There is no big difference between reacting after 6h and after 20h


The context: It's like there are two reactions and one has reacted for 6h while the other one has reacted for 20h. But there is no difference between them.

I want to say

There is no big difference between reacting after 6h and after 20h.

Is this example correct?

Or if could be more accurate to say

There is no big difference in the results between reacting after 6h and 20h

Or if there is a more accurate and natural way to form the sentence?

Kequan Xu

Posted 2017-05-04T15:51:49.283

Reputation: 31

1Maybe something like There isn't a significant difference between a reaction that occurs 6 hours later and one that occurs 20 hours later. – SovereignSun – 2017-05-04T16:56:23.980

1You could also say 6 hours from now or 6 hours since the start. – SovereignSun – 2017-05-04T16:59:51.273



"Reacting" (the gerund) usually refers to when a person reacts to some event:

Deidre tried to ignore him, afraid reacting would only draw more attention to herself.

In a scientific context, it may be less confusing to instead use "reaction":

There was no significant difference between the reactions at 6h and at 20h.

There was no significant reaction after 6 hours, nor after 20 hours.

or some conjugation of the verb "react":

After 6 hours we observed that substance A had reacted with substance B, but there was no difference between this and what we observed after 20 hours.


Posted 2017-05-04T15:51:49.283

Reputation: 85 521