## 3 Results and Discussion
### SSC, Brix, and MC  
Table 4 presents the data on SSC, Brix, and MC. The highest SSC was observed in the PS 2% sample (4.91 \(\pm\) 0.17%), while the lowest was found in the control group BY (3.87 \(\pm\) 0.05%). Additionally, the Brix value, representing sweetness, was highest in PS 2% (5.81 \(\pm\) 0.00) and lowest in BY (4.04 \(\pm\) 0.02). MC was found to be inversely related to SSC. This trend is consistent with the findings of a previous study ([PERSON] et al., 2018). The control group BY exhibited the highest MC (53.19 \(\pm\) 1.46%), whereas JS 8% showed the lowest value (44.74 \(\pm\) 0.80%). Overall, samples prepared with Juice grape juice (Y) had higher MC than those prepared with freeze-dried grape powder (PY).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample (1)**} & **Soluble Solids** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Brix (\%)**} & **MC (\%)** \\  & **Content (\%)** & & \\ \hline BY & 3.87 \(\pm\) 0.05 (\({}^{\text{2f}}\) & 4.04 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 53.19 \(\pm\) 1.46 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ PG 2\% & 4.52 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 4.64 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 52.18 \(\pm\) 0.77 \({}^{\text{abcd}}\) \\ PG 4\% & 4.71 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 4.72 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 52.08 \(\pm\) 1.86 \({}^{\text{abcd}}\) \\ PG 8\% & 4.45 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 4.23 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 48.96 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{de}}\) \\ PK 2\% & 6.01 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 4.66 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 50.78 \(\pm\) 0.83 \({}^{\text{abcd}}\) \\ PK 4\% & 4.33 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.73 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 52.68 \(\pm\) 0.93 \({}^{\text{abcd}}\) \\ PK 8\% & 4.71 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 4.72 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 48.43 \(\pm\) 1.13 \({}^{\text{ef}}\) \\ PS 2\% & 4.91 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.81 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 52.13 \(\pm\) 0.86 \({}^{\text{abcd}}\) \\ PS 4\% & 4.72 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 4.14 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{fg}}\) & 52.12 \(\pm\) 0.53 \({}^{\text{abcd}}\) \\ PS 8\% & 4.62 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 4.65 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 51.21 \(\pm\) 1.03 \({}^{\text{abcd}}\) \\ JG 2\% & 4.87 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 4.75 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 51.33 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{abcd}}\) \\ JG 4\% & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 4.38 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 52.13 \(\pm\) 1.31 \({}^{\text{abcd}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: The solid content, Brix, and MC of Yanggaeng containing grape powder or juice.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample (1)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Hunter’s Color Values**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **L\({}^{*}\)** & **_a\({}^{*}\)** & **_b\({}^{*}\)** \\ \hline BY & 28.82 \(\pm\) 2.43 (\({}^{\text{2a}}\)) & 3.21 \(\pm\) 0.94 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.52 \(\pm\) 0.96 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline PG 2\% & 27.19 \(\pm\) 2.91 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.84 \(  
These results were related to the physical properties of the freeze-dried powder, particularly its hygroscopicity. During cooking, the powder may promote evaporation from the surface, thereby contributing to reduced MC [34; 35]. Furthermore, sugar content in fruit samples can increase water migration through osmotic pressure, leading to enhanced water evaporation during processing, as reported in osmotic dehydration studies of fruits and vegetables [36].