G Mohanty et al./Materials Research Bulletin 43(2008)1814-1828 ole 7 Power at 5% alpha level for effect of 05SD.(%) I SD(%) 2SD.(%) B 6666 D 444 14.60 499999999 14.60 ABD 14.60 94.40 Basis Sd= lo Table 8 Model validation data Concentration Electrode Error(%) (g/100m) separation(cm) potential (V) time(min deposit(mg/cm") diction 3.1218 2 250 8.825 0.1591 two runs were arbitrarily chosen. The predicted and the experimental values of these two runs are tabulated in Table 8 There is a good correlation between the predicted and experimental values which suggest that the model can predict data accurately in the experimental matrix. 3. Conclusions Statistical design of experiments was used to model the EPD of alumina from iso-propanol onto steel substrates. The dominant effects in decreasing order are: concentration, deposition time, applied potential, and electrode separation. Among the independent variables, the concentration contributes more than 50% towards the weight of deposit and hence is the most dominant factor. The most dominant interaction effect is that between concentration and deposition time. Electrode separation does not have much effect on the deposit as compared to the other main effects The model was analyzed and validated. A good correlation was observed between the predicted and experimental values suggesting that the model can predict data accurately in the experimental matrix Acknowledgement The authors are thankful to the Director, Regional Research Laboratory Bhubaneswar for the permission to publish this pape References [1] K Hasegawa, S. Kunugi, M. Tatsumisago, T Minami, J Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 15(1999)243-249 [2] w. Shan, Y. Zhang, w. Yang, C Ke, Z. Gao, Y. Ke, Y. Tang, Micropor. Mesopor. Mater. 69(2004)35-42. [3] M. Wei, AJ. Ruys, B K. Milthorpe, CC. Sorrell, J.H. Evans, J. Sol-Gel Sci. Technol. 21(2001)39-48. [4] T M. Sridhar, U.K. Mudali, Trans. Indian Inst Metals 56(3)(2003)221-230. [5 J.-H. Yum, S.-Y. Seo, S Lee, Y.-E. Sung, J Electrochem. Soc. 150(2)(2003)H47-H52 [6] M.J. Shane, J.B. Talbot, B G. Kinney, E. Sluzky. H.R. Hesse, J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 165(1994)334-340. [7] M.J. Shane, J B. Talbot, R.G. Schreiber, C L. Ross, E. Sluzky, K.R. Hesse, J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 165(1994)325-333 [8] M.T. Ochsenkuehn-Petropoulou, A.F. Altzoumailis, R. Argyropoulou, K.-M. Ochsenkuehn, Anal. Bioanal Chem 379(2004)792-795.two runs were arbitrarily chosen. The predicted and the experimental values of these two runs are tabulated in Table 8. There is a good correlation between the predicted and experimental values which suggest that the model can predict data accurately in the experimental matrix. 3. Conclusions Statistical design of experiments was used to model the EPD of alumina from iso-propanol onto steel substrates. The dominant effects in decreasing order are: concentration, deposition time, applied potential, and electrode separation. Among the independent variables, the concentration contributes more than 50% towards the weight of deposit and hence is the most dominant factor. The most dominant interaction effect is that between concentration and deposition time. Electrode separation does not have much effect on the deposit as compared to the other main effects. The model was analyzed and validated. A good correlation was observed between the predicted and experimental values suggesting that the model can predict data accurately in the experimental matrix. Acknowledgement The authors are thankful to the Director, Regional Research Laboratory Bhubaneswar for the permission to publish this paper. References [1] K. Hasegawa, S. Kunugi, M. Tatsumisago, T. Minami, J. Sol–Gel Sci. Technol. 15 (1999) 243–249. [2] W. Shan, Y. Zhang, W. Yang, C. Ke, Z. Gao, Y. Ke, Y. Tang, Micropor. Mesopor.Mater. 69 (2004) 35–42. [3] M. Wei, A.J. Ruys, B.K. Milthorpe, C.C. Sorrell, J.H. Evans, J. Sol–Gel Sci. Technol. 21 (2001) 39–48. [4] T.M. Sridhar, U.K. Mudali, Trans. Indian Inst. Metals 56 (3) (2003) 221–230. [5] J.-H. Yum, S.-Y. Seo, S. Lee, Y.-E. Sung, J. Electrochem. Soc. 150 (2) (2003) H47–H52. [6] M.J. Shane, J.B. Talbot, B.G. Kinney, E. Sluzky, H.R. Hesse, J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 165 (1994) 334–340. [7] M.J. Shane, J.B. Talbot, R.G. Schreiber, C.L. Ross, E. Sluzky, K.R. Hesse, J. Colloid Interf. Sci. 165 (1994) 325–333. [8] M.T. Ochsenkuehn-Petropoulou, A.F. Altzoumailis, R. Argyropoulou, K.-M. Ochsenkuehn, Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 379 (2004) 792–795. G. Mohanty et al. / Materials Research Bulletin 43 (2008) 1814–1828 1827 Table 7 Model evaluation data Term Power at 5% alpha level for effect of 0.5 S.D. (%) 1 S.D. (%) 2 S.D. (%) A 14.60 43.10 94.40 B 14.60 43.10 94.40 C 14.60 43.10 94.40 D 14.60 43.10 94.40 AB 14.60 43.10 94.40 AC 14.60 43.10 94.40 AD 14.60 43.10 94.40 BD 14.60 43.10 94.40 CD 14.60 43.10 94.40 ABD 14.60 43.10 94.40 Basis S.D. = 1.0. Table 8 Model validation data Run Concentration (g/100 ml) Electrode separation (cm) Applied potential (V) Deposition time (min) Weight of alumina deposit (mg/cm2 ) Point Prediction Error (%) 1 10 1.5 200 2 15.35 15.8292 3.1218 2 10 2.5 250 1 8.825 8.82882 0.1591