## 3 Results and Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Sample** & **Ozone Dose** & **L** & **AL** & **a** & **a** & **b** & **Color** & **Differences** \\  & **[mg L]** & **(Light)** & **(Green–Red)** & **(Blue–Tellow)** & **Ab** & **(Blue)** & **(Blue)** \\ \hline Standard & - & 38.120 & - & \(-10.863\) & - & 18.391 & - & - \\ \hline Parsley (10 g) in water & water & \(40.09\pm 0.47\) a & \(1.9\pm 0.47\) a & \(-10.28\pm 0.31\) & \(0.58\pm 0.31\) a & \(21.76\pm 1.47\) a & \(3.07\pm 0.96\) a & \(3.96\pm 1.51\) a \\ \hline Parsley (10 g) in ozonated water & 0.5 & \(38.25\pm 0.46\) b & \(0.13\pm 0.46\) b & \(-9.95\pm 1.20\) a & \(0.92\pm 1.20\) a & \(19.97\pm 1.36\) a & \(1.58\pm 1.36\) a & \(2.16\pm 1.25\) a \\ \hline Parsley (10 g) in ozonated water & 1.5 & \(37.08\pm 1.39\) b & \(-4.45\pm 1.39\) c & \(-8.86\pm 0.55\) a & \(-0.51\pm 0.55\) a & \(14.55\pm 2.46\) b & \(-3.28\pm 2.46\) b & \(5.85\pm 2.15\) a \\ \hline Parsley (25 g) in ozonated water & 2.0 & \(36.61\pm 0.74\) b & \(-4.93\pm 0.74\) c & \(-8.82\pm 0.74\) a & \(-0.48\pm 0.73\) a & \(14.87\pm 0.85\) b & \(-2.96\pm 0.85\) b & \(5.85\pm 0.89\) a \\ \hline Parsley (30 g) in ozonated water & 1.5 & \(40.90\pm 0.76\) c & \(2.78\pm 0.76\) a & \(-10.08\pm 0.44\) a & \(0.79\pm 0.44\) a & \(23.84\pm 0.72\) c & \(5.45\pm 0.72\) c & \(5.85\pm 0.89\) a \\ \hline Parsley (10 g) in ozonated water & 0.2 & \(36.55\pm 0.68\) b & \(-4.98\pm 0.68\) c & \(-7.97\pm 0.92\) a & \(0.38\pm 0.92\) a & \(16.27\pm 1.35\) b & \(-1.56\pm 1.35\) b & \(6.20\pm 0.89\) a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation; samples number N = 3; statistically different samples are marked with different letters within the same column (a, b, c) ([PERSON]’s post hoc test at a significance level of 0.05). \(\Delta\)L—light difference with standard \(\Delta\)a—difference in \(a\) color component (green-red) with standard, \(\Delta\)b—difference in \(b\) color component (blue-yellow) with standard, \(\Delta\)E—difference in all light and \(a+b\) color components with standard, according to Formula (2).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Color parameters determined as CIE L*a*b color change (\(\Delta\)E) on the surface of ozonated leaf parsley after 15 min. the method and conditions of the process. [PERSON] et al. [68] treated parsley leaves by drying them in the air at ambient temperature, at 45 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and by freeze-drying. They concluded that air drying at ambient temperature caused less favorable changes in the aromatic constituent profile and better sensory properties than the other two drying methods. Freezing resulted in a slight reduction in the \(\beta\)-phellandrene and 1,3,8-p-menthatriene concentrations in parsley leaves. Drying caused a large decrease in 1,3,8-p-menthatriene and an increase in \(\beta\)-phellandrene. The process of p-mentha-1,3,8-triene oxidation is responsible for changes in parsley aroma and has been reported to occur during the processes of drying and freezing [68]. In our study, there were no significant differences in the chemical compositions of the essential oils in the parsley samples before and after the ozonation process. In the sensory assessment, the smell of parsley treated with ozonated water was more intense than the control sample. In the headspace phase above the parsley, only eight volatile organic compounds were found before the process, and 14-16 compounds were found after ozonation, depending on the ozonation time. The distinct herbal aroma with a peppery sensation is mainly due to \(\alpha\) and \(\beta\) phellandrene. The content of these compounds was between 37.0% and 52.6% of the total content of organic compounds. The preliminary results of chemical tests are promising, but they still require repetitions and normalized sensory analysis to be sure that the applied ozonation method minimizes quality and nutrient losses in parsley leaves.