## 3 Results
Figure 8: Evolution of TEAC activity (with ABTS) of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at \(p<0.05\). Figure 7: Evolution of TEAC activity (with ABTS) of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at \(p<0.05\). After storage, the \"DPPH-scavenging\" activity was retained for 10 months of storage in the compotes except chokeberry and wild strawberry compotes (increase) and cherry and apricot compotes (loss in the activity, all at \(p\) < 0.05) (Figure 10). Very similar results were obtained in the case of juices, as the \"DPPH-scavenging\" activity was retained in most of the preserves except chokeberry juice (significant increase) and cherry (significant loss in the activity, \(p\) < 0.05) (Figure 11). Last but not least, in the case of jams, the \"DPPH-scavenging\" activity was retained in most of the preserves on the same level (insignificant changes, \(p\) < 0.05) except cherry and Idared jams (significant increase) and apricot jam (significant loss in the activity, \(p\) < 0.05) (Figure 12). Based on the results of all four performed tests, it is noteworthy that in most preserves, the biological activities were retained. When comparing fresh fruit to freshly prepared preserves or freshly prepared preserves to stored preserves, it must be strongly emphasized that while these losses in biological activities were moderate (although significant at \(p\) < 0.05), they were not overwhelming. Interestingly, even after 10 months of storage, a significant number of preserves significantly (at \(p\) < 0.05) increased or retained their activities. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**DPPH** & **Fruit** & **Compote** & **Juice** & **Jam** \\ \hline Chokeberry & 1.21 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.90 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a,b}}\) & 0.82 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Cherry & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{b,c}}\) & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Apricot & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.49 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.35 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Peach & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.00 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.17 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{d}}\) \\ Apple Idared & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.32 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Apple Champion & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.p. & n.p. \\ Wild strawberry & 0.28 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & n.p. & 0.47 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ Raspberry & 0.39 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.37 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.34 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Comparison of TEAC (DPPH) of fruits and corresponding, freshly prepared preserves. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at \(p\) < 0.05. n.p.—not produced. Figure 9: Evolution of TEAC activity (with ABTS) of jams during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at \(p\) < 0.05. Figure 11: Evolution of TEAC activity (with DPPH) of juices during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at \(p<0.05\). Figure 10: Evolution of TEAC activity (with DPPH) of compotes during storage. Letters apply to each fruit separately and indicate statistically significant differences at \(p<0.05\).