## 3 Results
### Rehydration Capacity  
Table 2 reports the maximum rehydration capacity (RC) of leaf samples dried to the moisture ratios of 0.2, 0.1, and 0.05 using CD and VD. At MR of 0.2 and 0.1, the convective dried, rested samples (control and PEF-treated) show the highest RC. The rehydration capacity of PEF-rested samples convective dried to the MR of 0.2 was significantly higher than control and control-rested samples (\(p<0.05\)). The effect of pretreatments on RC was lost upon complete dehydration (MR = 0.05). Among the vacuum-dried samples, resting shows to influence RC only at MR of 0.2. Figure 3 shows the rehydration curves of PEF-rested samples (treatment with the highest RC) dried to MR levels of 0.2, 0.1, and 0.05. At the MR of 0.2 and 0.1, CD samples reached the maximum rehydration capacity faster than VD samples. There were no differences in the rehydration time to the maximum rehydration capacity of the samples at MR of 0.05 for either drying procedures.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Pretreatments**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Drying Methods**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Relevating Drying Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Target MR**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Experimental MR**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**aw \(\ast\)**} \\  & & **(min)** & & & & \\ \hline Control & CD & 62 & Control (1.00) & 0.2 & 0.191 \(\pm\) 0.027  & 0.841 \(\pm\) 0.034  \\ Control-rested & CD & 92 & 1.48 & 0.2 & 0.194 \(\pm\) 0.018  & 0.864 \(\pm\) 0.017  \\ PEF-rested & CD & 49 & 0.79 & 0.2 & 0.212 \(\pm\) 0.019  & 0.823 \(\pm\) 0.034  \\ Control & CD & 123 & Control (1.00) & 0.1 & 0.113 \(\pm\) 0.008  & 0.614 \(\pm\) 0.013  \\ Control-rested & CD & 205 & 1.66 & 0.1 & 0.091 \(\pm\) 0.013  & 0.605 \(\pm\) 0.013  \\ PEF-rested & CD & 95 & 0.77 & 0.1 & 0.103 \(\pm\) 0.018  & 0.612 \(\pm\) 0.016  \\ Control & CD & 204 & Control (1.00) & 0.05 & 0.049 \(\pm\) 0.008  & 0.465 \(\pm\) 0.040  \\ Control-rested & CD & 368 & 1.81 & 0.05 & 0.046 \(\pm\) 0.004  & 0.512 \(\pm\) 0.054  \\ PEF-rested & CD & 154 & 0.76 & 0.05 & 0.052 \(\pm\) 0.005  & 0.478 \(\pm\) 0.035  \\ Control & VD & 110 & Control (1.00) & 0.2 & 0.185 \(\pm\) 0.006  & 0.807 \(\pm\) 0.004  \\ Control-rested & VD & 60 & 0.55 & 0.2 & 0.204 \(\pm\) 0.024  & 0.849 \(\pm\) 0.040  \\ PEF-rested & VD & 40 & 0.36 & 0.2 & 0.202 \(\pm\) 0.030  & 0.811 \(\pm\) 0.008  \\ Control & VD & 390 & Control (1.00) & 0.1 & 0.094 \(\pm\) 0.007  & 0.630 \(\pm\) 0.031  \\ Control-rested & VD & 110 & 0.28 & 0.1 & 0.109 \(\pm\) 0.018  & 0.617 \(\pm\) 0.030  \\ PEF-rested & VD & 90 & 0.23 & 0.1 & 0.109 \(\pm\) 0.014  & 0.604 \(\pm\) 0.010  \\ Control & VD & 672 & Control (1.00) & 0.05 & 0.045 \(\pm\) 0.004  & 0.494 \(\pm\) 0.049  \\ Control-rested & VD & 652 & 0.97 & 0.05 & 0.049 \(\pm\) 0.006  & 0.509 \(\pm\) 0.043  \\ PEF-rested & VD & 592 & 0.88 & 0.05 & 0.054 \(\pm\) 0.005  & 0.491 \(\pm\) 0.046  \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: The maximum rehydration capacity (RC) obtained after 18 h rehydration of Thai basil leaf samples subjected to different pretreatments and dried by convective drying (CD) and vacuum drying (VD) to MR of 0.2, 0.1, and 0.05. Data are shown as average \(\pm\) standard deviation of the mean for n = 3.