## 3 Results and Discussion
### Organoleptic Assessment  
An organoleptic assessment was performed to measure the acceptability of the four kinds of effervescent tablets. As shown in Table 7, except for appearance and overall liking attributes, there was no significant difference among different kinds of tablets. In respect of the appearance of the tablet solution, panelists evaluated the L-group as largely like (\(7.30\pm 1.17\)), while the H-group was considered slightly appreciated (\(5.90\pm 1.86\)). After disintegration, a small amount of light-yellow foam was floating on the solution of the H-group, resulting in a lower appearance score for it. The overall liking classified the H-group as slightly like (\(5.30\pm 1.56\)) and the L-group and the control as moderately like (\(6.45\pm 1.43\) and \(6.05\pm 1.39\), respectively), while the evaluation for the M-group (\(5.70\pm 1.45\)) was between them. Besides the appearance attribute, the flavor was also a main reason for a lower overall liking score for the H-group solution, although there was no significant difference in the flavor attribute between the four kinds of tablets (_p_ \(>\) 0.05). As can be seen from Table 7, the lowest score of flavor attribute was found for H-group solution (\(5.70\pm 1.34\)), as most panelists felt relatively high bitterness in the H-group solution. Panelists participated in the organoleptic assessment aged between 22 and 25 years, do not like consuming bitter foods. Perhaps these effervescent tablets may be evaluated differently if older people participate in the organoleptic assessment. According to the preference ranking test results (Table 8), the L-group received the highest value in the sum of the orders (59), but its preference did not present statistical difference (_p_ \(>\) 0.05) for the control and the M-group. The H-group was the less preferred along with the M-group, reinforcing the results obtained in the organoleptic assessment. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Tablelets**} & **Antubacterial** & **Antubacterial** & & & & **pH of Solution** & \\  & **Ratio against** & **Ratio against** & **Dissolution** & **Time (min)** & **Without** & **End of Tablets** & **Inclusion** \\  & _S. aureus_ & _E. coli_ O157:H7 & **Time (min)** & **Tablets** & **Dissolution** & **for 1 h** \\ \hline Control & 95.11\(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm d,A}\) & 97.86\(\%\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm c,B}\) & 1.99 \(\pm\) 0.36 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 6.38 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\rm B}\) & 5.61 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm\alpha}\) & 5.71 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm\alpha}\) \\ L-group & 90.00\(\%\)\(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\rm c,A}\) & 97.39\(\%\)\(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\rm c,B}\) & 2.28 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\rm a}\) & 6.42 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\rm B}\) & 5.56 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm\alpha}\) & 5.58 \(\pm\) 0.08 \({}^{\rm\alpha}\) \\ M-group & 83.16\(\%\)\(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm b,A}\) & 90.96\(\%\)\(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\rm b,B}\) & 3.27 \(\pm\) 0.28 \({}^{\rm b}\) & 6.59 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\rm\beta}\) & 5.57 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm\alpha}\) & 5.60 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm\alpha}\) \\ H-group & 78.27\(\%\)\(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm a,A}\) & 83.87\(\%\)\(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm a,B}\) & 4.45 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\rm c}\) & 6.72 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\rm\beta}\) & 5.52 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm\alpha}\) & 5.53 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\rm\alpha}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{7}{c}{All data show the means \(\pm\) SD. Different lowercase English letters in the same column indicate a significant difference; different uppercase English letters or lowercase Greek letters in the same row indicate a significant difference, respectively.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Antibacterial activity of different kinds of lactobacilli effervescent tablets against _Staphylococcus aureus_ and _Escherichia coli_ O157:H7 for one-hour incubation.