## 3 Results  
As it was repeatedly pointed out in our previous papers as well as by other authors, the fruits selected for this study exhibit significant anti-AChE and anti-BChE activities. The aim of the present study was to evaluate, based on the same dry masses of the samples under investigation, the effect of fruit processing as well as the prolonged storage of the preserves on the anti-AChE, anti-BChE, and antioxidant activities. Table 1 shows that the effect of fruit processing on anti-AChE activity was variable. A significant (\(p<0.05\)) loss in activity was observed in numerous cases (all raspberry preserves, cherry juice and jam, apricot juice, peach compete, and Idared and wild strawberry jams). However, in selected cases (chokeberry juice and apricot compete), an increase in activity was recorded. In other cases, the activity of the fruit was retained in the corresponding products. The stabilization of or even a significant increase in anti-AChE activity was observed in compotes stored for 10 months, particularly notable in chokeberry compote. However, apricot and Idared compotes showed a loss in activity (see Figure 1). A loss in activity was also evident in chokeberry, cherry, and Idared juices (see Figure 2). With respect to jams stored throughout the test period, most retained their activities, except for chokeberry and apricot jams, which showed a significant loss (\(p<0.05\)) (see Figure 3). Nonetheless, noticeable residual activity was observed in all preserves. It is noteworthy that the most pronounced changes in activity occurred during the final stage of storage (5-10 months). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline  & **Fruit** & **Compote** & **Juice** & **Jam** \\ \hline Chokeberry & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\) & 0.45 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Cherry & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b,c}}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Apricot & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Peach & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b,c}}\) & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Apple Idared & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.44 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Apple Champion & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.p. & n.p. \\ Wild strawberry & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & n.p. & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Raspberry & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline n.p.—not produced. & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparison of anti-AChE activity of fruits and corresponding, freshly prepared preserves. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at \(p<0.05\). Figure 1: Evolution of anti-AChE activity of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at \(p<0.05\). Figure 2: Evolution of anti-AChE activity of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at \(p<0.05\). Table 2 shows that the effect of fruit processing on anti-BChE activity varied. In numerous cases, no change (\(p>0.05\)) was observed (apricot juice and jam, cherry compete, raspberry jam), while a significant (\(p<0.05\)) loss in activity was noted in others (chokeberry compete and jam, cherry juice and jam, Champion compete, wild strawberry jam).