ISSN 1070-4272, Russian Journal of Applied Chemistry, 2018, Vol. 91, No. 11, pp. 1895−1904.

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2018.

VARIOUS TECHNOLOGICAL
PROCESSES

Optimization of Performance Model of Ethyl Acetate

Saponification Using Multiple Regression Analysis1
M. K. Al Mesfera, M. Danisha,*, and M. M. Alamb
a Department of Chemical Engineering, King Khalid University, Abha 61411, KSA
b College of Applied Science, King Khalid University, Abha 61411, KSA
*e-mail: danishmhd111@yahoo.com

Received October 2, 2018

Abstract—The purpose of the current study is to optimize the batch reactor performance model using multiple
regression analysis for saponification of ethyl acetate by sodium hydroxide. Reaction temperature, reactor volume,
agitation rate and reactants initial concentration were the main parameters examined including their interaction
effect. Selected process response was the reaction conversion with respect of NaOH. Regression analysis was used
to screen out the insignificant factors and the reaction temperature and volume were found to have insignificant
effect on the response at the 5% selected significance level (α = 0.05). As a result of multiple regression analysis,
agitation rate and reactants concentration were found to be significant operating parameters. The dependence of
reaction conversion (response) on agitation rate and concentration was explained by a second order polynomial
model and it was concluded that regression model with second order polynomial was good enough to fit the ex-
perimental data. The maximum conversion (99.5%) was obtained under optimum operating conditions of agitation
rate (70 rpm) and reactants concentration ( 0.05 M) as evident from surface contours.
Keywords: ethyl acetate saponification, regression analysis
DOI: 10.1134/S1070427218110228

INTRODUCTION The computational efforts, number of experimental

Multiple regression analysis is a powerful technique
used to predict the unknown value of variable from the
value of two or more variables- also called predicators.
The variable whose value is to be predicted is called as
dependent variables and ones whose values are used
for prediction are known as independent variables. In
scientific research, experimental work is essential in the
development of process, selection and optimization. The
effect of factors on the response is explained by regression
analysis. To improve the selection, development and
optimization of process, statistical designs are extensively
used. Statistical design of experiment is a well known
technique used in various fields such as chemical and
biological fields, food industry, etc., to produce high
quality desired products economically, to ensure more
sound and reliable process [1, 2].
1 The text was submitted by the authors in English.
runs needed to analyze the behavior of model or its
validation; time factor and cost can be minimized by
developing a systematic procedure. A study devoted for
process improvement to minimize the process time has
been conducted by application of factorial design [3].
Statistical tools have been applied for organized and
systematic procedure to a batch reactor [4]. It has been
reported that advancements in the design of experiments
for last many years has made it possible to apply the
technique for complex applications chemical/biochemical
kinetics, heat/mass transfer operations and regression
modeling. Recently the studies reported on enhancement
of naphtha steam cracking [5], process improvement of
ethyl acetate saponification [6] and recipe improvement
of batch reactor [7], all focused on the confidence level
attained with design of experiments.
The selection of method of statistical design
of experiments firmly depends on the purpose of

1895
1896 AL MESFER et al.
experimentation [2, 8]. The simple and most widely
designs optimizations are screen design and response
surface methodology (RSM). The objective of screening
design is to screen out the insignificant factors and then
RSM is applied to optimization of significant factors.
In this study, saponification of ethyl acetate by sodium
hydroxide using batch reactor has been examined for
process improvement. The multiple regression technique
was applied to optimize the polynomial regression model.
The hydrolysis of ethyl acetate (CH3COOC2H5) by
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to produce sodium acetate
(CH3COONa) and ethyl alcohol (C2H5OH) is known as
saponification though the end product is not soap. Sodium
acetate obtained in this study is commercial valuable
carboxylic salt, is used widely in industries where ethanol
as by-products, can be used as biofuel.
The most of the previous studies [9–15] in literature
have concentrated on kinetics and reaction mechanics
of ethyl acetate saponification. It was suggested that
saponification of ethyl acetate proceeds through direct
attack of hydroxyl ion carbon atom of ethyl acetate
[16]. A very mild and fast saponification method was
established which utilizes dichloromethane/methanol
(9 : 1) as solvent with low NaOH concentration at room
temperatures [17].
A modeling and simulation study of ethyl acetate
saponification has been conducted [18]. Studies devoted
to the optimization of ethyl acetate using two-level
factorial design have been reported [19, 20]. A potential
study devoted on process intensification using fixed
point method of design with objectives of reducing
the production of undesired byproducts, improving the
reaction conversion and yield and improving the energy
efficiency has been reported [21].
In this study the hydrolysis of ethyl acetate has been
investigated using multiple regression analysis. This
study specifically focused on the process improvement
of ethyl acetate saponification. This study consists of two
stages: screening experiments aimed to screen out the
insignificant factors and RSM. The reaction conversion
of NaOH (Xa) was selected as response for analyzing the
system performance. All the possible factors thought to
have effect on response and it was decided to examine
the main and interaction effect of agitation rate (rpm),
reaction temperature (K), rector volume (L) and reactants
concentrations (M).The experimental results and findings
[22] were used to carry out the current optimization study.
RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY Vol. 91 No. 11 2018
After screening experiment, the agitation rate and initial
reactants were found as significant factors and optimum
values of significant factors were determined using second
order polynomial by obtaining surface contours.
EXPERIMENTAL
Reaction Kinetics
The saponification reaction of ethyl acetate can be
represented in terms of stochiometric coefficients [6].
NaOH + CH3COOC2H5 → CH3COONa + C2H5OH, (1)
This irreversible reaction is a second –order overall
but first order with respect to each reactant and the rate
expression is given by Eq. (2) [6].
–rNaOH= ̶ rEtOAc= kCNaOHCEtAc. (2)
During this reaction, hydroxyl ions are consumed and
acetate ions are produced. A decrease in conductivity is
noticed as the reaction progresses since hydroxide ions are
more conductive than the acetate ions. The conductivity
change is used to monitor the progress of saponification.
A relationship between the conductivity of the reaction
mixture and sodium hydroxide concentration is obtained
as presented by Eq. (3) [6]. Investigators [9–11, 16] have
specifically focused on kinetics and reaction mechanics
of saponification of ethyl acetate by sodium hydroxide.
C – C∞ СNAOH – СNAOH∞
–––––– = –––––––––––––––, (3)
C0 – C∞ СNAOH,0 – СNAOH∞
Since, CNaOH,∞ → 0 as t → ∞ Eq. (3) can be rewritten
as given in Eq. (4)
СNAOH C – C∞
–––––– = 1 – XNaOH = –––––––, (4)
СNAOH,0 C0 – C∞
EXPERIMENTAL
The experimental data obtained [22] during the ethyl
acetate saponification has been used to carry out the
current optimization study using multiple regression.
AR grade sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and ethyl acetate
(CH3COOC2H5) were used to conduct the experiments.
The stock solutions of desired concentration of sodium
hydroxide and ethyl acetate were prepared using high
purity distilled water. Both sodium hydroxide and sodium
 OPTIMIZATION OF PERFORMANCE MODEL OF ETHYL ACETATE SAPONIFICATION 1897

Table 1. Range of operating variables (predictors) reactor volume and reactants concentration. In first stage,
Factors Max Center Min the insignificant factors were screen out. The range of
operating conditions selected for design of experiments
Agitation rate X1, rpm 150 110 70
is shown in Table 1 [22]. In second stage, the significant
Temperature X2, °C 40 30 20 factors were used to optimize the reaction conditions
Reactor volume X3, L 1.8 1.5 1.2 that maximize the conversion. The optimum factors
Reactants were regressed into second order polynomial model. The
0.075 0.05 0.025
concentration X4, M maximum and minimum ranges of operating variables
used for analysis are shown in Table 1.

acetate contribute conductance to the hydrolysis reaction RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

where ethyl acetate and ethanol do not.
The conductivity of sodium hydroxide solution at a
fixed concentration and temperature is not same as that
of sodium acetate at the same molarity and temperature.
During a chemical reaction, the conductivity of reaction
solution changes as more of the reactants are converted. A
study devoted to the conductivity measurement technique
for saponification of ethyl acetate has been reported [23].
Plan of Experiments
The experiments were conducted in two stages,
screening and optimization. Four factors were considered
for analysis i.e., agitation rate, reaction temperature,
Experimental Effects
The following findings of the experimental
investigation [22] were used to carry out the design of
experiments. These may be summarized as:
(1) The conversion of NaOH increases with increased
reaction temperature under the studied range of reaction
temperatures until the stable condition is achieved.
(2) Reaction conversion decrease with increased
volume of reaction mixture within the studied range.
(3) The conversion of sodium hydroxide declines
with increased agitation rate from 70 rpm to 150 rpm.
(4) Higher initial reactant concentration leads to
decreased reaction conversion.

Table 2. Correlations analysisa

Model X1 X2 X3 X4 XA
X1 Pearson Correlation 1 0.000 0.048 –0.019 –0.483
Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 0.859 0.943 0.058
N 16 16 16 16 16
X2 Pearson Correlation 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 0.139
Sig. (2-tailed) 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.607
N 16 16 16 16 16
X3 Pearson Correlation 0.048 0.000 1 0.017 –0.331
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.859 1.000 0.949 0.211
N 16 16 16 16 16
X4 Pearson Correlation –0.019 0.000 0.017 1 –0.279
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.943 1.000 0.949 0.295
N 16 16 16 16 16
XA Pearson Correlation –0.483 0.139 –0.331 –0.279 1
Sig. (2-tailed) 0.058 0.607 0.211 0.295
N 16 16 16 16 16
a (X ) Agitation rate, rpm; (X2) Reaction temperature, °C; (X3) Reactor volume, L; (X4) Reactants concentration, M, (XA) Reaction conversion.
1

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY Vol. 91 No. 11 2018

1898 AL MESFER et al.

Table 3. Model summary with four predictorsa

Std. Error of the Change statistics
Model R R square Adjusted R square
estimate R square change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change
1 0.854 0.827 0.819 0.1464736 0.427 2.053 4 11 0.156
a Predictors: (Constant), X1, X2, X3, X4.

Table 4. ANOVA with four predictorsa

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.
1 Regression 0.176 4 0.044 2.053 0.156
Residual 0.236 11 0.021
Total 0.412 15
a Dependent variable: X . Predictors: X X , X X .
A 1, 2 3, 4

Table 5. Coefficients with four predictorsa

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model t Sig.
B std. error beta
1 Constant 1.945 0.612 3.176 0.009
X1 –0.005 0.002 –0.474 –2.074 0.062
X2 0.006 0.009 0.139 0.610 0.554
X3 –0.406 0.306 –0.303 –1.327 0.212
X4 –4.863 3.921 –0.283 –1.240 0.241
a Dependent variable: XA.

Table 6. Residuals Statistics with four predictorsa

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Predicted value 0.528988 0.973730 0.702575 0.1083841 16
Residual –0.2215461 0.1559357 0E–7 0.1254325 16
Std. Predicted value –1.602 2.502 0.000 1.000 16
Std. Residual –1.513 1.065 0.000 0.856 16
a Dependent variable: XA.

Screening Experiments slightly. There is inverse relationship between reactants

Correlation analysis was used to check the association
among the operating variable and reaction conversion
as depicted in Table 2. There is negative moderate rela-
tionship between agitation rate and reaction conversion.
The coefficient of correlation between agitation rate and
reaction conversion was –0.483 which indicates that one
percent changes in agitation rate resulted to 48.3% change
in reaction conversion. Whereas reaction temperature and
reaction conversion have low direct correlation which
states that increase in reaction temperature resulted to
slightly increase in reaction conversion. Negative cor-
relation was found between reactor volume and reaction
conversion.
The relationship states that percentage change in
reactor volume resulted decrease in reactor conversion
RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY Vol. 91 No. 11 2018
concentration and reaction conversion as depicted in
Table 2 which states that percentage increase in reactants
concentration resulted to 27.9% decline in reaction
conversion and vice versa
Step wise multiple regression analysis was used to
optimize the reaction conversion by using the operating
variables as mentioned in Table 1. The first steps of
regression analysis were depicted in Tables 3–6. To
optimize the conversion reaction by using these four
operating variables, R value in Table 3 demonstrates that
there is strong high positive association between operating
variables and reaction conversion. R square was very high
which states that model is explaining 82.7% fitness to
optimize the reaction conversion. Adjusted R square states
that the contribution of extraneous variables to maximize
 OPTIMIZATION OF PERFORMANCE MODEL OF ETHYL ACETATE SAPONIFICATION
Table 7. Model summary with two predictorsa
Std. error of the
Model R R square Adjusted R square
estimate
1 0.863 0.717 0.611 0.1472149
a Dependent variable: XA; Predictors: (Constant) X1, X4
Table 8. ANOVA with two predictorsa
Model Sum of squares
1 Regression 0.130
Residual 0.282
Total 0.412
a Dependent variable: XA; Predictors: (Constant) X1, X4
the reaction conversion was 18% approximately. The
significance F change which is termed as p value of
the regression model, was 0.156 demonstrating that the
contribution of all four predictors differs significantly
with 95% level of significance.
Following regression equation was developed to
maximize the reaction conversion.
Y = β0 + β1X1 + β2X2 + β3X3 + β4X4 + e, (5)
where Y is a dependent variable as reaction conversion,
X1, X2, X3, and X4 are independent variables as agitation
rate, reaction temperature, reactor volume and reactants
concentration respectively. β0 is intercept of the model
and considered as constant parameter while β1, β2, β3, and
β4 are coefficient of independent variables and e is used
as error term in the model.
As reported in ANOVA Table 4, p value is greater
than 0.05 illustrating that the predictors’ variances of
contribution are significant statistically. Calculated
F value is more than the tabulated value and it also
signifies that the predictors’ variances of contribution are
significant statistically.
The contribution of all predictors on process response
(reaction conversion) is depicted in Table 5. Sig. p value is
very high of all predictors except constant which explain
that the intercept of predictor are highly significant at
95 per cent significant level. Following Eq. (6) has been
developed with the help of coefficients (Table 5). As
reported in following equation contribution of reaction
temperature and reactor volume is minimal among all
variables in predicting the reaction conversion (output).
RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY Vol. 91 No. 11 2018
1899
Change statistics
R square change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change
0.317 3.010 2 13 .084
df Mean square F Sig.
2 0.065 3.010 0.084
13 0.022
15
Y = 1.945 – 0.005X1 + 0.006X2 – 0.406X3
– 4.863X4 + e. (6)
The residual analysis as depicted in Table 6 represents
the maximum and minimum reaction conversion by
predicted by this model [Eq. (6)]. As reported in the
table maximum reaction conversion is 0.9737, minimum
reaction conversion is 0.5289 while average reaction
conversion is 0.7026 which indicates that model is still
not providing 100% results and it can further be improved
with addition and deletion of some predictors.
To improve the reaction conversion (output), reaction
temperature X2 and reactor volume X3 were removed
from the existing model and considered as insignificant
factors on the basis of coefficient and their significant
values. The regression analysis has been repeated with
the two predictors i.e. agitation rate (X1) and reactant
concentration (X4) as depicted in Table 7.
Optimization of conversion using significant fac-
tors. To optimize the regression model, analysis has been
repeated by considering only two significant factors,
i.e., agitation rate (X1) and reactants concentration (X4).
Optimization of conversion was performed using only
significant factors and model summary is depicted in
Table 7. As observed from the table from the value of R
is 0.863, predictors have strong positive correlation with
the reaction conversion as indicated by the value of R.
R square (0.717) showed the fitness of model decline from
0.827 with four predictors to 0.717 with two predictors.
Adjusted R square is 0.611 which demonstrates that the
contribution of extraneous variable increased from 18
1900 AL MESFER et al.

Table 9. Coefficients with two predictorsa

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model t Sig.
B std. error beta
1 Constant 1.560 0.352 4.430 0.001
X1 –0.005 0.002 –0.489 –2.130 0.053
X4 –4.958 3.940 –0.289 –1.258 0.230
a Dependent variable: X
A

Table 10. Residuals Statistics with two predictorsa

Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 0.556540 0.98772 0.702575 0.0932621 16
Residual –0.2119748 0.2073033 0E–7 0.1370496 16
Std. predicted value –1.566 2.886 0.000 1.000 16
Std. residual –1.440 1.408 0.000 0.931 16
a Dependent variable: X
A

Table 11. Model Summary of 2nd order polynomial with two predictorsa

Std. Error of the Change statistics

Model R R square Adjusted R square
estimate R square change F change df1 df2 Sig. F change
1 0.963 0.889 0.866 0.1513561 0.389 1.748 4 11 0.209
a Dependent variable: XA Predictors: (Constant) X1, X4, X12, X42

Table 12. ANOVA of 2nd order polynomial with two predictorsa

Model Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

1 Regression 0.160 4 0.040 1.748 0.209
Residual 0.252 11 0.023
Total 0.412 15
a Dependent variable: XA; Predictors: (Constant), X1, X4, X12, X42.

per cent with four predictors to 39% with two predictors.
The significance F change which is termed as p value of
the regression model was 0.084 demonstrating that the
contribution of all four predictors differs significantly
with 95 per cent level of significance.
As reported in ANOVA Table 8, sig. p value is greater
than 0.05 which shows that the variances of predictors to
the reaction conversion differs significantly with 5% level
of significance and F values also validate that the variances
of predictors to the reaction conversion varies significantly.
From the coefficient of Table 9, equation (7) was
extracted as regression equation with two predictors for
reaction conversion. The following equation provides
maximum reaction conversion as 0.9877, minimum
reaction conversion as 0.5565 while average reaction
conversion of 0.7026 as depicted in residual Table 10.
RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY Vol. 91 No. 11 2018
There was an increase in minimum and maximum
conversion with two predictors as compared to reaction
conversion with four predictors. Regression model with
two predictors (significant variables) provides higher
value of conversion as compared to the regression model
with four predictors.
Y = 1.560 – 0.005X1 – 4.958X4 + e (7)
As observed from Table 10 on screening out the two
least contributor predictors, correlation between predictors
and reaction conversion has improved but fitness of model
decline and maximum reaction conversion has increased.
It can be concluded that this model is giving improved
conversion but model is not significant which indicates
that the model can be improved further to optimize the
reaction conversion.
 OPTIMIZATION OF PERFORMANCE MODEL OF ETHYL ACETATE SAPONIFICATION 1901

Table 13. Coefficients of 2nd order polynomial with two predictorsa

Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
Model t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 1.398 1.218 1.148 0.275
X1 –0.011 0.020 –1.134 –0.551 0.592
X4 14.383 18.864 0.837 0.762 0.462
X12 0.000031 0.000 0.674 0.328 0.749
X42 –194.790 185.206 –1.154 –1.052 0.315
a Dependent variable: X
A

Table 14. Residuals Statistics 2nd order polynomial with 2 predictorsa

Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted value 0.446273 0.995018 0.702575 0.1033476 16
Residual –0.2055206 0.1923794 0E–7 0.1296136 16
Std. predicted value –2.480 2.830 0.000 1.000 16
Std. residual –1.358 1.271 0.000 0.856 16
a Dependent variable: XA

Optimization of model using second order polyno-
mial. To optimize the reaction conversion it was decided
to construct second order polynomial model between
significant factors to investigate the effect of significant
factors (agitation rate, X1 and reactants concentration, X4)
on response (Conversion, Xa) as follows
Y = βo + β1X1 + β4 X4+ β16 X12+ β19X42 + e,
β16 and β19 are the coefficient of independent variable
while X12 and X42 are the square terms of their respective
predictors. To find out the optimum conversion using
second order polynomial, regression analysis was used
as depicted in Table 11. As reported in the table there
is strong positive relationship between the predictors,
their polynomial and conversion. The observed R square
explained that model is fitting around 90% while adjusted
R square explain the contribution of external factors is
around 13% which is very less as compared to the previous
findings. The sig. F change is 0.209 greater than 0.05 and
it is not significant with 5% level of significance.
Second order polynomial with two predictors explain
that the F value is very less and the significance level is
more than 0.05 which indicates that the contribution of
each predictors do not vary significantly with 5% level
of significance as depicted in Table 12.
The coefficient Table 13 was used to develop
the following polynomial regression equation using
coefficient beta values to get the optimum solution of
ethyl acetate saponification. It can be concluded from
the equation 9 that 100 percent increase in agitation rate
will reduce the conversion by 1.1%. Concentration shows
positive relationship with the conversion as depicted in
the Table 13. The second order condition of agitation
rate is positively related with the response while second
(8) order condition of concentration has negative impact on
dependent variable.
Y = 1.398 – 0.011X1 + 14.383X4+ 0.000031X12
– 194.709X42 + e. (9)
As depicted in residual Table 14, the maximum
conversion was 99.5% while the minimum was 44.6%
with an average conversion rate 70.3%. The 99.5%
reaction conversion predicted by Eq. (9) is the highest
among all three models. The variation in conversion
is around 10% in this model as depicted. The highest
variation was found in the first model with four predictors
while the lowest variation was observed in second model
with two predictors. Moreover, in this polynomial model
it is slightly increased but this variation is very minor
and provides maximum conversion. It can be concluded
that the reaction conversion is maximum with the use of
significant factors (i.e. agitation rate and concentration)
and their second order conditions. The combination of
predictors with conversion which provides maximum
conversion is represented in Fig. 1. As evident from the

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY Vol. 91 No. 11 2018

1902 AL MESFER et al.

Estimated marginal means of XA Conversion

1.00 1.00
X4 Observed
0.03 Quadratic
0.90 0.04
0.05 0.90
0.08
0.80
0.80

0.70
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.50
0.50
0.40
90.00 110.00 130.00 150.00 0.40
X1 90.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
Non-estimable means are not plotted Agitation rate
Fig. 1. Optimization of conversion as a function of significant Fig. 2 Optimization of conversion using agitation rate.
variables.

0.075
Ymax
Reactant concentration, M

x = 126.24
y = 0.05 Ymin
0.025
70 Xmin Xmax 150
Fig. 3. Response Surface Contours.

Fig. 1, the maximum conversion is 99.5 percent at an
optimum operating conditions of agitation rate (70 rpm)
and reactants concentration (0.05 M).
Figure 2 represents the optimization of fractional
reaction conversion using different combination of
an agitation rate as depicted. It is observed that the
conversion is maximum i.e. 99.5 percent at an agitation
rate of 70 rpm and decreases with increased rate of an
agitation. The minimum conversion of 44.6 percent was
RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY Vol. 91 No. 11 2018
obtained at high agitation rate of 150 rpm. It validates the
experimental findings of study devoted to saponification
of ethyl acetate by sodium hydroxide.
To validate the finding of regression Eq. 9 for
optimization of conversion using agitation rate and
concentration, response surface contours were obtained
by using the same regression equation at different levels
of reactants concentration and agitation rate as shown
in Fig. 3. The maximum predicted conversion of 99.5%
 OPTIMIZATION OF PERFORMANCE MODEL OF ETHYL ACETATE SAPONIFICATION 1903

Normal P‒P plot of regression studentized residual

Dependent variable: Conversion
1.00 1.5

1.0

Regression studentized residual

0.80
0.5
Expected Cum Prob

0.60
0.0

0.40 ‒0.5

0.20 ‒1.0

‒1.5
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 ‒1.5 ‒1.0 ‒0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Observed Cum Prob Regression studentized residual
Fig. 5. Scatter plot of conversion (output) at different
Fig. 4. Regression standard residual for optimization. experiments.

was obtained at optimum conditions of agitation rate analysis with four predictors was used to identify the
(70 rpm) and reactants concentration (0.05 M). insignificant factors and the maximum conversion of
Figure 4 is the plot of regression standardized 97.4 percent was observed.
residual for optimization of conversion mechanism At the second stage linear regression was used
during experiment. Equal variance was observed during with only two significant predictors (agitation rate and
all the experiment as depicted in the same figure. It can concentration) to obtain the maximum conversion. The
be concluded that there will be no significant difference maximum conversion of 98.8 % was found with two
between expected and observed optimization of significant predictors. In order to further optimize the
conversion process. conversion, second order polynomial was used with
Figure 5 represents scatter plot of conversion and two significant predictors. The initial concentration of
demonstrate that the experimental conversion are on reactants and agitation rates and their quadratic effects
the straight line except few values which shows that were found to be significant factors. Maximum conversion
the random error are minimum and constant variance. as 99.5 percent was observed at an optimum condition
The graph also highlights the number of outlier during of agitation rate (70 rpm) and reactant concentration
experiments for optimization of reaction conversion. (0.05 M) and their polynomials shown in contour plots.

REFERENCES
CONCLUSIONS
1. Montgomery, D.C., Design and Analysis of Experiments,
The optimization study to improve the performance
New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1991, pp.270–569.
model of ethyl acetate saponification has been carried out
with respect to consumed material and obtained yield. 2. Zivorad, R.L., Design of Experiments in Chemical
Engineering, Weinheim : Wiley-VCH, 2004.
In this study, the work was divided into two sections-
screening out the insignificant factors and optimizing 3. Carr, J.M. and McCraken, E.A., Chem. Eng. Prog., 1960,
the significant factors. As a result of the screening vol.56 (11), pp. 56–61.
experiments, reaction temperature (range 20–40°C) 4. Asprey, S.P. and Macchietto, S., Comput. Chem. Eng.,
and reactor volume (range: 1.2–1.8 L) were found to 2000, vol. 24, pp. 1261–1267.
be insignificant operating parameters. Linear regression 5. Keyvanloo, K., Towghi, J., Sadrameli, S.M., and

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY Vol. 91 No. 11 2018

1904 AL MESFER et al.

Mohamadalizadeh, A., J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis, 2010, pp. 46–50.

vol. 87, p. 224–230. 15. Schneider, M.A. and Stoessel, F., Chem. Eng. J., 2005,
6. Bursali, N., Ertunc, S., and Akay, B., Chem. Eng. Process., vol. 115, pp.73–83.
2006, vol. 45, pp. 980–989. 16. Tsujikawa, H. and Inoue, I., Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn, 1966,
7. Zofia, V.L., Comput. Ind., 1998, vol.36, pp. 279–300. vol. 39(9), pp.1837–1842.
8. Atkinson, A.C., Bagacka, B., and Bogaki, M.B., Chemom. 17. Theodorou, V., Skobridis, K., Tzakos, A.G., and
Intell. Lab Syst., 1998, vol. 43, pp.185–198. Ragoussis, V., Tetrahedron Lett., 2007, vol. 48, pp. 8230–
9. Mata-Segreda, J.F., J. Am. Chem. Soc., 2002, vol. 124 8233.
(10), pp. 2259–2262. 18. Wijayarathne, U.P.L. and Wasalathilake, K.C., J. Chem.
10. Ortiz, M.I., Romero, A., and Irabien, A., Thermochimica Eng. Process Technol., 2014, vol. 5(6), pp. 1–8.
Acta, 1989, vol. 141, pp.169–180. 19. Ahmad, A., Ahmad, M.I., Younas, M., Khan, H., and
11. Garu, M.G., Nougues, J.M., and Puigjaner, L., 2002. Chem. Shah, M.H., Iran. J. Chem. Chem. Eng., 2013, vol. 32(4),
Eng. J. 88, pp. 225–232. pp. 33–44.
12. Danish, M., Al Mesfer, M.K., and Rashid, M.M., Int. J. 20. Ullah, I., Ahmad, M.I., and Younas, M., Pak. J.Eng. &
Eng. Res., 2015, vol. 5(2), pp.74–78. Appl. Sci., 2015, vol. 16, pp. 84–92.
13. Kuheli, D., Sahoo, P., Saibaba, M., Murali, N., and 21. Li, H., M, Ying., Li, Xingang., and Gao, X., Chem. Eng.
Swaminthan, P., Int. J. Chem. Kinet., 2011, vol. 43, Res. Des., 2016, vol.111, pp. 479–491.
pp.648–656. 22. Al-Mesfer, M., Int J. Chem. Reactor Eng., 2017.
14. Mukhtar, A., Shafiq, U., Khan, A.F., Qadir, H.A., and doi: 10.1515/ijcre-0174
Qizilbash, M., Res. J. Chem. Sci., 2015, vol. 5(11), 23. Walker, J., Proc. R Soc A, 1906, pp. 78, pp. 157–160.

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF APPLIED CHEMISTRY Vol. 91 No. 11 2018