- Email: [email protected]
Using canola oil hydrogels and organogels to reduce saturated animal fat in meat batters
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Research International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres
Using canola oil hydrogels and organogels to reduce saturated animal fat in meat batters
T
Marta Alejandrea, Iciar Astiasarána, Diana Ansorenaa, , Shai Barbutb ⁎
a
Department of Nutrition, Food Science and Physiology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Navarra, Irunlarrea s/n, 31008, IDISNA – Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain b Food Science Department, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Carrageenan Ethylcellulose Fat replace Hydrogelled emulsion Meat emulsion Organogel
Conventional canola oil and structured canola oil systems, consisting of oil in water hydrogelled emulsions (with 1.5% or 3% kappa carrageenan) and ethylcellulose organogels (12%, with 0%, 1.5% or 3% glycerol monostearate), were used to replace beef fat in emulsion type meat batters. Replacement with regular canola oil increased hardness and lightness (P < .05) of the reformulated products as compared to those with beef fat. Structuring the oil resulted in similar color and texture (P > .05), and lower oxidation values (P < .05) of meat batters. Reformulated products also gave rise to a healthier fatty acid profile, evidenced by a decrease in saturated fatty acids (SFA) from 11.8% to ≈ 2% and an increase in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) from 0.3% to ≈ 5%. Omega-6 to omega-3 ratio also decreased (16.2 to ≈ 2) when incorporating canola oil into meat batters. Batters formulated with organogels showed improved matrix stability compared to those with hydrogelled emulsions, which showed some coalescence of fat globules and fat losses during cooking, resulting in a reduction of fat content (P < .05).
1. Introduction High intake of dietary saturated fat is of particular concern because they are correlated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (Sacks et al., 2017; WHO, 2003). A number of dietary guidelines recommend limiting consumption of processed meats due to their high saturated fat content (Aranceta-Bartrina et al., 2017; USDA, 2015). Thus, replacement of saturated fats with unsaturated oils in meat products is one of the most researched options to formulate healthier products. Unsaturated fats in our diet are mainly coming from plant, fish or algae sources. Canola oil, one of the most widely consumed vegetable oils in Canada, has a very low level of saturated fatty acids (SFA) and substantial amounts of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Animal fat plays an important role in formulation of products due to its unique texture (Pehlivanoğlu et al., 2018). Previous studies reported that simple replacement of animal fat with vegetable oils resulted in increased hardness of cooked meat products (Barbut & Marangoni, 2019; Barbut, Wood, & Marangoni, 2016a, 2016c; Youssef & Barbut, 2009; Zetzl, Marangoni, & Barbut, 2012). Technological problems were also reported by Bloukas, Paneras, and Fournitzis (1997) in dry fermented sausages formulated with olive oil.
⁎
Different strategies based on either structured oil systems, interesterification, or encapsulation have been suggested to cope with this technological problems (Kılıç & Özer, 2019). Emulsion gels have been successfully used to replace/reduce animal fat in comminuted meat products (Paglarini, Martini, & Pollonio, 2019; Pintado et al., 2016; Pintado, Herrero, Jiménez-Colmenero, & Ruiz-Capillas, 2016; Wang, Xie, Li, Liu, & Yan, 2018). Oil in water (O/W) emulsions are produced by forming a stable emulsion (oil phase dispersed in a continuous phase) in the presence of an emulsifier, followed by emulsion gelation (Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2015; McClements, 2010). In the case of kappa carrageenan, this gelation is based on a conformational transition of the gum from random coil to double helix, upon cooling, leading to the formation of an elastic gel (Stephen & Phillips, 2016). This polysaccharide gum allows wide range of possibilities for incorporating different amounts of oil (1% - 40%) and kappa carrageenan (1.5% - 3%), making it possible to be used for applications such as fat reduction and lipid profile modification. Previous studies showed that fresh and cured meat products containing an O/W hydrogelled emulsion (40% oil and 1.5% kappa carrageenan) as a partial fat replacer (up to 50%) had improved lipid composition and sensory acceptability (Alejandre, Passarini, Astiasarán,
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Ansorena).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.056 Received 18 January 2019; Received in revised form 14 March 2019; Accepted 25 March 2019 Available online 26 March 2019 0963-9969/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Canada). Kappa carrageenan (GENU® texturizer type MB-151F) was provided by CP Kelco, Atlanta, (GA, USA). Polysorbate 80 was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical, (MO, USA). Ethylcellulose (ETHOCEL Std.10 Premium) was provided by Dow Chemical, Midland, (MI, USA), BHT was obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific, (NH, USA) and GMS was purchased from HallStar, Bedford Park, (IL, USA).
& Ansorena, 2017; Alejandre, Poyato, Ansorena, & Astiasarán, 2016). In addition, organogels have recently been used as another lipid delivery system. They are formed by combining an organic liquid and an organogelator at specific shearing conditions, resulting in a threedimensional cooled networked structure with thermo-reversible properties (Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2015; Stortz, Zetzl, Barbut, Cattaruzza, & Marangoni, 2012). Ethylcellulose (EC), a semi-crystalline cellulose polymer derivative, consisting of a cellulose backbone with ethoxyl substitutions at the hydroxyl groups, has been used as an organogelator (Koch, 1937). Texture and plasticity of vegetable oil based EC oleogels can be modulated by the addition of surfactants. Glycerol monostearate (GMS), for instance, is able to structure oil resulting in the formation of a secondary network due to crystallization (Davidovich-Pinhas, Barbut, & Marangoni, 2015). This surfactant has been successfully incorporated into vegetable oil-based EC oleogels with a moderate plasticizing effect (Davidovich-Pinhas, Barbut, & Marangoni, 2016). In comminuted meat products, ethylcellulose based organogels have shown promising results as an oil structuring agent (Barbut et al., 2016a, 2016c; Barbut, Wood, & Marangoni, 2016b; Zetzl et al., 2012). However, the use of surfactants in organogels and how they affect meat products has not been investigated in depth. Overall, only the addition of the sorbitan monostearate (SMS) surfactant has been tested in meat products (frankfurters and breakfast sausages) showing similar texture to full animal fat control products (Barbut et al., 2016a, 2016b). Thus, as GMS has pretty similar properties to SMS, it can be hypothesized that GMS may also be of interest in meat products reformulation strategies. The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of total animal fat replacement in meat batters, using two structured oil systems, namely O/W hydrogelled emulsions and organogels. In addition, the effect of different amounts of carrageenan in the O/W hydrogelled emulsions and GMS in the organogels were evaluated with respect to the physicochemical, textural and nutritional properties of the reformulated products.
2.3. Oil in water (O/W) hydrogelled emulsions and organogels preparation
2. Material and methods
The two systems were formulated to supply equal amount of fat to all the meat batter formulations. O/W hydrogelled emulsions (HG) were prepared according to the method described by Poyato, Ansorena, Berasategi, Navarro-Blasco, and Astiasaran (2014) in Pyrex beakers (300 g). Briefly, the oil phase containing canola oil (40%), polysorbate 80 (0.05%; 0.003 oil: surfactant ratio), BHT (0.01%), and the aqueous phase containing kappa carrageenan (1.5% or 3%), and deionized water (up to 100%) were separately heated at 80 °C. After the homogenization of both phases, part of the molten gel was kept in Pyrex beakers to be incorporated in the meat batters, other part split into ten aliquots of 35 mL in 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes (height: 9.0 cm, diameter: 2.7 cm diameter) for the back extrusion test and syneresis, and the rest poured into cylindrical glass tubes (height: 14.5 cm, inside diameter:1.9 cm) lined with an aluminum foil (Gravelle, Barbut, & Marangoni, 2013) for texture profile analysis. All parts of the molten gels were cooled at room temperature for 2 h and stored at 4 °C overnight. Organogels (OG) were prepared with 12% ethylcellulose (viscosity of 10 cP), glycerol monostearate (GMS at 0%, 1.5% or 3%), 0.01% butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT; to control oxidation) and canola oil (88%, 86.5% or 85%, depending on the GMS concentration) and heating in an oven to 140 °C according to Gravelle, Barbut, and Marangoni (2012). The molten gels were split in the same proportions as the hydrogelled emulsions into Pyrex beakers, the 50 mL polypropylene tubes, and the cylindrical glass tubes. Organogels were kept in the oven at 100 °C for 1 h, cooled at room temperature for 2 h and stored at 4 °C overnight.
2.1. Meat ingredients
2.4. Meat batters preparation
Lean beef leg muscles (semitendinosus and biceps femoris) and beef fat trimming were obtained from the University of Guelph meat laboratory. The lean beef meat (72.55 ± 0.24% moisture, 24.43 ± 0.52% protein, and 2.08 ± 0.02% fat) and beef fat (74.82 ± 0.19% fat, 19.34 ± 0.62% moisture and 5.04 ± 0.52% protein; AOAC, 2002a) were separately chopped in a bowl chopper (Schneidmeister SMK 40, Berlin, Germany) at the low speed setting for 1 min, to obtain a homogenous mass, and then frozen (−20 °C) in individual polyethylene bags (1 kg per bag) and used within 3 months.
Seven treatments were prepared: beef fat control (BF control); canola oil control (CO control); two meat batters containing oil in water (O/W) hydrogelled emulsions with 1.5% or 3% carrageenan (CA) (HGM-1.5% CA and HGM-3% CA); and three meat batters containing organogels with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (OGM-no GMS, OGM-1.5% GMS, and OGM-3% GMS). Formulations of meat batters are shown in Table 1. Meat batters (1.5 kg batches) were formulated to contain 11% protein and 21% fat/oil. The lean meat supplied 2.08% of the fat in the overall meat batter formulation, and the remainder (18.92%) of the 21% was provided by either added beef fat, liquid canola oil, a canola oil based ethylcellulose organogel, or a canola oil based O/W carrageenan hydrogelled emulsion. Meat and fat were thawed (5 °C)
2.2. Gel systems ingredients Canola oil was obtained from Saporito Foods Inc., Markham, (ON,
Table 1 Formulations (%) of meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HG) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OG) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Treatment
Treatment identification
Lean beef meat
Beef fat
Liquid canola oil
Organogel (OG)
Hydrogelled emulsion (HG)
Ice
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BF control CO control HGM-1.5% CA HGM-3% CA OGM- no GMS OGM-1.5% GMS OGM-3% GMS
39.00 45.45 45.45 45.45 45.45 45.45 45.45
28.00 – – – – – –
– 20.56 – – – – –
– – – – 22.84 23.23 23.63
– – 51.30 51.30 – – –
29.75 30.74 – – 28.46 28.07 27.67
All formulated with 2% salt, 1% modified starch and 0.25% sodium tripolyphosphate. 130
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
overnight. A common procedure (Youssef & Barbut, 2009) was used to prepare the meat batters in three separate trials. Briefly, lean meat was chopped in the bowl chopper (Schneidmeister SMK 40, Berlin, Germany) at the low speed setting for 30 s, followed by the addition of 2.0% NaCl, 0.25% sodium tripolyphosphate and 1% modified waxy maize starch (FIRM-TEX®; Ingredion, Westchester, IL, USA), and chopping at high speed for 30 s. This was followed by a 1.5 min break (allowing time for protein extraction). The fat source was then added and chopped at the high speed setting for 1 min, followed by ice addition, and chopping at the high speed for 5 min. Final batter temperatures, for all treatments, did not exceed 12 °C. Each batter was vacuum-packed (150 Torr, Multivac Model A300/16, Sepp Haggenmeuller KG, Wolfertschwenden, Germany) to remove trapped air, and then nine 35-g samples were stuffed into 50 mL polypropylene tubes (height: 9 cm, diameter: 2.7 cm diameter) which were centrifuged (Fischer Scientific, Model 225, Pittsburgh, PA) at the low speed setting for 30 s to remove any remaining small air bubbles. The tubes were cooked in a water- bath set to 80 °C (Haake W-26, Berlin, Germany) from 25 °C to 72 °C within 1.5 h. A thermocouple unit (Fluke Corporation, Model 52, Everett, WA, USA) was used to monitor the core temperature of the samples. Samples cooked in the polypropylene tubes were kept at 4 °C until further analyses (cooking loss, proximate composition, TPA, back extrusion, color and TBARS).
cut into 2-mm cubes and fit into a slot of the E7449 universal specimen stub (Quorum Technologies, Lewes, UK). A formulation of water soluble glycols and resins (Tissue-Tek O.C.T., Canempco Supplies, St. Laurent, QC, Canada) was used to provide convenient specimen matrix for cryostat sectioning. In both cases, the stub was placed in a cryogenic preparation system (Emitech K1250X, Ashford, Kent, UK) and then plugged into a liquid nitrogen-slush bath at −210 °C to rapidly freeze the sample, followed by transfer to the cryogenic preparation system under vacuum. Samples were fractured with a razor blade and the frozen phase was sublimed for 5 min (OG samples) or for 30 min (HG samples) at −90 °C, depending on sample composition. Samples were then sputter coated with 30 nm of platinum and then transferred to the SEM unit (Quanta FEG 250, FEI, Hillsboro, OR, USA) to be viewed at acceleration voltage of 10 kV and a temperature no higher than − 120 °C. 2.6. Analyses of meat batters 2.6.1. Cooking loss and proximate composition Cooking loss was determined as the fluid collected after heating and brief cooling of the polypropylene tubes (cold water for 5 min), expressed as percentage water and fat loss from the raw batter. Liquids were kept at 4 °C overnight, so fat/oil floated to the top, and measured the next day. Proximate analyses were performed on fresh meat and on cooked meat batters according to the Official Method of Analysis AOAC International (AOAC, 2002a; AOAC, 2002b; AOAC, 2002c; AOAC, 2002d).
2.5. Analyses of hydrogelled emulsions and organogels 2.5.1. Texture profile analysis (TPA) and back extrusion tests The mechanical properties were evaluated using two large deformation techniques: texture profile analysis (TPA) and the back extrusion test. Both tests were performed using a texture analyzer (TA.TXT2, Stable Micro Systems, Texture Technologies Corporation, Scardsdale, NY, USA). For gels, samples were prepared in the cylindrical glass tubes. Samples kept at 4 °C were compressed twice to 30% of their original height, at a crosshead speed of 1.5 mm/s with a cylindrical probe (TA30A, 7.6 cm diameter, 1.0 cm tall). The following parameters were recorded: hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, chewiness, gumminess, and resilience (Bourne, 1978). Nine samples per treatment were measured in each of the three separate trials. The two hydrogelled emulsion treatments were also analyzed after 10 days of storage at 4 °C to evaluate their stability. Back extrusion samples were prepared in the 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes and evaluated 24 h after preparation (Zetzl et al., 2012). A stainless steel probe with a cylindrical shaft (height 9.8 cm, diameter 1.8 cm) and a truncated spherical tip (height 1.3 cm, diameter 2.0 cm) was used to penetrate 30 mm into each sample. Parameters collected were: Young's modulus (ratio of the compressive stress to the longitudinal strain; MPa) and force at maximum penetration (30 mm; N). Five tubes per treatment were measured in two separate trials.
2.6.2. Fatty acid profile and thiobarbituric acid-reactive-substances (TBARS) Fatty acid profile was determined on the lipid extracts by gas chromatography, after initial derivatization to form fatty acid methyl esters (FAME), following the method of Alejandre et al. (2017). TBARS were determined on the extracted fat of cooked meat batters according to Maqsood and Benjakul (2010) with slight modifications reported in Poyato, Ansorena, Navarro-Blasco, and Astiasaran (2014). 2.6.3. Texture profile analysis (TPA) and back extrusion Nine cores (16 mm diameter, 10 mm high) taken from samples cooked in the 50 mL polypropylene tubes the day before were used for the TPA. Cores were compressed twice to 75% of their original height at a crosshead speed of 1.5 mm/s. The back extrusion test (see conditions above) was performed on samples cooked in the 50 mL polypropylene tubes the day before. Results were recorded as described by Gravelle, Barbut, Quinton, and Marangoni (2014). 2.6.4. Light microscopy Samples (approximately 2.0 × 2.0 × 0.5 cm) from the 50 mL polypropylene tubes were cut from the centers of cooked meat batters, which were then treated and fixed following Youssef and Barbut (2009), and observed using a microscope (Model BX60, Olympus Optical Co, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Average size of fat globules was calculated using a micrometer.
2.5.2. Syneresis- hydrogelled emulsions Syneresis of carrageenan gels was measured according to Banerjee and Bhattacharya (2011) to evaluate their stability at 4 °C for 48 h. The 50 mL polypropylene tubes, containing 30 mL of carrageenan gel, were weighted (M1) and centrifuged at 5000 rpm (2800 g) for 10 min in a laboratory model centrifuge (Marathon 21000R, Thermo IEC, Needham Heights, MA, USA). After centrifugation, gels along with the tubes were weighed again after discarding the separated water (M2). Syneresis of gel was calculated as (M1– M2)/M1 and expressed as per cent basis. Three polypropylene tubes per treatment were measured in two separate trials.
2.6.5. Color Samples (27 mm diameter, 1.0 cm height) from the 50 mL polypropylene tubes were used to measure the color. Seven measurements per treatment were done based on Holman, Collins, Kilgannon, and Hopkins (2018), using a NIX (Nix Pro Color Sensor™, Nix Sensor Ltd., ON, Canada) using the CIE L*a*b* system, illuminant D65 and 10° standard observer settings. Hue [tan−1 (b*/a*)] and Chroma [(a*2 + b*2)1/2] were also calculated.
2.5.3. Cryo-scanning electron microscopy- hydrogelled emulsions and organogels Organogels (40–60 mg) were placed in a 5-mm high stub with single hole (6 mm diameter x 3 mm deep), and hydrogelled emulsions were 131
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Table 2 Texture profile analysis (TPA) and back extrusion parameters of hydrogelled emulsions (HG) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OG) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%).
TPA
Back extrusion
Parameters
HG-1.5% CA
HG-3% CA
OG-no GMS
OG-1.5% GMS
OG-3% GMS
SEM
P value
Hardness (N) Springiness (cm) Cohesiveness (ratio) Chewiness (N cm) Gumminess (N) Resilience (ratio) Force at maximum penetration (N) Young's modulus (MPa)
6.35 0.97 0.73 4.61 4.45 0.44 8.95 1.07
15.97 (0.39)c 0.95 (0.00)b 0.72 (0.00)b 11.41 (0.22)b 10.86 (0.22)b 0.41 (0.01)b 20.65 (1.19)c 1.57 (0.11)c
Too soft Too soft Too soft Too soft Too soft Too soft 0.35(0.29)a Too soft
11.69 (0.63)b 0.74 (0.02)a 0.45 (0.02)a 5.19 (0.26)a 3.85 (0.26)a 0.12 (0.01)a 6.74 (0.84)b 0.87 (0.08)a
16.43 (0.29)c 0.84 (0.00)ab 0.57 (0.00)ab 9.38 (0.57)b 7.88 (0.09)b 0.19 (0.00)a 19.12 (1.5)c 1.31 (0.35)bc
0.75 0.04 0.04 0.58 0.51 0.03 2.31 0.15
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
(0.12)a (0.00)b (0.00)b (0.06)a (0.07)a (0.00)b (1.67)b (0.03)ab
Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials.
compromising the texture.
2.6.6. Statistical analysis Analysis was done using the STATA/IC 12.1 program (StataCorp LP, Texas, USA) to evaluate the random block design which included three independent trials. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate statistical significance (P < .05) among treatments. Treatments were assigned as fixed effect and trial as a random effect. Multiple comparisons of means were done by the Tukey Post Hoc procedure to evaluate significance (P < .05) among treatments. Values reported are the mean values and standard error of the mean (SEM). A common SEM and P-value for all means was also calculated.
3.2. Meat batters evaluations Testing for cooking loss is essential to assess the ability of a meat system to hold water and fat during the protein denaturation phase (Tahmasebi, Labbafi, Emam-Djomeh, & Yarmand, 2016). Meat batters formulated with liquid canola oil (CO control) showed significantly lower water loss (< 1%) compared to beef fat control batters (BF control; Fig. 2). This reduction by itself could be considered as an advantage. However, the significant increases (P < .05) in hardness and springiness in products with liquid canola oil compared to BF control (Table 3), showed some negative effects. These results are in agreement with previous studies showing that substitution with liquid vegetable oil by itself resulted in much firmer comminuted meat products (Barbut et al., 2016a; Youssef, Barbut, & Smith, 2011; Zetzl et al., 2012). The reduction in fluid loss and the increased hardness of the CO control batter can be explained by the oil globules´ size and distribution within the matrix. Fig. 3 shows that the CO control batter (Fig. 3B) had much smaller fat globules (average size < 50 μm), compared to fat globules in BF control batter (average size ≈100 μm; Fig. 3A). The small fat globules are covered with an interfacial protein film (IPF) and hence, provided more surface for fat-protein interactions, which results in more resistance to compression and less chance for fluid exudation during the cooking process. The same finding was reported in previous studies using liquid oil in meat batters (Barbut et al., 2016b; Youssef & Barbut, 2009). In order to counteract the higher hardness observed by using canola oil by itself (as compared to the BF control), oil structuring systems were employed. The hydrogelled emulsions meat products (HGM) showed a decrease in water loss, compared to the BF control (Fig. 2). Carrageenan (CA) had a positive effect on water retention. Thus, the higher level of CA (3%) contributed to a 50% lower water loss compared to 1.5% CA. However, fat was not so well retained in HGM products; i.e., resulting in fat losses of around 5%. Thus, HGM products showed higher cooking losses (fat + water) compared to BF control products. The use of the organogel system also showed lower water losses compared to the BF control (Fig. 2). The further addition of glycerol monostearate (GMS) surfactant did not affect water and fat loss values. This agrees with previous studies in which sorbitan monostearate (SMS) was added as a surfactant to a finely comminuted meat product (Barbut et al., 2016a, 2016c). Unlike the increased hardness of the CO control, meat batters formulated with the structured oil gel systems (OGM and HGM) showed similar hardness, cohesiveness, chewiness, gumminess and resilience as the BF control (P > .05; Table 3). This is desirable as it demonstrates that vegetable oil can be used, when incorporated into a meat gel system, without negatively affecting texture. The back extrusion test showed that penetration force was similar in HGM and OGM-no GMS
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Hydrogelled emulsions and organogels characteristics: texture and microstructure Both types of oil delivery systems were evaluated to better understand their physical properties. Texture was evaluated by TPA and back extrusion tests in all samples except for organogel without surfactant (OG-no GMS), which was too soft to be measured (Table 2). Addition of carrageenan (3%) and GMS (3%), in their respective oil delivery systems, showed a clear dose-effect (P < .05) on hardness, chewiness and gumminess as compared to emulsions with 1.5% carrageenan or GMS (Table 2). Moreover, back extrusion data showed increased force and Young's modulus values at the initial state of deformation, confirming the increased firmness when adding more carrageenan or GMS. These results agree with Poyato, Ansorena, Berasategi, et al. (2014) who pointed out the increased hardness of hydrogelled emulsions with higher levels of carrageenan, and the results of Davidovich-Pinhas et al. (2015) who reported the effect of surfactant addition on organogel firmness. In addition, Lopez-Martínez, Charó-Alonso, Marangoni, and Toro-Vazquez (2015) described a synergistic interaction between ethylcellulose and GMS in canola oil organogels. An increase in gel firmness was also reported when SMS (surfactant) was added into ethylcellulose oleogels (Gravelle et al., 2013). In the present study, the hydrogelled emulsions (HG) showed higher resilience (a parameter related to the elastic recovery of the sample) compared to organogels (OG), which demonstrated kappa carrageenan's ability to produce a more elastic gel. Differences in gel systems microstructure were also visualized (Fig. 1). Hydrogelled emulsions with 1.5% carrageenan showed a typical honeycomb structure (Fig. 1A, B and C) seen after sublimation of a high amount of water (60% within the original structure). The organogel with 1.5% GMS (Fig. 1D, E and F) showed a rough and waxy morphology due to the high oil content in the system. A fairly similar structure of an organogel was also reported by Laredo, Barbut, and Marangoni (2011). Only two gel systems were selected since the other gels showed similar microstructure. These structured oil systems were later incorporated into our test meat formulations as total animal fat replacers, with the ultimate goal of improving the lipid profile without 132
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Fig. 1. Scanning electron micrographs of hydrogelled emulsion (HG) with 1.5% carrageenan (A, B, C); and organogel (OG) with 1.5% glycerol monostearate (GMS) (D,E,F), at three magnifications (2000x, 10,000x and 20,000x), respectively.
compared to the force used for the BF control, but lower values were noticed in organogel batters with GMS. However, as was previously pointed out, these differences were not noticed in hardness measured by TPA. Barbut et al. (2016b) also reported that the addition of organogels containing a SMS surfactant, to breakfast sausages, did not affect the hardness of the products. The similar textural properties of OGM and the BF control product may also be explained by looking at microscopy results. Fig. 3E and F show the microstructure of organogel meat batters formulated with 0.0% GMS and 1.5% GMS, respectively (3% GMS is not shown; as its structure resembles the 1.5% GMS). Increases of fat globules size, compared with the CO control, gave rise to a lower IPF surrounding the globules and hence, lower hardness of these products. The size of fat globules can also be used to explain the differences observed in lightness among formulations (Table 4). CO control and meat batter with organogel (without GMS) showed lighter appearance as compared to the rest of the products, since more light reflectance is related to smaller fat globules (Youssef & Barbut, 2010). Meanwhile, increases of fat globules size in meat batters with organogels plus GMS
resulted in similar L* values compared to the BF control. Redness and yellowness values (a*, b*) were significantly lower in the CO control as compared to the BF control. However, these differences were not noticed in OGM. Wolfer, Acevedo, Prusa, Sebranek, and Tarté (2018) also reported lighter and less red frankfurters formulated with soybean oil as replacer of animal fat compared to control, even in treatments where the oil was structured with rice bran wax. As expected, a decrease in fat globules size was also observed in soybean oil frankfurters. Despite the similar texture of HGM, compared to BF control, light micrographs showed some irregular shaped fat globules and some coalescence in the CA added treatments (Fig. 3C and D). This helps to explain the fat losses observed in these treatments. In any case, this fat morphology did not affect the color of HGM (P > .05; Table 4). A possible explanation for the fat destabilization in these products could be related to the addition of Polysorbate 80, as surfactant, in the hydrogelled emulsions. Previous studies reported a protein matrix aggregation and high cooking losses in meat batters when this surfactant was added (Youssef et al., 2011). Nevertheless, in order to clarify the potential origin of the instability Fig. 2. Fat and water losses (%) of meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsion (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogel (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Means (n = 9) related to fluid loss with same lower case are not significantly different (P < .05). Means (n = 9) related to fat loss with same capital letter are not significantly different (P < .05). Error bars show the standard error of the mean.
133
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Table 3 Texture profile analysis (TPA) parameters and force of back extrusion of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Treatment
1
Treatment identification BF control TPA
Hardness (N) Springiness (cm) Cohesiveness (ratio) Chewiness (N cm) Gumminess (N) Resilience (ratio) Back extrusion Force (N)
14.78 (0.54)ab 0.62 (0.05)a 0.22 (0.01)ab 2.11 (0.36)a 3.36 (0.27)a 0.07 (0.00)ab 46.42 (0.89)c
2
3
4
5
6
7
CO control
HGM-1.5% CA
HGM-3% CA
OGM- no GMS
OGM-1.5% GMS
OGM-3% GMS
SEM P value
20.72 (0.98)c 0.88 (0.01)c 0.28 (0.01)b 5.14 (0.37)a 5.86 (0.38)a 0.09 (0.00)b 52.81 (1.47)d
14.55 (0.53)ab 0.82 (0.43)bc 0.25 (0.02)ab 4.43 (1.73)a 5.24 (1.79)a 0.08 (0.01)a 43.21 (1.56)c
15.77 (1.03)ab 0.77 (0.01)abc 0.25 (0.01)ab 3.31 (0.55)a 4.26 (0.71)a 0.07 (0.00)ab 44.71 (1.55)c
17.61 (0.39)b 0.75 (0.05)abc 0.23 (0.01)ab 3.28 (0.58)a 4.31 (0.49)a 0.07 (0.00)ab 42.53 (1.33)bc
13.57 (0.61)a 0.68 (0.02)ab 0.20 (0.01)a 1.75 (0.24)a 2.55 (0.30)a 0.06 (0.00)a 33.27 (0.89)a
14.62 (0.62)a 0.71 (0.04)abc 0.23 (0.02)ab 2.35 (0.34)a 3.22 (0.26)a 0.07 (0.01)ab 36.40 (1.40)ab
0.35 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.00 1.21
0.001 0.003 0.028 0.104 0.104 0.059 0.000
Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials.
of meat batters formulated with the hydrogelled system (i.e., with carrageenan) their stability was monitored after 10 days storage at 4 °C (TPA test and syneresis after centrifugation). No significant differences in TPA parameters were found before and after storage at both CA concentrations (data not shown for the 10th day). Syneresis was low for both HG products (2.96% and 1.85% at 1.5% and 3% CA, respectively). Consequently, this gel delivery system seemed not to be the cause of instability. These findings suggest that the origin of destabilization is affected by the manufacturing process and therefore further study is needed. It is also interesting to note that the meat batters with beef fat, canola oil and organogels showed a final end chopping temperature
below 5 °C. However, meat batters formulated with hydrogelled emulsions reached temperatures of 10 °C to 12 °C. This might have affected the protein extraction and the emulsification process. In this regard, it has been indicated that protein extraction is enhanced at temperatures of 2 °C to 4 °C (Barbut, 2015; Schmidt, 1984). The reason for reaching a higher temperature was that no ice was added to the carrageenan treatments as that water was already incorporated during emulsion preparation (Table 1). As the goal of the study was to improve the fatty acid composition of meat batters, (i.e., via using canola oil as an animal fat replacer), changes in the nutritional profile were also determined (Table 5).
Fig. 3. Light micrographs of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (A); canola oil (B); hydrogelled emulsion with 1.5% carrageenan (C); hydrogelled emulsion with 3% carrageenan (D); organogel without glycerol monostearate (GMS) (E); and organogel with 1.5% GMS (F). Scale bar, 200 μm. 134
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Table 4 Color parameters of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Treatment identification
BF control
CO control
HGM-1.5% CA
HGM-3% CA
OGM- no GMS
OGM-1.5% GMS
OGM-3% GMS
SEM
P value
L* a* b* Hue Chroma
63.03 (0.04)a 7.50 (0.12)b 10.00 (0.07)b 53.14 (0.39)a 12.50 (0.11)a
74.28 (0.32)c 5.70 (0.05)a 8.78 (0.18)a 56.98 (0.53)a 9.55 (1.07)a
68.95 (3.47)abc 6.88 (0.75)ab 10.18 (0.43)b 56.18 (1.94)a 11.72 (0.64)a
64.91 (1.07)a 7.15 (0.23)ab 10.68 (0.14)b 56.19 (0.91)a 12.69 (0.30)a
71.72 (0.45)c 6.78 (0.28)ab 9.90 (0.05)b 55.60 (0.96)a 10.95 (0.90)a
69.22 (0.14)ab 7.20 (0.16)ab 10.05 (0.13)b 54.38 (0.68)a 11.45 (0.95)a
71.10 (0.25)ab 6.95 (0.20)ab 10.01 (0.09)b 55.22 (0.94)a 11.08 (1.06)a
0.92 0.16 0.13 0.42 0.33
0.000 0.045 0.001 0.220 0.184
Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials. Table 5 Proximate composition (%), lipid profile (%) and lipid oxidation (mg MDA/kg product) of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Treatment identification
BF control
CO control
HG-1.5%CA
HG-3%CA
OG-no GMS
OG-1.5%GMS
OG-3%GMS
SEM
P value
Protein (%) Moisture (%) Fat (%) SFA MUFA PUFA Omega-3 Omega-6 Omega-6/omega-3 PUFA/SFA PUFA + MUFA/SFA trans TBARS (mg MDA/kg product)
13.32 (0.12)a 62.13 (0.44)b 23.29 (1.03)c 11.79 (0.10)d 9.87 (0.09)a 0.31 (0.04)a 0.02 (0.00)a 0.26 (0.00)a 16.21 (0.33)b 0.03 (0.00)a 0.86 (0.01)a 1.31 (0.04)b 0.84 (0.02)b
13.58 (0.23)a 63.57 (0.83)bc 21.94 (0.75)c 2.37 (0.08)c 14.04 (0.10)c 5.45 (0.18)b 2.29 (0.01)b 3.14 (0.16)b 1.37 (0.06)a 2.31 (0.16)b 8.25 (0.33)b 0.04 (0.00)a 1.04 (0.12)b
12.62 (0.23)a 66.73 (1.08)c 16.73 (0.89)a 1.57 (0.05)a 10.48 (0.10)ab 4.59 (0.03)b 1.51 (0.00)b 3.08 (0.00)b 2.05 (0.00)a 2.92 (0.01)b 9.57 (0.12)b 0.08 (0.00)a 0.37 (0.06)a
12.12 (0.31)a 65.12 (1.26)c 18.28 (1.19)ab 1.72 (0.04)ab 11.77 (0.13)b 4.72 (0.04)b 1.22 (0.04)b 3.49 (0.16)bc 2.87 (0.10)a 2.75 (0.09)b 9.60 (0.27)b 0.07 (0.00)a 0.48 (0.06)a
13.41 (0.25)a 60.87 (0.23)a 20.82 (0.19)bc 1.97 (0.03)bc 13.31 (0.01)c 5.47 (0.16)b 2.00 (0.01)b 3.45 (0.15)bc 1.73 (0.07)a 2.78 (0.12)b 9.54 (0.15)b 0.07 (0.00)a 0.45 (0.03)a
13.56 (0.33)a 59.82 (0.40)a 21.39 (0.16)c 2.01 (0.07)bc 13.25 (0.20)c 5.75 (0.24)b 1.89 (0.07)b 3.85 (0.03)c 2.03 (0.00)a 2.85 (0.02)b 9.42 (0.010)b 0.09 (0.00)a 0.38 (0.08)a
13.27 (0.14)a 59.23 (0.48)a 21.85 (0.37)c 2.12 (0.02)bc 13.74 (0.10)c 5.93 (0.13)b 1.92 (0.00)b 3.99 (0.04)c 2.08 (0.00)a 2.80 (0.01)b 9.27 (0.00)b 0.11 (0.00)a 0.42 (0.01)a
0.09 0.45 0.35 0.91 0.38 0.47 0.18 0.31 1.46 0.26 0.78 0.11 0.07
0.478 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.284
Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials. SFA = saturated fatty acids; MUFA = monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA:polyunsaturated fatty acids; TBARS = thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; MDA:malonhaldeyde.
Saturated fatty acids (SFA) went down from 11.8% (BF control) to ≈2% (all reformulated products), whereas PUFA increased from 0.3% to ≈5%. Thus, higher unsaturated fraction (MUFA+PUFA) was achieved when canola oil was incorporated, mainly due to the high levels of oleic (omega-9), linoleic (omega-6) and alpha-linolenic (omega-3) acids (Table S1, Supplementary material). It is also important to mention that the addition of alpha-linolenic acid resulted in decreasing the omega-6/omega-3 ratio (from 16.2 to ≈2). Fat losses during cooking led to a lower fat content in products formulated with hydrogelled emulsions (Table 5). However, fat content in treatments 2, 5, 6 and 7 were not significantly different (P > .05) compared to the BF control. Increasing unsaturated fatty acids levels can sometime induce lipid oxidation. However, incorporating canola oil did not show an adverse effect on TBARS values of meat batters (P > .05). Moreover, oil structuring strategies significantly reduced TBARS values (P < .05; Table 5) as compared to the animal fat containing product or to liquid canola oil addition. This reduction may be explained by the addition of BHT, helping to control lipid oxidation during gel and meat product preparation. In particular, this may have occurred in the organogels, which were prepared by heating to 140 °C, and where the use of an antioxidant (BHT) was definitely needed. Gravelle et al. (2012) reported a significant increase in oxidation by products if an antioxidant is not added during organogel preparation. Cooked meat products with carrageenan have not been reported to show oxidation problems (Poyato, Ansorena, Berasategi, et al., 2014).
4. Conclusion Two promising structured oil gel delivery systems (organogels and hydrogelled emulsions) prepared with different technological strategies, showed adequate properties to be used as total fat replacements in comminuted meat batters. Using liquid canola oil by itself (i.e., unstructured) resulted in undesirable attributes (e.g., texture and color) that could be improved by structuring the oil as organogels or hydrogelled emulsions. These gel systems also improved the fatty acid profile of meat batters and reduced lipid oxidation. Organogels were more efficiently incorporated into the meat matrix than hydrogelled emulsions, showing a more uniform microstructure, and without fat losses from the cooked meat batters. Acknowledgements We thank the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad- Spain (AGL2014–52636-P) for the financial support. We are grateful to “Red de Excelencia Consolider” PROCARSE (AGL2014-51742-REDC) and INPROCARSA (AGL2017-90699-REDC). M. Alejandre is grateful to “Asociación de Amigos de la Universidad de Navarra” for the pre-doctoral fellowship. Gobierno de Navarra (Departamento de Educación) is also acknowledged for the mobility fellowship to M. Alejandre. The authors would also like to thank A. Gravelle for training M. Alejandre on how to prepare organogels.
135
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Koch, W. (1937). Properties and uses of ethylcellulose. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 29(6), 687–690. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50330a020. Laredo, T., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2011). Molecular interactions of polymer oleogelation. Soft Matter, 7(6), 2734–2743. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0sm00885k. Lopez-Martínez, A., Charó-Alonso, M. A., Marangoni, A. G., & Toro-Vazquez, J. F. (2015). Monoglyceride organogels developed in vegetable oil with and without ethylcellulose. Food Research International, 72, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODRES. 2015.03.019. Maqsood, S., & Benjakul, S. (2010). Comparative studies of four different phenolic compounds on in vitro antioxidative activity and the preventive effect on lipid oxidation of fish oil emulsion and fish mince. Food Chemistry, 119(1), 123–132. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.06.004. McClements, D. J. (2010). Emulsion design to improve the delivery of functional lipophilic components. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 1(1), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.food.080708.100722. Paglarini, C.d. S., Martini, S., & Pollonio, M. A. R. (2019). Using emulsion gels made with sonicated soy protein isolate dispersions to replace fat in frankfurters. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 99, 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2018.10.005. Pehlivanoğlu, H., Demirci, M., Toker, O. S., Konar, N., Karasu, S., & Sagdic, O. (2018). Oleogels, a promising structured oil for decreasing saturated fatty acid concentrations: Production and food-based applications. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 58(8), 1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1256866. Pintado, T., Herrero, A., Ruiz-Capillas, C., Triki, M., Carmona, P., & Jiménez-Colmenero, F. (2016). Effects of emulsion gels containing bioactive compounds on sensorial, technological, and structural properties of frankfurters. Food Science and Technology International, 22(2), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013215577033. Pintado, T., Herrero, A. M., Jiménez-Colmenero, F., & Ruiz-Capillas, C. (2016). Strategies for incorporation of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) in frankfurters as a health-promoting ingredient. Meat Science, 114, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEATSCI.2015.12. 009. Poyato, C., Ansorena, D., Berasategi, I., Navarro-Blasco, I., & Astiasaran, I. (2014). Optimization of a gelled emulsion intended to supply omega-3 fatty acids into meat products by means of response surface methodology. Meat Science, 98(4), 615–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.016. Poyato, C., Ansorena, D., Navarro-Blasco, I., & Astiasaran, I. (2014). A novel approach to monitor the oxidation process of different types of heated oils by using chemometric tools. Food Research International, 57, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres. 2014.01.033. Sacks, F. M., Lichtenstein, A. H., Wu, J. H. Y., Appel, L. J., Creager, M. A., Kris-Etherton, P. M., ... Van Horn, L. V. (2017). Dietary fats and cardiovascular disease: A presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 136(3), https:// doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510. Schmidt, G. R. (1984). Processing effects on meat product microstructure. Journal of Food Structure, 3(1), 33–39. Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ foodmicrostructure/vol3/iss1/5. Stephen, A. M., & Phillips, G. O. (2016). Food polysaccharides and their applications. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1201/9781420015164. Stortz, T. A., Zetzl, A. K., Barbut, S., Cattaruzza, A., & Marangoni, A. G. (2012). Edible oleogels in food products to help maximize health benefits and improve nutritional profiles. Lipid Technology, 24(7), 151–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/lite.201200205. Tahmasebi, M., Labbafi, M., Emam-Djomeh, Z., & Yarmand, M. S. (2016). Manufacturing the novel sausages with reduced quantity of meat and fat: The product development, formulation optimization, emulsion stability and textural characterization. LWT Food Science and Technology, 68, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2015.12. 011. USDA (2015). 2015–2020 Dietary guidelines for Americans. Washington (DC): USDA. Wang, X., Xie, Y., Li, X., Liu, Y., & Yan, W. (2018). Effects of partial replacement of pork back fat by a camellia oil gel on certain quality characteristics of a cooked style Harbin sausage. Meat Science, 146, 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEATSCI. 2018.08.011. WHO (2003). Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Vol. 916World Health Organization Technical Report Series (I-VIII). Wolfer, T. L., Acevedo, N. C., Prusa, K. J., Sebranek, J. G., & Tarté, R. (2018). Replacement of pork fat in frankfurter-type sausages by soybean oil oleogels structured with rice bran wax. Meat Science, 145, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. MEATSCI.2018.07.012. Youssef, M. K., & Barbut, S. (2009). Effects of protein level and fat/oil on emulsion stability, texture, microstructure and color of meat batters. Meat Science.. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.01.015. Youssef, M. K., & Barbut, S. (2010). Physicochemical effects of the lipid phase and protein level on meat emulsion stability, texture, and microstructure. Journal of Food Science, 75(2), S108–S114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01475.x. Youssef, M. K., Barbut, S., & Smith, A. (2011). Effects of pre-emulsifying fat/oil on meat batter stability, texture and microstructure. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 46(6), 1216–1224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02607.x. Zetzl, A. K., Marangoni, A. G., & Barbut, S. (2012). Mechanical properties of ethylcellulose oleogels and their potential for saturated fat reduction in frankfurters. Food and Function, 3(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2fo10202a.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.056. References Alejandre, M., Passarini, D., Astiasarán, I., & Ansorena, D. (2017). The effect of low-fat beef patties formulated with a low-energy fat analogue enriched in long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids on lipid oxidation and sensory attributes. Meat Science, 134, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.07.009. Alejandre, M., Poyato, C., Ansorena, D., & Astiasarán, I. (2016). Linseed oil gelled emulsion: A successful fat replacer in dry fermented sausages. Meat Science, 121, 107–113. AOAC (2002a). Determination of moisture content. 950.46. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of analysis (pp. 12–13). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC (2002b). Crude protein in meat. 981.10. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of analysis (pp. 7–8). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC (2002c). Ash of meat. 920.153. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of analysis (pp. 4). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC (2002d). Fat (crude) or ether extract in meat. 960.39. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of analysis (pp. 12–13). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Aranceta-Bartrina, J., Arija-Val, V., Maíz-Aldalur, E., Martínez-Muñoz, E., Ortega-Anta, R. M., & Pérez-Rodrígo, C. (2017). Nutrición Hospitalaria. Senc, 33(2), 1–21. https:// doi.org/10.3305/nh.2013.28.sup4.6783. Banerjee, S., & Bhattacharya, S. (2011). Compressive textural attributes, opacity and syneresis of gels prepared from gellan, agar and their mixtures. Journal of Food Engineering, 102(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.08.025. Barbut, S. (2015). Principles of meat processing. The Science of Poultry and Meat Processing. 46–54. Retrieved from http://www.poultryandmeatprocessing.com. Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. (2019). Organogels use in meat processing – Effects of fat/oil type and heating rate. Meat Science, 149, 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEATSCI. 2018.11.003. Barbut, S., Wood, J., & Marangoni, A. (2016a). Potential use of organogels to replace animal fat in comminuted meat products. Meat Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. meatsci.2016.08.003. Barbut, S., Wood, J., & Marangoni, A. (2016b). Quality effects of using organogels in breakfast sausage. Meat Science, 122, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci. 2016.07.022. Barbut, S., Wood, J., & Marangoni, A. G. (2016c). Effects of organogel hardness and formulation on acceptance of frankfurters. Journal of Food Science, 81(9), C2183–C2188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13409. Bloukas, J. G., Paneras, E. D., & Fournitzis, G. C. (1997). Effect of replacing pork backfat with olive oil on processing and quality characteristics of fermented sausages. Meat Science, 45(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00113-1. Bourne, M. C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology, 32(72), 62–66. Davidovich-Pinhas, M., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2015). The role of surfactants on ethylcellulose oleogel structure and mechanical properties. Carbohydrate Polymers, 127, 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CARBPOL.2015.03.085. Davidovich-Pinhas, M., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2016). Development, characterization, and utilization of food-grade polymer Oleogels. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-041715-033225. Gravelle, A. J., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2012). Ethylcellulose oleogels: Manufacturing considerations and effects of oil oxidation. Food Research International, 48(2), 578–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.05.020. Gravelle, A. J., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2013). Fractionation of ethylcellulose oleogels during setting. Food & Function, 4(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1039/ C2FO30227F. Gravelle, A. J., Barbut, S., Quinton, M., & Marangoni, A. G. (2014). Towards the development of a predictive model of the formulation-dependent mechanical behaviour of edible oil-based ethylcellulose oleogels. Journal of Food Engineering, 143, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.06.036. Holman, B. W. B., Collins, D., Kilgannon, A. K., & Hopkins, D. L. (2018). The effect of technical replicate (repeats) on Nix Pro Color Sensor™ measurement precision for meat: A case-study on aged beef colour stability. Meat Science, 135, 42–45. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.09.001. Jimenez-Colmenero, F., Salcedo-Sandoval, L., Bou, R., Cofrades, S., Herrero, A. M., & Ruiz-Capillas, C. (2015). Novel applications of oil-structuring methods as a strategy to improve the fat content of meat products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 44(2), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIFS.2015.04.011. Kılıç, B., & Özer, C. O. (2019). Potential use of interesterified palm kernel oil to replace animal fat in frankfurters. Meat Science, 148, 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. meatsci.2018.08.024.
136
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Food Research International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres
Using canola oil hydrogels and organogels to reduce saturated animal fat in meat batters
T
Marta Alejandrea, Iciar Astiasarána, Diana Ansorenaa, , Shai Barbutb ⁎
a
Department of Nutrition, Food Science and Physiology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Navarra, Irunlarrea s/n, 31008, IDISNA – Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain b Food Science Department, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Carrageenan Ethylcellulose Fat replace Hydrogelled emulsion Meat emulsion Organogel
Conventional canola oil and structured canola oil systems, consisting of oil in water hydrogelled emulsions (with 1.5% or 3% kappa carrageenan) and ethylcellulose organogels (12%, with 0%, 1.5% or 3% glycerol monostearate), were used to replace beef fat in emulsion type meat batters. Replacement with regular canola oil increased hardness and lightness (P < .05) of the reformulated products as compared to those with beef fat. Structuring the oil resulted in similar color and texture (P > .05), and lower oxidation values (P < .05) of meat batters. Reformulated products also gave rise to a healthier fatty acid profile, evidenced by a decrease in saturated fatty acids (SFA) from 11.8% to ≈ 2% and an increase in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) from 0.3% to ≈ 5%. Omega-6 to omega-3 ratio also decreased (16.2 to ≈ 2) when incorporating canola oil into meat batters. Batters formulated with organogels showed improved matrix stability compared to those with hydrogelled emulsions, which showed some coalescence of fat globules and fat losses during cooking, resulting in a reduction of fat content (P < .05).
1. Introduction High intake of dietary saturated fat is of particular concern because they are correlated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (Sacks et al., 2017; WHO, 2003). A number of dietary guidelines recommend limiting consumption of processed meats due to their high saturated fat content (Aranceta-Bartrina et al., 2017; USDA, 2015). Thus, replacement of saturated fats with unsaturated oils in meat products is one of the most researched options to formulate healthier products. Unsaturated fats in our diet are mainly coming from plant, fish or algae sources. Canola oil, one of the most widely consumed vegetable oils in Canada, has a very low level of saturated fatty acids (SFA) and substantial amounts of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA). Animal fat plays an important role in formulation of products due to its unique texture (Pehlivanoğlu et al., 2018). Previous studies reported that simple replacement of animal fat with vegetable oils resulted in increased hardness of cooked meat products (Barbut & Marangoni, 2019; Barbut, Wood, & Marangoni, 2016a, 2016c; Youssef & Barbut, 2009; Zetzl, Marangoni, & Barbut, 2012). Technological problems were also reported by Bloukas, Paneras, and Fournitzis (1997) in dry fermented sausages formulated with olive oil.
⁎
Different strategies based on either structured oil systems, interesterification, or encapsulation have been suggested to cope with this technological problems (Kılıç & Özer, 2019). Emulsion gels have been successfully used to replace/reduce animal fat in comminuted meat products (Paglarini, Martini, & Pollonio, 2019; Pintado et al., 2016; Pintado, Herrero, Jiménez-Colmenero, & Ruiz-Capillas, 2016; Wang, Xie, Li, Liu, & Yan, 2018). Oil in water (O/W) emulsions are produced by forming a stable emulsion (oil phase dispersed in a continuous phase) in the presence of an emulsifier, followed by emulsion gelation (Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2015; McClements, 2010). In the case of kappa carrageenan, this gelation is based on a conformational transition of the gum from random coil to double helix, upon cooling, leading to the formation of an elastic gel (Stephen & Phillips, 2016). This polysaccharide gum allows wide range of possibilities for incorporating different amounts of oil (1% - 40%) and kappa carrageenan (1.5% - 3%), making it possible to be used for applications such as fat reduction and lipid profile modification. Previous studies showed that fresh and cured meat products containing an O/W hydrogelled emulsion (40% oil and 1.5% kappa carrageenan) as a partial fat replacer (up to 50%) had improved lipid composition and sensory acceptability (Alejandre, Passarini, Astiasarán,
Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Ansorena).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.056 Received 18 January 2019; Received in revised form 14 March 2019; Accepted 25 March 2019 Available online 26 March 2019 0963-9969/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Canada). Kappa carrageenan (GENU® texturizer type MB-151F) was provided by CP Kelco, Atlanta, (GA, USA). Polysorbate 80 was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical, (MO, USA). Ethylcellulose (ETHOCEL Std.10 Premium) was provided by Dow Chemical, Midland, (MI, USA), BHT was obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific, (NH, USA) and GMS was purchased from HallStar, Bedford Park, (IL, USA).
& Ansorena, 2017; Alejandre, Poyato, Ansorena, & Astiasarán, 2016). In addition, organogels have recently been used as another lipid delivery system. They are formed by combining an organic liquid and an organogelator at specific shearing conditions, resulting in a threedimensional cooled networked structure with thermo-reversible properties (Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2015; Stortz, Zetzl, Barbut, Cattaruzza, & Marangoni, 2012). Ethylcellulose (EC), a semi-crystalline cellulose polymer derivative, consisting of a cellulose backbone with ethoxyl substitutions at the hydroxyl groups, has been used as an organogelator (Koch, 1937). Texture and plasticity of vegetable oil based EC oleogels can be modulated by the addition of surfactants. Glycerol monostearate (GMS), for instance, is able to structure oil resulting in the formation of a secondary network due to crystallization (Davidovich-Pinhas, Barbut, & Marangoni, 2015). This surfactant has been successfully incorporated into vegetable oil-based EC oleogels with a moderate plasticizing effect (Davidovich-Pinhas, Barbut, & Marangoni, 2016). In comminuted meat products, ethylcellulose based organogels have shown promising results as an oil structuring agent (Barbut et al., 2016a, 2016c; Barbut, Wood, & Marangoni, 2016b; Zetzl et al., 2012). However, the use of surfactants in organogels and how they affect meat products has not been investigated in depth. Overall, only the addition of the sorbitan monostearate (SMS) surfactant has been tested in meat products (frankfurters and breakfast sausages) showing similar texture to full animal fat control products (Barbut et al., 2016a, 2016b). Thus, as GMS has pretty similar properties to SMS, it can be hypothesized that GMS may also be of interest in meat products reformulation strategies. The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of total animal fat replacement in meat batters, using two structured oil systems, namely O/W hydrogelled emulsions and organogels. In addition, the effect of different amounts of carrageenan in the O/W hydrogelled emulsions and GMS in the organogels were evaluated with respect to the physicochemical, textural and nutritional properties of the reformulated products.
2.3. Oil in water (O/W) hydrogelled emulsions and organogels preparation
2. Material and methods
The two systems were formulated to supply equal amount of fat to all the meat batter formulations. O/W hydrogelled emulsions (HG) were prepared according to the method described by Poyato, Ansorena, Berasategi, Navarro-Blasco, and Astiasaran (2014) in Pyrex beakers (300 g). Briefly, the oil phase containing canola oil (40%), polysorbate 80 (0.05%; 0.003 oil: surfactant ratio), BHT (0.01%), and the aqueous phase containing kappa carrageenan (1.5% or 3%), and deionized water (up to 100%) were separately heated at 80 °C. After the homogenization of both phases, part of the molten gel was kept in Pyrex beakers to be incorporated in the meat batters, other part split into ten aliquots of 35 mL in 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes (height: 9.0 cm, diameter: 2.7 cm diameter) for the back extrusion test and syneresis, and the rest poured into cylindrical glass tubes (height: 14.5 cm, inside diameter:1.9 cm) lined with an aluminum foil (Gravelle, Barbut, & Marangoni, 2013) for texture profile analysis. All parts of the molten gels were cooled at room temperature for 2 h and stored at 4 °C overnight. Organogels (OG) were prepared with 12% ethylcellulose (viscosity of 10 cP), glycerol monostearate (GMS at 0%, 1.5% or 3%), 0.01% butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT; to control oxidation) and canola oil (88%, 86.5% or 85%, depending on the GMS concentration) and heating in an oven to 140 °C according to Gravelle, Barbut, and Marangoni (2012). The molten gels were split in the same proportions as the hydrogelled emulsions into Pyrex beakers, the 50 mL polypropylene tubes, and the cylindrical glass tubes. Organogels were kept in the oven at 100 °C for 1 h, cooled at room temperature for 2 h and stored at 4 °C overnight.
2.1. Meat ingredients
2.4. Meat batters preparation
Lean beef leg muscles (semitendinosus and biceps femoris) and beef fat trimming were obtained from the University of Guelph meat laboratory. The lean beef meat (72.55 ± 0.24% moisture, 24.43 ± 0.52% protein, and 2.08 ± 0.02% fat) and beef fat (74.82 ± 0.19% fat, 19.34 ± 0.62% moisture and 5.04 ± 0.52% protein; AOAC, 2002a) were separately chopped in a bowl chopper (Schneidmeister SMK 40, Berlin, Germany) at the low speed setting for 1 min, to obtain a homogenous mass, and then frozen (−20 °C) in individual polyethylene bags (1 kg per bag) and used within 3 months.
Seven treatments were prepared: beef fat control (BF control); canola oil control (CO control); two meat batters containing oil in water (O/W) hydrogelled emulsions with 1.5% or 3% carrageenan (CA) (HGM-1.5% CA and HGM-3% CA); and three meat batters containing organogels with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (OGM-no GMS, OGM-1.5% GMS, and OGM-3% GMS). Formulations of meat batters are shown in Table 1. Meat batters (1.5 kg batches) were formulated to contain 11% protein and 21% fat/oil. The lean meat supplied 2.08% of the fat in the overall meat batter formulation, and the remainder (18.92%) of the 21% was provided by either added beef fat, liquid canola oil, a canola oil based ethylcellulose organogel, or a canola oil based O/W carrageenan hydrogelled emulsion. Meat and fat were thawed (5 °C)
2.2. Gel systems ingredients Canola oil was obtained from Saporito Foods Inc., Markham, (ON,
Table 1 Formulations (%) of meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HG) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OG) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Treatment
Treatment identification
Lean beef meat
Beef fat
Liquid canola oil
Organogel (OG)
Hydrogelled emulsion (HG)
Ice
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
BF control CO control HGM-1.5% CA HGM-3% CA OGM- no GMS OGM-1.5% GMS OGM-3% GMS
39.00 45.45 45.45 45.45 45.45 45.45 45.45
28.00 – – – – – –
– 20.56 – – – – –
– – – – 22.84 23.23 23.63
– – 51.30 51.30 – – –
29.75 30.74 – – 28.46 28.07 27.67
All formulated with 2% salt, 1% modified starch and 0.25% sodium tripolyphosphate. 130
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
overnight. A common procedure (Youssef & Barbut, 2009) was used to prepare the meat batters in three separate trials. Briefly, lean meat was chopped in the bowl chopper (Schneidmeister SMK 40, Berlin, Germany) at the low speed setting for 30 s, followed by the addition of 2.0% NaCl, 0.25% sodium tripolyphosphate and 1% modified waxy maize starch (FIRM-TEX®; Ingredion, Westchester, IL, USA), and chopping at high speed for 30 s. This was followed by a 1.5 min break (allowing time for protein extraction). The fat source was then added and chopped at the high speed setting for 1 min, followed by ice addition, and chopping at the high speed for 5 min. Final batter temperatures, for all treatments, did not exceed 12 °C. Each batter was vacuum-packed (150 Torr, Multivac Model A300/16, Sepp Haggenmeuller KG, Wolfertschwenden, Germany) to remove trapped air, and then nine 35-g samples were stuffed into 50 mL polypropylene tubes (height: 9 cm, diameter: 2.7 cm diameter) which were centrifuged (Fischer Scientific, Model 225, Pittsburgh, PA) at the low speed setting for 30 s to remove any remaining small air bubbles. The tubes were cooked in a water- bath set to 80 °C (Haake W-26, Berlin, Germany) from 25 °C to 72 °C within 1.5 h. A thermocouple unit (Fluke Corporation, Model 52, Everett, WA, USA) was used to monitor the core temperature of the samples. Samples cooked in the polypropylene tubes were kept at 4 °C until further analyses (cooking loss, proximate composition, TPA, back extrusion, color and TBARS).
cut into 2-mm cubes and fit into a slot of the E7449 universal specimen stub (Quorum Technologies, Lewes, UK). A formulation of water soluble glycols and resins (Tissue-Tek O.C.T., Canempco Supplies, St. Laurent, QC, Canada) was used to provide convenient specimen matrix for cryostat sectioning. In both cases, the stub was placed in a cryogenic preparation system (Emitech K1250X, Ashford, Kent, UK) and then plugged into a liquid nitrogen-slush bath at −210 °C to rapidly freeze the sample, followed by transfer to the cryogenic preparation system under vacuum. Samples were fractured with a razor blade and the frozen phase was sublimed for 5 min (OG samples) or for 30 min (HG samples) at −90 °C, depending on sample composition. Samples were then sputter coated with 30 nm of platinum and then transferred to the SEM unit (Quanta FEG 250, FEI, Hillsboro, OR, USA) to be viewed at acceleration voltage of 10 kV and a temperature no higher than − 120 °C. 2.6. Analyses of meat batters 2.6.1. Cooking loss and proximate composition Cooking loss was determined as the fluid collected after heating and brief cooling of the polypropylene tubes (cold water for 5 min), expressed as percentage water and fat loss from the raw batter. Liquids were kept at 4 °C overnight, so fat/oil floated to the top, and measured the next day. Proximate analyses were performed on fresh meat and on cooked meat batters according to the Official Method of Analysis AOAC International (AOAC, 2002a; AOAC, 2002b; AOAC, 2002c; AOAC, 2002d).
2.5. Analyses of hydrogelled emulsions and organogels 2.5.1. Texture profile analysis (TPA) and back extrusion tests The mechanical properties were evaluated using two large deformation techniques: texture profile analysis (TPA) and the back extrusion test. Both tests were performed using a texture analyzer (TA.TXT2, Stable Micro Systems, Texture Technologies Corporation, Scardsdale, NY, USA). For gels, samples were prepared in the cylindrical glass tubes. Samples kept at 4 °C were compressed twice to 30% of their original height, at a crosshead speed of 1.5 mm/s with a cylindrical probe (TA30A, 7.6 cm diameter, 1.0 cm tall). The following parameters were recorded: hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, chewiness, gumminess, and resilience (Bourne, 1978). Nine samples per treatment were measured in each of the three separate trials. The two hydrogelled emulsion treatments were also analyzed after 10 days of storage at 4 °C to evaluate their stability. Back extrusion samples were prepared in the 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes and evaluated 24 h after preparation (Zetzl et al., 2012). A stainless steel probe with a cylindrical shaft (height 9.8 cm, diameter 1.8 cm) and a truncated spherical tip (height 1.3 cm, diameter 2.0 cm) was used to penetrate 30 mm into each sample. Parameters collected were: Young's modulus (ratio of the compressive stress to the longitudinal strain; MPa) and force at maximum penetration (30 mm; N). Five tubes per treatment were measured in two separate trials.
2.6.2. Fatty acid profile and thiobarbituric acid-reactive-substances (TBARS) Fatty acid profile was determined on the lipid extracts by gas chromatography, after initial derivatization to form fatty acid methyl esters (FAME), following the method of Alejandre et al. (2017). TBARS were determined on the extracted fat of cooked meat batters according to Maqsood and Benjakul (2010) with slight modifications reported in Poyato, Ansorena, Navarro-Blasco, and Astiasaran (2014). 2.6.3. Texture profile analysis (TPA) and back extrusion Nine cores (16 mm diameter, 10 mm high) taken from samples cooked in the 50 mL polypropylene tubes the day before were used for the TPA. Cores were compressed twice to 75% of their original height at a crosshead speed of 1.5 mm/s. The back extrusion test (see conditions above) was performed on samples cooked in the 50 mL polypropylene tubes the day before. Results were recorded as described by Gravelle, Barbut, Quinton, and Marangoni (2014). 2.6.4. Light microscopy Samples (approximately 2.0 × 2.0 × 0.5 cm) from the 50 mL polypropylene tubes were cut from the centers of cooked meat batters, which were then treated and fixed following Youssef and Barbut (2009), and observed using a microscope (Model BX60, Olympus Optical Co, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Average size of fat globules was calculated using a micrometer.
2.5.2. Syneresis- hydrogelled emulsions Syneresis of carrageenan gels was measured according to Banerjee and Bhattacharya (2011) to evaluate their stability at 4 °C for 48 h. The 50 mL polypropylene tubes, containing 30 mL of carrageenan gel, were weighted (M1) and centrifuged at 5000 rpm (2800 g) for 10 min in a laboratory model centrifuge (Marathon 21000R, Thermo IEC, Needham Heights, MA, USA). After centrifugation, gels along with the tubes were weighed again after discarding the separated water (M2). Syneresis of gel was calculated as (M1– M2)/M1 and expressed as per cent basis. Three polypropylene tubes per treatment were measured in two separate trials.
2.6.5. Color Samples (27 mm diameter, 1.0 cm height) from the 50 mL polypropylene tubes were used to measure the color. Seven measurements per treatment were done based on Holman, Collins, Kilgannon, and Hopkins (2018), using a NIX (Nix Pro Color Sensor™, Nix Sensor Ltd., ON, Canada) using the CIE L*a*b* system, illuminant D65 and 10° standard observer settings. Hue [tan−1 (b*/a*)] and Chroma [(a*2 + b*2)1/2] were also calculated.
2.5.3. Cryo-scanning electron microscopy- hydrogelled emulsions and organogels Organogels (40–60 mg) were placed in a 5-mm high stub with single hole (6 mm diameter x 3 mm deep), and hydrogelled emulsions were 131
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Table 2 Texture profile analysis (TPA) and back extrusion parameters of hydrogelled emulsions (HG) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OG) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%).
TPA
Back extrusion
Parameters
HG-1.5% CA
HG-3% CA
OG-no GMS
OG-1.5% GMS
OG-3% GMS
SEM
P value
Hardness (N) Springiness (cm) Cohesiveness (ratio) Chewiness (N cm) Gumminess (N) Resilience (ratio) Force at maximum penetration (N) Young's modulus (MPa)
6.35 0.97 0.73 4.61 4.45 0.44 8.95 1.07
15.97 (0.39)c 0.95 (0.00)b 0.72 (0.00)b 11.41 (0.22)b 10.86 (0.22)b 0.41 (0.01)b 20.65 (1.19)c 1.57 (0.11)c
Too soft Too soft Too soft Too soft Too soft Too soft 0.35(0.29)a Too soft
11.69 (0.63)b 0.74 (0.02)a 0.45 (0.02)a 5.19 (0.26)a 3.85 (0.26)a 0.12 (0.01)a 6.74 (0.84)b 0.87 (0.08)a
16.43 (0.29)c 0.84 (0.00)ab 0.57 (0.00)ab 9.38 (0.57)b 7.88 (0.09)b 0.19 (0.00)a 19.12 (1.5)c 1.31 (0.35)bc
0.75 0.04 0.04 0.58 0.51 0.03 2.31 0.15
0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001
(0.12)a (0.00)b (0.00)b (0.06)a (0.07)a (0.00)b (1.67)b (0.03)ab
Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials.
compromising the texture.
2.6.6. Statistical analysis Analysis was done using the STATA/IC 12.1 program (StataCorp LP, Texas, USA) to evaluate the random block design which included three independent trials. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate statistical significance (P < .05) among treatments. Treatments were assigned as fixed effect and trial as a random effect. Multiple comparisons of means were done by the Tukey Post Hoc procedure to evaluate significance (P < .05) among treatments. Values reported are the mean values and standard error of the mean (SEM). A common SEM and P-value for all means was also calculated.
3.2. Meat batters evaluations Testing for cooking loss is essential to assess the ability of a meat system to hold water and fat during the protein denaturation phase (Tahmasebi, Labbafi, Emam-Djomeh, & Yarmand, 2016). Meat batters formulated with liquid canola oil (CO control) showed significantly lower water loss (< 1%) compared to beef fat control batters (BF control; Fig. 2). This reduction by itself could be considered as an advantage. However, the significant increases (P < .05) in hardness and springiness in products with liquid canola oil compared to BF control (Table 3), showed some negative effects. These results are in agreement with previous studies showing that substitution with liquid vegetable oil by itself resulted in much firmer comminuted meat products (Barbut et al., 2016a; Youssef, Barbut, & Smith, 2011; Zetzl et al., 2012). The reduction in fluid loss and the increased hardness of the CO control batter can be explained by the oil globules´ size and distribution within the matrix. Fig. 3 shows that the CO control batter (Fig. 3B) had much smaller fat globules (average size < 50 μm), compared to fat globules in BF control batter (average size ≈100 μm; Fig. 3A). The small fat globules are covered with an interfacial protein film (IPF) and hence, provided more surface for fat-protein interactions, which results in more resistance to compression and less chance for fluid exudation during the cooking process. The same finding was reported in previous studies using liquid oil in meat batters (Barbut et al., 2016b; Youssef & Barbut, 2009). In order to counteract the higher hardness observed by using canola oil by itself (as compared to the BF control), oil structuring systems were employed. The hydrogelled emulsions meat products (HGM) showed a decrease in water loss, compared to the BF control (Fig. 2). Carrageenan (CA) had a positive effect on water retention. Thus, the higher level of CA (3%) contributed to a 50% lower water loss compared to 1.5% CA. However, fat was not so well retained in HGM products; i.e., resulting in fat losses of around 5%. Thus, HGM products showed higher cooking losses (fat + water) compared to BF control products. The use of the organogel system also showed lower water losses compared to the BF control (Fig. 2). The further addition of glycerol monostearate (GMS) surfactant did not affect water and fat loss values. This agrees with previous studies in which sorbitan monostearate (SMS) was added as a surfactant to a finely comminuted meat product (Barbut et al., 2016a, 2016c). Unlike the increased hardness of the CO control, meat batters formulated with the structured oil gel systems (OGM and HGM) showed similar hardness, cohesiveness, chewiness, gumminess and resilience as the BF control (P > .05; Table 3). This is desirable as it demonstrates that vegetable oil can be used, when incorporated into a meat gel system, without negatively affecting texture. The back extrusion test showed that penetration force was similar in HGM and OGM-no GMS
3. Results and discussion 3.1. Hydrogelled emulsions and organogels characteristics: texture and microstructure Both types of oil delivery systems were evaluated to better understand their physical properties. Texture was evaluated by TPA and back extrusion tests in all samples except for organogel without surfactant (OG-no GMS), which was too soft to be measured (Table 2). Addition of carrageenan (3%) and GMS (3%), in their respective oil delivery systems, showed a clear dose-effect (P < .05) on hardness, chewiness and gumminess as compared to emulsions with 1.5% carrageenan or GMS (Table 2). Moreover, back extrusion data showed increased force and Young's modulus values at the initial state of deformation, confirming the increased firmness when adding more carrageenan or GMS. These results agree with Poyato, Ansorena, Berasategi, et al. (2014) who pointed out the increased hardness of hydrogelled emulsions with higher levels of carrageenan, and the results of Davidovich-Pinhas et al. (2015) who reported the effect of surfactant addition on organogel firmness. In addition, Lopez-Martínez, Charó-Alonso, Marangoni, and Toro-Vazquez (2015) described a synergistic interaction between ethylcellulose and GMS in canola oil organogels. An increase in gel firmness was also reported when SMS (surfactant) was added into ethylcellulose oleogels (Gravelle et al., 2013). In the present study, the hydrogelled emulsions (HG) showed higher resilience (a parameter related to the elastic recovery of the sample) compared to organogels (OG), which demonstrated kappa carrageenan's ability to produce a more elastic gel. Differences in gel systems microstructure were also visualized (Fig. 1). Hydrogelled emulsions with 1.5% carrageenan showed a typical honeycomb structure (Fig. 1A, B and C) seen after sublimation of a high amount of water (60% within the original structure). The organogel with 1.5% GMS (Fig. 1D, E and F) showed a rough and waxy morphology due to the high oil content in the system. A fairly similar structure of an organogel was also reported by Laredo, Barbut, and Marangoni (2011). Only two gel systems were selected since the other gels showed similar microstructure. These structured oil systems were later incorporated into our test meat formulations as total animal fat replacers, with the ultimate goal of improving the lipid profile without 132
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Fig. 1. Scanning electron micrographs of hydrogelled emulsion (HG) with 1.5% carrageenan (A, B, C); and organogel (OG) with 1.5% glycerol monostearate (GMS) (D,E,F), at three magnifications (2000x, 10,000x and 20,000x), respectively.
compared to the force used for the BF control, but lower values were noticed in organogel batters with GMS. However, as was previously pointed out, these differences were not noticed in hardness measured by TPA. Barbut et al. (2016b) also reported that the addition of organogels containing a SMS surfactant, to breakfast sausages, did not affect the hardness of the products. The similar textural properties of OGM and the BF control product may also be explained by looking at microscopy results. Fig. 3E and F show the microstructure of organogel meat batters formulated with 0.0% GMS and 1.5% GMS, respectively (3% GMS is not shown; as its structure resembles the 1.5% GMS). Increases of fat globules size, compared with the CO control, gave rise to a lower IPF surrounding the globules and hence, lower hardness of these products. The size of fat globules can also be used to explain the differences observed in lightness among formulations (Table 4). CO control and meat batter with organogel (without GMS) showed lighter appearance as compared to the rest of the products, since more light reflectance is related to smaller fat globules (Youssef & Barbut, 2010). Meanwhile, increases of fat globules size in meat batters with organogels plus GMS
resulted in similar L* values compared to the BF control. Redness and yellowness values (a*, b*) were significantly lower in the CO control as compared to the BF control. However, these differences were not noticed in OGM. Wolfer, Acevedo, Prusa, Sebranek, and Tarté (2018) also reported lighter and less red frankfurters formulated with soybean oil as replacer of animal fat compared to control, even in treatments where the oil was structured with rice bran wax. As expected, a decrease in fat globules size was also observed in soybean oil frankfurters. Despite the similar texture of HGM, compared to BF control, light micrographs showed some irregular shaped fat globules and some coalescence in the CA added treatments (Fig. 3C and D). This helps to explain the fat losses observed in these treatments. In any case, this fat morphology did not affect the color of HGM (P > .05; Table 4). A possible explanation for the fat destabilization in these products could be related to the addition of Polysorbate 80, as surfactant, in the hydrogelled emulsions. Previous studies reported a protein matrix aggregation and high cooking losses in meat batters when this surfactant was added (Youssef et al., 2011). Nevertheless, in order to clarify the potential origin of the instability Fig. 2. Fat and water losses (%) of meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsion (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogel (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Means (n = 9) related to fluid loss with same lower case are not significantly different (P < .05). Means (n = 9) related to fat loss with same capital letter are not significantly different (P < .05). Error bars show the standard error of the mean.
133
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Table 3 Texture profile analysis (TPA) parameters and force of back extrusion of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Treatment
1
Treatment identification BF control TPA
Hardness (N) Springiness (cm) Cohesiveness (ratio) Chewiness (N cm) Gumminess (N) Resilience (ratio) Back extrusion Force (N)
14.78 (0.54)ab 0.62 (0.05)a 0.22 (0.01)ab 2.11 (0.36)a 3.36 (0.27)a 0.07 (0.00)ab 46.42 (0.89)c
2
3
4
5
6
7
CO control
HGM-1.5% CA
HGM-3% CA
OGM- no GMS
OGM-1.5% GMS
OGM-3% GMS
SEM P value
20.72 (0.98)c 0.88 (0.01)c 0.28 (0.01)b 5.14 (0.37)a 5.86 (0.38)a 0.09 (0.00)b 52.81 (1.47)d
14.55 (0.53)ab 0.82 (0.43)bc 0.25 (0.02)ab 4.43 (1.73)a 5.24 (1.79)a 0.08 (0.01)a 43.21 (1.56)c
15.77 (1.03)ab 0.77 (0.01)abc 0.25 (0.01)ab 3.31 (0.55)a 4.26 (0.71)a 0.07 (0.00)ab 44.71 (1.55)c
17.61 (0.39)b 0.75 (0.05)abc 0.23 (0.01)ab 3.28 (0.58)a 4.31 (0.49)a 0.07 (0.00)ab 42.53 (1.33)bc
13.57 (0.61)a 0.68 (0.02)ab 0.20 (0.01)a 1.75 (0.24)a 2.55 (0.30)a 0.06 (0.00)a 33.27 (0.89)a
14.62 (0.62)a 0.71 (0.04)abc 0.23 (0.02)ab 2.35 (0.34)a 3.22 (0.26)a 0.07 (0.01)ab 36.40 (1.40)ab
0.35 0.02 0.01 0.35 0.35 0.00 1.21
0.001 0.003 0.028 0.104 0.104 0.059 0.000
Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials.
of meat batters formulated with the hydrogelled system (i.e., with carrageenan) their stability was monitored after 10 days storage at 4 °C (TPA test and syneresis after centrifugation). No significant differences in TPA parameters were found before and after storage at both CA concentrations (data not shown for the 10th day). Syneresis was low for both HG products (2.96% and 1.85% at 1.5% and 3% CA, respectively). Consequently, this gel delivery system seemed not to be the cause of instability. These findings suggest that the origin of destabilization is affected by the manufacturing process and therefore further study is needed. It is also interesting to note that the meat batters with beef fat, canola oil and organogels showed a final end chopping temperature
below 5 °C. However, meat batters formulated with hydrogelled emulsions reached temperatures of 10 °C to 12 °C. This might have affected the protein extraction and the emulsification process. In this regard, it has been indicated that protein extraction is enhanced at temperatures of 2 °C to 4 °C (Barbut, 2015; Schmidt, 1984). The reason for reaching a higher temperature was that no ice was added to the carrageenan treatments as that water was already incorporated during emulsion preparation (Table 1). As the goal of the study was to improve the fatty acid composition of meat batters, (i.e., via using canola oil as an animal fat replacer), changes in the nutritional profile were also determined (Table 5).
Fig. 3. Light micrographs of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (A); canola oil (B); hydrogelled emulsion with 1.5% carrageenan (C); hydrogelled emulsion with 3% carrageenan (D); organogel without glycerol monostearate (GMS) (E); and organogel with 1.5% GMS (F). Scale bar, 200 μm. 134
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Table 4 Color parameters of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Treatment identification
BF control
CO control
HGM-1.5% CA
HGM-3% CA
OGM- no GMS
OGM-1.5% GMS
OGM-3% GMS
SEM
P value
L* a* b* Hue Chroma
63.03 (0.04)a 7.50 (0.12)b 10.00 (0.07)b 53.14 (0.39)a 12.50 (0.11)a
74.28 (0.32)c 5.70 (0.05)a 8.78 (0.18)a 56.98 (0.53)a 9.55 (1.07)a
68.95 (3.47)abc 6.88 (0.75)ab 10.18 (0.43)b 56.18 (1.94)a 11.72 (0.64)a
64.91 (1.07)a 7.15 (0.23)ab 10.68 (0.14)b 56.19 (0.91)a 12.69 (0.30)a
71.72 (0.45)c 6.78 (0.28)ab 9.90 (0.05)b 55.60 (0.96)a 10.95 (0.90)a
69.22 (0.14)ab 7.20 (0.16)ab 10.05 (0.13)b 54.38 (0.68)a 11.45 (0.95)a
71.10 (0.25)ab 6.95 (0.20)ab 10.01 (0.09)b 55.22 (0.94)a 11.08 (1.06)a
0.92 0.16 0.13 0.42 0.33
0.000 0.045 0.001 0.220 0.184
Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials. Table 5 Proximate composition (%), lipid profile (%) and lipid oxidation (mg MDA/kg product) of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Treatment identification
BF control
CO control
HG-1.5%CA
HG-3%CA
OG-no GMS
OG-1.5%GMS
OG-3%GMS
SEM
P value
Protein (%) Moisture (%) Fat (%) SFA MUFA PUFA Omega-3 Omega-6 Omega-6/omega-3 PUFA/SFA PUFA + MUFA/SFA trans TBARS (mg MDA/kg product)
13.32 (0.12)a 62.13 (0.44)b 23.29 (1.03)c 11.79 (0.10)d 9.87 (0.09)a 0.31 (0.04)a 0.02 (0.00)a 0.26 (0.00)a 16.21 (0.33)b 0.03 (0.00)a 0.86 (0.01)a 1.31 (0.04)b 0.84 (0.02)b
13.58 (0.23)a 63.57 (0.83)bc 21.94 (0.75)c 2.37 (0.08)c 14.04 (0.10)c 5.45 (0.18)b 2.29 (0.01)b 3.14 (0.16)b 1.37 (0.06)a 2.31 (0.16)b 8.25 (0.33)b 0.04 (0.00)a 1.04 (0.12)b
12.62 (0.23)a 66.73 (1.08)c 16.73 (0.89)a 1.57 (0.05)a 10.48 (0.10)ab 4.59 (0.03)b 1.51 (0.00)b 3.08 (0.00)b 2.05 (0.00)a 2.92 (0.01)b 9.57 (0.12)b 0.08 (0.00)a 0.37 (0.06)a
12.12 (0.31)a 65.12 (1.26)c 18.28 (1.19)ab 1.72 (0.04)ab 11.77 (0.13)b 4.72 (0.04)b 1.22 (0.04)b 3.49 (0.16)bc 2.87 (0.10)a 2.75 (0.09)b 9.60 (0.27)b 0.07 (0.00)a 0.48 (0.06)a
13.41 (0.25)a 60.87 (0.23)a 20.82 (0.19)bc 1.97 (0.03)bc 13.31 (0.01)c 5.47 (0.16)b 2.00 (0.01)b 3.45 (0.15)bc 1.73 (0.07)a 2.78 (0.12)b 9.54 (0.15)b 0.07 (0.00)a 0.45 (0.03)a
13.56 (0.33)a 59.82 (0.40)a 21.39 (0.16)c 2.01 (0.07)bc 13.25 (0.20)c 5.75 (0.24)b 1.89 (0.07)b 3.85 (0.03)c 2.03 (0.00)a 2.85 (0.02)b 9.42 (0.010)b 0.09 (0.00)a 0.38 (0.08)a
13.27 (0.14)a 59.23 (0.48)a 21.85 (0.37)c 2.12 (0.02)bc 13.74 (0.10)c 5.93 (0.13)b 1.92 (0.00)b 3.99 (0.04)c 2.08 (0.00)a 2.80 (0.01)b 9.27 (0.00)b 0.11 (0.00)a 0.42 (0.01)a
0.09 0.45 0.35 0.91 0.38 0.47 0.18 0.31 1.46 0.26 0.78 0.11 0.07
0.478 0.004 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.284
Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials. SFA = saturated fatty acids; MUFA = monounsaturated fatty acids; PUFA:polyunsaturated fatty acids; TBARS = thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; MDA:malonhaldeyde.
Saturated fatty acids (SFA) went down from 11.8% (BF control) to ≈2% (all reformulated products), whereas PUFA increased from 0.3% to ≈5%. Thus, higher unsaturated fraction (MUFA+PUFA) was achieved when canola oil was incorporated, mainly due to the high levels of oleic (omega-9), linoleic (omega-6) and alpha-linolenic (omega-3) acids (Table S1, Supplementary material). It is also important to mention that the addition of alpha-linolenic acid resulted in decreasing the omega-6/omega-3 ratio (from 16.2 to ≈2). Fat losses during cooking led to a lower fat content in products formulated with hydrogelled emulsions (Table 5). However, fat content in treatments 2, 5, 6 and 7 were not significantly different (P > .05) compared to the BF control. Increasing unsaturated fatty acids levels can sometime induce lipid oxidation. However, incorporating canola oil did not show an adverse effect on TBARS values of meat batters (P > .05). Moreover, oil structuring strategies significantly reduced TBARS values (P < .05; Table 5) as compared to the animal fat containing product or to liquid canola oil addition. This reduction may be explained by the addition of BHT, helping to control lipid oxidation during gel and meat product preparation. In particular, this may have occurred in the organogels, which were prepared by heating to 140 °C, and where the use of an antioxidant (BHT) was definitely needed. Gravelle et al. (2012) reported a significant increase in oxidation by products if an antioxidant is not added during organogel preparation. Cooked meat products with carrageenan have not been reported to show oxidation problems (Poyato, Ansorena, Berasategi, et al., 2014).
4. Conclusion Two promising structured oil gel delivery systems (organogels and hydrogelled emulsions) prepared with different technological strategies, showed adequate properties to be used as total fat replacements in comminuted meat batters. Using liquid canola oil by itself (i.e., unstructured) resulted in undesirable attributes (e.g., texture and color) that could be improved by structuring the oil as organogels or hydrogelled emulsions. These gel systems also improved the fatty acid profile of meat batters and reduced lipid oxidation. Organogels were more efficiently incorporated into the meat matrix than hydrogelled emulsions, showing a more uniform microstructure, and without fat losses from the cooked meat batters. Acknowledgements We thank the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad- Spain (AGL2014–52636-P) for the financial support. We are grateful to “Red de Excelencia Consolider” PROCARSE (AGL2014-51742-REDC) and INPROCARSA (AGL2017-90699-REDC). M. Alejandre is grateful to “Asociación de Amigos de la Universidad de Navarra” for the pre-doctoral fellowship. Gobierno de Navarra (Departamento de Educación) is also acknowledged for the mobility fellowship to M. Alejandre. The authors would also like to thank A. Gravelle for training M. Alejandre on how to prepare organogels.
135
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
M. Alejandre, et al.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Koch, W. (1937). Properties and uses of ethylcellulose. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry, 29(6), 687–690. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50330a020. Laredo, T., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2011). Molecular interactions of polymer oleogelation. Soft Matter, 7(6), 2734–2743. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0sm00885k. Lopez-Martínez, A., Charó-Alonso, M. A., Marangoni, A. G., & Toro-Vazquez, J. F. (2015). Monoglyceride organogels developed in vegetable oil with and without ethylcellulose. Food Research International, 72, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODRES. 2015.03.019. Maqsood, S., & Benjakul, S. (2010). Comparative studies of four different phenolic compounds on in vitro antioxidative activity and the preventive effect on lipid oxidation of fish oil emulsion and fish mince. Food Chemistry, 119(1), 123–132. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.06.004. McClements, D. J. (2010). Emulsion design to improve the delivery of functional lipophilic components. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 1(1), 241–269. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.food.080708.100722. Paglarini, C.d. S., Martini, S., & Pollonio, M. A. R. (2019). Using emulsion gels made with sonicated soy protein isolate dispersions to replace fat in frankfurters. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 99, 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2018.10.005. Pehlivanoğlu, H., Demirci, M., Toker, O. S., Konar, N., Karasu, S., & Sagdic, O. (2018). Oleogels, a promising structured oil for decreasing saturated fatty acid concentrations: Production and food-based applications. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 58(8), 1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1256866. Pintado, T., Herrero, A., Ruiz-Capillas, C., Triki, M., Carmona, P., & Jiménez-Colmenero, F. (2016). Effects of emulsion gels containing bioactive compounds on sensorial, technological, and structural properties of frankfurters. Food Science and Technology International, 22(2), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013215577033. Pintado, T., Herrero, A. M., Jiménez-Colmenero, F., & Ruiz-Capillas, C. (2016). Strategies for incorporation of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) in frankfurters as a health-promoting ingredient. Meat Science, 114, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEATSCI.2015.12. 009. Poyato, C., Ansorena, D., Berasategi, I., Navarro-Blasco, I., & Astiasaran, I. (2014). Optimization of a gelled emulsion intended to supply omega-3 fatty acids into meat products by means of response surface methodology. Meat Science, 98(4), 615–621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.016. Poyato, C., Ansorena, D., Navarro-Blasco, I., & Astiasaran, I. (2014). A novel approach to monitor the oxidation process of different types of heated oils by using chemometric tools. Food Research International, 57, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres. 2014.01.033. Sacks, F. M., Lichtenstein, A. H., Wu, J. H. Y., Appel, L. J., Creager, M. A., Kris-Etherton, P. M., ... Van Horn, L. V. (2017). Dietary fats and cardiovascular disease: A presidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 136(3), https:// doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510. Schmidt, G. R. (1984). Processing effects on meat product microstructure. Journal of Food Structure, 3(1), 33–39. Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ foodmicrostructure/vol3/iss1/5. Stephen, A. M., & Phillips, G. O. (2016). Food polysaccharides and their applications. Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1201/9781420015164. Stortz, T. A., Zetzl, A. K., Barbut, S., Cattaruzza, A., & Marangoni, A. G. (2012). Edible oleogels in food products to help maximize health benefits and improve nutritional profiles. Lipid Technology, 24(7), 151–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/lite.201200205. Tahmasebi, M., Labbafi, M., Emam-Djomeh, Z., & Yarmand, M. S. (2016). Manufacturing the novel sausages with reduced quantity of meat and fat: The product development, formulation optimization, emulsion stability and textural characterization. LWT Food Science and Technology, 68, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2015.12. 011. USDA (2015). 2015–2020 Dietary guidelines for Americans. Washington (DC): USDA. Wang, X., Xie, Y., Li, X., Liu, Y., & Yan, W. (2018). Effects of partial replacement of pork back fat by a camellia oil gel on certain quality characteristics of a cooked style Harbin sausage. Meat Science, 146, 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEATSCI. 2018.08.011. WHO (2003). Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Vol. 916World Health Organization Technical Report Series (I-VIII). Wolfer, T. L., Acevedo, N. C., Prusa, K. J., Sebranek, J. G., & Tarté, R. (2018). Replacement of pork fat in frankfurter-type sausages by soybean oil oleogels structured with rice bran wax. Meat Science, 145, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. MEATSCI.2018.07.012. Youssef, M. K., & Barbut, S. (2009). Effects of protein level and fat/oil on emulsion stability, texture, microstructure and color of meat batters. Meat Science.. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.01.015. Youssef, M. K., & Barbut, S. (2010). Physicochemical effects of the lipid phase and protein level on meat emulsion stability, texture, and microstructure. Journal of Food Science, 75(2), S108–S114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01475.x. Youssef, M. K., Barbut, S., & Smith, A. (2011). Effects of pre-emulsifying fat/oil on meat batter stability, texture and microstructure. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 46(6), 1216–1224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02607.x. Zetzl, A. K., Marangoni, A. G., & Barbut, S. (2012). Mechanical properties of ethylcellulose oleogels and their potential for saturated fat reduction in frankfurters. Food and Function, 3(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2fo10202a.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.056. References Alejandre, M., Passarini, D., Astiasarán, I., & Ansorena, D. (2017). The effect of low-fat beef patties formulated with a low-energy fat analogue enriched in long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids on lipid oxidation and sensory attributes. Meat Science, 134, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.07.009. Alejandre, M., Poyato, C., Ansorena, D., & Astiasarán, I. (2016). Linseed oil gelled emulsion: A successful fat replacer in dry fermented sausages. Meat Science, 121, 107–113. AOAC (2002a). Determination of moisture content. 950.46. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of analysis (pp. 12–13). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC (2002b). Crude protein in meat. 981.10. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of analysis (pp. 7–8). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC (2002c). Ash of meat. 920.153. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of analysis (pp. 4). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC (2002d). Fat (crude) or ether extract in meat. 960.39. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of analysis (pp. 12–13). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Aranceta-Bartrina, J., Arija-Val, V., Maíz-Aldalur, E., Martínez-Muñoz, E., Ortega-Anta, R. M., & Pérez-Rodrígo, C. (2017). Nutrición Hospitalaria. Senc, 33(2), 1–21. https:// doi.org/10.3305/nh.2013.28.sup4.6783. Banerjee, S., & Bhattacharya, S. (2011). Compressive textural attributes, opacity and syneresis of gels prepared from gellan, agar and their mixtures. Journal of Food Engineering, 102(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.08.025. Barbut, S. (2015). Principles of meat processing. The Science of Poultry and Meat Processing. 46–54. Retrieved from http://www.poultryandmeatprocessing.com. Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. (2019). Organogels use in meat processing – Effects of fat/oil type and heating rate. Meat Science, 149, 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEATSCI. 2018.11.003. Barbut, S., Wood, J., & Marangoni, A. (2016a). Potential use of organogels to replace animal fat in comminuted meat products. Meat Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. meatsci.2016.08.003. Barbut, S., Wood, J., & Marangoni, A. (2016b). Quality effects of using organogels in breakfast sausage. Meat Science, 122, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci. 2016.07.022. Barbut, S., Wood, J., & Marangoni, A. G. (2016c). Effects of organogel hardness and formulation on acceptance of frankfurters. Journal of Food Science, 81(9), C2183–C2188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13409. Bloukas, J. G., Paneras, E. D., & Fournitzis, G. C. (1997). Effect of replacing pork backfat with olive oil on processing and quality characteristics of fermented sausages. Meat Science, 45(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00113-1. Bourne, M. C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology, 32(72), 62–66. Davidovich-Pinhas, M., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2015). The role of surfactants on ethylcellulose oleogel structure and mechanical properties. Carbohydrate Polymers, 127, 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CARBPOL.2015.03.085. Davidovich-Pinhas, M., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2016). Development, characterization, and utilization of food-grade polymer Oleogels. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-041715-033225. Gravelle, A. J., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2012). Ethylcellulose oleogels: Manufacturing considerations and effects of oil oxidation. Food Research International, 48(2), 578–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.05.020. Gravelle, A. J., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2013). Fractionation of ethylcellulose oleogels during setting. Food & Function, 4(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1039/ C2FO30227F. Gravelle, A. J., Barbut, S., Quinton, M., & Marangoni, A. G. (2014). Towards the development of a predictive model of the formulation-dependent mechanical behaviour of edible oil-based ethylcellulose oleogels. Journal of Food Engineering, 143, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.06.036. Holman, B. W. B., Collins, D., Kilgannon, A. K., & Hopkins, D. L. (2018). The effect of technical replicate (repeats) on Nix Pro Color Sensor™ measurement precision for meat: A case-study on aged beef colour stability. Meat Science, 135, 42–45. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.09.001. Jimenez-Colmenero, F., Salcedo-Sandoval, L., Bou, R., Cofrades, S., Herrero, A. M., & Ruiz-Capillas, C. (2015). Novel applications of oil-structuring methods as a strategy to improve the fat content of meat products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 44(2), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIFS.2015.04.011. Kılıç, B., & Özer, C. O. (2019). Potential use of interesterified palm kernel oil to replace animal fat in frankfurters. Meat Science, 148, 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. meatsci.2018.08.024.
136