## 3 Results
### The Effect of Herb Additives on the Quality of Homemade Tofu
#### 3.1.2 Physicochemical Parameters  
First, basic parameters, moisture content, and acidity were analyzed (Table 2). Results indicated that natural tofu had about 15% lower moisture content compared to commercial ones. This was probably related to the lower pressure force during pressing at the production stage compared to tofu produced at home. Among samples with additives, the lowest moisture content for tofu with black cumin was measured at 58.3%. The obtained results are slightly lower compared to studies conducted by [PERSON] et al. [32], who measured moisture content for natural homemade tofu at the level of 83%, while for tofu with additives, it was between 80 and 82%.  
The obtained tofu variants showed only slight differences in pH values, which oscillated around 6. The highest pH was found in commercial tofu and tofu with black cumin (pH 6.6), while the lowest pH was in tofu with Herbes de Provence and cranberries (pH 5.6), which was significantly lower (\(p<0.05\)) than in other samples. Results are higher compared to [PERSON] and [PERSON] [30] and [PERSON] et al. [33], who found pH for natural tofu in the range 5.38-5.64 and 5.74-5.84, respectively, using the same coagulant as in the present study. However, it was found that in the natural tofu, the pH increased significantly by increasing the soy beans-to-water ratio [34]. Titractable acidity results were more divergent. Commercial tofu had the lowest acidity--8.8 \({}^{\circ}\)SH--which was about 110% lower than in natural self-prepared tofu, while tofu with wild garlic had the highest acidity among all  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Moisture Content [\%]** & **pH** & **Titatable Acidity [\({}^{\circ}\)SH]** \\ \hline commercial & 72.6 \(\pm\) 1.6 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.6 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.8 \(\pm\) 0.4 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ natural & 62.2 \(\pm\) 3.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 18.5 \(\pm\) 0.7 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ with wild garlic & 63.3 \(\pm\) 2.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.1 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 32.3 \(\pm\) 1.8 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ with black cumin & 58.1 \(\pm\) 1.0 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 22.3 \(\pm\) 1.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ with basil & 64.8 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 6.4 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 21.3 \(\pm\) 1.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ with Herbes de Provence and cranberries & 61.0 \(\pm\) 2.2 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 28.3 \(\pm\) 1.1 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} a–c–means marked with different letters are statistically different (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table}
Table 2: Results of physicochemical parameters, antioxidant activity, and total phenolic compound content (TPC) of fresh homemade tofu.  
Figure 3: Antioxidant activity of flavored vs. natural tofu measured using the DPPH radical and FRAP-reducing capacities, as well as total phenolic compound content (TPC). Sample code: C—commercial; N—natural; WG—wild garlic; BC—black cumin; B—basil; PC—Herbes de Provence and cranberries. a–e—means marked with different letters are statistically different (\(p<0.05\)) within the particular parameter.  
tested samples--32.3 \({}^{\circ}\)SH. The results confirm that together with plant additives, organic, weakly dissociated acids are introduced into tofu, which does not affect the content of hydronium ions (measured as pH) but increases the volume of base necessary to neutralize the acids contained in the sample (total acidity). The introduced additives contain various types of acids, mainly organic ones, e.g., fatty acids in black cumin [35], amino acids in wild garlic [36], and citric acid in cranberries [37].