| Literature DB >> 29360770 |
Lorena Martínez1, Gaspar Ros2, Gema Nieto3.
Abstract
Hydroxytyrosol (HXT) is a phenolic compound drawn from the olive tree and its leaves as a by-product obtained from the manufacturing of olive oil. It is considered the most powerful antioxidant compound after gallic acid and one of the most powerful antioxidant compounds between phenolic compounds from olive tree followed by oleuropein, caffeic and tyrosol. Due to its molecular structure, its regular consumption has several beneficial effects such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and as a protector of skin and eyes, etc. For these reasons, the use of HXT extract is a good strategy for use in meat products to replace synthetics additives. However, this extract has a strong odour and flavour, so it is necessary to previously treat this compound in order to not alter the organoleptic quality of the meat product when is added as ingredient. The present review exposes the health benefits provided by HXT consumption and the latest research about its use on meat. In addition, new trends about the application of HXT in the list of ingredients of healthier meat products will be discussed.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial; antioxidant; health; hydroxytyrosol; meat; preservative
Year: 2018 PMID: 29360770 PMCID: PMC5874578 DOI: 10.3390/medicines5010013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Medicines (Basel) ISSN: 2305-6320
Figure 1Graphical abstract of the use and health benefits of Hydroxytyrosol to prevent lipid and protein oxidation and substitution of synthetic additives in meat products.
Figure 2Chemical structures of TYR and HXT: phenolic compound from olive leave and olive oil. TYR: tyrosol (left); HXT: hydroxytyrosol (right).
Results on the applicability of HXT on meat and its effect on product quality.
| Extract Form | Concentration (ppm) | Meat Product | Test Setup | Tested Parameters | Results | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial | 10,000 | Ground beef patties | Ground beef was mixed with extract and inoculated with | Total viable count | It was enhanced cell count reduction (3% survivors detectable) | [ |
| Amine quantification | Reduction of amine formation (50.6%) | |||||
| Commercial | 100 | Pork meat with W1/O/W2 emulsions | Ground pork meat and fat were mixed with W1/O/W2 emulsions and chia oil. Emulsions were vacuum packaged and keep in chilled storage (4 °C) until analyses on the 1st, 7th, 19th, 28th and 39th days. | Light microscopy | Particle size in samples with HXT was higher ( | [ |
| Antioxidant activity: DPPH | Chia oil presence in meat samples increased oxidation, however, HXT acted as antioxidant (8%). | |||||
| Lipid oxidation (TBARs) | HXT presence in meat samples reduced lipid oxidation by more than 50%. | |||||
| Concentrate | 100.23 | Fermented sausages | During the drying process fermented sausages were dipped in extract solutions (2.5–5%) for 1 min at 20 °C and were continued drying. | Total viable count | No differences | [ |
| Lactic acid bacteria | No differences | |||||
| Micrococci | Growth reduction affected volatile compound profile | |||||
| Yeast | No significant differences | |||||
| Moulds | Reduction of species | |||||
| pH | No significant differences | |||||
| Water activity | No significant differences | |||||
| Lipid oxidation (TBARs) | Reduced values (12–38%) | |||||
| Volatile compounds | Reduces volatile compounds from microbial esterification and lipid oxidation | |||||
| Sensory attributes (colour) | Redness increased | |||||
| Commercial | 100, 200, 400 | Lamb meat patties | Minced lamb meat enriched in omega-3 fatty acids (with fish oil) was mixed with natural extracts and stored in high-oxygen modified atmosphere packs for up to 9 days at 4 °C. | In vitro antioxidant activity (ORAC and FRAP) | ORAC: No significant differences | [ |
| FRAP: antioxidant activity increases with extract presence | ||||||
| Colour (CIELab) | Lightness (L*) increased in samples without extract by changes in muscle proteins. | |||||
| Significant differences between samples at day 3, 6 and 9 of storage. | ||||||
| Lipid oxidation (TBARs) | No significant differences | |||||
| Protein oxidation (thiol and carbonyl groups) | Natural extracts improvement texture but it alteration odour and flavour. | |||||
| Sensory analysis | ||||||
| Concentrated, undefined | 75, 150 | Pork sausages | Ground pork (50/50 - meat/fat) was minced and mixed with salt and phenols. Mix was stuffed into 40-mm diameter bovine casings, were left to drip at 15 °C for 6 h and stored without packaging alternating fluorescent light (12 h dark and 12 h light) at 2 °C for 14 days. After, sausages were cooked, stored 72 h at 4 °C and frozen until analysis (80 °C) | Nutritional composition | No differences | [ |
| pH | No differences | |||||
| Cooking loss | No differences | |||||
| Diacylglycerols | Phenols had an inhibitory effect on microorganisms and a reduction in lipolytic activity. | |||||
| Lipid oxidation (TBARs) | Oxidation was reduced (>40%) as TBARs as POV. But there are no differences in COPs. | |||||
| Peroxide value (POV) | ||||||
| Cholesterol oxidation products (COPs) | ||||||
| Sensory analysis | Phenols presence was valorated worst by panellists. | |||||
| Commercial | 50 | Chicken sausages | Pork fat and chicken meat were minced and mixed with walnuts, EVOO and three HXT extracts. Samples were cooked for 3 h at 72 °C, packaged in MAP (10% O2/20% CO2/10% N2) and stored at 4 °C for 21 days. | Nutritional composition | No differences | [ |
| Colour (CIELab) | L* and b* were lower in samples with HXT and EVOO, while a* was higher | |||||
| Cooking loss | Cooking loss values were higher in samples with HXT | |||||
| Lipid oxidation (TBARs) | In samples with HXT TBARs value was lower and in samples with HXT and EVOO, lipid oxidation was 71% lower than control. | |||||
| Protein oxidation (thiol groups) | HXT reduced protein oxidation between 13–25%. | |||||
| Scanning electron microscopy | Sausages incorporated HXT showed different structures. | |||||
| Sensory analysis | Samples with HXT 7% from olive water was accepted, while other samples with HXT presented lowest acceptability. | |||||
| Commercial, 7% from olive waters | 50 | Chicken Frankfurters | Back fat and chicken meat were minced and mixed with walnuts, EVOO and HXT. Samples were cooked for 3 h at 72 °C, packaged in MAP (10% O2/20% CO2/10% N2) and stored at 4 °C for 21 days. | Nutritional composition | No differences | [ |
| Mineral content | Ca, K, Fe, Mg, P, Mn and Zn concentrations were higher in samples with HXT. | |||||
| No differences | ||||||
| Fatty acid profile. Sensory analysis | Extracted flavour and odour parameters were increased in samples with HXT but it was accepted by panellists. | |||||
| Olive cake applied in chicken feed | 4.6 | Chicken meat | 297 chickens were feeding until 21 days of age with three treatments: basal diet, diet supplemented with 82.5 g/kg olive phenols and diet supplemented with 165 g/kg olive phenols. Chickens were weighed at 28, 35 and 42 days of age and slaughtered at 42th. Carcasses were maintained at −20 °C for three months until consumption and at −80 °C for other analyses. | Chicken weight | The chicken weight was higher | [ |
| Colour (CIELab) | L* and b* was higher while a* was lower | |||||
| Cooking loss | No differences | |||||
| Nutritional composition | No differences | |||||
| pH | No differences | |||||
| Lipid oxidation (TBARs) | Lipid oxidation was lower | |||||
| Antioxidant capacity (DPPH) | Samples with HXT showed a high antioxidant capacity | |||||
| Sensory analysis | No differences, so HXT did not alter the sensory quality. |