Variables (independent) and their functions, regardless of their significance. Y1 = -8.76129 1.18333X
Components (independent) and their functions, regardless 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 two (1)ANOVA (Table four) as well as a Pareto graph (Figure 2) for the three components clarify that the Box ehnken Etiocholanolone medchemexpress quadratic model may be sufficiently applied to simulateof 16 xanthan (Y) Foods 2021, ten, x FOR PEER Review 7 the Foods 2021, ten, x FOR PEER Review 7 of 16 sulfation method.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 substantial variables. Figure2. Pareto graph of substantial variables.Figure two. Pareto graph of considerable variables.According to Equation (1), the mathematical model is precise because the points in According to Equation (1), the mathematical model is accurate sincesince the points in Figure Based on Equation (1), the mathematical model is correct the points in Figure three lie closer for the straight line, which also shows good predictive properties from the Figure three lie closer to the straight line, which also shows goodpredictiveproperties of of your equation. 3 lie closer for the straight line, which also shows superior predictive properties the equation. equation.Figure 3. The results of observations against the values from the output parameter Y1 predicted by the Figure3. The outcomes of observations against the values with the output parameter Y1 predicted by the mathematical model (1). mathematical model (1). mathematical model (1). A graphical show of Equation (1) inside the kind of a response surface is shown inside a graphical display of Equation (1) within the form of a response surface is shown in Figure four. Figure 4.Figure three. The outcomes of observations against the values with 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 show of Equation (1) inside the type of a response surface is shown in a graphical show of Equation (1) inside the kind of a response surface is shown in Figure 4. Figure four.Foods 2021, ten, x FOR PEER REVIEW8 ofFigure four. Response surfacesurface of output parameters with differentof experimental conditions: (a)–Influence of components elements Figure 4. Response of output parameters with unique effects effects of experimental circumstances: (a)–Influence of 1 on X2 (b)–Influence of components X1 and X and X3 on Y1; (c)–Influence of aspects X and Y on X1 and X2 andY1 ; on Y1; (b)–Influence of variables X1 3 on Y1 ; (c)–Influence of components X2 and 2X3 onX3 1 . Y1.The dependence with the sulfur sulfur content material on Tianeptine sodium salt Epigenetic Reader Domain variable factors–the amountsulfating The dependence of the content material on variable factors–the quantity of the with the sulfating complex as well as the temperature from the xanthan sulfation process–in the type of a response complicated plus the temperature from the xanthan sulfation process–in the type of a response surface has an practically flat look with no significant bends (Figure 4a). 4a). For this desurface has an virtually flat look with out considerable bends (Figure For this dependence, a maximum is observed at at the maximum values of thefactors X11 and X2 within pendence, a maximum is observed the maximum values of your factors X and X2 withinthe accepted experimental conditions. the accepted experimental conditions. The response surface, reflecting the dependence of the outputoutput param.