Next Article in Journal
Optimization and Engineering Application of In-Seam Borehole Predrainage Technology for Coalbed Methane Based on Response Surface Methodology
Previous Article in Journal
Multi-Layer Filter Material with a Superoleophobic Pore Size Gradient for the Coalescence Separation of Surfactant-Stabilized Oil-in-Water Emulsions
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 13
Issue 5
10.3390/pr13051602
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Different Cooking Parameters on Various Quality Criteria, Lipid Oxidation, Mineral Composition, and Free Amino Acid Profile of Chicken Breast

by
Adem Savaş
Hazelnut Specialisation Coordination Office, Giresun of University, 28000 Giresun, Türkiye
Processes 2025, 13(5), 1602; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13051602
Submission received: 22 April 2025 / Revised: 13 May 2025 / Accepted: 14 May 2025 / Published: 21 May 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Extraction and Characterization of Functional Properties of Bioactive Compounds Obtained from Food Processing)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In this study, the effects of chicken breast meat samples cooked in the oven at different temperatures (180, 200, and 220 °C) and times (16, 24, and 32 min) on various quality parameters, lipid oxidation, free amino acid profile, and mineral contents were investigated. Chicken breast samples were also analyzed in terms of several qualitative properties (pH, TBARS, cooking loss, lightness, redness, and yellowness). Both cooking temperature and cooking time affected the qualitative properties. It was determined that the mineral contents of the samples were affected by cooking time and temperature. The mineral content of the samples varied between 1.47 mg kg−1 and 1700.46 mg kg−1. In addition, the analysis of mineral content revealed that the order of mineral abundance in chicken samples was K > Na > Ca > Mg > Zn > Cu. In terms of free amino acid profile, it was determined that essential amino acids methionine (70.71–156.67 mg g−1) and phenylalanine (29.41–44.41 mg g−1), and non-essential amino acids alanine (66.29–141.11 mg g−1), glutamate (76.64–104.39 mg g−1), and glycine (35.03–56.18 mg g−1) contents were the highest. It was determined that the free amino acid content of the samples varied between 1.71 and 156.67 mg g−1. In addition, it was found that the pH, TBARS, cooking loss, lightness, redness, and yellowness parameters were significantly affected (p < 0.01). Consequently, it was found that the cooking temperature and duration significantly influenced the nutritional composition of chicken breast meat. Cooking at 180 °C for 16 min was identified as the optimal condition for minimizing lipid oxidation and maximizing mineral content.

1. Introduction

Meat and meat products are very important foods for human nutrition. These food products stand out due to their high protein content and also provide important macro- and micronutrients. This food group is also rich in fatty acids, minerals, and vitamins [1,2,3]. On the other hand, chicken meat is an important group among meat groups. As one of the most frequently consumed animal products, chicken meat offers several advantages, including quick preparation, ease of transport, and being relatively cheaper than beef. Additionally, chicken meat, which experts recommend for the prevention of common diseases such as obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, is rich in essential amino acids and unsaturated fatty acids, and contains less saturated fat and cholesterol [4].
It is a common practice to subject meat and meat products to the process of cooking prior to consumption. Indeed, the application of heat during the cooking process has been shown to ensure the microbiological safety of meat products while also imparting distinctive taste, aroma, and flavor to the meat product. However, it is important to note that the cooking process has been known to induce changes in the nutritional composition (water content, fat content, protein content, etc.) of meat and meat products [2,5,6].
Nowadays, studies that are oriented towards the enhancement of meat quality, as well as its constituent components, have become increasingly prominent and significant. The demand for chicken meat has increased among consumers due to its high nutritional value and affordability. Chicken meat is characterized by its high protein content, which is notable for its abundance of amino acids. Amino acids play a pivotal role in determining the distinctive flavor of meat [4,5,6].
Lipid oxidation is a factor that can cause a change in the flavor of cooked meat products. It is one of the most important parameters that affect the quality and acceptance of meat and poultry. It is acknowledged that this specific chemical reaction is influenced by various parameters, including muscle type, the applied processes, cooking temperature, and duration. Indeed, it has been established that the application of heat treatment leads to an increase in lipid oxidation, a finding that has been corroborated by numerous studies [4,7,8,9,10].
There are studies in the literature that examine chicken breast meat cooked by different processes in terms of various parameters, including physicochemical properties, texture, fatty acids, volatile compounds, and amino acid profile [4,6,11,12,13,14,15]. For example, Bi et al. [15] reported that different cooking processes affect various quality parameters and volatile flavor compounds of chicken breast. In another study, Park et al. [16] reported that sous vide cooking conditions affect the meat and sensory quality of chicken breast meat. However, in the current literature on this subject, studies investigating the effects of different cooking temperatures and times on the free amino acid content and mineral content of chicken breast meat are lacking. Cooking processes can affect the conversion of proteins into free amino acids. This conversion may vary depending on the cooking time, temperature, and method used. For instance, Nyam et al. reported that the quality of sous vide chicken breast tended to decline as processing temperatures and cooking times increased. It was also reported that alterations to the textural structure were observed, and that there was an increase in the loss of free amino acids.
In contemporary society, there is a growing emphasis on consuming healthier and more functional foods. In this context, it is important to highlight the need to moderate the consumption of high-fat and high-protein meat [6,14,15]. The cooking process is of fundamental importance in preserving the nutritional integrity of meat and meat products. The presence of mutagenic and/or carcinogenic compounds (such as heterocyclic aromatic amines, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and oxidation) in meat products as a result of cooking has been associated with adverse health effects [4,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. The nutritional value of meat is typically evaluated based on parameters such as protein content and composition, amino acid levels, and fat content. On the other hand, lipid oxidation, free amino acid profile, and mineral content have been investigated in various foodstuffs. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is an absence of research that has evaluated the impact of cooking temperature and duration on chicken breast meat. In this study, the quality of chicken breast meat was analyzed in relation to various parameters, including pH, water content, TBARS, color, free amino acid profile, and mineral content. The research provides critical insights into the optimization of cooking techniques for preserving the nutritional value of chicken breast meat, minimizing the formation of potentially harmful compounds, and maintaining a desired texture and flavor in the final product. Accordingly, chicken breast was oven-cooked at 180 °C, 200 °C, and 220 °C for 16, 24, and 32 min, respectively.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chicken Meat and Cooking Device

In the study, chicken meat was purchased fresh (cooled at 2 °C) from a local market in Giresun, and the pectoralis major muscles of the chicken meat were used in the study. Special attention was paid to the carcasses selected for muscle supply, ensuring they were of the same breed and type. The chicken meat was transferred to the laboratory in a refrigerated environment and subsequently divided into segments. The items were stored in a refrigerator set at a temperature of 4 °C until the cooking process began. The cooking process was carried out in an oven (F 8440B Cooker Oven, Arçelik, Istanbul, Türkiye).

2.2. Chemicals

The chemicals used in the study were reagent or high-quality chemicals. All reference standards and formic acid (purity ≤ 95%) were supplied by Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MI, USA), and LC-MS grade methanol was supplied by Isolab, Eschau, Germany. Deionized water (Millipore Direct-Q® 3 UV, Millipore, Burlingtone, MA, USA) was supplied by a water purification system.

2.3. Cooking Process

Three different cooking times (16 min, 24 min, and 32 min) and three cooking temperatures (180 °C, 200 °C, and 220 °C) were used for cooking chicken breast meat. Chicken breast meat (~200 g each) was cooked in the oven; no additives (such as salt or spices) were used before cooking. The chicken breast meat was turned halfway through the specified cooking time to ensure homogeneous cooking. Cooking times and temperatures were determined through preliminary trials, and all samples were deemed suitable for consumption. The cooking process for the chicken breast was carried out in the oven (Arçelik, F 8440B Cooker Oven). Before the cooking process, the oven temperature was adjusted. The internal temperature of the oven was measured using a Digital Food Thermometer (HDFT-01, Kumtel, Kayseri, Türkiye).

2.4. Analyses

2.4.1. pH Value

The pH analysis of the chicken breast samples was conducted in accordance with the method described by Savaş et al. [3].

2.4.2. TBARS Analysis

The oxidation level of the lipids was determined by measuring the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS). The resulting values were expressed in terms of milligrams of malondialdehyde (MDA) per kilogram of tissue [24].

2.4.3. Water Content

The water content of the chicken breast samples was determined in accordance with the method described by Gökalp et al. [25].

2.4.4. Cooking Loss

The percentage of cooking loss was calculated by calculating the difference between the weight of the raw chicken breast and the cooked one after cooling to room temperature [4].

2.4.5. Color Analysis

The color parameters of the samples were determined using a colorimeter device (MiniScan EZ 4500L 45°/0°, Murnau am Staffelsee, Germany) measuring lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), chroma (C*), and hue angle (H°). In this system, L* values represent lightness (0 = black, 100 = white); a* values represent green–red (−60 = green, +60 = red), and b* values represent blue–yellow (−60 = blue, +60 = yellow). Another color component used to express color is the hue angle (H°). The chroma (C*) value indicates the intensity or opacity of the color.

2.4.6. Free Amino Acid Screening by LC-MS/MS

Sample Preparation

Free amino acid extraction of samples: 0.5 g of sample was homogenized with 40 mL of 0.1 M HCl solution. The homogenate was then kept at 4 °C overnight. Then, the samples were centrifuged (MR 23i, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) at 10,000× g for 50 min at 4 °C. After extraction, the samples were filtered through a PTFE filter (Isolab, 0.45 um) and transferred to a capped vial [26,27].
Analyses were performed using a combined system of liquid chromatography (Spark, Emmen, The Netherlands) and tandem mass spectrometry (AB SCIEX 4000 QTRAP, AB, Framingham, MA, USA). Chromatographic separation was performed with a C18 type column (Inertsil ODS-3V, 250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 µm, GL Sciences, Tokyo, Japan). A 0.1% (v/v) formic acid solution (A) and methanol (B) were used as mobile phases. Furthermore, the injection volume was set to 10 uL, the flow rate to 0.700 mL/min, and the column oven temperature to 30 °C. The chromatographic run time was set to 15 min.

2.4.7. Minaral Analysis

Mineral analysis of the samples was performed according to Binici [28]. Mineral analysis of the samples was carried out using the microwave digestion method as outlined in the following procedure (Milestone, Start D, Sorisole, Italy). Samples were weighed to 0.5 g and placed in Teflon containers. The digestion process was initiated by adding 7 mL of 65% HNO3 and 1 mL of 30% H2O2 to the sample containers. The digested/liquefied samples were stored at +4 °C. The extracted samples were analyzed by ICP-MS (Thermo Xseries II, Thermo Fisher Scientific).

2.4.8. Statistical Analysis

The research was conducted according to a randomized trial design in the form of a 3 × 3 design and with three replications. Data were analyzed using SPSS 25.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), ORIGIN PRO 2022, and SIMCA 14.1 (UMETRICS, Umea, Sweden) software. Differences between the means were evaluated using the Duncan multiple range test.

3. Results

The pH, TBARS, and water content of the raw chicken breast meat used in the present study were determined to be 6.11 ± 0.01, 0.19 ± 0.02, and 75.74 ± 0.65, respectively. In addition, the lightness, redness, and yellowness values were determined to be 52.57 ± 0.96, 3.56 ± 0.91, and 19.28 ± 0.20, respectively. In fact, similar data have been discussed in the literature [4,29,30,31].
The physicochemical properties of chicken breast meat are presented in Table 1. The cooking temperature and cooking time had a statistically significant effect on the chicken breast meat samples (p < 0.01). While the pH value of raw breast meat was 6.11, the pH value of cooked breast meat increased as expected, ranging from 6.26 to 6.35. This increase in pH value has been attributed to the release of sulphydryl, imidazole, and hydroxyl group-containing bonds during cooking [32]. Similarly, Savaş et al. [4] found that the pH of chicken breast and leg meat varied between 6.23 and 6.81 during the cooking process. Alugwu et al. [30] reported that the pH values of chicken breast samples cooked at different temperatures and times ranged from 6.15 to 6.55.
It is a well-documented fact that meat and meat products are generally subjected to cooking. Indeed, while the cooking process has a positive effect on microbiological activity, it also results in meat products developing a distinctive taste, flavor, and aroma [2,4,33]. It is important to note that the cooking process can lead to significant changes in meat products. In particular, cooking loss represents an important factor affecting the texture, quality, and nutritional profile of meat products [34]. Statistical analysis indicated a statistically significant effect of cooking temperature and time on the cooking loss values of the samples (p < 0.01). The range of cooking loss values observed for the samples was found to vary between 34.25% and 36.85%. Furthermore, it was established that an increase in cooking temperature and time resulted in an increase in cooking loss values for chicken breast samples. The highest cooking loss values were recorded in chicken breast samples cooked at 220 °C for 32 min. Consistent with these findings, Barbanti and Pasquini [14] reported a parallel trend, noting an increase in cooking loss values of chicken breast meat with both an increase in cooking time and cooking temperature.
In the present study, lipid oxidation was expressed as mg MDA kg−1, and the results are presented in Table 1. The TBARS value of raw breast meat was found to be 0.19 mg MDA kg−1. In comparison, an increase in the TBARS values of cooked breast meat was observed, with values ranging from 0.24 to 0.29 mg MDA kg−1. As the temperature and duration of the cooking process increased, a concomitant increase in TBARS values was observed. This increase was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). Moreover, given the data obtained, the results are consistent with the values found in cooked chicken breast meat and meatballs by Kılıç et al. [35] and Savaş et al. [4]. As is known, TBARS is a measure that reflects the secondary products of lipid oxidation. Various parameters have been identified that affect this process, including the cooking method, temperature, and time. Indeed, numerous studies have shown that the application of elevated temperatures and extended cooking times can lead to increased lipid oxidation [2,8,9,36,37]. The TBARS values observed in this study remained below the threshold associated with bad taste formation.
It is widely acknowledged that color is one of the most significant physical parameters influencing consumer preference. The color of meat and meat products is a significant quality parameter. The content of myoglobin, haemoglobin, and cytochrome c is directly related to meat color [38]. It was determined that the lightness value of chicken breast meat varied between 54.55 and 65.14, and decreased as the cooking temperature increased (Table 2). Similarly, lightness decreased as the cooking time increased, with significant differences observed between samples. In fact, it can be said that the decrease in lightness value is due to water migration from the center of the meat to the surface [39]. Similarly, Ergezer [40] determined the lightness value of chicken breast meat cooked at 180 °C for 35 min to be between 59.67 and 65.10. On the other hand, there are different results from the results we found in the literature [16,41].
It has been established that the alterations in redness and yellowness values during the process of heat treatment are associated with the extent of myoglobin denaturation. Furthermore, it is known that the myoglobin content in chicken meat is lower in comparison to that found in red meat [39]. The study revealed that the redness value of chicken breast meat ranged from 6.02 to 13.32, with an increase in redness observed as the cooking temperature increased. Furthermore, it was established that the redness value exhibited an increase in proportion to the duration of the cooking process, with statistical disparities being observed among the samples. Ergezer [40] determined the redness value of chicken breast meat cooked at 180 °C for 35 min to be between 1.24 and 2.96. As a matter of fact, it is thought that this difference is due to the marination process applied to the chicken breast meat.
The study revealed that the yellowness value of chicken breast meat ranged from 22.57 to 39.21, with an increase in yellowness observed as the cooking temperature increased. Furthermore, it was established that the yellowness value exhibited an increase in proportion to the duration of the cooking process, with statistical disparities being observed among the samples (p < 0.01).
The chroma value is indicative of the color tone of the products, with low values corresponding to pale colors and high values corresponding to vivid colors [42]. The chroma values of the chicken breast samples increased in accordance with the variables of cooking temperature and time. Furthermore, a divergence was identified between the samples (p < 0.05). The chroma values of the samples were found to vary between 23.64 and 41.48. Conversely, the hue angle (H°), which provides data on the color tone angle, exhibited a range from 71.37 to 75.54, and it was ascertained that there were no statistical disparities between the samples (p > 0.05).
The free amino acid profile of chicken breast meat subjected to different cooking temperatures and times is presented in Table 3. The study revealed a highly significant effect (p < 0.01) of temperature on lysine, histidine, glycine, alanine, glutamate, cysteine, aspartate, proline, methionine, leucine, isoleucine, tyrosine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan. In contrast, the effect on serine was not significant (p > 0.05). Alanine, glutamate, and methionine were determined to be the dominant amino acids in all groups. The study also showed that the time factor had a significant effect on serine (p < 0.05) and a very significant effect on lysine, histidine, glycine, alanine, glutamate, aspartate, proline, methionine, leucine, isoleucine, tyrosine, phenylalanine, and tryptophan (p < 0.01). It was determined that the time factor had no significant effect on cysteine (p > 0.05). The results also showed that the major free amino acids in chicken breast meat were alanine (66.29–141.11 mg g−1), glutamate (76.64–104.39 mg g−1), methionine (70.71–156.67 mg g−1), phenylalanine (29.41–44.41 mg g−1) and glycine (35.03–56.18 mg g−1). In general, as the cooking temperature increased, the content of all amino acids except isoleucine increased. Anıl and others reported that the amino acid content of skinless cooked chicken breast meat varied between 0.36 and 4.63 g 100 g−1, and the results obtained support our study. Similarly, Kim et al. [13] reported that the amino acid content of raw breast meat samples varied between 0.54 and 1.24 g 100 g−1. In contrast, the amino acid content of samples subjected to different cooking processes varied between 0.83 and 2.67 g 100 g−1.
The nutritional value of a food is closely related to its content of essential amino acids. Free amino acids can take part in degradation reactions that produce volatile compounds responsible for the flavor of meat products [43]. In this respect, their levels are very important. Amino acids have the capacity to influence the gustatory properties of meat through a variety of reactions. Indeed, amino acids exhibit marked differences with regard to their properties [6]. Kim et al. [13] reported that the amino acid content of chicken parts (wing, leg, and breast) differed among different cooking processes, and the content of various amino acids increased after cooking compared to raw samples. In fact, cooking loss rates increased with cooking temperature and time. Therefore, protein content increased independently of the meat portion and is thought to affect the amino acid profile. Similarly, Muthulakshmi et al. [44] reported that the amino acid profiles of chicken meat, when subjected to different cooking methods, generally increased after cooking. A plethora of studies have determined varying levels of amino acid profiles in chicken meat samples [13,44,45]. It is thought that differences in amino acid compositions depend on factors such as meat type, muscle type, animal breed, age, and diet [46]. For instance, Yang et al. [45] reported in their study on chicken breast and leg samples that the major amino acids were glutamate, lysine, leucine, and aspartate, and that there were differences between the samples.
Free amino acids have been demonstrated to be implicated in degradation reactions that yield volatile compounds, which are instrumental in determining the flavor profile of meat products. The rate of free amino acid release is affected by both heating and enzymatic reactions [43,47]. The temperature and cooking time clearly influence the free amino acid profile of chicken breast. These changes can impact the taste, texture, and nutritional value of the cooked chicken breast. Higher temperatures and longer cooking times lead to more amino acids being released, which may affect the umami and overall flavor profile of the meat.
The percentage classification of free amino acids determined in different chicken breast samples by LC-MS/MS is shown in Figure 1. Fifteen free amino acids were examined in the percentage classification shown. According to this classification, methionine, glycine, alanine, glutamate, and phenylalanine were determined as major free amino acids. The highest methionine contents were determined in 180-24 (%26.40), 200-32 (%24.35), and 220-16 (%24.30) sample groups. The highest glycine contents were determined in 180-24 (%10.68), 200-24 (%10.08), and 220-24 (%10.56) sample groups. The highest alanine contents were determined in the 180-32 (%24.02), 200-32 (%24.36), and 220-24 (%23.84) sample groups. The highest glutamate contents were determined in 180-16 (%25.59), 200-16 (%25.66), and 220-16 (%20.18) sample groups. The highest phenylalanine contents were determined in 180-16 (%7.22), 180-32 (%7.15), and 180-24 (%8.62) sample groups.
The results pertaining to the mineral composition of chicken breast meat samples are presented in Table 4. Upon analysis, it was determined that the cooking temperature exerted a statistically significant effect on all minerals. The mineral content of the samples ranged from 1.47 mg kg−1 to 1700.46 mg kg−1. In addition, an analysis of mineral content revealed that the order of mineral abundance in chicken samples was K > Na > Ca > Mg > Zn > Cu. This finding aligns with the observations reported by Tasoniero et al. [48], who also identified potassium as the predominant mineral in chicken breast meat. In a similar vein, Khan et al. [49] reported that the predominant mineral in chicken breast meat subjected to various processing techniques was K. Conversely, cooking time was found to have a statistically significant effect on all minerals except Cu (p < 0.01). While the calcium (Ca) and zinc (Zn) content of the samples decreased with increasing cooking temperature, the content of other minerals increased. In a similar vein, Alugwu et al. [30] observed a decline in Ca content with increasing cooking temperature, attributing this to the potential effects of heat on Ca denaturation and subsequent oxidation. Additionally, disparities in Mg and Cu contents were observed among the samples. Anıl et al. [50] reported Ca (15 mg 100 g−1), Mg (25 mg 100 g−1), K (227 mg 100 g−1), Na (75 mg 100 g−1), Zn (1.23 mg 100 g−1), and Cu (0.05 mg 100 g−1) in cooked breast meat. Therefore, it is similar to the findings of our study. In contrast, Ali et al. [51] reported that the mineral content of different chicken breast meat samples varied between Mg content 315.52–335.23 ppm, Na content 296.34–409.22 ppm, Zn content 5.31–7.18 ppm, Fe content 5–9.37 ppm, Mn content 0.07–0.42 ppm, and Cu content 0.26–0.34 ppm. As a matter of fact, it is thought that many parameters such as cooking methods, marination, climatic conditions, and variety affect the mineral content. The reduction of mineral content may be attributed to its loss with drippings separated during cooking, as well as to heat degradation.

Evaluation of Physicochemical, Free Amino Acid Profile, and Mineral Content of Chicken Breast Meat by PCA Analysis

PCA is one of the most frequently used methods in the evaluation of statistical data. In fact, it provides visual separation of analyses [52,53]. Evaluation of physicochemical properties, amino acid profile, and mineral content of chicken breast meat was carried out using PCA analysis. The results of this analysis are presented as a score scatter plot (A), a loading scatter plot (B), a biplot (C), and a dendogram (D) of chicken breast samples in Figure 2A–D. The first two main components (PC1 = 54.1% and PC2 = 14.5%) explained 68.6% of the variance. As shown in Figure 2A,D, five distinct groups can be observed, which exhibit similar results. On the other hand, when Figure 2B is examined, lightness, Cu, Zn, and Ca are located in the left-hand region, while other analysis parameters are located in the right-hand region.

4. Conclusions

The present study investigates the quality parameters, including lipid oxidation, mineral composition, and the free amino acid profile, of chicken breast meat. The findings demonstrate that the duration and temperature of cooking significantly influenced the amino acid profile and mineral content of the samples. Furthermore, it was determined that the pH, TBARS, cooking loss, lightness, redness, and yellowness values were directly influenced.
As a result, it was determined that lipid oxidation and cooking loss values increased as cooking temperature and time increased. Furthermore, it was determined that the samples cooked at 180 °C for 16 min exhibited higher concentrations of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and zinc (Zn), while the samples cooked at 220 °C for 32 min demonstrated the highest free amino acid content.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in this study are included in the article. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Haščík, P.; Pavelková, A.; Tkáčová, J.; Čuboň, J.; Kačániová, M.; Habánová, M.; Mlyneková, E. The amino acid profile of broiler chicken meat after dietary administration of bee products and probiotics. Biologia 2020, 75, 1899–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Savaş, A.; Ekiz, E.; Elbir, Z.; Savaş, B.D.; Proestos, C.; Elobeid, T.; Khan, M.R.; Oz, F. Advantageous effects of sumac usage in meatball preparation on various quality criteria and formation of heterocyclic aromatic amines. Seperations 2023, 10, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Savas, A.; Oz, E.; Elbir, Z.; Oz, F. Effect of dry aging on quality parameters, protein profile and protein oxidation level of beef. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 59, 7598–7609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Savaş, A.; Oz, E.; Oz, F. Is oven bag really advantageous in terms of heterocyclic aromatic amines and bisphenol-A? Chicken meat perspective. Food Chem. 2021, 355, 129646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ma, X.; Yu, M.; Liu, Z.; Deng, D.; Cui, Y.; Tian, Z.; Wang, G. Effect of amino acids and their derivatives on meat quality of finishing pigs. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 404–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Roobab, U.; Chen, B.R.; Madni, G.M.; Guo, S.M.; Zeng, X.A.; Abdi, G.; Aadil, R.M. Enhancing chicken breast meat quality through ultrasonication: Physicochemical, palatability, and amino acid profiles. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2024, 104, 106824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ekiz, E.; Savaş, A.; Aoudeh, E.; Elbir, Z.; Oz, E.; Proestos, C.; Ahmad, N.; Oz, F. Impact of cumin (Cuminum cyminum) incorporation on the generation of heterocyclic aromatic amines in meatballs. Seperations 2023, 10, 458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Elbir, Z.; Ekiz, E.; Aoudeh, E.; Oz, E.; Savaş, A.; Brennan, C.; Oz, F. Enhancing effect of chia seeds on heterocyclic amine generation in meatball. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 58, 2560–2572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Beltran, E.; Pla, R.; Yuste, J.; Mor-Mur, M. Lipid oxidation of pressurized and cooked chicken: Role of sodium chloride and mechanical processing on TBARS and hexanal values. Meat Sci. 2003, 64, 19–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Babür, T.E.; Gürbüz, Ü. Geleneksel pişirme yöntemlerinin et kalitesine etkileri. J. Tour. Gastron. Stud. 2015, 3, 58–64. [Google Scholar]
  11. Kim, D.H.; Kim, K.W.; Kim, Y.H.; Kim, J.A.; Kim, J.; Moon, K.D. Nutritional composition of horsemeat compared to white meat (chicken and duck). Food Sci. Preserv. 2015, 22, 644–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Lee, J.H.; Lee, H.N.; Shin, J.A.; Chun, J.Y.; Lee, J.; Lee, K.T. Content of fat-soluble nutrients (cholesterol, retinol, and α-tocopherol) in different parts of poultry meats according to cooking method. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 44, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kim, H.; Do, H.W.; Chung, H. A comparison of the essential amino acid content and the retention rate by chicken part according to different cooking methods. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Res. 2017, 37, 626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Barbanti, D.; Pasquini, M. Influence of cooking conditions on cooking loss and tenderness of raw and marinated chicken breast meat. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2005, 38, 895–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bi, J.; Lin, Z.; Li, Y.; Chen, F.; Liu, S.; Li, C. Effects of different cooking methods on volatile flavor compounds of chicken breast. J. Food Biochem. 2021, 45, e13770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Park, C.H.; Lee, B.; Oh, E.; Kim, Y.S.; Choi, Y.M. Combined effects of sous-vide cooking conditions on meat and sensory quality characteristics of chicken breast meat. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 3286–3291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kim, M.J.; Parvin, R.; Mushtaq, M.M.H.; Hwangbo, J.; Kim, J.H.; Na, J.C.; Choi, H.C. Influence of monochromatic light on quality traits, nutritional, fatty acid, and amino acid profiles of broiler chicken meat. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 2844–2852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Alfaig, E.; Angelovičova, M.; Kral, M.; Bučko, O. Effect of probiotics and thyme essential oil on the essential amino acid content of the broiler chicken meat. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2014, 13, 425–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Savaş, B.D.; Gürses, M.; Savaş, A.; Engin, T.; Karaoğlu, M.M.; Binici, H.İ. Effect of the addition of rosehip marmalade on the textural, rheological, microbiological, physicochemical and organic acid profile of kefir. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2025, 39, 101125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Korkmaz, A.; Oz, F. Effect of the use of dry breadcrumb in meatball production on the formation of heterocyclic aromatic amines. Br. Food J. 2020, 122, 2105–2119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Öz, E.; Ekiz, E.; Savaş, A.; Aoudeh, E.; El-Aty, A.A.; Öz, F. Impact of roasting level on fatty acid composition, oil and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon contents of various dried nuts. Turk. J. Agric. For. 2021, 45, 213–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bulan, R.; Oz, F. Impact of tarragon usage on lipid oxidation and heterocyclic aromatic amine formation in meatball. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 57, 942–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bingol, M.; Brennan, C.; Zeng, M.; Oz, F. Effect of the fortification with astaxanthin on the quality parameters and heterocyclic amines content of meatballs. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 57, 7653–7665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kilic, B.; Richards, M.P. Lipid oxidation in poultry döner kebab: Pro-oxidative and anti-oxidative factors. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 686–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gökalp, H.Y.; Kaya, M.; Tülek, Y.; Zorba, Ö. Et ve Ürünlerinde Kalite Kontrolü ve Laboratuvar Uygulama Klavuzu; Baskı, V., Ed.; Atatürk Üniversitesi Yayın: Erzurum, Turkey, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  26. Antoine, F.R.; Wei, C.I.; Littell, R.C.; Marshall, M.R. HPLC method for analysis of free amino acids in fish using o-phthaldialdehyde precolumn derivatization. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1999, 47, 5100–5107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Oz, E. Kas Tipinin Pastirmanin Proteolitik Değişimleri ve bazi Kalitatif Özelliklerine Etkisi. Ph.D. Thesis, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Atatürk Üniversitesi, Erzurum, Turkey, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  28. Binici, H.İ. Effects of Different Cooking Processes on the Phytochemical Profile and Mineral Content of Garlic (Allium sativum L.). J. Oleo Sci. 2025, 74, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Allen, C.D.; Fletcher, D.L.; Northcutt, J.K.; Russell, S.M. The relationship of broiler breast color to meat quality and shelf-life. Poult. Sci. 1998, 77, 361–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Alugwu, S.U.; Okonkwo, T.M.; Ngadi, M.O. Effect of Cooking on Physicochemical and Microstructural Properties of Chicken Breast Meat. Eur. J. Nutr. Food Saf. 2022, 14, 43–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Nyam, K.L.; Goh, K.M.; Chan, S.Q.; Tan, C.P.; Cheong, L.Z. Effect of sous vide cooking parameters on physicochemical properties and free amino acids profile of chicken breast meat. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2023, 115, 105010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Girard, P.J. Technology of Meat and Meat Products; Ellis Horwood: Hemel Hempstead, UK, 1992; pp. 32–83. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rabeler, F.; Feyissa, A.H. Kinetic modeling of texture and color changes during thermal treatment of chicken breast meat. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 11, 1495–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sanwo, K.A.; Adegoke, A.V.; Akinola, O.S.; Njoku, C.P.; Okolo, S.O.; Oladipo, N.A.; Oladejo, A.S. Meat quality characteristics of improved indigenous chickens (FUNAAB-ALPHA) fed turmeric (Curcuma longa) or clove (Syzygium aromaticum) as feed additives. J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2019, 19, 102–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kilic, S.; Oz, E.; Oz, F. Effect of turmeric on the reduction of heterocyclic aromatic amines and quality of chicken meatballs. Food Control 2021, 128, 108189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rodriguez-Estrada, M.T.; Penazzi, G.; Caboni, M.F.; Bertacco, G.; Lercker, G. Effect of different cooking methods on some lipid and protein components of hamburgers. Meat Sci. 1997, 45, 365–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Broncano, J.M.; Petrón, M.J.; Parra, V.; Timón, M.L. Effect of different cooking methods on lipid oxidation and formation of free cholesterol oxidation products (COPs) in Latissimus dorsi muscle of Iberian pigs. Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 431–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wideman, N.; O’bryan, C.A.; Crandall, P.G. Factors affecting poultry meat colour and consumer preferences—A review. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2016, 72, 353–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, S.; Tang, Y.; Fan, Q.; Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J.; Li, Q. When quantum dots meet blue phase liquid crystal elastomers: Visualized full-color and mechanically-switchable circularly polarized luminescence. Light Sci. Appl. 2024, 13, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ergezer, H. Değişik Yöntemlerle Marine Edilmiş Kanatlı Etlerinin Kimyasal, Mikrobiyolojik, Tekstürel Ve Duyusal Özellikleri. Master’s Thesis, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Denizli, Turkey, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  41. Okpala, C.O.R.; Juchniewicz, S.; Leicht, K.; Korzeniowska, M.; Guiné, R.P. Antioxidant, organoleptic and physicochemical changes in different marinated oven-grilled chicken breast meat. Foods 2022, 11, 3951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Öztürk, Ş. Production of low sugar orange marmalade using rebaudioside a and ıts sensory properties. Acad. Food 2023, 21, 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Oz, E.; Kabil, E.; Kaya, M. The effects of curing agents on the proteolysis and lipid oxidation of pastırma produced by the traditional method. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 2806–2814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Muthulakshmi, M.; Chandirasekaran, V.; Kalaikannan, A.; Jagadeeswaran, A.; Selvaraju, G.; Muthukumar, M.; Irshad, A. Effect of cooking methods on nutritional quality of chicken meat. Pharma Innov. J. 2021, 10, 1064–1070. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yang, J.; Qin, K.; Wang, Q.; Li, S.; Zhu, Y.; Yang, X. Comparative analysis of amino acids and volatile compounds as markers in Lueyang black-boned chicken and Arbor Acres broilers. Poult. Sci. 2025, 104, 104897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Boz, M.A.; Oz, F.; Yamak, U.S.; Sarica, M.; Cilavdaroglu, E. The carcass traits, carcass nutrient composition, amino acid, fatty acid, and cholesterol contents of local Turkish goose varieties reared in an extensive production system. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 3067–3080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Sun, J.; Wang, L.; Huang, Z.; Guo, N.; An, H.; Zhan, X.; Abddollahi, M.; Kovacs, Z. Dynamics of free amino acids in beef during thermal processing and mathematical modeling of doneness correlation. Food Mater. Res. 2024, 4, e036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Tasoniero, G.; Cullere, M.; Cecchinato, M.; Puolanne, E.; Dalle Zotte, A. Technological quality, mineral profile, and sensory attributes of broiler chicken breasts affected by White Striping and Wooden Breast myopathies. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 2707–2714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Khan, A.A.; Randhawa, M.A.; Carne, A.; Mohamed Ahmed, I.A.; Barr, D.; Reid, M.; Bekhit, A.E.D.A. Quality and nutritional minerals in chicken breast muscle treated with low and high pulsed electric fields. Food BioProcess Technol. 2018, 11, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Anıl, N.; Doğruer, Y.; Gürbüz, Ü.; Keleş, A.; Kayaardı, S. Tavuk Sucuğu Üretim Teknolojisi 1: Kimyasal Mikrobiyolojik ve Organoleptik Kalitesi Üzerinde Araştırmalar. Eurasian J. Vet. Sci. 1995, 11, 83–94. [Google Scholar]
  51. Ali, M.; Lee, S.Y.; Park, J.Y.; Jung, S.; Jo, C.; Nam, K.C. Comparison of functional compounds and micronutrients of chicken breast meat by breeds. Food Sci. Anim. Res. 2019, 39, 632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kavcı, Z.; Ozan, M.; Buzdağlı, Y.; Savaş, A.; Uçar, H. Investigation of the effect of nitrate and L-arginine intake on aerobic, anaerobic performance, balance, agility, and recovery in elite taekwondo athletes. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2025, 22, 2445609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Binici, H.İ.; Savaş, A.; Erim, B. Processing-induced modifications in bioactive compounds of black garlic: A comparative analysis. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2025, 37, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 13 01602 g001
Figure 1. Percentage classification of free amino acids in chicken breast samples determined by LC-MS/MS.
Figure 1. Percentage classification of free amino acids in chicken breast samples determined by LC-MS/MS.
Processes 13 01602 g001
Processes 13 01602 g002aProcesses 13 01602 g002b
Figure 2. Chicken breast samples belonging to score scatter plot (A), loading scatter plot (B), biplot (C), and dendogram (D) graph.
Figure 2. Chicken breast samples belonging to score scatter plot (A), loading scatter plot (B), biplot (C), and dendogram (D) graph.
Processes 13 01602 g002aProcesses 13 01602 g002b
Table 1. The pH, cooking loss (%), and TBARS values of chicken breast meat.
Table 1. The pH, cooking loss (%), and TBARS values of chicken breast meat.
Cooking TemperaturepHCooking Loss (%)TBARS (mg MDA kg−1)
180 °C6.26 ± 0.02 c34.25 ± 1.96 b0.24 ± 0.02 b
200 °C6.27 ± 0.02 b34.65 ± 0.84 b0.25 ± 0.01 ab
220 °C6.35 ± 0.05 a36.85 ± 1.61 a0.29 ± 0.08 a
Sign.*****
Cooking Time
16 min6.26 ± 0.02 c33.91 ± 1.31 c0.23 ± 0.02 a
24 min6.29 ± 0.05 b35.27 ± 1.56 b0.26 ± 0.03 a
32 min6.33 ± 0.06 a36.56 ± 1.86 a0.28 ± 0.06 b
Sign.*****
Interactions
CT × CT
Sign.**nsns
Raw materials (uncooked)6.11 ± 0.01, 75.74 ± 0.650.19 ± 0.02
Sign.: significance; ns: not significant (p > 0.05); SD: standard deviation; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01. Different letters (a–c) in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05). CT: cooking temperature, CT: cooking time.
Table 2. The lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), chroma (C*), and hue angle (H°) values of chicken breast meat.
Table 2. The lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), chroma (C*), and hue angle (H°) values of chicken breast meat.
Cooking TemperatureLightness (L*)Redness (a*)Yellowness (b*)Chroma (C*)Hue Angle (H°)
180 °C65.14 ± 6.86 a6.02 ± 3.62 b22.57 ± 2.38 c23.64 ± 1.95 c75.00 ± 9.56 a
200 °C62.89 ± 5.76 a6.99 ± 2.41 b26.74 ± 2.74 b27.71 ± 3.07 b75.54 ± 3.99 a
220 °C54.55 ± 5.22 b13.32 ± 3.22 a39.21 ± 2.94 a41.48 ± 3.51 a71.37 ± 3.48 a
Sign.********ns
Cooking Time
16 min63.90 ± 5.11 a6.93 ± 2.92 b27.96 ± 6.41 b28.84 ± 6.91 b76.57 ± 2.72 a
24 min63.89 ± 6.76 a7.88 ± 4.11 b31.28 ± 8.26 a32.35 ± 8.91 a76.67 ± 4.64 a
32 min54.81 ± 6.63 b11.53 ± 5.11 a29.27 ± 8.65 ab31.65 ± 9.36 a68.67 ± 7.39 b
Sign.*********
Interactions
CT × CT
Sign.ns*nsns*
Sign.: significance; ns: not significant (p > 0.05); SD: standard deviation; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01. Different letters (a–c) in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05). CT: cooking temperature, CT: cooking time.
Table 3. Free amino acid profile of chicken breast samples (mg g−1).
Table 3. Free amino acid profile of chicken breast samples (mg g−1).
FAA (mg g−1)Cooking Temperature Cooking TimeCT × CT
180 °C200 °C220 °CSign.16 min24 min32 minSign.Sign.
Lysine9.93 ± 1.03 c16.52 ± 4.97 b23.85 ± 12.37 a**13.67 ± 7.13 c16.67 ± 9.18 b19.96 ± 11.42 a****
Histidine1.71 ± 0.14 c3.19 ± 0.52 b4.87 ± 3.19 a**2.26 ± 0.98 c4.68 ± 3.24 a2.83 ± 1.01 b****
Glycine35.03 ± 9.05 c43.12 ± 15.48 b56.18 ± 21.42 a**27.66 ± 2.35 c58.64 ± 20.07 a48.02 ± 8.43 b****
Serine12.29 ± 0.85 a12.20 ± 4.64 a12.92 ± 4.29 ans11.12 ± 1.83 b11.74 ± 3.94 b14.55 ± 3.84 a**
Alanine66.29 ± 43.14 c119.45 ± 22.71 b141.11 ± 46.87 a**71.09 ± 24.53 c120.27 ± 65.41 b135.49 ± 21.92 a****
Glutamate76.64 ± 21.88 c104.39 ± 16.40 b110.62 ± 29.83 a**94.33 ± 13.44 b87.21 ± 30.89 c110.12 ± 30.49 a****
Cysteine8.38 ± 0.52 b9.31 ± 0.49 a8.99 ± 0.67 a**8.81 ± 0.52 a9.07 ± 0.97 a8.82 ± 0.44 ans*
Aspartate24.70 ± 10.96 b22.46 ± 7.26 c34.87 ± 16.81 a**21.35 ± 3.22 c23.19 ± 7.34 b37.49 ± 17.72 a****
Proline9.83 ± 5.47 c13.36 ± 8.95 b27.94 ± 18.54 a**7.85 ± 2.16 c19.96 ± 12.66 b23.31 ± 18.64 a****
Methionine70.71 ± 11.63 c89.06 ± 27.57 b156.67 ± 35.89 a**74.81 ± 28.01 b119.89 ± 48.39 a121.74 ± 45.58 a****
Leucine9.92 ± 0.91 c16.51 ± 5.37 b23.90 ± 12.41 a**13.67 ± 7.29 c16.67 ± 9.29 b19.99 ± 11.47 a****
Isoleucine26.29 ± 4.18 a18.57 ± 3.74 c21.64 ± 11.32 b**18.94 ± 2.98 b19.95 ± 6.11 b27.63 ± 9.83 a****
Tyrosine3.66 ± 0.85 c7.27 ± 3.03 b10.14 ± 4.55 a**4.05 ± 0.95 c9.36 ± 4.96 a7.65 ± 3.56 b****
Phenylalanine29.41 ± 5.79 b29.03 ± 9.22 b44.41 ± 15.08 a**24.46 ± 2.49 c37.61 ± 7.93 b40.78 ± 16.78 a****
Tryptophan3.67 ± 0.63 c8.76 ± 4.59 a8.25 ± 3.14 b**4.37 ± 0.38 c8.68 ± 5.12 a7.63 ± 3.35 b****
Sign.: significance; ns: not significant (p > 0.05); SD: standard deviation; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01. Different letters (a–c) in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05). CT: cooking temperature, CT: cooking time.
Table 4. Mineral content of chicken breast samples (mg kg−1).
Table 4. Mineral content of chicken breast samples (mg kg−1).
Cooking TemperatureCaMgCuZnNaK
180 °C1455.63 ± 227.16 a208.17 ± 21.39 b1.89 ± 0.71 a69.43 ± 19.19 a1116.88 ± 109.39 c1326.42 ± 147.23 c
200 °C795.92 ± 189.55 b221.34 ± 20.87 a1.91 ± 0.15 a46.38 ± 12.28 b1216.61 ± 15.77 b1354.29 ± 114.95 b
220 °C431.32 ± 144.07 c199.07 ± 25.51 c1.47 ± 0.47 b43.35 ± 11.75 b1254.34 ± 46.01 a1700.46 ± 96.97 a
Sign.***********
Cooking Time
16 min1069.19 ± 484.71 a187.51 ± 16.76 c1.52 ± 0.56 a57.11 ± 26.54 a1173.15 ± 64.95 b1498.33 ± 136.07 a
24 min954.37 ± 466.61 b213.91 ± 24.56 b1.88 ± 0.15 a47.45 ± 7.96 b1160.40 ± 132.62 c1447.17 ± 320.34 b
32 min659.29 ± 401.92 c226.34 ± 7.93 a1.88 ± 0.66 a54.72 ± 16.66 ab1247.99 ± 33.11 a1445.99 ± 169.11 b
Sign.****ns*****
Interactions
CT × CT
Sign.***********
Sign.: significance; ns: not significant (p > 0.05); SD: standard deviation; *: p < 0.05; **: p < 0.01. Different letters (a–c) in the same column are significantly different (p < 0.05). CT: cooking temperature, CT: cooking time.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Savaş, A. Effects of Different Cooking Parameters on Various Quality Criteria, Lipid Oxidation, Mineral Composition, and Free Amino Acid Profile of Chicken Breast. Processes 2025, 13, 1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13051602

AMA Style

Savaş A. Effects of Different Cooking Parameters on Various Quality Criteria, Lipid Oxidation, Mineral Composition, and Free Amino Acid Profile of Chicken Breast. Processes. 2025; 13(5):1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13051602

Chicago/Turabian Style

Savaş, Adem. 2025. "Effects of Different Cooking Parameters on Various Quality Criteria, Lipid Oxidation, Mineral Composition, and Free Amino Acid Profile of Chicken Breast" Processes 13, no. 5: 1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13051602

APA Style

Savaş, A. (2025). Effects of Different Cooking Parameters on Various Quality Criteria, Lipid Oxidation, Mineral Composition, and Free Amino Acid Profile of Chicken Breast. Processes, 13(5), 1602. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13051602

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop