Table A6.

One-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tuckey’s multiple comparison to evaluate the effect of different pH values on T/C. p > 0.0123 = not significant (ns); p < 0.033 = *; p < 0.0021 **; p < 0.0001 = ****.

ANOVA Summary
F	66.89
p value	<0.0001
p value summary	****
Significant diff. among means (p < 0.05)?	Yes
R square	0.9663
ANOVA table
	SS	DF	MS	F (DFn. DFd)	p value
Treatment (between columns)	6.890	6	1.148	F (6, 14) = 66.89	p < 0.0001
Residual (within columns)	0.2403	14	0.01717
Total	7.130	20
Tukey’s multiple comparisons test
Number of families	1
Number of comparisons per family	21
Alpha	0.05
	Mean Diff.	95% CI of diff.	Summary	Adjusted p Value
<4.5 vs. 5.5–4.5	−0.8333	−1.199 to −0.4680	****	<0.0001
<4.5 vs. 6.5–5.5	−1.186	−1.551 to −0.8205	****	<0.0001
<4.5 vs. 6.5–7.5 (HEC16)	−1.417	−1.782 to −1.051	****	<0.0001
<4.5 vs. 8–9	0.000	−0.3653 to 0.3653	ns	>0.9999
<4.5 vs. 10	0.000	−0.3653 to 0.3653	ns	>0.9999
<4.5 vs. Control	−1.000	−1.365 to −0.6347	****	<0.0001
5.5–4.5 vs. 6.5–5.5	−0.3525	−0.7178 to 0.01281	ns	0.0618
5.5–4.5 vs. 6.5–7.5 (HEC16)	−0.5833	−0.9486 to −0.2180	**	0.0013
5.5–4.5 vs. 8–9	0.8333	0.4680 to 1.199	****	<0.0001
5.5–4.5 vs. 10	0.8333	0.4680 to 1.199	****	<0.0001
5.5–4.5 vs. Control	−0.1667	−0.5320 to 0.1986	ns	0.7086
6.5–5.5 vs. 6.5–7.5 (HEC16)	−0.2309	−0.5961 to 0.1344	ns	0.3737
6.5–5.5 vs. 8–9	1.186	0.8205 to 1.551	****	<0.0001
6.5–5.5 vs. 10	1.186	0.8205 to 1.551	****	<0.0001
6.5–5.5 vs. Control	0.1858	−0.1795 to 0.5511	ns	0.6052
6.5–7.5 (HEC16) vs. 8–9	1.417	1.051 to 1.782	****	<0.0001
6.5–7.5 (HEC16) vs. 10	1.417	1.051 to 1.782	****	<0.0001
6.5–7.5 (HEC16) vs. Control	0.4167	0.05137 to 0.7820	*	0.0210
8–9 vs. 10	0.000	−0.3653 to 0.3653	ns	>0.9999
8–9 vs. Control	−1.000	−1.365 to −0.6347	****	<0.0001
10 vs. Control	−1.000	−1.365 to −0.6347	****	<0.0001