- Email: [email protected]
Effect of trisodium phosphate solutions washing on the sensory evaluation of poultry meat
Meat Science 55 (2000) 471±474
www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Eect of trisodium phosphate solutions washing on the sensory evaluation of poultry meat Rosa Capita *, Carlos Alonso-Calleja, Marisa Sierra, Benito Moreno, MarõÂa del Camino GarcõÂa-FernaÂndez Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, C1/La Serna, No.56, University of LeoÂn, 24007-LeoÂn, Spain Received 7 September 1999; received in revised form 17 December 1999; accepted 19 December 1999
Abstract The eect of trisodium phosphate (TSP) solutions treatments on the sensory evaluation of poultry meat has been explored since TSP was recently approved by USDA for its usage in poultry processing to eliminate Salmonella contamination. In the present study, fresh chicken thighs were dipped in water (control sample) and in 8, 10 and 12% TSP solutions (treated samples) for 15 min. Raw samples' color, smell and overall acceptability and cooked thighs' color, smell, ¯avor, texture and overall acceptability were evaluated by consumer panelists. The evaluation of raw pieces after treatment or after 7 days storage at 2 C revealed that, with the exception of 12% TSP solutions treatment, sensory quality was not adversely aected by TSP. The color, smell and overall acceptability hedonic scores for the boiled thigh meat were not dierent between the treated samples and the control ones. Only the color, ¯avor and overall acceptability of thighs dipped in 12% TSP were rated signi®cantly lower than the control sample. These results suggested that TSP solutions have good potential as dips to sanitize chickens carcasses # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Poultry carcasses; Decontamination; Trisodium phosphate; Sensory evaluation
1. Introduction Food safety is a primary concern of consumers, and the control of pathogens in poultry meat is critical, especially those that can exist without obvious signs of spoilage. Some pathogens that may exist in poultry meat products represent notable hazards to humans. In fact, poultry represents the single most important food source of Salmonella (Bean, Grin, Goulding & Ivey, 1990). In addition to general hygiene management practice, the microbial load of fresh meat can be reduced substancially by the application of decontaminants. Numerous disinfectants and treatments have been applied so as to reduce carcass contamination including: acids, bases, halogens, hydrogen peroxide, alcohols, mannose application, ozonation and irradiation. Although all these methods have shown some degree of bactericidal ecacy, each one oers some signi®cant disadvantage(s), such as the cost or adverse sensory changes that have prevented their usage (Bolder, 1997; * Corresponding author. Fax: +34-87-243123. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Capita).
Farkas, 1998; Smulders & Greer, 1998; Sofos & Smith, 1998). In 1992, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the use of TSP as a processing aid to eliminate Salmonella on raw poultry carcasses (Giese, 1993). TSP is active against Gram negative bacteria, including salmonellas, coliforms, Escherichia coli O157:H7, campylobacters and pseudomonads on the skin of chickens carcasses (Colin & Salvat, 1997; Federighi, Cappelier, Rossero, Coppen & Denis, 1995; Fratamico, Schultz, Benedict, Buchanan & Cole, 1996; Gorman, Sofos, Morgan, Schmidt & Smitd, 1995; RodrõÂguez de Ledesma, Riemann & Farver, 1996). It is used as a dip immediately after water-chilling or before air-chill. The use of TSP for poultry meat decontamination is not widely practised. Within the European Union (EU), meat hygiene regulations do not allow any method or product decontamination other than washing with potable water. In order that any processing decontamination method or agent is acceptable, the application cannot cause undesirable sensory characteristics in the poultry products. Previous works (Ellerbroek, Okolocha & Weise, 1997; Hathcox, Hwang, ResurreccioÂn & Bouchat, 1995; Hollender, Bender, Jenkins & Blak,
0309-1740/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0309-1740(00)00002-4
472
R. Capita et al. / Meat Science 55 (2000) 471±474
1993) have indicated that the treatment of poultry carcasses with 8 to 12% TSP have not any negative eect on the organoleptic quality of the meat. Our objetive was to determine if the treatment of raw chickens with TSP solutions aected sensory quality of raw and cooked chicken thighs. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Sample preparation A total of 20 fresh chicken thighs were taken from a poultry processing plant situated in LeoÂn (Spain) immediately after quartering. Samples were transported in an ice chest from their place of collection to the laboratory for experimental treatments and stored at 2 C for no longer than 2 h before being used. Chicken thighs were randomly divided into four groups of ®ve. The thighs in the ®rst group were dipped into water at 20 C for 15 min (control). The samples in the second group were dipped into a 8% (w/v) solution of trisodium phosphate (TSP) dodecahydrate (Merk, pH 12.59) at 20 C for 15 min. This time is longer than required to be inhibitory against Salmonella. The contact time of 15 min was used in order to evaluate the treatment eects on sensory characteristics under the most severe conditions. The thighs in the other two groups were treated the same as group two, except for 10% (pH 12.68) and 12% (pH 12.75) TSP solutions that were used to dip the samples, respectively. The ratio of poultry thighs to dipping solution was 1:4 (w/v). When the treatment was completed the pieces were removed from the dip tank and drained on a tray at ambient temperature (22 C) for 15 minutes. Thereafter, the samples were stored at 2 C until sensory tests were performed. The sampling days were at day 0 (the day of slaughter, collection and treatment) for raw thighs and day 7 of storage at 2 C for raw and cooked thighs. 2.2. Cooking methods The samples, covered with skin, were boiled in saltwater at 100 C for 15 min. Chicken thighs were cooked in an area separated from the testing area to avoid cooking odors in¯uencing the panelist's ratings. Thighs pieces were kept warm in a oven (60±70 C) until they were served to panelists. The holding period did not exceed 1 h after cooking. 2.3. Sensory evaluation The panelists who participated in the taste tests (a total of eight panelists) were professors from the Veterinary Faculty of LeoÂn. All panelists evaluated raw and boiled thighs. The same panelists participated in both test days.
Day 0, panelists were asked to evaluate control and treated, raw, chicken thighs. Each group of samples was labelled, at random, with two digit code numbers. The time elapsed between dipping and evaluating was about 1 h. Panelists were asked to evaluate each group of samples in randomized order. For each group of ®ve pieces, panelists were asked to assign scores for overall smell, color and acceptability on a nine-point hedonic scale (9=like extremely; 8=like very much; 7=like moderately; 6=like slightly; 5=neither like nor dislike; 4=dislike slightly; 3=dislike moderately; 2=dislike very much; 1=dislike extremely). After evaluating all samples, chicken thighs were stored at 2 C for 7 days. The same samples were evaluated again by the same panelists on day 7 using the same evaluation protocol. After evaluating all four groups of raw chicken thighs, samples were cooked. Each group of thighs were placed on coded stainless steel trays. Panelists were asked to score external color, smell, texture, ¯avour and overall acceptability using the same nine-point hedonic scale. 2.4. Statistical analysis The values achieved from sensory quality evaluation of raw samples at days 0 and 7 were compared for statistical signi®cance using Wilcoxon's matched pairs test. To compare the obtained data the same days (0 or 7) with dierent concentrations of TSP (0, 8, 10 and 12%) Mann±Whitney U test was used. Signi®cance was determined at the P<0.05 level. For the two tests ``Statistica for Windows Release 4.0'' (Statsoft Ltd, Chicago) was used. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Raw samples When the values from sensory quality evaluation of raw samples at days 0 and 7 were compared (Table 1), signi®cant dierences (P<0.05) between groups of samples treated with 10 and 12% TSP were detected. The scores were higher on day 0: better smell and color (chicken thighs dipped in 10% TSP) and better color and overall acceptability (chicken thighs dipped in 12% TSP). At day 7 of storage, the color of raw chicken thighs group dipped in 12% TSP was rated signi®cantly lower than the ones treated with 8 and 10% TSP and control. Apart from this exception, there were no signi®cant dierences between the mean sensory characteristics of raw samples control or chemically treated. Moreover the samples treated smell with 10 or 12% TSP were rated on day 0, signi®cantly higher than the ones dipped in water. These results were not consistent, at least
R. Capita et al. / Meat Science 55 (2000) 471±474
473
Table 1 Mean scores for color, smell and overall acceptability of raw chicken thighsa,b Sensory characteristic
Storage time (days)
Mean score (n=8) Controlc
8%d
10%e
12%f
Color
0 7
6.000.00ac 6.000.00ac
6.000.00ac 5.630.48abc
6.250.43ac 5.500.50abd
6.000.0ac 5.250.43bd
Smell
0 7
5.500.50ac 5.500.50ac
5.750.53ac 5.500.50ac
6.130.33ac 5.380.48ad
6.000.00ac 5.750.53ac
Overall acceptability
0 7
5.750.43ac 5.500.50ac
6.000.50ac 5.750.40ac
6.000.00ac 5.870.33ac
6.130.33ac 5.380.4ad
a
Mean values in the same row that are not followed by the same letter (a,b) are signi®cantly dierent (P<0.05). Mean values in the same colum that are not followed by the same letter (c,d) are signi®cantly dierent (P<0.05). b A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 9=like extremely; 8=like very much; 7=like moderately; 6=like slightly; 5=neither like nor dislike; 4=dislike slightly; 3=dislike moderately; 2=dislike very much; 1=dislike extremely. c Chicken thighs treated with a water dip. d Chicken thighs treated with an 8% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. e Chicken thighs treated with a 10% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. f Chicken thighs treated with a 12% trisodium phosphate solution water dip.
The dierences between our results and the aforementioned authors' ones could be explained taking into account the longer time of treatment and/or concentration of trisodium phosphate used in our experiments.
apparently, with the results of other authors. That way, Hollender et al. (1993) measured the external appearance of fresh broiler carcasses dipped in 12% TSP solution for 15 s, on days 1 and 8 of storage at 4 C, and they proved that on day 8, a great number of persons indicated a purchase preference for the treated product, and this purchase preference was signi®cant. In other study (Hathcox et al., 1993) no dierences in acceptability and color scores, and purchase intent for control and treated (12% TSP solutions for 15 s) raw chicken thighs were detected. Ellerbroek et al. (1997) also indicated that the results obtained from the sensory evaluation showed that the organoleptic properties of the poultry carcasses were not aected by the treatments with TSP (10% for 6 s).
3.2. Cooked samples Signi®cant dierences (P<0.05) in color, acceptability and ¯avour of control and treated with 12% raw chicken thighs were detected (Table 2). The same as in the case of raw chicken thighs assessment, dierent results from ours have been mentioned in several consulted works. Hathcox et al. (1995) determined the eects of treatment with 12% TSP solution for 15 s on scores for color, texture, ¯avor, moistness and overall
Table 2 Mean scores for color, smell, overall aceptability, texture and ¯avor of cooked chicken thighsa,b Sensory characteristic
Color Smell Overall acceptability Texture Flavor a
Mean score (n=8) Controlc
8%d
10%e
12%f
6.880.33a 5.750.43a 6.750.43a 5.750.43a 7.000.00a
6.500.50ab 5.750.83a 6.500.50a 6.000.71a 6.750.43ab
6.500.50ab 6.000.00a 6.500.50a 6.000.00a 6.750.43ab
6.000.00b 6.250.43a 4.750.43b 6.000.50a 6.250.43b
Mean values in the same row that are not followed by the same letter are signi®cantly dierent (P<0.05). A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 9=like extremely; 8=like very much; 7=like moderately; 6=like slightly; 5=neither like nor dislike; 4=dislike slightly; 3=dislike moderately; 2=dislike very much; 1=dislike extremely. c Chicken thighs treated with a water dip. d Chicken thighs treated with an 8% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. e Chicken thighs treated with a 10% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. f Chicken thighs treated with a 12% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. b
474
R. Capita et al. / Meat Science 55 (2000) 471±474
acceptability of fried pieces' breast and thigh. Apart from the external color of fried breast pieces, there were no signi®cant dierences between the mean sensory characteristics of fried chicken prepared from either control or chemically treated samples. As in the case of the raw chicken thighs, these dierences with our results were possibly due to the longer time of treatment in our study. Besides the culinary treatment has been dierent. Dip times similar to ours were tested by other authors. Hollender et al. (1993) measured the eects of the treatment with 8% TSP solutions for 15 min on the hedonic scores for the ¯avor, texture and overall acceptability of cooked (fried and baked) broiler thigh and breast samples. There were no signi®cant dierences between the hedonic scores of either the breast or thigh meat within each sensory variable, and either the treated or control baked thigh samples. The preference for the baked breast sample was signi®cant. Our results were consistent with the results of these authors, because we did not ®nd signi®cant dierences in hedonic scores for sensory characteristics of the control thighs and those treated with 8% TSP. Even 8% TSPtreated thighs in our study were rated for taste signi®cantly higher than the control ones. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank The Foundation MAPFRE MEDICINA for its ®nancial support.
References Bean, N. H., Grin, P. M., Goulding, J. S., & Ivey, C. B. (1990). Foodborne disease outbreaks, 5-year summary, 1983±1987. Journal of Food Protection, 53, 711.
Bolder, N. M. (1997). Decontamination of meat and poultry carcasses. Trends in Food Science Technology, 8, 221. Colin, P., & Salvat, G. (1997). Decontamination of poultry carcasses using trisodium phosphate treatment. In Hinton, Rowlings, Factors aecting the microbial quality of meat. 4. Microbial methods for the meat industry (Concerted Action CT94-1456) University of Bristol Press, Bristol. (p 227). Ellerbroek, L., Okolocha, E. M., & Weise, E. (1997). Decontamination of poultry meat with trisodium phosphate and lactic acid. Fleisch, 77, 1092. Farkas, J. (1998). Irradiation as a method for decontaminating food. A review. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 44, 189±204. Federighi, M., Cappelier, J., Rossero, A., Coppen, P., & Denis, J. (1995). Evaluation de l'eect d'un traitment de deÂcontamination de carcasses de poulets, vis-aÁ-vis des campylobacter thermotoleÂrants. Sci. Aliment, 15, 393. Fratamico, P. M., Schultz, F. J., Benedict, R. C., Buchanan, R. L., & Cooke, P. H. (1996). Factors in¯uencing attachment of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to beef tissues and removal using selected sanitizing rinses. Journal of Food Protection, 59, 453. Giese, J. (1993). Salmonella reduction process receives approval. Food Technology, 47, 110. Gorman, B. M., Sofos, J. N., Morgan, J. B., Schmidt, G. R., & Smitd, G. C. (1995). Evaluation of hand-trimming, various sanitizing agents and hot water spray-washing as decontamination interventions for beef brisket adipose tissue. Journal of Food Protection, 58, 899. Hathcox, A. K., Hwang, C. A., ResurreccioÂn, A. V. A., & Beuchat, L. R. (1995). Consumer evaluation of raw and fried chicken after washing in trisodium phosphate or lactic acid/sodium benzoate solutions. Journal of Food Protection, 60, 604. Hollender, R., Bender, F. G., Jenkins, R. K., & Blak, C. L. (1993). Research note: Consumer evaluation of chicken treated with a trisodium phosphate application during processing. Poultry Science, 72, 755. RodrõÂguez de Ledesma, A. M., Riemann, H. P., & Farver, T. D. (1996). Short time treatment with alkali and/or hot water to remove common pathogenic and spoilage bacteria from chicken using skin. Journal of Food Protection, 59, 746. Smulders, F. J. M., & Greer, G. C. (1998). Integrating microbial decontamination with organic acids in HACCP programmes for muscle foods: prospects and controversies. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 44, 147. Sofos, J. N., & Smith, G. C. (1998). Nonacid meat decontamination technologies: Model studies and commercial applications. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 14, 171.
www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Eect of trisodium phosphate solutions washing on the sensory evaluation of poultry meat Rosa Capita *, Carlos Alonso-Calleja, Marisa Sierra, Benito Moreno, MarõÂa del Camino GarcõÂa-FernaÂndez Department of Food Hygiene and Technology, C1/La Serna, No.56, University of LeoÂn, 24007-LeoÂn, Spain Received 7 September 1999; received in revised form 17 December 1999; accepted 19 December 1999
Abstract The eect of trisodium phosphate (TSP) solutions treatments on the sensory evaluation of poultry meat has been explored since TSP was recently approved by USDA for its usage in poultry processing to eliminate Salmonella contamination. In the present study, fresh chicken thighs were dipped in water (control sample) and in 8, 10 and 12% TSP solutions (treated samples) for 15 min. Raw samples' color, smell and overall acceptability and cooked thighs' color, smell, ¯avor, texture and overall acceptability were evaluated by consumer panelists. The evaluation of raw pieces after treatment or after 7 days storage at 2 C revealed that, with the exception of 12% TSP solutions treatment, sensory quality was not adversely aected by TSP. The color, smell and overall acceptability hedonic scores for the boiled thigh meat were not dierent between the treated samples and the control ones. Only the color, ¯avor and overall acceptability of thighs dipped in 12% TSP were rated signi®cantly lower than the control sample. These results suggested that TSP solutions have good potential as dips to sanitize chickens carcasses # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Poultry carcasses; Decontamination; Trisodium phosphate; Sensory evaluation
1. Introduction Food safety is a primary concern of consumers, and the control of pathogens in poultry meat is critical, especially those that can exist without obvious signs of spoilage. Some pathogens that may exist in poultry meat products represent notable hazards to humans. In fact, poultry represents the single most important food source of Salmonella (Bean, Grin, Goulding & Ivey, 1990). In addition to general hygiene management practice, the microbial load of fresh meat can be reduced substancially by the application of decontaminants. Numerous disinfectants and treatments have been applied so as to reduce carcass contamination including: acids, bases, halogens, hydrogen peroxide, alcohols, mannose application, ozonation and irradiation. Although all these methods have shown some degree of bactericidal ecacy, each one oers some signi®cant disadvantage(s), such as the cost or adverse sensory changes that have prevented their usage (Bolder, 1997; * Corresponding author. Fax: +34-87-243123. E-mail address: [email protected] (R. Capita).
Farkas, 1998; Smulders & Greer, 1998; Sofos & Smith, 1998). In 1992, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the use of TSP as a processing aid to eliminate Salmonella on raw poultry carcasses (Giese, 1993). TSP is active against Gram negative bacteria, including salmonellas, coliforms, Escherichia coli O157:H7, campylobacters and pseudomonads on the skin of chickens carcasses (Colin & Salvat, 1997; Federighi, Cappelier, Rossero, Coppen & Denis, 1995; Fratamico, Schultz, Benedict, Buchanan & Cole, 1996; Gorman, Sofos, Morgan, Schmidt & Smitd, 1995; RodrõÂguez de Ledesma, Riemann & Farver, 1996). It is used as a dip immediately after water-chilling or before air-chill. The use of TSP for poultry meat decontamination is not widely practised. Within the European Union (EU), meat hygiene regulations do not allow any method or product decontamination other than washing with potable water. In order that any processing decontamination method or agent is acceptable, the application cannot cause undesirable sensory characteristics in the poultry products. Previous works (Ellerbroek, Okolocha & Weise, 1997; Hathcox, Hwang, ResurreccioÂn & Bouchat, 1995; Hollender, Bender, Jenkins & Blak,
0309-1740/00/$ - see front matter # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0309-1740(00)00002-4
472
R. Capita et al. / Meat Science 55 (2000) 471±474
1993) have indicated that the treatment of poultry carcasses with 8 to 12% TSP have not any negative eect on the organoleptic quality of the meat. Our objetive was to determine if the treatment of raw chickens with TSP solutions aected sensory quality of raw and cooked chicken thighs. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Sample preparation A total of 20 fresh chicken thighs were taken from a poultry processing plant situated in LeoÂn (Spain) immediately after quartering. Samples were transported in an ice chest from their place of collection to the laboratory for experimental treatments and stored at 2 C for no longer than 2 h before being used. Chicken thighs were randomly divided into four groups of ®ve. The thighs in the ®rst group were dipped into water at 20 C for 15 min (control). The samples in the second group were dipped into a 8% (w/v) solution of trisodium phosphate (TSP) dodecahydrate (Merk, pH 12.59) at 20 C for 15 min. This time is longer than required to be inhibitory against Salmonella. The contact time of 15 min was used in order to evaluate the treatment eects on sensory characteristics under the most severe conditions. The thighs in the other two groups were treated the same as group two, except for 10% (pH 12.68) and 12% (pH 12.75) TSP solutions that were used to dip the samples, respectively. The ratio of poultry thighs to dipping solution was 1:4 (w/v). When the treatment was completed the pieces were removed from the dip tank and drained on a tray at ambient temperature (22 C) for 15 minutes. Thereafter, the samples were stored at 2 C until sensory tests were performed. The sampling days were at day 0 (the day of slaughter, collection and treatment) for raw thighs and day 7 of storage at 2 C for raw and cooked thighs. 2.2. Cooking methods The samples, covered with skin, were boiled in saltwater at 100 C for 15 min. Chicken thighs were cooked in an area separated from the testing area to avoid cooking odors in¯uencing the panelist's ratings. Thighs pieces were kept warm in a oven (60±70 C) until they were served to panelists. The holding period did not exceed 1 h after cooking. 2.3. Sensory evaluation The panelists who participated in the taste tests (a total of eight panelists) were professors from the Veterinary Faculty of LeoÂn. All panelists evaluated raw and boiled thighs. The same panelists participated in both test days.
Day 0, panelists were asked to evaluate control and treated, raw, chicken thighs. Each group of samples was labelled, at random, with two digit code numbers. The time elapsed between dipping and evaluating was about 1 h. Panelists were asked to evaluate each group of samples in randomized order. For each group of ®ve pieces, panelists were asked to assign scores for overall smell, color and acceptability on a nine-point hedonic scale (9=like extremely; 8=like very much; 7=like moderately; 6=like slightly; 5=neither like nor dislike; 4=dislike slightly; 3=dislike moderately; 2=dislike very much; 1=dislike extremely). After evaluating all samples, chicken thighs were stored at 2 C for 7 days. The same samples were evaluated again by the same panelists on day 7 using the same evaluation protocol. After evaluating all four groups of raw chicken thighs, samples were cooked. Each group of thighs were placed on coded stainless steel trays. Panelists were asked to score external color, smell, texture, ¯avour and overall acceptability using the same nine-point hedonic scale. 2.4. Statistical analysis The values achieved from sensory quality evaluation of raw samples at days 0 and 7 were compared for statistical signi®cance using Wilcoxon's matched pairs test. To compare the obtained data the same days (0 or 7) with dierent concentrations of TSP (0, 8, 10 and 12%) Mann±Whitney U test was used. Signi®cance was determined at the P<0.05 level. For the two tests ``Statistica for Windows Release 4.0'' (Statsoft Ltd, Chicago) was used. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Raw samples When the values from sensory quality evaluation of raw samples at days 0 and 7 were compared (Table 1), signi®cant dierences (P<0.05) between groups of samples treated with 10 and 12% TSP were detected. The scores were higher on day 0: better smell and color (chicken thighs dipped in 10% TSP) and better color and overall acceptability (chicken thighs dipped in 12% TSP). At day 7 of storage, the color of raw chicken thighs group dipped in 12% TSP was rated signi®cantly lower than the ones treated with 8 and 10% TSP and control. Apart from this exception, there were no signi®cant dierences between the mean sensory characteristics of raw samples control or chemically treated. Moreover the samples treated smell with 10 or 12% TSP were rated on day 0, signi®cantly higher than the ones dipped in water. These results were not consistent, at least
R. Capita et al. / Meat Science 55 (2000) 471±474
473
Table 1 Mean scores for color, smell and overall acceptability of raw chicken thighsa,b Sensory characteristic
Storage time (days)
Mean score (n=8) Controlc
8%d
10%e
12%f
Color
0 7
6.000.00ac 6.000.00ac
6.000.00ac 5.630.48abc
6.250.43ac 5.500.50abd
6.000.0ac 5.250.43bd
Smell
0 7
5.500.50ac 5.500.50ac
5.750.53ac 5.500.50ac
6.130.33ac 5.380.48ad
6.000.00ac 5.750.53ac
Overall acceptability
0 7
5.750.43ac 5.500.50ac
6.000.50ac 5.750.40ac
6.000.00ac 5.870.33ac
6.130.33ac 5.380.4ad
a
Mean values in the same row that are not followed by the same letter (a,b) are signi®cantly dierent (P<0.05). Mean values in the same colum that are not followed by the same letter (c,d) are signi®cantly dierent (P<0.05). b A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 9=like extremely; 8=like very much; 7=like moderately; 6=like slightly; 5=neither like nor dislike; 4=dislike slightly; 3=dislike moderately; 2=dislike very much; 1=dislike extremely. c Chicken thighs treated with a water dip. d Chicken thighs treated with an 8% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. e Chicken thighs treated with a 10% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. f Chicken thighs treated with a 12% trisodium phosphate solution water dip.
The dierences between our results and the aforementioned authors' ones could be explained taking into account the longer time of treatment and/or concentration of trisodium phosphate used in our experiments.
apparently, with the results of other authors. That way, Hollender et al. (1993) measured the external appearance of fresh broiler carcasses dipped in 12% TSP solution for 15 s, on days 1 and 8 of storage at 4 C, and they proved that on day 8, a great number of persons indicated a purchase preference for the treated product, and this purchase preference was signi®cant. In other study (Hathcox et al., 1993) no dierences in acceptability and color scores, and purchase intent for control and treated (12% TSP solutions for 15 s) raw chicken thighs were detected. Ellerbroek et al. (1997) also indicated that the results obtained from the sensory evaluation showed that the organoleptic properties of the poultry carcasses were not aected by the treatments with TSP (10% for 6 s).
3.2. Cooked samples Signi®cant dierences (P<0.05) in color, acceptability and ¯avour of control and treated with 12% raw chicken thighs were detected (Table 2). The same as in the case of raw chicken thighs assessment, dierent results from ours have been mentioned in several consulted works. Hathcox et al. (1995) determined the eects of treatment with 12% TSP solution for 15 s on scores for color, texture, ¯avor, moistness and overall
Table 2 Mean scores for color, smell, overall aceptability, texture and ¯avor of cooked chicken thighsa,b Sensory characteristic
Color Smell Overall acceptability Texture Flavor a
Mean score (n=8) Controlc
8%d
10%e
12%f
6.880.33a 5.750.43a 6.750.43a 5.750.43a 7.000.00a
6.500.50ab 5.750.83a 6.500.50a 6.000.71a 6.750.43ab
6.500.50ab 6.000.00a 6.500.50a 6.000.00a 6.750.43ab
6.000.00b 6.250.43a 4.750.43b 6.000.50a 6.250.43b
Mean values in the same row that are not followed by the same letter are signi®cantly dierent (P<0.05). A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 9=like extremely; 8=like very much; 7=like moderately; 6=like slightly; 5=neither like nor dislike; 4=dislike slightly; 3=dislike moderately; 2=dislike very much; 1=dislike extremely. c Chicken thighs treated with a water dip. d Chicken thighs treated with an 8% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. e Chicken thighs treated with a 10% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. f Chicken thighs treated with a 12% trisodium phosphate solution water dip. b
474
R. Capita et al. / Meat Science 55 (2000) 471±474
acceptability of fried pieces' breast and thigh. Apart from the external color of fried breast pieces, there were no signi®cant dierences between the mean sensory characteristics of fried chicken prepared from either control or chemically treated samples. As in the case of the raw chicken thighs, these dierences with our results were possibly due to the longer time of treatment in our study. Besides the culinary treatment has been dierent. Dip times similar to ours were tested by other authors. Hollender et al. (1993) measured the eects of the treatment with 8% TSP solutions for 15 min on the hedonic scores for the ¯avor, texture and overall acceptability of cooked (fried and baked) broiler thigh and breast samples. There were no signi®cant dierences between the hedonic scores of either the breast or thigh meat within each sensory variable, and either the treated or control baked thigh samples. The preference for the baked breast sample was signi®cant. Our results were consistent with the results of these authors, because we did not ®nd signi®cant dierences in hedonic scores for sensory characteristics of the control thighs and those treated with 8% TSP. Even 8% TSPtreated thighs in our study were rated for taste signi®cantly higher than the control ones. Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank The Foundation MAPFRE MEDICINA for its ®nancial support.
References Bean, N. H., Grin, P. M., Goulding, J. S., & Ivey, C. B. (1990). Foodborne disease outbreaks, 5-year summary, 1983±1987. Journal of Food Protection, 53, 711.
Bolder, N. M. (1997). Decontamination of meat and poultry carcasses. Trends in Food Science Technology, 8, 221. Colin, P., & Salvat, G. (1997). Decontamination of poultry carcasses using trisodium phosphate treatment. In Hinton, Rowlings, Factors aecting the microbial quality of meat. 4. Microbial methods for the meat industry (Concerted Action CT94-1456) University of Bristol Press, Bristol. (p 227). Ellerbroek, L., Okolocha, E. M., & Weise, E. (1997). Decontamination of poultry meat with trisodium phosphate and lactic acid. Fleisch, 77, 1092. Farkas, J. (1998). Irradiation as a method for decontaminating food. A review. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 44, 189±204. Federighi, M., Cappelier, J., Rossero, A., Coppen, P., & Denis, J. (1995). Evaluation de l'eect d'un traitment de deÂcontamination de carcasses de poulets, vis-aÁ-vis des campylobacter thermotoleÂrants. Sci. Aliment, 15, 393. Fratamico, P. M., Schultz, F. J., Benedict, R. C., Buchanan, R. L., & Cooke, P. H. (1996). Factors in¯uencing attachment of Escherichia coli O157:H7 to beef tissues and removal using selected sanitizing rinses. Journal of Food Protection, 59, 453. Giese, J. (1993). Salmonella reduction process receives approval. Food Technology, 47, 110. Gorman, B. M., Sofos, J. N., Morgan, J. B., Schmidt, G. R., & Smitd, G. C. (1995). Evaluation of hand-trimming, various sanitizing agents and hot water spray-washing as decontamination interventions for beef brisket adipose tissue. Journal of Food Protection, 58, 899. Hathcox, A. K., Hwang, C. A., ResurreccioÂn, A. V. A., & Beuchat, L. R. (1995). Consumer evaluation of raw and fried chicken after washing in trisodium phosphate or lactic acid/sodium benzoate solutions. Journal of Food Protection, 60, 604. Hollender, R., Bender, F. G., Jenkins, R. K., & Blak, C. L. (1993). Research note: Consumer evaluation of chicken treated with a trisodium phosphate application during processing. Poultry Science, 72, 755. RodrõÂguez de Ledesma, A. M., Riemann, H. P., & Farver, T. D. (1996). Short time treatment with alkali and/or hot water to remove common pathogenic and spoilage bacteria from chicken using skin. Journal of Food Protection, 59, 746. Smulders, F. J. M., & Greer, G. C. (1998). Integrating microbial decontamination with organic acids in HACCP programmes for muscle foods: prospects and controversies. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 44, 147. Sofos, J. N., & Smith, G. C. (1998). Nonacid meat decontamination technologies: Model studies and commercial applications. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 14, 171.