[_Nat_]

I'm not even sure what they mean by:

> MnO: 2.109 (Mn: 0.6355)

I mean, given that they were listing relative-abundances (by mass, count, or what?), it'd seem like they were giving the abundance of Mn alone, as a subset of the abundance of MnO. But since the numbers don't look right, not sure what they were trying to say.

This isn't the sort of writing that I'd expect from someone with a scientific background.

---

PS: If the relative-abundance (by mass) of MnO were 2.109, then the relative-abundance of Mn alone would be about

    (MolecularMass(Mn) / MolecularMass(MnO)) * 2.109
    (54.938 / 70.9374) * 2.109
    1.633330824

.. which I guess is actually kinda close to the claimed "0.6355", if we assume that the leading "0" was meant as a "1"?

This is, maybe they meant to type:

> MnO: 2.109 (Mn: 1.6355)

?