## 4 Conclusions  
The addition of EOF demonstrated the potential for inhibiting microorganisms in minced meat. The different methods of applying EOF had different levels of antibacterial efficacy. Marinating meat in EOF before grinding resulted in a higher decrease in the initial load of microorganisms in the minced meat than adding and mixing the EOF after grinding. The reason for this is that microorganisms can easily contaminate the surface of raw meat, which leads to the distribution of microorganisms throughout the minced meat product when it is passed through a meat grinder. In most cases, however, HA levels (except for MelQx) increased with the addition of EOF, most likely due to a pro-oxidant effect or weight loss during frying, which was visible in the EOF-treated samples. Before applying EOF as a natural antimicrobial agent in meat products, it is necessary to evaluate consumer sensory acceptability.  
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: [[https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14020712/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14020712/s1)]([https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14020712/s1](https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/app14020712/s1)), Analysis of fingerroot oil using GC/MS. Figure S1: Chromatogram of fingerroot oil with composition; Figure S2: Total viable count (TVC), lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and Enterobacteriaceae bacteria (ENB) in uncooked pork meatballs from the control (without EOF) and the group with added EOF in the concentrations of 0.25, 0.50, 1.00, and 2.50 wt% by marinating (before grinding) and adding after grinding during storage at \(6\pm 1\)\({}^{\circ}\)C for 21 days; Table S1: Recoveries of HAs in pan-fried meatballs (mean and SD standard deviation).  
Conceptualization, J.W. and M.G.; methodology and validation, S.S. and P.S.; formal analysis, P.S.; investigation, P.S. and M.G.; writing--original draft preparation, P.S. and M.G.; writing--review and editing, M.G. and S.S.; supervision, J.W., M.G., and C.R.; funding acquisition, C.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded by the International Affairs Division of Kasetsart University in 2554 B.E.  
Not applicable.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Control** & **0.25 wt\% EOF** & **0.5 wt\% EOF** & **1 wt\% EOF** & **2.5 wt\% EOF** \\ \hline L* & 45.5 \(\pm\) 2.31 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 45.70 \(\pm\) 2.21 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 45.87 \(\pm\) 1.51 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 46.92 \(\pm\) 1.68 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 46.20 \(\pm\) 1.44 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ a* & 8.91 \(\pm\) 0.84 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 9.98 \(\pm\) 0.81 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 9.58 \(\pm\) 0.86 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 9.17 \(\pm\) 0.65 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 9.45 \(\pm\) 0.69 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ b* & 14.68 \(\pm\) 1.39 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 16.00 \(\pm\) 1.35 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 15.71 \(\pm\) 1.7 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 15.54 \(\pm\) 1.33 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 15.40 \(\pm\) 1.20 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ AE & & 3.76 \(\pm\) 2.09 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.64 \(\pm\) 1.80 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.84 \(\pm\) 1.86 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.29 \(\pm\) 1.28 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \end{tabular} a,b: different letters indicate significant differences; \(p<\) 0.05.  
\end{table}
Table 2: Color (L*, a*, and b*) and color difference \(\Delta\)E values of pan-fried meatballs using different additions of EOF.  
Data Availability Statement: Data are contained within the article and supplementary materials.  
The authors gratefully acknowledge the University of Hohenheim for providing the laboratory facility and the International Affairs Division of Kasetsart University for their financial support.  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.