| Literature DB >> 25049917 |
I S Kim1, S K Jin1, M R Yang1, G M Chu1, J H Park1, R H I Rashid1, J Y Kim1, S N Kang1.
Abstract
This study was carried out to determine the effects of tomato powder (TP) on cooked pork patties during storage at 10±1°C in the dark. The total phenolic and flavonoid contents of TP extract were 26.22 mg gallic acid/100 g and 3.52 mg quercetin/100 g, respectively. The extract of TP showed a potential antioxidant activity in the DPPH radical-scavenging assay (EC50 = 16.76 μg/mL). Pork patties were manufactured with 0.25% (T1), 0.5% (T2), 0.75% (T3) and 1.0% (T4) TP in a basic formula (C). The pH and volatile basic nitrogen (VBN) values of T2, T3 and T4 patties were lower (p<0.05) than the C patties during storage. Increased concentration of TP in meat patties decreased (p<0.05) the 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) and total plate count (TPC) values at d 7 of storage. Tomato treated-patties had lower (p<0.05) values for lightness (L*), but higher (p<0.05) values for redness (a*) and yellowness (b*) at d 3 and 7 of storage compared with the C. In the case of sensory evaluation, the scores of colour, flavour and overall acceptability of T3 and T4 patties were higher (p<0.05) than those of the C patty after 3 or 7 days of storage.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant Activity; Natural Antioxidant; Pork Patties; Sensory Evaluation; Tomato Powder
Year: 2013 PMID: 25049917 PMCID: PMC4093400 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2013.13079
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Extraction yield, total phenolic and total flavonoid content of tomato powder extract
| Composition | |
|---|---|
| Extraction yield (%) | 98.00±1.05 |
| Total phenolic content (mg gallic acid/100 g) | 26.22±3.20 |
| Total flavonoid content (mg quercetin/100 g) | 3.52±0.18 |
Values are mean of triplicate determinations.
Base on 100 g dry powder wt.
Free radical scavenging activity of water extract from tomato powder
| Concentration (μg/mL) | Percentage inhibition |
|---|---|
| DPPH radical | |
| 5 | 13.84±0.45 |
| 10 | 23.00±0.69 |
| 20 | 60.98±2.15 |
| 25 | 76.15±1.45 |
| 50 | 75.26±3.15 |
| 100 | 70.74±4.45 |
| EC50 (μg/mL) | 16.76±0.25 |
Values are represented as mean±SD (n = 4).
Compared to ascorbic acid (EC50 = 12.32±0.23 μg/mL).
Means±standard deviation with different superscripts within the different concentration significantly differ at p<0.05.
Figure 1Change of pH (A), thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS, B), volatile basic nitrogen (VBN, C) and total plate counts (D) values of cooked pork patties with added tomato powder (TP) during storage at 10±1°C. Samples are added one of four levels of TP, 0.25% (T1), 0.5% (T2), 0.75% (T3) or 1.0% (T4) in basal formula (C). a–d Means with different superscripts within the bars at the same concentration significantly differ at p<0.05. A–C Means with different superscripts in the same treatment significantly differ at p<0.05.
Figure 2Change of meat color of cooked pork meat patties with added tomato powder during storage at 10±1°C. Treatments are the same as described in Figure 1. a–e Means with different superscripts in the same storage significantly differ at p<0.05. A,B Means with different superscripts in the same treatment significantly differ at p<0.05.
Changes in sensory scores of cooked pork meat patties with added tomato powder during storage at 10±1°C
| Treatments | Storage (d)
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 7 | ||
| Color | C | 6.13±0.54[ | 5.70±0.58[ | 5.24±0.66[ |
| T1 | 6.33±0.52[ | 6.25±0.64[ | 5.17±0.58[ | |
| T2 | 6.83±0.63[ | 6.25±0.85[ | 5.43±0.74[ | |
| T3 | 7.17±0.47[ | 6.75±0.61[ | 6.67±0.89[ | |
| T4 | 7.17±0.44[ | 6.98±0.91[ | 6.50±0.79[ | |
| Flavor | C | 6.33±0.45[ | 5.90±0.52[ | 4.67±0.32[ |
| T1 | 6.23±0.52[ | 6.10±0.49[ | 4.75±0.46[ | |
| T2 | 6.50±0.63[ | 6.40±0.53[ | 4.92±0.56[ | |
| T3 | 7.17±0.35[ | 6.50±0.57 | 6.17±0.52[ | |
| T4 | 7.13±0.41[ | 6.40±0.50 | 6.21±0.61[ | |
| Overall acceptability | C | 6.85±0.75[ | 6.20±0.56[ | 4.16±0.69[ |
| T1 | 6.83±0.65[ | 6.25±0.65[ | 4.87±0.59[ | |
| T2 | 6.83±0.62[ | 6.25±0.85[ | 5.48±0.72[ | |
| T3 | 7.17±0.58 | 6.94±0.79[ | 6.42±0.74[ | |
| T4 | 7.00±0.62 | 7.13±0.62[ | 6.53±0.77[ | |
Sensory scores were assessed on 9 point scale where 1 = extremely undesirable, 9 = extremely desirable.
Treatments are the same as described in Figure 2.
Means with different superscripts in the same column significantly differ at p<0.05.
Means with different superscripts in the same row significantly differ at p<0.05.