Very high slope method

The comparison of the results of very different methods has to be judged very precisely, as, e.g., the given thickness of a layer is a function of the limit of detection (EOD) of a method. Additionally, the detected areas vary from about 0.01 up to about 400 mm-. Therefore, the methods with a low level of detection and with a high sensitivity (high slope of the calibration function) give a higher value for the layer thickness. Furthermore, the layers are broadened with time by diffusion. 

Tables 3 and 4 are the cross-correlation matrices for the various methods and experiment, with a few positions missing because the number of molecules common to certain pairs of methods was not statistically significant. Finally, Table 5 lists the slopes and intercepts determined by linear regression of predicted values for each method against experiment for the neutral solutes. Because the experimental error is very high for the ions (at least 5 kcal/mol), the correlations in Table 4 should be analyzed with care.

Hence, CBF is the ratio of the maximum slope of Q(t) to the maximum arterial concentration. This is analogous to a differentiation with respect to time of the Mullani-Gould formulation, and is called the maximum slope method. The principal advantage of the maximum slope method is the simplicity and hence speed of calculation of the perfusion values. A very high rate of contrast agent injection, however, is required - typically at least 10 mL/s - in order to satisfy the no venous outflow assumption [28, 122]. These rates cannot be routinely achieved in clinical practice. The no venous outflow assumption is clearly an oversimpliflcation, and this method yields relative, rather than absolute, perfusion measurements, making interpatient or interinstitutional comparison of results difficult. 

The slope of simulated particle distribution function will be same as for the drops (n=l.ll), so the simulated distribution is calculated by the use of the RRSB function. This method is a simple, but fast simulation of the product diameter. But the accuracy is not very high because of the fact that the slope of the PSD (n = 1.31) is different to the drops and the relative deviation of the drop size X63 3 is 57 %. The difference is not a big problem, because it has to be considered, that the particle size is measured from the cyclone product and the spray is influenced by the measuring tube. The lack of the fine fraction and of the coarse fraction in the dried particle is a reason for the differences, because the fines are not separated by the cyclone and the coarse are separated by drag forces before the cyclone. Finally it has to be mentioned, that the fit with the RRSB function is plausible because it is no phenomenon of the spray measurement technique and the tendency of this simulation means that all the installations in the laser diffraction device have no big influence on the spray. 

Gext = K4 has passed the external circuit (the values of g xt are always referred to the unit surface area of the electrode) is shown in Fig. 10.9. From the slope of the curve one can determine the electrode s capacitance C. In this method there is no need for complex equipment it is very convenient for samples with large true surface areas (highly disperse deposits, powders, etc.). 

Pimblott (1993) has used MC and ME methods for the external field (E) dependence of the escape probability (Pesc) for multiple ion-pair spurs. At low fields, Pesc increases linearly with E with a slope-to-intercept ratio (S/I) very similar to the isolated ion-pair case as given by Onsager (1938). Therefore, from the agreement of the experimental S/I with the Onsager value, one cannot conclude that only isolated ion-pairs are involved. However, the near equality of S/I is contingent on small Pesc, which is not expected at high fields. 

The large UV absorptions of nucleic acids and proteins make the optical method a highly sensitive technique, and very small amounts of sample in very dilute solutions can be used. However, the selection of baselines between which the fractional change in absorption is evaluated must be made carefully to avoid error. The best agreement with values obtained from calorimetric measurements is observed when the slopes of both baselines are extended into the transition region, and the determination of x and y are made between the extrapolated lines as shown in Figure 16.6a. 

---