Table. 3. Table 3

ANOVA to evaluate fitted linear and quadratic polynomial models with respect to parameter optimization and desirability value

Source	Degrees of freedom	Sum of squares	Mean square	F-value	P-value
Yield (%)
Model	9	158.46	17.61	7.78	0.0180^s
Lack of fit	3	10.42	3.47	7.79	0.1159^ns
Pure error	2	0.89	0.45
Total error	14	169.77
R²	0.9334
adj-R²	0.8134
CV (%)	6.31
AGI activity (mmol ACE/g extract)
Model	9	478,996.67	53,221.85	43.74	0.0003^s
Lack of fit	3	4,556.11	1,518.70	1.99	0.3520^ns
Pure error	2	1,528.45	764.22
Total error	14	485,081.23
R²	0.9875
adj-R²	0.9649
CV (%)	3.13
Desirability value¹⁾
Ethanol concentration	Amplitude	Time	Yield	AGI activity	Desirability
44.08	80.00	30.00	24.21	1,460.96	0.801
43.65	80.00	30.00	24.24	1,457.60	0.800
43.31	80.00	30.00	24.27	1,454.95	0.800
44.42	80.00	29.92	24.19	1,460.96	0.800
44.38	79.89	30.00	24.18	1,460.96	0.799
41.72	80.00	30.00	24.40	1,442.85	0.798
44.95	80.00	29.80	24.16	1,460.96	0.798
44.76	79.76	30.00	24.15	1,460.96	0.797
45.40	80.00	29.69	24.14	1,460.96	0.796
45.38	79.53	30.00	24.10	1,460.95	0.794

^sSignificant. ^nsNot significant.

¹⁾Only the 10 highest of 43 values are shown.

adj-R², the coefficient of adjusted determination; CV, coefficient of variance; AGI, α-glucosidase inhibitory; ACE, acarbose equivalent.

Prev Nutr Food Sci 2024;29:47~62 https://doi.org/10.3746/pnf.2024.29.1.47