2022
DOI: 10.22175/mmb.13495
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Changes in the Flavor Profile of Ground Beef Resulting from the Application of Antimicrobial Interventions

Abstract: The objective of this study was to characterize flavor, fatty acid composition, and volatile compounds of beef treated with common antimicrobial interventions in beef processing facilities. The effect of three pre-chilling antimicrobial interventions (4.5% lactic acid, LA; 400ppm peroxyacetic acid acidified to pH 1.2 with a sulfuric acid and sodium sulfate blend, aPAA; or untreated, CON) and four post-chilling treatments (CON; LA; aPAA; or a 2.5% solution of a commercial blend of lactic and citric acid, LAC) w… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 52 publications
(65 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The latter also depends on sensory properties determining the palatability of meat products, related to the combination of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor. Hernandez-Sintharakao et al proposed three statistical models to distinguish tender from tough meat, dry from juicy meat, and positive from off-flavors, obtaining prediction rates in the range of 74%-95%, depending on the employed statistical approach [81]. The relatively low accuracy was ascribed to the inability of REIMS to detect intact proteins, which affect these physical attributes.…”
Section: Ensuring Food Safety and Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter also depends on sensory properties determining the palatability of meat products, related to the combination of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor. Hernandez-Sintharakao et al proposed three statistical models to distinguish tender from tough meat, dry from juicy meat, and positive from off-flavors, obtaining prediction rates in the range of 74%-95%, depending on the employed statistical approach [81]. The relatively low accuracy was ascribed to the inability of REIMS to detect intact proteins, which affect these physical attributes.…”
Section: Ensuring Food Safety and Qualitymentioning
confidence: 99%