Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

A screening experiment to identify factors causing rancidity during meat loaf production

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
European Food Research and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A screening experiment consisting of 18 batches of meat loaves were made using a fractional factorial design with six factors including two production replicates i.e. testing of several factors in relatively few trials. The rancidity was detected by TBARS, volatile compounds by GC-MS and sensory analysis by a sensory panel. The results were presented graphically as formal statistical testing is limited. To do this the multivariate results from GC-MS and sensory analyses were made univariate by statistical tools. Pre-salting meat and storing it in frozen air, will result in rancid meat, and regardless pre-salting or not ascorbic acid will act as a pro-oxidant when added into already rancid meat and stored frozen. The three methods used to detect rancidity in meat loaves resulted sometimes in discrepancy in the results. Further research has to be done to verify if these findings were due to development of different oxidation products due to the combinations of factors or if these were outliers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2 (a)
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles and news from researchers in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  1. Frankel EN (1998) Lipid oxidation. The Oily Press Ltd., Dundee, Scotland

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kim YH, Nam KC, Ahn DU (2002) Meat Sci 61:257–265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Meynier A, Genot C, Gandemer G (1999) J Sci Food Agric 79:797–804

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Lombardi-Boccia G, Martinez-Dominguez B, Aguzzi A (2002) J Food Sci 67:1738–1741

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rhee KS, Anderson LM, Sams AR (1996) J Food Sci 61:8–12

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lee SK, Mei L, Decker EA (1997) Meat Sci 46:349–355

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kanner J, Harel S, Jaffe R (1991) J Agric Food Chem 39:1017–1021

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bruun-Jensen L, Skovgaard IM, Madsen EA, Skibsted LH, Bertelsen G (1996) Food Chem 55:41–47

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kilic B, Richards MP (2003) J Food Sci 68:686–689

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Ahn DU, Kim SM (1998) Poultry Sci 77:348–355

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ahn DU, Ajuyah A, Wolfe FH, Sim JS (1993) J Food Sci 58:278–282, 291

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Sørensen G, Jørgensen SS (1996) Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 20:205–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cleveland WS (1985) The elements of graphing data. Wadsworth Advanced Book Program, Monterey, California

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cleveland WS, Fuentes M (1997). Murray Hill, NJ, Bell Labs: 20

  15. Bisgaard S (1988) A practical aid for experimenters. Starlight Press, Madison, USA

    Google Scholar 

  16. AOAC (1998) Official methods of analysis. Association of Offical Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  17. ISO (1985a) Sensory analysis-methodology-flavour profile methods. 6564. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.

  18. ISO (1985b) Sensory analysis-methodology-general guidance. 6658. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  19. ISO (1988) Sensory analysis, general guidance for the design of test rooms. 8589. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

  20. Mielnik MB, Aaby K, Rolfsen K, Ellekjær MR, Nilsson A (2002) Meat Sci 61:73– 84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bjerke F, Aastveit AH et al. (2004) Quality Eng 16:591–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Box GEP, Hunter WG et al. (1978) Statistics for experimenters. Wiley Interscience, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mardia KV, Kent JT et al. (1982) Multivariate Analysis. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ellekjær MR, Fuller HT et al. (1997) Quality Eng 10:25–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Martens H, Næs T (1989) Multivariate calibration. Wiley, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bartov I, Kanner J (1996) Poultry Sci 75:1039–1046

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tan W, Shelef LA (2002) Meat Sci 62:27–32

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Brunton NP, Cronin DA, Monahan FJ (2002) J Sci Food Agric 82:1044–1049

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ahn DU, Olson DG, Jo C, Love J, Jin SK (1999) J Food Sci 64:226–229

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was partly sponsored by Innovation Norway (EHJ - 2003/005984/O-8067). Karin Solgaard and Anne-Kari Arnesen are thanked for skilful technical assistance.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pernille Baardseth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Baardseth, P., Bjerke, F., Aaby, K. et al. A screening experiment to identify factors causing rancidity during meat loaf production. Eur Food Res Technol 221, 653–661 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-005-0061-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-005-0061-7

Keywords