| Literature DB >> 32148810 |
Muhammad Sajid Arshad1,2, Joong-Ho Kwon2, Rabia Shabir Ahmad1, Kashif Ameer3, Sheraz Ahmad4, Yunhee Jo2.
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of different doses (0, 3, and 7 kGy) of e-beam on the microbiological and physicochemical qualities and the profile of fatty acids of the frozen duck meat (FDM). Electron beam at the dose of 3 kGy showed more than 2 log and 1 log cycles of reduction in the total bacterial (TAB) and coliform counts (TCC), respectively. The results indicated an increase in the TBARS values (1.50 ± 0.02 mg MDA/kg), peroxide value (0.83 ± 0.04 meq peroxide/kg), and total volatile base nitrogen (1.31 ± 0.16 mg/100 ml), but no effect on the sensory parameters. Irradiation lowered the lightness (L*) (31.87 ± 0.98) and redness (a*) (11.04 ± 0.20) values but elevated the metmyoglobin content in FDM. In addition, irradiation had no effect on the benzopyrene content; however, a reduction was observed in the vitamin A (0.239 ± 0.015 µg/g) and vitamin E (1.847 ± 0.075 µg/g) contents of the FDM samples. There were no trans-fatty acids present in the treated (irradiated) as well as the untreated (nonirradiated) meat samples (FDM), whereas the fatty acid content decreased in irradiated samples, in contrast with the nonirradiated control. Electronic nose clearly discriminated between the nonirradiated and irradiated FDM based on principal component analysis. It is concluded that the e-beam successfully improved the microbial quality of FDM with slight changes in physicochemical properties, but without altering its sensory properties.Entities:
Keywords: E‐nose; fatty acid; frozen duck meat; ionization radiation; microbiology; sensory evaluation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32148810 PMCID: PMC7020261 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1386
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Effect of e‐beam irradiation on microbial loads, heme pigments, and Hunter's color of frozen duck meat
| Parameter | Dose (kGy) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 3 | 7 | |
| Microbial count (log CFU/g) | |||
| Total bacteria | 2.27 | ND | ND |
| Coliforms | 1.18 | ND | ND |
| Heme pigment (%) | |||
| Mb | 42.52 ± 2.50a | 41.5 ± 1.52a | 42.89 ± 3.70a |
| OxyMb | 16.42 ± 1.51a | 15.07 ± 0.71a | 12.4 ± 0.41b |
| MetMb | 23.15 ± 0.77b | 22.4 ± 1.85c | 28.13 ± 5.02a |
| Hunter's color | |||
|
| 34.06 ± 1.44a | 32.26 ± 1.09b | 31.87 ± 0.98b |
|
| 12.19 ± 0.63a | 11.05 ± 0.62b | 11.04 ± 0.20b |
|
| 5.88 ± 0.27b | 6.12 ± 0.54ab | 6.37 ± 0.30a |
Results are mean ± SD of the three independent determinations.
The different letters in a row represent significant differences (p < .05).
Effect of e‐beam irradiation on physicochemical quality parameters of frozen duck meat
| Parameter | Dose (kGy) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 3 | 7 | |
| pH | 6.22 ± 0.02a | 6.19 ± 0.01a | 6.23 ± 0.03a |
| TVBN (mg %) | 0.75 ± 0.16b | 0.93 ± 0.16b | 1.31 ± 0.16a |
| TBARS (mg MDA/kg) | 0.87 ± 0.03c | 0.96 ± 0.06b | 1.50 ± 0.02a |
| POV (meq peroxide/kg) | 0.23 ± 0.02c | 0.51 ± 0.02b | 0.83 ± 0.04a |
| Vitamin A (µg/g) | 0.383 ± 0.020a | 0.278 ± 0.016b | 0.239 ± 0.015c |
| Vitamin E (µg/g) | 3.6 ± 0.148a | 1.795 ± 0.307b | 1.847 ± 0.075b |
| Benzopyrene (µg/g) | 0.099 ± 0.012a | 0.090 ± 0.001a | 0.101 ± 0.013a |
Results are mean ± SD of the three independent determinations.
The different letters in a row represent significant differences (p < .05).
Effect of e‐beam irradiation on fatty acid content (mg/g) of frozen duck meat
| Fatty acids | Dose (kGy) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 3 | 7 | |
| C11:0
| 36.67 ± 0.41a | 36.60 ± 0.51a | 35.04 ± 2.72b |
| C14:0
| 2.43 ± 0.03a | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 1.84 ± 0.03b |
| C15:0
| 3.83 ± 0.00c | 4.97 ± 0.07b | 5.81 ± 0.06a |
| C16:0
| 80.50 ± 0.23a | 71.06 ± 0.72b | 69.37 ± 0.29b |
| C16:1
| 12.11 ± 0.05a | 8.43 ± 0.07b | 8.82 ± 0.01b |
| C18:0
| 32.09 ± 0.17b | 34.73 ± 0.13a | 35.58 ± 0.23a |
| C18:1n9t
| ND | ND | ND |
| C18:1n9c
| 157.02 ± 0.23a | 121.91 ± 0.23b | 120.93 ± 0.77b |
| C18:2n6t
| ND | ND | ND |
| C18:2n6c
| 68.04 ± 0.38a | 58.15 ± 0.07b | 57.75 ± 0.28b |
| C20:4n6
| 20.60 ± 0.01c | 24.64 ± 0.04b | 29.23 ± 0.19a |
| C24:1
| 0.07 ± 0.00b | 0.12 ± 0.01a | 0.07 ± 0.01b |
| Total | 376.68 ± 0.28a | 324.02 ± 1.20b | 329.40 ± 1.85b |
| Ʃ SFA | 118.85 ± 0.37a | 110.76 ± 0.92b | 112.61 ± 0.62b |
| Ʃ MUFA | 12.18 ± 0.05a | 8.55 ± 0.06b | 8.89 ± 0.01b |
| Ʃ PUFA | 245.66 ± 0.60a | 204.71 ± 0.34b | 207.91 ± 1.24b |
| Ʃ Trans fat | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Results are mean ± SD of the three independent determinations.
The different letters in a row represent significant differences (p < .05).
Methyl undecanoate.
Methyl myristate.
Methyl pentadecanoate.
Methyl palmitate.
Palmitoleic acid.
Methyl stearate.
Trans‐9‐oleic methyl ester.
Cis‐9‐oleic methyl ester.
Trans‐linoleic acid methyl ester.
Cis‐linoleic acid methyl ester.
Arachidonic acid methyl ester.
Nervonic acid methyl ester.
Figure 1Effect of e‐beam irradiation on e‐nose profile of frozen duck meat based on PCA
Figure 2Effect of e‐beam irradiation on sensory parameter of frozen duck meat