## 3 Results
### Effect of Treatments on the Cultivable Microbiota of Sweet Potato Samples
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Control**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AP**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**CP**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**AA**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**CA**} \\  & **Bonia** & **Covingen** & **Bonia** & **Covingen** & **Bonia** & **Covingen** & **Bonia** & **Covingen** & **Bonia** & **Covingen** \\ \hline _Entrobericence_ (VREG) & \(<\)1.00 \({}^{\circ}\) & \(>\) 1.9 \(\pm\)  
_Enterobacteriaceae_ counts provided additional insights. In Bonita, the treatment (F(4;20) = 5.657; \(p<0.01\)), storage time (F(1;20) = 8.221; \(p<0.05\)), and interaction (F(4;40) = 12.253; \(p<0.05\)) were significant. However, for Covington, while the treatment (F(4;20) = 3.171; \(p<0.05\)) and interaction (F(4;40) = 8.905; \(p<0.001\)) were significant, the storage time did not exert a notable influence (F(1;20) = 0.670; \(p=0.423\)). Short-term storage effects varied depending on the treatment applied. In Bonita, the ascorbic acid treatment resulted in no significant changes in _Enterobacteriaceae_ (\(p\) = 0.116) or yeast and mould counts (\(p\) = 0.519). The apple pomace treatment also had no impact on the total aerobic, total anaerobic, and spore-forming bacterial count (\(p\) = 0.811); the lactococci count (\(p\) = 0.300); the lactobacilli count (\(p\) = 0.139); the _Enterobacteriaceae_ count  
Figure 3: Results of microbiological analyses of treated Covington (dark orange) and Bonita (white) varieties of sweet potatoes after storage. Each value is expressed as the mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. The presence of different letters indicates that the groups in question are significantly different. Higher case letter: comparison of treatment at the fixed storage time. Lower case letter: comparison of storage time at fixed treatments. * The arrow indicates that in the case of the investigated sample, the concentration of lactococci and/or lactobacilli was under the detection limit. ** Out of the three parallels, two resulted in a cell number of the investigated group of microbes under the detection limit; thus, the value of the only positive sample is indicated, and the standard deviation was not determined (ND). (\(p\) = 0.379), or the yeast and mould count (\(p\) = 0.118). Similarly, the chokeberry pomace treatment did not alter the lactococci (\(p\) = 0.400), lactobacilli (\(p\) = 0.059), or yeast and mould counts (\(p\) = 0.374). When no treatment was applied, short-term storage had no effect on the lactococci (\(p\) = 0.093) or yeast and mould counts (\(p\) = 0.924). For Covington, the ascorbic acid treatment had no effect on the _Enterobacteriaceae_ (\(p\) = 0.123) or yeast and mould counts (\(p\) = 0.374). The apple pomace treatment left the total aerobic, total anaerobic, and spore-forming bacterial count (\(p\) = 0.174); the _Enterobacteriaceae_ count (\(p\) = 0.374), and the yeast and mould counts (\(p\) = 0.116) unchanged. The citric acid treatment did not impact _Enterobacteriaceae_ counts (\(p\) = 0.121), while the chokeberry pomace treatment had no effect on yeast and mould counts (\(p\) = 0.374). When no treatment was applied, short-term storage did not affect lactobacilli counts (\(p\) = 0.054). Regarding yeast and mould counts, Bonita showed no significant effect due to the treatment (F(4;20) = 1.846; \(p\) = 0.160), storage time (F(1;20) = 0.001; \(p\) = 0.982), or their interaction (F(4;40) = 1.304; \(p\) = 0.302). In contrast, Covington exhibited a significant treatment effect (F(4;20) = 5.548; \(p\) < 0.01), with storage time (F(1;20) = 5.780; \(p\) < 0.05) and the interaction of factors (F(4;40) = 2.895; \(p\) < 0.05) playing a role. In the majority of cases where microbial counts exhibited alterations during the storage period, an increase was detected.