Submitted:
26 September 2025
Posted:
29 September 2025
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Textiles Direct Dyeing
2.1.1. Raw Materials
2.1.2. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Testing
- ΔL∗, ΔC∗, ΔH∗ are the differences in luminance, chroma, and hue between the two colors;
- l and c are the adjustment factors for luminance and chroma, usually l = 2, c = 1;
- SL, SC, SH are weighting functions (tolerances) that scale the differences ΔL*, ΔC* and ΔH* according to the color reference values.
- identification of the target CIEHLC cylindrical coordinates of the color standard provided by the customer, using the spectrophotometer;
- calculating the dyeing recipe (Figure 3) by identifying the combination of three dyes, found in the database available in stock, and their share in the composition of the dye set, in order to reproduce the target color of the standard;
- preparation of samples, of the same size and shape, with uniform and defect-free surfaces for the test batch of pieces of both cotton and linen fabric;
- preparing the dyeing solution by dissolving the direct dye base, in the quantities indicated in the dyeing recipe, in an aqueous solution with neutral pH (Figure 4.a);
- introducing the samples and the dyeing solution into the cylindrical containers of the mechanical stirrer, after it has been previously brought to a temperature of 30 °C (Figure 4.b);
- raising the temperature to 40 °C and adding the neutral electrolyte (salt) in the desired concentrations to the dyeing solution for each individual sample;
- rapid increase in temperature, so as to reach the temperature indicated for each experimental test, in less than 10 minutes;
- establishing the sample time (30 minutes) from the moment the container is closed;
- extracting the samples at the end of the test time, for rinsing in two separate water baths, with detergent at 40 °C and cold water, respectively;
- squeezing and placing in an oven for drying (Figure 4.c);
- comparative reading of sample results against the color standard using a spectrophotometer and automatic calculation of the ΔE value according to the CMC (2:1) formula, used for color assessment in the field of textile materials.
2.2. New Proposed Systematic Problem Solving methodology in Six Sigma framework – DISMO
2.2.1. Describe Interconnections Between Process Variables – D
2.2.2. Identify the Objective Function – I
- Designing the survey form, by clearly listing the k selected OFs and the method of assigning ranks, distributing and completing it individually, without mutual influences, by each of the m stakeholders;
- Tabular recording of the ranks aij , associated with the characteristics Yj analyzed by each stakeholder i, in the individual forms, calculation of the sum of the ranks for each factor (by columns), Aj:
- Correction of the initial ranks aij, for stakeholders who assigned identical ranks for at least two factors, in order to establish the real position in the ordered hierarchy, tabular recalculation of the new sum of ranks for each factor, Ajc , and assignment, based on them, of the corrected global ranks, Rjc;
- Checking the adequacy of the data in the initial table with those in the corrected table, by calculating the correlation coefficient:
- Verifying the concordance between the points of view expressed by stakeholders, using the consensus coefficient:
- Testing the statistical significance of the consensus coefficient with the chi-square criterion, since k > 7:
- Graphical representation of the results of the ranking by a column chart, choosing as the axis of values a/Ajc, where a is a scale factor.
2.2.3. Select the Experimental Influence Factors – S
- Random balance, RB, which is a supersaturated factorial experiment, carried out with the aim of ordering a number of k factors according to the effect generated on an OF, whose program matrix is constructed by randomly distributing the factor levels, provided that each level assigned to any factor appears the same number of times [39,40].
- o Sum of squares for factor A:
- o Sum of squares for factor B:
- o Sum of squares for interaction AB:
- o Sum of squares for error (residuals):
- Establishing the corresponding number of degrees of freedom:
- Calculus of the mean of squares
- o Mean squares for factor A:
- o Mean squares for factor B:
- o Mean squares for interaction AB:
- o Mean squares error:
- o
- Fisher ratio for factor B:
- o Fisher ratio for interaction AB:
- Testing the statistical significance of the influence of factors and interactions.
2.2.4. Model the Investigated Process – M
- Design and implementation of the experimental program, after identifying the customers interest on different OFs and selecting the ”vital few” IFs with their ranges of influence;
- Model fitting by estimating regression coefficients of factors, bj, and interactions, bju:
- Model adequacy check and decisions regarding further research;
2.2.5. Optimize the Process – O
3. Results
3.1. D – Describe Interconnections Between Process Variables
3.2. I – Identify the Objective Function
- Y1 – color uniformity, meaning the absence of variations in the color characteristic parameters used in dyeing practice (hue, brightness, intensity) over the entire surface of the dyed article, which is conditioned by the migration capacity of the dyes, the dyeing speed, the temperature, the leveling auxiliaries with affinity for the fiber or dyes;
- Y2 – color fastness to household and industrial washing, i.e. the behavior of the color not to change its characteristics over time under the action of repeated washings;
- Y3 – finishing characteristics, depending on the operations performed manually on the painted product to give it a higher value or quality;
- Y4 – color fastness to perspiration, namely the stability of color characteristics over time when exposed to alkaline and acidic chemicals;
- Y5 – color difference, defined as the geometric distance between two color locations, in a color space, sensory equidistant;
- Y6 – color fastness to light, defined as the fabric ability to retain its original color when exposed both to UV radiation and natural or artificial light, by comparing its discoloration with a Blue Wool reference scale (1–8);
- Y7 – color fastness to water, meaning color stability in contact with pure water (humidity, rain, accidental washing);
- Y8 – rubbing resistance, described as the durability over time of color characteristics under repeated action of mechanical forces, tested both dry and wet;
- Y9 – delivery time, namely the deadlines established by commercial agreements for the delivery of products, after they have been subjected to the technological dyeing process.
3.3. S – Select the Experimental Influence Factors
3.4. M – Model the Investigated Process
- neutral electrolyte concentration, C [g / l];
- dyeing temperature, T [°C];
- support material, M.
3.5. O – Optimize the Process
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
| CI | Continuous Improvement |
| DMAIC | Define–Measure–Analyze–Improve–Control |
| OEE | Overall Equipment Effectiveness |
| KPI | Key Performance Indicator |
| DISMO | Describe–Identify–Select–Model–Optimize |
| OF | Objective Function |
| IF | Influence Factor |
| SA | Systemic Analysis |
| RCA | Root-Cause Analysis |
| RC | Rank Correlation |
| ANOVA | Analysis of Variance |
| RB | Random Balance |
| FFE | Full Factorial Experiment |
| CCFE | Central Composite Factorial Experiment |
| RSM | Response Surface Methodology |
References
- Pande, P.S.; Neuman, R.P.; Cavanagh, R.R. Six Sigma; All: Bucharest, Romania, 2008; p. 25.
- George, M.L.; Rowlands, D.; Price, M.; Maxey, J. Using DMAIC to Improve, Speed, Quality, and Cost. In The Lean Six Sigma Pocket Toolbox; McGraw Hill: New York, USA, 2005; pp. 1–26.
- Gaikwad, L.M.; Sunnapwar, V.K.; Teli, S.N.; Parab, A.B. Application of DMAIC and SPC to Improve Operational Performance of Manufacturing Industry: A Case Study. J. Inst. Eng. India Ser. C 2017, 100, pp. 229–238. [CrossRef]
- Jou, Y.-T.; Silitonga, R.M.; Lin, M.-C.; Sukwadi, R.; Rivaldo, J. Application of Six Sigma Methodology in an Automotive Manufacturing Company: A Case Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14497. [CrossRef]
- Hung, H. C.; Sung, M. H. Applying six sigma to manufacturing processes in the food industry to reduce quality cost. Scientific Research and Essays 2015, 6(3), pp. 580-591. [CrossRef]
- Adeodu, A.; Maladzhi, R.; Kana-Kana Katumba, M.G., Daniyan, I. Development of an improvement framework for warehouse processes using lean six sigma (DMAIC) approach. A case of third party logistics (3PL) services. Heliyon 2023, 9(4), e14621.
- Monday, LM. Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control (DMAIC) Methodology as a Roadmap in Quality Improvement. Glob J Qual Saf Healthc. 2022, 5(2), pp. 44-46. [CrossRef]
- Imansuri, F.; Chayatunnufus, T.; Safril, Sumasto, F.; Purwojatmiko, B.H.; Salati, D. Reducing Defects using DMAIC Methodology in an Automotive Industry. Spektrum Industri 2024, 22(1), pp. 1-13. [CrossRef]
- Kusumawardani, R.; Ana; Singgih, M.L. Achieving Manufacturing Excellence Using Lean DMAIC. Eng. Proc. 2025, 84, 7. [CrossRef]
- Mittal, A.; Gupta, P.; Kumar, V.; Al Owad, A.; Mahlawat, S.; Singh, S. The performance improvement analysis using Six Sigma DMAIC methodology: A case study on Indian manufacturing company. Heliyon. 2023, 9(3). [CrossRef]
- Mncwango, B.; Mdunge, Z.L. Unraveling the Root Causes of Low Overall Equipment Effectiveness in the Kit Packing Department: A Define–Measure–Analyze–Improve–Control Approach. Processes 2025, 13, 757. [CrossRef]
- Rodriguez Delgadillo, R.; Medini, K.; Wuest, T. A DMAIC Framework to Improve Quality and Sustainability in Additive Manufacturing—A Case Study. Sustainability 2022, 14, 581. [CrossRef]
- Hussain, T.; Jamshaid, H.; Sohail, A. Reducing defects in textile weaving by applying Six Sigma methodology: A case study. Int. J. Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage 2014; 8(2), pp. 95–104. [CrossRef]
- Mukhopadhyay, A. R.; Ray, S. Reduction of Yarn Packing Defects Using Six Sigma Methods: A Case Study. Quality Engineering 2006, 18(2), pp. 189–206. [CrossRef]
- Das, P.; Roy, S.; Antony, J. An Application of Six Sigma Methodology to Reduce lot-to-lot Shade Variation of Linen Fabrics. Journal of Industrial Textiles 2007, 36(3), pp. 227-251. [CrossRef]
- Liu, S.; Liu, Y.K.; Lo, K.C.; Kan, C. Intelligent techniques and optimization algorithms in textile colour management: a systematic review of applications and prediction accuracy. Fashion and Textiles 2024, 11(13). [CrossRef]
- El Khaoudi, M.; El Bakkali, M.; Messnaoui, R.; Cherkaoui, O.; Soulhi A. Literature review on artificial intelligence in dyeing and finishing processes. Data and Metadata 2024; 3:360. [CrossRef]
- Fazeli, F.; Tavanai, H.; Hamadani, A.Z. Application of Taguchi and Full Factorial Experimental Design to Model the Color Yield of Cotton Fabric Dyed with Six Selected Direct Dyes. Journal of Engineered Fibers and Fabrics 2012, 7(3), pp. 34–42.
- Pervez, M.N.; Yeo, W.S.; Lin, L.; Xiong, X.; Naddeo, V.; Cai. Y. Optimization and prediction of the cotton fabric dyeing process using Taguchi design-integrated machine learning approach. Sci Rep. 2023, 13:12363, pp. 1–14. [CrossRef]
- Moula, G.; Hosen, D.; Siddiquee, A.B.; Momin, A.; Kaisar, Z.; Al Mamun, A.; Islam, A. Effect of dye bath pH in dyeing of cotton knitted fabric with reactive dye (Remazol Yellow RR) in exhaust method: impact on color strength, chromatic values and fastness properties. Heliyon 2022, 8, e11246. [CrossRef]
- Antony, J. Six Sigma vs Lean: Some perspectives from leading academics and practitioners. Int. J. Productivity and Performance Management 2011, 60 (2), pp. 185-190. [CrossRef]
- Chakravorty, S.S. Six Sigma programs: An implementation model. Int. J. Production Economics 2009, 119, pp. 1–16. [CrossRef]
- Kumar, M.; Antony, J.; Tiwari, M.K. Six Sigma implementation framework for SMEs – a roadmap to manage and sustain the change. Int. J. Production Research 2011, 49(18), pp. 5449-5467. [CrossRef]
- Burkinshaw, S.M. Physico-chemical aspects of textile coloration; John Wiley & Sons: New York, USA, 2015; pp. 153–200. [CrossRef]
- Kiron, M. Classification, Application and Aftertreatment of Direct Dyes. Available online: https://textilelearner.net/direct-dye-classification/ (accessed on 07.12.2024).
- Dobrovăț, M.; Grigoriu, A.; Alexandrescu, I.; Bidalach, R.; Cernat, M.; Muscă, M.; Nagy, G.; Petraru, M.; Popescu, M; Îndrumar teoretic și practic pentru vopsirea materialelor textile. CERTEX: Bucharest, Romania, 1994; pp 29–40.
- Archive for the 'Direct Dyes' Category. Available online: https://www.worlddyevariety.com/direct-dyes (accessed on 07.12.2024).
- Kuehni, R. G. Quality Control: Color Difference Perception and Calculation. In Color Vision and Technology. AATCC, USA, 2008; pp. 200–222.
- Nguyen, T.A. Effect of Biodegradable and Metallic Mordants on Dyeing Cotton Fabric with Spent Coffee Grounds. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Green Technology and Sustainable Development (GTSD), Nha Trang, Vietnam, July 2022.
- ISO 105-J03:2009 Textiles -- Tests for colour fastness -- Part J03: Calculation of colour differences.
- Datacolor 650™ User Guide. Available online: https://www.datacolor.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Datacolor-650-600-400-Users-Guide-4230-0395M-Rev1.pdf (accessed on 07.12.2024).
- ISO 105-E04:2013 Textiles -- Tests for colour fastness -- Part E04: Colour fastness to perspiration.
- ISO 105-C06:2010 Textiles -- Tests for colour fastness -- Part C06: Colour fastness to domestic and commercial laundering.
- ISO 105-X12:2004 Textiles -- Tests for colour fastness -- Part X12: Colour fastness to rubbing.
- Lean Six Sigma DMAIC Process Explained with Example and Case Study. Available online: https://www.reddit.com/r/OperationExcellence/comments/ov7hsx/lean_six_sigma_dmaic_process_explained_with/ (accessed on 04.09.2020).
- Šibalija, T.V.; Majstorović, V.D. Integrating Lean with/within Six Sigma. Int. J. ’’Total Quality Management & Excellence’’ 2010, 38x(4).
- Six Sigma tools for DMAIC Phases. Available online: https://www.sprintzeal.com/blog/dmaic-tools (accessed on 04.09.2020).
- Gubencu, D.V. Îmbunătățirea continuă a proceselor tehnologice; Politehnica: Timișoara, Romania, 2023; pp. 154–173, pp. 232–246, pp. 355–382.
- Taloi, D. Optimizarea proceselor tehnologice, 2nd ed.; Academiei RSR: Bucharest, Romania, 1987; pp. 101–129, pp. 170–179.
- Hinkelmann, K.; Kempthorne, O. Design and Analysis of Experiments, Volume 2. Advanced Experimental Design; John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey, USA, 2005; pp. 241–278, pp. 596–607.
- Berenson, M.L.; Levine, D.M. The Analysis of Variance. In Basic Statistics for Business Concepts and Applications, 4th ed.; Prentice-Hall: New Jersey, USA, 1989; pp. 478–492.
- Montgomery, D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments, 5th ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, USA, 2001; pp. 218-276.
- Anthony, J. Design of Experiments for Engineers and Scientists, 2nd ed.; Elsevier: London, GB, 2014; pp. 95–124.
- Hinkelmann, K.; Kempthorne, O. Response Surface Design. In Design and Analysis of Experiments, Volume 1. Introduction to Experimental Design, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey, USA, 2008; pp. 497–531.
- Dean, A.; Voss, B. Response Surface Methodology. In Design and Analysis of Experiments; Springer: New York, USA, 1999; pp. 547–592.
- John, P.W.M. Response Surfaces. In Statistical Design and Analysis of Experiments; Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics: Philadelphia, USA, 1998; pp. 193–219.
- F Distribution Probability Calculator. Available online: https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/f-distribution (accessed on 04.04.2025).
- Wolela, A.D. Effect and Role of Salt in Cellulosic Fabric Dyeing. Adv. Res. Text. Eng. 2021, 6(1): 1061.
- Luan, F.; Xuan Xu, X.; Liu, H.; Dias Soeiro Cordeiro, M.N. Review of quantitative structure-activity/property relationship studies of dyes: recent advances and perspectives. Color. Technol. 2013, 129, pp. 173–186. [CrossRef]




















| Color Index No | Chemical Name | Commercial Name | Molecular Formula |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40291 | Direct Orange 39 | Direct Orange 2GL 120% | C46H28N8Na4O12S4 |
| 30145 | Direct Brown 95 | Direct Brown FRL/C | C31H20N6Na2O9S |
| 36250 | Direct Black 112 | Direct Gray GLL 200% | C58H34N15Na7O24S4 |
| Stakeholder | Quality Characteristics | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRi | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y4 | Y5 | Y6 | Y7 | Y8 | Y9 |
| CR1 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 3 |
| CR2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
| CR3 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| CR4 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 6 |
| CR5 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 1 |
| CR6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 4 |
| CR7 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 1 |
| CR8 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 2 |
| CR9 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 3 |
| CR10 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| CR11 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 5 |
| CR12 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 8 | 6 |
| CR13 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 3 |
| Aj | 28 | 54 | 62 | 91 | 29 | 65 | 49 | 94 | 47 |
| Rj | 1 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 3 |
| Stakeholder | Quality Characteristics | Ti | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRi | Y1 | Y2 | Y3 | Y4 | Y5 | Y6 | Y7 | Y8 | Y9 | |
| CR1 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 0 |
| CR2 | 1 | 3.5 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 2 | 3,5 | 9 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 18 |
| CR3 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 4.5 | 6 | 4.5 | 6 |
| CR4 | 5 | 4 | 7 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 6 | 0 |
| CR5 | 3 | 8.5 | 4.5 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 6 | 4.5 | 7 | 1.5 | 18 |
| CR6 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 0 |
| CR7 | 3 | 7 | 4.5 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 6 | 4.5 | 8.5 | 1.5 | 18 |
| CR8 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 0 |
| CR9 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 6 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 0 |
| CR10 | 9 | 5 | 4 | 6.5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 8 | 6.5 | 30 |
| CR11 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 8 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 5 | 0 |
| CR12 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 6.5 | 3 | 9 | 6.5 | 6 |
| CR13 | 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 4 | 9 | 3 | 0 |
| Ajc | 33 | 61 | 69.5 | 103 | 31 | 72 | 56.5 | 105 | 54 | ∑Ti = 96 |
| Rjc | 2 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 9 | 3 | - |
| Δ j2 | 1024 | 19 | 20.25 | 1444 | 1156 | 49 | 72.25 | 1600 | 121 | ∑Δj2= 5502.5 |
| Run No | Concentration | Material | ΔE (-) | Run No | Concentration | Material | ΔE (-) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | C1 | cotton | 0.98 | 10 | C1 | linen | 1.45 |
| 2 | C1 | cotton | 1.31 | 11 | C1 | linen | 1.68 |
| 3 | C1 | cotton | 1.18 | 12 | C1 | linen | 1.53 |
| 4 | C2 | cotton | 0.74 | 13 | C2 | linen | 1.15 |
| 5 | C2 | cotton | 0.52 | 14 | C2 | linen | 0.88 |
| 6 | C2 | cotton | 0.71 | 15 | C2 | linen | 0.89 |
| 7 | C3 | cotton | 0.73 | 16 | C3 | linen | 1.16 |
| 8 | C3 | cotton | 0.52 | 17 | C3 | linen | 1.34 |
| 9 | C3 | cotton | 0.89 | 18 | C3 | linen | 1.49 |
| Source | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean Square | Fisher Ratio |
p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: Concentration | SSA = 0.890844 | dfA = 2 | MSA = 0.445422 | FA = 19.00 | 0.0002 |
| B: Material | SSB = 0.88445 | dfB = 1 | MSB = 0.88445 | FB = 37.73 | 0.0001 |
| AB | SSAB = 0.0724 | dfAB = 2 | MSAB = 0.0362 | FAB = 1.54 | 0.2531 |
| Residual | SSe = 0.281333 | dfe = 12 | MSe = 0.0234444 | ||
| Total (corr.) | SST = 2.12903 | dfT = 17 |
| Contrast | Significance | Mean difference | +/- Limits |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 – C2 | yes | 0.54 | 0.192611 |
| C1 – C3 | yes | 0.333333 | 0.192611 |
| C2 – C3 | yes | -0.206667 | 0.192611 |
| Run No | A: C | B: T | C: M | Yi : ΔE (-) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| coded | (g/L) | coded | (°C) | coded | (-) | Yi1 | Yi2 | |
| 1. | -1 | 20 | -1 | 90 | -1 | cotton | 0.64 | 0.59 |
| 2. | +1 | 30 | -1 | 90 | -1 | cotton | 0.74 | 0.78 |
| 3. | -1 | 20 | +1 | 100 | -1 | cotton | 0.81 | 0.74 |
| 4. | +1 | 30 | +1 | 100 | -1 | cotton | 0.92 | 0.81 |
| 5. | -1 | 20 | -1 | 90 | +1 | linen | 0.82 | 0.89 |
| 6. | +1 | 30 | -1 | 90 | +1 | linen | 1.31 | 1.26 |
| 7 | -1 | 20 | +1 | 100 | +1 | linen | 1.12 | 1.06 |
| 8. | +1 | 30 | +1 | 100 | +1 | linen | 1.62 | 1.73 |
| Coeff. | Value | Coeff. | Value | Coeff. | Value | Coeff. | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| b0 | 0.99 | b2 | 0.11125 | b12 | 0.0125 | b23 | 0.045 |
| b1 | 0.15625 | b3 | 0,23625 | b13 | 0.0975 | - | - |
| Source | Sum of squares | Degrees of freedom | Mean Square | Fisher Ratio | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A: C | 0.390625 | 1 | 0.390625 | 96.97 | 0.0000 |
| B: T | 0.198025 | 1 | 0.198025 | 49.16 | 0.0001 |
| C: M | 0.893025 | 1 | 0.893025 | 221.70 | 0.0000 |
| AB | 0.0025 | 1 | 0.0025 | 0.62 | 0.4535 |
| AC | 0.1521 | 1 | 0.1521 | 37.76 | 0.0003 |
| BC | 0.0324 | 1 | 0.0324 | 8.04 | 0.0219 |
| blocks | 0.0009 | 1 | 0.0009 | 0.22 | 0.6491 |
| Total error | 0.032225 | 8 | 0.00402812 | ||
| Total (corr.) | 1.7018 | 15 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).