## 3 Results and Discussion
### Functional Properties of Carp Burgers  
The functional characteristics of control and microalgae-fortified burgers are shown in Table 4.  
Highly significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) were observed in WHC between the control (2.31 \(g\)/\(g\) DW) and the 1% _Isochryssi-_, 1% _Picochlorum-_, and 1% _Chlorella_-fortified burgers (2.79, 2.81, and 2.84 \(g\)/\(g\) DW, respectively) (Table 4). The greater WHC of the three microalgae burgers suggests that they could be used as functional natural ingredients in food treatments to modify viscosity and texture, reduce dehydration during storage, and minimize the energetic value of food products. Compared to control burgers, important differences (\(p<0.05\)) were observed in terms of the oil holding capacities (OHC) displayed by the three microalgae (Table 4). This reached 0.96 \(g\)/\(g\), 0.91 \(g\)/\(g\), and 0.92 \(g\)/\(g\) for _Isochryssi galbana_, _Picochlorum_ sp., and _Chlorella minutissima_ treatments, respectively (Table 3). These OHC values could be of a particular interest, especially for the binding of fat during industrial food processing and storage. This might be attributed to the high water and oil binding capacities of the three microalgae fibers [19; 32]. In addition, the control burgers showed the lowest values of swelling capacity (3.14 mL/g). The highest values of swelling capacity were obtained by _Isochryssi_ (3.59 mL/g  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Control** & **1\%** & **1\%** & **1\%** \\  & **Burger** & _Isochryssi_ & _Picochlorum_ & _Chlorella_ & **Burger** \\ \hline
**Swelling capacity (SWC)** & & & & \\ (mL/g DW) * & 3.14 \(\pm\) 0.115 & 3.59 \(\pm\) 0.116 ** & 3.54 \(\pm\) 0.1  & 3.52 \(\pm\) 0.002  \\
**Water holding capacity** & & & & \\ (**WHC) (g/g DW) * & 2.31 \(\pm\) 0.135 & 2.79 \(\pm\)0.02  & 2.81 \(\pm\) 0.11  & 2.84 \(\pm\) 0.04  \\
**Oil holding capacity** & & & & \\ (**OHC) (g/g DW) * & 0.85 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.04  & 0.91 \(\pm\) 0.002  & 0.92 \(\pm\) 0.001  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 4: Functional parameters of control and microalgae-fortified fish burgers.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Hardness** & **Springiness** & **Chewiness** & **Cohesiveness** \\  & **(N)** & **(cm)** & **(N-cm)** & **Cohesiveness** \\ \hline
**Control burger** & 8.35 & 0.36 & 1.11 & 0.37 \\
**1\% _Isochryssi burger_** & 10.03  & 0.33 \\
**1\% _Picochlorum_ burger** & 11.42  & 0.36 & 1.40  & 0.34 \\
**1\% _Chlorella burger_** & 10.05  & 0.41 & 1.60  & 0.39 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Control vs. microalgae-fortified burgers: \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(p<0.05\); \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(p<0.01\); \({}^{\text{c}}\)\(p<0.001\).[ENDFOOTNOTE]  
\end{table}
Table 3: Parameters obtained by texture analyzer for control burgers and fortified burgers with 1% of microalgae.  
DW) and _Picochlorum_ (3.54 mL/g DW) burgers and by _Chlorella_ burgers (3.52 mL/g DW) (\(p<0.001\)) (Table 4). Furthermore, the difference between the functional capacities of the three microalgae could be explained by the differences in their proportion, composition and characteristics of dietary fibers [19]. These results are in accordance with previous reports [28; 33].