## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Source** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Sum of** \\ **Squares** \\ \end{tabular} & **df** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean** \\ **Square** \\ \end{tabular} & **F-Value** &
\begin{tabular}{c} _p-_ \\ **Value** \\ \end{tabular} & \\ \hline Model & 59,815.01 & 8 & 7476.88 & 23.64 & \textless{}0.0001 & significant \\ C-Temperature & 6420.18 & 1 & 6420.18 & 20.30 & 0.0002 & \\ D-Extractant & 4262.40 & 1 & 4262.40 & 13.48 & 0.0015 & \\ AB & 25,850.75 & 1 & 25,850.75 & 81.73 & \textless{}0.0001 & \\ BC & 7383.79 & 1 & 7383.79 & 23.35 & 0.0001 & \\ CD & 1732.05 & 1 & 1732.05 & 5.48 & 0.0298 & \\ A\({}^{2}\) & 1926.74 & 1 & 1926.74 & 6.09 & 0.0227 & \\ B\({}^{2}\) & 2525.69 & 1 & 2525.69 & 7.99 & 0.0104 & \\ D\({}^{2}\) & 8337.57 & 1 & 8337.57 & 26.36 & \textless{}0.0001 & \\ Residual & 6325.58 & 20 & 316.28 & & & \\ Lack of Fit & 5361.37 & 16 & 335.09 & 1.39 & 0.4089 & not significant \\ Pure Error & 964.21 & 4 & 241.05 & & & \\ Cor Total & 66,140.60 & 28 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: ANOVA for Reduced Quadratic Model Response 3: FRAP. The coefficient of determination and the standard error in this case are, respectively, 0.92 and 13.07. Since the coefficient of determination is high, the larger value of the error is due to the significantly larger measured values (compared to the TPC and TFC models). This standard error value means that when estimating the FRAP value, a mean error of less than 13.07 uM TE/100 g fw can be expected. Based on the diagnostics of the model shown in the plots, it can be said that the residuals are normally distributed and there are no extreme values among them (Figure 4). Following the perturbation and contour plots in Figure 5, the maximum FRAP values could be obtained with a hydro module 10 for a duration of 30 min. Temperature is revealed as the least significant. Figure 5d shows the effect of the hydro module and extractant on the FRAP while keeping duration and temperature at values of 40 min and 70 \({}^{\circ}\)C, respectively. Under these conditions, the maximum FRAP could be obtained with a hydro module of 10 and an extractant of 90%. Figure 3: TFC model analysis: (**a**) Perturbation plot; (**b**) contour surface plots of TFC against hydro module (ratio) and duration (min); (**c**) contour surface plots of TFC against hydro module (ratio) and extractant; (**d**) contour surface plots of TFC against duration (min) and extractant. A suitable model has not been established to describe the dependence of the CUPRAC on the independent variables. A linear, 2 FI, and quadratic model were tried, but all three were found to be insignificant (see Tables 8-10). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source**} & **Sum of** & \multirow{2}{*}{**df**} & **Mean** & **F-** & \(p\)**-** \\  & **Squares** & & **Square** & **Value** & **Value** \\ \hline Model & 69,219.44 & 4 & 17,304.86 & 0.2810 & 0.8874 & not significant \\ A-hydromodule (ratio) & 18,861.09 & 1 & 18,861.09 & 0.3062 & 0.5851 & \\ B-Duration & 26,182.64 & 1 & 26,182.64 & 0.4251 & 0.5206 & \\ C-Temperature & 13,340.40 & 1 & 13,340.40 & 0.2166 & 0.6458 & \\ D-Extractant & 10,839.05 & 1 & 10,839.405 & 0.1760 & 0.6786 & \\ Residual & \(1.478\times 10^{6}\) & 24 & 61,588.86 & & & \\ Lack of Fit & \(1.398\times 10^{6}\) & 20 & 69,897.15 & 3.49 & 0.1169 & not significant \\ Pure Error & 80,189.56 & 4 & 20,047.39 & & & \\ Cor Total & \(1.547\times 10^{6}\) & 28 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: ANOVA for linear model Response 4: CUPRAC. Figure 4: Diagnostics of the FRAP model: (**a**) normal plot of residuals; (**b**) residuals vs. predicted plot; (**c**) predicted vs. actual plot.