Sei sulla pagina 1di 6
Meat Science 118 (2016) 22 – 27 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Meat Science journal homepage:

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science

Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci High pressure as an alternative processing step for ham

High pressure as an alternative processing step for ham production

Sylvia Pingen, Nadine Sudhaus, André Becker, Carsten Krischek, Günter Klein

Sudhaus, André Becker, Carsten Krischek, Günter Klein ⁎ Institute of Food Quality and Food Safety, University

Institute of Food Quality and Food Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Bischofsholer Damm 15, D-30173 Hannover, Germany

article info

Article history:

Received 26 June 2015 Received in revised form 9 March 2016 Accepted 12 March 2016 Available online 18 March 2016

Keywords:

High pressure

Cooked ham

Pork

Meat quality

abstract

As high pressure processing (HPP) is becoming more and more important in the food industry, this study exam- ined the application of HPP (500 and 600 MPa) as a manufacturing step during simulated ham production. By re- placing conventional heating with HPP steps, ham-like texture or color attributes could not be achieved. HPP products showed a less pale, less red appearance, softer texture and higher yields. However, a combination of mild temperature (53 °C) and 500 MPa resulted in parameters more comparable to cooked ham. We conclude that HPP can be used for novel food development, providing novel textures and colors. However, when it comes to ham production, a heating step seems to be unavoidable to obtain characteristic ham properties. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over the last decades, high pressure processing (HPP) has become increasingly important in the food sector as a minimal processing tech- nology (Medina-Meza, Barnaba, & Barbosa-Cánovas, 2014). Along with pulsed electric elds ( Boulaaba, Egen, & Klein, 2014; Boulaaba, Kiessling, Töp , Heinz, & Klein, 2014 ), HPP is considered a non- thermal process technology. In contrast to traditional thermal food pro- cessing, HPP acts instantaneously and uniformly throughout the food matrix independently of size and composition ( Torres & Velazquez, 2005). Therefore, processing times can be shortened and manufacturing cost can be reduced (Lickert et al., 2010). Additionally, HPP treatments are able to reduce or eliminate vegetative microorganisms so that food safety can be assured ( Balasubramaniam & Farkas, 2008 ). However, product quality can also be negatively affected by increasing lipid oxida- tion and muscle discoloration (Cheftel & Culioli, 1997). Therefore, high pressure has been used in combination with sodium chloride and phos- phate to enhance texture, water retention and color of pork meat ( Villamonte, Simonin, Duranton, Chéret, & de Lamballerie, 2013). Be- sides using HPP as a post-processing preservation method ( Garriga, Grèbol, Aymerich, Monfort, & Hugas, 2004; Slongo et al., 2009), it also offers the possibility of generating new food products with novel struc- tures and textures ( Lickert et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2015 ). Ma and Ledward (2004) assumed that texture formation could be enhanced by the simultaneous or sequential treatment of proteins with heat and pressure. Color and texture changes observed in HPP treated meats are mainly associated with denaturation of proteins ( Khan et al., 2014). As shown by Sikes, Tobin, and Tume (2009), pressure enhances

Corresponding author. E-mail address: Guenter.Klein@tiho-hannover.de (G. Klein).

0309-1740/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

the solubility of myo brillar proteins, resulting in texture changes. Through gentle heating temperatures, cooking loss can be reduced and juiciness increased ( Aaslyng, Bejerholm, Ertbjerg, Bertram, & Andersen, 2003), which is a decisive parameter for customer acceptance ( Aaslyng et al., 2007 ). As shown by Patterson and Kilpatrick (1998) , elevated temperatures and pressure could be used to decrease the pressure resistance of bacterial strains. Therefore, low temperatures followed by pressure treatment can be used as a hurdle principle, re- garding microbiological safety, while new textures and avors might occur. Our study investigated physico-chemical and microbiological changes of cured M. longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) which was pressure-treated (500 and 600 MPa), heat-treated (53 °C) and pressure- plus heat-treated (53 °C and 500 MPa). Although classical ham production uses muscles of the hind leg, LTL was chosen as model muscle. Both LTL of one pig per trial were processed to compare meat samples more consistently, as physicochemical differences in mul- tiple muscles and animal individual properties were minimized. All treatments were compared with a conventional ham production meth- od (67 °C). The aim was to develop an acceptable ham-like pork product by means of high-pressure technology.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Sample preparation

For each of the six replications the pork loins of one commercial crossbreed pig were obtained 24 h post mortem (p.m.) from a local slaughterhouse ( Fig. 1 ). Both loin muscles of one pig were used for each replication in order to exclude the impact of different muscles, which are normally used for ham production. The pork loins were stored for 24 h at 4 ± 1 °C. M. longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL)

S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 2227

23

S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 22 – 27 23 Fig. 1. Production

Fig. 1. Production process. Pork loins were obtained 24 h post mortem (p.m.) and were stored for 24 h at 4 ± 1 °C. M. longissimus thoracis et lumborum (LTL) was released and cured 48 h p.m. Subsequently, after tumbling, each LTL was cut into three samples. Samples were assigned to six different treatments, as listed: cured control sample (T0-H0), heat-treated samples (T67-H0 and T53-H0), pressure-treated (HPP) samples (T0-H500 and T0-H600) and combination treatment (T53-H500).

was excised 48 h p.m. (10 °C), subcutaneous fat and connective tissues were removed.

2.2. Injection of brine

LTL was brine enhanced (0.5% nitrite, 9.5% salt, 90% water) via a sin- gle needle hand injector to obtain 20% weight gain. After injection LTL was intermittently tumbled (10 min tumbling and 20 min rest for

14 h) in a vacuum tumbler (MKR 150, Rühle GmbH, Grafhausen,

Germany) under 90% vacuum, 3 °C and 10 rpm. Subsequently, each muscle was divided into three samples of similar length (approx. 16 cm) and weight (approx. 800 g). All samples were placed in cooking bags (Nalophan, Kalle GmbH, Wiesbaden, Germany) and were assigned to six different treatments (Fig. 1). A Latin-square design was randomly applied to minimize the effect of different muscle locations.

France) was used as pressure medium. Target pressure was reached after approximately 5 min (500 MPa) or 7 min (600 MPa). Pressure hold- ing time was one minute. Temperature in the pressure vessel was moni- tored during treatment. During pressurization adiabatic heating led to a temperature variation of 3 ± 1 °C.

2.5. Heat and pressure combination

One of the samples was heated to a core temperature of 53 °C, as described in Section 2.3. prior to HPP treatment at 500 MPa as described in Section 2.4.

2.6. Storage

All samples were stored vacuum-sealed for 28 days at 5 ± 2 °C.

2.3.

Heat treatment

2.7. Microbial examinations

Samples were heated to core temperatures of 67 °C (approx. 4 h) and

Samples were microbiologically examined 24 h after treatment (day

°C (approx. 3 h) in a combi-steamer (Joker T, Eloma GmbH, Maisach,

Germany) at 100% moisture using a Delta-T cycle. After heat-treatment, samples were vacuum-sealed (99.5% vacuum, K3N, VC999 Packaging Sys- tems, Herisau, Switzerland) in sealed-edge polyethylene pouches (PA-PE 20/70, 300 × 400 mm, vapor permeability 2.6 g/m 2 d, Dagema, Willich,

53

1). The TPC (total plate count) of aerobic, mesophilic organisms was de- termined according to ISO 4833-1:2013. Additionally, lactic acid bacte- ria (LAB) were quanti ed according to ISO 15214:1998. Cell counts were expressed as log 10 colony forming units per g meat (log 10 CFU/g).

Germany).

2.8.

Physical analysis

2.4. High pressure processing

Samples for high pressure treatment were vacuum-sealed (99.5% vac- uum, K3N, VC999 Packaging Systems, Herisau, Switzerland) in two layers of sealed-edge polyethylene pouches (PA-PE 20/70, 300 × 400 mm, vapor permeability 2.6 g/m 2 d, Dagema,Willich, Germany). HPP treatment was conducted in an isostatic pressure unit (Isostatische Presse 6500 Bar 2 L, Nova Swiss, Cesson, France) with a 2 L cylindrical pressure chamber. A mixture of water and friogel (FRIOGEL ® NEO, Climalife, Vincennes,

Physical measurements were conducted 24 h after production (day 1) and 28 days later. Color (CIELab system, 2° standard observer, D65 illu- minant, 8 mm measuring eld) was measured on a fresh cut 30 min after blooming with a colorimeter (Minolta CR 400®, Konica-Minolta GmbH, Langenhagen, Germany). Each mean value was an average of 15 measur- ing points per sample. pH values were measured using a portable pH meter (Portamess ® , Knick GmbH, Berlin, Germany) equipped with a glass electrode (InLab 427 ® , Mettler-Toledo, Urdorf, Switzerland). Mean values of triplicate measurements were calculated. a w value was

24

S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 2227

determined using a a w -cryometer (AWK 40 ® , Nagy Instruments GmbH, Gauenfelden, Germany). Mean values of duplicate measurements were calculated. Texture prole analysis (TPA) was performed at room temper- ature (22 ± 2 °C) using a Texture Analyzer testing machine (TA.XT.plus, Stable Micro Systems, Surrey, England) equipped with a 50 mm circular at disk attached to a 500 N load cell. Samples were cut into 2.5 cm thick slices and ve cores (2.2 cm diameter) were obtained. A double compression cycle test, with a crosshead speed of 48.0 mm/min was performed determining hardness and chewiness. Water loss (%) was de- termined on day 1 as the weight difference of the samples before (W1) and after (W2) treatment: (W1 W2)/W1 100.

2.9. Chemical analysis

TBARS were determined photometrically according to Popp, Krischek, Janisch, Wicke, and Klein (2013) . Triplicate measurements were conducted and results were expressed as μ g malondialdehyde (MDA) per gram meat.

2.10. Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed, using GraphPad Prism 5 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, USA). Mean values ± standard errors (SE) were calculated for each parameter in each treatment group. Treat- ments were compared using a repeated measurement one-way ANOVA, followed by a Tukey multiple comparison test. Additionally a t-test was performed to compare mean values of each parameter on day 1 and day 28. Level of signicance was dened as P b 0.05.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Microbial analysis

Both high pressure treatment and cooking are able to improve mi- crobial safety of meat products ( Grossi, Bolumar, Søltoft-Jensen, & Orlien, 2014; Samelis, Kakouri, & Rementzis, 2000 ). In this study, all treatment variations led to a reduction in 2 log units (TPC) compared with T0-H0 (Table 1). Grossi et al. (2014) also showed that HPP treat- ment (600 MPa, 6 min) is able to reduce the TPC by approximately 2 log units on day 1 after production. In comparison, in the present study slightly higher TPC values were observed on day 1 probably due to shorter pressure times. As shown for pressure- or heat-treated sam- ples, higher temperatures or pressure reveal a tendency of higher mi- crobial reduction (P N 0.05). These ndings basically correspond to the results of Shigehisa, Ohmori, Saito, Taji, and Hayashi (1991) and conrm the assumption of these authors that higher pressure intensities may lead to a greater reduction in bacteria. As described by Heinz and Buckow (2009) pressure and temperature act synergistically on the de- struction of vegetative microorganisms. In the presented study, this might be seen by slightly lower, but not signi cantly different, TPC

Table 1 Total plate count (TPC) and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (mean ± SE) of cured LTL 24 h after treatment (day 1). Samples were treated as listed: cured control sample (T0-H0), heat- treated samples (T67-H0 and T53-H0), pressure-treated (HPP) samples (T0-H500 and T0-H600) and combination treatment (T53-H500).

 

TPC (log 10 CFU/g)

LAB (log 10 CFU/g)

Day

1

1

Treatment

T0-H0

4.07 ± 0.27 a

1.90 ± 0.15 b 2 b 2 b 2 b 2 b 2

T67-H0

1.54

±

0.23

c

T0-H500

2.62

±

0.18

b

T0-H600

1.77

±

0.38

bc

T53-H0

2.25

±

0.11

bc

T53-H500

1.90

±

0.12

bc

abc Means with different letters within each column are signicantly different (P b 0.05).

values of T53-H500 (P N 0.05) compared to T53-H0 and T0-H500. Yet, all treatments caused a reduction in TPC below the reference values of cooked ham (4.70 log 10 CFU/g) published by DGHM (German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology). In accordance with Jofré, Aymerich, Grèbol, and Garriga (2009), pressure initially led to a reduction of lactic acid bacteria below the detection limit, but they regained growth ability after 28 days of storage (data not shown). Therefore, we assume that the bene cial effects of LAB, reported for cured meat products (Mataragas, Drosinos, & Metaxopoulos, 2003), were not inuenced neg- atively by the pressure treatments in our study.

3.2. Color

Color of cooked pork ham is an im portant factor for consumer choice ( Válková, Saláková, Buchtová, & Tremlová, 2007 ). On day 1,

T67-H0, T53-H0 and T53-H500 samples showed similar (P N 0.05) a* (redness) and b* (yellowness) values (Table 2). These values were higher

(P b 0.05) than the likewise comparable (P N 0.05) results of T0-H0 and

T0-H600 (Table 2). T0-H500 showed lower (P b 0.05) values than T67- H0 and T53-H500. In the presented study, all samples were cured and tumbled prior to heat- or pressure-treatment, resulting in the formation

of the red pigment nitrosylmyoglobin as described by Toldrá and Reig

(2011). In accordance with Carlez, Veciana-Nogues, and Cheftel (1995) pressure-treatment does not alter nitrosylmyoglobin, therefore the red color of the samples is preserved, which is evidenced by similar

(P N 0.05) a* values of T0-H500, T0-H600 and the control sample T0-

H0. The higher a* values upon heating are related to the development of the typical cured red color pigment Fe 2+ -nitrosylhemochrom as already described by Suman and Joseph (2014). In accordance with the results of this study, previous studies showed that this pigment is not inuenced by the following pressure-treatment ( Bak et al., 2012; Vercammen et al., 2011). Other studies dealing with color changes of HPP treated cured meat also showed that b* remained unchanged after HPP ( Carlez et al., 1995). On the basis of these observations it can be

assumed that a heating step is necessary to obtain the desired cured red color of a ham-like product. On day 1, L* (lightness) values of T0-H0 products were signicantly lower (P b 0.05) than the values of all other treatments. L* values of T67-H0 were similar (P N 0.05) to T53-H500 and T0-H600. However, a difference (P b 0.05) between T53-H500 and T0-H600 was observed. T0-H600, T0-H500 and T53-H0 showed similar

(P N 0.05) L* values. The increase in lightness after pressure- or heat-

treatment could be explained by denaturation of myobrillar proteins (Campus, Flores, Martinez, & Toldrá, 2008; Dai et al., 2013). As observed for T53-H500, the lightness increase could be enhanced by the concurrent

pressure and heat denaturation (Bak, Lindahl, Karlsson, & Orlien, 2012). T67-H0 and T53-H500 showed similar values (P N 0.05). It can be as- sumed that mild heating in combination with pressure (T53-H500) is needed to fulll consumer expectations for ham lightness, as previously described by Garcıa-Esteban,́ Ansorena, Gimeno, and Astiasarán (2003). No differences (P N 0.05) between L*, a* and b* of day 1 and day 28 were found. This could be explained by the limitation of color fading under the given storage conditions under vacuum (Bağdatli & Kayaardi, 2014). In conclusion, it can be assumed that only a combination of mild temperature and pressure (T53-H500) results in a color appearance, which is comparable to a conventionally heated cooked ham (T67-H0).

3.3. pH and a w value

As shown in previous studies, cooking and high pressure processing leads to an increase in pH value ( Hamm & Deatherage, 1960; Ma & Ledward, 2004; McArdle, Marcos, Kerry, & Mullen, 2010). This can be explained by pressure- or heat-induced protein denaturation ( Hamm & Deatherage, 1960; Orlien, Olsen, & Skibsted, 2007 ). In accordance with these ndings, pH values for T0-H0 were lower (P b 0.05) com- pared with all other treatments (Table 3) on day 1. The pH increase on day 1 was most pronounced for T67-H0, whereas all other samples

S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 2227

25

Table 2 L*, a* and b* (CIELab color space) (mean ± SE) of cured LTL 24 h after treatment (day 1) and after subsequent storage (day 28). Samples were treated as listed: cured control sample (T0- H0), heat-treated samples (T67-H0 and T53-H0), pressure-treated (HPP) samples (T0-H500 and T0-H600) and combination treatment (T53-H500).

 

L*

a*

b*

Day

1

28

1

28

1

28

Treatment

T0-H0

45.91 ± 0.81 d 72.31 ± 0.59 ab 69.15 ± 1.07 c 69.57 ± 0.72 bc 68.40 ± 0.89 c 73.49 ± 0.42 a

47.80 ± 1.22 d 71.83 ± 0.98 ab 67.59 ± 1.21 bc 69.76 ± 0.89 ac 68.25 ± 1.00 bc 72.85 ± 0.71 a

5.71 ± 0.82 c 10.21 ± 0.35 a 7.31 ± 0.52 bc 6.10 ± 0.47 c 8.97 ± 0.52 ab 9.46 ± 0.39 a

5.81 ± 0.86 c 10.00 ± 0.38 a 7.72 ± 0.54 ac 7.15 ± 0.79 bc 9.30 ± 0.60 ab 9.75 ± 0.36 a

2.42 ± 0.90 c 7.50 ± 0.15 a 3.97 ± 0.51 bc 2.33 ± 0.70 c 5.88 ± 0.69 ab 7.21 ± 0.21 a

2.43 ± 0.85 b 7.60 ± 0.16 a 3.82 ± 0.53 b 3.56 ± 1.09 b 6.59 ± 0.36 a 7.53 ± 0.30 a

T67-H0

T0-H500

T0-H600

T53-H0

T53-H500

abcd Means with different letters within each column are signicantly different (P b 0.05).

were similar to one another (P N 0.05) in comparison to T67-H0 (P b 0.05). The pH value of all samples remained stable during storage. None of the treatments had a signi cant impact on water activity (Table 2).

3.4. Water loss

Water loss was affected by cooking temperature (Table 3). T67-H0 showed higher water losses than T53-H0 (P b 0.05). This was most like- ly due to the higher core temperature (Aaslyng et al., 2003). According to Offer, Restall, and Trinick (1984) , increasing water losses with in- creasing temperatures are mainly associated with ber shrinkage; at temperatures in the range of 4560 °C muscle bers shrink transversely, whereas between 60 and 90 °C, shrinkage is parallel to the ber axis resulting in higher water loss. No difference (P N 0.05) was found between T0-H0, T0-H500 and T0-H600. Although HPP treatment at 400 MPa is reported to increase water loss (Korzeniowski, Jankowska, & Kwiatkowska, 1999 ), all pressure treated samples in the present study showed particular low water losses. This could be explained by salt injection, which decreases the negative effects of HPP on uid reten- tion by increasing the capacity of proteins to bind water ( Duranton, Guillou, Simonin, Chéret, & de Lamballerie, 2012; Fernández et al., 2007). In our study, heat and pressure combination (T53-H500) showed a tendency of higher water losses compared to T53-H0 (P N 0.05). In line with that, Duranton et al. (2012) also demonstrated that pressure and heat had an additive effect on water loss, indicating a higher amount of protein denaturation.

3.5. Texture

The texture of meat determines the feeling in the mouth perception during chewing and is therefore important for product quality (Bejerholm, Tørngren, & Aaslyng, 2014). The T67-H0 samples showed the highest values for hardness and chewiness (Table 4). For hardness, no differences (P N 0.05) were observed between T67-H0, T53-H0 and T53-H500. However, chewiness values of T67-H0 samples were higher (P b 0.05) compared to T53-H0 and T53-H500. Furthermore, hardness

and chewiness values of pressure- and heat-treated samples (T53- H500) were not markedly higher (P N 0.05) in comparison to T53-H0. Pressure-treated samples (T0-H500 and T0-H600) showed particularly low (P b 0.05) hardness and chewiness values in comparison to the heat-treated samples. Furthermore, no differences (P N 0.05) between T0-H500, T0-H600 and T0-H0 could be observed regarding hardness and chewiness. The differences in textural parameters can be explained by different attack points of heat or pressure on the meat protein matrix. While heating leads to a strong heat set gel, pressure acts relatively gently, forming a weak, temperature sensitive gel ( Ledward, 2000 ). The combination of heat, followed by pressure treatment is reported to lead to a further increase in gel strength after heat treatment (Ledward, 2000), as shown for T53-H500. To avoid an undesirable hard- ening of samples, we recommend using mild heating temperatures when it comes to pressure and heat combination treatment, as hardness is on e of the most important textural parameters of cooked ham ( Válková et al., 2007 ). In our study, similar values to cooked ham (T67-H0) could not be achieved by pressure treatment but by a combi- nation of heat and pressure (T53-H500).

3.6. Lipid peroxidation

Lipid peroxidation is a primary cause of quality deterioration in meat and meat products inuencing avor and color ( Addis, 1986 ). There- fore, we analyzed malondialdehyde (MDA) as an indicator of oxidative lipid degradation. In the present study, T67-H0 samples had lower TBARS values on day 1 compared to T0-H0, T0-H500 and T0-H600 (P b 0.05), and on day 28 compared to T0-H0 (P b 0.05) ( Table 3). All other results were similar (P N 0.05) between the different treatment groups. The low values of the heat-treated samples might be due to the reaction of nitrite with MDA ( Kolodziejska, Skonieczny, & Rubin, 1990), which was enhanced by the heating process ( Raharjo & Sofos, 1993). Therefore, a lesser degree of MDA could be chemically detected. This effect was not as pronounced in the T53-H0 or T53-H500 treated products probably due to the reduced heating impact. In accordance with De Alba, Montiel, Bravo, Gaya, and Medina (2012), pressure had no impact on the lipid oxidation. Pressure-induced lipid oxidation is

Table 3 Quality parameters (pH value, active water (a w value), malondialdehyde (MDA), water loss) (mean ± SE) of cured LTL 24 h after treatment (day 1) and after subsequent storage (day 28). Samples were treated as listed: cured control sample (T0-H0), heat-treated samples (T67-H0 and T53-H0), pressure-treated (HPP) samples (T0-H500 and T0-H600) and combination treatment (T53-H500).

 

pH

a w

MDA ( μg/g)

Water loss (%)

Day

1

28

1

28

1

28

1

Treatment

T0-H0

5.15 ± 0.08 c 5.61 ± 0.08 a 5.36 ± 0.06 b 5.36 ± 0.08 b 5.43 ± 0.07 b 5.43 ± 0.08 b

5.36 ± 0.08 b 5.57 ± 0.06 a 5.56 ± 0.06 a 5.56 ± 0.05 a 5.58 ± 0.08 a 5.62 ± 0.05 a

0.982

0.979

0.19 ± 0.01 a 0.10 ± 0.02 bc 0.19 ± 0.02 a 0.19 ± 0.02 a 0.14 ± 0.02 ac 0.15 ± 0.02 ab

0.21 ± 0.04 a 0.13 ± 0.02 b 0.18 ± 0.02 ab 0.19 ± 0.02 ab 0.14 ± 0.02 ab 0.16 ± 0.01 ab

3.23 ± 1.60 c 24.64 ± 3.27 a 2.61 ± 0.70 c 2.58 ± 0.73 c 11.85 ± 4.41 b 15.77 ± 2.97 b

T67-H0

0.983

0.981

T0-H500

0.983

0.982

T0-H600

0.982

0.981

T53-H0

0.982

0.981

T53-H500

0.983

0.982

26

S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 2227

Table 4 Mean values of textural parameters (hardness or chewiness) (mean ± SE) of cured LTL 24

h after treatment (day 1) and after subsequent storage (day 28). Samples were treated as listed: cured control sample (T0-H0), heat-treated samples (T67-H0 and T53-H0), pres- sure-treated (HPP) samples (T0-H500 and T0-H600) and combination treatment (T53

H500).

 

Hardness (N)

Chewiness (N)

Day

1

28

1

1

Treatment

T0-H0

11.04 ± 1.54 b 30.60 ± 3.30 a 12.11 ± 1.67 b 12.09 ± 1.84 b 21.72 ± 2.08 a 28.60 ± 0.94 a

9.28 ± 2.29 d 36.61 ± 6.03 a 10.54 ± 1.37 d 12.73 ± 1.24 cd 23.89 ± 3.60 bc 31.94 ± 4.16 ab

3.23 ± 0.65 c 24.64 ± 1.33 a 2.61 ± 0.28 c 2.58 ± 0.30 c 11.85 ± 1.80 b 15.77 ± 1.21 b

5.60 ± 0.93 b 14.01 ± 1.96 a 6.90 ± 1.00 b 6.89 ± 1.05 b 10.85 ± 1.11 ab 14.83 ± 0.59 a

T67-H0

T0-H500

T0-H600

T53-H0

T53-H500

abcd Means with different letters within each column are signicantly different (P b 0.05).

probably prevented by the antioxidant impact of nitrite (Kanner, Harel, Shagalovich, & Berman, 1984). Due to the missing heating step, reaction of nitrite with MDA was less pronounced, whereby values for HPP samples were generally higher compared to the heated samples. Subse- quently, after treatment, samples were vacuum-sealed to avoid further lipid oxidation during storage (28 days). In accordance with the results of Parra et al. (2010) , TBARS values did not increase (P N 0.05) over storage time. In this context, rancidity problems could be reduced by the addition of nitrite combined with vacuum storage.

4. Conclusion

This study proved the feasibility to produce a novel ham-like pork product by means of HPP. However, pressure per se cannot create a product similar to cooked ham familiar to consumers. Solely pressure- treated samples showed a less pale, less red appearance and a particu- larly softer texture compared to conventionally produced ham samples. Comparable cooked ham texture and color could only be achieved by a combined treatment of a mild heating temperature of 53 °C and pres- sure of 500 MPa. However, combined treatments do not offer the advan- tages of a shorter production time or higher yield which can be reached by HPP alone. All samples showed the same initial microbial load 24 h after production, indicating that there were no additive effects of pres- sure and heat on destruction of microorganisms. Upon storage for 28 days, no color fading or lipid oxidation was evident in any sample due to vacuum-packaging. In conclusion, it can be assumed that HPP can be used for developing a novel whole meat product. Nonetheless, this product might not ful ll consumer expectations of a ham-like product. In line with that, the authors recommend further investiga- tions regarding consumer acceptance of HPP treated whole pork meat.

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the Ahrberg Foundation, Hannover, Germany (grant no. 60070008).

References

Fernández, P. P., Sanz, P. D., Molina-García, A. D., Otero, L., Guignon, B., & Vaudagna, S. R. (2007). Conventional freezing plus high pressure low temperature treatment:

S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 2227

27

Orlien, V., Olsen, K., & Skibsted, L. H. (2007). In situ measurements of pH changes in β- lactoglobulin solutions under high hydrostatic pressure. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 55(11), 44224428. Parra, V., Viguera, J., Sánchez, J., Peinado, J., Espárrago, F., Gutierrez, J. I., & Andrés, A. I. (2010). Modi ed atmosphere packaging and vacuum packaging for long period chilled storage of dry-cured Iberian ham. Meat Science, 84(4), 760768. Patterson, M. F., & Kilpatrick, D. J. (1998). The combined effect of high hydrostatic pressure and mild heat on inactivation of pathogens in milk and poultry. Journal of Food Protection, 61(4), 432436. Popp, J., Krischek, C., Janisch, S., Wicke, M., & Klein, G. (2013). Physico-chemical and microbiological properties of raw fermented sausages are not in uenced by color differences of turkey breast meat. Poultry Science, 92(5), 13661375. Raharjo, S., & Sofos, J. N. (1993). Methodology for measuring malonaldehyde as a product of lipid peroxidation in muscle tissues: A review. Meat Science, 35(2), 145169. Samelis, J., Kakouri, A., & Rementzis, J. (2000). Selective effect of the product type and the packaging conditions on the species of lactic acid bacteria dominating the spoilage microbial association of cooked meats at 4 °C. Food Microbiology, 17(3), 329340. Shigehisa, T., Ohmori, T., Saito, A., Taji, S., & Hayashi, R. (1991). Effects of high hydrostatic pressure on characteristics of pork slurries and inactivation of microorganisms associated with meat and meat products. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 12(23), 207215. Sikes, A. L., Tobin, A. B., & Tume, R. K. (2009). Use of high pressure to reduce cook loss and improve texture of low-salt beef sausage batters. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 10(4), 405412.

Slongo, A. P., Rosenthal, A., Quaresma Camargo, L. M., Deliza, R., Mathias, S. P., & Falcão de Aragão, G. M. (2009). Modeling the growth of lactic acid bacteria in sliced ham processed by high hydrostatic pressure. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 42(1),