# Quantitative Characterization of _Geotrichum candidum_ Growth in Milk
## 3 Results
### Primary Modelling of G. candidium Growth in Milk
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \(T\) & NaCl & \(\mu_{\text{max}}\) & \(\lambda\) & \(N_{\text{max}}\) \\ (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & (\%) & (h\({}^{-1}\)) & (h) & (log CFU\(\cdot\)mL\({}^{-1}\)) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{6} & 0 & 0.051 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{a,x}}\) & 70.0 \(\pm\) 1.46 \({}^{\text{a,x}}\) & 5.01 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{a,x}}\) \\  & 1 & 0.049 \(\pm\) 0.003 \({}^{\text{m,x}}\) & 66.2 \(\pm\) 1.06 \({}^{\text{m,y}}\) & 5.32 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a,y}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{8} & 0 & 0.060 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{b,x}}\) & 41.5 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{b,x}}\) & 4.87 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a,x}}\) \\  & 1 & 0.043 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\text{m,y}}\) & 37.2 \(\pm\) 2.97 \({}^{\text{n,x}}\) & 5.43 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{a,y}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{12} & 0 & 0.106 \(\pm\) 0.000 \({}^{\text{c,x}}\) & 17.3 \(\pm\) 1.65 \({}^{\text{c,x}}\) & 5.44 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{b,x}}\) \\  & 1 & 0.166 \(\pm\) 0.017 \({}^{\text{n,y}}\) & 36.1 \(\pm\) 3.79 \({}^{\text{n,y}}\) & 5.45 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a,x}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{15} & 0 & 0.157 \(\pm\) 0.008 \({}^{\text{d,x}}\) & 30.5 \(\pm\) 0.59 \({}^{\text{d,x}}\) & 4.61 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{c,x}}\) \\  & 1 & 0.145 \(\pm\) 0.007 \({}^{\text{n,x}}\) & 21.4 \(\pm\) 0.51 \({}^{\text{o,y}}\) & 5.59 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{b,y}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{18} & 0 & 0.219 \(\pm\) 0.002 \({}^{\text{e,x}}\) & 8.8 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{e,x}}\) & 4.84 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{d,x}}\) \\  & 1 & 0.199 \(\pm\) 0.021 \({}^{\text{o,x}}\) & 15.1 \(\pm\) 2.33 \({}^{\text{p,y}}\) & 5.26 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{c,y}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{21} & 0 & 0.266 \(\pm\) 0.011 \({}^{\text{f,x}}\) & 8.5 \(\pm\) 0.78 \({}^{\text{e,x}}\) & 4.93 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{d,x}}\) \\  & 1 & 0.267 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{p,x}}\) & 9.7 \(\pm\) 0.32 \({}^{\text{a,x}}\) & 5.23 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{c,y}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{25} & 0 & 0.315 \(\pm\) 0.004 \({}^{\text{g,x}}\) & 5.2 \(\pm\) 0.38 \({}^{\text{f,x}}\) & 4.40 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{e,x}}\) \\  & 1 & 0.300 \(\pm\) 0.008 \({}^{\text{q,y}}\) & 7.7 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{v,y}}\) & 5.28 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{c,y}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{30} & 0 & 0.359 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{h,x}}\) & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\text{f,x}}\) & 4.18 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{f,x}}\) \\  & 1 & 0.265 \(\pm\) 0.008 \({}^{\text{r,y}}\) & 4.3 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{s,x}}\) & 5.57 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{d,y}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{34} & 0 & 0.293 \(\pm\) 0.005 \({}^{\text{i,x}}\) & 8.0 \(\pm\) 1.40 \({}^{\text{g,x}}\) & 3.92 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{g,x}}\) \\  & 1 & 0.254 \(\pm\) 0.019 \({}^{\text{r,y}}\) & 4.8 \(\pm\) 0.93 \({}^{\text{s,y}}\) & 4.94 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{e,y}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{37} & 0 & \(-\)0.285 \(\pm\) 0.017 \({}^{\text{j,x}}\) & 20.1 \(\pm\) 1.08 \({}^{\text{h,x}}\) & - \\  & 1 & \(-\)0.108 \(\pm\) 0.007 \({}^{\text{s,y}}\) & 13.3 \(\pm\) 3.89 \({}^{\text{t,y}}\) & - \\ \hline \end{tabular} \(T\)—incubation temperature; \(\mu_{\text{max}}\)—maximum specific growth rate; \(\lambda\)—lag phase duration; \(N_{0}\)—initial counts; \(N_{\text{max}}\)—maximum counts in the stationary phase. “—different superscript letters among data observed in milk with 0% NaCl indicate statistical significance with increasing temperature (\(p<0.05\)); \(\simeq\)—different superscript letters between data observed in milk with 1% NaCl indicate statistical significance with increasing temperature (\(p<0.05\)); \(\simeq\)—different superscript letters indicate statistical significance between data in milk with 0% NaCl and 1% NaCl (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Growth parameters of _G. candidum_ J in UHT milk depending on NaCl addition. et al. [50], the pH range of 5.5-6.6 has no significant impact on the growth of _G. candidum_ in milk.