Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Different Pressures, Low Temperature, and Short-Duration Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Treatments: Microbiological, Physicochemical, Microstructural, and Sensorial Attributes of Chill-Stored Chicken Meat

Different Pressures, Low Temperature, and Short-Duration Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Treatments:... applied sciences Article Di erent Pressures, Low Temperature, and Short-Duration Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Treatments: Microbiological, Physicochemical, Microstructural, and Sensorial Attributes of Chill-Stored Chicken Meat 1 , 2 1 , 1 Safiullah Jauhar , Mohammad Rashedi Ismail-Fitry * , Gun Hean Chong , 3 3 Mahmud Ab Rashid Nor-Khaizura and Wan Zunairah Wan Ibadullah Department of Food Technology, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; safijauhar@gmail.com (S.J.); gunhean@upm.edu.my (G.H.C.) Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kandahar University, 3802 Kandahar, District no. 9, Kandahar Province, Afghanistan Department of Food Science, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; norkhaizura@upm.edu.my (M.A.R.N.-K.); wanzunairah@upm.edu.my (W.Z.W.I.) * Correspondence: ismailfitry@upm.edu.my; Tel.: +603-97698412 Received: 30 July 2020; Accepted: 7 September 2020; Published: 23 September 2020 Featured Application: We approached supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO ) treatment with di erent levels of pressure (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) on raw chicken meat stored for seven days at 4 C. We emphasize the lower temperature (31 C) and shorter time (10 min) used as compared to previous studies by other researchers. Through analysis of microbiological, physicochemical, microstructural, and sensorial data, the importance of a lower temperature and shorter time with suitable pressure was revealed. This determined SC-CO treatment has potential in the chicken meat industry as a tool to improve microbial safety while retaining meat quality. Abstract: This work aimed to determine the microbiological, physicochemical, microstructural, and sensorial attributes of chicken meat treated with di erent pressures of supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO ) at a low temperature for a short duration. The raw chicken meat was subjected to three pressures: 7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa at 31 C for 10 min and then stored at 4 C for seven days. The 11.4 and 15.4 MPa treatments on the zeroth day reduced the microbial load compared to the control and 7.4 MPa treatment. Similarly, the higher pressure resulted in a decrease in the total count of yeast and mold. The SC-CO had a lesser e ect on the lipid peroxidation, pH, cooking loss, and water holding capacity of the treated chicken meats. Color analysis showed an increase in lightness (L*) and a reduction in redness (a*) on the sample surface. Both texture and color results were within acceptable ranges. SC-CO treatment with 11.4 or 15.4 MPa at a low temperature for a short time improve microbiological safety while retaining the quality of chicken meat. These findings can be expanded and applied as an alternative for non-thermal processing of chicken meat. Keywords: supercritical carbon dioxide; SC-CO ; non-thermal technology; microbial reduction; raw chicken meat 1. Introduction Chicken meat is one of the most important sources of protein in the human diet apart from beef and pork. According to a report by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the total production Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629; doi:10.3390/app10196629 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 2 of 11 of chicken meat in the United States and several selected countries increased from 91,148,000 metric tons in 2016 to 100,026,000 metric tons in 2020 [1]. The storage of raw chicken meat is related to microbial deterioration and lipid peroxidation, which have been implicated as the main factors in reducing the quality and shelf-life of muscle foods [2–4]. Lipid peroxidation changes the meat quality parameters such as color, flavor, odor, texture, and nutritional value [5]. The rich nutrients in meat that have suitable water activity and pH for the survival of bacteria can lead to microbial spoilage [6]. Thermal methods have been used for deactivation of microorganisms inside meat and meat products; however, they have negative e ects on the flavor and aroma of the treated meat [7]. Supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO ) is a non-thermal technology applied in the food, pharmaceutical, and other related industries. SC-CO has been recognized as an alternative method for the inhibition of microorganisms and e ective food pasteurization [8]. The mechanism of bactericidal activity of SC-CO , which may be related to pressure, temperature, and exposure time, is still not well understood. Higher pressure, for example, raises the solubility of CO and promotes the acidification of the cellular membrane. SC-CO is assumed to enhance the fluidity of the cell membrane, improving its permeability and promoting the extraction of membrane components such as phospholipids [9]. The critical point of SC-CO starts at 7.4 MPa at 31.1 C. Several studies have reported the application of SC-CO on 2 2 pork meat in di erent conditions conducted between 7.4 and 15.2 MPa [10–12]. Chicken meat and chicken meat products could be negatively a ected by high temperatures such as during cooking or other treatments involving heat. For example, 90% soluble protein, 43% myofibrillar protein, and the weight of chicken patties decreased when the temperature was between 23 and 80 C [13]. González-Alonso et al. [14] performed microbial inactivation in chicken meat using SC-CO at 140 bars (14 MPa), but at 40 C from 15 to 45 min. However, the chicken meat texture hardened and the color changed as compared to the control. Similar results were obtained by Jauhar et al. [15], where the total plate count and total yeast and mold count reduced after SC-CO treatment at 14 MPa at 45 C for 40 min and then stored for seven days; however, the color and texture had negative e ects. Various levels of pressure could result in di erent chicken meat quality. A lower temperature and shorter time might be suitable for the application of SC-CO to improve the quality of chicken meat. Therefore, this work aimed to determine the microbial, physicochemical, microstructural, and sensorial properties of chicken meat treated at three levels of SC-CO pressure (7.4, 11.4, and 15.4 MPa) at 31 C for 10 min and then stored at 4 C for seven days. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Materials TM TM The plate count agar (PCA; Oxoid ), potato dextrose agar (PDA; Oxoid ), peptone water TM (Oxoid ), petri dishes, and stomacher bags were from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Shah Alam, Malaysia). Whatman 4 filter paper, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), malondialdehyde (MDA), ethanol, methanol, and trichloroacetic acid (TBA) were from Sigma-Aldrich (M) Sdn Bhd (Malaysia). 2.2. Sample Preparation Raw broiler chicken breast meat (pectoralis major muscle) was collected from Azli Chicken Meat Supplier, Seri Kembangan, Selangor, three hours post-slaughter and aseptically transported in a cold box to the lab. Four treatments were carried out—the control and three di erent levels of SC-CO (Supercritical Fluid Extraction Lab Scale Plant, Deven Supercriticals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India) (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa)—at 31.1 C for 10 min. The chicken meat was cut into 1.5  8.0  2.0 cm pieces. It was then placed in an SC-CO machine in the above-mentioned conditions. The vessel was cleaned using a 70% ethanol solution after every treatment. All treatments were conducted in aerobic conditions with the samples packed in low-density polyethylene bags. The treated chicken meats were kept at 4 C aseptically for seven days. The samples were analyzed on days 0, 3 and 7 of storage. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 3 of 11 2.3. Microbiological Quality Evaluation The total count of bacteria, and total count of yeast and mold were measured using plate count agar (PCA) and potato dextrose agar (PDA), respectively. A 10 mg aliquot was homogenized with 90 mL peptone water and then diluted with 0.1% peptone water. The sample was inoculated into the 2 5 PCA and PDA. The dilutions were carried out four times (10 –10 ) for each sample in triplicate. The readings of plates were carried out after the incubation at 37 C for 48 h (PCA) and 72–120 h (PDA) [16]. 2.4. Lipid Peroxidation Measurement A 5 g aliquot was mixed with 25 mL 7.5% (w/v) trichloroacetic acid containing 0.1% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Then, it was homogenized at 15,000 rpm using a kitchen type grinder (Panasonic MX-GM1011, Malaysia). The mixture was then centrifuged for 20 min at 3600 g at room temperature. The supernatant filtered by Whatman 4 (5 mL) was then mixed with 5 mL TBA 0.02 mol/L reagent, heated for 30 min using a boiling bath and cooled at room temperature. A blank sample was prepared by mixing 5 mL TBA with 5 mL distilled water. The absorbance of the supernatant was recorded at 532 nm against the blank sample. The thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) values were measured based on the malondialdehyde standard curve developed and are reported as mg malondialdehyde per kg of the chicken meat sample [17]. 2.5. Color Analysis A Chroma meter (CR-410, Japan) was used for color measurement, and the results are described by lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) [17]. 2.6. PH Analysis A 10 g aliquot was homogenized with distilled water (100 mL) and, after filtration, the pH was measured using a pH meter (SevenMulti, Mettler-Toledo GmbH 8603, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland) [17]. 2.7. Determination of Water Holding Capacity The samples were prepared in a cylindrical shape (approximately 1 cm in diameter and 1.5 cm in length), wiped, weighed, and enfolded in Whatman 4 filter paper. This was followed by centrifugation at 10,000 g for 10 min at 10 C. The sample was then weighed again [18], and the water holding capacity was calculated according to the following formula: Water loss% = [(weight before centrifuge weight after centrifuged)/weight before centrifuge]  100 (1) 2.8. Cooking Loss Samples were blotted dry with paper towel, weighed (10  2 g) and cooked for 40 min at 120 C using an electric oven (CEO-S22BL, Malaysia). Then, the cooked samples were blotted dry and re-weighed. The cooking loss was calculated based on the method by Komoltri and Pakdeechanuan [19], as shown below: Cooking loss (%) = [(pre-cooked weight post cooked weight)/pre-cooked weight]  100 (2) 2.9. Texture Profile Analysis The samples were cut into 24 mm diameter and 20 mm height pieces. They were double compressed by a 40% double-cycle test through a cylindrical probe (50 mm flat bottom) at 25 C using a 25 kg load cell. The Stable Micro Analyzer TA-XT2i, U.K. was used for analyzing texture with test speed of a 1 mm/s pre-test speed and 2 mm/s post-test speed [20]. The hardness, adhesiveness, Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 4 of 11 springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess, chewiness and resilience of the samples were then calculated from the recorded force–time plot. 2.10. Microstructural Analysis The samples were cut into 1  1  0.5 cm pieces and treated with SC-CO . The method was modified to dehydrating meat samples at 45 C for 24 h. This was followed by attaching them to aluminum stubs and coating them with gold. A scanning electron microscope SEM (JEOL JSM-IT100 (JEOL Germany GmbH, Freising, Germany) was used for microstructure determination with an accelerated voltage of 1 kV. The samples were imaged at 300 magnification [19]. 2.11. Sensory Evaluation Thirty untrained panelists evaluated the samples on the third day of storage based on the results of the microbiological evaluation and for safety purposes. The chicken meats were cooked without any additional spices in the electric oven CEO-S22BL (Cornell Sales & Service Sdn. Bhd., Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia) for 40 min at 120 C, labeled with a random three-digit number and served warm to the panelists. A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 1—dislike extremely, 2—dislike very much, 3—dislike moderately, 4—dislike slightly, 5—neither like nor dislike, 6—like slightly, 7—like moderately, 8—like very much, and 9—like extremely. The attributes of interest were color, aroma, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, springiness, and overall acceptability [19]. 2.12. Statistical Analysis All treated meat samples were measured in triplicate (except for the sensory evaluation) and analyzed for comparison using two-way ANOVA. The sensory data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Significant di erences are expressed as p < 0.05 with the results presented as mean  standard deviation. Minitab Statistical Software version 17 (MiniTab Inc., State College, PA, USA) was used for the statistical analysis. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Microbiological Quality The results of the microbiological evaluation of the raw chicken meat treated with SC-CO (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) at 31 C for 10 min during the seven-day storage period are shown in Table 1. Di erences (p < 0.05) are observed on the zeroth day of storage, where increasing the SC-CO pressure caused the log CFU/g of the treated samples to decrease. In this case, 15.4 MPa resulted in lower bacterial, and yeast and mold count. The log CFU/g of total yeast and mold also decreased (p < 0.05) compared to the control sample on the seventh day of storage. However, no di erences (p > 0.05) were detected between the total plate count on the third and seventh day of storage. The muscle from a healthy animal that is turned into food could also be contaminated in the slaughterhouse environment, or as a result of dirty knives, intestinal content, or polluted water [21]. The high microbial count on the zeroth day might be the result of such contaminated conditions. Choi et al [22] studied the microbial reduction of fresh pork and observed a reduction in microbes under high-pressure SC-CO treatments. Solid foods, including meat and meat products, have a lower microbial reduction compared to liquid foods because of the partial di usion of CO into solid food [23]. Two stages were detected in the survival curves of microorganisms after the application of SC-CO . In the early stage, the microbial reduction was sluggish and then declined rapidly during the later stage [24]. The results of this research showed that the inactivation rate increases with increased pressure. The reasons for the increase in log CFU/g on the third and seventh day of storage might be that the lower di usion of CO into the chicken meat’s deep structure and the inactivation of vital enzyme and cellular metabolism resulted in the germination of some remaining spores. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 5 of 11 Table 1. E ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on the total plate count, total yeast and mold count, and lipid peroxidation of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. Parameters Treatments Day 0 Day 3 Day 7 Aa Aa Aa Control 6.72  0.25 7.35  1.17 7.32  0.13 Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 6.68  0.17 6.4  0.47 6.66  0.49 Total Plate Count (log CFU/g) Bb Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 4.02  0.55 5.92  0.47 7.00  0.48 Cc Ab Aa 15.4 MPa 2.00  0.00 5.8  0.40 6.98  0.28 Ab Aab Aa Control 5.98  0.53 6.06  0.72 7.40  0.40 Aa Aa Ba 7.4 MPa 5.72  0.63 5.56  0.51 6.20  0.31 Total Yeast and Mold (log CFU/g) Bb Aa Ba 11.4 MPa 3.58  0.09 5.69  0.81 5.82  0.08 Cc Ab Ba 15.4 MPa 2.00  0.00 5.19  0.18 5.77  0.09 Aa Ab Aab Control 0.29  0.05 0.20  0.01 0.23  0.01 Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 0.27  0.03 0.23  0.01 0.24  0.03 Lipid Peroxidation (mg/kg) Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 0.25  0.01 0.25  0.04 0.28  0.03 Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 0.24  0.01 0.25  0.04 0.23  0.01 Means with di erent small letters of the same treatment (e ect of time) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Means with di erent capital letters of the varied treatment (e ect of treatment) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05); CFU: Colony Forming Unit. 3.2. Lipid Peroxidation The lipid peroxidation results of this research are presented in Table 1. The results revealed that the application of SC-CO did not change (p > 0.05) the peroxidation values of the meat samples throughout all seven days of storage. The TBARS values were all below 0.29 mg/kg. The lack of changes in lipid peroxidation could be due to the removal of the visible fat from the chicken breast meat samples, thus limiting the oxidation of the lipid process. A similar situation was seen in a study by Xiong et al. [4] on chicken samples that were cooked up to 60 C, kept at 4 C for zero, two, and four days and showed no significant changes in TBARS values, which all were below 0.2 mg/kg. However, Huang et al. [24] reported that the application of SC-CO at 13.8 MPa under 35 C for 2 h on ground pork meat increased its TBARS value after five days of storage at 4 C. The lipids are commonly dispersed as triacyl glycerides, phospholipids, and sterols in both the intra- and extra-cellular spaces of meat. Lipids are, however, chemically unstable and, consequently, easily oxidizable, particularly when being stored and handled post-mortem. The rancid smell, o -flavor growth, droplet losses, discoloration, nutrient value loss, and shelf-life decline are causes of lipid oxidation that negatively a ect the meat. Several factors, including iron content, distribution of unsaturated fatty acids, pH, and antioxidant levels, influence the rates and degree of lipid oxidation [25]. 3.3. Color Properties Table 2 shows the e ects on raw chicken meat color when treated with SC-CO and stored at 4  1 C for seven days. The results revealed that the lightness (L* value) increased (p < 0.05) compared to the control on the zeroth, third, and seventh day of storage, while comparison between days of storage for each SC-CO treatment showed no changes (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, the values can be considered better with 55.84–56.78 for control samples and 58.51–67.09 for treated samples throughout the storage times as compared to other studies using 14 MPa for 45 min at 40 C, which resulted in higher L* values such as 80.68 [14] and 77.17 [15]. The redness (a*) values of treated chicken meats were lower (p < 0.05) compared to the control, but no changes (p > 0.05) were observed between days of storage. The values can be considered as acceptable with 10.72–12.64 for control samples and 8.21–10.98 for treated samples as compared to the study by González-Alonso et al. [14] with 2.21 and 1.45 for 8 and 14 MPa, respectively. The yellowness (b*) showed minimal changes and the results agree with the results of González-Alonso et al. [14]. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 6 of 11 Several works have shown that the treatment of pressure slowly changes the surface color of meats. For example, studies conducted on ground pork meat and the porcine longissimus dorsi muscle also confirm the results of this research, claiming that SC-CO significantly changed the meat color [17,24,26]. The discoloration shown in the production at high pressure is a result of globin denaturation and ferrous myoglobin oxidation to ferrous metmyoglobin [11]. In conclusion, the lower temperature and shorter time used in this study helped to maintain the color of the treated chicken meats even at di erent levels of pressure. Table 2. E ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on L*, a* and b* values of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. Parameters Treatments Day 0 Day 3 Day 7 Ca Ba Ba Control 56.78  0.79 55.84  0.63 56.50  3.50 Ba Aa ABb 7.4 MPa 62.02  0.72 61.97  1.55 58.51  1.32 L* Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 67.09  2.1 64.89  1.77 63.62  2.03 Ba Aa ABa 15.4 MPa 63.41  0.91 62.55  0.72 61.53  0.74 Aa Aa Aa Control 12.23  0.67 12.64  0.29 10.72  1.31 Ba ABa ABa 7.4 MPa 10.00  0.28 10.98  0.92 9.81  0.34 a* Ca Ca Ba 11.4 MPa 8.28  0.15 8.70  1.22 8.21  1.10 Ba BCa ABa 15.4 MPa 9.68  0.50 10.02  0.72 9.29  0.78 Aa ABa Aa Control 12.52  0.39 12.38  0.52 9.57  2.05 Aab Aa Ab 7.4 MPa 11.59  0.72 13.30  0.32 11.18  1.12 b* Aa Bb Aab 11.4 MPa 13.18  0.63 10.80  0.97 11.95  1.10 Aa ABa Aa 15.4 MPa 12.87  1.73 11.61  1.13 12.33  1.61 Means with di erent small letters of the same treatment (e ect of time) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Means with di erent capital letters of the varied treatment (e ect of treatment) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). 3.4. The pH, Water Holding Capacity (WHC), and Cooking Loss The e ects of SC-CO on the pH values of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days are presented in Table 3. The result revealed that low- and medium-pressure (7.4 and 11.4 MPa, respectively) SC-CO a ected (p < 0.05) the pH of the meat samples on the zeroth day of storage compared to the control and high-pressure (15.4 MPa) SC-CO . However, no changes (p > 0.05) were recorded between the control and the application of SC-CO on the third and seventh day of storage. A similar study confirmed the current results, that is, no changes in pH were observed after the application of SC-CO on the meat of the porcine longissimus dorsi muscle [7,10]. The increase in the pH values from the zeroth day to the third and seventh days may be due to the exposure of the acidic amino acid groups as proteins unfolded during the pressure application. Treatment of high pressure and temperature can a ect molecular interactions and protein conformation, resulting in protein denaturation and meat aggregation [11]. The e ects of water holding capacity (WHC) of the raw chicken meat in chilled storage after the application of SC-CO are shown in Table 3. The results showed that the treated samples were not a ected similarly as the control sample. The denaturation of the muscle protein occurs as a result of the combination of temperature and low pH, which then becomes responsible for a reduction in WHC. For example, the pale breast fillets displayed slightly lower absolute pH and WHC than the control meat, demonstrating a close relationship between both the color of meat and the ultimate pH and WHC [27]. Based on the lower temperature used during the treatments and less a ected pH values of the chicken meat, the result of the WHC subsequently was not a ected by the SC-CO treatment. Table 3 shows the cooking loss values after the application of SC-CO on the raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. No di erence (p > 0.05) was recorded in all the samples. This result is confirmed by a similar research study conducted on porcine longissimus dorsi muscles [10]. Meat lost both volume and weight by fluid removal during the cooking process. This increase in fluid content contributes to changes in meat’s textural characteristics which are in addition to the changes Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 7 of 11 in protein and fat that are heat-induced. Furthermore, fluctuations in the yield of cooked meat are an economic problem for meat processors. Temperature and time are key factors in the heat and mass transfer processes, protein denaturation, and, in some cases, protein solubilization occurring during cooking [28]. Table 3. E ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on the pH, water holding capacity, and cooking loss of chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. Parameters Treatments Day 0 Day 3 Day 7 Aa Aa Aa Control 6.12  0.06 5.96  0.24 6.19  0.10 Bb Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 5.88  0.06 6.26  0.05 6.17  0.01 pH Bb Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 5.87  0.01 6.13  0.02 6.15  0.03 Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 6.07  0.02 6.14  0.02 6.42  0.43 Aa Aa Aa Control 21.55  3.52 18.5  2.18 26.76  5.84 Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 22.19  0.38 21.27  0.59 23.34  1.50 Water Holding Capacity (%) Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 27.29  5.35 25.77  5.80 29.24  4.84 Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 20.98  2.72 19.03  4.44 24.39  0.28 Aa Aa Aa Control 52.2  2.18 54.23  4.84 50.79  0.78 Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 50.98  2.40 55.11  3.21 48.49  3.69 Cooking Loss (%) Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 52.25  1.43 52.61  0.82 51.88  2.49 Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 48.8  5.10 47.20  5.57 50.18  4.76 Means with di erent small letters of the same treatment (e ect of time) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Means with di erent capital letters of the varied treatment (e ect of treatment) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). 3.5. Texture Properties Table 4 shows the texture values of the raw chicken meat after the SC-CO treatment. The results show that some important attributes were a ected (p < 0.05) during the storage period. For example, hardness, cohesiveness, gumminess, chewiness, and resilience are among the factors that were influenced in some days of the storage period. The most a ected attribute was hardness, which changed (p < 0.05) for all storage times after SC-CO application. Medium-pressure (11.4 MPa) SC-CO hardened 2 2 the meat samples to 6360  846 g, followed by high-pressure (15.4 MPa) SC-CO , which hardened it to 4646  650 g in contrast to low-pressure (7.4 MPa) SC-CO , which produced a meat hardness of 1473  281 g. The hardness degree of the control sample (2030  629 g) was not significantly di erent compared to the low-pressure SC-CO . The medium-pressure (11.4 MPa) SC-CO hardened the meat 2 2 on the third day of evaluation, but the hardness of the meat was increased even more with high SC-CO pressure (15.4 MPa) on the seventh day of storage. Regardless of the hardened texture, these results can be considered acceptable compared to the study by González-Alonso et al. [14] with 57.2 N (5832 g) and 82.8 N (8443 g) for treatment at 8 and 14 MPa for 45 min at 40 C, respectively. Another finding that proves that using a higher temperature and longer treatment time of SC-CO could negatively a ect the texture was reported by Jauhar et al. [15], where the hardness values of the treated chicken meat were recorded at 7248, 8822, and 8808 g after storage at zero, three and seven days, respectively. There was high cohesiveness of the control meat samples at the zeroth and seventh day of storage followed by the low-pressure SC-CO on the zeroth day and high-pressure SC-CO on the seventh 2 2 day of storage, but cohesiveness did not change (p > 0.05) on the third day of storage. The 15.4 MPa SC-CO pressure showed high gumminess on the zeroth and seventh day of treatment, whereas the control sample revealed the lowest degree of gumminess during storage time. The meat treated with medium- and high-pressure SC-CO showed a notably (p < 0.05) high degree of chewiness at the zeroth day, but this did not significantly change on the seventh day of treatment. The low-pressure SC-CO indicated a high degree of resilience in comparing the control sample with the other pressure-treated samples on the zeroth and seventh day of storage. The remaining a ected factors were adhesiveness and springiness, both of which were not influenced (p > 0.05) over all the days of texture evaluation; one of the reasons for this finding could be that the meat hardness after SC-CO treatment had 2 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 8 of 11 experienced water loss, i.e., about 20%  5% of water was lost after the application of SC-CO on the meat samples. A similar study confirmed that marinated pork also hardened after the application of SC-CO at 7.4, 12.2 and 15.4 MPa at 31.1 C for 10 min [11]. Table 4. The e ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on the texture of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. Adhesiveness Springiness Chewiness Treatment Day Hardness (g) Cohesiveness Gumminess (g) Resilience (g s) (mm) (g mm) Ca Aa Aa Aa Ba BCa Aa 0 2030  629 136  83 0.70  0.08 0.79  0.05 1578  398 1190  410 0.55  0.06 Ba Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Control 3 1186  92 187  1.8 0.73  0.08 0.80  0.05 957  93 710  127 0.55  0.09 Ba Aa Aa Aa Ba Aa Aa 7 1350  381 127  54 0.76  0.08 0.76  0.06 1025  263 780  221 0.53  0.09 Ca Aa Aa Aba Ba Ca Aba 0 1473  281 93  8 0.8  0.04 0.80  0.04 1125  172 870  116 0.50  0.05 Aba Aab Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 3 2788  1754 150  32 0.72  0.05 0.74  0.05 2061  1296 1460  813 0.48  0.02 Ba Ab Aa Aa ABa Aa Aa 7 3030  1388 161  32 0.78  0.08 0.78  0.01 2400  1103 1902  1011 0.53  0.03 Aa Aa Ab Ca Aa Aa Ca 0 6360  846 19  5 0.63  0.04 0.60  0.04 3663  741 2356  603 0.33  0.04 Aa Ab Ab Aa Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 3 4989  658 163  49 0.63  0.01 0.55  0.19 2841  1289 1825  849 0.35  0.15 ABa Ab Aa Ba ABa Aa Ca 7 5250  1374 156  53 0.78  0.08 0.61  0.04 3228  811 2511  634 0.39  0.02 Ba Aa Aa BCa Aa Aba BCa 0 4646  650 98  69 0.70  0.03 0.65  0.05 2996  194 2118  211 0.37  0.06 Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 3 4761  1345 196  52 0.65  0.01 0.61  0.04 2886  668 1810  433 0.36  0.05 Aa Aa Aa Ba Aa Aa BCa 6357  2446 214  83 0.63  0.10 0.65  0.03 4093  1426 2679  1183 0.40  0.01 Means of triplicate  standard deviation (SD). Means with di erent capital letters of the varied treatment are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Means with di erent small letters of the same treatment are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13 3.6. Microstructure of Chicken Meat 3.6. Microstructure of Chicken Meat The microstructure of the raw chicken meat treated with three levels of SC-CO (7.4, 11.4 and The microstructure of the raw chicken meat treated with three levels of SC-CO2 (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) at the zeroth day of storage is presented in Figure 1. The untreated chicken meat showed 15.4 MPa) at the zeroth day of storage is presented in Figure 1. The untreated chicken meat showed a smooth surface compared to the treated samples. At 7.4 MPa, the chicken meat surface started to a smooth surface compared to the treated samples. At 7.4 MPa, the chicken meat surface started to show a dense surface. At 11.4 MPa, the chicken was more a ected with a denser surface; ultimately at show a dense surface. At 11.4 MPa, the chicken was more affected with a denser surface; ultimately 15.4 MPa, the chicken meat had the most compact and dense surface compared to other treatments. at 15.4 MPa, the chicken meat had the most compact and dense surface compared to other treatments. These changes are indicators of the increasing pressures applied to the chicken meat a ecting the These changes are indicators of the increasing pressures applied to the chicken meat affecting the protein of the muscle [10]. protein of the muscle [10]. Control 7.4 MPa 11.4 MPa 15.4 MPa Figure 1. The microstructure (300× magnification) of raw chicken meat (zeroth day storage) treated Figure 1. The microstructure (300 magnification) of raw chicken meat (zeroth day storage) treated with SC-CO2 at three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) at 31 °C for 10 min. with SC-CO at three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) at 31 C for 10 min. 3.7. Sensory Properties Figure 2 shows the effects of SC-CO2 (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa at 31 °C for 10 min) on the sensory analysis of raw chicken meat stored at 4 ± 1 °C for three days and cooked for 40 min at 120 °C in the oven. The data showed that all samples did not differ (p > 0.05) in terms of color, aroma, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and springiness. The results proved that different levels of pressure with a lower temperature and shorter SC-CO2 treatments did not affect the acceptance of the chicken meat. A similar study on the effects of 15.2 MPa SC-CO2 treatment on some bacteria in marinades and marinated pork also found no significant differences between the treatments [7]. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 9 of 11 3.7. Sensory Properties Figure 2 shows the e ects of SC-CO )7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa at 31 C for 10 min) on the sensory analysis of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for three days and cooked for 40 min at 120 C in the oven. The data showed that all samples did not di er (p > 0.05) in terms of color, aroma, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and springiness. The results proved that di erent levels of pressure with a lower temperature and shorter SC-CO treatments did not a ect the acceptance of the chicken meat. A similar study on the e ects of 15.2 MPa SC-CO treatment on some bacteria in marinades and marinated pork Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13 also found no significant di erences between the treatments [7]. Figure 2. The e ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on sensory Figure 2. The effects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO2 at 31 °C for 10 min on sensory analysis of cooked chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for three days. analysis of cooked chicken meat stored at 4 ± 1 °C for three days. 4. Conclusions 4. Conclusions Alternative treatments of SC-CO at a lower temperature (31 C) and shorter time (10 min) Alternative treatments of SC-CO2 at a lower temperature (31 °C) and shorter time (10 min) with with various pressures (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) were successfully conducted on raw chicken meat. various pressures (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) were successfully conducted on raw chicken meat. The The microbial load was reduced, and the quality of the chicken meat was simultaneously preserved. microbial load was reduced, and the quality of the chicken meat was simultaneously preserved. The The microbial count of chicken meat chill-stored up to seven days increased for the treated chicken microbial count of chicken meat chill-stored up to seven days increased for the treated chicken meat, meat, but not much of a di erence was seen against the untreated meat at the zeroth day of storage. but not much of a difference was seen against the untreated meat at the zeroth day of storage. The The color and texture of the treated chicken meats were in the acceptable ranges when compared to the color and texture of the treated chicken meats were in the acceptable ranges when compared to the untreated chicken meat due to the lower temperature and shorter time used for the SC-CO treatments untreated chicken meat due to the lower temperature and shorter time used for the SC-CO2 in this study. The results of the texture and color analyses were also better compared to other works treatments in this study. The results of the texture and color analyses were also better compared to conducted previously using a higher temperature and longer SC-CO treatment. The microstructure other works conducted previously using a higher temperature and longer SC-CO2 treatment. The became denser as the pressure levels increased, but this was not obvious as the panelists rated the microstructure became denser as the pressure levels increased, but this was not obvious as the treated chicken meat similar to the untreated chicken meat during the sensory evaluation. In conclusion, panelists rated the treated chicken meat similar to the untreated chicken meat during the sensory the SC-CO treatment can be applied in the chicken meat industry as non-thermal processing with evaluation. In conclusion, the SC-CO2 treatment can be applied in the chicken meat industry as non- a lower temperature and shorter time at various levels of pressure. thermal processing with a lower temperature and shorter time at various levels of pressure. Author Contributions: Formal analysis, S.J.; funding acquisition, M.R.I.-F.; investigation, S.J.; methodology, Author Contributions: Formal analysis, S.J.; funding acquisition, M.R.I.-F.; investigation, S.J.; methodology, S.J., S.J., M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.A.R.N.-K., and W.Z.W.I.; project administration, M.R.I.-F.; resources, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.A.R.N.-K., and W.Z.W.I.; project administration, M.R.I.-F.; resources, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., and and M.A.R.N.-K.; supervision, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.A.R.N.-K., and W.Z.W.I.; validation, S.J. and W.Z.W.I.; writing—original draft, S.J.; writing—review and editing, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., and M.A.R.N.-K. All authors have M.A.R.N.-K.; supervision, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.A.R.N.-K., and W.Z.W.I.; validation, S.J. and W.Z.W.I.; writing— read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. original draft, S.J.; writing—review and editing, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., and M.A.R.N.-K. All authors have read and a Funding: greed to tThis he pu resear blished ch r veceived ersion ono f thexternal e manusfunding. cript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: Authors thank the science officers (Suraya Saad, Fizreena Umanan and Zulhasyimi Abdul Rasit) for their guidance and advice in the laboratory. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. 2006. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2020). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 10 of 11 Acknowledgments: Authors thank the science ocers (Suraya Saad, Fizreena Umanan and Zulhasyimi Abdul Rasit) for their guidance and advice in the laboratory. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. 2006. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2020). 2. Chmiel, M.; Roszko, M.; Hac-Szyma ´ nczuk, ´ E.; Adamczak, L.; Florowski, T.; Pietrzak, D.; Cegiełka, A.; Bryła, M. Time evolution of microbiological quality and content of volatile compounds in chicken fillets packed using various techniques and stored under di erent conditions. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1107–1116. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Dave, D.; Ghaly, A.E. Meat spoilage mechanisms and preservation techniques: A critical review. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2011, 6, 486–510. 4. Xiong, Q.; Zhang, M.; Wang, T.; Wang, D.; Sun, C.; Bian, H.; Li, P.; Zou, Y.; Xu, W. Lipid oxidation induced by heating in chicken meat and the relationship with oxidants and antioxidant enzymes activities. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1761–1767. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. El-Nashi, H.B.; Fattah, A.F.A.K.A.; Rahman, N.R.A.; El-Razik, M.M.A. Quality characteristics of beef sausage containing pomegranate peels during refrigerated storage. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2015, 60, 403–412. [CrossRef] 6. Aminzare, M.; Hashemi, M.; Azar, H.H.; Hejazi, J. The use of herbal extracts and essential oils as a potential antimicrobial in meat and meat products: A review. J. Hum. Environ. Health Prom. 2016, 1, 63–74. [CrossRef] 7. Choi, Y.M.; Bae, Y.Y.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, B.C.; Rhee, M.S. E ects of supercritical carbon dioxide treatment against generic Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and E. coli O157: H7 in marinades and marinated pork. Meat Sci. 2009, 82, 419–424. [CrossRef] 8. Erkmen, O. Antimicrobial e ects of pressurised carbon dioxide on Brochothrix thermosphacta in broth and foods. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2000, 80, 1365–1370. [CrossRef] 9. Budisa, N.; Schulze-Makuch, D. Supercritical carbon dioxide and its potential as a life-sustaining solvent in a planetary environment. Life 2014, 4, 331–340. [CrossRef] 10. Choi, Y.M.; Ryu, Y.C.; Lee, S.H.; Go, G.W.; Shin, H.G.; Kim, K.H.; Rhee, M.S.; Kim, B.C. E ects of supercritical carbon dioxide treatment for sterilization purpose on meat quality of porcine longissimus dorsi muscle. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2008, 41, 317–322. [CrossRef] 11. Choi, Y.M.; Lee, S.H.; Choe, J.H.; Kim, K.H.; Rhee, M.S.; Kim, B.C. E ects of supercritical carbon dioxide treatment on meat quality and sensory evaluation in soy sauce and hot-pepper paste marinated pork. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. 2013, 33, 581–586. [CrossRef] 12. Rawson, A.; Tiwari, B.K.; Brunton, N.; Brennan, C.; Cullen, P.J.; O’Donnell, C.P. Application of supercritical carbon dioxide to fruit and vegetables: Extraction, processing, and preservation. Food Rev. Int. 2012, 28, 253–276. [CrossRef] 13. Murphy, R.Y.; Marks, B.P. E ect of meat temperature on proteins, texture, and cook loss for ground chicken breast patties. Poult. Sci. 2000, 79, 99–104. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. González-Alonso, V.; Cappelletti, M.; Bertolini, F.M.; Lomolino, G.; Zambon, A.; Spilimbergo, S. Microbial inactivation of raw chicken meat by supercritical carbon dioxide treatment alone and in combination with fresh culinary herbs. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 536–545. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Jauhar, S.; Ismail-Fitry, M.R.; Chong, G.H.; Nor-Khaizura, M.A.R.; Ibadullah, W.Z.W. Application of supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO ) on the microbial and physicochemical quality of fresh chicken meat stored at chilling temperature. Int. J. Food Res. 2020, 27, 103–110. 16. Vaithiyanathan, S.; Naveena, B.M.; Muthukumar, M.; Girish, P.S.; Kondaiah, N. E ect of dipping in pomegranate (Punica granatum) fruit juice phenolic solution on the shelf life of chicken meat under refrigerated storage (4 C). Meat Sci. 2011, 88, 409–414. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Zhang, H.; Wu, J.; Guo, X. E ects of antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of spice extracts on raw chicken meat quality. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2016, 5, 39–48. [CrossRef] 18. Zheng, H.B.; Han, M.Y.; Yang, H.J.; Xu, X.L.; Zhou, G.H. The e ect of pressure-assisted heating on the water holding capacity of chicken batters. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 45, 280–286. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 11 of 11 19. Komoltri, P.; Pakdeechanuan, P. E ects of marinating ingredients on physicochemical, microstructural and sensory properties of golek chicken. Int. Food Res. J. 2012, 19, 1449–1455. 20. Zheng, H.; Xiong, G.; Han, M.; Deng, S.; Xu, X.; Zhou, G. High pressure/thermal combinations on texture and water holding capacity of chicken batters. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2015, 30, 8–14. [CrossRef] 21. Bae, Y.Y.; Choi, Y.M.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, B.C.; Rhee, M.S. Application of supercritical carbon dioxide for microorganism reductions in fresh pork. J. Food Saf. 2011, 31, 511–517. [CrossRef] 22. Choi, Y.M.; Kim, O.Y.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, B.C.; Rhee, M.S. Combined e ect of organic acids and supercritical carbon dioxide treatments against nonpathogenic Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium and E. coli O157: H7 in fresh pork. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 49, 510–515. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Garcia-Gonzalez, L.; Geeraerd, A.H.; Spilimbergo, S.; Elst, K.; Van Ginneken, L.; Debevere, J.; Van Impe, J.F.; Devlieghere, F. High pressure carbon dioxide inactivation of microorganisms in foods: The past, the present and the future. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 117, 1–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Huang, S.; Liu, B.; Ge, D.; Dai, J. E ect of combined treatment with supercritical CO and rosemary on microbiological and physicochemical properties of ground pork stored at 4 C. Meat Sci. 2017, 125, 114–120. [CrossRef] 25. Falowo, A.B.; Fayemi, P.O.; Muchenje, V. Natural antioxidants against lipid–protein oxidative deterioration in meat and meat products: A review. Food Res. Int. 2014, 64, 171–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Omana, D.A.; Plastow, G.; Betti, M. E ect of di erent ingredients on color and oxidative characteristics of high pressure processed chicken breast meat with special emphasis on use of -glucan as a partial salt replacer. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2011, 12, 244–254. [CrossRef] 27. Min, B.; Ahn, D.U. Sensory properties of packaged fresh and processed poultry meat. In Advances in Meat, Poulty and Seafood Packaging; Kerry, J.P., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 112–153. 28. Purslow, P.P.; Oiseth, S.; Hughes, J.; Warner, R.D. The structural basis of cooking loss in beef: Variations with temperature and ageing. Food Res. Int. 2016, 89, 739–748. [CrossRef] © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Applied Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Different Pressures, Low Temperature, and Short-Duration Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Treatments: Microbiological, Physicochemical, Microstructural, and Sensorial Attributes of Chill-Stored Chicken Meat

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/different-pressures-low-temperature-and-short-duration-supercritical-zvccehK0O0

References (30)

Publisher
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright
© 1996-2020 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN
2076-3417
DOI
10.3390/app10196629
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

applied sciences Article Di erent Pressures, Low Temperature, and Short-Duration Supercritical Carbon Dioxide Treatments: Microbiological, Physicochemical, Microstructural, and Sensorial Attributes of Chill-Stored Chicken Meat 1 , 2 1 , 1 Safiullah Jauhar , Mohammad Rashedi Ismail-Fitry * , Gun Hean Chong , 3 3 Mahmud Ab Rashid Nor-Khaizura and Wan Zunairah Wan Ibadullah Department of Food Technology, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; safijauhar@gmail.com (S.J.); gunhean@upm.edu.my (G.H.C.) Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kandahar University, 3802 Kandahar, District no. 9, Kandahar Province, Afghanistan Department of Food Science, Faculty of Food Science and Technology, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia; norkhaizura@upm.edu.my (M.A.R.N.-K.); wanzunairah@upm.edu.my (W.Z.W.I.) * Correspondence: ismailfitry@upm.edu.my; Tel.: +603-97698412 Received: 30 July 2020; Accepted: 7 September 2020; Published: 23 September 2020 Featured Application: We approached supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO ) treatment with di erent levels of pressure (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) on raw chicken meat stored for seven days at 4 C. We emphasize the lower temperature (31 C) and shorter time (10 min) used as compared to previous studies by other researchers. Through analysis of microbiological, physicochemical, microstructural, and sensorial data, the importance of a lower temperature and shorter time with suitable pressure was revealed. This determined SC-CO treatment has potential in the chicken meat industry as a tool to improve microbial safety while retaining meat quality. Abstract: This work aimed to determine the microbiological, physicochemical, microstructural, and sensorial attributes of chicken meat treated with di erent pressures of supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO ) at a low temperature for a short duration. The raw chicken meat was subjected to three pressures: 7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa at 31 C for 10 min and then stored at 4 C for seven days. The 11.4 and 15.4 MPa treatments on the zeroth day reduced the microbial load compared to the control and 7.4 MPa treatment. Similarly, the higher pressure resulted in a decrease in the total count of yeast and mold. The SC-CO had a lesser e ect on the lipid peroxidation, pH, cooking loss, and water holding capacity of the treated chicken meats. Color analysis showed an increase in lightness (L*) and a reduction in redness (a*) on the sample surface. Both texture and color results were within acceptable ranges. SC-CO treatment with 11.4 or 15.4 MPa at a low temperature for a short time improve microbiological safety while retaining the quality of chicken meat. These findings can be expanded and applied as an alternative for non-thermal processing of chicken meat. Keywords: supercritical carbon dioxide; SC-CO ; non-thermal technology; microbial reduction; raw chicken meat 1. Introduction Chicken meat is one of the most important sources of protein in the human diet apart from beef and pork. According to a report by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the total production Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629; doi:10.3390/app10196629 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 2 of 11 of chicken meat in the United States and several selected countries increased from 91,148,000 metric tons in 2016 to 100,026,000 metric tons in 2020 [1]. The storage of raw chicken meat is related to microbial deterioration and lipid peroxidation, which have been implicated as the main factors in reducing the quality and shelf-life of muscle foods [2–4]. Lipid peroxidation changes the meat quality parameters such as color, flavor, odor, texture, and nutritional value [5]. The rich nutrients in meat that have suitable water activity and pH for the survival of bacteria can lead to microbial spoilage [6]. Thermal methods have been used for deactivation of microorganisms inside meat and meat products; however, they have negative e ects on the flavor and aroma of the treated meat [7]. Supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO ) is a non-thermal technology applied in the food, pharmaceutical, and other related industries. SC-CO has been recognized as an alternative method for the inhibition of microorganisms and e ective food pasteurization [8]. The mechanism of bactericidal activity of SC-CO , which may be related to pressure, temperature, and exposure time, is still not well understood. Higher pressure, for example, raises the solubility of CO and promotes the acidification of the cellular membrane. SC-CO is assumed to enhance the fluidity of the cell membrane, improving its permeability and promoting the extraction of membrane components such as phospholipids [9]. The critical point of SC-CO starts at 7.4 MPa at 31.1 C. Several studies have reported the application of SC-CO on 2 2 pork meat in di erent conditions conducted between 7.4 and 15.2 MPa [10–12]. Chicken meat and chicken meat products could be negatively a ected by high temperatures such as during cooking or other treatments involving heat. For example, 90% soluble protein, 43% myofibrillar protein, and the weight of chicken patties decreased when the temperature was between 23 and 80 C [13]. González-Alonso et al. [14] performed microbial inactivation in chicken meat using SC-CO at 140 bars (14 MPa), but at 40 C from 15 to 45 min. However, the chicken meat texture hardened and the color changed as compared to the control. Similar results were obtained by Jauhar et al. [15], where the total plate count and total yeast and mold count reduced after SC-CO treatment at 14 MPa at 45 C for 40 min and then stored for seven days; however, the color and texture had negative e ects. Various levels of pressure could result in di erent chicken meat quality. A lower temperature and shorter time might be suitable for the application of SC-CO to improve the quality of chicken meat. Therefore, this work aimed to determine the microbial, physicochemical, microstructural, and sensorial properties of chicken meat treated at three levels of SC-CO pressure (7.4, 11.4, and 15.4 MPa) at 31 C for 10 min and then stored at 4 C for seven days. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Materials TM TM The plate count agar (PCA; Oxoid ), potato dextrose agar (PDA; Oxoid ), peptone water TM (Oxoid ), petri dishes, and stomacher bags were from Thermo Fisher Scientific (Shah Alam, Malaysia). Whatman 4 filter paper, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), malondialdehyde (MDA), ethanol, methanol, and trichloroacetic acid (TBA) were from Sigma-Aldrich (M) Sdn Bhd (Malaysia). 2.2. Sample Preparation Raw broiler chicken breast meat (pectoralis major muscle) was collected from Azli Chicken Meat Supplier, Seri Kembangan, Selangor, three hours post-slaughter and aseptically transported in a cold box to the lab. Four treatments were carried out—the control and three di erent levels of SC-CO (Supercritical Fluid Extraction Lab Scale Plant, Deven Supercriticals Pvt Ltd, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India) (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa)—at 31.1 C for 10 min. The chicken meat was cut into 1.5  8.0  2.0 cm pieces. It was then placed in an SC-CO machine in the above-mentioned conditions. The vessel was cleaned using a 70% ethanol solution after every treatment. All treatments were conducted in aerobic conditions with the samples packed in low-density polyethylene bags. The treated chicken meats were kept at 4 C aseptically for seven days. The samples were analyzed on days 0, 3 and 7 of storage. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 3 of 11 2.3. Microbiological Quality Evaluation The total count of bacteria, and total count of yeast and mold were measured using plate count agar (PCA) and potato dextrose agar (PDA), respectively. A 10 mg aliquot was homogenized with 90 mL peptone water and then diluted with 0.1% peptone water. The sample was inoculated into the 2 5 PCA and PDA. The dilutions were carried out four times (10 –10 ) for each sample in triplicate. The readings of plates were carried out after the incubation at 37 C for 48 h (PCA) and 72–120 h (PDA) [16]. 2.4. Lipid Peroxidation Measurement A 5 g aliquot was mixed with 25 mL 7.5% (w/v) trichloroacetic acid containing 0.1% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Then, it was homogenized at 15,000 rpm using a kitchen type grinder (Panasonic MX-GM1011, Malaysia). The mixture was then centrifuged for 20 min at 3600 g at room temperature. The supernatant filtered by Whatman 4 (5 mL) was then mixed with 5 mL TBA 0.02 mol/L reagent, heated for 30 min using a boiling bath and cooled at room temperature. A blank sample was prepared by mixing 5 mL TBA with 5 mL distilled water. The absorbance of the supernatant was recorded at 532 nm against the blank sample. The thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) values were measured based on the malondialdehyde standard curve developed and are reported as mg malondialdehyde per kg of the chicken meat sample [17]. 2.5. Color Analysis A Chroma meter (CR-410, Japan) was used for color measurement, and the results are described by lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) [17]. 2.6. PH Analysis A 10 g aliquot was homogenized with distilled water (100 mL) and, after filtration, the pH was measured using a pH meter (SevenMulti, Mettler-Toledo GmbH 8603, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland) [17]. 2.7. Determination of Water Holding Capacity The samples were prepared in a cylindrical shape (approximately 1 cm in diameter and 1.5 cm in length), wiped, weighed, and enfolded in Whatman 4 filter paper. This was followed by centrifugation at 10,000 g for 10 min at 10 C. The sample was then weighed again [18], and the water holding capacity was calculated according to the following formula: Water loss% = [(weight before centrifuge weight after centrifuged)/weight before centrifuge]  100 (1) 2.8. Cooking Loss Samples were blotted dry with paper towel, weighed (10  2 g) and cooked for 40 min at 120 C using an electric oven (CEO-S22BL, Malaysia). Then, the cooked samples were blotted dry and re-weighed. The cooking loss was calculated based on the method by Komoltri and Pakdeechanuan [19], as shown below: Cooking loss (%) = [(pre-cooked weight post cooked weight)/pre-cooked weight]  100 (2) 2.9. Texture Profile Analysis The samples were cut into 24 mm diameter and 20 mm height pieces. They were double compressed by a 40% double-cycle test through a cylindrical probe (50 mm flat bottom) at 25 C using a 25 kg load cell. The Stable Micro Analyzer TA-XT2i, U.K. was used for analyzing texture with test speed of a 1 mm/s pre-test speed and 2 mm/s post-test speed [20]. The hardness, adhesiveness, Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 4 of 11 springiness, cohesiveness, gumminess, chewiness and resilience of the samples were then calculated from the recorded force–time plot. 2.10. Microstructural Analysis The samples were cut into 1  1  0.5 cm pieces and treated with SC-CO . The method was modified to dehydrating meat samples at 45 C for 24 h. This was followed by attaching them to aluminum stubs and coating them with gold. A scanning electron microscope SEM (JEOL JSM-IT100 (JEOL Germany GmbH, Freising, Germany) was used for microstructure determination with an accelerated voltage of 1 kV. The samples were imaged at 300 magnification [19]. 2.11. Sensory Evaluation Thirty untrained panelists evaluated the samples on the third day of storage based on the results of the microbiological evaluation and for safety purposes. The chicken meats were cooked without any additional spices in the electric oven CEO-S22BL (Cornell Sales & Service Sdn. Bhd., Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia) for 40 min at 120 C, labeled with a random three-digit number and served warm to the panelists. A 9-point hedonic scale was used with 1—dislike extremely, 2—dislike very much, 3—dislike moderately, 4—dislike slightly, 5—neither like nor dislike, 6—like slightly, 7—like moderately, 8—like very much, and 9—like extremely. The attributes of interest were color, aroma, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, springiness, and overall acceptability [19]. 2.12. Statistical Analysis All treated meat samples were measured in triplicate (except for the sensory evaluation) and analyzed for comparison using two-way ANOVA. The sensory data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA. Significant di erences are expressed as p < 0.05 with the results presented as mean  standard deviation. Minitab Statistical Software version 17 (MiniTab Inc., State College, PA, USA) was used for the statistical analysis. 3. Results and Discussion 3.1. Microbiological Quality The results of the microbiological evaluation of the raw chicken meat treated with SC-CO (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) at 31 C for 10 min during the seven-day storage period are shown in Table 1. Di erences (p < 0.05) are observed on the zeroth day of storage, where increasing the SC-CO pressure caused the log CFU/g of the treated samples to decrease. In this case, 15.4 MPa resulted in lower bacterial, and yeast and mold count. The log CFU/g of total yeast and mold also decreased (p < 0.05) compared to the control sample on the seventh day of storage. However, no di erences (p > 0.05) were detected between the total plate count on the third and seventh day of storage. The muscle from a healthy animal that is turned into food could also be contaminated in the slaughterhouse environment, or as a result of dirty knives, intestinal content, or polluted water [21]. The high microbial count on the zeroth day might be the result of such contaminated conditions. Choi et al [22] studied the microbial reduction of fresh pork and observed a reduction in microbes under high-pressure SC-CO treatments. Solid foods, including meat and meat products, have a lower microbial reduction compared to liquid foods because of the partial di usion of CO into solid food [23]. Two stages were detected in the survival curves of microorganisms after the application of SC-CO . In the early stage, the microbial reduction was sluggish and then declined rapidly during the later stage [24]. The results of this research showed that the inactivation rate increases with increased pressure. The reasons for the increase in log CFU/g on the third and seventh day of storage might be that the lower di usion of CO into the chicken meat’s deep structure and the inactivation of vital enzyme and cellular metabolism resulted in the germination of some remaining spores. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 5 of 11 Table 1. E ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on the total plate count, total yeast and mold count, and lipid peroxidation of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. Parameters Treatments Day 0 Day 3 Day 7 Aa Aa Aa Control 6.72  0.25 7.35  1.17 7.32  0.13 Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 6.68  0.17 6.4  0.47 6.66  0.49 Total Plate Count (log CFU/g) Bb Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 4.02  0.55 5.92  0.47 7.00  0.48 Cc Ab Aa 15.4 MPa 2.00  0.00 5.8  0.40 6.98  0.28 Ab Aab Aa Control 5.98  0.53 6.06  0.72 7.40  0.40 Aa Aa Ba 7.4 MPa 5.72  0.63 5.56  0.51 6.20  0.31 Total Yeast and Mold (log CFU/g) Bb Aa Ba 11.4 MPa 3.58  0.09 5.69  0.81 5.82  0.08 Cc Ab Ba 15.4 MPa 2.00  0.00 5.19  0.18 5.77  0.09 Aa Ab Aab Control 0.29  0.05 0.20  0.01 0.23  0.01 Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 0.27  0.03 0.23  0.01 0.24  0.03 Lipid Peroxidation (mg/kg) Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 0.25  0.01 0.25  0.04 0.28  0.03 Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 0.24  0.01 0.25  0.04 0.23  0.01 Means with di erent small letters of the same treatment (e ect of time) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Means with di erent capital letters of the varied treatment (e ect of treatment) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05); CFU: Colony Forming Unit. 3.2. Lipid Peroxidation The lipid peroxidation results of this research are presented in Table 1. The results revealed that the application of SC-CO did not change (p > 0.05) the peroxidation values of the meat samples throughout all seven days of storage. The TBARS values were all below 0.29 mg/kg. The lack of changes in lipid peroxidation could be due to the removal of the visible fat from the chicken breast meat samples, thus limiting the oxidation of the lipid process. A similar situation was seen in a study by Xiong et al. [4] on chicken samples that were cooked up to 60 C, kept at 4 C for zero, two, and four days and showed no significant changes in TBARS values, which all were below 0.2 mg/kg. However, Huang et al. [24] reported that the application of SC-CO at 13.8 MPa under 35 C for 2 h on ground pork meat increased its TBARS value after five days of storage at 4 C. The lipids are commonly dispersed as triacyl glycerides, phospholipids, and sterols in both the intra- and extra-cellular spaces of meat. Lipids are, however, chemically unstable and, consequently, easily oxidizable, particularly when being stored and handled post-mortem. The rancid smell, o -flavor growth, droplet losses, discoloration, nutrient value loss, and shelf-life decline are causes of lipid oxidation that negatively a ect the meat. Several factors, including iron content, distribution of unsaturated fatty acids, pH, and antioxidant levels, influence the rates and degree of lipid oxidation [25]. 3.3. Color Properties Table 2 shows the e ects on raw chicken meat color when treated with SC-CO and stored at 4  1 C for seven days. The results revealed that the lightness (L* value) increased (p < 0.05) compared to the control on the zeroth, third, and seventh day of storage, while comparison between days of storage for each SC-CO treatment showed no changes (p > 0.05). Nevertheless, the values can be considered better with 55.84–56.78 for control samples and 58.51–67.09 for treated samples throughout the storage times as compared to other studies using 14 MPa for 45 min at 40 C, which resulted in higher L* values such as 80.68 [14] and 77.17 [15]. The redness (a*) values of treated chicken meats were lower (p < 0.05) compared to the control, but no changes (p > 0.05) were observed between days of storage. The values can be considered as acceptable with 10.72–12.64 for control samples and 8.21–10.98 for treated samples as compared to the study by González-Alonso et al. [14] with 2.21 and 1.45 for 8 and 14 MPa, respectively. The yellowness (b*) showed minimal changes and the results agree with the results of González-Alonso et al. [14]. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 6 of 11 Several works have shown that the treatment of pressure slowly changes the surface color of meats. For example, studies conducted on ground pork meat and the porcine longissimus dorsi muscle also confirm the results of this research, claiming that SC-CO significantly changed the meat color [17,24,26]. The discoloration shown in the production at high pressure is a result of globin denaturation and ferrous myoglobin oxidation to ferrous metmyoglobin [11]. In conclusion, the lower temperature and shorter time used in this study helped to maintain the color of the treated chicken meats even at di erent levels of pressure. Table 2. E ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on L*, a* and b* values of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. Parameters Treatments Day 0 Day 3 Day 7 Ca Ba Ba Control 56.78  0.79 55.84  0.63 56.50  3.50 Ba Aa ABb 7.4 MPa 62.02  0.72 61.97  1.55 58.51  1.32 L* Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 67.09  2.1 64.89  1.77 63.62  2.03 Ba Aa ABa 15.4 MPa 63.41  0.91 62.55  0.72 61.53  0.74 Aa Aa Aa Control 12.23  0.67 12.64  0.29 10.72  1.31 Ba ABa ABa 7.4 MPa 10.00  0.28 10.98  0.92 9.81  0.34 a* Ca Ca Ba 11.4 MPa 8.28  0.15 8.70  1.22 8.21  1.10 Ba BCa ABa 15.4 MPa 9.68  0.50 10.02  0.72 9.29  0.78 Aa ABa Aa Control 12.52  0.39 12.38  0.52 9.57  2.05 Aab Aa Ab 7.4 MPa 11.59  0.72 13.30  0.32 11.18  1.12 b* Aa Bb Aab 11.4 MPa 13.18  0.63 10.80  0.97 11.95  1.10 Aa ABa Aa 15.4 MPa 12.87  1.73 11.61  1.13 12.33  1.61 Means with di erent small letters of the same treatment (e ect of time) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Means with di erent capital letters of the varied treatment (e ect of treatment) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). 3.4. The pH, Water Holding Capacity (WHC), and Cooking Loss The e ects of SC-CO on the pH values of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days are presented in Table 3. The result revealed that low- and medium-pressure (7.4 and 11.4 MPa, respectively) SC-CO a ected (p < 0.05) the pH of the meat samples on the zeroth day of storage compared to the control and high-pressure (15.4 MPa) SC-CO . However, no changes (p > 0.05) were recorded between the control and the application of SC-CO on the third and seventh day of storage. A similar study confirmed the current results, that is, no changes in pH were observed after the application of SC-CO on the meat of the porcine longissimus dorsi muscle [7,10]. The increase in the pH values from the zeroth day to the third and seventh days may be due to the exposure of the acidic amino acid groups as proteins unfolded during the pressure application. Treatment of high pressure and temperature can a ect molecular interactions and protein conformation, resulting in protein denaturation and meat aggregation [11]. The e ects of water holding capacity (WHC) of the raw chicken meat in chilled storage after the application of SC-CO are shown in Table 3. The results showed that the treated samples were not a ected similarly as the control sample. The denaturation of the muscle protein occurs as a result of the combination of temperature and low pH, which then becomes responsible for a reduction in WHC. For example, the pale breast fillets displayed slightly lower absolute pH and WHC than the control meat, demonstrating a close relationship between both the color of meat and the ultimate pH and WHC [27]. Based on the lower temperature used during the treatments and less a ected pH values of the chicken meat, the result of the WHC subsequently was not a ected by the SC-CO treatment. Table 3 shows the cooking loss values after the application of SC-CO on the raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. No di erence (p > 0.05) was recorded in all the samples. This result is confirmed by a similar research study conducted on porcine longissimus dorsi muscles [10]. Meat lost both volume and weight by fluid removal during the cooking process. This increase in fluid content contributes to changes in meat’s textural characteristics which are in addition to the changes Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 7 of 11 in protein and fat that are heat-induced. Furthermore, fluctuations in the yield of cooked meat are an economic problem for meat processors. Temperature and time are key factors in the heat and mass transfer processes, protein denaturation, and, in some cases, protein solubilization occurring during cooking [28]. Table 3. E ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on the pH, water holding capacity, and cooking loss of chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. Parameters Treatments Day 0 Day 3 Day 7 Aa Aa Aa Control 6.12  0.06 5.96  0.24 6.19  0.10 Bb Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 5.88  0.06 6.26  0.05 6.17  0.01 pH Bb Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 5.87  0.01 6.13  0.02 6.15  0.03 Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 6.07  0.02 6.14  0.02 6.42  0.43 Aa Aa Aa Control 21.55  3.52 18.5  2.18 26.76  5.84 Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 22.19  0.38 21.27  0.59 23.34  1.50 Water Holding Capacity (%) Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 27.29  5.35 25.77  5.80 29.24  4.84 Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 20.98  2.72 19.03  4.44 24.39  0.28 Aa Aa Aa Control 52.2  2.18 54.23  4.84 50.79  0.78 Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 50.98  2.40 55.11  3.21 48.49  3.69 Cooking Loss (%) Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 52.25  1.43 52.61  0.82 51.88  2.49 Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 48.8  5.10 47.20  5.57 50.18  4.76 Means with di erent small letters of the same treatment (e ect of time) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Means with di erent capital letters of the varied treatment (e ect of treatment) are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). 3.5. Texture Properties Table 4 shows the texture values of the raw chicken meat after the SC-CO treatment. The results show that some important attributes were a ected (p < 0.05) during the storage period. For example, hardness, cohesiveness, gumminess, chewiness, and resilience are among the factors that were influenced in some days of the storage period. The most a ected attribute was hardness, which changed (p < 0.05) for all storage times after SC-CO application. Medium-pressure (11.4 MPa) SC-CO hardened 2 2 the meat samples to 6360  846 g, followed by high-pressure (15.4 MPa) SC-CO , which hardened it to 4646  650 g in contrast to low-pressure (7.4 MPa) SC-CO , which produced a meat hardness of 1473  281 g. The hardness degree of the control sample (2030  629 g) was not significantly di erent compared to the low-pressure SC-CO . The medium-pressure (11.4 MPa) SC-CO hardened the meat 2 2 on the third day of evaluation, but the hardness of the meat was increased even more with high SC-CO pressure (15.4 MPa) on the seventh day of storage. Regardless of the hardened texture, these results can be considered acceptable compared to the study by González-Alonso et al. [14] with 57.2 N (5832 g) and 82.8 N (8443 g) for treatment at 8 and 14 MPa for 45 min at 40 C, respectively. Another finding that proves that using a higher temperature and longer treatment time of SC-CO could negatively a ect the texture was reported by Jauhar et al. [15], where the hardness values of the treated chicken meat were recorded at 7248, 8822, and 8808 g after storage at zero, three and seven days, respectively. There was high cohesiveness of the control meat samples at the zeroth and seventh day of storage followed by the low-pressure SC-CO on the zeroth day and high-pressure SC-CO on the seventh 2 2 day of storage, but cohesiveness did not change (p > 0.05) on the third day of storage. The 15.4 MPa SC-CO pressure showed high gumminess on the zeroth and seventh day of treatment, whereas the control sample revealed the lowest degree of gumminess during storage time. The meat treated with medium- and high-pressure SC-CO showed a notably (p < 0.05) high degree of chewiness at the zeroth day, but this did not significantly change on the seventh day of treatment. The low-pressure SC-CO indicated a high degree of resilience in comparing the control sample with the other pressure-treated samples on the zeroth and seventh day of storage. The remaining a ected factors were adhesiveness and springiness, both of which were not influenced (p > 0.05) over all the days of texture evaluation; one of the reasons for this finding could be that the meat hardness after SC-CO treatment had 2 Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 8 of 11 experienced water loss, i.e., about 20%  5% of water was lost after the application of SC-CO on the meat samples. A similar study confirmed that marinated pork also hardened after the application of SC-CO at 7.4, 12.2 and 15.4 MPa at 31.1 C for 10 min [11]. Table 4. The e ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on the texture of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for seven days. Adhesiveness Springiness Chewiness Treatment Day Hardness (g) Cohesiveness Gumminess (g) Resilience (g s) (mm) (g mm) Ca Aa Aa Aa Ba BCa Aa 0 2030  629 136  83 0.70  0.08 0.79  0.05 1578  398 1190  410 0.55  0.06 Ba Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Control 3 1186  92 187  1.8 0.73  0.08 0.80  0.05 957  93 710  127 0.55  0.09 Ba Aa Aa Aa Ba Aa Aa 7 1350  381 127  54 0.76  0.08 0.76  0.06 1025  263 780  221 0.53  0.09 Ca Aa Aa Aba Ba Ca Aba 0 1473  281 93  8 0.8  0.04 0.80  0.04 1125  172 870  116 0.50  0.05 Aba Aab Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa 7.4 MPa 3 2788  1754 150  32 0.72  0.05 0.74  0.05 2061  1296 1460  813 0.48  0.02 Ba Ab Aa Aa ABa Aa Aa 7 3030  1388 161  32 0.78  0.08 0.78  0.01 2400  1103 1902  1011 0.53  0.03 Aa Aa Ab Ca Aa Aa Ca 0 6360  846 19  5 0.63  0.04 0.60  0.04 3663  741 2356  603 0.33  0.04 Aa Ab Ab Aa Aa Aa Aa 11.4 MPa 3 4989  658 163  49 0.63  0.01 0.55  0.19 2841  1289 1825  849 0.35  0.15 ABa Ab Aa Ba ABa Aa Ca 7 5250  1374 156  53 0.78  0.08 0.61  0.04 3228  811 2511  634 0.39  0.02 Ba Aa Aa BCa Aa Aba BCa 0 4646  650 98  69 0.70  0.03 0.65  0.05 2996  194 2118  211 0.37  0.06 Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa Aa 15.4 MPa 3 4761  1345 196  52 0.65  0.01 0.61  0.04 2886  668 1810  433 0.36  0.05 Aa Aa Aa Ba Aa Aa BCa 6357  2446 214  83 0.63  0.10 0.65  0.03 4093  1426 2679  1183 0.40  0.01 Means of triplicate  standard deviation (SD). Means with di erent capital letters of the varied treatment are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Means with di erent small letters of the same treatment are significantly di erent (p < 0.05). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13 3.6. Microstructure of Chicken Meat 3.6. Microstructure of Chicken Meat The microstructure of the raw chicken meat treated with three levels of SC-CO (7.4, 11.4 and The microstructure of the raw chicken meat treated with three levels of SC-CO2 (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) at the zeroth day of storage is presented in Figure 1. The untreated chicken meat showed 15.4 MPa) at the zeroth day of storage is presented in Figure 1. The untreated chicken meat showed a smooth surface compared to the treated samples. At 7.4 MPa, the chicken meat surface started to a smooth surface compared to the treated samples. At 7.4 MPa, the chicken meat surface started to show a dense surface. At 11.4 MPa, the chicken was more a ected with a denser surface; ultimately at show a dense surface. At 11.4 MPa, the chicken was more affected with a denser surface; ultimately 15.4 MPa, the chicken meat had the most compact and dense surface compared to other treatments. at 15.4 MPa, the chicken meat had the most compact and dense surface compared to other treatments. These changes are indicators of the increasing pressures applied to the chicken meat a ecting the These changes are indicators of the increasing pressures applied to the chicken meat affecting the protein of the muscle [10]. protein of the muscle [10]. Control 7.4 MPa 11.4 MPa 15.4 MPa Figure 1. The microstructure (300× magnification) of raw chicken meat (zeroth day storage) treated Figure 1. The microstructure (300 magnification) of raw chicken meat (zeroth day storage) treated with SC-CO2 at three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) at 31 °C for 10 min. with SC-CO at three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) at 31 C for 10 min. 3.7. Sensory Properties Figure 2 shows the effects of SC-CO2 (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa at 31 °C for 10 min) on the sensory analysis of raw chicken meat stored at 4 ± 1 °C for three days and cooked for 40 min at 120 °C in the oven. The data showed that all samples did not differ (p > 0.05) in terms of color, aroma, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and springiness. The results proved that different levels of pressure with a lower temperature and shorter SC-CO2 treatments did not affect the acceptance of the chicken meat. A similar study on the effects of 15.2 MPa SC-CO2 treatment on some bacteria in marinades and marinated pork also found no significant differences between the treatments [7]. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 9 of 11 3.7. Sensory Properties Figure 2 shows the e ects of SC-CO )7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa at 31 C for 10 min) on the sensory analysis of raw chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for three days and cooked for 40 min at 120 C in the oven. The data showed that all samples did not di er (p > 0.05) in terms of color, aroma, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and springiness. The results proved that di erent levels of pressure with a lower temperature and shorter SC-CO treatments did not a ect the acceptance of the chicken meat. A similar study on the e ects of 15.2 MPa SC-CO treatment on some bacteria in marinades and marinated pork Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13 also found no significant di erences between the treatments [7]. Figure 2. The e ects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO at 31 C for 10 min on sensory Figure 2. The effects of three levels (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) of SC-CO2 at 31 °C for 10 min on sensory analysis of cooked chicken meat stored at 4  1 C for three days. analysis of cooked chicken meat stored at 4 ± 1 °C for three days. 4. Conclusions 4. Conclusions Alternative treatments of SC-CO at a lower temperature (31 C) and shorter time (10 min) Alternative treatments of SC-CO2 at a lower temperature (31 °C) and shorter time (10 min) with with various pressures (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) were successfully conducted on raw chicken meat. various pressures (7.4, 11.4 and 15.4 MPa) were successfully conducted on raw chicken meat. The The microbial load was reduced, and the quality of the chicken meat was simultaneously preserved. microbial load was reduced, and the quality of the chicken meat was simultaneously preserved. The The microbial count of chicken meat chill-stored up to seven days increased for the treated chicken microbial count of chicken meat chill-stored up to seven days increased for the treated chicken meat, meat, but not much of a di erence was seen against the untreated meat at the zeroth day of storage. but not much of a difference was seen against the untreated meat at the zeroth day of storage. The The color and texture of the treated chicken meats were in the acceptable ranges when compared to the color and texture of the treated chicken meats were in the acceptable ranges when compared to the untreated chicken meat due to the lower temperature and shorter time used for the SC-CO treatments untreated chicken meat due to the lower temperature and shorter time used for the SC-CO2 in this study. The results of the texture and color analyses were also better compared to other works treatments in this study. The results of the texture and color analyses were also better compared to conducted previously using a higher temperature and longer SC-CO treatment. The microstructure other works conducted previously using a higher temperature and longer SC-CO2 treatment. The became denser as the pressure levels increased, but this was not obvious as the panelists rated the microstructure became denser as the pressure levels increased, but this was not obvious as the treated chicken meat similar to the untreated chicken meat during the sensory evaluation. In conclusion, panelists rated the treated chicken meat similar to the untreated chicken meat during the sensory the SC-CO treatment can be applied in the chicken meat industry as non-thermal processing with evaluation. In conclusion, the SC-CO2 treatment can be applied in the chicken meat industry as non- a lower temperature and shorter time at various levels of pressure. thermal processing with a lower temperature and shorter time at various levels of pressure. Author Contributions: Formal analysis, S.J.; funding acquisition, M.R.I.-F.; investigation, S.J.; methodology, Author Contributions: Formal analysis, S.J.; funding acquisition, M.R.I.-F.; investigation, S.J.; methodology, S.J., S.J., M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.A.R.N.-K., and W.Z.W.I.; project administration, M.R.I.-F.; resources, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.A.R.N.-K., and W.Z.W.I.; project administration, M.R.I.-F.; resources, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., and and M.A.R.N.-K.; supervision, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.A.R.N.-K., and W.Z.W.I.; validation, S.J. and W.Z.W.I.; writing—original draft, S.J.; writing—review and editing, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., and M.A.R.N.-K. All authors have M.A.R.N.-K.; supervision, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., M.A.R.N.-K., and W.Z.W.I.; validation, S.J. and W.Z.W.I.; writing— read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. original draft, S.J.; writing—review and editing, M.R.I.-F., G.H.C., and M.A.R.N.-K. All authors have read and a Funding: greed to tThis he pu resear blished ch r veceived ersion ono f thexternal e manusfunding. cript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Acknowledgments: Authors thank the science officers (Suraya Saad, Fizreena Umanan and Zulhasyimi Abdul Rasit) for their guidance and advice in the laboratory. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. 2006. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2020). Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 10 of 11 Acknowledgments: Authors thank the science ocers (Suraya Saad, Fizreena Umanan and Zulhasyimi Abdul Rasit) for their guidance and advice in the laboratory. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade. 2006. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/circulars/livestock_poultry.pdf (accessed on 27 August 2020). 2. Chmiel, M.; Roszko, M.; Hac-Szyma ´ nczuk, ´ E.; Adamczak, L.; Florowski, T.; Pietrzak, D.; Cegiełka, A.; Bryła, M. Time evolution of microbiological quality and content of volatile compounds in chicken fillets packed using various techniques and stored under di erent conditions. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1107–1116. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 3. Dave, D.; Ghaly, A.E. Meat spoilage mechanisms and preservation techniques: A critical review. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2011, 6, 486–510. 4. Xiong, Q.; Zhang, M.; Wang, T.; Wang, D.; Sun, C.; Bian, H.; Li, P.; Zou, Y.; Xu, W. Lipid oxidation induced by heating in chicken meat and the relationship with oxidants and antioxidant enzymes activities. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1761–1767. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 5. El-Nashi, H.B.; Fattah, A.F.A.K.A.; Rahman, N.R.A.; El-Razik, M.M.A. Quality characteristics of beef sausage containing pomegranate peels during refrigerated storage. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2015, 60, 403–412. [CrossRef] 6. Aminzare, M.; Hashemi, M.; Azar, H.H.; Hejazi, J. The use of herbal extracts and essential oils as a potential antimicrobial in meat and meat products: A review. J. Hum. Environ. Health Prom. 2016, 1, 63–74. [CrossRef] 7. Choi, Y.M.; Bae, Y.Y.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, B.C.; Rhee, M.S. E ects of supercritical carbon dioxide treatment against generic Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and E. coli O157: H7 in marinades and marinated pork. Meat Sci. 2009, 82, 419–424. [CrossRef] 8. Erkmen, O. Antimicrobial e ects of pressurised carbon dioxide on Brochothrix thermosphacta in broth and foods. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2000, 80, 1365–1370. [CrossRef] 9. Budisa, N.; Schulze-Makuch, D. Supercritical carbon dioxide and its potential as a life-sustaining solvent in a planetary environment. Life 2014, 4, 331–340. [CrossRef] 10. Choi, Y.M.; Ryu, Y.C.; Lee, S.H.; Go, G.W.; Shin, H.G.; Kim, K.H.; Rhee, M.S.; Kim, B.C. E ects of supercritical carbon dioxide treatment for sterilization purpose on meat quality of porcine longissimus dorsi muscle. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2008, 41, 317–322. [CrossRef] 11. Choi, Y.M.; Lee, S.H.; Choe, J.H.; Kim, K.H.; Rhee, M.S.; Kim, B.C. E ects of supercritical carbon dioxide treatment on meat quality and sensory evaluation in soy sauce and hot-pepper paste marinated pork. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. 2013, 33, 581–586. [CrossRef] 12. Rawson, A.; Tiwari, B.K.; Brunton, N.; Brennan, C.; Cullen, P.J.; O’Donnell, C.P. Application of supercritical carbon dioxide to fruit and vegetables: Extraction, processing, and preservation. Food Rev. Int. 2012, 28, 253–276. [CrossRef] 13. Murphy, R.Y.; Marks, B.P. E ect of meat temperature on proteins, texture, and cook loss for ground chicken breast patties. Poult. Sci. 2000, 79, 99–104. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 14. González-Alonso, V.; Cappelletti, M.; Bertolini, F.M.; Lomolino, G.; Zambon, A.; Spilimbergo, S. Microbial inactivation of raw chicken meat by supercritical carbon dioxide treatment alone and in combination with fresh culinary herbs. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 536–545. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 15. Jauhar, S.; Ismail-Fitry, M.R.; Chong, G.H.; Nor-Khaizura, M.A.R.; Ibadullah, W.Z.W. Application of supercritical carbon dioxide (SC-CO ) on the microbial and physicochemical quality of fresh chicken meat stored at chilling temperature. Int. J. Food Res. 2020, 27, 103–110. 16. Vaithiyanathan, S.; Naveena, B.M.; Muthukumar, M.; Girish, P.S.; Kondaiah, N. E ect of dipping in pomegranate (Punica granatum) fruit juice phenolic solution on the shelf life of chicken meat under refrigerated storage (4 C). Meat Sci. 2011, 88, 409–414. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 17. Zhang, H.; Wu, J.; Guo, X. E ects of antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of spice extracts on raw chicken meat quality. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2016, 5, 39–48. [CrossRef] 18. Zheng, H.B.; Han, M.Y.; Yang, H.J.; Xu, X.L.; Zhou, G.H. The e ect of pressure-assisted heating on the water holding capacity of chicken batters. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2018, 45, 280–286. [CrossRef] Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6629 11 of 11 19. Komoltri, P.; Pakdeechanuan, P. E ects of marinating ingredients on physicochemical, microstructural and sensory properties of golek chicken. Int. Food Res. J. 2012, 19, 1449–1455. 20. Zheng, H.; Xiong, G.; Han, M.; Deng, S.; Xu, X.; Zhou, G. High pressure/thermal combinations on texture and water holding capacity of chicken batters. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2015, 30, 8–14. [CrossRef] 21. Bae, Y.Y.; Choi, Y.M.; Kim, M.J.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, B.C.; Rhee, M.S. Application of supercritical carbon dioxide for microorganism reductions in fresh pork. J. Food Saf. 2011, 31, 511–517. [CrossRef] 22. Choi, Y.M.; Kim, O.Y.; Kim, K.H.; Kim, B.C.; Rhee, M.S. Combined e ect of organic acids and supercritical carbon dioxide treatments against nonpathogenic Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium and E. coli O157: H7 in fresh pork. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2009, 49, 510–515. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 23. Garcia-Gonzalez, L.; Geeraerd, A.H.; Spilimbergo, S.; Elst, K.; Van Ginneken, L.; Debevere, J.; Van Impe, J.F.; Devlieghere, F. High pressure carbon dioxide inactivation of microorganisms in foods: The past, the present and the future. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 117, 1–28. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 24. Huang, S.; Liu, B.; Ge, D.; Dai, J. E ect of combined treatment with supercritical CO and rosemary on microbiological and physicochemical properties of ground pork stored at 4 C. Meat Sci. 2017, 125, 114–120. [CrossRef] 25. Falowo, A.B.; Fayemi, P.O.; Muchenje, V. Natural antioxidants against lipid–protein oxidative deterioration in meat and meat products: A review. Food Res. Int. 2014, 64, 171–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 26. Omana, D.A.; Plastow, G.; Betti, M. E ect of di erent ingredients on color and oxidative characteristics of high pressure processed chicken breast meat with special emphasis on use of -glucan as a partial salt replacer. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2011, 12, 244–254. [CrossRef] 27. Min, B.; Ahn, D.U. Sensory properties of packaged fresh and processed poultry meat. In Advances in Meat, Poulty and Seafood Packaging; Kerry, J.P., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2012; pp. 112–153. 28. Purslow, P.P.; Oiseth, S.; Hughes, J.; Warner, R.D. The structural basis of cooking loss in beef: Variations with temperature and ageing. Food Res. Int. 2016, 89, 739–748. [CrossRef] © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Journal

Applied Sciences – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Sep 23, 2020

There are no references for this article.