Next Article in Journal
Unboxing Deep Learning Model of Food Delivery Service Reviews Using Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) Technique
Next Article in Special Issue
Shelf Life Extension and Nutritional Quality Preservation of Sour Cherries through High Pressure Processing
Previous Article in Journal
Raw and Cooked Quality of Gilthead Seabream Fillets (Sparus aurata, L.) after Mild Processing via Osmotic Dehydration for Shelf Life Extension
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Influence of Sous Vide Parameters on Nutritional Characteristics and Safety of Pikeperch Fillets
 
 
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 14
10.3390/foods11142018
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

Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and Garlic (Allium sativum) Essential Oils and Chipotle Pepper Oleoresin (Capsicum annum) on Beef Hamburgers

by
Paulina Olivas-Méndez
1,
América Chávez-Martínez
1,
Eduardo Santellano-Estrada
1,
Luis Guerrero Asorey
2,
Rogelio Sánchez-Vega
1,
Ana Luisa Rentería-Monterrubio
1,*,
David Chávez-Flores
3,
Juan Manuel Tirado-Gallegos
1 and
Gerardo Méndez-Zamora
4
1
UACH-CA03 Tecnología de Alimentos de Origen Animal, Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Periférico Fco. R. Almada, Chihuahua 33820, Mexico
2
Food Technology Program, Institute of Agrifood Research and Technology (IRTA), Finca Camps i Armet, s/n, 17121 Monells, Spain
3
UACH-CA124 Química Aplicada y Educativa, Facultad de Ciencias Químicas, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Circuito Universitario s/n, Campus UACH II, Chihuahua 31125, Mexico
4
Laboratorio de Ingeniería, Ingeniería en Industrias Alimentarias, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Francisco Villa S/N, ExHacienda El Canadá, General Escobedo 66050, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(14), 2018; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142018
Submission received: 7 May 2022 / Revised: 21 June 2022 / Accepted: 30 June 2022 / Published: 8 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Approaches in Food Preservation and Their Impact on the Food System)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The inclusion of natural ingredients to preserve meat and meat products has increased in recent years. This study evaluated rosemary (REO) and garlic essential oils (GEO) as well as chipotle pepper oleoresin (CPO), alone or in combination, as preservatives on beef hamburgers (BH). Six treatments were evaluated: T1 (control, without additives), T2 (GEO 1%), T3 (REO 1%), T4 (CPO 0.5%), T5 (GEO 1% + CPO 0.5%) and T6 (REO 1% + CPO 0.5%). The microbiological quality, physicochemical characteristics, sensory evaluation, and lipid oxidation of hamburgers were evaluated. REO, GEO and CPO limited the growth of aerobic microorganisms, S. aureus, Salmonella spp., B. thermosphacta, moulds and yeasts, lactic acid bacteria and coliforms (p < 0.05); however, this effect depended on time. Furthermore, lipid oxidation decreased significantly (p < 0.5) in all treatments, except for T5 (GEO 1% + CPO 0.5%). Regarding sensory acceptance, consumers preferred BH with GEO in terms of colour, odour, flavour and overall appearance (p < 0.05). It is concluded that REO, GEO and CPO, alone or in combination, improve microbiological quality and inhibit the lipid oxidation of BH.

1. Introduction

BH and minced meat are among the most frequently consumed meat-based foods [1] although they are commonly associated with foodborne illnesses [2,3,4]. Spoilage of meat due to natural enzymatic processes and bacteria [5] is a significant problem within the food industry; however, the shelf life of meat products can be extended with natural or artificial preservatives [6]. The current trend tends towards natural biocides that are present in essential oils (EO) and chili oleoresins (CO) [7,8,9].
Essential oils are secondary products of plant and herb metabolisms, with antimicrobial and antioxidant properties, and are commonly used to enhance food’s flavour [10]. Approximately, from 3000 types of EO, 300 are used in the food industry [11,12].
The flavour, odour and colour of EO cause sensory changes in foods; hence, in meat and meat products the most used EO are those from oregano, rosemary, thyme, clove, garlic and basil [12,13].
Rosemary extracts and their essential oils have been used due to their antioxidant, antifungal and antimicrobial properties [14]. These properties are attributable to its chemical constituents such as rosmanol, carnosol, carnosic acid, ursolic acid, rosmariquinone, caffeic acid and rosmaridiphenol [15]. Furthermore, rosemary antioxidant properties are attributed to their high content of isoprenoid quinones, which act as chain terminators of free radicals and as chelators of reactive oxygen species [16]. These also inhibit the growth of Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Staphylococcus aureus [17], Clostridium perfringens, Salmonella choleraesuis, Brochothrix thermosphacta and Enterobacteriaceae [18]. In addition, Bouloumpasi et al. [19] studied the antibacterial and antioxidant effects of rosemary by-products from the distillation of the essential oil on pathogenic and spoilage bacteria, concluding that they inhibit the growth of Bacillus (B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, B. cereus) strains and Listeria monocytogenes; they also found that the antioxidant activity of rosemary increased [19].
Regarding garlic essential oil (GEO), its antimicrobial activity is linked to its sulphur compounds [20]. Allicin has antimicrobial activity as it modifies lipid biosynthesis and profile as well as RNA synthesis of microorganisms [21]. It also inhibits more than 300 microorganisms, including Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria, acid-fast organisms and fungi. Michalczyk et al. [22] and Ibrahim-Hemmat et al. [23] found an inhibitory effect of GEO against S. aureus, S. typhi, E. coli and L. monocytogenes in meat products [22,23]. Furthermore, garlic contains sulphur compounds, selenium and free amino acids (especially cysteine, glutamine, isoleucine and methionine) to which it owes its antioxidant capacity [24]. Many of the active components found in garlic are effective in inhibiting the formation of free radicals and reinforcing the endogenous radical scavenging mechanism; they also increase cellular antioxidant enzymes, such as superoxide dismutase, catalase and glutathione peroxidase, and protect low-density lipoproteins from the oxidation caused by free radicals [8]. On the other hand, allicin acts as an antioxidant by reacting with enzymes that have free thiol groups, trapping free radicals, especially hydroxyl radicals. Amany et al. [25] found low values of malonaldehyde (MDA) in beef added to AEA, which indicated a high antioxidant capacity of the AEA components [25].
Furthermore, oleoresins are resin-like or viscous liquids extracted from plants with an organic solvent. These are used within the food and health industries because of their concentrated flavour and antioxidant properties. In the food sector, the most popular oleoresins are black pepper, garlic, oregano, rosemary, thyme and capsicum, among others [26,27,28]. Most oleoresins (solvent-free) are generally recognized as safe, as in the case of Capsicum annuum oleoresin [29].
Capsicum spp. is one of the most produced and consumed fruits (fresh, dry or oleoresin) wordwide due to its pungency, flavour and aroma [30,31]. It also has antimicrobial and antioxidant properties that can protect the food and the consumer from microbial and oxidative damage [32,33,34]. Mexico is considered the place of origin of Capsicum annuum (CA), while other species are known to originate in South America [35]. These fruits contain capsaicinoids, which are responsible for its characteristic pungent taste. Capsaicinoids found in CA are 9–11 carbon chain branched fatty acid vanillylamides, and capsaicin and di-hydrocapsaicin are the most abundant [36], accounting for 90% of the total pungency of these fruits [37]. The most abundant capsaicinoids in CA oleoresins are capsaicin (48.6%), 6,7-dihydro capsaicin (36%), nordihydrocapsaicin (7.4%), homodihydrocapsaicin (2%), homocapsaicin (2%), capsanthin and capsorubicin. Capsicum oleoresins are recognized for their antimicrobial and antioxidant activities besides the colour and flavour they impart to foods [38].
Moreover, chipotle peppers are an important ingredient in Mexican cuisine and have become increasingly popular in Latin American gastronomy. The production of chipotle pepper is an artisanal process obtained by smoking matured jalapeño pepper (red jalapeño pepper) in open ovens, where firewood combustion gases are passed through for about 72 h [39]. Hence, their characteristic flavour and aroma come from the fruit and the smoking hardwood. Some of the chemical compounds found in them are guaiacol, formaldehyde, formic acid, acetone, short chain fatty acids, methanol, ethanol, furfural, acetaldehydes and volatile phenolic compounds [39]. In addition, it has been found that chipotle peppers have a higher antioxidant activity and content of bioactive compounds (phenols and carotenoids) than fresh peppers [40,41].
Several authors have reported the antimicrobial and antioxidant effects of EO and oleoresins on meat and meat products [42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]. Al-Hijazen [54] showed that adding 150 ppm oregano EO + 350 ppm of rosemary extract to ground chicken had the highest antioxidant effect on lipids and proteins [54]. Furthermore, a study exploring the synergistic effect of EO, from herbs and spices, commonly used in meat products, reported that the EO from thyme, garlic, cumin and cinnamon have the lowest minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC); moreover, garlic essential oil inhibited the growth of Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes and S. aureus [55]. In addition, rosemary extract power added to cured pork sausages reduced lipid oxidation [52]. Likewise, BH formulated with shirazi thyme, cinnamon and rosemary extracts had the lower degree of lipid and protein oxidation, as well as better scores on the sensory attributes of BH formulated with these extracts [46].
Although the antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of EO and oleoresins are well researched, few studies have addressed their combinations. To date, we have not found studies in BH evaluating the effect of adding CPO in combination with EO. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the addition of rosemary (REO, Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (GEO, Allium sativum) essential oils and chipotle pepper oleoresin (CPO, Capsicum annum) alone or in combination on the microbiological quality, lipid oxidation, physicochemical characteristics and sensory acceptance of BH.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Essential Oil and Oleoresin Extraction

The extracts were prepared from commercially available garlic, rosemary and chipotle pepper. The GEO, REO and CPO were extracted with organic solvents by stirring at a temperature of 150 °C (CPO—60 min; GEO—24 h; REO—3 h). For the extraction of GEO and CPO, ethanol was added at 70 (Duran et al., 2007) and 80%, respectively [56,57], and cyclohexane at 96% for the REO. Subsequently, the samples were filtered and solvents were removed with a rotary evaporator. For GEO and CPO, a temperature of 60 °C was used, and for REO it was 40 °C.

2.2. Treatment Description and Hamburger Preparation

Six treatments were prepared following a completely randomised design. Each treatment was performed in triplicate as follows: T1 (control, without additives), T2 (GEO 1% w/w), T3 (REO 1% w/w), T4 (CPO 0.5% w/w), T5 (GEO 1% + CPO 0.5% w/w) and T6 (REO 1% + CPO 0.5% w/w). The concentrations used were selected based on a previous sensory evaluation test (data not shown). Salt, water and fresh beef from Semimembranosus muscle (24 h postmortem) were used to prepare the base mixture as follows. First, the meat was frozen (−5 °C) and ground for 5 min (Torrey mill, M-12-FS, and 1/8” burger grind plate CI-12-18). Then, it was mixed with a salt/water solution (100 g of meat: 10 mL of water: 1 g of salt). Later, the mixture was divided equally into six parts, one per each treatment. After each treatment was prepared, hamburgers (150 g) were moulded and packed on polyethylene bags and stored aerobically at 4 °C. All treatments were analysed in triplicates at days 1, 8 and 15, except for the physicochemical and sensory evaluations that were assessed only at day 1.

2.3. Physicochemical Analyses

Physicochemical determinations were evaluated as follows: protein (AOAC 981.10), fat (AOAC 2007.04), ashes (AOAC 920.153) and moisture (AOAC 2007.04) [58]. The pH was determined with a potentiometer (Orion Versa Star, Thermo Scientific®, Singapore) [59]. Colour was evaluated in terms of CIELAB parameters, L* (whiteness or brightness), a* (redness or greenness) and b* (yellows or blueness), with a spectrophotometer (Chroma meter, Konica Minolta, CR-410, Japan), and the differences in colour (ΔΕ*) were calculated according to the following formula [60]:
∆ E = L * − L r e f * 2 + a * − a r e f * 2 + b * − b r e f * 2
where, L*ref, a*ref and b*ref = control parameters and L*, a* and b* = parameters for the different treatments.

2.4. Lipid Oxidation

Lipid oxidation was determined by the quantification of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) according to Pfalzgraf et al. [61]. Briefly, 10 g of meat was homogenized with 20 mL of trichloroacetic acid (10%), and then the homogenate was centrifuged and the supernatant decanted. Next, 2 mL of the filtrate was mixed with 2 mL of the TBA reagent (20 mM). The mixture was kept in a bain-marie for 20 min at 80 °C and after that, the absorbance was measured in a spectrophotometer at 531 nm. A standard calibration curve was developed with an increasing concentration of 1,1,3,3, tetraethoxypropane (4.73 mM, from 0 to 30 μL) (y = 144.2x + 0.0066, R2 = 0.9977). TBARS values were expressed as milligrams of malondialdehyde (MDA) per kilogram of muscle [61].

2.5. Microbiological Analyses

Ten grams from each treatment were aseptically homogenised in 90 mL of Maximum Recovery Diluent (MRD, CM0733, Oxoid©, Basingstoke, UK) and mixed in a Stomacher® (Lab Blender, Seward, London, UK) at a maximum speed for 2 min. The homogenised sample was serially diluted (1:10) in MRD (CM0733, Oxoid©, Basingstoke, UK) according to the Official Mexican Standards. Each dilution (100 µL) was surface-plated onto specific media and incubated aerobically at 32 °C except for B. thermosphacta and moulds and yeasts, which were incubated at 25 °C as follows: total aerobic count (TAC, AOAC 990.12) on enriched Plate Count agar (PCA, CM0325, Oxoid©, Basingstoke, UK), Staphylococcus aureus (AOAC 2003.07) on Baird Parker agar (BP, 11723503, BD BIOXON®, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Mexico) with egg yolk and tellurite (S1058JAA, BD Difco®, Cuautitlán Izcalli, Mexico), total coliforms (AOAC 991.14) in Red Bile Violet agar (RBV, 70188, Fluka, Spruce, USA), moulds and yeasts (AOAC 997.02) in Potato Dextrose agar (PDA; 213300, BD BIOXON®, Heidelberg, Germany) acidified with 10% tartaric acid (T400 DL-tartaric, Merck, Saint Louis, MO, USA), Salmonella (NOM-114-SSA1-1994) [62] in Xylose, Lysine and Tergitol 4 agar (XLT4, R459802, Remel®, San Diego, USA), Brochothrix thermopsphacta (AOAC 303–306) in Streptomycin Thallium Acetate Actidione agar (STAA, CM0881, Oxoid©, Basingstoke, UK), lactic acid bacteria (LAB, NOM-243-SSA1-2010) [63] on de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe agar (MRS, 110660, MERCK®, Darmstadt, Germany) and Pseudomonas spp. (ISO 13720-2011) on Cetrimide, Fucidin, Cephalosporin agar (CFC, CM0559, Oxoid©, Basingstoke, UK) enriched with Supplement SR0103E (Oxoid©, Basingstoke, UK). The plates were incubated for the following times: RVB and BP 24 h, STAA and CFC 48 h, PCA 72 h and PDA and MRS 120 h [64]. Numbers of colony-forming units (CFU) were counted on plates with numbers ranging between 10 and 200 CFU and results were transformed from CFU/g to log10 CFU/g.

2.6. Sensory Evaluation

Sensory evaluation was conducted with an untrained panel of 50 consumers. According to Stone and Sidel [65], a panel of 25–50 subjects per product in laboratory testing is recommended [65]. Individuals between 18 and 50 years of age evaluated the BH sensorially through an acceptability test (colour, flavour, odour and general appearance) [66] using a 5-point hedonic scale (1: I dislike it a lot; 2: I dislike it little; 3: I don’t like it or dislike it; 4: I like it; 5: I like it a lot) according to Anzaldúa-Morales (1994) [67]. All samples were identified with a 3-digit code and were presented randomly to panellists. Panellists were indicated to rinse their palate with water between samples.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

A completely randomized one-way design was used to elaborate the treatments. Response variables were physicochemical composition (moisture, ashes, fat and protein), colour (L*, a*, b*, ΔE*), microbiological quality (S. aureus, Salmonella spp., Pseudomonas spp., B. thermosphacta, moulds and yeasts, lactic acid bacteria and total coliforms) and sensory evaluation (odour, colour, taste and general appearance). Three repetitions were performed for each treatment. Data were analysed using the ANOVA procedure, using the General Lineal Model (GLM) procedure in SAS, version 9.1.3 (SAS Institute Inc. E. U. A., 2006) [68]. Subsequently, a multiple comparison of means was carried out by the Tukey test, using a value of α = 0.05. Regarding the sensory evaluation, a correspondence analysis using the CORRESP procedure of the same statistical package (SAS version 9.1.3.) was performed to review which treatments corresponded more with the levels of sensory response on the hedonic scale.
The physicochemical composition (moisture, ashes, fat and protein) was analysed to compare means with a significance of p < 0.05 with the model:
yij = μ + τi + εij
where yij is the responding variable measured in the j-th repetition of the i-th treatment, τi is the effect of the i-th treatment and εij is the random error corresponding to the j-th repetition of the i-th treatment.
Furthermore, colour, pH, lipid oxidation and antimicrobial activity were evaluated through time with the model:
yijk = μ + τi + Pj + τP(ij) +εijk
where yij is the responding variable measured in the k-th repetition of the i-th treatment in the i-th period, τi is the effect of the i-th treatment, Pj is the effect of j-th period and τP(ij) is the effect of the interaction of the i-th treatment with the j-th period and εij is the random error corresponding to the k-th repetition of the i-th treatment in the i-th period.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physicochemical Analyses

There were not statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) on the physicochemical composition among treatments (Table 1). The protein content on the BH ranged from 20.63 ± 0.87 to 21.74 ± 1.32; fat, from 10.63 ± 0.5 to 11.11 ± 1.07; moisture, from 70.62 ± 1.06 to 71.69 ± 1.23 and ashes from 2.22 ± 0.35 to 2.44 ± 0.14. Hence, the chemical composition of the hamburgers was within ranges reported previously [69,70]. It has been reported before that EO and CO do not affect the chemical composition of meat and meat products [22,71,72].
Figure 1 shows the pH values among treatments through time. There were not significant (p > 0.05) differences in pH among treatments either through time (p > 0.05); values ranged from 5.43 ± 0.007 to 5.59 ± 0.086. These values were within a range of 5.3 to 5.6 which has been described as normal for meat hamburgers [73]. Likewise, similar results were reported in chicken when using EO as preservatives [74].

3.2. Colour

Table 2 shows colour parameters: L*, a*, b* and colour difference (ΔE*). Luminosity (L*) showed significant changes through time (p < 0.05) but no differences among treatments (p > 0.05). All treatments had greater values on days 8 and 15 compared to day 1 (p < 0.05). L* indicates the degree of brightness of a colour, ranging from 0 (black) to 100 (white), and it is related to the content of pigments in a food [75]. A food with greater content of pigments has a stronger light absorption, resulting in a lower reflectance; hence, the food can be darker or opaquer. In meat, colour is related to levels of myoglobin and the relative proportions of each redox form [76]. As mentioned before, all treatments showed a lower L* at day 1 (p < 0.05), meaning these treatments had greater concentrations of pigments at this day. Then, L* increased at days 8 and 15 without statistically significant differences among them (p > 0.05). Hernández et al. [76] measured the colour of meat samples at 1, 4 and 7 days of exposure to air and found significant differences in the L* coordinate between days 1 and 4, but not between days 4 and 7 [76]. They stated that there is a reasonably direct relationship between total pigment content and sample lightness.
If the value of a* is positive, it indicates a tendency to red, and if it is negative, to green. In terms of a*, significant differences were found among treatments and overtime (p < 0.05). At day 1, T4 presented the greatest value (13.29 ± 1.15, p < 0.05) and no significant differences were found among the rest of the treatments (p > 0.05). At day 8, treatments 4 and 6 had the greatest values compared with the other treatments (p < 0.05, 10.89 ± 1.32 and 10.28 ± 1.02, respectively), without significant differences among them (p > 0.05). Finally, on day 15, T4 and T6 presented the greatest values 12.30 ± 0.73 and 11.80 ± 1.16, respectively, without statistically significant differences among them (p > 0.05). The latter could be associated with the carotenoids and capsaicinoids of the CPO [77]; carotenoids are tetraterpenoid pigments that present chromophore properties. CPO also has capsaicinoids such as capsaicin, which is a red natural pigment and is the predominant capsaicinoid presented in chili plants [56]. The lowest values of a* through time were found on day 8 in all treatments (p < 0.05).
Myoglobin is a water-soluble protein that contains iron in its structure. In fresh meat, it is mainly found in three basic states: deoxymyoglobin (DMb), oxymyoglobin (OMb) and metmyoglobin (MMb) [76]. Oxymyoglobin gives the bright red colour to meat which is visually and colourimetrically redder than DMb and MMb; therefore, the presence of OMb influences the value of a* [76]. In the presence of oxygen, myoglobin oxidizes to OMb; however, this oxidized form can undergo a deoxygenation process under an atmosphere with low oxygen tensions, which can be promoted by the presence of salt [78]. The above could explain the non-linear relationship of a* with respect to time. This non-linear behaviour was also observed in frozen BH added to butilhidroxitolueno (100 ppm) during storage at 30 days [46].
In terms of b* (positive values indicate a tendency to yellow and negative values a tendency to blue), no significant differences were observed among treatments (p > 0.05). The lowest values of b* through time were found in day 1 in all the treatments (p < 0.05).
Finally, colour differences (∆E*) were not significantly different (p < 0.05) through time. However, significant differences were found among treatments (p < 0.05). Compared to T4, T5 and T6, ∆E* in T2 and T3 were lower (p < 0.05). Treatments 2 and 3 do not contain CPO in their formulations. According to Ramírez-Navas and Stouvenel, ΔE* greater than 2.7 makes the colour difference noticeable to the human eye [60]. Therefore, ΔE* presented in T4, T5 and T6 would be appreciated. These colour changes could be associated with the content of the carotenoids and capsaicinoids of the CPO. As said before, carotenoids are terpenoid pigments with various terminal groups which cause varied chromophore properties, such as the red colour captured by the human eye [77]. CPO also contains capsaicinoids in its structure, the most important being hydrocapsaicin and capsaicin, the latter being the most predominant capsaicinoid as well as the natural red pigment found in chili plants [56].

3.3. Lipid Oxidation

In all treatments, lipid oxidation varied (p < 0.05) throughout time (Figure 2). Being observed, the lowest values were on day 1 compared to days 8 and 15. Among treatments, on days 1, 8 and 15, T4 and T6 presented the lowest values (p < 0.05) and T1 and T5 had the greatest values (p < 0.05). On day 1, values for T4 and T6 were 0.13 ± 0.035 and 0.13 ± 0.02, respectively, and values for T1 and T5 were 0.71 ± 0.032 and 0.67 ± 0.037, respectively. Lipid oxidation was less in treatments that had CPO or CPO in combination with REO (T4 and T6). This stability may be associated with the antioxidant capacity of the chemical components present in REO and CPO. Capsicum fruits, and consequently CPO, have an antioxidant capacity due to their capsaicinoids, mainly capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin [79]. Capsaicinoids react with the free radicals of meat [80] and reduce lipid oxidation in aerobic conditions [81]. Furthermore, Capsicum peppers have vitamin E [82,83] that acts as an electron-donor antioxidant [84], and rosemary is among the plants with higher antioxidant concentration [85]. The antioxidant effect in rosemary is associated with the content of carnosol, carnosic acid, rosmanol, rosmariquinone and rosmaridiphenol which acts as hydrogen atom donors [84]. Carnosic acid and carnosol, combined with compounds that share the same chemical structure, may have a synergetic effect that chelate oxygen reactive species [86]. Hence, the combination of REO and CPO in T6 may cause a synergistic effect; such effects have been reported before in meat [84,87]. Carotenoids may have an antagonistic effect in the presence of other antioxidants or in aerobic conditions [88], and this could have occurred with the combination of GEO and CPO in T5.

3.4. Antimicrobial Analyses

Total aerobic bacteria increased over time in all the treatments (Table 3). Days 1 and 8, in all treatments, presented lower counts compared with day 15 (p < 0.05). Among treatments, in all days, T1 presented higher counts (p < 0.05).
Counts of S. aureus (Table 3) at day 1 and 8 were not different among treatments (p > 0.05). In all treatments, the numbers of S. aureus increased from day 1 to 8 (p < 0.05), and from day 8 to 15, in T1 and T4 counts decreased (p < 0.05) and in T2, T3, T5 S. aureus was not detected. Salmonella spp. was not detected on any day and in any treatment. In terms of Pseudomonas spp., days 1 and 8, in all treatments, presented lower counts compared to day 15 (p < 0.05). Among treatments, in all days, T1 presented higher counts (p < 0.05) compared to the other treatments. With respect to B. thermosphacta, in day 1, this was not detected in any treatments. Moreover, on day 7 it was only counted in T1 and T3, being greater for T1 (1.99 ± 0.11 and 1.54 ± 0.82, respectively) (p < 0.05). Finally, on day 15, only T1, T2, T4 and T5 presented counts, being also greater for T1 (p < 0.05). With respect to moulds and yeast, in all treatments, they were not detected on days 1 and 8. Moreover, on day 15, T1 had higher counts (p < 0.05) compared to T2, T3 and T4. In addition, no significant differences were found among T1, T5 and T6 (p > 0.05). Regarding LAB, they were not detected on day 1 on T2, T3, T5 and T6, and T1 and T4 had similar counts (p > 0.05). On day 8, only T1, T2 and T5 presented counts without differences among them (p > 0.05). Finally, on day 15, all treatments presented counts, T3 with the lowest counts (p < 0.05). Coliforms were not detected on days 1 and 8 in all treatments, and on day 15 they only were detected on T1 and T3, 0.77 ± 0.70 and 0.43 ± 0.73, respectively, without differences among them (p > 0.05).
The role of GEO, REO and CPO as food preservatives, due to their antimicrobial effect against pathogens and spoilage microorganisms, such as S. aureus, Pseudomonas, B. thermosphacta and Salmonella, is well documented [18,23,89]. GEO has a great variety of compounds, such as enzymes, amino acids and minerals, that contribute to its antimicrobial activity [90]. However, the most biological active ones are the sulphur compounds and their precursors such as allicin, ajoene and diallyl disulphide, among others [91]. Sulphur compounds react with the cysteine and inhibit thiol-containing enzymes (proteases and alcohol dehydrogenase) or the metabolism of lipids [92]. These compounds also inhibit microbial respiration and modify the synthesis of RNA [21], as well as increase the permeability of the plasmatic membrane, which results in cellular death after a massive leak of ions [17,93,94].
The main components of REO are terpenes and terpenoids [95]. The lipophilic nature of terpenes and terpenoids allows them to disrupt the lipopolysaccharide chain in the membrane, and if the damage is large enough it can reach the cytoplasm and interrupt vital cell functions [96]. Moreover, the OH groups in their structure might be toxic for some bacteria.
Capsicum fruits and their extracts, such as CPO, have capsaicin and dihydrocapsaicin. These compounds distort and disrupt the structure and functionality of the cytoplasmatic membrane [97], mainly in Gram-positive, as the effect is more peptidoglycan-specific [98]. The latter might explain why treatments 4, 5 and 6 inhibited S. aureus, B. thermosphacta and LAB. Finally, there is evidence of a synergetic effect between some essential oils and chili oleoresins [9,99], hence showing a greater antimicrobial activity, as was observed in T5 and T6.
However, in this study, GEO, REO and CPO used alone or in combination had no effect in reducing S. aureus at days 1 and 8 (p > 0.05), and for Pseudomonas spp, only T3 at day 1 and T2 at day 8 had significant lower counts (p < 0.05).
This could be since there are several factors that affect the antimicrobial properties of essential oils. In a food, EO interact with the constituents of the food (fat, proteins, starch, etc.) [93]. Moreover, the antimicrobial effect of the EO constituents also depends on pH, temperature and the level of microbial contamination [93]. Then the effectiveness of EO is greater in a culture media than in foods. In meat products, the content of fat has a great effect on the antimicrobial effectiveness of EO against most microorganisms. Because of this, the concentration and/or quantity of EO used as a preservative in foods should be higher than the one used in in vitro conditions. However, the sensory acceptance of food products may limit the quantity of the EO that can be added. For this, different strategies should be explored to circumvent this problem.

3.5. Sensory Evaluation

In general appearance (Figure 3c) (Figure 3a), it was observed that T2 was preferred by panellists because it had the highest correspondence with level 5 (I really like it), T1, T5 and T6 had higher correspondence with level 4 (I like it) and T3 and T4 had correspondence with level 3 (neither I like nor dislike). A correspondence analysis of odour is shown in Figure 3a, T2 and T5 correspond to level 5 (I like it a lot), T4 and T1 correspond to level 2 (I dislike it little), T6 corresponds to level 3 (neither I like nor dislike) and T3 correspond to level 4 (I like it). A flavour correspondence analysis is presented in Figure 3b, where it is observed that T2 corresponds to level 5 (I really like it), T5 corresponds to level 4 (I like it), T4 as well as T1 correspond to level 3 (I don’t like or dislike it) and T6 and T3 correspond to level 2 (I dislike it a little). Finally, regarding the correspondence of colour (Figure 3d), T2 and T6 correspond to level 5 (I like it a lot), T5 corresponds to level 4 (I like it), T4 corresponds to level 2 (I dislike it a little) and T1 and T3 correspond to level 3 (neither I like nor dislike). Then, it can be inferred that treatments 2 and 5 were the best evaluated. These treatments are the ones with GEO and GEO/CPO. It has been reported that the addition of GEO modifies positively the acceptability and the sensory attributes of meat and meat products [100,101], while delaying off-flavours and off-odours associated with oxidation [102]. Our results showed that the addition of GEO, REO and CPO delayed lipid oxidation. It is worth mention that as many Mexican dishes are spiced with garlic and chipotle pepper, and these are among the most used spices in Mexican cuisine [103], these were chosen as preservatives for the BH.
Furthermore, the oleoresins of some chili plants rich in carotenoids and phenols have been described as shelf-life lengtheners in foods. At the same time, as these compounds join some meat components, they favour mechanisms that may improve sensory characteristics [104].
Low concentrations of essential oils, alone or in combination with other additives such as chili oleoresins, do not negatively alter the sensory attributes of meat [105] but improve the flavour, odour and colour of meat products [106,107].

4. Conclusions

The addition of GEO, REO and CPO to BH did not affect its chemical composition, pH or colour, but it reduced lipid oxidation. Moreover, regarding lipid oxidation, an antagonic effect was observed in the treatment containing GEO and CPO. Regarding microbial quality, the addition of GEO and CPO, alone or in combination, reduced aerobic bacteria and mould and yeast; however, the effect that GEO and CPO had against the rest of the microorganisms depended on the day and the treatments. Furthermore, consumers had greater acceptance for hamburgers formulated with GEO, REO and CPO. Because of these findings, it is concluded that GEO, REO and CPO can be used in BH formulations to improve microbial quality and avoid lipid oxidation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.-M. and A.L.R.-M.; data curation, A.C.-M., E.S.-E., L.G.A., R.S.-V. and G.M.-Z.; formal analysis, E.S.-E., D.C.-F. and G.M.-Z.; funding acquisition, A.L.R.-M.; investigation, P.O.-M.; methodology, P.O.-M. and D.C.-F.; project administration, A.C.-M.; writing—original draft, P.O.-M.; writing—review and editing, A.C.-M., L.G.A., R.S.-V., A.L.R.-M. and J.M.T.-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the sensory analysis did not represent a health risk to the public and the panellists were notified in advance of the nature of the sample to be tested.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

Paulina Olivas-Mendez is grateful to the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT, Mexico) for the student grant.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Taylor, E.V.; Holt, K.G.; Mahon, B.E.; Ayers, T.; Norton, D.; Gould, L.H. Ground Beef Consumption Patterns in the United States, FoodNet, 2006 through 2007. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 341–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Nsoesie, E.O.; Kluberg, S.A.; Brownstein, J.S. Online Reports of Foodborne Illness Capture Foods Implicated in Official Foodborne Outbreak Reports. Prev. Med. 2014, 67, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Painter, J.A.; Hoekstra, R.M.; Ayers, T.; Tauxe, R.V.; Braden, C.R.; Angulo, F.J.; Griffin, P.M. Attribution of Foodborne Illnesses, Hospitalizations, and Deaths to Food Commodities by Using Outbreak Data, United States, 1998–2008. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2013, 19, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Saux, N.L.; Spika, J.S.; Friesen, B.; Johnson, I.; Melnychuck, D.; Anderson, C.; Dion, R.; Rahman, M.; Tostowaryk, W. Ground Beef Consumption in Noncommercial Settings Is a Risk Factor for Sporadic Escherichia Coli O157:H7 Infection in Canada. J. Infect. Dis. 1993, 167, 500–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Dave, D.; Ghaly, A.E. Meat Spoilage Mechanisms and Preservation Techniques: A Critical. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2011, 6, 486–510. [Google Scholar]
  6. Sánchez, J.; Correa, M.; Castañeda-Sandoval, L.M. Bacillus Cereus Un Patógeno Importante En El Control Microbiológico de Los Alimentos. Rev. Fac. Nac. Salud Pública 2016, 34, 229–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Shahidi, F. Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods: Whole versus Processed Foods. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 20, 376–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bender, B.D.; Bárcenas, M.E. El Ajo y Sus Aplicaciones En La Conservación de Alimentos. Temas Sel. Ing. Aliment. 2013, 1, 25–36. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jayasena, D.D.; Jo, C. Essential Oils as Potential Antimicrobial Agents in Meat and Meat Products: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 34, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rodríguez Saucedo, E.N. Uso de Agentes Antimicrobianos Naturales En La Conservación de Frutas y Hortalizas|Rodríguez Sauceda|Ra Ximhai. Ra Ximhai 2011, 7, 153–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bakkali, F.; Averbeck, S.; Averbeck, D.; Idaomar, M. Biological Effects of Essential Oils-A Review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008, 46, 446–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Sendra, E. Essential Oils in Foods: From Ancient Times to the 21st Century. Foods 2016, 5, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Jayasena, D.D.; Jo, C. Potential application of Essential Oils as Natural Antioxidants in Meat and Meat Products: A Review. Food Rev. Int. 2014, 30, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Djenane, D.; Sánchez-Escalante, A.; Beltrán, J.A.; Roncalés, P. Ability of a -Tocopherol, Taurine and Rosemary, in Combination With vitamin C, to Increase the Oxidative Stability of Beef Steaks Packaged in Modified Atmosphere. Food Chem. 2002, 76, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kaur, R.; Gupta, T.B.; Bronlund, J.; Kaur, L. The Potential of Rosemary as a Functional Ingredient for Meat Products-A Review. Food Rev. Int. 2021, 16, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nieto, G.; Ros, G.; Castillo, J. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Properties of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis. L.): A Review. Medicines 2018, 5, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Burt, S. Essential Oils: Their Antibacterial Properties and Potential Applications in Foods—A Review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 94, 223–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sirocchi, V.; Devlieghere, F.; Peelman, N.; Sagratini, G.; Maggi, F.; Vittori, S.; Ragaert, P. Effect of Rosmarinus Officinalis L. Essential Oil Combined with Different Packaging Conditions to Extend the Shelf Life of Refrigerated Beef Meat. Food Chem. 2017, 221, 1069–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bouloumpasi, E.; Hatzikamari, M.; Lazaridou, A.; Chatzopoulou, P.; Biliaderis, C.G.; Irakli, M. Antibacterial and Antioxidant Properties of Oregano and Rosemary Essential Oil Distillation By-Products. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2021, 6, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Leuschner, R.G.K.; Lelsch, V. Antimicrobial Effects of Garlic, Clove and Red Hot Chilli on Listeria Monocytogenes in Broth Model Systems and Soft Cheese. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2003, 54, 127–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rahman, M.S. Allicin and Other Functional Active Components in Garlic: Health Benefits and Bioavailability. Int. J. Food Prop. 2007, 10, 245–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Michalczyk, M.; Macura, R.; Banaś, J.; Tesarowicz, I.; Maciejaszek, I. Effect of Adding Oregano Essential Oil, Garlic and Tomato Preparations Separately and in Combination on the Stability of Vacuum-Packed Minced Pork During Storage. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2015, 15, 221–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Ibrahim-Hemmat, I.; el Sabagh-Rasha, A.; El-Roos-Nahla, A.; el Fattah-Hend, A. Antimicrobial Effect of Some Essential Oils on Staphyloccosus Aureus in Minced Meat. Benha Vet. Med. J. 2016, 30, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. López, L.; El Ajo, M.T. Propiedades Farmacológicas e Indicaciones Terapéuticas. Offarm Farm. Soc. 2007, 26, 78–81. [Google Scholar]
  25. Amany, M.M.B.; Shaker, M.A.; Abeer, A.K. Antioxidant Activities of Date Pits in a Model Meat System. Int. Food Res. 2010, 19, 223–227. [Google Scholar]
  26. Berke, T.G.; Shieh, S.C. Capsicum Cultivars. In Handbook of Herbs and Spices, 2nd ed.; Peter, K.V., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 116–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ravindran, P.N.; Kallupurackal, J.A. Black Pepper. In Handbook of Herbs and Spice, 2nd ed.; Peter, K.V., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2012; Volume 1, pp. 86–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Suderman, D.R. Effective Use of Flavorings and Seasonings. In Batters and Breadings in Food Processing, 2nd ed.; Kulp, K., Loewe, R., Lorenz, K., Gelroth, J., Eds.; AACC International Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2011; pp. 73–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. FDA. 21CFR182.20 Title 21. Food and Drugs Chapter I. Food and Drug Administration Department of Health and Human Services Subchapter B. Food for Human Consumption; U.S. Food and Drug Administration: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2022.
  30. Meckelmann, S.W.; Riegel, D.W.; van Zonneveld, M.; Ríos, L.; Peña, K.; Mueller-Seitz, E.; Petz, M. Capsaicinoids, Flavonoids, Tocopherols, Antioxidant Capacity and Color Attributes in 23 Native Peruvian Chili Peppers (Capsicum spp.) Grown in Three Different Locations. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2014, 240, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Melgar-Lalanne, G.; Hernández-Álvarez, A.J.; Jiménez-Fernández, M.; Azuara, E. Oleoresins from Capsicum spp.: Extraction Methods and Bioactivity. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2017, 10, 51–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Akbas, E.; Soyler, U.B.; Oztop, M.H. Physicochemical and Antimicrobial Properties of Oleoresin Capsicum Nanoemulsions Formulated with Lecithin and Sucrose Monopalmitate. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019, 188, 54–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nadeem, M.; Anjum, F.M.; Khan, M.R.; Saeed, M.; Riaz, A. Antioxidant Potential of Bell Pepper (Capsicum Annum L.)—A Review. Pak. J. Food Sci. 2011, 21, 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  34. Nurjanah, S.; Sudaryanto, Z.; Widyasanti, A.; Pratiwi, H. Antibacterial Activity of Capsicum Annuum L. Oleoresin. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1125, 189–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Sharma, P.K.; Fuloria, S.; Alam, S.; Sri, M.V.; Singh, A.; Sharma, V.K.; Kumar, N.; Subramaniyan, V.; Fuloria, N.K. Chemical Composition and Antimicrobial Activity of Oleoresin of Capsicum Annuum Fruits. Mindanao J. Sci. Technol. 2021, 19, 29–43. [Google Scholar]
  36. Nadi, M.S.; Fikri, F.; Purnama, T.E. Determination of Capsaicin Levels in Capsicum Annum Linn Ethanolic Extract Using Thin Layer Chromatography Analysis. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2020, 11, 661–664. [Google Scholar]
  37. Al Othman, Z.A.; Ahmed, Y.B.H.; Habila, M.A.; Ghafar, A.A. Determination of Capsaicin and Dihydrocapsaicin in Capsicum Fruit Samples Using High Performance Liquid Chromatography. Molecules 2011, 16, 8919–8929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Zhu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, Q.; Wang, M.; Deng, W.; Li, Q.; Firempong, C.K.; Wang, S.; Tong, S.; Xu, X.; et al. In Vitro and In Vivo Evaluation of Capsaicin-Loaded Microemulsion for Enhanced Oral Bioavailability. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 2678–2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Gómez-Moriel, C.; Quintero-Ramos, A.; Camacho-Dávila, A.; Ruíz-Gutiérrez, M.; Talamás-Abbud, R.; Olivas-Vargas, R.; Barnard, J. Optimization of Chipotle Pepper Smoking Process Using Response Surface Methodology. J. Food Qual. 2012, 35, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Natividad-Torres, E.A.; Guevara-Aguilar, A.; Sánchez, E.; Sida-Arreola, J.P.; Muñoz-Márquez, E.; Chávez-Mendoza, C. Processing Effect on the Bioactive Compounds Content of Mexican Jalapeño Peppers for Chipotle (Capsicum Annum L.). Acta Agrícola Pecu. 2021, 7, 1339–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Moreno-Escamilla, J.O.; de la Rosa, L.A.; López-Díaz, J.A.; Rodrigo-García, J.; Núñez-Gastélum, J.A.; Alvarez-Parrilla, E. Effect of the Smoking Process and Firewood Type in the Phytochemical Content and Antioxidant Capacity of Red Jalapeño Pepper during Its Transformation to Chipotle Pepper. Food Res. Int. 2015, 76, 654–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Vergara, H.; Cózar, A.; Rubio, N. Effect of Adding of Different Forms of Oregano (Origanum vulgare) on Lamb Meat Burgers Quality during the Storage Time. CyTA-J. Food 2020, 18, 535–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Rojas, M.C.; Brewer, M.S. Effect of Natural Antioxidants on Oxidative Stability of Cooked, Refrigerated Beef and Pork. J. Food Sci. 2007, 72, S282–S288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Velasco, V.; Williams, P. Improving Meat Quality through Natural Antioxidants. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 71, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Abdel-Aziz, M.E.; Morsy, N.F.S. Keeping Quality of Frozen Beef Patties by Marjoram and Clove Essential Oils. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2015, 39, 956–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hashemi Gahruie, H.; Hosseini, S.M.H.; Taghavifard, M.H.; Eskandari, M.H.; Golmakani, M.-T.; Shad, E. Lipid Oxidation, Color Changes, and Microbiological Quality of Frozen Beef Burgers Incorporated with Shirazi Thyme, Cinnamon, and Rosemary Extracts. J. Food Qual. 2017, 2017, 6350156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Dzudie, T.; Kouebou, C.P.; Essia-Ngang, J.J.; Mbofung, C.M.F. Lipid Sources and Essential Oils Effects on Quality and Stability of Beef Patties. J. Food Eng. 2004, 65, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Colindres, P.; Susan Brewer, M. Oxidative Stability of Cooked, Frozen, Reheated Beef Patties: Effect of Antioxidants. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2011, 91, 963–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Barber, L.I.; Obinna- Echem, P.C.; Hart, B.E. Proximate Composition, Thiobarbituric Acid and Sensory Properties of Chicken-Breadfruit Patties with Piper Guineense and Monodora Myristica Oleoresins. Am. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 8, 56–62. [Google Scholar]
  50. Vargas, F.C.; Arantes-Pereira, L.; da Costa, P.A.; de Melo, M.P.; do Sobral, P.J.A. Rosemary and Pitanga Aqueous Leaf Extracts on Beef Patties Stability under Cold Storage. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2016, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Aminzare, M.; Hashemi, M.; Hassanzad Azar, H.; Hejazi, J. The Use of Herbal Extracts and Essential Oils as a Potential Antimicrobial in Meat and Meat Products; a Review. J. Hum. Environ. Health Promot. 2016, 1, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Yoon, J.; Bae, S.M.; Gwak, S.H.; Jeong, J.Y. Use of Green Tea Extract and Rosemary Extract in Naturally Cured Pork Sausages with White Kimchi Powder. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 840–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alsaiqali, M.; El-Shibiny, A.A.; Adel, M.; Abdel-Samie, M.; Ghoneim, S. Use of Some Essential Oils as Antimicrobial Agents to Control Pathogenic Bacteria in Beef Burger. World J. Dairy Food Sci. 2016, 11, 109–120. [Google Scholar]
  54. Al-Hijazeen, M. The Combination Effect of Adding Rosemary Extract and Oregano Essential Oil on Ground Chicken Meat Quality. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. García-Díez, J.; Alheiro, J.; Pinto, A.L.; Falco, V.; Fraqueza, M.J.; Patarata, L. Synergistic Activity of Essential Oils from Herbs and Spices Used on Meat Products against Food Borne Pathogens. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2017, 12, 281–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Restrepo, G. Oleorresinas de Capsicum En La Industria Alimentaria. Rev.Sallista Investig. 2007, 3, 43–47. [Google Scholar]
  57. Ogaz, J.R. Escalamiento a Nivel de Planta Piloto Del Proceso de Extracción de Oleorresinas a Partir de Chile Jalapeño (Capsicum annuum); Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua: Chihuahua, Mexico, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  58. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis, 16th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  59. Honikel, K.O. Reference Methods for the Assessment of Physical Characteristics of Meat. Meat Sci. 1998, 49, 447–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ramírez-Navas, J.S.; Rodríguez de Stouvenel, A. Characterization of Colombian Quesillo Cheese by Spectrocolorimetry. Vitae 2012, 19, 178–185. [Google Scholar]
  61. Pfalzgraf, A.; Frigg, M.; Steinhart, H. Tocopherol Contents and Lipid Oxidation in Pork Muscle and Adipose Tissue during Storage. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1995, 43, 1339–1342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. NOM. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-114-SSA1-1994, Bienes y Servicios. Método Para La Determinación de Salmonella En Alimentos; Gobierno de Mexico. 1995. Available online: file:///C:/Users/MDPI/Downloads/wo69538-1.pdf (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  63. NOM. Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-243-SSA1-2010, Productos y Servicios. Leche, Fórmula Láctea, Producto Lácteo Combinado y Derivados Lácteos. Disposiciones y Especificaciones Sanitarias. Métodos de Prueba; Gobierno de Mexico. 2010. Available online: https://dof.gob.mx/normasOficiales/4156/salud2a/salud2a.htm (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  64. Renye, J.A.; Somkuti, G.A.; Vallejo-Cordoba, B.; van Hekken, D.L.; Gonzalez-Cordova, A.F. Characterization of the Microflora Isolated from Queso Fresco Made from Raw and Pasteurized Milk. J. Food Saf. 2008, 28, 59–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Stone, H.; Sidel, J. Sensory Evaluation Practices, 3rd ed.; Elsevier Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004; Volume 1. [Google Scholar]
  66. Meilgaard, M.; Vance Civille, G.; Thomas Carr, B. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Anzaldúa Morales, A. La Evaluación Sensorial de Los Alimentos En Teoría y La Práctica, 1st ed.; Acribia: Zaragoza, Spain, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  68. SAS Institute Inc. SAS/STAT User’s Guide: Statistic Version 9. North Carolina 2002. Available online: https://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/statug/63962/HTML/default/viewer.htm#titlepage.htm (accessed on 29 June 2022).
  69. OECD/FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook, OECD Agricultura Statistics; OECD-FAO: Rome, Italy, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  70. Valero Gaspar, T.; del Pozo de la Calle, S.; Ruíz Moreno, E.; Ávila Torres, J.M.; Valera Moreiras, G. Guía Nutricional de La Carne; Nutricional de la Carne, F., Ed.; Federacion Madrileña de Detallistas de la Carne: Madrid, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  71. Lemay, M.-J.; Choquette, J.; Delaquis, P.J.; Gariépy, C.; Rodrigue, N.; Saucier, L. Antimicrobial Effect of Natural Preservatives in a Cooked and Acidified Chicken Meat Model. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2002, 78, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mukhtar, S.; Zahoor, T.; Randhawa, M.A.; Iqbal, R.; Shabbir, A.; Liaqat, A.; Ahsan, S. Synergistic Effect of Chitosan and Clove Oil on Raw Poultry Meat. J. Food Process. Technol. 2018, 9, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Zuasnabar, Y.; García, O.; Díaz, M. Elaboración de Hamburguesas de Carne Vacuna Libre de Gluten. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Tandil, Argentina, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  74. Kirkpinar, F.; Ünlü, H.B.; Serdaroğlu, M.; Turp, G.Y. Effects of Dietary Oregano and Garlic Essential Oils on Carcass Characteristics, Meat Composition, Colour, PH and Sensory Quality of Broiler Meat. Br. Poult. Sci. 2014, 55, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wyszecki, G.; Stiles, W. Color Science. Concepts and Methods, Quantitative Data and Formulae, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  76. Hernández, B.; Sáenz, C.; Alberdi, C.; Diñeiro, J.M. CIELAB Color Coordinates versus Relative Proportions of Myoglobin Redox Forms in the Description of Fresh Meat Appearance. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 4159–4167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Topuz, A.; Ozdemir, F. Assessment of Carotenoids, Capsaicinoids and Ascorbic Acid Composition of Some Selected Pepper Cultivars (Capsicum annuum L.) Grown in Turkey. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2007, 20, 596–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Seideman, S.C.; Cross, H.R.; Smith, G.C.; Durland, P.R. Factos Associated with Fresh Meat Color: A Review. J. Food Qual. 1984, 6, 211–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Zhou, L.; Cao, Z.; Bi, J.; Yi, J.; Chen, Q.; Wu, X.; Zhou, M. Degradation Kinetics of Total Phenolic Compounds, Capsaicinoids and Antioxidant Activity in Red Pepper during Hot Air and Infrared Drying Process. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 842–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Carvalho, A.; Mattietto, R.; Oliveira, A.; Almeida, R.; Moresco, K.; Souza, T. Bioactive Compounds and Antioxidant Activity of Pepper (Capsicum sp.) Genotypes. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 7457–7464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wójciak, K.M.; Dolatowski, Z.J.; Okoń, A. The Effect of Water Plant Extracts Addition on the Oxidative Stability of Meat Products. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2011, 10, 175–188. [Google Scholar]
  82. Daood, H.G.; Vinkler, M.; Markus, F.; Hebshi, E.A.; Biacs, P.A. Antioxidant Vitamin Content of Spice Red Pepper (Paprika) as Affected by Technological and Varietal Factors. Food Chem. 1996, 55, 365–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Hornero-Méndez, D.; Gómez-Ladrón de Guevara, R.; Mínguez-Mosquera, M.I. Carotenoid Biosynthesis Changes in Five Red Pepper (Capsicum Annuum L.) Cultivars during Ripening. Cultivar Selection for Breeding. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 3857–3864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Georgantelis, D.; Blekas, G.; Katikou, P.; Ambrosiadis, I.; Fletouris, D.J. Effect of Rosemary Extract, Chitosan and α-Tocopherol on Lipid Oxidation and Colour Stability during Frozen Storage of Beef Burgers. Meat Sci. 2007, 75, 256–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chipault, J.H.; Mizuno, G.R.; Hawkins, J.M.; Lundberg, W.O. The Antioxidant Properties of Natural Spices. J. Food Sci. 1952, 17, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jordán, M.J.; Castillo, J.; Bañón, S.; Martínez-Conesa, C.; Sotomayor, J.A. Relevance of the Carnosic Acid/Carnosol Ratio for the Level of Rosemary Diterpene Transfer and for Improving Lamb Meat Antioxidant Status. Food Chem. 2014, 151, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Georgantelis, D.; Ambrosiadis, I.; Katikou, P.; Blekas, G.; Georgakis, S.A. Effect of Rosemary Extract, Chitosan and α-Tocopherol on Microbiological Parameters and Lipid Oxidation of Fresh Pork Sausages Stored at 4 °C. Meat Sci. 2007, 76, 172–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Boon, C.S.; McClements, D.J.; Weiss, J.; Decker, E.A. Factors Influencing the Chemical Stability of Carotenoids in Foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2010, 50, 515–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Cerecedo-Cruz, L.; Azuara-Nieto, E.; Hernández-Álvarez, A.J.; González-González, C.R.; Melgar-Lalanne, G. Evaluation of the Oxidative Stability of Chipotle Chili (Capsicum Annuum L.) Oleoresins in Avocado Oil. Grasas Aceites 2018, 69, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  90. Bhandari, P.R. Garlic (Allium Sativum L.): A Review of Potential Therapeutic Applications. Int. J. Green Pharm. 2012, 6, 118–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Salem, A.M.; Amin, R.A.; Afifi, G.S. Studies on Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Efficiency of Some Oils in Minced Beef. J. Am. Sci. 2010, 6, 691–700. [Google Scholar]
  92. Pranoto, Y.; Salokhe, V.M.; Rakshit, S.K. Physical and Antibacte Rial Properties of Alginate-Based Edible Film Incorporated with Garlic Oil. Food Res. Int. 2005, 38, 267–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hyldgaard, M.; Mygind, T.; Meyer, R.L. Essential Oils in Food Preservation: Mode of Action, Synergies, and Interactions with Food Matrix Components. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Stojanović-Radić, Z.; Pejčić, M.; Joković, N.; Jokanović, M.; Ivić, M.; Šojić, B.; Škaljac, S.; Stojanović, P.; Mihajilov-Krstev, T. Inhibition of Salmonella Enteritidis Growth and Storage Stability in Chicken Meat Treated with Basil and Rosemary Essential Oils Alone or in Combination. Food Control 2018, 90, 332–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Realini, C.E.; Marcos, B. Active and Intelligent Packaging Systems for a Modern Society. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 404–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Ultee, A.; Bennik, M.H.J.; Moezelaar, R. The Phenolic Hydroxyl Group of Carvacrol Is Essential for Action against the Food-Borne Pathogen Bacillus Cereus. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 1561–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Loizzo, M.R.; Bonesi, M.; Serio, A.; Chaves-López, C.; Falco, T.; Paparella, A.; Menichini, F.; Tundis, R. Application of Nine Air-Dried Capsicum Annum Cultivars as Food Preservative: Micronutrient Content, Antioxidant Activity, and Foodborne Pathogens Inhibitory Effects. Int. J. Food Prop. 2017, 20, 899–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  98. do Nascimento, N.F.F.; do Rêgo, E.R.; Nascimento, M.F.; Bruckner, C.H.; Finger, F.L.; do Rêgo, M.M. Combining Ability for Yield and Fruit Quality in the Pepper Capsicum Annuum. Genet. Mol. Res. 2014, 13, 3237–3249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Kollia, E.; Proestos, C.; Zoumpoulakis, P.; Markaki, P. Capsaicin, an Inhibitor of Ochratoxin A Production by Aspergillus Section Nigri Strains in Grapes (Vitis Vinifera L.). Food Addit. Contam. Part A 2019, 36, 1709–1721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jridi, M.; Siala, R.; Fakhfakh, N.; Ayadi, M.A.; Elhatmi, M.; Taktak, M.A.; Nasri, M.; Zouari, N. Effect of Rosemary Leaves and Essential Oil on Turkey Sausage Quality. Acta Aliment 2015, 44, 534–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Ntzimani, A.G.; Giatrakou, V.I.; Savvaidis, I.N. Combined Natural Antimicrobial Treatments (EDTA, Lysozyme, Rosemary and Oregano Oil) on Semi Cooked Coated Chicken Meat Stored in Vacuum Packages at 4 °C: Microbiological and Sensory Evaluation. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2010, 11, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Abubakar, E.M.M. Efficacy of Crude Extracts of Garlic (Allium Sativum Linn.) against Nosocomial Escherichia Coli, Staphylococcus Aureus, Streptococcus Pneumoniea and Pseudomonas Aeruginosa. J. Med. Plants Res. 2009, 3, 179–185. [Google Scholar]
  103. Cárdenas-Castro, A.P.; Perales-Vázquez, G.d.C.; de la Rosa, L.A.; Zamora-Gasga, V.M.; Ruiz-Valdiviezo, V.M.; Alvarez-Parrilla, E.; Sáyago-Ayerdi, S.G. Sauces: An Undiscovered Healthy Complement in Mexican Cuisine. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2019, 17, 100154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. de Lima Júnior, D.M.; do Nascimento Rangel, A.H.; Urbano, S.A.; Moreno, G.M.B. Lipid Oxidation and Lamb Meat Quality. Acta Vet. Bras. 2013, 7, 14–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Dias Borges, L.; Veiga de Camargo, E.; Cassol Pires, C.; Lisboa Mello, G.; Silveira Campos, P.N.; Giongó, C.; Silveira Nalério, É. Características Sensoriais Da Carne de Cordeiros Suplementados Com Óleos EssenciaisNo Title. In 52a Reunion Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia; Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia: Belo Horizonte, Brazil, 2015; pp. 1–3. [Google Scholar]
  106. Mathenjwa, S.A.; Hugo, C.J.; Bothma, C.; Hugo, A. Effect of Alternative Preservatives on the Microbial Quality, Lipid Stability and Sensory Evaluation of Boerewors. Meat Sci. 2012, 91, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Saad, S.M.; Shaltout, F.A.; Abou Elroos, N.A.; El-nahas, S.B. Antimicrobial Effect of Some Essential Oils on Some Pathogenic Bacteria in Minced Meat. J. Food Sci. Nutr. Res. 2019, 2, 13–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 11 02018 g001 550
Figure 1. pH values (mean) of beef hamburgers added to essential oils of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) and oleoresins of chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum). T1 = control, T2 = 1% garlic essential oil (w/w), T3 = 1% rosemary essential oil (w/w), T4 = 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w), T5 = 1% garlic essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w) and T6 = 1% rosemary essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w). There was no difference between treatments (p > 0.05).
Figure 1. pH values (mean) of beef hamburgers added to essential oils of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) and oleoresins of chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum). T1 = control, T2 = 1% garlic essential oil (w/w), T3 = 1% rosemary essential oil (w/w), T4 = 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w), T5 = 1% garlic essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w) and T6 = 1% rosemary essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w). There was no difference between treatments (p > 0.05).
Foods 11 02018 g001
Foods 11 02018 g002 550
Figure 2. Lipid oxidation (MDA/kg beef, mean) over time in beef hamburgers added to rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) essential oils and chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum). T1 = control, T2 = 1% garlic essential oil (w/w), T3 = 1% rosemary essential oil (w/w), T4 = 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w), T5 = 1% garlic essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w) and T6 = 1% rosemary essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w). a,b,c = different lowercase literals indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between treatments. A,B,C = different capitalized literals indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) through time.
Figure 2. Lipid oxidation (MDA/kg beef, mean) over time in beef hamburgers added to rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) essential oils and chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum). T1 = control, T2 = 1% garlic essential oil (w/w), T3 = 1% rosemary essential oil (w/w), T4 = 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w), T5 = 1% garlic essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w) and T6 = 1% rosemary essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w). a,b,c = different lowercase literals indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between treatments. A,B,C = different capitalized literals indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) through time.
Foods 11 02018 g002
Foods 11 02018 g003 550
Figure 3. Correspondence analysis of general appearance (c), odour (a), flavour (b) and colour (d) of beef hamburgers added to rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) essential oils and chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum). T1 = control, T2 = 1% garlic essential oil (w/w), T3 = 1% rosemary essential oil (w/w), T4 = 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w), T5 = 1% garlic essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w) and T6 = 1% rosemary essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w); 1: I dislike it a lot; 2: I dislike it little; 3: I don’t like it or dislike it; 4: I like it; 5: I like it a lot.
Figure 3. Correspondence analysis of general appearance (c), odour (a), flavour (b) and colour (d) of beef hamburgers added to rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) essential oils and chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum). T1 = control, T2 = 1% garlic essential oil (w/w), T3 = 1% rosemary essential oil (w/w), T4 = 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w), T5 = 1% garlic essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w) and T6 = 1% rosemary essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w); 1: I dislike it a lot; 2: I dislike it little; 3: I don’t like it or dislike it; 4: I like it; 5: I like it a lot.
Foods 11 02018 g003
Table
Table 1. Chemical composition (mean ± standard deviation) of beef hamburgers added to essential oils of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) and oleoresins of chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum).
Table 1. Chemical composition (mean ± standard deviation) of beef hamburgers added to essential oils of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) and oleoresins of chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum).
Treatments 1FatProteinMoistureAshes
T111.60 ± 0.2121.74 ± 1.3270.69 ± 1.522.44 ± 0.14
T211.06 ± 0.9221.80 ± 0.8970.62 ± 1.772.30 ± 0.34
T310.70 ± 1.1921.29 ± 1.0071.26 ± 1.002.36 ± 0.29
T411.11 ± 0.6521.55 ± 0.9671.62 ± 1.062.30 ± 0.17
T510.63 ± 0.5020.63 ± 0.8770.70 ± 1.352.29 ± 0.29
T611.11 ± 1.0720.80 ± 0.9971.69 ± 1.232.22 ± 0.35
1 T1 = control, T2 = 1% garlic essential oil (w/w), T3 = 1% rosemary essential oil (w/w), T4 = 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w), T5 = 1% garlic essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w) and T6 = 1% rosemary essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w). There was no difference between treatments (p > 0.05).
Table
Table 2. Colour parameters (mean ± standard deviation) L*, a* and b* over time in beef hamburgers added to essential oils of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), garlic (Allium sativum) and chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum) oleoresin.
Table 2. Colour parameters (mean ± standard deviation) L*, a* and b* over time in beef hamburgers added to essential oils of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), garlic (Allium sativum) and chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum) oleoresin.
ParameterTime (d)Treatments 1
T1T2T3T4T5T6
L* 131.73 ± 1.19 a,B30.52 ± 1.43 a,B31.27 ± 1.43 a,B31.55 ± 1.75 a,B30.27 ± 1.36 a,B30.70 ± 1.14 a,B
832.34 ± 1.40 a,A32.57 ± 0.78 a,A32.00 ± 1.32 a,A31.68 ± 1.32 a,A31.98 ± 2.75 a,A32.13 ± 1.87 a,A
1531.47 ± 1.04 a,A31.39 ± 1.14 a,A32.88 ± 0.78 a,A31.56 ± 0.96 a,A31.42 ± 0.86 a,A33.50 ± 0.77 a,A
a* 112.17 ± 2.90 b,A11.62 ± 2.37 b,A10.55 ± 1.25 b,A13.29 ± 1.15 a,A11.37 ± 1.34 b,A11.53 ± 3.38 b,A
88.33 ± 1.34 b,B8.76 ± 1.08 b,B8.05 ± 1.59 b,B10.89 ± 1.32 a,B9.10 ± 1.32 b,B10.28 ± 1.02 ab,B
1510.60 ± 1.02 b,A11.42 ± 0.81 b,A11.06 ± 0.80 b,A12.30 ± 0.73 a,A10.73 ± 0.52 b,A11.80 ± 1.16 ab,A
b* 16.95 ± 0.56 a,B6.64 ± 0.59 a,B6.72 ± 0.56 a,B8.35 ± 1.04 a,B7.40 ± 0.60 a,B7.59 ± 0.74 a,B
810.66 ± 1.19 a,A10.82 ± 0.84 a,A10.52 ± 2.56 a,A10.60 ± 2.56 a,A11.11 ± 0.98 a,A11.60 ± 0.99 a,A
1512.13 ± 0.95 a,A11.88 ± 1.00 a,A11.28 ± 1.32 a,A8.96 ± 1.66 a,A9.26 ± 0.41 a,A11.40 ± 0.76 a,A
ΔE*1-1.74 ± 0.57 b,A2.06 ± 0.87 b,A3.65 ± 1.16 a,A3.22 ± 1.16 a,A3.66 ± 1.55 a,A
8-1.80 ± 0.76 b,A2.28 ± 0.98 b,A3.72 ± 1.06 a,A3.06 ± 1.45 a,A3.42 ± 2.04 a,A
15-2.49 ± 1.14 b,A2.23 ± 0.91 b,A3.65 ± 1.45 a,A3.67 ± 0.48 a,A3.30 ± 1.47 a,A
L* = luminosity, a* = green (−) and red (+), b* = blue (−) and yellow (+). ΔE* = colour difference calculated according to ΔE* = √(L* − L*ref)2 + (a* − a*ref)2 + (b* − b*ref)2. 1 T1 = control, T2 = 1% garlic essential oil (w/w), T3 = 1% rosemary essential oil (w/w), T4 = 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w), T5 = 1% garlic essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w) and T6 = 1% rosemary essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w). a,b = different literals in the same row indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between treatments. A,B = different literals in the same column indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) through time.
Table
Table 3. Microbial quality (log10 CFU/g, mean ± standard deviation) of beef hamburgers added to rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) essential oils and chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum) over time.
Table 3. Microbial quality (log10 CFU/g, mean ± standard deviation) of beef hamburgers added to rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and garlic (Allium sativum) essential oils and chipotle pepper (Capsicum annum) over time.
MicroorgTime (d)Treatment 1
T1T2T3T4T5T6
TAC12.59 ± 0.90 a,B1.82 ± 0.17 b,B1.60 ± 0.14 b,B1.82 ± 0.02 b,B1.75 ± 0.24 b,B1.58 ± 0.22 b,B
83.14 ± 0.02 a,B2.37 ± 0.28 b,B2.77 ± 0.11 b,B3.30 ± 0.47 b,B2.43 ± 0.12 b,B2.60 ± 0.17 b,B
155.25 ± 0.14 a,A4.48 ± 0.00 b,A4.7 ± 0.06 b,A4.8 ± 0.10 b,A4.52 ± 0.39 b,A4.35 ± 0.26 b,A
S. aureus11.26 ± 0.21 a,A1.31 ± 0.19 a,A1.08 ± 0.09 a,A0.85 ± 0.58 a,A1.01 ± 0.68 a,A0.60 ± 0.58 a,A
81.37 ± 0.27 a,B1.50 ± 0.01 a,B1.38 ± 0.09 a,B1.35 ± 0.11 a,B1.32 ± 0.09 a,B1.37 ± 0.25 a,B
151.02 ± 0.35 a,CNDND0.79 ± 0.56 a,CNDND
Salmonella spp.1NDNDNDNDNDND
8NDNDNDNDNDND
15NDNDNDNDNDND
Pseudomonas spp.11.16 ± 0.13 b,B1.06 ± 0.61 b,B0.37 ± 0.40 a,B1.10 ± 0.63 b,B1.00 ± 0.58 b,B1.00 ± 0.58 b,B
82.51 ± 0.08 a,B1.56 ± 0.03 b,B2.05 ± 0.23 b,A2.44 ± 0.33 b,B2.25 ± 0.49 b,B2.43 ± 0.36 b,B
153.25 ± 0.02 a,A2.17 ± 0.06 b,A2.68 ± 0.14 b,A2.51 ± 0.01 b,A2.28 ± 0.08 b,A2.58 ± 0.09 b,A
B. therm1NDNDNDNDNDND
81.99 ± 0.11 a,BND1.54 ± 0.82 b,BNDNDND
153.24 ± 0.13 a,A2.5 ± 0.08 b,AND0.27 ± 0.13 c,A0.50 ± 0.08 c,AND
M&Y1NDNDNDNDNDND
8NDNDNDNDNDND
151.24 ± 0.03 a,A0.52 ± 0.20 b,A0.30 ± 0.24 b,A0.22 ± 0.28 b,A1.07 ± 0.18 a,b,A0.82 ± 0.11 a,b,A
LAB10.6 ± 0.58 a,BNDND0.60 ± 0.58 a,BNDND
80.92 ± 0.78 a,B0.60 ± 0.58 a,BNDND0.6 ± 0.58 a,BND
151.6 ± 1.02 a,A0.99 ± 0.67 a,b,A0.87 ± 0.30 b,A1.15 ± 0.35 a,b,A0.85 ± 0.58 b,A1.22 ± 0.20 a,b,A
Total coliforms1NDNDNDNDNDND
8NDNDNDNDNDND
150.77 ± 0.70 a,AND0.43 ± 0.73 a,ANDNDND
CFU = colony-forming unit; Microorg = microorganism; d = day; TAC = total aerobic count; S. aureus = Staphylococcus aureus; B. therm = Brochothrix thermosphacta; M&Y = moulds and yeasts; LAB = lactic acid bacteria. 1 T1 = control, T2 = 1% garlic essential oil (w/w), T3 = 1% rosemary essential oil (w/w), T4 = 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w), T5 = 1% garlic essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w) and T6 = 1% rosemary essential oil + 0.5% chipotle pepper oleoresin (w/w). ND = not detected, below the detection limit. a,b,c = different literals in the same row indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) between treatments. A,B,C = different literals in the same column indicate significant difference (p < 0.05) over time.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Olivas-Méndez, P.; Chávez-Martínez, A.; Santellano-Estrada, E.; Guerrero Asorey, L.; Sánchez-Vega, R.; Rentería-Monterrubio, A.L.; Chávez-Flores, D.; Tirado-Gallegos, J.M.; Méndez-Zamora, G. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and Garlic (Allium sativum) Essential Oils and Chipotle Pepper Oleoresin (Capsicum annum) on Beef Hamburgers. Foods 2022, 11, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142018

AMA Style

Olivas-Méndez P, Chávez-Martínez A, Santellano-Estrada E, Guerrero Asorey L, Sánchez-Vega R, Rentería-Monterrubio AL, Chávez-Flores D, Tirado-Gallegos JM, Méndez-Zamora G. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and Garlic (Allium sativum) Essential Oils and Chipotle Pepper Oleoresin (Capsicum annum) on Beef Hamburgers. Foods. 2022; 11(14):2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142018

Chicago/Turabian Style

Olivas-Méndez, Paulina, América Chávez-Martínez, Eduardo Santellano-Estrada, Luis Guerrero Asorey, Rogelio Sánchez-Vega, Ana Luisa Rentería-Monterrubio, David Chávez-Flores, Juan Manuel Tirado-Gallegos, and Gerardo Méndez-Zamora. 2022. "Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Activity of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis) and Garlic (Allium sativum) Essential Oils and Chipotle Pepper Oleoresin (Capsicum annum) on Beef Hamburgers" Foods 11, no. 14: 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142018

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