| Literature DB >> 33125961 |
Olga Krasulya1, Anastasiya Smirnova2, Vladimir Bogush3, Natalia Shlenskaya4, Natalia Vostrikova5, Srinivas Mettu6.
Abstract
We studied the effect of ultrasonic activation of brine (3%) during salting on the degree of stability of colour parameters of pork with normal (NOR) and abnormal course of autolysis in the CIE Lab colour space. The mechanism of stabilisation of the colour of meat is attributed to donor-acceptor bonds of metmyoglobin (MetMb). The accumulation of excessive number of free electrons in the medium are capable of activating MetMb. This reduces the activity of meat, when the native participants of the metmyoglobin reductase system and their own antioxidant systems of meat are depleted. Based on the additive calculation of deviations (increase / decrease) by the coordinates L*, a*, b* in the CIE Lab system, and the total colour difference (ΔE) in control and experimental samples, recommendations were developed. To optimize the colour characteristics of all types of meat, both on the surface and in the thickness of the meat, the preliminary activation of a 3% brine in a low-frequency submersible ultrasonic unit is recommended. Moreover, preliminary cavitation activation of a 3% is more preferable to stabilise the colour of PSE - meat (pale, soft, exudative (watery),) brine in a flow-through installation.Entities:
Keywords: Brine activation; CIE Lab; Colour difference; Colour stability; Meat colour; Ultrasonic treatment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33125961 PMCID: PMC7786550 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2020.105363
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultrason Sonochem ISSN: 1350-4177 Impact factor: 7.491
Experimental runs details.
| № п/п | Group | Type of meat | Concentration of brine (NaCl), % | The presence of cavitation effects on the brine | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immersion method | Flow method | ||||
| 2 | Experiment | NOR | 3 | ||
| 3 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 3 | ||||
| 6 | Experiment | PSE | 3 | ||
| 7 | 3 | ||||
| 8 | 3 | ||||
| 10 | Experiment | DFD | 3 | ||
| 11 | 3 | ||||
| 12 | 3 | ||||
Fig. 1The geometric meaning of colour in the CIE system.
Fig. 2Deviation of the value of the indicator a (degree of redness in the CIE Lab system) of test samples of NOR–, PSE–, DFD– pork from a (degree of redness in the CIE Lab system) of the corresponding control samples.
Colour study for NOR – meat [33].
| Number of samples | Colour indicator | Meaning | Deviation (increase / decrease), % | Colour permanence, (YL/ Ya/ Yb), % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lightness L* | 57,51 | – * | ||
| Redness a* | 3,52 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 9,86 | |||
| Lightness L* | 58,02 | – * | ||
| Redness a* | 3,48 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 10,12 | |||
| Lightness L* | 62,72 | |||
| Redness a* | 1,88 | (↓)66.67 | 33.33 | |
| Yellowness b* | 5,66 | (↓) 44.44 | 55.56 | |
| Lightness L* | 52,16 | (↓)10.34 | 89,66 | |
| Redness a* | 5,86 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 8,48 | (↓)20.00 | 80.00 | |
| Lightness L* | 57,93 | (0) | ||
| Redness a* | 3,75 | (0) | ||
| Yellowness b* | 11,12 | |||
| Lightness L* | 60,02 | |||
| Redness a* | 4,25 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 10,96 | (0) | ||
| Lightness L* | 63,20 | |||
| Redness a* | 2,21 | (↓)33.33 | 66.67 | |
| Yellowness b* | 5,21 | (↓)44.44 | 55.56 | |
| Lightness L* | 55,08 | (↓)5.17 | 94.83 | |
| Redness a* | 4,63 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 7,91 | (↓)30.00 | 70.00 | |
*A control sample of NOR – pork, relative to which is considered the deviation of the indicator a* (degree of redness in the CIELab system) in experimental samples.
The results of the study of colour characteristics for PSE – meat [33]
| Number of sample | Colour indicator | Meaning | Deviation (increase / decrease), % | colour permanence (YL/ Ya/ Yb), % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lightness L* | 63,57 | – * | ||
| Redness a* | 0,74 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 10,16 | |||
| Lightness L* | 63,08 | – * | ||
| Redness a* | 1,94 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 10,87 | |||
| Lightness L* | 68,92 | |||
| Redness a* | 1,91 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 5,93 | (↓) 41.63 | 58,37 | |
| Lightness L* | 59,86 | (↓)5.10 | 94,90 | |
| Redness a* | 3,00 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 10,64 | (↓) 2.11 | 97,88 | |
| Lightness L* | 68,21 | |||
| Redness a* | 0,61 | (↓)17.56 | 82,44 | |
| Yellowness b* | 4,66 | (↓) 54.13 | 45,87 | |
| Lightness L* | 60,16 | (↓) 4.63 | 95,37 | |
| Redness a* | 0,86 | (↓)55.67 | 44,33 | |
| Yellowness b* | 9,70 | (↓)10.76 | 89,24 | |
| Lightness L* | 70,59 | |||
| Redness a* | 0,46 | (↓) 37.84 | 62,16 | |
| Yellowness b* | 5,00 | (↓) 50.78 | 49,22 | |
| Lightness L* | 62,88 | (↓) 0.30 | ||
| Redness a* | 2,43 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 10,77 | (↓) 0.92 | 99,08 | |
* A control sample of PSE – pork, relative to which is considered the deviation of the indicator a* (degree of redness in the CIELab system) in the experimental samples.
The results of the study of color characteristics for DFD – meat [33].
| Number of sample | Colour indicator | Meaning | Deviation (increase/decrease), % | colour permanence (УL/ Уa/ Уb), % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lightness L* | 44,58 | – * | ||
| Redness a* | 12,55 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 9,28 | |||
| Lightness L* | 46,92 | – * | ||
| Redness a* | 13,67 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 9,84 | |||
| Lightness L* | 56,8 | |||
| Redness a* | 6,48 | (↓)50.00 | 50.00 | |
| Yellowness b* | 10,7 | |||
| Lightness L* | 45,78 | (↓)2.17 | 97.73 | |
| Redness a* | 15,45 | |||
| Yellowness b* | 10,73 | |||
| Lightness L* | 43.51 | (↓)2.27 | 97,73 | |
| Redness a* | 10.3 | (↓)14.16 | 85.84 | |
| Yellowness b* | 8.14 | (↓) 09.55 | 90,45 | |
| Lightness L* | 42,44 | (↓) 8.70 | 91.30 | |
| Redness a* | 11,90 | (↓)15.38 | 84,62 | |
| Yellowness b* | 8,45 | (↓) 11.11 | 88.89 | |
| Lightness L* | 53,77 | |||
| Redness a* | 5,40 | (↓) 58.33 | 41,67 | |
| Yellowness b* | 8,57 | (↓) 11.11 | 88.89 | |
| Lightness L* | 42,89 | (↓) 8.70 | 91,30 | |
| Redness a* | 13,88 | (0) | ||
| Yellowness b* | 09,60 | (0) | ||
*The control sample DFD – pork, the relative which is considered the deviation of the indicator a* (degree of redness in the CIELab system) in the experimental samples.
Fig. 3The distribution of samples of NOR – meat in terms of colour difference (ΔE).
The results of the mathematical evaluation of the color characteristics of the prototypes of NOR – meat.
| NOR | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short description | The level before Ultrasound | The level after ultrasound | Change in lightness | Average lightness value and weight function | Change in saturation | Average saturation value and weight function | Change hue | Average colour tone and weight function | Colour difference | General colour difference | |||||
| 57.51 | 62.72 | –5.210 | 60.115 | 1.130 | 4.505 | 8.217 | 1.394 | 1.684 | 1.121 | 1.078 | 5.844 | ||||
| 3.52 | 1.88 | ||||||||||||||
| 9.86 | 5.66 | ||||||||||||||
| 58.02 | 52.16 | 5.860 | 55.090 | 1.054 | 0.394 | 10.505 | 1.504 | 0.611 | 1.210 | 1.087 | 5.597 | ||||
| 3.48 | 5.86 | ||||||||||||||
| 10.12 | 8.48 | ||||||||||||||
| 57.51 | 57.93 | –0.420 | 57.720 | 1.094 | –1.266 | 11.102 | 1.533 | –0.403 | 1.246 | 1.087 | 0.983 | ||||
| 3.52 | 3.75 | ||||||||||||||
| 9.86 | 11.12 | ||||||||||||||
| 58.02 | 60.02 | –2.00 | 59.020 | 1.113 | –1.054 | 11.228 | 1.539 | –0.266 | 1.251 | 1.087 | 1.938 | ||||
| 3.48 | 4.25 | ||||||||||||||
| 10.12 | 10.96 | ||||||||||||||
| 57.51 | 63.2 | –5.690 | 60.355 | 1.133 | 4.810 | 8.064 | 1.387 | 1.929 | 1.102 | 1.079 | 6.359 | ||||
| 3.52 | 2.21 | ||||||||||||||
| 9.86 | 5.21 | ||||||||||||||
| 58.02 | 55.08 | 2.940 | 56.550 | 1.076 | 1.536 | 9.934 | 1.477 | 0.824 | 1.198 | 1.084 | 3.021 | ||||
| 3.48 | 4.63 | ||||||||||||||
| 10.12 | 7,91 | ||||||||||||||
The results of the mathematical evaluation of the colour characteristics of prototypes of PSE – meat.
| PSE | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short description | The level before Ultrasound | The level after ultrasound | Change in lightness | Average lightness value and weight function | Change in saturation | Average saturation value and weight function | Change hue | Average colour tone and weight function | Colour difference | General colour difference | |||||
| 63.57 | 68.92 | –5,350 | 66,245 | 1,219 | 3,957 | 8,208 | 1,394 | 0.410 | 1.472 | 1.038 | 5.241 | ||||
| 0.74 | 1.91 | ||||||||||||||
| 10.16 | 5.93 | ||||||||||||||
| 63.08 | 59.86 | 3.220 | 61.470 | 1.150 | –0.013 | 11.048 | 1.530 | 0.041 | 1.392 | 2.801 | |||||
| 1.94 | 3.00 | ||||||||||||||
| 10.87 | 10.64 | ||||||||||||||
| 63.57 | 68.21 | –4.640 | 65.890 | 1.214 | 5.487 | 7.443 | 1.357 | 0.586 | 1.456 | 1.036 | 5.592 | ||||
| 0.74 | 0.61 | ||||||||||||||
| 10.16 | 4.66 | ||||||||||||||
| 63.08 | 60.16 | 2.920 | 61.620 | 1.152 | 1.304 | 10.390 | 1.499 | 0.215 | 1.384 | 1.060 | 2.688 | ||||
| 1.94 | 0.86 | ||||||||||||||
| 10.87 | 9.70 | ||||||||||||||
| 63.57 | 70.59 | –7.020 | 67.080 | 1.231 | 5.166 | 7.604 | 1.365 | 0.531 | 1.461 | 1.037 | 6.862 | ||||
| 0.74 | 0.46 | ||||||||||||||
| 10.16 | 5.00 | ||||||||||||||
| 63.08 | 62.88 | 0.200 | 62.980 | 1.172 | 0.001 | 11.041 | 1.530 | 0.018 | 1.393 | 1.063 | 0.171 | ||||
| 1.94 | 2.43 | ||||||||||||||
| 10.87 | 10.77 | ||||||||||||||
Fig. 4The distribution of samples of meat with a defect PSE in terms of colour difference (ΔE).
The results of the mathematical evaluation of the color characteristics of prototypes DFD – meat.
| DFD = 6,60 | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Short description | The level before Ultrasound | The level after ultrasound | Измeнeниe cвeтлoты | Average lightness value and weight function | Change in saturation | Average saturation value and weight function | Change hue | Average colour tone and weight function | Colour difference | General colour difference | |||||
| 44.58 | 56.8 | –12.220 | 50.690 | 1.001 | 3.099 | 14.059 | 1.675 | –0.968 | 0.671 | 1.182 | 12.369 | ||||
| 12.0.55 | 6.48 | ||||||||||||||
| 9.28 | 10.7 | ||||||||||||||
| 46.92 | 45.78 | 1.140 | 46.350 | 1.032 | –1.967 | 17.827 | 1.856 | –0.740 | 0.645 | 1.233 | 1.644 | ||||
| 13.67 | 15.45 | ||||||||||||||
| 9.84 | 10.73 | ||||||||||||||
| 44.58 | 53.77 | –9.190 | 49.175 | 1.002 | 5.479 | 12.869 | 1.618 | 0.472 | 0.618 | 1.169 | 9.785 | ||||
| 12.55 | 5.4 | ||||||||||||||
| 9.28 | 8.57 | ||||||||||||||
| 46.92 | 42.89 | 4.030 | 44.905 | 1.054 | 0.295 | 16.696 | 1.801 | 0.687 | 0.603 | 1.221 | 3.870 | ||||
| 13.67 | 13.88 | ||||||||||||||
| 9.84 | 9.01 | ||||||||||||||
| 44.58 | 43.51 | 1.070 | 44.045 | 1.067 | 2.480 | 14.368 | 1.690 | 0.878 | 0.606 | 1.190 | 1.925 | ||||
| 12.55 | 10.3 | ||||||||||||||
| 9.28 | 8.14 | ||||||||||||||
| 46.92 | 42.44 | 4.480 | 44.680 | 1.057 | 2.248 | 15.719 | 1.755 | 1.101 | 0.589 | 1.209 | 4.521 | ||||
| 13.67 | 11.9 | ||||||||||||||
| 9.84 | 8.45 | ||||||||||||||
Fig. 5The distribution of meat samples with DFD defect in terms of colour difference (ΔE).