## 3 Results and Discussion
### Microbial Quality
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Halophyte Species**} & \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Microbial Groups** \\ **(Log CFU g/plant \({}^{-1}\))** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Salinity (mmol L\({}^{-1}\))**} & \\ \cline{3-5}  & & **35** & **200** & **465** \\ \hline _D. crassifolium_ & & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 3.08 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\rm{BB}}\) & 3.61 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\rm{CC}}\) \\ _M. nodiforum_ & Aerobic microorganisms at 30 \({}^{\rm{\circ}}\)C & 2.98 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 3.26 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 3.06 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) \\ _I. crithmoides_ & & 4.54 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\rm{AC}}\) & 5.18 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\rm{BC}}\) & 5.38 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\rm{BD}}\) \\ _S. maritima_ & & 2.65 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm{BB}}\) & 2.48 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 2.60 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) \\ \hline _D. crassifolium_ & & 2.00 \(\pm\)0.01 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 2.35 \(\pm\) 0.49 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 3.07 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) \\ _M. nodiforum_ & Aerobic microorganisms at 6.5 \({}^{\rm{C}}\)C & 2.35 \(\pm\) 0.49 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 2.15 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 2.97 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) \\ _I. crithmoides_ & (psychotrophics) & 2.35 \(\pm\) 0.49 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 2.50 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 2.15 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) \\ _S. maritima_ & & 2.48 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 2.80 \(\pm\) 0.14 \({}^{\rm{ab}}\) & 3.14 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) \\ \hline _D. crassifolium_ & & 2.45 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 3.80 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm{BA}}\) & 4.38 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\rm{CC}}\) \\ _M. nodiforum_ & Filamentous fungi & 2.15 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 1.24 \(\pm\) 1.75 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 2.30 \(\pm\) 0.43 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) \\ I. crithmoides & & 2.63 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 3.00 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 3.11 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) \\ _S. maritima_ & & 3.03 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) & 3.02 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\rm{AA}}\) & 3.29 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm{AB}}\) \\ \hline _D. crassifolium_ & & \(\leq\)2 & \(\leq\)2 & \(\leq\)2 \\ _M. nodiforum_ & & \(\leq\)2 & \(\leq\)2 & \(\leq\)2 \\ _I. crithmoides_ & & \(\leq\)2 & \(\leq\)2 & \(\leq\)2 \\ _S. maritima_ & & \(\leq\)2 & \(\leq\)2 & \(\leq\)2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Different uppercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences (_p_ < 0.05) between halophyte species at each salinity, and different lowercase letters in the same line indicate significant differences (_p_ < 0.05) between salinity levels for each species (\(\leq\)2 Log CFU/g, indicates below the detection limit).  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Microbial quality of halophyte plants studied. ities of 100 mmol L\({}^{-1}\) or higher. In addition, _M. nodiforum_ showed a significant increase in the antioxidant capacity observed up to a salinity of 275 mmol L\({}^{-1}\). The fact that _M. nodiforum_ presents higher phenolic content and higher antioxidant capacity may explain the inferior microbial colonisation observed when compared to _I. crithmoides_, namely regarding aerobic microorganisms at 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C and filamentous fungi, as phenolics are known to inhibit the growth of different bacteria and fungi [37]. Yeasts, _E. coli_, and _S. aureus_ were not detected on these halophytes in any growing conditions. However, except for _M. nodiforum_, plants cultivated at the highest salinity (465 mM) showed a level of filamentous fungi higher than 3 Log CFU g\({}^{-1}\). Nonetheless, regarding contamination with aerobes, the halophytes studied presented a satisfactory microbiological quality (<6 Log CFU g\({}^{-1}\)) even when plants were cultivated at the highest salinity tested (465 mM). Overall, plants grown with low salinity levels (35 mM) revealed better microbial quality, being classified as satisfactory when considering aerobic microorganisms grown at 30 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and acceptable when considering fungi. Additionally, none of the samples studied contained _E.