## 3 Results and Discussion
### \(pH\)  
All samples had a slightly alkaline pH. [PERSON]'s post hoc test found significant (\(p=0.05\)) differences between sample groups. The nature of the marinades significantly (\(p=0.05\)) influenced the pH of the meat. Meat marinated with paprika was on average 4% less alkaline than raw meat, and herb-marinated samples were on average 0.6% less alkaline than paprika-marinated samples. It is very interesting that the very weak alkaline effect of piperine was also significantly (\(p=0.05\)) shown: the BA+ sample groups were on average 0.6% more alkaline than the BA\(-\) sample groups. By coagulating proteins with alkaline pH, the pressure treatment shifted the pH \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \begin{tabular}{c} **Marinade** \\ **Flavoring** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Piperine** \\ **Enrichment** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **HHP Treatment** \\ **[MPa]** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Storage Time** \\ **[day]** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Mean of h\({}_{\text{ab}}\) [-]** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Std. Deviation** \\ **of h\({}_{\text{ab}}\) [-]** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{0} & \multirow{8}{*}{0} & 0 & 54.91 & 5.66 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 4 & 53.66 & 3.80 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 7 & 53.79 & 6.03 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 12 & 53.79 & 6.03 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 14 & 52.18 & 2.85 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 0 & 59.73 & 5.26 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 4 & 59.10 & 4.91 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 7 & 62.02 & 2.67 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 12 & 62.02 & 2.67 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 14 & 61.98 & 2.25 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 0 & 60.72 & 4.02 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 4 & 61.01 & 3.85 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 7 & 61.52 & 4.96 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 12 & 61.52 & 4.96 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 14 & 63.15 & 2.15 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 0 & 57.13 & 3.65 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 4 & 59.62 & 5.05 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 7 & 60.06 & 3.11 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 12 & 60.06 & 3.11 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 14 & 62.02 & 4.02 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{300} & \multirow{8}{*}{450} & 0 & 53.90 & 6.45 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 4 & 51.37 & 4.71 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 7 & 53.75 & 1.81 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 12 & 56.02 & 5.52 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 14 & 54.63 & 6.51 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 0 & 55.40 & 4.85 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 4 & 55.47 & 1.75 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 7 & 56.77 & 4.14 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 12 & 56.77 & 4.14 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 14 & 56.20 & 1.86 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 0 & 56.22 & 4.93 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 4 & 57.60 & 7.39 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 7 & 55.64 & 4.42 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 12 & 55.64 & 4.42 \\ \cline{3-5}  & & 14 & 56.41 & 2.20 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: _Cont._of the samples towards neutral. All groups of samples treated with HHP at different pressures were significantly different (\(p\) = 0.05). Although this difference was statistically significant, there was on average a relative difference of 0.5-0.8% between the pH of the different pressure-treated sample groups. During storage, the pH also increased, which can be explained by the decomposition of alkaline substances and the effect of acids produced by growing microorganisms. [PERSON]'s post hoc test significantly (\(p\) = 0.05) separated four homogeneous groups, which were the following in ascending order of pH: (1) 14-day and 12-day sample groups; (2) 12-day and 7-day sample groups; (3) 7-day and 4-day sample groups; and (4) 4-day and 0-day sample groups. The average difference between the expected values of the homogeneous groups was 0.15-0.2%, which is not a big change. The pH results are shown in Table 9.