4.7 Article

Fucus vesiculosus extracts as natural antioxidants for improvement of physicochemical properties and shelf life of pork patties formulated with oleogels

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
卷 99, 期 10, 页码 4561-4570

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.9694

关键词

seaweed extract; lipid and protein oxidation; physicochemical parameters; sensory analysis; antioxidant activity

资金

  1. Xunta de Galicia [IN607B 2016/28]
  2. Instituto Nacional de Investigaciones Agrarias y Alimentarias, Spain [CPR2014-0128]
  3. CYTED [119RT0568]
  4. Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan (R.O.C) [107-EC-17-A-22-0332]
  5. CNPq-TWAS Postgraduate Fellowship [3240274290]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND There is limited information in the literature concerning the feasibility of using algal extracts as natural additives for improvement of the quality and shelf-life of meat products. Hence, a Fucus vesiculosus extract (FVE) at the concentrations of 250 mg kg(-1) (FVE-250), 500 mg kg(-1) (FVE-500) and 1000 mg kg(-1) (FVE-1000) were added to pork patties with linseed oil oleogel as a fat replacer. RESULTS Total polyphenol content of FVE was determined to be 20 g phloroglucinol equivalents 100 g(-1) extract. Antioxidant values ranged from 37.5 mu mol of Trolox equivalents (TE) g(-1) (FRAP assay) to 2111 mu mol TE g(-1) extract (ABTS assay). Regarding oxidation stability, FVE-1000 showed the lowest values of thiobarbituric acid-reactive substance and carbonyl content. On the other hand, FVE did not improve color, surface discoloration or odor attributes of patties during storage. Sensory evaluation revealed that there was no significant difference among all studied samples. CONCLUSION Although FVEs have a high polyphenol content and antioxidant activities, they are not effective oxidation inhibitors for long-term storage of meat products. Therefore, additional measures or compounds should be considered when FVE is the only antioxidant in meat products. (c) 2019 Society of Chemical Industry

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据