## 3 Results
The pH in the reconstituted egg powders was influenced by the type of egg component mixture and by the sucrose added. As the amount of egg white was increased in the mixture, there was an increase in the pH of the reconstituted egg powder, which can be explained by the alkaline nature of the egg white [8]. In contrast, with the addition of sucrose, there was a decrease in the pH of the reconstituted egg powders (\(p\)-value = 0.036). The effect of the addition of sucrose on the water solubility (WSI) of the egg powders depended on the type of egg component mixture \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **Sucrose Content in Fresh** & **pH in Fresh** & **Adjusted pH in** & **pH in Rehydrated** \\  & **Liquid Sample (\%)** & **Liquid Sample** & **Fresh Liquid Sample** & **Powder** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Mixture of 100\% egg white, [W]} & 0.0 & 9.23 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 8.06 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 9.78 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{A}}\) \\  & 5.0 & 9.21 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 8.08 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 9.29 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\  & 7.5 & 9.15 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 8.10 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 9.29 \(\pm\) 0.27 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\  & 0.0 & 8.30 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 8.20 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 9.25 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{AB}}\) \\ Mixture of egg yolk: egg white & 5.0 & 8.30 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 8.05 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 9.09 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{B}}\) \\ (1:3), [M1:3] & 7.5 & 8.30 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 8.25 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 9.24 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{B}}\) \\  & 0.0 & 7.81 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 7.20 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 8.51 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{C}}\) \\ Mixture of liquid components & 5.0 & 7.80 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 7.22 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 8.44 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{C}}\) \\ in a whole egg, [WE] & 7.5 & 7.70 \(\pm\) 0.00 & 7.21 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 8.50 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{C}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Means of pH of rehydrated powder that do not share a letter are significantly different (flukey Test, \(p\)-value < 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: The behavior of egg sample pH before and after drying. (\(p\)-value = 0.01, for the interaction between sucrose and type of mixture). The addition of carbohydrates reduces the migration of fat to the surface of the dried powder particles, favoring the humectation of the product [11], which was evident in the WE egg product with higher solubilities when 5 and 7.5% of sucrose were added, compared with the WE product with no added sucrose. The moisture content of all of the dried egg products was below 4%. The moisture content of the W dried egg white showed a tendency toward decreasing as the addition of sucrose was increased, but for the dried egg mixtures M1:3 and WE, higher moisture contents were observed when the sucrose concentration was 5%. The Aw value in all the experimental treatments was below 0.4, a generally accepted level, to ensure the stability of the whole egg components in powder form [9]. The dried egg products with 5% sucrose added had the highest Aw values. The WSI values were over 80%, and the highest values were observed in the M1:3 egg mixture, with a maximum of 92.96 \(\pm\) 1.63% (with no sucrose added) (see Table 3). Dried WE components had the lowest WSI of 83.15 \(\pm\) 0.94% (with sucrose concentrations at 0%), which increased to 90.38 \(\pm\) 0.68 % when the sucrose content was increased to 5%. The color was evaluated by the CIELAB chromaticity model (referred to here as L*, a*, and b*). In accordance with the results in Table 3, where L* represents the value of lightness, defined from 0 (black) to 100 (white), egg component W (egg white) had the highest values, while the lowest values were in the WE mixture, which had the lowest egg white content. The a* and b* coordinates had relatively similar values for egg components in WE and in the M1:3 mixture, although they were slightly lower for M1:3. The b* coordinate had positive values toward yellow, which is characteristic of egg yolk.