## 5 Discussion  
The subsequent analysis is based on the comparison of the values predicted by the DSS, in matters of shelf life, with the values collected in literature [30; 31; 32]. Comparison between optimal storage conditions ascertained in literature (0 to 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C) and the conditions most favourable for food preservation capable of being analysed by the DSS (minimum \(a_{\rm w}\), \(T\) and pH values) are listed in Table 10. Given that the times collected in the literature do not specify pH values, it is assumed they already consider variations resulting from the different acidity values specific to each horticultural product under study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Literature [30; 31; 32]**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**DSS**} \\ \hline  & \(T\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & \(\varphi\) (\%) & pH & **SL (Days)** & \(T\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & \(\varphi\) (\%) & pH & **SL (Days)** \\ \hline Lettuce & 0 & 95–100 & - & 7–21 & 1 & 99.6 & 5.8 & 6 \\ Onion & 0 & 65–75 & - & 14–91 & 2 & 97.4 & 5.3 & 66 \\ Carrot & 0 & 95–100 & - & 31–152 & 2 & 98.3 & 4.9 & 55 \\ Cabbage & 0 & 95–100 & - & 21–42 & 2 & 99.0 & 5.2 & 17 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Comparison between the shelf time values obtained by the DSS and the values collected in literature. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \(T\) (\({}^{\circ}\)C) & \(\mathbf{pH}\) & \(a_{\rm w}\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Remaining Shelf** \\ **Life (\(t\), in Hours)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Contamination by** \\ \hline  & & 0.990 & 413.4 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & 5.2 & 0.991 & 380.4 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & & 0.992 & 350.4 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\
2 & & 0.990 & 354.6 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & & 0.991 & 327.6 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & & 0.992 & 301.8 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\ \hline  & & 0.990 & 36.6 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & 6.0 & 0.991 & 34.0 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & & 0.992 & 31.6 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\
9 & & 0.990 & 34.2 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & & 0.991 & 31.7 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & & 0.992 & 29.4 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\ \hline  & & 0.990 & 8.7 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & 6.8 & 0.991 & 8.1 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & & 0.992 & 7.6 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\ \hline  & & 0.990 & 8.8 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & 6.9 & 0.991 & 8.2 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\  & & 0.992 & 7.7 & _Aerononas hydrophilla_ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: Sampling of results of DSS—Remaining shelf life of cabbage. It must be noticed that, in a general way, the values obtained by the DSS are somewhat lower than the literature. According to [30; 31], when storing lettuce at a temperature of \(T=0\)\({}^{\circ}\)C, in an atmosphere with relative humidity set between \(95\%\leq\varphi\leq 100\%\), a remaining shelf life of \(7\leq t\leq 21\) days is indicated. The developed DSS, on the other hand, determines a remaining shelf life of \(t=6\) days, when the storage temperature is fixed at \(T=1\)\({}^{\circ}\)C, pH = 5.8 and relative humidity \(\varphi=99.6\%\). This value turns out to be somewhat lower than the range collected in the literature. DSS determines for the case study of onion, SL values that meet the ones collected bibliographically. When storage occurs at \(T=2\)\({}^{\circ}\)C, \(\varphi=97.4\%\) and the vegetable's pH = 5.3, the developed tool estimates a remaining shelf life of \(t=66\) days. In [31; 32], a SL between \(14\leq t\leq 91\) days is indicated, when storage occurs at \(T=0\)\({}^{\circ}\)C and \(65\%\leq\varphi\leq 75\%\). However, the large divergence between the values for storage relative humidity pointed in both cases should be noted. The carrot case study also points to very consistent values in both cases, when storage conditions are the most favourable to the preservation of this product. The developed DSS estimates a SL value of \(t=66\) days, while a value in the range of \(31\leq t\leq 152\) is collected in [30; 31].