Next Article in Journal
Modeling and Optimization of Natural Gas Non-Catalytic Partial Oxidation with Hierarchical-Integrated Mechanism
Previous Article in Journal
Use of Biodried Organic Waste as a Soil Amendment: Positive Effects on Germination and Growth of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L., var. Buttercrunch) as a Model Crop
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effects of Zn-Organic Supplementation on Growth, Body Composition, Carcass Traits, and Meat Quality of Grazing Lambs Fed with Two Levels of Concentrate
 
 
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 7
10.3390/pr13072286
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

Mesquite Pods (Prosopis velutina) as a Functional Ingredient: Characterization and Application in a Meat Product

by
Karla Joanna Aispuro-Sainz
1,
Rey David Vargas-Sánchez
2,
Gastón Ramón Torrescano-Urrutia
2,
Brisa del Mar Torres-Martínez
2 and
Armida Sánchez-Escalante
2,*
1
Departamento de Biología, Universidad de la Sierra, Carretera Moctezuma-Cumpas km 2.5, Moctezuma 84560, Mexico
2
Coordinación de Tecnología de Alimentos de Origen Animal (CTAOA), SECIHTI—Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo (CIAD), Carretera Gustavo Enrique Astiazarán Rosas 46, Hermosillo 83304, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2025, 13(7), 2286; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072286
Submission received: 2 July 2025 / Revised: 13 July 2025 / Accepted: 16 July 2025 / Published: 17 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Production, Processing and Quality Assessment of Livestock Meat Products)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

The present study aimed to characterize the total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of mesquite pods (Prosopis velutina) and evaluate the effect on meat qualities in a meat product, with a view to their application as a natural functional ingredient. Mesquite pods were subjected to chemical characterization, revealing the presence of polyphenol contents with antioxidant activity (reducing power and antiradical effect). In addition, pork patties were formulated with different levels of mesquite pods powder (MPP, 2% and 5%) and mesquite pods extract (MPE, 0.1% and 0.3%), and were compared with control (CN) samples. The proximate composition of mesquite pod powder revealed a high proportion of carbohydrates and a low fat content. Additionally, the presence of polyphenols with antioxidant activity, including antiradical and reducing power, was evident. No significant differences were observed in the pork patties’ proximate composition. During 9 days of storage at 2 °C, patties treated with MPP and MPE exhibited higher pH values and lower TBARS values compared to the CN, with MPE-0.3% being the most effective in retarding lipid oxidation. Color parameters (L*, a*, b*, C*, and h*) were positively influenced by MPP and MPE, and both treatments improved water-holding capacity and reduced cooking weight loss, especially at 5% MPP. Fracture texture analysis showed that 5% MPP enhances firmness. Sensory attributes did not differ significantly from the CN. These results indicate that MPP and MPE are promising natural ingredients for extending the shelf life and maintaining the quality of pork patties without compromising sensory acceptability.

1. Introduction

The use of wasted natural resources with functional potential represents a key strategy for the development of healthier, more sustainable foods aligned with the demands of today’s consumers [1,2]. In this context, the mesquite tree, a species native to arid and semi-arid regions, offer a valuable opportunity. Although traditionally used as fodder or food in rural communities, these plant structures have been little explored in the actual meat industry, despite their richness in bioactive compounds, particularly polyphenols with recognized antioxidant activity [3].
Concerning food industry applications of this plant in bakery products, it has been demonstrated that mesquite powders enhance the nutritional and functional values of sourdough bread, providing bioactive compounds, fiber, and proteins. The authors also concluded that their addition also improves the product texture and quality, offering a healthy option with plant-based ingredients [4]. Another author reported that the addition of mesquite powder to wheat bread formulations improves fiber, minerals, and bioactive compounds [5]. Concerning the meat products industry, mesquite leaf extract has been proposed as a natural strategy to improve the oxidative stability of meat products, such as pork patties, without compromising their sensory properties [6].
It has been extensively documented that lipid and protein oxidation are the primary challenges in preserving meat products, as they can negatively impact their nutritional value, shelf life, and sensory properties [7,8,9]. The industry has also relied on synthetic antioxidants to mitigate these adverse effects; for example, butylhydroxytoluene (BHT) has been incorporated into ground pork meat to increase oxidative stability during cooking [7], while a mixture of butylated hydroxy anisole/BHT has also been incorporated into irradiated ground beef patties to improve oxidative stability during refrigerated storage [8]. Another study demonstrated the effect of BHT to enhance the oxidative stability of beef patties during refrigerated storage [9]. However, concerns about their safety have driven interest in natural resources [10].
The use of plants in powder or extracts derived from native plants not only addresses the need for safer functional ingredients but also promotes the sustainable use of local biodiversity, strengthens rural economies, and contributes to reducing dependence on imported synthetic additives [10,11,12]. In this sense, exploring the potential of mesquite pods as a source of natural antioxidants represents an important step toward the development of functional and regionally sustainable meat products.
Therefore, this study aimed to characterize the total phenolic content and antioxidant activity of mesquite pods (Prosopis velutina) and evaluate the effect on meat qualities in a meat product, with a view to their application as a natural functional ingredient.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Reagents

All the chemical products were analytical grade and acquired from Sigma Chemicals (St. Louis, MO, USA).

2.2. Preparation of Mesquite Pods Powder and Extract

Mesquite pods (Prosopis velutina) were collected and surface-disinfected by immersion in a hypochlorite solution (100 ppm) for 20 min, then rinsed twice with distilled water (soaking) for 10 min. They were then dried (12 h at 50 °C), roasted (45 min at 160 °C), and pulverized (20 mesh particle size; hammer mill, Pulvex 200, Mexico City, Mexico).
The mesquite pods powder (MPP) was subjected to the following extraction conditions: ethanol was used as the solvent for extraction, and sonication was performed at 40 kHz for 60 min at 25 °C (m3800, Branson, Dietzenbach, Germany). The filtrate solution (Whatman No. 1 filter paper) was concentrated (150 rpm at 60 °C; RE 121, Büchi, Flawil, Switzerland) and subsequently freeze-dried (20 Pa, 48 h at −80 °C; DC401, Yamato, Tokyo, Japan) to obtain mesquite pods extract (MPE). MPE (at 0.1, 0.05, and 0.025 mg/mL of ethanol) was subjected to in vitro phenolic content and antioxidant activity evaluation [7].

2.3. Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Activity of Mesquite Pods

The total phenolic content (TPHC) was determined using the Folin–Ciocalteu method. The reaction solution was measured at 750 nm (Multiskan, Thermo Scientific, Vantaa, Finland), and the absorbance was corrected for a blank solution, i.e., the reagent without sample. At least three replicates were performed, and the results were reported as mg GAE (gallic acid equivalent) per mg of dried extract [13]. Additionally, the total flavonoid content (TFVC) was determined using the Aluminum chloride complexation method. The reaction solution was measured at 415 nm, and the absorbance was corrected with a blank solution. At least three replicates were performed, and the results were reported as mg QE (quercetin equivalents) per mg of dried extract [13].
Concerning the antioxidant activity assays, the reducing power activity (RPA) was determined using the Prussian blue method. Ascorbic acid was used as a standard. The reaction solution was measured at 700 nm and corrected with a blank solution. At least three replicates were performed, and the results were reported as absorbance at that wavelength [14]. Additionally, antiradical activity was assessed using the ABTS (2,2’-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)) and DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) methods. The reaction solutions were measured at 730 nm and 517 nm, respectively, and the absorbance was corrected with a blank solution. At least three replicates were performed, and the results were reported as a percentage of inhibition [15].

2.4. Preparation of the Meat Product

Ground pork meat (semimembranosus m., 48 h post-mortem; 4.5 mm) was purchased from a local processor, then blended with 1.5% of salt dissolved in 5% of water, and mixed with 10% of pork back fat (in final formulation). At least three replicates were performed, and the treatments were as follows: control (CN); MPP at 2% and 5% (MPP-2% and MPP-5%, respectively); and MPE at 0.1% and 0.3% (MPE-0.1% and MPE-0.3%, respectively). The pork patties (90 g each) were shaped using a manual former, placed in polystyrene trays, wrapped with a film, and subsequently stored (9 days at 2 °C).

2.5. Meat Quality Evaluation

The chemical proximate composition was performed according to the AOAC procedures, i.e., moisture (No. 930.30), protein (No. 968.06), fat (No. 985.01), ash (No. 985.01), and carbohydrate content (estimated by percentage difference). At least three replicates were performed, and the results were reported as a percentage of each component [16].
The pH was determined using the AOAC procedure (No. 981.12). The homogenized meat product aqueous solution (1:10 ratio) was measured with a potentiometer (pH-211, Hanna, Woonsocket, RI, USA). At least three replicates were performed, and the results were reported as pH values [16].
Lipid oxidation was determined using the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) method. The homogenized meat product was mixed with a trichloroacetic acid solution (1:2 ratio) and centrifuged (2500× g) at 4 °C for 20 min (Allegra X-12, Beckman, Brea, CA, USA). The filtered solution was mixed with a 20 mM 2-thiobarbituric acid solution (1:1 ratio) and incubated at 97 °C for 20 min. The final solution was measured at 531 nm and corrected with a blank solution. At least three replicates were performed, and the results were reported as milligrams of malondialdehyde (MDA) per kilogram of meat product [17].
The color was determined using the CIELab method. The meat product was exposed to atmospheric oxygen to stabilize the surface color. At least three replicates were performed, and the recorded parameters were lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), chroma (C*), and hue (h*) with a spectrophotometer (CM-508d, Konica Minolta, Tokyo, Japan) [18]. The total color difference (ΔE) was also performed as described previously [19].
The water-holding capacity (WHC) was determined using the centrifugation method. A weighed portion of each meat product was subjected to centrifugation (4200× g) at 4 °C for 5 min. At least three replicates were performed, and the results were reported as a percentage [20].
The cooking weight loss (CWL) was also determined. The meat product was cooked until it reached an internal temperature of 72 °C. At least three replicates were performed, and the results were reported as a percentage [20].
The meat product was subjected to fracture texture analysis (FTA) using the following conditions: distance = 40 mm, pre-test speed = 60 mm/min, post-test speed = 600 mm/min, head speed = 100 mm/min, and force = 50 kg. The fracturability values were expressed as kilogram-force (kgf) [20].
A sensory panel comprising 20 laboratory workers and students was used for the sensory analysis of the meat product. Uncooked meat samples were evaluated for color and appearance. Additionally, cooked pork patties were evaluated for color, appearance, odor, flavor, juiciness, fat sensation, texture, and overall acceptability. A descriptive seven-point scale was used (1 = I dislike it very much to 7 = I like it a lot) [6].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

At least three independent experiments (n = 9) were performed, and the results were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD). The data from the characterization of mesquite pods were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance. The data from the meat quality evaluation were subjected to a 2-way analysis of variance. Bartlett’s and Tukey’s tests were performed to determine variance homogeneity and differences (p < 0.05) using the National Council of Social Studies v0.7 statistical software [21].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Characterization of Mesquite Pods

Polyphenols present in natural resources have been associated with the bioactivity of powders and extracts obtained [10,11,12]. Table 1 reports the results of phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of the mesquite pod extract. Concerning phenolic content, at the highest evaluated level, the TPHC and TFVC were greater than 200 and 10 mg equivalents/mL, respectively. Concerning antioxidant activity, at the highest evaluated level, the ABTS and DPPH inhibition were greater than 10% and 30%, respectively, while a weak RPA value was observed.
The results obtained indicate that mesquite pods represent a promising source of phenolic compounds and exhibit significant antioxidant activity in a concentration-dependent manner. Mesquite pods (Prosopis spp.) have been proposed to act as a nutraceutical, due to their content of phenolic and flavonoid compounds, as well as their antioxidant activity [22,23]. In agreement with this study, it has been reported that the mesquite pod aqueous methanol extract (Prosopis glandulosa) exhibits an inhibitory effect against ABTS and DPPH radicals, as well as RPA, associated with the presence of phenolic compounds [4]. Also, it has been demonstrated that the mesquite pod aqueous extract (Prosopis juliflora) exerts an inhibitory effect against DPPH radicals [24]. The mesquite pods’ water and methanol extracts (Prosopis laevigata) also exert an inhibitory effect against DPPH radicals [25]. The antiradical ABTS and DPPH effects of mesquite pod aqueous ethanol extract (Prosopis laevigata) have been demonstrated [26]. Concerning polyphenol compounds, the presence of phenolic acids such as 2,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid, vanillic acid, syringic acid, salicylic acid, p-coumaric acid, m-coumaric acid, trans-ferulic acid, sinapic acid, ursolic acid, and gentisic acid has been reported. Concerning flavonoids, the presence of catechin (flavonol), kaempferol (flavonol), rutine (flavonoid glycoside of quercetin), and formononetin (isoflavone) has been reported [27].

3.2. Meat Quality of the Meat Product

3.2.1. Chemical Proximate Composition

The evaluation of the chemical proximate composition is a fundamental part of the quality control and characterization of meat and its derivatives [28]. Table 2 reports the results of the chemical proximate composition of MPP and pork patties treated with MPP and MPE. The results revealed that the primary chemical components of MPP are carbohydrates, followed by proteins. When incorporating MPP and MPE into the meat product, the moisture, protein, fat, ash, and carbohydrate contents do not differ significantly compared to CN samples (p > 0.05).
The results obtained indicate that the incorporation of MPP and MPE into the meat product did not affect its composition. In agreement with this study, it has been reported that the carbohydrates are the primary component of MPP, followed by proteins, which can influence their nutritional and technological properties, particularly their functionality, when incorporated into a food matrix [4,22,23,26]. Studies on the effect of incorporating MPP and MPE on the chemical composition of meat products are still limited. However, it has been reported that the incorporation of 0.05 and 0.1% of mesquite leaves’ aqueous ethanol extract (Prosopis velutina) into the formulation of pork patties did not affect the moisture, protein, fat, ash, and carbohydrate contents [6]. In contrast to our study, it has been reported that the incorporation of MPP from Prosopis juliflora into beef patty formulations decreased moisture, fat, and ash contents, while enhancing protein and carbohydrate contents in a concentration-dependent manner [29].

3.2.2. pH and Lipid Oxidation

The pH is an essential parameter for evaluating and controlling the quality of pork meat, as it is closely linked to its technological and sensory properties [30]. Figure 1 reports the results of the pH values for the meat product treated with MPP and MPE and stored for 9 days at 2 °C. At the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP-2%, MPP-5%, and MPE-0.1% showed higher pH values than the CN and MPE-0.3% (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the pH values showed a tendency to decrease during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, the meat products treated with MPP and MPE showed higher pH values than the CN samples (p ˂ 0.05). Studies on the effect of incorporating MPP and MPE on the pH values of meat products are still limited. However, it has been reported that incorporating 0.05% and 0.1% of the aqueous ethanol extract from mesquite leaves (Prosopis velutina) into the formulation of pork patties increases the pH values compared to the CN samples [6]. When using other types of legume pods, it has been reported that incorporating 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.8% of Moringa oleifera pod aqueous extract into pork meatball formulations increased the pH values compared to the CN samples in a concentration-dependent manner [31]. In contrast to our study, it has been reported that incorporating 2%, 4%, and 6% MPP from Prosopis juliflora into beef patty formulations did not affect the pH values compared to the CN samples [29].
Lipid oxidation is a primary cause of deterioration in the quality of meat and meat products, generating compounds that pose a risk to human health [17]. Figure 2 reports the results of the TBARS values for the meat products treated with MPP and MPE and stored for 9 days at 2 °C. At the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP-2%, MPE-0.1%, and MPE-0.3% showed lower TBARS values than the CN and MPP-5% (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the TBARS values showed a tendency to increase during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, the meat products treated with MPP and MPE showed lower TBARS values than the CN samples; MPE-0.3% was the most effective (p ˂ 0.05). Studies on the effect of incorporating MPP and MPE on the TBARS values of meat products are still limited. However, it has been reported that incorporating 0.05% and 0.1% of the aqueous ethanol extract from mesquite leaves (Prosopis velutina) into the formulation of pork patties decreases the TBARS values compared to the CN samples [6]. When using other types of legume pods, it has been reported that incorporating 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.8% of Moringa oleifera pod aqueous extract into pork meatball formulations decreased the TBARS values compared to the CN samples in a concentration-dependent manner [31]. Additionally, it has been reported that incorporating 1.5% and 3% of Moringa oleifera pod powder into the formulation of goat meat nuggets decreased the TBARS values compared to the CN samples in a concentration-dependent manner [32]. In contrast to our study, it has been reported that incorporating 2%, 4%, and 6% MPP from Prosopis juliflora into beef patty formulations increases TBARS values compared to the CN samples [29]. It has been shown that polyphenols are characterized by donating hydrogen atoms (HAT mechanism) and donating electrons (SET mechanism) to neutralize radicals, which participate in the propagation of lipid peroxidation; by decreasing these chain reactions, malondialdehyde formation is inhibited [6,20,33].

3.2.3. Instrumental Color Changes

The previously evaluated parameters (pH and TBARS) are also linked to sensory attributes, such as color, which negatively affect consumer acceptance [6,30]. Table 3 reports the results of the color values for the meat products treated with MPP and MPE and stored for 9 days at 2 °C.
The first color parameter was lightness (L*), and at the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP-5% and MPE-0.3% showed higher L* values than the CN and other treatments (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the L* values showed a tendency to increase during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, the meat products treated with MPP-0.1% and MPE-0.3% showed lower L* values than the CN and other treatments (p ˂ 0.05).
The second color parameter to consider was redness (a*), and at the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP-0.1% and MPE-0.3% showed higher L* values than the CN and other treatments (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the a* values showed a tendency to decrease during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, the meat products treated with MPP-0.1% and MPE-0.3% showed higher a* values than the CN and other treatments (p ˂ 0.05).
The third color parameter evaluated was yellowness (b*). At the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP and MPE treatments showed higher b* values than the CN (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the b* values showed a tendency to increase during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, the meat product treated with MPP-5% showed higher b* values than the CN and other treatments (p ˂ 0.05).
The fourth color parameter to consider was Chroma (C*). At the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP and MPE treatments showed higher C* values than the CN (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the b* values showed a tendency to decrease during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, MPP and MPE treatments showed higher C* values than the CN (p ˂ 0.05).
The fifth color parameter evaluated was hue (h*). At the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP and MPE treatments showed higher h* values than the CN (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the h* values showed a tendency to increase during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, MPE treatments showed lower h* values than the CN and other treatments (p ˂ 0.05).
The results of the total color difference (ΔE) were also performed. At the beginning of storage, the results showed that the MPP-5% and MPE-0.3% treatments had the highest values (ΔE ˃ 5) compared to the CN, indicating a strong or evident difference. On the last day of sampling, the results showed that the MPE-0.1% and MPE-0.3% treatments had the highest values (ΔE ˃ 5) compared to the CN, indicating a strong or evident difference. While the difference was noticeable for the MPP-5% treatment (ΔE 3.5–5.0), it was barely perceptible for the MPP-2% treatment (ΔE 1.0–2.0).
Studies on the effect of incorporating MPP and MPE on the color parameters of meat products are still limited. However, it has been reported that incorporating 0.05% and 0.1% of the aqueous ethanol extract from mesquite leaves (Prosopis velutina) into the formulation of pork patties decreases L* and h* values, while increasing a*, b*, and C* values compared to the CN samples [6]. In agreement with our study, it has been reported that incorporating 2%, 4%, and 6% mesquite pod powder (Prosopis juliflora) into beef patties formulations increases L*, a*, and b* values compared to the CN samples [29]. Additionally, it has been reported that the total color difference (ΔE) when adding a natural ingredient to a meat product formulation can be affected by the concentration used [19].

3.2.4. Water Retention and Texture

The WHC, CWL, and texture are also directly associated with the technological and sensory quality of meat products, and these parameters could be affected in meat products by the addition of ingredients in the form of powders or extracts [20,34]. Figure 3 reports the results of the WHC values for the meat products treated with MPP and MPE and stored for 9 days at 2 °C. At the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP-2% and MPP-5% showed higher WHC values than the CN, MPE-0.1%, and MPE-0.3% (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the WHC values showed a tendency to decrease during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, the meat products treated with MPP-2% and MPP-5% showed higher WHC values than the CN, MPE-0.1%, and MPE-0.3% (p ˂ 0.05). Studies on the effect of incorporating MPP and MPE on the WHC values of meat products are still limited. However, it has been reported that incorporating 0.05% and 0.1% of the aqueous ethanol extract from mesquite leaves (Prosopis velutina) into the formulation of pork patties increases WHC values compared to the CN samples [6]. When using other types of legume powders, it has been reported that incorporating 6% chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and green lentil (Lens culinaris) powders into beef patty formulations did not affect the WHC values compared to the CN samples [35]. These results could be attributed to the dietary fiber content in mesquite pod powder, whose capacity to retain water improves the higher WHC values [27].
Figure 4 reports the results of the CWL values for the meat products treated with MPP and MPE and stored for 9 days at 2 °C. At the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP-5% showed lower CWL values than the CN, MPP-2%, MPE-0.1%, and MPE-0.3% (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the WHC values showed a tendency to increase during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, the meat product treated with MPP-5% showed lower CWL values than the CN, MPP-2%, MPE-0.1%, and MPE-0.3% (p ˂ 0.05). In agreement with our study, it has been reported that incorporating 2%, 4%, and 6% of mesquite pod powder (Prosopis juliflora) into beef patty formulations decreases CWL values compared to the CN samples [28]. When using other types of legume powder, it has been reported that incorporating 6% chickpea (Cicer arietinum) powder into beef patty formulations decreases the CWL values compared to the CN samples, while combining 6% green lentil (Lens culinaris) powder does not affect the CWL values [35]. The lower CWL observed in meat products incorporated with natural powders could also be related to dietary fiber content, which can retain water and fat during cooking [20,27].
Figure 5 reports the results of the FTA values for the meat product treated with MPP and MPE and stored for 9 days at 2 °C. At the beginning of storage, the results revealed that MPP-5% showed higher FTA values than the CN, MPP-2%, MPE-0.1%, and MPE-0.3% (p ˂ 0.05). Also, the FTA values showed a tendency to increase during storage (p ˂ 0.05). On the last day of sampling, the meat product treated with MPP-5% showed higher CWL values than the CN, MPP-2%, MPE-0.1%, and MPE-0.3% (p ˂ 0.05).
Studies on the effect of incorporating MPP and MPE on the FTA values of meat products are still limited. However, when using other types of legume pods, it has been reported that incorporating 1.5% and 3% of Moringa oleifera pod powder into goat meat nugget formulations did not affect the FTA values compared to the CN samples [32]. Additionally, it has been reported that incorporating 6% chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and green lentil (Lens culinaris) powder into beef patty formulations decreases the FTA values compared to the CN samples [35]. In contrast to our study, it has been reported that incorporating 2%, 4%, and 6% of mesquite pod powder (Prosopis juliflora) into beef patties formulations decreases FTA values compared to the CN samples [29]. Additionally, the incorporation of fiber-rich powders into the formulation of meat products provides structure to the meat matrix, increasing the product’s mechanical strength, therefore, its firmness and hardness [20,36].

3.2.5. Sensory Attributes

Sensory analysis is a key tool in the development of new meat products, as it enables the evaluation of attributes such as flavor, texture, color, and overall acceptance [37]. Table 4 reports the results of the sensory evaluation for the meat products treated with MPP and MPE. When incorporating MPP and MPE into the meat products, the sensory attributes do not differ significantly compared to the CN samples (p > 0.05). Studies on the effect of incorporating MPP and MPE on the sensory characteristics of meat products are still limited. However, it has been reported that incorporating 0.05% and 0.1% of the aqueous ethanol extract from mesquite leaves (Prosopis velutina) into the formulation of pork patties did not affect these values compared to the CN samples [6]. When using other types of legume pods, it has been reported that incorporating 0.2% and 0.4% of Moringa oleifera pod aqueous extract into pork meatball formulations enhances the sensory scores (appearance, color, odor, flavor, texture, and overall acceptability) compared to the CN samples in a concentration-dependent manner. However, at the highest concentration (0.8%), an adverse effect on sensory scores was observed [31]. Additionally, it has been reported that incorporating 1.5% and 3% of Moringa oleifera pod powder into the formulation of goat meat nuggets did not affect the sensory scores (appearance, flavor, juiciness, texture, and overall acceptability) [31]. In another study, it was reported that incorporating 2.5% and 5% chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) powder into pork bologna did not negatively affect the flavor [38].

4. Conclusions

The incorporation of mesquite pods powder (MPP) and mesquite pods extract (MPE) into the formulation of pork patties improved key technological quality parameters, such as water-holding capacity, cooking weight loss, color, and texture, and increased oxidative stability during refrigerated storage without negatively affecting the proximate chemical composition or sensory acceptance. In particular, MPP-5% and MPE-0.3% showed the most significant effects in improving the quality of the meat product. These natural resources are a promising natural additive for the meat industry. Additional studies are recommended under industrial processing conditions and with more extended shelf-life periods, as well as studies of economic feasibility and scalability in other meat formulations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.J.A.-S., R.D.V.-S. and A.S.-E.; methodology, K.J.A.-S., R.D.V.-S. and A.S.-E.; software, B.d.M.T.-M. and R.D.V.-S.; formal analysis, K.J.A.-S., R.D.V.-S. and A.S.-E.; investigation, K.J.A.-S., R.D.V.-S., B.d.M.T.-M., G.R.T.-U. and A.S.-E.; writing—original draft preparation, K.J.A.-S., R.D.V.-S., B.d.M.T.-M., G.R.T.-U. and A.S.-E.; writing—review and editing, K.J.A.-S., R.D.V.-S., B.d.M.T.-M., G.R.T.-U. and A.S.-E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions of this study are presented within the article. For additional information, inquiries may be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank SECIHTI for the support from the Investigadoras e Investigadores por México program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
BHTButylhydroxytoluene
MPPMesquite pods powder
MPEMesquite pods extract
TPCTotal phenolic content
GAEGallic acid equivalent
TFVCTotal flavonoid content
QCEQuercetin equivalent
RPAReducing power activity
ABTS2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)
DPPH2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl
CNControl
TBARSThiobarbituric acid reactive substances
MDAMalondialdehyde
L*Lightness
a*Redness
b*Yellowness
C*Chroma
h*Hue
WHCWater-holding capacity
CWLCooking weight loss
FTAFracture texture analysis
SDStandard deviation

References

  1. Calderón-Oliver, M.; López-Hernández, L.H. Food vegetable and fruit waste used in meat products. Food Rev. Int. 2022, 38, 628–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kulkarni, V.V.; Devatkal, S.K. Utilization of byproducts and waste materials from meat and poultry processing industry: A review. J. Meat Sci. 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Torres-Martínez, B.M.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; de la Rosa-Alcaraz, M.D.A.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Composición, propiedades, y uso del mezquite en la industria alimentaria. In Recursos Naturales de las Zonas Áridas. Diversidad, Aprovechamiento, Salud y Alimentación, 1st ed.; Flores-Rivas, J., Guzmán-Chávez, M.G., González-Córdova, A.F., Martínez-Tagueña, N., Mounzar, O., Escobedo-Moratilla, A., Muñiz-Ramírez, A., Trujillo-Silva, J., Eds.; CERLALC: Puebla, Mexico, 2024; pp. 463–488. [Google Scholar]
  4. González-Montemayor, A.M.; Solanilla-Duque, J.F.; Flores-Gallegos, A.C.; López-Badillo, C.M.; Ascacio-Valdés, J.A.; Rodríguez-Herrera, R. Green bean, pea and mesquite whole pod flours nutritional and functional properties and their effect on sourdough bread. Foods 2021, 10, 2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Gonzales-Barron, U.; Dijkshoorn, R.; Maloncy, M.; Finimundy, T.; Carocho, M.; Ferreira, I.C.; Barros, L.; Cadavez, V. Nutritional quality and staling of wheat bread partially replaced with Peruvian mesquite (Prosopis pallida) flour. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Ramírez-Rojo, M.I.; Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Torres-Martínez, B.D.M.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Inclusion of ethanol extract of mesquite leaves to enhance the oxidative stability of pork patties. Foods 2019, 8, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Torres-Martínez, B.D.M.; Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Pérez-Alvarez, J.Á.; Fernández-López, J.; Esqueda, M.C.; Rodríguez-Carpena, J.G.; Ibarra-Arias, F.J.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Recovery of an additive for pork meat from Pleurotus ostreatus grown in agro-industrial wastes. Biotecnia 2025, 27, e2396. [Google Scholar]
  8. Movileanu, I.; Núñez de González, M.T.; Hafley, B.; Miller, R.K.; Keeton, J.T. Comparison of dried plum puree, rosemary extract, and BHA/BHT as antioxidants in irradiated ground beef patties. Int. J. Food Sci. 2013, 2013, 360732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Zahid, M.A.; Seo, J.K.; Parvin, R.; Ko, J.; Yang, H.S. Comparison of butylated hydroxytoluene, ascorbic acid, and clove extract as antioxidants in fresh beef patties at refrigerated storage. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2019, 39, 768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Bai, T.; Wang, X.; Du, W.; Cheng, J.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Klinjapo, R.; Asavasanti, S.; Yasurin, P. Recent advances, challenges, and functional applications of natural phenolic compounds in the meat products industry. Antioxidants 2025, 14, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Bellucci, E.R.B.; Bis-Souza, C.V.; Domínguez, R.; Bermúdez, R.; Barretto, A.C.D.S. Addition of natural extracts with antioxidant function to preserve the quality of meat products. Biomolecules 2022, 12, 1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Awad, A.M.; Kumar, P.; Ismail-Fitry, M.R.; Jusoh, S.; Ab Aziz, M.F.; Sazili, A.Q. Overview of plant extracts as natural preservatives in meat. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46, e16796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kukhtenko, H.; Bevz, N.; Konechnyi, Y.; Kukhtenko, O.; Jasicka-Misiak, I. Spectrophotometric and chromatographic assessment of total polyphenol and flavonoid content in Rhododendron tomentosum extracts and their antioxidant and antimicrobial activity. Molecules 2024, 29, 1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Berker, K.I.; Demirata, B.; Apak, R. Determination of total antioxidant capacity of lipophilic and hydrophilic antioxidants in the same solution by using ferric–ferricyanide assay. Food Anal. Methods 2012, 5, 1150–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wołosiak, R.; Drużyńska, B.; Derewiaka, D.; Piecyk, M.; Majewska, E.; Ciecierska, M.; Worobiej, E.; Pakosz, P. Verification of the conditions for determination of antioxidant activity by ABTS and DPPH assays—A practical approach. Molecules 2022, 27, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. In Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  17. Pfalzgraf, A.; Frigg, M.; Steinhart, H. Alpha-tocopherol contents and lipid oxidation in pork muscle and adipose tissue during storage. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995, 43, 1339–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hernández, B.; Sáenz, C.; Alberdi, C.; Diñeiro, J.M. CIELAB color coordinates versus relative proportions of myoglobin redox forms in the description of fresh meat appearance. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 4159–4167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Richards, J.; Lammert, A.; Madden, J.; Cahn, A.; Kang, I.; Amin, S. Addition of carrot pomace to enhance the physical, sensory, and functional properties of beef patties. Foods 2025, 13, 3910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Espinoza-García, D.A.; Torres-Martínez, B.D.M.; Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Valorization of potato peel waste as natural additive for use in meat products. Resources 2023, 12, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. NCSS LLC. NCSS 2007 Statistical Software [Computer Software]. Version 07.1.21. Kaysville (UT). Available online: www.ncss.com (accessed on 20 June 2025).
  22. Armijo-Nájera, M.G.; Moreno-Reséndez, A.; Blanco-Contreras, E.; Borroel-García, V.J.; Reyes-Carrillo, J.L. Mesquite pod (Prosopis spp.) food for goats in the semi-desert. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agric. 2019, 10, 113–122. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gonzales-Barron, U.; Dijkshoorn, R.; Maloncy, M.; Finimundy, T.; Calhelha, R.C.; Pereira, C.; Stojković, D.; Soković, M.; Ferreira, I.C.F.R.; Barros, L.; et al. Nutritive and bioactive properties of mesquite (Prosopis pallida) flour and its technological performance in breadmaking. Foods 2020, 9, 597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Ziara Hashim, A.; Hasan Hussein, F.; Divan Khosroshahi, E.; Razavi, H. Enhancing functional characteristics and antioxidant activity of Prosopis juliflora pods’ protein isolate through pH adjustment, while detecting the physicochemical properties and antibacterial inhibition activity. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2025, 22, 62–77. [Google Scholar]
  25. García-Andrade, M.; González-Laredo, R.F.; Rocha-Guzmán, N.E.; Gallegos-Infante, J.A.; Rosales-Castro, M.; Medina-Torres, L. Mesquite leaves (Prosopis laevigata), a natural resource with antioxidant capacity and cardioprotection potential. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 44, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Díaz-Batalla, L.; Hernández-Uribe, J.P.; Román-Gutiérrez, A.D.; Cariño-Cortés, R.; Castro-Rosas, J.; Téllez-Jurado, A.; Gómez-Aldapa, C.A. Chemical and nutritional characterization of raw and thermal-treated flours of Mesquite (Prosopis laevigata) pods and their residual brans. CyTA-J. Food 2018, 16, 444–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. de Melo Cavalcante, A.M.; de Melo, A.M.; da Silva, A.V.F.; da Silva Neto, G.J.; Barbi, R.C.T.; Ikeda, M.; Silva, G.B.; Steel, C.J.; da Silva, O.S. Mesquite (Prosopis juliflora) grain flour: New ingredient with bioactive, nutritional and physical-chemical properties for food applications. Future Foods 2022, 5, 100114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Young, O.A.; Frost, D.A.; Agnew, M. Analytical methods for meat and meat products. In Handbook of Meat and Meat Processing, 2nd ed.; Hui, Y.H., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; pp. 140–159. [Google Scholar]
  29. de Melo Cavalcante, A.M.; de Melo, A.M.; Almeida, F.L.C.; Diniz, N.C.M.; Luna, L.C.; da Silva, G.F.G.; da Nóbrega, S.E.; de Alburquerque, S.T.C.; Ribeiro, N.L.; da Silva, O.S. Study of mesquite grain flour (Prosopis juliflora Sw. DC) in hamburger storage. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46, e16377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, T.W.; Kim, C.W.; Kwon, S.G.; Hwang, J.H.; Park, D.H.; Kang, D.G.; Ha, J.; Yang, M.R.; Kim, S.W.; Kim, I.S. pH as analytical indicator for managing pork meat quality. Sains Malays. 2016, 45, 1097–1103. [Google Scholar]
  31. Prasajak, P.; Renumarn, P.; Sriwichai, W.; Detchewa, P. Antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of Moringa oleifera leaves and pods extracts in pork meatballs during cold storage. CMUJ Nat. Sci. 2021, 20, e2021033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Das, A.; Biswas, S.; Nanda, P.K.; Chatterjee, N.; Pal, S.; Dhar, P.; Verma, A.K.; Bhattacharya, D.; Koshy, R.; Das, A.K. Moringa pod derived antioxidant dietary fiber as a quality enhancer in goat meat nuggets. Sustain. Food Technol. 2024, 2, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Echegaray, N.; Pateiro, M.; Munekata, P.E.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Chabani, Z.; Farag, M.A.; Domínguez, R. Measurement of antioxidant capacity of meat and meat products: Methods and applications. Molecules 2021, 26, 3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Pereira, A.; Lee, H.C.; Lammert, R., Jr.; Wolberg, C., Jr.; Ma, D.; Immoos, C.; Casassa, F.; Kang, I. Effects of red-wine grape pomace on the quality and sensory attributes of beef hamburger patty. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 57, 1814–1823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shariati-Ievari, S.; Ryland, D.; Edel, A.; Nicholson, T.; Suh, M.; Aliani, M. Sensory and physicochemical studies of thermally micronized chickpea (Cicer arietinum) and green lentil (Lens culinaris) flours as binders in low-fat beef burgers. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, S1230–S1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Nam, J.K.; Lee, J.Y.; Jang, H.W. Quality characteristics and volatile compounds of plant-based patties supplemented with biji powder. Food Chem. X 2024, 23, 101576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Ruiz-Capillas, C.; Herrero, A.M.; Pintado, T.; Delgado-Pando, G. Sensory analysis and consumer research in new meat products development. Foods 2021, 10, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sanjeewa, W.T.; Wanasundara, J.P.; Pietrasik, Z.; Shand, P.J. Characterization of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) flours and application in low-fat pork bologna as a model system. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 617–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 13 02286 g001
Figure 1. pH values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Figure 1. pH values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Processes 13 02286 g001
Processes 13 02286 g002
Figure 2. TBARS values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Figure 2. TBARS values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Processes 13 02286 g002
Processes 13 02286 g003
Figure 3. WHC values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Figure 3. WHC values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Processes 13 02286 g003
Processes 13 02286 g004
Figure 4. CWL values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Figure 4. CWL values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Processes 13 02286 g004
Processes 13 02286 g005
Figure 5. FTA values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Figure 5. FTA values of the pork patties during storage. Values expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Processes 13 02286 g005
Table 1. Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of the mesquite pod extracts.
Table 1. Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of the mesquite pod extracts.
ParameterConcentration (mg/mL)BHT
0.10.050.025
TPHC (mg GAE/g)247.41 ± 0.96 c217.72 ± 0.85 b158.94 ± 0.62 a
TFVC (mg QE/g)10.35 ± 0.88 c8.80 ± 0.67 b6.60 ± 0.50 a
RPA (abs 700 nm)0.93 ± 0.01 c0.81 ± 0.01 b0.74 ± 0.02 a1.10 ± 0.12 d
ABTS (% inhibition)15.33 ± 0.93 c9.96 ± 0.30 b6.20 ± 0.28 a75.59 ± 0.95 d
DPPH (% inhibition)35.99 ± 1.00 c30.23 ± 0.29 b26.01 ± 0.65 a88.44 ± 1.11 d
Data expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). TPHC, total phenolic content; TFVC, total flavonoid content; RPA, reducing power activity; GAE, gallic acid equivalent; QE, quercetin equivalent; BHT, butylhydroxytoluene. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Table 2. Chemical proximate composition of the mesquite pod powder and the pork patties.
Table 2. Chemical proximate composition of the mesquite pod powder and the pork patties.
ParameterMPPTreatments
CNMPP-2%MPP-5%MPE-0.1%MPE-0.3%
Moisture (%)4.41 ± 0.2864.65 ± 2.4065.52 ± 0.9962.96 ± 3.3265.78 ± 2.0266.80 ± 2.17
Protein (%)11.23 ± 0.4619.52 ± 0.4519.20 ± 1.2721.28 ± 1.3818.39 ± 0.8318.53 ± 0.48
Fat (%)0.39 ± 0.0111.86 ± 1.6811.46 ± 1.7411.92 ± 2.1211.98 ± 2.0011.22 ± 1.81
Ash (%)3.08 ± 0.032.55 ± 0.152.76 ± 0.232.45 ± 0.132.56 ± 0.222.31 ± 0.32
Carbohydrate (%)81.31 ± 0.791.41 ± 0.571.06 ± 0.511.39 ± 0.311.28 ± 0.251.15 ± 0.32
Data expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE.
Table 3. Color evaluation of the pork patties during storage.
Table 3. Color evaluation of the pork patties during storage.
ParameterDay of StorageTreatments
CNMPP-2%MPP-5%MPE-0.1%MPE-0.3%
L*051.82 ± 1.68 aA52.76 ± 1.69 aA56.65 ± 0.74 bA52.36 ± 1.57 aA55.54 ± 0.74 bA
354.87 ± 2.98 aAB56.02 ± 2.74 aAB57.08 ± 1.43 aAB54.81 ± 2.42 aAB57.20 ± 2.15 aAB
6 57.22 ± 2.83 aB55.55 ± 2.14 aAB58.53 ± 1.07 aAB58.15 ± 2.94 aB58.46 ± 2.94 aB
961.44 ± 3.33 bB60.63 ± 3.00 bB58.96 ± 1.26 abB57.58 ± 1.14 aB56.59 ± 1.04 aB
a*012.22 ± 0.95 aC12.20 ± 0.52 aB13.06 ± 0.49 abB13.66 ± 0.70 bB13.14 ± 0.33 bB
312.40 ± 0.96 aC13.13 ± 0.59 aB13.62 ± 1.00 aB13.32 ± 0.98 aB13.49 ± 1.03 aB
6 10.75 ± 0.68 aB11.72 ± 1.06 abB12.70 ± 0.33 bB12.64 ± 1.18 bAB12.99 ± 0.89 bAB
98.18 ± 0.64 aA8.89 ± 0.74 abA10.25 ± 0.75 bA11.63 ± 0.75 cA11.75 ± 0.44 cA
b*011.44 ± 1.44 aA14.76 ± 1.30 bA15.43 ± 1.03 bA13.28 ± 0.92 abA15.36 ± 0.55 bA
313.44 ± 1.26 aAB15.83 ± 0.62 bA17.32 ± 0.67 bB13.91 ± 1.32 aA16.14 ± 0.85 bA
6 13.70 ± 1.21 aB15.34 ± 1.55 abA17.50 ± 0.80 bB13.60 ± 1.04 aA14.64 ± 1.37 aA
914.40 ± 1.03 aB13.74 ± 0.75 aA17.36 ± 0.51 bB14.32 ± 0.95 aA15.52 ± 0.82 aA
C*018.60 ± 0.68 aB20.48 ± 0.74 bB20.78 ± 1.03 bA19.82 ± 0.80 bA20.25 ± 0.53 bA
318.83 ± 0.48 aB20.86 ± 0.74 bB20.85 ± 0.54 bA19.75 ± 0.79 bA19.97 ± 1.39 bA
6 17.25 ± 0.98 aA19.86 ± 0.74 bB20.31 ± 0.57 bA20.01 ± 0.64 bA19.97 ± 1.39 bA
915.78 ± 0.98 aA18.05 ± 0.74 bA20.01 ± 1.12 bA19.05 ± 0.93 bA19.37 ± 0.94 bA
h*044.45 ± 1.38 aA47.91 ± 1.81 bA50.98 ± 1.06 bA45.51 ± 1.19 abA48.79 ± 1.44 bA
346.88 ± 0.89 aA50.73 ± 1.39 bcA52.92 ± 1.16 cB48.57 ± 1.42 bA48.82 ± 0.70 bA
6 52.61 ± 0.86 bB53.41 ± 0.86 bB53.54 ± 1.64 bB49.92 ± 1.99 aA50.22 ± 1.67 aA
961.05 ± 0.54 cC58.96 ± 1.33 bC58.23 ± 1.17 bC51.65 ± 1.09 aB53.33 ± 0.85 aB
ΔE0-3.456.322.405.48
3-2.754.631.033.73
6-2.534.472.203.14
9-1.264.395.196.05
RGB value0151, 116, 105155, 118, 101167, 127, 110155, 116, 103164, 124, 113
3160, 123, 109166, 125, 106170, 128, 108162, 122, 108170, 128, 110
6 164, 130, 114162, 125, 107173, 132, 111170, 131, 117172, 132, 116
9172, 143, 123171, 140, 123170, 135, 112167, 130, 114165, 128, 109
RGB color0
3
6
9
Data expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE. Different capital and lowercase letters indicate significant differences (p ˂ 0.05).
Table 4. Sensory evaluation of the pork patties.
Table 4. Sensory evaluation of the pork patties.
ItemSensory AttributeTreatments
CNMPP-2%MPP-5%MPE-0.1%MPE-0.3%
Raw pattyColor6.60 ± 0.705.70 ± 0.675.30 ± 0.956.60 ± 0.526.20 ± 0.63
Appearance6.50 ± 0.855.50 ± 0.855.20 ± 0.926.40 ± 0.526.10 ± 0.74
Cooked pattyColor 5.70 ± 0.825.50 ± 0.715.90 ± 0.745.70 ± 0.675.60 ± 0.84
Appearance5.70 ± 0.675.50 ± 0.535.50 ± 0.975.30 ± 0.955.70 ± 0.82
Odor5.40 ± 1.355.20 ± 1.035.50 ± 1.084.40 ± 0.974.50 ± 0.85
Flavor5.60 ± 1.585.60 ± 0.845.20 ± 1.144.00 ± 1.055.10 ± 1.37
Juiciness5.60 ± 0.975.60 ± 0.845.30 ± 0.955.50 ± 0.855.20 ± 1.03
Fat sensation5.50 ± 0.975.50 ± 0.715.60 ± 0.975.40 ± 0.845.50 ± 0.71
Texture5.50 ± 1.185.60 ± 0.845.40 ± 0.845.80 ± 0.925.90 ± 0.57
Overall acceptability5.90 ± 0.745.50 ± 0.715.40 ± 1.075.10 ± 0.745.30 ± 0.67
Data expressed as mean ± SD (n = 9). CN, control; MPP-2%, pork patties with 2% of MPP; MPP-5%, pork patties with 5% of MPP; MPE-0.1%, pork patties with 0.1% of MPE; MPE-0.3%, pork patties with 0.3% of MPE.
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

Aispuro-Sainz, K.J.; Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Torres-Martínez, B.d.M.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Mesquite Pods (Prosopis velutina) as a Functional Ingredient: Characterization and Application in a Meat Product. Processes 2025, 13, 2286. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072286

AMA Style

Aispuro-Sainz KJ, Vargas-Sánchez RD, Torrescano-Urrutia GR, Torres-Martínez BdM, Sánchez-Escalante A. Mesquite Pods (Prosopis velutina) as a Functional Ingredient: Characterization and Application in a Meat Product. Processes. 2025; 13(7):2286. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072286

Chicago/Turabian Style

Aispuro-Sainz, Karla Joanna, Rey David Vargas-Sánchez, Gastón Ramón Torrescano-Urrutia, Brisa del Mar Torres-Martínez, and Armida Sánchez-Escalante. 2025. "Mesquite Pods (Prosopis velutina) as a Functional Ingredient: Characterization and Application in a Meat Product" Processes 13, no. 7: 2286. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072286

APA Style

Aispuro-Sainz, K. J., Vargas-Sánchez, R. D., Torrescano-Urrutia, G. R., Torres-Martínez, B. d. M., & Sánchez-Escalante, A. (2025). Mesquite Pods (Prosopis velutina) as a Functional Ingredient: Characterization and Application in a Meat Product. Processes, 13(7), 2286. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13072286

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