che452lect07
Download
Report
Transcript che452lect07
ChE 452 Lecture 07
Statistical Tests Of Rate Equations
1
Last Time Considered
Paramecium Example
Error r2
Lineweaver
Burke
9454 0.910
Eadie Hofstee
5647 0.344
Nonlinear
Least Squares
4919 0.905
k1K 2 [par]
rp
1 K 2 [par]
k K [par]
TotalError abs rp 1 2
1
K
[
par
]
Data
2
2
r2 does not indicate goodness of fit
2
Today: Statistical Analysis Of
Rate Data
•
•
Can we do a calculation to tell if one
model fits the data better than
another model?
Is the result statistically significant?
3
Method: Calculate A Variance
Vi
2
experimentalrate calculatedrate
po int s
numberof samples numberof independent parametersin model
(3.B.1)
substituting in equations (3.A.7) yields
total error from Equ. 3.A.7
v1
number of samples number of parameters
(3.B.2)
Usually model with the lowest variance works best!
4
Limitations Of Using Variance To
Assess Which Model Fits Best
•
•
•
Assumes error in data
2
• Follows a “ distribution” (i.e. error is random)
Usually good assumption in direct rate data
It is not good to assume 1/rate follows 2
distribution, so one needs to be careful about
linearizing data.
5
For Our Example
4919
Vi
164
32po int s 2parameters
(3.B.3)
6
For Our Example
Continued
Eadie-Hofstee:
5647
Vi
188
32 2
(3.B.4)
while for the Lineweaver-Burk Plot:
9454
Vi
315
32 2
(3.B.5)
The non-linear least squares fit the data best.
7
Subtlety
We are never sure whether the model
with the lowest variance is the best one
Instead we can only say that it fits the data
best
The model that fits the data best is
usually the best one
Still there always is the possibility that a
model fits better because the errors in the
data line up to make it seem better
8
Next: Using An F-Test To Tell If the
Difference Is Statistically Significant
We want to do a statistical test to
calculate the probability that one model
fits better than another
9
Using An F-Test To Tell If the
Difference Is Statistically Significant
Method: Compute Finverse, given by
variance in weaker mod el
Finverse
variance in better mod el
(3.B.6)
If Finverse is large enough, the model is
statistically better.
10
Statistics: Gives A Value of Finverse
That Is “Large Enough”
Table 3.B.2 Values of Finverse as a function of nf
when both models have the same value of nf
nf =
Significance Level
90%
95%
99%
99.5%
1
39.86
161.5
4052
16212
2
9.0
19
99
199
3
5.39
9.28
29.46
47
4
4.11
6.39
15.98
23
nf=number of data points - parameters in the model
(3.B.8)
To read the table, if nf=4, you need Finverse to be at least 15.98
to be 99% sure that the better model really is better.
There will still be 1% chance that the differences caused by
random errors in the data
11
Assumptions In Using the
Values Of F In Table 3.B.2
Models are independent (non-nested)
2 distribution of errors
Not mathematically rigorous in our example since
models not independent! (Gives small error in
Finverse)
12
Fdist Gives The Probability
That A Given Model Is Better
% confidence=1-FDIST (Finverse, nf for
better model, nf for worse model)
(3.B.9)
Not mathematically rigorous, but close.
13
Example: Is The Non-Linear Least Squares
Better Than LineWeaver-Burke
Variance Lineweaver-Burke = 321
Variance non-linear = 185
nf=30
315
Finverse
1.92
164
I used Excel to calculate
1-FDIST (1.92, 30, 30)=0.96
96% sure non-linear least squares fits better
4% chance difference due to noise in data.
14
Another Example: Comparing
Two Models
Previously fit data to
k1K 2 [par]
rp
1 K 2 [par]
(3.A.1)
Does the following work better?
rp
k1K 2 [par]
1 K 2 [par]
1 .5
Is the difference statistically significant?
15
The Spreadsheet Is The
Same As In Problem 3.A:
Table 3.C.1 Part of the spreadsheet used to calculate values of k- 1 and K 2 to minimize the total error
A
01
B
C
D
10
Conc
0
2
3.6
4
5.2
7.8
8
k_1= 1940 (Calculated by solver)
K_2= 0.00188
(Calculated by solver)
rate
equation 3.C.1^1.5
0
=k_1*K_2*A4/(1+K_2*A4^1.5)
10.4
=k_1*K_2*A5/(1+K_2*A5^1.5)
12.8
=k_1*K_2*A6/(1+K_2*A6^1.5)
23.2
=k_1*K_2*A7/(1+K_2*A7^1.5)
17.6
=k_1*K_2*A8/(1+K_2*A8^1.5)
46.4
=k_1*K_2*A9/(1+K_2*A9^1.5)
23.2
=k_1*K_2*A10/(1+K_2*A10^1.5)
11
8
46.4
=k_1*K_2*A11/(1+K_2*A11^1.5) =ABS(C11-$B11)^$D$1
12
11
32
=k_1*K_2*A12/(1+K_2*A12^1.5) =ABS(C12-$B12)^$D$1
13
14.4
34.4
=k_1*K_2*A13/(1+K_2*A13^1.5) =ABS(C13-$B13)^$D$1
14
15.6
44.8
=k_1*K_2*A14/(1+K_2*A14^1.5) =ABS(C14-$B14)^$D$1
15
15.6
63.2
=k_1*K_2*A15/(1+K_2*A15^1.5) =ABS(C15-$B15)^$D$1
16
16
36
=k_1*K_2*A16/(1+K_2*A16^1.5) =ABS(C16-$B16)^$D$1
17
16.6
46.4
=k_1*K_2*A17/(1+K_2*A17^1.5) =ABS(C17-$B17)^$D$1
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
2
0.00188
error
=ABS(C4-$B4)^$D$1
=ABS(C5-$B5)^$D$1
=ABS(C6-$B6)^$D$1
=ABS(C7-$B7)^$D$1
=ABS(C8-$B8)^$D$1
=ABS(C9-$B9)^$D$1
=ABS(C10-$B10)^$D$1
16
F Test To Determine Which
Model Is Better
V3.A.1 the variance of equation 3.A.1 is
4919
V3.A.1
164
32po int s 2parameters
V3.C.1 the variance of equation 3.C.1 is
4576
V3.C.1
152
32po int s 2parameters
The ratio of variance is
Finverse
164
1.07
152
17
Calculate Probability Second
Model Is Better From FDIST
probability=1-FDIST (1.07,30,30)=0.58.
58% chance second model is better
42% probability first model is better
Note: Not rigorous number
18
Pitfalls Of Direct
Measurements
• It is not uncommon for more than one rate
equation may fit the measured kinetics within
the experimental uncertainties.
• Just because data fits, does not mean rate equation
is correct.
• The quality of kinetic data vary with the
equipment used and the method of temperature
measurement and control.
• Data taken on one apparatus is often not directly
comparable to data taken on different apparatus.
19
Pitfalls Continued
•
It is not uncommon to observe 10-30% variations
in rate taken in the same apparatus on different
days.
•
•
•
Usually, these variations can be traced to variations in
the temperature, pressure, or flow rate in the reactor.
The procedure used to fit the data can have a
major effect on the values of the parameters
obtained in the data analysis.
The quality of the regression coefficient (r2) does
not tell you how well a model fits your data.
20
Class Question
What did you learn new today?
21