## 3 Results and Discussion
Figure 6 shows the droplet diameter of the dispersed phase of E1-E15 emulsions during their storage for 31 days at 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C. It was observed that for emulsions containing the same fatty phases, as the concentration of HPMC in the system increased, the determined droplet diameter was smaller (E3 < E2 < E1, E6 < E5 < E4, etc.). This relationship was also maintained for each individual droplet diameter measurement during the storage period. The lowest values of the dispersed phase droplet diameter immediately after emulsion formation, falling within the range of 3.1-3.5 \(\upmu\)m, were recorded for systems containing 1.0% \(w\)/\(w\) HPMC, i.e., E3, E6, E9, E12, E15. In contrast, the highest values for the same time point, in the range of 4.3-7.9 \(\upmu\)m, were recorded for systems E1, E4, E7, E10, E13, i.e., emulsions that were stabilized with 0.6% \(w\)/\(w\) HPMC additive. The increase in the dispersed phase droplet diameter of the tested systems during the 31-day storage period depended much more on the type of fat phase used. As the proportion of hemp seed oil in the fatty phase increased, a greater increase in droplet diameter after the storage period was recorded. By far, the largest increment was characterized by the E10-E15 systems, for which the droplet diameter increased in the range of 11.3 \(\upmu\)m for E12 to 38.4 \(\upmu\)m for E14, after 31 days of storage of these emulsions. On the other hand, the smallest increment in the droplet diameter values of systems after preparation and stored for 31 days was recorded for emulsions E1, E2 and E3, which were 0.0, 0.4 and 0.8 \(\upmu\)m, respectively. The hardness and adhesion strength values of the E1-E15 systems are shown in Figure 7. The hardness of the emulsion systems produced was significantly dependent on the concentration of texture modifier used. For systems containing the same fatty phases, i.e., E1-E3, E4-E6, etc., statistically significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) higher hardness values were recorded as the HPMC content increased. The type of fat phase used in the systems also affected their hardness, although there was no apparent correlation between the ratio of fats in the fat phase and the results obtained for this parameter. Considering emulsions containing 0.6 and 0.8% \(w\)/\(w\) HPMC, the obtained results of the hardness parameter were statistically significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) different for each of the fat phases used. Among emulsions containing 0.6% \(w\)/\(w\) HPMC, emulsion E7, containing fatty phase T-3, had the highest values. In contrast, among emulsions containing 0.8% \(w\)/\(w\) HPMC, the highest values were recorded for system E5, containing phase T-2. For systems containing 1.0% \(w\)/\(w\) HPMC, the hardness values obtained for systems containing the T-1 and T-2 phases (E3 and E6) were statistically significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) higher than the values obtained for other systems with the same content of texture modifier, but were not significantly (\(p>0.05\))  
Figure 6: Dispersed-phase droplet diameter of E1–E15 systems when stored for 31 days at 25 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
different from each other. Similarly, the hardness values of the systems containing T-3 and T-4 fat (E9 and E12) were not statistically significantly (\(p>0.05\)) different from each other, but were significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) higher than the values determined for E3 and E6 and significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) lower than the value determined for the E15 system. Analyzing the adhesion force determined for the tested systems, it was found that the values of this parameter depended on the HPMC concentration used. In general, as the concentration of HPMC in the systems increased, higher values of adhesion force were recorded. Yet, only in the case of emulsions containing a mixture of T-1 (i.e., E1-E3) as the fatty phase, each of the stabilizer concentrations used resulted in adhesion strength values that were statistically significantly (\(p\leq 0.05\)) different from each other.