CC BY
0DOI: https://doi.org/10.21323/2414-438X-2024-9-2-180-187
Received 28.03.2024 Accepted in revised 22.06.2024 Accepted for publication 27.06.2024
Available online at https://www.meatjournal.ru/jour Original scientific article Open Access
EFFECT OF ELECTROLYZED WATER ON PHYSICO-CHEMICAL AND SENSORY QUALITIES OF BEEF
Gourpada Biswas1*, Md. Shafiqul Islam1, S. M. Mahbubur Rahman2, S. M. Abdullah Al Mamun1
1 Agrotechnology Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh 2 Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Discipline, Khulna University, Khulna, Bangladesh
Keywords: efficacy, electrolyzed water, proximate composition, meat, characteristics Abstract
During beef processing, contamination by microorganisms from diverse sources poses a significant risk to its quality and safety. This contamination can lead to reduced shelf life, compromised meat quality, and increased health hazards. In recent years, electrolyzed water (EW) has emerged as a promising solution for sanitizing and cleaning beef. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the physicochemical and sensory qualities of beef that had been treated with EW. In this experiment, there were three replications with a factorial Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Factor-A: consisted of six (06) treatments concentrations: T0 = Control sample (fresh water); T = 10 ppm electrolyzed water; T2 = 20 ppm electrolyzed water; T3 = 30 ppm electrolyzed water; T4 = 40 ppm electrolyzed water; T5 = 50 ppm electrolyzed water; Factor-B: consisted of three (03) durations: TM = 5 minutes; TM2 = 10 minutes; TM3 = 15 minutes. The findings showed that the moisture content (%), crude protein (%), ether extract (%) and ash content (%) of beef samples ranged from 72.31 ± 0.29 to 73.93 ± 0.30, 19.95 ± 0.16 to 21.91 ± 0.19, 4.28 ± 0.09 to 5.06 ± 0.09, 1.29 ± 0.09 to 1.76 ± 0.07 respectively. Beef's proximate composition (moisture, crude protein, ether extract, dry matter, and ash) and physical analyses (cookingyield, cooking loss, and pH) were not significantly affected by the EW treatments (p > 0.05). However, drip loss and beef color showed substantial significant effects (p < 0.05). Findings suggest that EW treatments with concentration up to 50 ppm can effectively decontaminate beef while maintaining its nutritional and sensory properties.
For citation: Biswas, G., Islam, S., Rahman, S.M.M., Al Mamun, S.M.A. (2024). Effect of electrolyzed water on physico-chemical and sensory qualities of beef. Theory and Practice of Meat Processing, 9(2), 180-187. https://doi.org/10.21323/2414-438X-2024-9-2-180-187
Introduction
Red meat and poultry stand out as the primary sources of high-quality protein in the human diet. In addition, meat products are the concentrated sources of vitamins of B group, notably vitamin B12, which is lacking in plant meals, and the meat is a reasonably rich source of iron that is easily absorbed. Pork makes about 40% of the world's meat consumption, with beef and poultry coming in close behind at roughly 25% and 30%, respectively [1].
Fresh beef is easily contaminated by naturally occurring microorganisms from a variety of sources during processing of all edible carcass tissues [2]. This might lead to a decrease in the quality and shelf life of beef during its storage, and increase health risks. Therefore, it is necessary to develop an effective preservation method that can prolong the shelf life of fresh beef during its storage. Recently, various sanitizing processes have been adopted to improve the safety and quality of fresh meat and meat products before refrigeration [3,4]. The most widely used chemical decontaminants in the meat and poultry industries are organic acid solutions [5,6]. While chlorine rinses are generally used during processing of poultry for pathogens reduction [7], other various processes have been proposed as alternatives to eliminate or substan-
tially decrease bacterial population on poultry carcasses. However, most of these processes are not completely acceptable due to the chemical residues, discoloration of chicken carcasses, high costs, or limited effectiveness. Chlorine solution was usually used for fresh meat refrigeration. But the excessive use of chlorine (Cl2) can lead to several environmental problems [8]. Furthermore, the consumers are concerned about the use of these chemicals because they may potentially provide undesirable effects on human health. Therefore, most studies on the decontamination of fresh meat or vegetables have focused on sanitizing agent alternative to chlorine [9,10]. Electrolyzed water with a pH of 5.0-6.5 is well recognized as an alternative sanitizer, containing a high concentration of hypochlorous acid [11]. It is produced by the electrolysis of diluted salt (sodium chloride) solution. Compared to conventional disinfectants, the use of EW offers a number of benefits, including cost effectiveness, simplicity of application, efficient disinfection, on-the-spot production, and environmental and human safety. A few studies on electrolyzed water for decontamination and shelf life extension of beef are currently being carried out [2]. The study mostly focused on the reduction of microbial population and did not consider physicochemical and sensory
Copyright © 2024, Biswas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/), allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.
properties of beef. Tango et al. [2] evaluated the changes in color, odor and texture of the EW-treated fresh beef compared to the control sample of beef by the sensory index (SI) and pH. Rahman et al. [12] showed that there was no adverse effect of slightly acidic electrolyzed water (pH 5-6.5) on the poultry meat. Notably, the use of EW on raw meat in Bangladesh has never previously been the subject of a above-specified research.
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of elec-trolyzed water on physicochemical (moisture, crude protein, ether extract, ash, pH, drip loss, cooking loss), and sensory qualities of fresh beef.
Materials and methods
Collection of raw materials
Beef sample was obtained from a retail meat shop in Gollamari market, Khulna, Bangladesh. The sample was placed in a sterile polythene bag and promptly transported to the laboratory for analysis within one hour.
Experimental design
All of the beef samples were measured and divided into five experimental groups and one control group. The studies were conducted in a factorial RCBD with three replications. Factor-A: consisted of six (06) treatments concentrations: T0 = Control sample (fresh water); T = 10 ppm electrolyzed water; T2 = 20 ppm electrolyzed water; T3 = 30 ppm electrolyzed water; T4 = 40 ppm electrolyzed water; T5 = 50 ppm electrolyzed water; Factor-B: consisted of three (03) durations: TMj = 5 minutes; TM2 = 10 minutes; TM3 = 15 minutes. The effect of EW on the nutritional quality (proximate analysis, pH, drip loss, cooking yield, cooking loss and sensory analysis) of beef meat was studied.
Preparation of electrolyzed water (EW) solution
Electrolyzed water with pH of 2.3, available chlorine concentration (ACC) of 70ppm, and oxidation reduction potential (ORP) of 1100 mV was used for the preparation of EW (electrolyzed water) solution of varying concentrations like 10 ppm, 20 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppm and 50 ppm. Electrolyzed water was diluted with distilled water of varying volume and the pH, ORP and ACC of each solution was measured. The pH and ORP were measured using a dual scale pH/ORP meter C0N60 (Trans-Wiggens, Singapore). The ACC was determined using a digital chlorine test system RC-2Z (Kasahara Chemical Instruments Co., Saitama, Japan). The final pH of the solution was 5.8, 5.3 5.0, 4.2, 3.5 for 10 ppm, 20 ppm, 30 ppm, 40 ppm and 50ppm of EW solution respectively.
Determination of proximate composition
Using the method of [13], the proximate composition of beef was evaluated in terms of moisture, crude protein, ether extract, dry matter, and ash content.
Moisture content
Drying oven (SH Scientific, Korea) was used to determine the moisture content. For this, 50 g of ground meat samples from each treatment concentration mode were oven dried at 75 °C for 24 hours till a constant weight was obtained and thus calculated:
(W, - W,)
Moisture (%) =-1-- x 100
W,
W,
Dry matter (%) = —- x 100 W
(1) (2)
Where,
W = Initial weight of sample (g);
W2 = Final weight of sample (g).
Crude protein
Semiautomatic digestion and distillation unit (VELP Scientifica, Italy) was used to determine the crude protein of meat samples by Kjedahl method. The actual crude protein values of the meat samples were obtained by converting nitrogen content of meat with constant 6.25.
Crude protein (%) = (6.25 x N%)
(3)
Ether extracts (Fat)
Semiautomatic solvent extractor (VELP Scientifica, Italy) was used to determine the ether extracts by Soxhlet method.
W2
Ether extract (%) = —- x 100 W
(4)
Where,
W = Weight of sample (g); W2 = Weight of fat (g).
Ash content
Ash content was determined by igniting 3g of ground meat samples in a muffle furnace SH-FU-5MGE (SH Scientific, Korea) at 600 °C for 5 hours until ashes were formed.
W„
W
x 100
(5)
Where,
W1 = Weight of sample (g);
W2 = Weight of ash (g).
Measurement of pH
The pH was determined with a digital pH-meter (Seven Easy pH, Mettler-Toledo GmbH, Switzerland). For this, the beef sample was homogenized with a Polytron blender (Brinkman Instrument, New York) at 1000 rpm for 30 seconds. A 10 g of homogenized sample was weighed into a beaker along with 50ml of distilled water. Next, the sample was added to 5 different beakers containing 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 ppm EW solution. A control experiment was also conducted without the addition of EW solution. A stir bar was placed in the homogenized solution and pH was measured while stirring.
Determination of cooking yield and cooking loss
The cooking loss was calculated as the percentage difference between the weights before and after cooking, as described in the reference [14]. Initially, fresh samples were sliced and weighed to obtain their initial weight and then cooked using a dry heat method. Briefly, the meat was placed on a water bath with a beaker containing the meat extending above the water surface. Traditional cooking times were adhered to determining cooking loss and cooking yield. It is important to note that it took 20 minutes to reach a temperature of 100 °C. Subsequently, the meat was removed from the beaker, dried, and weighed. Cooking loss was measured in duplicate. Following this, the meat sample was cooked for an additional 10 minutes at 100 °C (totaling 30 minutes), surface dried, and weighed. Finally, the meat sample was cooked for another 10 minutes at 100 °C (totaling 40 minutes, the traditional cooking time for beef in Bangladesh), surface dried, and weighed again. Cooking loss was then determined in duplicate.
Cooking loss (%) = ■
Cooking yield (%) =
W - W„
(W)
(W2) (W)
- x 100
- x 100
(6)
(7)
Where
Weight of sample before cooking = W1;
Weight of sample after cooking = W2.
Determination of drip loss
Drip loss was determined by the standard bag method [15]. Approximately 40 g of meat sample was utilized for assessing drip loss. The sample was then ensconced in netting and suspended within an inflated bag to prevent contact with the bag, or placed in a container on a supporting mesh, and sealed securely. Following a chilling period of 24 hours, the samples were reweighed. The same samples were used for subsequent drip loss measurements for up to 3 days, with the initial weight serving as the reference point per each experimental trial. When measured, samples were promptly removed from the containers, gently blotted dry, and then weighed.
Drip loss (%) =
Wj - W„
7W)~
x 100
(8)
Where
Weight of sample before thawing = W1 Weight of sample after thawing = W2
Sensory evaluation
The sensory evaluation study was conducted following the procedures [16]. Six panelists participated in the sensory evaluation which was carried out at Animal Husbandry Laboratory of Agrotechnology Discipline, Khulna University, Bangladesh. In order to minimize bias, three samples were coded before being evaluated by a sensory
panel based on how similar the samples were in terms of appearance, texture, scent, and general acceptability. Panelists were served in their separate locations. A nine-point hedonic scale was used, with nine being the lowest score (dislike extremely) and one representing the greatest score (like extremely).
Color analysis
For color analysis of the samples, a CM (Minolta Chro-mometer CR-400, Osaka, Japan) with a 1 cm aperture, illuminant C and a2 viewing angle was used. A white calibration plate was used to calibrate the device prior to data collection. Evaluations were made of lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*). Readings were obtained close to each core's center. Color coordinates (L*, a* and b*) were observed on the surface exposed by cutting. Coordinate a* ranged from red (+a*) to green (-a*) and coordinate b* from yellow (+b*) to blue (-b*) [17]. Three readings of L*, a*, b*values were obtained at different sites.
Statistical analysis
Data entry was conducted using Microsoft Excel, and subsequent analysis was performed using Statistix-10 software. The impact of electrolyzed water on the physi-cochemical and sensory qualities of beef was assessed through analysis of variance. The least significant difference (LSD) test was used to compare treatment means in cases where significant differences were identified, with p < 0.001 being considered statistically significant.
Results and discussion
Proximate composition of beef meat
The findings of the proximate composition are summarized in the Table 1. Moisture content gradually increased along with the increase of concentration of EW, whereas dry matter content, crude protein, ether extract and ash content gradually decreased. Crude protein content, ether extract and ash content were negatively correlated with moisture content [18]. Fat and moisture content are inversely proportional [19], as was observed in this study as well. There was no significant (NS) difference(p > 0.05) among the treatments.
Drip loss and pH
The drip loss of beef samples was evaluated in 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours, corresponding to day 1, day 2, and day 3, respectively. The results are listed in the Table 2. Drip loss is a critical aspect in the meat industry, particularly from a financial standpoint [20]. Generally, beef with high drip loss has an unattractive appearance. It also decreases meat tenderness and juiciness. Drip loss (%) was increased along with advancement of storage time. It was found that drip loss gradually decreased with the increase of concentration of EW. The treatments resulted in a significantly different drip loss of meat (p < 0.001).
Table 1. Proximate composition of beef treated with electrolyzed water
Treatment combination mode Moisture (%) Dry matter (%) Crude protein (%) Ether extract (%) Ash (%)
ToxTMi 72.31 ± 0.29 27.68 ± 0.29 21.91 ± 0.19 4.55 ± 0.16 1.48 ± 0.16
ToxTM2 T \^T1V/T 72.68 ± 0.28 27.32 ± 0.28 17 CO i A 1A 21.90 ± 0.31 OI 7/1 _i_ A 1 is. 4.65 ± 0.17 A Q/C J- A 1 Q 1.29 ± 0.09 1 *70 _i_ A 17
ToxTM3 T1xTM1 /2.42 ± 0.30 73.17 ± 0.36 '7'") Û£ J- A "XIZ 27.58 ± 0.30 26.82 ± 0.36 17 A/l J- A 1C 21.74 ± 0.16 20.33 ± 0.34 OA TA J- A 1C 4.86 ± 0.18 5.06 ± 0.09 A 71 ll 1.72 ± 0.17 1.55 ± 0.08 1 /1Q -L A 17
T1XTM2 T1xTM3 T wTAi 72.96 ± 0.35 72.90 ± 0.36 71 11 i ft 1ft 27.04 ± 0.35 27.11 ± 0.36 '»£ Qft _1_ ft in 20.70 ± 0.35 20.31 ± 0.27 '»n At i n 17 4.72 ± 0.11 5.0 ± 0.19 A ¿(1 _l ft 1C 1.49 ± 0.17 1.76 ± 0.07 1 A A _L ft nO
T2xTM1 T2XTM2 T wTAi 7 3.11 ± 0.30 73.23 ± 0.32 71 ftr 1 n 26.89 ± 0.30 26.77 ± 0.32 '»£ ft A _L n 1C. 20.41 ± 0.27 20.19 ± 0.19 '»n ri in 1/- 4.69 ± 0.25 4.60 ± 0.10 A C A _L ft 11 1.44 ± 0.08 1.47 ± 0.03 1 £ft _L ft 1 A
T2xTM3 T3xTM1 T3XTM1 73.05 ± 0.36 73.51 ± 0.30 73.63 ± 0.32 26.94 ± 0.36 26.49 ± 0.30 26.37 ± 0.32 20.52 ± 0.16 20.23 ± 0.27 20.30 ± 0.18 4.54 ± 0.12 4.51 ± 0.16 4.33 ± 0.14 1.60 ± 0.14 1.48 ± 0.10 1.36 ± 0.13
3 2 T3xTM3 73.35 ± 0.35 71 ¿A _i_ A 2A 26.65 ± 0.35 1/: in _i_ A 1A 20.29 ± 0.19 OA 0/£ J- A 1 A 4.46 ± 0.09 A Î7 _i_ A 1 A 1.56 ± 0.08 1 1C J- A A/l
T ,x 1M, 4 1 T4XTM2 T wTft/T 73.60 ± 0.30 73.69 ± 0.31 71 /11 -L A 1C 26.39 ± 0.30 26.30 ± 0.31 1/: CQ i A ic 20.26 ± 0.14 20.11 ± 0.15 OA AO J- A 1 is. 4.37 ± 0.14 4.27 ± 0.09 A "X A -I- A A/£ 1.35 ± 0.04 1.49 ± 0.10 1 AIZ J- A (\A
l4xTM3 T5xTM1 73.42 ± 0.35 73.84 ± 0.30 71 oi _i_ m 26.58 ± 0.35 26.16 ± 0.30 •■> c o/; _i_ n in 20.02 ± 0.16 19.95 ± 0.16 on m id ic 4.34 ± 0.06 4.29 ± 0.10 A 1Q _i_ ft ftû 1.45 ± 0.04 1.40 ± 0.04 1 An -L ft ftC
T5xlM2 T5xTM3 73.93 ± 0.30 73.72 ± 0.35 25.96 ± 0.30 26.28 ± 0.35 20.02 ± 0.15 19.98 ± 0.15 4.28 ± 0.09 4.31 ± 0.11 1.40 ± 0.05 1.36 ± 0.06
Significant Level NS NS NS NS NS
The pH of samples was analyzed within 24 hours, and the findings are presented in the Table 2. pH levels ranged from 5.42 to 6.11. As the concentration of EW increased, there was a gradual decrease in pH. However, no significant difference (p > 0.05) in pH was observed among the treatments.
Table 2. Drip loss and pH of the beef treated with electrolyzed water
Treatment combination mode pH Drip loss-day 1 (%) Drip loss-day 2 (%) Drip loss-day 3 (%)
VTM1 6.11 ± 0.007a 3.31 ± 0.05a 3.77 ± 0.05a 4.92 ± 0.02a
VTM2 6.10 ± 0.007a 3.29 ± 0.08a 3.54 ± 0.009b 4.76 ± 0.02b
T0xTM3 6.10 ± 0.006a 3.28 ± 0.03a 3.48 ± 0.007c 4.67 ± 0.06c
T1xTM1 5.84 ± 0.003b 3.18 ± 0.02b 3.44 ± 0.003cd 4.13 ± 0.03d
T1XTM2 5.80 ± 0.007c 3.14 ± 0.006bc 3.41 ± 0.04d 3.91 ± 0.02e
T1XTM3 5.75 ± 0.01d 3.10 ± 0.04cd 3.40 ± 0.02d 3.85 ± 0.04f
T2XTM1 5.72 ± 0.007e 3.06 ± 0.02d 3.23 ± 0.009e 3.77 ± 0.06«
T2XTM2 5.69 ± 0.006f 3.05 ± 0.03de 3.16 ± 0.03f 3.70 ± 0.03hi
T2xTM3 5.69 ± 0.009f 3.06 ± 0.05d 3.11 ± 0.003f 3.69 ± 0.006hi
T3xTM1 5.66 ± 0.009« 2.98 ± 0.04ef 3.11 ± 0.009f 3.67 ± 0.006i
T3xTM2 5.64 ± 0.003h 2.90 ± 0.06f« 3.01 ± 0.007« 3.74 ± 0.05«h
T3xTM3 5.63 ± 0.007h 2.89 ± 0.01« 3.03 ± 0.02« 3.70 ± 0.06hi
T4XTM1 5.60 ± 0.003i 2.86 ± 0.07« 2.90 ± 0.01hi 3.11 ± 0.01'
T4XTM2 5.58 ± 0.009i 2.88 ± 0.09« 2.94 ± 0.01h 3.05 ± 0.05k
T4XTM3 5.56 ± 0.007' 2.84 ± 0.04« 2.85 ± 0.03i 2.98 ± 0.006l
T5XTM1 5.56 ± 0.003' 2.47 ± 0.006h 2.51 ± 0.02' 2.63 ± 0.006m
T5xTM2 5.53 ± 0.007k 2.31 ± 0.02i 2.43 ± 0.03k 2.55 ± 0.02n
T5xTM3 5.52 ± 0.006k 2.27 ± 0.05i 2.32 ± 0.009l 2.49 ± 0.006o
Significant *** * level
Means with different superscripts within ly; *** = Highly significant (p < 0.001), * =
same column differ significant-Significant (p < 0.05).
Cooking loss and cooking yield
The Table 3 presents the cooking yield and cooking loss of beef treated with varying concentrations of electrolyzed water. Cooking loss, measured at 20 minutes, 30 minutes, and 40 minutes, represents the reduction in weight of beef during cooking [21]. Due to the possibility of moisture loss and soluble nutrients loss, this parameter is crucial for the meat processing sector [22]. The percentage of cooking loss varied from 33.86% to 35.82% [14]. The cooking loss that we observed in our results, which varied between 38.70% and 47.51%, was slightly greater than what was previously reported [14]. Cooking loss (%) decreased gradually with the increase of concentration of EW but yet increased along with advancement of cooking time. Meat's pH value has a significant impact on cooking loss; if the meat's pH is higher or lower than its isoelectric point (5.0-5.1), the amount of cooking loss will be decreased [23]. Elevated cooking temperatures may be linked to increased cooking loss because they denaturize collagen and actin protein (over 60 ° C), which shrinks muscle fibers parallel to their axis and extracts water from the space between them [24]. No significant (NS) difference was observed among the treatments.
Sensory evaluation
Table 4 summarizes the results of the tasting panelists' evaluation of the beef's appearance, aroma and texture among other quality criteria. The highest values were found in the trial T2 x TM2 for appearance and aroma. Beef samples treated with 20 ppm EW solution was chosen as the most desirable appearance and aroma. As the addition of 50 ppm EW solution treated with meat, appearance got worse but texture improved. No significant difference (NS) was observed among the treatments in case of appearance, aroma and texture. The findings of our study showed that the meat
***
Table 3. Cooking loss and cooking yield of beef treated with electrolyzed water
Treatment combination mode Cooking loss-20 minutes (%) Cooking yield-20 minutes (%) Cooking loss-30 minutes (%) Cooking yield-30 minutes (%) Cooking loss-40 minutes (%) Cooking yield-40 minutes (%)
T0xTMl 43.27 ± 0.10 56.73 ± 0.10 45.79 ± 0.15 54.21 ± 0.15 47.51 ± 0.12 52.48 ± 0.12
VTM2 43.10 ± 0.01 A X A7 J- A A6. 56.89 ± 0.01 O'") J- A 45.70 ± 0.16 AC J- O 1 1 54.54 ± 0.16 CA lûxA 11 47.49 ± 0.11 /17 /IQ J- A 1 A 52.50 ± 0.11 CI CI J- A 1 A
T0XlM3 TJXTMJ T vl\l 43.07 ± 0.06 42.73 ± 0.19 AO 71 A IO 56.92 ± 0.06 57.26 ± 0.19 C7 OQ + n 10 45.60 ± 0.11 43.91 ± 0.03 AX 7/1 4-ft K 54.19 ± 0.11 56.08 ± 0.03 C/Z O C A 1 C 47.48 ± 0.10 45.12 ± 0.10 AC 1A -1- A IQ 52.52 ± 0.10 54.88 ± 0.10 CA QA -1- A IQ
TjXTM3 T \/TlV/T 42./1 ± 0.18 42.72 ± 0.20 A 1 CO _j_ A 17 57.28 ± 0.18 57.28 ± 0.20 CO Af\ J.A 17 43.74 ± 0.15 43.68 ± 0.08 AI ¿7 _i_ O 1 is. 56.25 ± 0.15 56.32 ± 0.08 C7 XI J- A 1 is. 45.20 ± 0.28 45.03 ± 0.14 A A A/I XA 1 A 54.80 ± 0.28 54.96 ± 0.14 CC OiC J- A 1 A
T2XTM1 T2XTM2 T s/TlVT 41.59 ± 0.17 41.59 ± 0.14 A 1 CA ±n n 58.40 ± 0.17 58.40 ± 0.14 CO AC xA n 42.67 ± 0.16 42.55 ± 0.15 AO CO xA 11 57.32 ± 0.16 57.44 ± 0.15 C7 A 7 -1- A 11 44.04 ± 0.14 44.03 ± 0.16 AX Q1 -l-A 55.96 ± 0.14 55.99 ± 0.16 r¿ AO XA 1Í
T2 M3 T3XTMJ 41.54 ± 0.12 40.89 ± 0.02 AC\ 70 J- A (\A 58.45 ± 0.12 59.11 ± 0.02 CO l7xft (\A 42.52 ± 0.12 42.34 ± 0.04 AI I/I x A AC 57.47 ± 0.12 57.62 ± 0.04 C7 J- A AC 43.91 ± 0.16 43.18 ± 0.16 AX lAxA 1 A 56.09 ± 0.16 56.81 ± 0.16 C¿ QO J- A 1 A
T3XTM2 T3XTM3 40.79 ± 0.04 40.69 ± 0.08 AC\ It J.ft 1:2 59.17 ± 0.04 59.31 ± 0.08 CO QQ xA 11 42.34 ± 0.05 42.19 ± 0.03 AO AC J- O A7 57.66 ± 0.05 57.74 ± 0.03 C7 OC J- A A7 43.10 ± 0.14 43.0 ± 0.10 AO ÛÎ J- A 1 1 56.89 ± 0.14 56.99 ± 0.10 C7 A¿ J- A 1 1
T ,X IM, 4 1 T4XTM2 T wTft/T 40.11 ± 0.13 40.09 ± 0.10 Aí\ ni a.n f\r 59.88 ± 0.13 59.90 ± 0.10 CO ÛÛ -L ft ftC 42.05 ± 0.07 41.91 ± 0.14 AI Q} J.H 57.95 ± 0.07 58.09 ± 0.14 42.93 ± 0.11 42.90 ± 0.11 Qft xf\ in 57.06 ± 0.11 57.09 ± 0.11 C7 1 O -1- ft 1ft
14XTM3 T5XTMJ T5XTM2 40.01 ± 0.05 38.97 ± 0.07 38.77 ± 0.13 59.99 ± 0.05 61.02 ± 0.07 61.22 ± 0.13 41.83 ± 0.04 40.22 ± 0.03 40.11 ± 0.03 58.17 ± 0.04 59.78 ± 0.03 59.88 ± 0.03 42.80 ± 0.10 41.71 ± 0.09 41.69 ± 0.10 57.19 ± 0.10 58.28 ± 0.09 58.31 ± 0.10
T5XTM3 38.70 ± 0.09 61.29 ± 0.09 40.10 ± 0.03 59.60 ± 0.03 41.55 ± 0.05 58.45 ± 0.05
Significant Level
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
treated with EW had better sensory score than the untreated sample. Rahman et al. [1] reported that EW treated samples had better sensory scores than the untreated samples, as observed in this study as well. These results indicate that EW treatment can improve sensory qualities and extend shelf life of meat during storage at 5 °C. EWs contained OH and HOCl that have strong antimicrobial activity and antioxidant effect. Furthermore, residual NaCl content of EW provides meat samples with freshness color and keeps meat aroma as well.
Color analysis
The Table 5 summarizes the findings of the evaluation of the color of beef based on numerous flame qualities, including brightness, redness, and yellowness of beef treated with varying quantities of electrolyzed water. Consumer tastes and the quality of beef products are significantly influenced by beef color. Customers' opinions of the quality of meat are significantly influenced by the redness of the beef [25]. Numerous factors, such as the type of animal,
Table 4. Sensory evaluation of beef treated with electrolyzed Table 5. Color analysis of beef treated with electrolyzed water
water Treatment
Treatment combination Lightness (L*) Redness (a*) Yellowness (b*)
combination Appearance Aroma Texture mode
mode ToXTMi 42.89 ± 0.16n 11.93 ± 0.18p 9.70 ± 0.11a
ToxTMi ToxTM2
V™,
T1xTM1
T1XTM2
T1xTM3
T2XTM1 T2XTM2 T2XTM3
T3xTM1
T3XTM2
T3xTM3
T4XTM1 T4XTM2 T4XTM3
T5xTM1
T5xTM2
T5xTM3
Significant
Level
2.67 ± 0.006
2.66 ± 0.009
2.67 ± 0.007 2.67 ± 0.02 2.67 ± 0.009 2.65 ± 0.03
3.64 ± 0.03 3.67 ± 0.03
3.65 ± 0.03 2.3 ± 0.007 2.33 ± 0.007 2.33 ± 0.03
2.66 ± 0.007
2.65 ± 0.007
2.66 ± 0.007
3.31 ± 0.009
3.32 ± 0.007 3.30 ± 0.09
NS
2.65 ± 0.007 2.67 ± 0.007 2.64 ± 0.01
3.31 ± 0.03 3.33 ± 0.02 3.33 ± 0.02
4.66 ± 0.03
4.67 ± 0.01 4.64 ± 0.02 4.33 ± 0.01 4.33 ± 0.009 4.30 ± 0.01 4.33 ± 0.01
4.32 ± 0.009 4.32 ± 0.01 4.66 ± 0.03 4.64 ± 0.009 4.64 ± 0.01
NS
2.33 ± 0.01 2.33 ± 0.02 2.33 ± 0.02
2.0 ± 0.04 2.02 ± 0.02
2.01 ± 0.02 3.33 ± 0.01
3.32 ± 0.02
3.33 ± 0.03 4.29 ± 0.04
4.31 ± 0.01
4.32 ± 0.007
4.33 ± 0.01 4.33 ± 0.02 4.33 ± 0.01
4.65 ± 0.009
4.66 ± 0.03 4.63 ± 0.009
NS
T0XTM2 43.11 ± 0.08m AX OX _l_ A A*7m 12.30 ± 0.06o 1 O IO _i_ A A'Tno 9.67 ± 0.03a O CI _i_ A lb
T0XTM3 TjXTMj T \/TlV/T 43.23 ± 0.07 43.98 ± 0.061 Al OÎ-L ft tnl 12.39 ± 0.07 13.11 ± 0.06m n 9.51 ± 0.1 8.52 ± 0.07c Q C7 _i_ ft ftOc
T1XTM2 TjXTM3 43.83 ± 0.20 44.06 ± 0.22k 12.47 ± 0.12 13.39 ± 0.181 8.57 ± 0.02 8.44 ± 0.03d
T2xTMt 45.01 ± 0.21' 14.18 ± 0.06k 7.71 ± 0.02f
T2XTM2 45.09 ± 0.16' 15.29 ± 0.18i 7.79 ± 0.18e
T2XTM3 45.35 ± 0.09' 15.19 ± 0.15' 7.63 ± 0.10g
T3XTMJ 46.69 ± 0.19« J/T CO xA 1 ylh 16.32 ± 0.088 h 6.28 ± 0.05' £ ¿O _i_ A AOh
T3XTM2 T3XTM3 T v/TM 46.52 ± 0.14 46.97 ± 0.07f An 11 j.n lie 16.12 ± 0.17 16.83 ± 0.13f 6.62 ± 0.09 6.51 ± 0.15 i C A C _L ft 1 ll
T .X IM, 4 1 T4XTM,, T v/TM 47.32 ± 0.11 47.75 ± 0.14d AH OC _L ft 11c 17.75 ± 0.11 18.08 ± 0.08d c 5.45 ± 0.13 5.71 ± 0.12k c a A _L ft nl
T4XTM3 T5XTMJ 47.96 ± 0.11 49.02 ± 0.11b 18.39 ± 0.12 19.25 ± 0.06b 5.44 ± 0.12 4.35 ± 0.01n
T5XTM2 49.16 ± 0.16b 19.43 ± 0.15a 4.52 ± 0.10m
T5XTM3 49.42 ± 0.15a 19.51 ± 0.09a 4.59 ± 0.16m
Significant *** ***
Level
Means with different superscripts within same column differ significantly; *** = Highly significant (p < 0.001).
age at slaughter, muscle position anatomically, fat level, and cooking method, can affect the color of beef [26].
There was a highly significant difference in color attributes such as lightness (p < 0.001), redness (p < 0.001) and yellowness (p < 0.001) among the treatments.
Correlation matrix of selected nutritional
properties of beef
The results of Pearson's correlation coefficients in correlation analysis among selected physical and nutritional properties of beef are presented in the Table 6. There was nonsignificant (NS) correlation among the parameters. We found nonsignificant positive correlation between dry matter and crude protein (r = 0.8669); dry matter and ether extract (r = 0.6609); crude protein and ether extract (r = 0.3422); dry matter and ash (r = 0.5230); crude protein and ash (r = 0.1904); ether extract and ash (0.6763). We also found nonsignificant negative correlation between moisture and dry matter (r = -0.9448); moisture and crude protein (r = -0.8258); moisture and ether extract (r = -0.6845); moisture and ash (r = -0.4744)
Table 6. Pearson's correlation coefficients among selected nutritional properties of beef
Parameters 1 2 3 4
1. Moisture
2. Dry matter -0.9448NS
3. Crude protein -0.8258NS 0.8669NS
4. Ether extract -0.6845NS 0.6609NS 0.3422NS
5. Ash
-0.4744N
0.5230N
0.1904N
0.6763N
Correlation matrix of selected physical properties of beef
The results of Pearson's correlation coefficients correlation analysis among selected physical and nutritional properties of beef are presented in the Table 7. There was nonsignificant (NS) correlation among the parameters. We found nonsignificant positive correlation between pH and drip loss after 24 hours (r = 0.7984); pH and drip loss after 48 hours (r = 0.8600); pH and drip
loss after 72 hours (r = 0.9326); pH and cooking loss after 20 minutes (r = 0.8774); pH and cooking loss after 30 minutes (r = 0.9547); pH and cooking loss after 40 minutes (r = 0.9814) drip loss after 24 hours and drip loss after 48 hours (r = 0.9735); drip loss after 24 hours and drip loss after 72 hours (r = 0.9213); drip loss after 24 hours and cooking loss after 20 minutes (r = 0.9462); drip loss after 48 hours and cooking loss after 20 minutes (r = 0.9783); drip loss after 72 hours and cooking loss after 20 minutes (r = 0.9481); drip loss after 48 hours and cooking loss after 30 minutes (r = 0.9558); cooking loss after 20 minutes and cooking loss after 30 minutes (r = 0.9531); cooking loss after 30 minutes and cooking loss after 40 minutes (r = 0.9862).
Conclusion
The experiment was aimed to investigate the effect of electrolyzed water on the nutritional composition and sensory characteristics of beef. Electrolyzed water, specifically electrolytically generated hypochlorous acid, has been used as an effective sterilizing agent for raw meat for several decades. It was imperative to determine an acceptable level of electrolyzed water concentration and duration of exposure that would not compromise the nutritional quality of the meat. The study comprehensively analyzed physi-cochemical parameters such as proximate analysis, pH, drip loss, cooking yield, and cooking loss, as well as sensory attributes including appearance, aroma, texture, and color changes. The treatment with electrolyzed water did not induce significant changes in the proximate composition, pH, or cooking characteristics of the beef samples. However, a concentration of up to 50 ppm of electrolyzed water can be used for beef preservation to achieve desirable results, including enhanced nutritional and textural properties, as well as increased shelf life. The introduction of this practice offers the potential to reduce contamination and extend shelf life without compromising the sensory properties of the meat. These findings suggest that elec-trolyzed water can serve as a promising sanitizer for beef, thus contributing to improved food safety and consumers' confidence in meat products quality.
Table 7. Pearson correlation coefficients among selected physical properties of beef
Parameters 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. pH
2. Drip loss after 24 h 0.7984NS
3. Drip loss after 48 h 0.8600NS 0.9735NS
4. Drip loss after 72 h 0.9326NS 0.9213NS 0.9545NS
5. Cooking loss after 20 minutes 0.8774NS 0.9462NS 0.9783NS 0.9481NS
6. Cooking loss after 30 minutes 0.9547NS 0.9240NS 0.9558NS 0.9695NS 0.9531NS
7. Cooking loss after 40 minutes 0.9814NS 0.8739NS 0.9207NS 0.9492NS 0.9379NS 0.9862NS
REFERENCES
1. Rahman, S.M.E., Khan, I., Oh, D.H. (2016). Electrolyzed Water as a Novel Sanitizer in the Food Industry: Current Trends and Future Perspectives. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 15(3), 471-490. https://doi. org/10.1111/1541-4337.12200
2. Tango, C.N., Mansur, A.R., Kim, G.H., Oh, D.-H (2014). Syn-ergetic effect of combined fumaric acid andslightly acidic electrolysed water on the inactivation of food-borne pathogens and extending the shelf life of fresh beef. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 117(6), 1709-1720. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jam.12658
3. Awad, T.S., Moharram, H.A., Shaltout, O.E., Asker, D., Youssef, M.M. (2012). Applications of ultrasound in analysis, processing and quality control of food: A review. Food Research International, 48(2), 410-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodres.2012.05.004
4. Guan, W.Q., Fan, X.T. (2010). Combination of sodium chlorite and calcium propionate reduces enzymatic browning and microbial population of fresh-cut "Granny Smith" apples. Journal of Food Science, 75(2), M72-M77. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01470.x
5. Anang, D.M., Rusul, G., Bakar, J., Ling, F.H. (2007). Effects of lactic acid and lauricidin on the survival of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enteritidis and Escherichia coli O157: H7 in chicken breast stored at 4 °C. Food Control, 18(8), 961-969. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.05.015
6. Cosansu, S., Ayhan, K. (2010). Effects of lactic and acetic acid treatments on Campylobacter jejuni inoculated onto chicken leg and breast meat during storage at 4 °C and -18 °C for color analysis of the samples, a CM (Minolta Chromome-ter CR-400, Osaka, Japan) with a 1 cm aperture, illuminant C and a2viewing angle was used.. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 34(s1), 98-113. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j.1745-4549.2008.00320.x
7. James, W.O., Brewer, R.L., Prucha, J.C., Williams, W.O., Christensen, W.A., Thaler, A.M., Hogue, A.T. (1992). Effects of chlorination of chill water on the bacteriologic profile of raw chicken carcasses and giblets. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 200(1), 60-63.
8. Inatsu, Y., Bari, M.L., Kawasaki, S., Isshiki, K., Kawamoto, S. (2005). Efficacy of acidified sodium chlorite treatments in reducing Escherichiacoli O157: H7 on Chinese cabbage. Journal of Food Protection, 68(2), 251-255. https://doi. org/10.4315/0362-028X-68.2.251
9. Gil, M.I., Selma, M.V., Lopez-Galvez, F., Allende, A. (2009). Fresh-cut product sanitation and wash water disinfection: Problems and solutions. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 134(1-2), 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmi-cro.2009.05.021
10. Mansur, A. R., Oh, D. H. (2015). Combined effects of ther-mosonication and slightly acidic electrolyzed water on the microbial quality and shelf life extension of fresh-cut kale during refrigeration storage. Food Microbiology, 51, 154-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j-.fm.2015.05.008
11. Zang, Y. T., Li, B. M., Bing, S., Cao, W. (2015). Modeling disinfection of plastic poultry transport cages inoculated with Salmonella enteritis by slightly acidic electrolyzed water using response surface methodology. Poultry science, 94(9), 2059-2065. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev188
12. Rahman, S.M.E., Park, J., Song, K.B., Al-Harbi, N.A., Deog-Hwan Oh, D-H. (2012). Effects of Slightly Acidic Low Con-
centration Electrolyzed Water on Microbiological, Physi-cochemical, and Sensory Quality of Fresh Chicken Breast Meat. Journal of Food Science, 71(1), M35- M41. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02454.x
13. AOAC. (2000) Official methods of analysis. 17th edition, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC, USA
14. Gajaweera. C., Chung, K.Y., Lee, S.H., Wijayananda, H.I., Kwon, E.G., Kim, H.J., Cho, S.H., Lee, S.H. (2020). Assessment of carcass and meat quality of longissimus thoracis and semimembranosus muscles of Hanwoo with Korean beef grading standards. Meat Science, 160, Article 107944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107944
15. Honikel, K.O. (1998). Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat. Meat Science, 49(4), 447457. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00034-5
16. Sukanya, W.S., O'Mahony, M. (2015). The 9-point hedonic scale and hedonic ranking in food science: Some reappraisals and alternatives. Journal of the Science of Food and Agricu-ture, 95(11), 2167-2178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6993
17. Hunterlab. (1996). Applications note: CIE L* a* b* color scale (Vol. 7). Virginia: Hunterlab
18. Seong, P.N., Park, K.M., Kang, G.H., Cho, S.H., Park, B.Y., Van Ba H. (2015). The impact of ripening time on technological quality traits, chemical change and sensory characteristics of dry-cured loin. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 28(5), 677-685. https://doi.org/10.5713/ ajas.14.0789
19. Kim, C.J., Lee, E.S. (2003). Effects of quality grade on the chemical, physical and sensory characteristics of Hanwoo (Korean native cattle) beef. Meat Science, 63(3), 397-405. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00099-2
20. Gambuteanu, C., Borda, D., Alexu, P. (2013). The effect of freezing and thawing on technological properties of meat: Review. Journal of Agroalimentary Processes and Technologies, 19(1), 88-93.
21. Drummond, L.S., Sun, D.W. (2005). Feasibility of water immersion cooking of beef joints: Effect on product quality and yield. Journal of Food Engineering, 77(2), 289-294. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.06.032
22. Pathare, P.B., Roskilly, A.P. (2016). Quality and energy evaluation in meat cooking. Food Engineering Reviews, 8, 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-016-9143-5
23. Sari, T.V., Zalukhu, P., Mirwandhono, R.E. (2021). Water content, pH and cooking loss of broiler meat with garlic-based herbs solution on drinking water. E3S Web of Conferences 332, Article 01011. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3s-conf/202133201011
24. Modzelewska-Kapitula, M., Pietrzak-Fiecko, R., Tkacz, K., Draszanowska, A., Wi^k, A. (2019). Influence of sous vide and steam cooking on mineral contents, fatty acid composition and tenderness of semimembranosus muscle from Holstein-Friesian bulls. Meat Science, 157, Article 107877. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107877
25. Holloway, J.W., Wu, J. (2019). The red meat consumer. Chapter in a book: Red Meat Science and Production, Springer, 2019.
26. King, N.J., Whyte, R. (2006). Does it look cooked? A review of factors that influence cooked meat color. Journal of Food Science, 71(4), R31-R40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j-.1750-3841.2006.00029.x
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Gourpada Biswas, PhD Scholar, Agrotechnology Discipline, Khulna University. Khulna-9208, Bangladesh, Tel.: +88-0171-096-60-86, E-mail: gourbiswas2010@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9446-5821 * corresponding author
Md. Shafiqul Islam, Professor, Agrotechnology Discipline, Khulna University. Khulna-9208, Bangladesh. Tel.: +88-0171-119-07-98, E-mail: shafiqueatku@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2598-7254
S. M. Mahbubur Rahman, Professor, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Discipline, Khulna University. Khulna-9208, Bangladesh. Tel.: +88-0171-113-15-73, E-mail: manmr2018@gmail.com ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9505-6810
S. M. Abdullah Al Mamun, Professor, Agrotechnology Discipline, Khulna University. Khulna-9208, Bangladesh. Tel.: +88-0171-746-99-35, E-mail: mamun@at.ku.ac.bd ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5420-088X
All authors bear responsibility for the work and presented data.
All authors made an equal contribution to the work.
The authors were equally involved in writing the manuscript and bear equal responsibility for plagiarism. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
