The aging society significantly impacts the global food industry because sensory
perception and food preferences change with age (Zizza et al., 2007). Kim (2018)
reported that elderly people had problems with insufficient dietary intake and
malnutrition due to chewing difficulties. The food types that older people with
difficulties in chewing and swallowing can eat are limited. Accordingly, it has been
reported that the ratio of protein and lipid energy intake is lower in foods that
are difficult to chew than in foods that are easy to chew (Park et al., 2013). Many studies have cited protein as an
important nutrient for the elderly and reported that protein intake could improve
the rapid loss of muscle mass associated with aging (Morais et al., 2006; Wolfe et al.,
2008). Therefore, the adequate intake of easily digestible protein is
important for elderly individuals with muscle weakness, mastication, and dysphagia
(Gagaoua et al., 2021).Additionally, a study on the exploration of the snacking behavior of the elderly for
the development of processed meat products showed that meat sticks and Chinese beef
jerky were difficult to consume because of their hard texture. However, prosciutto
and liver pâté were recognized as foods that could be eaten in special
cases (Mena et al., 2020). Spreadable meat
products such as liver pâté and liver sausages have a high nutritional
value and density.Nutritionally, the liver contains approximately 20% protein and is an
excellent source of many mineral substances, vitamins A, D, B2, and
B12, and folic acid (Jayathilakan et
al., 2012). Therefore, liver products could be an excellent alternative
to fresh meat because they can provide high value-added nutrients in small amounts
to the elderly with dysphagia (Delgado-Pando et al.,
2011). In addition, as an edible by-product, the liver is an important
raw material with potential for high-quality development and a highly effective
emulsifier for processing owing to its unique taste and technical function (Fischer, 1982; Hammer, 1982; Han et al.,
2018).According to the mechanism of action, generally used meat tenderization methods can
be classified into electrical, mechanical, chemical, and enzymatic treatments (Birch, 1981; Elkhalifa and Marriott, 1990; MacFarlane, 1985; Zhang et al.,
2021). Pressure treatment disaggregates actin and myosin filaments, the
major constituents of myofibrils, and promotes tenderizing by inducing changes in
protein molecular interactions and noncovalent bonds (Bouton et al., 1977). Therefore, pressure can affect the structure of
myofibrillar proteins. Results depend on protein susceptibility, pressure and
temperature, and the degree of pressure treatment (Sun and Holley, 2010). It has also been reported that high-pressure
treatment promotes the activation of proteolytic enzyme in the muscle (Homma et al., 1994). Proteolytic enzyme
treatment is a widely used method for meat tenderization. Bromelain is a proteolytic
enzyme extracted from plants and has been widely used as a meat tenderizer (Naveena et al., 2004). Gerelt et al. (2000) reported that proteolytic enzyme promote
the fragmentation of myofibrils and weaken the connective tissue structure in the
muscles.Manufacturing methods significantly influence the digestibility of meat proteins
(Li et al., 2017). Xue et al. (2020) reported that structural changes through
autoclaving affect the digestion of meat. It has been reported that proteolysis due
to enzymatic tenderizing weakens the protein structure and can increase
digestibility by increasing protein accessibility to digestive proteases (Zhao et al., 2019).Guar gum has a strong water-holding capacity and is used as a binder and lubricant
for manufacturing sausage and stuffed meat products (Bakhsh et al., 2021). The addition of guar gum can contribute to quality
improvement by stabilizing enzymatic treatment and improving the water holding
capacity. Moreover, it has been reported that the interaction of proteins and
polysaccharides improves the stability of enzyme (Jadhav and Singhal, 2013).Therefore, this study aimed to produce age-friendly spreadable liver sausages with
improved digestibility by applying enzyme, guar gum, pressure processing, and
analyzing the physicochemical properties of the produced sausages.
Materials and Methods
Spreadable liver sausage preparation and processing
Spreadable liver sausages were prepared by referring to the methods of Choi et al. (2019). Lean pork, back fat,
duck liver, and duck skin were purchased from a local market (Jeonju, Korea).
Spreadable liver sausages were manufactured through treatments involving the
addition of a proteolytic enzyme and guar gum, and pressure-cooking, as shown in
Table 1 and as follows: control
(without proteolytic enzyme), T1 (proteolytic enzyme), T2 (proteolytic enzyme
and guar gum), T3 (pressure cooking), T4 (proteolytic enzyme and pressure
cooking), and T5 (proteolytic enzyme, guar gum, and pressure cooking).
Spreadable liver sausage was prepared using the following method. After each raw
meat (lean pork, back fat, duck liver, and duck skin) was ground through a
Ø 6 mm plate using a meat chopper (SMC-22A, SL Company, Incheon, Korea),
nitrite-pickling salt (salt/nitrite=99.4:0.6) and plant protease (complex
seasoned food containing bromelain; tender enzyme S1, ES Food, Gunpo, Korea)
were added at 4°C for 15 h. Subsequently, the first cooking was performed
to stop the enzymatic reaction. The control, T1 and T2, were cooked at
80°C for 30 min using a water bath (JSR JSSB-30T, JS Research, Gongju,
Korea), and the pressure treatments (T3, T4, and T5) were cooked at 110°C
using an autoclave (Jeio Tech AC-13, JeioTech, Daejeon, Korea) at a pressure of
0.06 MPa for 10 min. After adding ingredients to the cooked pork, back fat, duck
skin, and duck liver, they were mixed for 2 min in a silent cutter (Hermann
Scharfen GmbH & Co. Maschinenfabrik KG, Witten, Germany) and then stuffed
into the cellulose casing. After stuffing, the samples were cooked at
80°C for 30 min in a water bath (JSR JSSB-30T).
Table 1.
Formulation of spreadable liver sausages by pressure and proteolytic
enzyme treatment (unit, %)
Ingredients
Control
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Pork ham
45
45
45
45
45
45
Pork back fat
20
20
20
20
20
20
Duck skin
15
15
15
15
15
15
Duck liver
20
20
20
20
20
20
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
NPS
(salt/nitrite=99.4:0.6)
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
Isolated soy protein
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
Onion powder
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
Pepper
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Ginger powder
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Rosemary
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
Guar gum
-
-
0.25
-
-
0.25
Protease
-
0.5
0.5
-
0.5
0.5
NPS, nitrite-pickling salt.
NPS, nitrite-pickling salt.
pH
The pH values were determined using a pH meter (Accumet Model AB15+,
Fisher Scientific, Hampton, NH, USA) after homogenizing (8,000 rpm, 3 min) the
sample (5 g) with distilled water (20 mL).
Color
The color of liver sausage was measured using a colorimeter (CR-210, Minolta,
Osaka, Japan). The values of CIE L* (lightness), CIE a* (redness), and CIE b*
(yellowness) were measured (illuminant C). The colorimeter was calibrated with a
white plate (L*=+97.83, a*=–0.43,
b*=+1.98).
Emulsion stability
The emulsion stability of the liver sausage was measured according to the method
described by Ensor et al. (1987). After
two layers of wire mesh (4×4 cm) were placed on the prepared glass tube,
20 g of the emulsion was filled, and the inlet was sealed with aluminum foil.
The emulsion stability was evaluated by measuring the amount of fat and water
separated by heating the glass tube at 75°C for 30 min, followed by
cooling for 30 min (Choi et al.,
2015).
Digestibility
The in vitro digestion of liver sausages was analyzed using the
method of Lee et al. (2020). The
homogenate (4 mL) was treated with 10 mL of gastric digestive juice (pepsin 182
unit/mg protein and gastric lipase 21 unit/mg protein dissolved in 0.15 M NaCl,
pH 1.8 with 0.1 M HCl) and digested at 37°C for 2 h in a shaking water
bath. Duodenal fluid (10 mL) and bile fluid (5 mL) were added to the product of
the gastric phase, and digestion was performed under the same conditions as in
the gastric phase. The compositions of duodenal and bile fluids were as follows:
duodenal fluid (trypsin 34.5 unit/mg protein, chymotrypsin 0.4 unit/mg protein,
and pancreatic lipase 2,000 unit/mg protein dissolved in distilled water, pH 7.5
adjusted with 1 M NaOH), and bile fluid (4 mM bile extract dissolved in
distilled water, pH 7.5 adjusted with 1 M NaOH). For the control, the same
amount of distilled water and digestion solution were added instead of the
sample used during digestion. The digesta was stored at –70°C, and
the protein content was determined using the Kjeldahl method (AOAC, 2000).
Proximate composition
Moisture, crude protein, and crude fat contents were determined using a drying
oven, the Kjeldahl method, and Soxhlet method (AOAC, 2000), respectively. Ash content was determined using a muffle
furnace (AOAC, 2000).
Apparent viscosity
The apparent viscosities of the liver sausage were measured using a rheometer
(DV3THB, Brookfield Engineering Laboratories, Middleborough, MA, USA) at
35°C for 10 s. The apparent viscosity was assessed at a constant shear
rate of 50/s for 30 s. The maximum apparent viscosity is presented in mPa/s.
Texture profile analysis
The textural properties were analyzed using a texture analyzer
(TA-XT2i, Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, UK). The sample
was placed in a container with a diameter of 40 mm and height of 20 mm, a probe
(circular, 20 mm in diameter at the bottom) was mounted, and compression was
measured. Analytic conditions were determined by setting the pre-test speed to
10.0 mm/s, test speed to 10.0 mm/s, post-test speed to 10.0 mm/s, distance to
10.0 mm, and trigger distance to 10.0 mm.
Viscoelasticity
For the viscoelastic properties, the shear strain (1%) corresponding to
the linear viscosity range was fixed, and a frequency sweep test was performed
to measure the storage modulus (G′) and loss modulus (G″)
according to the angular frequency (0.1–100 rad/s).
Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE)
The protein concentration was measured using the Bradford method (Kruger, 2009). A sample of 50 μL and
200 μL of Bradford reagent (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) were
mixed, and absorbance was measured at 595 nm using a spectrophotometer (Optizen
2120 UV plus, Mecasys, Daejeon, Korea). The standard curve was calculated using
bovine serum albumin obtained from Sigma-Aldrich, and distilled water was used
as the blank. The sample buffer was mixed with 20 μg of the protein
sample, and the protein to sample buffer was 3:1. The mixture was heated at
100°C for 5 min in a water bath and cooled at 25°C for 5 min.
Then, 15 μL of each sample was injected into the well of 12%
Mini-PROTEIN® TGXTM Precast Gels (Bio-Rad Laboratories,
Hercules, CA, USA), and the Precision Plus Protein TM dual-color standard
presented standard molecular weight bands on the gel. After separation, the gel
was stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue R250 (Bio-Rad Laboratories).
Statistical analysis
SPSS Statistics 20 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used to analyze the
data statistically. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Duncan’s
range test was performed (p<0.05). Each experimental analysis was
performed twice for all three replicates.
Results and Discussion
pH, color, emulsion stability, and digestibility
The pH and color of the spreadable liver sausages with enzyme and pressure
processing are shown in Table 2. The pH
is affected by enzymatic and pressure processing. Additionally, the pH was
higher after enzyme- and pressure-processing than that in the control. The
combination of enzyme and pressure treatment in T4 was the highest at 6.25,
which was not significantly different from that of T2 and T5. The higher pH
values in pressure-processing may be attributed to fast cooking rates, which can
lead to higher loss of free acidic groups. It has been that free hydrogen
sulfide begins to form when cooked at a high temperature above 80°C,
which increases with increasing temperature (Lawrie, 1998). The lightness was the highest in T4 and lowest in the
control. The pressure-treated group showed a higher redness than the general
heat treatments, while yellowness showed the opposite trend. Myoglobin is one of
the most incomplete proteins with respect to pH and temperature (Faustman and Cassens, 1990). It has been
reported that color change can be caused by protein denaturation and the
emulsification of water and protein by pressure (Jung et al., 2003). Therefore, the difference in color owing to
pressure processing was likely caused by the denaturation of myoglobin.
Table 2.
pH, color, emulsion stability, and digestibility of spreadable liver
sausages after pressure and proteolytic enzyme treatment
Control[1)]
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
pH
6.17±0.02[c]
6.20±0.00[b]
6.23±0.00[a]
6.19±0.00[b]
6.25±0.00[a]
6.24±0.00[a]
Color
CIE L*
54.42±0.12[d]
54.95±0.54[c]
55.52±0.17[b]
55.58±0.36[b]
56.31±0.44[a]
54.65±0.48[cd]
CIE a*
7.41±0.09[c]
7.73±0.13[b]
7.35±0.07[c]
7.96±0.05[a]
7.81±0.14[b]
7.94±0.12[a]
CIE b*
11.37±0.32[b]
11.20±0.24[b]
12.37±0.13[a]
10.98±0.22[c]
10.36±0.11[e]
10.65±0.08[d]
Emulsion stability (%)
13.99±1.29
13.59±1.23
13.24±1.89
12.96±0.28
12.95±0.23
12.21±0.78
Digestibility (%)
77.50±1.39[c]
80.07±0.08[b]
80.08±0.12[b]
80.15±0.28[b]
82.58±0.41[a]
81.54±0.45[a]
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4,
proteolytic enzyme and pressure cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme,
guar gum, and pressure cooking.
Values with different letters in the same row are significantly
different (p<0.05).
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4,
proteolytic enzyme and pressure cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme,
guar gum, and pressure cooking.Values with different letters in the same row are significantly
different (p<0.05).The emulsion stability of the spreadable liver sausage was in the range of
12.21%–13.99%, with no statistical differences among
different treatments, but it showed relatively lower values during enzyme and
pressure treatment compared to that in the control (Table 2). When manufacturing ground meat products, the
emulsification capacity of meat proteins affects the degree of meat tenderness.
This is because of the correlation between the concentration of water-soluble
proteins released into emulsion and meat tenderness (Aminlari et al., 2009).The in vitro digestibility of the spreadable liver sausages upon
enzyme and pressure processing is shown in Table
2. A chemical method used to analyze meat tenderization was used to
determine the solubility and effectiveness of connective tissues and protein
digestion (Mahendrakar et al., 1989). The
enzyme and pressurized combination treatment (T4) showed the highest digestion
at 82.58%, and there was no significant difference compared to that in
T5. The general heat treatments with enzyme and guar gum also showed higher
digestibility than the control (77.50%). Steam cooking positively affects
the overall muscle protein digestion (Rakotondramavo et al., 2019). Xue et
al. (2020) reported that high-pressure treatment improved the
digestibility of gel-based meat products. By measuring the digestibility of
bovine muscle according to the heating time, it was found that the digestibility
decreased as the cooking time increased (Santé-Lhoutellier et al., 2008). Therefore, heating under
vapor pressure shortened the heating time and improved the digestibility due to
steam and pressure in this study.The proximate components of spreadable liver sausages with enzyme and pressure
processing are listed in Table 3. The
moisture content did not significantly differ between the control and general
heat treatments. However, the pressure processing groups (T3–T5) showed a
higher moisture content than the control (p<0.05). Pawar et al. (2000) reported that the moisture content and
cooking time showed an inverse relationship. It was determined that the yield
decreased as the cooking time increased. In addition, water retention increases
upon treatment with plant proteolytic enzyme (Aminlari et al., 2009). The protein content did not significantly
differ, at 17.30%–18.76%. The fat content was higher in the
pressure treatment group than in the control and general heat treatment groups,
similar to the moisture content. Ash content was higher in the general heat
treatments than in the control and pressure treatments. The study results also
indicate that the enzyme and pressurization treatment increased the moisture
retention.
Table 3.
Proximate composition (%) of spreadable liver sausages by
pressure and proteolytic enzyme treatment
Control[1)]
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
Moisture
49.46±1.84[b]
49.16±2.69[b]
48.52±1.47[b]
53.54±0.58[a]
54.38±0.09[a]
53.67±1.15[a]
Protein
18.76±0.63
18.14±0.21
17.30±1.09
17.62±0.66
17.77±0.33
17.98±0.96
Fat
22.95±0.37[abc]
22.25±0.83[bc]
21.51±0.09[c]
24.66±1.48[a]
24.09±0.33[a]
23.42±0.65[ab]
Ash
1.99±0.01[b]
2.28±0.14[a]
2.04±0.08[ab]
1.84±0.02[b]
1.93±0.06[b]
1.93±0.22[b]
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4,
proteolytic enzyme and pressure cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme,
guar gum, and pressure cooking.
Values with different letters in the same row are significantly
different (p<0.05).
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4,
proteolytic enzyme and pressure cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme,
guar gum, and pressure cooking.Values with different letters in the same row are significantly
different (p<0.05).The apparent viscosity of the spreadable liver sausage batters with enzyme and
pressure processing is shown in Fig. 1.
Enzyme and pressure processing affected the viscosity of liver sausages.
Additionally, all batters showed a decrease in apparent viscosity with rotation
time and thixotropic behavior. The apparent viscosity of the pressure-treated
group was lower than that of the heat-treated group, and the viscosity decreased
during enzymatic treatment. In addition, the guar gum-treated group showed a
relatively high viscosity in both the general and pressure heating treatments.
It was reported that when guar gum is dispersed in water, the galactose side
chains of the molecules interact with water molecules, causing intermolecular
chain entanglement in aqueous solutions, thereby increasing the viscosity (Zhang et al., 2005), which is consistent
with the results of this study. Emulsions with a high apparent viscosity are
correlated with high emulsion stability, which affects the quality
characteristics of meat products (Zayas,
1997). There was a clear difference in apparent viscosity among
treatments in this study. However, it was judged that the effect of particle
size and distribution degree was greater than that of emulsion stability when
there was no significant difference in emulsion stability.
Fig. 1.
Apparent viscosity of spreadable liver sausages after pressure and
proteolytic enzyme treatment.
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4, proteolytic
enzyme and pressure cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme, guar gum, and
pressure cooking.
Apparent viscosity of spreadable liver sausages after pressure and
proteolytic enzyme treatment.
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4, proteolytic
enzyme and pressure cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme, guar gum, and
pressure cooking.
Hardness
Sausage hardness indicates the degree of ripening due to the denaturation and
gelation of meat proteins and loss of moisture (Gimeno et al., 2001). Enzyme and pressure processing can affect the
hardness of spreadable liver sausages. The enzyme and pressure treatments led to
lower hardness than the control, and T4 had the lowest hardness at 20,911.3
N/m2 (Fig. 2). Pressure
treatment induces a change in the muscle microstructure, myofibrillar
contractions, fragmentation, and gelation of myofibril structural proteins that
damage myofibers (Chen et al., 2014; Morton et al., 2017). Plant proteases
affect meat tenderization through microstructural and biochemical changes (Maiti et al., 2008). In addition, the
combined treatment with enzyme and pressure improved the digestibility owing to
the partial degradation of muscle protein (Ma et
al., 2019), consistent with the results of this study. The texture of
the liver sausages prepared in this study was analyzed according to the texture
analysis method specified in Korean Industrial Standard (KS) for aging-friendly
food. The Korea Industrial Standards and the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety
have defined “age-friendly food” and prepared specifications and
standards. Korean industrial standards are classified into three stages based on
their physical properties. Level 1 is food that can be ingested with teeth and
has a hardness of 500,000–50,000 N/m2; level 2 is food that
can be eaten with gums and has a hardness of 50,000–22,000
N/m2; and level 3 is food that can be consumed with the tongue
and has a hardness lower than 20,000 N/m2 and a viscosity of 1,500
mPa/s or higher (Korean Industrial Standards,
2017). As a result of this study, the liver sausages treated with
enzyme and pressure processing can be considered to be products equivalent to
level 2 age-friendly food.
Fig. 2.
Hardness of spreadable liver sausages after pressure and proteolytic
enzyme treatment.
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4, proteolytic
enzyme and pressure-cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme, guar gum, and
pressure cooking. a–c Different letters above the bars
indicate that the results are significantly different
(p<0.05).
Hardness of spreadable liver sausages after pressure and proteolytic
enzyme treatment.
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4, proteolytic
enzyme and pressure-cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme, guar gum, and
pressure cooking. a–c Different letters above the bars
indicate that the results are significantly different
(p<0.05).The viscoelastic properties of liver paste products are essential, as they
provide fundamental insights into the structural organization of the product
(Steen et al., 2014). The storage
modulus showed an increasing trend as the angular frequency increased in all the
treatments. The storage modulus according to the treatments was the highest in
the control and lowest in T4. The high-pressure treatment led to a lower value
than the general heat treatment, and it was found that the enzymatic treatment
decreased the elasticity. In contrast, the guar gum-treated groups (T2 and T5)
treated with enzyme and showed lower values than the control and T1 but higher
than that of T4, suggesting that guar gum increases the elasticity (Fig. 3). The loss modulus (G″) of
liver sausages with improved digestibility upon applying enzyme and pressure
processing are shown in Fig. 4. The loss
modulus (G″), which indicates the viscosity, showed a similar tendency to
the elastic modulus. It was found that the enzymatic treatment had a greater
effect on viscosity reduction than the heating method. The addition of guar gum
did not show a significant difference during general heating treatments, but it
was found that pressure treatment reduced the G″ value.
Fig. 3.
Viscoelasticity of spreadable liver sausages after pressure and
proteolytic enzyme treatment.
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4, proteolytic
enzyme and pressure-cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme, guar gum, and
pressure-cooking.
Fig. 4.
Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE)
patterns of spreadable liver sausages after pressure and proteolytic
enzyme treatment.
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4, proteolytic
enzyme and pressure-cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme, guar gum, and
pressure-cooking.
Viscoelasticity of spreadable liver sausages after pressure and
proteolytic enzyme treatment.
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4, proteolytic
enzyme and pressure-cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme, guar gum, and
pressure-cooking.
Sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE)
patterns of spreadable liver sausages after pressure and proteolytic
enzyme treatment.
Control, without proteolytic enzyme; T1, proteolytic enzyme; T2,
proteolytic enzyme and guar gum; T3, pressure-cooking; T4, proteolytic
enzyme and pressure-cooking; T5, proteolytic enzyme, guar gum, and
pressure-cooking.The SDS-PAGE results of the spreadable liver sausages with enzyme and pressure
processing are shown in Fig. 4. The
combined enzyme and pressurized treatments (T4 and T5) led to more degraded,
low-molecular-weight peptides of 37 kDa or less than those in the control and
other treatments. A major determinant of softening is the degree of proteolysis
of key target proteins in muscle fibers (Koohmaraie and Geesink, 2006). The three-dimensional structure of a
protein can be broken even by pressure (Son,
1997). Myofibrillar proteins are sensitive to autoclaving, which has
been confirmed in many studies (Chen et al.,
2018; Pazos et al., 2014). In
addition, a large protein band of 259 kDa appeared in T3, T4, and T5, which were
pressurized. In general, when the change in protein occurs at
55°C–70°C, the quaternary structure of the protein is
reversibly changed by unfolding, the disulfide bond is broken in the range of
70°C–80°C, and protein polymerization occurs at
90°C–100°C (Davis and
Williams, 1998). Therefore, it was concluded that a polymer band
formed because of protein polymerization because pressure treatment was
conducted at 110°C.
Conclusion
In this study, combined enzyme and pressure processing was conducted to produce
spreadable liver sausage with improved digestibility, and the effect of different
treatments was evaluated. The enzyme and pressure treatments had higher pH and lower
emulsion stability, viscosity, and hardness than the control. Treatments also
decreased the viscoelasticity. As for digestibility, the enzyme and pressurized
combination treatments led to higher digestibility than those in the control.
Therefore, the results of this study suggest that enzyme and pressure are effective
at tenderizing the physical properties of spreadable liver sausage, improving
digestibility, and allowing their use to produce age-friendly foods.
Authors: James D Morton; R Grant Pearson; Hannah Y-Y Lee; Stephanie Smithson; Susan L Mason; Roy Bickerstaffe Journal: Meat Sci Date: 2017-06-16 Impact factor: 5.209