## 5 Conclusions  
Four-point open-ended coaxial probe EIS, after calibration to a standard reference solution, was identified as a highly suitable platform for estimating the dielectric properties of electroporated potato samples. Additionally, the non-significant conductivity changes between different regions within the potato indicate its suitability for EIS-based PEF pulse parameter optimization studies. The optimal measurement frequency for PEF-mediated changes in potato tissue was found to be 1000 Hz. At this frequency, EIS revealed significant increases in conductivity over a wide range of investigated PEF parameters, which has implications for conductivity mapping methods such as electrical impedance tomography that operate at a single frequency. Our findings indicate the influence of PEF parameters on conductivity changes measured by EIS, offering insights for multiphysics modelling of clinical IRE treatments with tissue-specific electrical properties and for optimizing excitation frequencies to enhance conductivity mapping contrast in applications such as electrical impedance tomography. These results and information may support future needle development and personalized clinical intervention protocols. The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15147922/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15147922/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15147922/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app15147922/s1)), Figure S1: Four-point open-ended coaxial probe for EIS; Figure S2: Representative Nyquist plot; Figure S3: Conductivity of potato tissue across frequencies; Figures S4 and S5: Permittivity of potato tissue across frequencies; Figure S6: Effect of pulse voltage on conductivity; Figure S7: Effect of number of pulses on conductivity; Figure S8: Effect of pulse width on conductivity; Figure S9: Effect of pulse interval on conductivity; Figures S10 and S11: Effect of pulse voltage on permittivity; Figures S12 and S13: Effect of number of pulses on permittivity; Figures S14 and S15: Effect of pulse width on permittivity; Figures S16 and S17: Effect of pulse width on conductivity; Figures S17: Effect of pulse width on conductivity; Figures S18: Effect of pulse width on conductivity; Figures S19: Effect of pulse width on conductivity; Figures  
of pulse interval on permittivity; Figure S18: Tissue temperature post-PEF treatment. Tables S1 and S2: Conductivity of potato tissue across frequencies; Tables S3 and S4: Permitivity of potato tissue across frequencies; Tables S5 and S6: Effect of pulse voltage on conductivity; Tables S7 and S8: Effect of number of pulses on conductivity; Tables S9 and S10: Effect of pulse width on conductivity; Tables S11 and S12: Effect of pulse interval on conductivity; Tables S13 and S14: Effect of pulse voltage on permittivity; Tables S15 and S16: Effect of number of pulses on permittivity; Tables S17 and S18: Effect of pulse width on permittivity; Tables S19 and S20: Effect of pulse interval on permittivity; Table S21: Tissue temperature post-PEF treatment; Tables S22-S26: Relative standard deviation (%) of conductivity and permittivity measurements. **Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, methodology, instrumentation, validation, formal analysis, investigation, writing--original draft preparation, data curation, visualization: A.T. Review, supervision, formal analysis: T.L. and M.B. Instrumentation: J.-G.P. Review, supervision, project administration, funding acquisition: A.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. **Funding:** This research received financial support from the ElectroPros project, funded by Marie Sklodowska-Curie Actions under H2020-EU.1.3.1 (grant No. 813192). **Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical approval was not required for this research as it solely involved plant-based models. **Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable. **Data Availability Statement:** Data will be made available on request.