European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 242, Issue 12, pp 2105–2118 | Cite as

Effect of using ingredient replacers on the physicochemical properties and sensory quality of low-salt and low-fat white puddings

  • Susann Fellendorf
  • Maurice G. O’Sullivan
  • Joseph P. Kerry
Original Paper


White pudding, popular in Europe and America, is a processed meat product containing generally pork meat, fat, seasonings, bread, oatmeal and other cereal grains. To achieve highly accepted low-sodium and low-fat white puddings, 22 formulations comprised of two different fat (10, 5 %) and sodium (0.6, 0.4 %) levels and containing 11 different ingredient replacers were produced. Compositional, texture and sensory analyses were conducted. Adding replacers to low-sodium and low-fat white puddings showed a range of effects on sensory and physicochemical properties. Two formulations containing 10 % fat and 0.6 % sodium formulated with sodium citrate, as well as the combination of potassium chloride and glycine, were found to have overall acceptance (P < 0.05) by assessors. These samples showed higher (P < 0.05) hardness values, scored lower (P < 0.05) in fatness perception and higher (P < 0.05) in spiciness perception. Hence, the recommended sodium target level of 0.6 % set by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland 2016 was achieved for white pudding products, in addition to a significant reduction in fat level from commercial levels, without causing negative sensory attributes.


White pudding Salt and fat reduction Ingredient replacers Sensory test Texture profile analysis 



This study was funded by the Irish Food Industry Research Measure (FIRM) as part of the project titled “PROSSLOW; Development of assessor accepted low-salt and low-fat Irish traditional processed meat (Ref: 11 F 026)”. Many thanks to Janine Winter and Iria Muio Vizcaino for their support in producing the white puddings and preparing the sensory analysis. The authors certify that they have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or non-financial interest in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008 (5). No laboratory animals were used in this study.


  1. 1.
    Ayto J (1990) The Glutton’s glossary: a dictionary of food and drink terms, 1st edn. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li D, Siriamornpun S, Wahlqvist ML et al (2005) Lean meat and heart health. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 14:113–119Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cross AJ, Leitzmann MF, Gail MH et al (2007) A prospective study of red and processed meat intake in relation to cancer risk. PLOS Med 4:1973–1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Halkjaer J, Tjønneland A, Overvad K, Sørensen TI (2009) Dietary predictors of 5-year changes in waist circumference. J Am Diet Assoc 109:1356–1366. doi: 10.1016/j.jada.2009.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Micha R, Wallace SK, Mozaffarian D (2010) Red and processed meat consumption and risk of incident coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circulation 121:2271–2283. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.924977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    WHO (2003) Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseasesGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    WHO (2012) Guideline: sodium intake for adults and childrenGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aaslyng MD (2009) Trends in meat consumption and the need for fresh meat and meat products of improved quality. In: Kerry JP, Ledward D (eds) Improv. Sens. Nutr. Qual. fresh meat. Woodhead Publishing Ltd, Cambridge, pp 3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aaslyng MD, Vestergaard C, Koch AG (2014) The effect of salt reduction on sensory quality and microbial growth in hotdog sausages, bacon, ham and salami. Meat Sci 96:47–55. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.06.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Desmond EM, Troy DJ, Buckley DJ (1998) Comparative studies of nonmeat adjuncts used in the manufacture of low-fat beef burgers. J Muscle Foods 9:221–241. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4573.1998.tb00657.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shand P (2000) Textural, water holding, and sensory properties of low-fat pork bologna with normal or waxy starch hull-less barley. J Food Sci 65:101–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tobin BD, O’Sullivan MG, Hamill RM, Kerry JP (2012) Effect of varying salt and fat levels on the sensory and physiochemical quality of frankfurters. Meat Sci 92:659–666. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tobin BD, O’Sullivan MG, Hamill RM, Kerry JP (2012) Effect of varying salt and fat levels on the sensory quality of beef patties. Meat Sci 91:460–465. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tobin BD, O’Sullivan MG, Hamill RM, Kerry JP (2013) The impact of salt and fat level variation on the physiochemical properties and sensory quality of pork breakfast sausages. Meat Sci 93:145–152. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fellendorf S, O’Sullivan MG, Kerry JP (2015) Impact of varying salt and fat levels on the physicochemical properties and sensory quality of white pudding. Meat Sci 103:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cofrades S, Hughes E, Troy DJ (2000) Effects of oat fibre and carrageenan on the texture of frankfurters formulated with low and high fat. Eur Food Res Technol 211:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bertino M, Beauchamp GK, Engleman K (1982) Long term reduction in dietary sodium alter the taste of salt. Am J Clin Nutr 36:1134–1144Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Puolanne E (2010) Cooked sausages. In: Toldrá F (ed) Handbook of meat and processing, 1st edn. Wiley, New York, pp 313–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruusunen M, Puolanne E (2005) Reducing sodium intake from meat products. Meat Sci 70:531–541. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.07.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wheelock V, Hobbiss A (1999) All you ever wanted to know about salt but were afraid to ask. Skipton, Verner Wheelock AssociatesGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dzendolet E, Meiselman HL (1967) Gustatory quality changes as a function of solution concentration. Percept Psychophys 2:29–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Desmond E (2006) Reducing salt: a challenge for the meat industry. Meat Sci 74:188–196. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ruusunen M, Vainionpää J, Puolanne E et al (2003) Effect of sodium citrate, carboxymethyl cellulose and carrageenan levels on quality characteristics of low-salt and low-fat bologna type sausages. Meat Sci 64:371–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lopez-Lopez I, Cofrades S, Jimenez-Colmenero F (2009) Low-fat frankfurters enriched with n-3 PUFA and edible seaweed: effects of olive oil and chilled storage on physicochemical, sensory and microbial characteristics. Meat Sci 83:148–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weiss J, Gibis M, Schuh V, Salminen H (2010) Advances in ingredient and processing systems for meat and meat products. Meat Sci 86:196–213. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.05.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kosmark R (1996) Salatrim: properties and applications. Food Technol 50:98–101Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Peters JC, Lawson KD, Middleton SJ, Triebwasser KC (1997) The nutritional effects of olestra assessment of the nutritional effects of olestra, a nonabsorbed fat replacement. J Nutr 127:1719–1728Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Harrigan KA, Breene WM (1989) Fat substitutes: sucrose esters and simplesse. Cereal Foods World 34:261–267Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Duflot P (1996) Starches and sugars glucose polymers as sugar/fat substitutes. Trends Food Sci Technol 7:206Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chevance FF, Farmer LJ, Desmond EM et al (2000) Effect of some fat replacers on the release of volatile aroma compounds from low-fat meat products. J Agric Food Chem 48:3476–3484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    FSAI (2011) Salt Reduction Programme (SRP)—2011 to 2012Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stone H, Sidel JL (2004) Affective testing. In: Stone H, Sidel JL (eds) Sensory evaluation practices, 3rd edn., Food science and technology, international seriesAcademic Press, New York, pp 247–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stone H, Bleibaum RN, Thomas HA (2012) Affective testing. In: Stone H, Bleibaum RN, Thomas HA (eds) Sensory evaluation practices, 4th edn. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, pp 291–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    ISO (1988) Sensory analysis. General guidance for the design of test rooms. Ref. no. Int Organ Stand Genève, Switz ISO 8589:1988Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stone H, Bleibaum RN, Thomas HA (2012) Test strategy and design of experiments. In: Stone H, Bleibaum RN, Thomas HA (eds) Sensory evaluation practices, 4th edn. Elsevier Academic Press, New York, pp 117–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Richter V, Almeida T, Prudencio S, Benassi M (2010) Proposing a ranking descriptive sensory method. Food Qual Prefer 21:611–620. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bostian ML, Fish DL, Webb NB, Arey JJ (1985) Automated methods for determination of fat and moisture in meat and poultry products: collaborative study. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 68:876–880Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Suhre FB, Corrao PA, Glover A, Malanoski AJ (1982) Comparison of three methods for determination of crude protein in meat: collaborative study. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 65:1339–1345Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    AOAC (1923) Determination of ash. J Assoc Off Anal Chem 7:132Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fox PF (1963) Potentiometric determination of salt in cheese. J Dairy Sci 46:744–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    AOAC (1988) Minerals in ready-to-feed milk-based infant formula. Off methods Anal AOAC Int AOAC Off Method 98535 Chapter 50:13–14Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    International Commission on Illumination (1976) ISO 11664-4:2008(E)/CIE S 014-4/E:2007: Joint ISO/CIE Standard: Colorimetry —Part 4: CIE 1976 L*a*b* Colour Space.
  43. 43.
    Bourne MC (1978) Texture profile analysis. Food Technol 32:62–66Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Martens H, Martens M (2001) Multivariate analysis of quality. An introduction, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    FSAI (2014) Monitoring of sodium and potassium in processed foods period. September 2003–July 2014Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Steenkamp J-BEM, Trijp HCM (1996) Quality guidance: a consumer-based approach to food quality improvement using partial least squares. Eur Rev Agric Econ 23:195–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Acebrón BL, Dopico CD (2000) The importance of intrinsic and extrinsic cues to expected and experienced quality: an empirical application for beef. Food Qual Prefer 11:229–238. doi: 10.1016/S0950-3293(99)00059-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Grunert KG, Bredahl L, Brunsø K (2004) Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector—a review. Meat Sci 66:259–272. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00130-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gillette M (1985) Flavor effects of sodium chloride. Food Technol 39:47–56Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wood JD, Fisher AV (1990) Consequences for meat quality of reducing carcass fatness. In: Wood JD, Fisher AV (eds) Reducing fat in meat animals. Elsevier Applied Science, London, pp 344–397Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Giese J (1996) Fats, oils, and fat replacers. Food Technol 50:78–83Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Chantrapornchai W, McClements DJ, Julian D (2002) Influence of NaCl on optical properties, large-strain rheology and water holding capacity of heat-induced whey protein isolate gels. Food Hydrocoll 16:467–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hutton T (2002) Sodium Technological functions of salt in the manufacturing of food and drink products. Br Food J 104:126–152. doi: 10.1108/00070700210423635 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    McCaughey S (2007) Salt and flavor: mechanisms of taste perception and physiological controls. In: Kilcast D, Angus F (eds) Reducing salt in foods: practical strategies. Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Boca Raton, pp 78–99Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Yang A, Keeton JT, Beilken SL, Trout GR (2001) Evaluation of some binders and fat substitutes in low-fat frankfurters. J Food Sci 66:1039–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    López-López I, Cofrades S, Yakan A et al (2010) Frozen storage characteristics of low-salt and low-fat beef patties as affected by Wakame addition and replacing pork backfat with olive oil-in-water emulsion. Food Res Int 43:1244–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Corbion_purac (2013) Sodium reduction “Meat, Poultry & Fish.” 18:1–2.
  58. 58.
    Vadlamani K, Friday D, Broska A, Miller J (2012) Methods and compositions for reducing sodium content in food products. US Pat App 12/0003358A1 1–11Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ruusunen M, Vainionpää J, Puolanne E et al (2003) Physical and sensory properties of low-salt phosphate-free frankfurters composed with various ingredients. Meat Sci 63:9–16. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00044-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gelabert J, Gou P, Guerrero L, Arnau J (2003) Effect of sodium chloride replacement on some characteristics of fermented sausages. Meat Sci 65:833–839. doi: 10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00288-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Souci SW, Fachmann W, Kraut H (2004) Der kleine Souci Fachmann Kraut. Lebensmitteltabelle fuer die Praxis, 3rd ed. Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, Stuttgart, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mittal GS, Barbut S (1994) Effects of fat reduction on frankfurters’ physical and sensory characteristics. Food Res Int 27:425–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Cofrades S, López-López I, Solas MT et al (2008) Influence of different types and proportions of added edible seaweeds on characteristics of low-salt gel/emulsion meat systems. Meat Sci 79:767–776. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.11.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Lin KC, Keeton JT, Gilchrist CL, Cross HR (1988) Comparisons of carboxymethyl cellulose with differing molecular features in low-fat frankfurters. J Food Sci 53:1592–1595CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Union 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susann Fellendorf
    • 1
  • Maurice G. O’Sullivan
    • 1
  • Joseph P. Kerry
    • 1
  1. 1.The Food Packaging Group, School of Food and Nutritional SciencesUniversity College CorkCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations