4.7 Article

Biogenic amines: quality index of freshness in red and white meat

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 519-524

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0956-7135(02)00031-2

关键词

biogenic amines; freshness markers; HPLC; meat

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Biogenic amine (BA) content in meat can be considered as a freshness marker or as a bad conservation marker. In particular the study of BA quantities in meat as a function of conservation time, could be a useful tool to control meat spoilage. In fact, the formation of some amines and concentration increase of those already existing in meat, are due to degrading processes in food, which are promoted by enzymatic reactions caused by external microbial activity or by endogenous tissue activities. The amines considered are: tryptamine, putrescine, cadaverine, serotonin, tyramine, spermidine, spermine. Their quantitative determination was carried out by means of HPLC, with spectrophotometric-UV detection, on pre-treated meat samples, both red (adult bovine) and white (chicken). The amines were extracted in acid aqueous solution (HClO4) and then derivatised by dansylehloride. The trend of BA concentrations as a function of time was also investigated, in a period of 36 days, at the conservation temperature of 4 +/- 1 degreesC. The proposed method is linear in the range of concentrations between 0.01 and 5.0 mug/ml. For all the amines considered recoveries were greater than or equal to 93%. The CV values for all the measures ranged between 1.47% and 2.94%. The results show that in red meat the BA levels are still low until 9 days of storage (less than or equal to 30 mg/kg) and that over 36 days only cadaverine and tyramine concentrations become very high (greater than or equal to 120 mg/kg). In white meat all the BA levels remain quite low (less than or equal to 40 mg/kg) all over the 36 days, instead of the cadaverine content which gains 50 mg/kg at the seventh day of storage. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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