## 3 Results
### Aspangus Antioxidants Variation: Effect of UV-C Treatment, Storage Time, and Their Interaction
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Traits**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**UV-C Treatments**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Control** & **UV-C1** & **UV-C2** & **UV-C3** & **UV-C4** \\ \hline Hardness (N) & 33.12 \(\pm\) 6.89 bc & 36.57 \(\pm\) 8.62 a & 36.11 \(\pm\) 8.97 a & 35.78 \(\pm\) 9.23 ab & 32.54 \(\pm\) 8.59 c \\ Fiber content (\%) & 32.19 \(\pm\) 3.14 a & 31.83 \(\pm\) 3.26 a & 30.52 \(\pm\)1.90 a & 30.51 \(\pm\) 1.98 a & 30.14 \(\pm\) 2.49 a \\ Protein (\%) & 38.02 \(\pm\) 2.51 b & 37.68 \(\pm\) 2.05 c & 39.71 \(\pm\) 2.45 a & 35.59 \(\pm\) 1.32 d & 35.58 \(\pm\) 1.25 d \\ L* Tips & 40.80 \(\pm\) 1.65 a & 40.56 \(\pm\) 2.35 a & 40.77 \(\pm\) 3.12 a & 41.49 \(\pm\) 3.80 a & 42.33 \(\pm\) 3.78 a \\ a* Tips & \(-\)4.17 \(\pm\) 1.49 bc & \(-\)2.33 \(\pm\) 1.78 a & \(-\)2.63 \(\pm\) 1.72 ab & \(-\)4.16 \(\pm\) 2.08 bc & \(-\)5.04 \(\pm\) 2.48 c \\ b* Tips & 14.87 \(\pm\) 1.58 a & 11.43 \(\pm\) 1.82 b & 12.21 \(\pm\) 1.87 b & 14.37 \(\pm\) 3.14 a & 15.13 \(\pm\) 2.83 a \\ L* Middle & 46.45 \(\pm\) 2.16 a & 43.78 \(\pm\) 2.11 bc & 43.09 \(\pm\) 1.28 c & 45.37 \(\pm\) 2.46 ab & 43.82 \(\pm\) 1.82 bc \\ a* Middle & \(-\)11.06 \(\pm\) 2.04 b & \(-\)7.50 \(\pm\) 3.73 a & \(-\)9.63 \(\pm\) 2.80 ab & \(-\)11.00 \(\pm\) 3.19 b & \(-\)9.73 \(\pm\) 3.34 ab \\ b* Middle & 24.24 \(\pm\) 2.98 a & 18.96 \(\pm\) 2.47 c & 21.50 \(\pm\) 3.44 b & 22.22 \(\pm\) 4.00 ab & 20.75 \(\pm\) 3.73 bc \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data represents the average UV-C \(\pm\) SD values calculated over all storage times. Values in the same row followed by different letters are significantly different (Tukey test \(p<\) 0.05).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Main effects of UV-C on hardness, color, and nutritional compounds. Figure 2: Mean content \(\pm\) SD of rutin, quercetin, ferulic, and caffe acids for the interaction of UV-C treatment and storage time. Means with different lowercase letters indicate statistical differences by [PERSON]’s test (\(p<\) 0.05). Figure 3 shows the trend in the samples over time concerning the hardness, and it is highlighted that only the maximum dose of UV-C showed a positive effect on hardening, which tended to reduce up to T3. To verify whether during the three weeks of storage, the UV-C treatments kept the color of the asparagus samples unchanged, i.e., like the color of the freshly harvested product (measured at T0), we calculated the \(\Delta\)E. As reported by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [31], a clear color difference is noticed between 3.5 < \(\Delta\)E < 5, identifying a color change perceivable by the eye. Table 5 shows the measured values. The color variation (\(\Delta\)E) on Tips, caused by the UV-C treatment during the storage time, was perceptible only in the UV-C1 and UV-C2 samples (except for T2). On the contrary, the color variation was not perceptible in the samples treated with the highest doses. During the storage time, the color variation registered in UV-C3 and UV-C4 samples was maintained at low; at time T3, only UV-C4 samples showed an increase in \(\Delta\)E (5.4). The UV-C treatments caused a more evident color variation in the Middle, during the storage time. Only \(\Delta\)E in UV-C3 samples showed the same evolution over time observed in the Tips; therefore, it was not perceptible to an observer up to T2. At T3, samples reached the same variation.