A few comments to consider:
1. comparison EddyCo with EF approach (slides 11-13): I could not see if the results take account of the fact that EddyCo includes 'background' emissions from inter-urine patches. EF approach only accounts for urine-induced emissions, and does not include background emissions. If the EddyCo results were not adjusted for background emissions, then you may need to be careful with presenting the results in the way you have as it may be comparing apples with pears....?
2. seems a lot of material here for a 12 min talk - so may need to reduce slides?
3. please check 'animations' as some seems bit strange (e.g. 's-1' on the y-axis of slides 7 and 8)