Deazaneplanocin Response surface analysis Formulation optimization by

3.4. Response surface analysis
3.5. Formulation optimization by desirability function
3.6. Validation of RSM results
Three batches of experiments were carried out using the recommended optimum process parameters to check the suitability of the model equation for predicting the optimum response. 92.05 ± 0.47% for FeCl3-based extraction yield, 92.47 ± 0.84% and 85.59 ± 0.33% for Fe2(SO4)3-based extraction were obtained and these results were very close to the predicted values obtained from the optimization analysis and showed more than 'Deazaneplanocin' 98% validities of the predicted model for every extraction yield, confirming that the model was indeed adequate for predicting the impact of formulation composition on the both extraction yields.
3.7. Fatty Deazaneplanocin methyl ester (FAME) analysis
Table 4.
Estimated FAME composition after extraction at determined conditions.No.CoagulantVariablesFAME (%)H2O2 taxonomy (%)H2SO4 (%)Time (min)Temp (°C)1FeCl3209012086.222FeCl3039012088.923Fe2(SO4)3209012065.144Fe2(SO4)3039012087.831234(Myristate)C14:01.621.801.821.871.681.861.972.02(Pentadecanoate)C15:00.840.900.850.921.391.431.481.53(Palmitate)C16:0240.49260.84253.11260.79242.16243.63251.05256.71(Palmitoleate)C16:11.591.782.292.382.112.162.582.59(Stearate)C18:089.2496.8193.7496.5194.2694.7093.495.68(Oleate)C18:1n9c182.44197.55192.45198.59142.90143.84199.78203.92(Linoleate)C18:2n6c173.90188.02184.62191.3450.9451.22188.58191.55(Gamma-linoleate)C18:3n61.982.062.141.101.761.82(Linoleate)C18:3n3c36.5139.4039.0140.444.314.3517.9318.32Others97.88110.84104.21109.37102.71106.03108.26115.63Total826.48897.94874.16904.34652.47650.32866.74889.76FAME (%)86.2288.9265.1487.83Full-size tableTable optionsView in workspaceDownload as CSV