Effects of pulsed electric field and ultrasound treatment on the drying kinetics and quality of beef jerky

IF 6.8 1区农林科学 Q1 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies Pub Date : 2025-09-26 DOI:10.1016/j.ifset.2025.104259

Stanislav Vojtíšek , Filip Beňo , Filip Hruška , Stanislav Taborovec , Václav Pohůnek , Rudolf Ševčík

{"title":"Effects of pulsed electric field and ultrasound treatment on the drying kinetics and quality of beef jerky","authors":"Stanislav Vojtíšek , Filip Beňo , Filip Hruška , Stanislav Taborovec , Václav Pohůnek , Rudolf Ševčík","doi":"10.1016/j.ifset.2025.104259","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of non-thermal pulsed electric field (PEF) and ultrasound (US) on the technological, nutritional, and drying kinetics of dried beef jerky. Beef M. semitendinosus was treated with three non-thermal methods: i) PEF (PEF1: 1 kV/cm; PEF2: 2 kV/cm; PEF3: 4 kV/cm), ii) ultrasonic bath (US) (1.25 W/cm2), and iii) MeatBuzzer (MB) (3560 Ws). Non-thermal pre-treatment accelerated the drying process and reduced the overall activation energy (Ea) and energy consumption, with the lowest Ea observed in PEF3 and MB, and a reduction of up to 20 % in specific energy consumption. With increasing treatment intensity, the drying process was further accelerated. Water activity, protein oxidation, and lipid oxidation were not significantly affected (P > 0.05). Ash and sodium content increased proportionally with PEF intensity or ultrasound duration, reaching the highest levels in PEF3 and MB samples. Myofibrillar fragmentation and sodium content increased with treatment intensity, whereas PEF1 did not improve tenderness, but US and PEF2/PEF3 treatments as well as MB significantly enhanced jerky tenderness (P < 0.05). The most pronounced colour deviations from the control samples were observed in PEF2 and PEF3 samples compared with control.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":329,"journal":{"name":"Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies","volume":"106 ","pages":"Article 104259"},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856425003431","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of non-thermal pulsed electric field (PEF) and ultrasound (US) on the technological, nutritional, and drying kinetics of dried beef jerky. Beef M. semitendinosus was treated with three non-thermal methods: i) PEF (PEF1: 1 kV/cm; PEF2: 2 kV/cm; PEF3: 4 kV/cm), ii) ultrasonic bath (US) (1.25 W/cm²), and iii) MeatBuzzer (MB) (3560 Ws). Non-thermal pre-treatment accelerated the drying process and reduced the overall activation energy (E_a) and energy consumption, with the lowest E_a observed in PEF3 and MB, and a reduction of up to 20 % in specific energy consumption. With increasing treatment intensity, the drying process was further accelerated. Water activity, protein oxidation, and lipid oxidation were not significantly affected (P > 0.05). Ash and sodium content increased proportionally with PEF intensity or ultrasound duration, reaching the highest levels in PEF3 and MB samples. Myofibrillar fragmentation and sodium content increased with treatment intensity, whereas PEF1 did not improve tenderness, but US and PEF2/PEF3 treatments as well as MB significantly enhanced jerky tenderness (P < 0.05). The most pronounced colour deviations from the control samples were observed in PEF2 and PEF3 samples compared with control.

查看原文本刊更多论文

脉冲电场和超声处理对牛肉干干燥动力学和品质的影响

本研究的目的是评估非热脉冲电场（PEF）和超声波（US）对牛肉干的工艺、营养和干燥动力学的影响。采用三种非热处理方法：1)PEF (PEF1: 1 kV/cm; PEF2: 2 kV/cm; PEF3: 4 kV/cm), ii)超声浴（US）（1.25 W/cm2）， iii) MeatBuzzer (MB) （3560 W）。非热预处理加速了干燥过程，降低了总活化能（Ea）和能耗，PEF3和MB的Ea最低，比能耗降低了20%。随着处理强度的增加，干燥过程进一步加快。水活性、蛋白质氧化和脂质氧化无显著影响（P > 0.05）。灰分和钠含量随PEF强度或超声时间成比例增加，在PEF3和MB样品中达到最高水平。肌纤维断裂和钠含量随处理强度的增加而增加，而PEF1处理没有改善肉干压痛，但US和PEF2/PEF3处理以及MB显著增强了肉干压痛（P < 0.05）。与对照样品相比，PEF2和PEF3样品中观察到最明显的颜色偏差。

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

Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 工程技术-食品科技

CiteScore

12.00

自引率

6.10%

发文量

259

审稿时长

25 days

期刊介绍： Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies (IFSET) aims to provide the highest quality original contributions and few, mainly upon invitation, reviews on and highly innovative developments in food science and emerging food process technologies. The significance of the results either for the science community or for industrial R&D groups must be specified. Papers submitted must be of highest scientific quality and only those advancing current scientific knowledge and understanding or with technical relevance will be considered.