Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ph ton
Laboratorio de Industrias Alimentarias II, Universidad Nacional del Chaco Austral, Cte. Fernndez 755, (3700)
P.R. Senz Pea, Chaco, Argentina
b
CONICET, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientficas y Tcnicas, Argentina
The authors receive Thomas Edison Award-2014 in
Food Technology for Inspiration and Knowledge
Distribution among young research scholars.
Article history:
Received: 29 January, 2014
Accepted: 02 February, 2014
Available online: 15 March, 2014
Keywords:
Beef patties characteristics - healthier lipids - lipid
oxidation - natural antioxidants - Glycine max L
Corresponding Author:
Romero M.C.
Professor
Email: mara@uncaus.edu.ar
Phone: 543644420137
Garro O.
Professor
Email: garro@uncaus.edu.ar
Phone: 543644420137
Romero A.M.
Professor
Email: amr@uncaus.edu.ar
Phone: 543644420137
Doval M.M.
Professor
Email: mdoval@uncaus.edu.ar
Phone: 543644420137
Judis M.A
Professor
Email: judis@uncaus.edu.ar
Phone: 543644420137
Abstract
The improvement of fatty acid profile of beef patties
through the replacement of pork back fat with
soybean oil can be achieved, but it is necessary to
use antioxidants, such as dry soybean sprouts, to
maintain
the
oxidative
stability.
Besides,
development of functional foods with soybean
sprouts as food ingredient opens up new
possibilities to their use as natural additive. This
work was designed to investigate the effect of the
addition of soybean sprouts on the quality
characteristics of beef patties with partial
replacement of pork back fat by soybean oil during
frozen storage (90 days at 18 2 C). Results
showed that addition of soybean sprouts improved
protein and carbohydrate content; moisture and oil
retention of cooked enriched patties were also
enhanced. One percent (1%) of dry soybean
sprouts (DSS) concentration was the most effective
to retain healthier lipids and minimize the cooking
loss. Besides, these products were microbiological
stable and had a softer texture than those without
soybean sprouts addition. This study indicates that
proximate composition could be improved through
incorporation of dry soybean sprouts, and it could
be used to protect enriched beef patties from lipid
oxidation
without
modifying
their
quality
characteristics.
Citation:
Romero M.C., Garro O., Romero A.M., Doval M.M., Judis
M.A., 2014. Evaluation of the addition of dry soybean
sprouts on cooking yield and oxidative stability of enriched
beef patties with soybeans oil. The Journal of Food
Technology. Photon 106, 227-238.
All Rights Reserved with Photon.
Photon Ignitor: ISJN38521875D654215032014
1. Introduction
In recent years, the demand for fast food has
been increasing rapidly. Since it is generally
recognized that meat and meat products make
an important contribution to nutrition,
numerous efforts have been made to optimize
their composition in order to help consumers
adapt their diet to nutrient intake goals.
Ph ton
227
2. Objective of Research
Germinated
soybean
sprouts
are
commercialized in our country as raw staple
vegetables and used in soups and salads. It is
particularly promising as meat ingredient due
to its antioxidant compounds as vitamin C 475
mg/kg dry matter, phenolics compounds 391
mg/g dry sprouts, flavonoids content 184 mg/g
quercetin equivalents of dry sprouts and
superoxide dismutase (SOD) activity in crude
extracts from dried soybean sprouts (DSS)
was 3110 unit/g dry matters. In previous
research, the effectiveness of different
concentrations of DSS as antioxidant on
cooked chicken patties stored at 6 1 C for 8
days was evaluated, showing a decrease of
lipid oxidation in all cases, although they were
only strongly effective to concentrations higher
than 30 g/kg (Romero et al., 2008).
Even when soybean oil has been added to
pork patties in liquid form (Jung and Joo,
2013) and the DSS have been investigated
previously (Romero et al., 2008), there are no
reports with the effect these products on the
chemical composition and- or on technological
properties during frozen storage of functional
cooked meat products.
Ph ton
228
Ph ton
229
230
Alimentary fiber
9.880.06
Ash
5.97 4.85E-05
Sodium
0.320.20
All values are mean standard deviation of three
replicates
Table 2: Mean of fatty acid composition (% of fatty
acids)
Fatty acid
% Total Mean SD
C14:0
0.460.004
C16:0
21.500.143
C16:1
1.550.239
C17:0
0.550.008
C18:0
5.230.036
C18:1n9
9.650.050
C18:2n6
37.600.149
C18:3n3
12.470.004
C20:0
1.480.003
C22:0
5.340.006
C22:2n6
4.140.156
All values are mean standard deviation of three
replicates
Table 3: Mean values of proximate composition of patties (raw and cooked) formulated with different
concentrations of dry soybean sprouts
Samples
Moisture
Protein
Carbohydrates
Fat
Raw patties
Aa
Ab
Ab
Ac
C
63.030.38
22.650.56
0.590.02
19.170.05
Aa
Ab
Aa
Aa
EP 0% DSS
61.040.22
20.390.52
0.440.01
17.810.31
Aa
Aa
Ac
Aa
EP 0.5% DSS
59.120.62
19.270.07
0.660.01
18.320.11
Aa
Aa
Ad
Aa
EP 1% DSS
58.840.70
19.150.86
0.770.03
18.820.26
Aa
Aab
Ae
Aa
EP 2% DSS
59.530.22
19.650.02
0.860.08
17.130.05
Cooked patties
Ba
Bb
Ab
Bb
C
57.290.01
29.800.56
0.530.00
14.060.35
Bb
Bb
Aa
Ba
EP 0% DSS
58.940.61
32.092.49
0.540.01
9.660.07
Bb
Ba
Ac
Ba
EP 0.5% DSS
59.440.21
27.780.04
0.660.00
10.064.06E-04
Bab
Ba
Ad
Ba
EP 1% DSS
58.220.04
28.710.04
0.742.00E-04
10.370.02
Bab
Bab
Ad
Bb
EP 2% DSS
58.270.10
29.910.51
0.890.01
15.090.01
A,a
Results are presented as means standard deviation. Different letters ( ) in the same column denote significant
differences among heat treatment and formulations respectively (p<0.05).
Ph ton
231
Table 4: Mean values of ashes, sodium and pH content of patties (raw and cooked) formulated with different
concentrations of dry soybean sprouts
Samples
Ashes
Sodium
pH
Raw patties
Ab
Aa
Ab
C
3.700.31
886.9211.10
6.253.02E-03
Aa
Ab
Aa
EP 0% DSS
3.090.04
937.146.87
6.135.63E-03
Aa
Ac
Ad
EP 0.5% DSS
3.090.15
1077.017.08
6.392.25E-04
Aa
Ad
Ac
EP 1% DSS
2.950.04
1014.2414.49
6.336.25E-04
Aa
Ae
Ad
EP 2% DSS
2.770.27
1418.6915.09
6.372.02E-03
Cooked patties
Ba
Ba
Bb
C
2.870.02
1322.5518.16
6.342.25E-04
Bab
Bb
Ba
EP 0% DSS
3.460.01
1424.269.54
6.228.00E-04
Bb
Bc
Bd
EP 0.5% DSS
3.500.25
1522.3819.57
6.663.60E-03
Bb
Bd
Bc
EP 1% DSS
3.570.43
1470.679.55
6.491.22E-03
Bb
Be
Bd
EP 2% DSS
3.680.17
1772.7517.29
6.654.22E-03
A,a
Results are presented as means standard deviation. Different letters ( ) in the same column denote significant
differences among heat treatment and formulations respectively (P<0.05).
Table 5: Mean cooking properties and dimensional changes of beef patties by replacing pork back fat with soy oil
with different concentrations of DSS
Sample
Cooking
Fat retention Moisture
Diameter
Thickness
Shrinkage
yield (%)
(%)
retention (%) reduction
contraction (%) (%)
(%)
b
c
ab
a
a
a
C
78.230.15
56.714.46
73.004.28
19.125.09
12.224.71
20.240.26
a
a
a
a
a
a
EP 0% DSS
74.640.00
40.330.07
72.082.19
23.170.79
14.174.32
21.671,76
b
ab
bc
a
a
a
EP 0.5% DSS 76.660.36
41.640.01
77.852.04
23.390.44
16.390.69
21.760.06
b
b
c
a
a
a
EP 1% DSS
76.920.28
44.110.09
78.860.74
22.011.92
20.380.14
20.380.54
c
d
c
a
a
a
EP 2% DSS
80.460.46
71.730.36
79.070.74
22.910.39
20.831.92
22.361.31
Results are presented as means standard deviation. Different letters in the same column denote significant
differences among formulations (P<0.05).
Ph ton
232
Table 6: Fatty acid profile of raw patties formulated with different concentrations of dry soybean sprouts (DSS) in
g/100g dry product
Fatty acid
Raw Samples
C
EP0% DSS
EP 0.5 % DSS
EP 1% DSS
EP 2% DSS
c
a
a
b
b
(14:0)
1.230.01
0.620.00
0.610.01
0.730.03
0.720.01
d
a
a
c
b
(16:0)
21.490.15
15.300.14
15.090.16
16.120.03
15.620.03
b
a
a
a
a
(16:1)
1.900.21
0.960.01
0.930.02
1.110.11
0.990.01
b
a
a
ab
ab
(17:0)
0.530.17
0.300.03
0.290.01
0.340.01
0.340.00
d
b
c
b
(17:1)
0.480.21
0.230.03
0.280.01
0.230.03
b
a
a
a
a
(18:0)
11.770.37
7.870.08
7.880.06
8.290.21
8.290.17
c
b
bc
(18:1)t n9
0.410.11
0.200.06
0.260.11
d
b
a
c
b
(18:1)c n9
39.230.20
29.720.08
29.080.07
31.130.03
29.530.08
a
d
d
b
c
(18:2)c n6
12.420.35
37.090.07
36.770.01
33.240.21
35.930.04
c
bd
b
c
(20:0)
0.260.02b
0.260.01
0.220.02
0.300.01
a
c
b
b
b
(18:3) n3
1.650.35
4.550.20
4.550.28
4.100.04
4.470.10
e
c
b
b
a
(18:2) CLA
8.900.45
3.110.01
4.600.07
4.230.07
3.320.03
d
ab
a
c
bc
SFA
35.010.71
24.350.28
24.120.25
25.700.30
25.260.23
d
ab
a
c
b
MUFA
42.020.74
30.910.17
30.010.01
32.730.04
31.010.05
a
cd
d
b
c
PUFA
22.961.16
44.750.37
45.870.30
41.570.33
43.720.17
Results are presented as means standard deviation. Means in the same row with different letters are
significantly differentamong formulations (P<0.05). N.D.: not detected.
Ph ton
233
Figure 1: Fatty acid profile of cooked meat products, (A) without soybean oil and (B) with soybean oil
SI: C 19:0, Internal Standard; RT: 17.373 C14:0; RT: 20.965 C16:0; RT: 22.087 C16:1; RT: 22.670 C17:0; RT:
23.744 C17:1; RT: 24.483 C18:0; RT: 25.192 C18:1 n9 t; RT: 25.498 C18:1 n9 c; RT: 26.947 C18:2 n6; RT:
28.673 C18:3 n3; RT: 30.112 CLA C18:2 n6
Table 7: Fatty acid profile of cooked patties formulated with different concentrations of dry soybean sprouts
(DSS) in g/100g dry product
Cooked Samples
Fatty acid
C
EP
EP DSS 0.5%
EP DSS 1%
EP DSS 2%
b
ab
ab
ab
a
(14:0)
1.300.51
0.780.08
0.750.01
0.710.06
0.650.06
b
a
a
a
a
(16:0)
21.691.75
16.700.21
16.480.13
16.520.35
15.750.14
b
a
a
a
a
(16:1)
1.970.42
1.260.01
1.120.00
1.120.11
0.950.04
b
a
a
a
a
(17:0)
0.540.11
0.360.01
0.330,07
0.330.04
0.310.03
b
ab
a
a
a
(17:1)
0.500.16
0.330.06
0.260.01
0.250.01
0.170.08
b
a
a
a
a
(18:0)
11.771.53
8.410.07
8.680.13
8.460.04
8.210.10
a
a
a
a
a
(18:1)t n9
0.380.16
0.230.01
0.180.14
0.220.13
0.330.10
d
c
ab
b
a
(18:1)c n9
39.961.27
32.900.35
31.080,13
31.260.38
29.490.20
a
b
c
c
c
(18:2)c n6
12.002.87
29.160.35
33.390.20
33.460.14
33.960.04
b
bc
c
c
(20:0)
NDa
0.180.01
0.220.02
0.200.01b
0.270.03
a
b
b
b
b
(18:3) n3
1.740.33
3.700.30
4.140.18
4.150.06
4.070.08
c
b
a
a
b
(18:2) CLA
8.211.03
5.980.03
3.360.04
3.320.11
5.840.16
c
b
b
b
a
SFA
35.250.19
26.420.17
26.460.14
26.220.20
25.190.33
c
b
ab
ab
a
MUFA
42.802.01
34.720.61
32.640.28
32.850.64
30.940.42
a
b
b
b
b
PUFA
21.954.93
38.841.34
40.860.32
40.930.31
43.890.27
a
b
b
b
b
n3
1.740.33
3.700.30
4.110.08
4.150.06
4.070.08
a
b
bc
bc
c
n6
20.213.9
35.141.05
36.750.24
36.780.25
39.820.19
d
c
ab
b
a
n9
39.961.27
32.910.35
31.080.13
31.260.38
29.490.20
a
b
bc
c
d
PUFA/SFA
0.620.05
1.470.03
1.540.01
1.560.02
1.740.03
c
ab
a
a
b
n6/n3
11.610.07
9.520.48
8.940.13
8.860.06
9.780.16
c
b
ab
ab
a
AI
0.410.02
0.270.00
0.270.00
0.260.01
0.250.00
d
c
bc
b
a
TI
0.940.00
0.560.01
0.550.01
0.540.00
0.520.00
Results are presented as means standard deviation. Means in the same row with different letters are
significantly differentamong formulations (p<0.05). N.D.: not detected.
234
Table 8: Average values of CD, PV and TBARS in cooked patties with different DSS concentration and BHA
treatment during 90 days at frozen storage
EP
EP
EP
EP
Samples
C
0.5% DSS
1% DSS
2% DSS
0.01% BHA
Conjugated Dienes (ml CD/ mgsample)
b
b
b
c
a
Day 0
0.520.00
0.480.02
0.520.01
0.540.01
0.420.01
b
b
b
b
a
Day 15
0.470.01
0.490.01
0.460.00
0.470.01
0.350.00
b
b
ab
c
a
Day 30
0.520.02
0.520.02
0.520.02
0.750.01
0.460.01
c
b
bc
d
a
Day 60
0.610.01
0.520.01
0.550.01
0.820.03
0.480.01
c
b
bc
d
a
Day 90
0.620.01
0.520.02
0.600.05
0.890.03
0.490.01
Peroxide Value (meq O2/kg sample)
e
b
c
d
a
Day 0
23.873.38
4.520.04
10.800.06
12.780.00
0.880.13
e
d
b
c
a
Day 15
35.781.17
20.850.07
13.420.01
15.580.00
2.080.02
c
b
b
d
a
Day 30
34.160.00
23.330.72
22.910.06
61.665.13
3.110.01
c
b
b
d
a
Day 60
46.161.51
22.760.25
25.380.06
69.574.88
3.960.10
d
b
c
e
a
Day 90
58.174.27
20.9892.50
28.550.36
77.473.16
4.800.00
TBARs (mg MAD/ kg dry matter)
c
b
bc
d
a
Day 0
2.550.00
1.640.00
2.230.01
4.880.18
0.600.01
c
c
bc
b
a
Day 15
3.450.10
3.380.02
2.980.01
2.730.02
1.570.10
b
b
b
c
a
Day 30
3.570.33
3.340.16
3.070.10
5.990.23
0.800.33
c
b
b
d
a
Day 60
5.950.16
3.550.07
3.320.15
8.180.41
0.790.17
c
b
b
d
a
Day 90
8.330.65
3.470.03
3.800.01
10.360.01
0.800.01
Results are presented as means standard deviation. Different letters in the same row denote significant
differencesamong formulations (p<0.05).
Ph ton
235
cohesiveness,
chewiness
and
delayed
elasticity were recorded. The hardness of
cooked meat patties significantly decreased
(p<0.05), this is in accordance with LpezLpez et al. (2010), who reported that
Wakame addition to low-fat beef patties
softened the products.
Table 9: Effects of substituting pork back fat with soybean oil and 1% DSS as natural antioxidant on texture
profile analysis of meat products
Samples
Hardness (N) Cohesiveness Instantaneous Delayed
Chewiness
Gumminess
elasticity
elasticity
(N)
b
a
a
b
a
a
Control
15.022.40
0.590.01
0.470.04
0.940.23
6.031.55
7.071.12
a
b
b
ab
a
a
EP1% DSS 10.830.40
0.670.03
0.560.02
0.760.12
6.171.48
6.930.33
ab
a
b
a
a
a
EP
12.642.51
0.610.04
0.550.01
0.690.02
5.291.23
7.691.77
Results are presented as means standard deviation. Different letters in the same column denote significant
differences among formulations (P<0.05).
236
Ph ton
237
Ph ton
238