Table 4. Central composite design for the optimization of selected variables on the formulation of a perilla-canola oil (o/w) emulsion, with the responses in meat emulsion shown.

Run	Variablesa			Responses
	SPI (%)	CR (%)	IN (%)	Emulsion stability		Cooking loss (%)	Texture profile
				Total fluid loss (mL/g)	Oil release (mL/g)		Hardness (kg)	Cohesiveness	Springiness (cm)	Gumminess (kg · cm)	Chewiness (kg · cm)
1	–1 (1.5)	–1 (0.5)	–1(5)	0.04	0.01	5.85	1.46	0.64	0.97	0.66	0.45
2	1 (4.5)	–1 (0.5)	–1(5)	0.03	0.01	5.27	1.53	0.67	0.97	0.69	0.45
3	–1 (1.5)	1 (1.5)	–1(5)	0.03	0.01	5.61	1.68	0.76	0.98	0.77	0.46
4	1 (4.5)	1 (1.5)	–1(5)	0.03	0.01	6.66	1.72	0.80	0.99	0.81	0.47
5	–1 (1.5)	–1 (0.5)	1(11)	0.04	0.02	7.52	1.55	0.71	0.96	0.74	0.48
6	1 (4.5)	–1 (0.5)	1(11)	0.02	0.01	5.52	1.90	0.88	0.98	0.91	0.48
7	–1 (1.5)	1 (1.5)	1(11)	0.03	0.01	5.60	2.28	1.06	0.98	1.09	0.48
8	1 (4.5)	1 (1.5)	1(11)	0.01	0.005	5.38	2.55	1.02	0.96	1.06	0.47
9	–1.68 (0)	0(1)	0(8)	0.06	0.03	6.45	2.04	0.92	0.96	0.96	0.47
10	1.68(6)	0(1)	0(8)	0.03	0.01	5.67	2.16	0.90	0.93	0.97	0.45
11	0(3)	–1.68 (0)	0(8)	0.03	0.01	6.91	1.25	0.38	0.91	0.42	0.34
12	0(3)	1.68(2)	0(8)	0.03	0.02	6.48	1.32	0.41	0.91	0.45	0.34
13	0(3)	0(1)	–1.68(2)	0.05	0.02	6.56	1.89	0.80	0.97	0.83	0.44
14	0(3)	0(1)	1.68(14)	0.03	0.01	5.92	2.03	0.84	0.94	0.89	0.44
15–20b	0(3)	0(1)	0(8)	0.05±0.00	0.02±0.00	7.00±0.42	1.57±0.01	0.66±0.01	0.92±0.01	0.71±0.01	0.45±0.01
Overall meanb				0.03±0.01*	0.01±0.01*	6.16±0.68*	1.79±0.37	0.76±0.19*	0.95±0.03*	0.80±0.20*	0.44±0.04*
Control meat emulsionb				0.08±0.00	0.05±0.00	8.71±0.31	1.77±0.02	0.53±0.01	0.77±0.02	0.68±0.01	0.39±0.01

^a SPI, soy protein isolate; CR, carrageenan; IN, inulin.

^b Responses are presented as mean±standard deviation.

^* The mean value of the response of meat emulsion formulated with (o/w) emulsion was significantly (p<0.05) different with that of control meat emulsion formulated with beef tallow.