Fitted model development and validation for Ti/IrO2-Sb2O3 anode system
According to CCD, thirteen experimental conditions of two factors were tested and response results were obtained as in Table 2. These results were used in model development by the least square method. The two responses (i.e. anodic charge and OCP) and two factors (i.e. Ir and Sb concentration) were correlated base on the second-order polynomial function (Eq. 1). The experimental results were used to develop quadratic regression models as in the equations 2 and 3 below.
$${Y}_{1}= 1.3269 -19.4463 {x}_{1}+ 0.6692 {x}_{2}+ 77.6207{x}_{1}^{2} -0.1931 {x}_{2}^{2}+ -3.6016 {x}_{1}{x}_{2} \left(2\right)$$
(R2 = 94.5%, R2adj = 90.7%)
$${Y}_{2}= 0.791 -29.491 {x}_{1}+ 3.585 {x}_{2}+ 124.6 {x}_{1}^{2} -0.774 {x}_{2}^{2}+ -20.667 {x}_{1}{x}_{2} \left(3\right)$$
(R2 = 90.2%, R2adj = 83.1%)
Where x1 and x2 denote Ir, Sb concentrations and Y1 and Y2 denote anodic charge value and OCP value respectively. In the equations 2 and 3, the coefficients of x1 and x2 (i.e. coefficients with one factor) represent the effect of that particular factor. For an example, the coefficient values 19.4463x1 in Eq. 2 shows the Ir concentration effect on anodic charge (i.e. Y1).
Moreover, coefficients with two factors (e.g.\(3.6016 {x}_{1}{x}_{2}\)) and coefficients with second-order (i.e. \(3.6016 {x}_{1}{x}_{2}\)) represent both interaction between two factors effect on response and quadratic effect of each factor on response, respectively. The synergetic effect is implied by the negative sign and the antagonistic effect is indicated by the positive sigh. Therefore, according to Eqs. 2 and 3 Ir concentration had antagonistic individual effect on both anodic charge and OCP values while Sb concentration gave synergetic effect on them individually
In detail these two models showed high coefficient of determination values (i.e. R2). They were 94.5% and 90.2% for anodic charge and OCP values respectively. Therefore, there was better agreement between experimental and predicted results. Since R2 is close to 1, it indicates that above two models explained the predictions satisfactorily. Hence, outcome results implied that RMS was suitable for anode material optimization.
Table 2: CCD and the results obtained
In order to ensure that the fitted model is adequately compatible with the real system, validating the model is required. Therefore, above two models on anodic charge and OCP were tested to prevent them from misleading optimization results. The model validation was done with both graphical and experimentally. In graphically studied, the nature of residuals by using both plots on residuals vs. fitted values (Fig. 1) and residuals vs. observed values (Fig. 2). Since residuals means the difference between fitted Y value and observed Y value, those graphs gave detail picture of residuals nature.
Moreover, the intention of plotting residuals vs. fitted values was to test the functional part of the model while the graph on residuals vs. observed values was used in identifying drifts of the process of the model. According to the results both plots show no significant difference in values. They were randomly distributed and there was no obvious pattern. Therefore, models were capable to provide adequate approximations to the real system conditions. In addition, residuals were tested with normal probability plots. As in Fig. 3 normal probability plots of residuals data lay on theoretical straight line and were not significant deviations. According to the theory if there is departure from straight line, it means residuals are not in normal distribution. Since Fig. 3 also was satisfied the requirements, the models were success in graphical validation.
Then numerical model validation was conducted with ANOVA analysis. The resulted probabilities of p values in the regression were 0.002 and 0.000 for anodic charge and OCP models respectively. Due to very low p > F values in ANOVA table results, those models were highly significant. Moreover the lack of fit test s’ p values were compared. Since this lack of fit explains the variation of data around the fitted model, when it gives larger p values the model does not fit with data well. Therefore in the case of lack of fit does not fit the model, it will be significant. In Table 3 ANOVA results observed that there was large p values of 0.010 and 0.035 for lack of fit of anodic charge and OCP models. Hence, the models explained the data well.
Table 3: ANOVA results for 2 responses (Anodic charge and OCP)
| DF | Sum of square | Mean square | F-value | p > F |
Anodic charge |
Regression | 5 | 0.596225 | 0.119245 | 12.83 | 0.002 |
Total error | 7 | 0.065052 | 0.009293 | | |
Lack of fit | 3 | 0.060172 | 0.020057 | 16.44 | 0.010 |
Pure error | 4 | 0.004880 | 0.001220 | | |
OCP |
Regression | 5 | 0.040714 | 0.008143 | 24.28 | 0.000 |
Total error | 7 | 0.002347 | 0.000335 | | |
Lack of fit | 3 | 0.002019 | 0.000673 | 8.20 | 0.035 |
Pure error | 4 | 0.000328 | 0.000082 | | |
Optimization analysis
The optimized conditions were identified through three dimensional surface plots (Fig. 4) and two dimensional contour plots (Fig. 5). Since these surface-counter plots are the graphical representation of regression models, they were developed as a function of Ir and Sb concentrations. Therefore, these results help to visualize relationship between response and experimental factor levels. As seen in Fig. 4 (a) anodic charge was increased when Ir concentration was lower and Sb concentration was high. The catalytic activity of the Sb enhances the electrochemically active area. This caused to increment in anodic charge values. Similar pattern was observed for the OCP variations (Fig. 4 (b)). With increasing Sb concentrations and decreasing Ir concentrations OCP values were high. Since, higher the electrode stability, it gives high OCP values. Therefore, this type of Ir and Sb combination caused improvement of electrodes’ stability. Moreover both surface and counter plots showed that at Ir concentration higher than 0.1 g/L, both anodic charge and OCP values began to decrease.
Since these anodic charge and OCP are two individual independent responses, their optimization conditions are different. In order to verify exact optimized levels of these factors, response surface-contour analyses were conducted based on Eqs. 2 and 3. According to the Eq. 4 optimum conditions were identified where the derivation is zero.
$$\frac{\partial Y}{\partial {X}_{1}}= \frac{\partial Y}{\partial {X}_{2}}=0$$
4
It was 0.08964 g/L and 0.92426 g/L Ir and Sb concentrations respectively. At these optimized conditions the model predicted Ti/IrO2-Sb2O3 anodes’ optimum anodic charge as 0.36251 mC and OCP as -0.08696 mV. More over optimized conditions for simultaneous responses can be visualized by overlain counter plot of anodic charge and OCP (Fig. 6).
Moreover, in order to confirm the results obtained from the model and experiments, two additional experiments were conducted on optimized conditions. Results of those experiments are shown in Table 4. Experimental and predicted model optimization condition values are in very close agreement. .
Table 4: Confirmation of experiment results of optimized conditions
| Coating material composition (g/L) | Responses |
Ir concentration | Sb concentration | Anodic charge (mC) | OCP (mV) |
Experimental values | 0.08964 | 0.924 | 0.3763 | -0.08581 |
Predicted values | 0.08964 | 0.924 | 0.36251 | -0.08696 |
Error (%) | | | 3.08 | 1.32 |