Table 2. Comparing organoleptic characteristics among the sous-vide (SV) cooked chicken breasts with different herbal plant extracts

Variables	Control	Treatments			SEM	Level of significance
Variables	Control	AM	AT	Up	SEM	Level of significance
Visual attributes
Color¹⁾	6.08^a	5.17^c	5.67^ab	5.33^bc	0.17	**
Moisture²⁾	6.33	6.17	6.25	6.33	0.16	NS
Appearance¹⁾	6.25	5.67	6.00	6.00	0.21	NS
Overall acceptability¹⁾	6.17^a	5.17^b	5.67^ab	5.67^ab	0.18	**
Palatability characteristics
Initial tenderness³⁾	8.22^a	7.63^b	7.79^ab	7.90^ab	0.15	*
Rate of breakdown⁴⁾	7.81	7.28	7.45	7.58	0.16	NS
Amount of perceptible residue⁵⁾	7.28	6.81	6.86	7.06	0.17	NS
Juiciness⁶⁾	6.45	6.45	6.31	6.67	0.17	NS
Flavor intensity⁷⁾	6.06^b	6.37^b	6.53^ab	6.87^a	0.15	**
Off-flavor intensity⁸⁾	5.76^c	6.45^b	6.63^b	7.42^a	0.21	***
Treatment flavor acceptability¹⁾	6.25^b	6.45^ab	6.70^ab	6.87^a	0.16	*
Sweetness⁸⁾	6.45	6.42	6.03	6.48	0.24	NS
Sourness⁸⁾	7.50	7.03	7.38	7.18	0.20	NS
Bitterness⁸⁾	7.55^a	6.81^bc	7.10^ab	6.41^c	0.19	***
Overall acceptability¹⁾	6.36^c	6.45^bc	6.83^ab	7.15^a	0.15	**

Score (1–9) = very unacceptable – very acceptable.
Score (1–9) = very dry – very moist.
Score (1–9) = very firm – very tender.
Score (1–9) = very slow – very fast.
Score (1–9) = very abundant – none.
Score (1–9) = not juicy – very juicy.
Score (1–9) = very weak – very strong.
Score (1–9) = very strong – very weak.
Different superscripts in the same row represent significant differences (p<0.05).
p<0.05;
p<0.01;
p<0.001.
Control, SV cooked chicken breast with distilled water; AM, SV cooked chicken with the Astragalus membranaceus extract; AT, SV cooked chicken with the Adenophora triphylla extract; UP, SV cooked chicken with the Ulmus pumila extract; NS, not significant.