Meat Science 118 (2016) 22–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science

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

High pressure as an alternative processing step for ham production

Sylvia Pingen, Nadine Sudhaus, André Becker, Carsten Krischek, Günter Klein ⁎
Institute of Food Quality and Food Safety, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Bischofsholer Damm 15, D-30173 Hannover, Germany

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: As high pressure processing (HPP) is becoming more and more important in the food industry, this study exam-
Received 26 June 2015 ined the application of HPP (500 and 600 MPa) as a manufacturing step during simulated ham production. By re-
Received in revised form 9 March 2016 placing conventional heating with HPP steps, ham-like texture or color attributes could not be achieved. HPP
Accepted 12 March 2016
products showed a less pale, less red appearance, softer texture and higher yields. However, a combination of
Available online 18 March 2016
mild temperature (53 °C) and 500 MPa resulted in parameters more comparable to cooked ham. We conclude
Keywords:
that HPP can be used for novel food development, providing novel textures and colors. However, when it
High pressure comes to ham production, a heating step seems to be unavoidable to obtain characteristic ham properties.
Cooked ham © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Pork
Meat quality

1. Introduction the solubility of myofibrillar proteins, resulting in texture changes.

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 fields (Boulaaba, Egen, & Klein, 2014; Boulaaba,
Kiessling, Töpfl, 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).
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 flavors 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)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.03.014
0309-1740/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 22–27 23

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
53 °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/m2d, Dagema, Willich,
Germany).
Samples were microbiologically examined 24 h after treatment (day
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 quantified according to ISO 15214:1998. Cell counts
were expressed as log10 colony forming units per g meat (log10 CFU/g).
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/m2d, 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 field) 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. aw value was
24 S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 22–27
determined using a aw-cryometer (AWK 40®, Nagy Instruments GmbH,
Gauenfelden, Germany). Mean values of duplicate measurements were
calculated. Texture profile 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
flat disk attached to a 500 N load cell. Samples were cut into 2.5 cm
thick slices and five 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 μg 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 significance was defined 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 findings basically correspond to the
results of Shigehisa, Ohmori, Saito, Taji, and Hayashi (1991) and confirm
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 significantly 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 (log10 CFU/g) LAB (log10 CFU/g)
Day 1 1
Treatment
T0-H0 4.07 ± 0.27a 1.90 ± 0.15
T67-H0 1.54 ± 0.23c b2
T0-H500 2.62 ± 0.18b b2
T0-H600 1.77 ± 0.38bc b2
T53-H0 2.25 ± 0.11bc b2
T53-H500 1.90 ± 0.12bc b2
abc
Means with different letters within each column are significantly 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 log10 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 beneficial effects of LAB, reported for cured meat products
(Mataragas, Drosinos, & Metaxopoulos, 2003), were not influenced neg-
atively by the pressure treatments in our study.
3.2. Color
Color of cooked pork ham is an important 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 Fe2+-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
influenced 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 significantly 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 myofibrillar 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 fulfill consumer expectations for ham lightness, as previously
described by Garcı́a-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 aw 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 findings, 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) 22–27 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 ± 0.81d 47.80 ± 1.22d 5.71 ± 0.82c 5.81 ± 0.86c 2.42 ± 0.90c 2.43 ± 0.85b
T67-H0 72.31 ± 0.59ab 71.83 ± 0.98ab 10.21 ± 0.35a 10.00 ± 0.38a 7.50 ± 0.15a 7.60 ± 0.16a
T0-H500 69.15 ± 1.07c 67.59 ± 1.21bc 7.31 ± 0.52bc 7.72 ± 0.54ac 3.97 ± 0.51bc 3.82 ± 0.53b
T0-H600 69.57 ± 0.72bc 69.76 ± 0.89ac 6.10 ± 0.47c 7.15 ± 0.79bc 2.33 ± 0.70c 3.56 ± 1.09b
T53-H0 68.40 ± 0.89c 68.25 ± 1.00bc 8.97 ± 0.52ab 9.30 ± 0.60ab 5.88 ± 0.69ab 6.59 ± 0.36a
T53-H500 73.49 ± 0.42a 72.85 ± 0.71a 9.46 ± 0.39a 9.75 ± 0.36a 7.21 ± 0.21a 7.53 ± 0.30a
abcd
Means with different letters within each column are significantly 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 significant 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 fiber shrinkage; at
temperatures in the range of 45–60 °C muscle fibers shrink transversely,
whereas between 60 and 90 °C, shrinkage is parallel to the fiber 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 fluid 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 one 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 influencing flavor 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 (aw 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 aw MDA (μg/g) Water loss (%)

Day 1 28 1 28 1 28 1

Treatment
T0-H0 5.15 ± 0.08c 5.36 ± 0.08b 0.982 0.979 0.19 ± 0.01a 0.21 ± 0.04a 3.23 ± 1.60c
T67-H0 5.61 ± 0.08a 5.57 ± 0.06a 0.983 0.981 0.10 ± 0.02bc 0.13 ± 0.02b 24.64 ± 3.27a
T0-H500 5.36 ± 0.06b 5.56 ± 0.06a 0.983 0.982 0.19 ± 0.02a 0.18 ± 0.02ab 2.61 ± 0.70c
T0-H600 5.36 ± 0.08b 5.56 ± 0.05a 0.982 0.981 0.19 ± 0.02a 0.19 ± 0.02ab 2.58 ± 0.73c
T53-H0 5.43 ± 0.07b 5.58 ± 0.08a 0.982 0.981 0.14 ± 0.02ac 0.14 ± 0.02ab 11.85 ± 4.41b
T53-H500 5.43 ± 0.08b 5.62 ± 0.05a 0.983 0.982 0.15 ± 0.02ab 0.16 ± 0.01ab 15.77 ± 2.97b
abc
Means with different letters within each column are significantly different (P b 0.05).
26 S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 22–27

Table 4 Bak, K. H., Lindahl, G., Karlsson, A. H., & Orlien, V. (2012). Effect of high pressure, temper-
Mean values of textural parameters (hardness or chewiness) (mean ± SE) of cured LTL 24 ature, and storage on the color of porcine longissimus dorsi. Meat Science, 92(4),
374–381.
h after treatment (day 1) and after subsequent storage (day 28). Samples were treated as
Balasubramaniam, V. M., & Farkas, D. (2008). High-pressure food processing. Food Science
listed: cured control sample (T0-H0), heat-treated samples (T67-H0 and T53-H0), pres-
and Technology International, 14(5), 413–418.
sure-treated (HPP) samples (T0-H500 and T0-H600) and combination treatment (T53 Bejerholm, C., Tørngren, M. A., & Aaslyng, M. D. (2014). Cooking of meat. In M. Dikeman, &
H500). C. Devine (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences (pp. 370–376) (2nd ed.). Oxford: Aca-
demic Press.
Hardness (N) Chewiness (N)
Boulaaba, A., Kiessling, M., Töpfl, S., Heinz, V., & Klein, G. (2014). Effect of pulsed electric
Day 1 28 1 1 fields on microbial inactivation and gelling properties of porcine blood plasma.
Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 23, 87–93.
Treatment Boulaaba, A., Egen, N., & Klein, G. (2014). Effect of pulsed electric fields on microbial inac-
T0-H0 11.04 ± 1.54b 9.28 ± 2.29d 3.23 ± 0.65c 5.60 ± 0.93b tivation and physico-chemical properties of whole porcine blood. Food Science and
T67-H0 30.60 ± 3.30a 36.61 ± 6.03a 24.64 ± 1.33a 14.01 ± 1.96a Technology International, 20(3), 215–225.
T0-H500 12.11 ± 1.67b 10.54 ± 1.37d 2.61 ± 0.28c 6.90 ± 1.00b Campus, M., Flores, M., Martinez, A., & Toldrá, F. (2008). Effect of high pressure treatment
T0-H600 12.09 ± 1.84b 12.73 ± 1.24cd 2.58 ± 0.30c 6.89 ± 1.05b on colour, microbial and chemical characteristics of dry cured loin. Meat Science,
T53-H0 21.72 ± 2.08a 23.89 ± 3.60bc 11.85 ± 1.80b 10.85 ± 1.11ab 80(4), 1174–1181.
T53-H500 28.60 ± 0.94a 31.94 ± 4.16ab 15.77 ± 1.21b 14.83 ± 0.59a Carlez, A., Veciana-Nogues, T., & Cheftel, J. -C. (1995). Changes in colour and myoglobin of
minced beef meat due to high pressure processing. LWT - Food Science and
abcd
Means with different letters within each column are significantly different (P b 0.05). Technology, 28(5), 528–538.
Cheftel, J. C., & Culioli, J. (1997). Effects of high pressure on meat: A review. Meat Science,
46(3), 211–236.
Dai, Y., Miao, J., Yuan, S. -Z., Liu, Y., Li, X. -M., & Dai, R. -T. (2013). Colour and sarcoplasmic
probably prevented by the antioxidant impact of nitrite (Kanner, Harel, protein evaluation of pork following water bath and ohmic cooking. Meat Science,
Shagalovich, & Berman, 1984). Due to the missing heating step, reaction 93(4), 898–905.
of nitrite with MDA was less pronounced, whereby values for HPP De Alba, M., Montiel, R., Bravo, D., Gaya, P., & Medina, M. (2012). High pressure treat-
ments on the inactivation of Salmonella Enteritidis and the physicochemical, rheolog-
samples were generally higher compared to the heated samples. Subse- ical and color characteristics of sliced vacuum-packaged dry-cured ham. Meat Science,
quently, after treatment, samples were vacuum-sealed to avoid further 91(2), 173–178.
lipid oxidation during storage (28 days). In accordance with the results Duranton, F., Guillou, S., Simonin, H., Chéret, R., & de Lamballerie, M. (2012). Combined
use of high pressure and salt or sodium nitrite to control the growth of endogenous
of Parra et al. (2010), TBARS values did not increase (P N 0.05) over
microflora in raw pork meat. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 16,
storage time. In this context, rancidity problems could be reduced by 373–380.
the addition of nitrite combined with vacuum storage. 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:
Physical properties, microbial quality and storage stability of beef meat. Meat
4. Conclusion Science, 77(4), 616–625.
Garcı́a-Esteban, M., Ansorena, D., Gimeno, O., & Astiasarán, I. (2003). Optimization of in-
strumental colour analysis in dry-cured ham. Meat Science, 63(3), 287–292.
This study proved the feasibility to produce a novel ham-like pork Garriga, M., Grèbol, N., Aymerich, M. T., Monfort, J. M., & Hugas, M. (2004). Microbial
product by means of HPP. However, pressure per se cannot create a inactivation after high-pressure processing at 600 MPa in commercial meat
product similar to cooked ham familiar to consumers. Solely pressure- products over its shelf life. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies,
5(4), 451–457.
treated samples showed a less pale, less red appearance and a particu- Grossi, A., Bolumar, T., Søltoft-Jensen, J., & Orlien, V. (2014). High pressure treatment of
larly softer texture compared to conventionally produced ham samples. brine enhanced pork semitendinosus: Effect on microbial stability, drip loss, lipid
Comparable cooked ham texture and color could only be achieved by a and protein oxidation, and sensory properties. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies, 22, 11–21.
combined treatment of a mild heating temperature of 53 °C and pres- Hamm, R., & Deatherage, F. E. (1960). Changes in hydration, solubility and charges
sure of 500 MPa. However, combined treatments do not offer the advan- of muscle proteins during heating of meat. Journal of Food Science, 25(5),
tages of a shorter production time or higher yield which can be reached 587–610.
Heinz, V., & Buckow, R. (2009). Food preservation by high pressure. Journal of Consumer
by HPP alone. All samples showed the same initial microbial load 24 h Protection and Food Safety, 5(1), 73–81.
after production, indicating that there were no additive effects of pres- Jofré, A., Aymerich, T., Grèbol, N., & Garriga, M. (2009). Efficiency of high hydrostatic pres-
sure and heat on destruction of microorganisms. Upon storage for sure at 600 MPa against food-borne microorganisms by challenge tests on conve-
nience meat products. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 42(5), 924–928.
28 days, no color fading or lipid oxidation was evident in any sample
Kanner, J., Harel, S., Shagalovich, J., & Berman, S. (1984). Antioxidative effect of nitrite in
due to vacuum-packaging. In conclusion, it can be assumed that HPP cured meat products: nitric oxide-iron complexes of low molecular weight. Journal
can be used for developing a novel whole meat product. Nonetheless, of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 32(3), 512–515.
this product might not fulfill consumer expectations of a ham-like Khan, M. A., Ali, S., Abid, M., Cao, J., Jabbar, S., Tume, R. K., & Zhou, G. (2014). Improved
duck meat quality by application of high pressure and heat: A study of water mobility
product. In line with that, the authors recommend further investiga- and compartmentalization, protein denaturation and textural properties. Food
tions regarding consumer acceptance of HPP treated whole pork meat. Research International, 62, 926–933.
Kolodziejska, I., Skonieczny, S., & Rubin, L. J. (1990). Malondialdehyde–nitrite interactions
in meat and model systems. Journal of Food Science, 55(4), 926–928.
Acknowledgment Korzeniowski, W., Jankowska, B., & Kwiatkowska, A. (1999). The effect of high pressure
on some technological properties of pork. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural
Universities, 2(2).
This research was supported by the Ahrberg Foundation, Hannover, Ledward, D. A. (2000). Effects of pressure on protein structure. High Pressure Research, 19,
Germany (grant no. 60070008). 1–10.
Lickert, T., Badewien, M., Vorwold, G., Albers, D., Töpfle, S., & Knoch, A. (2010). Many new
configuration options, producing novel innovative meat and sausage products using
References high hydrostatic pressures. Fleischwirtschaft International, 3, 24–27.
Ma, H. -J., & Ledward, D. A. (2004). High pressure/thermal treatment effects on the tex-
Aaslyng, M. D., Bejerholm, C., Ertbjerg, P., Bertram, H. C., & Andersen, H. J. (2003). Cooking ture of beef muscle. Meat Science, 68(3), 347–355.
loss and juiciness of pork in relation to raw meat quality and cooking procedure. Food Mataragas, M., Drosinos, E. H., & Metaxopoulos, J. (2003). Antagonistic activity of lactic
Quality and Preference, 14(4), 277–288. acid bacteria against Listeria monocytogenes in sliced cooked cured pork shoulder
Aaslyng, M. D., Oksama, M., Olsen, E. V., Bejerholm, C., Baltzer, M., Andersen, G., & stored under vacuum or modified atmosphere at 4 ± 2 °C. Food Microbiology,
Gabrielsen, G. (2007). The impact of sensory quality of pork on consumer preference. 20(2), 259–265.
Meat Science, 76(1), 61–73. McArdle, R., Marcos, B., Kerry, J. P., & Mullen, A. (2010). Monitoring the effects of high
Addis, P. B. (1986). Occurrence of lipid oxidation products in foods. Food and Chemical pressure processing and temperature on selected beef quality attributes. Meat
Toxicology, 24(10–11), 1021–1030. Science, 86(3), 629–634.
Bağdatli, A., & Kayaardi, S. (2014). Influence of storage period and packaging methods on Medina-Meza, I. G., Barnaba, C., & Barbosa-Cánovas, G. V. (2014). Effects of high pressure
quality attributes of fresh beef steaks. CyTA - Journal of Food, 13(1), 124–133. processing on lipid oxidation: A review. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Bak, K. H., Lindahl, G., Karlsson, A. H., Lloret, E., Ferrini, G., Arnau, J., & Orlien, V. (2012). Technologies, 22, 1–10.
High pressure effect on the color of minced cured restructured ham at different levels Offer, G., Restall, D., & Trinick, J. (1984). Water holding in meat. In A. J. Bailey (Ed.), Recent
of drying, pH, and NaCl. Meat Science, 90(3), 690–696. Advances in chemistry of meat (pp. 71–83).
 S. Pingen et al. / Meat Science 118 (2016) 22–27
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), 4422–4428.
Parra, V., Viguera, J., Sánchez, J., Peinado, J., Espárrago, F., Gutierrez, J. I., & Andrés, A. I.
(2010). Modified atmosphere packaging and vacuum packaging for long period
chilled storage of dry-cured Iberian ham. Meat Science, 84(4), 760–768.
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), 432–436.
Popp, J., Krischek, C., Janisch, S., Wicke, M., & Klein, G. (2013). Physico-chemical and
microbiological properties of raw fermented sausages are not influenced by color
differences of turkey breast meat. Poultry Science, 92(5), 1366–1375.
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), 145–169.
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), 329–340.
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(2–3), 207–215.
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), 405–412.
27
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),
303–306.
Suman, S. P., & Joseph, P. (2014). Chemical and physical characteristics of meat, Color and
Pigment. In M. Dikeman, & C. Devine (Eds.), Encyclopedia of meat sciences
(pp. 244–251) (2nd ed.). Oxford: Academic Press.
Toldrá, F., & Reig, M. (2011). Innovations for healthier processed meats. Trends in Food
Science & Technology, 22(9), 517–522.
Torres, J. A., & Velazquez, G. (2005). Commercial opportunities and research challenges in
the high pressure processing of foods. Journal of Food Engineering, 67(1–2), 95–112.
Válková, V., Saláková, A., Buchtová, H., & Tremlová, B. (2007). Chemical, instrumental and
sensory characteristics of cooked pork ham. Meat Science, 77(4), 608–615.
Vercammen, A., Vanoirbeek, K. G. A., Lurquin, I., Steen, L., Goemaere, O., Szczepaniak, S., &
Michiels, C. W. (2011). Shelf-life extension of cooked ham model product by high
hydrostatic pressure and natural preservatives. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies, 12(4), 407–415.
Villamonte, G., Simonin, H., Duranton, F., Chéret, R., & de Lamballerie, M. (2013). Func-
tionality of pork meat proteins: Impact of sodium chloride and phosphates under
high-pressure processing. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 18, 15–23.
Yang, H., Han, M., Bai, Y., Han, Y., Xu, X., & Zhou, G. (2015). High pressure processing alters
water distribution enabling the production of reduced-fat and reduced-salt pork
sausages. Meat Science, 102, 69–78.