## 3 Results
### Effects of HPP on Physical Parameters of Cauliflower
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**A. Stem**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Storage** & **Control** & & **HPP** \\ \cline{2-5}
**(Days)** & **0.1** & & **400 MPa** & **600 MPa** \\ \hline  & 0 min & 2 min & 5 min & 2 min & 5 min \\ \hline
0 & - & 2.9 \(\pm\) 1.7 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 3.3 \(\pm\) 1.3 \({}^{\text{A, b}}\) & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\text{A, a, b}}\) & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.4 \({}^{\text{A, a, b}}\) \\
14 & nm **\({}^{\text{**}}\)** & 2.8 \(\pm\) 1.2 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 3.2 \(\pm\) 1.3 \({}^{\text{A, a, b}}\) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 1.4 \({}^{\text{A, a, b, c}}\) & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.9 \({}^{\text{A, c, b}}\) \\
28 & nm & 3.5 \(\pm\) 1.7 \({}^{\text{A, B, a}}\) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 1.1 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 3.4 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) \\
42 & nm & 4.2 \(\pm\) 2.2 \({}^{\text{B, a}}\) & 3.9 \(\pm\) 1.4 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 3.4 \(\pm\) 1.6 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 4.0 \(\pm\) 1.5 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**B. Floret**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Storage** & **Control** & & **HPP** \\ \cline{2-5}
**(Days)** & **0.1** & & **400 MPa** & **600 MPa** \\ \hline  & 0 min & 2 min & 5 min & 2 min & 5 min \\ \hline
0 & - & 4.0 \(\pm\) 2.4 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 4.7 \(\pm\) 2.9 \({}^{\text{A, a, b}}\) & 4.2 \(\pm\) 1.9 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 4.2 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) \\
14 & nm & 4.3 \(\pm\) 1.9 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 5.1 \(\pm\) 2.1 \({}^{\text{A, a, b}}\) & 4.2 \(\pm\) 2.0 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 4.5 \(\pm\) 2.1 \({}^{\text{A, B, a}}\) \\
28 & nm & 4.5 \(\pm\) 2.2 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 4.7 \(\pm\) 2.3 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 4.7 \(\pm\) 2.0 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 5.7 \(\pm\) 2.5 \({}^{\text{B, a}}\) \\
42 & nm & 4.8 \(\pm\) 2.5 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 5.1 \(\pm\) 2.2 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 4.6 \(\pm\) 2.1 \({}^{\text{A, a}}\) & 5.0 \(\pm\) 2.0 \({}^{\text{A, b, a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Each color value (TCD) in the table is the mean \(\pm\) standard deviation from processing parallel samples (n = 3). The capital letters (A and B) indicate significant differences (\(p<0.05\), multiple Tukey’s) adjusted analysis of variance) within the same treatment and storage time (same column). Small letters (a, b, and c) indicate significant differences (\(p<0.05\), multiple Tukey’s adjusted analysis of variance) between different treatments (same row).
* Not measured.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: The color difference (TCD) * for stems (A) and florets (B) of cauliflower as measured after HPP (400 and 600 MPa) treatment. The samples were stored for up to 42 days in cold storage (4 \({}^{\circ}\)C). while at 400 MPa the texture increased further in firmness. For carrots, [PERSON] et al. found slightly higher cutting forces for HPP (600 MPa, 2 min) samples until day 14 of cold storage, compared to non-treated carrots [44]. This trend was also observed for HPP cauliflower during day 42 of storage. More recently, [PERSON] et al. (2020) subjected frozen pumpkin (\(-20\)\({}^{\circ}\)C) to pressure (100-600 MPa/2 min) and found a significant reduction in the texture attribute \"hardness\" [46]. At 400 and 600 MPa, they reported a decrease in hardness of approximately 42% compared to the control. During storage for seven days, the authors observed a reduction in hardness of 54% (600 MPa) and 36% (400 MPa). These findings were not in agreement with the cauliflower samples and could be a result of different plant structures. The high firmness of cauliflower during HPP could be explained by the finding that HPP of cauliflower (400 MPa/30 min/5 \({}^{\circ}\)C) resulted in cavity formation and a firm and soaked texture and appearance. This was explained by loss of turgor pressure within the cell and the presence of fluid in intercellular spaces that were previously filled with gas. [PERSON] et al. conducted a sensory evaluation of HPP cauliflower (400 and 350 MPa /5 \({}^{\circ}\)C/30 min) and reported the texture as \"firm\" [22].