# Physicochemical and Sensory Evaluation of Yanggaeng Treated with Roasted Guateman Coffee Extracts
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Hunter's Color Properties of Yanggaeng
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Roasting** & **CON** & **2\%** & **4\%** & **6\%** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Moisture (\%)} & Light & 47.61 \(\pm\) 0.87 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 50.48 \(\pm\) 1.18 \({}^{\text{nA}}\) & 48.17 \(\pm\) 3.82 \({}^{\text{nA}}\) & 48.17 \(\pm\) 0.94 \({}^{\text{nA}}\) \\  & Medium & 47.92 \(\pm\) 0.44 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 43.67 \(\pm\) 0.92 \({}^{\text{bB}}\) & 44.28 \(\pm\) 0.70 \({}^{\text{bAB}}\) & 41.61 \(\pm\) 0.82 \({}^{\text{cA}}\) \\  & Dark & 46.47 \(\pm\) 0.97 \({}^{\text{aN}}\) & 44.95 \(\pm\) 1.95 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & 40.89 \(\pm\) 2.94 \({}^{\text{bB}}\) & 47.57 \(\pm\) 0.74 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Crude ash (\%)} & Light & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{nB}}\) & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.070 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{nB}}\) \\  & Medium & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{nA}}\) & 0.43 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{nA}}\) \\  & Dark & 0.51 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{aN}}\) & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{bN}}\) & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Crude fat (\%)} & Light & 1.72 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) & 0.36 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 0.71 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{bA}}\) & 2.09 \(\pm\) 0.57 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) \\  & Medium & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{nB}}\) & 0.62 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{nB}}\) & 0.41 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{nB}}\) \\  & Dark & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{aN}}\) & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{aB}}\) & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{bB}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Crude protein (\%)} & Light & 1.33 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{bN}}\) & 2.76 \(\pm\) 0.40 \({}^{\text{aN}}\) & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.42 \({}^{\text{bN}}\) & 1.25 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{bN}}\) \\  & Medium & 2.30 \(\pm\) 1.73 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 2.21 \(\pm\) 0.74 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 1.65 \(\pm\) 1.20 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 2.82 \(\pm\) 1.60 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) \\  & Dark & 1.93 \(\pm\) 0.89 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 2.50 \(\pm\) 0.93 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 1.09 \(\pm\) 0.93 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 2.57 \(\pm\) 0.55 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Carbohydrate 1 (\%)} & Light & 49.52 \(\pm\) 1.68 \({}^{\text{nN}}\) & 45.97 \(\pm\) 1.50 \({}^{\text{nB}}\) & 50.01 \(\pm\) 4.38 \({}^{\text{nB}}\) & 48.18 \(\pm\) 1.19 \({}^{\text{nB}}\) \\  & Medium & 48.94 \(\pm\) 1.81 \({}^{\text{bN}}\) & 53.08 \(\pm\) 1.08 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) & 53.26 \(\pm\) 0.59 \({}^{\text{aAB}}\) & 54.79 \(\pm\) 1.83 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) \\  & Dark & 50.81 \(\pm\) 1.70 \({}^{\text{bN}}\) & 51.75 \(\pm\) 2.21 \({}^{\text{bA}}\) & 57.42 \(\pm\) 2.17 \({}^{\text{aA}}\) & 49.21 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{bB}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* \({}^{1}\) Carohydrate 1 (\(\%\)) was calculated as 100 \(-\) (moisture + crude ash + crude fat + crude protein). Data are presented as means \(\pm\) SD (\(n=3\)). All data were ranked and analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by [PERSON]’s multiple range test. Means with different capital letters (A–B) in the same row and lowercase letters (a–c) in the same column differ significantly (\(p<0.05\)). \({}^{\text{n}}\)” and \({}^{\text{nN}}\)” indicate not significant. CON, control (Yanggaeng treated with (0% G): 2%, Yanggaeng treated with 2% G; 4%, Yanggaeng treated with 4% G; 6%, Yanggaeng treated with 6% G.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Proximate compositions of Yanggaeng treated with various concentrations of Guatem coffee extract. The redness/greenness (\(a^{\bullet}\)) values shifted from negative (green) to positive (red) as the G concentration increased in the L and M groups, ranging from \(-\)2.23 to 1.77 and \(-\)2.20 to 2.90, respectively. In contrast, the D group started with a slightly negative \(a^{\bullet}\) value for the CON sample (\(-\)1.47) but shifted toward redness, reaching 3.13 for D4, indicating a pronounced red shift.