## 3 Results
### Influence of VI on Structure and Texture of the Material  
Structural changes in the raw material and cell damage cause an outflow of cell fluids and an increase in the concentration of ions in the solution. In the case of the Baltimore F1 cultivar, there were greater structural changes (a higher _IL_ value) than in the case of the Komarno cultivar. The vacuum pressure had no effect on the _IL_ (Figure 5). There was also no significant correlation between the degree of sample impregnation (_ID_) and ion leakage (_IL_) (r = 0.41). Figure 4: Micro-CT scans of carrot slices: raw (**a**), impregnated at 5 kPa (**b**), and at 30 kPa (**c**). Regions that have been marked with a color other than gray indicate the presence of an air-filled spaces. Taking into account the influence of pressure on hardness in relation to the cultivars, a statistically significant difference between 5 and 30 kPa was found for the Baltimore F1, but not for the Komarno. [PERSON] et al. (2018), subjecting various apple cultivars to vacuum impregnation using a solution containing ascorbic acid, found a decrease in the hardness compared to the raw material. However, for cultivars with a harder structure, this decrease was lower than for those with a soft structure. In turn, [PERSON] et al. (2019) found no significant changes in the texture of iron-impregnated potatoes. Irrespective of the applied pressure or the cultivar, impregnation caused a decrease in the cohesiveness of the samples. However, there was no significant correlation between the degree of sample impregnation or ion leakage and the cohesiveness of the tested samples (r = 0.64, r = \(-\)0.54, respectively). In turn, for gumminess and chewiness, no significant differences were observed related to the cultivar of the raw material or the applied pressure. Only in the case of the Komarno cultivar was a significant reduction in chewiness noted at 30 kPa compared to the raw material. Table 2 presents the content of structure forming compounds in the raw material. These compounds are important, as they can affect both impregnation effectiveness and the textural (structural) properties of the plant material. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Cv.** & **Pressure (kPa)** & **Hardness (N)** & **Cohesiveness (-)** & **Gumminess (N)** & **Chewiness (J)** \\ \hline  & raw & 277 \(\pm\) 13 ab & 8.09\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-1}\)\(\pm\) 4.76\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-3}\) a & 219 \(\pm\) 11 abc & 181 \(\pm\) 10 ab \\
**Baltimore F1** & 5 & 315 \(\pm\) 12 a & 7.59\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-1}\)\(\pm\) 6.72\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-3}\) b & 249 \(\pm\) 13 a & 199 \(\pm\) 12 ab \\  & 30 & 245 \(\pm\) 11 b & 7.63\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-1}\)\(\pm\) 6.87\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-3}\) b & 186 \(\pm\) 9 c & 159 \(\pm\) 10 ab \\ \hline  & raw & 301 \(\pm\) 11 ab & 8.09\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-1}\)\(\pm\) 4.29\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-3}\) a & 247 \(\pm\) 8 ab & 200 \(\pm\) 7 a \\
**Komarno** & 5 & 304 \(\pm\) 19 a & 7.70\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-1}\)\(\pm\) 1.04\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-2}\) b & 233 \(\pm\) 17 abc & 179 \(\pm\) 13 ab \\  & 30 & 264 \(\pm\) 20 ab & 7.61\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-1}\)\(\pm\) 6.97\(\cdot\)10\({}^{-3}\) b & 193 \(\pm\) 16 bc & 151 \(\pm\) 14 b \\ \hline  & & & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Texture profile analysis (TPA) results. Figure 5: Ion leakage (_IL_) in impregnated samples. Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. The different letters above the bars indicate a significant difference at \(p\) < 0.05 for the ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test mean comparisons. Lignin and pectin content was significantly higher in the Komarno cultivar, whereas the Baltimore F1 was characterized by a higher cellulose content. However, such differences were not reflected in the textural properties of the tested cultivars: hardness, cohesiveness, gumminess, and chewiness (compare Tables 1 and 2). The Komarno cultivar reported less ion leakage than the Baltimore F1 (Figure 5). This may be related to the different content of structure-forming compounds in the tissue.