Next Article in Journal
The Current Status of Analytical Methods Applied to the Determination of Polar Pesticides in Food of Animal Origin: A Brief Review
Next Article in Special Issue
Impact of Industrial Practices on the Microbial and Quality Attributes of Fresh Vacuum-Packed Lamb Joints
Previous Article in Journal
Microbiological and Physicochemical Composition of Various Types of Homemade Kombucha Beverages Using Alternative Kinds of Sugars
Previous Article in Special Issue
Bio-Mapping of Microbial Indicators to Establish Statistical Process Control Parameters in a Commercial Beef Processing Facility
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/foods11101524
foods-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Combination of Chitosan, Tea Polyphenols, and Nisin on the Bacterial Inhibition and Quality Maintenance of Plant-Based Meat

by
Zenghui Dai
,
Linna Han
,
Zhe Li
,
Mengqing Gu
,
Zhigang Xiao
and
Fei Lu
*
College of Grain Science and Technology, Shenyang Normal University, Shenyang 110034, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(10), 1524; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11101524
Submission received: 8 April 2022 / Revised: 17 May 2022 / Accepted: 19 May 2022 / Published: 23 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meat Quality and Microbial Analysis)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Plant-based meat products have gained attention in the food industry and with consumers. Plant-based meat products primarily comprise plant proteins and are rich in nutrients. However, the products are highly susceptible to bacterial contamination during storage. Biological preservatives are easily degradable alternatives to chemical preservatives and can preserve different kinds of food. In order to investigate the preservation properties of chitosan (CS), tea polyphenols (TPs), and nisin treatments on plant-based meats, the sensory evaluation, color difference, pH, TBARS, and the total plate count of E. coli, S. aureus, and Salmonella, indicators of the biological preservative-treated plant-based meat, were determined in this study. The experiment involved blank control- and biological preservative-treated samples. We found that the total microbial count exceeded the national standard provisions in the control samples stored for 14 days. The colors, tissue structures, and flavors of plant-based meat have gradually deteriorated, with the sensory score dropping from 90 to 52. The sample had a loose tissue structure and an obvious sour taste. However, the shelf life of the plant-based meat samples treated with different combinations of the biological preservatives increased compared to the shelf life of the control samples. After 56 d of storage, 1% chitosan, 2.5% tea polyphenols, and 0.04% nisin sensory reduction to 56, the total number of colonies and S. aureus were 4.91 and 2.95 lg CFU/g, approaching the national standard threshold; E. coli was 2 lg CFU/g, reaching the national standard threshold. Thus, the samples treated with 1% chitosan, 2.5% tea polyphenols, and 0.04% nisin had the longest shelf life (56 days) among all experimental groups. Hence, this study reveals that a combination of biological preservatives may be a non-toxic alternative for the efficient preservation of plant-based meat products.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

With the rapid development of the social economy, people have become more health-conscious and are opting for healthier diets. Plant-based meat products using plants as raw materials are well received by consumers and are gaining attention in food research and development [1]. Plant-based meats, also known as vegetarian meat, simulated meat, and plant meat, primarily take plant protein, fat, and plant raw materials extracted from soybean, pea, wheat, and other crops. After extrusion, electrostatic spinning, and 3D printing, the new products resemble the texture and taste of animal meat products [2,3,4,5,6]. Extensive research has recently been conducted on plant-based meat [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Studies have investigated numerous properties of plant-based meat products, including the effects of water, protein, fat, seasoning agent, binder, and coloring agents on the flavor, color, texture, and nutritional value of the final product [7,8,9]; plant-based meat extrusion, cutting, and spinning methods [10,11,12,13]; and the ecology, economic demand, purchase, food safety, and nutrition of plant-based meats [14,15,16]. However, there are few reports about plant-based meat preservation. Plant-based meats with high moisture content are susceptible to bacteria, such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Staphylococcus aureus, during their storage, thereby reducing their shelf life [20,21,22]. Geeraerts et al. [20] evaluated the composition of the microbial colonies of several ready-to-eat meat alternatives (including vegetarian, vegan meat imitations, and an insect sample) in the Belgian market, and found that vegetarian products mainly consisted of Lactobacillus sakei; isolates of vegetarian products mainly consisted of Lactobacillus sakei; isolates of vegan products were mainly composed of Lb. sakei, Enterococcus faecium, and Carnobacterium divergens; isolate insect products mainly contained E. faecium, Macrococcus caseolyticus, and Cronobacter sakazakii. Plant-based meat products remain fresh under chilled conditions for several days, which can be extended to a few weeks when they are packed in a modified atmosphere or have undergone post-packaging pasteurization [23,24]. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate effective preservation techniques for plant-based meat products.
Biological preservatives are gaining more attention. Natural agents were obtained from animals, plants, microorganisms, and bioengineering transformations. Most of them are non-toxic, biodegradable, and can be used on different kinds of food [22]. Using natural and efficient inhibitors and preservatives instead of traditional chemical inhibitors and preservatives has become a new trend. Chitosan is a biodegradable natural polysaccharide and the only alkaline glycan present in nature [25]. It is non-toxic, degradable, has a film formation ability, and has a significant inhibiting effect on common food bacteria, fungi, and yeasts [25]. Hence, chitosan is used to preserve fruits, vegetables, meat, and aquatic organisms [25,26]. Chitosan and gelatin are normally used as edible preservation coatings for food. For example, in a previous study, compared to uncoated and gelatin-coated beef, chitosan coating significantly reduced fat oxidation and lactic acid bacterial growth [27]. Furthermore, when frozen pork was preserved with a eugenol nanocapsule incorporated into gelatin/chitosan [28], the storage period was extended by 7 days, and the preservative effectively controlled the increase in the pH, total volatile salt-based nitrogen (TVB-N), and thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARs). Another study [29] added chitosan as a coagulant, which increased the shelf life of chitosan tofu by 3 days compared to when calcium chloride was added. Tea polyphenols are other biological preservatives that are non-toxic, have excellent antioxidants, and inhibit most food-borne bacteria growth [30]. Tea polyphenols are used in meat and aquatic products, fruits and vegetables, grains, and oils [31,32,33,34,35]. Yang et al. [31] demonstrated that tea polyphenols effectively delayed the degradation of flavor and color difference, and increased TBARs, TVB-N, and pH, resulting in effective inhibition of microbial growth, thus, extending the shelf life of turtles by 3–6 days compared to the blank group.
Nisin is a polypeptide produced by lactic acid bacterial fermentation. Nisin can kill Gram-positive bacteria and bacterial spores but cannot kill Gram-negative bacteria, yeast, mold, and other fungi [36]. Nisin is enzymatically digested by the human proteases; hence, it is non-toxic to the human body and leaves behind no residue [37]. Furthermore, nisin is stable at low temperatures and is resistant to high temperatures and acid [38]. Therefore, it is used globally in the food preservation industry [39,40,41,42,43,44]. In a previous study, nisin effectively inhibited bacterial growth in camel meat [39]. Furthermore, nisin effectively inhibited the bacterial growth in lean pork and prolonged its storage period [44]. The combination of nisin, tea polyphenols, and chitosan extends the shelf life of chilled mutton [45].
Although a single natural preservative can inhibit microorganisms, the inhabitation of THE microbial range, temperature range, pH range, and other conditions in which it will be stable and effective is limited. Hence, in this study, chitosan, tea polyphenols, and nisin—three preservatives—were combined to explore the effects of different types of compound preservatives on the preservation of plant-based meat. We analyzed the sensory evaluation, color difference, pH, TBARS, and the total plate count of E. coli, S. aureus, and Salmonella, indicators of the biological preservative-treated plant-based meat, to reveal the optimum preservative combination and concentration for the storage of plant-based meat products.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The materials used in this study, along with their sources, were as follows: soybean protein isolate (Shandong Yuwang Ecological Food Industry Co., Ltd., Dezhou, China); pea protein (Yantai Shuangta Food Co., Ltd., Yantai, China); wheat gluten (Fanxian Huanghe Industrial Co., Ltd., Fanxian, China); L-Cysteine (Henan Wanbang Industrial Co., Ltd., Zhengzhou, China); chitosan (deacetylation = 92%, molecular weight = 4.0 × 105), tea polyphenols, and nisin (food grade, Henan Wanbang Industrial Co., Ltd., Zhengzhou, China); double distilled water (Shanghai Yuanye Bio-Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China); trichloroacetic acid (Tianjin Beilian Fine Chemical Development Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China); thiobarbituric acid (TBA) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt (Shenyang Dongxing Chemical Plan, Shenyang, China); sodium chloride (Tianjin Zhiyuan Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China); glucose (Tianjin Damao Chemical Reagent Factory, Tianjin, China); casein tryptone, agar, yeast, violet red bile agar (VRBA), brilliant green lactose bile broth (BGLB), and Rappaport Vassiliadis soya broth (RVS broth) (Beijing Aoboxing Biology Technology Co., Ltd., Beijing, China); chromogenic S. aureus Agar (Guangzhou Huankai Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Guangzhou, China); and chromogenic Salmonella agar (Qingdao Haike Biotechnology Co., Ltd., Qingdao, China); vacuum bags (Shijiazhuang Xilong Packaging Co., Ltd., Shijiazhuang, China). All chemicals used were of an analytical grade, and all food products were food grade.

2.2. Plant-Based Meat Production and Treatment with Preservatives

The plant-based meat made in our laboratory comprised soybean protein isolate (4 kg), wheat gluten (7 kg), pea protein (9 kg), l-cysteine (1 kg), and rice bran protein (0.01 kg). The process flow and extrusion operation parameters are shown in Figure 1.
The operational key points are as follows: (1) according to the formula ratio, the different materials were weighed and poured into the mixer to mix the components; (2) the extrusion parameters to make the plant-based meat were as follows: extrusion temperature: 160 °C, screw speed: 280 r/min, solid addition: 8.5 kg/h, water addition: 13.5 kg/h; (3) within the sterile chamber, the samples were cut, put into different combinations of preservative solutions, impregnated for 5 min, and drained; (4) the drained samples were then packed in a vacuum bag, ultraviolet sterilized, and stored in the refrigerator at 4 °C.
The optimal treatment concentrations of the three preservatives were determined by a single factor test, followed by recombination of the three components. The combination of composite preservative was 1% CS + 2.5% TPs, 1% CS + 0.04% nisin, 2.5% TPs + 0.04% nisin, and 1% CS + 2.5% TPs + 0.04% nisin. The index changes of plant-based meat products were determined on days 0, 7, 14, 28, 42, 56, and 70.
Ultraviolet sterilization: Plant-based meat samples were tiled under the UV lamp and turned on to turn the samples every hour. After 4 h of irradiation, the samples were refrigerated at 4 °C. The experimental flow is shown in Figure 2.

2.3. Sensory Evaluation

The sensory scoring group, which defined the sensory attributes, consisted of four males and six females. The scoring rules are summarized in Table 1. Members of the sensory scoring panel were selected according to GB/T 10220-2012 and ISO 6658: 2005. (1) Having the general ability to engage in sensory analysis tasks, including the particular sensitivity to the examined stimuli. (2) Initiative (will and interest). (3) Good health (no history of special allergies or medication) and good hygiene. The experimental procedure of the sensory scoring was slightly modified from GB/T 13868-2009 and ISO 8589-2007. Plant-based meat was removed from the freezer. The outer packaging of the test samples should be opened and placed on the sensory scoring operation table according to the serial number. Sensory team members should not eat or be exposed to stimulating food or items before judgment; they score plant-based meat according to their preferences and sensory scoring table.

2.4. Determination of Color Difference

L* (Luminosity), a* (redness), and b* (yellowness) values were determined on preprocessed 5 cm × 5 cm × 0.5 cm meat samples using the DP-400 chroma meter (Konica Minolta, Inc., Tokyo, Japan).

2.5. Determination of pH Value

The pH values of the plant-based meat products were determined according to the National Standard of China (GB 5009.237-2016). The plant-based meat samples (5 g) were minced with a homogenizer and dissolved in 45 mL of double-distilled water. After shaking the sample at 550× g for thirty minutes, the Beckman Avanti J-E centrifuge (Beckman Coulter Commercial Enterprise Co., Ltd., Brea, CA, USA) was centrifuged at 14,700× g for 20 min. The pH of the supernatant was determined using an ED-1 pH meter (Shanghai Leici Chuangyi Apparatus & Instrument Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China). Each sample was measured three times, and the results were averaged.

2.6. Determination of Lipid Oxidation

The fat content of the plant-based meat was determined with slight modifications according to Chinese national standards GB 5009.6-2016 and ISO 1443-1973. Plant-based meat is hydrolyzed with concentrated hydrochloric acid, then extracted with petroleum ether, and finally evaporated by the rotary evaporator. The resulting substance is the total fat content of the plant-based meat. We determined the fat content of the plant-based meat used in the experiment; the specific results were 5.1%. TBARS values, measures of secondary oxidation products in meat, are commonly used to assess the oxidative rancidity of lipids. TBARS indicate the extent of unsaturated fatty acids oxidized in food and are measured by the malonaldehyde content. Malonaldehyde, under acidic and high temperatures, can react with thiobarbituric acid (TBA) to produce a reddish-brown substance with a maximum absorption wavelength of 532 nm.
The TBARS of plant-based meat were determined according to the National Standard of China (GB 5009.181-2016). We added 5 g of plant-based meat into a 100 mL plug conical bottle, added 50 mL of 0.5 mol/L trichloroacetic acid mixture, shook the mixture, and sealed the bottle. The samples were placed on a constant temperature oscillator (Shanghai Shanzhi Instruments Equipment Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China) of 50 °C at 550× g for 30 min. They were cooled to room temperature and filtered. Next, 5 mL of the filtrate was placed in a 25 mL plug color tube, 5 mL of the trichloroacetic acid mixture as the sample blank, and 5 mL of 0.02 mol/L TBA were added, stuffed, mixed, placed in a 90 °C water bath for 30 min, and cooled to room temperature. The absorbance value of the sample solution was measured by adjusting the sample blank at 532 nm, and the malondialdehyde content was obtained according to the standard curve (y = 5.3725x − 0.0184, R2 = 0.999) and the calculation Formula (1).
The calculation formula for the malondialdehyde content is as follows:
X = c × V × 1000 m × 1000 ,
where X is the malondialdehyde content in the samples, unit: mg/kg; c is the concentration of malondialdehyde obtained from the standard curve, unit: µg/mL; V is the fixed volume of the sample solution, unit: mL; m is the sample quality represented by the final sample solution, unit: g; 1000 is the conversion coefficient.

2.7. Loss Rate of Juice

The loss rate of juice (X) was calculated as follows:
X = m 2 −   m 1 −   m 0 m 2 −   m 1 × 100 % ,
where m2 is the packed plant-based meat product weight, m0 is the bag weight, and m1 is the dry weight of meat (obtained by opening the packaging and using a filter paper to absorb the liquid on the surface of the plant-based meat mass).

2.8. Microbial Analysis

Microbial tests were performed slightly modified according to the methods of GB (GB 4789.2-2016; GB 4789.3-2016; GB 4789.10-2016), AOAC (AOAC 2000.07), and ISO (ISO 4833-2003; ISO 6887-1-1999; ISO 6888-1-1999). The preservative effects on the total plate count of microbes, E. coli, S. aureus, and Salmonella of plant-based meat were studied using plate count agar. First, approximately 25 g of the sample was mixed with 225 mL of 0.9% stroke-physiological saline solution in a sterile stomacher. The mixture was homogenized by a sterile homogenizer (LC-PJ-400GM, Shanghai Lichen Instrument Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China). Next, the uniform mixture was diluted using 0.9% of stroke-physiological saline solution by ten-fold serials.
(1)
A total of 1 mL of the suspension was injected onto an agar plate medium. The inoculated plates were placed in an incubator at 37 °C. After one day of incubation, the total viable counts were measured.
(2)
A total of 1 mL of the suspension was injected onto VRBA. The inoculated plates were placed in an incubator at 37 °C. From the VRBA medium, a plate with 15–150 suspected E. coli colonies was selected after a day of incubation. Ten colonies were picked into ten tubes with BGLB medium from the plate to observe gas production and record the number of gas-producing tubes. The proportion of gas-producing tubes was multiplied by the number of counted plate colonies, and the dilution was the number of coliform colonies per gram sample.
(3)
To determine S. aureus, the bacterial suspension was prepared from the plant-based meat and 1 mL of the suspension was injected onto chromogenic S. aureus agar and cultured for 24 h before the number of colonies in red was recorded.
(4)
Similarly, for Salmonella, the plant-based meat broth suspension was pre-enriched and enriched, seeded from the RVS broth onto chromogenic Salmonella media, and cultured for 24 h before it was observed whether red colonies were produced.
All operations were performed on a sterile operating table. The results are expressed as lg colony forming units (CFU) per gram of meat.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

A complete randomized block design was used in our experiments. The analysis of the statistical variance test analyzed the data, and significant differences were determined using Tukey’s test (at p < 0.05), using Origin 2019b (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA). Each experiment was carried out in triplicate, and all data are denoted as mean ± standard error.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Sensory Evaluation

The changes in the plant-based meat sensory evaluation are shown in Figure 3. The sensory score of the blank control samples was reduced from 91 to 54 points after 14 days of storage. The sample lost its original taste and had a sour taste, and its texture was soft and loose. The sensory score of plant-based meat treated with preservatives decreased from 90 to 56 points, the color darkened from pale yellow, and the original luster was lost. However, no mildew was observed. Furthermore, the meat had poor elasticity; its fiber structure loosened and had an acidic taste after the storage period. Plant-based meat is markedly different from the beef and lamb studied by Gedarawatte [28] and Pabast [44] in terms of odor and hardness. The odor changes in plant-based meat can be clearly perceived by the sensory scoring groups, and the hardness of plant-based meat gradually decreased. These changes may be attributed to the increase in microorganisms, the utilization of plant-based meat nutrients, and the elimination of metabolic waste, resulting in the deterioration of plant-based meat. Sensory quality decreased in the experimental group as compared to the control group. Blank control samples exhibited significant differences within 14 days; however, no differences were observed within 28 days compared to the meat treated with the compound preservatives, showing that bio-preservatives could maintain the sensory quality of plant-based meat. The three preservatives for composite-treated samples had higher sensory scores.

3.2. Color Difference

The color difference is the most direct indicator of a reaction in food. The changes in the color difference of plant-based meat are shown in Figure 4, Figure 5 and Figure 6. After preservative treatment, the L*, a*, and b* values of plant-based meat increased. The preservatives effectively delayed color changes in plant-based meat compared to the controls. The L*, a*, and b* values decreased with the increase in the color difference of plant-based meat. The L*, a*, and b* values of preservative-treated plant-based meat samples decreased from approximately 69 to 62, 1.6 to 0.3, and 19 to 16, respectively, suggesting that the color of plant-based meat deepened. The color of plant-based meat gradually changed from pale yellow to gray–white, losing its luster. Lower values may be associated with lipid oxidation [45]. During storage, L*, a*, and b* values were significantly different across all experimental groups. The variation in color difference of plant-based meat is consistent with changes in animal meat, such as pork [29] and chicken [46]. The difference is that plant-based meat shows higher L* and b* values, likely due to the raw material. The ingredients for making plant-based meat are all white or yellow powdered substances. After extrusion, the plant-based meat is pale yellow. Compared with animal meat, the reason for the lower a* value may be that the plant-based meat is simulated and it lacks red cells and hemoglobin [47].

3.3. pH Value

The effects of compound preservatives on the pH of plant-based meat are presented in Table 2. The pH of plant-based meat improved with composite preservative treatment. However, the pH decreased, and after 70 days of storage, the pH of the plant-based meat treated with chitosan and tea polyphenols or with chitosan, tea polyphenols, and nisin decreased to approximately 6. Treatment with composite preservatives delayed the decrease of the plant-based meat pH compared to the treatment with single preservatives. This is consistent with changes in animal meat products during pre-storage. The difference is that the pH value of animal meat products will rise in the later storage period. The reason is that the glycolytic enzyme is blunted and the residual glycogen increases the pH [48]. The trend regarding the pH of plant-based meat is consistent with soy products [49]. The pH decrease may be due to the production of lactic acid by yeast and lactic acid bacteria or the oxidation of vitamins [50]. The pH of partially-preserved plant-based meat increased due to microbes breaking down the protein in the meat product to release amido (-NH2), causing higher pH values [51]. The difference in pH between the 1% chitosan and 0.04% nisin treatment and the control was less significant during the 70 days of storage. However, the remaining treatment groups had significant differences in their pH compared to the control. The use of bio-preservatives slowed the reduction of pH in plant-based meat due to the antimicrobial activity of bio-preservatives toward various microorganisms, including fungi, yeast, and bacteria.

3.4. Lipid Oxidation

The compound preservative effects of plant-based meat on TBARS are presented in Table 3. TBARS for composite and single preservative treatments exhibited an increase followed by a decrease. This showed the same change as Khan [52] who studied beef lipid oxidation. The current findings are in agreement with the results previously reported [53,54]. However, the peak of TBARS of the compound preservatives compared to a single preservative was delayed. The decrease in malonaldehyde may be due to the production of tertiary lipid oxides [55]. The surge of TBARS occurred during storage due to reactive oxygen species during lipid oxidation, accelerating the oxidation process [56]. There were insignificant changes in TBARS between the two- and three-preservative treatments of the plant-based meat samples. However, the TBARS in the early and late storage periods varied significantly between the meat samples treated with compound preservatives. It was found that 1% chitosan and 0.04% nisin prevented the oxidation of lipids in plant-based meat more effectively.

3.5. Loss Rate of Juice

Although the main component of the lost fluid is water, soluble proteins, inorganic salts, vitamins, and other extracts are also lost [57]. The loss of the components reduces the weight and affects the flavor and nutritional value of the food. The effect of compound preservatives on the juice turnover rate of plant-based meat is presented in Table 4. The loss rate of juice of the plant-based meat treated with single and compound preservatives increased with preservation time. This is consistent with pork preservation [58], where lower sap turnover improves the water retention of meat products [59]. The plant-based meat treated with the three composite preservatives only lost 3.97% of juice after 70 days of storage. The increase in the juice turnover rate with storage time was due to metabolic waste generated by microbial growth and reproduction. In addition, the drying of the meat samples resulted in the outflow of the residual water, causing the loss of juice. Treatment with the preservative combinations containing chitosan had a lower rate of juice loss than the non-chitosan-containing preservatives due to the film-forming property of chitosan. A protective film formation on the plant-based meat surface reduced the juice loss. All experimental groups varied significantly in the rate of juice loss during the storage period.

3.6. Microbial Analysis

The microbial indicators for the total plate count of microbes, E. coli, and S. aureus are shown in Figure 7, Figure 8 and Figure 9, respectively. For the blank control sample at 14 days, the total plate count of microbes, E. coli, and the S. aureus exceeded 5, 2, and 3 lg CFU/g, respectively, which was more than the threshold recommended by the National Standard of China (GB 2726-2016, T/CIFST 001-2020). Thus, it can be inferred that the shelf life of the blank control samples was approximately 14 days. Furthermore, the inhibition effect of compound preservatives on the microorganisms was better than that of a single preservative. The total plate counts of microbes, E. coli, and S. aureus exceeded the threshold set by the National Standard of China at 56 days after the treatment of plant-based meat with two kinds of preservatives. However, the microbial count of the samples treated with the three-preservative combination did not exceed the set threshold at 56 days, but was near the national standard provisions. The microbial index of plant-based meat with two kinds of preservatives exceeded the national standard in 42 days. The microbial index of plant-based meat with three kinds of preservatives exceeded the national standard in 56 days. Throughout the experiment, the existence of Salmonella was not detected; the national standard recommends that Salmonella not be detected in plant-based meat, indicating that the laboratory self-made plant-based meat met the production requirements. Thus, overall, the biological preservatives can indeed extend the shelf life of plant-based meat. The three-preservative compound treatment had the best effect on prolonging the shelf life of the samples. Chitosan and tea polyphenols can inhibit most microorganisms, and nisin can significantly inhibit Gram-positive bacteria. Three preservative compound treatments extending the shelf life of foods were also reported previously [60]. The initial amount of plant-based meat is less than meat products [61,62], probably because plant-based meat is squeezed at a high temperature, which kills the microbes in the raw powder.

4. Conclusions

This study investigated the combinational effects of chitosan, tea polyphenols, and nisin on the preservation of plant-based meat. When the vacuum-packed blank control sample was stored for 14 days, the tissue structure became loose and the samples became sour. The total microbial plate count and the number of E. coli and S. aureus exceeded the national standard provisions of China’s requirements, indicating the deterioration of the plant-based meat. The meat samples treated with a two-preservative combination reached the national standard threshold for deterioration at 42 days. Thus, the shelf life of the meat extended from 14 to 42 days compared to the meat samples without preservatives. However, the plant-based meat samples treated with the combination of 1% chitosan, 2.5% tea polyphenols, and 0.04% nisin had the best preservation effect. The shelf life of the samples treated with the preservative was four times (56 days) longer than that of the blank control samples (14 days).
The addition of preservatives delayed the change in the quality of plant-based meat and extended its shelf life. The use of preservatives effectively delays the change of the sensory score and the color change of plant-based meat; it effectively prevents the change of the pH value, fat oxidation, and juice loss rate of plant-based meat. Thus, the compound preservative can be effective in the plant-based meat industry. This study focused on microbial growth changes and explored the effects of compound preservatives on the shelf life of plant-based meat. The shelf life of plant-based meat was approximately determined. In the future, microbial growth prediction models should be established by shortening the experimental cycle to determine the more accurate shelf life of plant-based meat and supplement relevant physical and chemical experiments, such as TVB-N and structural properties.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.L. and Z.X.; methodology, Z.D., L.H., M.G. and Z.L.; validation, F.L.; formal analysis, Z.D. and L.H.; investigation, Z.D., L.H. and M.G.; data curation, Z.D.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.D.; writing—review and editing, F.L. and Z.L.; visualization, Z.D. and Z.L.; supervision, F.L. and Z.X.; project administration, F.L.; funding acquisition, F.L. and Z.X. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Scientific Project of Oriental Group (China), 054-92000232, and the Scientific Research Funding Project from the Education Department of Liaoning Province, China (Service Local Project), LFW201604.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available upon request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. He, J.; Evans, N.M.; Liu, H.Z.; Shao, S.Q. A review of research on plant-based meat alternatives: Driving forces, history, manufacturing, and consumer attitudes. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Malav, O.P.; Talukder, S.; Gokulakrishnan, P.; Chand, S. Meat analog: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2015, 55, 1241–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ismil, I.; Hwang, Y.H.; Joo, S.T. Meat Analog as future food: A Review. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2020, 62, 111–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Jie, H.C.; Simon, M.L.; Allan, K.H.; Michael, E.P. Effects of soy protein to wheat gluten ratio on the physicochemical properties of extruded meat analogues. Food Struct. Neth. 2019, 19, 100102. [Google Scholar]
  5. Joshi, V.; Kumar, S. Meat Analogues: Plant based alternatives to meat products—A review. Int. J. Food Ferment. Technol. 2015, 5, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Manski, J.M.; van Riemsdijk, L.E.; van der Goot, A.J.; Boom, R.M. Importance of intrinsic properties of dense caseinate dispersions for structure formation. Biomacromolecules 2007, 8, 3540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dick, A.; Bhandari, B.; Prakash, S. 3D Printing of Meat. Meat Sci. 2019, 153, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Corvan, D.W.; Peter, F.; Atze, J.V. Meat alternatives: An integrative comparison. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 88, 505–512. [Google Scholar]
  9. Arora, B.; Kamal, S.; Sharma, V.P. Effect of binding agents on quality characteristics of mushroom based sausage analogue. J. Food Process. Pres. 2017, 41, e13134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bohrer, B.M. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lin, S.; Huff, H.; Hsieh, F. Extrusion process parameters, sensory characteristics, and structural properties of a high moisture soy protein meat analog. J. Food Sci. 2002, 67, 1066–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Krintiras, G.A.; Gadea, D.J.; Atze, J.G.; Stankiewicz, A.I.; Stefanidis, G.D. On the use of the couette cell technology for large scale production of textured soy-based meat replacers. J. Food Eng. 2016, 169, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Krintiras, G.A.; Gobel, J.; Atze, J.G.; Jan, V.D.G.A.; Stefanidis, G.D. Production of structured soy-based meat analogues using simple shear and heat in a couette cell. J. Food Eng. 2015, 160, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Elzerman, J.E.; Keulemans, L.; Sap, R.; Luninget, P.A. Situational appropriateness of meat products, meat substitutes and meat alternatives as perceived by Dutch consumers. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 88, 104108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Michel, F.; Hartmann, C.; Siegrist, M. Consumers’ associations, perceptions and acceptance of meat and plant-based meat alternatives. Food Qual. Prefer. 2020, 87, 104063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Loo, E.; Caputo, V.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter. Food Policy 2020, 95, 101931. [Google Scholar]
  17. Sha, L.; Xiong, Y.L. Plant protein-based alternatives of reconstructed meat: Science, technology, and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 102, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Boukid, F. Plant-based meat analogues: From niche to mainstream. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 297–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Choudhury, D.; Singh, S.; Si, J.; Han, S.; Tan, L.P. Commercialization of plant-based meat alternatives. Trends Plant Sci. 2020, 25, 1055–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Geeraerts, W.; Vuyst, L.D.; Leroy, F. Ready-to-eat meat alternatives, a study of their associated bacterial communities. Food Biosci. 2020, 37, 100681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hadi, J.; Brightwell, G. Safety of alternative proteins: Technological, environmental and regulatory aspects of cultured meat, plant-based meat, insect protein and single-cell protein. Foods 2021, 10, 1226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Tóth, A.J.; Dunay, A.; Battay, M.; Illés, C.B.; Bittsánszky, A.; Süth, M. Microbial Spoilage of Plant-Based Meat Analogues. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sun, C.X.; Ge, J.; He, J.; Gan, R.Y.; Fang, Y.P. Processing, Quality, Safety, and Acceptance of Meat Analogue Products. Engineering 2021, 5, 674–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Charis, M.G. Sustainable Meat Production and Processing, 1st ed.; Andre Gerhard Wolff: London, UK, 2019; pp. 112–113. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hu, Z.; Gänzle, M.G. Challenges and opportunities related to the use of chitosan as a food preservative. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2019, 126, 1318–1331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Vaz, J.M.; Pezzoli, D.; Chevallier, P.; Campelo, C.S.; Candiani, G.; Mantovani, D. Antibacterial coatings based on chitosan for pharmaceutical and biomedical applications. Curr. Pharm. Design 2018, 24, 866–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dehnad, D.; Mirzaei, H.; Emam-Djomeh, Z.; Jafari, S.-M.; Dadashi, S. Thermal and antimicrobial properties of chitosan-nanocellulose films for extending shelf life of ground meat. Carbohydr. Polym. 2014, 109, 148–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gedarawatte, S.; Ravensdale, J.T.; Johns, M.L.; Aziziet, A.; Coorey, R. Effectiveness of gelatine and chitosan spray coating for extending shelf life of vacuum-packaged beef. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 4026–4037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, Q.; Zhang, L.; Ding, W. Eugenol nanocapsules embedded with gelatin-chitosan for chilled pork preservation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 158, 837–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. No, H.K.; Meyers, S.P. Preparation of tofu using chitosan as a coagulant for improved shelf-life. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2004, 39, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bora, A.; Ma, S.; Li, X.; Lu, L. Application of microencapsulation for the safe delivery of green tea polyphenols in food systems: Review and recent advances. Food Res. Int. 2017, 105, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yang, A.; Cheng, F.; Tong, P.; Chen, H. Effect of tea polyphenol and nisin on the quality of tortoise (Trachemys scripta elegans) meat during chilled storage. J. Food Process. Pres. 2017, 41, e13308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ju, J.; Liao, L.; Qiao, Y.; Xiong, G.; Li, D.; Wang, C.; Hu, J.; Wang, L.; Wu, W.; Ding, A. The effects of vacuum package combined with tea polyphenols (V+TP) treatment on quality enhancement of weever (Micropterus salmoides) stored at 0 °C and 4 °C. LWT 2018, 91, 484–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lan, W.; Zhang, R.; Ahmed, S.; Qin, W.; Liu, Y. Effects of various antimicrobial polyvinyl alcohol/tea polyphenol composite films on the shelf life of packaged strawberries. LWT 2019, 113, 108297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lu, T.M.; Lee, C.C.; Mau, J.L.; Lin, S.D. Quality and antioxidant property of green tea sponge cake. Food Chem. 2010, 119, 1090–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kim, H.S.; Quon, M.J.; Kim, J.A. New insights into the mechanisms of polyphenols beyond antioxidant properties; lessons from the green tea polyphenol, epigallocatechin 3-gallate. Redox. Biol. 2014, 2, 187–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Santos, J.; Sousa, R.; Otoni, C.G.; Moraes, A.; Souza, V.; Medeiros, E. Nisin and other antimicrobial peptides: Production, mechanisms of action, and application in active food packaging. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 2018, 48, 179–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hassan, A.H.A.; Cutter, C.N. Development and evaluation of pullulan-based composite antimicrobial films (CAF) incorporated with nisin, thymol and lauric arginate to reduce foodborne pathogens associated with muscle foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 320, 108519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Penna, T.; Jozala, A.F.; Letícia, C.D.; Pessoa, A.; Cholewa, O. Production of nisin by Lactococcus lactis in media with skimmed milk. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 2005, 122, 619–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tang, H.; Darwish, W.S.; Jinkgui, M. Microbial quality and formation of biogenic amines in the meat and edible offal of Camelus dromedaries with a protection trial using gingerol and nisin. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 2094–2101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Verdi, M.C.; Melian, C.; Castellano, P.; Vignolo, G.; Massani, M.B. Synergistic antimicrobial effect of lactocin al705 and nisin combined with organic acid salts against Listeria innocua 7 in broth and a hard cheese. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sun, J.; Hui, X.Z.; Guo, J.; Dong, G.X. The bacteriostasis study of nisin for the raspberry health draft beer. Phys. Procedia 2012, 25, 973–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. de Souza de Azevedo, P.O.; Azevedo, D.; Converti, A.; Gierus, M.; de Souza Oliveira, R.P. Application of nisin as biopreservative of pork meat by dipping and spraying methods. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2019, 50, 523–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pabast, M.; Shariatifar, N.; Beikzadeh, S.; Jahed, G. Effects of chitosan coatings incorporating with free or nano-encap-sulated Satureja plant essential oil on quality characteristics of lamb meat. Food Control 2018, 91, 185–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. He, L.; Zou, L.; Yang, Q.; Xia, J.; Zhou, K.; Zhu, Y. Antimicrobial activities of nisin, tea polyphenols, and chitosan and their combinations in chilled mutton. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, M1466–M1471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Abdel-Naeem, H.; Zayed, N.; Mansour, H.A. Effect of chitosan and lauric arginate edible coating on bacteriological quality, deterioration criteria, and sensory attributes of frozen stored chicken meat. LWT 2021, 150, 111928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Meng, D.M.; Sun, X.Q.; Sun, S.N.; Li, W.J.; Lv, Y.J.; Fan, Z.C. The potential of antimicrobial peptide Hispidalin application in pork preservation during cold storage. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gurtler, J.B.; Fan, X.; Jin, T.; Niemira, B.A. Influence of antimicrobial agents on the thermal sensitivity of foodborne pathogens: A review. J. Food Prot. 2019, 82, 628–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hamad, A.; Ramadhan, M.B.; Dewi, D.Y.S.; Djalil, A.D.; Hartanti, D. Preservation potential of lemon basil essential oil on tofu: Development of a natural food preservative. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 771, 012037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Domínguez, R.; Pateiro, M.; Gagaoua, M.; Barba, F.J.; Zhang, W.; Lorenzo, J.M. A comprehensive review on lipid oxidation in meat and meat products. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Pearce, K.L.; Rosenvold, K.; Andersen, H.J.; Hopkins, D.L. Water distribution and mobility in meat during the conversion of muscle to meat and ageing and the impacts on fresh meat quality attributes—A review. Meat Sci. 2011, 89, 111–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Khan, I.; Nkufi, C.; Deog-Hwan, T. Development and evaluation of chitosan and its derivative for the shelf life extension of beef meat under refrigeration storage. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 1111–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hernandez, M.D.; Lopez, M.B.; Alvarez, A.; Ferrandini, E.; Garcia, B.; Garrido, M.D. Sensory, physical, chemical and microbiological changes in aquacultured meagre (Argyrosomus regius) fillets during ice storage. Food Chem. 2009, 114, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Selmi, S.; Sadok, S. The effect of natural antioxidant (Thymus vulgaris Linnaeus) on flesh quality of tuna (Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus)) during chilled storage. Pan-Am. J. Aquat. Sci. 2008, 3, 36–45. [Google Scholar]
  55. Arancibia, M.Y.; López-Caballero, M.E.; Gómez-Guillén, M.C.; Montero, P. Chitosan coatings enriched with active shrimp waste for shrimp preservation. Food Control 2015, 54, 259–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Khalafalla, F.A.; Ali, F.; Hassan, A. Quality improvement and shelf-life extension of refrigerated Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets using natural herbs. Beni-Suef. Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2015, 4, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Bao, Y.; Ertbjerg, P. Relationship between oxygen concentration, shear force and protein oxidation in modified atmosphere packaged pork. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Zhou, Q.; Liu, M.J.; Zhang, B.S.; Lei, C.G.; Meng, Y.Z. Combined effect of cinnamon essential oil-chitosan coating and modified atmosphere packaging on the quality of chilled meat. J. Zhejiang Univ. (Agric. Life Sci.) 2019, 45, 723–735. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kim, Y.H.; Huff-Lonergan, E.; Sebranek, J.G.; Lonergan, S.M. High-oxygen modified atmosphere packaging system induces lipid and myoglobin oxidation and protein polymerization. Meat Sci. 2010, 85, 759–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pellicer, K. Behavior of Listeria monocytogenes type1 355/98 (85) in meat emulsions as affected by temperature, pH, water activity, fat and microbial preservatives. Food Control 2011, 22, 1573–1581. [Google Scholar]
  61. Li, M.; Wang, H.; Sun, L.; Zhao, G.; Huang, X. Application of electronic nose for measuring total volatile basic nitrogen and total viable counts in packaged pork during refrigerated storage. J. Food Sci. 2016, 81, M906–M912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Cao, Y.; Warner, R.D.; Fang, Z. Effect of chitosan/nisin/gallic acid coating on preservation of pork loin in high oxygen modified atmosphere packaging. Food Control 2019, 101, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 11 01524 g001 550
Figure 1. Process flow.
Figure 1. Process flow.
Foods 11 01524 g001
Foods 11 01524 g002 550
Figure 2. Experimental flow.
Figure 2. Experimental flow.
Foods 11 01524 g002
Foods 11 01524 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of compound preservatives on the sensory scores of plant-based meat. a–f Values with different superscripts in the same preservative indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Figure 3. Effects of compound preservatives on the sensory scores of plant-based meat. a–f Values with different superscripts in the same preservative indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Foods 11 01524 g003
Foods 11 01524 g004 550
Figure 4. Effects of compound preservatives on the “L value” of plant-based meat. a–f Values with different superscripts in the same preservative indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Figure 4. Effects of compound preservatives on the “L value” of plant-based meat. a–f Values with different superscripts in the same preservative indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Foods 11 01524 g004
Foods 11 01524 g005 550
Figure 5. Effects of compound preservatives on the “a value” of plant-based meat. a–f Values with different superscripts in the same preservative indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Figure 5. Effects of compound preservatives on the “a value” of plant-based meat. a–f Values with different superscripts in the same preservative indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Foods 11 01524 g005
Foods 11 01524 g006 550
Figure 6. Effects of compound preservatives on the “b value” of plant-based meat. a–f Values with different superscripts in the same preservative indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Figure 6. Effects of compound preservatives on the “b value” of plant-based meat. a–f Values with different superscripts in the same preservative indicate significant differences (p < 0.05). CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Foods 11 01524 g006
Foods 11 01524 g007 550
Figure 7. Effects of the compound preservatives on the total bacterial count of plant-based meat. CFU, colony-forming units; CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Figure 7. Effects of the compound preservatives on the total bacterial count of plant-based meat. CFU, colony-forming units; CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Foods 11 01524 g007
Foods 11 01524 g008 550
Figure 8. Effects of compound preservatives on E. coli of plant-based meat. CFU, colony-forming units; CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Figure 8. Effects of compound preservatives on E. coli of plant-based meat. CFU, colony-forming units; CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Foods 11 01524 g008
Foods 11 01524 g009 550
Figure 9. Effects of compound preservatives on S. aureus of plant-based meat. CFU, colony-forming units; CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Figure 9. Effects of compound preservatives on S. aureus of plant-based meat. CFU, colony-forming units; CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Foods 11 01524 g009
Table
Table 1. Sensory scoring table.
Table 1. Sensory scoring table.
Score MetricsSpecific RulesScores
Color (20 points)pale yellow, shiny, and mildew free13–20 points
pale yellow, with lost luster and mildew free7–12 points
grayish or darker yellow with mildew0–6 points
Form (35 points)great elasticity, moderate hardness, with obvious meat fiber, no mucus27–35 points
good elasticity, too hard or too soft, without obvious meat fiber, no mucus14–16 points
poor elasticity, unacceptable hardness, no meat fiber, mucus0–13 points
Odor (35 points)strong fragrance of specific products, no odor, no acidic taste27–35 points
fragrance of a specific product, no odor, no acidic taste14–16 points
weak fiber, smelly, sour0–13 points
Impurities (10 points)no impurities visible to the naked eye10 points
Table
Table 2. Effects of compound preservatives on the pH of plant-based meat.
Table 2. Effects of compound preservatives on the pH of plant-based meat.
Preservation TypesStorage Time/d
071428425670
CK6.52 ± 0.00 a6.34 ± 0.00 b6.11 ± 0.00 c
1% CS6.67 ± 0.01 a6.51 ± 0.00 b6.48 ± 0.01 bc6.40 ± 0.00 d6.45 ± 0.06 cd
2.5% TPs6.42 ± 0.00 a6.28 ± 0.00 c6.28 ± 0.00 c6.39 ± 0.00 b6.23 ± 0.00 d -
0.04% Nisin6.65 ± 0.00 a6.57 ± 0.00 b6.38 ± 0.00 c6.22 ± 0.00 d6.21 ± 0.03 d
1% CS + 2.5% TPs7.47 ± 0.01 a6.97 ± 0.00 b6.90 ± 0.00 b6.81 ± 0.00 c6.65 ± 0.00 d6.51 ± 0.00 e6.07 ± 0.00 f
1% CS + 0.04% Nisin7.48 ± 0.00 a7.42 ± 0.03 ab7.36 ± 0.00 b6.50 ± 0.01 c6.59 ± 0.09 c6.37 ± 0.00 d6.29 ± 0.00 d
2.5% TPs + 0.04% Nisin7.35 ± 0.01 a6.92 ± 0.02 b6.86 ± 0.00 c6.73 ± 0.01 d6.46 ± 0.00 e6.31 ± 0.01 f6.17 ± 0.01 g
1% CS + 2.5% TPs + 0.04% Nisin7.45 ± 0.00 a6.82 ± 0.00 b6.80 ± 0.01 b6.58 ± 0.06 c6.49 ± 0.00 d6.37 ± 0.02 e6.10 ± 0.04 f
a–g Different letters in the same line mean statistically significant differences by the Tukey’s test (p < 0.05). CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Table
Table 3. Effects of compound preservatives on TBARS of plant-based meat.
Table 3. Effects of compound preservatives on TBARS of plant-based meat.
Preservation TypesStorage Time/d
071428425670
CK0.000 ± 0.000 c0.232 ± 0.013 b0.268 ± 0.011 a
1% CS0.000 ± 0.000 e0.018 ± 0.000 d0.132 ± 0.000 c0.160 ± 0.001 b0.170 ± 0.000 a
2.5% TPs0.102 ± 0.001 e0.126 ± 0.002 d0.243 ± 0.001 b0.498 ± 0.000 a0.208 ± 0.002 c
0.04% Nisin0.098 ± 0.000 e0.122 ± 0.000 d0.265 ± 0.000 c0.324 ± 0.000 a0.322 ± 0.004 b
1% CS + 2.5% TPs0.083 ± 0.029 e0.221 ± 0.045 d0.257 ± 0.011 cd0.290 ± 0.000 c0.490 ± 0.017 a0.367 ± 0.000 b0.319 ± 0.013 bc
1% CS + 0.04% Nisin0.002 ± 0.004 d0.030 ± 0.046 cd0.126 ± 0.095 bc0.152 ± 0.013 b0.261 ± 0.027 a0.188 ± 0.006 ab0.188 ± 0.006 ab
2.5% TPs + 0.04% Nisin0.000 ± 0.000 e0.019 ± 0.027 e0.126 ± 0.039 d0.243 ± 0.013 c0.352 ± 0.013 a0.327 ± 0.004 ab0.283 ± 0.013 bc
1% CS + 2.5% TPs + 0.04% Nisin0.000 ± 0.000 d0.011 ± 0.010 d0.035 ± 0.013 d0.146 ± 0.019 c0.250 ± 0.025 b0.381 ± 0.006 a0.241 ± 0.025 b
a–e Different letters in the same line mean statistically significant differences by the Tukey’s test (p < 0.05); Unit: mg/kg. CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Table
Table 4. Changes in the turnover of plant-based meat juices treated with compound preservatives.
Table 4. Changes in the turnover of plant-based meat juices treated with compound preservatives.
Preservation TypesStorage Time/d
071428425670
CK-1.99 ± 0.77 b5.16 ± 1.47 a
1% CS-0.38 ± 0.07 d1.78 ± 0.70 c2.71 ± 0.28 b3.47 ± 0.14 a
2.5% TPs-0.71 ± 0.07 d1.10 ± 0.21 c1.92 ± 0.84 b3.61 ± 0.56 a
0.04% Nisin-0.58 ± 0.21 d1.85 ± 0.42 c2.98 ± 0.14 b4.53 ± 0.49 a
1% CS + 2.5% TPs-0.04 ± 0.00 f0.51 ± 0.21 e1.14 ± 0.63 d2.73 ± 0.56 c3.26 ± 0.91 b5.55 ± 1.33 a
1% CS + 0.04% Nisin-0.23 ± 0.14 f0.66 ± 0.49 e1.43 ± 0.63 d2.98 ± 0.28 c3.65 ± 0.63 b5.93 ± 0.91 a
2.5% TPs + 0.04% Nisin-0.31 ± 0.21 f0.81 ± 0.42 e1.59 ± 0.70 d3.15 ± 0.84 c3.89 ± 0.56 b5.06 ± 0.91 a
1% CS + 2.5% TPs + 0.04% Nisin-0.02 ± 0.00 e0.30 ± 0.07 e0.97 ± 0.35 d1.48 ± 0.28 c2.83 ± 0.84 b3.97 ± 1.05 a
a–f Different letters in the same line mean significant statistical differences by Tukey’s test (p < 0.05); Unit: %. CS, chitosan; TP, tea polyphenols; CK, control group.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dai, Z.; Han, L.; Li, Z.; Gu, M.; Xiao, Z.; Lu, F. Combination of Chitosan, Tea Polyphenols, and Nisin on the Bacterial Inhibition and Quality Maintenance of Plant-Based Meat. Foods 2022, 11, 1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11101524

AMA Style

Dai Z, Han L, Li Z, Gu M, Xiao Z, Lu F. Combination of Chitosan, Tea Polyphenols, and Nisin on the Bacterial Inhibition and Quality Maintenance of Plant-Based Meat. Foods. 2022; 11(10):1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11101524

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dai, Zenghui, Linna Han, Zhe Li, Mengqing Gu, Zhigang Xiao, and Fei Lu. 2022. "Combination of Chitosan, Tea Polyphenols, and Nisin on the Bacterial Inhibition and Quality Maintenance of Plant-Based Meat" Foods 11, no. 10: 1524. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11101524

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