## 3 Results and Discussions
### Influence of Time on Microbiological Analysis  
Figure 3 presents the microbiological analysis of bars supplemented with aronia by-products and control bars (without aronia by-products). These bars are crafted with ingredients such as cashew butter, honey, oat flakes, and coconut flakes, and they are supplemented with aronia by-product. Throughout a three-month storage period at room temperature, samples were taken weekly for microbiological analysis. In addition to assessing sensory quality, textural characteristics, and nutritional value, evaluating microbi \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control Bar** & **Bar with Aronia** \\ \hline Dry matter (\%) & 90.52 \(\pm\) 1.22 & 90.43 \(\pm\) 1.35 N.s. \\ Humidity (\%) & 9.47 \(\pm\) 0.55 & 9.56 \(\pm\) 0.43 N.s. \\ Ash (\%) & 1.82 \(\pm\) 0.01 & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.10 N.s. \\ Protein (\%) & 12.20 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 12.28 \(\pm\) 0.22 N.s. \\ Fat (\%) & 20.51 \(\pm\) 0.61 & 20.46 \(\pm\) 0.35 N.s. \\ Carbohydrates (\%) & 45.41 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 45.47 \(\pm\) 0.33 N.s. \\ Fiber (\%) & 10.58 \(\pm\) 0.47 & 10.35 \(\pm\) 0.38 N.s. \\ Kcal & 429.87 \(\pm\) 1.23 & 430.01 \(\pm\) 1.56 N.s. \\ Kj & 1798.59 \(\pm\) 2.96 & 1799.16 \(\pm\) 3.09 N.s \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} The descriptive statistics table provides the mean \(\pm\) SD (\(n=3\)). A two-way ANOVA was conducted to explore significant differences between the control bar and bar with aronia, followed by Sidak’s multiple comparisons tests. In this analysis, the second column was compared to the first column. The following symbols indicate different levels of significance: N.s (not significant).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: The results of the nutritional analysis for the two bar variants. ological quality is crucial for ensuring consumer health and safety. Therefore, the bars were assessed against microbiological quality parameters before conducting sensory tests [38]. The TVC increased from 4.26 \(\pm\) 0.02 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g to 4.41 \(\pm\) 0.03 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g for aronia bars and from 3.97 \(\pm\) 0.02 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g to 4.41 \(\pm\) 0.04 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g for control bars. Similarly, TFYM increased from 3.31 \(\pm\) 0.22 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g to 4.17 \(\pm\) 0.13 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g for aronia bars and from 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.01 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g to 3.91 \(\pm\) 0.11 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g for control bars. Throughout storage, there was an increase in TVC and TFYM in all samples, but the changes were not substantial. To control the growth of TFYM, the application of vacuum or modified atmosphere packaging is recommended. In comparison with the study by [PERSON] et al. [37], where a bar supplemented with whey protein and bioactive ingredients showed TVC results between 3.00 and 4.85 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g and TFYM less than 3 log\({}_{10}\) CFU/g, our results are within a similar range. Conversely, [PERSON] et al. [39] reported the highest TVC (8.4 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) CFU/g) in their study [39]. Additionally, after screening bars for their aerobic mesophilic count (CFU/g) and yeast and mould count (CFU/g) during a 90-day storage period, [PERSON] et al. [39] found a high aerobic mesophilic count (8.4 \(\times\) 10\({}^{3}\) CFU/g) and 3.6 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) CFU/g of yeasts and moulds in multi-nutrient bars [39]. Also, [PERSON] et al. [40] showed excellent microbiological quality (total coliforms, yeasts, and mould counts <5.0 \(\times\) 10\({}^{1}\) CFU/g) in high-protein diet bars with the addition of chia grain [40]. In our present manuscript, the decision to formulate only two types of bars was influenced by a previous study by [PERSON] et al. [28] conducted by the group. The prior research focused on developing out- and millet-based snack bars enriched with freeze-dried elderberry powder, aiming to enhance their nutritional value, antioxidant properties, and prebiotic potential. The study encompassed sensory evaluation, nutritional assessment, and rheological analysis of the snack bars.