0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
503 просмотров30 страниц
Calculation of whole design of experiment steps manually. By use of software analyst remain unaware of the details calculations and interpretations to be made thereof.
Calculation of whole design of experiment steps manually. By use of software analyst remain unaware of the details calculations and interpretations to be made thereof.
Calculation of whole design of experiment steps manually. By use of software analyst remain unaware of the details calculations and interpretations to be made thereof.
Factorial designs are a type of experimental design for screening experiments. The theory of factorial designs is explained in the document 'Factorial Designs' availalble for download as a pdf file. Software suitable for analysis of factorial designs includes well-known programs such as Minitab and Statistica. However these packages are quite expensive and, as most experimenters have access to Excel, this spreadsheet has been set up to illustrate using Excel to analyse a factorial design. The data used for this design is from the article 'Screening and Sequential Experimentation: Simulations and Flame Atomic Absorption Spectrometry Experiments', J. Chem. Ed., 74, 216 (Feb 1997) The theory of factorial designs is explained in the document 'Factorial Designs' availalble for download as a pdf file. Software suitable for analysis of factorial designs includes well-known programs such as Minitab and Statistica. However these packages are quite expensive and, as most experimenters have access to Excel, this spreadsheet The data used for this design is from the article 'Screening and Sequential Experimentation: Simulations and The Design The experiment in this case is the analysis of silver by flame AAS To set up the experimental design the following steps need to be carried out: 1. Define the Variables What variables affect the outcome of the experiment? In this case 6 variables are considered to affect the result: A Flame Height above Base (mm) B Flame Stoichiometry C Acetic Acid (%) D Lamp Current (mA) E Wavelength (mm) F Slit Width (nm) 2. Define the Response Variable(s) In this case the resonse variable is the AA signal (mAbs) 3. Define the Experimental Domain We need to specify an appropriate range for each variable I.e. a low and high value This range needs to be wide enough to include the optimal conditions but be within achievable settings for the instrument. The following limits have been defined: Variable Low High A 6 12 B lean rich C 0 5 D 4 8 E 328.1 338.1 F 0.2 0.7 4. Choice of Design The aim of the experiment is to carry out a screening I.e. determine which variables significantly affect the response. If a variable doesn't significantly affect the result then it can be 'screened out'. This means the variable is set at its mid-point value and not varied in subsequent experiments. This is often a necessary step before a full optimization study, to reduce the number of variables to a manageable numer (preferrably 2-4). Factorial designs are commonly used for screening. In this case, with 6 variables, to carry out a full factorial design - I.e all combinations of each variable at the two levels- would require 2^6 = 64 experiments. The full factorial design, in coded form , is shown on the next sheet. In coded form the low settings for each variable are shown as -1 and the high settings as +1 We need to specify an appropriate range for each variable I.e. a low and high value This range needs to be wide enough to include the optimal conditions but be within achievable The aim of the experiment is to carry out a screening I.e. determine which variables significantly affect the response. If a variable doesn't significantly affect the result then it can be 'screened out'. This means the variable is set at its mid-point value and not varied in subsequent experiments. This is often a necessary step before a full optimization study, to reduce the number of variables to Factorial designs are commonly used for screening. In this case, with 6 variables, to carry out a full factorial design - I.e all combinations of each variable at the two levels- would require 2^6 = 64 experiments. In coded form the low settings for each variable are shown as -1 and the high settings as +1 Full Factorial Design for 6 variables A B C D E F -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fractional Factorial Design It might be decided that the previous design contains too may experiments The following is a reduced Fractional Factorial Design containing 16 experiments A B C D E F -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 How was this design arrived at? The columns A-D contain a full factorial design in these 4 variables I.e. all combinations of the two levels Column E was created by multiplying the coefficients in columns A, B and C row-wise I.e E = ABC e.g. for row 10 -1 (cell F10) = -1(B10) * -1(C10) * -1(D10) Similalry column F was created by B*C*D I.e F = BCD This creates a resolution 4 design since the defining word is I = ABCE or I = BCDF A fuller explanation is contained in the document 'Factorial Designs' On the next sheet the above design is displayed in actual levels. The responses were measured for the 16 experiments and the results displayed in the results column. The following is a reduced Fractional Factorial Design containing 16 experiments The columns A-D contain a full factorial design in these 4 variables I.e. all combinations of the two levels On the next sheet the above design is displayed in actual levels. The responses were measured for the Response A B C D E F Signal 6 lean 0 4 0.2 328.1 95 12 lean 0 4 0.7 328.1 41 6 rich 0 4 0.7 338.1 63 12 rich 0 4 0.2 338.1 83 6 lean 5 4 0.7 338.1 59 12 lean 5 4 0.2 338.1 114 6 rich 5 4 0.2 328.1 121 12 rich 5 4 0.7 328.1 59 6 lean 0 8 0.2 338.1 107 12 lean 0 8 0.7 338.1 38 6 rich 0 8 0.7 328.1 44 12 rich 0 8 0.2 328.1 73 6 lean 5 8 0.7 328.1 60 12 lean 5 8 0.2 328.1 97 6 rich 5 8 0.2 338.1 105 12 rich 5 8 0.7 338.1 53 Calculation of Main Effects Response A B C D E F Signal A -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 95 -95 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 41 41 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 63 -63 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 83 83 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 59 -59 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 114 114 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 121 -121 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 59 59 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 107 -107 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 38 38 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 44 -44 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 73 73 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 60 -60 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 97 97 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 105 -105 1 1 1 1 1 1 53 53 -12 How do we determine if the variable has a significant effect on the response? To determine this the main effects for each variable are calculated. To do this we average the responses for the variable at the high level and subtract from it the average response at the low level This is equivalent to multiplying the response column (H) by the column of coefficients for the variable (e.g. column B for variable A) and dividing by half the number of experiments (8) How do we interpret the results? The main effects give the relative importance of each variable. The (numerically) largest effect is for wavelength (variable E), followed by Flame height and % Acetic Acid The sign of the effect also gives information. A negative effect means that the response is higher at the low setting. In this case, for example, the absorbance is higher at the low wavelength setting of 328.1nm From these experiments we could definitely 'screen out' flame stoichiometry and lamp current from further experiments I.e set them at mid point values (stoichiometry between lean and rich and current of 6 mA) B C D E F -95 -95 -95 -95 -95 -41 -41 -41 41 -41 63 -63 -63 63 63 83 -83 -83 -83 83 -59 59 -59 59 59 -114 114 -114 -114 114 121 121 -121 -121 -121 59 59 -59 59 -59 -107 -107 107 -107 107 -38 -38 38 38 38 44 -44 44 44 -44 73 -73 73 -73 -73 -60 60 60 60 -60 -97 97 97 -97 -97 105 105 105 -105 105 53 53 53 53 53 -1.25 15.5 -7.25 -47.25 4 Main effects To do this we average the responses for the variable at the high level and subtract from it the average response This is equivalent to multiplying the response column (H) by the column of coefficients for the variable The main effects give the relative importance of each variable. The (numerically) largest effect is for The sign of the effect also gives information. A negative effect means that the response is higher at the low setting. In this case, for example, the absorbance is higher at the low wavelength setting of 328.1nm From these experiments we could definitely 'screen out' flame stoichiometry and lamp current from further experiments I.e set them at mid point values (stoichiometry between lean and rich and current of 6 mA) Main Effects Plots These plots give us another way to compare the effects of the variables This is the data used to calculate the main effects A B C D E F -95 -95 -95 -95 -95 -95 41 -41 -41 -41 41 -41 -63 63 -63 -63 63 63 83 83 -83 -83 -83 83 -59 -59 59 -59 59 59 114 -114 114 -114 -114 114 -121 121 121 -121 -121 -121 59 59 59 -59 59 -59 -107 -107 -107 107 -107 107 38 -38 -38 38 38 38 -44 44 -44 44 44 -44 73 73 -73 73 -73 -73 -60 -60 60 60 60 -60 97 -97 97 97 -97 -97 -105 105 105 105 -105 105 53 53 53 53 53 53 Step 1 Order each column from lowest to highest A B C D E F -121 -114 -107 -121 -121 -121 -107 -107 -95 -114 -114 -97 -105 -97 -83 -95 -107 -95 -95 -95 -73 -83 -105 -73 -63 -60 -63 -63 -97 -60 -60 -59 -44 -59 -95 -59 -59 -41 -41 -59 -83 -44 -44 -38 -38 -41 -73 -41 38 44 53 38 38 38 41 53 59 44 41 53 53 59 59 53 44 59 59 63 60 60 53 63 73 73 97 73 59 83 83 83 105 97 59 105 97 105 114 105 60 107 114 121 121 107 63 114 Step 2: In the above table responses at the low (-1 ) settings have a negative sign and responses at the high (+1) settings are positive. We need to get the average of the absolute values at each setting. A main effects plot compares these two averages graphically A B C D E F low 81.75 76.375 68 79.375 99.375 73.75 high 69.75 75.125 83.5 72.125 52.125 77.75 Step 3: Plot the data A variable with the biggest difference between the 'high' and 'low' values will be the most significant I.e E followed by A, C. These are shown by the steepest slopes in the above graphs 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 low high In the above table responses at the low (-1 ) settings have a negative sign and responses at the high (+1) settings are positive. We need to get the average of the absolute values at each setting. A main effects plot compares these two averages graphically A variable with the biggest difference between the 'high' and 'low' values will be the most significant A B C D E F Interactions The interactions between variables can also be calculated. The column of coded coefficients for each interaction is calculated by multiplying the columns of coefficients of the corresponding variables The interaction effect is then found by multiplying the response column by this column of coefficients, summing the column and dividing by 8 Response A B C D E F Signal A*B A*C -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 95 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 41 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 63 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 83 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 59 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 114 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 121 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 59 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 107 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 38 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 44 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 73 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 60 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 97 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 105 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 53 1 1 Coefficients for main effects 95 95 -41 -41 The two largest interaction effects are A*C , B*E, B*D and C*F -63 63 83 -83 CAUTION! 59 -59 -114 114 It is no coincidence that A*B and B*E are the same value. In experimental -121 -121 design language the two interaction effects are confounded. Confoundings 59 59 occur because of the reduced nature of the fractional factorial design. 107 107 A discussion of confoundings (aliases) can be found in -38 -38 the Factorial Designs document -44 44 73 -73 60 -60 Alias Table -97 97 -105 -105 A BCE DEF ABCDF 53 53 B ACE CDF ABDEF C ABE BDF ACDEF -4.25 6.5 D AEF BCF ABCDE E ABC ADF BCDEF F ADE BCD ABCEF AB CE ACDF BDEF AC BE ABDF CDEF AD EF ABCF BCDEF AE BCE DF ABCDEF AF DE ABCD BCEF BD CF ABEF ACDEF BF CD ABDE ACEF ABD ACF BEF CDEF ABF ACD BDE CEF The interactions between variables can also be calculated. The column of coded coefficients for each interaction The interaction effect is then found by multiplying the response column by this column of coefficients, A*D A*E A*F B*C B*D B*E B*F C*D C*E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Coefficients for interactions 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 -41 41 -41 41 41 -41 41 41 -41 63 -63 -63 -63 -63 63 63 63 -63 -83 -83 83 -83 -83 -83 83 83 83 59 -59 -59 -59 59 -59 -59 -59 59 -114 -114 114 -114 114 114 -114 -114 -114 121 121 121 121 -121 -121 -121 -121 -121 -59 59 -59 59 -59 59 -59 -59 59 -107 107 -107 107 -107 107 -107 -107 107 38 38 38 38 -38 -38 -38 -38 -38 -44 -44 44 -44 44 44 -44 -44 -44 73 -73 -73 -73 73 -73 -73 -73 73 -60 -60 60 -60 -60 -60 60 60 60 97 -97 -97 -97 -97 97 97 97 -97 -105 105 -105 105 105 -105 105 105 -105 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 -1.75 3.25 0.5 3.25 -5.5 6.5 -2.25 -2.25 -4.25 C*F D*E D*F E*F 1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 95 95 95 95 41 -41 41 -41 -63 -63 -63 63 -83 83 -83 -83 59 -59 -59 59 114 114 -114 -114 -121 121 121 121 -59 -59 59 -59 -107 -107 107 -107 -38 38 38 38 44 44 -44 -44 73 -73 -73 73 -60 60 -60 -60 -97 -97 -97 97 105 -105 105 -105 53 53 53 53 -5.5 0.5 3.25 -1.75 What don't these experiments tell us? (1) What are the best settings for each variable? To determine this we would need to carry out a full optimization design such as the Central Composite Design. Optimization designs need at least three settings for each variable - this is why we carry out screening first (2) Is there curvature in the design? Consider variable B - although the main effect is small perhaps we are missing something - perhaps the resonse is significantly higher (or lower) in the range between 4 - 8? This means there is curvature in the design. (3) The above analysis tells us the relative effect of each variable but it does not tell us absolutely whether the variable has a significant effect. (2) and (3) can be tested for by modifying the design to include centre points. These are experiments with variables set at their mid-points, and given codes of 0. The mid-point values are:- 9 mm(A), lean/rich(B), 2.5% (C), 6mA (D), 333.2 (E) and 0.45nm(F) The extended design, in coded form, is shown below, with the responses. Response A B C D E F Signal -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 95 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 41 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 63 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 83 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 59 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 114 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 121 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 59 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 107 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 38 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 44 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 73 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 60 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 97 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 105 1 1 1 1 1 1 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 We will illustrate an alterantive analysis on the next sheet. The data will be fitted to a polynomial, with linear and interaction terms, as follows:- constant y = b0 first order terms +b1*A + b2*B +b3*C +b4*D +b5*E +b6*F two way interactions +b12*A*B +b13*A*C +b14*A*D +b15*A*E +b16*A*F +b24*B*D +b26*B*F three way interactions *b134*A*B*D +b126*A*B*F Note: not all possible terms can be included due to confounding (see alias table on previous sheet ) The coefficients are then determined using least squares regression . This can be carried out in Excel using the array function LINEST (consult the Excel help files for use of this function and using array functions) However before performing regression columns corresponfing to the interaction coefficients need to be constructed as previously shown. (1) What are the best settings for each variable? To determine this we would need to carry out a full optimization design such as the Central Composite Design. Optimization designs need at least three settings (2) Is there curvature in the design? Consider variable B - although the main effect is small perhaps we are missing something - perhaps the resonse is significantly higher (or lower) in the range between 4 - 8? (3) The above analysis tells us the relative effect of each variable but it does not tell us absolutely (2) and (3) can be tested for by modifying the design to include centre points. These are The mid-point values are:- 9 mm(A), lean/rich(B), 2.5% (C), 6mA (D), 333.2 (E) and 0.45nm(F) We will illustrate an alterantive analysis on the next sheet. The data will be fitted to a polynomial, with linear and +b12*A*B +b13*A*C +b14*A*D +b15*A*E +b16*A*F +b24*B*D +b26*B*F Note: not all possible terms can be included due to confounding (see alias table on previous sheet ) using the array function LINEST (consult the Excel help files for use of this function and using array functions) However before performing regression columns corresponfing to the interaction coefficients need to be constructed Multivariate Regression A B C D E F A*B A*C A*D -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 1 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b126 b134 b26 b24 b16 b15 b14 b13 b12 -0.125 3.25 -1.125 -2.75 0.25 1.625 -0.875 3.25 -2.125 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.998699 2.220321 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 153.5552 3 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A 11355 14.78947 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A the first line above contains the parameters. The second line is the standard errors, third line is R^2 and standard error of y the fourth line is the F statistic and degrees of freedom and the fifth line regression and residual sum of squares critical t value 4.3 df =2 (since the error is based on the 3 replicates of the centre point) the confidence interval for each coefficient is b +/-t*se where se is the standard error in the second line of the output 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 5 10 15 Regression coefficients Viewing this graph now gives us an answer to which effects are significant An effect is significant (at the 95% confidence level ) if its' regression coefficient is significantly non-zero I.e. its' confidnce interval does not include zero. This applies to b5, b4, b1, b3,b13,b24,b134 This means the variables E (wavelength), A( Flame Height), C(% acetic acid) and D(lamp current) are significant. There are also significant interactions but due to confounding we cannot definitely say which are significant. The only way to remove the confounding is to do more experiments. However since we can screen out variables B and F we could do a full factorial on 4 variables = 16 experiments and determine all interactions. Note that it is still possible B and F may have significant interactions even though their main effects are not significant. Note You may see a connection between the regression coefficients and the main effects. The coefficeints are half the size of the main effects so both give the same information. Curvature? Compare the average of the response for the factorial points (first 16) and the centre points (last 3) average response for factorial points 75.75 average response for centre points 76.66667 Since these averages are very similar there is little curvature in the model. Note that if significant curvature is indicated these experiments cannot tell which variable causes the curvature; a design such as a central composite design is needed to determine this. -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 b126 b134 b26 b24 b16 b15 b14 b13 b12 b6 b5 b4 Response A*E A*F B*D B*F A*B*D A*B*F Signal 1 1 1 1 -1 -1 95 1 -1 1 1 1 1 41 -1 -1 -1 1 1 -1 63 -1 1 -1 1 -1 1 83 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 59 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 114 1 1 -1 -1 1 1 121 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 59 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 107 1 1 -1 -1 -1 -1 38 -1 1 1 -1 -1 1 44 -1 -1 1 -1 1 -1 73 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 60 -1 -1 -1 1 -1 1 97 75.75 1 -1 1 1 -1 -1 105 76.66667 1 1 1 1 1 1 53 0 0 0 0 0 0 79 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 b6 b5 b4 b3 b2 b1 b0 2 -23.625 -3.625 7.75 -0.625 -6 75.89474 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.55508 0.509377 #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A the first line above contains the parameters. The second line is the standard errors, third line is R^2 and standard error of y the fourth line is the F statistic and degrees of freedom and the fifth line regression and residual sum of squares the confidence interval for each coefficient is b +/-t*se where se is the standard error in the second line of the output 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 2.386845 An effect is significant (at the 95% confidence level ) if its' regression coefficient is significantly non-zero I.e. its' confidnce interval does not include zero. This applies to b5, b4, b1, b3,b13,b24,b134 This means the variables E (wavelength), A( Flame Height), C(% acetic acid) and D(lamp current) are significant. There are also significant interactions but due to confounding we cannot definitely say which are significant. The only way to remove the confounding is to do more experiments. However since we can screen out variables B and F we could do a full factorial on 4 variables = 16 experiments and determine all Note that it is still possible B and F may have significant interactions even though their main effects are not significant. You may see a connection between the regression coefficients and the main effects. The coefficeints are Compare the average of the response for the factorial points (first 16) and the centre points (last 3) Note that if significant curvature is indicated these experiments cannot tell which variable causes the b4 b3 b2 b1