| Literature DB >> 35681879 |
Songsong Zhao1, Hengxun Lin2, Shuangqing Li1, Chenghao Liu2, Junhong Meng2, Wenqiang Guan2, Bin Liu1.
Abstract
The entropy weight method (EWM) was developed and used to integrate multiple quality indexes of pork to generate a comprehensive measure of quality. The Arrhenius equation and chemical kinetic reaction were used to fit and generate the shelf life prediction model. The pork was stored at the temperatures of 7 °C, 4 °C, 1 °C and -1 °C. Quality indexes, such as drip loss, color, shear force, pH, TAC, TVB-N and TBARS were measured. The results show that low temperatures effectively delay microbial growth and lipid oxidation. The regression coefficients (R2) for the comprehensive scores at each temperature were greater than 0.973 and the activation energy Ea was 9.7354 × 104 kJ mol-1. The predicted shelf life of pork stored at 7 °C, 4 °C, 1 °C and -1 °C was 4.35 d, 6.85 d, 10.88 d and 14.90 d, respectively. In conclusion, EWM is an effective method to predict the shelf life of chilled/supercooled pork.Entities:
Keywords: meat quality; shelf-life prediction; the entropy weight method; total viable counts
Year: 2022 PMID: 35681879 PMCID: PMC9179921 DOI: 10.3390/ani12111415
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Animals (Basel) ISSN: 2076-2615 Impact factor: 3.231
Figure 1Effect of different storage temperatures on drip loss of pork. Different lowercase letters (a, b) indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between each treatment on the same storage time.
Figure 2(a) Effect of different storage temperatures on L* value of pork; (b) Effect of different stored temperatures on a* value of pork. Different lowercase letters (a−d) indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between each treatment on the same storage time.
Figure 3Effect of different storage temperatures on shear force of pork. Different lowercase letters (a−c) indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between each treatment on the same storage time.
Figure 4Effect of different storage temperatures on TAC of pork. Different lowercase letters (a−c) indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between each treatment on the same storage time.
Figure 5Effect of different storage temperatures on TBARS of pork. Different lowercase letters (a−c) indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between each treatment on the same storage time.
Figure 6Effect of different storage temperatures on TVB-N of pork. Different lowercase letters (a−c) indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between each treatment on the same storage time.
Comprehensive quality change of pork at each temperature during storage.
| Storage Time (d) | 7 °C | 4 °C | 1 °C | −1 °C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.9652 | 0.9652 | 0.9653 | 0.9653 |
| 2 | 0.7445 | 0.8263 | 0.8690 | 0.9107 |
| 4 | 0.4265 | 0.6829 | 0.7712 | 0.8588 |
| 6 | 0.0608 | 0.5178 | 0.6517 | 0.7801 |
| 8 | 0.3406 | 0.5188 | 0.6684 | |
| 10 | 0.0644 | 0.3413 | 0.5294 | |
| 12 | 0.0894 | 0.3452 |
Zero- and first-order kinetic reaction rate constants k and coefficient of determination R2.
| Quality Index | Reaction Order | Storage Temperature | Reaction Rate | Determination R2 | The Average Values of R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TVB-N | Zero-order | 7 °C | 1.99083 ± 0.0631 | 0.9411 | 0.8391 |
| 4 °C | 1.09055 ± 0.1828 | 0.6366 | |||
| 1 °C | 0.68361 ± 0.14064 | 0.8189 | |||
| −1 °C | 0.43758 ± 0.14999 | 0.9597 | |||
| First-order | 7 °C | 0.18838 ± 0.01874 | 0.9982 | 0.4452 | |
| 4 °C | 0.10872 ± 0.00877 | 0.2342 | |||
| 1 °C | 0.0695 ± 0.0065 | 0.0305 | |||
| −1 °C | 0.04421 ± 0.01008 | 0.5178 | |||
| TBARS | Zero-order | 7 °C | 0.05591 ± 0.01339 | 0.9516 | 0.9428 |
| 4 °C | 0.03734 ± 0.0178 | 0.9302 | |||
| 1 °C | 0.03046 ± 0.01110 | 0.9142 | |||
| −1 °C | 0.02179 ± 0.009227 | 0.9753 | |||
| First-order | 7 °C | 0.33541 ± 0.02144 | 0.8571 | 0.3472 | |
| 4 °C | 0.21994 ± 0.02363 | 0.2322 | |||
| 1 °C | 0.17779 ± 0.02742 | 0.0378 | |||
| −1 °C | 0.13395 ± 0.02895 | 0.2618 | |||
| TAC | Zero-order | 7 °C | 0.71860 ± 0.2384 | 0.914 | 0.8902 |
| 4 °C | 0.42991 ± 0.1386 | 0.7602 | |||
| 1 °C | 0.31190 ± 0.1082 | 0.9033 | |||
| −1 °C | 0.19892 ± 0.0888 | 0.9834 | |||
| First-order | 7 °C | 0.14841 ± 0.0300 | 0.6874 | 0.5329 | |
| 4 °C | 0.08713 ± 0.0037 | 0.4289 | |||
| 1 °C | 0.0629 ± 0.0095 | 0.3325 | |||
| −1 °C | 0.0435 ± 0.01486 | 0.6827 | |||
| Comprehensive scores | Zero-order | 7 °C | −0.13193 ± 0.0166 | 0.9861 | 0.9176 |
| 4 °C | −0.07656 ± 0.0074 | 0.8631 | |||
| 1 °C | −0.05669 ± 0.0087 | 0.8942 | |||
| −1 °C | −0.03619 ± 0.0091 | 0.9268 | |||
| First-order | 7 °C | −0.26490 ± 0.1418 | 0.9200 | 0.6118 | |
| 4 °C | −0.09956 ± 0.0200 | 0.3456 | |||
| 1 °C | −0.06294 ± 0.0097 | 0.5032 | |||
| −1 °C | −0.04273 ± 0.0201 | 0.6784 |
The parameter of prediction model for the shelf-life.
| Quality Index | The Initial Value | The Final Value | Kinetic Order | Pre-Exponential Factor | Activation Energy |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TVB-N | 7.22 | 15.0 | Zero-order | 1.42470 × 1022 | 1.1718 × 105 | 0.9944 |
| TBARS | 0.078 | 0.5 | Zero-order | 7.74768 × 108 | 7.0484 × 104 | 0.9221 |
| TAC | 3.3 | 6.0 | Zero-order | 9.57795 × 1017 | 9.7175 × 104 | 0.9779 |
| Comprehensive scores | 0.9652 | 0.4 | Zero-order | 1.87700 × 1017 | 9.7354 × 104 | 0.9734 |
Experimental and predicted quality values under different temperatures.
| Quality Index | Storage Temperature | Predict Shelf Life | Measured Shelf Life | Relative Error | Average Relative Error (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TVB-N | 7 °C | 3.95 | 3.93 | 5.09 | 8.65 |
| 4 °C | 6.85 | 6.33 | 7.35 | ||
| 1 °C | 11.87 | 10.93 | 8.53 | ||
| −1 °C | 17.32 | 14.76 | 17.41 | ||
| TBARS | 7 °C | 7.66 | 3.93 | 94.90 | 56.28 |
| 4 °C | 10.63 | 6.33 | 67.84 | ||
| 1 °C | 14.86 | 10.93 | 35.91 | ||
| −1 °C | 18.66 | 14.76 | 26.45 | ||
| TAC | 7 °C | 3.78 | 3.93 | 3.89 | 9.17 |
| 4 °C | 5.95 | 6.33 | 6.29 | ||
| 1 °C | 9.42 | 10.93 | 13.86 | ||
| −1 °C | 12.89 | 14.76 | 12.64 | ||
| Comprehensive quality | 7 °C | 4.35 | 3.93 | 10.79 | 5.09 |
| 4 °C | 6.85 | 6.33 | 8.11 | ||
| 1 °C | 10.88 | 10.93 | 0.53 | ||
| −1 °C | 14.90 | 14.76 | 0.93 |