Table 1

S/No	Test	Untreated fiber	NaOH treated
1	Cellulose (%w/w)	20.28	33.2
2	Lignin (Acid) (%w/w)	28.89	20.24
3	Hemicellulose (%w/w)	40.67	19.77
4	Moisture absorption (%)	9.11	3.32
6	Ash content (%)	8.63	4.98
7	Density g/m3	1.36	1.01

Table 1: Characterization of raw and treated Pumpkin stalk biomass

Table 2

ElementNumber	ElementSymbol	ElementName	AtomicConc.	WeightConc.
6	C	Carbon	53.70	25.80
30	Zn	Zinc	6.41	16.76
39	Y	Yttrium	3.30	11.72
20	Ca	Calcium	4.80	7.69
16	S	Sulfur	5.71	7.32
14	Si	Silicon	5.67	6.37
17	Cl	Chlorine	4.42	6.27
13	Al	Aluminum	4.75	5.12
12	Mg	Magnesium	4.61	4.48
19	K	Potassium	2.39	3.74
15	P	Phosphorus	2.53	3.14
11	Na	Sodium	1.72	1.58

Table 2.0: SEM-EDX for of pumpkin stalk fiberboard produced

Table 3

Std	A:Retting time(days)	B:Retting Conc(Mol/dm3)	C:weight of Biomass(Pumpkin)(g)	Wt loss(%)
1	4	0.9	70	80.68
2	12	0.9	70	92.9
3	4	2.1	70	89.58
4	12	2.1	70	98.48
5	4	0.9	130	68.46
6	12	0.9	130	63.03
7	4	2.1	130	74.14
8	12	2.1	130	76.03
9	4	0.91	70	78.65
10	12	0.91	70	94.56
11	4	2.1	70	78
12	12	2.1	130	91.56
13	1	1.5	100	70.09
14	15	1.5	100	84.85
15	8	0.5	100	73.75
16	8	2.5	100	92.1
17	8	1.5	50	92.58
18	8	1.5	150	63.98
19	8	1.5	100	82.04
20	8	1.5	100	79.38
21	8	1.5	100	82.01
22	8	1.5	100	84.32
23	8	1.5	100	82.01
24	8	1.5	100	80.76
25	8	1.5	100	81.26
26	8	1.5	100	82.2

Table 3.0 Response Surface Methodology Result for Pumpkin treated with NaOH

Table 4

Coefficient	Square error	T-values	P-values	Statistical parameters
94.1952	13.284	7.0909	0	R-sqr = 0.8622 Adj-R = 0.8187 mse = 15.4427 rmse = 3.9297
2.6236	1.1224	2.3376	0.0305
-9.8444	7.0401	-1.3983	0.1781
-0.2608	0.13	-2.0071	0.0592
0.7049	0.4929	1.4303	0.1689
-0.0259	0.0098	-2.6341	0.0163
0.1253	0.0658	1.9054	0.072

Table 4: ANOVA of Pumpkin treated with NaOH with interaction model

Table 5

Coefficient	Square error	T-values	P-values	Statistical parameters
86.3852	17.2824	4.9984	0.0001	R-sqr = 0.8829 Adj-R = 0.8171 mse = 15.5813 rmse = 3.9473
3.6934	1.44	2.5648	0.0208
-16.5381	10.7779	-1.5344	0.1445
-0.0711	0.25	-0.2844	0.7798
0.6984	0.4951	1.4106	0.1775
-0.0253	0.0099	-2.5554	0.0212
0.1294	0.0663	1.9516	0.0687
-0.0698	0.0581	-1.2008	0.2473
2.1166	2.7904	0.7585	0.4592
-0.001	0.0011	-0.9056	0.3786

Table 5: ANOVA of Pumpkin treated with NaOH with quadratic model

Table 6

runs	Actual response	Interaction predicted (RSM)	Quadratic predicted(RSM)	ANN predicted	ANFIS predicted
1	80.68	80.7532	80.5776	85.7574	80.68
2	92.9	92.3133	92.0509	87.098	92.9
3	89.58	82.8486	82.5736	83.9048	83.79
4	98.48	101.1757	100.7515	98.6119	98.48
5	68.46	65.6554	65.2272	68.4488	68.46
6	63.03	64.7835	64.5565	62.9811	63.03
7	74.14	76.7724	76.54	74.1258	74.14
8	76.03	82.6675	82.5739	83.8203	83.795
9	78.65	80.7706	80.569	85.8539	78.65
10	94.56	92.3871	92.0982	87.285	94.56
11	78	82.8486	82.5736	83.9048	83.79
12	91.56	82.6675	82.5739	83.8203	83.795
13	70.09	73.2345	70.7816	80.3236	70.09
14	84.85	88.5079	86.1004	84.8791	84.85
15	73.75	72.5464	75.6389	73.8089	73.75
16	92.1	89.196	92.3167	78.6165	92.1
17	92.58	94.8737	93.3312	92.3861	92.58
18	63.98	66.8687	65.3912	64.0099	63.98
19	82.04	80.8712	81.8612	81.8655	81.7475
20	79.38	80.8712	81.8612	81.8655	81.7475
21	82.01	80.8712	81.8612	81.8655	81.7475
22	84.32	80.8712	81.8612	81.8655	81.7475
23	82.01	80.8712	81.8612	81.8655	81.7475
24	80.76	80.8712	81.8612	81.8655	81.7475
25	81.26	80.8712	81.8612	81.8655	81.7475
26	82.2	80.8712	81.8612	81.8655	81.7475

Table 6: Actual and predicted response

Table 7

iteration	A:Retting time(days)	B:Retting Conc.(mol/dm3)	C:weight of Biomass(Pumpkin)(g)	Wt loss(%)RSM	Wt loss(%)ANFIS	Wt loss(%)ANN
1	12	0.9	130	64.56	63.03	63.41
2	13.5	0.92	130	62.44	58.77	58.70
3	13.9	0.938	132	59.76	55.49	55.42
4	14.2	0.941	132	56.44	52.02	51.32
5	14.31	0.945	133	56.43	48.33	49.11

Table 7: Optimization of the RSM and ANFIS (quadratic model) using Genetic Algorithm

Tables at a glance

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Table 4

Table 5

Table 6

Table 7

Figures at a glance

Comments

Figure 1

Comments

Figure 2

Comments

Figure 3

Comments

Figure 4

Comments

Figure 5

Comments

Figure 6

FIGURE 1

Figure 1.0: XRD graphs of UPF

FIGURE 2

Figure 2.0: XRD graphs of TPF

FIGURE 3

Plate 1.0 SEM image of pumpkin stalk fiberboard produced

FIGURE 4

Figure 3.0: TGA/DSA of Pumpkin fiberboard

FIGURE 5

Figure 4: Comparative analysis for weight loss (RSM)

FIGURE 6

Figure 5: Comparative analysis for weight loss (ANN and ANFIS)