## 4 Conclusions  
This study investigates the effect of adding _Kappaphycus alvarezii_ seaweed on the low-salt chicken patty in terms of its physicochemical properties. Adding _K. alvarezii_ lowered the percentage of cooking loss, shrinkage of diameter and thickness while improving the water holding capacity. _K. alvarezii_ could also improve the texture attributes such as the hardness, elasticity, chewiness, and cohesiveness of the patty. In addition, seaweed addition influenced the colour of sample by increasing the brightness (L*) and redness (+a*), while decreasing the yellowish value (+b*). The water activity remained unchanged despite the increased addition of seaweed. Additionally, _K. alvarezii_ improved the dynamic rheological properties, owing to the presence of the kappa carrageenanan and salt-binding properties between the meat protein matrices. The sensory evaluation results showed that salt reduction to 1.0% with the addition of 4% _K. alvarezii_ into the chicken patty sample (F3) was still acceptable and preferred, despite the highest overall acceptance of F4. Future studies will concentrate on increasing the health advantages of the patty through the combination of salt and fat reduction, using _K. alvarezii_ at the acceptable inclusion levels identified in the present study.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Formulation**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Sensory Attributes**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Colour** & **Aroma** & **Hardness** & **Elasticity** & **Juiciness** & **Overall** \\  & **Colour** & **Aroma** & **Hardness** & **Elasticity** & **Juiciness** & **Acceptance** \\ \hline Control (C) & 4.70 \(\pm\) 1.58 a & 5.60 \(\pm\) 1.40 a & 3.97 \(\pm\) 1.27 a & 4.03 \(\pm\) 1.54 a & 5.37 \(\pm\) 1.43 a & 4.33 \(\pm\) 1.37 a \\ F1 (2 KA, 1.0S) & 4.97 \(\pm\) 1.10 ab & 5.03 \(\pm\) 1.35 a & 4.50 \(\pm\) 1.11 ab & 4.43 \(\pm\) 1.17 a & 5.13 \(\pm\) 1.41 ab & 4.40 \(\pm\) 1.28 a \\ F2 (2 KA, 1.5S) & 5.10 \(\pm\) 1.03 abc & 5.00 \(\pm\) 1.31 a & 5.20 \(\pm\) 1.24 b & 4.60 \(\pm\) 1.59 ab & 4.60 \(\pm\) 1.04 ab & 4.70 \(\pm\) 0.88 ab \\ F3 (4 KA, 1.0S) & 5.60 \(\pm\) 1.07 bc & 4.83 \(\pm\) 1.18 a & 5.30 \(\pm\) 1.06 bc & 5.50 \(\pm\) 1.20 bc & 4.40 \(\pm\) 1.19 b & 5.27 \(\pm\) 0.94 b \\ F4 (4 KA, 1.5S) & 5.87 \(\pm\) 0.97 c & 4.73 \(\pm\) 1.66 a & 6.03 \(\pm\) 1.13 c & 5.67 \(\pm\) 1.24 c & 4.33 \(\pm\) 1.42 b & 6.10 \(\pm\) 1.02 c \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) with different lowercase superscripts showed significant differences for different formulation of samples (\(p<0.05\)). Control = 0% _Kapphycus alvarezii_, 1.5% salt; F1 = 2% _Kapphycus alvarezii_, 1.0% salt; F2 = 2% _Kapphycus alvarezii_, 1.5% salt; F3 = 4% _Kapphycus alvarezii_, 1.0% salt; F4 = 4% _Kapphycus alvarezii_, 1.5% salt.  
\end{table}
Table 8: Sensory attributes for different formulations of chicken patty.  
**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, W.P.; Data curation, E.M. and L.W.Q.; Formal analysis, E.M. and L.W.Q.; Funding acquisition, W.P.; Investigation, E.M. and L.W.Q.; Methodology, E.M. and L.W.Q.; Project administration, W.P.; Resources, W.P.; Supervision, E.M., N.A.W. and W.P.; Visualization, H.M.Z., E.M., N.A.W. and N.S.S.; Writing--original draft, E.M.; Writing--review & editing, H.M.Z., W.P. and N.Q.I.M.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
**Funding:** The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided projects Research Aculturation Grant Scheme (RAG0069-STWN-2015) by Ministry Higher Education of Malaysia, and The APC was funded by the Universiti Malaysia Sabah.  
**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.  
**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.