Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(13)
It has been added to the revised Methods.
We have noted this in the revised Methods section.
It has been added to the revised Methods section.
This information is now provided in the revised Methods.
JDC and KVN revised Figure 1 and wrote portions of the revised Methods section.
In deference to the reviewer's concern we refer to this point explicitly in the revised Methods section.
Similar(47)
To help achieve the objective of the revision, the specific aims of this study are to examine the rationale behind the major revisions of the standard and to evaluate the major technical aspects of the revised method through an experiment.
Results show that the revised method closely matches the test results.
A limitation of the revised method is that 'background' radon concentrations from a non-contaminated well in the NAPL-contaminated aquifer are needed to accurately estimate NAPL saturation.
However, the revised method has not been fully tested and sufficiently evaluated, and it is unknown whether it is practically feasible and convenient to implement the standard.
We thus conclude that both methods, being upwind schemes designed for the ACM, have the same performances in terms of accuracy and convergence speed, even though the revised method is more complex with less stringent assumptions made, while the original CB method is simpler due to the use of extra simplifying assumptions.
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