## 3 Results and Discussion
### General Parameters and Phenol Content
This is in line with our previous results using the same test for phenol quantification, where the phenol content in Control burgers increased from day 1 to day 7 [20]. These \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & **Control** & **NITRASC** & **0.5\%Pomace** & **3\%Pomace** & \(p\) \\ \hline Protein (\%) & 33.3 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 32.8 \(\pm\) 1.4 & 33.8 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 32.9 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 0.460 \\ Fat (\%) & 20.9 \(\pm\) 3.4 & 21.1 \(\pm\) 0.8 & 20.9 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 19.8 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 0.786 \\ Moisture (\%) & 29.4 \(\pm\)1.3 & 31.0 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 28.9 \(\pm\) 1.0 & 28.9 \(\pm\) 1.6 & 0.039 \\ \(a_{w}\) & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.0 ab & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.0 b & 0.86 \(\pm\) 0.0 b & 0.026 \\ pH & 5.9 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 5.6 \(\pm\) 0.0 b & 5.9 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 5.5 \(\pm\) 0.1 b & \textless{}0.001 \\ Phenolic compounds (mg 100 g\({}^{-1}\)) & 93.8 \(\pm\) 10.2 a & 76.9 \(\pm\) 5.3 b & 96.8 \(\pm\) 9.8 a & 86.8 \(\pm\) 6.7 ab & 0.007 \\ \hline \end{tabular} The results are expressed as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation and significance (\(p\)) from a one-way ANOVA. Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences in [PERSON]’s test.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: General parameters and phenolic content of Control dry-cured sausages and dry-cured sausages with synthetic additives (NITRASC) or with stabilized grape pomace at 0.5% (0.5%Pomace) or 3%(3%Pomace). compounds generated during sausage ripening and burger storage could include either phenols or other compounds able to interfere with the phenol quantification test. Some phenols could have been generated during ripening through microbial activity. Fermentation generally increases the phenolic content [42], and some microorganisms, such as _Brettanomyc_ yeasts, are able to transform phenols [43]. In this regard, the groups with the highest phenol content (Control and 0.5%Pomace) had the highest microbial counts, whereas the one with the lowest content (NITRASC) had the lowest one, suggesting that non-reacting compounds (including some phenols) from garlic and black pepper (included in all the groups) might have been transformed into reacting phenols. In addition, the generation of compounds interfering with the phenol measurement could also explain the high values in the Control group and the lack of differences between the two pomace groups (with 0.5 vs. 3% pomace). Interferences in the Folin-Ciocalteu method have been previously reported and attributed to reactions involving some synthetic additives, such as sulfites [44; 45], but also compounds such as sugars and amino acids [46], the latter being generated through ripening and microbial activity. The occurrence of these interferences could have resulted in an overestimation of the phenolic compound content, leading to weak relationships between it and the activities resulting from these compounds, such as the antioxidant activity. In this regard, the phenolic compound content was not significantly correlated with lipid and protein oxidation (\(p\) = 0.115 and 0.234, respectively). It should be noted that the pomace added to the 0.5%Pomace and 3%Pomace groups only provided 3.83 and 22.9 mg phenols 100 g\({}^{-1}\) of fresh batter, respectively, whereas the final content was 96.8 and 86.8 mg phenols 100 g\({}^{-1}\) dry-cured sausage, respectively. This reveals that the dry-cured sausages had a high content in compounds quantified as phenols that were not in the pomace. The phenolic compounds of grape pomace are directly related to the antioxidant activity of the pomace, although it is a highly variable parameter [17; 18; 26]. However, our results suggest that the total phenolic content measured in the dry-cured sausages using the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent might not be a relevant indicator for the pomace added and its phenols and, therefore, for the antioxidant potential in the dry-cured sausages.