raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095 
|
Post by raindancer on Mar 3, 2015 16:51:41 GMT
For some reason this is kicking my butt. I can't get the wording right. Is this correct? Does it even make sense?
Several studies have indicated that ultrafine particle counts, rather than mass measurements of beryllium, are what impact this static prevalence considering “decreased particle size results in increased surface area per unit mass...and decreases clearance in the lung” (McCawley, Kent & Berakis, 2001;Stefaniak, et al., 2003).
|
|
|
|
Post by hennybutton on Mar 3, 2015 16:55:35 GMT
I would use "not" instead of "rather than". I'm trying to come up with something other than "considering". That word doesn't seem to fit well in the sentence. Maybe "stating" is a better choice?
|
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Mar 3, 2015 16:58:15 GMT
Take out
Are what
|
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Mar 3, 2015 16:58:52 GMT
I like not instead of rather than too
|
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Mar 3, 2015 17:00:26 GMT
Maybe use considering that
|
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Mar 3, 2015 17:01:47 GMT
You could take out everything before ultrafine.
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Mar 3, 2015 17:01:51 GMT
So maybe : Several studies have indicated that ultrafine particle counts, not mass measurements of beryllium, are what impact this static prevalence (McCawley, Kent & Berakis, 2001;Stefaniak, et al., 2003). McCawley, Kent & Berakis state “decreased particle size results in increased surface area per unit mass...and decreases clearance in the lung”.
?
Geez. I can't figure out why this is tripping me up. The rest has gone so well!
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Mar 3, 2015 17:03:31 GMT
So just: Ultrafine particle counts, not mass measurements of beryllium, are what impact this static prevalence considering that “decreased particle size results in increased surface area per unit mass...and decreases clearance in the lung” (McCawley, Kent & Berakis, 2001;Stefaniak, et al., 2003).
|
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Mar 3, 2015 17:05:09 GMT
Depending on context you may not need the beryllium clause at all. Did you say it already?
|
|
|
|
Post by JustCallMeMommy on Mar 3, 2015 17:05:28 GMT
I ditto taking out "are what." It adds unnecessary bulk.
|
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Mar 3, 2015 17:06:13 GMT
Your new one is cleaner but I still think take out are what
|
|
|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Mar 3, 2015 17:08:54 GMT
Personally, if I was making the point that there are some studies that contradict others, I would want to include the term "some studies" or "several studies." I don't think that is a bad thing...
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Mar 3, 2015 17:12:40 GMT
Depending on context you may not need the beryllium clause at all. Did you say it already? No, so it needs to be there. Some studies have indicated that ultrafine particle counts, not mass measurements of beryllium, impact this static prevalence considering “decreased particle size results in increased surface area per unit mass...and decreases clearance in the lung” (McCawley, Kent & Berakis, 2001;Stefaniak, et al., 2003). So how can I word "considering"? |
|
gsquaredmom
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,078
Jun 26, 2014 17:43:22 GMT
|
Post by gsquaredmom on Mar 3, 2015 17:14:02 GMT
I like the one where you separated the authors. It is clearer to whom the actual info is attributed. Whether you use the several studies really depends on your context.
Eta and that one takes care of considering. I would still take out are what.
Eta. If you use that one I think you need the year after aithors as subjects of sentence. As far as giving credit properly this one is better than the combined citation
|
|
raindancer
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,095
|
Post by raindancer on Mar 3, 2015 17:22:19 GMT
Thank you all! It looks much better now, and fits well with the rest of the review.
|
|
gottapeanow
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,749
|
Post by gottapeanow on Mar 3, 2015 17:22:20 GMT
|
|
