ANOVA for Quadratic model

Response 1: pH
Source Sum of Squares df Mean Square F-value p-value
Model 1.31 5 0.2619 15.32 0.0012 significant
A-Thickness of bed material 0.7968 1 0.7968 46.62 0.0002
B-Diameter of bed 0.0292 1 0.0292 1.71 0.2326
AB 0.0342 1 0.0342 2.00 0.1999
A² 0.4492 1 0.4492 26.29 0.0014
B² 0.0081 1 0.0081 0.4740 0.5133
Residual 0.1196 7 0.0171
Lack of Fit 0.0854 3 0.0285 3.32 0.1383 not significant
Pure Error 0.0343 4 0.0086
Cor Total 1.43 12

Factor coding is Coded.

Sum of squares is Type III - Partial

The Model F-value of 15.32 implies the model is significant. There is only a 0.12% chance that an F-value this large could occur due
to noise.

P-values less than 0.0500 indicate model terms are significant. In this case A, A² are significant model terms. Values greater than
0.1000 indicate the model terms are not significant. If there are many insignificant model terms (not counting those required to
support hierarchy), model reduction may improve your model.

The Lack of Fit F-value of 3.32 implies the Lack of Fit is not significant relative to the pure error. There is a 13.83% chance that a
Lack of Fit F-value this large could occur due to noise. Non-significant lack of fit is good -- we want the model to fit.
Fit Statistics

Std. Dev. 0.1307 R² 0.9163

Mean 8.05 Adjusted R² 0.8565
C.V. % 1.62 Predicted R² 0.5378
Adeq
11.4174
Precision

The Predicted R² of 0.5378 is not as close to the Adjusted R² of 0.8565 as one might normally expect; i.e. the difference is more
than 0.2. This may indicate a large block effect or a possible problem with your model and/or data. Things to consider are model
reduction, response transformation, outliers, etc. All empirical models should be tested by doing confirmation runs.

Adeq Precision measures the signal to noise ratio. A ratio greater than 4 is desirable. Your ratio of 11.417 indicates an adequate
signal. This model can be used to navigate the design space.
Model Comparison Statistics

PRESS 0.6605
-2 Log Likelihood -24.05
BIC -8.67
AICc 1.95
Coefficients in Terms of Coded Factors

Factor Coefficient Estimate df Standard Error 95% CI Low 95% CI High VIF
Intercept 8.23 1 0.0585 8.09 8.37
A-Thickness of bed material 0.3156 1 0.0462 0.2063 0.4249 1.0000
B-Diameter of bed 0.0604 1 0.0462 -0.0489 0.1697 1.0000
AB -0.0925 1 0.0654 -0.2471 0.0621 1.0000
A² -0.2541 1 0.0496 -0.3713 -0.1369 1.02
B² -0.0341 1 0.0496 -0.1513 0.0831 1.02

The coefficient estimate represents the expected change in response per unit change in factor value when all remaining factors are
held constant. The intercept in an orthogonal design is the overall average response of all the runs. The coefficients are adjustments
around that average based on the factor settings. When the factors are orthogonal the VIFs are 1; VIFs greater than 1 indicate
multi-colinearity, the higher the VIF the more severe the correlation of factors. As a rough rule, VIFs less than 10 are tolerable.
Final Equation in Terms of Coded Factors

pH =
+8.23
+0.3156 A
+0.0604 B
-0.0925 AB
-0.2541 A²
-0.0341 B²

The equation in terms of coded factors can be used to make predictions about the response for given levels of each factor. By
default, the high levels of the factors are coded as +1 and the low levels are coded as -1. The coded equation is useful for
identifying the relative impact of the factors by comparing the factor coefficients.
Final Equation in Terms of Actual Factors

pH =
+5.33798
+0.022007 Thickness of bed material
+0.043231 Diameter of bed
-0.000106 Thickness of bed material * Diameter of bed
-0.000052 Thickness of bed material²
-0.000218 Diameter of bed²

The equation in terms of actual factors can be used to make predictions about the response for given levels of each factor. Here, the
levels should be specified in the original units for each factor. This equation should not be used to determine the relative impact of
each factor because the coefficients are scaled to accommodate the units of each factor and the intercept is not at the center of the
design space.