## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Evaluation of Coated Chicken Liver Samples  
The texture, juiciness, aroma, and color of meat products are the main characteristics that influence the overall quality perception of consumers. These characteristics can be influenced by different production factors and techniques [101]. Sensory evaluation is of great importance, especially in the context of newly developed products. The sensory evaluations of coated chicken liver samples are shown in Table 14.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**APPEARANCE**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Sample** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Storage Period (Days)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Day 0**} & **Day 15** & **Day 30** & **Day 45** & **Day 60** \\ \hline
**FC** & 8.40 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{\text{\,BB}}}\) & 8.05 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 8.25 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 8.15 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 7.15 \(\pm\) 0.24 \({}^{\text{\,BA}}\) \\
**FTH** & 8.60 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{\,BC}}\) & 8.20 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 7.95 \(\pm\) 0.20 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 8.10 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{\,BC}}\) & 7.10 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{\,BA}}\) \\
**FTU** & 8.60 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{\,BC}}\) & 8.20 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{\,BC}}\) & 8.25 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{\,BC}}\) & 7.90 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 7.30 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{\,BA}}\) \\
**OC** & 7.85 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{\,AC}}\) & 7.00 \(\pm\) 0.18 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 7.05 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 6.45 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{\,AB}}\) & 6.30 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{\,AA}}\) \\
**OTH** & 7.60 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{\,AB}}\) & 7.20 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{\,AB}}\) & 7.50 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{\,AB}}\) & 7.20 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 6.30 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{\,AA}}\) \\
**OTU** & 7.75 \(\pm\) 0.23 \({}^{\text{\,AC}}\) & 7.35 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{\,AB}}\) & 7.25 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{\,ABC}}\) & 6.90 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{\,AB}}\) & 6.05 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{\,AA}}\) \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**COLOR**} \\ \cline{2-5}
**Sample** & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Storage Period (Days)**} \\ \cline{2-5}  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Day 0**} & **Day 15** & **Day 30** & **Day 45** & **Day 60** \\ \hline
**FC** & 8.25 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 8.00 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 8.05 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 8.30 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{\,BB}}\) & 7.50 \(\  
the fact that the oven-cooked samples have a floury and lighter appearance. This result is expected, considering that coated products are usually fried, and consumers are accustomed to a yellowish fried color; so, their preferences are in this direction. Color scores at the beginning of the storage and appearance scores on the 45 th day of storage of the oven-cooked samples with thyme were higher than those of the control samples (\(p<0.05\)). While the appearance scores of the oven-cooked samples with thyme did not show any significant change during the 45-day storage period, those of the control sample showed a significant decrease on the 15 th day (\(p<0.05\)). The interaction effect of CMxF, FxSP, CMxSP, and CMxFxSP on the appearance scores of the samples was determined as insignificant (Table 15). The incorporation of diverse spices into the formulation of the samples did not result in a difference in the texture scores determined during the storage period. However, the effect of different cooking methods on texture scores was observed. At the onset of storage, the texture score of the deep-fried sample with turmeric was determined to be higher than those cooked in the oven (\(p<0.05\)). Additionally, on day 15, the deep-fried sample containing thyme received significantly higher texture scores than those of the oven-cooked sample (\(p<0.05\)). It was observed that deep-fried samples containing thyme and all oven-cooked samples maintained their high texture scores for up to 45 days, while this period was 30 days for the other deep-fried samples (\(p<0.05\)).