| Literature DB >> 27853706 |
Kipchumba Cherono1, Gikuru Mwithiga1, Stefan Schmidt2.
Abstract
Two infrared systems set at an intensity of 4777 W/m2 with peak emission wavelengths of 2.5 and 3.5 µm were used to produce biltong by drying differently pre-treated meat. In addition to meat texture and colour, the microbial quality of the biltong produced was assessed by quantifying viable heterotrophic microorganisms using a most probable number (MPN) method and by verifying the presence of presumptive Escherichia coli in samples produced using infrared and conventional convective drying. The two infrared drying systems reduced the heterotrophic microbial burden from 5.11 log10 MPN/g to 2.89 log10 MPN/g (2.5 µm) and 3.42 log10 MPN/g (3.5 µm), respectively. The infrared systems achieved an up to one log higher MPN/g reduction than the convective system. In biltong samples produced by short wavelength (2.5 µm) infrared drying, E. coli was not detectable. This study demonstrates that the use of short wavelength infrared drying is a potential alternative to conventional convective drying by improving the microbiological quality of biltong products while at the same time delivering products of satisfactory quality.Entities:
Keywords: Biltong; Hygiene; Infrared drying; Meat texture; Microbiological quality
Year: 2016 PMID: 27853706 PMCID: PMC5090110 DOI: 10.4081/ijfs.2016.5625
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ital J Food Saf ISSN: 2239-7132
Figure 1.Changes over time in moisture content of biltong slices of various thicknesses that were marinated for 6, 12 and 24 h.
Figure 2.Three-dimensional representation of the variation of average product temperature with drying system, slice thickness and marinating duration of biltong samples. Samples were marinated for 6, 12 and 24 h in a salt and spice marinade, then dried using a long (A) and a short wavelength (B) infrared heater.
Colour and texture analysis of biltong produced using conventional and infrared drying at different marinating times compared with commercial biltong.
| Drying system | Marinating time (h) | Colour parameters | TPA parameters | Springiness | Resilience | Chewiness (kgF) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| L* | a* | b* | Hardness (kgF) | Cohesiveness | Gumminess (kgF) | |||||
| Convective | 6 | 27.50±0.70 | 8.63±1.11 | 11.07±1.15 | 11.69±1.61a | 0.51±0.04a | 5.87±0.32 | 0.97±0.04a | 0.34±0.05 | 5.43±1.36 |
| 12 | 23.75±0.74 | 7.91±1.21a | 9.08±1.06a | 14.87±1.47a | 0.44±0.05 | 6.48±0.81 | 0.92±0.02 | 0.23±0.02 | 5.94±1.34 | |
| 24 | 26.07±0.84 | 10.77±1.38a | 13.79±1.22 | 24.05±1.41 | 0.39±0.05 | 9.45±0.24 | 0.86±0.02 | 0.31±0.01a | 8.10±1.42 | |
| LW | 6 | 25.42±0.90 | 9.34±1.01 | 12.62±0.95 | 16.82±1.12 | 0.53±0.06 | 8.56±0.69 | 0.94±0.03 | 0.27±0.03 | 7.96±1.64 |
| 12 | 21.89±1.0 | 6.36±0.94 | 9.87±0.97 | 20.28±1.42 | 0.55±0.07 | 10.86±0.30 | 0.88±0.03 | 0.36±0.06 | 9.47±1.48 | |
| 24 | 23.88±0.99 | 7.82±1.01 | 10.27±1.13 | 23.32±1.70 | 0.57±0.07 | 12.81 ±0.55 | 0.82±0.03 | 0.38±0.02 | 10.49±1.46 | |
| SW | 6 | 21.58±0.83 | 8.77±0.79 | 9.47±1.00 | 6.28±1.16 | 0.40±0.0 | 2.54±0.21 | 0.89±0.04 | 0.20±0.03 | 2.23±1.48 |
| 12 | 19.53±0.71 | 7.58±0.72 | 7.78±0.81 | 8.33±0.98 | 0.39±0.05 | 3.35±0.18 | 0.83±0.02 | 0.18±0.03 | 2.76±1.53 | |
| 24 | 20.83±0.79 | 8.89±0.78 | 8.02±0.77 | 11.31±0.71f | 0.36±0.06 | 3.77±0.58 | 0.78±0.03 | 0.23±0.03 | 2.91±1.58 | |
| Commercial | 23.50±2.85 | 8.36±2.85 | 10.5±2.55 | 29.55±3.13 | 0.28±0.09 | 7.55±0.88 | 0.89±0.11 | 0.29±0.16 | 9.25±2.47 | |
TPA, texture profile analysis; L*, lightness; a*, redness; b*, yellowness; kgF, kilogram force; LW, long wavelength; SW, short wavelength.
a-bMeans in the same column with different letters indicate a significant difference (P 0.05).
The most probable number values established per g of biltong spice, fresh beef, marinated beef, and biltong for heterotrophic microorganisms and Escherichia coli.
| Material analysed | Heterotrophic microorganisms | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| log10 MPN/g | 9 5% confidence interval (lower/upper limit) | log10 MPN/g | 95% confidence interval (lower/upper limit) | |
| Sliced fresh beef | 5.11 | 4.66/5.57 | 1.36 | 0.89/1.83 |
| 4.15 | 3.75/4.55 | nd | – | |
| 6 h marinated beef slices | 4.11 | 3.66/4.57 | 1.11 | 0.65/1.56 |
| 12 h marinated beef slices | 3.14 | 2.74/3.54 | 1.11 | 0.65/1.56 |
| 24 h marinated beef slices | 3.23 | 2.81/3.64 | 1.11 | 0.65/1.56 |
| Convective dried | 3.89 | 3.40/4.39 | 0.85 | 0.39/1.39 |
| LW infrared dried | 3.42 | 3.10/3.80 | 0.65 | 0.04/1.26 |
| SW infrared dried | 2.89 | 2.40/3.39 | nd | – |
E. coli, Escherichia coli; MPN, most probable number; nd, non-detectable (i.e., below the detection limit); LW, long wavelength; SW, short wavelength.
Microbiological quality criteria for different meat products.
| Product | Microbiological quality parameter | Satisfactory/acceptable or not exceeding (CFU per g) | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh/raw beef | Total viable count | 105/106 | MSC ( |
| 102/103 | MSC ( | ||
| 102/103 | DGHM ( | ||
| Minced meat | Aerobic colony count | 5×106/ns | DGHM ( |
| Aerobic colony count | 5×105/5×106 | Eurpean Commission ( | |
| 102/103 | DGHM ( | ||
| 50/5×102 | Eurpean Commission ( | ||
| Preserved meat/RTE food | Aerobic colony count | 106/107 | CFS ( |
| 20/102 | CFS ( | ||
| Dried herbs and spices | 103/104 | DGHM ( |
CFU, colony forming unit; E. coli, Escherichia coli; ns, not specified; RTE, ready-to-eat.