Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Design of Experiments workshop # 1 Simple comparison experiments Name _______ALEX MUOZ ARPAIZ____________ Date __25/02/13____ Score _________

10.40

In a study conducted at Virginia Tech, the plasma ascorbic acid levels of pregnant women were compared for smokers versus nonsmokers. Thirty-two women in the last three months of pregnancy, free of major health disorders and ranging in age from 15 to 32 years, were selected for the study. Prior to the collection of 20 ml of blood, the participants were told to avoid breakfast, forgo their vitamin supplements, and avoid foods high in ascorbic acid content. From the blood samples, the following plasma ascorbic acid values were determined, in milligrams per 100 milliliters: Plasma Ascorbic Acid Values Nonsmokers Smokers 0.97 1.16 0.48 0.72 0.86 0.71 1 0.85 0.98 0.81 0.58 0.68 0.62 0.57 1.18 1.32 0.64 1.36 1.24 0.98 0.78 0.99 1.09 1.64 0.9 0.92 0.74 0.78 0.88 1.24 0.94 1.18 Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that there is a difference between plasma ascorbic acid levels of smokers and nonsmokers? Assume that the two sets of data came from normal populations with unequal variances. Use a P-value.

1 Workshop 1. DOE

Probability Plot of Nonsmokers


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 0.9158 0.2144 24 0.212 0.837

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

0.50

0.75

1.00 Nonsmokers

1.25

1.50

Probability Plot of Smokers


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 0.9763 0.3915 8 0.239 0.678

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

0.0

0.5

1.0 Smokers

1.5

2.0

10.41

A study was conducted by the Department of Zoology at Virginia Tech to determine if there is a significant difference in the density of organisms at two different stations located on Cedar Run, a secondary stream in the Roanoke River drainage basin. Sewage from a sewage treatment plant and overflow from the Federal

2 Workshop 1. DOE

Mogul Corporation settling pond enter the stream near its headwaters. The following data give the density measurements, in number of organisms per square meter, at the two collecting stations: Number of Organisms per Square Meter Station 1 Station 2 5030 4980 2800 2810 13,700 11,910 4670 1330 10,730 8130 6890 3320 11,400 26,850 7720 1230 860 17,660 7030 2130 2200 22,800 7330 2190 4250 1130 15,040 1690 Can we conclude, at the 0.05 level of significance, that the average densities at the two stations are equal? Assume that the observations come from normal populations with different variances.
Two-sample T for estacin1 vs estacin2 estacin1 estacin2 N 16 12 Mean 9898 4121 StDev 7874 2480 SE Mean 1969 716

Difference = mu (estacin1) - mu (estacin2) Estimate for difference: 5776.67 95% CI for difference: (1375.93, 10177.41) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 2.76

P-Value = 0.013

DF = 18

Probability Plot of estacin1


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 9898 7874 16 0.413 0.297

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

-10000

10000 estacin1

20000

30000

3 Workshop 1. DOE

Probability Plot of estacin2


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 4121 2480 12 0.698 0.050

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

2500

5000 estacin2

7500

10000

10.45

A taxi company manager is trying to decide whether the use of radial tires instead of regular belted tires improves fuel economy. Twelve cars were equipped with radial tires and driven over a prescribed test course. Without changing drivers, the same cars were then equipped with regular belted tires and driven once again over the test course. The gasoline consumption, in kilometers per liter, was recorded as follows: Kilometers per Liter Radial Tires Belted Tires 4.2 4.1 4.7 4.9 6.6 6.2 7 6.9 6.7 6.8 4.5 4.4 5.7 5.7 6 5.8 7.4 6.9 4.9 4.7 6.1 6 5.2 4.9

Car 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

4 Workshop 1. DOE

Can we conclude that cars equipped with radial tires give better fuel economy than those equipped with belted tires? Assume the populations to be normally distributed. Use a P-value in your conclusion.

Probability Plot of Radial Tires


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 5.75 1.053 12 0.222 0.780

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

6 Radial Tires

Probability Plot of Belted Tires


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 5.608 0.9940 12 0.348 0.414

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

6 Belted Tires

5 Workshop 1. DOE

Summary for Radial Tires


A nderson-D arling N ormality Test A -S quared P -V alue M ean S tD ev V ariance S kew ness Kurtosis N M inimum 1st Q uartile M edian 3rd Q uartile M aximum 5.0811 4.7526 9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
Mean Median 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5

0.22 0.780 5.7500 1.0527 1.1082 0.03366 -1.30654 12 4.2000 4.7500 5.8500 6.6750 7.4000 6.4189 6.6737 1.7874

95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tDev 0.7457

Summary for Belted Tires


A nderson-D arling N ormality Test A -S quared P -V alue M ean S tD ev V ariance S kew ness Kurtosis N M inimum 1st Q uartile M edian 3rd Q uartile M aximum 4.9768 4.7526 9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
Mean Median 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5

0.35 0.414 5.6083 0.9940 0.9881 -0.04206 -1.41504 12 4.1000 4.7500 5.7500 6.6500 6.9000 6.2399 6.6421 1.6878

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tDev 0.7042

Two-sample T for Radial Tires vs Belted Tires Radial Tires Belted Tires N 12 12 Mean 5.75 5.608 StDev 1.05 0.994 SE Mean 0.30 0.29

Difference = mu (Radial Tires) - mu (Belted Tires)

6 Workshop 1. DOE

Estimate for difference: 0.141667 95% CI for difference: (-0.727529, 1.010862) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 0.34

P-Value = 0.738

DF = 21

10.43

According to published reports, practice under fatigued conditions distorts mechanisms that govern performance. An experiment was conducted using 15 college males, who were trained to make a continuous horizontal right-to-left arm movement from a micro switch to a barrier, knocking over the barrier coincident with the arrival of a clock sweep hand to the 6 oclock position. The absolute value of the difference between the time, in milliseconds, that it took to knock over the barrier and the time for the sweep hand to reach the 6 oclock position (500 msec) was recorded. Each participant performed the task five times under prefatigue and postfatigue conditions, and the sums of the absolute differences for the five performances were recorded. Absolute Time Differences Subject Prefatigue Postfatigue 1 158 91 2 92 59 3 65 215 4 98 226 5 33 223 6 89 91 7 148 92 8 58 177 9 142 134 10 117 116 11 74 153 12 66 219 13 109 143 14 57 164 15 85 100 An increase in the mean absolute time difference when the task is performed under postfatigue conditions would support the claim that practice under fatigued conditions distorts mechanisms that govern performance. Assuming the populations to be normally distributed, test this claim.

7 Workshop 1. DOE

Probability Plot of Prefatigue


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 92.73 36.43 15 0.279 0.594

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

50

100 Prefatigue

150

200

Probability Plot of Postfatigue


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 146.9 55.71 15 0.426 0.274

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

50

100

150 Postfatigue

200

250

300

Paired T for Prefatigue - Postfatigue Prefatigue Postfatigue Difference N 15 15 15 Mean 92.733 146.867 -54.1333 StDev 36.433 55.707 83.0025 SE Mean 9.407 14.383 21.4311

8 Workshop 1. DOE

95% CI for mean difference: (-100.0986, -8.1681) T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs not = 0): T-Value = -2.53

P-Value = 0.024

Two-Sample T-Test and CI: Prefatigue, Postfatigue


Two-sample T for Prefatigue vs Postfatigue Prefatigue Postfatigue N 15 15 Mean 92.7 146.9 StDev 36.4 55.7 SE Mean 9.4 14

Difference = mu (Prefatigue) - mu (Postfatigue) Estimate for difference: -54.1333 95% CI for difference: (-89.6045, -18.6622)

T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -3.15 P-Value = 0.004 DF = 24

10.44

In a study conducted by the Department of Human Nutrition and Foods at Virginia Tech, the following data were recorded on sorbic acid residuals, in parts per million, in ham immediately after dipping in a sorbate solution and after 60 days of storage: Sorbic Acid Residual in Ham Before Storage After Storage 1 224 116 2 270 96 3 400 239 4 444 329 5 590 437 6 660 597 7 1400 689 8 680 576

Slice

Assuming the populations to be normally distributed, is there sufficient evidence, at the 0.05 level of significance, to say that the length of storage influences sorbic acid residual concentrations?

9 Workshop 1. DOE

Probability Plot of Before Storage


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 583.5 370.8 8 0.577 0.089

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

-500

500 Before Storage

1000

1500

Probability Plot of After Storage


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 384.9 225.8 8 0.257 0.612

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

250 500 After Storage

750

1000

10 Workshop 1. DOE

Summary for Before Storage


A nderson-D arling N ormality Test A -S quared P -V alue M ean S tDev V ariance S kew ness Kurtosis N M inimum 1st Q uartile M edian 3rd Q uartile M aximum 273.49 267.04 9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
Mean Median 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

0.58 0.089 583.50 370.82 137504.86 1.71659 3.66704 8 224.00 302.50 517.00 675.00 1400.00 893.51 726.34 754.71

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tDev 245.17

Summary for After Storage


A nderson-D arling N ormality Test A -S quared P -V alue M ean S tDev V ariance S kew ness Kurtosis N M inimum 1st Q uartile M edian 3rd Q uartile M aximum 196.11 114.71 9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
Mean Median 100 200 300 400 500 600

0.26 0.612 384.88 225.79 50982.70 -0.03352 -1.65853 8 96.00 146.75 383.00 591.75 689.00 573.64 602.92 459.55

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tDev 149.29

Two-sample T for Before Storage vs After Storage Before Storage After Storage N 8 8 Mean 584 385 StDev 371 226 SE Mean 131 80

Difference = mu (Before Storage) - mu (After Storage) Estimate for difference: 198.625

11 Workshop 1. DOE

95% CI for difference: (-139.217, 536.467) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = 1.29

P-Value = 0.222

DF = 11

10.53

A study was conducted at the Department of Veterinary Medicine at Virginia Tech to determine if the strength of a wound from surgical incision is affected by the temperature of the knife. Eight dogs were used in the experiment. Hot and cold incisions were made on the abdomen of each dog, and the strength was measured. The resulting data appear below. Dog 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 Knife Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Hot Cold Strength 5120 8200 10000 8600 10000 9200 10000 6200 10000 10000 7900 5200 510 885 1020 460

(a) Write an appropriate hypothesis to determine if there is a significant difference in strength between the hot and cold incisions. (b) Test the hypothesis using a paired t-test. Use a P-value in your conclusion.

12 Workshop 1. DOE

Probability Plot of Strength


Normal
99 Mean StDev N AD P-Value 6456 3789 16 1.117 <0.005

95 90 80

Percent

70 60 50 40 30 20 10 5

-5000

5000 Strength

10000

15000

Summary for Strength


A nderson-D arling N ormality Test A -S quared P -V alue < M ean S tD ev V ariance S kew ness Kurtosis N M inimum 1st Q uartile M edian 3rd Q uartile M aximum 4436.8 4147.2 9 5 % C onfidence Inter vals
Mean Median 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

1.12 0.005 6455.9 3789.2 14358244.1 -0.70338 -1.16444 16 460.0 2045.0 8050.0 10000.0 10000.0 8475.1 10000.0 5864.6

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

95% C onfidence Interv al for M ean 95% C onfidence Interv al for M edian 95% C onfidence Interv al for S tDev 2799.1

Paired T for Dog - Strength Dog Strength Difference N 16 16 16 Mean 4.50 6455.94 -6451.44 StDev 2.37 3789.23 3790.84 SE Mean 0.59 947.31 947.71 P-Value = 0.000

95% CI for mean difference: (-8471.43, -4431.44) T-Test of mean difference = 0 (vs not = 0): T-Value = -6.81

13 Workshop 1. DOE