Natural Ingredients to Enhance the Antioxidant Capacity in Different Meat Products: A Review

Torres-Martínez, Brisa del Mar; Sánchez-Escalante, Armida; Torrescano-Urrutia, Gastón Ramón; Vargas-Sánchez, Rey David

doi:10.3390/foods15050852

Open AccessReview

Natural Ingredients to Enhance the Antioxidant Capacity in Different Meat Products: A Review

by

Brisa del Mar Torres-Martínez

,

Armida Sánchez-Escalante

,

Gastón Ramón Torrescano-Urrutia

and

Rey David Vargas-Sánchez

^*

Coordinación de Tecnología de Alimentos de Origen Animal (CTAOA), SECIHTI—Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo (CIAD), Carretera Gustavo Enrique Astiazarán Rosas 46, Hermosillo 83304, Mexico

^*

Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Foods 2026, 15(5), 852; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15050852

Submission received: 28 January 2026 / Revised: 23 February 2026 / Accepted: 1 March 2026 / Published: 3 March 2026

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meat Processing Technologies: Innovations in Quality, Safety, and Sensory)

Download

Browse Figures

Versions Notes

Abstract

The oxidative stability of meat products is a crucial factor determining quality, shelf life, and consumer acceptance, as lipid and protein oxidation promote undesirable changes in sensory attributes and nutritional content. Antioxidant capacity (AOC) assays such as total phenolic content (TPC), ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS^•+), and 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH^•) are commonly applied in meat systems to assess the AOC associated with both intrinsic muscle components (endogenous) and the protective effects of natural ingredients (exogenous added compounds), i.e., antioxidants. Although differences in analytical methodologies limit direct comparisons among studies, it has been demonstrated that meat products inherently contain compounds that modulate oxidative reactions, with their effectiveness influenced by meat type, processing, and storage conditions. Within this framework, natural ingredients, including plant- and fungal-derived ingredients and their by-products, have gained attention as sources of natural antioxidants, whose capacity depends on the extraction method, the solvent used, and their behavior during gastrointestinal digestion, as evaluated using simulated gastrointestinal digestion (sGD) models. Numerous studies have shown that incorporating natural extracts or powders into meat products enhances AOC during refrigerated storage, with the effect generally depending on the concentration used. Moreover, several natural antioxidant treatments maintain or even enhance their AOC when assessed under sGD conditions.

Keywords:

bioactive compounds; meat products; storage-gastrointestinal effect; antioxidant capacity

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Meat products are commonly classified by the type and intensity of processing applied (Figure 1). Fresh meat products consist of cuts or comminuted meat that have not undergone treatments beyond refrigeration or freezing. Additionally, processed meat products are characterized by the addition of ingredients and the application of physical, chemical, or biological treatments, which significantly modify their physicochemical and functional properties. This category includes cured products obtained through the use of curing salts and nitrates or nitrites; cooked products stabilized by heat treatment; fermented products preserved through controlled microbial activity; matured or aged products developed under defined conditions of time, temperature, and humidity; and dehydrated or dried products in which water removal contributes to shelf-life extension [1]. This classification is especially relevant when assessing oxidative stability and antioxidant strategies. The degree of processing strongly influences how lipids and proteins oxidize, as well as how bioactive compounds behave during storage and digestion [2]. It should be noted that meat product classification may vary across countries or regions, depending on the regulatory framework and technological criteria adopted.

Lipid and protein oxidation are among the primary challenges in preserving meat products, leading to the formation of potentially harmful compounds. For this reason, the food industry employs strategies to minimize oxidation and enhance the stability of meat products during processing and storage. Among these strategies, the use of natural antioxidants derived from plants and fungi, including their by-products, has received increasing attention due to their effectiveness and consumer acceptance of health, and these materials are recognized as rich sources of bioactive compounds, such as phenolics, flavonoids, and other secondary metabolites [3,4,5], which may contribute to enhance the oxidative stability of meat systems.

Advances in food chemistry and analytical methodologies have facilitated the evaluation of antioxidant capacity (AOC) through complementary in vitro assays (e.g., TPC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^•) and their application within complex matrices [4,5]. However, the antioxidant activity of these ingredients depends on multiple factors, including their chemical composition, extraction method, interactions with the meat matrix, processing conditions, and storage conditions. Furthermore, assessing their stability during storage and simulated gastrointestinal digestion (sGD) is essential to better understand their functionality and bioaccessibility, which are relevant beyond technological protection [3,6,7,8].

Based on the above, this review aimed to synthesize the available information on the use of natural ingredients, including plant- and fungal-derived ingredients and their byproducts, to enhance the AOC of meat products. Emphasis is placed on their analytical evaluation using antioxidant assays, their stability during processing and storage, and their behavior and functionality under sGD conditions.

2. Oxidative Stability of Meat Products

Lipid oxidation in meat products presents a significant challenge that extends beyond sensory deterioration, as it also compromises nutrient bioavailability and diminishes economic profitability. From a thermodynamic perspective, this process involves the activation of triplet oxygen into reactive species (O₂, H₂O₂, O₂^•−, OH^•) that can overcome the spin barrier and react with unsaturated fatty acids. In the initiation phase, hydrogen atom abstraction leads to the formation of alkyl radicals and conjugated dienes. This is followed by a lag phase, during which radical formation is limited by endogenous antioxidants in meat [9].

Protein oxidation represents another key pathway of quality deterioration and involves irreversible covalent modifications that affect the amino acid side chains, peptide backbone integrity, and the formation of intra- and intermolecular cross-links. These changes degrade the quality of meat products by altering texture, water-holding capacity, and functional behavior of proteins. Similar to lipid oxidation, protein oxidation proceeds through initiation, propagation, and termination phases mediated by reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as superoxide (O₂^•−), hydroperoxyl (HO₂^•), peroxyl (ROO^•), and hydroxyl (OH^•) radicals, which abstract hydrogen atoms to form carbon-centered radicals. Subsequent reactions with oxygen and transition metals promote the formation of peroxyalkyl radicals, alkyl peroxides, alkoxy radicals, and, under oxygen-depleted conditions, covalent cross-links that permanently modify the protein matrix [10].

As shown in Figure 2, oxidative stability is a crucial determinant of the quality, shelf life, and consumer acceptance of meat products, as lipid and protein oxidation lead to undesirable alterations in color, flavor, texture, and nutritional value. Several pro-oxidant factors contribute to the initiation and propagation of these reactions, including oxygen exposure, light, heat, processing conditions, free radical formation, and the catalytic activity of transition metals such as iron and copper, particularly in meat matrices rich in unsaturated fatty acids. Furthermore, technological variables such as the degree of processing, formulation ingredients, and storage conditions modulate oxidation kinetics [11,12,13,14,15].

Loss of oxidative stability accelerates physicochemical and sensory deterioration and promotes the formation of secondary oxidation products with potential health risks. To address this, strategies such as optimizing storage conditions and incorporating natural antioxidants have been widely studied to enhance the oxidative stability of meat products through different mechanisms (Figure 3) and to improve their AOC [16,17]. Assessing AOC with standardized analytical assays is essential for comparing the effectiveness of natural antioxidants and understanding their behavior during processing, storage, and digestion [18,19].

3. Analytical Assays for the Measurement of AOC in Meat Products

3.1. AOC Assays and Antioxidant Mechanism

The evaluation of AOC in meat and meat products poses challenges due to the diversity of available methods, with differences in their principles, experimental conditions, and reporting of results, making comparisons between studies difficult. Therefore, there is a need to standardize analytical procedures, including the extraction process, and to use combined methods to evaluate lipophilic and hydrophilic antioxidants to obtain a more complete profile [2].

The TPC is measured by the Folin–Ciocalteu method, which is based on electron transfer from the phenolic hydroxyl groups of the antioxidant to the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (a mixture of phosphomolybdic and phosphotungstic acids). Under alkaline conditions, the reagent is reduced, forming a blue complex that is measurable spectrophotometrically at 760–765 nm. However, this method is not specific for polyphenols, as other reducing substances (e.g., ascorbic acid or reducing sugars) can also react [20,21,22].

Thus, the ferric reducing antioxidant power method (FRAP), which is also based on the electron transfer mechanism, measures the capacity of the antioxidant to reduce the ferric complex Fe³⁺−2,4,6-tris(2-pyridyl)-1,3,5-triazine acid (TPTZ) to its ferreous form Fe²⁺−TPTZ, which under acidic conditions forms a blue complex measured at 593 nm [23,24].

The radical cation inhibition has been extensively evaluated using the ABTS (2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid)) method, which involves the generation of the ABTS^•+ radical cation with an oxidizing agent, such as potassium persulfate. The process is based on an electron-transfer mechanism from the phenolic hydroxy groups of the antioxidant to the radical, leading to a decrease in the intensity of the blue-green color, which can be measured at 734 nm [24,25,26].

Additionally, the free radical inhibition has also been evaluated using the DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) method, which involves the hydrogen atom or electron transfer mechanism from the phenol hydroxylic groups of the antioxidant to the radical, resulting in a decrease in the intensity of the purple color, which is measured at 517 nm [26,27].

Although TPC, FRAP, ABTS, and DPPH assays differ in their experimental conditions, they are primarily based on electron- or hydrogen-atom-transfer mechanisms from phenolic hydroxyl groups to oxidizing species or free radicals. These reactions stabilize radical intermediates and interrupt oxidative chain reactions [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]. A generalized scheme of the radical-scavenging and metal-reducing mechanisms involved in AOC assays is illustrated in Figure 4, highlighting the fundamental role of phenolic structures in donating electrons or hydrogen atoms to neutralize reactive species.

3.2. Use of the AOC Assays in Meat and Meat Products

The application of antioxidant capacity (AOC) assays to meat and meat products without added antioxidants allows the evaluation of the intrinsic antioxidant potential of the meat matrix. This approach provides insight into the contribution of endogenous components, including enzymes, peptides, and micronutrients, to the modulation of lipid and protein oxidation. Furthermore, characterizing AOC establishes a reference framework for assessing the effectiveness of subsequent technological interventions or antioxidant additions, as well as for comparing oxidative behavior across different species and processing conditions [28].

Species-specific differences in endogenous AOC have been consistently reported. In poultry meat, hydrophilic extracts from breast and thigh muscles exhibited higher ABTS^•+ radical scavenging activity than lipophilic fractions, highlighting the predominant contribution of water-soluble antioxidants in this matrix [29]. Similarly, endogenous AOC, as assessed by ABTS^•+ and DPPH^• assays, has been documented in broiler breast meat, confirming the presence of intrinsic antioxidant systems [30].

In beef, aging processes significantly modulate AOC. Refrigerated aging has been associated with increased DPPH^• values, suggesting enhanced radical scavenging capacity over time [31]. Additionally, FRAP and DPPH^• activities have been detected in aged beef and were further influenced by subsequent heat treatment [32]. Comparative analyses across beef, pork, and poultry matrices also confirm measurable FRAP and ABTS^•+ activities in fresh meat from different animal species, reinforcing the widespread presence of endogenous antioxidant compounds [33].

Thermal treatment represents a critical technological factor influencing endogenous antioxidant capacity, although its impact appears to be assay-dependent. In some cases, heating has been shown to enhance DPPH^• values, as reported for aged beef and dry-cured ham by-products, possibly due to the release of antioxidant peptides or Maillard reaction products with radical scavenging properties [32,34]. Conversely, cooking has been reported to reduce FRAP and ABTS^•+ values in beef, pork, and chicken patties, indicating that processing intensity may degrade heat-sensitive antioxidant compounds or alter extraction efficiency [35]. These contrasting results emphasize that thermal effects on AOC depend on matrix composition, heating conditions, and the analytical method employed.

Beyond thermal treatments, other technological processes also influence endogenous AOC. Fermentation has been shown to increase ABTS^•+ and DPPH^• values in chicken sausages compared to unfermented products, suggesting the generation of bioactive peptides or antioxidant metabolites during microbial activity [36]. Comprehensive evaluations of conventional meat products further indicate that endogenous total phenolic content (TPC) and AOC are generally low but highly variable depending on product type and processing intensity, among other factors. Reported TPC values in fresh and processed meats are typically limited, accompanied by modest FRAP activity and moderate ABTS^•+ and DPPH^• radical inhibition, with significant variability among products [37].

Differences in reported AOC values across studies should not be attributed solely to species or processing, among other factors. Extraction protocols, solvent polarity, assay principles, and product formulation ingredients also influence measured inhibition percentages. Therefore, it is essential to consider both technological treatment and analytical methodology when evaluating and comparing AOC in meat systems. Incorporating natural antioxidant sources represents a targeted strategy to improve oxidative stability and enhance AOC in a controlled and reproducible manner. Understanding endogenous antioxidant systems and their modulation by processing provides a scientific basis for designing meat products with improved oxidative resistance.

4. Enhancing the AOC of Meat Products Using Natural Ingredients

4.1. Antioxidants of Natural Ingredients and Their Stability

Natural ingredients high in antioxidants are increasingly studied for their health benefits and use as natural food preservatives [38]. Studies have shown that natural ingredients derived from by-products such as peels, seeds, stems, and bagasse from fruits, vegetables, and grains possess significant AOC (Table 1).

These natural ingredients derived from by-products are typically processed by maceration, ultrasound-assisted extraction, or reflux, using water, ethanol, or hydroalcoholic solvents. Their AOC is commonly assessed through tests such as TPC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• assays. This bioactivity is largely associated with the presence of polyphenolic compounds, particularly flavonoids and phenolic acids, which act as hydrogen- or electron-donating antioxidants. The reported AOC varies widely depending on plant type and fungal material, extraction solvent, and processing conditions. Ethanolic and hydroalcoholic extracts commonly exhibit higher AOC than aqueous extracts, although matrix-dependent exceptions have been described. Among the evaluated natural ingredients derived from by-products, pomegranate, citrus, almond, pecan, and kiwi have consistently demonstrated high AOC, highlighting their suitability for food and nutraceutical applications.

Beyond extraction and processing, the gastrointestinal environment plays a critical role in determining the bioaccessibility and functionality of antioxidants derived from natural ingredients [55]. When evaluating sGD, differential effects on the TPC and AOC of plant matrices have been reported, depending on the plant source and pre-treatment method. For instance, Carneiro et al. [56] reported an increase in individual phenolic compounds in peel, seed, and oil fractions of Schinus terebinthifolius after sGD. Conversely, reductions in TPC and ABTS^•+ values have been observed in lychee by-product, whereas increases in TPC were reported in jaboticaba. Similarly, decreases in FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values have been reported for passion fruit peel and Puçá pulp, whereas carrot by-product and jujube peel exhibited enhanced AOC following digestion (Table 2). Collectively, these results demonstrate that sGD can either enhance or impair AOC, depending on matrix composition and solvent polarity. These variations are largely linked to the stability, release, and transformation of polyphenolic compounds, particularly flavonoids and phenolic acids, whose antioxidant activity depends on their chemical structures and interactions with the surrounding matrix during digestion.

4.2. AOC of Natural Ingredient-Treated Meat Products During Storage

AOC assays are widely used to evaluate the protective effect of natural or synthetic compounds against oxidative reactions in meat and meat products, which are among the main drivers of quality deterioration. These assays provide quantitative evidence of the efficacy of antioxidant ingredients, supporting the development of safer and more stable formulations and serving as essential tools for research and quality control in the meat industry.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that incorporating antioxidant-rich natural ingredients into meat formulations enhances meat AOC. Reyes-Padilla et al. [67] reported increased TPC and DPPH^• radical scavenging activity in Bologna-type mortadella formulated with combinations of pecan nut, prune, flaxseed, and cranberry. Similarly, Mancini et al. [68] showed that ginger powder improved FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values in uncooked and cooked rabbit patties (depending on the concentration used), while garlic powder increased ABTS^•+ values in rabbit patties without a clear dose–response assessment [69]. Researchers have found that adding citrus extracts to dry-cured sausages [70] and grape seed proanthocyanidins to lamb sausages improves AOC. These additions increased ABTS^•+ and DPPH^• values compared to control samples [71].

In this regard, studies summarized in Table 3 indicate that uncooked meat products treated with natural ingredients, including plant- and fungal-derived ingredients and their by-products, consistently exhibit higher TPC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values than untreated controls under storage conditions. This enhancement is primarily attributed to the presence of polyphenolic compounds, particularly flavonoids and phenolic acids, which contribute to antioxidant capacity via hydrogen-atom transfer and single-electron transfer mechanisms. The inclusion of plant- and fungal-derived materials has been shown to significantly enhance post-storage AOC. In some cases, the effect depends on the concentration used.

Additionally, studies summarized in Table 4 indicate that cooked meat products treated with natural ingredients, including plant- and fungal-derived ingredients and their by-products, consistently exhibit higher TPC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values than untreated controls under storage conditions. This improvement is largely associated with the presence and thermal stability of polyphenolic compounds, particularly flavonoids and phenolic acids, which retain, or even enhance, their radical-scavenging activity after cooking due to structural transformations and interactions with the meat matrix. In some cases, the effect depended on the concentration used.

4.3. AOC of Natural Ingredient-Treated Meat Products Subjected to Gastrointestinal Digestion

The evaluation of AOC becomes particularly relevant in natural-treated meat products, as sGD can modify, release, or inactivate incorporated bioactive compounds [90]. In vitro gastrointestinal models offer a valuable tool for assessing the stability and bioavailability of antioxidants within complex meat matrices, providing insight into their potential health benefits and functional performance [91,92,93]. Several studies have demonstrated that sGD enhances the AOC of meat systems by releasing latent bioactive peptides and endogenous compounds. Carrillo et al. [32] found that sGD increased FRAP and ABTS^•+ values in fresh and cooked meats from various animal species. Gallego et al. [33] and Wang et al. [94] also reported higher ABTS^•+ and DPPH^• values in dry-cured pork products after digestion. Similarly, studies on cooked beef, pork, chicken, and venison showed that sGD raised FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values, indicating improved antiradical activity [36,95].

The incorporation of natural antioxidant-rich ingredients into meat products further amplifies these effects during digestion. Biasi et al. [96] demonstrated that the addition of Physalis peruviana L. fruit flour to Bologna-type mortadella resulted in higher FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values after sGD, with the effect depending on the concentration used. Similarly, Torres-Martínez et al. [97] reported that mushroom powder (Pleurotus ostreatus) enhanced TPC, TFC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values in cooked pork patties following digestion (depending on the concentration used). Consistent with these results, studies summarized in Table 5 indicate that meat products formulated with mushroom extracts, vegetable oils, and fruit peels exhibit significantly higher AOC after sGD. This post-digestion enhancement is largely attributed to the release, transformation, and increased bioaccessibility of polyphenolic compounds, particularly flavonoids and phenolic acids, which may become more reactive under gastrointestinal pH conditions and exert antioxidant effects via hydrogen-atom transfer and single-electron transfer mechanisms. In several cases, higher inclusion concentrations of natural ingredients were associated with greater post-digestion AOC, demonstrating that these compounds can retain, or even enhance, their functionality under gastrointestinal conditions.

5. Conclusions

This review demonstrates that natural ingredients, including plant- and fungal-derived ingredients and their by-products, are an important source of bioactive compounds that enhance the antioxidant capacity (AOC) of meat products. The reviewed studies indicate that the AOC of these ingredients, as assessed by complementary analytical assays, is influenced by factors such as the origin of the raw material, extraction procedures, the characteristics of the meat matrix, and processing and storage conditions. Therefore, the combined use of different analytical methods is necessary to obtain a more comprehensive and reliable assessment of antioxidant behavior in meat systems.

Results derived from simulated gastrointestinal digestion (sGD) models suggest that many natural ingredients maintain or even increase their AOC after digestion.

However, several limitations must be acknowledged. The considerable heterogeneity in experimental designs, antioxidant sources, extraction techniques, meat formulations, and storage conditions limits direct comparisons between studies. Furthermore, most of the available evidence is based on in vitro chemical assays and sGD models, which may not fully reflect in vivo physiological conditions.

Therefore, future research should focus on establishing more harmonized methodologies for evaluating AOC in meat products and on better correlating chemical assays (TPC, FRAP, ABTS, and DPPH) with actual markers of oxidative stability.

Finally, the use of natural ingredients as antioxidant sources represents a promising strategy for improving the stability of meat products. Continued research in this area will support a more rigorous, evidence-based application of natural functional ingredients in the meat industry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.d.M.T.-M., G.R.T.-U., A.S.-E. and R.D.V.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, B.d.M.T.-M. and R.D.V.-S.; writing—review and editing, B.d.M.T.-M., G.R.T.-U., A.S.-E. and R.D.V.-S.; supervision, A.S.-E. and R.D.V.-S.; funding acquisition, R.D.V.-S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Secretaría de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (SECIHTI), Mexico, under Grant No. CBF-2025-I-3273.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing does not apply to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge support from the SECIHTI-Investigadoras e Investigadores por México program (Project 739). B.M.T.-M acknowledges support from the SECIHTI-Estancias Posdoctorales por México (EMP-1, 2025).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

AOC	Antioxidant capacity
AOH	Phenolic antioxidant
AO^•	Phenoxyl radical
AOH^•	Phenol radical cation
ABTS	2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid
DPPH	2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl
ET	Single electron transfer
EtOH	Ethanol
FRAP	Ferric reducing antioxidant power
HAT	Hydrogen atom transfer
LOOH	Lipid hydroperoxide
LOO^•	Lipid peroxyl radical
MeOH	Methanol
POOH	Protein hydroperoxide
POO^•	Protein peroxyl radical
P−Fe³⁺	Protein-bound ferric ion
P−Fe²⁺	Protein-bound ferreous ion
sGD	Simulated gastrointestinal digestion
SETPT	Sequential electron-proton transfer
SPLET	Sequential proton-electron transfer
TPC	Total phenolic content
TPTZ	2,4,6-tris(2-pyridyl)-1,3,5-triazine acid

References

NOM-213-SSA1-2018—Processed Meat Products and Establishments Dedicated to Their Process. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/normasOficiales/7665/salud13_C/salud13_C.html (accessed on 5 January 2026).
Echegaray, N.; Pateiro, M.; Munekata, P.E.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Chabani, Z.; Farag, M.A.; Domínguez, R. Measurement of antioxidant capacity of meat and meat products: Methods and applications. Molecules 2021, 26, 3880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Olvera-Aguirre, G.; Piñeiro-Vázquez, Á.T.; Sanginés-García, J.R.; Zárate, A.S.; Ochoa-Flores, A.A.; Segura-Campos, M.R.; Vargas-Bello-Pérez, E.; Chay-Canul, A.J. Using plant-based compounds as preservatives for meat products: A review. Heliyon 2023, 9, e17071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Rațu, R.N.; Veleșcu, I.D.; Stoica, F.; Usturoi, A.; Arsenoaia, V.N.; Crivei, I.C.; Postolache, A.N.; Lipșa, F.D.; Filipov, F.; Florea, A.M.; et al. Application of agri-food by-products in the food industry. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Singh, U.; Tiwari, P.; Kelkar, S.; Kaul, D.; Tiwari, A.; Kapri, M.; Sharma, S. Edible mushrooms: A sustainable novel ingredient for meat analogs. Efood 2023, 4, e122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mancini, S.; Paci, G.; Fratini, F.; Torracca, B.; Nuvoloni, R.; Dal Bosco, A.; Roscini, V.; Preziuso, G. Improving pork burgers quality using Zingiber officinale Roscoe powder (ginger). Meat Sci. 2017, 129, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antonini, E.; Torri, L.; Piochi, M.; Cabrino, G.; Meli, M.A.; De Bellis, R. Nutritional, antioxidant and sensory properties of functional beef burgers formulated with chia seeds and goji puree, before and after in vitro digestion. Meat Sci. 2020, 161, 108021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mounir, S.; Mohamed, R.; Sunooj, K.V.; El-Saidy, S.; Farid, E. Assessing the effects of partially substituting chicken breast meat with oyster mushroom stalk powder on the quality attributes of mushroom-chicken burgers. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15, 4361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Willian, K. Lipids and lipid oxidation. In The Science of Meat Quality; Wiley-Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 147–175. [Google Scholar]
Domínguez, R.; Pateiro, M.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Zhang, W.; Garcia-Oliveira, P.; Carpena, M.; Prieto, M.A.; Bohrer, B.; Lorenzo, J.M. Protein oxidation in muscle foods: A comprehensive review. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gheisari, H.R.; Møller, J.K.; Adamsen, C.E.; Skibsted, L.H. Sodium chloride or heme protein induced lipid oxidation in raw, minced chicken meat and beef. Czech J. Food Sci. 2010, 28, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Min, B.; Cordray, J.C.; Ahn, D.U. Effect of NaCl, myoglobin, Fe (II), and Fe (III) on lipid oxidation of raw and cooked chicken breast and beef loin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 600–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ju, J.; Mittal, G.S. Relationships of physical properties of fat-substitutes, cooking methods and fat levels with quality of ground beef patties. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2000, 24, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, X.; Yu, Q.; He, L.; Zhang, Q.; Ma, J. Effects of nitrite concentrations on the quality and protein oxidation of salted meat. J. Food Sci. 2022, 87, 3978–3994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Radzik-Rant, A.; Rant, W.; Świątek, M.; Sosnowiec-Wierzchoń, G.; Niżnikowski, R. Analysis of the physico-chemical characteristics and content of selected bioactive components in lamb meat, depending on the type of muscle and vacuum aging time. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2025, 25, 363–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wójciak, K.M.; Dolatowski, Z.J. Oxidative stability of fermented meat products. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2012, 11, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Echegaray, N.; Gómez, B.; Barba, F.J.; Franco, D.; Estévez, M.; Carballo, J.; Marszałek, K.; Lorenzo, J.M. Chestnuts and by-products as source of natural antioxidants in meat and meat products: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 82, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mancini, S.; Preziuso, G.; Dal Bosco, A.; Roscini, V.; Szendrő, Z.; Fratini, F.; Paci, G. Effect of turmeric powder (Curcuma longa L.) and ascorbic acid on physical characteristics and oxidative status of fresh and stored rabbit burgers. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Tran, T.T.T.; Ton, N.M.N.; Nguyen, T.T.; Le, V.V.M.; Sajeev, D.; Schilling, M.W.; Dinh, T.T. Application of natural antioxidant extract from guava leaves (Psidium guajava L.) in fresh pork sausage. Meat Sci. 2020, 165, 108106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ainsworth, E.A.; Gillespie, K.M. Estimation of total phenolic content and other oxidation substrates in plant tissues using Folin–Ciocalteu reagent. Nat. Protoc. 2007, 2, 875–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Berker, K.I.; Ozdemir Olgun, F.A.; Ozyurt, D.; Demirata, B.; Apak, R. Modified Folin–Ciocalteu antioxidant capacity assay for measuring lipophilic antioxidants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2013, 61, 4783–4791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kupina, S.; Fields, C.; Roman, M.C.; Brunelle, S.L. Determination of total phenolic content using the Folin-C assay: Single-laboratory validation, first action 2017.13. J. AOAC Int. 2018, 101, 1466–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Berker, K.I.; Güçlü, K.; Demirata, B.; Apak, R. A novel antioxidant assay of ferric reducing capacity measurement using ferrozine as the colour forming complexation reagent. Anal. Methods 2010, 2, 1770–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biskup, I.; Golonka, I.; Gamian, A.; Sroka, Z. Antioxidant activity of selected phenols estimated by ABTS and FRAP methods. Postepy Hig. Med. Dosw. 2013, 67, 958–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kut, K.; Cieniek, B.; Stefaniuk, I.; Bartosz, G.; Sadowska-Bartosz, I. A modification of the ABTS• decolorization method and an insight into its mechanism. Processes 2022, 10, 1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wołosiak, R.; Drużyńska, B.; Derewiaka, D.; Piecyk, M.; Majewska, E.; Ciecierska, M.; Worobiej, E.; Pakosz, P. Verification of the conditions for determination of antioxidant activity by ABTS and DPPH assays—A practical approach. Molecules 2022, 27, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Gulcin, İ.; Alwasel, S.H. DPPH radical scavenging assay. Processes 2023, 11, 2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Martínez, J.; Nieto, G.; Ros, G. Total antioxidant capacity of meat and meat products consumed in a reference ‘Spanish standard diet’. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 49, 2610–2618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sacchetti, G.; Di Mattia, C.; Pittia, P.; Martino, G. Application of a radical scavenging activity test to measure the total antioxidant activity of poultry meat. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 1081–1085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
López-Hernández, L.H.; Navarro-Olivera, A.A.; Calderón-Oliver, M.; Villalobos-Delgado, L.H. Incorporation of Cactus berry (Myrtillocactus geometrizans) and Red prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica L. Mill) mixtures on sausages elaborated from white-striped broiler breast as possible natural antioxidants. Foods 2025, 14, 4179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Mora, L.; Bolumar, T.; Heres, A.; Toldrá, F. Effect of cooking and simulated gastrointestinal digestion on the activity of generated bioactive peptides in aged beef meat. Food Funct. 2017, 8, 4347–4355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Liu, D.; Chen, X.; Huang, M.; Zhou, G. Antioxidant activity of peptides in postmortem aged duck meat as affected by cooking and in vitro digestion. Int. J. Food Prop. 2019, 22, 727–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Carrillo, C.; Barrio, Á.; del Mar Cavia, M.; Alonso-Torre, S. Global antioxidant response of meat. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 2358–2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gallego, M.; Mora, L.; Hayes, M.; Reig, M.; Toldrá, F. Effect of cooking and in vitro digestion on the antioxidant activity of dry-cured ham by-products. Food Res. Int. 2017, 97, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Grassi, G.; Capasso, G.; Rando, A.; Perna, A.M. Antioxidant activity of beef, pork and chicken burgers before and after cooking and after in vitro intestinal digestion. Foods 2023, 12, 4100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yadav, A.S. Antioxidant and antimicrobial profile of chicken sausages prepared after fermentation of minced chicken meat with Lactobacillus plantarum and with additional dextrose and starch. LWT 2017, 77, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abdullah, F.A.A.; Dordevic, D.; Kabourkova, E.; Zemancová, J.; Dordevic, S. Antioxidant and sensorial properties: Meat analogues versus conventional meat products. Processes 2022, 10, 1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Aminzare, M.; Hashemi, M.; Ansarian, E.; Bimakr, M.; Hassanzad Azar, H.; Mehrasbi, M.R.; Daneshamooz, S.; Raeisi, M.; Jannat, B.; Afshari, A. Using natural antioxidants in meat and meat products as preservatives: A review. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2019, 7, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Selani, M.M.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J.; Shirahigue, L.D.; Gallo, C.R.; Plata-Oviedo, M.; Montes-Villanueva, N.D. Wine industry residues extracts as natural antioxidants in raw and cooked chicken meat during frozen storage. Meat Sci. 2011, 88, 397–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Packer, V.G.; Melo, P.S.; Bergamaschi, K.B.; Selani, M.M.; Villanueva, N.D.; de Alencar, S.M.; Contreras-Castillo, C.J. Chemical characterization, antioxidant activity and application of beetroot and guava residue extracts on the preservation of cooked chicken meat. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 7409–7416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Kim, J.H.; Ahn, D.U.; Eun, J.B.; Moon, S.H. Antioxidant effect of extracts from the coffee residue in raw and cooked meat. Antioxidants 2016, 5, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Turgut, S.S.; Soyer, A.; Işıkçı, F. Effect of pomegranate peel extract on lipid and protein oxidation in beef meatballs during refrigerated storage. Meat Sci. 2016, 116, 126–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cruz-Trinidad, B.; Sánchez-Burgos, J.A.; Juscelino, T.; Sáyago-Ayerdi, S.G.; Zamora-Gasga, V.M. In vitro gastrointestinal digestion of mango by-product snacks: Potential absorption of polyphenols and antioxidant capacity. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 54, 3091–3098. [Google Scholar]
Bedrníček, J.; Kadlec, J.; Laknerová, I.; Mráz, J.; Samková, E.; Petrášková, E.; Hasoňová, L.; Vachá, F.; Kron, V.; Smetana, P. Onion peel powder as an antioxidant-rich material for sausages prepared from mechanically separated fish meat. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Villasante, J.; Ouerfelli, M.; Bobet, A.; Metón, I.; Almajano, M.P. The effects of pecan shell, roselle flower and red pepper on the quality of beef patties during chilled storage. Foods 2020, 9, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Barkhordari, P.; Bazargani-Gilani, B. Effect of apple peel extract and zein coating enriched with ginger essential oil on the shelf life of chicken thigh meat. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2021, 15, 2727–2742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Boeira, C.P.; Alves, J.D.S.; Flores, D.C.B.; de Moura, M.R.; Melo, P.T.S.; da Rosa, C.S. Antioxidant and antimicrobial effect of an innovative active film containing corn stigma residue extract for refrigerated meat conservation. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2021, 45, e15721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
De Santana Neto, D.C.; Cordeiro, Â.M.; Meireles, B.R.; Araújo, Í.B.; Estévez, M.; Ferreira, V.C.; Silva, F.A. Inhibition of protein and lipid oxidation in ready-to-eat chicken patties by a Spondias mombin L. bagasse phenolic-rich extract. Foods 2021, 10, 1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Abdel-Naeem, H.H.; Elshebrawy, H.A.; Imre, K.; Morar, A.; Herman, V.; Pașcalău, R.; Sallam, K.I. Antioxidant and antibacterial effect of fruit peel powders in chicken patties. Foods 2022, 11, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Timón, M.; Andrés, A.I.; Sorrentino, L.; Cardenia, V.; Petrón, M.J. Effect of phenolic compounds from almond skins obtained by water extraction on pork patty shelf life. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cava, R.; Ladero, L. Pomegranate peel as a source of antioxidants for the control of lipid and protein oxidation during the ripening of Iberian dry uncured sausages. Meat Sci. 2023, 202, 109198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Glišić, M.; Bošković Cabrol, M.; Čobanović, N.; Starčević, M.; Samardžić, S.; Veličković, I.; Maksimović, Z. The effects of sunflower and maize crop residue extracts as a new ingredient on the quality properties of pork liver pâtés. Foods 2024, 13, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Xu, Y.; Li, G.; Mo, L.; Li, M.; Luo, J.; Shen, Q.; Quan, W. Citrus peel extracts: Effective inhibitors of heterocyclic amines and advanced glycation end products in grilled pork meat patties. Foods 2023, 13, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sirini, N.; Echegaray, N.; Moraga-Babiano, L.; Lucas-González, R.; Dominguez-Valencia, R.; Pateiro, M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Application of encapsulated kiwifruit peel extract as a sustainable antioxidant in refrigerated beef patties. Food Biosci. 2025, 64, 105889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Żyżelewicz, D.; Oracz, J. Bioavailability and bioactivity of plant antioxidants. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 2336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Carneiro, T.S.; Dutra, M.D.C.P.; Lima, D.A.; de Brito Araújo, A.J.; Constant, P.B.L.; dos Santos Lima, M. Phenolic compounds in peel, seed and cold pressed pink pepper (Schinus terebinthifolia R.) oil and bioaccessibility of peel using a digestion model with intestinal barrier simulation. Food Biosci. 2022, 49, 101930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zeng, Q.; Xu, Z.; Dai, M.; Cao, X.; Xiong, X.; He, S.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, M.; Dong, L.; Zhang, R.; et al. Effects of simulated digestion on the phenolic composition and antioxidant activity of different cultivars of lychee pericarp. BMC Chem. 2019, 13, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Inada, K.O.P.; Silva, T.B.R.; Lobo, L.A.; Domingues, R.M.C.P.; Perrone, D.; Monteiro, M. Bioaccessibility of phenolic compounds of jaboticaba (Plinia jaboticaba) peel and seed after simulated gastrointestinal digestion and gut microbiota fermentation. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 67, 103851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cao, Q.; Teng, J.; Wei, B.; Huang, L.; Xia, N. Phenolic compounds, bioactivity, and bioaccessibility of ethanol extracts from passion fruit peel based on simulated gastrointestinal digestion. Food Chem. 2021, 356, 129682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bas-Bellver, C.; Barrera, C.; Betoret, N.; Seguí, L. Effect of processing and in vitro digestion on bioactive constituents of powdered IV range carrot (Daucus carota, L.) wastes. Foods 2023, 12, 731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cañas, S.; Rebollo-Hernanz, M.; Bermúdez-Gómez, P.; Rodríguez-Rodríguez, P.; Braojos, C.; Gil-Ramírez, A.; Benítez, V.; Aguilera, Y.; Martín-Cabrejas, M.A. Radical scavenging and cellular antioxidant activity of the cocoa shell phenolic compounds after simulated digestion. Antioxidants 2023, 12, 1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mercatante, D.; Ansorena, D.; Taticchi, A.; Astiasarán, I.; Servili, M.; Rodriguez-Estrada, M.T. Effects of in vitro digestion on the antioxidant activity of three phenolic extracts from olive mill wastewaters. Antioxidants 2022, 12, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, Q.; Yuan, T.; Zhu, X.; Song, G.; Wang, D.; Li, L.; Huang, M.; Gong, J. The phenolics, antioxidant activity and in vitro digestion of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) peels: An investigation of steam explosion pre-treatment. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1161970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, Z.T.; Liu, Y.P.; Ma, Y.L.; Pan, S.Y.; Li, J.K.; Shi, S.J.; Wu, S.F.; Zhang, Y.F.; Wei, Z.J. Insight into the phenolics and antioxidant activity of Indian jujube (Ziziphus mauritiana Lamk) peel and pulp subjected to the simulated digestion. Heliyon 2023, 9, e16226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Elejalde, E.; Villarán, M.C.; Esquivel, A.; Alonso, R.M. Bioaccessibility and antioxidant capacity of grape seed and grape skin phenolic compounds after simulated in vitro gastrointestinal digestion. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2024, 79, 432–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Soares, C.M.D.S.; Morais, R.A.; Oliveira, M.O.D.S.; Silva, R.R.D.; Sousa, H.M.S.; Queiroz, F.; Martins, G.A.D.S. Systemic characterization of the pulp, peels, and seeds of the Yellow Puçá (Mouriri grandiflora) and impacts of simulated in vitro gastrointestinal digestion on the chemical, biological, and antioxidant properties of polyphenols. ACS Omega 2025, 10, 27363–27379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Reyes-Padilla, E.; Valenzuela-Melendres, M.; Camou, J.P.; Sebranek, J.G.; Alemán-Mateo, H.; Dávila-Ramírez, J.L.; Cumplido-Barbeitia, G.; González-Ríos, H. Quality evaluation of low fat bologna-type meat product with a nutritional profile designed for the elderly. Meat Sci. 2018, 135, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mancini, S.; Preziuso, G.; Dal Bosco, A.; Roscini, V.; Parisi, G.; Paci, G. Modifications of fatty acids profile, lipid peroxidation and antioxidant capacity in raw and cooked rabbit burgers added with ginger. Meat Sci. 2017, 133, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mancini, S.; Mattioli, S.; Nuvoloni, R.; Pedonese, F.; Dal Bosco, A.; Paci, G. Effects of garlic powder and salt additions on fatty acids profile, oxidative status, antioxidant potential and sensory properties of raw and cooked rabbit meat burgers. Meat Sci. 2020, 169, 108226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Martínez Zamora, L.; Peñalver, R.; Ros, G.; Nieto, G. Innovative natural functional ingredients from olive and citrus extracts in Spanish-type dry-cured sausage “fuet”. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Yang, D.; Zhang, L.; Luo, Y.; Luo, R.; Hou, Y. Grape seed proanthocyanidin and sesbania gum: A successful strategy to enhance antioxidant capacity and reduce fat while maintaining the physicochemical, sensory, and processability of lamb sausage. Meat Sci. 2026, 231, 109973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Zająç, M.; Duda, I.; Skoczylas, Ł.; Tabaszewska, M. Potential use of Hyssopus officinalis and Borago officinalis as curing ingredients in pork meat formulations. Animals 2020, 10, 2327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Hawashin, M.D.; Al-Juhaimi, F.; Ahmed, I.A.M.; Ghafoor, K.; Babiker, E.E. Physicochemical, microbiological and sensory evaluation of beef patties incorporated with destoned olive cake powder. Meat Sci. 2016, 122, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ouerfelli, M.; Villasante, J.; Ben Kaâb, L.B.; Almajano, M. Effect of neem (Azadirachta indica L.) on lipid oxidation in raw chilled beef patties. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ramírez-Rojo, M.I.; Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Torres-Martínez, B.D.M.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Inclusion of ethanol extract of mesquite leaves to enhance the oxidative stability of pork patties. Foods 2019, 8, 631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Torres-Martínez, B.D.M.; Pateiro, M.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Propolis extract as antioxidant to improve oxidative stability of fresh patties during refrigerated storage. Foods 2019, 8, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Al-Juhaimi, F.; Babtain, I.A.; Ahmed, I.A.M.; Alsawmahi, O.N.; Ghafoor, K.; Adiamo, O.Q.; Babiker, E.E. Assessment of oxidative stability and physicochemical, microbiological, and sensory properties of beef patties formulated with baobab seed (Adansonia digitata) extract. Meat Sci. 2020, 162, 108044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Prommachart, R.; Belem, T.S.; Uriyapongson, S.; Rayas-Duarte, P.; Uriyapongson, J.; Ramanathan, R. The effect of black rice water extract on surface color, lipid oxidation, microbial growth, and antioxidant activity of beef patties during chilled storage. Meat Sci. 2020, 164, 108091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Bellucci, E.R.B.; Munekata, P.E.; Pateiro, M.; Lorenzo, J.M.; da Silva Barretto, A.C. Red pitaya extract as natural antioxidant in pork patties with total replacement of animal fat. Meat Sci. 2021, 171, 108284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Torres-Martínez, B.D.M.; Huerta-Leidenz, N.; Ibarra-Arias, F.J.; Fernández-López, J.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Perez-Alvarez, J.A.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Antioxidant and antibacterial effect of Agaricus brasiliensis extract on raw and cooked pork patties during storage. Agriculture 2023, 13, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Murillo-Hernández, J.L.; Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Torres-Martínez, B.D.M.; Huerta-Leidenz, N.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Effect of spent coffee grounds aqueous extract as an antioxidant in raw pork patties during refrigerated storage. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 2024, 15, 8335–8847. [Google Scholar]
Vargas-Sanchez, R.D.; Torres-Martínez, B.M.; Huerta-Leidenz, N.; Sarturi, J.O.; Fernandez-Lopez, J.; Pérez-Alvarez, J.A.; Ibarra-Arias, F.J.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Effects of Ganoderma lucidum extract on the antioxidant status of pork patties during storage and gastrointestinal digestion. Food Biosci. 2024, 62, 105579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ngongoni, K.N.; Pfukwa, T.M.; Mapiye, C. Keeping quality of raw ground beef patties fortified with polyphenols extracted from Acacia mearnsii bark and leaves. Meat Sci. 2025, 219, 109665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jin, S.K.; Ha, S.R.; Choi, J.S. Effect of Caesalpinia sappan L. extract on physico-chemical properties of emulsion-type pork sausage during cold storage. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 245–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Van Ba, H.; Seo, H.W.; Cho, S.H.; Kim, Y.S.; Kim, J.H.; Ham, J.S.; Park, B.Y.; Pil-Nam, S. Effects of extraction methods of shiitake by-products on their antioxidant and antimicrobial activities in fermented sausages during storage. Food Control 2017, 79, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Alnoumani, H.; Ataman, Z.A.; Were, L. Lipid and protein antioxidant capacity of dried Agaricus bisporus in salted cooked ground beef. Meat Sci. 2017, 129, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yim, D.G.; Seo, J.K.; Yum, H.W.; Zahid, M.A.; Park, J.Y.; Parvin, R.; Go, J.; Koo, O.K.; Yang, H.S. Effects of Caesalpinia sappan L. extract on the color stability, antioxidant and antimicrobial activity in cooked pork sausages during cold storage. LWT 2019, 112, 108235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Manzoor, A.; Ahmad, S.; Yousuf, B. Effect of bioactive-rich mango peel extract on physicochemical, antioxidant and functional characteristics of chicken sausage. Appl. Food Res. 2022, 2, 100183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Yaghoubi, M.; Alirezalu, K.; Hesari, J.; Peighambardoust, S.H.; Marcinkowska-Lesiak, M.; Barzegar, Y.; Hoseinian-Khosrowshahi, S.R.; Marszałek, K.; Khaneghah, A.M. Application of oleaster leaves (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.) essential oil and natural nanoparticle preservatives in frankfurter-type sausages: An assessment of quality attributes and stability during refrigerated storage. Meat Sci. 2023, 198, 109097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Pešić, M.B.; Milinčić, D.D.; Kostić, A.Ž.; Stanisavljević, N.S.; Vukotić, G.N.; Kojić, M.O.; Gašić, U.M.; Barać, M.B.; Stanojević, S.P.; Popović, D.A.; et al. In vitro digestion of meat-and cereal-based food matrix enriched with grape extracts: How are polyphenol composition, bioaccessibility and antioxidant activity affected? Food Chem. 2019, 284, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Martínez, J.; Nieto, G.; Castillo, J.; Ros, G. Influence of in vitro gastrointestinal digestion and/or grape seed extract addition on antioxidant capacity of meat emulsions. LWT 2014, 59, 834–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lucas-González, R.; Pérez-Álvarez, J.Á.; Viuda-Martos, M.; Fernández-López, J. Pork liver pâté enriched with persimmon coproducts: Effect of in vitro gastrointestinal digestion on its fatty acid and polyphenol profile stability. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Vahid, F.; Wagener, L.; Leners, B.; Bohn, T. Pro-and antioxidant effect of food items and matrices during simulated in vitro digestion. Foods 2023, 12, 1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wang, L.; Li, X.; Li, Y.; Liu, W.; Jia, X.; Qiao, X.; Qu, C.; Cheng, X.; Wang, S. Antioxidant and angiotensin I-converting enzyme inhibitory activities of Xuanwei ham before and after cooking and in vitro simulated gastrointestinal digestion. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2018, 5, 180276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Takeda, S.; Ahhmed, A.M.; Sogawa, K.; Mouri, S.; Kaneko, S.; Sakata, R.; Mizunoya, W. Antioxidant activity of venison subjected to in vitro cooking and gastrointestinal digestion and isolation of its 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl radical scavenging peptides. Anim. Sci. J. 2023, 94, e13870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Biasi, V.; Huber, E.; Goldoni, T.S.H.; de Melo, A.P.Z.; Hoff, R.B.; Verruck, S.; Barreto, P.L.M. Goldenberry flour as a natural antioxidant in Bologna-type mortadella during refrigerated storage and in vitro digestion. Meat Sci. 2023, 196, 109041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Torres-Martínez, B.D.M.; Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; González-Ávila, M.; Rodríguez-Carpena, J.G.; Huerta-Leidenz, N.; Pérez-Alvarez, J.A.; Fernández-López, J.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Use of Pleurotus ostreatus to enhance the oxidative stability of pork patties during storage and in vitro gastrointestinal digestion. Foods 2022, 11, 4075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ansorena, D.; Astiasaran, I. Natural antioxidants (rosemary and parsley) in microwaved ground meat patties: Effects of in vitro digestion. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2024, 104, 4465–4472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Lavado, G.; Cava, R. Antioxidant potential of pomegranate peel and acorn cupule extracts: A comparative analysis in simulated in vitro digestion of uncured dry sausages. LWT 2024, 203, 116371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Khamzaeva, N.; Hieronimus, B.; Kunz, C.; Pferdmenges, L.E.; Briviba, K. Plant-based vs. pork sausages: Protein nutritional quality and antioxidant potential in the bioaccessible fraction. Foods 2025, 14, 4271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Torres-Martínez, B.D.M.; Vargas-Sánchez, R.D.; Pérez-Alvarez, J.Á.; Fernández-López, J.; Esqueda, M.C.; Rodríguez-Carpena, J.G.; Ibarra-Arias, F.J.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Sánchez-Escalante, A. Recovery of an additive for pork meat from Pleurotus ostreatus grown in agro-industrial wastes. Biotecnia 2025, 27, e2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Figure 1. Meat product classification and representative examples.

Figure 2. Schematic representation of factors affecting the oxidative stability of meat products.

Figure 3. Schematic representation of some phenolic-antioxidant mechanisms in meat products. HAT, hydrogen atom transfer; SETPT, sequential electron−proton transfer; SPLET, sequential proton−electron transfer; ET, single electron transfer; AOH, phenolic antioxidant; AO^•, phenoxyl radical; AOH^•, phenol radical cation; LOOH, lipid hydroperoxide; POOH, protein hydroperoxide; LOO^•, lipid peroxyl radical; POO^•, protein peroxyl radical; P−Fe³⁺, protein−bound ferric ion; P−Fe²⁺, protein−bound ferreous ion.

Figure 4. Schematic representation of some phenolic-antioxidant mechanisms. HAT, hydrogen atom transfer; SETPT, sequential electron-proton transfer; SPLET, sequential proton-electron transfer; ET, single electron transfer; AOH, phenolic antioxidant; AO^•, phenoxyl radical; AOH^•, phenol radical cation.

Table 1. Natural ingredients and their AOC.

Reference	Natural Ingredient	Extraction of the Antioxidant Material	Bioactive Compounds Linked to AOC	Results of AOC
Selani et al. [39]	Grape (Vitis labrusca)	Material: seed and peel Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (80% EtOH; 48 h/25 °C) Separation: filtration (Whatman No. 1) Concentration: under vacuum at 65 °C	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited high TPC
Packer et al. [40]	Beetroot (Beta vulgaris L.) Guava (Psidium guajava L.)	Material: stems and pomace, respectively Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction (15 min) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (80% ethanol) Separation: centrifugation (5000× g)	Flavonoids: epicatechin and quercetin Phenolic acid: 2,6-dihydroxybenzoic, isovanillic, syringic, p-coumaric, m-coumaric, gallic, ferulic, caffeic, and sinapic	The extract exhibited TPC, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values (Beetroot stems > guava pomace)
Kim et al. [41]	Coffee (Coffea sp.)	Material: spent grounds Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: H₂O and EtOH-96% (1 h/80 °C) Concentration: under vacuum (ø)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC and DPPH^• values (EtOH > H₂O)
Turgut et al. [42]	Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)	Material: peel Method: reflux-extraction (ø) Solvent: H₂O (1:10 proportion) for 1 h Separation: filtration and centrifugation (1200× g/20 min) Concentration: under vacuum (40 °C) Drying: freeze-drying (0.120 mbar/72 h/−40 °C)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC and DPPH^• values
Cruz-Trinidad et al. [43]	Mango (Mangifera indica L.)	Material: peel, seed, and paste Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: H₂O	Flavonoids: quercetin, gallocatechin, catechin, mangiferin, and gallocatechin gallate Phenolic acids: gallic and ellagic	The extract exhibited TPC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^•
Antonini et al. [6]	Chia (Salvia hispanica L.)	Material: seed Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: hydroalcoholic solution (80% EtOH; 160 rpm/24 h/room temperature) Separation: centrifugation (3000 rpm/5 min)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values
Bedrníček et al. [44]	Onion (Allium cepa L.)	Material: peel Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (90% MeOH; 10 min) Separation: centrifugation (7000 rpm/15 min/5 °C)	Flavonoids: quercetin, Quercetin-4-O-glucoside, and Quercetin-3,4-O-diglucoside Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC, FRAP, and DPPH^• values
Villasante et al. [45]	Pecan (Carya illinoinensis)	Material: shell Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction (ø) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (50% EtOH; 30 min/50 °C)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC and DPPH^• values
Barkhordari & Bazargani-Gilani [46]	Apple (Malus domestica L.)	Material: peel Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction (ø) Solvent: H₂O and EtOH solution (96%; 20 kHz/30 min/25 °C) Separation: filtration and concentration (50 °C)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited DPPH^• activity (EtOH > H₂O)
Boeira et al. [47]	Corn (Zea mays L.)	Material: stigma Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction (ø) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (70% EtOH; 20 kHz/5 min/60 °C) Separation: centrifugation (202× g/15 min) Concentration: under vacuum (45 °C)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC and DPPH^• values
de Santana Neto et al. [48]	Yellow mombin (Spondias mombin L.)	Material: bagasse (husk, seed, and residual pulp) Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (55% EtOH; 35 min/70 °C) Separation: centrifugation (8960 × g/10 min/10 °C) Concentration: under vacuum (180 mbar/45 °C)	Flavonoids: rutin, catechin, and myricetin Phenolic acids: gentisic, salicylic, hydroxybenzoic, ellagic, p-coumaric, ferulic, and caffeic	The extract exhibited TPC
Abdel-Naeem et al. [49]	Lemon (Citrus limon) Orange (Citrus sinensis) Grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) Banana (Musa spp.)	Material: peel Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (80% MetOH) Separation: centrifugation (10,000 rpm/15 min/4 °C)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC and DPPH^• (Lemon > Orange > Grapefruit > Banana)
Timón et al. [50]	Almond (Prunus dulcis)	Material: skin Method: maceration extraction (60 min/30 °C) Solvent: H₂O (1:20 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (3000× g/10 min/4 °C)	Flavonoids: catechin, eriodictyol-7-O-glucoside, quercetin-3-O-rutinoside, Kaempferol-3-O-rutinoside, Isorhamnentin-3-O-rutinoside, and Kaempferol-3-O-glucoside Phenolic acids: protocatechuic, hydroxybenzoic, 4-coumaric	The extract exhibited TPC values (Antoñeta = Belona = Soleta ≥ Guara) The extract exhibited ABTS^•+ and DPPH^• values (Antoñeta = Belona = Soleta ≥ Guara)
Cava & Ladero [51]	Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)	Material: peel Method: maceration extraction (60 rpm/120 min/21 °C) Solvent: H₂O, EtOH, and hydroalcoholic (50% EtOH)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values (H₂O > EtOH and H₂O-EtOH)
Glišić et al. [52]	Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Corn (Zea mays L.)	Material: stalk Method: reflux-extraction (ø) Solvent: hexane (1:6 proportion; 1 h/40 °C) Separation: filtration and centrifugation (ø) Concentration: under vacuum (60 rpm/150 min/60 °C).	Flavonoids: tricin Phenolic acids: p-coumaric and ferulic	Both extracts exhibited TPC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values
Xu et al. [53]	Citrus (Citrus sinensis)	Material: peel Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction (45 kHz/1 h/45 °C) Solvent: H₂O, EtOH, and hydroalcoholic (80% EtOH; 1:25 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (10,000× g/10 min)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC values (80%EtOH > H₂O > EtOH) The extract exhibited FRAP and ABTS^•+ values (H₂O > 80%EtOH > EtOH)
Sirini et al. [54]	Kiwifruit peel (Actinidia deliciosa)	Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction (150–180 W/6 min) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (60% EtOH; 1:35 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (3398× g/5 min/22 °C) Concentration: under vacuum at 44 °C	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	The extract exhibited TPC, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values

AOC, antioxidant capacity; EtOH, ethanol; MeOH, methanol; ø, conditions not reported; ≠, unidentified individual compound; TPC, total phenolic content; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power method; ABTS^•+, 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); DPPH^•, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl.

Table 2. AOC stability of natural ingredients subjected to sGD.

Reference	Natural Ingredient	Extraction of the Antioxidant Material	Bioactive Compounds Linked to AOC	Results of AOC After sGD
Zeng et al. [57]	Lychee (Litchi sp.)	Material: pericarp Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: H₂O (1:30 proportion)	Flavonoids: procyanidin B2, epicatechin, procyanidin A2, Quercetin-3-rutinose-7-rhamnoside, and isoquercitrin Phenolic acids: caffeic, ferulic	TPC and ABTS^•+ values decreased, while FRAP values increased
Inada et al. [58]	Jaboticaba (Plinia jaboticaba)	Material: peel and seed Drying: freeze-drying (0.021 mbar/72 h/−51 °C)	Flavonoids: myricetin, myricetin-3-O-rhamnoside, quercetin, quercetin-3-O-rutinoside, cyanidin-3-O-glucoside, and delphinidin-3-O-glucoside Phenolic acids: gallic, m-coumaric, ellagic, and 3,4-dihydroxybenzoic	TPC values increased
Cao et al. [59]	Passion fruit (Passiflora edulis)	Material: peel Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (70% EtOH; 1:20 proportion) Separation: filtration (0.45 µm) Concentration: under vacuum (55 °C) Drying: freeze-drying (ø)	Flavonoids: apigenin 5-O-glucoside, rutin, and syringetin Phenolic acids: p-coumaraldehyde and 4-O-p-coumaroylquinic acid	TPC, FRAP, and DPPH^• values decreased
Bas-Bellver et al. [60]	Carrot (Daucus carota L.)	Material: whole waste Drying: freeze-drying (0.1 mbar/24 h/–45 °C)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	TPC and ABTS^•+ values increased, while DPPH^• decreased
Cañas et al. [61]	Cocoa (Theobroma sp.)	Material: shell Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: H₂O (0.02 mg/mL; 90 min/100 °C) Separation: filtration (ø) Drying: freeze-drying at –20 °C	Flavonoids: apigenin-6,8-di-C-glucoside, catechin, epicatechin, quercetin 3-O-glucoside, and quercetin 3-O-arabinoside Phenolic acids: gallic and protocatechuic	TPC, FRAP, and ABTS^•+ values increased (extract > powder)
Mercatante et al. [62]	Olive (Olea sp.)	Material: mill wastewaters Pre-treatment: enzymatic hydrolysis (12 h/20 °C) Drying: spray-dried (ø)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	TPC and ABTS^•+ values decreased
Wang et al. [63]	Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)	Material: peel Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction (40 kHz/20 min/35 °C) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (70% MeOH; 1:50 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (8000× g/15 min)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: gallic and ellagic	TPC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values were decreased
Wang et al. [64]	Jujube (Ziziphus mauritiana)	Material: peel and pulp Method: maceration extraction (ø) Solvent: H₂O (1:5 proportion)	Flavonoids: naringenin tri-glycoside, quercetin-3-O-[(2-hexosyl)-6-rhamnosyl]-hexoside, quercetin 3-O-pentosylhexoside, and quercetin-3-O-(2-pentosyl-rhamnoside)-4′-O-rhamnoside Phenolic acids: (≠)	TPC, FRAP, and DPPH^• values increased
Elejalde et al. [65]	Grape (Vitis sp.)	Material: seed Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction (20 min) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (50% EtOH; 1:50 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (4000 rpm/5 min) and filtration (0.5 µ)	Flavonoids: catechin, epicatechin, epicatechin gallate, quercetin-3-glucoside, quercetin-3-rutinoside, malvidin-3-O-glucoside, delphinidin-3-O-glucoside, and cyanidin-3-O-glucoside Phenolic acids: (≠)	TPC and DPPH^• values increased
Soares et al. [66]	Yellow Puçá (Mouriri grandiflora)	Material: pulp, peel, and seed Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction (40 kHz/1 h/40 °C) Solvent: hydroalcoholic (80% EtOH; 1:4 proportion) Separation: filtration (ø)	Flavonoids: catechin Phenolic acids: gallic, chlorogenic, caffeic, p-coumaric, m-coumaric, o-coumaric, ferulic, rosmarinic, and trans-cinnamic	FRAP and DPPH^• values decreased

EtOH, ethanol; MeOH, methanol; ø, conditions not reported; ≠, unidentified individual compound; TPC, total phenolic content; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power method; ABTS^•+, 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); DPPH^•, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl.

Table 3. AOC of natural ingredient-treated uncooked meat products subjected to storage.

Reference	Natural Ingredient	Meat Product and Conditions	Extraction of the Antioxidant Material from the Uncooked Meat Product	Bioactive Compounds Linked to AOC	Results of AOC After Storage
Zajaç et al. [72]	Hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis) Borage (Borago officinalis)	Product: ground pork Addition: powder (0.5%) Storage: 15 days/4 °C	Material: whole plant Method: ultrasound-assisted extraction Solvent: EtOH (95%; 5 g of sample) Separation: centrifugation (3200× g/20 min) and filtration (Whatman No. 1)	Flavonoids: quercetin and rutin Phenolic acids: t-cinnamic, chlorogenic, p-coumaric, ferulic, caffeic, and hippuric	(↑) AOC (as measured by FRAP and DPPH^•); [C] not demonstrated
Mancini et al. [18]	Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.)	Product: rabbit patties Addition: powder (3.5%) Storage: 7 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: EtOH (9000 rpm/45 s; 5 g of sample) Separation: centrifugation (10,000 rpm/10 min) and filtration (Whatman No. 4)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^•); [C] not demonstrated
Hawashin et al. [73]	Olive (Olea europea)	Product: beef patties Addition: cake powder (2%, 4% and 6%) Storage: 6 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: H₂O (overnight/4 °C; 1:10 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (4500× g/30 min)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (TPC and DPPH^•); [C]
Ouerfelli et al. [74]	Neem (Azadirachta indica L.) Chilli (Capsicum baccatum)	Product: beef patties Addition: leaf powder (0.7%) Storage: 11 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: H₂O (5 g of sample) Separation: centrifugation (30 min/4 °C) and filtration (folded filter)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (DPPH^•) for both extracts; [C] not demonstrated
Ramírez-Rojo et al. [75]	Mesquite (Prosopis velutina)	Product: pork patties Addition: leaf H₂O-EtOH extract (0.05% and 0.1%) Storage: 10 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: H₂O (1:10 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (4200× g/10 min/4 °C)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (RPA and DPPH^•); [C]
Vargas-Sánchez et al. [76]	Propolis	Product: beef and pork patties Addition: extract (2%) Storage: 9 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: H₂O (4500 rpm/1 min; 1:10 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (4200× g/10 min/4 °C)	Flavonoids: naringenin, quercetin, luteolin, kaempferol, apigenin, pinocembrin, pinobanksin 3-acetate, chrysin, galangin, acacetin, and pinostrobin Phenolic acids: gallic, cinnamic, and p-coumaric	(↑) AOC (TPC, RPA, and DPPH^•) for both products; [C] not demonstrated
Al-Juhaimi et al. [77]	Baobab (Adansonia digitata)	Product: beef patties Addition: seed extract (2% and 3%) Storage: 21 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: H₂O (1:10 proportion)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (TPC and DPPH^•); [C] for TPC
Prommachart et al. [78]	Black rice (Oryza sativa L.)	Product: beef patties Addition: extract (0.4%, 0.8%, and 1.2%) Storage: 6 days/2 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: MeOH (30 min/25 °C; 1:3 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (3000× g/15 min/4 °C)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (DPPH^•); [C]
Bellucci et al. [79]	Red pitaya (Hylocereus monacanthus)	Product: pork patties Addition: H₂O extract (250, 500, and 1000 mg/kg) Storage: 18 days/2 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: MeOH (1:20 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (10,000× g/10 min) and filtration	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (DPPH^•); [C]
Vargas-Sánchez et al. [80]	Sun mushroom (Agaricus brasiliensis)	Product: pork patties Addition: H₂O-EtOH extract (0.5% and 1%) Storage: 9 days/2 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: hydroalcoholic (90%/4500 rpm/10 min; 1:10 proportion) Re-extraction: ultrasound-assisted extraction (42 kHz/1 h/25 °C) Separation: centrifugation (2300× g/10 min/4 °C) and filtration (0.22 µm)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (TPC, RPA, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^•) for both products; [C]
Murillo-Hernández et al. [81]	Coffee (Coffea sp.)	Product: pork patties Addition: spent coffee grounds H₂O-EtOH extract (0.5% and 1%) Storage: 9 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: H₂O (1:10 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (4500× g/10 min/4 °C)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (TPC, FRAP, RPA, ABTS^•+, and DPPH); [C]
Vargas-Sánchez et al. [82]	Reishi (Ganoderma lucidum	Product: pork patties Addition: H₂O-EtOH extract (0.5% and 1%) Storage: 9 days/2 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: hydroalcoholic (50%/4500 rpm/1 min; 1:10 proportion) Re-extraction: ultrasound-assisted extraction (42 kHz/1 h/24 °C) Separation: centrifugation (2300× g/30 min/5 °C) and filtration (0.20 µm)	Flavonoids: chrysin Phenolic acids: gallic and protocatechuic	(↑) AOC (TPC, RPA, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^•) for both products; [C]
Ngongoni et al. [83]	Black wattle (Acacia mearnsii)	Product: pork patties Addition: bark and leaves (0.045%) Storage: 9 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: PBS (10,000 rpm/30 s; 1:5 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (2575× g/10 min/4 °C) and filtration (Whatman No. 1)	Flavonoids: kaempferol 3- sophoroside, myricetin-3- rutinoside, myricetin-3- galactoside, myricetin 3- arabinoside, myricitrin, quercitrin, myricetin, epicatechin, catechin, and procyanidin A1-B1-B5, Phenolic acids: gallic, gentinsic, glucosyringic, and p-coumaroyltrifolin B	(↑) AOC (FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^•); [C] not demonstrated
Jin et al. [84]	Sappanwood (Caesalpinia sappan)	Product: pork sausage Addition: heartwood extract (0.05%, 0.1%, and 0.2%) Storage: 120 days/10 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: EtOH (1:1 proportion)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (DPPH^•); [C]
Van Ba et al. [85]	Shiitake (Lentinula edodes)	Product: pork sausage Addition: H₂O and EtOH extract (100 mL) Storage: 40 days/15 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: H₂O (1:1 proportion)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (TPC and DPPH^•)
Tran et al. [19]	Guava (Psidium guajava L.)	Product: pork sausages Addition: leaf extract (3000, 4000, 5000, and 6000 ppm) Storage: 14 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: MeOH (1:4 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (3000× g/10 min/20 °C)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (FRAP and DPPH); [C] for DPPH^•

EtOH, ethanol; (↑), enhance; AOC, antioxidant capacity; [C], the effect depended on the concentration used; TPC, total phenolic content; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power method; ABTS^•+, 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); DPPH^•, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl.

Table 4. AOC of natural ingredient-treated cooked meat products subjected to storage.

Reference	Natural Ingredient	Meat Product and Conditions	Extraction of the Antioxidant Material from the Cooked Meat Product	Bioactive Compounds Linked to AOC	Results of AOC After Storage
Alnoumani et al. [86]	White button (Agaricus bisporus)	Product: ground beef Addition: powder (1%, 2%, and 4%) Storage: 16 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: PBS (5 g of sample) Separation: centrifugation (127.8× g/15 min/4 °C) and filtration (cheesecloth)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: gallic, p-coumaric, and caffeic	(↑) AOC (TPC); [C]
Vargas-Sánchez et al. [80]	Sun mushroom (Agaricus brasiliensis)	Product: pork patties Addition: H₂O-EtOH extract (0.5% and 1%) Storage: 9 days/2 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: hydroalcoholic (90%/4500 rpm/10 min; 1:10 proportion) Re-extraction: ultrasound-assisted extraction (42 kHz/1 h/25 °C) Separation: centrifugation (2300× g/10 min/4 °C) and filtration (0.22 µm)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (TPC, RPA, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^•) for both products; [C]
Vargas-Sánchez et al. [82]	Reishi (Ganoderma lucidum)	Product: pork patties Addition: H₂O-EtOH extract (0.5% and 1%) Storage: 9 days/2 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: hydroalcoholic (50%/4500 rpm/1 min; 1:10 proportion) Re-extraction: ultrasound-assisted extraction (42 kHz/1 h/24 °C) Separation: centrifugation (2300× g/30 min/5 °C) and filtration (0.20 µm)	Flavonoids: chrysin Phenolic acids: gallic and protocatechuic	(↑) AOC (TPC, RPA, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^•) for both products; [C]
Yim et al. [87]	Sappanwood (Caesalpinia sappan)	Product: pork sausage Addition: heartwood extract (0.007%, 0.0035% and 0.1%) Storage: 28 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: H₂O (1:2 proportion)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (DPPH^•); [C]
Bedrníček et al. [44]	Onion (Allium sp.)	Product: fish sausages Addition: powder (1%, 2%, and 3%) Storage: 28 days/5 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: hydroalcoholic (90%; 1:10 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (7000 rpm/15 min/5 °C)	Flavonoids: quercetin, Quercetin-4-O-glucoside, and Quercetin-3,4-O-diglucoside Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (TPC, FRAP, and DPPH^•); [C]
Manzoor et al. [88]	Mango (Mangifera indica L.)	Product: chicken sausages Addition: H₂O peel extract (2%, 4%, and 6%) Storage: 10 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: MeOH (1:33 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (10,000× g/10 min/4 °C)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (DPPH^•); [C]
Yaghoubi et al. [89]	Oleaster (Elaeagnus angustifolia L.)	Product: frankfurter-type sausages Addition: essential oil leaf (1000 and 2000 ppm) Storage: 45 days/4 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: H₂O (1:2 proportion)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (TPC); [C]
López-Hernández et al. [30]	Cactus berry (Myrtillocactus geometrizans) Red prickly pear (Opuntia ficus-indica L.)	Product: chicken sausages Addition: powder in mixtures (75% + 25%, 25–75%, and 50–50%, respectively) Storage: 28 days/1.5 °C	Method: maceration extraction Solvent: EtOH (1:4 proportion) Separation: centrifugation (5000 rpm/15 min)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	(↑) AOC (FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^•)

EtOH, ethanol; MeOH, methanol; (↑), enhance; AOC, antioxidant capacity; [C], the effect depended on the concentration used; TPC, total phenolic content; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power method; ABTS^•+, 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); DPPH^•, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl.

Table 5. AOC of natural ingredient-treated cooked meat products subjected to gastrointestinal digestion.

Reference	Natural Ingredients	Meat Product and Conditions	Bioactive Compounds Linked to AOC	Results of AOC After sGD
Torres-Martínez et al. [97]	Oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus)	Product: pork patties Formulation: pork meat was replaced with back fat (10%), salt (1.5%), and the powder (0%, 2% and 5%; T1–T3).	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	T2 and T3 showed the highest TPC, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values, while T2 showed the highest FRAP values.
Ansorena and Astiasaran [98]	Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Parsley (Petroselinum crispum)	Product: ground beef patties Formulation: beef meat replaced with back fat (19.8%), salt (0.8%), and the extract (0% or 0.71; T1–T3)	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	T2 and T3 showed the highest DPPH^• values.
Lavado & Cava [99]	Pomegranate (Punica granatum L.)	Product: uncured dry sausages Formulation: pork meat was replaced with the aqueous extracts peel of each (0, 0.5, and 12.5 mg; T1–T3)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	T3 showed the highest FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values.
Vargas-Sánchez et al. [82]	Reishi (Ganoderma lucidum)	Product: pork patties Formulation: pork meat was replaced with back fat (10%), salt (1.5%), and a hydroalcoholic extract (50%) (0%, 0.5% or 1%; T1–T3).	Flavonoids: chrysin Phenolic acids: gallic and protocatechuic	T2 and T3 showed the highest TPC values at the different concentrations used. T2 showed the highest DPPH^• values.
Khamzaeva et al. [100]	Soy (Glycine max L.) Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)	Product: beef patties Formulation: pork meat was replaced with plant proteins (0% or 23%; T1–T3).	Flavonoids: (≠) Phenolic acids: (≠)	T3 showed the highest FRAP values.
Torres-Martínez et al. [101]	Oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus)	Product: minced pork Formulation: pork meat was replaced with back fat (20%), salt (1.5%), and water extract (0 or 500 µg/g; T1 and T2)	Flavonoids: quantified (≠) Phenolic acids: quantified (≠)	T2 showed the highest TPC, FRAP, ABTS^•+, and DPPH^• values.

sGD, simulated gastrointestinal digestion. TPC, total phenolic content; FRAP, ferric reducing antioxidant power method; ABTS^•+, 2,2′-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid); DPPH^•, 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Torres-Martínez, B.d.M.; Sánchez-Escalante, A.; Torrescano-Urrutia, G.R.; Vargas-Sánchez, R.D. Natural Ingredients to Enhance the Antioxidant Capacity in Different Meat Products: A Review. Foods 2026, 15, 852. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15050852

AMA Style

Torres-Martínez BdM, Sánchez-Escalante A, Torrescano-Urrutia GR, Vargas-Sánchez RD. Natural Ingredients to Enhance the Antioxidant Capacity in Different Meat Products: A Review. Foods. 2026; 15(5):852. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15050852

Chicago/Turabian Style

Torres-Martínez, Brisa del Mar, Armida Sánchez-Escalante, Gastón Ramón Torrescano-Urrutia, and Rey David Vargas-Sánchez. 2026. "Natural Ingredients to Enhance the Antioxidant Capacity in Different Meat Products: A Review" Foods 15, no. 5: 852. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15050852

APA Style

Torres-Martínez, B. d. M., Sánchez-Escalante, A., Torrescano-Urrutia, G. R., & Vargas-Sánchez, R. D. (2026). Natural Ingredients to Enhance the Antioxidant Capacity in Different Meat Products: A Review. Foods, 15(5), 852. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods15050852

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

Article Menu

Natural Ingredients to Enhance the Antioxidant Capacity in Different Meat Products: A Review

Abstract

1. Introduction

2. Oxidative Stability of Meat Products

3. Analytical Assays for the Measurement of AOC in Meat Products

3.1. AOC Assays and Antioxidant Mechanism

3.2. Use of the AOC Assays in Meat and Meat Products

4. Enhancing the AOC of Meat Products Using Natural Ingredients

4.1. Antioxidants of Natural Ingredients and Their Stability

4.2. AOC of Natural Ingredient-Treated Meat Products During Storage

4.3. AOC of Natural Ingredient-Treated Meat Products Subjected to Gastrointestinal Digestion

5. Conclusions

Author Contributions

Funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

Informed Consent Statement

Data Availability Statement

Acknowledgments

Conflicts of Interest

Abbreviations

References

Share and Cite

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI