Chemical, Microbial, and Sensory Effects of Natural Preservatives as Sulfur Dioxide Replacers in Boerewors

IF 2 3区 农林科学 Q3 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY Journal of Food Processing and Preservation Pub Date : 2024-09-07 DOI:10.1155/2024/4336909
Alicia Freitag, MacDonald Cluff, Wilben Pretorius, Carina Bothma, Arno Hugo, Celia Hugo
{"title":"Chemical, Microbial, and Sensory Effects of Natural Preservatives as Sulfur Dioxide Replacers in Boerewors","authors":"Alicia Freitag,&nbsp;MacDonald Cluff,&nbsp;Wilben Pretorius,&nbsp;Carina Bothma,&nbsp;Arno Hugo,&nbsp;Celia Hugo","doi":"10.1155/2024/4336909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study determined whether natural preservatives, when used as substitutes for sulfur dioxide (SO<sub>2</sub>) in Boerewors, influenced water activity (a<sub>w</sub>), pH, and moisture content; microbial and sensory quality; and the lipid oxidative and color stability in Boerewors models. The inclusion of sulfur dioxide at 0.035% (positive control), formulation without preservatives (negative control); protective cultures (PrC1 and PrC2), containing lactic acid bacteria; and plant extract blends (KD1 and KD2), containing rosemary and acerola extracts and buffered vinegar, were evaluated. The use of KD2 increased pH on Days 0 and 6, but the increased pH did not affect the microbial preservative effect. The a<sub>w</sub> of the treatments was stable over 6 days and therefore also did not have an influence on the microbial preservative effect of the natural preservatives. Both plant extract preservatives (KD1 and KD2) increased the oxidative stability of lipids more than any other treatment, including the positive control. The microbial stability results were inconclusive because of the protective cultures, which increased the total bacteria count. The counts of coliform and Enterobacteriaceae, <i>Escherichia coli</i>, and <i>Staphylococcus aureus</i> were analyzed, but significant differences between the treatments were not observed. KD1, which contained rosemary plant extract, maintained the lowest TBC at the same level as the positive control but had a slightly lower redness score. Treatments had no effect on sensory evaluation. The use of KD1 and KD2 plant preservatives proofed to be worthy as replacers of SO<sub>2</sub> in Boerewors. This manuscript contains research data that formed part of an M.Sc. thesis. This manuscript also contains materials and methods that were used in a Ph.D. thesis where salt reduction in South African meat products was evaluated.</p>","PeriodicalId":15717,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Food Processing and Preservation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/4336909","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Food Processing and Preservation","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/4336909","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study determined whether natural preservatives, when used as substitutes for sulfur dioxide (SO2) in Boerewors, influenced water activity (aw), pH, and moisture content; microbial and sensory quality; and the lipid oxidative and color stability in Boerewors models. The inclusion of sulfur dioxide at 0.035% (positive control), formulation without preservatives (negative control); protective cultures (PrC1 and PrC2), containing lactic acid bacteria; and plant extract blends (KD1 and KD2), containing rosemary and acerola extracts and buffered vinegar, were evaluated. The use of KD2 increased pH on Days 0 and 6, but the increased pH did not affect the microbial preservative effect. The aw of the treatments was stable over 6 days and therefore also did not have an influence on the microbial preservative effect of the natural preservatives. Both plant extract preservatives (KD1 and KD2) increased the oxidative stability of lipids more than any other treatment, including the positive control. The microbial stability results were inconclusive because of the protective cultures, which increased the total bacteria count. The counts of coliform and Enterobacteriaceae, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus were analyzed, but significant differences between the treatments were not observed. KD1, which contained rosemary plant extract, maintained the lowest TBC at the same level as the positive control but had a slightly lower redness score. Treatments had no effect on sensory evaluation. The use of KD1 and KD2 plant preservatives proofed to be worthy as replacers of SO2 in Boerewors. This manuscript contains research data that formed part of an M.Sc. thesis. This manuscript also contains materials and methods that were used in a Ph.D. thesis where salt reduction in South African meat products was evaluated.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
天然防腐剂作为啤酒中二氧化硫替代物的化学、微生物和感官效果
本研究确定了天然防腐剂作为二氧化硫(SO2)的替代品用于博瑞沃思时,是否会影响博瑞沃思模型中的水活性(aw)、pH 值和水分含量;微生物和感官质量;以及脂质氧化和颜色稳定性。评估了加入 0.035% 的二氧化硫(阳性对照)、不含防腐剂的配方(阴性对照)、含有乳酸菌的保护性培养物(PrC1 和 PrC2)以及含有迷迭香和针叶树提取物和缓冲醋的植物提取物混合物(KD1 和 KD2)的情况。在第 0 天和第 6 天使用 KD2 会增加 pH 值,但 pH 值的增加并不影响微生物防腐效果。处理的 aw 值在 6 天内保持稳定,因此也不会影响天然防腐剂的微生物防腐效果。两种植物提取物防腐剂(KD1 和 KD2)对脂质氧化稳定性的提高程度都高于其他任何处理,包括阳性对照。由于保护性培养物会增加细菌总数,因此微生物稳定性结果并不确定。对大肠菌群、肠杆菌科、大肠埃希氏菌和金黄色葡萄球菌的数量进行了分析,但没有观察到不同处理之间存在显著差异。含有迷迭香植物提取物的 KD1 保持了与阳性对照相同的最低 TBC 水平,但发红程度略低。处理对感官评价没有影响。事实证明,使用 KD1 和 KD2 植物防腐剂可以替代波尔沃斯中的二氧化硫。本手稿包含的研究数据是理学硕士论文的一部分。本手稿还包含博士论文中使用的材料和方法,该论文评估了南非肉类产品的减盐效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
12.00%
发文量
1000
审稿时长
2.3 months
期刊介绍: The journal presents readers with the latest research, knowledge, emerging technologies, and advances in food processing and preservation. Encompassing chemical, physical, quality, and engineering properties of food materials, the Journal of Food Processing and Preservation provides a balance between fundamental chemistry and engineering principles and applicable food processing and preservation technologies. This is the only journal dedicated to publishing both fundamental and applied research relating to food processing and preservation, benefiting the research, commercial, and industrial communities. It publishes research articles directed at the safe preservation and successful consumer acceptance of unique, innovative, non-traditional international or domestic foods. In addition, the journal features important discussions of current economic and regulatory policies and their effects on the safe and quality processing and preservation of a wide array of foods.
期刊最新文献
Optimisation of Lutein Extraction From Gac (Momordica cochinchinensis) Fruit Peel and Evaluation of In Vitro Eye Protective Effects of the Extracts Effect of Cold Plasma-Treated Turmeric on the Oxidative Stability and Quality of the Oil From the Milk Thistle Seeds An Investigation Into Properties of Foam-Mat-Dried Spinach Powder and Physical Properties of Spinach Cube Dynamic Changes in Physicochemical Properties, Amino Acid Content, and Flavour-Related Substances During Fortified Fermentation of Rice Wine With Saccharomycopsis fibuligera Identification and Antibiotic Resistance of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium Species From Manufactured Probiotic Dairy Products
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1