Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Meat Sci. 2019 Jun;152:8-19. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.02.002. Epub 2019 Feb 8.

Detectability of the degree of freeze damage in meat depends on analytic-tool selection.

Author information

1
Faculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Aas, Norway. Electronic address: bjorg.egelandsdal@nmbu.no.
2
Department of Physics, University of Oslo, 0316 Oslo, Norway.
3
Animalia, Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research Centre, 0513 Oslo, Norway.
4
Faculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Aas, Norway.
5
Imaging Centre, Faculty of Biosciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Aas, Norway.
6
Department of Physics, University of Oslo, 0316 Oslo, Norway; Department of Clinical and Biomedical Engineering, Oslo University Hospital, 0372 Oslo, Norway.
7
Faculty of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Aas, Norway.

Abstract

Novel freezing solutions are constantly being developed to reduce quality loss in meat production chains. However, there is limited focus on identifying the sensitive analytical tools needed to directly validate product changes that result from potential improvements in freezing technology. To benchmark analytical tools relevant to meat research and production, we froze pork samples using traditional (-25 °C, -35 °C) and cryogenic freezing (-196 °C). Three classes of analyses were tested for their capacity to separate different freeze treatments: thaw loss testing, bioelectrical spectroscopy (nuclear magnetic resonance, microwave, bioimpedance) and low-temperature microscopy (cryo-SEM). A general effect of freeze treatment was detected with all bioelectrical methods. Yet, only cryo-SEM resolved quality differences between all freeze treatments, not only between cryogenic and traditional freezing. The detection sensitivity with cryo-SEM may be explained by testing meat directly in the frozen state without prior defrosting. We discuss advantages, shortcomings and cost factors in using analytical tools for quality monitoring in the meat sector.

KEYWORDS:

Bioimpedance; Cryo-SEM; Freezing; Meat; Microwave spectroscopy; Nuclear magnetic resonance

PMID:
30784871
DOI:
10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.02.002
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science Icon for Norwegian BIBSYS system
Loading ...
Support Center