Table 5.
Source | Sums of squares | df | Mean square | Test statistic | p |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
A) MANOVA | 3,20 | 0.971 | 0.003 | ||
PCA1 | 2.392 | 7 | 0.832 | 1.767 | 0.163 |
Error | 7.535 | 16 | 0.471 | ||
PCA2 | 3.319 | 7 | 0.474 | 1.803 | 0.156 |
Error | 4.206 | 16 | 0.263 | ||
PCA3 | 3.782 | 7 | 0.540 | 2.303 | 0.079 |
Error | 3.754 | 16 | 0.235 | ||
B) MANOVA | 3,18 | 0.681 | 0.001 | ||
PCA1 | 15.708 | 7 | 2.244 | 14.208 | <0.001 |
Error | 2.211 | 14 | 0.158 | ||
PCA2 | 0.932 | 7 | 0.133 | 0.163 | 0.989 |
Error | 11.456 | 14 | 0.818 | ||
PCA3 | 2.829 | 7 | 0.404 | 0.775 | 0.618 |
Error | 7.304 | 14 | 0.522 |
Responses are summarized by their principal component scores and those scores subjected to multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). The test statistic was a Hotelling–Lawley trace (MANOVA) or F (univariate ANOVA). Treatment was six concentrations of each polychlorinated biphenyl 126 (PCB126) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and two controls (water only and water plus acetone), with two or three replicates of each.
PCA = principal component analysis.