## 3 Results
Figure 2 shows the evolution of the total coliform count over the 8 days of storage in some of the investigated runs (runs 1, 5, 7 and 11). As can be inferred from the data shown in Figure 2, the control had a short lag phase, followed by a steady increase in the viable cell concentration up to the stationary phase (about 6 log(CFU/g)). For the active samples, different results were found depending on the run being considered. Specifically, while run 5 was the best one, runs 1 and 11 did not work very well. Run 7 was more similar to the control. To quantitatively compare these experimental findings, the MAL values that were related to coliforms (MALC) were determined according to the same procedure reported  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & **MALP** & **MALC** & **P-MAL** \\  & **(Day)** & **(Day)** & **(Day)** \\ \hline CNT & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 a & 6.7 \(\pm\) 0.3 ab & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.2 a \\ Run 1 & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.4 a & 5.7 \(\pm\) 1.8 ab & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.4 a \\ Run 2 & 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.2 a & \textgreater{}8 & 4.6 \(\pm\)  
above for _Pseudomonas_ spp. The results are also listed in the second column of Table 2. As stated in DPR 54/97 [35], the value of log(N\({}_{\text{max}}\)) was set to 5. As can be seen, some runs presented a MALC that was similar to the control, whereas four runs did not reach the coliforms threshold, thus suggesting that for these samples, the MALC was higher than 8 days. To sum up, as happened with _Pseudomonas_ spp., in most cases, the combinations of the two natural compounds extended the coliform microbial acceptability limit. These results agree with the literature data relating to synergies between natural compounds and their interactions with food components in controlling microbial growth [25]. Figure 3 shows the growth kinetics of lactic acid bacteria in some of the investigated runs during the entire observation period (runs 1, 5, 7 and 11). Similar results were also obtained for all the other runs. As can be inferred from Figure 3, the functional microorganisms grew during the refrigerated storage. Moreover, there were no marked differences between the control sample and those containing the active compounds, thus demonstrating that the natural agents did not affect the growth of lactic acid bacteria to a great extent. This experimental finding is in agreement with what is reported in the literature. In fact, among the generally sensitive Gram-positive bacteria, lactic acid bacteria are the most resistant to essential oils or chitosan [14; 36]. The inefficiency of the tested antimicrobial compounds on useful dairy bacteria is particularly important for fresh cheese because it is increasingly advertised as being \"preservative-free and rich in viable lactic acid bacteria\". The total microbial counts were similar in all the samples (data not shown). As one would expect, their viable cell concentration slightly increased over the storage period. Figure 2: Best fit of the modified Gompertz equation (Equation (1)) to the experimental data on the growth kinetics of total coliforms. Experimental data are presented as means \(\pm\) standard deviation. Control (\(\Circle\))—Giuncata without any compounds; run 1 (\(\blacklozenge\))—Giuncata with 250 ppm demon extract and 30 ppm chitosan; run 5 (\(\blacksquare\))—Giuncata with 500 ppm demon extract and without chitosan; run 7 (\(\circ\))—Giuncata with 60 ppm chitosan and without lemon extract; run 11 (\(\Box\))—Giuncata with 500 ppm demon extract and 60 ppm chitosan. Results regarding the pH (Figure 4) also show similar trends, with casual fluctuations within a small range. The most striking result of Figure 4 is the lack of statistically significant differences between the samples in each run throughout the entire observation period. In fact, the pH data were all superimposed for different control and active samples.