| Literature DB >> 35028574 |
Rashmi A Rupasinghe1, Amali U Alahakoon2, Achala W Alakolanga3, Dinesh D Jayasena1, Cheorun Jo4.
Abstract
Antioxidants present in fruits and vegetables have a potential to reduce disease risk, and increase the shelf life of food products by reducing lipid oxidation. The effect of marination with antioxidants-rich fruit juices on quality characteristics of vacuum-packed chicken wings were examined during frozen storage. Chicken wings were mixed separately with marinades containing pineapple juice, June plum juice, and mango juice and kept for 12 h and 24 h. Three best marination conditions were selected based on a sensory evaluation. Antioxidant activity and total phenolic content of fruit juices, and marinade uptake, and marinade loss of marinated chicken wings were determined. In addition, vacuum packed marinated chicken wings were tested for pH, water holding capacity (WHC), 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) value and antioxidant activity over a 4-wk frozen storage. The best sensory properties were reported from chicken wings marinated with pineapple juice for 24 h, mango juice for 24 h, and June plum juice for 12 h (p<0.05) compared to other marinade-time combinations. Mango juice showed the highest antioxidant activity (92.2%) and total phenolic content (38.45 μg/mL; p<0.05) compared to other fruit juices. The pH and WHC of vacuum-packed chicken wings were slightly decreased over the frozen storage (p<0.05). Moreover, chicken wings marinated with mango juice had the lowest TBARS values and the highest 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl-hydrate free radical scavenging activity. In conclusion, mango juice was selected among tested as the most effective marinade for enhancing the oxidative stability of lipid while maintaining the other meat quality traits of vacuum-packed chicken wings. © Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources.Entities:
Keywords: antioxidants; chicken wings; fruit juices; lipid oxidation; marinade
Year: 2022 PMID: 35028574 PMCID: PMC8728511 DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2021.e62
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Anim Resour ISSN: 2636-0772
Fig. 1.Antioxidant activity (AOA) and total phenolic content (TPC) of fruit juices used in marinades.
a,b Values with different letters differ significantly (p<0.05).
Sensory attributes of chicken wings marinated with different fruit juices for different time periods
| Marinade-time combination | Color | Odor | Flavor | Taste | Juiciness | Tenderness | Overall acceptability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 5.09 | 5.23 | 4.54[ | 4.40[ | 4.83 | 5.06 | 4.46[ |
| Mango/12 h | 5.29 | 5.51 | 5.09[ | 4.77[ | 5.11 | 5.20 | 5.00[ |
| Mango/24 h | 5.06 | 5.23 | 5.00[ | 5.29[ | 5.14 | 5.43 | 5.43[ |
| Pineapple/12 h | 5.26 | 5.09 | 5.29[ | 5.17[ | 5.26 | 5.31 | 5.29[ |
| Pineapple/24 h | 5.26 | 5.80 | 5.63[ | 5.60[ | 5.17 | 5.34 | 5.74[ |
| June plum/12 h | 5.20 | 5.71 | 5.54[ | 5.54[ | 5.23 | 5.31 | 5.49[ |
| June plum/24 h | 5.31 | 5.43 | 4.80[ | 4.71[ | 5.14 | 5.43 | 5.06[ |
| SEM[ | 0.093 | 0.088 | 0.087 | 0.093 | 0.089 | 0.075 | 0.085 |
Control, unmarinated chicken wings.
Pooled standard error of means.
Values in the same column with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
Fig. 2.Marinade loss and marinade uptake of chicken wings after marinating with different fruit juices.
a–c Different letters between treatments are statistically different (p<0.05).
pH values of chicken wings marinated with different fruit juices during storage period
| Period | Treatments | SEM[ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Mango/ 24 h | Pineapple/ 24 h | June Plum/ 12 h | ||
| Day 1 | 6.98[ | 6.27[ | 6.15[ | 5.75[ | 0.136 |
| Day 7 | 6.52[ | 6.18[ | 5.83[ | 5.46[ | 0.119 |
| Day 14 | 6.34[ | 6.00[ | 5.67[ | 5.20[ | 0.127 |
| Day 21 | 6.13[ | 5.82[ | 5.40[ | 5.00[ | 0.129 |
| Day 28 | 5.92[ | 5.59[ | 5.10[ | 4.85[ | 0.126 |
| SEM[ | 0.097 | 0.067 | 0.098 | 0.086 | |
Control, unmarinated chicken wings.
Pooled standard error of means (n=24).
Pooled standard error of means (n=30).
Values in the same column with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
Values in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
Water holding capacity values of the vacuum-packed chicken wings marinated with different fruit juices during storage period
| Period | Treatments | SEM[ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Mango/ 24 h | Pineapple/ 24 h | June Plum/ 12 h | ||
| Day 1 | 90.83[ | 89.67[ | 92.33[ | 92.17[ | 0.367 |
| Day 7 | 88.33[ | 86.83[ | 89.83[ | 89.33[ | 0.358 |
| Day 14 | 85.00[ | 83.67[ | 87.00[ | 84.83[ | 0.375 |
| Day 21 | 79.67[ | 78.17[ | 83.00[ | 80.00[ | 0.538 |
| Day 28 | 73.33[ | 74.33[ | 79.33[ | 77.50[ | 0.739 |
| SEM[ | 1.681 | 1.501 | 1.251 | 1.477 | |
Control, unmarinated chicken wings.
Pooled standard error of means (n=24).
Pooled standard error of means (n=30).
Values in the same column with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
Values in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
TBARS values of the vacuum-packed chicken wings marinated with different fruit juices during storage period
| Period | Treatments | SEM[ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Mango/ 24 h | Pineapple/ 24 h | June Plum/ 12 h | ||
| Day 1 | 0.25[ | 0.11[ | 0.18[ | 0.21[ | 0.015 |
| Day 7 | 0.25[ | 0.12[ | 0.19[ | 0.21[ | 0.015 |
| Day 14 | 0.26[ | 0.12[ | 0.19[ | 0.22[ | 0.015 |
| Day 21 | 0.26[ | 0.13[ | 0.20[ | 0.22[ | 0.015 |
| Day 28 | 0.27[ | 0.14[ | 0.20[ | 0.23[ | 0.014 |
| SEM[ | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.001 | |
Control, unmarinated chicken wings.
Pooled standard error of means (n=24).
Pooled standard error of means (n=30).
Values in the same column with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
Values in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
TBARS, 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances.
DPPH values of vacuum-packed chicken wings marinated with different fruit juices during storage period
| Period | Treatments | SEM[ | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Mango/ 24 h | Pineapple/ 24 h | June Plum/12 h | ||
| Day 1 | 25.50[ | 68.70[ | 63.13[ | 56.83[ | 5.045 |
| Day 7 | 24.37[ | 67.50[ | 61.07[ | 55.30[ | 4.993 |
| Day 14 | 22.17[ | 65.77[ | 59.43[ | 53.13[ | 5.050 |
| Day 21 | 20.93[ | 63.57[ | 57.67[ | 50.73[ | 4.945 |
| Day 28 | 18.57[ | 60.73[ | 55.53[ | 47.27[ | 4.911 |
| SEM[ | 0.660 | 0.763 | 0.712 | 0.908 | |
Control, unmarinated chicken wings.
Pooled standard error of means (n=24).
Pooled standard error of means (n=30).
Values in the same column with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
Values in the same row with different superscripts differ significantly (p<0.05).
DPPH, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydrazyl-hydrate.