C0 = Intercept coefficient; C1 = slope
coefficient; Err[Ci] = standard error of coefficient
‘Ci’; p -value = probability Ci ≠
0 (< 0.05); MAD = mean absolute deviation; RMSD =
root-mean-squared deviation. See Table 1 and 2 for
abbreviations.
a Deviations between IPR and
IPA; calculated from Eq. 10.
b Deviations between IPR and
IPA; calculated from Eq. 11.
coefficients (C1) were significant with values for four
of the FAME being in the range 0.95-0.99, which was close to the desired
value of unity (1) for a model confirmation analysis. The results
for MeC18:2 yielded a lower C1 coefficient (0.87),
suggesting that its model equation under predicted IPA,
with respect to its corresponding experimental IPRvalues. This was confirmed for four of the six data pairs evaluated for
MeC18:2, specifically the IPR data at T = 50, 60, 90 and
100 °C (323.15, 333.15, 363.15 and 373.15 K).
The MAD and RMSD results obtained from application of Eqs. 10 and 11 to
(IPR, IPA) data pairs are summarized inTable 3 . These data showed generally low values where MAD =
0.12-0.63 and RMSD = 0.19-0.98. MeC18:2 had the highest RMSD value, a
result that may have been influenced by the relatively low
C1 coefficient in its model confirmation equation. On
the other hand, CaME yielded the highest MAD value (0.63), despite
having a relatively high C1 coefficient (0.99) while the
MAD value of MeC18:2 was slightly lower.
The residuals (IPR − IPA) calculated
from applying the Model A type equations for the five FAME are
presented in Figure 3 . In general, the residuals were ≤ 0.51
for 20 of the 26 total data pairs. Of the remaining six data pairs, only
one residual exceeded 1.43, which was for