Table 2.
Color parameters of hemp flowers subjected to drying using different methods.
| Drying Method | Color | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| L* | a* | b* | ΔE* | |
| Fresh | 20.61 ± 5.37 | −1.98 ± 0.61 | 8.41 ± 2.87 | - |
| CD50 | 42.48 ± 1.59 a,b,1 | −4.49 ± 0.83 a,b | 12.06 ± 1.01 a,b | 22.31 |
| CD60 | 41.88 ± 0.7 a,c | −4.99 ± 0.6 a | 10.77 ± 0.4 a,c | 21.61 |
| CD70 | 41.72 ± 1.26 a,c | −4.82 ± 0.25 a | 11.25 ± 0.72 a,b | 21.49 |
| VMD240 | 39.78 ± 0.43 c | −3.57 ± 0.66 b | 9.6 ± 0.34 c | 19.27 |
| VMD360 | 43.56 ± 1.28 a,b | −3.5 ± 0.62 b | 11.34 ± 0.61 a,b | 23.19 |
| VMD480 | 44.27 ± 0.93 b | −4.83 ± 0.37 a | 12.62 ± 0.57 b | 24.20 |
| CPD-VMFD | 42.09 ± 1.09 a,b | −4.59 ± 0.52 a,b | 10.99 ± 1.14 a,c | 21.79 |
1 Mean values followed by the same letter were not significantly different (p < 0.05) according to the HSD Tukey’s least significance difference test.