Preprint
Article

This version is not peer-reviewed.

Storage Stability of Meat Analogs Supplemented with Vegetable Oils

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

21 September 2023

Posted:

21 September 2023

You are already at the latest version

Abstract
Studies on the long-term stability of meat analogs stored under frozen conditions are lacking. Here, we aimed to assess the storage stability of vegetable oil-supplemented meat analogs and analyze the effects of temperature and storage period on their physiochemical characteristics. The meat analogs were prepared by adding 30 g castor oil, orange oil, palm oil, shortening, or margarine vegetable oil based on 100 g of textured vegetable protein. They were then stored at −18 or −60 °C for 6 months and analyzed at one-month intervals. The meat analog supplemented with orange oil had the highest water content, liquid-holding capacity, hardness, and antioxidant activity. During frozen storage, temperature barely affected the meat quality. The storage stability of all meat analog samples was maintained for 6 months, although the quality was slightly reduced with an increase in storage duration. Coliform group bacteria were not detected regardless of the storage condition. Orange oil improved the juiciness of meat analogs, and the quality of samples was maintained for at least 6 months under frozen storage. The findings of this study are relevant to the development and promotion of vegetable meat as an alternative to animal meat.
Keywords: 
;  ;  ;  

1. Introduction

Global meat production is approximately 19 billion kg per year. The per capita meat consumed in 2017 was 8.2 kg but was predicted to increase to 8.6 kg in 2025 (OECD, 2017; Hicks et al., 2018). While the demand for meat is steadily increasing, resources such as land and water for raising livestock are limited, which limits its supply (Krintiras et al., 2016; Toorn et al., 2017). Greenhouse gases emitted during livestock production are one of the important causes of environmental problems. Methane (~37%) and nitrous oxide (N2O; ~65%) are the major contributors to the global greenhouse gas emissions (Herrero et al., 2016). The steady increase in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (Dangal et al., 2017) is contributing to global warming, thereby further worsening the environment. Besides the effects of meat production on the environment, meat consumption is associated with health issues. Meat is high in cholesterol and saturated fat and can cause high blood pressure, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancer (Nerea et al., 2016; Kim et al., 2017; Rijsberman, 2017).
Owing to its adverse effects on health and environment, concerns have been raised on meat consumption, and the need to produce alternatives to meat has been emphasized. This has led to an increased interest in meat alternatives based on plant protein. Research on developing meat substitutes has drawn the attention of scientists. Studies are being conducted to replace meat with soy protein (Park et al., 2016; Gu & Ryu, 2017; Geerts et al., 2018; Palanisamya et al., 2018). However, plant meat products are less juicy than real meat, because they have much less fat playing a major role of juiceness (Wi et al, 2020). Due to this reason, plant meat products need to increase the juiciness of meat analogs using different oils.
Among vegetable oils, shortening and margarine have compositions similar to those of animal oils because they are artificially hydrogenated to form saturated fats (Semma, 2002). Thus, shortening and margarine, with relatively high saturated fat contents, appear to be suitable candidates for use in the development of plant meat analogs. Orange oil, a highly unsaturated and volatile flavoring ingredient, can have a masking effect on the bean ordor of soybean in meat substitutes. Ahmad et al. (2006) reported the use of orange oil as a flavoring ingredient to weaken the ordor. Owing to its higher viscosity than that of other vegetable oils (Ramezani et al., 2010), castor oil is expected to show a high retention rate in meat substitutes. Palm oil has relatively lower levels of unsaturation than other oils because it is not subjected to hydrogenation and can, therefore, exist as a solid at room temperature (Lee et al., 2012). Palm oil can be effective in improving the retention and succulent properties of meat analogs.
The quality of meat analog deteriorates during freeze–thaw cycles (Wu et al., 2023). Moreover, Toth et al. (2021) reported that meals prepared with meat analogs had increased food safety risk compared with the meals prepared with natural agents. Nevertheless, only a few studies have been reported on the long-term stability of meat analogs stored under frozen conditions.
This study was conducted to prepare meat analogs supplemented with vegetable oils and evaluate the changes in physicochemical characteristics and quality of the meat analog under different storage conditions of temperature and time.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Soy protein isolate (SPI, Avention, Incheon, Korea), textured vegetable protein (TVP, Supromax 5050®, and Supromax 5010®, DuPont Korea, Seoul, Korea), and binder (Meatline® 2714, Danisco, Copenhagen, Denmark) were used as a base for the meat analog. SPI contains 90% of protein on a dry matter basis. TVP contains 55%–60% of SPI, 40%–45% of wheat gluten and wheat starch. Furthermore, the binder is a mixture of egg white powder, glucose, soy protein, locust bean gum, carrageenan and guar gum (supplied information by DuPont Korea). The meat analog was produced by adding palm oil (Lottefoods, Cheonan, Korea), orange oil (Sigma-Aldrich Inc., St Louis, MO, USA), castor oil (Daejung Chemicals, Siheung, Gyeonggi, Korea), shortening (Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Lake Success, NY, USA), and margarine (Ottogi, Anyang, Korea) to the base. All the oils were purchased at the local store.

2.2. Sample Preparation

Hundred grams of TVP Supromax 5050® and Supromax 5010® were kept immersed in distilled water (10-times their weight) for 2 h and dehydrated in a dehydrator (WS-6600, Hanil Electric, Seoul, Korea) for 5 min at 1,200 rpm. The dehydrated TVP Supromax 5050® and Supromax 5010® in a 1:2 ratio (100 g), SPI (4.5 g), binder (3 g), and five types of vegetable oils (30 g) were mixed in a blender (Multiquick 3 Vario MQ 3145, Braun, Kronberg im Taunus, Germany) for 90 s (Wi et al., 2020). After preheating at 180 °C, the mixed dough (19 g) placed in a stainless-steel cylindrical mold was cooked in an oven (M4207, Simfer, Istanbul, Turkey) for 14 min. The cooked meat analog was cooled to room temperature for 30 min before being used for further analysis (Wi et al., 2020).

2.3. Storage Conditions

To confirm the storage stability of the meat analog, the molded dough was stored for 6 months, and its physicochemical properties were analyzed. The sample was placed in a container (17 × 10 × 3 cm) and stored in a freezer (A255WD, LG, Seoul, Korea) at −18 or −60 °C. For microbial analysis, samples were vacuum-packed using a vacuum packaging machine (TYPE574, Solis, Mendrisio, Swiss). The analysis was performed in view of the possibility of exposure to microorganisms during the manufacturing and molding of the dough. The samples were heat-sterilized at 94 °C for 40 min before storage. The stored samples were thawed at a low temperature (4 °C) for 36 h in a refrigerator (A255WD, LG, Seoul, Korea) and used for analysis at 1-month intervals.

2.4. Experimental Methods

2.4.1. Cooking Loss

The cooking loss was calculated by determining the weight of the meat analog before and after heating using the formula given below (Pathare and Poskilly, 2016). The temperature (80 °C) in the middle of the meat analog sample was measured after heating and cooking. The weight of cooked dough was measured after cooling it at room temperature for 30 min, calculated according to Formula (1).
Cooking   loss   ( % ) = W 1   -   W 2 W 1   ×   100
W1: Weight of sample before heating (g)
W2: Weight of sample after heating (g)

2.4.2. Drip Loss

The thawing loss was calculated by measuring the weight of meat analog before and after thawing using the following Formula (2):
Drip   loss   ( % ) = W 1   -   W 2 W 1   ×   100
W1: Weight of sample before thawing (g)
W2: Weight of sample after thawing (g)

2.4.3. Water Content

The moisture content was measured by heating and drying under atmospheric pressure by taking 1 g each of meat analog dough and cooked meat analog, according to the Association of Agricultural Chemists (AOAC, 1990) method (Formula 3). For cooked meat analog, the outer part was cut and the measurement was done using the inner part.
Water   content   ( % ) = W 1   -   W 2 W 1   ×   100  
W1: Weight of sample before drying (g)
W2: Weight of sample after drying (g)

2.4.4. Liquid-Holding Capacity

The method described by Lorenzo, et al. (2015) was used with some modification to simultaneously measure the liquid-holding capacity (LHC) of meat analog dough and cooked meat analog with water and oil retention. Each sample was placed in a 15 mL conical tube containing 1 g sterile gauze and stored overnight at 4, 25, or 35 °C. Thereafter, the samples were centrifuged (Labogene 1736R, GYROZEN Co., Ltd., South Korea) at 3,000 rpm for 10 min under each temperature condition. The weight of the samples before and after centrifugation was calculated using Formula (4):
Liquid - holding   capacity   ( % ) = W 1   -   W 2 W 1   ×   100  
W1: Weight of sample before centrifugation (g)
W2: Weight of sample weight after centrifugation (g)

2.4.5. Hardness

Hardness was measured by modifying a method described previously by Lin et al. (2000). For measuring the hardness of meat analog, the sample was cooled and cut into cubes of 2 cm3 volume. Hardness was measured with a texture analyzer (CT3-1000, Brookfield Engineering Laboratory, Inc., Middleboro, MA, USA) using a cylindrical probe (TA4/1000). The measurement conditions were as follows: strain rate, 40%; measurement speed, 2.5 mm/s; trigger load, 10 g. The measurements were repeated 10 times for each treatment group.

2.4.6. Chromaticity

The color of cooked meat analog was measured using a colorimeter (CR-400, Konica Minolta, Inc., Tokyo, Japan) followed by the company instruction. The colorimeter was calibrated using a white standard plate (L* = 94.65, a* = −0.46, b* = 2.87). The brightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) in the center of samples were measured 10 times.

2.4.7. DPPH Radical-Scavenging Activity

The 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH; Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) content of cooked meat analog was measured using a modified Jeong (2020) method to determine the free radical-scavenging activity in the cooked meat analog. One gram of freeze-dried meat analog was extracted with 25 mL of 70% ethanol for 3 h in a water tank (BF-30SB; Biofree, Seoul, Korea) set at 80 °C. The extract was filtered through a Whatman No. 2 filter paper (Healthcare Life Science, Buckinghamshire, UK). The filtrate was concentrated using a reduced pressure concentrator (EYELA rotary evaporator N-1000, SUNILEYELA, Seongnam, Korea). For using the concentrate as a sample, the concentrate was dried to a powder in a freeze dryer (MCFD8512, Ilshinbiobase Co., Dongducheon, Korea). The powder was dissolved in distilled water at a concentration of 1 mg/mL and used as a sample. The sample (0.1 mL) was allowed to react with 0.1 mL of 0.2 mM DPPH reagent in the dark for 30 min at room temperature, and the absorbance at 517 nm was measured using a spectrophotometer (Multiskan GO, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). In the control, 0.1 mL methanol was added instead of the sample. To correct the absorbance for the intrinsic color of the sample, methanol was added instead of the DPPH reagent to measure the absorbance using the same method. The DPPH radical-scavenging activity was calculated by substituting the absorbance values in Formula (5):
DPPH   radical - scavenging   activity ( % ) = ( 1   -   Absorbance   with   sample   addition   -   Absorbance   due   to   intrinsic   color   of   sample Absorbance   without   sample   addition )   ×   100  

2.4.8. Microbial Analysis

Microbial analysis of meat analog was measured using the method of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) International (AOAC, 1990). The meat analog dough was heat-sterilized at 94 °C for 40 min. Thereafter, the samples stored for different periods according to the storage conditions were diluted with a sterile 0.85% NaCl solution to measure the total number of bacteria and the number of coliforms. The sample (5 g) was mixed with 45 mL NaCl solution and homogenized for 3 min using a homogenizer. One milliliter of the sample solution was mixed with 9 mL NaCl solution and serially diluted. The diluted sample solutions were inoculated on 3M Petrifilm (PetrifilmTM plate, 3M Co., St. Paul, MN, USA) and incubated at 37 ± 1 °C for 48 h, followed by counting of the colonies.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

The experiments were performed more than three times. The data were analyzed using SPSS statistics (ver. 24.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Differences between samples were verified using a one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s multiple range test (p < 0.05). An independent samples t-test was used to compare the means of data for the uncooked and cooked samples.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Cooking Loss

Table 1 shows the effects of temperature and storage period on the cooking loss in vegetable meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils. The cooking loss increased with an increase in the storage period irrespective of the type of oil added. The main reason for the increase in the cooking loss could be the dissolution of oil during the cooking process. Vieira et al. (2009) reported that the denaturation of proteins during cooking results in the weakening of the chemical binding force between the protein and oil, leading to the elution of oil. These results are consistent with those of Bentley et al. (1989) who showed that the cooking loss in beef patties prepared in the form of ground meat increased with an increase in the storage period. The difference in heat loss among frozen samples with different storage temperatures is generally less at low temperatures (Kim, 1987; Jung, 1999).
Under each condition, the cooking loss in the samples supplemented with orange oil, margarine, and shortening was high; the sample supplemented with shortening exhibited the most significant heat loss regardless of the storage temperature and duration (p < 0.05). The cooking loss for the sample to which shortening was added was more than 8.08% higher than that for the sample with the lowest loss on heating under each condition. Among the samples stored at −60 °C for 1 month, the cooking loss was 9.68% higher than that for the sample with the lowest cooking loss. The result obtained for the sample containing orange oil could be due to the low water solubility of limonene, the main component of orange oil, as described above (Williams & Pierce, 1998). In the case of margarine and shortening, the force binding the oil and the protein being denatured is relatively weaker due to the increase in the content of saturated fatty acids during hydrogenation, because of which a large amount is eluted from the sample when the protein structure changes under heat (Bailey & Light, 1989; Vieira et al., 2009).

3.2. Drip Loss

Table 2 shows the changes in drip loss in vegetable meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils and stored at varying temperatures for different durations. The drip amount during the thawing process varies depending on the type of food and storage conditions. In general, the greater the degree of tissue damage during freezing and storage, the more is the drip (Huff-Lonergan & Lonergan, 2005). Moreover, the amount of drip generally increases when food is frozen at a high temperature (Xanthakis et al., 2014). However, we observed little difference in drip loss among the samples stored at different temperatures and for different periods. In particular, no significant difference was noted for samples supplemented with different types of oils and stored for more than 4 months. The significant difference in the thawing loss in samples stored for 1, 2, and 3 months is considered to be the result of the small deviation. A similar number of ice crystals of similar sizes was generated in the process of freezing of samples at −18 and −60 °C, and the degree of damage to the soybean protein after storage and thawing was reduced.
Contrary to our results, Hong et al. (2007) and Zhu et al. (2004) found that the thawing process was slower than the freezing process due to the difference in heat conduction and thermal diffusion between water and ice in the case of frozen food. In other words, our results showed that thawing conditions had a greater effect on the change in the quality of frozen food. Sakata et al. (1995) reported that when pork was frozen at −80 and −20 °C, stored at −20 °C for 1 month, and then thawed at 2 °C, the drip loss for both samples was not significantly different, which is similar to our results. In this experiment, each sample frozen at −18 and −60 °C was thawed at 4 °C for 36 h and used for analysis.

3.3. Moisture Content

Table 3 shows the effects of temperature and storage period on the moisture contents of meat analog dough supplemented with vegetable oils and the cooked meat analog. The moisture content of meat analog showed a tendency to slightly decrease with the duration of storage. This may be the result of the loss of moisture in the sample through drips during the freezing and thawing process. However, the decrease in moisture content was small because the overall loss due to drip was not large. The tendency of the moisture content to decrease in this experiment was similar to that observed by Zhang et al. (2017), who showed that the moisture content of sausages decreased with the duration of storage. There was almost no difference in the moisture content of samples stored for more than 5 months, except for those cooked with castor oil at the fifth month of storage. The sample stored at −60 °C showed slightly higher water content than the sone stored at −18 °C.
Under each storage condition, the difference in moisture content between the meat analog samples prepared by adding oils other than orange oil was insignificant. Based on this result, we speculate that the effect of oil on the moisture content during storage is small. The probable reason for the water content of the sample to which orange oil was added being higher than that of other samples is the relatively larger decrease in the weight of the sample due to the loss of components other than water (Kim et al., 2016). On the contrary, it was difficult to ascertain a clear trend regarding the effects of temperature and storage period on the moisture contents of cooked and uncooked samples.

3.4. Liquid-Holding Capacity

The LHC of meat analog dough supplemented with vegetable oils and the cooked meat analog stored at varying temperatures for different durations was measured (Table 4, Table 5, and Table 6). The LHC showed a tendency to decrease with the storage period and was slightly higher in the sample stored at −60 °C than in the sample stored at −18 °C. These results are similar to those reported by Heo et al. (2016), who showed that there was no difference in the LHC of ducks frozen and stored at −50 and −20 °C. The melting point of the sample prepared by adding palm oil, shortening, and margarine was lower than that of each oil regardless of the temperature and storage period; thus, the sample exhibited high liquid retention in the solid state at 4 °C. At 25 and 35 °C, in which case the samples become liquid, the LHC was low. This trend became more pronounced with an increase in the storage period. In particular, when a sample stored for 6 months at −60 °C with the addition of shortening was cooked, the difference in liquid retention at 4 and 35 °C was 11.03%, which was the largest decrease. According to Tirado-Kulieva et al. (2022), the ice crystals formed upon the freezing of food destroy the proteins, thereby causing increased dripping during the thawing process, which reduces the LHC of food. On the contrary, palm oil, shortening, and margarine have high contents of saturated fat and, thus, have relatively weaker binding to the protein (Choi & Jung, 2019). This could be the reason for the low LHC in the liquid state.

3.5. Texture Measurement

Figure 1 shows the effects of temperature and storage period on the hardness of meat analog supplemented with vegetable oils, as determined by measuring the texture. Hardness is an indicator of the age of food (Kim & Cheong, 1999) and plays an important role in judging the texture of plant meat. The hardness of plant meat increased with the storage period, which is the opposite of the change in hardness of general meat with the storage period. In the case of meat, the ice crystals generated during the freezing process damage the protein tissue, causing the aging of meat; thus, the hardness decreases with the period of storage (Shanks et al., 2002; Lagerstedt et al., 2008). However, the sample in this study was a plant food prepared with soybean protein as the main material, and unlike meat, it did not have a hard texture and muscle fibers. Therefore, the effect of damage to the protein tissue did not appear as a decrease in hardness. However, the weakening of the binding force between the oil and protein causes the amount of oil eluted during cooking to increase, which ultimately increases the hardness of the sample. In addition, protein damage continues with the increase in storage period, and the amount of oil eluted during cooking further increases.
In general, the quality of preservation increases with a decrease in the storage temperature of frozen food (Leygonie et al., 2012). In this study, the change in the hardness of the sample stored at −60 °C was slightly smaller than that in the hardness of the sample stored at −18 °C. This may be due to the relatively lesser damage to the protein in the sample stored at −60 °C. The results of this experiment were similar to those of Shin et al. (2000), who showed that the hardness of garlic stored for 16 months at −18 and −40 °C did not show any significant change during the storage period. In addition, Park et al. (2012) reported that the quality of vegetables can be maintained for a longer period than that of meat stored in a frozen state. At different temperatures and periods of storage, the hardness of the sample supplemented with orange oil was the highest under each condition, and the increase in hardness was relatively smaller than that in the samples supplemented with other oils. In particular, when stored at −18 °C for 6 months, the hardness of the sample supplemented with margarine increased by 9.55 N compared with the hardness before storage, whereas the hardness of the sample supplemented with orange oil increased by 6.48 N compared to that before storage. These results indicate that by adding orange oil to meat analog, a chewy product with little change in quality and hardness could possibly be prepared.

3.6. Chromaticity

Table 7 and Table 8 show the changes in the colors of vegetable meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils and stored at varying temperatures for different durations. The brightness and yellowness of meat analog decreased with the storage period, and the change in the color of the sample stored at −60 °C occurred slower than that in the color of the sample stored at −18 °C. The brightness hardly changed until 3 months of storage, regardless of the storage temperature and type of oil, and started to gradually decrease 4 months onward. Yellowness also showed a tendency similar to that of brightness. The yellowness did not change until 2 months of storage and gradually decreased from 3 months of storage. The results of this experiment were similar to those of Kim et al. (2016), who showed that the brightness and yellowness of leeks stored frozen tended to decrease with the storage period. Among the samples to which different types of oil were added, the brightness and yellowness of the sample to which orange oil was added were significantly high (p < 0.05) irrespective of the temperature and storage period. This may be due to the intrinsic color of the orange oil. In a study by Park et al. (2005), the color of the oil itself was darker than that of the product, because of which it showed a similar tendency to the decrease in the brightness of the product. On the contrary, no change in redness was observed with different types of oil, storage temperatures, and storage periods.
The color of samples is considered to be different when the value of color difference (ΔE) is 3.0 or more (KFII, 2013). As shown in Table 8, except for the samples to which margarine was added, the color difference showed a tendency to increase with an increase in the storage period. Moreover, according to the standards of KFII, no color difference was evident between samples assessed immediately after preparation and those assessed before the fourth month of storage. The color difference was noticeable only in some of the samples during the fifth month of storage. The results of this experiment are consistent with those of Lee et al. (1998), who reported that the color difference of tofu increased with an increase in the storage period, irrespective of the storage temperature. On the contrary, when margarine was added, the color difference of the sample was comparatively higher than that of the samples to which other oils were added, except for the samples stored for 5 or 6 months. There was a difference in the color of the samples immediately after preparation and after storage for 1 month; the color difference decreased from the second month onward. These results show that the color change appears relatively quickly within 2 months when plant meat is supplemented with margarine.

3.7. DPPH Radical-Scavenging Activity

Figure 2 shows the effects of temperature and storage period on the DPPH radical-scavenging activity of meat analog supplemented with vegetable oils. The scavenging activity decreased with an increase in the storage period; the scavenging activity of the sample supplemented with orange oil was the highest irrespective of the storage temperature and period (p < 0.05). The scavenging activity of the samples stored at −60 °C was slightly higher than that of the samples stored at −18 °C. The results of this experiment were consistent with those of Jin et al. (2014), who showed that the DPPH radical-scavenging activity of apples decreased with an increase in the storage period. Additionally, the sample to which orange oil was added showed 33.74% scavenging activity immediately after preparation; after storage at −18 and −60 °C for 6 months, its scavenging activity was decreased by 3.73% and 2.87% to 30.01% and 30.87%, respectively. The scavenging activity of the samples to which orange oil was added was 30% or more until the six month of storage, but all the samples supplemented with other oils showed scavenging activities of 30% or less. These results indicate the excellent antioxidant activity of orange oil, which is known since a long time. Vanamala et al. (2006) and Yang et al. (2006) reported that the peel of citrus fruits contains high amounts of flavonoids, terpenes, vitamins, carotenoids, organic acids, and pectin. In addition, these ingredients exhibit antioxidant, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, anti-mutation, antiviral, and capillary-strengthening effects and prevent diseases of the circulatory system (Burton and Ingold, 1985; Cha et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2003).

3.8. Microbial Analysis

The changes in the microbial composition of meat analog dough supplemented with vegetable oils and stored at varying temperatures for different durations were assessed as total cell count and the count of coliform group bacteria (Table 9). These bacterial counts were determined by applying the frozen food manufacturing and processing standards announced in the Food Code. The total cell count and the count of coliform group bacteria in frozen foods are described in the Food Code as 5.00 log CFU/g and 1.00 log CFU/g or less, respectively (KFSC, 2016). In this study, the total cell count showed a tendency to increase with an increase in the storage period; the sample stored at −18 °C showed a slightly higher total cell count than that stored at −60 °C. This trend is the same as reported in many previous studies—the total cell count increases with an increase in the storage period, and the growth of microorganisms is inhibited with a decrease in the storage temperature (Lee et al., 2004; Shin et al., 2006; Choi et al., 2011). The total cell count was not detected immediately after the sample was prepared, vacuum-packed, and heat sterilized at 94 °C for 40 min. The total cell count in the sample after 4 months of storage was 3.18–3.84 log CFU/g, which is within the acceptable range. The coliform group bacteria were not detected until the fourth month of storage. These results indicate that the stability of microorganisms can be secured for up to 4 months if the sample is vacuum-packed and subjected to heat sterilization. These results are similar to those of Roh (1998), who reported that no coliform group bacterium was detected in liquid-heated tofu after the heating process. In addition, the total cell count in the sample to which orange oil was added was relatively lower, which is believed to reflect the antibacterial property of orange oil (Torres-Alvarez, 2017).

4. Conclusion

In the present study, we evaluated the physicochemical and storage stability properties of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils and stored under cold conditions. Overall, storage temperature only had a small impact on quality. Although the quality decreased with an increase in the storage period with regard to the liquid-holding capacity and hardness, the overall change in quality was insignificant. The quality of plant meat stored in a frozen state did not significantly deteriorate until 6 months, as evidenced by the analyses of fat rancidity and microorganisms, which are directly related to stability. The juiciness of meat analogs supplemented with orange oil was maintained for at least 6 months, and the quality could be maintained through frozen storage. Orange oil was a promising candidate for maintaining the succulence and texture of meat analog. Ultimately, to apply this study to industry, specific research will need to establish the optimal concentration of orange oil and the recommended daily intake.

Author Contributions

M.-J.C. designed the research. J.B. and J.L. conducted the research. J.B. and Y.C. analyzed the data. Y.C. and J.B. wrote the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Pusan National University Research Grant, 2020.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahmad, M.M.; Rehman, S.U.; Iqbal, Z.; Anjum, F.M.; Sultan, J.I. Genetic variability to essential oil composition in four citrus fruit species. Pak. J. Bot. 2006, 38, 319–324. [Google Scholar]
  2. AOAC. Association of Analytical Chemists. In Official Methods of Analysis, 15th ed.; Washington, DC, USA, 1990; pp. 8–35.
  3. Bailey, A.J.; Light, N.D. The role of connective tissue in determining the textural quality of meat, in connective tissue in meat products. Appl. Sci. 1989, 19, 170–194. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bentley, D.S.; Reagan, J.O.; Killer, M.F. Effects of gas atmosphere, storage time on the shelf-life and sensory attributes of vacuum packaged ground beef patties. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 1989, 54, 284–286. [Google Scholar]
  5. Burton, G.W.; Ingold, K.U. Beta carotene: unusual type of lipid antioxidant. Science 1985, 224, 569–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Cha, J.Y.; Cho, Y.S. Biofunctional activities of citrus flavonoids. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2001, 44, 122–128. [Google Scholar]
  7. Choi, C.H.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, Y.J. Evaluation of beef freshness using visible-near infrared reflectance spectra. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2011, 31, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Choi, O.J.; Jung, H.N. Effects of fats and oils on the quality characteristics of rice scone. Korean J. Food Preserv. 2019, 26, 539–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dangal, S.R.S.; Tian, H.; Zhang, B.; Pan, S.; Lu, C.; Yang, J. Methane emission from global livestock sector during 1890-2014: magnitude, trends and spatiotemporal patterns. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2017, 23, 4147–4161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Geerts, M.E.J.; Dekkers, B.L.; Padt, A.; Goot, A.J. Aqueous fractionation processes of soy protein for fibrous structure formation. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Tech. 2018, 45, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gu, B.Y.; Ryu, G.H. Effects of moisture content and screw speed on physical properties of extruded soy protein isolate. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 46, 751–758. [Google Scholar]
  12. Heo, K.N.; Kim, J.H.; Kim, S.H.; Kang, B.S.; Kim, C.D.; Cha, J.B.; Hong, E.C. Effect of freezing and thawing methods on duck meat characteristics. Korean J. Poult. Sci. 2016, 43, 197–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Herrero, M.; Henderson, B.; Havlik, P.; Thornton, P.K.; Conant, R.T.; Smith, P.; Wirsenius, S.; Hristov, A.N.; Gerber, P.; Gill, M.; Butterbach-Bahl, K.; Valin, H.; Garnett, T.; Stehfest, E. Greenhouse gas mitigation potentials in the livestock sector. Nat. Clim. Change 2016, 6, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hicks, T.M.; Knowles, S.O.; Farouk, M.M. Global provisioning of red meat for flexitarian diets. Front Nutr. 2018, 5, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hong, G.P.; Min, S.G.; Ko, S.H.; Shim, K.B.; Seo, E.J.; Choi, M.J. Effects of brine immersion and electrode contact type low voltage ohmic thawing on the physico-chemical properties of pork meat. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2007, 27, 416–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huff-Lonergan, E.; Lonergan, S.M. Mechanism of water holding capacity of meat: The role of postmortem biochemical and structural changes. Meat Sci. 2005, 71, 194–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Jeong, H.; Park, D.H.; Seo, H.G.; Choi, M-J. ; Cho, Y. Effect of roasting time and cryogenic milling on the physicochemical characteristics of dried ginseng powder. Foods 2020, 9, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jin, S.Y.; Sim, K.H.; Lee, E.J.; Gu, H.J.; Kim, M.H.; Han, Y.S.; Park, J.S.; Kim, Y.H. Changes in quality characteristics and antioxidant activity of apples during storage. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2014, 27, 999–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Jung, I.C. Effect of freezing temperature on the quality of beef loin aged after thawing. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 1999, 28, 871–875. [Google Scholar]
  20. KFII. Professional Partner of Food Industry. KFI13-DA-V07, Daejeon: Korea Food Information Institute, 2013, pp.21.
  21. Kim, E.J.; Jung, J.I.; Lee, H.S.; Kang, I.J.; Khachik, F.; Youn, J.H. Effect of carotenoids on the growth of HT-29 human colon cancer cells. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2003, 32, 428–436. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim, S.H.; Jung, E.S.; Kim, S.Y.; Park, S.Y.; Cho, Y.S. Effect of heat treatment on physicochemical properties of soybean. Korean J. Food Preserv. 2017, 24, 820–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kim, S.Y.; Kim, H.S.; Kim, J.S.; Han, G.J. Changes in quality of welsh onion (Allium fistulosum L.) during the freezing storage period under different freezing conditions. Korean J. Food Cook. Sci. 2016, 32, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Kim, Y.H. Freezing and defrosting in the food refrigeration. Sarek Magazin. 1987, 16, 34–43. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kim, Y.J.; Cheong, J.H. Effect of packaging methods on the shelf-life of chilled Korean cattle beef. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 1999, 34, 75–81. [Google Scholar]
  26. Krintiras, G.A.; Diaz, J.G.; Goot, A.J.; Stankiewicz, A.I.; Stefanidis, G.D. On the use of the Couette Cell technology for large scale production of textured soy-based meat replacers. J. Food Eng. 2016, 169, 205–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lagerstedt, A.; Enfalt, L.; Johansson, L.; Lundstrom, K. Effect of freezing on sensory quality, shear force and water loss in beef M. longissimus dorsi. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 457–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Lee, H.J.; Sul, M.S.; Cha, B.S.; Yook, H.S. Tofu qualities as influenced by soybeans storage temperature. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 1998, 27, 833–839. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee, M.S.; Park, S.K.; Bae, D.H.; Ha, S.D.; Song, K.B. Effect of soy protein film packaging on the qualities and the microbial growth of beef during storage. Korean J. Food Preserv. 2004, 11, 565–568. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee, T.S.; Lee, Y.H.; Kim, K.S.; Kim, W.; Kim, K.S.; Jang, Y.S.; Park, K.G. Characteristics of fatty acid composition and properties by blending of vegetable oils. Korean J. Plant Res. 2012, 25, 624–632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Leygoniea, C.; Britz, T.J.; Hoffman, L.C. Impact of freezing and thawing on the quality of meat: Review. Meat Sci. 2012, 91, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lin, S.; Huff, H.E.; Hsieh, F. Texture and chemical characteristics of soy protein meat analog extruded at high moisture. J. Food Sci. 2000, 65, 264–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Lorenzo, J.M.; Cittadini, A.; Munekata, P.E.; Domínguez, R. Physicochemical properties of foal meat as affected by cooking methods. Meat Sci. 2015, 108, 50–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nerea, B.T.; Nancy, B.; Miguel-Ángel, M.G.; Dolores, C.; Ramon, E.; Emilio, R.; Montserrat, F.; Lluís, S.M.; Itziar, S.; Rosa, M.; Lamuela, R.; José, L.; Enrique, G.G.; Miguel, Fiol. ; Estefanía, T.; José, V.S.; Maria, R.P.L.; Jordi, S.S. Replacing red meat and processed red meat for white meat, fish, legumes or eggs is associated with lower risk of incidence of metabolic syndrome. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 35, 1442–1449. [Google Scholar]
  35. 35. OECD. Meat consumption (indicator). /: Economic Co-operation and Development, https, 2017.
  36. Palanisamya, M.; Topfl, S.; Aganovic, K.; Berger, R.G. Influence of iota carrageenan addition on the properties of soya protein meat analogues. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 87, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Park, J.C.; Jeong, J.Y.; Lee, E.S.; Choi, J.H.; Choi, Y.S.; Yu, L.H. , Paik, H.D.; Kim, C.J. Effects of replaced plant oils on the quality properties in low-fat hamburger patties. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 2005, 37, 412–417. [Google Scholar]
  38. Park, J.H.; Kang, D.I.; Ryu, G.H. Effects of screw speed, moisture content, and die temperature on texturization of extruded soy protein isolate. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2016, 45, 1170–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Park, Y.H.; Park, S.J.; Han, G.J.; Choe, J.S.; Lee, J.Y.; Kang, M.S. Quality characteristics of pre-processed garlic during storage according to storage temperature. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2012, 41, 994–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pathare, P.B.; Roskilly, A.P. Quality and energy evaluation in meat cooking. Food Eng. Rev. 2016, 8, 435–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ramezani, K.; Rowahanzamir, S.; Eikani, M.H. Castor oil transesterification reaction: A kinetic study and optimization of parameters. Energy 2010, 35, 4142–4148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rijsberman, F. The key role of the meat industry in transformation to a low-carbon, climate resilient, sustainable economy. Meat Sci. 2017, 132, 2–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Roh, W.S. Microbial analysis of processing and evaluation of shelf life of fried bean curd. J. Food Hyg. Saf. 1998, 13, 62–67. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sakata, R.; Oshida, T.; Morita, H.; Nagata, Y. Physico-chemical and processing quality of porcine M. longissimus dorsi frozen at different temperatures. Meat Sci. 1995, 39, 277–284. [Google Scholar]
  45. Semma, M. Trans fatty acids: properties, benefits and risks. J. Health Sci. 2002, 48, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Shanks, B.C.; Wulf, D.M.; Maddock, R.J. Technical note: The effect of freezing on Warner-Bartzler shear force values of beef longissimus steaks across several post-mortem aging pork. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 80, 2122–2125. [Google Scholar]
  47. Shin, D.B.; Lee, Y.C.; Kim, J.H. Changes in quality of garlic during frozen storage. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 2000, 32, 102–110. [Google Scholar]
  48. Shin, H.Y.; Ku, K.J.; Park, S.K.; Song, K.B. Use of freshness indicator for determination of freshness and quality change of beef and pork during storage. Korean J. Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 38, 325–330. [Google Scholar]
  49. Toorn, S.I.; Broek, M.A.; Worrell, E. Decarbonising meat: exploring greenhouse gas emissions in the meat sector. Energy Procedia 2017, 123, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tirado-Kulieva, V.A.; Miranda-Zamora, W.R.; Hernandez, E.; Pantoja-Tirado, L.R.; Bazan-Tantalean, D.L.; Camacho-Orbegoso, E.W. Effect of antifreeze proteins on the freeze-thaw cycle of foods: fundamentals, mechanisms of action, current challenges and recommendations for future work. Heliyon 2022, 8, e10973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Torres-Alvarez, C.; Núñez González, A.; Rodríguez, J.; Castillo, S.; Leos-Rivas, C.; Báez-González, J.G. Chemical composition, antimicrobial, and antioxidant activities of orange essential oil and its concentrated oils. CyTA – J. Food 2017, 15, 129–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Toth, A.J.; Dunay, A.; Battay, M.; Illes, C.B.; Bittsanszky, A.; Suth, M. Microbial spoilage of plant-based meat analogues. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Vanamala, J.; Reddivari, L.; Yoo, K.S.; Pike, L.M.; Patil, B.S. Variation in the content of bioactive flavonoids in different brands of orange and grapefruit juices. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2006, 19, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Vieira, C.; Diaz, M.Y.; Martinez, B.; Garcia-Cachan, M.D. Effect of frozen storage conditions (temperature and length of storage) on microbial and sensory quality of rustic crossbred beef at different stages of aging. Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Williams, K.R.; Pierce, R.E. The analysis of orange oil and the aqueous solubility of d-limonene - two complementary gas chromatography experiments. J. Chem. Educ. 1998, 75, 223–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wi, G.; Bae, J; Kim, H. ; Cho, Y.; Choi, M-J. Evaluation of the physicochemical and structural properties and the sensory characteristics of meat analogues prepared with various non-animal based liquid additives. Foods 2020, 9, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, X.; Zhang, C.; Yu, S.; Chen, J.; Zhou, J. Improving the cryoprotective effect of antifreeze proteins from Daucus carota on plant-based meat by eliminating N-glycosylation. Food Res. Int. 2023, 164, 112392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Xanthakis, E.; Le-Bail, A.; Ramaswamy, H. Development of an innovative microwave assisted food freezing process. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Tech. 2014, 26, 176–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yang, S.J.; Koh, S.M.; Yang, T.I.; Jung, I.C.; Moon, Y.H. Feeding effect of citrus by product on the quality of cross-bred black pig in Jeju Island. J. Korean Soc. Food Sci. Nutr. 2006, 35, 897–902. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhang, Q.Q.; Li, W.; Li, H.K.; Chen, X.H.; Jiang, M.; Dong, M.S. Low-field nuclear magnetic resonance for online determination of water content during sausage fermentation. J. Food Eng. 2017, 212, 291–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Zhu, S.; Ramaswamy, H.S.; Simpson, B.K. Effect of high-pressure versus conventional thawing on color, drip loss and texture of Atlantic salmon frozen by different methods. LWT - Food Sci. Technol. 2004, 37, 291–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Effects of temperature and storage period on the hardness of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils. A-C indicates significant differnences of means within a column (p < 0.05); a-e indicates significant differences of means within a row (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Effects of temperature and storage period on the hardness of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils. A-C indicates significant differnences of means within a column (p < 0.05); a-e indicates significant differences of means within a row (p < 0.05).
Preprints 85739 g001
Figure 2. Effects of temperature and storage period on the DPPH radical-scavenging activity (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils. A-D indicates significant differnences of means within a column (p < 0.05); a-d indicates significant differences of means within a row (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Effects of temperature and storage period on the DPPH radical-scavenging activity (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils. A-D indicates significant differnences of means within a column (p < 0.05); a-d indicates significant differences of means within a row (p < 0.05).
Preprints 85739 g002
Table 1. Effects of temperature and storage period on cooking loss (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
Table 1. Effects of temperature and storage period on cooking loss (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
ST1) Oil Storage period (months)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
-18 Castor oil 8.54±0.65Dcd 8.17±0.92Ed 8.46±1.19Dcd 9.10±0.86Dbc 9.44±0.98Dab 9.64±1.15Dab 10.24±0.90Da
Orange oil 13.15±0.74Cc 13.04±1.12Cc 13.67±0.86Cbc 14.45±0.81Cab 14.55±1.01Ca 14.83±1.20Ca 14.96±0.80Ca
Palm oil 8.03±0.68Db 9.18±1.40Da 9.17±1.27Da 9.74±1.23Da 9.67±0.90Da 9.92±0.97Da 10.16±1.11Da
Shortening 16.71±0.66Ad 16.91±1.47Acd 17.05±0.99Abcd 17.91±1.17Aab 17.84±0.83Aabc 17.96±1.14Aab 18.24±0.88Aa
Margarine 14.51±0.85Bc 15.66±0.87Bb 15.59±0.86Bb 16.12±1.44Bab 16.50±1.16Bab 16.82±1.31Ba 17.11±0.98Ba
-60 Castor oil 8.54±0.65Da 7.50±0.80Eb 7.70±1.35Eb 8.61±0.95Da 8.97±0.89Da 8.83±1.16Da 9.11±0.64Da
Orange oil 13.15±0.74Cd 13.28±1.22Ccd 13.61±0.72Cbcd 14.13±1.11Cabc 13.88±1.16Cabcd 14.31±0.81Cab 14.72±1.17Ca
Palm oil 8.03±0.68Dc 8.36±0.72Dc 8.72±1.07Dbc 9.29±1.02Dab 9.51±1.07Dab 9.35±1.19Dab 9.69±0.84Da
Shortening 16.71±0.66Ab 17.17±0.94Aab 16.70±0.94Ab 17.49±0.86Aab 17.63±0.85Aa 17.55±1.16Aab 17.89±0.96Aa
Margarine 14.51±0.85Bc 14.67±0.93Bc 14.86±0.85Bbc 15.42±0.90Bab 15.58±0.70Bab 15.87±0.96Ba 16.05±0.57Ba
1) ST, storage temperature (°C). A-E Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). a-d Means within a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Effects of temperature and storage period on drip loss (%) in meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
Table 2. Effects of temperature and storage period on drip loss (%) in meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
ST1) Oil Storage period (months)
1 2 3 4 5 6
-18 Castor oil 0.66±0.15Aa 0.69±0.20Aa 0.62±0.19Aa 0.65±0.34Aa 0.68±0.32Aa 0.71±0.26Aa
Orange oil 0.57±0.27ABa 0.61±0.36ABa 0.58±0.24Aa 0.64±0.36Aa 0.67±0.38Aa 0.64±0.34Aa
Palm oil 0.45±0.19BCa 0.40±0.17Ba 0.47±0.17Aa 0.52±0.18Aa 0.51±0.21Aa 0.54±0.26Aa
Shortening 0.42±0.12Ca 0.49±0.23ABa 0.48±0.22Aa 0.53±0.22Aa 0.50±0.36Aa 0.58±0.39Aa
Margarine 0.44±0.08BCa 0.42±0.27Ba 0.51±0.24Aa 0.56±0.27Aa 0.53±0.26Aa 0.51±0.20Aa
-60 Castor oil 0.56±0.19Aa 0.61±0.25Aa 0.62±0.15Aa 0.66±0.41Aa 0.62±0.32Aa 0.65±0.24Aa
Orange oil 0.53±0.20ABa 0.59±0.14Aa 0.60±0.26ABa 0.64±0.35Aa 0.63±0.38Aa 0.62±0.29Aa
Palm oil 0.41±0.16Ba 0.49±0.20ABa 0.44±0.13Ba 0.53±0.40Aa 0.49±0.18Aa 0.54±0.14Aa
Shortening 0.43±0.12ABa 0.45±0.15ABa 0.49±0.21ABa 0.54±0.25Aa 0.51±0.38Aa 0.50±0.31Aa
Margarine 0.39±0.18Ba 0.37±0.12Ba 0.48±0.18ABa 0.50±0.20Aa 0.47±0.21Aa 0.51±0.29Aa
1) ST, storage temperature (°C). A-C Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). a Means within a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Effects of temperature and storage period on the water content (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
Table 3. Effects of temperature and storage period on the water content (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
Cooking status ST1) Oil Storage period (months)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cooking -18 Castor oil 49.81±0.31Ca 51.14±0.97BCa 50.55±0.29Ba 48.85±0.40Bb 48.67±0.40Bb 49.91±0.45Bb 47.11±0.62Bb
Orange oil 67.70±0.30Abc 69.10±0.39Aa 68.54±0.58Aab 66.71±1.02Acd 66.81±0.45Acd 65.52±0.33Acd 64.85±0.91Ad
Palm oil 50.07±0.54Ca 52.91±0.92Ba 50.82±0.62Bab 49.25±0.94Bab 49.42±0.55Bab 48.34±0.78Cab 47.81±0.85Bb
Shortening 51.26±0.80Ba 50.04±1.59Cb 49.10±0.65Cb 50.42±0.97Bb 49.33±0.35Bb 48.84±0.54BCb 48.26±0.72Bb
Margarine 51.12±0.46Ba 51.26±1.15BCb 49.51±0.39Cbc 49.04±0.50Bbc 48.76±0.93Bbc 48.37±0.76Cbc 47.85±0.86Bc
-60 Castor oil 49.81±0.31Cab 51.90±1.62Ba 50.77±0.98Bab 49.47±0.68Babc 49.53±0.49Babc 49.32±0.80Bbc 48.92±0.90Bc
Orange oil 67.70±0.30Aabc 68.42±1.02Aa 68.72±0.52Aab 67.20±0.61Abc 66.70±0.44Abc 66.58±0.55Ac 66.07±0.74Ac
Palm oil 50.07±0.54Ca 50.23±1.05Bab 50.51±0.78Babc 49.64±0.41Babc 49.26±0.80Babc 48.83±0.27Bbc 48.55±0.53Bc
Shortening 51.26±0.80Ba 50.79±1.33Ba 49.73±0.96Bb 49.88±0.90Bb 49.60±0.59Bb 49.24±0.54Bb 48.94±0.78Bb
Margarine 51.12±0.46Ba 51.37±0.98Bab 50.64±0.43Bbc 49.25±0.58Bbc 49.50±0.50Bbc 49.09±0.24Bbc 48.74±0.41Bc
Non-cooking -18 Castor oil 50.17±0.34Bb 51.18±1.13Ba 50.18±0.60Bab 48.21±0.67Cc 48.30±0.67Bc 48.16±0.86Bb 47.61±1.01Bd
Orange oil 67.66±1.43Abc 69.24±0.88Aa 68.63±0.32Aab 66.47±0.57Ac 66.95±0.32Ac 66.26±0.63Ad 65.76±0.74Ad
Palm oil 50.49±0.80Bbc 50.43±1.99Ba 49.53±0.49Bb 49.86±0.54Bcd 49.32±0.85Bcd 49.06±0.45Bde 48.45±0.31Be
Shortening 51.45±1.17Ba 49.18±1.07Bab 49.36±0.80Bbc 49.75±0.72Bab 49.24±0.98Bbc 48.91±0.74Bbc 48.44±0.85Bc
Margarine 52.35±1.52Ba 50.10±0.92Ba 49.75±0.39Bb 49.47±0.51Bbc 49.16±0.28Bbc 48.59±0.98Bbc 48.14±1.08Bc
-60 Castor oil 50.17±0.34Bbc 50.60±1.23Ba 50.23±0.85Bab 49.19±0.65Bbc 49.58±0.46Bbc 48.86±0.65Bbc 48.49±0.75Bc
Orange oil 67.66±1.43Aab 69.38±1.44Aa 68.81±0.68Aa 67.51±0.80Abc 67.10±0.33Abc 66.91±0.71Abc 66.58±0.95Ac
Palm oil 50.49±0.80Bab 50.35±1.12Ba 49.72±0.56Ba 49.92±0.21Babc 49.84±0.67Babc 49.15±0.42Bbc 48.85±0.67Bc
Shortening 51.45±1.17Ba 51.22±0.88Bab 49.28±0.84Babc 49.41±0.67Babc 49.28±0.63Babc 49.10±0.55Bbc 48.69±0.64Bc
Margarine 52.35±1.52Ba 51.16±1.23Ba 50.15±0.41Ba 49.59±0.91Bb 49.63±0.95Bb 49.40±0.73Bb 48.98±0.78Bb
1) ST, storage temperature (°C). A-C Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). a-e Means within a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Effects of temperature and storage period on the liquid-holding capacity (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils at 4 °C.
Table 4. Effects of temperature and storage period on the liquid-holding capacity (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils at 4 °C.
Cooking status ST1) Oil Storage period (months)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cooking -18 Castor oil 92.99±0.57Ca 91.11±0.83Db 90.97±0.62Cbc 90.27±0.73Cbcd 89.74±0.82Bcd 89.05±0.55Bde 87.98±0.84Be
Orange oil 96.79±0.61Aa 96.01±0.29Aab 95.66±0.89Abc 94.89±0.75Ac 93.46±0.44Ad 92.91±0.46Ade 92.09±0.27Ae
Palm oil 95.33±0.47Ba 94.12±0.57Cab 93.81±0.97Bbc 92.82±0.65Bcd 92.52±0.91Ad 91.87±0.28Ade 91.08±0.75Ae
Shortening 95.62±0.41Ba 94.46±0.48BCb 94.10±0.89ABbc 93.27±0.72Bcd 93.17±0.73Acde 92.82±0.56Ade 92.03±0.51Ae
Margarine 96.11±0.82ABa 95.19±0.32ABab 94.52±0.98ABbc 93.70±0.58ABcd 93.39±0.49Acd 92.55±0.90Ad 91.01±0.43Ae
-60 Castor oil 92.99±0.57Ca 91.61±0.68Cb 91.28±0.96Bb 90.57±0.85Bbc 89.67±1.06Bcd 88.84±0.71Bde 87.95±0.49Ce
Orange oil 96.79±0.61Aa 96.56±0.42Aa 96.24±0.94Aab 95.58±0.86Aab 94.83±0.95Abc 94.14±0.93Acd 93.03±0.44Ad
Palm oil 95.33±0.47Ba 95.18±0.42Ba 94.92±0.83Aa 94.21±0.80Aab 93.49±0.67Abc 92.93±0.68Acd 91.98±0.34Bd
Shortening 95.62±0.41Ba 95.54±0.48Ba 95.12±0.82Aa 94.42±0.50Aab 93.83±0.93Ab 93.23±0.85Ab 92.03±0.59Bc
Margarine 96.11±0.82ABa 96.03±0.36ABa 95.57±0.75Aab 94.86±0.52Aabc 94.35±0.81Abc 93.98±0.79Acd 92.99±0.47Ad
Non-cooking -18 Castor oil 91.39±0.86Ca 91.82±1.18Ca 91.31±0.69Ba 90.49±0.57Cab 89.40±0.90Cbc 88.78±0.69Ccd 87.90±0.53Cd
Orange oil 97.21±0.13Aa 96.85±0.60Aab 96.63±0.97Aab 95.86±0.66Abc 95.30±0.82Ac 94.87±0.35Acd 94.02±0.60Ad
Palm oil 95.94±0.31Ba 95.04±0.58Bab 94.81±0.93Aabc 94.39±0.70Bbcd 93.67±0.68Bcd 93.27±0.68Bd 91.97±0.85Be
Shortening 96.58±0.24ABa 96.26±0.97ABab 95.89±0.88Aab 95.08±0.95ABbc 94.47±0.59ABc 93.95±0.44ABcd 92.92±0.61ABd
Margarine 95.70±0.97Bab 95.94±0.78ABa 95.66±1.28Aab 94.92±0.51ABabc 94.14±1.02ABbc 93.61±0.79Bc 92.05±0.53Bd
-60 Castor oil 91.39±0.86Ca 91.61±0.91Ca 91.31±0.94Ca 90.74±0.48Cab 90.38±0.58Cabc 89.76±0.84Cbc 89.03±0.34Cc
Orange oil 97.21±0.13Aa 97.17±0.20Aa 96.96±0.51Aab 96.35±0.56Aabc 95.88±0.99Abc 95.32±0.52Ac 94.05±0.93Ad
Palm oil 95.94±0.31Ba 95.55±0.38Bab 95.22±0.96Bab 94.53±0.80Bbc 93.85±0.66Bc 93.53±0.38Bc 91.95±0.53Bd
Shortening 96.58±0.24ABa 96.06±0.71ABab 95.68±0.96ABabc 95.23±0.42Bbcd 94.58±0.54ABcd 94.12±0.72ABd 92.99±0.47ABe
Margarine 95.70±0.97Bab 96.20±0.62ABa 95.91±0.92ABab 95.01±0.59Babc 94.64±0.64ABbc 93.86±0.96Bc 92.02±0.61Bd
1) ST, storage temperature (°C). A-D Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). a-e Means within a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Effects of temperature and storage period on the liquid-holding capacity (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils at 25 °C.
Table 5. Effects of temperature and storage period on the liquid-holding capacity (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils at 25 °C.
Cooking status ST1) Oil Storage period (months)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cooking -18 Castor oil 91.56±0.86Ba 89.84±0.98Bb 89.34±1.11Bb 87.83±0.84Bc 87.34±0.64Bcd 86.90±0.59Bcd 86.12±0.53Bd
Orange oil 96.32±1.01Aa 95.74±0.94Aa 95.37±0.76Aa 93.89±0.63Ab 93.67±0.84Ab 93.19±0.62Abc 92.06±0.56Ac
Palm oil 87.18±0.88Da 86.93±0.71Ca 86.52±1.05Ca 84.34±0.71Cb 83.87±0.76Db 83.23±0.34Dbc 82.05±0.83Ec
Shortening 90.09±0.68BCa 89.86±0.77Ba 88.62±0.62Bb 86.78±0.80Bc 86.42±0.70BCc 85.91±0.52BCcd 85.07±0.48Cd
Margarine 89.30±0.92Ca 88.67±1.09Ba 88.34±0.49Ba 86.48±0.67Bb 85.82±0.56Cb 85.22±0.65Cbc 84.02±0.23Dc
-60 Castor oil 91.56±0.86Ba 90.08±0.59Bb 89.71±0.81Bb 88.19±0.46Bc 87.70±0.89Bc 86.92±0.89Bcd 86.05±0.47Bd
Orange oil 96.32±1.01Aa 96.08±0.20Aa 95.79±0.66Aa 94.11±0.76Ab 94.19±0.94Ab 93.84±0.95Ab 93.06±0.33Ab
Palm oil 87.18±0.88Da 87.51±0.95Ca 87.18±0.79Ca 85.42±0.80Cb 84.71±0.80Cb 84.22±0.55Cbc 83.15±0.31Dc
Shortening 90.09±0.68BCa 90.04±0.40Ba 89.29±0.77Ba 86.98±0.77Bb 86.35±0.52Bb 85.93±0.72Bbc 84.98±0.47Cc
Margarine 89.30±0.92Ca 89.74±0.85Ba 89.22±1.16Ba 87.19±0.94Bb 86.55±0.66Bbc 85.59±0.67BCcd 84.11±0.77Cd
Non-cooking -18 Castor oil 91.33±0.31Ba 90.32±0.97Bab 90.03±0.89Bab 88.95±0.75Bbc 88.27±0.77Bcd 87.88±0.63Bcd 87.02±0.78Be
Orange oil 96.71±0.41Aa 97.02±0.55Aa 96.39±1.09Aab 95.35±0.47Abc 94.94±0.67Acd 94.19±0.45Ad 93.05±0.40Ae
Palm oil 90.21±0.94Ba 90.15±0.75Ba 90.01±0.94Bab 88.72±0.44Bbc 88.35±0.81Bc 87.54±0.73BCc 86.07±0.45BCd
Shortening 90.22±0.78Ba 90.05±0.80Ba 89.36±0.87Bab 87.95±0.82Bbc 87.22±0.79Bc 86.58±0.79CDc 85.03±0.97Cd
Margarine 90.69±0.37Ba 89.97±0.30Ba 89.68±1.29Ba 88.38±0.88Bb 87.61±0.57Bb 85.55±0.56Dc 84.97±0.71Cc
-60 Castor oil 91.33±0.31Ba 91.47±0.43Ba 91.10±0.73Ba 90.03±0.62Bb 89.70±0.47Bbc 88.80±0.46Bcd 87.95±0.76Bd
Orange oil 96.71±0.41Aab 97.18±0.49Aa 96.97±0.78Aa 95.70±0.71Abc 95.46±0.77Ac 94.80±0.82Acd 93.98±0.34Ad
Palm oil 90.21±0.94Bab 90.70±0.51Ba 90.19±0.96BCab 88.93±0.75BCbc 88.25±0.90BCc 87.58±0.62BCc 86.03±0.75Cd
Shortening 90.22±0.78Ba 89.56±0.77Ca 89.17±0.93Cab 88.03±0.66Cbc 87.42±1.02Ccd 86.96±0.73Ccd 85.97±0.81Cd
Margarine 90.69±0.37Bab 91.26±0.79Ba 90.67±1.02BCab 89.32±0.78BCbc 88.90±0.75BCc 88.23±0.94BCcd 86.96±0.46BCd
1) ST, storage temperature (°C). A-E Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). a-e Means within a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 6. Effects of temperature and storage period on the liquid-holding capacity (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils at 35 °C.
Table 6. Effects of temperature and storage period on the liquid-holding capacity (%) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils at 35 °C.
Cooking status ST1) Oil Storage period (months)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Cooking -18 Castor oil 90.99±0.54Ba 90.65±0.60Ba 90.27±0.91Ba 88.29±0.91Bb 87.52±0.62Bbc 86.87±0.91Bcd 85.96±0.31Bd
Orange oil 95.26±0.76Aa 94.74±0.86Aa 94.48±1.04Aa 92.66±0.54Ab 91.94±0.65Ab 91.29±0.76Abc 89.97±0.92Ac
Palm oil 88.39±0.44Ca 87.82±0.61Ca 87.41±0.92Ca 85.61±0.84Cb 84.92±0.36Cbc 84.12±0.98Ccd 82.99±0.27Cd
Shortening 87.24±0.49Ca 86.28±0.53Da 86.04±1.07Ca 84.21±0.78Db 83.77±0.53Dbc 82.88±0.88Ccd 82.03±0.50CDd
Margarine 88.09±0.81Ca 87.21±0.59CDa 85.94±1.08Cb 83.88±0.68Dc 83.24±0.39Dc 82.64±0.43Cc 81.03±0.73Dd
-60 Castor oil 90.99±0.54Ba 91.09±0.97Ba 90.22±1.07Ba 88.62±0.99Bb 88.34±0.63Bbc 87.94±0.89Bbc 87.02±0.68Bc
Orange oil 95.26±0.76Aa 95.10±0.71Aa 94.72±0.83Aa 93.33±0.46Ab 92.78±0.29Ab 92.17±0.65Abc 91.25±0.53Ac
Palm oil 88.39±0.44Ca 88.02±0.49Ca 87.33±1.09Ca 85.81±0.50Cb 85.21±0.70Cb 84.91±0.47Cbc 83.84±0.77Cc
Shortening 87.24±0.49Ca 87.18±0.99Ca 86.56±0.55Ca 84.74±0.77Cb 84.33±0.64Cb 83.84±0.58CDbc 82.96±0.76CDc
Margarine 88.09±0.81Ca 87.67±0.87Ca 86.93±0.89Ca 85.12±0.66Cb 84.44±0.28Cbc 83.61±0.32Dc 81.95±0.73Dd
Non-cooking -18 Castor oil 90.93±0.29Ba 90.03±0.69Ba 89.89±0.86Ba 88.28±0.48Bb 87.54±0.86Bbc 86.80±0.36Bcd 85.92±0.89Bd
Orange oil 96.74±0.52Aa 96.05±0.37Aa 95.74±0.80Aab 94.76±0.67Abc 93.95±0.75Acd 93.22±0.61Ad 92.08±0.27Ae
Palm oil 89.63±0.72BCa 88.16±0.45Cb 87.97±0.67Cb 86.74±0.74Cc 86.44±0.90BCcd 85.53±0.25Cd 84.01±0.44Ce
Shortening 89.04±0.89Ca 88.36±0.14Ca 88.04±0.67Ca 86.65±0.47Cb 85.92±0.62Cbc 85.15±0.71Cc 83.99±0.40Cd
Margarine 90.94±0.99Ba 90.39±0.52Ba 88.36±0.88Cb 87.38±0.95BCbc 86.59±0.54BCc 85.96±0.99BCcd 85.05±0.83BCd
-60 Castor oil 90.93±0.29Ba 90.46±0.86Ba 90.14±0.69Ba 88.59±0.91Bb 87.88±0.68Bbc 87.18±0.84Bcd 86.05±0.62Bd
Orange oil 96.74±0.52Aa 96.45±0.54Aa 96.16±0.96Aa 94.63±0.69Ab 93.86±0.61Abc 93.11±0.67Ac 91.97±0.35Ad
Palm oil 89.63±0.72BCa 89.36±0.24Ca 88.94±0.81BCa 87.85±0.54BCb 86.94±0.85BCbc 86.17±0.49BCc 85.04±0.39Cd
Shortening 89.04±0.89Ca 88.84±0.27Ca 88.38±1.08Ca 86.99±0.54Cb 86.27±0.48Cbc 85.53±0.94Cc 84.04±0.42Dd
Margarine 90.94±0.99Ba 90.64±0.48Ba 90.22±0.82Ba 87.84±0.84BCb 87.32±0.62BCbc 86.39±0.76BCc 85.02±0.65Cd
1) ST, storage temperature (°C). A-D Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). a-e Means within a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 7. Effects of temperature and storage period on the lightness (L*) and redness (a*) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
Table 7. Effects of temperature and storage period on the lightness (L*) and redness (a*) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
ST1) Oil Storage period (months)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
L* -18 Castor oil 63.75±0.18Ca 63.94±0.66Ba 63.48±0.48BCa 62.40±0.62Cb 61.71±0.99BCbc 60.87±0.80BCcd 60.35±0.94Bd
Orange oil 65.91±0.18Aa 66.24±0.64Aa 65.90±0.41Aa 64.65±0.75Ab 63.98±0.48Abc 63.28±0.75Acd 62.96±1.04Ad
Palm oil 64.63±0.37Ba 64.34±0.91Ba 64.13±0.67Ba 63.73±0.73Ba 62.61±0.56Bb 61.59±0.79Bc 60.89±0.83Bc
Shortening 62.81±0.15Da 62.71±0.85Ca 62.37±0.88Da 62.18±0.42Cab 61.12±1.13Cbc 60.40±0.82Ccd 59.70±1.04Bd
Margarine 63.85±0.13Ca 63.42±1.06BCa 63.05±0.87CDa 62.97±0.71BCa 61.88±0.98BCb 60.84±0.87BCc 59.69±0.56Bd
-60 Castor oil 63.75±0.18Ca 63.64±0.37Bab 63.36±0.40Babc 62.82±0.89Babc 62.69±1.03Bbcd 62.49±0.79Bcd 61.77±0.66Bd
Orange oil 65.91±0.18Aa 66.03±0.57Aa 65.74±0.60Aa 65.08±0.88Aab 65.17±0.80Aab 64.49±0.70Abc 63.75±0.96Ac
Palm oil 64.63±0.37Ba 63.66±1.20Bab 63.43±1.29Babc 62.87±0.92Bbcd 62.79±1.15Bbcd 62.21±0.74Bcd 61.65±0.82Bd
Shortening 62.81±0.15Da 62.18±1.25Cab 61.92±1.11Cab 61.85±0.55Bab 61.19±0.77Cbc 60.84±0.36Cc 60.24±0.22Cc
Margarine 63.85±0.13Ca 63.36±0.39Bab 63.14±0.57Bab 62.63±0.67Bbc 62.37±0.53Bcd 61.75±0.76BCde 61.35±0.52Be
a* -18 Castor oil 2.42±0.07Cab 2.45±0.21BCa 2.10±0.07ABCbc 2.20±0.20ABabc 1.87±0.35ABc 2.03±0.34Bc 1.92±0.28Bc
Orange oil 1.68±0.21Ea 2.01±0.11Da 1.73±0.35Ca 1.81±0.36Ba 2.12±0.64Aa 1.94±0.44Ba 1.81±0.53Ba
Palm oil 2.19±0.18Db 2.24±0.23CDb 1.94±0.39BCb 2.00±0.39ABb 2.30±0.20Aab 2.69±0.36Aa 2.65±0.29Aa
Shortening 2.86±0.07Aa 2.83±0.20Aab 2.45±0.40Abc 2.41±0.38Ac 2.21±0.18Ac 1.11±0.08Cbc 2.52±0.25Aabc
Margarine 2.64±0.18Ba 2.61±0.30ABa 2.26±0.19ABb 2.17±0.29ABb 1.59±0.37Bc 1.18±0.11Cb 2.80±0.16Aa
-60 Castor oil 2.42±0.07Ca 2.32±0.22Aa 2.12±0.06ABa 2.06±0.18Aa 2.11±0.16Ba 2.00±0.37Aa 2.16±0.62ABa
Orange oil 1.68±0.21Ebc 1.71±0.25Bbc 1.42±0.13Cc 1.35±0.13Bc 2.31±0.10Ba 1.91±0.37Ab 1.86±0.46Bb
Palm oil 2.19±0.18Da 2.31±0.26Aa 2.08±0.14Bab 2.17±0.45Aa 2.29±0.08Ba 1.78±0.37Ab 1.97±0.13Bab
Shortening 2.86±0.07Aa 2.57±0.23Aa 2.25±0.11Ab 2.11±0.12Ab 2.64±0.48Aa 2.17±0.09Ab 1.94±0.18Bb
Margarine 2.64±0.18Ba 2.47±0.22Aab 2.24±0.14ABbc 2.08±0.13Ac 2.42±0.15ABab 2.13±0.20Ac 2.53±0.31Aa
1) ST, storage temperature (°C). A-E Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). a-e Means within a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 8. Effects of temperature and storage period on the yellowness (b*) and total color difference (E) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
Table 8. Effects of temperature and storage period on the yellowness (b*) and total color difference (E) of meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
ST1) Oil Storage period (months)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
b* -18 Castor oil 16.75±0.20BCa 16.56±0.21Ca 16.18±0.28Cab 15.34±0.45Cc 15.52±0.51Bbc 15.07±1.07Bc 14.87±0.85BCc
Orange oil 19.03±0.47Aa 19.08±0.37Aa 18.65±0.50Aab 17.91±0.54Abcd 18.21±0.90Aabc 17.65±1.03Acd 17.19±0.82Ad
Palm oil 16.76±0.18BCa 16.58±0.17Ca 16.23±0.19Cab 15.68±0.39BCbc 15.30±0.97Bcd 14.82±0.86Bde 14.25±0.60Ce
Shortening 16.60±0.24Ca 16.60±0.23Ca 16.40±0.35Cab 15.70±0.52BCbcd 15.87±0.49Babc 15.33±0.90Bcd 14.97±0.81BCd
Margarine 17.09±0.19Ba 17.11±0.18Ba 16.99±0.28Ba 16.11±0.51Bb 16.37±0.84Bab 15.95±0.78Bb 15.53±0.96Bb
-60 Castor oil 16.75±0.20BCa 16.62±0.25Bab 16.33±0.18Cabc 15.60±0.43Ccd 15.85±0.72Bbcd 15.37±0.97Bd 15.19±0.73Bd
Orange oil 19.03±0.47Aab 19.09±0.60Aa 18.78±0.49Aab 18.19±0.25Aabc 18.04±0.81Abc 17.72±1.11Ac 17.44±0.89Ac
Palm oil 16.76±0.18BCa 16.61±0.29Ba 16.35±0.08Cab 15.93±0.45BCab 15.50±0.88Bbc 15.02±1.19Bc 14.62±0.77Bc
Shortening 16.60±0.24Ca 16.59±0.31Ba 16.38±0.23Ca 16.10±0.51BCab 15.77±0.91Bab 15.19±1.03Bbc 14.85±0.87Bc
Margarine 17.09±0.19Ba 16.99±0.11Bab 16.80±0.39Bab 16.31±0.53Bbc 15.68±0.77Bcd 15.06±0.92Bde 14.72±0.49Be
E -18 Castor oil - 0.62±0.37Cc 0.86±0.17BCc 2.04±0.47Bb 2.48±1.06Ab 3.55±0.52Aa 4.06±0.48Aa
Orange oil - 0.79±0.20BCd 0.73±0.27Cd 1.73±0.89Bcd 2.37±0.42Abc 3.11±0.93ABab 3.57±1.14Aa
Palm oil - 0.79±0.53BCe 1.01±0.29BCde 1.54±0.64Bd 2.65±0.51Ac 3.76±0.60Ab 4.60±0.55Aa
Shortening - 1.59±0.83Ba 1.51±0.60Ba 1.59±0.14Ba 1.43±0.46Ba 2.49±0.55BCa 2.34±1.03Ba
Margarine - 3.20±1.06Aa 2.87±0.84Aab 2.99±0.69Aa 2.32±0.71ABab 2.19±0.33Cb 1.80±0.84Bb
-60 Castor oil - 0.44±0.24Bd 0.75±0.12Bcd 1.64±0.72Bbc 1.62±0.92Abc 2.09±0.91Aab 2.69±0.58ABa
Orange oil - 0.73±0.34Bc 0.77±0.27Bc 1.34±0.71Bbc 1.50±0.95Abc 2.04±1.18Aab 2.73±1.28ABa
Palm oil - 1.30±0.82Bc 1.54±0.87Bc 2.01±0.96ABbc 2.27±1.38Aabc 3.08±1.24Aab 3.70±1.02Aa
Shortening - 1.24±1.10Ba 1.22±0.83Ba 1.27±0.45Ba 1.37±0.48Aa 1.73±0.81Aa 2.23±0.76Ba
Margarine - 3.14±0.38Aa 2.98±0.53Aa 2.64±0.63Aa 2.62±0.74Aa 2.66±0.99Aa 2.67±0.51ABa
1) ST, storage temperature (°C). A-C Means within a column with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). a-e Means within a row with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Table 9. Effects of temperature and storage period on the total cell count and total coliform group bacteria in meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
Table 9. Effects of temperature and storage period on the total cell count and total coliform group bacteria in meat analogs supplemented with different vegetable oils.
ST1) Oil Storage period (months)
0 1 2 3 4
Total cell counts (log CFU/g) -18 Castor oil ND2) ND 3.23 3.58 3.68
Orange oil ND ND 2.56 3.25 3.29
Palm oil ND ND 3.25 3.66 3.70
Shortening ND ND 3.37 3.78 3.84
Margarine ND ND 3.43 3.74 3.84
-60 Castor oil ND ND 2.97 3.53 3.59
Orange oil ND ND 2.43 2.97 3.18
Palm oil ND ND 2.99 3.45 3.56
Shortening ND ND 2.97 3.41 3.60
Margarine ND ND 3.00 3.51 3.64
Total coliform group bacteria(log CFU/g) -18 Castor oil ND ND ND ND ND
Orange oil ND ND ND ND ND
Palm oil ND ND ND ND ND
Shortening ND ND ND ND ND
Margarine ND ND ND ND ND
-60 Castor oil ND ND ND ND ND
Orange oil ND ND ND ND ND
Palm oil ND ND ND ND ND
Shortening ND ND ND ND ND
Margarine ND ND ND ND ND
1) ST, storage temperature (°C). 2) ND, not detected.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

Privacy Settings

© 2025 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated