Factors (independent) and their functions, regardless of their significance. Y1 = -8.76129 1.18333X
Elements (independent) and their functions, in spite of their significance. Y1 = -8.76129 1.18333X1 – 0.0083333X2 7.28933X3 – 0.404167X1 2 0.04X1 X2 – 0.3X1 X3 0.00070833X2 two – 0.02X2 X3 – 0.962667X3 2 (1)ANOVA (Table 4) plus a Pareto graph (Figure two) for the three variables explain that the Box ehnken quadratic model might be sufficiently applied to simulateof 16 xanthan (Y) Foods 2021, 10, x FOR PEER Critique 7 the Foods 2021, ten, x FOR PEER Assessment 7 of 16 sulfation process.C:X3 C:X3 A:X1 A:X1 B:X2 B:X2 CC CC AB AB AA AA AC AC BC BC BB BB 0 -Standardized impact Standardized effect246810Figure two. Pareto graph of important variables. Figure2. Pareto graph of considerable variables.Figure 2. Pareto graph of substantial variables.In accordance with Equation (1), the mathematical model is correct since the points in As outlined by Equation (1), the mathematical model is accurate sincesince the points in Figure Based on Equation (1), the mathematical model is precise the points in Figure 3 lie closer to the straight line, which also shows great predictive properties in the Figure 3 lie closer to the straight line, which also shows goodpredictiveproperties of with the equation. 3 lie closer for the straight line, which also shows very good predictive properties the equation. equation.Figure 3. The results of observations against the values with the output parameter Y1 predicted by the Figure3. The results of observations against the values in the output parameter Y1 predicted by the mathematical model (1). mathematical model (1). mathematical model (1). A graphical show of Equation (1) within the form of a Tianeptine sodium salt Agonist response surface is shown inside a graphical show of Equation (1) inside the type of a response surface is shown in Figure four. Figure four.Figure 3. The outcomes of observations against the values in the output parameter Y1 predicted by theFoods 2021, ten,7 ofFigure 3. The outcomes of observations against the values from the output parameter Y1 predicted by the mathematical model (1).A graphical display of Equation (1) in the kind of a response surface is shown inside a graphical show of Equation (1) within the kind of a response surface is shown in Figure four. Figure four.Foods 2021, ten, x FOR PEER REVIEW8 ofFigure 4. Response surfacesurface of output parameters with differentof experimental circumstances: (a)–Influence of components components Figure four. Response of output parameters with distinct effects effects of experimental conditions: (a)–Influence of 1 on X2 (b)–Influence of things X1 and X and X3 on Y1; (c)–Influence of things X and Y on X1 and X2 andY1 ; on Y1; (b)–Influence of variables X1 three on Y1 ; (c)–Influence of things X2 and 2X3 onX3 1 . Y1.The ML-SA1 Epigenetics dependence of the sulfur sulfur content material on variable factors–the amountsulfating The dependence on the content on variable factors–the quantity of the in the sulfating complicated and also the temperature in the xanthan sulfation process–in the type of a response complicated and also the temperature in the xanthan sulfation process–in the type of a response surface has an virtually flat look without having important bends (Figure 4a). 4a). For this desurface has an virtually flat look without the need of considerable bends (Figure For this dependence, a maximum is observed at at the maximum values of thefactors X11 and X2 inside pendence, a maximum is observed the maximum values on the aspects X and X2 withinthe accepted experimental situations. the accepted experimental situations. The response surface, reflecting the dependence on the outputoutput param.
