Sentence examples for more stringent compared from inspiring English sources

Compared to Australian and New Zealand whose standards are considered more stringent compared to other industrialized countries, only nickel and zinc levels are exceeded.

57 REACH are, in case of CMRs, based on internationally harmonised classification requirements according to GHS [4] or, in case of PBTs, according to REACH Annex XIII at least more stringent compared with the requirements of international law following from the POP-convention [5].

A study among blood donors conducted in 2008 2009 in north-eastern Malaysia reported a HCV seroprevalence of 0.45% [ 20], but donor pre-screening for blood-borne virus risk factors has become much more stringent compared with the early 1990s.

These data were not used, as donor pre-screening at this time was much more stringent compared with the early 1990s, and thus there is a risk of greatly under-estimating the prevalence in non-PWID.

Note that, the data gathering requirement is more stringent as compared with network connectivity requirement in the sense that the energy consumed for data transmission needs to be considered when performing scheduling.

Roughly speaking, relation (12) suggests that in networks where the nodes are located far apart (e.g., cellular type of wireless networks), the accuracy of self-interference cancellation is more stringent as compared to that in networks where the nodes are located in close vicinity (e.g., a wireless network setup in an office room).

The second, more stringent test compares a branchXsites null model with ω2 = 1 on the foreground branch to the positive selection branchXsites model (i.e. ω2>1 on the foreground branch).

And not surprisingly, 78 percent said they expected underwriting standards for commercial and multifamily mortgages to be more stringent in 2008, compared with 70percentt surveyed last year and just 37percentt in 2005.

The multi-group analysis by age showed that the same number of factors and factor-loading pattern were equivalent across both age groups, supporting the configural invariance of the bifactor model (SBχ = 256.10; df = 126; CFI = .97; NNFI = .96; RMSEA = .04; 95% C.I. [.03 .05]) and its fit statistics were used as a baseline onto which more stringent models were compared.

A more stringent test comparing M8 and M8a also supports the proposed positive selection (2ΔL = 27.3, P < 0.0001).

We also conducted a more stringent test by comparing M8 with M8a.