## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Germination Test** & **Regression** & **DF** & **Sum of Squares** & **Mean Squares** & **F-Value** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{First Count} & Linear & 2 & 1996.9 & 998.43 & 1.69 & 0.25 ns \\  & Interaction & 1 & 260.7 & 260.66 & 0.44 & 0.52 ns \\  & Quadratic & 2 & 1214.6 & 607.32 & 1.03 & 0.40 ns \\  & Residuals & 7 & 4116.4 & 588.06 & & \\  & Lack of fit & 3 & 1132.8 & 377.59 & 0.50 & 0.69 ns \\  & Pure error & 4 & 2983.7 & 745.91 & & \\  & Model & \(18.96-17.05X_{1}-6.49X_{2}+12.00X_{1}^{2}-20.47X_{2}^{2}+8.07X_{1}X_{2}\) & & 0.01 \({}^{*}\) \\  & R2 & 0.45 & & & & \\  & Shapiro-wilk normality test & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Germination} & Linear & 2 & 2273.5 & 1136.76 & 1.96 & 0.21 ns \\  & Interaction & 1 & 330 & 329.97 & 0.56 & 0.47 ns \\  & Quadratic & 2 & 1201.1 & 600.54 & 1.03 & 0.40 ns \\  & Residuals & 7 & 4060.1 & 580.01 & & \\  & Lack of fit & 3 & 1120.0 & 373.32 & 0.50 & 0.69 ns \\  & Pure error & 4 & 2940.1 & 735.03 & & \\  & Model & \(19.60-17.99X_{1}-7.44X_{2}+12.19X_{1}^{2}-20.29X_{2}^{2}+9.08X_{1}X_{2}\) & & 0.16 ns \\  & R2 & 0.48 & & & & \\  & & Shapiro-wilk normality test & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Abnormal} & Linear & 2 & 720.9 & 360.46 & 0.76 & 0.49 \\  & Interaction & 1 & 134.1 & 134.10 & 0.28 & 0.61 \\  & Quadratic & 2 & 2774.1 & 1387.05 & 2.95 & 0.11 \\  & Residuals & 7 & 3284.6 & 469.22 & & \\  & Lack of fit & 3 & 1271.2 & 423.73 & 0.84 & 0.53 \\  & Pure error & 4 & 2013.4 & 503.34 & & \\  & Model & \(63.10-1.48X_{1}-10.86X_{2}-5.79X_{1}^{2}-26.01X_{2}^{2}-6.82X_{1}X_{2}\) & & 0.28 ns \\  & R2 & 0.52 & & & & \\  & & Shapiro-wilk normality test & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Protrusion} & Linear & 2 & 4284.7 & 2142.34 & 31.24 & 0.0003 ** \\  & Interaction & 1 & 43.4 & 43.36 & 0.63 & 0.45 ns \\  & Quadratic & 2 & 3916.0 & 1957.98 & 28.55 & 0.0004 ** \\ \cline{1-1}  & Residuals & 7 & 480.0 & 68.57 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Lack of fit & 3 & 221.8 & 73.94 & 1.14 & 0.43 ns \\ \cline{1-1}  & Pure error & 4 & 258.2 & 64.54 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Model & \(82.70-19.48X_{1}-18.29X_{2}-13.83X_{1}^{2}-27.11X_{2}^{2}+3.29X_{1}X_{2}\) & & 0.00028 ** \\ \cline{1-1}  & R2 & 0.945 & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & Shapiro-Wilk normality test & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: The ANOVA table shows the independent variables in linear, quadratic, or interaction terms on each of the responses for soybean germination. The averages obtained in the germination and vigor test to determine seed quality are represented in Figure 3 through box plot analysis. Through the figure, one can identify the best treatments obtained through the vigor and germination tests right after drying the soybean seeds. Figure 3 presents the result of the germination and vigor test as a function of temperature and power. The treatments that used the temperature of 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C showed the best averages compared to the temperature of 50 and 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Treatments submitted to a power of 1.0 W/g had a drastic reduction in germination rates and an increase in abnormal seedlings. The best treatment obtained in the vigor and germination test was the one that used a temperature of 40 \({}^{\circ}\)C, associated with a potency of 0.5 W/g. This treatment showed the highest rates of germination with protrusion of up to 91.88%, and the lowest rates of abnormal seedlings, surpassing the control treatment. The quality of seeds can also be discussed by PCA analysis, as shown in Figure 4 below. Figure 3: Box plot analyses of germination and vigor tests showing the percentage results for soybean seeds after drying under temperatures of 40, 50, and 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C and microwave power of 0, 0.5, and 1.0 W/g. The numbers represent the media, and the box represents the interquartile interval at a 95% level of confidence. The data, and outliers are represented in the figures for the dots, and *, respectively.