## 3 Results
### Effect of Heterogeneous Salt Distribution on Sensory Profile of Beef Patties  
Despite there not being a significant effect of salt content across the patty treatments, the heterogeneous salt distribution (HSD) treatment caused significant differences (\(p\leq 0.05\)) in the intensity of the salty taste, the salty and beefy aftertaste intensities, as well as the taste uniformity in the beef patties. Significant differences were also noted in the hardness and juiciness. No significant differences in the intensity of beef odour, beef flavour, or umami taste were observed across the burger samples (Table 5). Surprisingly, the inhomogeneous spatial distribution of salt in the burger meat increased the saltiness intensity when salt was located in the internal parts of the burger. A clear effect was demonstrated by the HT-M-IN sample, in which case [PERSON]'s multiple comparison test revealed a significant (\(p<0.05\)) difference from the homogeneously salted patty. Placing salt in the external parts of burger meat increases the perceived hardness of beef burgers. The samples with equal proportions of salted (1.4% NaCl) and unsalted meat were perceived as having a more intense beef aftertaste. The uniformity of taste scaling revealed that all of the samples, with the exception of HT-M-EX and HT-H-IN, were perceived as uniform. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Raw Beef Patties**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Cooked Beef Patties**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & **Sample** & **Moisture** & **Protein** & **Fat** & **Ash** & **Salt** & **Moisture** & **Protein** & **Fat** & **Ash** & **Salt** \\ \cline{2-10}  & & \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Percentage Content [\%] \(\times\) X \(\times\) SD**} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HM 0.7\%} & 74.41  & 20.62  & 4.16  & 1.74  & 0.70  & 0.70  & 66.2  & 27.55  & 5.36  & 1.81  & 0.69  \\  & \(\pm\) 0.08 & \(\pm\) 0.29 & \(\pm\) 0.03 & \(\pm\) 0.07 & \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(\pm\) 0.5 & \(\pm\) 0.33 & \(\pm\) 0.13 & \(\pm\) 0.03 & \(\pm\) 0.03 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HT-L-EX} & 74.39  & 20.23  & 4.23  & 1.65  & 0.66  & 0.66  & 64.72  & 29.06  & 5.53  & 1.87  & 0.81  \\  & \(\pm\) 0.05 & \(\pm\) 0.07 & \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(\pm\) 0.06 & \(\pm\) 0.08 & \(\pm\) 0.08 & \(\pm\) 0.23 & \(\pm\) 0.35 & \(\pm\) 0.07 & \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(\pm\) 0.04 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HT-L-IN} & 74.15  & 20.30  & 4.26  & 1.71  & 0.76  & 28.09  & 5.02  & 1.92  & 0.79  \\  & \(\pm\) 0.16 & \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(\pm\) 0.10 & \(\pm\) 0.02 & \(\pm\) 0.03 & \(\pm\) 0.09 & \(\pm\) 0.33 & \(\pm\) 0.03 & \(\pm\) 0.05 & \(\pm\) 0.05 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HT-L-EX} & 74.33  & 20.24  & 4.2  & 1.60  & 0.70  & 65.18  & 28.09  & 5.02  & 1.92  & 0.79  \\  & \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(\pm\) 0.10 & \(\pm\) 0.02 & \(\pm\) 0.03 & \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(\pm\) 0.23 & \(\pm\) 0.38 & \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(\pm\) 0.04 & \(\pm\) 0.05 \\ \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HT-H-IN} & 74.17  & 20.34  & 4.26  & 1.59  & 0.60  & 0.60  & 66.25  & 27.24  & 5.30  & 2.02  & 0.73  \\  & \(\pm\) 0.08 & \(\pm\) 0.14 & \(\pm\) 0.03 & \(\pm\) 0.02 & \(\pm\) 0.03 & \(\pm\) 0.24 & \(\pm\) 0.23 & \(\pm\) 0.18 & \(\pm\) 0.06 & \(\pm\) 0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Proximate compositions of beef patties used in the study. The datasets were subjected to principal component analysis (PCA), and the findings show that the variation between the beef burgers in two principal components explains 73.5% of the variance. The PCA biplot graphs (Figure 2) provide a clearer presentation of the data position and relationships between the axes and components. The first factor explained 49.8% of the total variance and shows a close relationship of the salty taste and aftertaste with juiciness, and shows a negative relationship with hardness. The second dimension accounts for 23.6% of the total variability and demonstrates a relationship between the salty taste and beef flavour and aftertaste and demonstrates a negative relationship with the uniformity of taste.