Functional properties of bicarbonates and lactic acid on chicken breast retail display properties and cooked meat quality Nakia Lee, Vijendra Sharma, Nettie Brown,2 and Anand Mohan1 Department of Food Science & Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, 30602 marinated control. The L∗ values (lightness) did not change over the period of retail display and were not different compared to the control (P > 0.05). The chicken breast enhanced with SB, PB, and K-lactate retained better retail display color than the controls (marinated with water and nonmarinated). Increasing the potassium bicarbonate concentration from 0.5 to 1.5% significantly improved the water-holding capacity (82.17 to 92.61%; P < 0.05) and led to better cook yield (83.84 to 91.96%). Shear force values were lower at the 0.5% level for both SB and PB compared to the control. PB performed better on retail display and cooked meat quality than SB. This study suggests that chicken breast tissue can be marinated with KB as a healthier alternative to phosphate or SB.

ABSTRACT Whole chicken breast was injected with potassium bicarbonate (PB), sodium bicarbonate (SB), and potassium lactate (K-lactate) and salt, alone or in combination at different concentration levels. The objectives were to 1) investigate the effects of different concentration of PB, SB, and PL on instrumental color, water-holding capacity (WHC), objective tenderness, expressible moisture, and moisture content and 2) evaluate whether sodium-containing ingredients can be replaced with potassium as a potential strategy to reduce total sodium content in the finished product. Results showed that chicken breast tissue marinated with SB and PB had greater moisture retention, display characteristics, and cooked product qualities than chicken breast tissue injected with water and the non-

Key words: chicken breast, color, water-holding capacity, cook yield, bicarbonates 2015 Poultry Science 94:302–310 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps/peu063

INTRODUCTION

meat, which benefits the producer and the consumer (Alvarado and McKee, 2007). Injecting nonmeat ingredients, or additives, also gives the meat industry the flexibility to develop a wide diversity of products (Smith, 1999). The most common nonmeat ingredients used to marinate include salt and phosphates, which have been shown to increase meat yield and WHC, as well as improve color and texture (Smith, 1999; Smith, 2001; Alvarado and McKee, 2007). Proteins are considered the principal functional and structural components of processed meats. Addition of nonmeat ingredients influences the functional properties of the meat proteins (Smith, 1999). Marinating poultry products with phosphate-based solutions is a widespread practice in the U.S. meat industry (Lampila, 1993). Though adding phosphate as a nonmeat ingredient improves the product’s overall quality and palatability attributes, it also tends to conflict with the trend of consumers desiring reduced dietary sodium (Detienne et al., 2000; Desmond, 2006). Moreover, increased consumer demand for natural ingredients in meat products has limited the industry’s use of phosphates. A nutritional drawback of phosphate is its ability to form insoluble complexes with minerals such as calcium and magnesium in the gut (Petracci et al., 2013).

Marination is the most commonly practiced technique for improving the flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and safety of meat and meat products. Consumers associate marinated poultry meat products with flavor, juiciness, tenderness, and enhanced sensory characteristics (Hashim et al., 1999). Several studies have employed marination to evaluate meat products’ eating quality (Detienne et al., 2000; Samuel and Trabelsi, 2012), meat yield and water-holding capacity (WHC) (Smith, 1999), color and texture (Alvarado and Sams, 2003; Alvarado and McKee, 2007), and shelf life (Carlos and Harrison, 1999). Generally, marination technology is applied to add value and increase eating characteristics desired by consumers by uniformly dispersing the marinade ingredients throughout the product (Alvarado and McKee, 2007). Marination of poultry meat by injection or tumbling is generally done to increase the yield of the raw  C 2015 Poultry Science Association Inc. Received July 1, 2014. Accepted November 21, 2014. 1 Corresponding author: [email protected] 2 Nettie Brown participated as a Young Scholar in the study at the University of Georgia.

302

FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF BICARBONATES AND LACTIC ACID ON CHICKEN BREAST QUALITY

In light of current knowledge about phosphate and its use in meat and poultry products, the meat industry has started to evaluate some alternative functional ingredients to replace use phosphate in meat products (Desmond, 2006; Petracci et al., 2013; Mudalal et al., 2014). Furthermore, phosphates are not completely soluble in most salt marinade solutions, and excess phosphate can cause a “soapy” flavor, rubbery texture, and poor color (Crow et al., 2010). Previous work has focused on evaluating bicarbonates as an alternative to phosphate in meat and poultry products (Kauffman et al., 1998; Sheard and Tali, 2004; Petracci et al., 2013). In addition, sodium bicarbonate has been reported to reduce drip loss and shear force (Kauffman et al., 1998; Wynveen et al., 2001) in pork. Bicarbonate compounds are now being considered as a new promising agent as phosphate alternative. Previous research demonstrated that bicarbonate compounds improved the yield, reduced the drip loss, and increased the tenderness (Sheard and Tali, 2004; Bertram et al., 2008) in pork meat. Some researchers have replaced phosphates with sodium bicarbonate in meat products to minimize the problem of pale, soft, exudative (PSE) pork (Kauffman et al., 1998) and broiler breast meat (Woelfel and Sams, 2001a; Alvarado and Sams, 2003). More recent studies revealed that sodium bicarbonate could reduce shear force and improve the yield of enhanced poultry meat (Sen et al., 2005). The poultry industry is continuously seeking potential new marinade ingredient that are natural as an alternative to traditional phosphates. Bicarbonate compounds have shown a promising advantage over phosphates. In light of increased consumer demand for reduced sodium ingredients, we explored using potassium bicarbonate as an alternative to sodium bicarbonate. The objectives of this study were to 1) investigate the effects of potassium bicarbonate (PB), sodium bicarbonate (SB), and potassium lactate (K-lactate), alone or in combination, on instrumental color properties, WHC, expressible moisture, and moisture content of the breast meat and 2) evaluate the potential of replacing sodium bicarbonate with potassium as a sodium reduction strategy in marinated poultry products.

303

MATERIALS AND METHODS Chemicals Sodium and potassium bicarbonate were obtained from Sigma Chem. Co. (St. Louis, MO). Potassium lactate (K-lactate) was obtained from PURAC America, Inc. (PURASAL HiPure P, 60% potassium lactate/40% water; Lincolnshire, IL). Deionized water (DW) was used to make solutions used throughout the study.

Raw Materials Broiler breast fillets (n = 220) were obtained from a commercial processor 24 h postmortem. From the pectoralis major muscle, samples of similar shape and dimensions were cut and adjusted to have to similar green weight (135.0 ± 0.5 g). Samples were selected for similar color traits based on the same lightness (L∗ value) values and divided into 11 homogeneous groups (20 samples/group).

Marination Protocol The skinless chicken breast samples were randomly assigned to 11 different treatment groups (Table 1): nonmarinated control (CON); 0.5% potassium bicarbonate (0.5 PB); 0.5% sodium bicarbonate (0.5 SB); 1.5% potassium bicarbonate (1.5 PB); 0.5% sodium bicarbonate (1.5 SB); 0.5% K-lactate + 0.5% NaCl (0.5 PLS); 0.5% PB + 0.5% PL + 0.5% NaCl (0.5 PBLS); 0.5% SB + 0.5% PL + 0.5% NaCl (0.5 SBLS); 1.5% PB + 1.5% PL + 0.5% NaCl (1.5 PBLS); and 1.5% SB + 1.5% PL + 0.5% NaCl (1.5 SBLS). The breasts were then injected and marinated with DW. Each treatment group presented above was stored and displayed for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 d. The marinades were prepared the day before and stored overnight at 4◦ C. The experiment was repeated 3 times with 6 samples for each treatment in each run. Ten samples in each treatment were used for physical and chemical analyses, and the remaining 10 were cooked for further analysis. Samples were injected to 15% of the green weight

Table 1. Mixture formulations for ground beef treated with differing levels of NaHCO3 , KHCO3 , NaCl, modified food starch, and potato starch. Treatment notation

Treatment name

CON DW 0.5 SB 0.5 PB 1.5 SB 1.5 PB 0.5 PLS 0.5 SBLS 0.5 PBLS 1.5 SBLS 1.5 PBLS

Control (nonmarinated) Distilled water (marinated with distilled water only) 0.5% sodium bicarbonate 0.5% potassium bicarbonate 1.5% sodium bicarbonate 1.5% potassium bicarbonate 0.5% potassium lactate + 0.5% NaCl 0.5% sodium bicarbonate + 0.5% potassium lactate + 0.5% NaCl 0.5% potassium bicarbonate + 0.5% potassium lactate + 0.5% NaCl 1.5% sodium bicarbonate + 0.5% potassium lactate + 0.5% NaCl 1.5% potassium bicarbonate + 0.5% potassium lactate + 0.5% NaCl

304

LEE ET AL.

with prepared marinades using a 3-row multineedle injector (Schroder Injector, Model N50, Wolf-Tec Inc., Kingston, NY) with a conveyor rate of 4 mm/stroke and an injection pressure of 150 kPa. Following injection, samples were placed into a vacuum tumbler (Globus Laboratories Inc. Model VMS-37-529) and tumbled for 15 min at 2 ± 1◦ C. Samples were weighed before and after injection and tumbling to determine the marinade uptake. They were then and stored in covered plastic zippered bags at 2 to 4◦ C for 24 h. Samples were then reweighed to determine the purge loss and net weight gain. The percentage pick-up was calculated by dividing the net weight increase after injection and tumbling by the initial weight.

pH Measurement The pH of the chicken breast was measured before and after marination by inserting a pierce probe (Model pH 77-SS, metal probe, IQ Scientific, HACH, Loveland, CO) into the samples. Three representative pH measurements were recorded for each sample and averaged for statistical analysis.

Packaging and Display The samples were aerobically packaged with polyvinyl chloride overwrap film (PVC; MAPAC L, 21,700 cc O2 /m2 /24 h, Borden Packaging and Industrial Products, North Andover, MA) on foam trays (17S; McCune Paper Company, Salina, KS) with a Dri-Loc soaker pad (AC-50; Sealed Air Corp, Duncan, SC). The packaged trays were stored and displayed at 2 to 4◦ C for 8 d under 2,150 ± 50 lx continuous fluorescent lighting (bulb F32T8/ADV830, 3000 K, CRI = 86; Phillips, Bloomfield, NJ) in an open-front refrigerated display case (Hussmann M3X, Self-contained, Multi-deck, Supermarket Equipment Sales, Inc., Rutledge, GA). Packages were rotated daily to minimize case location effects.

Color Measurement (CIE L∗ , a∗ , b∗ , Hue Angle, and Saturation Index) The CIE (1976) system color profile of lightness (L∗ ), redness (a∗ ), and yellowness (b∗ ) was measured by a reflectance spectrophotometer (HunterLab MiniScan EZ Plus Spectrophotometer 45/0 LAV, 2.54cm-diameter aperture, 10◦ standard observer; Hunter Associates Laboratory, Inc., Reston, VA) using illuminant C. The spectrophotometer was calibrated throughout the study using standard white and black ceramic tiles. The color measurement was performed at the center of each sample at predetermined time intervals: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 d of retail display and storage. The samples were scanned in triplicate for instrumental color properties, and the results were averaged for statistical analysis. Values for CIE L∗ , a∗ , and b∗ (illumi-

nant C) were collected, and hue angle (tan–1 b∗ /a∗ ) and chroma [(a∗2 + b∗2 )1/2 ] were calculated (American Meat Science Association, Meat Color Guidelines, 2012) for instrumental measures.

Cooking Procedures The chicken breast samples were placed on a stainless steel rack and cooked in a smokehouse (ALKAR Model 1000 Food Processing Oven) at 190◦ C dry bulb, 175◦ C wet bulb for 37 min. The chicken was cooked until the product internal endpoint temperature reached 71.4◦ C. The internal endpoint temperature was measured with a thermocouple wire (30-gauge, copperconstantan; Omega Engineering, Stamford, CT) inserted at the geometric center of each sample. Samples were weighed individually, and cook yield was determined as a percentage of the initial noninjected weight as follows: %Cookyield = (W − cooked/W − initial) × 100 Where W-cooked is the weight of the cooked chicken breast meat, and W-initial is the weight of the initial noninjected chicken breast.

Water-Holding Capacity Water-holding capacity (WHC) was determined using the procedure described by Barbut (1993) with slight modifications. Briefly, visible fat, skin, and connective tissues were removed from the chicken breast meat. Approximately 80 g breast tissue (medial portion) was chopped, minced for 30 s. A 10 g aliquot of the chopped muscle was mixed with 20 mL 0.6 M NaCl cold solution. Samples were then vortexed (Model VM-300, VWR Analog Vortex Mixer) for 30 sec and incubated for 30 min at 4◦ C. Samples were centrifuged (Sorvall RC-58 Refrigerated Super speed Centrifuge) at 7000 × g for 30 min at 4◦ C. Supernatant was decanted, and the precipitate was weighed. WHC was defined as the portion of fluid retained by the sample: 20 mL − (amount of decanted supernatant) 20 mL × 100 = W HC (%)

Moisture Content The moisture content (MC, %) of the cooked chicken breasts was determined according to the Association of Official Analytical Chemists’ method (AOAC International, 1995). Approximately 3 to 3.5 g of the cooked chicken breast sample was removed and homogenized with a food processor. The homogenized sample was then weighed, placed in a predried aluminum pan

FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF BICARBONATES AND LACTIC ACID ON CHICKEN BREAST QUALITY

(Fisher Scientific, Cat. No. 08-732-101), and vacuum dried overnight in a vacuum oven (Cole-Parmer Instrument Comp., Vermon Hills, IL) at 100◦ C. Six replicates for each treatment were measured. The MC was calculated as follows:

w2 − w3 × 100 MC % = w2 − w1 Where: W1 = Weight of dry aluminum pan W2 = Weight of wet sample and dry aluminum pan W3 = Weight of dry sample and dry aluminum pan

Expressible Moisture Expressible moisture (EM, %) was determined based on a procedure described by Zheng, Detienne, Barnes, and Wicker (Zheng et al., 2001) and Wierbicki and Deatherage (Wierbicki and Deatherage, 1958). A 2 by 2 cm2 piece of chicken breast was cut. Expressible moisture was determined using an Instron testing machine (Model 5500R, Universal Testing Machine, Instron Corp, Canton, MA). Samples were compressed between parallel plates at a crosshead speed of 100 mm/min–1 to 75% deformation and held for 60 s. Moisture was absorbed by a preweighed Whatmann filter paper (no. 1, 9 cm) between the two plates. The difference in muscle weight before and after compression was recorded, and EM was calculated as percentage of the uncompressed weight as follows: EM % = 100 × (Wfinal − Winitial )/sampleweight Where: Wfinal = Weight of filter paper after compression Winitial = Initial weight of filter paper

Warner-Bratzler Shear Force The Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) measurement done to evaluate the tenderness of the cooked chicken breast meat, as described by (Deshpande, 2008). Shear force and the work of shear were determined using a texture analyzer (Model TMS-PRO, Food Technology Corporation, Sterling, VA) with a 25kg load cell using a shearing blade (TA 7–WB blade). Six cooked chicken breast samples were cut 2.5 cm long and placed on a slotted plate that was preinstalled on a heavy-duty platform. The platform was adjusted to allow the blade to pass through the slotted plate. The crosshead speed of the blade was set at 10 mm/sec–1 , and the test was triggered by a 0.05 N contact force. Shear force and the work of shear were calculated as the area under the force deformation curve determined

305

by the texture analyzer. Shear force value was reported as the mean of 6 replicates.

Statistical Analysis The experimental design was a randomized complete block with repeated measurements, and each experiment was replicated 6 times. The bicarbonate treatment combinations within the randomized complete block plus 2 controls resulted in total 6 treatment combinations. Instrumental color measurements were a repeat measure of the same experimental unit during the retail display and storage period. Triplicate color measurements were recorded on the same experimental unit and averaged for statistical analysis. Fixed effects included treatment, retail display and storage, and their interaction. Type-3 tests of fixed effects for the instrumental color changes in CIE L∗ , a∗ , b∗ , hue angle, and chroma during retail display and storage were evaluated by using the Mixed procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Release 9.3, Cary, NC). Least squares means were generated for significant F tests (P < 0.05) and separated using the Pdiff option.

RESULTS pH The muscle pH of the chicken breast samples was not different before marination (P > 0.05) (Table 2). The pH of the breast increased after injection and marination with both sodium and potassium bicarbonates at both concentration levels (0.5 and 1%; P < 0.05). Injection and marination with only 0.5% K-lactate (0.5 PLS) lowered the pH of the chicken from 5.98 to 5.68. However, when marinated with a combination of K-lactate acid and 1.5% sodium or potassium bicarbonates, the pH of the chicken breast samples increased from 5.98 to 6.84 for sodium bicarbonate (1.5 SBLS) and 6.81 for potassium bicarbonate (1.5 PBLS) (P < 0.05).

Pick-up, Purge-loss, Moisture Content, Expressible Moisture, and Water-Holding Capacity Table 2 presents pick-up, purge loss, moisture content, expressible moisture, and water-holding capacity of the chicken breast samples as a function of injection enhancement and marination protocol. Marination with only water had no effect on the amount of marinade uptake by the muscle or on moisture content (P > 0.05). The most pronounced effect was observed in bicarbonate-marinated samples (1.5 SBLS and 1.5 PBLS), which exhibited the highest percentage pick-up, moisture content, expressible moisture, and WHC, and the lowest drip loss (P < 0.05). In contrast, 0.5 PLS– and water-marinated samples resulted in lower pick-up and higher purge loss. The effects of

306

LEE ET AL. Table 2. Least squares mean for moisture content, expressible moisture content, cook yield, and pH of chicken breasts marinated with different treatments. Treatment

Pick-up (%)

Drip loss (%)

MC (%)

EM (%)

WHC

pH Before

CON DW 0.5 SB 0.5 PB 1.5 SB 1.5 PB 0.5 PLS 0.5 SBLS 0.5 PBLS 1.5 SBLS 1.5 PBLS

— 10.3b 11.9c 11.7c 15.4d 16.1d 7.7a 17.9e 18.3e 24.8f 25.7f

— 3.2d 2.5c 2.4c 1.8b 1.7b 4.2e 2.2c 2.7c 0.4a 0.1a

d

69.9 72.3e 73.0e 72.9e 75.7f 77.8g 64.1b 62.0a 66.9c 84.8g 85.7g

b

13.6 13.8b 13.4b 13.7b 15.6d 14.9c,d 12.2a 15.2c,d 14.7c 17.5e 18.1e

a

66.3 63.3a 71.2b 69.5b 74.4b 76.1c 57.8 72.2b 77.6b 92.6c 87.5b

b

5.97 5.95b 5.96b 5.99b 5.95b 5.98b 5.98b 5.97b 5.94b 5.98b 5.95b

After 5.87b 6.16d 6.05d 6.11d 6.81e 6.79e 5.68a 5.95c 6.13d 6.84e 6.81e

a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h Means with different superscripts within a column are different (P < 0.05). ±SE for MC = ±0.57; EM = ±1.85; WHC = ±0.05; pH = ±0.06.

marination with higher concentrations of sodium and potassium bicarbonates (1.5 SB and 1. 5 PB) compared to 0.5 SB and 0.5 PB and CON showed a gain in moisture content, expressible moisture, WHC and percent pick-up (P < 0.05).

Cook Yield, Work of Shear, and Shear Force Value To evaluate the feasibility of enhancing the quality of chicken breasts, sodium and/or potassium bicarbonate was incorporated with K-lactate in the marinade formulation. Chicken breast samples marinated with 1.5 SBLS and those marinated with 1.5 PBLS resulted in higher cook yield (94.7 for 1.5 SBLS and 98.2% for 1.5 PBLS; Table 3) (P < 0.05). Also, chicken breast samples marinated with 1.5 SBLS and those marinated with 1.5 PBLS had higher expressible moisture and were more tender than those marinated with 1.5 SB or 1.5 PB (Table 4) (P < 0.05). Marination with only water resulted in low cook yield (P < 0.05) and higher shear force value (P < 0.05). Chicken marinated with Table 3. Least squares mean for work of shear, shear value, and cook yield of chicken breasts marinated with different treatments Treatment CON Water 0.5 PB 0.5 SB 1.5 PB 1.5 SB 0.5 PLS 0.5 PBLS 0.5 SBLS 1.5 SBLS 1.5 PBLS

Work of shear (N.m) c

53.3 55.4c 58.2d 58.7d 41.4b 42.1b 68.9e 39.2b 38.9b 33.4a 31.0a

Shear value (N) e

27.1 26.9e 27.3e 26.7e 24.2d 23.5d 35.6f 20.8c 21.1c 16.6b 15.5a

Cook yield (%) 72.3b 71.9b 78.8c 76.7c 87.6d 86.0d 63.8a 84.8e 85.5e 94.7f 98.2g

a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h Means with different superscripts within a column are different (P < 0.05). ±SE for work of shear = ±3.21; shear value = ±0.22; cook yield% = ±1.68.

0.5 SB and 0.5 PB exhibited significantly higher shear force as compared with chicken marinated with 0.5 SBLS or 0.5 PBLS (P < 0.05). Incorporation of 1.5% sodium or potassium bicarbonate resulted in a significantly lower shear value (P < 0.05). Therefore, all combination treatments— such as 0.5 SBLS, 0.5 PBLS, 1.5 SBLS, and 1.5 PBLS—are considered to produce a product with lower shear value. Similar results were observed with cook yield. Both combinations levels of bicarbonate with K-lactate (0.5 SBLS, 0.5 PBLS, 1.5 SBLS, and 1.5 PBLS) resulted in higher cook yields. In contrast, samples marinated with 0.5 SB and those marinated with 0.5 PB had the same shear value as the nonmarinated control and those marinated with water. Results showed improved tenderness and cook yield with a combination of bicarbonate, K-lactate, and salt in the marinade solution.

Instrumental Color Effects of Bicarbonates In the present experiment, the instrumental quality of the chicken interacted with treatments and affected instrumental color properties (L∗ , a∗ , b∗ , hue angle, and saturation index). To achieve optimum quality parameters, bicarbonates (sodium or potassium bicarbonate) were used as a marinade to improve tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and cook yield. As expected, in this study, nonmarinated chicken exhibited a higher L∗ value on d 1 and 2 of the retail display (Table 4). As retail display days advanced, there was a gradual decline in L∗ value from d 3 through 8. A higher L∗ value indicates a lighter-colored meat appearance. Marination of the chicken breast with 1.5 SB or with 1.5 PB affected the L∗ value, causing more darkening as compared with 0.5 SB, 0.5 PB, water, or the nonmarinated control (P < 0.05). The results indicate that there was lesser darkening of the chicken breast muscle when it was marinated with 0.5 SBLS or with 0.5 PBLS. However, darkening was more pronounced when the chicken breast was marinated with 1.5 SBLS or with 1.5 PBLS than when it was marinated with water or the

FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF BICARBONATES AND LACTIC ACID ON CHICKEN BREAST QUALITY

307

Table 4. Least squares mean for instrumental color properties (L∗ ) of chicken breasts marinated with different treatments and in retail display for 8 d. Treatment

Display days 1

CON DW 0.5 SB 0.5 PB 1.5 SB 1.5 PB 0.5 PLS 0.5 SBLS 0.5 PBLS 1.5 SBLS 1.5 PBLS

2 e,q

63.8 67.9g,q 64.6e,f,p 65.3f,r 53.6b,p 51.3a,n 68.3g,r 60.9d,o 61.3d,n 58.6c,o 59.7c,d,p

3 e,p

62.3 68.2g,q 65.1f,p 67.7g,s 50.5a,n,o 52.7b,o 65.3f,q 60.8d,o 62.7e,o 58.4c,o 57.1c,o

4 d,p

61.8 66.4f,p 64.7e,p 66.4f,r 51.6a,o 53.1b,o 65.5e,f,q 61.4d,p 62.1d,o 58.5c,o 57.7c,o

5 d,e,o

60.2 64.6f,o 61.6e,o 63.2f,p,q 49.3a,n 52.8b,o 64.2f,p 59.3d,n 60.4d,m 55.5c,m 56.9c,n,o

6 c,n

58.8 65.2g,o,p 60.3d,e,n 63.6f,q 49.7a,n 50.6a,m 61.9e,o,p 59.5c,d,n 61.6e,n,o 56.5b,m,n 55.6b,m,n

7 c,d,n

57.9 62.7g,n 58.1d,m 62.3g,o,p 48.1a,m 50.6b,m 61.6f,n,o 60.1e,f 60.8e,m,n 57.2c,d,n,o 56.1c,m,n

8 d,m,n

55.9c,m 60.8f,m 57.4d,m 51.8b,m 47.6a,m 50.5b,m 59.2e,m 57.6d,m 59.7e,m 57.3d,n,o 55.1c,m

56.3 61.2f,m,n 58.5e,m 53.9c,n 48.3a,m 50.3b,m 60.7f,n 58.3e,m 60.6f,m,n 58.1e,o 55.9d,m,n

a, b, c, d, e, f, g

Means with different superscripts within a column are different (P < 0.05). Means with different superscripts within a row are different (P < 0.05). ±SE = 0.83 for L∗ , 0.13 for a∗ 0.64 for b∗ . m, n, o, p, q, r, s

Table 5. Least squares mean for instrumental color properties (a∗ ) of chicken breasts marinated with different treatments and in retail display for 8 d. Treatment

Display days 1

CON DW 0.5 SB 0.5 PB 1.5 SB 1.5 PB 0.5 PLS 0.5 SBLS 0.5 PBLS 1.5 SBLS 1.5 PBLS

2 f,q

6.5 4.3a,o 4.7b,m,n 4.9b,m,n 5.7c,d,o,p 5.9d,e,m,n 4.1a,p,q 5.5c,o,p 5.7c,d,o 6.3e,f,n,o 6.7g,n

3 e,f,q

6.5 4.2a,n,o 4.6b,m,n 5.2c,o,p 5.8d,p 6.2e,n 4.2a,q 5.6d,p 5.7d,o 6.4e,f,o 6.6f,n

4 e,p

6.0 4.1a,n 4.9b,n 5.3c,p 5.6d,o,p 6.3e,n 4.1a,p,q 5.3c,n,o 5.6d,n,o 6.3e,n,o 6.6f,n

5 e,o,p

5.8 4.2a,n,o 4.7b,m,n 5.2c,o,p 5.5d,o 6.2f,n 4.2a,q 5.4d,o,p 5.4d,n 6.1f,n 6.5g,n

6 d,e,f,o

5.7 4.0a,n 4.7b,m,n 5.2c,o,p 5.5d,o 5.9f,m,n 3.9a,o,p 4.7b,m 5.5d,e,n,o 5.8e,f,m 6.5g,n

7 e,f,o

5.6 4.1a,n 4.7b,m,n 5.0c,d,n,o 5.2d,n 5.8f,m 3.6a,n 4.9b,c,m,n 5.2e,m 5.8f,m 6.5g,n

8 d,n

5.1 4.1b,n 4.7c,m,n 4.8c,m,n 4.9c,d,m 5.9e,m 3.7a,n,o 5.1d,n 5.1d,m 5.9e,m,n 6.3f,m,n

4.7c,m 3.8b,m 4.5c,m 4.7c,d,m 4.9d,e,m 5.8f,m 3.3a,m 4.8d,m 5.1e,m 5.7f,m 6.2g,m

a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h

Means with different superscripts within a column are different (P < 0.05). Means with different superscripts within a row are different (P < 0.05). ±SE = 0.14 for a∗ .

m, n, o, p, q

nonmarinated control. Marination with 1.5 SBLS and 1.5 PBLS maintained the L∗ value throughout, from d 1 to 8 of the retail display. A similar trend of muscle lightness value decline was observed for both 1.5 SB and 1.5 PB. Least squares means for CIE a∗ values for marinated chicken breasts across the 8 d of retail display are presented in Table 4. The a∗ values for the chicken marinated with 0.5 SB and with 0.5 PB were darker (lower a∗ values) than CON (P < 0.05). A gradual decline in a∗ values was seen for the chicken marinated with water and the chicken marinated with CON as compared with other bicarbonate marination treatments (Table 5). Chicken breasts marinated with 1.5 PB exhibited higher redness appearance than 0.5 SB, 0.5 PB, and water marination treatments (P < 0.05). Comparatively, marination with 1.5 SBLS or with PBLS was found to maintain higher a∗ values than breasts marinated in water, 0.5 SB, 0.5 PB, 1.5 SB, or 1.5 PB (P < 0.05). Among all marination treatments, 1.5 PBLS and 1.5 SBLS outcompeted the others in

maintaining a∗ values throughout retail display and storage. Chicken breasts marinated with 1.5 SBLS and 1.5 PBLS demonstrated no change in the b∗ value throughout d 1 to 8 of retail display and storage compared with all other marination treatments (Table 6). Chicken breast samples marinated with 0.5 or 1.5 SB or with PB showed increased b∗ values over those enhanced with 1.5 SBLS and 1.5 PBLS (P < 0.05). Among all marination treatments, water, 0.5 SB, and 0.5 PB caused a rapid increase in yellowness (b∗ values). The intensity of the red color appearance (saturation index [SI] value) of marinated chicken is provided in Table 7. Chicken marinated with 1.5 SB or with 1.5 PB appeared darker, but the redness intensity increased (higher SI value) as display days increased compared with those treated with 0.5 SB, 0.5 PB, or water. Comparatively, chicken marinated with 1.5 SB or with 1.5 PB maintained more red color saturation than 0.5 SB, 0.5 PB, or 0.5 PLS treatments. Results show that marination with 0.5 SBLS or 0.5 PBLS improved or

308

LEE ET AL. Table 6. Least squares mean for instrumental color properties (b∗ ) of chicken breasts marinated with different treatments and in retail display for 8 d. Treatment

Display days 1

CON DW 0.5 SB 0.5 PB 1.5 SB 1.5 PB 0.5 PLS 0.5 SBLS 0.5 PBLS 1.5 SBLS 1.5 PBLS

2 a,m

13.0 15.6c,m 14.6a,m 14.7b,m,n 12.1a,m 13.2a,m 16.4a,m 14.5b,m 13.5b,m 12.2a,m 12.1a,m

3 b,n

14.3 15.8d,e,m 14.9c,d,m,n 14.4b,c,m 13.2a,b,n 14.6b,c,n 16.9e,m,n 14.4b,c,m 13.8b,m,n 12.5a,m,n 12.4a,m,n

4 b,n

14.4 15.7c,d,m 15.3b,c,m,n,o 15.6c,n,o 14.8b,o 14.9b,n 16.7d,m,n 14.6b,m,n 14.2b,m,n 11.9a,m 12.5a,m,n

5 c,d,n,o

15.2 16.0d,m 15.9d,n,o 16.2d,o,p 15.4c,d,o,p 15.1c,d,n 17.4e,m,n 15.1c,d,m,n 14.7c,n,o 12.1a,m 13.5b,n,o

6 c,o,p

15.8 16.2c,d,m 16.1c,d,o 17.1d,e,p 15.3c,o,p 15.5c,n,o 17.9e,n,o 15.7c,n,o 15.5c,o,p 13.5a,n,o 14.1b,o,p

7 b,c,p

16.5 17.9d,e,n,o 17.3c,d,p 18.2e,q 16.1b,p,q 16.0b,o 18.8e,o,p 16.4b,c,o,p 16.2b,p,q 14.0a,o,p 14.8a,p,q

8 c,d,q

17.7 18.5c,d,e,o 18.2c,d,p,q 18.9d,e,q 17.2b,c,q 17.7c,d,p 19.4e,p 16.9b,c,p,q 16.5b,p,q 14.8a,p,q 15.1a,p,q

19.3e,r 19.7e,p 19.2e,q 19.0e,q 18.9d,e,r 18.2c,d,p 19.8ep 17.6b,c,q 17.0b,q 15.2a,q 15.9a,q

a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h

Means with different superscripts within a column are different (P < 0.05). Means with different superscripts within a row are different (P < 0.05). ±SE = 0.64 for b∗ .

m, n, o, p, q, r

Table 7. Least squares mean for instrumental color properties (saturation index) of chicken breasts marinated with different treatments and in retail display for 8 d Treatment CON DW 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5

SB PB SB PB PLS SBLS PBLS SBLS PBLS

Display days 5

1

2

3

4

14.1b,c,m 13.4a,b,m 12.9a,b,m 13.6b,c,m 11.1a,m 11.7a,b,m 10.4a,m 13.9b,c,m 14.6c,m 14.1b,c,m 13.0a,b,m

14.6c,m,n 13.9c,m 13.2b,c,m,n 14.3c,m,n 12.4b,n 12.6b,m,n 10.9a,m,n 14.0c,m 14.2c,m 14.3c,m,n 13.6b,c,m,n

14.7c,d,m,n 13.5b,c,m 13.3b,m,n 14.6c,d,m,n,o 12.9b,n,o 13.2b,n 11.2a,m,n 14.3c,d,m 15.3d,m,n 14.2c,d,m 13.7b,c,m,n

15.6d,n,o 14.4b,c,m,n 14.1b,n,o 15.3c,n,o,p 13.6b,o 13.8b,n,o 11.7a,n,o 15.1c,m,n 15.3c,d,m,n 14.2b,c,m 14.5b,c,n,o

16.5c,o 15.1c,n,o 14.3b,c,n 15.6c,o,p 13.7a,b,o 14.2b,c,n,o 12.9a,o,p 14.8b,c,m 15.7c,m,n 14.2b,c,m 15.1c,o

6

7

8

16.5d,o 16.2d,o,p 15.5c,d,o 16.4d,p,q 14.1b,o 14.7b,c,o,p 12.8a,o,p 16.2d,n,o 16.9d,n,o 14.7b,c,m,n 15.8c,d,o,p

17.3e,p 16.6d,e,p 15.5b,c,d,o 17.4e,q 14.9b,p 15.4b,c,p 13.4a,p 16.5c,o 17.3e,o 15.4b,c,m,n 16.9d,e,p

18.1d,p 16.6b,c,p 15.9b,o 17.5c,d,q 15.8b,p 15.9b,p 13.8a,p 16.9c,o 17.5c,d,o 15.9b,n 17.5c,d,p

a, b, c,d, e, f, g, h

Means with different superscripts within a column are different (P < 0.05). Means with different superscripts within a row are different (P < 0.05). ±SE = 0.65 for saturation index. m, n, o, p, q

had similar redness intensity to the nonmarinated control (Table 7). Redness intensity was observed to be higher for the bicarbonate and K-lactate combination treatments than bicarbonate or K-lactate alone. Marination treatment of the chicken breast muscle with 1.5 SBLS or with 1.5 PBLS comparable hue angle and was different from the 0.5 SB, 0.5 PB, 1.5 SB and 1.5 PB treatments (P < 0.05; Table 8). The hue angle values followed a similar trend as b∗ values for bicarbonate-marinated chicken breast muscles. The hue angle values increased over time with advancement of display days (Table 4).

DISCUSSION An important aspect of processing in the poultry industry is providing consumers with a consistent, high quality product that meets their expectations. Using nonmeat ingredients to marinate poultry meat products to improve overall product quality depends largely on ingredient functionality. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of marination with

solutions containing sodium or potassium bicarbonate with or without K-lactate on chicken breast overall quality and retail display attributes. As expected, the results of this study suggest that marinating chicken breasts with a mixture of bicarbonate and K-lactate increased chicken breast meat pH and marinade pickup, and it reduced purge loss. A higher concentration of bicarbonate (1.5%) resulted in higher pick-up. We observed that increasing the concentration of bicarbonate with K-lactate salt improved WHC, reduced purge loss, and increased cook yield. We further observed that increasing the concentration of marination solutions containing bicarbonate from 0.5 to 1.5% in the finished product influenced both raw and cooked product characteristics. More specifically, results clearly indicate that bicarbonate used in combination with K-lactate as a marinade influences the raw and cooked product quality of marinated chicken. Previous researches (Kauffman et al., 1998; Woelfel and Sams, 2001b; Alvarado and Sams, 2003; Petracci et al., 2012) have indicated that use of high pH marinades, such as those with phosphates and sodium bicarbonate, increases pH and improves WHC in pale

FUNCTIONAL PROPERTIES OF BICARBONATES AND LACTIC ACID ON CHICKEN BREAST QUALITY

309

Table 8. Least squares mean for instrumental color properties (hue angle) of chicken breasts marinated with different treatments and in retail display for 8 d. Treatment

Display days 1

CON DW 0.5 SB 0.5 PB 1.5 SB 1.5 PB 0.5 PLS 0.5 SBLS 0.5 PBLS 1.5 SBLS 1.5 PBLS

2 a,m,n

65.1 72.2d,m 70.8c,n 71.9c,d,m 70.7c,m 69.3c,m 72.3d,m 67.8b,m 71.1c,m 64.9a,m 65.7a,m

3 a,m

64.2 72.4d,m 71.7d,n 72.1d,m 71.6d,m 71.2d,n 72.4d,m 67.7c,m 71.4d,m 65.5b,m 65.9b,m

4 a,n,o

65.8 72.5c,m 68.9b,m 73.6d,n 72.8c,d,n 72.7c,o 73.7d,n 68.4b,n 71.9c,m 66.7b,n 66.2b,m,n

5 c,o

66.5 74.7d,n 70.1c,n 74.8d,o 73.7d,n 74.4d,p 74.8d,o 69.1c,o 74.2d,n 65.8a,m 67.7b,n,o

6 a,o

66.7 74.6c,n 71.2b,n 76.5d,p 73.8c,n,o 76.6d,q 76.9d,p 71.8b,p 76.3d,o 67.1a,n 68.3a,o

7 a,p

67.8 75.0d,n 73.9c,o 76.7e,p 74.6c,d,o 76.7e,q 76.8e,p 72.4b,p 76.5e,o 68.3a,o 68.6a,o

8 a,p,q

68.2 77.1d,o 74.2c,o,p 77.3d,q,p 76.8d,p 76.9d,q 76.9d,p 71.9b,p 77.7d,p 71.4b,p 71.8b,p

69.7a,q 78.9d,p 75.7c,p 78.3d,q 78.1d,q 77.2d,q 77.4d,p 72.5b,p 78.4d,p 72.7b,q 72.1b,p

a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h

Means with different superscripts within a column are different (P < 0.05). Means with different superscripts within a row are different (P < 0.05). ±SE = 0.82 for hue angle.

m, n, o, p, q

meat. Consistent with previous research, our study showed that bicarbonate showed a greater ability to improve WHC. More specifically bicarbonate used with K-lactate resulted in significantly improved marinade pick-up, increased WHC, reduced purge loss, higher tenderness, and enhanced cook yield. Wynveen et al., (2001) showed that bicarbonates increase the number of ions, which react with protein and increase muscle fiber hydration. In the literature, it is known that pH affects WHC by electrostatic repulsion, and increases pH of the chicken products using phosphate and bicarbonate salts improve the WHC substantially (Kauffman et al., 1998; Sindelar et al., 2003; Sheard and Tali, 2004). Specific ingredients influence pH and WHC as a result of their interactions with the meat proteins. Water and other nonmeat ingredients interact with meat structure, resulting in diverse protein functionality and final product yield. More specifically, bicarbonate in combination with K-lactate resulted in high gain both raw and cooked chicken. This can be ascribed to the induction of a higher swelling of the myofibrils and a high solubilization effect on meat protein structures, reducing the expulsion of water during cooking (Bertram et al., 2008). Bicarbonate seems to be a superior marinating agent when used with an organic acid. Measuring quality characteristics such as moisture content, expressible moisture, marinade pick-up, and overall color traits is done to assess multiple sensory traits such as juiciness, tenderness, and flavor. Our study shows that bicarbonate used alone as a marinade affects overall marinated chicken product quality differently than when it is used with K-lactate. Sodium bicarbonate–marinated chicken was reported (Qiao et al., 2002; Petracci et al., 2012) to exhibit higher lightness values but appeared darker than nonmarinated controls. In a similar study, Alvarado and Sams (2003) reported improved bicarbonate-marinated

chicken color traits in pale, soft, exudative chicken. We did find a decrease of lightness and increase in red color intensity (a∗ value and SI) during retail display of chicken marinated with bicarbonate alone or in combination with K-lactate, but we also observed that chicken marinated with a bicarbonate and K-lactate combination resulted in more stable retail color display properties than bicarbonate alone or nonmarinated controls. Typically, retail display color stability is described relative to any color or color change variables when measured through the retail display period. Oxygen exposure, light conditioning, display temperature, and muscle mitochondrial activity all affect marinated chicken meat retail display color and color stability. In the present experiment, incorporating bicarbonate with K-lactate mitigated differences in product color appearance and increased loss of redness over the retail display time. In summary, this study showed that the use of bicarbonate and K-lactate together resulted in higher marinade pick-up, reduced purge loss, and increased cook yield than when bicarbonates are used alone. More specifically, a higher concentration of bicarbonate (1.5%) exhibited higher marinade performance, better marinade pick-up, and better water retention ability. A combination of bicarbonate and K-lactate is a promising marinating agent that can be further exploited to develop a marination strategy for processed poultry products. Furthermore, because of gain in cook yield, tenderness, expressible moisture, and moisture content of the 1.5 PBLS–marinated chicken breasts, the solution could be used to provide the no-phosphateadded chicken products that consumers are demanding. However, the increased color darkening effects of bicarbonates should be properly modulated to negate the differences in retail display characteristics in aerobic packaging formats. Also, the sensory acceptability of such products needs further investigations and should be quantified.

310

LEE ET AL.

REFERENCES Alvarado, C., and S. McKee. 2007. Marination to improve functional properties and safety of poultry meat. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 16:113–120. Alvarado, C., and A. R. Sams. 2003. Injection marination strategies for remediation of pale, exudative broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 82:1332–1336. Barbut, S. 1993. Color measurements for evaluating the pale soft exudative (PSE) occurrence in turkey meat. Food Res. Int. 26:39– 43. Bertram, C., L. Meyer, Z. Wu, X. Zhou, and J. Andersen. 2008. Water distribution and microstructure in enhanced pork. J. Agric. Food Chem. 56:7201–7207. Carlos, A., and M. Harrison. 1999. Inhibition of selected microorganisms in marinated chicken by pimento leaf oil and clove oleoresin. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 8:100–109. Crow, B., M. Dikeman, L. Hollis, R. Phebus, A. Ray, T. Houser, and J. Grobbel. 2010. A comparison of needle-free and needleinjection methods and solutions for enhancement of beef longissimus lumborum muscles. Meat Sci. 84:529–537. Desmond, E. 2006. Reducing salt: A challenge for the meat industry. Meat Sci. 74:188–196. Deshpande, D. 2008. Radio-frequency application in preheating of marinated chicken breast meat. M.S. Dissertation. Athens: University of Georgia. pp. 36. Detienne, A., M. Zheng, W. Barnes, and L. Wicker. 2000. Properties of chicken breasts injected with low methoxyl pectin. Foodservice Res. Intl. 12:151–161. Hashim, I., K. McWatters, and Y. -C. Hung. 1999. Marination method and honey level affect physical and sensory characteristics of roasted chicken. J. Food Sci. 64:163–166. Kauffman, G., L. van Laack, L. Russell, E. Pospiech, A. Cornelius, E. Suckow, and L. Greaser. 1998. Can pale, soft, exudative pork be prevented by postmortem sodium bicarbonate injection? J. Anim. Sci. 76:3010–3015. Lampila, L. E. 1993. Functions and uses of phosphates in the seafood industry. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 1:29–41. Mudalal, S., M. Petracci, S. Tappi, P. Rocculi, and C. Cavani. 2014. Comparison between the quality traits of phosphate and bicarbonate-marinated chicken breast fillets cooked under different heat treatments. Food and Nutr. Sci. 5:35.

Petracci, M., L. Laghi, P. Rocculi, S. Rimini, V. Panarese, M. Cremonini, and C. Cavani. 2012. The use of sodium bicarbonate for marination of broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 91:526–534. Petracci, M., M. Bianchi, S. Mudalal, and C. Cavani. 2013. Functional ingredients for poultry meat products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 33:27–39. Qiao, M., D. L. Fletcher, D. P. Smith, and J. K. Northcutt. 2002. Effects of raw broiler breast meat color variation on marination and cooked meat quality. Poult. Sci. 81:276–280. Samuel, D., and S. Trabelsi. 2012. Measurement of dielectric properties of intact and ground broiler breast meat over the frequency range from 500 MHz to 50 GHz. Intl. J. Poult. Sci. 11. Sen, A., B. Naveena, M. Muthukumar, Y. Babji, and T. Murthy. 2005. Effect of chilling, polyphosphate and bicarbonate on quality characteristics of broiler breast meat. Br. Poult. Sci. 46:451–456. Sheard, R., and A. Tali. 2004. Injection of salt, tripolyphosphate and bicarbonate marinade solutions to improve the yield and tenderness of cooked pork loin. Meat Sci. 68:305–311. Sindelar, J. J., F. Prochaska, J. Britt, G. L. Smith, R. K. Miller, R. Templeman, and W. N. Osburn. 2003. Strategies to eliminate atypical flavours and aromas in sow loins. I. Optimization of sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate, and injection level. Meat Sci. 65:1211–1222. Smith, D. 1999. Marination: Tender to the bottom line. Broiler Ind. 6:22–25. Smith, D. M. 2001. Functional properties of muscle proteins in processed poultry products. Poult. Meat Processing 11:181–195. Wierbicki, E., and F. E. Deatherage. 1958. Determination of waterholding capacity of fresh meats. J. Agric. Food Chem. 6:387– 392. Woelfel, L., and R. Sams. 2001a. Marination performance of pale broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 80:1519–1522. Woelfel, R., and A. Sams. 2001b. Marination performance of pale broiler breast meat. Poult. Sci. 80:1519–1522. Wynveen, J., C. Bowker, L. Grant, W. Lamkey, J. Fennewald, L. Henson, and E. Gerrard. 2001. Pork quality is affected by early postmortem phosphate and bicarbonate injection. J. Food Sci. 66:886–891. Zheng, M., N. A. Detienne, B. W. Barnes, and L. Wicker. 2001. Tenderness and yields of poultry breast are influenced by phosphate type and concentration of marinade. J. Sci. Food Agric. 81:82–87.