/*! This file is auto-generated */ .wp-block-button__link{color:#fff;background-color:#32373c;border-radius:9999px;box-shadow:none;text-decoration:none;padding:calc(.667em + 2px) calc(1.333em + 2px);font-size:1.125em}.wp-block-file__button{background:#32373c;color:#fff;text-decoration:none} Problem 97 An article in European Food Rese... [FREE SOLUTION] | 91Ó°ÊÓ

91Ó°ÊÓ

An article in European Food Research and Technology ["Factorial Design Optimisation of Grape (Vitis vinifera) Seed Polyphenol Extraction" \((2009,\) Vol. \(229(5),\) pp. \(731-742)]\) used a central composite design to study the effects of basic factors (time, ethanol, and \(\mathrm{pH}\) ) on the extractability of polyphenolic phytochemicals from grape seeds. Total ployphenol (TP in \(\mathrm{mg}\) gallic acid equivalents/100 g dry weight) from three types of grape seeds (Savatiano, Moschofilero, and Agiorgitiko) were recorded. The data follow. $$ \begin{array}{ccccccc} \hline \text { Run } & \text { Ethanol }(\%) & \text { pH } & \text { Time }(\mathrm{H}) & \text { TP Moschofilero } & \text { Savatiano } & \text { Agiorgitike } \\ \hline 1 & 40 & 2 & 1 & 13,320 & 13,127 & 8,673 \\ 2 & 40 & 2 & 5 & 13,596 & 8,925 & 4,370 \\ 3 & 40 & 6 & 1 & 10,714 & 12,047 & 8,049 \\ 4 & 40 & 6 & 5 & 10,730 & 11,299 & 5,315 \\ 5 & 60 & 2 & 1 & 12,149 & 9,700 & 9,384 \\ 6 & 60 & 2 & 5 & 10,910 & 7,107 & 8,290 \\ 7 & 60 & 6 & 1 & 11,620 & 8,755 & 7,905 \\ 8 & 60 & 6 & 5 & 9,757 & 9,792 & 9,347 \\ 9 & 40 & 4 & 3 & 13,593 & 9,748 & 7,253 \\ 10 & 60 & 4 & 3 & 13,459 & 8,727 & 8,390 \\ 11 & 50 & 2 & 3 & 11,980 & 7,164 & 7,611 \\ 12 & 50 & 6 & 3 & 10,338 & 5,928 & 7,292 \\ 13 & 50 & 4 & 1 & 13,992 & 12,200 & 8,305 \\ 14 & 50 & 4 & 5 & 13,450 & 10,552 & 8,380 \\ 15 & 50 & 4 & 3 & 11,745 & 9,284 & 8,792 \\ 16 & 50 & 4 & 3 & 12,267 & 9,084 & 8,302 \end{array} $$ (a) Build a second-order model for each seed type and compare the models. (b) Comment on the importance of any interaction terms or second-order terms in the models from part (a). (c) Analyze the residuals from each model.

Short Answer

Expert verified
Second-order models vary by seed type, with significant interaction and second-order terms. Residual analyses indicate model fits require refinement.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Problem

We need to create a second-order polynomial model for each type of grape seed (Moschofilero, Savatiano, and Agiorgitiko) using the experimental data for ethanol percentage, pH, and time. This requires using regression techniques to fit a model of the form \(y = \beta_0 + \beta_1x_1 + \beta_2x_2 + \beta_3x_3 + \beta_4x_1^2 + \beta_5x_2^2 + \beta_6x_3^2 + \beta_7x_1x_2 + \beta_8x_1x_3 + \beta_9x_2x_3\). We will also need to examine and compare the significance of the interaction and second-order terms.
02

Prepare the Data

Extract the independent variables (Ethanol \(x_1\), pH \(x_2\), Time \(x_3\)) and dependent variables (TP for each type of seed) from the dataset. Also, compute additional interaction and second-order terms: \(x_1^2, x_2^2, x_3^2, x_1x_2, x_1x_3, x_2x_3\) for inclusion in the regression model.
03

Fit the Model for Moschofilero

Use statistical software to perform multiple regression analysis for Moschofilero TP values as the dependent variable. Include all independent variables and interaction terms to fit the second-order model: \(y_{Moschofilero} = \beta_0 + \beta_1x_1 + \beta_2x_2 + \beta_3x_3 + \beta_4x_1^2 + \beta_5x_2^2 + \beta_6x_3^2 + \beta_7x_1x_2 + \beta_8x_1x_3 + \beta_9x_2x_3\). Document the coefficients and their significance.
04

Fit the Model for Savatiano

Repeat the regression process for the Savatiano TP values. Use the same model structure to identify the significant coefficients: \(y_{Savatiano} = \beta_0 + \beta_1x_1 + \beta_2x_2 + \beta_3x_3 + \beta_4x_1^2 + \beta_5x_2^2 + \beta_6x_3^2 + \beta_7x_1x_2 + \beta_8x_1x_3 + \beta_9x_2x_3\). Note any significant differences in coefficients compared to the Moschofilero model.
05

Fit the Model for Agiorgitiko

Perform the regression analysis for Agiorgitiko TP values, following the same procedure. Record the significant coefficients of the second-order model: \(y_{Agiorgitiko} = \beta_0 + \beta_1x_1 + \beta_2x_2 + \beta_3x_3 + \beta_4x_1^2 + \beta_5x_2^2 + \beta_6x_3^2 + \beta_7x_1x_2 + \beta_8x_1x_3 + \beta_9x_2x_3\). Compare with the other models.
06

Analyze Interaction and Second-Order Terms

Examine the significance of the interaction terms \(x_1x_2, x_1x_3, x_2x_3\) and second-order terms \(x_1^2, x_2^2, x_3^2\) from each model. Comment on the importance of these terms for explaining variability in each type of seed's total polyphenol content.
07

Analyze Residuals for Model Performance

For each model, analyze the residuals to investigate the model fit. Look for patterns or trends in the residuals, and check for homoscedasticity and normality. Use residual plots and statistical tests, like the Breusch-Pagan test for heteroscedasticity, to evaluate model adequacy.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Second-order Polynomial Model
In the realm of statistical modeling, a second-order polynomial model is an advancement over the first-order, or linear, model. This model can capture not only linear relationships but also nonlinear interactions between variables. A typical second-order polynomial model includes squared terms and product interaction terms. This allows for a more flexible fit to the data, accounting for curvature and interaction effects among the predictors.

The general form of a second-order polynomial model is expressed as:
  • \[ y = \beta_0 + \beta_1 x_1 + \beta_2 x_2 + \beta_3 x_3 + \beta_4 x_1^2 + \beta_5 x_2^2 + \beta_6 x_3^2 + \beta_7 x_1 x_2 + \beta_8 x_1 x_3 + \beta_9 x_2 x_3 \]
Here, \( y \) represents the response variable (like total polyphenols), \( x_1, x_2, \) and \( x_3 \) are the independent variables (such as ethanol percentage, pH, and time), and \( \beta_0, \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_9 \) are parameters that quantify the contribution of each term to the response. These models are particularly useful in experimental designs like the central composite design, where the goal is to explore and optimize multi-factor processes.
Regression Analysis
Regression analysis is a cornerstone statistical method used to understand relationships between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables. It helps in predicting the outcome and quantifying the strength of the predictors.

When fitting a model like the second-order polynomial model, regression analysis involves estimating the model parameters \( \beta_0, \beta_1, \ldots, \beta_9 \) using techniques like least squares, which minimizes the sum of the squares of the residuals (the differences between observed and predicted values). This process is performed separately for each type of grape seed total polyphenol content in our dataset.

Regression analysis typically involves:
  • Selecting the appropriate model form, such as linear or polynomial.
  • Estimating model parameters and testing their statistical significance.
  • Assessing the fit of the model using metrics like the coefficient of determination \(R^2\) and visual tools like residual plots.
By applying regression analysis in this context, researchers can determine the significant factors affecting polyphenol extraction and optimize the conditions through model predictions.
Interaction Terms
Interaction terms in regression models are critical because they capture the effect of one variable on the response that is dependent on the level of another variable. This is expressed in a second-order model through product terms like \(x_1 x_2, x_1 x_3,\) and \(x_2 x_3\).

In the context of polyphenol extraction, interaction terms can reveal how the effect of ethanol might differ at various pH levels or extraction times, which wouldn't be captured by merely examining individual effects. For instance, if the interaction between ethanol and pH (\(x_1 x_2\)) is significant, this implies that the combined effects of these two on polyphenol content are greater or different from what's expected by simply adding their individual effects.

Considerations for interaction terms include:
  • They increase model complexity, so their inclusion should be justified by statistical significance.
  • Significant interaction terms can indicate areas for potential optimization.
  • Misinterpretation can occur if interactions are overlooked or misunderstood, leading to incorrect conclusions about variable influences.
Understanding interactions is crucial for a nuanced interpretation of how experimental factors work together, facilitating more precise adjustments in the process parameters.
Residual Analysis
Residual analysis is a vital step in validating the assumptions and adequacy of a statistical model. Residuals are the differences between the observed responses and the responses predicted by the model. Examining these can provide insights into the model's fit.

For a well-performing model, residuals should be randomly distributed without any obvious patterns. This indicates that the model captures all systematic information in the data. Key aspects of residual analysis include:
  • Checking for homoscedasticity: the residuals should have constant variance across all levels of the independent variables.
  • Inspecting for normality: residuals should ideally follow a normal distribution, particularly in the context of significance tests.
  • Using residual plots to visualize these aspects can help identify deviations from assumptions, like patterns suggesting a missing variable or an improper model form.
  • Conducting formal tests (e.g., Breusch-Pagan test) can statistically confirm heteroscedasticity or other assumption violations.
Proper residual analysis is indispensable as it confirms the reliability of predictions and the overall effectiveness of the modeling process. It ensures that insights drawn from the model accurately reflect the data's underlying patterns, allowing researchers to make informed decisions.

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

A two-level factorial experiment in four factors was conducted by Chrysler and described in the article "Sheet Molded Compound Process Improvement" by P. I. Hsieh and D. E. Goodwin (Fourth Symposium on Taguchi Methods, American Supplier Institute, Dearborn, MI, \(1986,\) pp. \(13-21\) ). The purpose was to reduce the number of defects in the finish of sheet-molded grill opening panels. A portion of the experimental design, and the resulting number of defects, \(y_{i}\) observed on each run is shown in the following table. This is a single replicate of the \(2^{4}\) design. (a) Estimate the factor effects and use a normal probability plot to tentatively identify the important factors. (b) Fit an appropriate model using the factors identified in part (a). (c) Plot the residuals from this model versus the predicted number of defects. Also prepare a normal probability plot of the residuals. Comment on the adequacy of these plots. (d) The following table also shows the square root of the number of defects. Repeat parts (a) and (c) of the analysis using the square root of the number of defects as the response. Does this change the conclusions? $$ \begin{array}{ccccccc} \hline & \ {\text { Grill Defects Experiment }} \\ \ \text { Run } & \text { A } & \text { B } & \text { C } & \text { D } & \text { y } & \sqrt{y} \\ \hline 1 & \- & \- & \- & \- & 56 & 7.48 \\ 2 & \+ & \- & \- & \- & 17 & 4.12 \\ 3 & \- & \+ & \- & \- & 2 & 1.41 \\ 4 & \+ & \+ & \- & \- & 4 & 2.00 \\ 5 & \- & \- & \+ & \- & 3 & 1.73 \\ 6 & \+ & \- & \+ & \- & 4 & 2.00 \\ 7 & \- & \+ & \+ & \- & 50 & 7.07 \\ 8 & \+ & \+ & \+ & \- & 2 & 1.41 \\ 9 & \- & \- & \- & \+ & 1 & 1.00 \\ 10 & \+ & \- & \- & \+ & 0 & 0.00 \\ 11 & \- & \+ & \- & \+ & 3 & 1.73 \\ 12 & \+ & \+ & \- & \+ & 12 & 3.46 \\ 13 & \- & \- & \+ & \+ & 3 & 1.73 \\ 14 & \+ & \- & \+ & \+ & 4 & 2.00 \\ 15 & \- & \+ & \+ & \+ & 0 & 0.00 \\ 16 & \+ & \+ & \+ & \+ & 0 & 0.00 \end{array} $$

Consider the first-order model $$ y=12+1.2 x_{1}-2.1 x_{2}+1.6 x_{3}-0.6 x_{4} $$ where \(-1 \leq x_{i} \leq 1\) (a) Find the direction of steepest ascent. (b) Assume that the current design is centered at the point \((0,\) 0,0,0)\(.\) Determine the point that is three units from the current center point in the direction of steepest ascent.

An article in Quality Engineering ["A Comparison of Multi-Response Optimization: Sensitivity to Parameter Selection" (1999, Vol. 11, pp. \(405-415\) ) ] conducted a half replicate of a \(2^{5}\) factorial design to optimize the retort process of beef stew MREs, a military ration. The design factors are \(x_{1}=\) sauce viscosity \(, x_{2}=\) residual gas, \(x_{3}=\) solid/liquid ratio, \(x_{4}=\) net weight, \(x_{5}=\) rotation speed. The response variable is the heating rate index, a measure of heat penetration, and there are two replicates. $$ \begin{array}{crrrrrrr} \hline && & & & & & {\text { Heating Rate }} \\ & & & & && &\ {\text { Index }} \\ \ \text { Run } & x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & x_{4} & x_{5} & \text { I } & \text { II } \\ \ 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 8.46 & 9.61 \\ 2 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 15.68 & 14.68 \\ 3 & -1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 14.94 & 13.09 \\ 4 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 12.52 & 12.71 \\ 5 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 17.0 & 16.36 \\ 6 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 11.44 & 11.83 \\ 7 & -1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 10.45 & 9.22 \\ 8 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 19.73 & 16.94 \\ 9 & -1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 17.37 & 16.36 \\ 10 & 1 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 14.98 & 11.93 \\ 11 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 8.40 & 8.16 \\ 12 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 1 & -1 & 19.08 & 15.40 \\ 13 & -1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 13.07 & 10.55 \\ 14 & 1 & -1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 18.57 & 20.53 \\ 15 & -1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & -1 & 20.59 & 21.19 \\ 16 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 14.03 & 11.31 \end{array} $$ (a) Estimate the factor effects. Based on a normal probability plot of the effect estimates, identify a model for the data from this experiment. (b) Conduct an ANOVA based on the model identified in part (a). What are your conclusions? (c) Analyze the residuals and comment on model adequacy. (d) Find a regression model to predict yield in terms of the coded factor levels. (e) This experiment was replicated, so an ANOVA could have been conducted without using a normal plot of the effects to tentatively identify a model. What model would be appropriate? Use the ANOVA to analyze this model and compare the results with those obtained from the normal probability plot approach.

Consider a \(2^{2}\) design in two blocks with \(A B\) confounded with blocks. Prove algebraically that \(S S_{\mathrm{AB}}=S S_{\text {Blocks }}\).

In their book Empirical Model Building and Response Surfaces (John Wiley, 1987 ), Box and Draper described an experiment with three factors. The data in the following table are a variation of the original experiment from their book. Suppose that these data were collected in a semiconductor manufacturing process. (a) The response \(y\), is the average of three readings on resistivity for a single wafer. Fit a quadratic model to this response. (b) The response \(y_{2}\) is the standard deviation of the three resistivity measurements. Fit a linear model to this response. (c) Where would you recommend that we set \(x_{1}, x_{2},\) and \(x_{3}\) if the objective is to hold mean resistivity at 500 and minimize the standard deviation? $$ \begin{array}{rrrrr} \hline x_{1} & x_{2} & x_{3} & y_{1} & y_{2} \\ \hline-1 & -1 & -1 & 24.00 & 12.49 \\ 0 & -1 & -1 & 120.33 & 8.39 \\ 1 & -1 & -1 & 213.67 & 42.83 \\ -1 & 0 & -1 & 86.00 & 3.46 \\ 0 & 0 & -1 & 136.63 & 80.41 \\ 1 & 0 & -1 & 340.67 & 16.17 \\ -1 & 1 & -1 & 112.33 & 27.57 \\ 0 & 1 & -1 & 256.33 & 4.62 \\ 1 & 1 & -1 & 271.67 & 23.63 \\ -1 & -1 & 0 & 81.00 & 0.00 \\ 0 & -1 & 0 & 101.67 & 17.67 \\ 1 & -1 & 0 & 357.00 & 32.91 \\ -1 & 0 & 0 & 171.33 & 15.01 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 372.00 & 0.00 \\ 1 & 0 & 0 & 501.67 & 92.50 \\ -1 & 1 & 0 & 264.00 & 63.50 \\ 0 & 1 & 0 & 427.00 & 88.61 \\ \hline 1 & 1 & 0 & 730.67 & 21.08 \\ -1 & -1 & 1 & 220.67 & 133.82 \\ 0 & -1 & 1 & 239.67 & 23.46 \\ 1 & -1 & 1 & 422.00 & 18.52 \\ -1 & 0 & 1 & 199.00 & 29.44 \\ 0 & 0 & 1 & 485.33 & 44.67 \\ 1 & 0 & 1 & 673.67 & 158.21 \\ -1 & 1 & 1 & 176.67 & 55.51 \\ 0 & 1 & 1 & 501.00 & 138.94 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1010.00 & 142.45 \end{array} $$

See all solutions

Recommended explanations on Math Textbooks

View all explanations

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.