J. Appl. Poult. Res.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J APPL POULT RES 2007. 16:113-120
© 2007 Poultry Science Association
This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Alvarado, C.
Right arrow Articles by McKee, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Alvarado, C.
Right arrow Articles by McKee, S.

Poultry Meat and Egg Quality Symposium

Marination to Improve Functional Properties and Safety of Poultry Meat

C. Alvarado*,1 and S. McKee{dagger}

* Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock 79409; and {dagger} Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849

Correspondence: 1 Corresponding author: christine.alvarado{at}ttu.edu


   SUMMARY
TOP
 SUMMARY
MARINATION
 SALTS
 WHC
 pH AND WHC
 PHOSPHATES
 CONTROL OF LISTERIA...
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
The most commonly used poultry marinades include salt and sodium tripolyphosphate, which have been shown to increase meat yield and water-holding capacity, as well as improve color and texture. Recently, several poultry further-processing facilities have begun using more acidic (pH ~4) type marinades such as sodium lactate, sodium citrate, and sodium diacetate (alone or in combination) to combat the growth of Listeria monocytogenes in further-processed meat loaves. Because the acidic marinades currently used in turkey further-processing have a low pH (~4) compared with the previously used salt and sodium tripolyphosphate (~pH 9), these marinades may cause meat quality problems. This review paper will discuss aspects of poultry food safety and meat quality and how acidic marinades can be used to improve safety, specifically by controlling L. monocytogenes growth, and how they affect quality of the meat products. Current industry practices will be discussed and reviewed.

Key Words: acid marinade • poultry meat • functionality • Listeria monocytogenes


   MARINATION
TOP
 SUMMARY
 MARINATION
SALTS
 WHC
 pH AND WHC
 PHOSPHATES
 CONTROL OF LISTERIA...
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Traditionally, meat has been marinated to improve flavor, improve tenderness, and increase product shelf life. An important aspect of marination is the increase of yield of the raw meat, which can provide benefits to the producer and the consumer [1]. Beneficial effects of marination on meat texture include a juicier texture and reduction of water loss during cooking.

There are 3 methods for producing marinated products that include immersion, injection, and vacuum tumbling [1]. Immersion, the oldest method, consists of submerging the meat in the marinade and allowing the ingredients to penetrate the meat through diffusion with the passage of time. This method is unreliable for the meat industry because it does not provide regularity in distribution of the ingredients, and it is not practical because it requires long processing times and limits the quantity of marinade to be added [1].

Multineedle injection marination is perhaps the most widely used method because it allows for dosing an exact quantity of the marinade, ensuring regularity in the products without the time losses required for immersion [1]. To inject a marinade, needles or probes are inserted, and the marinade is injected as the probe or needles are withdrawn, spreading the marinade throughout the piece [2].

Vacuum tumbling is a method of marinating poultry meat to provide a ready-to-cook, value-added product at either the food processing plant or the supermarket or butcher shop. Massaging and tumbling result in the extraction of protein exudates (consisting mainly of the salt-soluble proteins actin and myosin), which promote cohesion during thermal processing. Tumbling yields products with improved juiciness and better slicing characteristics. Studies report that extraction of the myofibrillar proteins to the surface of the meat serves 2 functions. First, protein coagulates upon heating to improve binding properties. Second, the extracted protein acts as a sealer when thermally processed, thus facilitating the retention of moisture contained in the meat tissue [3].


   SALTS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 MARINATION
 SALTS
WHC
 pH AND WHC
 PHOSPHATES
 CONTROL OF LISTERIA...
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Two of the most common ingredients in brines and marinades are NaCl and some type of phosphate, most commonly sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) [4]. Salt (NaCl or KCl) is one of the oldest and most effective food preservatives used. Salt is included in poultry meat formulations to do the following: 1) enhance product flavor, 2) increase moisture retention, 3) act as a synergist with STP to extract salt-soluble proteins, 4) inhibit the outgrowth of Clostridium botulinum via the synergistic role of salt with sodium nitrite (cure), 5) dehydrate the meat and serve as a preservative when applied at high concentrations to the surface of meat [5].

Because salt easily dissolves in water, the ionic strength of the water increases. Poultry meat contains approximately 70% water, which is ionic in nature due to the monovalent minerals present in muscle tissue as soluble salts and the ionized forms of these salts (e.g., cations: Na+, K+, and anions: Cl–, S–) [6]. However, the ionic strength of the muscle tissue fluid is lower than that of brine, and through the process of osmosis, the brine solution will be absorbed by the meat until a state of equilibrium is reached. Salt content of a meat product is not a regulated ingredient but is self-limiting, because high concentrations will negatively affect the palatability of the product. Typically, finished brined poultry meats and products will contain approximately 2% salt on average. Depending on the products, salt levels can range from 1.5 up to 3%. Because of dietary restrictions on salt intake, ingredients such as KCl (0.75% in a 60:40% NaCl-KCl combination), phosphates, and other high ionic strength compounds can help increase water-holding capacity (WHC) while maintaining low levels of salt. However, KCl is not readily used in further-processed products because it can lead to astringent off-flavors in the product [7]. In addition to salt levels, purity of the salt is also important, because impure salts may interfere with quality of the product.


   WHC
TOP
 SUMMARY
 MARINATION
 SALTS
 WHC
pH AND WHC
 PHOSPHATES
 CONTROL OF LISTERIA...
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Although salt increases meat tenderness, the state of the myofibrillar proteins will determine how effective the salt will be with improving meat characteristics [8]. The most important myofibrillar proteins associated with meat quality characteristics and water binding are actin (thin filament), myosin (thick filament), and their combined structure actomyosin, which are found in the salt-soluble fraction. Salt-soluble (>0.4 M) proteins make up approximately 50 to 55% of the total myofibrillar proteins. Salts function by unfolding myofibrillar proteins and solubilizing them in saltwater solutions. Myofibrillar proteins unfold due to electrostatic repulsion of the Cl– ions, and charged binding sites are exposed [9]. In addition to exposing more charged sites where water can be bound, the electrostatic repulsion will increase the space between the thin and thick filaments. Increasing the size of the space between filaments increases the amount of water that can be retained by the muscle. Water occupying this space is referred to as free water and is held there by the steric effect [10]. Free water makes up the majority of water that is retained by meat. Immobilized water refers to water that is also entrapped but is further held by a net charge attraction. Bound water is bound to the ionizable groups of amino acids of the proteins and other groups able to form H bonds. Around 4% of the water is bound to the muscle proteins and cannot be removed; immobilized water accounts for 10 to 15% and can be removed by cooking, and the remaining water is loosely bound or free, which can be lost by processing procedures such as cutting, grinding, and storage. Therefore, anything that influences the spacing between the thick and thin filaments or the ability of the proteins to bind water can affect water-holding properties of the meat.


   pH AND WHC
TOP
 SUMMARY
 MARINATION
 SALTS
 WHC
 pH AND WHC
PHOSPHATES
 CONTROL OF LISTERIA...
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
A related factor influencing water binding is meat pH. The rate and extent of pH decline during rigor development in muscle can influence myofibrillar protein functionality, thereby altering meat tenderness, color, WHC, and meat protein binding ability [11]. As rigor develops, myosin combines with actin to form actomyosin. Actomyosin, although not a poor water binder, is not as good as myosin and not as readily solubilized. Additionally, lactic acid accumulates and muscle pH drops to 5.6 or 5.7 in normal tissue [12]. In broilers, rigor mortis takes 4 to 6 h to complete, and in turkeys, 6 to 8 h. As pH declines during rigor, there is an efflux of fluid from the myofibrillar space caused by the decrease in negative electrostatic repulsion between filaments [13]. As rigor is resolved, the muscle pH approaches the isoelectric point for the myofibrillar proteins, which is approximately 5.1. Decreased WHC occurs because actin and myosin are near their isoelectric point in postrigor meat, and the net charges on the protein will be a minimum, as will space between filaments for water to be held or bound. Furthermore, researchers have reported increased protein functionality from prerigor meat. For example, Xiong and Brekke [14] found greater extractability of myofibrillar proteins from prerigor meat as compared with postrigor meat. Also, the researchers observed that early postmortem meat had increased water retention compared with postrigor meat. Postrigor meat has decreased spacing between filaments and decreased protein functionality; therefore, less free water is retained.

Decreased WHC is even more evident in meat from animals that have accelerated postmortem metabolism after slaughter. Research has indicated that the low pH resulting from rapid metabolism early postmortem when combined with high carcass temperatures causes extensive protein denaturation in the muscle, thereby affecting meat quality characteristics [15, 16, 17, 18]. The loss of protein functionality due to extensive protein denaturation is considered to be the primary factor associated with the development of pale, soft, and exudative (PSE) meat characteristic [16, 19, 20, 21]. When meat conditions such as PSE meat exist, the WHC and other meat quality characteristics are further compromised because of the extensive protein denaturation. Differences in WHC, brine pickup, and retention have been reported to vary with fillet color and initial fillet pH [22, 23]. Alvarado and Sams [22] and Woelfel and Sams [23] compared brining and WHC of broiler breast fillets characterized as "pale" fillets to fillets characterized as "normal." Their findings suggested that the fillet color and pH were highly correlated with WHC and percentage of brining pickup and retention. Fillet characterized as lighter in color had an initial lower pH, lower brine pickup, and higher drip and cook loss compared with fillets that were characterized as dark. In general, at a meat (beef and pork) pH below 4.5 and above 10, irreversible changes occur affecting decreased protein functionality and decreased WHC [12]. The water lost due to irreversible loss of protein functionality includes free, immobilized, and bound water. Therefore, it should be noted that in meat with extensively denatured proteins, such as PSE, brines or marinade ingredients cannot overcome all of the lost protein functionality.


   PHOSPHATES
TOP
 SUMMARY
 MARINATION
 SALTS
 WHC
 pH AND WHC
 PHOSPHATES
CONTROL OF LISTERIA...
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Phosphates vary in their solubility and effect on muscle pH, but generally, alkaline phosphates improve water retention by shifting the pH further away from the isoelectric point of the myofibrillar proteins and by unfolding muscle proteins, thereby exposing more charged sites for water binding [24]. Additionally, actomyosin bonds in postrigor meat are cleaved by phosphates, thereby increasing the potential for swelling of the filaments [25]. Phosphates are able to shift pH due to their buffering capacity. Typically, short-chain phosphates such as orthophosphates and pyrophosphates have the best buffering capacity, whereas the longer chain phosphates have less buffering capacity; therefore, the percentage of diphosphate or pyrophosphate will determine the strength of the buffering capacity. Depending on the type of phosphate used, pH of the solution can be increased or decreased. Acid phosphates include monosodium phosphate, monoammonium phosphate, and sodium acid pyrophosphates, whereas alkali phosphates include di- and trisodium phosphates, STP, and tetrasodium phosphate. Acid phosphates would typically be used in marinades in which the solution pH is low. Because low pH tends to decrease water binding, alkaline phosphates would be more likely used in marinade solutions to maximize WHC.

When phosphates are used for increasing water-holding properties of meat, the USDA requires that phosphate concentrations are no higher than 0.5% of the finished product weight. Although there are many phosphates to choose from, STP remains the most commonly utilized in brine solutions because it is easy to use and inexpensive. Sodium tripolyphosphate accounts for approximately 80% of the phosphates used in further-processed meat products. Other commonly used phosphates include sodium pyrophosphate and sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP). Alkaline phosphates such as STP serve to increase WHC, increase cook yield, extract muscle proteins, reduce oxidative rancidity, preserve meat color, increase flavor retention, and reduce microbial growth [26].

The most functional phosphate is pyrophosphate; however, the solubility index is low. For this reason, longer-chain STP is commonly used, and blends of phosphates are used to optimize solubility and functionality. When added to water, STP is hydrolyzed, forming the functional diphosphate. Pyrophosphates are a more soluble form of diphosphates and are therefore easier to use. In poultry products, sodium pyrophosphates and STP have been shown to enhance the WHC and salty taste in frankfurters formulated with reduced salt levels by 20 and 40% [27].

Tetrasodium phosphates produce good binding ability because of their high pH (approximately 11), whereas sodium acid pyrophosphate decreases pH, and as a result, decreases WHC and yield. Also, tetrasodium pyrophosphate allows for the greatest bind in emulsion products but has a pH of 11, which can be caustic. Furthermore, tetrasodium phosphate begins to create a soap when combined with fats [24]. In contrast to high-pH phosphates, sodium acid pyrophosphate is acid in nature and has poor water-binding properties compared with the alkaline phosphates. Additionally, in curing systems, acid phosphates can lead to off-color because of rapid curing.

Today, blends are becoming more popular based on their solubility and functionality in a variety of meat product formulations. Sodium SHMP is a water-soluble form of sodium phosphate that is also known as Graham’s salt. However, the solubility of SHMP is not as good as other tripolyphosphates, so the phosphate can be blended with others, giving better solubility properties. For example, blends including SHMP combined with tripolyphosphate improve the solubility of SHMP. Desirable properties for blends include proper alkaline pH, good solubility, ability to hydrolyze to form diphosphate, Ca compatibility, the ability to solubilize myofibrillar proteins, and the ability to expose charged binding sites to increase WHC [28].

In poultry, research indicates that when poultry meat is injected with a solution of sodium phosphate, there is no difference in fillet tenderness between aged fillets (16 h) and fillets marinated but not aged (deboned 3 h postmortem) [29]. In this study, the whole birds were post-chilled and aged for 16 h while the marination time without aging was 3 h. Moreover, Zheng et al. [30] compared the functionality of tetrasodium pyrophosphate, STP, and hexametaphosphate on poultry breast fillet moisture pickup and retention. Their results indicated that tetrasodium pyrophosphate-treated breast fillets had the highest yield, whereas STP had similar effects on purge. They also concluded that SHMP had the highest moisture pickup but the lowest retention. Alvarado and Sams [22] investigated using salt and phosphate as a remediation for PSE broiler breast meat. Regardless of the phosphate marinade treatment, moisture binding or retention properties of the PSE meat were not restored to the level of the control group. However, Gorsuch and Alvarado [31] determined that marination with high-pH phosphates (~pH 11) can reduce the undesirable characteristics of poor-quality meat (such as PSE meat) without altering flavor, increasing the development of oxidation, or reducing shelf life.

Many phosphates are not easily soluble in most salt marinade solutions; therefore, phosphates are typically dissolved in room-temperature water before adding salt and then chilled before use. Some new blends of phosphates on the market have increased solubility regardless of the addition of salt. Some of the new commercial blends of phosphates do not need to be put into solution before salt because of modifications that make them more soluble. Excess phosphate addition can cause "soapy" flavors, rubbery texture, and poor color [5].

Although phosphates possess very functional properties in poultry meat systems, lately consumers have perceived phosphate use as a negative. Other additives that have been utilized as phosphate replacers include sodium citrate and carageenans to increase water-holding properties. Low-sodium, phosphate-free products tend to be formulated by increasing the amount of protein, particularly nonmeat proteins, or by decreasing the amount of water that is added [32]. Several additives, for example, sodium citrate, and other ingredients have been used in phosphate-free meat products to enhance their WHC.


   CONTROL OF LISTERIA MONOCYTOGENES BY MARINATION WITH ORGANIC ACIDS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 MARINATION
 SALTS
 WHC
 pH AND WHC
 PHOSPHATES
 CONTROL OF LISTERIA...
CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 
Acid marinades are becoming more popular as antimicrobial ingredients; particularly, for their ability to reduce L. monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat products. Typical marinades utilized for their antimicrobial properties include sodium lactate, potassium lactate, sodium citrate, sodium lactate combined with sodium diacetate, and combinations of sodium lactate with potassium lactate and diacetate. Sodium lactate levels regulated by the United States are 2.9% pure sodium lactate or 4.8% when using a 60% lactate solution in cooked poultry products [5]. When formulating with sodium lactate, salt concentration would likely need to be reduced, because the sodium lactate enhances the salty flavor. According to US regulations, sodium acetate and diacetate are approved as flavoring compounds at a maximum level of 0.25% of the formulation weight [5]. Research has shown that sodium lactate in cooked strained beef and beef roasts and sodium diacetate in turkey slurry reduces the growth of L. monocytogenes [33]. However, during refrigeration, there are surviving L. monocytogenes organisms that increase in numbers. Cooked chicken treated with lactate and dipped into a L. monocytogenes cocktail is shown to have a longer lag phase compared with the control [34]. However, L. monocytogenes growth still occurs during refrigerated storage. In general, sodium lactate and diacetate are thought to inhibit bacterial growth by extending the lag phase [34].

Although acid marinades may act as antimicrobials, they also affect meat quality and functionality. Traditionally, acid marinades were used to improve the flavor and texture of prepared meats during storage. Whereas alkali salt-phosphate marinade systems serve to increase WHC and tenderize meat, acidic marinades that are highly acidic (pH below 5.0) tenderize the meat by denaturing proteins, but the marinades do not improve WHC to the extent of alkali marinades. Most of the time, salt and acid phosphates are used in combination with acid marinades to help with marinade retention. Other meat quality characteristics have been examined in stored products formulated with acid marinades. Specifically, Carroll [35] found that acidic marinades resulted in poor bind ability and reduced moisture retention following cooking in turkey deli loaves. In another study, cooked cured ham products were formulated with varying levels of sodium lactate, sodium diacetate, or buffered sodium citrate. When comparing the different ham formulation for appearance, internal color, structure, and firmness, only minor differences were observed. However, the addition of 0.2% sodium diacetate had a negative effect on the odor and taste of the ham product [36].

Sodium lactate is added frequently to meat and poultry products. It is available as a 60% aqueous solution; levels of 2 to 3%, based on final weight, are recommended as a flavor enhancer in fresh and cooked meat and poultry products. The sodium lactate solution, which has a pH of 6.8 to 7.0, is used as a pH control agent, and additions of 2 to 4% do not alter the meat pH. Lactate has been reported also to be effective as a firming agent and humectant [37]. Suppressed microbial growth has been reported in meats formulated with sodium lactate. According to a study conducted by Bacus and Bontenbal [38], a concentration of 4% sodium lactate in frankfurters or chicken rolls inhibited L. monocytogenes growth during refrigerated storage, and lactate addition also reduced aerobic plate counts in the products.

According to Samelis et al. [39], after the 1998 to 1999 L. monocytogenes outbreak involving meat products, the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service announced increases in the permissible levels in meat products for sodium lactate, sodium acetate, and sodium diacetate to 3 [4.8% of the commercially (60% wt/wt) available compound], 0.25, and 0.25%, respectively. Research showed that the single use of each antimicrobial in the formulation at these levels provided inhibition of surface-inoculated (3 to 4 log cfu/cm2) L. monocytogenes ranging widely from 20 to 70 d between treatments of vacuum-packaged frankfurters stored at 4°C. Sodium lactate at 3% and sodium acetate at 0.25% were the most and least effective additives, respectively, whereas sodium diacetate at 0.25% was intermediate in anti-L. monocytogenes effectiveness.

Potassium lactate functions in a similar manner as sodium lactate but is less preferred because of its slightly bitter taste. Potassium lactate is soluble in water and available as a 60% aqueous solution [40]. Effects of lactate salts on sterile strained chicken or beef were examined by Shelef and Yang [41]. A concentration of either the sodium or potassium salts suppressed growth of L. monocytogenes in sterile chicken or beef, causing an extended lag phase of 1 to 2 wk at 5°C.

These findings indicate that the levels of lactates and acetates permitted by the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service may be insufficient to control growth of L. monocytogenes throughout the commercial shelf life of cured meat products, which is expected to be 75 to 90 d; thus, increases in these concentrations may be needed. However, by incorporating combinations of chemical and other antimicrobials in the formulation, antilisterial properties can be achieved. Also, additional treatments, such as spraying or dipping products in antimicrobial solutions before packaging, and postpacking pasteurization can be combined to enhance the effectiveness of chemical additives. In addition to the potential for providing increased anti-L. monocytogenes effects, combinations of antimicrobials or treatments may lessen any negative effects on the sensory quality of cured meat products [39].

Acetic and lactic acids are among the most widely used as preservatives. The antimicrobial effects of organic acids such as propionic and lactic is due to both the depression of pH below the growth range and metabolic inhibition by the undissociated acid molecules. According to Buchanan et al. [42], many investigators have observed that when L. monocytogenes is placed in an acidic environment that does not support growth, the organism will be inactivated over time. It has also been observed that under nonideal pH conditions that still support growth, the organism will tend to decline after reaching stationary phase, particularly at elevated incubation temperatures. The inhibition or inactivation of L. monocytogenes is enhanced when organic acids are used as acidulants. Sufficiently high levels of organic acid salts such as sodium lactate and sodium acetate can inhibit or inactivate the pathogen, even at neutral pH level. Various investigators have concluded that the rate of inactivation is dependent not only on the pH of the environment but also on the identity and concentration of the acidulant used to modify the pH [42].

According to Sorrells et al. [43], at 10, 25, and 35°C, acetic and lactic acids were more inhibitory against L. monocytogenes than citric acid and hydrochloric acids. Conner et al. [44] also reported that acetic and lactic acids were the most inhibitory in media. Many investigators have studied and reported the inhibitory effects on low pH and organic acids on L. monocytogenes. Two inhibitory mechanisms have been proposed: 1) an intracellular acidification (loss of homeostasis) and 2) a specific effect on the acid (nondissociated form) on metabolic activities. Ita and Hutkins [45] observed that low cellular pH was not the major factor in the inhibition of L. monocytogenes at acid pH; cells treated with organic acids at pH values as low as 3.5 were able to maintain their cytoplasmic pH at a value near 5. Therefore, the efficiency of the treatments using organic acids would be due to the nondissociated fraction rather than to proton toxicity.

The inhibitory effect of these acids can be correlated with their dissociation constant (pKa) and with the greater permeability of the cell membrane to weak acids in their undissociated form. Hydrochloric acid is totally dissociated in aqueous environments, whereas acetic acid (pKa = 4.76) has the highest concentration of undissociated acid, and lactic acid (pKa = 3.86) has the lowest. Acetic acid is more efficient against L. monocytogenes than a stronger hydrochloric acid used at the same pH. The highest inhibitory effect of acetic acid can be explained by its ability to diffuse through the cell membrane, which is permeable to nondissociated, nonprotonated, and lipophilic weak acids. This leads to an accumulation of the acid within the cell cytoplasm, acidification of the cytoplasm, disruption of the proton-motive force, and inhibition of substrate transport [46]. However, lactic acid may be less inhibitory, because it cannot passively penetrate the cell membrane. The results of Buchanan et al. [42] observed that neutral pH values indicate further that the reported anti-L. monocytogenes activity of sodium lactate and sodium acetate remains attributable to the undissociated acid and argues against alternative hypotheses of separate inhibitory mechanisms at higher pH values. This implies that increases in anti-L. monocytogenes activity can be expected if the pH of an acetate-or lactate- containing system is decreased even to a small extent such that is was closer to the pKa of the acid.


   CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
TOP
 SUMMARY
 MARINATION
 SALTS
 WHC
 pH AND WHC
 PHOSPHATES
 CONTROL OF LISTERIA...
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. Marination of poultry meat products can be used effectively to increase yield and improve texture.
  2. Marination of poultry products with acid marinades can be used to control L. monocytogenes growth.
  3. Continued research with acidic marinades is needed to determine further effects on product quality and control of other pathogens.


   REFERENCES AND NOTES
TOP
 SUMMARY
 MARINATION
 SALTS
 WHC
 pH AND WHC
 PHOSPHATES
 CONTROL OF LISTERIA...
 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
 REFERENCES AND NOTES
 

  1. Xargayó, M., J. Lagares, E. Fernandez, D. Ruiz, and D. Borrell. 2001. Fresh meat spray marinating: The influence of spray injection on the quality of marinated products. http://www.metalquimia.com/images/doctecnologic/art13.pdf Accessed Oct. 2006.
  2. Smith, D. P., and J. C. Acton. 2001. Marination, cooking, and curing of poultry products. Pages 257–280 in Poultry Meat Science. A. R. Sams, ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  3. Smith, D. 2001. Functional properties of muscle proteins in processed poultry products. Pages 181–194 in Poultry Meat Processing. A. R. Sams, ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  4. Barbut, S., H. H. Draper, and M. Hadley. 1989. Lipid oxidation in chicken nuggets by meat type, phosphate, and packaging. J. Food Prot. 52:55–59.[ISI]
  5. Keeton, J. T. 2001. Formed and emulsion products. Pages 195–226 in Poultry Meat Processing. A. R. Sams, ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
  6. Hedrick, H. B., E. D. Aberle, J. C. Forrest, M. D. Judge, and R. A. Merkel. 1989. Properties of fresh meat. Pages 123–132 in Principle of Meat Science. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA.
  7. Claus, J. R., J. W. Colby, and G. J. Flick. 1994. Processed meats/poultry/seafood. Pages 106–162 in Muscle Food. D. M. Kinsman, A. W. Kotula, and B. C. Breidenstein, ed. Chapman and Hall Inc., New York, NY.
  8. Camou, J. P., and J. G. Sebranek. 1991. Gelation characteristics of muscle proteins from pale, soft, exudative (PSE) pork. Meat Sci. 30:207–220.
  9. Rust, R. E. 1987. Pages 457–485 in Science of Meat and Meat Products. 3rd ed. J. F. Schweigert and B. S. Schweigert, ed. Food and Nutrition Press Inc., Trumbull, CT.
  10. Lawrie, R. A. 1991. Chemical and biochemical constitution of muscle. Pages 58–94 in Meat Science. 5th ed. Pergamon Press, New York, NY.
  11. Judge, M., E. D. Aberle, J. C. Forrest, H. B. Hedrick, and R. A. Merkel. 1994. Conversion of muscle to meat and development of meat quality. Pages 99–100 in Principles of Meat Science. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA
  12. Pearson, A. M., and R. B. Young. 1989. Some condition occurring in muscle/meat. Pages 420–439 in Muscle and Meat Biochemistry. Acad. Press Inc. New York, NY.
  13. Swatland, H. J. 1993. Paleness, softness, and exudation in pork–review. Pages 1–21 in Pork Quality: Genetic and Metabolic Factors. E. Poulanne and D. I. Demeyer, ed. CABI, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.
  14. Xiong, Y. L., and P. B. Brekke. 1999. Functionality of proteins in meat products. Pages 66–71 in Proc. 52nd Recip. Meat Conf. AMSA, Kansas City, MO.
  15. Briskey, E. J. 1964. Etiological status and associated studies of pale, soft, and exudative porcine musculature. Adv. Food Res. 13:89–178.[Medline]
  16. Pietrzak, M., M. L. Greaser, and A. A. Sosnicki. 1997. Effect of rapid rigor mortis processes on protein functionality on pectoralis major muscle of domestic turkeys. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2106–2116.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Alvarado, C. Z., and A. R. Sams. 2002. The role of carcass chilling rate in the development of pale, soft, and exudative turkey pectoralis. Poult. Sci. 81:1365–1370.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Alvarado, C. Z., and A. R. Sams. 2004. Turkey carcass chilling and protein denaturation in the development of pale, soft, and exudative meat. Poult. Sci. 83:1039–1046.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Waris, P. D., and S. N. Brown. 1987. The relationship between initial pH, reflectance and exudation in pig muscle. Meat Sci. 20:65–72.
  20. Fernandez, X., A. Forslid, and E. Tornberg. 1994. The effect of high post-mortem temperature on the development of pale, soft and exudative pork: Interaction with ultimate pH. Meat Sci. 37:133–147.
  21. Santos, C., L. C. Roserio, H. Goncalves, and R. S. Melo. 1994. Incidence of different pork quality categories in a Portuguese slaughthouse: A survey. Meat Sci. 38:279–287.
  22. Alvarado, C. Z., and A. R. Sams. 2003. Injection marination strategies for remediation of pale, exudative broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 82:1332–1336.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Woelfel, R. L., and A. R. Sams. 2001. Marination performance of pale broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 80:1519–1522.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Pearson, A. M., and T. A. Gillett. 1996. Sectioned and formed meat products. Pages 291–310 in Processed Meats. 3rd ed. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.
  25. Offer, G., and P. Knight. 1988. The structural basis of water-holding in meat. Pages 89–190 in Developments in Meat Science. Vol. 4. R. Lawrie, ed. Elsevier Applied Science, New York, NY.
  26. Keeton, J. T. 2000. Further processing poultry products. Pages 29–35 in Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Poult. Process. Prod. Qual., Guanajuato, Mexico. ANECA, Guanajuato, Mexcio.
  27. Barbut, S., A. J. Mauer, and R. C. Lindsay. 1988. Effects of reduced sodium chloride and added phosphates on physical and sensory properties of turkey frankfurters. J. Food Sci. 53:62–66.[ISI]
  28. Molins, R. A. 1987. Phosphates in muscle foods. Pages 121–165 in Phosphates in Foods. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, FL.
  29. Goodwin, T. L., and J. B. Maness. 1984. The influence of marination, weight, and cooking technique on tenderness of broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 63:1925–1929.[ISI]
  30. Zheng, M., N. A. Detienne, B. W. Barnes, and L. Wicker. 2000. Tenderness and yields of poultry breast are influenced by phosphate type and concentration of marinade. J. Sci. Food Agric. 81:82–87.[ISI]
  31. Gorsuch, V. A. and C. Z. Alvarado. 2002. Postrigor tumble marination strategies for improving color and water holding capacity in normal and PSE broiler breast fillets. PhD. Diss. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg.
  32. Miyaguchi, Y., Y. Hayashi, and K. Nagayama. 2004. Improvement of the gelling properties of meat emulsion gel by the addition of porcine sarcoplasmic proteins. Anim. Sci. J. 75:161–168.
  33. Miller, R. K., and G. R. Acuff. 1994. Sodium lactate affects pathogens in cooked beef. J. Food Sci. 59:15–19.[ISI]
  34. Doyle, M. E. 1999. FRI briefings: Control of Listeria in meat. www.wisc.edu/fri/briefs.htm Accessed Nov. 2006.
  35. Carroll, C. D. 2005. Marination of turkey breast fillets to control growth of Listeria monocytogenes and improve meat quality in further processed deli loaves. PhD Diss. Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock.
  36. Stekelenburg, F. K., and M. L. Kant-Muermans. 2001. Effects of sodium lactate and other additives in a cooked ham product on sensory quality and development of a strain of Lactobacillus curvatus and Listeria monocytogenes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 66:197–203.[ISI][Medline]
  37. Chen, N., and L. A. Shelef. 1992. Relationship between water activity, salts of lactic acid, and growth of Listeria monocytogenes in a meat model system. J. Food Prot. 55:574–578.[ISI]
  38. Bacus, J., and E. Bontenbal. 1991. Controlling Listeria. Meat Poult. 37:64–69.
  39. Samelis, J., G. K. Bedie, J. N. Sofos, K. E. Belk, J. A. Scanga, and G. C. Smith. 2002. Control of Listeria monocytogenes with combined antimicrobials after postprocess contamination and extended storage of frankfurters at 4°C in vacuum packages. J. Food Prot. 65:299–307.[ISI][Medline]
  40. Weaver, R. A., and L. A. Shelef. 1992. Antilisterial activity of sodium, potassium or calcium lactate in pork liver sausage. J. Food Safety 13:133–146.
  41. Shelef, L. A., and Q. Yang. 1991. Growth suppression of Listeria monocytogenes by lactates in broth, chicken, and beef. J. Food Prot. 54:283–287.[ISI]
  42. Buchanan, R. L., M. H. Golden, and R. C. Whiting. 1993. Differentiation of the effects of pH and lactic or acetic acid concentration on the kinetics of Listeria monocytogenes inactivation. J. Food Prot. 56:474–478.[ISI]
  43. Sorrells, K. M., D. C. Enigl, and J. R. Hatfield. 1989. Effect of pH, acidulant, time, and temperature on the growth and survival of Listeria monocytogenes. J. Food Prot. 52:571–573.[ISI]
  44. Conner, D. E., V. N. Scott, and D. T. Bernard. 1990. Growth, inhibition, and survival of Listeria monocytogenes as affected by acidic conditions. J. Food Prot. 53:652–655.[ISI]
  45. Ita, P. S., and R. W. Hutkins. 1991. Intracellular pH and survival of Listeria monocytogenes Scott A in tryptic soy broth containing acetic, lactic, citric, and hydrochloric acids. J. Food Prot. 54:15–19.[ISI]
  46. Vasseur, C., L. Beverel, M. Hebraud, and J. Labadie. 1999. Effect of osmotic, alkaline, acid, or thermal stresses on the growth and inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes. J. Appl. Microbiol. 86:469–476.[Medline]




This Article
Right arrow Summary Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Alvarado, C.
Right arrow Articles by McKee, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Alvarado, C.
Right arrow Articles by McKee, S.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS