Detectability of the degree of freeze damage in meat depends on analytic-tool selection.

Clicks: 99
ID: 41750
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #73 of 91 articles by views in Meat science

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Novel freezing solutions are constantly being developed to reduce quality loss in meat production chains. However, there is limited focus on identifying the sensitive analytical tools needed to directly validate product changes that result from potential improvements in freezing technology. To benchmark analytical tools relevant to meat research and production, we froze pork samples using traditional (-25 °C, -35 °C) and cryogenic freezing (-196 °C). Three classes of analyses were tested for their capacity to separate different freeze treatments: thaw loss testing, bioelectrical spectroscopy (nuclear magnetic resonance, microwave, bioimpedance) and low-temperature microscopy (cryo-SEM). A general effect of freeze treatment was detected with all bioelectrical methods. Yet, only cryo-SEM resolved quality differences between all freeze treatments, not only between cryogenic and traditional freezing. The detection sensitivity with cryo-SEM may be explained by testing meat directly in the frozen state without prior defrosting. We discuss advantages, shortcomings and cost factors in using analytical tools for quality monitoring in the meat sector.
Reference Key
egelandsdal2019detectabilitymeat Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Egelandsdal, Bjørg;Abie, Sisay Mebre;Bjarnadottir, Stefania;Zhu, Han;Kolstad, Hilde;Bjerke, Frøydis;Martinsen, Ørjan G;Mason, Alex;Münch, Daniel;
Journal Meat science
Year 2019
DOI
S0309-1740(18)30659-4
URL
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.