## 3 Results
### Optimization of Transfer  
Table 6 presents the matrix of all experiments and the corresponding flux obtained as part of the complete factorial design used for optimizing the flux parameter of EOPH fixed in the porous medium PG.  
Based on the results obtained, the first-degree polynomial mathematical model is presented with the factors, second-order interactions, and third-order interactions of these three factors. Equation (14) shows the coefficients of the flux model of the EOPH fixed on the PG medium. The average flux obtained from the optimization route was found to be 7.14 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-4}\) g\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\cdot\)cm\({}^{-1}\). It can be concluded that all three factors--temperature (\(T\)), humidity (\(H\)), and concentration (\(C\))--significantly increase the flux when studied individually on the support.  
\[F\left(\times 10^{4}\right)\left(\text{g}\cdot\text{h}^{-1}\cdot\text{cm}^{-1} \right)=7.14+\left(1.27\times T\right)+\left(0.24\times H\right)+\left(0.16 \times C\right)+\left(0.17\times T\times H\right)+\left(0.43\times T\times C \right)-\left(0.19\times H\times C\right) \tag{15}\]  
Figure 6 displays a collection of 3D plots representing the flux as a function of two of the three factors. The flux increases with the temperature and humidity (\(TH\)) and temperature and concentration (\(TC\)), while it decreases with the interaction of humidity and concentration (\(HC\)).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Factor 1** & **Factor 2** & **Factor 3** & **Response** \\ \hline Run & T & H & C & Flux \\ \hline  & \({}^{\circ}\)C & \% & \(\mu\)L\(\cdot\)g\({}^{-1}\cdot\)cm\({}^{-1}\) & (\(\times 10^{4}\)) (g\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\cdot\)cm\({}^{-1}\)) \\ \hline
1 & 1 & 1 & \(-1\) & 8.41 \\ \hline
2 & \(-1\) & 1 & 1 & 5.46 \\ \hline
3 & 1 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 7.22 \\ \hline
4 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 9.23 \\ \hline
5 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 5.87 \\ \hline
6 & \(-1\) & \(-1\) & 1 & 5.72 \\ \hline
7 & \(-1\) & 1 & \(-1\) & 6.42 \\ \hline
8 & 1 & \(-1\) & 1 & 8.76 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Flux F obtained for each test in all experiments.  
Figure 5: Lentil seed germination test after 24 h for formulation and essential oil (mean \(\pm\) uncertainty). Concentration of EOPH = 0.01 \(\mu\)L\(\cdot\)cm\({}^{-3}\); concentration of EO–PG = 0.01 \(\mu\)L\(\cdot\)g\({}^{-1}\cdot\)cm\({}^{-3}\). Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences according to [PERSON]’s test (\(p<0.05\)).  
In Tables 7 and 8, \(R^{2}\) (coefficients of determination) for both media indicate that the optimized models explain the data accurately. The predicted \(R^{2}\) value of 0.9954 is in agreement with the adjusted \(R^{2}\) value of 0.9995, with a difference of 0.036, which is less than 0.2. The \(A_{\textit{dag}}\) Precision, which measures the signal-to-noise ratio, is desirable when greater than 4, and the ratio of 120.161 suggests an adequate signal. This model can be used to explore the design space.  
Figure 6: Three-dimensional representations of the flux as a function of two factors: (**a**) temperature vs. humidity; (**b**) temperature vs. concentration; (**c**) concentration vs. humidity.  
The significant model \(F\)-value of 2335.34 indicates that the model is noteworthy. A \(p\)-value of less than 0.05 implies that the model variables have statistical significance, and in this instance, all factors and their interactions have significant model terms.