4.7 Article

Antioxidant Activity and Sensory Quality of Bacon

Journal

FOODS
Volume 11, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods11020236

Keywords

bacon; liquid smoke; antioxidant capacity; protein oxidation

Funding

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFD0401205]
  2. National Top Disciplines Development Project for Innovation Teams [kxk201801004]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effects of liquid smoke prepared from different woods on the quality and oxidation of bacons were investigated. The study found that different liquid smoke had different phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity. The selection of woods for antioxidant fumigants can effectively delay the oxidative spoilage of meat products.
Effects of liquid smoke prepared from different woods on physicochemical parameters, sensory quality, and protein and lipid oxidation were determined in bacons during process and storage. The relationship between the antioxidant activity of smoked liquid and the quality of bacon was further explored through chemometric analysis. Results showed that liquid smoke prepared from different woods differed in phenolic and carboxyl compounds and antioxidant capacity. Bacon processed with different liquid smoke had different antioxidant capacity, lipid and protein oxidation during storage, and sensory quality. The concentration of phenols was positively highly correlated with the antioxidant capacity of both liquid smoke and fresh bacon, but negatively correlated with lipid and protein oxidation in bacon. Among the five woods, liquid smoke made from Punica granatum L. showed higher antioxidant capacity, but bacon smoked with Armeniaca vulgaris Lam had better overall eating quality. This study reveals that selection of woods to prepare antioxidant fumigant is a feasible approach to retard oxidative spoilage of meat products. Future study is need for the development of composite smoke flavorings to improve both oxidative stability and sensory quality of foods.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available