4.7 Article

A Comparative Study on the Effect of Ultrasound-Treated Apple Pomace and Coffee Silverskin Powders as Phosphate Replacers in Irish Breakfast Sausage Formulations

期刊

FOODS
卷 11, 期 18, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods11182763

关键词

dietary fibers; technological properties; phosphate-reduction; clean-label meats

资金

  1. Teagasc-Walsh Scholarship programme [0100]
  2. Teagasc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ultrasound technology can improve the quality of meat products by enhancing the techno-functional properties of food ingredients, such as apple pomace and coffee silverskin. This study demonstrated that the addition of ultrasound-treated apple pomace and coffee silverskin improved the quality of phosphate-reduced sausages.
Ultrasound (US) technology can be used to improve the techno-functional properties of food ingredients, such as apple pomace (AP) and coffee silverskin (CSS), which can be used in meat products to enhance their quality. This study evaluated the changes produced by US-treated AP and CSS, when used as phosphate replacers, in the physicochemical properties of Irish breakfast sausages, i.e., their water holding capacity (WHC), cook loss, emulsion stability, proximate content, lipid oxidation, color, and textural parameters. Three sausage formulations with reduced phosphate concentrations were used to study the effect of US-treated AP and CSS, and an interactive relationship between US treatment and formulations using two-way ANOVA. The results showed that the addition of US-treated AP and CSS to all the formulations produced a significant interactive effect that increased the WHC (p < 0.05) and emulsion stability (p < 0.05), decreased cook loss (p < 0.05), and increased day 9 TBARS (p < 0.05) values of specific formulations. No significant changes were observed for the parameters of; color, texture, or proximate content values. Thus, this study demonstrated that the addition of US-treated AP and CSS improved the quality of phosphate-reduced sausages.

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