It should be pointed out that this delay does not significantly affect the discussion based on Eq. 6, since both adsorbates experience this deviation to the same extent.
It is interesting to see this deviation since DBC1 first appears in fish.
This deviation is expected since the NIRS measured THC changes do not directly correspond to the blood flow changes [ 25].
However, a single-reason explanation of this deviation is hardly possible, since the observed smaller intercept indicates in each case the opposite effect.
In particular, since the deviation of observed from expected compositions is used to derive biological inferences, I think it'd be good to provide some sort of a quantitative measurement that gives an idea about the extent of this deviation.
This seems particularly likely when methanol is the substrate, since the deviation is larger in these scenarios.
But still a good indication can be obtained from any of the models since the deviation in the results was less then a few percent for all three reaction systems.
Since the deviation has no impact when parameters are small, and that deviation characteristics are similar whether we use small or large parameters, we suppose that the system will keep good performance with large parameters.
Therefore, although the NES provides a low system efficiency, it is an equilibrium that neither transmitter will deviate since any deviation will lead to a utility loss.
In addition, positional errors affect the estimators, since the deviations between model predictions and field measurements are often larger than they would have been without positional errors.
