Comparison of Two Volatile Sampling Techniques Based on Different Loading Factors in Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds Released from Spoiled Raw Beef
- 159 Downloads
Evaluation of meat volatiles is an increasing concern due to the development studies for spoilage sensors in order to inform consumers if meat spoiled or not. Since the reliable measuring of volatiles in headspace is important for designing a sensor, preconcentration techniques for meat matrix should be investigated. This study describes the effect of three sample amounts: total volume ratio (loading factors) with 0.025, 0.05, and 0.10 kg/L applied in two preconcentration sampling techniques: solid phase microextraction (SPME) and gas flushing on Tenax with thermal desorption to explain the interactions and relationship between sample amount and extracted analytes for spoiled beef striploin. The ratio of the sample amount of beef meat in the chamber and the total volume of chamber is called as “loading factor”. The results showed that the volatile profiles did not vary significantly, but the levels were affected with the extraction technique and loading factor. The volatile organic compounds identified in the early stages of meat spoilage include alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, esters, and amine compounds. While amines were measured only with Tenax, ethyl acetate was detected only with SPME. The total peak area of volatiles with Tenax (~390 × 10−6 AU at 0.05 kg/L) were higher than SPME sampling (~290 × 10−6 AU at 0.05 kg/L) in each loading factor. Although optimum loading factor depended on the type of volatile, 0.05 kg/L loading factor resulted the most efficient extraction by the two preconcentration techniques for most of the volatiles generally.
KeywordsMeat Spoilage Cold storage Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry Volatiles Preconcentration
This study is achieved with the financial and infrastructural support of Arçelik A.S.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Author Aylin Met and Neşe Şahin Yeşilçubuk declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Elmore JS, Papantoniou E, Mottram DS (2001) A comparison of headspace entrainment on tenax with solid phase microextraction for the analysis of the aroma volatiles of cooked beef. In: Rouseff RL, Cadwallader KR (eds) Headspace analysis of foods and flavors- theory and practice, vol 488. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, USA, pp 125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Nychas GJE, Drosinos E, Board RG (1998) The microbiology of meat and poultry. In: Board RG, Davies AR (eds) Chemical changes in stored meat. Blackie Academic and Professional, London, UK, pp 288–326Google Scholar
- Pawliszyn J (1997) SPME method development. In: Pawliszyn J (ed) Solid phase microextraction–theory and practice. Wiley-VCH, Inc., New York, USA, p 97Google Scholar
- Perez RA, Rojo MD, Gonzalez G, De Lorenzo C (2008) Solid-phase microextraction for the determination of volatile compounds in the spoilage of raw ground beef. J AOAC Int 91:1409–1415Google Scholar
- Soncin S., Chiesa L.M, Cantoni C. & Biondi P.A. (2007) Preliminary study of the volatile fraction in the raw meat of pork, duck and goose. Journal Food Composition and Analysis, 20, 436–439.Google Scholar
- Toldra F (1998) Proteolysis and lipolysis in flavour development of dry-cured meat products. Meat science, 49. Supplement 1:101–110Google Scholar