expected response values for moisture content, water activity,
texture (brittleness), colour-L, colour-a and colour-b were 10.70,
0.57, 6.54, 46.90, -0.89 and 11.28, respectively.
The adequacy of the response surface equations were checked
by the comparison of the experimental and fitted values predicted
by the response regression models. The experimental and
predicted values are given in Table 5. No significant (p>0.05)
difference was found between the values. The experimental
response values were shown to be in agreement with the predicted
ones. Closeness between the experiment and predicted values
confirmed the adequacy of the corresponding response surface
models employed for describing the differences obtained in the
dried kaffir lime leaves as a function of drying conditions.
expected response values for moisture content, water activity,texture (brittleness), colour-L, colour-a and colour-b were 10.70,0.57, 6.54, 46.90, -0.89 and 11.28, respectively.The adequacy of the response surface equations were checkedby the comparison of the experimental and fitted values predictedby the response regression models. The experimental andpredicted values are given in Table 5. No significant (p>0.05)difference was found between the values. The experimentalresponse values were shown to be in agreement with the predictedones. Closeness between the experiment and predicted valuesconfirmed the adequacy of the corresponding response surfacemodels employed for describing the differences obtained in thedried kaffir lime leaves as a function of drying conditions.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
