## 3 Results
### Yield of Cso  
The predicted yield of CSO in the three center-point STDs (size of the restriction die: 1.2 cm; pressing temperature: 50 \({}^{\circ}\)C; and duration of dry heat exposure at 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C: 15 min) \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{STD} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Yield (\%)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Acid Value**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Peroxide Value**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**TPC**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pressing Time**} \\  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mg KOH/g of Oil)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mEq/Kg of Oil)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(\mu\)g GAE/g of Oil)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(min)**} \\ \cline{2-11}  & **Observed** & **Predicted** & **Observed** & **Predicted** & **Observed** & **Predicted** & **Observed** & **Predicted** & **Observed** & **Predicted** \\ \hline  
\hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The observed and predicted oil yields, acid and peroxide values, total phenolic content, and time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Duration (min)** & **Moisture Content (\% MC)** \\ \hline
0 & 4.64 \(\pm\) 0.17 a  \\
15 & 4.49 \(\pm\) 0.18 a  \\
30 & 4.01 \(\pm\) 0.50 b  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The average moisture content (% MC) of chia seeds. was 29.58%. The observed yield of the three center-point STDs was 29.48, 29.75, and 30.15% (Table 2). The highest predicted yield was observed in STD 14, followed by STD 1. However, the observed maximum yield was obtained in STD 17, followed by STD 1. The changes between STDs 1 and 14 were insignificant. The lowest yield was observed (23.86%) and predicted (23.87%) in STD 7 (size of the restriction die: 1 cm; pressing temperature: 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C; and duration of dry heat exposure at 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C: 30 min) (Table 2). A reduced cubic model used to evaluate variance in the yield of CSO is presented in Table 4.  
The reduced cubic model for oil extraction was significant (\(p\) = 0.0021) with adjusted R\({}^{2}\) and predicted R\({}^{2}\) values of 0.9268 and 0.7595, respectively, and a nonsignificant lack of fit (\(p\) = 0.2967). These results indicated that the reduced cubic model equation was appropriate for the prediction of oil extraction. The CCD-generated reduced cubic model equation for the yield of CSO (\(\%\)) was as follows (Equation (4)):  
\[\text{Yield}=\frac{1}{\sqrt[]{+7.6562\times 10-6\text{BC}-0.5828\text{A}2+0.0002 \text{B}2+0.0104\text{A}2\text{B}+0.0092\text{A}2\text{C}-0.0001\text{A}2\text{B })}} \tag{4}\]  
where A is the size of the restriction die, B is the pressing temperature, and C is the duration of dry heat exposure. The size of the restriction die and temperature (\(p\) = 0.0059), size of the restriction die and dry heat exposure time (\(p\) = 0.0008), size of the restriction die\({}^{2}\) (\(p\) = 0.0265), temperature\({}^{2}\) (\(p\) = 0.0076), size of the restriction die\({}^{2}\) and temperature (\(p\) = 0.0244), and size of the restriction die\({}^{2}\) and dry heat exposure time (\(p\) = 0.0082) significantly affected the yield of CSO (Table 5). However, the restriction die, temperature, dry heat exposure time, and interaction between temperature and dry heat exposure time did not significantly affect the yield of CSO (Figure 2).