000079816 001__ 79816
000079816 005__ 20200117221650.0
000079816 0247_ $$2doi$$a10.1002/jsfa.9208
000079816 0248_ $$2sideral$$a106933
000079816 037__ $$aART-2018-106933
000079816 041__ $$aeng
000079816 100__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-4696-621X$$aBelles Safont, Marc$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000079816 245__ $$aSulphite-free lamb burger meat: antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of green tea and carvacrol
000079816 260__ $$c2018
000079816 5060_ $$aAccess copy available to the general public$$fUnrestricted
000079816 5203_ $$aBACKGROUND
Sulfite is commonly used to preserve lamb burger meat in the EU. Nevertheless, its consumption has been related to certain health problems, which has increased consumer demand for sulfite-free products. Natural compounds with antioxidant and antimicrobial properties may be a feasible alternative to preserve lamb burger meat. This study evaluated the antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of carvacrol, green tea and their combination in preserving lamb burger meat. Their effect was also compared with that of 400¿ppm sulfite.
RESULTS
Lamb burger meat was mixed with different concentrations of the extracts, packaged aerobically and displayed for 8 days at 4 °C. Total polyphenols, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances, colour, and microbial and sensory analyses were performed. Both green tea and carvacrol avoided lipid oxidation even at 300¿ppm, while only carvacrol, which showed a concentration-dependent action, delayed discolouration and microbial growth. Carvacrol and green tea also limited the development of oxidation odour and flavour, but the former brought about herbal odours and flavours to the meat. On the other hand, sulfite provided a higher colour stability and lower microbial counts than both natural compounds but presented a higher lipid oxidation.
CONCLUSION
Carvacrol seems to be a promising alternative to replace sulfite in lamb burger meat, whereas green tea should be combined with an antimicrobial agent. © 2018 Society of Chemical Industry
000079816 536__ $$9info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/MEC/FPU14-01225
000079816 540__ $$9info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess$$aby-nc-nd$$uhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/es/
000079816 590__ $$a2.422$$b2018
000079816 591__ $$aAGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY$$b9 / 56 = 0.161$$c2018$$dQ1$$eT1
000079816 591__ $$aCHEMISTRY, APPLIED$$b23 / 71 = 0.324$$c2018$$dQ2$$eT1
000079816 591__ $$aFOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY$$b42 / 135 = 0.311$$c2018$$dQ2$$eT1
000079816 592__ $$a0.824$$b2018
000079816 593__ $$aAgronomy and Crop Science$$c2018$$dQ1
000079816 593__ $$aNutrition and Dietetics$$c2018$$dQ1
000079816 593__ $$aFood Science$$c2018$$dQ1
000079816 593__ $$aBiotechnology$$c2018$$dQ1
000079816 655_4 $$ainfo:eu-repo/semantics/article$$vinfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
000079816 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-1558-5449$$aAlonso Martín, Verónica
000079816 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0003-2205-6913$$aRoncalés Rabinal, Pedro$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000079816 700__ $$0(orcid)0000-0002-3764-0189$$aBeltrán Gracia, José Antonio$$uUniversidad de Zaragoza
000079816 7102_ $$12008$$2780$$aUniversidad de Zaragoza$$bDpto. Produc.Animal Cienc.Ali.$$cÁrea Tecnología de Alimentos
000079816 773__ $$g99, 1 (2018), 464-472$$pJ. Sci. Food Agric.$$tJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture$$x0022-5142
000079816 8564_ $$s2146206$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/79816/files/texto_completo.pdf$$yPostprint
000079816 8564_ $$s74636$$uhttps://zaguan.unizar.es/record/79816/files/texto_completo.jpg?subformat=icon$$xicon$$yPostprint
000079816 909CO $$ooai:zaguan.unizar.es:79816$$particulos$$pdriver
000079816 951__ $$a2020-01-17-22:08:36
000079816 980__ $$aARTICLE