There is no way of judging whether the word is even correct in the sentence without seeing the inclusion of the 2 cross-section expressions.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
snuppelinaThe whole sentence is:The cross-sections of the reactions X and Y turned out to be 2 and 3 times lower, respectively, than those of X element in the Y reaction.Can a "cross-section" be "lower"?
snuppelinaThe cross-sections of the reactions X and Y turned out to be 2 and 3 times lower, respectively, than those of X element in the Y reaction.Frankly, I don't see how a cross-section of anything can be either 'lower' or 'smaller', but as far as the structure is concerned, there is no need for the commas:
snuppelinaSmall would be better, I thinkIf a cross-section is said to be "smaller", I would understand that to mean "smaller in area". I don't know whether that makes sense in your case; I'm not sure in what sense you are using the term "cross-section".
snuppelinaI thought 'respectively' always requires a comma. Would a comma be a mistake? Or is it simply a difference between American and British English?The commas with short adverbials are gradually being done away with; you will probably meet proponents of both viewpoints.