Food Waste Composting at Faculty of Engineering …
185
Table 6 ANOVA to compare mean of the summary of food waste composition collection
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Week 1
5
364.95
72.99
56.24215
Week 2
5
347.25
69.45
19.61365
Week 3
5
398.35
79.67
20.3995
Week 4
5
392.3357
78.46713
13.93328
Source of Variation SS
df
MS
F
P-value
F crit
ANOVA
Between groups
342.9461 3
114.3154 4.149809 0.023594 3.238872
Within groups
440.7543 16
27.54714
Total
783.7005 19
Table 7 ANOVA to compare mean of the summary of food waste density collection
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Week 1
5
23728.29
4745.658
2178827
Week 2
5
17500
3500
1061543
Week 3
5
18588.4
3717.68
174407.7
Week 4
5
3367.28
673.456
87657.59
Source of Variation SS
df
MS
F
P-value
F crit
ANOVA
Between groups
45619084 3
15206361 17.36662 2.76E-05 3.238872
Within groups
14009739 16
875608.7
Total
59628822 19
Density of Food Waste
The ANOVA results on the effect of days towards the density of food waste is shown
in Table 7, with F = 17.367 and p < 0.0000276. The critical value of F is 3.239.
Since the F statistics obtained is greater than the critical value (17.367 > 3.239),
it suggested that there is a statistically significant difference in the density of food
waste collected among the four weeks of data collected at the significance level of
0.05. On the other hand, the p-value is much lower than 0.05 suggesting that at least
two means are significantly different from one another. Hence, it can be concluded
that the densities of the food waste were dependent on the period the food waste
collection.
Moisture Content of Food Waste
Table 8 shows the results of one-way ANOVA analyses of the moisture content of
the food waste, with F = 1.4 and p < 0.279. The critical value of F is 3.239. There is
no statistically significant difference in mean for the four weeks listed for analyses at
the significance level of 0.05 because the F statistic obtained is less than the F critical
value (1.4 < 3.239). Therefore, it can be concluded that the difference in the period
185
Table 6 ANOVA to compare mean of the summary of food waste composition collection
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Week 1
5
364.95
72.99
56.24215
Week 2
5
347.25
69.45
19.61365
Week 3
5
398.35
79.67
20.3995
Week 4
5
392.3357
78.46713
13.93328
Source of Variation SS
df
MS
F
P-value
F crit
ANOVA
Between groups
342.9461 3
114.3154 4.149809 0.023594 3.238872
Within groups
440.7543 16
27.54714
Total
783.7005 19
Table 7 ANOVA to compare mean of the summary of food waste density collection
Groups
Count
Sum
Average
Variance
Week 1
5
23728.29
4745.658
2178827
Week 2
5
17500
3500
1061543
Week 3
5
18588.4
3717.68
174407.7
Week 4
5
3367.28
673.456
87657.59
Source of Variation SS
df
MS
F
P-value
F crit
ANOVA
Between groups
45619084 3
15206361 17.36662 2.76E-05 3.238872
Within groups
14009739 16
875608.7
Total
59628822 19
Density of Food Waste
The ANOVA results on the effect of days towards the density of food waste is shown
in Table 7, with F = 17.367 and p < 0.0000276. The critical value of F is 3.239.
Since the F statistics obtained is greater than the critical value (17.367 > 3.239),
it suggested that there is a statistically significant difference in the density of food
waste collected among the four weeks of data collected at the significance level of
0.05. On the other hand, the p-value is much lower than 0.05 suggesting that at least
two means are significantly different from one another. Hence, it can be concluded
that the densities of the food waste were dependent on the period the food waste
collection.
Moisture Content of Food Waste
Table 8 shows the results of one-way ANOVA analyses of the moisture content of
the food waste, with F = 1.4 and p < 0.279. The critical value of F is 3.239. There is
no statistically significant difference in mean for the four weeks listed for analyses at
the significance level of 0.05 because the F statistic obtained is less than the F critical
value (1.4 < 3.239). Therefore, it can be concluded that the difference in the period