Place, duration and sample collection The experiment was conducted at the Animal Science Laboratory under the department of Animal Science, Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU), Mymensingh, Bangladesh, during January to June 2015. Chicken meats of 2.5 kg freshly slaughtered chicken were collected from K.R. Market, Bangladesh Agricultural University (BAU), Mymensingh at 10.00 a.m. The meat samples were transferred to the Animal Science Laboratory immediately. Experimental design The present study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of different levels of corn flour on the quality characteristics of chicken meatball. The meatballs were formulated as four treatment groups having T1-0% (control group), T2-5%, T3-10%, T4-15% corn flour. After formulation, samples were preserved at -200C for 60 days and analyzed the data at 0, 15, 30 and 60th day, respectively. The sensory (color, flavor, tenderness, juiciness and overall acceptability), proximate components (dry matter, crude protein, ether extract, ash), physicochemical properties (pH and cooking loss) and biochemical properties (free fatty acid, peroxide and thiobarbituric acid value) were analyzed for all treatment groups and day intervals. Preparation of meatball At first the chicken meats were properly cleaned with fresh water and the fat were trimmed off with sharp knife. Then the meat were grinded properly and mixed with garlic pest, onion pest, ginger pest, dry meat spices mix, egg yolk, cookies crumbs, ice flakes, refined vegetable oil. After that the mixed sample was aliquot into 4 parts. Then 0%, 05%, 10% and 15% corn flower were mixed with four parts of mixed meat sample separately. Then meatballs of proper shape (20-25g) were prepared separately from each group. Prepared meatballs were then boiled in hot water (1000C) for 2-3 minutes, water were removed from the meatball properly and fired in hot oil (1000C) until reddish brown color obtained (3-4 min.). After frying the meatballs they were packaged in polyethylene bags as per treatment group and labeled carefully. Then they were kept at -200 C for the pending analysis. Sensory evaluation Each meatball sample was evaluated by a trained 6-member panel. The sensory questionnaires measured intensity on a 5-point balanced semantic scale (weak to strong) for the attributes of color, smell, tenderness, juiciness, and overall acceptability. Sensory scores were 5 for excellent, 4 for very good, 3 for good, 2 for fair and 1 for poor (Rahman et al., 2012). Panelists were selected among department staff and students and trained according to the American Meat Science Association guidelines (AMSA, 1995). Proximate Composition Proximate composition was carried out according to the methods (AOAC, 2016). All determinations were done in triplicate and the mean values were reported. Biochemical analysis There were three types of biochemical analysis. These are Free Fatty Acid (FFA), Peroxide Value (POV) and Thiobarbituric Acid value (TBARS). FFA value was determined according to Rukunudin et al. (1998). POV was determined according to Sallam et al. (2004). Lipid oxidation was assessed in triplicate using the 2-thiobarbituric acid (TBA) method described by Schmedes and Holmer et al. (1989). Physiochemical analysis The pH value of raw and cooked meatball was measured using pH meter from raw and cooked meatball homogenate respectively. The homogenate was prepared by blending 5 g of meatball with 10 ml distilled water. To determine the cooking loss firstly weighted meatballs boiled at water bath to 100ºC. After completed boiling samples were removed from the water bath and egg albumin, biscuit crumbs were mixed with all types of chicken meatballs. Again all samples were cooked with refined soybean oil to 1000C. After completed the frying of meatballs these are properly removed and were kept in cooled condition for to get at room temperature. Then the cooking loss was measured on per cent basis. Statistical analysis Data were statistically analyzed using SAS statistical discovery software, NC, USA. DMRT test was used to determine the significance of differences among treatments means. Means were considered significantly different for p < 0.05. Data presented are shown as means ± SD.