## 3 Results and Discussion
### Organoleptic Quality of Chicken Meatballs  
The mean scores determined in the evaluation of the organoleptic attributes of chicken meatballs were relatively high, i.e., not lower than 4.0 points on a 5-point scale (Table 4). However, chicken meatballs differed significantly (\(p<0.05\)) in terms of both the analyzed attributes: appearance and color, and aroma. On days one and seven, there were no significant changes (\(p>0.05\)) found in the appearance and color of chicken meatballs containing wage preparations. Only on the last day of storage, the SEO product, containing 0.1% of sag essential oil, was scored significantly (\(p<0.05\)) lower for the external appearance and color than the control product. As for the aroma, the scores significantly (\(p<0.05\)) decreased with the passage of storage time only in the case of the control and SD products (Table 4). However, significant (\(p<0.05\)) differences in aroma were only observed between days 1 and 14 of storage. In \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Time** \\ **(d)** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Treatment 1**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **Control** & **SD** & **SEE40** & **SEE70** & **SEO** \\ \cline{2-6}  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Appearance and Color (Points)**} \\ \hline
1 & 4.6 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.21 & 4.5 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.26 & 4.5 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AC}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 & 4.5 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AB}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.17 & 4.5 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AB}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 \\
7 & 4.4 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.21 & 4.3 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.21 & 4.2 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AB}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 & 4.4 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AB}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.15 & 4.3 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AB}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 \\
14 & 4.3 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{BA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 & 4.2 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{ab}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 & 4.1 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{ab}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.00 & 4.1 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{ab}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.17 & 4.0 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 \\ \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Aroma (points)**} \\ \hline
1 & 4.7 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{DB}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.17 & 4.6 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AB}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.20 & 4.6 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{ab}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.21 & 4.4 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{ab}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.17 & 4.3 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.10 \\
7 & 4.6 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{BA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 & 4.4 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{ab}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 & 4.5 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{BA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.15 & 4.3 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 & 4.2 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.15 \\
14 & 4.4 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 & 4.2 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.20 & 4.3 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 & 4.3 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.12 & 4.1 \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AA}}}}\)\(\pm\) 0.06 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The symbols identifying the chicken meatball treatments are explained in the footnotes of Table 1. \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{ab}}}}\) Mean values in the row marked with different letters differ significantly at \(p<0.05\) (different superscript letters indicate differences between treatments on a given day of storage). \({}^{\text{\,{\rm{AB}}}}\)C Mean values in the column marked with different letters differ significantly at \(p<0.05\) (different superscript letters indicate the effect of the storage time of a given treatment on the examined quality characteristic).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Changes in selected organoleptic attributes of chicken meatballs containing MSM from chickens during refrigerated storage (mean value \(\pm\) standard deviation; \(n=24\)). addition, between days one and seven of storage, the use of sage essential oil (SEO) and sage ethanol (70%, \(v/v\)) extract (SEE70) caused a significant (\(p<0.05\)) difference in the aroma of chicken meatballs in comparison with the control product. The panelists stated that the \"characteristic herbal aroma\" of the two above-mentioned sage preparations could be slightly perceptible, which worsens the acceptability of the meatball aroma.