Table 3. Fitted values for the curves in Figure 1 and Figure 2.
Relationship | Estimated parameters | R-square | p.value |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
0.97 |
![]() |
![]() |
0.83 | 0.0109 | |
![]() |
0.96 |
![]() |
|
![]() |
0.04 |
![]() |
|
![]() |
0.97 |
![]() |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
0.69 | 0.01 |
![]() |
0.41 | 0.0848 | |
![]() |
0.67 | 0.0123 | |
![]() |
0.53 | 0.0104 | |
![]() |
0.7 | 0.0093 | |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
0.87 | 0.0069 |
The linear and non linear relationships, with and without the intercept, for and
are reported here. These models are fitted to the experimental measurements listed in Table 2. For each model the fitting parameters,
and the correlation p-value are reported. When
and
are related to
, the non linear model with a fixed intercept and a free exponent (i.e.
) is associated with the best fitting results (bold). By adding one more free parameter (i.e.
) we do not get essentially any improvement (italic). The estimated
value for
, without any simplification, implies
,
and
(see Materials and Methods). A direct proportionality is observed also for
.