One factor ANOVA

Mean n Std. Dev Table 1 shows the evaluation of the shoe

2.051 20 0.4987 TASHINE terms of shine. Result showed that Tream
3.299 20 0.6828 TBSHINE
Treatment B got a mean score of 3.299 int
interpreted as excellent. The control got t
4.751 20 0.4175 TCSHINE
5.000 20 0.0000 CONTROL
3.775 80 1.2826 Total

ANOVA table
Statistically, there is a significant differenc
Source SS df MS F p-value computed p-value = 1.40E-33 is lesser th
Treatment 113.0735 3 37.69118 169.55 1.40E-33 no significant difference which means tha
Error 16.8947 76 0.22230 terms of shine.
Total 129.9682 79

Post hoc analysis

p-values for pairwise t-tests
TASHINE TBSHINE TCSHINE CONTROL
2.051 3.299 4.751 5.000
TASHINE 2.051 Table 2 shows the post hoc analysis p-value
TBSHINE 3.299 2.12E-12 significant difference with Treaments B, C a
TCSHINE 4.751 2.69E-29 5.20E-15 with Treatment C and the control. Treatme
CONTROL 5.000 1.05E-31 3.87E-18 .0990 the control. Lastly, the control and Treatme

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 76)

TASHINE TBSHINE TCSHINE CONTROL
2.051 3.299 4.751 5.000
TASHINE 2.051
TBSHINE 3.299 8.37
TCSHINE 4.751 18.11 9.74
CONTROL 5.000 19.78 11.41 1.67

critical values for experimentwise error rate:

0.05 2.63
0.01 3.23

One factor ANOVA

Mean n Std. Dev

Table 4 shows the evaluation of the sho
2.034 20 0.4440 TAODOR terms of odor. Result showed that Tream
3.199 20 0.8402 TBODOR Treatment B got a mean score of 3.199 i
4.751 20 0.4175 TCODOR interpreted as excellent. The control got
4.374 20 0.4841 CONTROL
3.590 80 1.2099 Total

ANOVA table
Source SS df MS F p-value Statistically, there is a significant differen
Treatment 90.7319 3 30.24395 92.23 2.92E-25
computed p-value = 2.92E-25 is lesser t
no significant difference which means th
Error 24.9223 76 0.32793 terms of odor.
 Statistically, there is a significant differen
computed p-value = 2.92E-25 is lesser t
no significant difference which means th
terms of odor.
Total 115.6542 79

Post hoc analysis

p-values for pairwise t-tests
TAODOR TBODOR CONTROL TCODOR
2.034 3.199 4.374 4.751
Table 5 shows the post hoc analysis p-va
significant difference with Treaments B,
TAODOR 2.034 Treatment C and the control. Lastly, the
TBODOR 3.199 1.00E-08
CONTROL 4.374 7.22E-21 7.94E-09
TCODOR 4.751 2.00E-24 8.88E-13 .0407

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 76)

TAODOR TBODOR CONTROL TCODOR
2.034 3.199 4.374 4.751
TAODOR 2.034
TBODOR 3.199 6.43
CONTROL 4.374 12.92 6.49
TCODOR 4.751 15.00 8.57 2.08

critical values for experimentwise error rate:

0.05 2.63
0.01 3.23

One factor ANOVA

Mean n Std. Dev Table 7 shows the evaluation of the

terms of texture. Result showed tha
2.235 20 0.6672 TATEXTURE Treatment B got a mean score of 3.
3.317 20 0.8195 TBTEXTURE interpreted as excellent. The contro
4.752 20 0.3214 TCTEXTURE
5.000 20 0.0000 CONTROL
3.826 80 1.2514 Total

ANOVA table Statistically, there is a significant diff

Source SS df MS F p-value computed p-value = 1.46E-27 is les
Treatment 100.5356 3 33.51186 109.87 1.46E-27 of no significant difference which m
terms of texture.
Error 23.1802 76 0.30500
Total 123.7158 79

Post hoc analysis

p-values for pairwise t-tests
TATEXTUREBTEXTURECTEXTURE CONTROL
Table 8 shows the post hoc analysis
2.235 3.317 4.752 5.000
significant difference with Treamen
TATEXTURE 2.235 with Treatment C and the control. L
TBTEXTURE 3.317 2.72E-08
TCTEXTURE 4.752 1.94E-23 4.29E-12
CONTROL 5.000 8.84E-26 8.12E-15 .1589

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 76)

TATEXTUREBTEXTURECTEXTURE CONTROL
2.235 3.317 4.752 5.000
TATEXTURE 2.235
TBTEXTURE 3.317 6.20
TCTEXTURE 4.752 14.41 8.21
CONTROL 5.000 15.84 9.64 1.42

critical values for experimentwise error rate:

0.05 2.63
0.01 3.23

One factor ANOVA

Mean n Std. Dev Table 9 shows the evaluation

2.101 20 0.6041 TACOLOR terms of color. Result showed
Treatment B got a mean score
3.349 20 0.7280 TBCOLOR interpreted as excellent. The c
4.684 20 0.2542 TCCOLOR
5.000 20 0.0000 CONTROL
3.783 80 1.2552 Total

ANOVA table Statistically, there is a significa

Source SS df MS F p-value computed p-value = 1.29E-31
Treatment 106.2410 3 35.41368 147.64 1.29E-31 no significant difference which
Error 18.2298 76 0.23987 terms of texture.
Total 124.4708 79

Post hoc analysis

p-values for pairwise t-tests
TACOLOR TBCOLOR TCCOLOR CONTROL
2.101 3.349 4.684 5.000 Table 10 shows the post hoc a
TACOLOR 2.101 significant difference with Trea
Treatment C and the control. L
TBCOLOR 3.349 8.40E-12
TCCOLOR 4.684 4.05E-27 7.14E-13
CONTROL 5.000 3.43E-30 9.49E-17 .0448

Tukey simultaneous comparison t-values (d.f. = 76)

TACOLOR TBCOLOR TCCOLOR CONTROL
2.101 3.349 4.684 5.000
TACOLOR 2.101
TBCOLOR 3.349 8.06
TCCOLOR 4.684 16.68 8.62
CONTROL 5.000 18.72 10.66 2.04

critical values for experimentwise error rate:

0.05 2.63
0.01 3.23
the evaluation of the shoe polish from banana peelings by the twenty (20) evaluators in
. Result showed that Treament A got a mean score of 2.051 interpreted as poor.
ot a mean score of 3.299 interpreted as good. Treament C got a mean score of 4.751
excellent. The control got the mean score of 5.000 which means excellent.

ere is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of shine since the
alue = 1.40E-33 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null hypothesis of
difference which means that there is a significant difference among the treaments in
.

he post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests in terms of shine, Treatment A has a
rence with Treaments B, C and the control. Treatment B has a significant difference
C and the control. Treatment C has no significant difference with Treatments A, B and
tly, the control and Treatment C have no significant difference.

s the evaluation of the shoe polish from banana peelings by the twenty (20) evaluators in
r. Result showed that Treament A got a mean score of 2.034 interpreted as poor.
got a mean score of 3.199 interpreted as good. Treament C got a mean score of 4.751
as excellent. The control got the mean score of 4.374 which means excellent.

there is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of odor since the
value = 2.92E-25 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null hypothesis of
t difference which means that there is a significant difference among the treaments in
r.
there is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of odor since the
value = 2.92E-25 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null hypothesis of
t difference which means that there is a significant difference among the treaments in
r.

s the post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests in terms of odor, Treatment A has a
fference with Treaments B, C and the control. Treatment B has a significant difference with
and the control. Lastly, the control and Treatment C have a slight significant difference.

shows the evaluation of the shoe polish from banana peelings by the twenty (20) evaluators in
f texture. Result showed that Treament A got a mean score of 2.235 interpreted as poor.
nt B got a mean score of 3.317 interpreted as good. Treament C got a mean score of 4.752
ted as excellent. The control got the mean score of 5.000 which means excellent.

ally, there is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of odor since the
ed p-value = 1.46E-27 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null hypothesis
gnificant difference which means that there is a significant difference among the treaments in
f texture.

shows the post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests in terms of odor, Treatment A has a
nt difference with Treaments B, C and the control. Treatment B has a significant difference
atment C and the control. Lastly, Treatment C has no significant difference with the control.
ble 9 shows the evaluation of the shoe polish from banana peelings by the twenty (20) evaluators in
rms of color. Result showed that Treament A got a mean score of 2.101 interpreted as poor.
eatment B got a mean score of 3.349 interpreted as good. Treament C got a mean score of 4.684
erpreted as excellent. The control got the mean score of 5.000 which means excellent.

atistically, there is a significant difference among the different treatments in terms of color since the
mputed p-value = 1.29E-31 is lesser than 0.05 alpha. The researchers rejected the null hypothesis of
significant difference which means that there is a significant difference among the treaments in
rms of texture.

ble 10 shows the post hoc analysis p-values for pairwise t-tests in terms of color, Treatment A has a
nificant difference with Treaments B, C and the control. Treatment B has a significant difference with
atment C and the control. Lastly, Treatment C has a slight significant difference with the control.
TASHINE TBSHINE TCSHINE CONTROL
2.33 3.33 5 5
1.67 2.33 3.33 5
1.67 4.33 4.67 5
1.33 3 4.67 5
2.33 4 5 5
2 3 5 5
2 3 5 5
2.67 4 5 5
2 2.33 5 5
2 3.33 4.67 5
2 3 5 5
2.33 3.67 4.67 5
2 2.33 5 5
2.33 3.33 5 5
1.67 4.33 4.67 5
1.67 2.67 5 5
1.67 3 4 5
2 2.67 4.67 5
1.67 4 5 5
3.67 4.33 4.67 5
TAODOR TBODOR TCODOR CONTROL
2 4 5 4.33
1.33 2 3.33 2.5
1.67 4.33 4.67 4.67
1.67 3 4.67 4.67
1.67 4.33 5 5
2 2.33 5 4.33
2 2.33 5 4.33
2.67 3.67 5 4.33
2 2.67 5 4.33
1.67 3 4.67 4.33
2 2.33 5 4.33
2.67 3.67 4.67 4.33
2 2.67 5 4.33
2 2.33 5 4.33
1.67 4.33 4.67 4.67
2 3 5 4.67
2 3 4 4.33
2.33 2.33 4.67 4.33
2 4.33 5 4.67
3.33 4.33 4.67 4.67
TATEXTURE TBTEXTURE TCTEXTURE CONTROL
2 3.33 4.67 5
1.67 2.67 3.67 5
1.67 4.33 5 5
1.33 3 4.67 5
1.67 4 4.67 5
2.67 3 5 5
2.67 3 5 5
3 3.67 4.67 5
3 2 5 5
1.67 3 4.67 5
2.67 3 5 5
2 4 5 5
3 2 5 5
2 2.67 4.67 5
1.67 4.33 5 5
2.33 3.67 4.67 5
2 3.67 4.33 5
2 2 4.67 5
1.67 4.67 4.67 5
4 4.33 5 5
TACOLOR TBCOLOR TCCOLOR CONTROL
2.33 2.67 4.67 5
2 3 5 5
2.67 4.33 4.67 5
1.67 3 4.67 5
1.33 4.33 4.67 5
2.67 3 5 5
2.67 3 5 5
2.67 4.33 5 5
2 2.33 4.33 5
1.33 2.67 4.67 5
2.67 3 5 5
2 3.33 4.67 5
2 2.33 4.33 5
2 3.67 4.33 5
2.67 4.33 4.67 5
1.33 2.67 4.33 5
2 3.33 4.33 5
1.67 3 4.67 5
1 4.33 5 5
3.33 4.33 4.67 5
TIME INTERVAL TAHYDROPHOBICITY TBHYDROPHOBICITY TCHYDROPHOBICITY CONTROL
5 MINS 0.30 0.20 0.00 0.00
10 MINS 0.43 0.33 0.10 0.00
15 MINS 0.70 0.60 0.23 0.10
20 MINS 0.90 0.70 0.30 0.20
25 MINS 1.00 0.93 0.40 0.33

Table 11 shows the mean difference in mass of the different treatments of the shoe polish in terms of
hydrophobocity. Result showed that after twenty five (25) minutes of submerging the leather in a one
hundred (100) milliliters of water and was then weighed on a triple beam balance, Treament A got a
mean score of 1.00 gram of water absorbed. Treatment B got a mean score of 0.93 gram of water
absorbed. Treament C got a mean score of 0.40 gram of water absorbed. Lastly, the control got a
mean score of 0.33 gram of water absorbed.