Hoàn thiện quy trình bảo quản mãng cầu dai annona squamosa l

BAN QUẢN LÝ KHU NÔNG NGHIỆP CÔNG NGHỆ CAO TP HCM TRUNG TÂM NGHIÊN CỨU VÀ PHÁT TRIỂN NÔNG NGHIỆP CƠNG NGHỆ CAO BÁO CÁO NGHIỆM THU HỒN THIỆN QUY TRÌNH BẢO QUẢN MÃNG CẦU DAI (Annona squamosa L.) KS Nguyễn Thị Hiếu Trang Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, tháng 01/2018 BAN QUẢN LÝ KHU NÔNG NGHIỆP CÔNG NGHỆ CAO TP HCM TRUNG TÂM NGHIÊN CỨU VÀ PHÁT TRIỂN NÔNG NGHIỆP CÔNG NGHỆ CAO BÁO CÁO NGHIỆM THU (Đã chỉnh sửa theo góp ý Hội đờng nghiệm thu) HỒN THIỆN QUY TRÌNH BẢO QUẢN MÃNG CẦU DAI (Annona squamosa L.) CƠ QUAN CHỦ TRÌ (Ký tên, đóng dấu xác nhận) CHỦ NHIỆM ĐỀ TÀI (Ký tên) Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh, tháng 01/2018 dai 2+ 2+ C u2+ T gói zeolite/Cu2+/ thùng 100 M CL C TÓM T T ii DANH M C T VI T T T v DANH SÁCH B NG vi DANH SÁCH HÌNH x TÀI M U T NG QUAN TÀI LI U 1.1 Cây mãng c u dai 1.1.1 Phân lo i 1.1.2 Giá tr ng c a trái mãng c u 1.1.3 Tình hình s n xu t mãng c u Vi t Nam 1.1.4 Các th i k chín c a qu mãng c u dai m c a trái mãng c u sau thu ho ch 1.1.6 o qu n mãng c u hi n 13 1.1.6.1 o qu n hóa h c 13 1.1.6.2 o qu n b ng lo i màng 14 1.1.6.3 14 1.1.6.4 o qu n l nh 15 1.1.6.5 15 1.2 Gi i thi u v chitosan 15 1.3 Các ch t h p ph ethylene 17 1.4 Zeolite 19 1.5 Nh ng nghiên c c 21 1.5.1 c 21 1.5.2 c 22 26 2.1 V t li u nghiên c u 26 2.1.1 Th BM20-QT QLKH m nghiên c u 26 Trang i 2.1.2 V t li u nghiên c u 26 2.1.3 Hóa ch t thí nghi m 26 2.1.4 Thi t b thí nghi m 26 2.2 N i dung nghiên c u 27 2.2.1 N i dung 1: Nghiên c u th m thu hái thích h p c a qu mãng c u dai nh m kéo dài th i gian b o qu n gi m hao h t sau thu ho ch 28 2.2.2 N i dung 2: Nghiên c u tác nhân lo i b ethylene b o qu n qu mãng c u dai sau thu ho ch 29 2.2.2.1 Thí ngi m 1: Kh o sát s bi n thiên c a ethylene n i sinh c a qu mãng c u sau thu ho ch 29 2.2.2.2 Thí nghi m 2: Kh o sát kh p ph khí ethylene c a zeolite/Cu2+ 30 2.2.3 N i dung 3: Nghiên c u kh p ph ethylene b o qu n trái mãng c u dai sau thu ho ch 31 2.4 lý s li u: 35 36 3.1 Quá trình b o qu n mãng c u dai b ng chitosan theo t ng th 3.1.1 Quá trình b o qu n mãng c u dai t i th nhi 20oC 363.1.1.1 S chitosan theo t ng th 3.1.1.3 ng c a th th i gian b o qu n 3.1.1.4 20oC36 ) th i gian b o qu n m thu ho 20oC 40 ng c a th ng c a th dai th i gian b o qu n 3.1.1.6 m thu ho ns m thu ho ng t ng 20oC 42 n s hao h t kh ng c a mãng c u 20oC 43 m quan c a Mãng c u dai b o qu n 3.1.2 Quá trình b o qu n mãng c u dai t i th nhi 20oC 38 ng Vitamin C (mg%) (mg/g) c a mãng c u dai th i gian b o qu n 3.1.1.5 m thu ho ch khác i màu s c v qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng m thu ho ch m thu ho ch.36 nhi 200C 44 m thu ho ch khác 10oC 47 BM20-QT QLKH Trang ii 3.1.2.1 S th i màu s c v qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan theo t ng m thu ho ch 10oC 47 qu n ) th i gian b o 10oC 50 ng vitamin C (mg%) th i gian b o qu n 10oC 51 ng t ng (mg/g) 10oC 52 th i gian b o qu n t kh b o qu n ng (%) th i gian 10oC 54 3.2 Nghiên c u tác nhân lo i b ethylene b o qu n qu mãng c u dai sau thu ho ch 58 3.2.1 Kh o sát s bi n thiên c a ethylene n i sinh c a qu mãng c u sau thu ho ch 58 p ph khí ethylene c a zeolite/Cu2+ 61 3.2.2 Kh o sát kh 3.3 Kh p ph ethylene c a zeolite/Cu2+ b o qu n trái mãng c u dai sau thu ho ch 64 3.3.1 Kh sau thu ho ch p ph ethylene c a zeolite/Cu2+ b o qu n trái mãng c u dai 10oC 64 3.3.1.1 S v i zeolite/Cu2+ i màu s c v qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p 10oC 64 3.3.1.2 S v i zeolite/Cu2+ c ng c a qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p 10oC 67 3.3.1.3 S ng Vitamin C (mg%) c a qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p v i zeolite/Cu2+ 3.3.1.4 S 10oC 68 ng t ng (mg/g) c a qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p v i zeolite/Cu2+ 3.3.1.5 S hao h t kh 10oC 70 ng t nhiên (%) c a qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p v i zeolite/Cu2+ 10oC 71 m quan c a Mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p BM20-QT QLKH Trang iii zeolite 100C 73 nhi 3.3.2 Kh p ph ethylene c a zeolite/Cu2+ b o qu n trái mãng c u dai sau thu ho ch 20oC 75 3.3.2.1 S i màu s c v qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p v i zeolite/Cu2+ 20oC 75 3.3.2.2 S c ng c a qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p v i zeolite/Cu2+ 20oC 78 3.3.2.3 S ng vitamin C (mg%) c a qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p v i zeolite/Cu2+ 3.3.2.4 S 20oC 79 ng t ng (mg/g) c a qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p v i zeolite/Cu2+ 20oC 81 3.3.2.5 Hao h t kh ng (%) c a qu mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p v i zeolite/Cu2+ 20oC 82 m quan c a Mãng c u dai b o qu n b ng chitosan k t h p zeolite nhi 100C 200C 83 3.4 Quy trình b o qu n mãng c u dai 86 88 4.1 K t lu n 88 4.2 Ki n ngh 88 TÀI LI U THAM KH O 89 PH L C BM20-QT QLKH Trang iv CTS Chitosan CS EMAP Equilibrium modified atmosphere packaging 1MCP 1-methilciclopropene MA Modified atmosphere LLDPE Linear low density polyethylene SSC PE Poly-etylen TCVN T.P BM20-QT QLKH Trang v Trang 1.1 2.1 26 2.2 27 3.1 30 3.2 35 20oC 3.3 37 20oC 3.4 20oC 3.5 38 40 3.6 20oC 3.7 41 42 20oC 3.8 44 100C BM20-QT QLKH Trang vi 3.9 46 10oC 3.10 10oC 48 3.11 49 3.12 50 3.13 10oC ng c a nhi 3.14 quan c a trái mãng c u dai b o qu th th i gian b o qu n 52 n ch m thu ho ch khác 53 10oC trình b o qu n 3.15 3.16 55 C C 57 3.17 59 3.18 61 10oC 3.19 64 10oC 3.20 65 10oC BM20-QT QLKH Trang vii Venkatram, A., & Bhagwan, A (2013) Storage life improvement of custard antioxidants Journal of Applied Horticulture, 15(3) Vishnu, P.K.N and Sudhakarda, R.D.V (2000) Effect of storage temperature on ripening and quality of custard apple (Annona squamosa L.) fruits The Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, 75, 546-550 Wang, X., Du, Y., Fan, L., Liu, H., & Hu, Y (2005) Chitosan-metal complexes as antimicrobial agent: synthesis, characterization and structure -activity study.Polymer Bulletin, 55(1-2), 105-113 Wongs-Aree, C., Noichinda, S., & Yahia, E M (2011) Sugar apple (Annona squamosa L.) and atemoya (A cherimola Mill.× A squamosa L.) Postharvest biology and technology of tropical and subtropical fruits Volume 4: mangosteen to white sapote, 399-426 Yahia, E M (Ed.) (2011) Postharvest Biology and Technology of Tropical and Subtropical Fruits: Fundamental Issues (Vol 2) Elsevier Zagory, D (1995) Ethylene-removing packaging In Active food packaging (pp 38-54) Springer US BM20-QT QLKH Trang 93 79) sau: -5 A B BM20-QT QLKH Trang , khơng có g 5 BM20-QT QLKH Trang 1,2 Mùi 0,8 One-way ANOVA: CHI SO L versus NT Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT 1, 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F -Value P-Value NT 244.630 81.5433 6523.47 0.000 Error Total 11 244.730 0.100 0.0125 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.111803 99.96% 99.94% 99.91% Means NT N Mean StDev 95% CI 32.6333 0.0577 (32.4845, 32.7822) 29.3333 0.0577 (29.1845, 29.4822) 3 27.5333 0.0577 (27.3845, 27.6822) 20.300 0.200 ( 20.151, 20.449) Pooled StDev = 0.111803 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT BM20-QT QLKH Trang N Mean Grouping 32.6333 A 29.3333 3 27.5333 C 20.300 D B One-way ANOVA: CHI SO L versus NT 2N 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT 2N 20 DO 1, 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value NT 2N 20 DO 208.337 69.4456 2873.61 0.000 Error 0.193 0.0242 Total 11 208.530 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.155456 99.91% 99.87% 99.79% Means NT 2N 20 DO N Mean StDev 95% CI 43.2333 0.0577 (43.0264, 43.4403) 36.3667 0.1155 (36.1597, 36.5736) 3 32.400 0.265 ( 32.193, 32.607) 33.8000 0.1000 (33.5930, 34.0070) Pooled StDev = 0.155456 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT 2N 20 DO N Mean Grouping 43.2333 A 36.3667 B 33.8000 C 3 32.400 D Means that not share a letter are significantly different One-way ANOVA: CHI SO L versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different BM20-QT QLKH Trang Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 1, 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 165.402 55.1342 3482.16 Error 0.127 0.0158 Total 11 165.529 0.000 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.125831 99.92% 99.89% 99.83% Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean StDev 95% CI 48.3000 0.1000 (48.1325, 48.4675) 40.1667 0.0577 (39.9991, 40.3342) 3 39.8000 0.1000 (39.6325, 39.9675) 39.300 0.200 ( 39.132, 39.468) Pooled StDev = 0.125831 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 48.3000 A 40.1667 B 3 39.8000 C 39.300 D Means that not share a letter are significantly different One-way ANOVA: CHI SO L versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 1, 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F -Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 165.402 55.1342 3482.16 Error Total 0.000 0.127 0.0158 11 165.529 BM20-QT QLKH Trang Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.125831 99.92% 99.89% 99.83% Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean StDev 95% CI 48.3000 0.1000 (48.1325, 48.4675) 40.1667 0.0577 (39.9991, 40.3342) 3 39.8000 0.1000 (39.6325, 39.9675) 39.300 0.200 ( 39.132, 39.468) Pooled StDev = 0.125831 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 48.3000 A 40.1667 B 3 39.8000 C 39.300 D Means that not share a letter are significantly different One-way ANOVA: CHI SO L versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F -Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 29.8422 14.9211 746.06 0.000 Error 0.1200 0.0200 Total 29.9622 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.141421 99.60% 99.47% 99.10% Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean StDev 95% CI 45.6667 0.1155 (45.4669, 45.8665) 3 42.333 0.208 ( 42.134, 42.533) BM20-QT QLKH Trang 41.4333 0.0577 (41.2335, 41.6331) Pooled StDev = 0.141421 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 45.6667 A 3 42.333 41.4333 B C Means that not share a letter are significantly differe nt One-way ANOVA: CHI SO L versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F -Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 29.8422 14.9211 746.06 0.000 Error 0.1200 0.0200 Total 29.9622 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.141421 99.60% 99.47% 99.10% Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean StDev 95% CI 45.6667 0.1155 (45.4669, 45.8665) 3 42.333 0.208 ( 42.134, 42.533) 41.4333 0.0577 (41.2335, 41.6331) Pooled StDev = 0.141421 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 45.6667 A 3 42.333 41.4333 B C Means that not share a letter are significantly different BM20-QT QLKH Trang One-way ANOVA: CHI SO b versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 1, 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F -Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 16.7100 5.57000 115.24 0.000 Error 0.3867 0.04833 Total 11 17.0967 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.219848 97.74% 96.89% 94.91% Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean StDev 95% CI 22.5667 0.0577 (22.2740, 22.8594) 22.0667 0.0577 (21.7740, 22.3594) 3 20.6667 0.1528 (20.3740, 20.9594) 19.567 0.404 ( 19.274, 19.859) Pooled StDev = 0.219848 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 22.5667 A 22.0667 A 3 20.6667 B 19.567 C Means that not share a letter are significantly different Welcome to Minitab, press F1 for help One-way ANOVA: CHI SO b versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values BM20-QT QLKH Trang NT NGAY 20 DO 1, 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F -Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 86.4692 28.8231 1921.54 Error 0.1200 0.0150 Total 11 86.5892 0.000 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.122474 99.86% 99.81% 99.69% Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean StDev 95% CI 27.5000 0.1000 (27.3369, 27.6631) 26.2667 0.0577 (26.1036, 26.4297) 3 22.1333 0.1528 (21.9703, 22.2964) 21.1333 0.1528 (20.9703, 21.2964) Pooled StDev = 0.122474 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 27.5000 A 26.2667 B 3 22.1333 21.1333 C D Means that not share a letter are significantly different One-way ANOVA: CHI SO b versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 1, 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Ad j MS F-Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 227.898 75.9661 14221.43 Error 0.043 0.0053 Total 11 227.941 0.000 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.0730867 99.98% 99.97% 99.96% BM20-QT QLKH Trang Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean StDev 95% CI 40.1000 0.1000 (40.0027, 40.1973) 33.9033 0.1050 (33.8060, 34.0006) 3 30.0100 0.0100 (29.9127, 30.1073) 28.9933 0.0153 (28.8960, 29.0906) Pooled StDev = 0.0730867 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 40.1000 A 33.9033 B 3 30.0100 28.9933 C D Means that not share a letter are significantly different One-way ANOVA: CHI SO b versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F -Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 15.7818 7.89088 114.80 0.000 Error 0.4124 0.06873 Total 16.1942 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.262170 97.45% 96.60% 94.27% Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean StDev 95% CI 38.633 0.231 ( 38.263, 39.004) 3 36.2567 0.1242 (35.8863, 36.6270) 35.533 0.371 ( 35.163, 35.904) Pooled StDev = 0.262170 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons BM20-QT QLKH Trang 10 Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 38.633 A 3 36.2567 B 35.533 C Means that not share a letter are significantly different One-way ANOVA: DO CUNG versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different S Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 1, 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F -Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 0.000122 0.000041 Error 0.000007 0.000001 Total 11 0.000129 44.21 0.000 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.0009574 94.31% 92.18% 87.20% StDev 95% CI Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean 0.155000 0.001000 (0.153725, 0.156275) 0.157000 0.001000 (0.155725, 0.158275) 3 0.160333 0.000577 (0.159059, 0.161608) 0.163333 0.001155 (0.162059, 0.164608) Pooled StDev = 0.000957427 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 0.163333 A 3 0.160333 0.157000 C 0.155000 C B Means that not share a letter ar e significantly different One-way ANOVA: DO CUNG versus NT NGAY 20 DO BM20-QT QLKH Trang 11 Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 1, 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F -Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 0.001278 0.000426 836.38 Error 0.000004 0.000001 Total 11 0.001282 0.000 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.0007136 99.68% 99.56% 99.28% StDev 95% CI Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean 0.123333 0.000577 (0.122383, 0.124283) 0.136667 0.001155 (0.135717, 0.137617) 3 0.148700 0.000608 (0.147750, 0.149650) 0.1480 0.0000 ( 0.1470, 0.1490) Pooled StDev = 0.000713559 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 5% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 0.148700 A 3 0.136667 0.123333 0.1480 A B C Means that not share a letter are significantly different One-way ANOVA: DO CUNG versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At least one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 1, 2, 3, BM20-QT QLKH Trang 12 Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 1.51986 0.506620 1193.89 Error 0.00339 0.000424 Total 11 1.52325 0.000 Model Summary S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.0205996 99.78% 99.69% 99.50% StDev 95% CI Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean 0.9513 0.0412 ( 0.9239, 0.9788) 0.125933 0.000058 (0.098508, 0.153359) 3 0.130100 0.000100 (0.102674, 0.157526) 0.132367 0.000153 (0.104941, 0.159792) Pooled StDev = 0.0205996 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 0.9513 A 0.132367 B 3 0.130100 B 0.125933 B Means that not share a letter are significantly different One-way ANOVA: DO CUNG versus NT NGAY 20 DO Method Null hypothesis All means are equal Alternative hypothesis At lea st one mean is different Equal variances were assumed for the analysis Factor Information Factor Levels Values NT NGAY 20 DO 2, 3, Analysis of Variance Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value NT NGAY 20 DO 0.000025 0.000012 Error 0.000014 0.000002 Total 0.000039 5.45 0.045 Model Summary BM20-QT QLKH Trang 13 S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred) 0.0015096 64.52% 52.69% 20.16% StDev 95% CI Means NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean 0.118633 0.000252 (0.116501, 0.120766) 3 0.120833 0.000115 (0.118701, 0.122966) 0.12270 0.00260 ( 0.12057, 0.12483) Pooled StDev = 0.00150960 Tukey Pairwise Comparisons Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence NT NGAY 20 DO N Mean Grouping 0.12270 A 3 0.120833 A B 0.118633 B Means that not share a letter are significantly different BM20-QT QLKH Trang 14