| Literature DB >> 32927869 |
Lorena Martínez-Zamora1, Gaspar Ros1, Gema Nieto1.
Abstract
Clean labelling refers to consumers' desire for manufacturers to be more transparent in the way their products are made and sourced. Natural antioxidants (spices, herbs, fruits, or vegetables) have been proven to offer the same functionality as their synthetic counterparts, with the advantage of being label friendly and process compatible, maintaining meat quality and reducing food waste. Lamb meat has the challenges to have an intense flavour and fat composition to test the effectiveness of some of these natural antioxidants like hydroxytyrosol (HXT). The current paper was designed to test both natural (HXTo) and synthetic (HXTs) antioxidants using four lamb patty batches: one Control (C) (which included sulphites); a reference (R) sample (14.6% carnosic acid and 6% carnosol from natural rosemary extracts, 200 ppm); a sample containing synthetic hydroxytyrosol (HXTs, 99% purity, 200 ppm); and a sample with added organic hydroxytyrosol (HXTo, sample 7% purity from olive tree leaves, 200 ppm). A shelf-life study was carried out for 6 days at 4 °C, testing proximal composition and mineral bioavailability, pH changes, colour (by CIELab), total antioxidant capacity (TAC by oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC)), lipid and protein oxidation (thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARs) and thiol loss, respectively), volatile compound profiles (by HPC-MS), sensory evaluation, and microbiological growth (as total vial count (TVC) and total coliform count (TCC)). Results revealed that lamb burgers with added HXTs had better-preserved raw lamb meat in the test conditions, with reduced colour losses, lipid oxidation, and release of volatile compounds, the half the microbiological growth (TVC) of the Control, the best TAC, and significantly increased (p < 0.05) minerals bioavailability, while maintaining sensory acceptability. In summary, natural antioxidants are an adequate strategy for lamb meat burgers. Regarding HXTo, obtained from olives, the synthetic analogue is even more effective in terms of preservative and antioxidant activity, and in maintaining the nutritional value, sensory characteristics, and safety of food products.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidant; burger; hydroxytyrosol; lamb meat; patties; volatile compounds
Year: 2020 PMID: 32927869 PMCID: PMC7555821 DOI: 10.3390/antiox9090851
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antioxidants (Basel) ISSN: 2076-3921
Formulation of lamb burgers.
| Ingredients | Control | HXTs | HXTo | R |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lamb meat (g) | 2560 | 2560 | 2560 | 2560 |
| Water (mL) | 640 | 640 | 640 | 640 |
| Commercial mix® (g/kg) | 69 | |||
| Preservative extracts (ppm) | ||||
| • HXTS | 200 | |||
| • HXTO | 200 | |||
| • R | 200 |
Commercial mix®: spices, salt, dextrose, lactose, soy protein, emulsifiers (sodium phosphate E-451), preservative (sodium sulphite E-221), antioxidant (sodium ascorbate E-301 and sodium citrate E-331). HXTs: synthetic hydroxytyrosol (99% purity); HXTo: organic hydroxytyrosol (7% purity); R: rosemary (14.6% carnosic acid and 6% carnosol).
Total phenolic content (mg GAE g−1), chelating activity percent (%), and antioxidant activity (µmol TE g−1) of preservative extracts tested.
| Sample | Total Phenolic Content | Antioxidant Activity | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABTS | DPPH | ORAC | FRAP | ||
|
| 93.9 ± 54 a | 93.3 ± 5.3 a | 88.9 ± 3.9 | 70,542 ± 299.6 a | 64,961 ± 1239.4 a |
|
| 41.6 ± 81 b | 82.2 ± 4.5 b | 81.9 ± 1.3 | 40,993 ± 285.7 b | 60,457 ± 1439.4 b |
|
| 36.5 ± 26 c | 80.1 ± 5.1 b | 81.3 ± 5.0 | 13,929 ± 393.4 c | 17,790 ± 839.4 c |
HXTs: synthetic hydroxytyrosol; HXTo: organic hydroxytyrosol; R: rosemary. a–c: Different letters within the same column indicate significant differences between samples (p < 0.05).
Proximate composition and bioavailable mineral fraction of lamb burger samples.
| Proximate Composition | Mineral Bioavailability | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samples | Moisture | Ash | Protein | Lipid | Fe | Si |
|
| 72.82 ± 0.26 | 2.01 ± 0.09 | 14.28 ± 0.81 | 19.88 ± 0.73 | 1.13 ± 0.00 c | 23.53 ± 0.03 d |
|
| 72.60 ± 0.91 | 1.93 ± 0.15 | 14.00 ± 0.19 | 19.19 ± 1.07 | 1.85 ± 0.16 a | 67.19 ± 0.08 a |
|
| 71.33 ± 1.20 | 1.72 ± 0.07 | 14.43 ± 0.58 | 20.37 ± 0.30 | 1.75 ± 0.04 a | 62.53 ± 0.10 b |
|
| 73.04 ± 2.49 | 1.70 ± 0.19 | 15.24 ± 0.19 | 22.42 ± 2.09 | 1.42 ± 0.01 b | 48.95 ± 0.05 c |
HXTs: samples enriched in synthetic hydroxytyrosol; HXTo: samples enriched in organic hydroxytyrosol; R: samples enriched in rosemary extract. The mineral concentrations of lamb burger samples after in vitro digestion are expressed as bioavailable mineral fraction. Only significant results are shown. a–d: Different letters within in the same column indicate significant differences between samples (p < 0.05).
Physical-chemical quality evolution of lamb patties for six days of refrigerated storage.
| Days of Storage | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Samples | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
|
| ||||
|
| 6.12 ± 0.04 | 5.86 ± 0.00 | 5.79 ± 0.01 | 5.76 ± 0.01 |
|
| 6.10 ± 0.00 | 5.38 ± 0.01 | 5.35 ± 0.01 | 5.42 ± 0.01 |
|
| 6.05 ± 0.01 | 5.06 ± 0.01 | 4.97 ± 0.01 | 5.07 ± 0.01 |
|
| 5.84 ± 0.00 | 5.30 ± 0.00 | 5.22 ± 0.00 | 5.31 ± 0.01 |
|
| ||||
|
| 55.36 ± 1.30 | 54.73 ± 1.61 | 53.75 ± 2.46 | 55.88 ± 2.47 |
|
| 53.53 ± 1.74 | 55.57 ± 2.65 | 56.96 ± 1.53 | 56.27 ± 1.58 |
|
| 54.36 ± 1.54 | 55.12 ± 1.02 | 57.11 ± 1.52 | 57.08 ± 0.63 |
|
| 52.63 ± 1.55 | 54.88 ± 1.01 | 56.18 ± 1.79 | 54.19 ± 1.16 |
|
| ||||
|
| 20.17 ± 0.27 a,x | 21.14 ± 0.51 a,x | 14.66 ± 1.03 a,y | 11.11 ± 0.27 z |
|
| 17.89 ± 0.16 b,x | 16.33 ± 0.43 b,y | 11.81 ± 0.28 b,z | 11.52 ± 0.18 z |
|
| 17.69 ± 0.30 b,x | 16.44 ± 0.42 b,y | 11.45 ± 1.31 b,z | 11.83 ± 0.47 z |
|
| 17.32 ± 0.50 b,x | 16.27 ± 1.37 b,x | 12.16 ± 0.16 b,y | 11.21 ± 0.41 z |
|
| ||||
|
| 14.73 ± 0.08 a,x | 14.61 ± 0.29 a,x | 10.67 ± 0.89 b,y | 8.52 ± 0.19 c,z |
|
| 12.42 ± 0.24 b,x | 11.82 ± 0.13 c,y | 11.27 ± 0.21 b,y | 10.57 ± 0.16 b,z |
|
| 12.38 ± 0.19 b | 11.57 ± 0.17 c | 12.05 ± 0.79 a | 11.25 ± 0.16 a |
|
| 12.41 ± 0.31 b,y | 12.16 ± 0.20 b,y | 12.07 ± 0.24 a,y | 10.26 ± 0.32 b,z |
|
| ||||
|
| 1.36 ± 0.22 a,y | 1.71 ± 0.26 y | 1.37 ± 0.09 b,y | 1.00 ± 0.15 b,z |
|
| 0.70 ± 0.10 b,z | 1.42 ± 0.25 x | 1.12 ± 0.12 c,y | 0.65 ± 0.06 c,z |
|
| 0.84 ± 0.03 b,z | 1.62 ± 0.11 x | 1.56 ± 0.14 a,x | 1.19 ± 0.04 a,y |
|
| 0.78 ± 0.08 b,z | 1.44 ± 0.05 x | 1.15 ± 0.08 c,y | 1.13 ± 0.10 a,y |
|
| ||||
|
| 29.04 ± 1.15 a,x | 21.78 ± 3.00 a,y | 6.48 ± 0.22 a,z | 5.75 ± 0.28 a,z |
|
| 15.16 ± 1.26 b,x | 14.13 ± 1.87 b,x | 3.76 ± 0.17 b,y | 2.12 ± 0.06 b,z |
|
| 18.69 ± 1.98 b,y | 16.26 ± 2.03 b,y | 2.54 ± 0.04 c,z | 2.25 ± 0.14 b,z |
|
| 17.54 ± 2.54 b,y | 16.33 ± 1.25 b,y | 2.54 ± 0.01 c,z | 2.01 ± 0.08 b,z |
HXTs: samples enriched in synthetic hydroxytyrosol; HXTo: samples enriched in organic hydroxytyrosol; R: samples enriched in rosemary. a–d: Different letters within the same column indicate significant differences between samples (p < 0.05). x–z: Different letters within in the same row indicate significant differences between samples at different times of analysis (p < 0.05).
Evolution of microbiological content (cfu/g) of lamb patties for six days of refrigerated storage in aerobic conditions.
| Days of Storage | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microorganism | Samples | 0 | 1 | 3 | 6 |
| TVC |
| 6350 ± 40 a,z | 25,000 ± 1200 c,y | 140,000 ± 25000 a,x | 220,000 ± 4250 a,w |
|
| 3600 ± 50 c,z | 53,000 ± 650 a,y | 59,000 ± 4000 c,x,y | 80,000 ± 1150 d,w | |
|
| 1550 ± 46 d,z | 55,000 ± 1500 a,y | 80,000 ± 5000 b,x | 180,000 ± 8000 b,w | |
|
| 4750 ± 34 b,z | 40,000 ± 700 b,y | 50,000 ± 2500 d,x,y | 107,000 ± 9500 c,w | |
| TCC |
| 895 ± 70 b,z | 950 ± 80 c,y,z | 1280 ± 210 c,x,y | 2000 ± 120 c,w |
|
| 3490 ± 67 a,z | 3000 ± 90 a,z | 3400 ± 200 b,z | 4000 ± 320 b,y | |
|
| 3280 ± 110 a | 3930 ± 50 c | 3800 ± 380 b | 4900 ± 860 b | |
|
| 515 ± 48 c, z | 1460 ± 115 b,y | 8000 ± 190 a,x | 9300 ± 250 a,w | |
|
| <10 | ||||
HXTs: samples enriched in synthetic hydroxytyrosol; HXTo: samples enriched in organic hydroxytyrosol; R: samples enriched in rosemary. TVC: total vial count; TCC: total coliform count. a–c: Different letters within the same column indicate significant differences between samples (p < 0.05). w–z: Different letters within the same row indicate significant differences between samples at different time of analysis (p < 0.05).
Evolution of the volatile compound profiles (a.u.) of lamb patties samples for six days of refrigerated storage in aerobic conditions (M ± SD).
| Sample | Day 0 | Day 6 | Day 0 | Day 6 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3-Methyl-1-butanol |
| 3.10 ± 0.32 | 6.60 ± 0.01 a | 3-Methyl-1-butanal | 0.45 ± 0.07 | 1.78 ± 0.02 a |
|
| 0.22 ± 0.03 | 2.16 ± 0.03 b | 0.12 ± 0.00 | 0.44 ± 0.03 d | ||
|
| 1.01 ± 0.05 | 1.42 ± 0.05 c | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.60 ± 0.05 c | ||
|
| 0.45 ± 0.01 | 2.92 ± 0.04 b | 0.66 ± 0.04 | 1.35 ± 0.12 b | ||
| Hexanal |
| 0.03 ± 0.00 | 1.99 ± 0.02 b | 2-Bornanone | 0.01 ± 0.00 | 0.38 ± 0.02 |
|
| 0.02 ± 0.05 | 0.63 ± 0.02 c | nd | nd | ||
|
| 0.03 ± 0.01 | 0.59 ± 0.05 c | nd | nd | ||
|
| 0.03 ± 0.01 | 5.88 ± 0.03 a | nd | nd | ||
| 2,3-Butanediol |
| 0.16 ± 0.01 | 10.56 ± 0.02 a | Nonanal | 0.56 ± 0.00 | 1.70 ± 0.10 a |
|
| 0.29 ± 0.01 | 3.33 ± 0.03 d | 0.03 ± 0.00 | 0.10 ± 0.00 c | ||
|
| 1.09 ± 0.01 | 6.60 ± 0.05 c | 0.11 ± 0.02 | 0.31 ± 0.03 b | ||
|
| 0.39 ± 0.01 | 7.35 ± 0.01 b | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.43 ± 0.01 b |
HXTs: samples enriched in synthetic hydroxytyrosol; HXTo: samples enriched in organic hydroxytyrosol; R: samples enriched in rosemary extract. a–c: Different letters among data in the same column indicate significant differences between samples (p < 0.05). nd: undetected values.
Figure 1Sensory analysis (A) and Acceptability (B) of lamb patty samples. HXTs: samples enriched in synthetic hydroxytyrosol, HXTo: samples enriched in organic hydroxytyrosol; R: samples enriched in rosemary. *: Indicates significant differences between samples (p < 0.05).