Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Table & Figure

    Uploaded by

    Nabilla Putri Andini
    This document presents the results of an experiment investigating how pH level and latex volume affect the surface area, pore size, and pore volume of porous hydroxyapatite (HAp) synthesized using a central composite design. Table 1 shows the experimental design and coded variable levels. Tables 2 and 5 present the results of BET-BJH analysis and fit statistics for each response. Figures 1-3 show adsorption isotherms, actual vs predicted plots, and contour/response surface plots. Tables 6-7 present the derived quadratic models and model validation. Figures 4-5 characterize the optimized sample (S7) through XRD and SEM/EDX analysis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Table & Figure

    Uploaded by

    Nabilla Putri Andini
    15 views5 pages
    This document presents the results of an experiment investigating how pH level and latex volume affect the surface area, pore size, and pore volume of porous hydroxyapatite (HAp) synthesized using a central composite design. Table 1 shows the experimental design and coded variable levels. Tables 2 and 5 present the results of BET-BJH analysis and fit statistics for each response. Figures 1-3 show adsorption isotherms, actual vs predicted plots, and contour/response surface plots. Tables 6-7 present the derived quadratic models and model validation. Figures 4-5 characterize the optimized sample (S7) through XRD and SEM/EDX analysis.

    Original Description:

    t

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document presents the results of an experiment investigating how pH level and latex volume affect the surface area, pore size, and pore volume of porous hydroxyapatite (HAp) synthesized using a central composite design. Table 1 shows the experimental design and coded variable levels. Tables 2 and 5 present the results of BET-BJH analysis and fit statistics for each response. Figures 1-3 show adsorption isotherms, actual vs predicted plots, and contour/response surface plots. Tables 6-7 present the derived quadratic models and model validation. Figures 4-5 characterize the optimized sample (S7) through XRD and SEM/EDX analysis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    15 views5 pages

    Table & Figure

    Uploaded by

    Nabilla Putri Andini
    This document presents the results of an experiment investigating how pH level and latex volume affect the surface area, pore size, and pore volume of porous hydroxyapatite (HAp) synthesized using a central composite design. Table 1 shows the experimental design and coded variable levels. Tables 2 and 5 present the results of BET-BJH analysis and fit statistics for each response. Figures 1-3 show adsorption isotherms, actual vs predicted plots, and contour/response surface plots. Tables 6-7 present the derived quadratic models and model validation. Figures 4-5 characterize the optimized sample (S7) through XRD and SEM/EDX analysis.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Table 1.

    Experimental Design used Central Composite Design of RSM

    Process Coded Variable Levels


    Unit
    Conditions -α -1 0 1 α
    pH 8.58 9.00 10.00 11.00 11.41
    Latex Volume mL 0.40 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.10

    Table 2. Result of BET-BJH Analysis for Each of Process Variables

    Latex Volume Surface Area Pore Size Pore Volume


    Runs pH
    (mL) (m2/g) (nm) (cc/g)
    S1 10.00 0.75 35.27 45.84 0.40
    S2 11.41 0.75 21.68 15.39 0.08
    S3 10.00 1.10 20.96 25.44 0.12
    S4 9.00 1.00 17.84 28.55 0.13
    S5 10.00 0.40 27.57 25.02 0.17
    S6 8.58 0.75 10.61 14.88 0.04
    S7 10.00 0.75 38.86 40.82 0.40
    S8 11.00 1.00 18.22 32.04 0.15
    S9 11.00 0.50 20.95 12.95 0.06
    S10 9.00 0.50 21.37 16.25 0.07
    S11 10.00 0.75 34.10 38.60 0.37

    250 Run S1
    Run S2
    Volume @ STP (cc/g)

    200 Run S3

    150

    100

    50

    0
    0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
    Relative Pressure, P/P0
    Figure 1. Nitrogen Adsorption-Desorption Isotherm of Porous HAp

    Table 3. Fit Summary for each response


    Quadratic Cubic
    Fit Summary
    Y1 Y2 Y3 Y1 Y2 Y3
    Sequential p-value 0.0011 0.0065 0.0003 0.1573 0.1187 0.0258
    Lack of Fit p-value 0.3817 0.2520 0.1184 0.7575 0.4788 0.7211
    Adjusted R2 0.8793 0.7611 0.9266 0.9414 0.9038 0.9893
    Predicted R2 0.6513 0.2529 0.7533 0.8966 0.4511 0.9774
    Suggested Aliased
    Table 4. ANOVA for each Response
    F-value p-value
    Source
    Y1 Y2 Y3 Y1 Y2 Y3
    15.570 Significant
    Model 7.3700 26.240 0.0045 0.0234 0.0013
    0
    A-pH 3.4100 0.0033 0.4558 0.1239 0.9563 0.5296
    B-Latex volume 3.4100 4.0900 0.4916 0.1241 0.0991 0.5145
    AB 0.0197 0.3686 0.1239 0.8940 0.5703 0.7392
    64.460 106.570
    A² 29.320 0.0005 0.0029 0.0001
    0 0
    23.110
    B² 10.690 58.8900 0.0049 0.0222 0.0006
    0
    Residual
    Lack of Fit 1.7600 3.120 7.6000 0.3817 0.2520 0.1184 Not significant

    Table 5. Fit Statistic for each Responses


    Fit Statistic Surface Area (Y1) Pore Size (Y2) Pore Volume (Y3)
    Standard Deviation 3.00 5.59 0.0383
    Mean 24.31 26.89 0.1805
    C.V. % 12.32 20.80 21.25
    R² 0.9397 0.8806 0.9633
    Adjusted R² 0.8793 0.7611 0.9266
    Predicted R² 0.6513 0.2529 0.7533
    Adequate Precision 10.3998 6.3001 12.2209

    Figure 2. Actual versus Predicted Plot of Responses (a) Surface Area, (b) Pore Size, and (c) Pore Volume
    Table 6. Coded Equation and Actual Equation for each Equations

    Equation Surface Area (Y1) Pore Size (Y2) Pore Volume (Y3)
    Coded Equation
    Intercept +36.08 +41.75 +0.3917
    A +1.96 +0.1139 +0.0092
    B -1.96 +4.00 +0.0095
    AB +0.2100 +1.70 +0.0067
    A2 -10.12 -12.74 -0.1666
    B2 -6.06 -7.70 -0.1238
    Actual Equation
    Intercept -1037.95536 -1264.00513 -17.29872
    pH +203.74358 +249.87974 +3.32057
    Latex Volume +129.23602 +132.78198 +2.74002
    pH * Latex Volume +0.840000 +6.79000 +0.027000
    pH² -10.12083 -12.74292 -0.166583
    Latex Volume ² -96.97333 -123.12667 -1.98133
    Figure 3. Contour Plot and Responses Surface Plot for Responses a Surface Area, b Pore Size, and c
    Pore Volume

    Table 7. Validation of Mathematic Models


    Factor Level Prediction Value
    Latex Volume Surface Area Pore Size Pore Volume
    pH
    (mL) (m2/g) (nm) (cc/g)
    0 0 36.08 41.75 0.3917

    Figure 4. The Result of Optimization a pH, b Latex Volume, c Surface Area, d Pore Size, and e Pore Volume

    Figure 5. XRD Pattern of synthesized Porous HAp (S7)


    Figure 7. Particle Morphology Analysis of Porous HAp (S7) (a) FESEM (b) EDX

    You might also like