| Literature DB >> 26877637 |
M H Rahman1, M M Hossain1, S M E Rahman2, M R Amin3, Deog-Hwan Oh4.
Abstract
This study was performed to explore the deterioration of physicochemical quality of beef hind limb during frozen storage at -20℃, affected by repeated freeze-thaw cycles. The effects of three successive freeze-thaw cycles on beef hind limb were investigated comparing with unfrozen beef muscle for 80 d by keeping at -20±1℃. The freeze-thaw cycles were subjected to three thawing methods and carried out to select the best one on the basis of deterioration of physicochemical properties of beef. As the number of repeated freeze-thaw cycles increased, drip loss decreased and water holding capacity (WHC) increased (p<0.05) till two cycles and then decreased. Cooking loss increased in cycle one and three but decreased in cycle two. Moreover, drip loss, WHC and cooking loss affected (p<0.05) by thawing methods within the cycles. However, pH value decreased (p<0.05), but peroxide value (p<0.05), free fatty acids value (p<0.05) and TBARS value increased (p<0.05) significantly as the number of repeated freeze-thaw cycles increased. Moreover, significant (p<0.05) interactive effects were found among the thawing methods and repeated cycles. As a result, freeze-thaw cycles affected the physicochemical quality of beef muscle, causing the degradation of its quality.Entities:
Keywords: beef muscle; freeze-thaw cycle; lipid oxidation; physicochemical
Year: 2015 PMID: 26877637 PMCID: PMC4726957 DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2015.35.6.772
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour ISSN: 1225-8563 Impact factor: 2.622
Changes of physicochemical properties (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in freeze-thaw cycle-1
| Thawing methods | Drip loss (%) | Cooking loss (%) | WHC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 12.5b±0.11 | 47.30b±0.38 | 69.78d±0.06 |
| 4℃ | 13.55a±0.14 | 55.54a±1.01 | 75.74b±0.47 |
| 40℃ | 6.54c±0.14 | 40.75d±1.01 | 77.67a±0.47 |
| Tap water | 5.55d±0.14 | 45.49c±1.01 | 72.91c±0.47 |
| Level of significance | ** | ** | ** |
Columns having different superscripts differed significantly (**p<0.01).
Changes of physicochemical properties (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in freeze-thaw cycle-2
| Thawing methods | Drip loss (%) | Cooking loss (%) | WHC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 12.5a±0.11 | 47.30b±0.38 | 69.78d±0.06 |
| 4℃ | 10.45b±0.23 | 48.60a±0.42 | 73.71b±0.27 |
| 40℃ | 5.77c±0.23 | 42.29d±0.42 | 76.85a±0.27 |
| Tap water | 4.95d±0.23 | 46.33c±0.42 | 72.65c±0.27 |
| Level of significance | ** | ** | ** |
Columns having different superscripts differed significantly (**p<0.01).
Changes of physicochemical properties (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in freeze-thaw cycle-3
| Thawing methods | Drip loss (%) | Cooking loss (%) | WHC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 12.5a±0.11 | 47.30b±0.38 | 69.78a±0.06 |
| 4℃ | 9.55b±0.13 | 46.23c±0.42 | 53.55d±0.25 |
| 40℃ | 5.18c±0.13 | 45.24d±0.42 | 55.45b±0.25 |
| Tap water | 4.74d±0.13 | 50.14a±0.42 | 54.12c±0.25 |
| Level of significance | ** | ** | * |
Columns having different superscripts differed significantly (**p<0.01 and *p<0.05).
Changes of physicochemical properties (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in repeated cycles
| Thawing methods | Drip loss (%) | Cooking loss (%) | WHC (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 12.5a±0.106 | 47.30b±0.38 | 69.78c±0.06 |
| Cycle 1 | 8.15b±0.101 | 46.38c±0.39 | 76.46a±0.20 |
| Cycle 2 | 6.42c±0.101 | 45.65d±0.39 | 74.39b±0.20 |
| Cycle 3 | 5.39d±0.101 | 48.12a±0.39 | 54.86d±0.20 |
| Level of significance | ** | ** | ** |
Columns having different superscripts differed significantly (**p<0.01).
Freezing-thawing interactive effects on physicochemical properties (mean±SE) of thawed beef muscle in different cycles and thawing methods
| Interactions | Drip loss (%) | Cooking loss (%) | WHC (%) | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 × T1 | 13.95a±0.17 | 57.00a±0.68 | 77.19b±0.35 | 6.037a±0.044 |
| C1 × T2 | 7.13d±0.17 | 41.40f±0.68 | 78.45a±0.35 | 5.920b±0.044 |
| C1 × T3 | 6.16e±0.17 | 45.37e±0.68 | 72.75c±0.35 | 5.870bc±0.044 |
| C2 × T1 | 11.33b±0.17 | 49.61c±0.68 | 73.13c±0.35 | 5.723c±0.044 |
| C2 × T2 | 5.56f±0.17 | 41.27f±0.68 | 78.28ab±0.35 | 5.477cd±0.044 |
| C2 × T3 | 4.91fg±0.17 | 47.95cd±0.68 | 73.09c±0.35 | 5.387cd±0.044 |
| C3 × T1 | 9.95c±0.17 | 47.46cd±0.68 | 53.84e±0.35 | 5.480d±0.044 |
| C3 × T2 | 4.41g±0.17 | 45.24e±0.68 | 55.14d±0.35 | 5.397cd±0.044 |
| C3 × T3 | 4.40g±0.17 | 50.53b±0.68 | 54.79de±0.35 | 5.240e±0.044 |
| Level of Significance | ** | ** | ** | * |
Columns having different superscripts differed significantly (**p<0.01, *p>0.05).
Note: C=Cycle (C1=Cycle 1; C2=Cycle 2; C3=Cycle 3) and T=Treatment/Thawing methods (T1=4℃; T2=40℃; T3=Tap water).
Fig. 1.Changes of pH value (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in freeze-thaw cycle-1, 2 and 3.
Fig. 2.Changes of pH value (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in repeated cycles.
Fig. 3.Changes of peroxide value (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in freeze-thaw cycle-1, 2 and 3.
Fig. 4.Changes of peroxide value (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in repeated cycles.
Freezing-thawing interactive effects on Lipid oxidation (mean ± SE) of frozen beef muscle in different cycle and thawing methods
| Interactions | Peroxide value | FFA (%) | TBARS value (mg MA/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 × T1 | 0.121±0.001 | 0.115e±0.008 | 0.291f±0.008 |
| C1 × T2 | 0.126 ±0.001 | 0.134c±0.008 | 0.351d±0.008 |
| C1 × T3 | 0.123±0.001 | 0.147ab±0.008 | 0.299e±0.008 |
| C2 × T1 | 0.125±0.001 | 0.125d±0.008 | 0.315de±0.008 |
| C2 × T2 | 0.129±0.001 | 0.145ab±0.008 | 0.503b±0.008 |
| C2 × T3 | 0.126±0.001 | 0.129cd±0.008 | 0.461c±0.008 |
| C3 × T1 | 0.126±0.001 | 0.132c±0.008 | 0.354d±0.008 |
| C3 × T2 | 0.130±0.001 | 0.149a±0.008 | 0.572a±0.008 |
| C3 × T3 | 0.128±0.001 | 0.140b±0.008 | 0.506b±0.008 |
| Level of Significance | NS | * | ** |
Same column having similar superscript did not differ significantly (**p<0.01, *p>0.05) and different superscript differ significantly (p<0.05). NS means not significance.
Note: C=Cycle (C1=Cycle 1; C2=Cycle 2; C3=Cycle 3) and T=Treatment/Thawing methods (T1=4℃; T2=40℃; T3=Tap water).
Fig. 5.Changes of free fatty acids value (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in freeze-thaw cycle-1, 2 and 3.
Fig. 6.Changes of free fatty acids value (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in repeated cycles.
Fig. 7.Changes of TBARS value (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in freeze-thaw cycle-1, 2 and 3.
Fig. 8.Changes of TBARS value (mean±SE) in thawed beef samples compared to control in repeated cycles.