4.

1 Optimization Using Response Surface Methodology (RSM)

The process parameters were optimized using Response Surface Methodology to
maximize the extract yield. The experimental process parameters and the corresponding
responses for the study are tabulated as shown in Table 4.1. Design Expert 11 software by Stat-
ease was used for the Response Surface Methodology optimization. Regression models were
fitted for the response and ANOVA analysis were was performed to evaluate the significance of
the model, significance of individual coefficients, and the lack-of-fit test.

Table 4.1: Experimental design with uncoded independent variables and corresponding response
Experiment Factors Response
Std. Run Ethanol Concentration Time Power Yield of
Order Order (%) (min) (W) extract (%)
A B C
11 1 60 2 200 9.31
14 2 60 4 300 12.12
4 3 80 6 100 6.54
6 4 80 2 300 10.02
19 5 60 4 200 12.36
17 6 60 4 200 12.43
1 7 40 2 100 6.27
2 8 80 2 100 8.01
20 9 60 4 200 12.83
3 10 40 6 100 5.32
9 11 40 4 200 9.02
13 12 60 4 100 11.14
16 13 60 4 200 13.90
15 14 60 4 200 14.18
8 15 80 6 300 7.62
12 16 60 6 200 8.83
10 17 80 4 200 11.03
7 18 40 6 300 7.04
5 19 40 2 300 7.22
18 20 60 4 200 14.16

A response surface quadratic model was fitted to the extract yield. The ANOVA results
for the response surface quadratic model of extract yield which comprises of all analysis
mentioned were shown in Tables 4.2. The model is significant as the p-value was less than 0.05.
 The significant model terms for soursop extract yield are the main effect of ethanol
concentration (A), main effect of microwave power (C), the second order effect of microwave
preheating time ( B 2 ¿ , and the second order effect of ethanol concentration ( B 2 ¿ . The p-
values for the significant model terms are less than 0.0500. P-values greater than 0.1000 indicate
the model terms are not significant. The most significant factor being associated with the extract
yield was the main effect of second order preheating time ( B 2 ¿ .
The lack of fit “Prob>F” value of more than 0.0500 and lack-of-fit F-value of 1.36 of
soursop leaf extract yield implies imply that the lack-of-fit was not significant relative to the pure
error. An insignificant lack-of-fit is desired as it confirms that the model fits. In this study, the
2
computed R value being computed was 0.9424, acceptable as it is reasonably close to
2 2
1.0000. The predicted R of 0.7753 was in reasonable agreement with the adjusted R of
0.8905 as the difference is 0.1152, which is less than 0.2.
Table 4.2: ANOVA table for quadratic model (response: Soursop Extract Yield)
Source Sum of df Mean F-Value p-value
Squares Square (Prob>F)
Model 144.19 9 16.02 18.93 <0.0001 Significant
A 6.97 1 6.97 7.91 0.0184
B 3.00 1 3.00 3.40 0.0948
C 4.54 1 4.54 5.15 0.0466
AB 0.9385 1 0.9385 1.06 0.3266
AC 0.0221 1 0.0221 0.0250 0.8775
BC 0.0032 1 0.0032 0.0036 0.9532
A2 12.59 1 12.59 14.27 0.0036
2
B 26.33 1 26.33 29.86 0.0003
2
C 0.7858 1 0.7858 0.8909 0.3675
Residual 8.82 10 0.8820
Lack of Fit 5.09 5 1.02 1.36 0.3716 not significant
Pure Error 3.73 5 0.7470
Cor Total 153.01 19
2 2
Std. Dev 0.9391 R 0.9424 Pred R 0.7753
2
Mean 9.97 Adj R 0.8905

The final model in terms of coded factors and actual factors for the extract yield response in the
analysis was being presented as in Equations 4.1 and 4.2.

Final Equation in Terms of Coded Factors

Yield of Extract = 12.85+0.8350*A-0.5480*B+0.6740*C-2.14* A 2 -3.09* (4.1)

B 2 -0.5345* C2 -0.3425*A*B+0.0525*A*C-0.0200*B*C

Final Equation in Terms of Actual Factors

Yield of Extract = -25.49745+ 0.712614*ethanol+ 6.44884*time+0.026947 (4.2)
*power-0.005349* ethanol2 -0.773636* time 2 -0.000053*
2
power -0.008563*ethanol*time +
0.000026*ethanol*power-0.000100*time* power

Hence, from the result of optimization results obtained using the Response Surface
Methodology, the optimum process operating parameters are ethanol concentration of 64.22%,
microwave pre-heating time of 3.80 min, and using microwave power of 264.25 W. It was
predicted that this would yield 13.18 % of soursop leaves extract. Figure 4.1 shows the
optimized parameters generated by the RSM and Figures 4.2 and Figure 4.3 shows the response
surface contour that displays the effects of factors on the responses and the predicted optimum
values.

Figure 4.1: Optimized parameters for the Soxhlet extraction of soursop leaf extract
Figure 4.2: Contour plot showing effects
of factors on responses
Figure 4.3: 3D Response surface showing effects of factors on responses