## 3 Results
### Physical Properties of Ultrasound- and Thermal-Treated Samples  
#### 3.2.1 Energy, Power, and CO\({}_{2}\) Emission  
In general, higher energy consumption was observed in the thermal-treated samples, where the energy consumption, depending on the treatment time and the type of sample (dry/fresh sugar beet leaf), was from 33,697.22 \(\pm\) 94.75 J to 99,788.93 \(\pm\) 150.68 J (Tables 3-5). By analyzing the variance of treatment time on energy consumption, statistically significant results were obtained for all thermally treated samples (\(p\) < 0.05). Energy consumption increased with longer treatment time, and consequently, the highest energy consumption was recorded in samples LD0/9 and LW0/9 (Table 5). Desirable and significantly lower energy consumption was obtained for all samples treated with ultrasound compared to thermal-treated samples (Tables 3 and 4). In particular, the energy consumption of sample LUDW6 (23,938.11 \(\pm\) 162.23 J) is lower by 29.96% than the energy consumption of sample LD0/3 (33,697.22 \(\pm\) 94.75 J). Regarding energy consumption, the LUDW6 sample \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Main Effect**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & **Source** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Treatment Time**} \\ \cline{3-4}  & & **LD0** & **LW0** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{\(p\)} & pH & 0.64 & 0.52 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Conductivity & 0.52 & **0.05** \\ \cline{2-4}  & Energy & **0.02** & **0.01** \\ \cline{2-4}  & CO\({}_{2}\) emission & 0.98 & 0.78 \\ \cline{2-4}  & Total proteins & **0.00** & **0.00** \\ \cline{2-4}  & Total phenols & **0.02** & 0.40 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} The \(p\)-values were less than 0.05, indicating that they are significantly different from zero at the 95.0% confidence level.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Statistical significance for pH, conductivity, energy, CO\({}_{2}\) emission, total proteins, and total phenols. ANOVA table presents the influence of treatment time on the output variables of LD0 and LW0 samples. represents the ultrasonically treated sample with the highest energy consumption, and LD0/3 represents the thermally treated sample with the lowest energy consumption. Accordingly, the difference in energy consumption is even more significant. In contrast to the thermal-treated samples, the LUWW, LUWI, and LUDW samples (Tables 6 and 7), in addition to the treatment time, were statistically affected by the amplitude and the quadratic interaction of the amplitude (\(p<0.05\)). In the case of the LUDI samples (Table 7), only processing time had a statistically significant impact on energy consumption (\(p<0.05\)). Therefore, this system is not ideal and the energy consumption as well as the amplitude and treatment time is influenced by other factors. The inhomogeneity of the samples and the formation of agglomerates on the surface of the probe greatly contribute to the energy change. Due to the aforementioned factors, differences in energy change were observed in individual samples. Only when all ideal conditions are met would the expected trend of increasing energy with increasing amplitude and treatment time be realized. According to energy consumption with the use of electricity/heat factor (0.3414155 kg CO\({}_{2}\)(kWh)\({}^{-1}\)) obtained from the International Energy Agency (IEA) for Croatia, CO\({}_{2}\) emission values were calculated and presented in Tables 3-5. The obtained values were significantly lower in all ultrasonically treated samples compared to thermally treated samples. The lowest CO\({}_{2}\) emission for ultrasound-treated samples was recorded in the LUDI? sample (0.46 g CO\({}_{2}\)), and the highest in the LUDW6 sample (2.27 g CO\({}_{2}\)). Considering the same form of plant material (dry sugar beet leaf) and treatment time (6 min), the emission value of the LUDW6 sample was 2.61 times lower than the value of the LD0/6 sample (5.93 g CO\({}_{2}\)). The emission of CO\({}_{2}\) in thermally treated samples increased linearly with the increase in treatment time (Table 5).