Replacing starch in beef emulsion models with β-glucan, microcrystalline cellulose, or a combination of β-glucan and microcrystalline cellulose

Meat Science 153 (2019) 58–65

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Replacing starch in beef emulsion models with β-glucan, microcrystalline cellulose, or a combination of β-glucan and microcrystalline cellulose

T

⁎

Sandra M. Vasquez Mejiaa,c, , Alicia de Franciscob, Benjamin M. Bohrerc a

Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Departamento de Producción Animal, Bogotá D.C 11001, Colombia Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina, Department of Food Science and Technology, Florianópolis, SC 88034-001, Brazil c University of Guelph, Department of Food Science, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Beef emulsions Dietary fiber β-Glucan Microcrystalline cellulose High fiber meat products

Barley sourced beta-glucan (βG), microcrystalline cellulose (MCC), or starch were added to beef emulsions containing beef, olive oil, salts, and water. Emulsions with inclusion levels of 1% of βG, MCC, or starch, 2% of βG, MCC, or starch, or 3% of βG, MCC, or starch, and a mixture of βG (1.5%) and MCC (1.5%) were evaluated for proximate composition, cooking loss, instrumental color, and texture profile analyses (TPA) in three independent replications. As expected, proximate composition differed based mainly on the hydrocolloid used and formulation. Cooking loss was not different among treatments. However, TPA differed with βG samples having lower (P < .05) values for hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, gumminess, and chewiness compared with MCC and starch samples, while samples prepared with MCC and starch presented similar TPA. Emulsions prepared with βG had greater (P < .05) b* values before cooking when compared with emulsions prepared with MCC and starch, but these differences were not observed in cooked emulsions.

1. Introduction A significant opportunity exists in the meat industry to reformulate existing products in order to enhance the healthiness of the product and improve consumer acceptability (Toldrá & Reig, 2011). In recent years, there has been heightened demand for meat products that contain lower fat and cholesterol content, lower sodium content, lower calories, and are able to include functional compounds that may elicit health benefits (de Dolores Romero Ávila, Isabel Cambero, Ordóñez, de la Hoz, & Herrero, 2014; Zhang, Xiao, Samaraweera, Lee, & Ahn, 2010). Thus, one area of research in food processing that has garnered significant attention is the incorporation of dietary fiber into common food products (Elleuch et al., 2011; Mehta, Ahlawat, Sharma, & Dabur, 2015; Yang, Ma, Wang, & Zheng, 2017). An emulsion is a stable dispersion formed by two immiscible liquids (i.e., one liquid dispersed into another through the creation of an interfacial region). In a meat emulsion, fat globules are dispersed and stabilized in an aqueous matrix, which is comprised of salt soluble myofibrillar proteins, muscle fiber segments, and other non-meat ingredients (Genccelep, Turker, Anil, & Agar, 2015; Mandigo & Sullivan, 2014; Olivo, 2006). Traditional ingredients used in meat emulsions are meat, salts (NaCl, phosphates, and nitrates), water, fat (animal or vegetable based), and binding agents (including starch, milk proteins,

⁎

vegetable proteins, gums, fiber, and other surfactants) (Choe et al., 2018; Eyiler Yilmaz, Vural, & Jafarzadeh Yadigari, 2017; Marchetti, Andrés, & Califano, 2013). One common ingredient used in the manufacture of meat emulsions is starch, which can improve functional properties and is generally regarded as an inexpensive ingredient. Starch can be used in its native or modified form, and alone or in combination with other hydrocolloids (Amini Sarteshnizi, Hosseini, Bondarianzadeh, Colmenero, & khaksar, 2015; Eyiler Yilmaz et al., 2017; García-García & Totosaus, 2008; Genccelep et al., 2015; Vasquez Mejia et al., 2018). Despite the low cost and high level of usefulness of starch as an ingredient in meat emulsions, the search for new ingredients that enhance nutritional value in meat emulsions remains a priority for the meat industry. One such way to enhance the nutritional value of meat emulsions is to replace starch with dietary fiber. Two sources of dietary fiber that can be used to replace starch in meat emulsions are β-glucans (βG) and microcrystalline cellulose (MCC). β-glucans are a source of soluble fiber mainly known for various health benefits when regularly consumed (3 g/day or 0.75 g/serving) (FDA, 1997). Studies have indicated that βG improved cooking yield of meat emulsions (Vasquez Mejia et al., 2018), increased moisture and fat retention in various meat products (Morin, Temelli, & McMullen, 2004; Piñero et al., 2008), and aided in the reduction of NaCl content of high

Corresponding author at: Departamento de Producción Animal, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogota D.C., Colombia. E-mail address: [email protected] (S.M. Vasquez Mejia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.03.012 Received 18 November 2018; Received in revised form 1 February 2019; Accepted 13 March 2019 Available online 14 March 2019 0309-1740/ © 2019 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Meat Science 153 (2019) 58–65

S.M. Vasquez Mejia, et al.

homogeneous mass was obtained. Throughout the emulsification process, the temperature of the meat mixture was below 10 °C, as ensured by monitoring the starting temperature of the meat and replacing half of the water with ice. Finally, each sample was divided into three subsamples, one sub-sample consisting of approximately 250 ± 5 g for TPA analysis, one sub-sample consisting of 100 ± 5 g for evaluation of cooking loss and proximal composition, and the remaining sub-sample for color evaluation. Each sub-sample was stuffed in polyethylene bags, vacuum packaged, and stored under refrigeration at 4 ± 0.5 °C until future analysis.

pressure processed chicken breast (Omana, Plastow, & Betti, 2011). The maximum inclusion level of βG that has been previously tested without detrimentally affecting color and textural properties of meat emulsions is 3% (Vasquez Mejia et al., 2018). Microcrystalline cellulose is a source of insoluble fiber that offers excellent rheological and mechanical properties (Gibis, Schuh, & Weiss, 2015; Schuh et al., 2013). Microcrystalline cellulose has been recommended to be used in development of new functional foods and nutraceuticals (Nsor-Atindana et al., 2017). The maximum inclusion level of MCC that has been previously tested without detrimentally affecting color and textural properties is 2% in meat emulsions (Schuh et al., 2013), and 3% in fried beef patties (Gibis et al., 2015). No previous study has evaluated the incorporation of a combination of soluble fiber (βG) and insoluble fiber (MCC) as a replacement to starch in meat emulsions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of the incorporation of soluble fiber (βG), insoluble fiber (MCC), and a mixture of βG and MCC as a replacement to starch on the composition, cooking loss, textural properties, and color of beef emulsions.

2.3. Cooking loss Cooking loss was performed following the methodology described by Álvarez and Barbut (2013) with modifications. Three 30 ± 0.5 g raw samples for each treatment were stuffed into 50 ml polypropylene tubes and centrifuged (Thermo Fisher Scientific Heraeus Multifuge X1R, Germany) at 1000g/40s to remove any remaining air bubbles. The tubes containing the samples were heated at 50 °C in a water-bath (VWR, type 89,032, Radnor, Pennsylvania, USA). Then, when the samples reached the internal temperature of 50 °C, the temperature of the water bath was increased to 80 °C and the samples were cooked until reaching an internal temperature of 72 °C. The internal temperature of the samples was measured with a thermocouple (Fisher Scientific, Traceable, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) that was inserted inside of one sample. The test tubes were cooled in a cold-water bath for 5 min and inverted for 14 h to release the exudate. Then, the tubes were weighed again with results expressed as the ratio between final weight and raw batter weight.

2. Materials and methods 2.1. Materials Commercially sourced beef inside rounds (semimembranosus muscle) were diced with a knife into 2.54 cm cubes, mixed, and then coarse ground (8 mm) using an industrial meat grinder/mixer (Master 90 Y12, Sirman, Marsango, Italy). One-kg samples were then vacuum packaged and stored at −20 °C until further use. Salts (sodium chloride and sodium tri-polyphosphate) were sourced from a commercial ingredient supplier (Herman Laue Spice Company Inc.; Uxbridge, Ontario, Canada). Tapioca Starch (moisture 9.67%; total starch 79.04%, protein 0.19%; lipids 0.11% and ash 0.09%; Bulk Barn, Aurora, Ontario, Canada) and olive oil (Kirkland Signature, Costco Wholesale, Issaquah, Washington, USA) were sourced from local commercial vendors. βglucan (βG) (CERABeta®; moisture 7.76%; β-glucan soluble fiber > 23%, other dietary fibers > 18%, total starch 33.73%, protein 9.29%; lipids 1.15% and ash 1.2%) was supplied by GrainFrac (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada). High purity cotton linter micro-crystalline cellulose (MCC) (moisture 3.64%; insoluble fiber > 95%, total starch 0.04%, protein 0.78%; lipids 0.03% and ash < 0.02%) was purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St, Louis, Missouri, USA).

2.4. Proximate composition Moisture content was determined using specific methodology to avoid decomposition of starch and fiber components in the meat emulsions. Samples (5 g) were air dried at 75 °C until samples maintained a constant weight (approximately 16 h) using a forced-air convection drying oven (Fisherbrand Isotemp 180 L drying oven; Thermo Fisher Scientific, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada). Lipid and protein content was measured using previously reported methods (Sivendiran, Wang, Huang, & Bohrer, 2017). Lipid content was determined by AOAC method 991.36 (AOAC, 2016a), which was performed with Soxhlet extraction using a programmable heating mantle (Glas Col Combo Mantle, Terre Haute, Indiana, USA) equipped with Pyrex glassware (World Kitchen LLC, Rosemont, Illinois, USA) with petroleum ether as the extraction solvent. Protein content was determined with the Dumas method using a LECO FP-528 protein /nitrogen analyzer (LECO Corp., Mississauga, Ontario, Canada), and 6.25 as the conversion factor (AOAC method 990.03 (AOAC, 2016b)). Ash was determined by AOAC method 920.153 (AOAC, 2016c), where samples were placed in a muffle furnace (Fisher Scientific Isotemp Muffle Furnace, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) at 525 °C for at least 16 h. The assay kit (which contains the enzymes and reagents) used for determination of total dietary fiber, β-glucan and starch were supplied by Megazyme (Wicklow, Ireland). Total dietary fiber (included insoluble dietary fiber and soluble fiber) was determined by AOAC method 991.43 (AOAC, 2005). Insoluble fiber was filtered following treating the samples with heat stable α-amylase, protease, and amyloglucosidase. Soluble fiber was then precipitated with 95% ethanol and filtered. Both residues (insoluble fiber and soluble fiber) were washed with 78% ethanol, 95% ethanol, and acetone, and then dried, weighed, and corrected by protein and ash content. βglucan content was determined using AOAC method 995.16 (AOAC, 2005), where samples were washed twice with 50% ethanol, suspended in sodium phosphate buffer (20 mM, pH 6.5), incubated with lichenase, and filtered. Then an aliquot of the filtrate was hydrolysed with βglucosidase and the glucose produced was evaluated in a colorimetric reaction using a glucose oxidase/peroxidase reagent read at 510 nm.

2.2. Preparation of emulsions Prior to preparation of the emulsions, the ground beef samples were thawed in refrigeration (4 ± 1 °C) for at least 16 h. Beef emulsions were prepared following the methodology proposed by Vasquez Mejia et al. (2018) with modifications in formulations and quantity. Ten 500g base emulsions (without artificial food dyes, preservatives, spices, and seasonings) containing beef (according to the level of fiber or starch incorporated), water (22.14%), olive oil (15%), and salts (2.36%) were manufactured with three independent replications. Starch, βG, and MCC were included independently at inclusion levels of 1%, 2%, and 3%; and an additional treatment was formulated to include 1.5% βG and 1.5% MCC (βG + MCC) (Table 1). Samples containing starch at the three inclusion levels (1%, 2%, and 3%) were considered as control samples. Emulsions were thoroughly mixed in a food homogenizer (Ninja®BL780C, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada). The first step of the emulsion preparation was mixing the beef, salts (NaCl and tri-polyphosphate), and 50% of the water (ice) for approximately 30 s (until solubilization of the meat proteins). The next step was the addition of the oil followed by 20 s of mixing. Then, the corresponding fiber or starch level for the respective treatment was added to the mixed emulsion. This step was immediately followed with the addition of the remaining 50% of the water, and then 30 s of mixing until a 59

Meat Science 153 (2019) 58–65

S.M. Vasquez Mejia, et al.

Table 1 Formulation of meat emulsions prepared with different sources of hydrocolloid ingredients. Hydrocolloid type β-Glucan (βG)

Starch

Beef, % Water, % Olive oil, % Salts1, % Starch2, % βG3, % MCC4, % 1 2 3 4

βG + MCC

Microcrystalline cellulose (MCC)

1%

2%

3%

1%

2%

3%

1%

2%

3%

53.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 1.00 – –

52.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 2.00 – –

51.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 3.00 – –

53.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 – 1.00 –

52.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 – 2.00 –

51.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 – 3.00 –

53.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 – – 1.00

52.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 – – 2.00

51.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 – – 3.00

51.50 28.14 15.00 2.36 – 1.5 1.5

Salts included were NaCl at 2.012% and phosphate at 0.35%. The starch that was used was commercial tapioca starch, which was tested to be 79.04% starch purity. Barley β-glucan concentrate (> 23% β-glucan on a dry weight basis with high viscosity; GrainFrac, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada). High purity cotton linter microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) powder (Sigma Aldrich, St, Louis, Missouri, USA).

analyses were performed with SAS (SAS 9.4, SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Homogeneity of variances were tested with Levene and Brown-Forsythe tests in the case of non-normal data with PROC GLM of SAS. Normality of the residuals was tested using PROC UNIVARIATE of SAS, and consideration was given to the Shapiro-Wilks test for normality and a normal probability plot. Once it was determined that the assumptions of ANOVA were met for these data, the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS with a fixed effect of treatment and a random effect of replication was used for statistical determination of all variables. Least square means were separated using the PDIFF option with a Tukey-Kramer adjustment. Least squares means were further separated using 3 single degree of freedom estimate statements to determine the difference between meaningful comparisons, which included: 1) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), 2) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), and 3) βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion). Differences were considered statistically different at P < .05.

Total starch was determined using AOAC method 996.11 (AOAC, 2005), where samples were treated with α-amylase and amyloglucosidase enzymes until complete hydrolysis of the starch to glucose, which was quantitatively measured in a colorimetric reaction employing glucose oxidase/peroxidase reagent read at 510 nm. Reported values were the mean of three replicates and the results were expressed in grams per 100 g of sample. 2.5. Texture profile analysis (TPA) Textural properties of samples cooked in same conditions that those explained in the cooking loss section (2.3 section) were evaluated by compression tests using a texture analyzer (TA.XT2; Texture Technologies Corp., Scarsdale, New York, USA) with a load cell of 30 kg, following the methodology described by Álvarez and Barbut (2013). Prior to analysis, the cooked emulsion was tempered to room temperature, was cut in cylindrical cores (10 mm length × 20 mm diameter) and subsequently the sub-samples were compressed twice at 75% of their original height using a cylindrical aluminum probe at a speed of 1.5 mm/s. The measurements took place the day after the preparation of the samples. For each replication, 5 cylindrical cores were obtained from each experimental unit. Parameters evaluated were hardness (N), adhesiveness (g/s), cohesiveness, springiness (mm), gumminess (N) and chewiness (N.mm).

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Proximal composition, dietary fiber content, and determination of βglucans Moisture and protein content were affected by treatment (P < .01), while lipid and ash content were not affected by treatment (P ≥ .29; Table 2). Moisture content was less (P < .001) in emulsions prepared with MCC when compared with emulsions prepared with starch or βG. Protein content was greater (P < .0001) in emulsions prepared with MCC when compared with emulsions prepared with starch or βG. Moisture content was greater (P < .05) in emulsions prepared with βG + MCC compared with emulsions prepared only with MCC at 3% and were not different (P > .05) compared with any other treatment. Protein content was less (P < .05) in emulsions prepared with βG + MCC compared with emulsions prepared only with MCC at all inclusion levels and starch at 1% and βG at 1%. Overall, both hydrocolloid type and inclusion level affected water retention levels during processing, which inherently affected protein content. However, all the emulsions evaluated in this study were in accordance with protein level requirements for emulsified meat products (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2018). Despite having the same comparison standards (i.e. the same hydrocolloid levels) in the control treatment, it is possible that the original formulation (amount of meat protein replaced by hydrocolloid) and the moisture/protein ratio in the final product have to some point, influenced the results of the centesimal composition in this study. As expected, starch content, total dietary fiber content, insoluble fiber, and soluble fiber content differed (P < .0001) among treatments. Emulsions prepared with MCC did not contain substantial levels of

2.6. Color measurement Instrumental color was performed by taking a direct reading of the samples using a Chroma Meter CR-400 colorimeter with 8 mm aperture diameter, 10° viewing angle and D65 illuminator (Konica Minolta, Osaka Japan). The CIE-L*, a*, b* parameters were evaluated according to methodology proposed by American Meat Science Association (AMSA, 2012). For the color analysis in raw emulsions, subsamples were placed on a petri dish (slices) immediately after preparation and the reading was made at room temperature directly on the raw material taking five readings in different areas of the subsample. For the analysis of color in cooked samples, the samples were cooked in the same conditions explained in the cooking loss procedure (section 2.3). Then, the cooked samples were placed in petri dishes at room temperature for direct reading with the colorimeter. The average of five color measurement readings for each sample was reported. 2.7. Statistical analysis This experiment was completed in its entirety three times on three separate, independent occasions (n = 30 samples). All statistical 60

Meat Science 153 (2019) 58–65

Means within a row for experimental treatments without a common superscript differ (P ≤ .05). The maximum standard error of the mean (SEM) was reported. 1 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of commercial tapioca starch (79.04% purity). 2 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of barley β-glucan concentrate (> 23% β-glucan on a dry weight basis with high viscosity; GrainFrac, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada). 3 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of high purity cotton linter microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) powder (Sigma Aldrich, St, Louis, Missouri, USA). 4 Samples with a mixture of 1.5% β-glucan and 1.5% MCC. 5 P-values are presented for the overall treatment effect (TRT), and single-degree of freedom estimates for the following comparisons: 1) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), 2) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), and 3) βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion).

< 0.0001 0.21 < 0.0001 0.47 < 0.0001 < 0.01 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 – < 0.001 0.68 < 0.0001 0.93 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.75 – 0.78 0.10 0.80 0.42 < 0.0001 < 0.001 0.02 < 0.0001 – < 0.01 0.29 < 0.0001 0.35 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 3 67.74a 13.53 11.59d 2.73 0.57ed 3.03ab 2.59ab 0.44abcd 0.36bc 3 64.84b 14.57 12.40bc 2.63 0.17f 3.41a 3.32a 0.08cd – 3 65.70ab 14.91 12.62ab 2.63 0.17f 2.54ac 2.41ab 0.13bcd – 3 66.04ab 14.84 13.12a 2.61 0.18f 2.11abcd 1.96abc 0.15bcd – 3 67.27ab 13.68 11.87cd 2.80 1.12c 2.52ac 1.66bcd 0.86a 0.77a 3 68.41a 13.62 11.81cd 2.79 0.73d 1.75abcd 1.19bcd 0.56ab 0.53b 3 67.74a 14.24 12.49abc 2.48 0.44e 1.66bcd 1.12bcd 0.54abc 0.25c 3 67.90a 16.96 11.46d 2.57 2.75a 0.47d 0.41d 0.05d – 3 67.76a 14.02 12.04bcd 2.52 1.78b 0.88cd 0.77cd 0.11bcd – 3 67.39ab 14.25 12.60ab 2.76 1.06c 1.12cd 0.85cd 0.27bcd – Samples, n Moisture, % Lipid, % Protein, % Ash, % Starch (%) Total dietary fiber, % Insoluble fiber, % Soluble fiber, % β-Glucan, %

3% 2% 1% 1% 2%

3% 1%

2%

3%

MCC3 βG2 Starch1

Hydrocolloid type

Table 2 Proximal composition and dietary fiber content of cooked meat emulsions prepared with different sources of hydrocolloids.

βG+ MCC4

0.58 0.88 0.14 0.10 0.04 0.34 0.30 0.09 0.04

SEM

TRT

P-values5

Starch vs. βG

Starch vs. MCC

βG vs. MCC

S.M. Vasquez Mejia, et al.

starch content, while levels of starch content in emulsions prepared with βG ranged between 0.44 and 1.12% of starch, because of the presence of starch in the β-glucan ingredient used (not high purity). In all cases, the amount of total dietary fiber was greater than expected, even emulsions prepared with starch had moderate levels of total dietary fiber (ranging from 0.47% to 1.12%). It was possible that other compounds in the ingredients used affected these results due to low levels of purity. In emulsions prepared with starch and βG (containing 23% β-glucan and > 30% starch) it was possible that some fragments of starch were crystallized and retrograded during processing of emulsions (cooked and cooled) resulting in fragments of resistant starch (RS) that could be interpreted as total dietary fiber with the assay used. According to Villanueva, Ronda, Moschakis, Lazaridou, and Biliaderis (2018), during thermal processing starchy foods are subjected to large deformations that may cause either irreversible deformation or structural failure due to fracture. Specifically, tapioca starches have notably greater amylose content which makes this starch susceptible to easily undergo retrogradation processes. In the same way, Pereira Buzati and Magali (2014), indicated that structural factors, such as the presence of water and the chemical structure of starch, could influence the amount of resistant starch present in foods. The formation of type 3 resistant starch has been considered as a result of food processing that can affect the content of resistant starch in foods. This formation of resistant starch could be caused by the amylose content, temperature, physical form, degree of gelatinization, cooling, and storage factors. Resistant starch content can be changed by simple processing techniques, influencing the digestion rate and expected amount of this component. Nevertheless, it was possible that total dietary fiber and insoluble fiber results determined by the 991.43 AOAC method (enzymatic-gravimetric) were overestimated despite that the samples in this study were degreased before performing the fiber analysis. This could have occurred because the emulsion samples had high protein content, which could have restricted enzymatic activity. Although, the method was developed for foods in a general way, it was possible that the characteristics of each food presents variations in the enzymatic action and finally in the fiber content expressed. High protein foods may require higher enzyme concentrations to degrade all the protein in the sample before the filtering process used to obtain only the dietary fiber. Likewise, high levels of lipids can prevent the action of α-amylase and amyloglucosidase (enzymes used to degrade the starch in the sample), which would lead to higher residue values obtained after filtering. In this regard, McCleary, Sloane, Draga, and Lazewska (2013) indicated that with measurement of dietary fiber, enzymes must have the required activity and purity so that non-fiber components could be successfully removed. High protein content of residues can increase errors in determination when low levels of protease activity had limited the hydrolysis of protein. The authors indicated that, with high-starchcontaining samples, some branched maltodextrins resisted hydrolysis, and therefore these fragments must be removed to avoid overestimation of the fiber content. Additionally, intrinsic factors of starchy foods (such as formation of amylose-lipid complexes, the presence of native αamylase inhibitors, and non-starch polysaccharides) can affect α-amylase activity and therefore starch breakdown (Pereira Buzati & Magali, 2014). Future research with detailed evaluation of the quantity, optimum concentration of enzymes, and enzymatic action times are recommended for the evaluation of total fiber, insoluble fiber and soluble fiber content in meat emulsions with similar characteristics to those used in this study. Finally, in this study β-glucan content after processing (cooking and freeze drying) was 0.25%, 0.53%, and 0.77% for emulsions prepared with 1%, 2%, and 3% βG inclusion level, respectively. β-glucan content was 0.36% for emulsions prepared with βG + MCC. As expected, the observed content of β-glucans was greater according to the quantity of βG added. Emulsions prepared with 3% βG had β-glucan levels great enough to reach the recommended daily intake of this compound (0.75 g/serving) (FDA, 1997).The amount of β-glucans determined by 61

Meat Science 153 (2019) 58–65

Means within a row for experimental treatments without a common superscript differ (P ≤ .05). The maximum standard error of the mean (SEM) was reported. 1 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of commercial tapioca starch (79.04% purity). 2 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of barley β-glucan concentrate (> 23% β-glucan on a dry weight basis with high viscosity; GrainFrac, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada). 3 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of high purity cotton linter microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) powder (Sigma Aldrich, St, Louis, Missouri, USA). 4 Samples with a mixture of 1.5% β-glucan and 1.5% MCC. 5 P-values are presented for the overall treatment effect (TRT), and single-degree of freedom estimates for the following comparisons: 1) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), 2) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), and 3) βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion).

0.22 < 0.001 0.59 < 0.001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.23 0.10 0.12 0.37 0.67 0.58 0.99 0.02 0.04 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.29 0.03 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 < 0.01 3 1.50 -0.13ab 0.87ab 0.35ab 22.50abc 19.58abcd 3 1.65 -0.11b 0.88ab 0.35ab 23.89abc 20.76abcd 3 1.64 -0.12ab 0.87ab 0.39a 29.78a 25.70abcd Samples, n Cooking loss (%) Adhesiveness (g.sec) Springiness (mm) Cohesiveness Gumminess (N) Chewiness (N.mm)

3 1.67 −0.13ab 0.89a 0.37ab 25.45abc 22.48abc

3 1.39 −0.17ab 0.88ab 0.38a 27.76ab 24.18ab

3 1.41 −0.15ab 0.88a 0.39a 25.93ab 22.70abc

3 1.61 −0.18ab 0.89a 0.30ab 13.58bc 12.09cd

3 1.49 −0.18ab 0.88ab 0.26b 11.47c 10.04d

3 1.37 -0.23b 0.83b 0.31ab 15.75abc 13.18bcd

2% 1% 1% 2%

3% 1%

2%

3%

MCC3 βG2 Starch1

Hydrocolloid type

Table 3 Texture profile analysis (TPA) and cooking loss of meat emulsions prepared with different sources of hydrocolloids.

3%

3 1.42 -0.19ab 0.90a 0.31ab 16.38abc 14.76bcd

βG+ MCC4

0.12 0.03 0.01 0.03 5.12 4.34

SEM

TRT

P-values5

Starch vs. βG

Starch vs. MCC

βG vs. MCC

S.M. Vasquez Mejia, et al.

the AOAC method 995.16 were within the same range as the amount of soluble fiber obtained by the AOAC method 991.43. 3.2. Cooking loss There was not a treatment effect (P = .31) for cooking loss, and all treatments had cooking loss values of < 1.7%, which indicated the high water holding capacity of all the hydrocolloid ingredients used in this study (Table 3). These values were similar to those of previous studies, which reported cooking loss of 1.18 ± 0.06% in beef emulsions made with a combination of βG and starch (Vasquez Mejia et al., 2018). According to Hayes, Stepanyan, Allen, O'Grady, and Kerry (2011), cooking loss indicated the ability of emulsified meat systems to bind water and fat after denaturation and protein aggregation caused during the cooking process. Hydrocolloids have polar groups with water binding sites that attract the surrounding water. For this reason, hydrocolloids have been used in meat emulsion products as thickeners, gelling agents, emulsifiers, stabilizers, fat replacers, and clarifying flocculating agents (Li & Nie, 2016). The mechanism of action for the retention of moisture of the βglucan ingredient is the presence of hydrophilic groups that allow for the absorption of water molecules (intermolecular bonds and hydrogen bonds). El Khoury, Cuda, Luhovyy, and Anderson (2012) reported the conformation of the β-glucan molecule allowed high interaction and association between their structural chains and water molecules. On the other hand, crystals of MCC can stabilize emulsions due to the presence of the free hydroxyl groups on the structural surface acting as hydrophilic points, while the crystalline portion of the structure functions as the hydrophobic edge, giving an overall amphiphilic character (NsorAtindana et al., 2017). Finally, it was previously reported in emulsions that gelatinized starch absorbs more water and acts to fill interstitial spaces in the muscle-protein gel matrix, thus increasing water binding (García-García & Totosaus, 2008). 3.3. Texture profile analysis (TPA) All TPA parameters measured (hardness, adhesiveness, springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess, and chewiness) differed (P < .05) among treatments. Comparisons between hydrocolloid type averaged among the three inclusion levels established there was less hardness, less adhesiveness, less cohesiveness, less gumminess, and less chewiness (P < .05) in emulsions prepared with βG when compared with emulsions prepared with starch or MCC, while hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, gumminess, and chewiness was not different (P ≥ .10) between emulsions prepared with starch or MCC. There was less (P < .05) springiness in emulsions prepared with βG at 3% compared with βG at 1% and starch at all inclusion levels. Emulsions prepared with βG + MCC had an intermediate value of hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness, and had only a greater (P = .01) springiness value compared with βG at 3%. Textural attributes observed in this study may have been attributed to the gelling properties of the hydrocolloids used. Hardness generally is greater when fiber is included in a meat emulsion, because of the immobilization of water, and fat becoming trapped in the fiber network. The amount of water and fat used in the formulation must be sufficient to allow reactions with the hydrocolloids, and there must be enough free water to be available to react with the meat proteins during the emulsification process. These interactions between water, meat proteins, and hydrocolloids have a direct influence on hardness and elasticity of the emulsion system. Hardness values ranging from 50.86 to 83.00 N were reported in meat model systems testing the inclusion of amorphous cellulose fiber (Schmiele, Nucci Mascarenhas, da Silva Barretto, & Rodrigues Pollonio, 2015). Hardness values near 50 N were reported in frankfurter sausages formulated with pork lard in a study that evaluated TPA with similar techniques as the present study (Kouzounis, Lazaridou, & Katsanidis, 62

Meat Science 153 (2019) 58–65

S.M. Vasquez Mejia, et al.

Table 4 Color of raw emulsions prepared with different sources of hydrocolloids. Hydrocolloid type

SEM βG2

Starch1

Samples, n L* a* b* Hue Chroma

P-values5

βG+ MCC4

MCC3

1%

2%

3%

1%

2%

3%

1%

2%

3%

3 69.14 8.49 13.73bc 1.02 16.16

3 69.59 8.45 13.57c 1.02 16.00

3 70.38 8.40 13.71bc 1.02 16.09

3 69.32 8.74 14.03ab 1.01 16.54

3 69.44 8.70 14.05ab 1.02 16.55

3 68.73 8.75 14.22a 1.02 16.73

3 68.89 8.88 13.86abc 1.00 16.49

3 69.64 8.55 13.79bc 1.02 16.25

3 70.97 8.16 13.73bc 1.04 16.00

3 70.24 8.66 13.88abc 1.01 16.36

0.52 0.63 0.19 0.35 0.03

TRT

Starch vs. βG

Starch vs. MCC

βG vs. MCC

0.05 0.94 < 0.001 0.98 0.24

0.16 0.34 < 0.001 0.99 0.01

0.72 0.78 0.07 0.97 0.38

0.09 0.50 < 0.001 0.96 0.05

Means within a row for experimental treatments without a common superscript differ (P ≤ .05). The maximum standard error of the mean (SEM) was reported. 1 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of commercial tapioca starch (79.04% purity). 2 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of barley β-glucan concentrate (> 23% β-glucan on a dry weight basis with high viscosity; GrainFrac, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada). 3 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of high purity cotton linter microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) powder (Sigma Aldrich, St, Louis, Missouri, USA). 4 Samples with a mixture of 1.5% β-glucan and 1.5% MCC. 5 P-values are presented for the overall treatment effect (TRT), and single-degree of freedom estimates for the following comparisons: 1) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), 2) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), and 3) βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion). Table 5 Color of cooked emulsions prepared with different sources of hydrocolloids. Hydrocolloid type

SEM βG2

Starch1

Samples, n L* a* b* Hue Chroma

1%

2%

3%

3 69.17bc 5.77 10.95 1.08 12.39

3 69.53bc 5.90 11.06 1.08 12.54

3 69.75 5.91 11.23 1.08 12.69

abc

P-values5

βG+ MCC4

MCC3

1%

2%

3%

1%

2%

3%

3 69.34c 6.05 10.98 1.07 12.54

3 68.47c 5.97 11.31 1.08 12.80

3 68.28c 5.87 11.38 1.09 12.82

3 70.04abc 5.79 11.13 1.09 12.55

3 70.55ab 5.65 11.02 1.09 12.39

3 71.65a 5.61 11.14 1.10 12.47

3 69.73 5.55 11.43 1.12 12.71

abc

0.73 0.22 0.85 0.02 0.84

TRT

Starch vs. βG

Starch vs. MCC

βG vs. MCC

< 0.001 0.18 0.36 0.29 0.22

0.02 0.32 0.27 0.83 0.10

< 0.01 0.11 0.91 0.20 0.53

< 0.0001 0.02 0.32 0.14 0.03

Means within a row for experimental treatments without a common superscript differ (P ≤ .05). The maximum standard error of the mean (SEM) was reported. 1 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of commercial tapioca starch (79.04% purity). 2 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of barley β-glucan concentrate (> 23% β-glucan on a dry weight basis with high viscosity; GrainFrac, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada). 3 Samples with 1%, 2%, or 3% of high purity cotton linter microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) powder (Sigma Aldrich, St, Louis, Missouri, USA). 4 Samples with a mixture of 1.5% β-glucan and 1.5% MCC. 5 P-values are presented for the overall treatment effect (TRT), and single-degree of freedom estimates for the following comparisons: 1) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), 2) Starch (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion), and 3) βG (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion) vs. MCC (1%, 2%, and 3% inclusion).

glucan level was increased, more water was likely trapped, and the springiness of the product was decreased because of the low amount of free water and fat in the system to react with the proteins and maintain elasticity. Emulsions prepared with βG + MCC had intermediate texture values when compared with the other treatments. Additionally, the combination of soluble and insoluble fiber (βG and MCC) in proportions of 1.5% yielded emulsions with low cooking loss, without affecting the texture parameters. However, because the β-glucan ingredient used in this study did not have high purity, there is a possibility that the other components within this ingredient (protein, insoluble fiber and starch) could influence the observed results. According to Limberger-Bayer et al. (2014) and Ahmad, Anjum, Zahoor, Nawaz, and Ahmed (2010), the presence of other non-fibrous components was an important factor in the change of rheological behavior and other properties of β-glucan concentrates. The results in this study suggest that the fibers used did not affect the formation of the interstitial film during the emulsification process. The observed low cooking loss levels and appropriate texture properties indicated that the proteins were solubilized with the salts in adequate proportion in order to obtain a stable gel that could bind and retain

2017). According to Álvarez and Barbut (2013), β-glucan was a useful ingredient in manufacturing a low fat sausage with softer texture, as fat reduction by itself caused greater firmness. The authors indicated that treatment with β-glucan presented high adhesiveness, which was characterized as an undesirable behavior because it was difficult to manage the sliced product flow, due to high stickiness. It was expected that when the inclusion level of MCC increased, the rigidity of the gel structure was increased, which led to the formation of a stiffer and stronger gel. Addition of MCC in foods should be advantageous if MCC is involved in the immobilization of water within the structure and has the ability to reduce or retard ice crystal growth during freezing. This would be especially true during periods of temperature fluctuation and would aid in the prevention of structural damage of foods caused by a dynamic environment (Xiang, Mohammed, & Samsu Baharuddin, 2016). In previous studies, high inclusion of starch mixed with kappacarrageenan and locust bean gum increased the firmness of formulated low-fat beef and pork sausages (García-García & Totosaus, 2008). On the other hand, treatment with the high inclusion level of β-glucan (βG 3%) in this study exhibited the least springiness (P < .05). As the β63

Meat Science 153 (2019) 58–65

S.M. Vasquez Mejia, et al.

fiber intake recommended. On the other hand, 100 g of emulsions prepared with βG at 3% could meet the recommendations for consumption of barley β-glucan in one serving (0.75 g/serving) and consumption of 100 g of emulsions with MCC at 2% and at 3% could supply approximately 2% to 3% of the daily insoluble fiber intake, respectively.

moisture and fats. The formation and characteristics of the interfacial protein film plays an important role in the stabilization of the emulsion. According to Mandigo and Sullivan (2014), protein-protein interaction is indispensable for the formation of the soluble protein network and the hydrophobicity of the protein in emulsions. A high ionic force contributes to the formation of the interfacial film that encapsulates the fat globules. A suitable amount of emulsifying agents, the small size of the fat particles, and distribution of fat particles are all important factors regarding the stability of emulsions.

4. Conclusions The purpose of this study was to test the technological properties of beef emulsions when replacing starch with healthier ingredients, in this case, ingredients with higher levels of dietary fiber. The following were the key findings from this research: 1) Cooking loss was generally not different among treatments; however, TPA differed with βG samples having lower (P < .05) values for hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, gumminess, and chewiness compared with MCC and starch samples, while beef emulsions prepared with MCC and starch presented similar TPA, 2) Beef emulsions prepared with βG had greater (P < .05) b* values before cooking when compared with beef emulsions prepared with MCC and starch, but these differences were not observed in cooked beef emulsions, 3) Starch can be replaced in emulsions with MCC to yield emulsions with less calories and greater insoluble fiber content, and 4) The combination of βG (1.5%) and MCC (1.5%) resulted in emulsions with appropriate technological properties and the consumption of 100 g of these emulsions could supply approximately 3% of the daily total fiber intake. Future research work is warranted to test the sensory attributes of high fiber beef emulsions to determine consumer eating satisfaction and acceptance.

3.4. Color measurement Instrumental color parameters (L*, a*, b*, hue, and chroma) of raw and cooked emulsions are presented in the Tables 4 and Table 5, respectively. In raw emulsions, there was a treatment effect (P < .05) for L* and b*. Comparisons between hydrocolloid type averaged among the three inclusion levels established there was greater (P ≤ .05) raw b* values in emulsions prepared with βG when compared with emulsions prepared with starch or MCC. In cooked emulsions, there was a treatment effect (P < .001) for L*. Comparisons between hydrocolloid type averaged among the three inclusion levels established there was greater (P ≤ .05) cooked L* values in emulsions prepared with MCC when compared with emulsions prepared with starch or βG. This result reflects the white color and high purity of MCC used that gives greater brightness in the samples. Emulsions prepared with βG + MCC had an intermediate cooked L* value when compared with other treatments, as a result of the combination of the two ingredients. 3.5. Evaluation of emulsions from a nutritional point of view

Conflict of interest Overall, the results of this study indicated that the emulsions functionality was similar among the hydrocolloid ingredients used in this study. Therefore, it is plausible to imply that starch in beef emulsions can be effectively replaced with soluble fiber (βG), insoluble fiber (MCC), or a combination of the two (βG + MCC) without negatively affecting technological properties. This is a positive facet in the development of healthy meat products since the consumption of dietary fiber can improve the healthiness of meat products. Microcrystalline cellulose is widely accepted as a good source of insoluble dietary fiber and is recognized for its role in physiological function of the gastrointestinal tract and its nutrient dilution effect (Nsor-Atindana et al., 2017). The insoluble fraction of dietary fiber has been related to intestinal regulation and has been associated with potential health benefits such as reduction of the risk of colon cancer (Brownlee, 2014). Meanwhile, dietary consumption of β-glucan has potential in the prevention and treatment of chronic diseases by lowering blood cholesterol and maintaining glucose homeostasis in patients with type II diabetes (Foschia, Peressini, Sensidoni, Brennan, & Brennan, 2015; Gamel, Abdel-Aal, Ames, Duss, & Tosh, 2014; Wang et al., 2014). β-glucans are potentially available to function during digestion forming viscous solutions in the intestine, which would increase stool volume, and prevent accelerated absorption of glucose and lipids (El Khoury et al., 2012). According to nutritional recommendations, the average daily requirement for dietary fiber is: 25 g/day for women under 50 years old; 21 g/day for women over 50 years; 38 g/day for men aged < 50 years old and 30 g/day for men over 50 years (Elleuch et al., 2011; Li & Uppal, 2010). On the other hand, the recommendations for consumption of oat and barley β-glucans are 3 g/day (0.75 g/serving) (FDA, 1997) or 4 g per 30 g of available carbohydrates (EFSA, 2011). Emulsions prepared with the combination of 1.5% βG and 1.5% MCC (βG + MCC) provided approximately 3.0% of total dietary fiber (of which are 1.5% of insoluble fiber from MCC, 0.36% of βG (soluble fiber) from βG ingredient and the rest are insoluble and soluble fiber from βG ingredient. Consequently, the consumption of 100 g of these emulsions could supply approximately 3% of the daily total dietary

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Acknowledgments The authors express acknowledgments to GrainFrac Canada by providing the β-glucan product (CERABeta®) used in the study, Global Affairs Canada International Scholarships Program and Government of Canada for the support of the Emerging Leaders in the Americas scholarship, and the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) – Discovery Grants Program (Grant 2018 – 04695). References Ahmad, A., Anjum, F. M., Zahoor, T., Nawaz, H., & Ahmed, Z. (2010). Extraction and characterization of beta-D-glucan from oat for industrial utilization. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 46(3), 304–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ijbiomac.2010.01.002. Álvarez, D., & Barbut, S. (2013). Effect of inulin, β-Glucan and their mixtures on emulsion stability, color and textural parameters of cooked meat batters. Meat Science, 94(3), 320–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.02.011. Amini Sarteshnizi, R., Hosseini, H., Bondarianzadeh, D., Colmenero, F. J., & khaksar, R. (2015). Optimization of prebiotic sausage formulation: Effect of using β-glucan and resistant starch by D-optimal mixture design approach. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 62(1), 704–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.05.014. AMSA (2012). Meat color measurement guidelines. Illinois USA: American Meat Science Association. AOAC (2005). Official methods of analysis (18th ed.). Maryland USA: Association of Official Analytical Methods. AOAC (2016a). Official methods of analysis. Method 991.36. Fat (crude) in meat and meat products (20th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Assoc. Anal. Chem. AOAC (2016b). Official methods of analysis. Method 990.03. Protein (crude) in animal feed, combustion method (18th ed.). Arlington, VA: Assoc. Anal. Chem. AOAC (2016c). Official methods of analysis. Method 920.53. Ash in meat and meat products (20th ed.). Gaithersburg, MD: Assoc. Anal. Chem. Brownlee, I. (2014). The impact of dietary fibre intake on the physiology and health of the stomach and upper gastrointestinal tract. Bioactive Carbohydrates and Dietary Fibre, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcdf.2014.09.005. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2018). Guidance document repository (GDR). Labeling requirements for meat and poultry products. Retrieved from http://www. inspection.gc.ca/food/labelling/food-labelling-for-industry/meat-and-poultry-

64

Meat Science 153 (2019) 58–65

S.M. Vasquez Mejia, et al.

Marchetti, L., Andrés, S. C., & Califano, A. N. (2013). Textural and thermal properties of low-lipid meat emulsions formulated with fish oil and different binders. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 51(2), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2012.12.006. McCleary, B. V., Sloane, N., Draga, A., & Lazewska, I. (2013). Measurement of total dietary Fiber using AOAC method 2009.01. Cereal Chemistry, 90(4), 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1094/CCHEM-10-12-0135-FI. Mehta, N., Ahlawat, S. S., Sharma, D. P., & Dabur, R. S. (2015). Novel trends in development of dietary fiber rich meat products — A critical review. Journal of Food Scientists & Technologists (JFST), 52(February), 633–647. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13197-013-1010-2. Morin, L., Temelli, F., & McMullen, L. (2004). Interactions between meat proteins and barley (Hordeum spp.) β-glucan within a reduced-fat breakfast sausage system. Meat Science, 68, 419–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.04.009. Nsor-Atindana, J., Chen, M., Goff, H. D., Zhong, F., Sharif, H. R., & Li, Y. (2017). Functionality and nutritional aspects of microcrystalline cellulose in food. Carbohydrate Polymers, 172, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.04. 021. Olivo, R. (2006). Preparo de soluções funcionais, injeção e tambleamento. In Varela (Ed.). O mundo do frango: Cadeia produtiva da carne de frango (pp. 320–344). (Criciúma, SC. ISBN: 85-905824-3-4). Omana, D.a., Plastow, G., & Betti, M. (2011). The use of β-glucan as a partial salt replacer in high pressure processed chicken breast meat. Food Chemistry, 129(3), 768–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.05.018. Pereira Buzati, B. L., & Magali, L. (2014). Resistant starch in cassava products. Food Science and Technology, 34(2), 298–302. https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.2014.0039. Piñero, M. P., Parra, K., Huerta-Leidenz, N., Arenas de Moreno, L., Ferrer, M., Araujo, S., & Barboza, Y. (2008). Effect of oat's soluble fibre (β-glucan) as a fat replacer on physical, chemical, microbiological and sensory properties of low-fat beef patties. Meat Science, 80(3), 675–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.03.006. Schmiele, M., Nucci Mascarenhas, M. C. C., da Silva Barretto, A. C., & Rodrigues Pollonio, M. A. (2015). Dietary fiber as fat substitute in emulsified and cooked meat model system. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 61, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. lwt.2014.11.037. Schuh, V., Allard, K., Herrmann, K., Gibis, M., Kohlus, R., & Weiss, J. (2013). Impact of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) on functional characteristics of emulsified sausages. Meat Science, 93(2), 240–247. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.08.025. Sivendiran, T., Wang, L. M., Huang, S., & Bohrer, B. M. (2017). The effect of bacon pump retention levels following thermal processing on bacon slice composition and sensory characteristics. Meat Science, 140, 128–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018. 03.007. Toldrá, F., & Reig, M. (2011). Innovations for healthier processed meats. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 22(9), 517–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.08.007. Vasquez Mejia, S. M., de Francisco, A., Manique Barreto, P. L., Damian, C., Zibetti, A. W., Mahecha, H. S., & Bohrer, B. M. (2018). Incorporation of β-glucans in meat emulsions through an optimal mixture modeling systems. Meat Science, 143(May), 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.05.007. Villanueva, M., Ronda, F., Moschakis, T., Lazaridou, A., & Biliaderis, C. G. (2018). Impact of acidification and protein fortification on thermal properties of rice, potato and tapioca starches and rheological behaviour of their gels. Food Hydrocolloids, 79, 20–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.12.022. Wang, S., Zhou, H., Feng, T., Wu, R., Sun, X., Guan, N., ... Qi, C. (2014). β-Glucan attenuates inflammatory responses in oxidized LDL-induced THP-1 cells via the p38 MAPK pathway. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 24(3), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2013.09.019. Xiang, L. Y., Mohammed, M. A., & Samsu Baharuddin, A. (2016). Characterisation of microcrystalline cellulose from oil palm fibres for food applications. Carbohydrate Polymers, 148, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.04.055. Yang, Y. Y., Ma, S., Wang, X. X., & Zheng, X. L. (2017). Modification and application of dietary fiber in foods. Journal of Chemistry, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/ 9340427. Zhang, W., Xiao, S., Samaraweera, H., Lee, E. J., & Ahn, D. U. (2010). Improving functional value of meat products. Meat Science, 86(1), 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. meatsci.2010.04.018.

products/eng/1393979114983/1393979162475?chap=22#s37c22. Choe, J., Lee, J., Jo, K., Jo, C., Song, M., & Jung, S. (2018). Application of winter mushroom powder as an alternative to phosphates in emulsion-type sausages. Meat Science, 143(April), 114–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.038. de Dolores Romero Ávila, M., Isabel Cambero, M., Ordóñez, J. A., de la Hoz, L., & Herrero, A. M. (2014). Rheological behaviour of commercial cooked meat products evaluated by tensile test and texture profile analysis (TPA). Meat Science, 98(2), 310–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.003. EFSA (2011). Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to betaglucans from oats and barley and maintenance of normal blood LDL-cholesterol concentrations (ID 1236, 1299), increase in satiety leading to a reduction in energy intake (ID 851). EFSA Journal, 9(1924), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2011. 2207. El Khoury, D., Cuda, C., Luhovyy, B. L., & Anderson, G. H. (2012). Beta glucan: Health benefits in obesity and metabolic syndrome. Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/851362. Elleuch, M., Bedigian, D., Roiseux, O., Besbes, S., Blecker, C., & Attia, H. (2011). Dietary fibre and fibre-rich by-products of food processing: Characterisation, technological functionality and commercial applications: A review. Food Chemistry, 124(2), 411–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.06.077. Eyiler Yilmaz, E., Vural, H., & Jafarzadeh Yadigari, R. (2017). Thermal, microscopic, and quality properties of low-fat frankfurters and emulsions produced by addition of different hydrocolloids. International Journal of Food Properties, 20(9), 1987–2002. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2016.1230743. FDA. (1997). Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (1997). In. Final rule for food labeling: Health claims. Oats and coronary heart disease, Vol. 62 (Pp. 3584e3681. Federal Register), 1572(0910), 7–8. Foschia, M., Peressini, D., Sensidoni, A., Brennan, M. A., & Brennan, C. S. (2015). Synergistic effect of different dietary fibres in pasta on in vitro starch digestion? Food Chemistry, 172, 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.09.062. Gamel, T. H., Abdel-Aal, E. S. M., Ames, N. P., Duss, R., & Tosh, S. M. (2014). Enzymatic extraction of beta-glucan from oat bran cereals and oat crackers and optimization of viscosity measurement. Journal of Cereal Science, 59(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jcs.2013.10.011. García-García, E., & Totosaus, A. (2008). Low-fat sodium-reduced sausages: Effect of the interaction between locust bean gum, potato starch and κ-carrageenan by a mixture design approach. Meat Science, 78(4), 406–413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci. 2007.07.003. Genccelep, H., Turker, F., Anil, M., & Agar, B. (2015). Food hydrocolloids the effect of starch modification and concentration on steady-state and dynamic rheology of meat emulsions. Food Hydrocolloids, 48, 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd. 2015.02.002. Gibis, M., Schuh, V., & Weiss, J. (2015). Effects of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) as fat replacers on the microstructure and sensory characteristics of fried beef patties. Food Hydrocolloids, 45, 227–235. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.11.021. Hayes, J. E., Stepanyan, V., Allen, P., O'Grady, M. N., & Kerry, J. P. (2011). Evaluation of the effects of selected plant-derived nutraceuticals on the quality and shelf-life stability of raw and cooked pork sausages. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 44(1), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2010.05.020. Kouzounis, D., Lazaridou, A., & Katsanidis, E. (2017). Partial replacement of animal fat by oleogels structured with monoglycerides and phytosterols in frankfurter sausages. Meat Science, 130(March), 38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.04.004. Li, C., & Uppal, M. (2010). Canadian Diabetes Association National Nutrition Committee Clinical Update on dietary fibre in diabetes: Food sources to physiological effects. Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 34(4), 355–361. Li, J. M., & Nie, S. P. (2016). The functional and nutritional aspects of hydrocolloids in foods. Food Hydrocolloids, 53(2016), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd. 2015.01.035. Limberger-Bayer, V. M., De Francisco, A., Chan, A., Oro, T., Ogliari, P. J., & Barreto, P. L. M. (2014). Barley β-glucans extraction and partial characterization. Food Chemistry, 154, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.12.104. Mandigo, R. W., & Sullivan, G. A. (2014). Emulsions and batters. Encyclopedia of meat sciences. Vol. 1Elsevier Ltd.https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-384731-7.00138-0.

65