## 3 Results
### Thirty-Day Storage Test
#### 3.3.2 Physicochemical Quality  
The AP control sample (unprocessed) was only included at the beginning of storage (day 0), since the microbial load increased afterwards, as aforementioned in Section 3.3.1; thus, no further microbiological analyses were performed. Treated samples of AP (at selected processing conditions) were analysed in relevant physicochemical parameters to measure the impact of the treatments. The results are shown in Figure 5.  
Figure 4: Evaluation of total mesophilic aerobic bacteria (TMAB) (**A**) and yeast and mould (YM) (**B**) counts in the AP samples before, immediately after each treatment at the selected conditions for each technology (0 storage day), and throughout 30 days of storage (5 \({}^{\circ}\)C). Bars under the dashed line represent counts below the detection limit of 1 log CFU/g. The pH values before and after processing, as well as during the 30-day storage study, are shown in Figure 5A. The control AP had a pH value of 3.53 \(\pm\) 0.01, which did not change significantly after BL treatment (3.52 \(\pm\) 0.03). However, the pH increased after the US, PEF, and HPP treatments, with the PEF treatment resulting in the highest increase to a pH of 3.79 \(\pm\) 0.01. In the case of TSS (Figure 5B), there was a noticeable overall drop in all processing conditions, especially for PEF-treated AP samples, which decreased from 13.27 \(\pm\) 0.09 (control) to 10.77 \(\pm\) 0.24. An exception was noted only for AP treated with the US, where the TSS increased significantly (\(p\) < 0.05) to 13.87 \(\pm\) 0.05. The a\({}_{\rm W}\) values obtained after processing showed minimal variation relative to the a\({}_{\rm W}\) of the control (0.9977 \(\pm\) 0.0004), except for US and PEF, where statistically significant variations (\(p\) < 0.05) were observed (Figure 5C). The AP treated with PEF exhibited the most significant variations, with a drop in a\({}_{\rm W}\) of 0.9856 \(\pm\) 0.0004. However, these modifications, albeit tiny, are still quite mild, amounting to less than 1.3% when compared to the control AP. Throughout the 30-day storage test, there were no significant fluctuations in the pH of the AP; however, there were minor alterations observed. The pH values for HPP ranged from 3.51 \(\pm\) 0.01 to 3.81 \(\pm\) 0.01 for US. Comparable patterns were noted for a\({}_{\rm W}\) levels, which likewise encountered localized small fluctuations. The TSS values exhibited varying patterns over the 30-day refrigerated storage period, depending on the specific pasteurization process used. The total soluble solids (TSS) decreased (\(p\) < 0.05) after 30 days of storage at 5 \({}^{\circ}\)C for CTP (from 13.30 \(\pm\) 0.02 (control) to 10.79 \(\pm\) 0.03). However, no changes in TSS were found for the US samples throughout storage. Observations were made about the increase in TSS after 15 days in relation to HPP and PEF. The observed results can be attributed to the damage caused to the plant cells in the aerial part by the processing methods, such as electroporation and the creation of fractures. This damage leads to  
Figure 5: Physicochemical results of the AP before, immediately after each treatment at the selected conditions for each technology (0 storage day), and throughout 30 days of cold storage (5 \({}^{\circ}\)C). (**A**) pH, (**B**) total soluble solids, and (**C**) a\({}_{\rm W}\). Bars with different lower-case letters indicate a significant difference between treatments at the same time point. Bars with different capital letters indicate a significant difference in the same treatment in different time points (\(p\) < 0.05). the release of previously trapped chemicals that have been dissolved in the surrounding media [27]. On the other hand, the PCA performed explained the variability of the dataset among the samples and evaluation days.