Table 3. Comparison between the experimental MIC and the calculated MIC for Sb(III) and Cu(II) in the respective stepwise linear regression models shown in Table 2.

Soil	Range of MICs (mM)	Experimental average MIC for Sb(III) (mM)	Calculated average MIC for Sb(III) (mM)	Absolute value of error	Relative error*(%)	Fitting degree of accuracy ** (%)
LS	0.1–1	0.26	0.68	0.42	61.76	38.24
LH	2.5–16	5.92	5.91	0.01	0.17	99.83
JC	0.025–8	1.10	0.63	0.47	74.60	25.40
DF	0.05–8	1.79	2.03	0.24	11.82	88.18
DC	0.05–7	2.13	2.41	0.28	11.62	88.38
DN	0.05–5	2.18	1.87	0.31	16.58	83.42
DS	0.05–7.5	2.46	1.83	0.63	34.43	65.57
DA	0.05–1.5	0.76	1.26	0.50	39.68	60.32
TF	0.05–5	0.70	0.62	0.08	12.90	87.10
TM	0.025–5	0.87	0.62	0.25	40.32	59.68
TC	0.025–3	0.31	0.62	0.31	50.00	50.00
Average	/	/	/	/	32.17	67.83

^*Relative error (%) = 100% x (Absolute value of error/ Experimental average);

^**Fitting degree of accuracy (%)  = 100% - relative error. The experimental MIC for Sb(III) or Cu(II) of each isolate was tested using the CDM medium as described in the Material and Methods.