## 3 Results and Discussion
### Consumer Preference and Freshness Evaluation of Raw Samples  
Seabream and seagrass, as whole-gutted fish and as fillets, respectively, and packaged under modified atmosphere, were used in this study. For each species, participants were asked, after opening the two types of packaging, which sample they preferred, MAP or MAP-PAD ones, without giving any information about the samples during testing. Herein it must be noted that there were no direct comparisons made between highest quality and end of high-quality shelf-life, but only between the different packaging conditions (MAP-PAD or MAP) at the same time point. As can be seen in Table 3, whole seabream with a pad was preferred over its counterpart at the end of high-quality shelf-life (End). Regarding fillets, the samples with a pad at the end of high-quality shelf-life were the most preferred for both species. Seabass fillets with a pad at the high quality shelf-life time point \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Questions** & \(n\) & **Proportion** & _p-Value_ \\ \hline
**Consumption frequency** & & & \textless{}0.001 \\ Never & 3 & 0.5\% & \\ Rarely & 2 & 0.5\% & \\ Once to 3 times a month & 92 & 34\% & \\ Once or twice a week & 177 & 65\% & \\
**I usually buy:** * & & & \textless{}0.001 \\ Fresh fish & 261 & 95\% & \\ Frozen fish & 88 & 32\% & \\ Canned fish & 64 & 23\% & \\ Other & 7 & 3\% & \\
**When I buy fresh fish, I usually buy it packaged.** & 33 & 12\% & \textless{}0.001 \\
**I believe that packaged fish is:** * & & & \textless{}0.001 \\ Less safe & 36 & 13\% & \\ Sáfer & 104 & 38\% & \\ Less convenient & 23 & 8\% & \\ More convenient & 161 & 59\% & \\ Less nutritious & 34 & 12\% & \\ More nutritious & 8 & 3\% & \\ Less fresh & 137 & 50\% & \\ Fresher & 18 & 7\% & \\
**Would you prefer a packaging with a pad?** & & & \textless{}0.001 \\ Indifferent & 84 & 31\% & \\ No & 39 & 14\% & \\ Yes & 151 & 55\% & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Participants were free to choose more than one answer for the respective questions.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Consumption frequency and attitudes towards fish and fish packaging. Results are presented as frequencies (_n_) and proportion (%) out of 274 consumers in total. _P_-values were calculated by applying the chi-square test at a = 0.05. (HQ) were preferred as well, while a similar tendency can be observed for seabream fillets. These findings indicate that the pad has a positive effect on the preference of the consumers, especially at the end of high-quality shelf-life. It is noteworthy that different total numbers of consumers per session can be observed due to the distinct days on which the test sessions took place (Figure 1). Moreover, the difference in the total numbers of consumers can also be attributed to consumers who gave no answer in the preference question and therefore did not appear in the frequency count. To our knowledge, these are the first data that prove the acceptability among consumers of such a packaging designed to improve shelf-life and reduce food waste in fish products. Perceived quality is one of the most important factors that influence food choice, especially in fish. Fish freshness, among other factors such as safety, nutritional content, and physical properties, significantly affects perceived quality [11; 14]. Regarding the sensory freshness evaluation of whole-gutted gilthead seabream (Supplementary Table S1), consumers rated the MAP-PAD samples at the end of high-quality shelf-life as fresher in odor (\(p\) = 0.004) and overall (\(p\) = 0.011) compared to MAP ones. Furthermore, this was reflected in their willingness to buy (\(p\) = 0.018) and closeness of the product to the ideal of packaged fish (\(p\) = 0.009). As for the whole-gutted seabass, MAP-PAD samples were not different from MAP samples at any time point for any of the attributes (Supplementary Table S1).