| Literature DB >> 27857541 |
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of artificial supercooling followed by still air freezing (SSF) on the qualities of pork loin. The qualities of pork frozen by SSF were compared with the fresh control (CT, stored at 4℃ for 24 h), slow freezing (SAF, still air freezing) and rapid freezing (EIF, ethanol immersion freezing) treatments. Compared with no supercooling phenomena of SAF and EIF, the extent of supercooling obtained by SSF treatment was 1.4℃. Despite that SSF was conducted with the same method with SAF, application of artificial supercooling accelerated the phase transition (traverse from -0.6℃ to -5℃) from 3.07 h (SAF) to 2.23 h (SSF). The observation of a microstructure indicated that the SSF prevented tissue damage caused by ice crystallization and maintained the structural integrity. The estimated quality parameters reflected that SSF exhibited superior meat quality compared with slow freezing (SAF). SSF showed better water-holding capacity (lower thawing loss, cooking loss and expressible moisture) and tenderness than SAF, and these quality parameters of SSF were not significantly different with ultra-fast freezing treatment (EIF). Consequently, the results demonstrated that the generation of supercooling followed by conventional freezing potentially had the advantage of minimizing the quality deterioration caused by the slow freezing of meat.Entities:
Keywords: freezing rate; nucleation; pork loin; quality parameters; supercooling
Year: 2016 PMID: 27857541 PMCID: PMC5112428 DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.5.650
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour ISSN: 1225-8563 Impact factor: 2.622
Fig. 1.Time-temperature profiles of pork during still air freezing (SAF), ethanol immersion freezing (EIF) and artificial supercooling followed by still air freezing (SSF).
The t1, t2 and t3 indicate whole freezing time, pre-cooling time and defined freezing time (from initial freezing point to -5℃), respectively
Fig. 2.Microstructures of pork treated still air freezing (SAF), ethanol immersion freezing (EIF) and artificial supercooling followed by still air freezing (SSF).
Scale bars indicate 1,000 μm.
Water-holding properties of pork treated with various freezing treatments
| Treatment1) | Thawing loss (%) | Cooking loss (%) | Expressible moisture (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| CT | 3.35±0.58b,2) | 17.3±2.80b | 11.7±1.08b |
| SAF | 6.73±0.63a | 28.6±1.70a | 17.7±3.50a |
| EIF | 4.44±0.35b | 22.0±4.06ab | 13.2±1.48b |
| SSF | 4.49±0.71b | 18.7±1.48b | 15.0±1.41ab |
1)CT, control; SAF, still air freezing; EIF, ethanol immersion freezing; SSF, artificial supercooling followed by still air freezing.
2)Estimated by drip loss of fresh meat after 24 h of chilled storage.
a-cMeans with difference superscript within same column are significantly different (p<0.05).
Fig. 3.Shear force of pork treated still air freezing (SAF), ethanol immersion freezing (EIF) and artificial supercooling followed by still air freezing (SSF).
Vertical bars indicate standard deviation. Treatment with different letter (a-c) is significant different (p<0.05).
CIE color of pork treated with various freezing treatments
| Treatment1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| CT | 48.8±1.05 | 11.8±1.33 | 5.82±2.10 |
| SAF | 45.6±3.92 | 12.4±0.44 | 5.10±1.14 |
| EIF | 44.2±2.29 | 14.9±1.09 | 6.06±1.61 |
| SSF | 47.6±3.70 | 11.1±1.71 | 4.90±1.48 |
1)CT, control; SAF, still air freezing; EIF, ethanol immersion freezing; SSF, artificial supercooling followed by still air freezing.