the fiducial case (Model A) is shown in Table 2, while smaller and larger values for P1 are also examined (Models D and E, respectively).
The image coordinates (image points) and the world point values of the fiducial markers on the calibration object were used together in the calibration algorithm.
The same constants were used for the mutants and we searched the nearest set of parameters providing an acceptable fit, i.e. when estimated values fall inside the fiducial limits of experimental values.
The difference between two OID50 values was considered statistically significant if 95% fiducial limits did not overlap.
