1)

p. 69, par 2, "From Figure 5.1, apart from  . . . clearly seen."

My recommendation:  Delete everything between the two commas.

2) 

p. 69, par 2, "Also, as the concentration is increasing, . . .
electic fields."

My recommendation:  "This plot indicates that diameter is decreasing
in electric field at the concentrations considered in this experiment.
Variability due to electric field also seems to reduced at the higher
concentrations."

3)

p. 69, par 2, "But, clearer conclusion can only . . ."

My recommendation:  delete this sentence or change "conclusion"
to "conclusions" and "statistical analysis" to "experimentation"

3b)

p. 71, 3rd sentence, "Therefore, the baseline quadratic regression
function is"

3c)

p. 71, 5th sentence, uncapitalize "And"

4)

p. 71, last line, change to "on 6 and 4 numerator and denominator degrees
of freedom."

5) 

p. 72, 1st line, Define the F-ratio first, then say something like
"There are 6 numerator degrees of freedom associated with the numerator, 
which is a difference of models involving 11 and 5 degrees of freedom 
and 4 denominator degrees of freedom associated with the full model." 

6)

p. 72, par 3, "The `p' value obtained . . . electric field"

My recommendation:  change to "This F-ratio for concentration by 
electric field interaction is statistically significant.  There is
evidence that quadratic association between mean diameter and 
electric field varies by concentration."

(The model implied by H0 doesn't appear to fit.)

7)

p. 72, last paragraph.  Change it to the following.

"The four fitted quadratic regressions, under the interaction model, 
are plotted in Figure 5.4.  The general form of these fitted
regressions appears as Equation 5.3."

(I recommend actually presenting the regression coefficients themselves
in place of the betahats.  Leave the indicator variables c1,c2,... in there.)

8)

p. 77, line 7, change "this result" to "this results"


9) p. 80, The F-test for interaction of concentration and ef on bw:

If there are 17 observations in this dataset, the F-ratio for your null
hypothesis should be based on 3 numerator and 9 denominator degrees of
freedom.  Double-check your analysis here (see 9b) below.)  I'm also suprised 
that the F-ratio is so big.  Glancing at Fig. 5.11, it appears that the linear
dependence of throughput on ef is the same for all three concentrations,
except 23%, as you mention in the text.  This interaction isn't all
that strong.

9b) p. 80, last par., 1st sentence.  Don't say "At 95% confidence"
Just say, "The observed F-ratio for interaction is F=54.9, with a
pvalue <0.0001 on 3 and 9 df.

10) p. 81, equation 5.5,  I'd just give them the equation with
the estimated linear regression coefficients (the betahats)
and the indicator variables.  (Rather than writing betahat,
actually provide the estimate.)

11) p. 82, 2nd sentence, I prefer "These figures indicate that"
to "It can be clearly seen"