| Literature DB >> 35056742 |
Eva Bruna-García1,2, Beatriz Isabel Redondo3, Marta Miguel Castro1.
Abstract
Iberian ham is one of the most representative Spanish products and presents an excellent nutritional and sensory quality. Iberian ham trimming fat is considered a by-product and to give a new use to this remaining part could represent a healthy and innovative option for obtaining sustainable foods. The purpose of this work was to obtain a new bioactive ingredient from Iberian ham trimming fat with the highest amount of antioxidants and monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), using a new non-invasive solvent-free method. To obtain the essence, two different extraction procedures were carried out. After fatty acid characterization, degree of acidity, peroxide index and a basic sensory analysis were performed. Antioxidant in vitro activity and total phenolic compounds (TPC) were also determined. This new ingredient showed a better sensory profile than raw ham fat, a lower degree of acidity, a higher content of MUFAs, and also showed a higher antioxidant capacity and an increase in phenolic compounds compared to the raw material. This bioactive essence could be used as a food, a cosmetic or a nutraceutical ingredient to prevent certain diseases related to oxidative stress and could also contribute to the maintenance of the circular economy.Entities:
Keywords: Iberian ham; by-product; extraction; functional ingredient; healthy fats
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35056742 PMCID: PMC8781370 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27020428
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Protocol followed to perform this study.
Sensory results obtained after subjecting the ham fat to different temperatures in a thermostatic bath and rotary evaporator.
| Extraction | Extraction Method | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thermostatic Bath | Rotary Evaporator | |||
| Colour of Essence | Odour of Essence | Colour of Essence | Odour of Essence | |
| 30 | Thick | Dry smell | Yellow | Dry smell, great ham odour |
| 37 | Opaque, lumpy in | Pleasant aroma, musty notes | Less thick | Dry smell |
| 45 | Less thick | Musty | Viscous | Moderate intensity |
| 60 | Bright yellow, transparent | Musty | Yellow | Moderate intensity to ham |
| 70 | Bright yellow, presence of lumps | Pungent and musty | Bright yellow | Moderate intensity, musty notes |
| 80 | Bright yellow | Pungent and musty | Bright yellow | Pleasant aroma |
| 90 | Bright yellow | Putrefied smell | Bright yellow | Pungent and musty |
Fatty acid composition of the selected essences.
| Fatty Acid (%) | Extraction Temperature (°C) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Raw Material | 30 | 60 | 80 | ||
| SFA (%) | Lauric | 0.05 ± 0 | 0.06 ± 0 | 0.05 ± 0.01 | 0.05 ± 0.01 |
| Myristic | 0.94 ± 0.07 | 1.10 ± 0.03 | 1.06 ± 0.09 | 1.05 ± 0.08 | |
| Palmitic | 19.67 ± 0.26 | 20.25 ± 0.63 | 19.20 ± 0.80 | 20.54 ± 1.10 | |
| Margaric | 0.20 ± 0.02 | 0.22 ± 0.03 | 0.24 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0 | |
| Stearic | 7.56 ± 0.49 a | 8.6 ± 0.28 b | 9.32 ± 0.20 b,c | 10.31 ± 1.12 c | |
| Arachidic | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.13 ± 0.01 | 0.15 ± 0.01 | 0.16 ± 0.03 | |
| Total SFA (%) | 28.56 ± 0.51 a | 30.36 ± 0.32 b | 30.02 ± 0.91 b | 32.34 ± 2.21 c | |
| MUFA (%) | Palmitoleic | 1.95 ± 0.09 | 2.16 ± 0.03 | 2.14 ± 0.20 | 2.12 ± 0.14 |
| Cis-10-heptadecenoic | 0.23 ± 0.02 | 0.28 ± 0.02 | 0.38 ± 0.07 | 0.27 ± 0.03 | |
| Oleic | 60.48 ± 1.0 a | 58.12 ± 0.25 b | 57.62 ± 0.90 b | 56.96 ± 1.78 b | |
| Eicosanoid | 1.46 ± 0.06 | 1.26 ± 0.04 | 1.8 ± 0.07 | 1.25 ± 0.08 | |
| Total MUFA (%) | 64.11 ± 0.95 c | 61.82 ± 0.22 b | 61.94 ± 0.70 b | 60.6 ± 1.77 a | |
| PUFA (%) | Linoleic | 6.74 ± 0.41 | 7.17 ± 0.10 | 7.39 ± 0.42 | 6.51 ± 0.43 |
| α-linolenic | 0.58 ± 0.08 | 0.65 ± 0.07 | 0.65 ± 0.12 | 0.55 ± 0.08 | |
| Total PUFA (%) | 7.33 ± 0.48 | 7.82 ± 0.17 | 8.04 ± 0.53 | 7.06 ± 0.51 | |
Mean of three measurements ± standard deviation. Different letters (a, b or c) in the same row show significant differences (p < 0.05).
Degree of acidity (% oleic acid) and peroxide value (meq O2/kg fat) of the selected essences.
| Extraction Temperature (°C) | Degree of Acidity | Peroxide Value |
|---|---|---|
| Raw material | 28.94 ± 1.31 a | 2.43 ± 0.62 a |
| 30 | 29.88 ± 3.80 a | 10.11 ± 0.60 b,c |
| 60 | 24.69 ± 0.91 a | 8.56 ± 0.82 b |
| 80 | 26.19 ± 0.75 a | 11.10 ± 1.27 c |
Mean of three measurements ± standard deviation. Different letters (a, b or c) in each column, show significant differences (p < 0.05).
Antioxidant capacity and TPC of the selected samples.
| Extraction Temperature | Antioxidant Capacity | TPC |
|---|---|---|
| Raw material | 1.86 ± 0.15 a | 73.46 ± 2.23 a |
| 30 | 2.32 ± 0.08 b | 94.04 ± 3.98 b |
| 60 | 2.36 ± 0.06 b | 139.51 ± 4.84 c |
| 80 | 2.11 ± 0.09 a,b | 126.79 ± 3.57 d |
Mean of three measurements ± standard deviation. Different letters (a, b, c or d) in each column show significant differences (p < 0.05).