## 3 Results and Discussion
### Antioxidant Characteristics of Chicken Products Seasoned Stored in Vacuum and Atmosphere Conditions
Furthermore, 2% salt was added to the burgers, which can promote lipid oxidation when added to the meat [4]. This fact could explain the extensive formation of TBARS, not only during storage but also during burger preparation, leading to differences in TBARS values at day 0 between burger formulations with and without WPS (4.74 vs. 1.78 mg MDA/kg). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Product**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Parameter**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatment**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Time (Days)**} \\ \cline{4-7}  & & & **0** & **7** & **14** & **18** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Breast} & \multirow{4}{*}{TBARS (mg MDA/kg)} & C-V & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.04 1a  & 1.16 \(\pm\) 0.40 12a  & 1.48 \(\pm\) 0.23 123a  & 2.99 \(\pm\) 1.05 234b  \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{TBARS (mg MDA/kg)} & S-V & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.07 1b  & 0.90 \(\pm\) 0.13 12a  & 1.50 \(\pm\) 0.712a  & 1.59 \(\pm\) 0.112a  \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{TBARS (mg MDA/kg)} & C-A & 0.13 \(\pm\) 0.04 1a  & 3.62 \(\pm\) 1.21 2b  & 2.76 \(\pm\) 0.80 22b  & 2.24 \(\pm\) 0.60 2 ab  \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{TBARS (mg MDA/kg)} & S-A & 0.50 \(\pm\) 0.07 1b  & 1.05 \(\pm\) 0.111a  & 1.33 \(\pm\) 0.45 2a  & 1.38 \(\pm\) 0.09 2a  \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Burger} & \multirow{4}{*}{TBARS (mg MDA/kg)} & C-V & 4.74 \(\pm\) 0.81 b  & 6.41 \(\pm\) 0.41 b  & 7.36 \(\pm\) 0.27 b  & 6.01 \(\pm\) 0.33 b  \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{TBARS (mg MDA/kg)} & S-V & 1.78 \(\pm\) 0.04 a  & 1.88 \(\pm\) 0.13 a  & 1.95 \(\pm\) 0.20 a  & 1.69 \(\pm\) 0.10 a  \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{TBARS (mg MDA/kg)} & C-A & 4.74 \(\pm\) 0.81 b  & 9.12 \(\pm\) 0.24 c [FONOTE:2a]Footnote a:, b, c: mean values with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (\(p<\) 0.05).[ENDFOOTNOTE] & 8.37 \(\pm\) 0.11 c [FONOTE:2a]Footnote a:, b, c: mean values with different superscripts in the same column are significantly different (\(p<\) 0.05).[ENDFOOTNOTE] & 10.20 \(\pm\) 0.70 c  \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{TBARS (mg MDA/kg)} & S-A & 1.78 \(\pm\) 0.04 a  & 1.96 \(\pm\) 0.05 a  & 2.04 \(\pm\) 0.06 a  \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Lipid oxidation (TBARS) in control (C) chicken breasts and burgers and those with 3% white pomace season Moreover, the TBARS value of the backfat used (1.40 mg MDA/kg) should be considered, which could explain the relatively high TBARS values at day 0. When highlighting the results of FRAP (Table 4) in conjunction with TBARS (Table 5), an inverse relationship can be seen. The FRAP values decreased over the storage period, and the TBARS values in both chicken breasts and burgers increased. This indicates that as the ferric reducing power of antioxidants decreases, lipid oxidation increases [55]. The same tendency was observed by [PERSON] et al. [30] in chicken burgers with red grape pomace added. Consequently, lipid oxidation can be prevented at the outset by free radical scavengers and singlet oxygen quenchers, and the propagation chain reaction can be broken by peroxy-radical scavengers [56]. In addition to free radical scavenging activities, wine pomace flavonoids may also delay lipid oxidation by chelating metals [57].