07-11-2019, 12:09 AM
I reckon its a labelling mistake , in that '116v' in the report, should be '116r'.
The figure references include IR spectra and other sciencey data and the photomicrographs for each sample,
for sample 16 there are only 2 figures 16A and 16B all the other samples contain more than 2 figures.
So i assume the refs to sample 16 figures woudl be the spectra and other sciencey stuff.
Not having taken a photomicrograph of sample 16 does seem a bit lax though.
I would like to see the figures, wonder what happened to them ?
Unidentified constituents in the gum sounds most intriguing.
The figure references include IR spectra and other sciencey data and the photomicrographs for each sample,
for sample 16 there are only 2 figures 16A and 16B all the other samples contain more than 2 figures.
So i assume the refs to sample 16 figures woudl be the spectra and other sciencey stuff.
Not having taken a photomicrograph of sample 16 does seem a bit lax though.
I would like to see the figures, wonder what happened to them ?
Unidentified constituents in the gum sounds most intriguing.