## 3 Results and Discussion
### DPPH Values  
The stable radical 2-Diphenyl 2-Piperylhydrazyl (DPPH) exhibits its maximum absorption at approximately 517 nm and can be rapidly inactivated by an antioxidant. This method is extensively used to measure the degree of the free radical inhibition of various compounds [75]. The values of DPPH obtained from the coatings of the chicken liver samples can be seen in Table 8.  
The DPPH values of the samples demonstrated statistically significant differences with regard to both formulations and cooking methods (\(p<0.05\)). It was determined that the DPPH values of samples increased with the addition of thyme and turmeric compared to those of the control samples in both deep-fried and oven-cooked samples (\(p<0.05\)). The highest DPPH values were observed in turmeric-added samples cooked with both cooking methods. It was detected that the oven-cooked samples had significantly higher DPPH values than those of the deep-fried samples (\(p<0.05\)). During deep-frying, the sample reaches high temperatures in a much shorter period of time compared to oven cooking. There is a difference in the heat transfer mechanism between deep-frying and oven-cooking methods. In addition, oxidation develops more rapidly during deep-frying. For these reasons, there is a possibility that the antioxidant activity may decrease more in deep-fried samples compared to oven-cooked samples. In addition, in the present study, the cooking loss of the samples cooked in the oven was found to be higher than deep-fried samples, and accordingly, the protein value was found to be higher. Studies have shown that proteins have a potent antioxidant property due to free radical scavenging and metals have chelating potential [76]. Therefore, the high protein content of the oven-cooked samples compared to the deep-fried samples also contributed to the high antioxidant activity. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Dependent** & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Independent Variables**} \\ \cline{2-9}
**Variables** & **CM** & **F** & **SP** & **CMxF** & **FxSP** & **CMxSP** & **CMxFxSP** \\ \hline Hardness & \textless{}0.007 & \textless{}0.603 & \textless{}0.000 & \textless{}0.925 & \textless{}0.829 & \textless{}0.000 & \textless{}0.964 \\ Springiness & \textless{}0.003 & \textless{}0.434 & \textless{}0.000 & \textless{}0.250 & \textless{}0.610 & \textless{}0.000 & \textless{}0.967 \\ Cohesiveness & \textless{}0.000 & \textless{}0.369 & \textless{}0.000 & \textless{}0.236 & \textless{}0.812 & \textless{}0.000 & \textless{}0.673 \\ Gumminess & \textless{}0.000 & \textless{}0.116 & \textless{}0.002 & \textless{}0.993 & \textless{}0.114 & \textless{}0.101 & \textless{}0.396 \\ Chewiness & \textless{}0.017 & \textless{}0.898 & \textless{}0.001 & \textless{}0.749 & \textless{}0.868 & \textless{}0.839 & \textless{}0.954 \\ Resilience & \textless{}0.244 & \textless{}0.207 & \textless{}0.000 & \textless{}0.906 & \textless{}0.054 & \textless{}0.560 & \textless{}0.551 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* CM: cooking method, F: formulation, SP: storage period, CMxF: cooking method x formulation, FxSP: formulation x storage period, CMxF: cooking method x storage period, CMxFxSP: cooking method x formulation x storage period.  
\end{table} 
Table 7: The interaction effects of cooking method, formulation, and storage period on TPA values of coated chicken livers.