Next Article in Journal
Nanomaterial Gas Sensors for Online Monitoring System of Fruit Jams
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Cantharellus Cibarius Addition on Quality Characteristics of Frankfurter during Refrigerated Storage
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Infrared Radiation on Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) Greenhouse Cultivation and Fruits’ Phenolic Profile
Previous Article in Special Issue
Propolis Extract as Antioxidant to Improve Oxidative Stability of Fresh Patties during Refrigerated Storage

Foods 2019, 8(12), 631; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8120631

Article
Inclusion of Ethanol Extract of Mesquite Leaves to Enhance the Oxidative Stability of Pork Patties
1
Coordinación de Tecnología de Alimentos de Origen Animal (CTAOA), Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, A.C. (CIAD), Carretera Gustavo Enrique Astiazarán Rosas, 46, Hermosillo, Sonora 83304, Mexico
2
Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Rúa Galicia N° 4, Parque Tecnológico de Galicia, San Cibrao das Viñas, 32900 Ourense, Spain
*
Correspondence: [email protected] (J.M.L.); [email protected] (A.S.-E.); Tel.: +34-988-548-277 (J.M.L.); +52-662-289-2400 (A.S.-E.)
Cátedras CONACyT. Av. Insurgentes Sur, 1582, Ciudad de México, 03940, Mexico.
Received: 9 October 2019 / Accepted: 27 November 2019 / Published: 2 December 2019

Abstract

:
The lipid oxidation (LOX) of pork meat has been associated with loss of quality and shorter shelf life. Consequently, synthetic antioxidants have been used to reduce this process, but their use has shown potential health risks. Thus, the use of natural ingredients has been suggested as a strategy to prevent LOX. This study aimed to assess the oxidative stability of pork patties treated with ethanol extract of mesquite leaf (EEML) during storage. Furthermore, the polyphenol composition (TPC, total phenolic, TFC, total flavonoid) and antioxidant activity (antiradical and reducing power activity) of EEML were also evaluated. For this study, five treatments (CN (control), without antioxidant; Asc, ascorbic acid 0.02%; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene 0.02%; EEML1, 0.05%; and EEML2, 0.1%) of pork patties were applied. Patty samples were stored at 4 °C, and physicochemical parameters, lipid oxidation, total antioxidant capacity of the meat, and sensory analysis were evaluated at 0, 3, 7, and 10 days of storage. EEML presented high values of TPC (278.5 mg gallic acid equivalent (GAE)/g) and TFC (226.8 mg rutin equivalents (RE)/g) levels. The addition of EEML did not modify the chemical composition of the pork patties. On the other hand, colour parameters were affected by the inclusion of EEML in pork patties, presenting the lowest a* in the CN group compared to the other groups after 10 days storage. Lipid oxidation increased during the whole period, showing the lowest (P < 0.05) conjugated dienes and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) values (40% and 90% of inhibition, respectively) compared to the CN group. Regarding sensory analysis, there were no significant differences in colour, appearance, odour, flavour, juiciness, fat sensation, and firmness of the cooked pork patties among treatments. These results suggest that EEML has great potential as a natural antioxidant for meat products.
Keywords:
sensorial properties; colour parameters; conjugated dienes; polyphenol content

1. Introduction

In Mexico, pig production is one of the most important activities in the livestock sector, and recently pork became the second most popular meat in this country, with a per capita consumption of 11.6 kg in 2017, with a total domestic consumption of 2.4 M metric tonnes [1]. Moreover, pork meat plays an important role in human nutrition as a source of amino acids, minerals, vitamins, and fatty acids [2,3]. Fatty acids (FA) are an important source of energy for human consumption. However, it is recommended to increase the dietary intake of monounsaturated (MUFA) and polyunsaturated (PUFA) fatty acids and to reduce saturated fatty acids (SFA) [4,5]. Nevertheless, the high PUFA content in pork meat and meat products results in low oxidative stability [6,7,8].
Lipid oxidation is one of the most important processes occurring in the food matrix responsible for the deterioration of the quality and thus shortening the shelf life [9]. In this regard, the lipid oxidation process (LOX) is responsible for off-flavours and unacceptable taste as well as discolouration, loss of nutritional value, the formation of toxic compounds, drip loss, etc., which could affect the acceptance of the product by the consumer [10,11,12]. Thus, synthetic antioxidants such as butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) have been used to reduce LOX. However, their use has decreased due to adverse effects on consumer health [13,14]. The addition level is recommended to be no more than 200 ppm on the fat level and 30 ppm on the meat weight basis. Due to the potential toxicological effects of synthetic antioxidants, natural antioxidants are an interesting alternative to conventional antioxidants [15,16,17,18]. In order to reduce LOX, the use of natural ingredients such as phenolic compound extracts from plants (seeds, peels, barks, woods, flowers, and leaves) has been proposed [19,20,21,22]. Mesquite (Prosopis spp.) has long been a useful biotic resource for the people of the arid and semiarid regions in Mexico. The mesquite wood, pods, and leaves are commonly used in human and animal food and medicinal treatment [23]. Moreover, it has been reported that extracts obtained from the bark, pods, pollen, and leaves of plants from the genus Prosopis have bioactive properties. Their antifungal, antimicrobial, anti-tumoral, anti-inflammatory, antihyperlipidemic, and antioxidant properties are attributed to their phytochemical content [24]. However, the use of mesquite as a natural source of antioxidant compounds for meat products and its potential health benefits are not well studied. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ethanol extract of mesquite leaf (EEML) on the oxidative stability of pork patties during storage.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Reagents

All the chemical products used were of analytical grade. Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, sodium carbonate, aluminium chloride, 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), ethanol, hexane, 2-propanol, methanol, sodium phosphate, potassium ferricyanide, iron chloride, gallic acid, quercetin, butylated hydroxytoluene, and ascorbic acid were purchased from Sigma Chemicals (St. Louis, MO, USA). Whereas, 2-thiobarbituric acid and trichloroacetic acid were obtained from J.T. Baker ®.

2.2. Extract Preparation

Mesquite leaves (Prosopis velutina) were collected in the Northwest of Mexico (Sonora state, Ures municipality; 29°7’19.72′N, 110°16’58.35′ W; 476 m a.s.l.) and botanically identified by a specialist from the Sonora University Herbarium (plant number 26120). Mesquite leaves were washed with distilled water, dried at room temperature (25–30 °C) and milled (20 mesh) for subsequent phenolic extraction [25]. Mesquite leaf powder was extracted with ethanol (1:10) by ultrasound-assisted extraction (42 kHz/25 °C/30 min). Subsequently, the mixture was centrifuged (4200× g/10 min) to obtain the supernatant, followed by a second extraction process. Both solutions were filtered (Whatman 4 filter paper), concentrated under reduced pressure (Rotary evaporator BÜCHI R-200, Flawil, Switzerland), lyophilized (Freeze dryer Yamato DC401, Tokyo, Japan), and stored at −20 °C in the dark, until analysis.

2.3. Polyphenol Content

The total phenolic content (TPC) was determined by the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent method [26]. An aliquot of EEML (10 µL, 5 mg/mL) was homogenized with 160 µL of distilled water, 40 µL of Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (0.25 N), 60 µL of Na2CO3 (7%, w/v) and 80 µL of distilled water. After incubation (25 °C/in the dark/1 h), absorbance was measured at 750 nm in a spectrophotometer (Multiskan FC UV-Vis, Thermo Scientific, Vantaa, Finland) and the results were expressed as mg of gallic acid equivalent/g (mg GAE/g). The total flavonoid content (TFC) was based on the complex formation with aluminium chloride method [27]. EEML (10 µL, 5 mg/mL) was homogenized with 130 µL of methanol and 10 µL AlCl3 (5%, w/v). After incubation (25 °C/in the dark/30 min), the absorbance was measured at 412 nm and the results were expressed as mg of quercetin equivalent/g (mg QE/g).

2.4. Antioxidant Activity

The antiradical activity was evaluated by the DPPH method [28]. EEML (100 µL, at 25, 50, and 100 µg/mL) were mixed with DPPH solution (300 μmol). After incubation (25 °C/in the dark/20 min), absorbance was measured at 517 nm, and the results expressed as a percentage of radical inhibition. The reducing power assay (RP) was measured by the Prussian blue method [29]. EEML (100 μL, 5 mg/mL) was mixed with 300 μL of phosphate buffer (0.2 M, pH 6.6), 300 μL of potassium ferricyanide (1%, w/v) and incubated in a water bath for 20 min (50 °C). Then, an aliquot of 300 μL of trichloroacetic acid (10%, w/v) was added and centrifuged (4200× g/10 min). Then, the supernatant was mixed with 100 μL of distilled water, and 250 μL of ferric chloride (0.1%, w/v), and the absorbance was measured at 700 nm.

2.5. Pork Patties’ Preparation and Storage

Minced pork meat (Semimembranosus m., 48 h post-mortem) was purchased from a local processor and mixed with salt (1.5%, w/w) and fat (10% in the final formulation, w/w). The mass was divided into five different treatments: (1) CN, control (without antioxidant); (2) Asc, ascorbic acid (0.02%, w/w); (3) BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene (0.02%, fat basis); (4) EEML1, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf (0.05%, w/w); and (5) EEML2, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf (0.1%, w/w). For each batch, a total of 14 patties (90 g) per treatment were prepared and placed on a Styrofoam tray. The trays with pork patties were wrapped with polyvinyl chloride film (17,400 cm3 O2/m2/23 °C/24 h). The patties were stored at 4 °C, in the dark for 10 days. At day 0, six patties per treatment were subjected to proximate analysis; while, eight patties were subjected to meat quality measurements during storage. At each sampling point (0, 3, 7, and 10 days), two packs of each treatment were assessed.

2.6. Meat Quality Measurements

2.6.1. Proximate Analysis

Moisture, fat, ash, and protein content were determined following the standard procedures [30].

2.6.2. Measurement of pH

The pH of the raw pork patties was measured after homogenization with distilled water at a ratio of 1:10, with a potentiometer (Model pH211, Hanna Instruments Inc., Woonsocket, RI, USA) with automatic temperature control [30].

2.6.3. Colour Measurement

The colour measurement was performed using a spectrophotometer (model CM 508d, Konica Minolta Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The registered values were lightness (L*), redness (a*), yellowness (b*), Chroma (C*), and hue angle (h*). The pork patties were extracted from their packaging and exposed to atmospheric O2 for 30 min for blooming. Ten measurements were performed on the surface of each patty [31].

2.6.4. Metmyoglobin Formation

The metmyoglobin formation (MMb) was estimated spectrophotometrically by measuring the reflectance at 525 and 572 nm with a spectrophotometer (model CM 508d, Konica Minolta Inc., Tokyo, Japan). The maximum value of the quotient K/S525 and K/S572 on the initial day of sampling (day 0) was fixed as 0% MMb, while 100% MMb was obtained after oxidizing the patties with a potassium ferricyanide solution (1%, w/v). Each value was the mean of 10 measurements on each pork patty’s surface [32].

2.6.5. Water Holding Capacity

The water holding capacity (WHC) of the patties was determined gravimetrically [33]. Samples (10 g) were placed on fine mesh nylon, inserted into 50 mL tubes with a screwcap, and then centrifuged (4200× g/4 °C/10 min). The WHC was calculated using the following formula:
WHC   ( % )   =   initial   weight   weight   after   centifugation initial   weight   ×   100

2.6.6. Lipid Oxidation

The LOX was evaluated by the conjugated diene formation (CnD) [34]. Pork patties (0.5 g) were homogenized with 5 mL of hexane:isopropanol solution (3:2) for 1 min and centrifuged at 2000× g/4 °C/5 min. The absorbance was measured at 233 nm. Deionized water was used as blank, and CnD was quantified using a molar extinction coefficient of 25,200 M−1 cm−1. The results were expressed as µmol of CnD/mg of meat. The LOX was also measured by the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) formation [35]. Meat samples (10 g) were homogenized with 20 mL of trichloroacetic acid (10%, w/v) and centrifuged (2300× g/4 °C/20 min). Then, 2 mL of the filtered supernatant (Whatman 4 filter paper) was mixed with 2 mL of 2-thiobarbituric acid (20 mM) and boiled in a water bath for 20 min. After cooling, the absorbance was measured at 531 nm (Spectrophotometer Model 336001, Spectronic Genesys 5, Thermo Electron Corp., NY, USA). The malondialdehyde concentration (MDA) was calculated using a calibration curve, and the results expressed as mg of MDA/kg sample.

2.6.7. Total Antioxidant Activity of Meat Extract

The meat extract was obtained from 0.5 g of pork patties, which were homogenized with 5 mL of distilled water and centrifuged (4200× g/4 °C/10 min) [36]. The supernatant was used to determine the total antioxidant of the meat extract, measured by the DPPH• inhibition [28] and RP [29].

2.7. Sensory Evaluation

A sensory panel (n = 25, laboratory co-workers and students) was used to evaluate the sensory analysis of raw and cooked meat samples. Previously, uncooked pork patties were subjected to sensory evaluation of colour and appearance. Then, pork patties were grilled until they reached an internal temperature of 71 °C and subjected to sensory evaluation of colour, appearance, odour, flavour, juiciness, fat sensation, and texture. A descriptive seven-point scale was used (1 = extremely poor to 7 = excellent).

2.8. Statistical Analysis

Three independent experimental trials (replications) were conducted, and the results presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Data of experimental patties were submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA) according to a two factorial design using National Center for Social Statistics statistical software (NCSS, 2007) The treatments (CN, Asc, BHT, EEML1, and EEML2) and storage time (0, 3, 7, and 10 days) were the fixed terms in the model. For sensory evaluation, the panellists were considered a random factor as well. A Tukey–Kramer multiple comparison test was performed to determine the significance of mean values for multiple comparisons at α < 0.05. A principal component analysis was carried out to detail the level of association between the evaluated variables.

3. Results

3.1. Polyphenol Content and Antioxidant Activity

Table 1 reports the results of the phenolic content and antioxidant activity of EEML, expressed as total phenolic and flavonoid contents (TPC and TFC, respectively), as well as antiradical DPPH activity and reducing power (RP). The results showed that EEML exhibits high values of TPC and TFC (>200 mg GAE or RE/g, for both). In addition, the results of the antioxidant activity also showed that EEML displays high radical DPPH inhibition and RP at 100 µg/mL (>80% and >1.0 abs, respectively) in vitro assay. While high antioxidant activity values (P < 0.05) were obtained for the used standards, i.e., ascorbic acid (>90% of radical inhibition and >1.0 abs for RP) and BHT (>65% of radical inhibition and >0.7 abs for RP). Furthermore, high correlations between TPC and TFC with respect to the DPPH and RP assays were observed (TPC vs. TFC, 0.973; TPC vs. DPPH, 0.969; TPC vs. RP, 0.994; TFC vs. DPPH 0.830; TFC vs. RP, 0.992).

3.2. Physicochemical Analysis

Table 2 shows the results of the proximate chemical composition of pork patties. The inclusion of EEML did not modify (P > 0.05) the moisture (67.2%), fat (11.1%), ash (1.7%), and protein (22.5%) contents compared to the control group (CN). On the other hand, Table 3 reports the effect of EEML addition in pork patties on physicochemical parameters such as pH and colour (L*, a*, b*, C*, and h*), metmyoglobin formation (MMb), and water holding capacity (WHC). Our results indicated that the treatment × storage time effect was significant for all measurements (P < 0.001).
As shown in Table 3, the pH values ranged from 5.85 to 5.92 for all pork patties, which decreased gradually for all treatments until the last day of storage (day 10). At day 10 of storage, all samples treated with the natural antioxidants (EEML1 and EEML2) showed the highest pH values (P < 0.05), in comparison with the synthetic antioxidants (Asc and BHT) (pH 5.7) > CN group (pH 5.5). In this study, the results for the colour surface of patties showed that initial L* values (lightness) were not affected by EEML incorporation, and they increased in the CN group during the storage time (P > 0.05). At day 10, the samples treated with EEML and synthetic antioxidants presented the lowest L* values (average value 54.1), in comparison with the CN treatment (L* value 56.6) (P < 0.05). The initial a* and b* values (redness and yellowness, respectively) showed that EEML incorporation reduced the light pink colour of the samples by 27.8% and increased the b* values by 42.1% in comparison with the CN group (P < 0.05). However, these colour parameters decreased and increased, respectively, in the pork patties during storage time (P < 0.05). After 10 days of storage, patties from the EEML treatments displayed the highest a* value (>10) and the highest b* value (>20) in comparison with the CN group (P < 0.05). In addition, initial C* and h* values were increased (P < 0.05) by EEML2 addition (19.1% and 37.8%, respectively). However, C* values decreased in pork patties during storage time (P < 0.05); while h* values increased (P < 0.05), except for the EEML treatments (P > 0.05). At the end of the storage period, the pork patties from the EEML2 treatment showed the highest (P < 0.05) C* and h* values (>20 and > 70, respectively).
Moreover, at day 0 of storage non-significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in MMb formation (<2%). However, after 10 days of storage, samples from the EEML group showed the lowest (P < 0.05) MMb values (<40% of formation) in comparison with the other treatments (>70% of formation). The addition of EEML reduced the MMb by 55.2% and 62.1% (EEML1 and EEML2, respectively) when compared with CN (P < 0.05). Additionally, non-significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in the initial WHC values (>94%), although these values were reduced during storage time for the CN and synthetic antioxidant treatments (P < 0.05) treatments. At the end of the storage period, EEML addition to pork patties preserved the WHC (5%) in comparison with the CN (P < 0.05).

3.3. Lipid Oxidation

The results obtained for conjugated dienes (CnD) and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) indicated that LOX was significantly affected by treatment × storage time (P < 0.001). As shown in Figure 1, at the beginning CnD (CN > EEML1 > EEML2 > BHT >Asc) and TBARS values (CN > BHT > EEML2 >Asc > EEML1) were significantly reduced (P < 0.05). Although these values increased during the whole period for all treatments (P < 0.05), at the end of storage, pork patties treated with EEML1 treatment presented the lowest CnD values (40% of inhibition), while EEML1 = EEML2 showed the lowest TBARS values (90% of inhibition) when compared with the CN group (P < 0.05).

3.4. Total Antioxidant Activity

As shown in Figure 2, on the initial day DPPH inhibition and RP were significantly high (P < 0.05) in samples from Asc and EEML treatments (>40% of inhibition, and >35% of reducing activity) in comparison with the CN group. After 10 days of storage, the pork patties treated with ethanol extract of mesquite leaf (EEML1 and EEML2 groups) showed the highest antioxidant activity (>40% of inhibition and >20% of RP) in comparison with the CN treatment (P < 0.05).
As shown in Table 4, the results of the sensory evaluation showed that raw pork patties treated with EEML had the lowest scores (EEML2 and EEML1 groups) for colour in comparison with the CN treatment (P < 0.05). However, non-significant differences were found in the sensory scores for colour, appearance, odour, flavour, juiciness, fat sensation, and firmness of cooked pork patties among treatments (P > 0.05).
Finally, a principal component analysis was carried out (Figure 3). The first principal component explained 84.1% of the variation, while the second component contributed a further 10.1%; thus, an accumulative 94.2% of the total variation was explained by the first two principal components. The loading plot (Figure 3A) showed that EEML addition increased the pH and a* values, WHC, and antioxidant activity. Furthermore, the MMb, Cnd, and TBARS values were also reduced. In addition, the loading plot (Figure 3B) showed that pork patties from the CN, synthetic antioxidants, and EEML treatments were differentiated.

4. Discussion

The antioxidant activity of extracts obtained from plants is widely known and associated with the polyphenols content, such as hydroxycinnamic acid, anthocyanin, tannin, and flavonoid, which possess the ability to act as a free radical scavenger and ion metal chelator [37]. The measurement of TPC relies on the electron transfer in alkaline medium from the antioxidant (phenolic compound, ArOH) to phosphomolybdic/phosphotungstic acid complexes (colorimetric reagent Folin–Ciocalteu). Whereas the TFC method is based on the formation of a complex between the OH groups from ArOH with aluminium. These assays have been proposed as a standardized method for establishing the quality of natural extracts and measurement of the antioxidant capacity of food products and dietary supplements [25,26]. In agreement with our study, the presence of polyphenols (68–108.3 mg GAE/g) in mesquite leaf extract has been reported [38]. On the other hand, according to Mexican’s regulation, 50 mg GAE/g and 5 mg RE/g are considered the minimum concentration for a natural extract product [39]; which revealed that EEML meets the quality requirements.
Moreover, the antiradical DPPH activity of ArOH from natural extracts is due to their hydrogen donating ability, and the reaction is based on the reduction of the purple-coloured DPPH radical to its reduced form 1,1-diphenyl-2-picryl hydrazine, residual pale yellow-coloured: i.e., DPPH + ArOH → DPPH-H + ArO [28,40]. On the other hand, in RP assay, the reductants present in the extract promote the reduction of Fe3+ to the Fe2+ through electron-transfer ability (i.e., Fe3+ + ArOH → Fe2+ + ArOH•+), and high absorbance values (at 700 nm) indicate high RP [41]. In agreement with our study, a strong positive correlation between phenolic content and antioxidant activity has been reported in an extensive range of natural extracts rich in ArOH [42,43]. In this regard, the findings obtained from the present study highlight that EEML is a promising source of ArOH with antioxidant activity, which may be employed as an efficient natural additive for extending the shelf life of fresh meat and meat products.
The effect of EEML on chemical composition and meat quality parameters (pH, colour, MMb, WHC, CnD, and TBARS) during the storage time (4 °C, 10 days, under darkness) was also evaluated. The results obtained indicate that the chemical composition of pork patties treated with EEML and synthetic antioxidant are consistent with data reported by other authors [44,45] concerning pork patties. On the other hand, during the whole period (day 0 to day 10), the pH values of samples ranged from 5.92 to 5.53. The pH is a major parameter related to the quality of fresh meat and meat products. Changes in pH values can affect the chemical (accelerate the myoglobin formation), technological (WHC, cooking weight loss and texture), and sensory properties such as appearance, juiciness, firmness, and colour [46,47].
The colour is a subjective psycho-physical characteristic as it exists only in the observer’s eyes and brain (i.e., it is not a characteristic proper to the object under observation), which is associated with the freshness, flavour, tenderness, safety, storage time, nutritional value, and satisfaction level [48,49,50]. The L* value measures lightness and range from 0 (black) to 100 (white) and is considered the best indicator of PSE (pale, soft, and exudative) and/or DFD (dark, firm, and dry) meat condition. In this regard, L* values above 54 are considered as PSE [51] in pork meat samples. In our study, the initial L* values of pork patties treated with EEML and synthetic antioxidants ranged from 53 to 54. At the end of the storage period, our results showed that the addition of EEML and synthetic antioxidants maintained the lightness 4.4% below in comparison with the CN group.
The rate of redness (a*) is more useful than that of the yellowness (b*) when the colour surface due to a* values measures colour changes between red and green [50]. At the end of the storage time, our results showed that EEML treatments maintained 25% of the red colour of pork patties in comparison with the CN treatment. In agreement with our results, it has been found that ethanol extract of green tea leaf at 0.1% increased 16.3% of the redness of raw pork patties stored at 4 °C during 10 days of storage [52]. In addition, the Chroma values (C) have been described as a good colour change indicator, and this index decreases when the red index (a*) and pH values decrease, while the hue angle (h*) and MMb increase [44]. The results obtained indicated that the initial C* and h* values were affected by EEML addition, which could be associated to the colouration pigment provided by this natural extract.
Myoglobin (Mb) is the principal protein responsible for the fresh meat colour [47]. Meat discolouration results from oxidation of both ferrous myoglobin derivatives to ferric ion: Oxymyoglobin (OMb) + (oxygen consumption or low O2 partial pressure) − e → Metmyoglobin (MMb) + O2 [47]. In our study, prolonged storage of meat under oxygen significantly increased the transformation of OMb (bright pink colour) into MMb (green–brown colour). At the end of the storage time, the lowest MMb values were observed in EEML treatments (<40%), which may be due to the richness in ArOH of EEML. In this regard, it has been reported that a meat product with 40% of MMb formation is rejected by the consumer [53]. On the other hand, the addition of plant extract in the formulation of pork patties could change the colour of the meat samples and increase apparently MMb contents [36]. However, it has been reported that ArOH (kaempferol, myricetin, and quercetin at 300 µmol/L; sinapic acid, catechin, taxifolin, morin, and ferulic acid at 300 µmol/L) exert potential MMb reduction to OMb (bright red protein of meat), suggesting that the flavanol structure had high RP levels [54].
In pork meat, a decrease in pH values promotes myofibrillar protein denaturation, as well as the ability of protein–water linkage and decreased WHC [55]. At the end of the storage time, our results showed that the inclusion of EEML increased the WHC by 5.2% in comparison with the CN group. It has been reported that natural antioxidants increase water retention when acting against free radicals or reactive oxygen species (OH, hydroxyl; O2•−, superoxide; and H2O2, hydrogen peroxide), which affect proteins and leads to meat structure modification [38,55]. Thus, plant extracts may protect muscle fibres and decrease moisture loss.
Dietary lipids, naturally occurring in raw meat or added during meat processing, play an important role in food nutrition and flavour [56,57,58,59]. On the other hand, LOX resulted in the formation of conjugated dienes and aldehydes, among others [60,61,62]. At the end of the storage period, our results showed that EEML addition decreased the CnD and TBARS values (40% and 90%, respectively) in comparison with the CN group. In agreement with our results, a reduction in MDA formation (85%) has been reported in raw pork patties (stored at 4 °C for 15 days) treated with avocado extract rich in ArOH [63]. In addition, an MDA reduction (23.2%) was observed in raw pork meat treated with ethanol extract of green tea leaf at 0.1% after ten days of storage [52].
The balance between endogenous and exogenous antioxidant and pro-oxidant substances determines the oxidative stability of meat [9]. on the initial day, our results showed that EEML increased the antioxidant status of pork meat (i.e., antiradical and RP); while at the end of the storage time, samples from the EEML treatments showed the highest antioxidant activity (>40% of radical inhibition, and >20% of RP, respectively) compared to the CN group. In agreement with our results, it has been reported that lotus rhizome knot (LRK) and lotus leaf (LL) extract at 3% increased the antioxidant status of raw pork patties (60% of DPPH inhibition and >80% of RP, by both extracts) stored at 4 °C, in comparison with a control group [36].
Additionally, our results showed that pork patties treated with EEML could be consumed without any problem regarding sensory quality. In agreement with our results, it has been reported that ginger powder at 1% and 2% could be incorporated into pork patties without any effect on their sensorial attributes (appearance, juiciness, flavour, acceptability, or global evaluation, among others), enhance the shelf life and provide a healthy meat product [55].

5. Conclusions

EEML incorporation in pork patties resulted in a significant increase in pH values, colour stability, WHC, and antioxidant levels, as well as sensory acceptability. Moreover, EEML improved MMb and LOX stability of treated pork patties during the storage time. We can conclude that EEML can be applied in the meat industry to improve quality and prevent the oxidation process during storage.

Author Contributions

M.I.R.-R. and A.S.-E. performed and designed the experiment; M.I.R.-R., R.D.V.-S., B.d.M.T.-M., G.R.T.-U., J.M.L. and A.S.-E. analysed the data, designed, and revised the manuscript. All authors discussed the contents of the manuscript and approved the submission.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

Margarita I. Ramírez-Rojo gratefully acknowledges a fellowship from CONACYT for PhD studies. The authors thank José Jesús Sánchez-Escalante for technical support and plant identification, and Marcia Gracia and Antonio Cañedo for their assistance in the collection of mesquite leaves.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FIRA Carne De Cerdo 2017. Available online: http://www.ugrpg.org.mx/pdfs/Panorama Agroalimentario Carne de cerdo 2017.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2019).
  2. Lorenzo, J.M.; Montes, R.; Purriños, L.; Cobas, N.; Franco, D. Fatty acid composition of Celta pig breed as influenced by sex and location of fat in the carcass. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 1311–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Pereira, P.M.D.C.C.; Vicente, A.F.D.R.B. Meat nutritional composition and nutritive role in the human diet. Meat Sci. 2013, 93, 586–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Heck, R.T.; Vendruscolo, R.G.; de Araújo Etchepare, M.; Cichoski, A.J.; de Menezes, C.R.; Barin, J.S.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Wagner, R.; Campagnol, P.C.B. Is it possible to produce a low-fat burger with a healthy n − 6/n − 3 PUFA ratio without affecting the technological and sensory properties? Meat Sci. 2017, 130, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Alves, L.A.A.S.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Gonçalves, C.A.A.; Santos, B.A.; Heck, R.T.; Cichoski, A.J.; Campagnol, P.C.B. Production of healthier bologna type sausages using pork skin and green banana flour as fat replacers. Meat Sci. 2016, 121, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Pateiro, M.; Vargas, F.C.; Chincha, A.A.I.A.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Strozzi, I.; Rocchetti, G.; Barba, F.J.; Domínguez, R.; Lucini, L.; do Amaral Sobral, P.J.; et al. Guarana seed extracts as a useful strategy to extend the shelf life of pork patties: UHPLC-ESI/QTOF phenolic profile and impact on microbial inactivation, lipid and protein oxidation and antioxidant capacity. Food Res. Int. 2018, 114, 55–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zamuz, S.; López-Pedrouso, M.; Barba, F.J.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Domínguez, H.; Franco, D. Application of hull, bur and leaf chestnut extracts on the shelf-life of beef patties stored under MAP: Evaluation of their impact on physicochemical properties, lipid oxidation, antioxidant, and antimicrobial potential. Food Res. Int. 2018, 112, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Fernandes, R.D.P.P.; Trindade, M.A.; Lorenzo, J.M.; de Melo, M.P. Assessment of the stability of sheep sausages with the addition of different concentrations of Origanum vulgare extract during storage. Meat Sci. 2018, 137, 244–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Domínguez, R.; Pateiro, M.; Gagaoua, M.; Barba, F.J.; Zhang, W.; Lorenzo, J.M. A comprehensive review on lipid oxidation in meat and meat products. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Lorenzo, J.M.; Vargas, F.C.; Strozzi, I.; Pateiro, M.; Furtado, M.M.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Rocchetti, G.; Barba, F.J.; Dominguez, R.; Lucini, L.; et al. Influence of pitanga leaf extracts on lipid and protein oxidation of pork burger during shelf-life. Food Res. Int. 2018, 114, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. de Carvalho, F.A.L.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Pateiro, M.; Bermúdez, R.; Purriños, L.; Trindade, M.A. Effect of guarana (Paullinia cupana) seed and pitanga (Eugenia uniflora L.) leaf extracts on lamb burgers with fat replacement by chia oil emulsion during shelf life storage at 2 °C. Food Res. Int. 2019, 125, 108554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. da Silva, S.L.; Amaral, J.T.; Ribeiro, M.; Sebastião, E.E.; Vargas, C.; de Lima Franzen, F.; Schneider, G.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Fries, L.L.M.; Cichoski, A.J.; et al. Fat replacement by oleogel rich in oleic acid and its impact on the technological, nutritional, oxidative, and sensory properties of Bologna-type sausages. Meat Sci. 2019, 149, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Lorenzo, J.M.; Pateiro, M.; Domínguez, R.; Barba, F.J.; Putnik, P.; Kovačević, D.B.; Shpigelman, A.; Granato, D.; Franco, D. Berries extracts as natural antioxidants in meat products: A review. Food Res. Int. 2018, 106, 1095–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lorenzo, J.M.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Gómez, B.; Barba, F.J.; Mora, L.; Pérez-Santaescolástica, C.; Toldrá, F. Bioactive peptides as natural antioxidants in food products—A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 79, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Munekata, P.E.S.E.S.; Domínguez, R.; Franco, D.; Bermúdez, R.; Trindade, M.A.A.; Lorenzo, J.M. Effect of natural antioxidants in Spanish salchichón elaborated with encapsulated n-3 long chain fatty acids in konjac glucomannan matrix. Meat Sci. 2017, 124, 54–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pateiro, M.; Barba, F.J.F.J.; Domínguez, R.; Sant’Ana, A.S.A.S.; Mousavi Khaneghah, A.; Gavahian, M.; Gómez, B.; Lorenzo, J.M.J.M. Essential oils as natural additives to prevent oxidation reactions in meat and meat products: A review. Food Res. Int. 2018, 113, 156–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. 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]
  18. Lorenzo, J.M.; Sineiro, J.; Amado, I.R.; Franco, D. Influence of natural extracts on the shelf life of modified atmosphere-packaged pork patties. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 526–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Cunha, L.C.M.; Monteiro, M.L.G.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Muchenje, V.; de Carvalho, F.A.L.; Conte-Junior, C.A. Natural antioxidants in processing and storage stability of sheep and goat meat products. Food Res. Int. 2018, 111, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Munekata, P.E.S.; Domínguez, R.; Campagnol, P.C.B.; Franco, D.; Trindade, M.A.; Lorenzo, J.M. Effect of natural antioxidants on physicochemical properties and lipid stability of pork liver pâté manufactured with healthy oils during refrigerated storage. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 4324–4334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Alirezalu, K.; Hesari, J.; Nemati, Z.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Barba, F.J.; Lorenzo, J.M. Combined effect of natural antioxidants and antimicrobial compounds during refrigerated storage of nitrite-free frankfurter-type sausage. Food Res. Int. 2019, 120, 839–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fernandes, R.P.P.; Trindade, M.A.; Tonin, F.G.; Lima, C.G.; Pugine, S.M.P.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Lorenzo, J.M.; de Melo, M.P. Evaluation of antioxidant capacity of 13 plant extracts by three different methods: Cluster analyses applied for selection of the natural extracts with higher antioxidant capacity to replace synthetic antioxidant in lamb burgers. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Almanza, S.G.; Moya, E.G. The uses of mesquite (Prosopis spp.) in the highlands of San Luis Potosi, Mexico. For. Ecol. Manag. 1986, 16, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Prabha, D.S.; Dahms, H.U.; Malliga, P. Pharmacological potentials of phenolic compounds from Prosopis spp.—A review. J. Coast. Life Med. 2014, 2, 918–924. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kaur, R.; Arora, S.; Singh, B. Antioxidant activity of the phenol rich fractions of leaves of Chukrasia tabularis A. Juss. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 7692–7698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. 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]
  27. Popova, M.; Bankova, V.; Butovska, D.; Petkov, V.; Nikolova-Damyanova, B.; Sabatini, A.G.; Marcazzan, G.L.; Bogdanov, S. Validated methods for the quantification of biologically active constituents of poplar-type propolis. Phytochem. Anal. 2004, 15, 235–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Molyneux, P. The use of the stable free radical diphenylpicrylhydrazyl (DPPH) for estimating antioxidant activity. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 2004, 26, 211–219. [Google Scholar]
  29. Geckil, H.; Ates, B.; Durmaz, G.; Erdogan, S.; Yilmaz, I. Antioxidant, free radical scavenging and metal chelating characteristics of propolis. Am. J. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2005, 1, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis. In Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 18th ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Gaitherburg, MD, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  31. Robertson, A.R.; Lozano, R.D.; Alman, D.H.; Orchard, S.E.; Keitch, J.A.; Connely, R.; Graham, L.A.; Acree, W.L.; John, R.S.; Hoban, R.F.; et al. CIE Recommendations on Uniform Color Spaces, Color-Difference Equations, and Metric Color Terms. Color Res. Appl. 1977, 2, 5–6. [Google Scholar]
  32. Stewart, M.R.; Zipser, M.W.; Watts, B.M. The use of reflectance spectrophotometry for assay of raw meat pigments. J. Food Sci. 1965, 30, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sutton, D.S.; Ellis, M.; Lan, Y.; McKeith, F.K.; Wilson, E.R. Influence of slaughter weight and stress gene genotype on the water-holding capacity and protein gel characteristics of three porcine muscles. Meat Sci. 1997, 46, 173–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Shahidi, F.; Zhong, Y. Lipid oxidation: Measurement methods. In Bailey’s Industrial Oil and Fat Products; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  35. Vyncke, W. Evaluation of the direct thiobarbituric acid extraction method for determining oxidative rancidity in mackerel. Fette Seifen Anstrichm 1975, 77, 239–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Huang, B.; He, J.; Ban, X.; Zeng, H.; Yao, X.; Wang, Y. Antioxidant activity of bovine and porcine meat treated with extracts from edible lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) rhizome knot and leaf. Meat Sci. 2011, 87, 46–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lorenzo, J.M.; Batlle, R.; Gómez, M. Extension of the shelf-life of foal meat with two antioxidant active packaging systems. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 59, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. García-Andrade, M.; González-Laredo, R.F.; Rocha-Guzmán, N.E.; Gallegos-Infante, J.A.; Rosales-Castro, M.; Medina-Torres, L. Mesquite leaves (Prosopis laevigata), a natural resource with antioxidant capacity and cardioprotection potential. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 44, 336–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. NOM-003-SAG/GAN-2017 Propóleos, producción y especificaciones para su procesamiento. Available online: https://normateca.agricultura.gob.mx/sites/default/files/normateca/Documentos/norma_oficial_mexicana_nom_003_sag_gan_2017_propoleos_produccion_y_especificaciones_para_su_procesamiento.pdf (accessed on 1 September 2019).
  40. Serpen, A.; Gökmen, V.; Fogliano, V. Total antioxidant capacities of raw and cooked meats. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Berker, K.I.; Güçlü, K.; Tor, İ.; Apak, R. Comparative evaluation of Fe(III) reducing power-based antioxidant capacity assays in the presence of phenanthroline, batho-phenanthroline, tripyridyltriazine (FRAP), and ferricyanide reagents. Talanta 2007, 72, 1157–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rodriíguez-Carpena, J.-G.; Morcuende, D.; Andrade, M.-J.; Kylli, P.; Estévez, M. Vocado (Persea americana Mill.) phenolics, in vitro antioxidant and antimicrobial activities, and inhibition of lipid and protein oxidation in porcine patties. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 5625–5635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Al-Rimawi, F.; Abu-Lafi, S.; Abbadi, J.; Alamarneh, A.A.; Sawahreh, R.A.; Odeh, I. Analysis of phenolic and flavonoids of wild Ephedra alata plant extracts by LC/PDA and LC/MS and their antioxidant activity. Afr. J. Tradit. Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 14, 130–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shin, D.J.; Choe, J.; Hwang, K.E.; Kim, C.J.; Jo, C. Antioxidant effects of lotus (Nelumbo nucifera) root and leaf extracts and their application on pork patties as inhibitors of lipid oxidation, alone and in combination. Int. J. Food Prop. 2019, 22, 383–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Munekata, P.E.S.; Fernandes, R.D.P.P.; de Melo, M.P.; Trindade, M.A.; Lorenzo, J.M. Influence of peanut skin extract on shelf-life of sheep patties. Asian Pac. J. Trop. Biomed. 2016, 6, 586–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Huff-Lonergan, E.; Baas, T.J.; Malek, M.; Dekkers, J.C.M.; Prusa, K.; Rothschild, M.F. Correlations among selected pork quality traits. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 617–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Bekhit, A.E.D.; Faustman, C. Metmyoglobin reducing activity. Meat Sci. 2005, 71, 407–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Girolami, A.; Napolitano, F.; Faraone, D.; Braghieri, A. Measurement of meat color using a computer vision system. Meat Sci. 2013, 93, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tomasevic, I.; Tomovic, V.; Ikonic, P.; Lorenzo Rodriguez, J.M.; Barba, F.J.; Djekic, I.; Nastasijevic, I.; Stajic, S.; Zivkovic, D. Evaluation of poultry meat colour using computer vision system and colourimeter. Br. Food J. 2019, 121, 1078–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tomasevic, I.; Tomovic, V.; Milovanovic, B.; Lorenzo, J.; Đorđević, V.; Karabasil, N.; Djekic, I. Comparison of a computer vision system vs. traditional colorimeter for color evaluation of meat products with various physical properties. Meat Sci. 2018, 148, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Brewer, M.; Zhu, L.; Bidner, B.; Meisinger, D.; McKeith, F. Measuring pork color: Effects of bloom time, muscle, pH and relationship to instrumental parameters. Meat Sci. 2001, 57, 169–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Jo, C.; Son, J.H.; Son, C.B.; Byun, M.W. Functional properties of raw and cooked pork patties with added irradiated, freeze-dried green tea leaf extract powder during storage at 4 °C. Meat Sci. 2003, 64, 13–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Greene, B.E.; Hsin, I.M.; Zipser, M.Y.W. Retardation of oxidative color changes in raw ground beef. J. Food Sci. 1971, 36, 940–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Inai, M.; Miura, Y.; Honda, S.; Masuda, A.; Masuda, T. Metmyoglobin reduction by polyphenols and mechanism of the conversion of metmyoglobin to oxymyoglobin by quercetin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 893–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. 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] [PubMed]
  56. Lorenzo, J.M. Horsemeat as a source of valuable fatty acids. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2013, 115, 473–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Domínguez, R.; Purriños, L.; Pérez-Santaescolástica, C.; Pateiro, M.; Barba, F.J.; Tomasevic, I.; Campagnol, P.C.B.; Lorenzo, J.M. Characterization of Volatile Compounds of Dry-Cured Meat Products Using HS-SPME-GC/MS Technique. Food Anal. Methods 2019, 12, 1263–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Gómez, M.; Lorenzo, J.M. Effect of fat level on physicochemical, volatile compounds and sensory characteristics of dry-ripened “chorizo” from Celta pig breed. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 658–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pateiro, M.; Franco, D.; Carril, J.A.; Lorenzo, J.M. Changes on physico-chemical properties, lipid oxidation and volatile compounds during the manufacture of celta dry-cured loin. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 52, 4808–4818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lorenzo, J.M.; Bedia, M.; Bañón, S. Relationship between flavour deterioration and the volatile compound profile of semi-ripened sausage. Meat Sci. 2013, 93, 614–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Bermúdez, R.; Franco, D.; Carballo, J.; Lorenzo, J.M. Influence of type of muscle on volatile compounds throughout the manufacture of Celta dry-cured ham. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2015, 21, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lorenzo, J.M.; Gómez, M.; Purriños, L.; Fonseca, S. Effect of commercial starter cultures on volatile compound profile and sensory characteristics of dry-cured foal sausage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 1194–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rodríguez-Carpena, J.G.; Morcuende, D.; Estévez, M. Avocado by-products as inhibitors of color deterioration and lipid and protein oxidation in raw porcine patties subjected to chilled storage. Meat Sci. 2011, 89, 166–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Lipid oxidation levels of pork patties during storage time determined by the conjugated diene formation (CnD) (A) and thiobarbituric acid (TBA) (B) assays. CN, control; Asc, ascorbic acid; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; EEML1, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.05%; EEML2, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.1%. Bars with different superscripts (a–j) differ significantly among treatments through the storage time (P < 0.05).
Figure 1. Lipid oxidation levels of pork patties during storage time determined by the conjugated diene formation (CnD) (A) and thiobarbituric acid (TBA) (B) assays. CN, control; Asc, ascorbic acid; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; EEML1, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.05%; EEML2, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.1%. Bars with different superscripts (a–j) differ significantly among treatments through the storage time (P < 0.05).
Foods 08 00631 g001
Figure 2. Antioxidant levels of pork patties during storage time determined by the free radical scavenging activity (A) and reducing power (B) assays. CN, control; Asc, ascorbic acid; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; EEML1, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.05%; EEML2, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.1%. Bars with different superscripts (a–k) differ significantly between treatments through storage time (P < 0.05).
Figure 2. Antioxidant levels of pork patties during storage time determined by the free radical scavenging activity (A) and reducing power (B) assays. CN, control; Asc, ascorbic acid; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; EEML1, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.05%; EEML2, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.1%. Bars with different superscripts (a–k) differ significantly between treatments through storage time (P < 0.05).
Foods 08 00631 g002
Figure 3. (A) Principal component analysis of pork patties and (B) loadings graph.
Figure 3. (A) Principal component analysis of pork patties and (B) loadings graph.
Foods 08 00631 g003
Table 1. Antioxidant properties of ethanol extract of mesquite leaf (EEML).
Table 1. Antioxidant properties of ethanol extract of mesquite leaf (EEML).
Polyphenol Content
TPC (mg GAE/g)278.5 ± 8.5
TFC (mg RE/g)226.8 ± 8.3
Antioxidant Activity
DPPH (%)
100 µg/mL85.3 ± 0.3 b
50 µg/mL74.8 ± 4.0 a
25 µg/mL68.9 ± 6.6 a
Asc (25 µg/mL)96.3 ± 2.3 c
BHT (50 µg/mL)69.3 ± 4.1 a
RP (absorbance at 700 nm)
100 µg/mL1.1 ± 0.2 b
Asc (25 µg/mL)1.4 ± 0.1 b
BHT (50 µg/mL)0.7 ± 0.2 a
TPC, total phenolic content; GAE, gallic acid equivalents; TFC, total flavonoids content; RE, rutin equivalents; RP, reducing power; Asc, ascorbic acid; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene. Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation of at least three independent experiments. Different superscripts (a–c) differ significantly (P < 0.05).
Table 2. Chemical composition of pork patties.
Table 2. Chemical composition of pork patties.
TreatmentMoistureFatAshProtein
CN66.98 ± 0.5811.04 ± 0.891.67 ± 0.1120.54 ± 0.74
Asc67.59 ± 0.8611.02 ± 0.501.68 ± 0.0222.47 ± 0.54
BHT67.47 ± 0.7011.10 ± 0.491.66 ± 0.0423.10 ± 0.45
EEML167.06 ± 0.1411.29 ± 1.081.67 ± 0.0322.96 ± 0.13
EEML266.89 ± 1.2611.05 ± 0.831.68 ± 0.0623.52 ± 0.87
P-value0.7650.9920.9950.246
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation of at least three independent experiments. CN, control; Asc, ascorbic acid; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; EEML1, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.05%; EEML2, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.1%.
Table 3. Meat quality attributes of pork patties during storage time.
Table 3. Meat quality attributes of pork patties during storage time.
ItemTreatStorage Time (days)
03710
pHCN5.86 ± 0.02 e5.78 ± 0.01 c5.76 ± 0.04 bc5.53 ± 0.01 a
Asc5.85 ± 0.05 e5.87 ± 0.02 e5.82 ± 0.01 d5.72 ± 0.03 b
BHT5.87 ± 0.01 e5.88 ± 0.01 e5.86 ± 0.04 e5.76 ± 0.01 bc
EEML15.92 ± 0.01 f5.88 ± 0.01 e5.88 ± 0.01 e5.84 ± 0.02 e
EEML25.91 ± 0.01 f5.88 ± 0.01 e5.87 ± 0.02 e5.85 ± 0.01 e
L*CN53.37 ± 0.50 a53.06 ± 0.35 a53.22 ± 0.41 a56.60 ± 0.77 b
Asc53.82 ± 0.88 a54.68 ± 0.56 a54.19 ± 0.35 a54.25 ± 1.22 a
BHT54.63 ± 0.79 a54.39 ± 1.02 a54.35 ± 0.29 a53.75 ± 0.50 a
EEML154.52 ± 0.48 a54.31 ± 0.75 a53.99 ± 0.65 a54.40 ± 0.56 a
EEML254.39 ± 0.58 a53.73 ± 0.41 a53.92 ± 0.22 a54.03 ± 0.80 a
a*CN15.78 ± 1.08 d15.74 ± 1.22 d14.03 ± 0.46 cd7.23 ± 0.40 a
Asc15.66 ± 0.44 d14.14 ± 0.25 cd14.88 ± 0.51 cd9.99 ± 0.71 b
BHT14.82 ± 1.06 cd14.73 ± 0.76 cd13.78 ± 0.96 c9.05 ± 0.79 b
EEML112.61 ± 1.25 c12.59 ± 1.14 c12.79 ± 1.13 c10.09 ± 0.76 b
EEML210.19 ± 1.41 bc10.56 ± 0.71 bc10.31 ± 0.37 b9.18 ± 0.41 b
b*CN15.01 ± 0.99 a16.02 ± 1.10 a16.77 ± 0.28 a17.37 ± 0.15 b
Asc15.18 ± 0.58 a15.02 ± 1.08 a15.54 ± 0.32 a14.52 ± 0.68 a
BHT15.32 ± 1.05 a15.90 ± 0.90 a15.96 ± 0.78 a14.97 ± 0.92 a
EEML120.75 ± 1.02 c21.45 ± 1.10 c21.56 ± 0.84 c20.14 ± 0.66 c
EEML225.94 ± 0.10 e25.74 ± 0.44 e24.40 ± 0.93 de22.67 ± 1.11 cd
C*CN21.47 ± 1.13 bc19.83 ± 1.69 b19.73 ± 0.89 b15.37 ± 0.47 a
Asc21.71 ± 0.61 b20.83 ± 2.03 b21.87 ± 0.39 b16.87 ± 0.89 a
BHT20.66 ± 1.57 b21.92 ± 1.02 bc20.43 ± 2.02 b15.73 ± 1.16 a
EEML123.61 ± 1.61 bc23.45 ± 1.07 bc23.96 ± 0.58 c21.77 ± 1.74 b
EEML226.53 ± 1.67 d26.97 ± 0.60 d26.06 ± 0.94 d23.61 ± 1.06 bc
H*CN43.57 ± 0.95 a44.52 ± 1.24 a46.47 ± 1.34 a55.69 ± 1.09 b
Asc43.82 ± 0.53 a42.53 ± 1.70 a45.50 ± 0.38 a53.25 ± 1.10 b
BHT44.50 ± 1.15 a45.83 ± 1.06 a46.40 ± 1.30 a56.15 ± 1.60 b
EEML161.23 ± 2.17 c60.19 ± 1.20 c60.4+ ± 2.07 c54.56 ± 1.19 b
EEML270.05 ± 1.49 d70.50 ± 1.46 d69.59 ± 1.90 d72.93 ± 1.64 d
MMbCN1.00 ± 0.18 a7.90 ± 0.45 b71.22 ± 3.10 h91.78 ± 2.93 k
Asc1.70 ± 0.70 a14.67 ± 1.30 c71.70 ± 1.38 h70.12 ± 2.43 h
BHT1.40 ± 0.27 a8.51 ± 1.98 b79.83 ± 2.11 i80.97 ± 2.19 j
EEML11.40 ± 0.18 a6.03 ± 0.60 b28.75 ± 2.65 e41.15 ± 2.63 g
EEML21.20 ± 0.27 a7.73 ± 1.46 b17.19 ± 1.26 d34.81 ± 2.68 f
WHCCN95.83 ± 0.85 b95.08 ± 0.62 b95.77 ± 1.00 b91.20 ± 0.88 a
Asc94.26 ± 0.90 b94.80 ± 0.91 b94.61 ± 1.05 b92.20 ± 0.64 a
BHT94.92 ± 1.34 b95.57 ± 1.01 b94.98 ± 0.22 b95.42 ± 0.59 b
EEML195.04 ± 0.80 b95.34 ± 1.65 b95.68 ± 1.36 b95.86 ± 0.47 b
EEML294.61 ± 0.98 b95.25 ± 0.32 b95.75 ± 0.27 b95.96 ± 0.26 b
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation of at least three independent experiments. L*, lightness, a*, redness, b*, yellowness, C*, Chroma, h*, hue angle. CN, control; Asc, ascorbic acid; BHT, butylated hydroxytoluene; EEML1, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.05%; EEML2, ethanol extract of mesquite leaf at 0.1%. Different superscripts (a–k) differ significantly between treatments through storage time (P < 0.05).
Table 4. Sensory evaluation scores of pork patties.
Table 4. Sensory evaluation scores of pork patties.
ItemTreatmentsP-Value
CNEEML1EEML2
Raw patties
Colour8.8 ± 1.4 c5.5 ± 1.2 b4.3 ± 1.3 a0.013
Appearance6.1 ± 1.05.6 ± 1.05.4 ± 0.40.114
Cooked patties
Colour5.4 ± 1.05.1 ± 1.14.7 ± 1.40.775
Appearance5.7 ± 1.15.4 ± 1.04.8 ± 1.40.656
Odour5.4 ± 1.34.7 ± 1.25.6 ± 1.20.663
Flavour5.5 ± 1.25.4 ± 1.24.7 ± 1.20.689
Juiciness4.8 ± 1.25.6 ± 0.74.7 ± 1.30.576
Fat sensation5.5 ± 1.55.5 ± 1.04.7 ± 1.40.706
Firmness5.3 ± 1.45.7 ± 1.25.1 ± 1.30.852
Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation of at least three independent experiments. CN, control; EEML1, mesquite leaf extract at 0.05%; EEML2, mesquite leaf extract at 0.1%. Different superscripts (a–c) differ significantly between treatments within the same sensory attribute (P < 0.05).
Back to TopTop