Impact of Humectants on Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Jerky – A Meta-Analysis

IF 4.2 3区农林科学 Q2 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Food Science of Animal Resources Pub Date : 2024-01-09 DOI:10.5851/kosfa.2024.e3

S. Aung, Ki-Chang Nam

{"title":"Impact of Humectants on Physicochemical and Functional Properties of\n Jerky – A Meta-Analysis","authors":"S. Aung, Ki-Chang Nam","doi":"10.5851/kosfa.2024.e3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"18 This study aimed to determine the effects of humectants on moisture content, water 19 activity, tenderness, color, microbiological analysis, protein denaturation, and oxidation of 20 jerky. A thorough search for papers published in scientific journals that examined the impacts 21 of humectants on jerky was carried out using Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, and 22 Science Direct. Only 14 studies matched inclusion requirements. They were used in the meta-23 analysis to synthesise quantitative findings. In the current investigation, jerky produced with 24 beef, poultry, goat, or pork was used. The standardised mean difference (SMD) between 25 treatments with humectants and controls was examined to investigate the effects of 26 humectants using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was investigated using meta-27 regression. A subgroup analysis was carried out for significant factors. Results revealed that 28 the addition of humectants had no significant impact on water activity, pH, fat, ash, lightness, 29 or redness (p > 0.05). However, humectant addition significantly increased moisture (SMD = 30 1.28, p < 0.05), yellowness (SMD = 1.67, p < 0.0 5 ), and overall acceptability (SMD = 1.73, p 31 < 0.05). It significantly decreased metmyoglobin (SMD = -0.96, p < 0.05), shear force (SMD 32 = -0.84, p < 0.05), and protein (SMD = -1.61, p < 0.05). However, it was difficult to get a 33 firm conclusion about how humectants affected the myofibrillar fragmentation index (MFI), 34 total plate count (TPC), and 2-thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS) because there 35 were fewer than ten studies. To sum up, the proper use of humectants in jerky demands","PeriodicalId":12459,"journal":{"name":"Food Science of Animal Resources","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Science of Animal Resources","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2024.e3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

18 This study aimed to determine the effects of humectants on moisture content, water 19 activity, tenderness, color, microbiological analysis, protein denaturation, and oxidation of 20 jerky. A thorough search for papers published in scientific journals that examined the impacts 21 of humectants on jerky was carried out using Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, and 22 Science Direct. Only 14 studies matched inclusion requirements. They were used in the meta-23 analysis to synthesise quantitative findings. In the current investigation, jerky produced with 24 beef, poultry, goat, or pork was used. The standardised mean difference (SMD) between 25 treatments with humectants and controls was examined to investigate the effects of 26 humectants using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was investigated using meta-27 regression. A subgroup analysis was carried out for significant factors. Results revealed that 28 the addition of humectants had no significant impact on water activity, pH, fat, ash, lightness, 29 or redness (p > 0.05). However, humectant addition significantly increased moisture (SMD = 30 1.28, p < 0.05), yellowness (SMD = 1.67, p < 0.0 5 ), and overall acceptability (SMD = 1.73, p 31 < 0.05). It significantly decreased metmyoglobin (SMD = -0.96, p < 0.05), shear force (SMD 32 = -0.84, p < 0.05), and protein (SMD = -1.61, p < 0.05). However, it was difficult to get a 33 firm conclusion about how humectants affected the myofibrillar fragmentation index (MFI), 34 total plate count (TPC), and 2-thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS) because there 35 were fewer than ten studies. To sum up, the proper use of humectants in jerky demands

查看原文本刊更多论文

保湿剂对肉干理化和功能特性的影响 - 一项 Meta 分析

18 本研究旨在确定保湿剂对牛肉干的水分含量、水活性、嫩度、色泽、微生物分析、蛋白质变性和氧化的影响。研究人员使用 Web of Science、Google Scholar、PubMed 和 Science Direct 对科学杂志上发表的研究保湿剂对牛肉干 21 影响的论文进行了全面搜索。只有 14 项研究符合纳入要求。这些研究被用于元 23 分析，以综合定量研究结果。在本次调查中，使用的是牛肉、禽肉、山羊肉或猪肉制作的肉干24。使用随机效应模型检查了添加保湿剂的处理与对照之间的标准化平均差 (SMD)，以研究保湿剂的影响。使用 meta-27 回归法研究了异质性。对重要因素进行了分组分析。结果显示，28 添加保湿剂对水活性、pH 值、脂肪、灰分、亮度、29 或红度没有显著影响（p > 0.05）。然而，添加保湿剂会明显增加水分（SMD = 30 1.28，p < 0.05）、黄度（SMD = 1.67，p < 0.0 5）和总体可接受性（SMD = 1.73，p 31 < 0.05）。它能明显降低高铁血红蛋白（SMD = -0.96，p < 0.05）、剪切力（SMD 32 = -0.84，p < 0.05）和蛋白质（SMD = -1.61，p < 0.05）。然而，关于保湿剂如何影响肌纤维碎裂指数（MFI）、34 总板计数（TPC）和 2-硫代巴比妥酸反应物质（TBARS），很难得出确切的结论，因为只有不到 10 项研究。总之，肉干中保湿剂的正确使用要求

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Food Science of Animal Resources Agricultural and Biological Sciences-Animal Science and Zoology

CiteScore

6.70

自引率

6.70%

发文量

期刊介绍： Food Science of Animal Resources (Food Sci. Anim. Resour.) is an international, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research and review articles on scientific and technological aspects of chemistry, biotechnology, processing, engineering, and microbiology of meat, egg, dairy, and edible insect/worm products.

文献相关原料

公司名称	产品信息	采购帮参考价格