Table 2.
Regression analysis, desirability criteria, RSM responses, and the kinetic release model
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Results of regression analysis for responses | |||||
| Response | Size (nm) | PDI | EE (%) of DSF | ||
|
| |||||
| R-squared | 0.9462 | 0.9211 | 0.9821 | ||
| Adj R-squared | 0.8924 | 0.8423 | 0.9643 | ||
| Adeq precision | 12.8825 | 10.8629 | 25.0208 | ||
| Lack of fit | 0.2724 | 0.5708 | 0.1358 | ||
| B. Desirability criteria and predicted values for the variables | |||||
| Number | Lipid content (µM) | Surfactant per cholesterol, molar ratio | Desirability | ||
| 198.225 | 2 | 188.89 | 198.225 | ||
| C. The optimized responses obtained by RSM and the experimental data for the same responses under the optimum conditions | |||||
| Parameters | Predicted | Experimental data | |||
| N-DSF | Empty Niosome (Nio) | ||||
| Particle size | 188.89 | 189.7 | 164.4 | ||
| PDI | 0.183 | 0.187 | 0.17 | ||
| EE (%) of DSF | 80.1 | 79.3 | - | ||
| Zeta potential (mV) | - | -20.4 | -22.6 | ||
| D. The kinetic release models and the parameters obtained for optimum N-DSF | |||||
| Mathematical model | Precision | Free DSF | Free DSF | N-DSF (pH=5.4) | |
| Zero | R2 | 0.4796 | 0.4796 | 0.7333 | |
| First | R2 | 0.9401 | 0.9401 | 0.5362 | |
| Higuchi | R2 | 0.6214 | 0.6214 | 0.8411 | |
| Korsmeyer-Peppa’s | R2 | 0.7697 | 0.7697 | 0.9266 | |
| n | 0.5571 | 0.5571 | 0.5421 | ||
|
| |||||
RSM; Response surface methodology, PDI; Polidispercity index, EE; Entrapment efficiency, and N-DSF; Disulfiram-loaded Niosomes.