# Quality of Tomato Juice as Influenced by Non-Thermal Air Plasma Treatment
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Effect of CAP on Physicochemical Properties
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline
**Time of Plasma** & **Time Storage** & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Colour Attributes**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(\Delta E\)} \\
**Treatment** & **(Days)** & & & \\ \cline{3-5}
**(s)** & & & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{0 (Control)} & 31.60 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 6.68 \(\pm\) 0.33 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 4.71 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & NP \\ \hline
30 & & & 30.23 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 4.94 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 3.26 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 2.65 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline
60 & & & 30.15 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 4.87 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 3.32 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{cd}}\) & 2.68 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline
120 & \multirow{2}{*}{\(1\)} & 30.07 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.77 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 3.26 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{bcd}}\) & 2.75 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\text{g}}\) \\ \hline
300 & & & 29.77 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.51 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{de}}\) & 3.09 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{be}}\) & 2.94 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline
600 & & & 29.78 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.40 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{abc}}\) & 3.22 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 2.94 \(\pm\) 0.37 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ \hline
0 (control) & & & 29.75 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.46 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 2.93 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & NP \\ \hline
30 & & & 29.62 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 4.43 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{abc}}\) & 2.73 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.72 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ \hline
60 & & & 29.55 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.15 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 2.58 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.14 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{f}}\) \\ \hline
120 & & & 29.52 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 4.18 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.70 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.06 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{e}}\) \\ \hline
300 & & & 29.36 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 3.86 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 3.86 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.36 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline
600 & & & 29.70 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{ac}}\) & 2.96 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 2.96 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 1.38 \(\pm\) 0.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* The results are expressed as a mean \(\pm\) standard error. \({}^{\text{a,b,c,d,e,f,b}}\)—statistically significant differences between the means (\(p<0.05\)). NP = designation not performed.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Effects of cold plasma processing on color attributes. color change between 2.0 and 3.0 [34]. Tests of color change in berry juice did not show a visual color difference between samples exposed to 2 and 4 min cold plasma treatment and samples processed thermally for 15 min, as the \(\Delta E\) value ranged between 0.63 and 2.63 and reflected an unrecognizable or slightly noticeable color difference. However, the absolute color difference exceeded 3.5 in the 6 min plasma treatment and thermal treatment, indicating a clear difference in the color of the analyzed juices [30]. In the case of tomato juice, no significant differences in color parameters were found in different plasma exposure variants (30-120 s) [16].