## 3 Results and Discussion
### Color Measurement of Treated Chicken Thigh Meat  
Analysis of the CIE (the International Commission on Illumination) color system data collected using a Konica Minolta instrument (L*, a*, and b* values) showed no significant variations (\(p\) > 0.05) among all treatments on day 0 of the storage period (Table 3).  
Generally, no significant variation was observed between the treated (oregano oil) samples of raw meat regarding color values on day 0 of storage [18; 39]. Both oregano oil sources (OR-S and OR-V) showed greater significant (\(p\) < 0.05) stabilizing effects on the L* values during storage compared to the control samples. The same findings were reported when evaluating the a* values, which reflect meat discoloration during storage. The stabilization mechanism of oregano oil can be explained by its antioxidant effect generated from its polyphenol compounds [7; 18; 40]. These compounds increase the reducing capacity of fresh meat and delay the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). They also maintain the chemical status of iron inside the heme group (Fe+2 in the ferrous or reduced state) of meat myoglobin [3; 41]. In addition, they improve meat shelf life, water-holding capacity, and textural and sensorial characteristics [39; 42], which are also reflected in its L* values. Based on the current data, the inclusion of synthetic BHA showed the lowest effect on maintaining meat color freshness compared to the other additives. However, no considerable variations (\(p\) < 0.05) were found between treatment additives during storage regarding CIE color values, especially on day 7. In addition, the presence of an _Aloe_ gel layer should improve the effectiveness of oregano oil as a meat color preservative. In summary, OR-S inclusion with 5% _Aloe vera_ gel could be an excellent natural alternative to the artificial BHA currently used in meat preservation. The b* value change was not significant among the treatment  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Time** & **Control** & **OR-S** & **OR-V** & **BHA** & **SEM** \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**TBARS (mg/kg) Meat**} \\ \hline Day 0 & 1.199 \({}^{\text{\tiny{ax}}}\) & 1.203 \({}^{\text{\tiny{ay}}}\) & 1.200 \({}^{\text{\tiny{ax}}}\) & 1.193 \({}^{\text{\tiny{ax}}}\) & 0.073 \\ Day 4 & 3.637 \({}^{\text{\tiny{ay}}}\) & 1.304 \({}^{\text{\tiny{cy}}}\) & 1.467 \({}^{\text{\tiny{key}}}\) & 1.517 \({}^{\text{\tiny{by}}}\) & 0.051 \\ Day 7 & 7.024 \({}^{\text{\tiny{ax}}}\) & 2.780 \({}^{\text{\tiny{ax}}}\) & 3.291 \({}^{\text{\tiny{bx}}}\) & 3.372 \({}^{\text{\tiny{bx}}}\) & 0.045 \\ \hline SEM & 0.041 & 0.058 & 0.038 & 0.082 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Values in the same row with different letters are significantly different (\(p\) < 0.05). n = 4. \({}^{\text{\tiny{ax}}}\) Values in the same column with different letters are significantly different (\(p\) < 0.05). TBARS value in mg malondialdehydehyde/kg meat. Treatments: Control; OR-S; OR-V; BHA (14 ppm of _butylated hydroxamisole_).  
\end{table}
Table 2: TBARS * values of cooked chicken thigh meat at different storage times at 4 \({}^{\text{\tiny{C}}}\)C.  
additives during storage. In addition, it increased significantly for all treatments starting from day 0 and ending on day 8.