Influence of Marination with Aromatic Herbs and Cold Pressed Oils on Black Angus Beef Meat

Beef aging is one of the most common methods used for improving its qualities. The main goal of the present study was to analyse the influence of different cold pressed oils and aromatic herbs during marination process on the nutritional, textural, and sensory attributes of the final grilled sirloin samples. In order to fulfil this goal, methods like GC-MS, HPLC/DAD/ESI-MS, HLPC-RID were performed to quantify fatty acids, phenolic acids, and organic acids, respectively. Textural and sensory analysis were performed with CT 3 Texture Analyser and hedonic test. The results showed high improvement of the meat grilled samples regarding the content of phenolic acids, and textural and sensory characteristics. Pearson values indicate strong positive correlations between raw and grilled samples regarding their content in phenolic acids. Hardness, chewiness, gumminess decreased during marination, meanwhile, resilience, and cohesiveness increased. Sensory analysis highlighted that meat samples marinated with olive oil and rosemary for 120 h reached the highest hedonic score among the tested samples.


Introduction
About 47% of the world's beef production is produced by European Union, Brazil and the United States. The world food meat consumption in 2030 is estimated to be 45.3 kg per capita and the consumers are demanding increasingly higher quality [1]. It was reported by FAO that world bovine meat output in 2020 will decrease by 1.4% compared with 2019, mainly in Asia, followed by Oceania, South America, Europe and North America. In contrast, despite the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the foodservice industry, the bovine meat imports increased in the United States of America, China, and Canada [2]. Beef meat is mostly consumed due to its flavour and the complex composition of macronutrients, the balanced composition of amino acids, vitamins from B group, and high contents of iron, zinc, and phosphorus [3,4]. The USDA Food Composition database indicates the following nutritional values for a raw beef top sirloin [4] meat with acceptable quality: an 2.2. Raw Materials 2.2. 1

. Marination and Storage of the Samples
The animals were fed ad libitum a total mixed ration based on corn/maize silage (55%), grass-clover silage (15%), corn grains (14%), barley (6%), by-products (10%) and mineral-vitamin salt. The young bulls were sacrificed at the slaughter-house Karpaten Meat SA, from Sibiu, Romania and the sirloin samples were kindly offered for the present study.
The sirloin muscles were marinaded with different fresh seasoning plants and oils as follows: olive oil and rosemary, pumpkin oil and fresh oregano, sunflower oil and thyme, walnut oil and fresh basil, sesame oil and ginger plant, respectively. A control sample spiced with salt and pepper was prepared and stored in the same conditions as the marinated samples (Table 1).

Spices, Herbs and Oils
Duration of Marination * Salt was added as 2% in the marinade mixture. ** Black pepper (ground) was added as 0.50% in the marinade mixture. *** All herbs were added as 0.014 kg/kg from the marinade mixture. **** All oils were added as 0.048 L/kg from the marinade mixture.
All herbs were purchased freshly from specialised stores from Cluj-Napoca, Romania. The plants were cleaned and washed with tap water and the excess water was drained. Afterwards, they were chopped manually into small pieces and added into the corresponding oil. The cold pressed oils were purchased from Luna Solai, a local company from Luna, Romania.
The meat pieces were cut along the muscular fibres at a final size of (10 × 6 × 4 cm, as showed in Figure 1) with a weight of 370 g and the marination process was made according to Istrati el al. [25] with some modifications and the marinated recipes are presented in the Table 1. Once marinated, the meat samples were stored at 4 • C, for 120 h.

Analysis of the Grilled Marinated Beef Samples
2.3.1. pH-Measurement, Marinade Absorption and Cooking Loss pH determination was made by using a WTW pH-meter (Hanna Instruments, Vöhringen, Germany) with direct immersion of the glass electrodes in meat sample previously homogenised, as described by Roudbari et al. [10]. Absorption of the marinade was determined according to the method applied by Sengun at al., [9]. Briefly, the percentage of marinade absorption was calculated by the difference between the samples af-

The Cooking Process of the Marinated Beef Samples
The samples were grilled at a temperature of 200 • C until an internal temperature of 71 • C was reached. The temperature was measured using a HACCP digital thermometer (Hendi, Utrecht, The Netherlands) and the samples were grilled for 4 min on each side.
2.3. Analysis of the Grilled Marinated Beef Samples 2.3.1. pH-Measurement, Marinade Absorption and Cooking Loss pH determination was made by using a WTW pH-meter (Hanna Instruments, Vöhringen, Germany) with direct immersion of the glass electrodes in meat sample previously homogenised, as described by Roudbari et al. [10]. Absorption of the marinade was determined according to the method applied by Sengun at al., [9]. Briefly, the percentage of marinade absorption was calculated by the difference between the samples after marination and before the aging process, divided by the weight before marination. The cooking loss was expressed in % and represents the difference between the marinated samples and the cooked ones, as described by Mielnik et al. [26].

Lipids and Fatty Acid Composition
The total lipids (TLs) of the samples (5 g) were extracted using a solvent with chloroform: methanol mixture (2:1, v/v), according to the method described by Dulf et al. [27].
The identification of FAMEs was accomplished by comparing their retention times with those of known standards (37 components FAME Mix, Supelco no. 47885-U) and the resulting mass spectra to those in the database (NIST MS Search 2.0). The amount of each fatty acid was expressed as peak area percentage of total fatty acids.

Phenolic Compounds Determination Using HPLC/DAD/ESI-MS
Ultrasound assisted extraction (UAE) was used for the extraction of the samples, as described by Călinoiu and Vodnar [30]. Briefly, 5 g of sample was mixed with 10 mL of methanol and 1% HCl, vortexed for 1 min, sonicated for 60 min in a heated ultrasonic bath Elmasonic E 15H (Elma Schmidbauer, GmnH, Singen, Germany) and centrifugated at 2300× g for 10 min with an Eppendorf 5804 centrifuge (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) at 24 • C. The supernatant was filtered through a 0.45-µm nylon filter (Millipore, Merk KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) and 20 µL was injected into the HLPC system (Agilent Technologies 1200 Series, Japan, Kyoto), as previously described by Igual et al. [31]. HPLC system was equipped with a pump, autosampler, DAD detector, and MS-6110 single quadrupole API-electrospray detector.
For the separation of the compounds, an XDB C18 Eclipse column (4.5 × 150 mm, 5 mm) (Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used, having mobile phase (A) made of water acidified by acetic acid 0.1% (v/v) and phrase B composed of acetonitrile acidified by acetic acid 0.1% (99:1, v/v) with a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min. Mass spectrometric detection on ESI positive mode was used on the following parameters: capillary voltage: 3000 V, temperature 350 • C, m/z:120-1200, full-scan, nitrogen flow 7 L/min. Agilent ChemStation software Rev B.04.02 SP1 (Agilent Technologies Inc., Palo Alto, California, CA, USA) was used for acquiring results interpretation. The amount of flavonoids was quantified using luteolin calibration curve (r 2 = 0.9972); meanwhile, for hydroxybenzoic acids gallic acid curve was used (r 2 = 0.9978). The hydroxycinnamic acids were quantified as chlorogenic acid (r 2 = 0.9937).

Organic Acid Determination through HPLC-RID
Lactic, malic, oxalic, citric and tartaric acids were analysed by high-performance liquid chromatography (Agilent Technologies Inc., Kyoto, Japan) coupled with refractive index detector (Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA), as described by Chis , et al. [32]. Briefly, 5 g of sample was mixed with 10 mL of ultrapure water, vortexed for 1 min and sonicated for 60 min in a heated ultrasonic bath Elmasonic E 15H (Elma Schmidbauer GmnH, Singen, Germany). Afterward, the sample was centrifugated at 2300× g for 10 min with an Eppendorf 5804 centrifuge (Hamburg, Germany), filtered and 20µL was injected in the HLPC system.
A Polaris Hi-Plex H, 300 × 7.7 mm column (Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used for the compound separation with 5 mM H 2 SO 4 mobile phase at a flow rate of 0.6 mL/min. The column temperature was 80 • C, RID temperature was 35 • C and the compounds elution was made for 25 min. OpenLab software-ChemStation (Agilent Technologies Inc., Santa Clara, CA, USA) was used for data acquisition and interpretation of the results. The retention times of the organic acids were: 13.68, 10.83, 10.01, 9.34, 7.86 min for lactic, malic, tartaric, citric and oxalic acids, respectively.

Texture Profile Analysis
The texture profile analysis was evaluated by using CT 3 Texture Analyser with Texture Pro CT V1.6 soft-ware (Brookfield Engineering Laboratories Inc., Middleboro, MA, USA), according to the method described by Su et al. [33] and Ayyash et al. [34].
The CT 3 Texture Analyser was equipped with a 10 kg load cell and the TA44 Brookfield Kit Probe (4 mm Diameter, Stainless Steel 10 g). The samples were subjected to a double compression, as follows: 50% target deformation, 1 mm s −1 test and post-test speed, 5 g trigger load, and 5 s recovery time.
Each piece of meat was cut manually at 30 × 30 × 30 mm (l × w × h) approximately perpendicular to the muscle fibre direction and analysed immediately after preparation.

Sensory Analysis of the Cooked Marinated Samples
Sensory evaluations of the cooked samples were performed using hedonic test according to the method described by Yeh et al. [35] with slight modifications. The sensory characteristics such as appearance, colour, aroma, tenderness, juiciness, taste and flavour and overall acceptability were analysed by 30 voluntary panellists (60% female and 40% male) with ages between 24 and 62 years old (mean value 39.16 ± 9.21) and with experience in cooking beef between 1 year (3 panellists) and more than 10 years (5 panellists) and 22 panellists with experience between this time frame. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the panellists were healthy, and the study did not employ any nutritional intervention. Samples were safe from the microbiological point of view (tests were performed before the sensory analysis, data not shown). The collected personal data respect confidentiality in accordance with the requirements of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 [36] on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and free circulation (GDPR) and are used only for scientific purposes. The statistical processing of the data provided was analysed at the sample level and does not present the individual responses in any scientific publication. The obtained information was used only by the research team with the purpose of this scientific publication.
The analysis was performed in a restaurant, to maintain the safe distance between the panellists and in close proximity to the kitchen with professional cooking devices in order to assure the same quality of preparation of each beef sample. Each panellist evaluated two replications of each sample. Six sensory characteristics were rated on the nine-point hedonic scale: colour, aroma, tenderness, juiciness, taste and flavour, overall appreciation (1 = dislike extremely, 9 = like extremely).
The panellists were minimally trained with the hedonic scale (1 session × 2 h) and the sensory attributes. Tenderness was evaluated as the easiness to chew the beef sample, while juiciness was evaluated as the quantity of saliva absorbed by the beef sample. Both tenderness and juiciness were recorded as subjective perceptions on hedonic scale. The quality of consumption was evaluated also using the following scale: unsatisfactory, good everyday quality, better than everyday quality and premium quality according to [37].

Statistical Analysis
Duncan multiple comparison test by performing SPSS version 19 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) was used for data analysis. The results are expressed as means ± standard deviations of three independent (n = 3) assays. Minitab 19.1 (Minitab Inc., State College, PA, USA) at 95 confidence level was used to calculate Pearson correlation.  [10]. The M 2 lowest value could be justified by the lowest pH of initial marinade formulation, but also by a long time of application of the marinade. Removing the meat pH value away from the isoelectric point of red meat (5.2-5.3) will increase the water binding of muscle proteins, enhancing the water structure amount. In this line, [38] showed that the pH values of chicken meat decrease significantly with the addition of the acetic acid, improving the meat water-holding capacity. This idea is supported also by Gómez et al. [39] who showed that during beef marination, the pH decreases from 6.23 to 4.67. The marinade absorption values were in the range of 1.25% to 3.89%. The values increased with increasing the aging time. This is in line with Sengun et al. [9] who reported marinade absorption values for beef samples between 2.99 and 4.01%.

Fatty Acids and Volatile Profile Composition of Oils Used for Aging Meat
The PUFA/SFA index which offers a hint over the impact of the fat containing foods on consumers cardiovascular health (CVH) [40], indicates that the walnut oil with a ratio of 9.74 and the sunflower oil with a ratio of 7.30 are highly recommended to be included in diets.
It is well-known that oils rich in polyunsaturated fatty acids are more prone to degradation and oxidation due to light, oxygen or temperature, thus their application as marination medium might affect the meat quality during storage or cooking. The free radicals and metabolites generated from PUFA oxidation may also result in off-flavours. Linoleic acid is predominant in the composition of the sunflower oil (66.40%) and walnut oil (65.58%), but it is also present in pumpkin seed oil (46.09%) or sesame seed oil (46.94%), as highlighted in Table 3. Hexanal, heptanal and octenal and their derivates are the major volatile oxidation compound of this fatty acids, yet it was not detected in the volatile compounds analysis for the samples maturated or cooked. Values not sharing the same small letter in a row indicate significant difference between oils; n.d.-not detected.
Olive oil is abundant in oleic acid, a monounsaturated fatty acid which along with vaccenic acid and palmitoleic also offer nutritional value to the product but make it more prone to oxidation and decompose to short-chain alkanes, aldehydes and alcohols.
Besides their nutritional impact, fats might have a positive role in the texture of the final products and might be able to crystallise under external conditions, allowing a better water-holding capacity of meat during marination. Fat can be affected by external crystallisation conditions such as cooling rate and storage temperature or storage time, in terms of particle sizes or polymorphism. Fat crystallisation include three steps, as follows: nucleation, the first stage of crystallisation, the secondary nucleation when new nuclei are created as a result of inhomogeneous growth on primary crystals forming larger structures, and the third phase called crystal growth [41]. The formation of fat crystals during meat marination is a possible explanation that can explain the fact that oils improve the meat texture. Table 4 displays the total amounts of phenolic compounds identified in rosemary (6.01 mg/g), thyme (4.25 mg/g), oregano (3.79 mg/g), basil (3.44 mg/g) and ginger (1.25 mg/g). Phenolic compounds present a co-antioxidant or antioxidant capacity and they act as radical scavengers of the lipid peroxidation chain reactions or deactivate the active species that are precursors of free radicals [42]. The potential of using naturally occurring polyphenols in the control of meat products oxidative state or antimicrobial barrier has been recently reviewed for fresh meat, and also for meat preparations, hence concluding that due to numerous benefits which they exhibit, it is likely for them to become innovative tools integrated into meat systems; however, further research is needed in order to evaluate how other preservation methods such as vacuum packaging interfere in their action [43,44].

Polyphenols of the Herbs, Oils and Marinated Beef Samples
Oregano (Origanum vulgare), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), thyme (Thymus vulgaris) are the most frequently used herbs and spices for meat and meat products together with basil and ginger [43]. The biggest amount of phenolic compound was identified in rosemary plant with an amount of 6.78 mg/g, meanwhile the lowest amount was reached by ginger (1.25 mg/g), as illustrated in Table 4. Table 5 displays the total amounts of phenolic compounds identified in oils used for preparing the marinades, of which olive oil was the most abundant in polyphenolic compounds with a total amount detected of 154.16 µg/g, followed by sunflower oil (16.88 µg/g), pumpkin seed oil (14.38 µg/g) and walnut oil (9.35 µg/g), respectively. The phenolic compounds can be divided into eight main groups, as follows: flavones, hydroxycinnamic acids, phenolic terpenes, phenolic acids, tyrosols, lignans, hydroxyphenylpropenes and hydroxybenzaldehyde.
The use of herbs in marinated samples influence in a positive way the phenolic content of meat samples, leading to samples enriched in phenols. The individual phenolic compounds determined in the herbs and plants added as ingredients to the marinades are shown in Table 4. Luteolin-gluconoride rosmarinic acid (3.12 mg/g), nepertin (0.64 mg/g), carnosic acid (0.62 mg/g) and cirsimarin (0.43 mg/g) were the main compounds from rosemary. Thyme contained a higher concentration in Luteolin-gluconoride rosemarinic acid (1.87 mg/g), carnasol (0.62 mg/g), rosemarinic acid (0.14 mg/g) and homoplantagin (0.37 mg/g).) Basil was rich in chicoric acid 2.31 (mg/g), a compound which is specific for this herb, and in rosemarinic acid (0.55 mg/g), caftaric acid (0.32 mg/g) and carnosol (0.19 mg/g). Specific polyphenols were also determined in ginger, from the hydroxyphenylpropene class namely gingerol 0.81 mg/g, shogaol 0.29 mg/g and paradol 0.13 mg/g.
Regarding the phenolic compounds identified in marinated meat (data available in Supplementary Materials) the main flavones compound from M 2 24h was represented by luteolin-gluconoride rosemarinic acid (62.04 µg/g) and cirsimaritin (59.61 µg/g); hydroxybenzoic acid (205.82 µg/g) was the main compound from phenolic acid group, meanwhile, oleoropein derivate (43.79 µg/g) was the main compound from tyrosol group. The polyphenols from olive oil used in marinade preparation could affect microbial inhibition through the selective inhibition of microbial ATP synthase, leading to low microbes cellular energy resulting in bacterial cell death [44]. With respect to M 3 24h the main identified compounds were represented by hydroxybenzoic acid (201.06 µg/g), followed by dihydroxybenzoic acid (99.17 µg/g), carnosol (39.99 µg/g) and luteolin-glucuronide (30.93 µg/g).
Hydroxytyrosol, a phenolic derivate and oleoropein, a phenolic compound from the secoiridoids class, are reported by literature as minor components of olive oil which present biological properties and prevent gestational diabetes mellitus [45]. In the olive oil involved in the marinaded formulation was detected a total amount of 30.22 (µg/g). This compound was also detected in meats. In M 2 24h hydroxytyrosol has a concentration of 9.71 µg/g and its concentration is slightly decreased to 9.01 µg/g (72 h) and 8.40 µg/g (120 h). In the thermally treated meat, the phenolic compound is absent, thus it can be affirmed that it is a thermolabile compound. In M 2 24h, oleoropein was detected in 43.79 and is decreased to 39.28 (72 h) and 38.83 (120 h) and the same amount and decreasing trend was also registered for cooked meat.
Regarding the M 6 24h and M 5 24h, hydroxybenzoic and dihydroxybenzoic acids were the main compounds, but paradol (36.83 µg/g), sesamin (27.91 µg/g) and gingerol (23.15 µg/g) were identified only in M 6 M24h sample, due to the chemical composition of ginger. Sesamol favourably delayed the lipid oxidation of meatballs and exhibited antioxidant activities and could be used as a natural additive in order to improve the microbial quality and therefore, improving the shelf life of meatballs [23]. It was also mentioned that sesamin could be involved in the lipid oxidation systems, leading to an enhancement of the vitamin E antioxidant activity [43].
The natural phenolic compounds such as phenolic acids with an aromatic ring from which the main groups are hydroxybenzoic acids, hydroxycinnamic acid and flavonoids are claimed by the literature as having antioxidant, antifungal, antimicrobial and antiviral functions [41]. The hydroxybenzoic acids, as reported by Murkovic, [46] derived directly from benzoic acid and represent a complex structure between lignin's and hydrolysable tannins.

Organic Acid Marinated Samples
Organic acids are GRAS (Generally Recognised as Safe), low cost and are claimed to have minor influence on the products sensory changes [47]. Regarding their technological functionality, lactic and acetic acids are considered to be preservatives, meanwhile, malic, citric and tartaric are considered acidifiers [48]. Organic acids could affect in a positive way the meat texture during marination. It was previously proved that thickness and fibre diameter values decreased and collagen fibre were disordered through marination with weak organic acids from fruit vinegars [10].
The presence of malic, oxalic and citric acid in meat marinated samples, as presented in Table 6 could be justified by their presence in oils and plants used for marination. For instance, olive fruits are claimed to have an increased content of organic acids (oxalic, citric, malic and succinic) in the last maturation months, as highlighted by Nergiz et al. [49]. The presence of malic acid in walnut oil was highlighted by Radu et al. [50] and citric and malic acids were identified in pumpkin species [51]. Citric acid is used in beef muscle marination mainly because of its positive influence on tenderness and WHC, being considered as a food acidulant [52]. Moreover, it seems that citric acid could be involved in the inhibition of meat lipid oxidation [53]. Lactic and citric acids could have a main role in preservation of the meat products through their antimicrobial activity against microflora identified in meat. Decontamination of red meat carcasses with lactic acid in a range of 1% to 2% could be performed with a minimum effect on the sensory quality of meat [54]. Organic acids have the ability to act as permeabilizers to pass the outer membrane of bacteria such as Gram negative bacteria, enabling the entrance of other hydrophobic molecules [55]. In the present study, the biggest amount of tartaric acid was identified in meat control sample (M 1 24h), registering a value of 1847.19 µg/g and decreasing its value through marination at a final value of 1100.03 µg/g after 120 h of marination. With respect to M 2 sample, lactic and citric acid increased its value through maturation time, meanwhile, tartaric acid decreased its value, as presented in Table 6. Citric, lactic and acetic acids are considered by the European food legislation as being quantum satis, with no maximum level addition in food industry [48].
Mani-López et al. [47] showed that organic acids are strictly correlated with pH value and their antimicrobial activity is enhanced as the pH amount decreases. Adamczak et al. [56] showed that citric and malic acids identified in plants could have antibacterial activity against Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria. It seems that acidic marinades lead to the weakening of meat structures due to the pH decrease. During cooking, collagen is converted into gelatin, increasing the meat tenderness [54].

Textural Properties of Marinated Sirloins
The textural analysed parameters (hardness, resilience, cohesiveness, gumminess and chewiness) are listed in Table 7. The peak forces of the first and second compression cycles are defined as hardness 1 and hardness 2, meanwhile the internal resistance of food structure and the extension level to which the product could be deformed is expressed through cohesiveness. Gumminess is a parameter strictly correlated with hardness and cohesiveness [57]. One of the main problems in meat industry was claimed to be the inconsistency of beef tenderness caused by the differences in myofibrillar and connective tissue proteins [24]. Marination had a positive effect on all analysed samples parameters, resulting in a reduction of sirloin hardness, chewiness and gumminess and positive effect on resilience and cohesiveness. The improvement of the aforementioned parameters through marination process was also highlighted by Istrati et al. [25]. A possible explanation of the parameters improvement could be that during marination process, the organic acids enhanced the muscle structure decay and the collagen connective tissue could be broke [24]. Furthermore, because of the marinades ionic characteristics of salt, the space among the protein molecules is partially unfolded or opened enhancing the water-binding sites availability leading to a highly concentrated protein network [9]. Malic and citric acid could be used in the optimisation of the red meat textural parameters, as previously showed by Botinestean et al. [58]. Briefly, they demonstrated that mainly citric acid could have positive effects on red meat texture parameters, leading to a meat that could be consumed also by older consumers. It seems that citric acid decreased the hardness meat value through protein meat partial denaturation during cooking. The organic acids meat softening effects was also mentioned by Chang et al. [59] through improving the connective meat tissue collagen property and textural characteristics. Gómez et al. [39], showed that pH of beef during cooking increased until 6.17. This could be explained by the calcium and magnesium protein releasing ions, reducing the available carboxylic proteins group through thermal treatment. Regarding the cooked meat samples, the pH increased compared to the marinated samples. For instance, the M 2 120h sample registered a pH value of 4.9, meanwhile, the M 2 T120h reached a pH value of 5.27, as presented in Table 8.  With respect to the water loss samples during cooking (presented in Table 8) the smallest loss during thermal treatment was registered in sample M 2 120h (19.10%). This could be justified by the decrease of pH during marination, which improves the meat water-holding capacity [8,37]. Furthermore, a main role in improving the water-holding capacity of beef meat is of citric acid, a food acidulant [60] which was identified in all analysed samples. Marinades are responsible also for the reducing water loss during cooking owing to the developing of an extra succulent texture on the meat surface [61].

Treated Marinated Meat Phenolic Acid Samples Results
Phenolic acid compounds have a main role in the formation of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAF), a class of organic compounds composed of fused aromatic rings with a negative influence on the human bod. According to Wang et al. [62] the exposure to PAF could enhance the formation of different types of cancer such as breast, lung or stomach cancers. Phenolic compounds from marinades such as gallic acid, ferulic or protocatechuic acid exhibited highly inhibitory effects on charcoal-grilled chicken wings PAF formation.
With respect to the quantity of total phenolic acid content, the amount decreased compared to the marinated samples, probably due to the thermal treatment, which influence in a negative way the total amount of phenolic acids. For example, for sample M 2 120h the total identified compounds were 674.80 µg/g, meanwhile the total amount for the thermal treated samples was 585.38 µg/g. Generally, the flavones, hydroxycinnamic acids, tyrosol, lignans and hydroxyphenylpropene groups decreased their amount through thermal treatment, except hydroxybenzoic acid, a compound from phenolic acid group, as presented in Supplementary Materials. Hydroxybenzoic acid derivates are considered phenolic metabolites and are identified in conjugates forms; as mentioned by Tomás-Barberán et al. [63], processing could have a positive effect in their bioavailability, increasing its value. Therefore, a possible explanation of the increased hydroxybenzoic acid amount during thermal treatment of meat, could be the fact of increasing its bioavailability. High

Organic Acids Content in Treated Meat
Organic acids content of cooked samples is presented in Table 9. The lowest lactic acid content was identified in control sample marinated for 120 h (2255.24 µg/g), meanwhile, the highest level was registered by M 2 T120h (cooked sample marinated with olive oil and rosemary). Lactic acid is involved in the food taste and preservation and could be produced by lactic acid bacteria. For instance, Da Costa et al. [64] showed that different strain of lactic acid bacteria have been isolated from red meat, such as: Lactobacillus sakei and Lactobacillus curvatus. Moreover, the plants used for marination could have also lactic acid bacteria, which could lead to the enrichment of organic acids through marination process. Furthermore, organic acids could influence the texture of the products. As shown by Berge et al. [65], injecting lactic acid in beef muscles caused a decrease of the beef muscle pH to around 4.9 and showed a reduction of collagen toughness, hence improving the meat tenderness through weakening the myofibrillar structure and the connective tissue. Table 9. Organic acid content of cooked samples.

Samples
Oxalic (µg/g) Citric (µg/g) Tartaric (µg/g) Malic (µg/g) Lactic (µg/g) Tartaric, citric and malic acids are considered week organic acids and are widely used in meat marination. For instance, citric acid together with 2% NaCl could be used in marinated beef meat increasing the mechanical strength of connective tissue, decreasing thickness and disordering the collagenous fibres [58]. Furthermore, Braïek et al. [48] showed that due to the addition of 1% acetic acid and 1% lactic acid the sensory quality of treated beef meat was improved in colour, flavour and texture.

Textural Characteristics of Cooked Meats
Consumer satisfaction with the tenderness of a red meat is mainly based on the relationship between mouthfeel and textural properties which include chewiness, hardness, firmness [66]. From the consumers point of view, tenderness is the most important meat palatability trait [25]. Tenderisation is defined as a process which aims to improve the meat tenderness through chemical, enzymatic treatments or different physical forces [1]. During cooking, as a consequence of heating, the meat products will lose a part of the added marinade/water but due to the formation of the gel protein matrix, the water will be retained better [10]. Moreover, as highlighted by Yusop et al. [10] due to the marination process the water loss is minimised by the earlier absorbed marinade and the aforementioned gel could act as a protective barrier against water losses leading to an improvement in tenderness, flavour and moisture in cooked meat. It is also important to mention that salt is involved in the polypeptide chain rigidity loss [58], and also thermal treatment results in decreased values of hardness, gumminess and chewiness [67] through the denaturation of myofibrillar proteins and connective tissue.
In the present study, M 2 T120h registered the lowest hardness, chewiness and gumminess index values, meanwhile resilience and cohesiveness highlighted the biggest values, being statistically different compared to all the samples at the same marination time, as presented in Table 10 Table 10), meanwhile, resilience, cohesiveness and chewiness decreased their values. The control sample presented a final higher value for hardness, chewiness and gumminess and also a smaller decrease in resilience, cohesiveness and gumminess. This is in line with Istrati et al. [25] who showed that marination of fresh beef slices improved its textural characteristics, mainly on the samples with marinated ingredients.

Sensory Analysis
In the present study, the lowest hedonic score was registered by the control sample marinated at 24 h (M 1 24h) with an overall appreciation of 6.57 (as presented in Table 11), meanwhile the highest hedonic score was registered by M 2 120h, with a hedonic score of 8.93. Generally, the values of each sensorial characteristic improved during marination, as presented in Table 11. Interesting results were obtained when instrumental analysis of texture (hardness, gumminess and chewiness) was compared to hedonic evaluation scores for tenderness, juiciness (subjective perception of the amount of saliva absorbed by the sample) and taste and flavour. Hardness cycle 2 (instrumental) correlated moderately negatively with hedonic evaluation of tenderness (Pearson value −0.63, p < 0.05) and juiciness (Pearson value −0.61, p < 0.05). However, hardness cycle 1 (instrumental) strongly correlated with hedonic evaluation of tenderness (Pearson value −0.89, p < 0.001) and taste and flavour (Pearson value −0.87, p < 0.001), but did not correlate with juiciness (Pearson value 0.12, p < 0.001).
The improvement of meat quality through marination was sustained also by [68] who showed that meat marination process could enhance the meat sensory properties through increased scores values of the juiciness, flavour and tenderness. The tenderness is closely corelated with the drop of the pH near to the meat isoelectric point (approximately 5.2). Furthermore, the sensation of red meat product juiciness upon the mastication is strictly corelated with the water content of the meat product and saliva released by salivary glands [66].
A strong negative correlation was noticed between the instrumental evaluation of gumminess and hedonic evaluation of tenderness (Pearson value −0.85, p < 0.001), juiciness (Pearson value −0.85, p < 0.001) and finally, taste and flavour (Pearson value −0.82, p < 0.001). The same pattern of strong negative correlation was recorded between the instrumental analysis of chewiness and hedonic evaluation of tenderness (Pearson value −0.78, p < 0.001), juiciness (Pearson value −0.77, p < 0.001) and taste and flavour, respectively (Pearson value −0.88, p < 0.001). Moderate negative correlation was found between instrumental evaluation of resilience and hedonic evaluation of tenderness (Pearson value −0.59, p < 0.001) and moderate positive correlation was found between instrumental evaluation of cohesiveness and hedonic evaluation of tenderness (Pearson value 0.41, p < 0.001).
With respect to the analysed taste and flavour characteristics, the lowest value was registered by M 1 24h and the highest by M 2 120h, as shown in Table 11. Flavour is a sensorial property defined by [67] as a combination between smell (aroma) and consumer taste responses upon eating red meat. It could be quantified through different laboratory-based methods such as fatty acid profile, pH and mineral content. Several studies have reported that the fatty acid profiles are involved in flavour differences between meat samples. For instance, it had been shown that elevated amount of linolenic acid was reported to have a 'fishy' or 'grassy' flavour, due to the presence of phyt−2-ene [69]. This could justify the consumer preference through samples marinated in olive oil, considering that it has a significant small content (0.37%) in linolenic acid, compared to walnut oil (8.90%) or even sesame oil (0.48%). Furthermore, it seems that SFAs and MUFAs could emphasise a positive role in Longissimus thoracis young bulls meat flavour, tenderness and juiciness as highlighted by Listrat et al. [70].
On the other hand, the phenolic compounds from plants, could be also involved in the final flavour of foods through their own taste and/or by retarding the formation of other flavour compounds, such as oxidation products [71]. It is also important to mention that thermal degradation of lipids chiefly plays a main role in Maillard reaction. For instance, hexanal, a dominant aldehyde in meat could be produced from the oxidation of linoleic and arachidonic acids [71].
All samples recorded an improvement in the perception of the consumption quality with increasing the marination time. After the first 24 h of marination, all samples recording less than 20% were evaluated as premium quality. However, after 120 h of marination, all samples recording above 40% were evaluated as premium quality, except for the control sample M 1 T120h which had only 33%. These results prove that the aromatics of herbs and oils improved the perception of quality of the samples after marination.

Conclusions
Beef consumption highly increased in the last 20 years and the trend seems to continue further. This study focused mainly on the effect of different aromatic herbs (namely rosemary, oregano, thyme, basil, ginger) and cold pressed oils (olive oil, pumpkin oil, sunflower oil, walnut oil, sesame oil) on the marination of Black Angus beef meat. The selected aromatic herbs are commonly used either in the European or in the Asian cuisine, therefore, well-known by consumers, however, their use in marinating beef meat is new. Cold pressed oils are very rich in aroma, taste and flavour due to their unique phenolic and aromatic profile. Phenolic acids such as carnosic acid, carnasol, cirsimaritin, rosemarinic acid were identified in cooked meat sample marinated with olive oil and rosemary, meanwhile chlorogenic acid, homoplantaginin (hispidulin-glucoside) tyrosol, chicoric acid, sesamin, paradol and gingerol were mainly identified in samples marinated with pumpkin and oregano, sunflower oil and thyme, walnut oil and basil and sesame oil with ginger, respectively.
As the results of this study, both aromatic herbs and cold pressed oils showed to enrich the meat with aroma and flavour, and positively influence the texture of the beef (mainly tenderness and juiciness) especially after longer marination time. These results were determined by means of instrumental analysis of texture, quantitative evaluation of lipids, flavonoids and polyphenols, organic acids, and confirmed by sensory evaluation with highly experienced panellists. Each aromatic plant and oil used for the purpose of marination presented the characteristic polyphenolic profile, and their influence on the composition and sensory attributes of the marinated samples was significant at 72 h and 120 h of marination compared to the initial moment of evaluation. From the textural point of view, positive strong Pearson's correlations (above 0.88) were calculated between the hardness of the marinated samples and the grilled ones, emphasising once again the influence of the marination on textural parameters. Tenderness, taste and flavour, juiciness and colour reached highest hedonic scores on sample marinated with olive oil and rosemary. Except for colour which recorded a decrease in terms of hedonic appreciation, all other sensory characteristics improved with marination time and in the presence of the marinade compared to the control (which was seasoned just with salt and powder black pepper).
These are encouraging results which can inspire all actors in the food industry chain (producers, distributers, chefs and consumers) to test and develop various marinades using herbs and oils, therefore, positively influencing the nutritional, textural and sensory attributes of grilled beef sirloin.