## 2 Results and Discussion
### Effects of HPP and TS Processing on Quality Properties during Different Storage Conditions
#### 2.2.3 TVC Changes  
TVC in HPP and TS marinated lotus root slices stored at different temperatures increased at different rates, reaching 5 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g at 80, 55, and 18 days of storage at 4, 25, and 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C, respectively (Figure 3). The sample microbial growth was the fastest when stored at 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C and slowest at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Except for samples stored at 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C on day 18 and at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C on days 35, 55, 70, and 80, there was no significant difference in TVC between HPP and TS marinated lotus root slices (_p_ > 0.05), indicating that HPP could achieve the same sterilization effect as conventional TS processing in the first half of the shelf lives. Similar results have been reported regarding many fruit and vegetable products [50; 51], and HPP is microbiologically safe and the best alternative to thermal processing [52]. However, some studies have also shown that the sterilization effect of HPP is superior [53] or inferior [54] to that of thermal processing, which may be related to pressure, temperature, time, and pH [52].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline
**Storage Temperature (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **Storage Time (Days)** & **HPP** & **TS** \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{45} & 0 & 32.20 \(\pm\) 0.45 j & 36.41 \(\pm\) 0.39 gh \\  & 2 & 35.34 \(\pm\) 0.92 hi & 38.08 \(\pm\) 0.44 cde \\  & 4 & 35.37 \(\pm\) 0.31 hi & 37.84 \(\pm\) 0.11 def \\  & 6 & 35.18 \(\pm\) 0.75 i & 36.76 \(\pm\) 1.45 fg \\  & 9 & 35.33 \(\pm\) 0.18 hi & 37.12 \(\pm\) 0.50 efg \\  & 12 & 37.07 \(\pm\) 1.14 efg & 39.76 \(\pm\) 1.68 b \\  & 15 & 38.63 \(\pm\) 0.20 bcd & 41.38 \(\pm\) 0.90 a \\  & 18 & 39.11 \(\pm\) 0.29 bc & 42.07 \(\pm\) 0.29 a \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{25} & 0 & 32.20 \(\pm\) 0.45 k & 36.41 \(\pm\) 0.39 fgh \\  & 4 & 33.37 \(\pm\) 1.90 k & 36.13 \(\pm\) 0.72 fgh \\  & 9 & 34.40 \(\pm\) 0.89 j & 37.52 \(\pm\) 0.71 fegh \\  & 15 & 35.65 \(\pm\) 0.73 hi & 38.01 \(\pm\) 0.32 def \\  & 25 & 35.88 \(\pm\) 0.25 ghi & 38.69 \(\pm\) 1.68 de \\  & 35 & 35.76 \(\pm\) 0.93 ghi & 41.85 \(\pm\) 0.50 ab \\  & 45 & 37.69 \(\pm\) 1.34 efg & 40.88 \(\pm\) 1.61 bc \\  & 55 & 39.60 \(\pm\) 0.46 cd & 42.92 \(\pm\) 1.57 a \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{4} & 0 & 32.20 \(\pm\) 0.45 k & 36.41 \(\pm\) 0.39 efg \\  & 6 & 33.08 \(\pm\) 1.07 jk & 35.28 \(\pm\) 0.45 ghi \\  & 15 & 33.87 \(\pm\) 0.84 ik & 37.66 \(\pm\) 0.41 def \\  & 25 & 34.44 \(\pm\) 0.79 hi & 38.02 \(\pm\) 0.15 cde \\ \cline{1-1}  & 35 & 34.49 \(\pm\) 2.21 ghij & 39.88 \(\pm\) 0.62 bc \\ \cline{1-1}  & 45 & 35.01 \(\pm\) 1.59 ghi & 39.82 \(\pm\) 0.19 bc \\ \cline{1-1}  & 55 & 36.08 \(\pm\) 2.44 fgh & 40.29 \(\pm\) 1.56 b \\ \cline{1-1}  & 70 & 38.60 \(\pm\) 1.84 bcd & 42.71 \(\pm\) 1.36 a \\ \cline{1-1}  & 80 & 40.19 \(\pm\) 0.25 b & 42.81 \(\pm\) 0.38 a \\ \hline \end{tabular} Data are expressed as the mean standard deviation (n = 4). Different lowercase letters in the same column for each storage temperature indicate significant differences at \(p\) < 0.05. HPP, high-pressure processing; TS, thermal-and-soaking.  
\end{table}
Table 3: Changes in total color difference of HPP and TS marinated lotus root slices during storage.  
Figure 3: Changes in total viable counts of HPP and TS marinated lotus root slices during storage: (**A**) storage at 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C, (**B**) storage at 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C, (**C**) storage at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Different letters indicate significant differences during storage (_p_ < 0.05) for the HPP (uppercase letters) and TS (lowercase letters) marinated lotus root slices. \({}^{*}\)_p_ < 0.05. HPP, high-pressure processing; TS, thermal-and-soaking.