- Email: [email protected]
Physico-chemical properties of functional low-fat beef burgers: Fatty acid profile modification
Accepted Manuscript Physico-chemical properties of functional low-fat beef burgers: Fatty acid profile modification R. Afshari, H. Hosseini, A. Mousavi Khaneghah, R. Khaksar PII:
S0023-6438(16)30840-4
DOI:
10.1016/j.lwt.2016.12.054
Reference:
YFSTL 5950
To appear in:
LWT - Food Science and Technology
Received Date: 18 April 2016 Revised Date:
30 November 2016
Accepted Date: 28 December 2016
Please cite this article as: Afshari, R., Hosseini, H., Mousavi Khaneghah, A., Khaksar, R., Physicochemical properties of functional low-fat beef burgers: Fatty acid profile modification, LWT - Food Science and Technology (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.12.054. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Physico-chemical properties of functional low-fat beef burgers: Fatty acid profile
2
modification
3
R. Afsharia, H. Hosseini, A. Mousavi Khaneghah*b, R. Khaksara a
Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5
6
b
Department of Food Science, Faculty of Food Engineering, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
SC
7
M AN U
8 9 10 11
* Corresponding Authors:
12
E-mail address: [email protected]
13
Tel: +98 21 22357483-5; Fax: +98 21 22360660.
Hedayat Hosseini
14 Amin Mousavi Khaneghah
16
E-mail: [email protected]
17
Telephone: +55(19) 3521-0091; Fax: +55(19) 3521-2153
21 22
EP
20
AC C
19
TE D
15
18
RI PT
4
23 24 25
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26
Abstract This study was undertaken to produce low-fat beef burgers (6%); with the
28
incorporation of prebiotic fibers (a mixture of 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan) and canola and
29
olive oils as beef fat substitutes. Composition (proximate analysis and fatty acid profile),
30
technological properties (Cooking and texture properties) and
31
evaluated in comparison to control
32
traditional burger in the local market. The applied lipid modification improved the fatty acid
33
profile and nutrimental value of burgers by decreasing the percentage of SFAs content (from
34
48% to~19-24%), the ratio of n−6 to n−3 (from 8.6 to~3), the atherogenic index (AI) (from
35
1.6 to ~0.5) and the thrombogenic index (TI) (from 1.8 to 0.49). The addition of inulin/β-
36
glucan mixture did not significantly affect the fatty acid profile. Low-fat burgers contain
37
inulin/β-glucan mixture showed better cooking characteristics and lower hardness in
38
comparison to control burgers. The results of this study indicate that the application of
39
prebiotic fibers and vegetable oils are promising approaches in the design of healthier meat
40
products.
41
Keywords: Inulin-β-glucan mixture; Low-fat burger; Canola-olive oils; Fatty acid profile;
42
Sensory properties; Physico-Chemical properties
44
sensory properties were
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
burgers (12.5% beef fat) which are regarded as a
AC C
43
RI PT
27
45
46
47
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1. Introduction
49
Meat and meat products as an important part of our daily diet could be considered as
50
excellent sources of essential nutrients (Mehta et al., 2015). However, the association
51
between meat consumption and increasing the risk of serious health disorders such as
52
colorectal cancer and coronary heart diseases have been demonstrated by several scientific
53
pieces of evidence (McAfee et al., 2010; Vema and Banerjee, 2010). Different kinds of meat
54
products including burgers are still very popular among a variety of consumers especially
55
new generation.
SC
RI PT
48
Due to possible issues as a result of consumption a diet included an excess amount of
57
energy-dense foods such as rich in fat and sugar, nowadays development of “healthy” foods
58
has been attracted lots of attentions. Therefore, the meat industry has been attributed to
59
raising the numbers of value added meat products in order to minimize their detrimental side
60
effects on health as well as enhancement of their nutritional values. In addition, there is an
61
increasing demand by contemporary consumers for convenient products (ready-to-eat) with
62
remarked nutritious values. During last decades some investigations were conducted in order
63
to reduce the fat content and also improving fatty acid profile in meat products (Choi et al.,
64
2010; Beriain et al., 2011; Rather et al., 2015). One of the possible approaches is the
65
reduction of fat content combined with fatty acid profile adjustments (Lipid modification).
66
Furthermore, in order to compensate the low daily intake of fibers, incorporation of prebiotic
67
dietary fibers could be proposed. Normally, lipid modification could be achieved by reducing
68
the content of saturated fatty acids (SFAs), in a combination of increasing monounsaturated
69
fatty acids (MUFAs) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) levels; on the another word,
70
increasing the amount of n−3 PUFAs could reducing the n−6/n−3 ratio (Simopoulos 2002).
71
Since these modifications may have provoked some adverse changes in technical and sensory
72
properties of final products, in order to minimize the possible negative consequences,
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
56
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT different strategies such as approaching of different non-meat ingredients; hydrocolloids and
74
dietary compounds due to their desirable technological properties (improving structural
75
integrity, fat and water retention) and potential health effects, have been proposed (Beriain
76
et al., 2011; Álvarez and Barbut, 2013). Inulin has been suggested to be able to entrap water
77
and enhance the lubricant and flow properties of a variety of meat products (Keenan et al.,
78
2014; Álvarez and Barbut, 2013). However, inulin in powdered form has been suggested to
79
cause some negative effects by increasing the hardness of the low-fat beef burger (Afshari et
80
al., 2015) and the low-fat and full-fat mortadella (García et al., 2008 ). Barley β-glucan has
81
been regarded as a thickening and gelling agents which make it a promising fat reducer in
82
different foods including meat products (Pinero et al., 2008).
M AN U
SC
RI PT
73
The production of "healthier" meat products is not always easy due to current limitations in
84
providing desired sensory properties as well as the possibility to sell the product at a
85
reasonable price similar to common products. Although meat products with a “healthier”
86
lipid formulation were provided by several previous investigations, as far as we know the
87
combination of lipid modification and incorporation of inulin- β-glucan mixture on beef
88
burger properties, especially on the fatty acid profile, has not been yet investigated. In our
89
previous research, optimum amounts of inulin and the β-glucan mixture were determined
90
(3.1% β-glucan and 2.2%) (Afshari et al., 2015).Therefore, the current study was undertaken
91
to investigate the physicochemical and sensory properties of the functional and low-fat
92
burgers, with special reference to fatty acid profile and compare it to traditional burgers of the
93
local market (12% fat content).
AC C
EP
TE D
83
94
95
96 4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2. Materials and methods
98
2.1. Preparation of formulations
99
Sixteen boneless cuts of carcasses (brisket and flank) from heifers with a mean age of 17-24
100
months were obtained from one of the burger producers (Gooshtiran Co., Tehran, Iran). The
101
visible adipose and connective tissues of meat were removed in order to obtain lean beef
102
(moisture 70.4%, protein 23.5%, fat 5.2% and ash 0.99%). The lean beef and beef fat
103
separately were passed through the commercial meat grinder (WWB 200, Laska, Traun,
104
Austria), and immediately were transferred to freezers (-18 ± 2 °C) in low-density
105
polyethylene plastic packs due the day of the experiment. The oil-in-water emulsion (11.4
106
g/100 g), consisted of 2.4 g/100 g olive oil, 3.6 g/100 g canola oil, 0.6 g/100g soy protein
107
isolate (SPI, containing 94% protein) (Shandong Wonderful Industrial Group Co., Ltd.,
108
China) and 4.8 g/100g water, was prepared using the described procedure by Bloukas et al.
109
(1997). The primary fatty acid composition of used vegetable oils is shown in Table 1.
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
97
Oat β-glucan (PromOat™) (containing 34% soluble β-glucan) was obtained from promoat
111
(Biovelop International AB, Sweden). Inulin (FrutafitTEX®) was purchased from the
112
Roosendaal, The Netherlands. Other ingredients used in burger formulations could be listed
113
as follows: Sodium chloride, breadcrumb, onion and flavorings agents (purchased from a
114
local market).
115
2.2. Beef burger preparation
116
Three different batches were prepared according to the formulations which were given in
117
Table 2. The first batch was the control burgers that contained 11.5% beef fat level (Control,
118
C) beings similar to the common burger in Iran’s market. In the second formulation, the beef
119
fat was totally substituted by 11.4% oil -in-water emulsion (see section 2.1) (Low-Fat, LF).
AC C
EP
110
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The third batch was similar to the second group (LF) but the following changes have been
121
approved: 5.1% of common breadcrumbs as an ingredient were replaced by a mixture of
122
2.2% β-glucan and 3.1% inulin (Low-Fat containing Inulin and β-glucan, LF-IBG). The
123
optimum amounts of this mixture were chosen according to the previously published article
124
(Afshari et al., 2015).
RI PT
120
In order to produce the burgers, the fat-free ground meat, and fat were thawed at 4± 2 °C
126
for 12 h before usage. The ground meat was placed in a commercial mixer (Robot-Coupé,
127
Model R6-02VB, and Vincennes France) and homogenized for 1 min at 25± 1 °C. Afterward,
128
the ground onion, sodium chloride, cinnamon and black pepper were added according to the
129
proportions which shown in Table 2. Then, the beef fat or oil-in-water emulsion (depending
130
on the type of formulation) were added to the mixture and homogenized again for 3 min at
131
25± 1 °C. Finally, the breadcrumbs, inulin and β-glucan (depending on the formulation,
132
related data were shown in Table 2) were incorporated and the final mixture was
133
homogenized for additional 3 min at 25± 1 °C. The obtained paste was reground through the
134
6-mm metal plate and then formed by using the commercial burger-maker (~ 100 g/ burger,
135
10 cm diameter and 1 cm thickness). Beef burgers were placed on a stainless steel tray,
136
frozen by IQF (Individual Quick Freezing) system (CFS Koppens Spiral Freezer, Model:
137
SVR 600) and then wrapped with polyvinyl chloride plastic. The burgers were stored in
138
boxes in conventional freezers (-18 °C) until the day of the experiment.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
125
139
The frozen burgers were thawed at 25± 1 °C and then heated up until the internal
140
temperature of the geometrical center of each burger stated to 71 °C. The cooking procedure
141
was performed in a cooker (flow cook 600/6000, CFS-GEA, Bakel, The Netherland)
142
according to the method described by the American Meat Science Association methodology
143
(AMSA 2015).
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 144
2.3. Cooking characteristics. Three burgers from each formulation were cooked in the same procedure as mentioned
146
previously then cooled to room temperature at 25 °C for 3 h. The cooking yield (η), the
147
moister retention and the fat retention of burgers were measured according to the following
148
equations:
149
Cooking yield (η) = (m cooked burger /m raw burger) ×100
150
Moisture retention= ((m cooked burger ×m / m raw burger ×m moisture in the raw burger ))×100
151
moisture in cooked burger
(2)
SC
Fat retention= ((m cooked / m raw burger ×m fat in the raw burger ))×100 burger×
m fat in the cooked burger
154
All experiments were done in triplicate.
155
2.4. Determination of Proximate composition
(3)
TE D
153
156
(1
M AN U
152
RI PT
145
Moisture, protein and fat content of the cooked burgers were determined according to AOAC methods (AOAC 1995). All experiments were done in triplicate.
158
2.5. Determination of Fatty acid profile
AC C
EP
157
159
The fatty acid composition of burgers was determined by direct fatty acid methyl esters
160
(FAME) synthesis which was described by O’Fallon et al. (2007). The FAME was analyzed
161
by an Agilent 6890 GC system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), equipped
162
with a flame ionization detector and capillary column CP-sil388 (30 m length, 0.25 mm
163
i.d., 0.20 µ m film thickness) with a split injection of 1:50. Hydrogen was used as a carrier
164
gas. The temperature of detector and injector was 250 °C. The initial temperature in the oven
165
was 100 °C and it reached 220 °C with increasing rate of 5 °C/min. The fatty acids were
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT identified by comparison their FAME retention times with sigma reference standards
167
(SupelcoTM 37 Component FAME mix, Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA). Results were reported
168
as g/100 g of each burger.
169
2.6. Atherogenic (AI) and thrombogenic indexes (TI)
RI PT
166
The risk of atherosclerosis and/or thrombogenesis was evaluated by using the atherogenic
171
(AI) and thrombogenic indexes (TI).They were calculated on the basis of the obtained fatty
172
acid results, using the following equations (Ulbricht and Southgate, 1991).
173
AI= C12:0 + (4 × C14:0) + C16:0/ n - 6 PUFA + n – 3 PUFA + MUFA
174
TI= C14: 0 + C16: 0 + C18: 0/ (0.5 × MUFA) + (0.5 × n – 6 MUFA) + (3 × n – 3 PUFA) + (n
175
– 3 PUFA/n – 6 PUFA)
176
2.7. Textural measurements
M AN U
SC
170
Textural profile analysis parameters were measured on three cooked burgers from each
178
formulation using the texture analyzer (M 350-10 CT, Testometric Co. Ltd., Rochdale, Lancs,
179
UK). Prior to analysis, the burgers were thawed for 12 h at 5 ºC. Afterward, one portion (1
180
cm height and 2 cm diameter) was cut from the central part of each burger, underwent two
181
cycles of 50% compression by the cylindrical probe of 3.6 cm diameter and a cross-head
182
speed of 2 mm/s. Textural parameters (hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, chewiness and
183
gumminess) were calculated according to the described procedure by Bourne (1978). Each
184
measurement for each burger was performed in triplicate at room temperature.
185
2.7. Sensory evaluation
AC C
EP
TE D
177
186
Sensory evaluation of cooked burgers was performed by eight trained panelists
187
(Department of Food Science and Technology Shahid Beheshti University of Medical
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Sciences, Tehran, Iran). Panelist evaluated the juiciness, chewiness, flavor intensity and
189
overall palatability. An Eight-point scale was used where 1 represented extremely dry, tough,
190
devoid of ground beef flavor and extremely undesirable while 8 represented extremely juicy,
191
tender, intense flavor of ground beef flavor and extremely desirable. The burgers were served
192
as warm (~ 38 °C) and unsalted crackers and mineral water were used to clean the palate
193
between experiments.
194
2.8. Statistical analysis
SC
RI PT
188
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for determination of significant
196
differences (P< 0.05) between the three burgers (C, LF, LF-IBG). The Tukey's HSD test was
197
used for comparison of mean values among the burgers. Data were analyzed using the SPSS
198
17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Three technical replications were performed
199
for each sample.
200
3. Results and discussion
201
3.1. Cooking measurements
202
Physical traits of cooked beef burgers which were prepared with different formulations were
203
presented in Table 3.
EP
TE D
M AN U
195
The observed cooking yield and fat retention ability for LF burgers was higher than the
205
control burgers, although the observed increase in moisture retention of LF burgers in
206
comparison with control burgers was not significant (P> 0.05), and these changes in cooking
207
traits increased dramatically with addition of inulin and β-glucan, in beef burgers formulation
208
(P< 0.05).
AC C
204
209
A dramatic decrease in the cooking yield of the control burger in comparison to
210
introduced low-fat burgers could be related to high losses of fat and moisture contents during
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the cooking process. Moisture and fat retention could be affected by fat levels, likewise, as
212
the fat level increases, the mean of free distance between the fat cells decreases and this
213
might cause fat cells coalescing and leaking them from products during cooking (Lopez et al.,
214
2011). In addition, the dense protein matrix in low-fat burgers could reduce fat losses (Khalil
215
2000). In the present study as the fat level decreased from 11.4% in the control burgers to
216
about 6% in both LF and LF-IBG burgers, moisture retention increased by around 7% and
217
18%, respectively. In the case of fat retention, an increment of 24% and 34% in this
218
parameter was observed by reducing fat levels in LF and LF-IBG burgers, respectively.
219
Moreover, improvement in fat and moisture retention in low-fat burgers containing pre-
220
emulsified vegetable oils in comparison to the control burgers could be attributed to
221
stabilizing effects of the oil in the established emulsion system (López-López et al., 2010).
222
Higher moisture retention and cooking yield of LF-IBG burgers might be due to the ability of
223
added β-glucan in the formation for establishment of tridimensional network which entraps
224
fat and water within the meat protein system during the processing (Pinero et al., 2008).
225
Results of our previous research showed that incorporation of only powdered inulin (8%
226
w/w) resulted in decreased cooking yield and moisture retention (Afshari et al., 2015). This
227
might be due to the compact structure of heat-induced inulin gel which could decrease the
228
water retention capability of meat proteins. However, incorporation of inulin in combination
229
with β-glucan (3.1% w/w and 2.2% w/w, respectively) could compensate the mentioned
230
changes. Therefore, this mixture could be an applicable strategy to improve the cooking
231
characteristics of the low-fat burger and the traditional burger
232
3.2. Proximate composition
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
211
233
Significant differences in the proximate composition of the examined burgers were observed
234
(Table 3). In all formulated burgers, the fat percentage ranged between 8.8 and 11.5% (close
235
to our desired level). The LF and LF-IBG burgers had lower fat content in comparison with 10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 236
the control burgers (P< 0.05). The fat proportion in LF-IBG burgers was higher in
237
comparison with LF burgers which could be attributed to higher fat retention ability by LF-
238
IBG burgers. All low-fat burgers had a protein content around 15% that was significantly higher than the
240
control burgers (P< 0.05). Since all burgers formulated with the same meat content, the
241
observed difference could be attributed to the SPI content in the low-fat burgers.
RI PT
239
The lowest moisture content (54.6%) was observed in the control burgers. This could be
243
attributed to 5% added water to the formulations of two low-fat burgers as well as to a greater
244
moisture retention ability of inulin/β-glucan mixture.
M AN U
SC
242
245
3.3. Fatty acid profile
247
Results attributed to the main fatty acids and their important ratios in the three formulations
248
of cooked burgers were given in Table 4.
TE D
246
Control burgers contained a high concentration of SFAs and MUFAs, representing around
250
48% and 44% of the total fatty acids, respectively, while PUFAs accounted for 4.5% of the
251
total fatty acids (data not shown). The most predominant fatty acids were linoleic acid (0.4
252
g/100g), palmitoleic acid (0.5 g/100g), stearic acid (1.76 g/100g), palmitic acid (3.31 g/100g)
253
and oleic acid (4.48 g /100g). The main significant difference in fatty acids concentrations of
254
different formulations was due to the substitution of animal fat by pre-emulsified canola-olive
255
oil (P< 0.05). The addition of inulin-β-glucan mixture had not significant effect on fatty acids
256
profile of the burgers (p>0.05). Likewise, Beriain et al. (2011) reported that application of
257
inulin did not change the fatty acids profile in raw fermented sausages and burgers. In
258
contrast to our result, Haghshenas et al. (2015) reported that addition of β-glucan reduced the
AC C
EP
249
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 259
changes of fatty acid composition in pre-cooked shrimp nugget after 120 days of storage due
260
to the presence of natural bioactive phenolic compounds in which act as a reductant and
261
terminate the free radical chain reaction. In comparison with the control burgers, the burgers formulated with pre-emulsified canola-
263
olive, contained less SFAs (19 and 24% of the total fatty acids in LF and LF-IBG burgers,
264
respectively), while the proportion of MUFAs (55% of the total fatty acids) and oleic acid
265
content (51% of the total fatty acids) were around 17 percentage and 19 percentage higher
266
than control burgers, respectively (data not shown).This pattern is more evident when the
267
fatty acid composition is expressed as a percentage of total fatty acids since the fat level is
268
different in each cooked formulation (Table 3). The substitution of animal fat by canola-olive
269
oil increased the PUFAs concentration from 4.5% of the total fatty acids in the control burger
270
to 21% of the total fatty acids in LF and LF-IBG burgers (data not shown) (P< 0.05). The
271
five times increase in the PUFAs concentration of LF and LF-IBG burgers was attributed to
272
the incorporated vegetable oils which contain linoleic acid (C18:2 n-6) and linolenic acid
273
(C18:3n-3) as major fatty acids of canola and olive oils, respectively. The total n-3 PUFA
274
values were about 0.45 g/100 g for LF and LF-IBG and 0.05 g/100g for the control burger
275
(Table 4). The PUFAs and n−6 PUFA (mainly linoleic acid) increased (P<0.05) with the total
276
substitution of the beef fat, however, this increase was too far lesser extent than with n-3
277
PUFA. The ratio of n-6/n-3 decreased (P<0.05) by a factor of just above 2, from 8.6±0.3 in
278
the control burger to 3±0.2 and 3.2±0.1 in LF and LF-IBG burgers, respectively. According
279
to nutritionists’ recommendation, this ratio (n-6/n-3) should not exceed 4, as it has highly
280
been linked to a reduced risk of various pathologies including diabetes, cancer, and CVD
281
(Simopoulos 2002).
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
262
282
The ratio of PUFA/SFA is one of the most important parameters for evaluation of
283
nutritional quality in the case of available lipid fraction in food products. Recommended 12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT “healthy” ratio is above 0.4 (Wood et al., 2004). Increasing this ratio can be resulted in
285
cholesterol reduction in plasma (McAfee et al., 2010). In the present study, this ratio was just
286
0.085 for control burgers. By substituting olive-canola oil for beef fat, this ratio exceeded the
287
reference value, reached 0.9±0.1 and 1.1±0.15 and in LF and LF-IBG burgers, respectively
288
(Table 4).
RI PT
284
The aforementioned fatty acid ratio did not suffice to express the effects of each fatty acid
290
on human health, therefore, they are replaced by atherogenic index (AI) and the
291
thrombogenic index (TI). In a “Healthy” diet, very low levels of mentioned indexes are
292
recommended (Ulbricht and Southgate, 1991). The control burgers showed the AI's around
293
1.6 and TI's around 1.8 (Table 4). The substitution with canola-olive oil decreased both AI's
294
and TI's to 0.51±0.02 and 0.49±0.04, respectively (P<0.05). Accordingly, the addition of
295
inulin-β-glucan mixture did not affect these two parameters (P>0.05).
296
3.4. Textural measurements
297
Textural parameters of burgers with different formulations are presented in Table 5. The
298
lowest hardness (8.6 N) cohesiveness (0.48), springiness (0.62 mm), chewiness (2.5 N mm)
299
and gumminess (4.2) values were recorded in LF-IBG burger (p<0.05).
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
289
Decreasing fat content and replacing beef fat with canola/olive oil mixture significantly
301
impacted hardness of burgers, raising it by 13% in comparison to control burgers. However,
302
the increases in gumminess and chewiness were not tangible.The findings are in agreement
303
with the results of Bloukas et al. (1997) and Beriain et al. (2011), but in contrast to other
304
studies which reported that substitution of animal fats by olive oil caused a decrease in
305
textural parameters of the frankfurters (Lurueña-Martıń ez et al., 2004) and also hardness of
306
the pâtés (Delgado-Pando et al., 2011). According to Youssef et al. (2011) due to increasing
307
in hardness as result of smaller fat globules of canola oil (~ 1% of beef fat globules ) in
AC C
300
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 308
comparison to beef fat gluble, more protein was required to cover the surface of the globule,
309
which resulted in more binding to the matrix and firmer texture. According to results of textural parameters evaluation, marked smoother texture was
311
obtained in LF-IBG burgers by using the mixture of inulin, β-glucan and breadcrumbs. As
312
mentioned in Table 2, LF burger contains 8% breadcrumbs; however, in LF-IBG burger 5.3%
313
was replaced with 2.2% β-glucan and 3.1% inulin. This modification caused a decrease of the
314
textural parameter values. The main proportion of breadcrumbs is wheat starch. In LF and
315
control burgers, the cooking process resulted in the formation of a firm and more compact
316
structure due to swelling property of wheat starch granules surrounded by protein gel
317
matrices. However, adding hydrocolloids suppressed swelling of the starch granules and
318
elevated the gelatinization temperature, consequently the leaching of amylose was reduced
319
and the network formation was disrupted (BeMiller 2011). Moreover, forming the tight and
320
porous network by β-glucan in meat protein system which entrapped water, prevented the
321
loss of moisture and decreased the cross-linkages of meat protein during the cooking, leading
322
to a decreasing hardness, cohesiveness, and springiness of the burgers. However, our
323
previous study showed that in contrast with β-glucan, increasing the concentration of inulin
324
(up to 8% w/w) in low-fat burger contributed to a rise in hardness, gumminess, and
325
cohesiveness of the burgers (Afshari et al., 2015). The combination of β-glucan/inulin had a
326
synergistic effect to produce a softer texture. This could be attributed to the higher moisture
327
retention of β-glucan/inulin mixture in low-fat and control burgers. Therefore, this mixture
328
could be an applicable strategy to provide a soft texture in the low fat and the traditional
329
burger.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
310
330
331
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 332
3.5. Sensory evaluation The results of sensory evaluation of different burger formulations were shown in Fig. 1.
334
Incorporation of inulin and β-glucan decreased the flavor intensity and chewiness of the
335
burgers significantly (p<0.05). Same results by instrumental texture assessment were found
336
for chewiness (Table 5). Reduction of flavor in burgers with inulin and β-glucan was ascribed
337
to a slight starchy flavor of β-glucan by some panelists. In this sense, other studies have
338
remarked a decrease in meaty flavor perception by the addition of starches and fibers (Troutt
339
et al., 1992; Sanchez-Zapata et al., 2010). In terms of juiciness, LF-IBG burgers were scored
340
with the highest points, followed by LF and C burgers, respectively, although the observed
341
difference between the LF and control burgers was not significant (p> 0.05). The increased
342
juiciness in LF burgers was probably attributed to the lower connective tissue in the low-fat
343
burgers (Martínez et al., 2009). However, increasing the juiciness in burgers containing inulin
344
and β-glucan was due to the improved water-binding from using the mixture of these two
345
fibers. Ultimately, overall acceptability scores were not significantly different (p > 0.05) in all
346
of the burgers, although some discrepancies were discovered by the panelists in evaluated
347
sensory properties.
348
4. Conclusion
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
333
349
Incorporation of canola and olive oils mixture as a fat substitute in beef burgers
350
formulations as well as the addition of inulin/β-glucan resulted in a product with enhanced
351
nutritional and technological properties. Substitution of animal fat with canola and olive oils
352
improved the fatty acid profile of the burgers, while the addition of inulin/ β-glucan mixture
353
did not exert any significant effects. The SFA and PUFA content of low-fat burgers were
354
reported as 19-24% and 21-22%, whereas they were 48% and 4.5% in the control burgers,
355
receptively. In addition, this modification caused the ratio of PUFA/SFA higher than 0.4 and
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT n-6/n-3 lower than 4, as recommended for good nutritional quality by a nutritionist. However,
357
the changes in fat content led to increasing the hardness but the incorporation of inulin/β-
358
glucan mixture could diminish this effect by increasing fat and moisture retention without
359
revealing the undesirable effect on the sensory properties of the burgers. Thus, modification
360
of fatty acid profile and incorporation of inulin/β-glucan mixture to beef burger formulation
361
(l) could be a good strategy to reformulate traditional burgers to a healthier meat product.
RI PT
356
SC
362
Conflict of interest
364
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
365
Acknowledgment
366
The authors wish to thank National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute of
367
Iran (NNFTRI) for providing financial support for this project (Project code: P.25.47.3564).
(Grant #3240274290),
370
References
AC C
371
TE D
369
A. Mousavi Khaneghah likes to thank the support of CNPq-TWAS Postgraduate Fellowship
EP
368
M AN U
363
372
Afshari, R., Hosseini, H., Khaksar, R., Mohammadifar, M.A., Amiri, Z., Komeili, R.., &
373
Mousavi Khaneghah , A. (2015). Investigation of the effects of inulin and β-glucan on
374
the physical and sensory properties of low-fat beef burgers containing vegetable oils:
375
optimization of formulation using D-optimal mixture design. Food Technology and
376
Biotechnology, 53(4), 436 445.
-
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 377
Álvarez, D., & Barbut, S. (2013). Effect of inulin, β-Glucan and their mixtures on emulsion
378
stability, color and textural parameters of cooked meat batters. Meat Science, 94(3),
379
320 327.
383 384
385
RI PT
382
tenderness measurements of meat (Second edition). Chicago, IL, USA.
AOAC. (1995). Official methods of analysis (15th ed.). Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemist.
SC
381
AMSA, X. (2015). Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental
Bemiller, J.N. (2011). Pasting, paste, and gel properties of starch–hydrocolloid
-
combinations. Carbohydrate Polymer, 86(2), 386 423.
M AN U
380
-
386
Beriain, M .J., Gómez, I., Petri, E., Insausti, K., & Sarries, M. V. (2011). The effects of
387
olive oil emulsified alginate on the physico-chemical, sensory, microbial, and fatty acid
388
profiles of low-salt, inulin-enriched sausages. Meat Science, 88(1), 189 197.
TE D
-
389
Bloukas, J.G., Paneras, E.D., & Fournitzis, G.C. (1997). Effect of replacing pork backfat
390
with olive oil on processing and quality characteristics of fermented sausages. Meat
391
Science, 45(2), 133 144.
EP
-
-
Bourne, M.C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology, 32, 62 66.
393
Choi, Y.S., Choi, J. H., Han, D.J., Kim, H.Y., Lee, M.A., Kim, H.W., Lee, J.W., Chung,
394
H.J., & Kim, C.J. (2010). Optimization of replacing pork back fat with grape seed oil
395
and rice bran fiber for reduced-fat meat emulsion systems. Meat Science, 84(1), 212
396
218.
AC C
392
17
-
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 397
Delgado-Pando, G., Cofradess Ruiz-Capillas, C., Solas, M.T., Triki, M. & Jimenez-
398
Colmenero, F. (2011). Low-fat frankfurters formulated with a healthier lipid
399
combination as functional ingredient: Microstructure, lipid oxidation, nitrite content,
400
microbiological changes and biogenic amine formation. Meat Science, 89(1), 65 71.
401
García-García E, Totosaus A. (2008) Low-fat sodium-reduced sausages: eff ect of the
402
interaction between locust bean gum, potato starch and κ-carrageenan by a mixture
403
design approach. Meat Science, 78 (4),406–13.
SC
RI PT
-
Haghshenas, M., Hosseini, H., Nayebzadeh, K., Kakesh, B.S., Mahmouszadeh, M., &
405
Fonood R.K. (2015). Effect of beta glucan and carboxymethyl cellulose on lipid
406
oxidation and fatty acid composition of pre-cooked shrimp nugget during storage.
407
LWT-Food Science and Technology, 62, 1192 1197.
409
410
-
Khalil, A.H. (2000). Quality characteristics of low-fat beef patties formulated with modified
TE D
408
M AN U
404
-
corn starch and water. Food Chemistry, 68(1), 61 68. López-López, I., Cofrades, S., Cañeque, V., Diaz, M.T., López, O., Jiménez-Colmenero, F. (2011).
Effect of cooking on the chemical composition of low-salt, low-fat
412
Wakame/olive oil added beef patties with special reference to fatty acid content. Meat
413
Science, 89(1), 27 34.
AC C
EP
411
-
414
López-López, I., Cofrades, S., Yakan, A., Solas, M.T., & Jimenez-Colmenero, F. (2010).
415
Frozen storage characteristics of low-salt and low-fat beef patties as affected by
416
Wakame addition and replacing pork backfat with olive oil-in-water emulsion. Food
417
Research International, 43(5),1244 1254.
-
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 418
Lurueña-Martine, M.A., Vivar-Quintana, A.M., & Revilla, I. (2004). Effect of locust
419
bean/xanthan gum addition and replacement of pork fat with olive oil on the quality
420
characteristics of low-fat frankfurters. Meat Science, 68(3),383 389.
-
Martinez, B., Miranda, J.M.., Vázquez, B.I, Fente, C.A., Frenco, C.M., Rodriguez, J.L., &
422
Cepeda A. (2009). Development of a hamburger patty with healthier lipid formulation
423
and study of its nutritional, sensory, and stability properties. Food and Bioprocess
424
Technology 5(1): 1 9.
RI PT
421
SC
-
Mcafee, A. J., Mcsorley, E. M., Cuskelly, G. J., Moss, B. W., Wallace, J.M.W., Bonham,
426
M. P., & Fearon, A. M. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and
427
benefits. Meat Science, 84(1): 1 13.
-
M AN U
425
Mehta. N., Ahlawat, S.S., Sharma, D.P., & Dabur, R.S. (2015). Novel trends in
429
development of dietary fiber rich meat products—a critical review. Journal of Food
430
Science and Technology, 52(2), 633-647.
TE D
428
O’fallon, J., Busboom, J., Nelson, M., & Gaskinas, C. (2007). A direct method for fatty acid
432
methyl ester synthesis: application to wet meat tissues, oils, and feedstuffs. Journal of
433
Animal Science, 85(6),1511.
AC C
EP
431
434
Pinero, M., Parra, K., Huerta-Leiddenz, N., Arenas, D.E., Moreno, L., Ferrer, M., Areujo,
435
S., & Barboza, Y. (2008). Effect of oat's soluble fiber (β-glucan) as a fat replacer on
436
physical, chemical, microbiological and sensory properties of low-fat beef patties. Meat
437
Science, 80(3), 675 680.
-
438
Rather, S.A., Akhter, R., Masoodi, F., Gani ,A., & Wani, S. (2015). Utilization of apple
439
pomace powder as a fat replacer in goshtaba: a traditional meat product of Jammu and
440
Kashmir, India. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization, 9(3), 389-399 19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 441
Sanchez-Zapata, E., Munoz, C.M., Fuentes, E., Fernandez-Lopez , J., Sendra, E., Sayas, E.,
442
Navarro, C., & Perez-Alveraz, J.A. (2010). Effect of tiger nut fibre on quality
443
characteristics of pork burger. Meat Science, 85(1),70 6.
445
Simopoulos, A.P. (2002). The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty
-
acids. Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapy, 56(8), 365 379.
RI PT
444
-
Troutt, E.S., Hunt, M.C., Johnson, D.E., Claus, J.R., Kastner, C.L., Kropf, D.HM, & Stroda, S.
447
(1992). Chemical, Physical, and Sensory Characterization of Ground Beef Containing 5 to 30
448
Percent Fat. Journal of Food Science ,57(1), 25 29.
450
M AN U
449
-
SC
446
Ulbricht, T.L.V., & Southgate, D.A.T. (1991). Coronary heart disease: seven dietary factors.
-
The Lancet, 338, 985 992.
Verma, A., & Banerjee, R. (2010). Dietary fibre as functional ingredient in meat products: a
452
novel approach for healthy living — a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology
453
,47(3),247 257.
-
TE D
451
Wood,J.D., Richardson, R.I., Nute, G.R., Fisher, A.V., Campo, M.M., Kasapidou, E.,
455
Sheard, P.R.. & Enser, M. (2004). Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: a review. Meat
456
Science , 66(1), 21-32
458
AC C
457
EP
454
Youssef, M. & Barbut, S. (2011). Fat reduction in comminuted meat products-effects of beef fat, regular and pre-emulsified canola oil. Meat Science, 87 (4), 356-360.
459 460
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Fatty acid profile of vegetable oils employed in manufacturing of low-fat burgers (data expressed as percentage) Fatty acid
Canola
Olive
MyristicC14:0
0.05
0.02
Pentadecanoic C15:0
0.02
1
Palmitic C16:0
4.32
Heptadecanoic C17:0
0.05
Stearic C18:0
2.51
Oleic C18:1 cisn-9
64.10
Linoleic C18:2 cisn-6
17.27
RI PT 0.20
SC
3.90
67.44 12.10
0.01
0.01
1.40
0.03
4.50
0.95
0.82
0.60
1.50
0.04
Dihomolinoleic C20:3 n-6
0.07
ND
Arachidonic C20:4 n-6
1.96
ND
0.01
0.02
Docosohexaenoic C22:6 n-3
0.02
0.08
Behenic C22:0
0.50
0.20
ȣlinolenic C18:3 n-6 Linolenic C18:3 n-3 Arachidic C20:0
TE D
Gadoleic C20:1
AC C
EP
Eicosapentaenoic C20:5 n-3
1
12.72
M AN U
Linoleic C18:2 transn-6
ND
Not detected
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Formulations (g/kg) of three different beef burgers Samples*
Ingredients / Formulation
LF
LF-IBG
Lean meat
480
480
480
Beef fat
114
-
-
o/SPI1
-
114
Breadcrumbs
80
80
Inulin
-
-
β-glucan
-
-
SC
RI PT
C
114 27
31
22
M AN U
The following ingredients were also added to each formulation: onion 300 g/kg; cinnamon0.5g/kg; black pepper 2g/kg; sodium chloride 12g/kg *
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
EP
TE D
52.6% oil (60% canola oil and 40% olive oil), 42.1% water and 5.3% soy protein isolate (SPI)
AC C
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Proximate analysis (%) and cooking characteristics (%) of burgers Samples* C
LF
LF-IBG
Protein
15.03±0.7a
15.32±0.4a
15.07±0.6a
Fat
11.5±0.9a
7.8±0.3c
Moisture
54.6±2.1b
57 ±1.07ab
Moisture retention
53.73±2.2b
57.35±1.8b
63.8±0.9a
Fat retention
68.11±1.02a
84.3±2.5a
91.7±1.2a
Cooking yield
66.38±0.68c
M AN U
SC
Cooking characteristics
RI PT
Proximate composition/Formulation
*
69.72 ± 0.78b
8.9±0.5b
60.04±1.00a
73.74±1.2a
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
AC C
EP
TE D
For sample denomination see Table 2. Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation. Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P<0.05).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT LF-IBG 0.123±0.010a 0.120±0.020b 0.200±0.002a 1.12±0.004b 0.020±0.003b 0.400±0.004b 0.041±0.001a 1.721±0.010b 0.800±0.002b 3.900±0.040a 0.026±0.001a 0.200±0.010a 0.017±0.001b 4.200±0.030a 1.480±0.030a 0.0015±0.000b 0.010±0.0005a 0.460±0.003a 0.065±0.002a 1.810±0.003a 0.030±0.003a 1.050±0.100a 1.490±0.030a 0.460±0.003a 3.200±0.100b 0.49±0.040b 0.380±0.030b
*
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Table 4. Principal fatty acid content (g/100 g burger) of burgers Fatty acid Samples* C LF Lauric acidC12:0 0.126±0. 01a 0.124±0.020a MyristicC14:0 0.360±0.002a 0.146±0.020b a PentadecanoicC15:0 0.270±0.001 0.270±0.001a a Palmitic C16:0 3.310±0.100 1.180±0.200b a Heptadecanoic C17:0 0.093±0.010 0.020±0.002b Stearic C18:0 1.760±0.020a 0.500±0.030b b Other SFA 0.010±0.0005 0.047±0.001a a ∑SFA 5.560±0.100 1.920±0.050b a Palmitoleic C16:1 n-7 0.500±0.030 0.100±0.002b a Oleic C18:1 cisn-9 4.480±0.200 4.870±0.300a a Oleic C18:1 transn-9 0.045±0.001 0.030±0.001a Vaccenic C18:1 n-11 0.005±0.001b 0.220±0.010a a Other MUFA 0.060±0.002 0.020±0.001b a ∑MUFA 5.100±0.200 5.220±0.300a c Linoleic C18:2 cisn-6 0.400±0.060 1.270±0.010b a Linoleic C18:2 transn-6 0.030±0.001 0.015±0.000a b ȣlinolenic C18:3 n-6 0.002±0.0001 0.020±0.001a Linolenic C18:3 n-3 0.050±0.002b 0.440±0.001a b Other PUFA 0.062±0.001 0.040±0.005a b ∑PUFA 0.480±0.060 1.770±0. 100a a TFA 0.075±0.040 0.045±0.003a b PUFA/SFA 0.085±0.007 0.920±0.150a c ∑n-6 0.450±0.060 1.330±0.010b ∑n-3 0.050±0.002b 0.440±0.001a a n-6/n-3 8.640±0.300 3.00±0. 200b a Atherogenic index 1.641±0.140 0.511±0.020b a Thrombogenic index 1.830±0.200 0.390±0.050b
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
AC C
EP
Data are expressed as mean±Standard deviation Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P<0.05). Samples description is shown in Table 2. SFA: saturated fatty acid; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acid TFA: trans fatty acid
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 5. Textural parameters of burgers Samples* C
LF
LF-IBG
Hardness (N)
17.5 ±0.7a
20±0.4b
8.7±1.1c
Cohesiveness
0.68±0.01a
0.66±0.01a
0.48±0.01b
Springiness (mm)
0.79±0.02a
0.78 ±0.01b
Chewiness (N mm)
9.4±0.0.6a
10. 4±0.8a
Gumminess (N)
11.9±0.7b
13.8±0.8b
RI PT
Properties/Formulation
*
0.62±0.02c 2.57±0.5b 4.35±0.9a
M AN U
Data are expressed as Means ± standard deviation.
SC
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
AC C
EP
TE D
Different letters in the same row indicate significant dif
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
.
TE D
Figure 1. Results of sensorial properties of burgers
AC C
EP
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Functional and low fat burgers were designed and compared to traditional burgers in the local market
•
The addition of inulin-β-glucan mixture did not significantly affect the fatty acid profile of burgers
•
The ratio of PUFA/ and n-6/n-3 has been adjusted according to the recommended values by nutritionists
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
•
S0023-6438(16)30840-4
DOI:
10.1016/j.lwt.2016.12.054
Reference:
YFSTL 5950
To appear in:
LWT - Food Science and Technology
Received Date: 18 April 2016 Revised Date:
30 November 2016
Accepted Date: 28 December 2016
Please cite this article as: Afshari, R., Hosseini, H., Mousavi Khaneghah, A., Khaksar, R., Physicochemical properties of functional low-fat beef burgers: Fatty acid profile modification, LWT - Food Science and Technology (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.12.054. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1
Physico-chemical properties of functional low-fat beef burgers: Fatty acid profile
2
modification
3
R. Afsharia, H. Hosseini, A. Mousavi Khaneghah*b, R. Khaksara a
Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences and Food Technology, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5
6
b
Department of Food Science, Faculty of Food Engineering, University of Campinas (UNICAMP), Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
SC
7
M AN U
8 9 10 11
* Corresponding Authors:
12
E-mail address: [email protected]
13
Tel: +98 21 22357483-5; Fax: +98 21 22360660.
Hedayat Hosseini
14 Amin Mousavi Khaneghah
16
E-mail: [email protected]
17
Telephone: +55(19) 3521-0091; Fax: +55(19) 3521-2153
21 22
EP
20
AC C
19
TE D
15
18
RI PT
4
23 24 25
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 26
Abstract This study was undertaken to produce low-fat beef burgers (6%); with the
28
incorporation of prebiotic fibers (a mixture of 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan) and canola and
29
olive oils as beef fat substitutes. Composition (proximate analysis and fatty acid profile),
30
technological properties (Cooking and texture properties) and
31
evaluated in comparison to control
32
traditional burger in the local market. The applied lipid modification improved the fatty acid
33
profile and nutrimental value of burgers by decreasing the percentage of SFAs content (from
34
48% to~19-24%), the ratio of n−6 to n−3 (from 8.6 to~3), the atherogenic index (AI) (from
35
1.6 to ~0.5) and the thrombogenic index (TI) (from 1.8 to 0.49). The addition of inulin/β-
36
glucan mixture did not significantly affect the fatty acid profile. Low-fat burgers contain
37
inulin/β-glucan mixture showed better cooking characteristics and lower hardness in
38
comparison to control burgers. The results of this study indicate that the application of
39
prebiotic fibers and vegetable oils are promising approaches in the design of healthier meat
40
products.
41
Keywords: Inulin-β-glucan mixture; Low-fat burger; Canola-olive oils; Fatty acid profile;
42
Sensory properties; Physico-Chemical properties
44
sensory properties were
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
burgers (12.5% beef fat) which are regarded as a
AC C
43
RI PT
27
45
46
47
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1. Introduction
49
Meat and meat products as an important part of our daily diet could be considered as
50
excellent sources of essential nutrients (Mehta et al., 2015). However, the association
51
between meat consumption and increasing the risk of serious health disorders such as
52
colorectal cancer and coronary heart diseases have been demonstrated by several scientific
53
pieces of evidence (McAfee et al., 2010; Vema and Banerjee, 2010). Different kinds of meat
54
products including burgers are still very popular among a variety of consumers especially
55
new generation.
SC
RI PT
48
Due to possible issues as a result of consumption a diet included an excess amount of
57
energy-dense foods such as rich in fat and sugar, nowadays development of “healthy” foods
58
has been attracted lots of attentions. Therefore, the meat industry has been attributed to
59
raising the numbers of value added meat products in order to minimize their detrimental side
60
effects on health as well as enhancement of their nutritional values. In addition, there is an
61
increasing demand by contemporary consumers for convenient products (ready-to-eat) with
62
remarked nutritious values. During last decades some investigations were conducted in order
63
to reduce the fat content and also improving fatty acid profile in meat products (Choi et al.,
64
2010; Beriain et al., 2011; Rather et al., 2015). One of the possible approaches is the
65
reduction of fat content combined with fatty acid profile adjustments (Lipid modification).
66
Furthermore, in order to compensate the low daily intake of fibers, incorporation of prebiotic
67
dietary fibers could be proposed. Normally, lipid modification could be achieved by reducing
68
the content of saturated fatty acids (SFAs), in a combination of increasing monounsaturated
69
fatty acids (MUFAs) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) levels; on the another word,
70
increasing the amount of n−3 PUFAs could reducing the n−6/n−3 ratio (Simopoulos 2002).
71
Since these modifications may have provoked some adverse changes in technical and sensory
72
properties of final products, in order to minimize the possible negative consequences,
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
56
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT different strategies such as approaching of different non-meat ingredients; hydrocolloids and
74
dietary compounds due to their desirable technological properties (improving structural
75
integrity, fat and water retention) and potential health effects, have been proposed (Beriain
76
et al., 2011; Álvarez and Barbut, 2013). Inulin has been suggested to be able to entrap water
77
and enhance the lubricant and flow properties of a variety of meat products (Keenan et al.,
78
2014; Álvarez and Barbut, 2013). However, inulin in powdered form has been suggested to
79
cause some negative effects by increasing the hardness of the low-fat beef burger (Afshari et
80
al., 2015) and the low-fat and full-fat mortadella (García et al., 2008 ). Barley β-glucan has
81
been regarded as a thickening and gelling agents which make it a promising fat reducer in
82
different foods including meat products (Pinero et al., 2008).
M AN U
SC
RI PT
73
The production of "healthier" meat products is not always easy due to current limitations in
84
providing desired sensory properties as well as the possibility to sell the product at a
85
reasonable price similar to common products. Although meat products with a “healthier”
86
lipid formulation were provided by several previous investigations, as far as we know the
87
combination of lipid modification and incorporation of inulin- β-glucan mixture on beef
88
burger properties, especially on the fatty acid profile, has not been yet investigated. In our
89
previous research, optimum amounts of inulin and the β-glucan mixture were determined
90
(3.1% β-glucan and 2.2%) (Afshari et al., 2015).Therefore, the current study was undertaken
91
to investigate the physicochemical and sensory properties of the functional and low-fat
92
burgers, with special reference to fatty acid profile and compare it to traditional burgers of the
93
local market (12% fat content).
AC C
EP
TE D
83
94
95
96 4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2. Materials and methods
98
2.1. Preparation of formulations
99
Sixteen boneless cuts of carcasses (brisket and flank) from heifers with a mean age of 17-24
100
months were obtained from one of the burger producers (Gooshtiran Co., Tehran, Iran). The
101
visible adipose and connective tissues of meat were removed in order to obtain lean beef
102
(moisture 70.4%, protein 23.5%, fat 5.2% and ash 0.99%). The lean beef and beef fat
103
separately were passed through the commercial meat grinder (WWB 200, Laska, Traun,
104
Austria), and immediately were transferred to freezers (-18 ± 2 °C) in low-density
105
polyethylene plastic packs due the day of the experiment. The oil-in-water emulsion (11.4
106
g/100 g), consisted of 2.4 g/100 g olive oil, 3.6 g/100 g canola oil, 0.6 g/100g soy protein
107
isolate (SPI, containing 94% protein) (Shandong Wonderful Industrial Group Co., Ltd.,
108
China) and 4.8 g/100g water, was prepared using the described procedure by Bloukas et al.
109
(1997). The primary fatty acid composition of used vegetable oils is shown in Table 1.
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
97
Oat β-glucan (PromOat™) (containing 34% soluble β-glucan) was obtained from promoat
111
(Biovelop International AB, Sweden). Inulin (FrutafitTEX®) was purchased from the
112
Roosendaal, The Netherlands. Other ingredients used in burger formulations could be listed
113
as follows: Sodium chloride, breadcrumb, onion and flavorings agents (purchased from a
114
local market).
115
2.2. Beef burger preparation
116
Three different batches were prepared according to the formulations which were given in
117
Table 2. The first batch was the control burgers that contained 11.5% beef fat level (Control,
118
C) beings similar to the common burger in Iran’s market. In the second formulation, the beef
119
fat was totally substituted by 11.4% oil -in-water emulsion (see section 2.1) (Low-Fat, LF).
AC C
EP
110
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The third batch was similar to the second group (LF) but the following changes have been
121
approved: 5.1% of common breadcrumbs as an ingredient were replaced by a mixture of
122
2.2% β-glucan and 3.1% inulin (Low-Fat containing Inulin and β-glucan, LF-IBG). The
123
optimum amounts of this mixture were chosen according to the previously published article
124
(Afshari et al., 2015).
RI PT
120
In order to produce the burgers, the fat-free ground meat, and fat were thawed at 4± 2 °C
126
for 12 h before usage. The ground meat was placed in a commercial mixer (Robot-Coupé,
127
Model R6-02VB, and Vincennes France) and homogenized for 1 min at 25± 1 °C. Afterward,
128
the ground onion, sodium chloride, cinnamon and black pepper were added according to the
129
proportions which shown in Table 2. Then, the beef fat or oil-in-water emulsion (depending
130
on the type of formulation) were added to the mixture and homogenized again for 3 min at
131
25± 1 °C. Finally, the breadcrumbs, inulin and β-glucan (depending on the formulation,
132
related data were shown in Table 2) were incorporated and the final mixture was
133
homogenized for additional 3 min at 25± 1 °C. The obtained paste was reground through the
134
6-mm metal plate and then formed by using the commercial burger-maker (~ 100 g/ burger,
135
10 cm diameter and 1 cm thickness). Beef burgers were placed on a stainless steel tray,
136
frozen by IQF (Individual Quick Freezing) system (CFS Koppens Spiral Freezer, Model:
137
SVR 600) and then wrapped with polyvinyl chloride plastic. The burgers were stored in
138
boxes in conventional freezers (-18 °C) until the day of the experiment.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
125
139
The frozen burgers were thawed at 25± 1 °C and then heated up until the internal
140
temperature of the geometrical center of each burger stated to 71 °C. The cooking procedure
141
was performed in a cooker (flow cook 600/6000, CFS-GEA, Bakel, The Netherland)
142
according to the method described by the American Meat Science Association methodology
143
(AMSA 2015).
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 144
2.3. Cooking characteristics. Three burgers from each formulation were cooked in the same procedure as mentioned
146
previously then cooled to room temperature at 25 °C for 3 h. The cooking yield (η), the
147
moister retention and the fat retention of burgers were measured according to the following
148
equations:
149
Cooking yield (η) = (m cooked burger /m raw burger) ×100
150
Moisture retention= ((m cooked burger ×m / m raw burger ×m moisture in the raw burger ))×100
151
moisture in cooked burger
(2)
SC
Fat retention= ((m cooked / m raw burger ×m fat in the raw burger ))×100 burger×
m fat in the cooked burger
154
All experiments were done in triplicate.
155
2.4. Determination of Proximate composition
(3)
TE D
153
156
(1
M AN U
152
RI PT
145
Moisture, protein and fat content of the cooked burgers were determined according to AOAC methods (AOAC 1995). All experiments were done in triplicate.
158
2.5. Determination of Fatty acid profile
AC C
EP
157
159
The fatty acid composition of burgers was determined by direct fatty acid methyl esters
160
(FAME) synthesis which was described by O’Fallon et al. (2007). The FAME was analyzed
161
by an Agilent 6890 GC system (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA), equipped
162
with a flame ionization detector and capillary column CP-sil388 (30 m length, 0.25 mm
163
i.d., 0.20 µ m film thickness) with a split injection of 1:50. Hydrogen was used as a carrier
164
gas. The temperature of detector and injector was 250 °C. The initial temperature in the oven
165
was 100 °C and it reached 220 °C with increasing rate of 5 °C/min. The fatty acids were
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT identified by comparison their FAME retention times with sigma reference standards
167
(SupelcoTM 37 Component FAME mix, Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA). Results were reported
168
as g/100 g of each burger.
169
2.6. Atherogenic (AI) and thrombogenic indexes (TI)
RI PT
166
The risk of atherosclerosis and/or thrombogenesis was evaluated by using the atherogenic
171
(AI) and thrombogenic indexes (TI).They were calculated on the basis of the obtained fatty
172
acid results, using the following equations (Ulbricht and Southgate, 1991).
173
AI= C12:0 + (4 × C14:0) + C16:0/ n - 6 PUFA + n – 3 PUFA + MUFA
174
TI= C14: 0 + C16: 0 + C18: 0/ (0.5 × MUFA) + (0.5 × n – 6 MUFA) + (3 × n – 3 PUFA) + (n
175
– 3 PUFA/n – 6 PUFA)
176
2.7. Textural measurements
M AN U
SC
170
Textural profile analysis parameters were measured on three cooked burgers from each
178
formulation using the texture analyzer (M 350-10 CT, Testometric Co. Ltd., Rochdale, Lancs,
179
UK). Prior to analysis, the burgers were thawed for 12 h at 5 ºC. Afterward, one portion (1
180
cm height and 2 cm diameter) was cut from the central part of each burger, underwent two
181
cycles of 50% compression by the cylindrical probe of 3.6 cm diameter and a cross-head
182
speed of 2 mm/s. Textural parameters (hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, chewiness and
183
gumminess) were calculated according to the described procedure by Bourne (1978). Each
184
measurement for each burger was performed in triplicate at room temperature.
185
2.7. Sensory evaluation
AC C
EP
TE D
177
186
Sensory evaluation of cooked burgers was performed by eight trained panelists
187
(Department of Food Science and Technology Shahid Beheshti University of Medical
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Sciences, Tehran, Iran). Panelist evaluated the juiciness, chewiness, flavor intensity and
189
overall palatability. An Eight-point scale was used where 1 represented extremely dry, tough,
190
devoid of ground beef flavor and extremely undesirable while 8 represented extremely juicy,
191
tender, intense flavor of ground beef flavor and extremely desirable. The burgers were served
192
as warm (~ 38 °C) and unsalted crackers and mineral water were used to clean the palate
193
between experiments.
194
2.8. Statistical analysis
SC
RI PT
188
One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted for determination of significant
196
differences (P< 0.05) between the three burgers (C, LF, LF-IBG). The Tukey's HSD test was
197
used for comparison of mean values among the burgers. Data were analyzed using the SPSS
198
17.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). Three technical replications were performed
199
for each sample.
200
3. Results and discussion
201
3.1. Cooking measurements
202
Physical traits of cooked beef burgers which were prepared with different formulations were
203
presented in Table 3.
EP
TE D
M AN U
195
The observed cooking yield and fat retention ability for LF burgers was higher than the
205
control burgers, although the observed increase in moisture retention of LF burgers in
206
comparison with control burgers was not significant (P> 0.05), and these changes in cooking
207
traits increased dramatically with addition of inulin and β-glucan, in beef burgers formulation
208
(P< 0.05).
AC C
204
209
A dramatic decrease in the cooking yield of the control burger in comparison to
210
introduced low-fat burgers could be related to high losses of fat and moisture contents during
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the cooking process. Moisture and fat retention could be affected by fat levels, likewise, as
212
the fat level increases, the mean of free distance between the fat cells decreases and this
213
might cause fat cells coalescing and leaking them from products during cooking (Lopez et al.,
214
2011). In addition, the dense protein matrix in low-fat burgers could reduce fat losses (Khalil
215
2000). In the present study as the fat level decreased from 11.4% in the control burgers to
216
about 6% in both LF and LF-IBG burgers, moisture retention increased by around 7% and
217
18%, respectively. In the case of fat retention, an increment of 24% and 34% in this
218
parameter was observed by reducing fat levels in LF and LF-IBG burgers, respectively.
219
Moreover, improvement in fat and moisture retention in low-fat burgers containing pre-
220
emulsified vegetable oils in comparison to the control burgers could be attributed to
221
stabilizing effects of the oil in the established emulsion system (López-López et al., 2010).
222
Higher moisture retention and cooking yield of LF-IBG burgers might be due to the ability of
223
added β-glucan in the formation for establishment of tridimensional network which entraps
224
fat and water within the meat protein system during the processing (Pinero et al., 2008).
225
Results of our previous research showed that incorporation of only powdered inulin (8%
226
w/w) resulted in decreased cooking yield and moisture retention (Afshari et al., 2015). This
227
might be due to the compact structure of heat-induced inulin gel which could decrease the
228
water retention capability of meat proteins. However, incorporation of inulin in combination
229
with β-glucan (3.1% w/w and 2.2% w/w, respectively) could compensate the mentioned
230
changes. Therefore, this mixture could be an applicable strategy to improve the cooking
231
characteristics of the low-fat burger and the traditional burger
232
3.2. Proximate composition
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
211
233
Significant differences in the proximate composition of the examined burgers were observed
234
(Table 3). In all formulated burgers, the fat percentage ranged between 8.8 and 11.5% (close
235
to our desired level). The LF and LF-IBG burgers had lower fat content in comparison with 10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 236
the control burgers (P< 0.05). The fat proportion in LF-IBG burgers was higher in
237
comparison with LF burgers which could be attributed to higher fat retention ability by LF-
238
IBG burgers. All low-fat burgers had a protein content around 15% that was significantly higher than the
240
control burgers (P< 0.05). Since all burgers formulated with the same meat content, the
241
observed difference could be attributed to the SPI content in the low-fat burgers.
RI PT
239
The lowest moisture content (54.6%) was observed in the control burgers. This could be
243
attributed to 5% added water to the formulations of two low-fat burgers as well as to a greater
244
moisture retention ability of inulin/β-glucan mixture.
M AN U
SC
242
245
3.3. Fatty acid profile
247
Results attributed to the main fatty acids and their important ratios in the three formulations
248
of cooked burgers were given in Table 4.
TE D
246
Control burgers contained a high concentration of SFAs and MUFAs, representing around
250
48% and 44% of the total fatty acids, respectively, while PUFAs accounted for 4.5% of the
251
total fatty acids (data not shown). The most predominant fatty acids were linoleic acid (0.4
252
g/100g), palmitoleic acid (0.5 g/100g), stearic acid (1.76 g/100g), palmitic acid (3.31 g/100g)
253
and oleic acid (4.48 g /100g). The main significant difference in fatty acids concentrations of
254
different formulations was due to the substitution of animal fat by pre-emulsified canola-olive
255
oil (P< 0.05). The addition of inulin-β-glucan mixture had not significant effect on fatty acids
256
profile of the burgers (p>0.05). Likewise, Beriain et al. (2011) reported that application of
257
inulin did not change the fatty acids profile in raw fermented sausages and burgers. In
258
contrast to our result, Haghshenas et al. (2015) reported that addition of β-glucan reduced the
AC C
EP
249
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 259
changes of fatty acid composition in pre-cooked shrimp nugget after 120 days of storage due
260
to the presence of natural bioactive phenolic compounds in which act as a reductant and
261
terminate the free radical chain reaction. In comparison with the control burgers, the burgers formulated with pre-emulsified canola-
263
olive, contained less SFAs (19 and 24% of the total fatty acids in LF and LF-IBG burgers,
264
respectively), while the proportion of MUFAs (55% of the total fatty acids) and oleic acid
265
content (51% of the total fatty acids) were around 17 percentage and 19 percentage higher
266
than control burgers, respectively (data not shown).This pattern is more evident when the
267
fatty acid composition is expressed as a percentage of total fatty acids since the fat level is
268
different in each cooked formulation (Table 3). The substitution of animal fat by canola-olive
269
oil increased the PUFAs concentration from 4.5% of the total fatty acids in the control burger
270
to 21% of the total fatty acids in LF and LF-IBG burgers (data not shown) (P< 0.05). The
271
five times increase in the PUFAs concentration of LF and LF-IBG burgers was attributed to
272
the incorporated vegetable oils which contain linoleic acid (C18:2 n-6) and linolenic acid
273
(C18:3n-3) as major fatty acids of canola and olive oils, respectively. The total n-3 PUFA
274
values were about 0.45 g/100 g for LF and LF-IBG and 0.05 g/100g for the control burger
275
(Table 4). The PUFAs and n−6 PUFA (mainly linoleic acid) increased (P<0.05) with the total
276
substitution of the beef fat, however, this increase was too far lesser extent than with n-3
277
PUFA. The ratio of n-6/n-3 decreased (P<0.05) by a factor of just above 2, from 8.6±0.3 in
278
the control burger to 3±0.2 and 3.2±0.1 in LF and LF-IBG burgers, respectively. According
279
to nutritionists’ recommendation, this ratio (n-6/n-3) should not exceed 4, as it has highly
280
been linked to a reduced risk of various pathologies including diabetes, cancer, and CVD
281
(Simopoulos 2002).
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
262
282
The ratio of PUFA/SFA is one of the most important parameters for evaluation of
283
nutritional quality in the case of available lipid fraction in food products. Recommended 12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT “healthy” ratio is above 0.4 (Wood et al., 2004). Increasing this ratio can be resulted in
285
cholesterol reduction in plasma (McAfee et al., 2010). In the present study, this ratio was just
286
0.085 for control burgers. By substituting olive-canola oil for beef fat, this ratio exceeded the
287
reference value, reached 0.9±0.1 and 1.1±0.15 and in LF and LF-IBG burgers, respectively
288
(Table 4).
RI PT
284
The aforementioned fatty acid ratio did not suffice to express the effects of each fatty acid
290
on human health, therefore, they are replaced by atherogenic index (AI) and the
291
thrombogenic index (TI). In a “Healthy” diet, very low levels of mentioned indexes are
292
recommended (Ulbricht and Southgate, 1991). The control burgers showed the AI's around
293
1.6 and TI's around 1.8 (Table 4). The substitution with canola-olive oil decreased both AI's
294
and TI's to 0.51±0.02 and 0.49±0.04, respectively (P<0.05). Accordingly, the addition of
295
inulin-β-glucan mixture did not affect these two parameters (P>0.05).
296
3.4. Textural measurements
297
Textural parameters of burgers with different formulations are presented in Table 5. The
298
lowest hardness (8.6 N) cohesiveness (0.48), springiness (0.62 mm), chewiness (2.5 N mm)
299
and gumminess (4.2) values were recorded in LF-IBG burger (p<0.05).
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
289
Decreasing fat content and replacing beef fat with canola/olive oil mixture significantly
301
impacted hardness of burgers, raising it by 13% in comparison to control burgers. However,
302
the increases in gumminess and chewiness were not tangible.The findings are in agreement
303
with the results of Bloukas et al. (1997) and Beriain et al. (2011), but in contrast to other
304
studies which reported that substitution of animal fats by olive oil caused a decrease in
305
textural parameters of the frankfurters (Lurueña-Martıń ez et al., 2004) and also hardness of
306
the pâtés (Delgado-Pando et al., 2011). According to Youssef et al. (2011) due to increasing
307
in hardness as result of smaller fat globules of canola oil (~ 1% of beef fat globules ) in
AC C
300
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 308
comparison to beef fat gluble, more protein was required to cover the surface of the globule,
309
which resulted in more binding to the matrix and firmer texture. According to results of textural parameters evaluation, marked smoother texture was
311
obtained in LF-IBG burgers by using the mixture of inulin, β-glucan and breadcrumbs. As
312
mentioned in Table 2, LF burger contains 8% breadcrumbs; however, in LF-IBG burger 5.3%
313
was replaced with 2.2% β-glucan and 3.1% inulin. This modification caused a decrease of the
314
textural parameter values. The main proportion of breadcrumbs is wheat starch. In LF and
315
control burgers, the cooking process resulted in the formation of a firm and more compact
316
structure due to swelling property of wheat starch granules surrounded by protein gel
317
matrices. However, adding hydrocolloids suppressed swelling of the starch granules and
318
elevated the gelatinization temperature, consequently the leaching of amylose was reduced
319
and the network formation was disrupted (BeMiller 2011). Moreover, forming the tight and
320
porous network by β-glucan in meat protein system which entrapped water, prevented the
321
loss of moisture and decreased the cross-linkages of meat protein during the cooking, leading
322
to a decreasing hardness, cohesiveness, and springiness of the burgers. However, our
323
previous study showed that in contrast with β-glucan, increasing the concentration of inulin
324
(up to 8% w/w) in low-fat burger contributed to a rise in hardness, gumminess, and
325
cohesiveness of the burgers (Afshari et al., 2015). The combination of β-glucan/inulin had a
326
synergistic effect to produce a softer texture. This could be attributed to the higher moisture
327
retention of β-glucan/inulin mixture in low-fat and control burgers. Therefore, this mixture
328
could be an applicable strategy to provide a soft texture in the low fat and the traditional
329
burger.
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
310
330
331
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 332
3.5. Sensory evaluation The results of sensory evaluation of different burger formulations were shown in Fig. 1.
334
Incorporation of inulin and β-glucan decreased the flavor intensity and chewiness of the
335
burgers significantly (p<0.05). Same results by instrumental texture assessment were found
336
for chewiness (Table 5). Reduction of flavor in burgers with inulin and β-glucan was ascribed
337
to a slight starchy flavor of β-glucan by some panelists. In this sense, other studies have
338
remarked a decrease in meaty flavor perception by the addition of starches and fibers (Troutt
339
et al., 1992; Sanchez-Zapata et al., 2010). In terms of juiciness, LF-IBG burgers were scored
340
with the highest points, followed by LF and C burgers, respectively, although the observed
341
difference between the LF and control burgers was not significant (p> 0.05). The increased
342
juiciness in LF burgers was probably attributed to the lower connective tissue in the low-fat
343
burgers (Martínez et al., 2009). However, increasing the juiciness in burgers containing inulin
344
and β-glucan was due to the improved water-binding from using the mixture of these two
345
fibers. Ultimately, overall acceptability scores were not significantly different (p > 0.05) in all
346
of the burgers, although some discrepancies were discovered by the panelists in evaluated
347
sensory properties.
348
4. Conclusion
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
333
349
Incorporation of canola and olive oils mixture as a fat substitute in beef burgers
350
formulations as well as the addition of inulin/β-glucan resulted in a product with enhanced
351
nutritional and technological properties. Substitution of animal fat with canola and olive oils
352
improved the fatty acid profile of the burgers, while the addition of inulin/ β-glucan mixture
353
did not exert any significant effects. The SFA and PUFA content of low-fat burgers were
354
reported as 19-24% and 21-22%, whereas they were 48% and 4.5% in the control burgers,
355
receptively. In addition, this modification caused the ratio of PUFA/SFA higher than 0.4 and
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT n-6/n-3 lower than 4, as recommended for good nutritional quality by a nutritionist. However,
357
the changes in fat content led to increasing the hardness but the incorporation of inulin/β-
358
glucan mixture could diminish this effect by increasing fat and moisture retention without
359
revealing the undesirable effect on the sensory properties of the burgers. Thus, modification
360
of fatty acid profile and incorporation of inulin/β-glucan mixture to beef burger formulation
361
(l) could be a good strategy to reformulate traditional burgers to a healthier meat product.
RI PT
356
SC
362
Conflict of interest
364
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
365
Acknowledgment
366
The authors wish to thank National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute of
367
Iran (NNFTRI) for providing financial support for this project (Project code: P.25.47.3564).
(Grant #3240274290),
370
References
AC C
371
TE D
369
A. Mousavi Khaneghah likes to thank the support of CNPq-TWAS Postgraduate Fellowship
EP
368
M AN U
363
372
Afshari, R., Hosseini, H., Khaksar, R., Mohammadifar, M.A., Amiri, Z., Komeili, R.., &
373
Mousavi Khaneghah , A. (2015). Investigation of the effects of inulin and β-glucan on
374
the physical and sensory properties of low-fat beef burgers containing vegetable oils:
375
optimization of formulation using D-optimal mixture design. Food Technology and
376
Biotechnology, 53(4), 436 445.
-
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 377
Álvarez, D., & Barbut, S. (2013). Effect of inulin, β-Glucan and their mixtures on emulsion
378
stability, color and textural parameters of cooked meat batters. Meat Science, 94(3),
379
320 327.
383 384
385
RI PT
382
tenderness measurements of meat (Second edition). Chicago, IL, USA.
AOAC. (1995). Official methods of analysis (15th ed.). Washington, DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemist.
SC
381
AMSA, X. (2015). Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental
Bemiller, J.N. (2011). Pasting, paste, and gel properties of starch–hydrocolloid
-
combinations. Carbohydrate Polymer, 86(2), 386 423.
M AN U
380
-
386
Beriain, M .J., Gómez, I., Petri, E., Insausti, K., & Sarries, M. V. (2011). The effects of
387
olive oil emulsified alginate on the physico-chemical, sensory, microbial, and fatty acid
388
profiles of low-salt, inulin-enriched sausages. Meat Science, 88(1), 189 197.
TE D
-
389
Bloukas, J.G., Paneras, E.D., & Fournitzis, G.C. (1997). Effect of replacing pork backfat
390
with olive oil on processing and quality characteristics of fermented sausages. Meat
391
Science, 45(2), 133 144.
EP
-
-
Bourne, M.C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology, 32, 62 66.
393
Choi, Y.S., Choi, J. H., Han, D.J., Kim, H.Y., Lee, M.A., Kim, H.W., Lee, J.W., Chung,
394
H.J., & Kim, C.J. (2010). Optimization of replacing pork back fat with grape seed oil
395
and rice bran fiber for reduced-fat meat emulsion systems. Meat Science, 84(1), 212
396
218.
AC C
392
17
-
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 397
Delgado-Pando, G., Cofradess Ruiz-Capillas, C., Solas, M.T., Triki, M. & Jimenez-
398
Colmenero, F. (2011). Low-fat frankfurters formulated with a healthier lipid
399
combination as functional ingredient: Microstructure, lipid oxidation, nitrite content,
400
microbiological changes and biogenic amine formation. Meat Science, 89(1), 65 71.
401
García-García E, Totosaus A. (2008) Low-fat sodium-reduced sausages: eff ect of the
402
interaction between locust bean gum, potato starch and κ-carrageenan by a mixture
403
design approach. Meat Science, 78 (4),406–13.
SC
RI PT
-
Haghshenas, M., Hosseini, H., Nayebzadeh, K., Kakesh, B.S., Mahmouszadeh, M., &
405
Fonood R.K. (2015). Effect of beta glucan and carboxymethyl cellulose on lipid
406
oxidation and fatty acid composition of pre-cooked shrimp nugget during storage.
407
LWT-Food Science and Technology, 62, 1192 1197.
409
410
-
Khalil, A.H. (2000). Quality characteristics of low-fat beef patties formulated with modified
TE D
408
M AN U
404
-
corn starch and water. Food Chemistry, 68(1), 61 68. López-López, I., Cofrades, S., Cañeque, V., Diaz, M.T., López, O., Jiménez-Colmenero, F. (2011).
Effect of cooking on the chemical composition of low-salt, low-fat
412
Wakame/olive oil added beef patties with special reference to fatty acid content. Meat
413
Science, 89(1), 27 34.
AC C
EP
411
-
414
López-López, I., Cofrades, S., Yakan, A., Solas, M.T., & Jimenez-Colmenero, F. (2010).
415
Frozen storage characteristics of low-salt and low-fat beef patties as affected by
416
Wakame addition and replacing pork backfat with olive oil-in-water emulsion. Food
417
Research International, 43(5),1244 1254.
-
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 418
Lurueña-Martine, M.A., Vivar-Quintana, A.M., & Revilla, I. (2004). Effect of locust
419
bean/xanthan gum addition and replacement of pork fat with olive oil on the quality
420
characteristics of low-fat frankfurters. Meat Science, 68(3),383 389.
-
Martinez, B., Miranda, J.M.., Vázquez, B.I, Fente, C.A., Frenco, C.M., Rodriguez, J.L., &
422
Cepeda A. (2009). Development of a hamburger patty with healthier lipid formulation
423
and study of its nutritional, sensory, and stability properties. Food and Bioprocess
424
Technology 5(1): 1 9.
RI PT
421
SC
-
Mcafee, A. J., Mcsorley, E. M., Cuskelly, G. J., Moss, B. W., Wallace, J.M.W., Bonham,
426
M. P., & Fearon, A. M. (2010). Red meat consumption: An overview of the risks and
427
benefits. Meat Science, 84(1): 1 13.
-
M AN U
425
Mehta. N., Ahlawat, S.S., Sharma, D.P., & Dabur, R.S. (2015). Novel trends in
429
development of dietary fiber rich meat products—a critical review. Journal of Food
430
Science and Technology, 52(2), 633-647.
TE D
428
O’fallon, J., Busboom, J., Nelson, M., & Gaskinas, C. (2007). A direct method for fatty acid
432
methyl ester synthesis: application to wet meat tissues, oils, and feedstuffs. Journal of
433
Animal Science, 85(6),1511.
AC C
EP
431
434
Pinero, M., Parra, K., Huerta-Leiddenz, N., Arenas, D.E., Moreno, L., Ferrer, M., Areujo,
435
S., & Barboza, Y. (2008). Effect of oat's soluble fiber (β-glucan) as a fat replacer on
436
physical, chemical, microbiological and sensory properties of low-fat beef patties. Meat
437
Science, 80(3), 675 680.
-
438
Rather, S.A., Akhter, R., Masoodi, F., Gani ,A., & Wani, S. (2015). Utilization of apple
439
pomace powder as a fat replacer in goshtaba: a traditional meat product of Jammu and
440
Kashmir, India. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization, 9(3), 389-399 19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 441
Sanchez-Zapata, E., Munoz, C.M., Fuentes, E., Fernandez-Lopez , J., Sendra, E., Sayas, E.,
442
Navarro, C., & Perez-Alveraz, J.A. (2010). Effect of tiger nut fibre on quality
443
characteristics of pork burger. Meat Science, 85(1),70 6.
445
Simopoulos, A.P. (2002). The importance of the ratio of omega-6/omega-3 essential fatty
-
acids. Biomedecine & Pharmacotherapy, 56(8), 365 379.
RI PT
444
-
Troutt, E.S., Hunt, M.C., Johnson, D.E., Claus, J.R., Kastner, C.L., Kropf, D.HM, & Stroda, S.
447
(1992). Chemical, Physical, and Sensory Characterization of Ground Beef Containing 5 to 30
448
Percent Fat. Journal of Food Science ,57(1), 25 29.
450
M AN U
449
-
SC
446
Ulbricht, T.L.V., & Southgate, D.A.T. (1991). Coronary heart disease: seven dietary factors.
-
The Lancet, 338, 985 992.
Verma, A., & Banerjee, R. (2010). Dietary fibre as functional ingredient in meat products: a
452
novel approach for healthy living — a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology
453
,47(3),247 257.
-
TE D
451
Wood,J.D., Richardson, R.I., Nute, G.R., Fisher, A.V., Campo, M.M., Kasapidou, E.,
455
Sheard, P.R.. & Enser, M. (2004). Effects of fatty acids on meat quality: a review. Meat
456
Science , 66(1), 21-32
458
AC C
457
EP
454
Youssef, M. & Barbut, S. (2011). Fat reduction in comminuted meat products-effects of beef fat, regular and pre-emulsified canola oil. Meat Science, 87 (4), 356-360.
459 460
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Table 1. Fatty acid profile of vegetable oils employed in manufacturing of low-fat burgers (data expressed as percentage) Fatty acid
Canola
Olive
MyristicC14:0
0.05
0.02
Pentadecanoic C15:0
0.02
1
Palmitic C16:0
4.32
Heptadecanoic C17:0
0.05
Stearic C18:0
2.51
Oleic C18:1 cisn-9
64.10
Linoleic C18:2 cisn-6
17.27
RI PT 0.20
SC
3.90
67.44 12.10
0.01
0.01
1.40
0.03
4.50
0.95
0.82
0.60
1.50
0.04
Dihomolinoleic C20:3 n-6
0.07
ND
Arachidonic C20:4 n-6
1.96
ND
0.01
0.02
Docosohexaenoic C22:6 n-3
0.02
0.08
Behenic C22:0
0.50
0.20
ȣlinolenic C18:3 n-6 Linolenic C18:3 n-3 Arachidic C20:0
TE D
Gadoleic C20:1
AC C
EP
Eicosapentaenoic C20:5 n-3
1
12.72
M AN U
Linoleic C18:2 transn-6
ND
Not detected
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 2. Formulations (g/kg) of three different beef burgers Samples*
Ingredients / Formulation
LF
LF-IBG
Lean meat
480
480
480
Beef fat
114
-
-
o/SPI1
-
114
Breadcrumbs
80
80
Inulin
-
-
β-glucan
-
-
SC
RI PT
C
114 27
31
22
M AN U
The following ingredients were also added to each formulation: onion 300 g/kg; cinnamon0.5g/kg; black pepper 2g/kg; sodium chloride 12g/kg *
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
EP
TE D
52.6% oil (60% canola oil and 40% olive oil), 42.1% water and 5.3% soy protein isolate (SPI)
AC C
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Proximate analysis (%) and cooking characteristics (%) of burgers Samples* C
LF
LF-IBG
Protein
15.03±0.7a
15.32±0.4a
15.07±0.6a
Fat
11.5±0.9a
7.8±0.3c
Moisture
54.6±2.1b
57 ±1.07ab
Moisture retention
53.73±2.2b
57.35±1.8b
63.8±0.9a
Fat retention
68.11±1.02a
84.3±2.5a
91.7±1.2a
Cooking yield
66.38±0.68c
M AN U
SC
Cooking characteristics
RI PT
Proximate composition/Formulation
*
69.72 ± 0.78b
8.9±0.5b
60.04±1.00a
73.74±1.2a
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
AC C
EP
TE D
For sample denomination see Table 2. Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation. Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P<0.05).
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT LF-IBG 0.123±0.010a 0.120±0.020b 0.200±0.002a 1.12±0.004b 0.020±0.003b 0.400±0.004b 0.041±0.001a 1.721±0.010b 0.800±0.002b 3.900±0.040a 0.026±0.001a 0.200±0.010a 0.017±0.001b 4.200±0.030a 1.480±0.030a 0.0015±0.000b 0.010±0.0005a 0.460±0.003a 0.065±0.002a 1.810±0.003a 0.030±0.003a 1.050±0.100a 1.490±0.030a 0.460±0.003a 3.200±0.100b 0.49±0.040b 0.380±0.030b
*
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
Table 4. Principal fatty acid content (g/100 g burger) of burgers Fatty acid Samples* C LF Lauric acidC12:0 0.126±0. 01a 0.124±0.020a MyristicC14:0 0.360±0.002a 0.146±0.020b a PentadecanoicC15:0 0.270±0.001 0.270±0.001a a Palmitic C16:0 3.310±0.100 1.180±0.200b a Heptadecanoic C17:0 0.093±0.010 0.020±0.002b Stearic C18:0 1.760±0.020a 0.500±0.030b b Other SFA 0.010±0.0005 0.047±0.001a a ∑SFA 5.560±0.100 1.920±0.050b a Palmitoleic C16:1 n-7 0.500±0.030 0.100±0.002b a Oleic C18:1 cisn-9 4.480±0.200 4.870±0.300a a Oleic C18:1 transn-9 0.045±0.001 0.030±0.001a Vaccenic C18:1 n-11 0.005±0.001b 0.220±0.010a a Other MUFA 0.060±0.002 0.020±0.001b a ∑MUFA 5.100±0.200 5.220±0.300a c Linoleic C18:2 cisn-6 0.400±0.060 1.270±0.010b a Linoleic C18:2 transn-6 0.030±0.001 0.015±0.000a b ȣlinolenic C18:3 n-6 0.002±0.0001 0.020±0.001a Linolenic C18:3 n-3 0.050±0.002b 0.440±0.001a b Other PUFA 0.062±0.001 0.040±0.005a b ∑PUFA 0.480±0.060 1.770±0. 100a a TFA 0.075±0.040 0.045±0.003a b PUFA/SFA 0.085±0.007 0.920±0.150a c ∑n-6 0.450±0.060 1.330±0.010b ∑n-3 0.050±0.002b 0.440±0.001a a n-6/n-3 8.640±0.300 3.00±0. 200b a Atherogenic index 1.641±0.140 0.511±0.020b a Thrombogenic index 1.830±0.200 0.390±0.050b
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
AC C
EP
Data are expressed as mean±Standard deviation Different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P<0.05). Samples description is shown in Table 2. SFA: saturated fatty acid; MUFA: monounsaturated fatty acid; PUFA: polyunsaturated fatty acid TFA: trans fatty acid
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 5. Textural parameters of burgers Samples* C
LF
LF-IBG
Hardness (N)
17.5 ±0.7a
20±0.4b
8.7±1.1c
Cohesiveness
0.68±0.01a
0.66±0.01a
0.48±0.01b
Springiness (mm)
0.79±0.02a
0.78 ±0.01b
Chewiness (N mm)
9.4±0.0.6a
10. 4±0.8a
Gumminess (N)
11.9±0.7b
13.8±0.8b
RI PT
Properties/Formulation
*
0.62±0.02c 2.57±0.5b 4.35±0.9a
M AN U
Data are expressed as Means ± standard deviation.
SC
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
AC C
EP
TE D
Different letters in the same row indicate significant dif
M AN U
SC
RI PT
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
.
TE D
Figure 1. Results of sensorial properties of burgers
AC C
EP
C, control sample (11.4% beef fat); LF, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI; LF-IBG, low fat sample (7.5%) formulated with total beef fat replacement by O/SPI and containing 3.1% inulin and 2.2% β-glucan
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Functional and low fat burgers were designed and compared to traditional burgers in the local market
•
The addition of inulin-β-glucan mixture did not significantly affect the fatty acid profile of burgers
•
The ratio of PUFA/ and n-6/n-3 has been adjusted according to the recommended values by nutritionists
AC C
EP
TE D
M AN U
SC
RI PT
•