## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Changes in Raw Material Caused by Pre-Treatment in Ethanol Solution with and without Ultrasound  
The changes in raw material caused by pre-treatment in ethanol solution without (EtOH) and with ultrasound (EtOH + US) are presented in Table 1. Both in the case of the pre-treatment in ethanol and the treatment in ethanol with the use of ultrasound, there was a weight loss in the carrot slices in the range of 2.22-8.97% when using alcohol alone, 5.38-14.05% for the EtOH+US21 treatment, and 6.95-14.84% for the EtOH+US40 treatment (Table 1). The weight loss was mainly related to the reduction of the water content after the treatments. In almost all cases with a longer time of treatment, the weight loss was greater. Additionally, the application of ultrasound caused a further increase in weight loss. The weight loss was greater when a higher frequency was used, which, with the greater conductivity of the solution (Figure 1), may explain the greater leakage of water-soluble components into the ethanol solution. The significance of the influence of both treatment type and time on the relative weight loss was confirmed (\(p<0.05\); Table 1). This means that the weight loss was caused by the treatment in ethanol, while sonication additionally intensified these changes, probably as a result of partial damage to the structure. It is well known that the sonication results in structural changes due to the influence of sound waves on the material [2; 24; 30; 33; 34]. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [26] noticed the increase of the water loss in scallion slices immersed in ethanol, and sonication intensified the changes, which means that the ultrasound cavitation and other mechanical effects of sonication can intensify the migration between the tissue and medium. Furthermore, after carrot treatment in ethanol and ethanol with sonication assistance for 30 min, [PERSON] et al. [11] observed shrinkage of the cell wall in comparison to the fresh sample. As they stated, the shrinkage has an impact on the permeability of the cell and it has an influence on water loss with other compounds. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Type of Pre-Treatment**} & **Relative Mass Change** & \multirow{2}{*}{**Dry Matter Content (\%)**} & **Water Activity** \\  & \(\Delta\)**m (\%)** & & **(-)** \\ \hline untreated & - & 9.70 \(\pm\) 0.79 ab & 0.953 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\
5 s EtOH & 2.22 \(\pm\) 0.49 d & 9.19 \(\pm\) 0.14 a & 0.942 \(\pm\) 0.05 a \\
15 s EtOH & 4.50 \(\pm\) 0.99 cd & 10.34 \(\pm\) 0.33 b & 0.945 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\
60 s EtOH & 5.50 \(\pm\) 0.65 cd & 10.70 \(\pm\) 0.40 b & 0.953 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\
180 s EtOH & 8.97 \(\pm\) 0.01 bc & 12.29 \(\pm\) 0.17 c & 0.938 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\
5 s EtOH+US21 & 5.38 \(\pm\) 1.38 cd & 11.48 \(\pm\) 0.29 b & 0.956 \(\pm\) 0.02 a \\
15 s EtOH+US21 & 6.43 \(\pm\) 0.53 cd & 11.50 \(\pm\) 0.30 b & 0.964 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\
60 s EtOH+US21 & 8.97 \(\pm\) 3.32 bc & 11.24 \(\pm\) 0.52 b & 0.960 \(\pm\) 0.01 a \\
180 s EtOH+US21 & 14.05 \(\pm\) 1.67 ab & 10.66 \(\pm\) 0.53 b & 0.956 \(\pm\) 0.23 a \\
5 s EtOH+US40 & 7.19 \(\pm\) 0.20 cd & 10.94 \(\pm\) 0.30 b & 0.947 \(\pm\) 0.03 a \\
15 s EtOH+US40 & 6.95 \(\pm\) 1.62 cd & 11.05 \(\pm\) 0.29 bc & 0.963 \(\pm\) 0.05 a \\
60 s EtOH+US40 & 9.23 \(\pm\) 0.48 bc & 11.06 \(\pm\) 0.14 bc & 0.962 \(\pm\) 0.08 a \\
180 s EtOH+US40 & 14.84 \(\pm\) 0.86 a & 11.35 \(\pm\) 0.17 bc & 0.957 \(\pm\) 0.04 a \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* a, b, etc—different letters in each column indicate different homogeneous groups (one-way ANOVA, \(\alpha\) = 0.05). The results of two-way ANOVA indicate the significance (*) or insignificance (-) of the influence of the type and time of treatment (\(\alpha\) = 0.05).  
\end{table}