Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Potential of Nanoparticles in the Treatment of Breast Cancer: Current Applications and Future Directions
Next Article in Special Issue
Changes in Collagen across Pork Tenderloin during Marination with Rosehip Nanocapsules
Previous Article in Journal
BDIDA-IoT: A Blockchain-Based Decentralized Identity Architecture Enhances the Efficiency of IoT Data Flow
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Nigella sativa L. Oil Addition on Physicochemical and Sensory Properties of Freezer-Stored Ground Pork for Pâté
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 5
10.3390/app14051808
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of PEF Treatment on Chosen Properties of Raw and Hot Air- and Freeze-Dried Poultry Meat

by
Malgorzata Nowacka
1,*,
Iwona Szymanska
2,
Katarzyna Rybak
1,
Magdalena Karwacka
1,
Aleksandra Matys
1,
Artur Wiktor
1,
Miroslaw Slowinski
2 and
Dorota Witrowa-Rajchert
1
1
Department of Food Engineering and Process Management, Institute of Food Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159c, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
2
Division of Meat Technology, Department of Food Technology and Assesment, Institute of Food Sciences, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, Nowoursynowska 159c, 02-776 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(5), 1808; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051808
Submission received: 11 January 2024 / Revised: 19 February 2024 / Accepted: 21 February 2024 / Published: 22 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Processing, Preservation, and Quality Evaluation for Meat and Meat Products)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Featured Application

Drying has been used for centuries as a way to prolong the shelf life of meat and make it more portable and convenient for consumption. Drying meat helps prevent the growth of bacteria and mold, extending its shelf life. Also, dried meat is a popular snack due to its convenience, especially for hikers, travelers, and outdoor enthusiasts. It is lightweight, compact, and does not require refrigeration. Moreover, due to the ease of transport and storage, it can be a protein-rich product for people from underdeveloped countries or affected by natural disasters.

Abstract

The properties of fresh meat, such as high water activity, a slightly acidic reaction, and the availability of carbohydrates and proteins, make it a microbiologically unstable and easily perishable raw material. One of the oldest food preservation techniques is drying. Furthermore, non-thermal food processing techniques such as pulse electric field (PEF) treatment can be used to support the drying process and change the properties of the obtained product. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the impact of pulsed electric field treatment on the hot air-drying and freeze-drying of poultry meat as well as on the quality of the dried meat. The PEF pretreatment and drying methods significantly altered the physical characteristics of the poultry meat. The PEF treatment enhanced the efficiency of freeze-drying by electroporation, reducing drying time and shrinkage. However, in the hot air-drying, the PEF-treated samples prolonged drying, potentially due to muscle structure damage and increased shrinkage. The pretreatment techniques affected the structure of the meat and positively influenced the higher porosity and lower shrinkage. Also, drying decreased the water activity and increased the dry matter content, which ensured the safety of the final product. The freeze-dried material exhibited a higher rehydration rate, improved hygroscopic properties, and better meat color compared to the hot air-dried material. Nevertheless, the selection of the process parameters, for both the pretreatment and drying process, is crucial to ensure a high quality of the dried meat product and should be selected carefully in order to guarantee that the highest quality of the dried product is obtained.

1. Introduction

Meat is a great source of complete protein, providing all essential amino acids in consistent amounts to the diet. It contains macro- and microelements, such as iron, zinc, selenium, phosphorus, and B vitamins [1]. Poultry meat is the most popular type of meat globally. In 2023, around 139.7 million tons of poultry meat were consumed worldwide and by 2032 this is projected to increase by about 11.9% [2]. The advantage of poultry meat over other types of meat, such as pork, beef, and lamb, is due to several factors, as it is relatively cheaper, easier to prepare for consumption, and has a higher nutritional value. For example, chicken breast meat contains little fat (about 1.6%), of which unsaturated fatty acids constitute about 66%, a lot of protein (about 23%) with a good amino acid composition, and low collagen content (incomplete protein) [3]. Therefore, it can be an important ingredient of nutritious meals not only at home but also while traveling [4], doing sports [5], and even during military expeditions [6]. The factor limiting the use of meat’s potential to meet the nutritional needs of various consumer groups is its perishability. Nevertheless, the shelf life of meat can be improved by various processing and preservation methods [7]. One of the oldest methods is drying [8]. The effective dehydration of animal tissue leads to the inhibition of microbiological, enzymatic, and physicochemical transformations and increases the durability of the product [9]. Drying allows for the minimization of logistical expenses by reducing the weight of the material and decreasing its transportation and storage requirements. Therefore, dried meat has also become an important element of an assortment of convenience food in present-day food markets [10,11].
Structural, biochemical, and physicochemical changes occurring in meat during drying depend on, among other factors, the type of meat, presence of food additives, and drying conditions [9,12]. Conventional thermal drying methods significantly affect the quality of the dried product through, e.g., shrinkage and an increase in hardness (decreasing the drying rate and rehydration capacity) [13,14], a darkening of color [15,16], the degradation of vitamins and loss of amino acids [17], and the acceleration of protein and fat oxidation [18,19]. In order to limit such undesirable changes, low-temperature treatments are increasingly used to preserve food, including meat and meat products [20,21]. Therefore, the freeze-drying technique, in which the material is frozen and then the water is removed by sublimation at reduced pressure, is suitable for heat-sensitive products [14,22]. However, drying is a time-consuming and expensive process. Moreover, it should be designed and optimized appropriately to the characteristics of the raw material and the product obtained. Therefore, methods for the pretreatment of raw materials are being sought to reduce the drying time and its costs while maintaining or even improving the quality of the dried material [23,24,25]. In recent years, for technological, nutritional, and environmental reasons, there has been an increased interest in unconventional non-thermal food pretreatment techniques such as ultrasound (US), high hydrostatic pressure (HHP), or pulsed electric field (PEF) treatment [23,26,27]. The PEF, as a promising technology for the food industry, involves applying an electric current to a material placed between two electrodes, leading to the electroporation of cell membranes and, thus, changes in the structure of the tissue. The increased permeability of the membranes facilitates heat and mass transfer during its further processing, e.g., pickling, brining, cooking, freeze-thawing, or drying [28,29,30]. Overall, most research on the use of PEF pretreatment has focused on plant-based foods [31,32]. Although the interest of meat technologists and scientists in the PEF technique has increased and more research has been carried out [28,29,32,33,34], it is still a poorly explored area. Therefore, the PEF has not yet been implemented on a larger scale in the meat industry [31].
Thus, the aim of this study was to analyze the impact of unconventional pretreatment, namely, the pulsed electric field, on the kinetics of hot air (HA)-drying and freeze-drying (FD) and the properties of poultry meat. The physical properties of the obtained dried materials, such as the dry matter content, water activity, rehydration rate, hygroscopic properties, color parameters, and structure of the dried poultry, were evaluated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Material

The research material consisted of poultry meat—chicken breast fillet produced by DROSED S.A. (Siedlce, Poland)—purchased from a local store. The material was sliced with a kitchen knife into nine rectangular prisms with dimensions of approximately 1 × 1 × 8 cm upon purchase. To eliminate the influence of external factors on the raw material’s quality, it was consistently purchased before each experiment. Due to the limited amount of material, the processing was limited to two repetitions. Furthermore, the measurements were performed in two, three, or ten repetitions depending on the accuracy of the method.

2.2. Technological Processing

2.2.1. Pulsed Electric Field (PEF) Treatment

The preliminary treatment with a pulsed electric field was carried out in a prototype PEF device, model ERTEC-RI-1B (ERTEC, Wrocław, Poland), characterized by an output voltage of up to 30 kV and a capacity of 0.25 µF. The distance between the electrodes was 18 mm, with a surface area of 15.2 cm2. The device generated monopolar exponential pulses with an average width of 10 µs and a pulse interval of 1 s. Due to the capacity of the chamber for applying the research material, it was divided into two pieces of 18 g each and flooded with distilled water to improve the dielectric contact between the electrodes. The treatment was conducted by applying 20 and 40 pulses with an electric field intensity of 12 kV/cm. The specific energy intake (Ws) was 15 and 30 kJ/kg and was calculated based on the equation according to Zhang et al. [35]:
Ws = I U t n/1000 m
where I is the current [A], U is the voltage [V], t is the duration of the pulse [s], n is the number of pulses [−], and m is the total input mass [kg].
After treatment, the material was gently dried on filter paper to remove excess water and weighed. The treatment was carried out in two repetitions. Table 1 presents mass changes, dry matter content, and water activity for raw material and after the PEF treatment. Higher mass changes and higher dry matter content were observed for material treated with higher specific energy intake. In the case of water activity, PEF treatment resulted in increased water activity compared to raw material.

2.2.2. Drying Process

Hot Air (HA)-Drying

Drying was conducted in a prototype convective dryer (WULS, Warsaw, Poland). The material was placed on the tray of the drying chamber in a single layer, achieving a tray load of 0.39 ± 0.028 kg/m2. On the basis of earlier studies in the literature [9], the process was carried out at a temperature of 60 °C with a parallel airflow at a velocity of 2 m/s until reaching the equilibrium moisture content. Changes in the material’s mass were recorded every 5 min using a balance with an accuracy of ±0.1 g and DOSBox 0.74 Software. Drying for all the variants was repeated twice.

Freeze-Drying (FD)

After the preliminary treatment, the meat underwent a flash freezing process for 24 h at a temperature of −40 °C in a shock freezer (HC 51/20, IRINOX, Corbanese, Italy). The frozen material was then placed in a lyophilizer chamber (Martin Christ Gefriertrocknungsanlagen GmbH, Osterode am Harz, Germany), and drying was carried out at a shelf temperature of 40 °C, with a pressure of 63 Pa, for 24 h. During the process, changes in mass were recorded (for the first 2 h of the process, every 5 min, and then every 15 min until the samples’ mass stabilized) using a special prototype measuring system (SWL025 Mensor, Warsaw, Poland) located inside the lyophilizer chamber. Drying for all the variants was repeated twice.
Based on the recorded weight loss during the drying processes of the poultry meat, drying curves were generated correlating the water ratio (MR) with time. This was achieved through the application of the following mathematical equation [36]:
MR = uτ/u0
where u0 is the initial moisture content (kg H2O/kg d.m.) and uτ is the moisture content at τ moment of the drying (kg H2O/kg d.m.).
The dried material was enclosed within PET12/Al8/PE100 bags (Pakmar, Warsaw, Poland) characterized by a substantial barrier against water vapor and gases, and complete opacity to light. Subsequently, the packaging was hermetically sealed and stored at room temperature until required for analytical purposes. All of the materials obtained in the study are presented in Table 2.

2.3. Properties of Fresh and Dried Poultry Meat

2.3.1. Dry Matter Content

The dry matter content was determined using the drying method to obtain a constant mass [37]. The finely ground material, using an analytical mill (IKA A11 basic, IKA-Werke GmbH & Co., Staufen, Germany), was mixed with dehydrated sea sand and subjected to drying in an analytical dryer at a temperature of 105 °C for 24 h. The measurement was conducted in three repetitions.

2.3.2. Water Activity

The water activity of the samples was determined at a constant temperature of 25 °C using a dew point device, the AquaLab CX2 (Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA, USA). The device was calibrated using saturated solutions of lithium chloride, sodium chloride, and distilled water. The measurement was performed in three repetitions.

2.3.3. Rehydration Rate

To assess the ability of the dehydrated product to regain its original moisture content after the addition of water, the weighed dried material was placed in metal containers with a sieve, which were immersed in a water container [38]. The rehydration time for the air-dried samples was 30, 90, and 180 min, while for the freeze-dried samples, it was 5, 15, and 30 min. After the process, the water was removed from the containers and the material was gently dried on filter paper, weighed, and subjected to the analysis of dry matter content. Rehydration experiments were conducted twice for each rehydration period and for each dehydrated material. The rehydration rate (RR) and soluble solid loss (SSL) were calculated as follows:
RR = mt/m0
SSL = (Mt DMt)/(Md/DMd)
where mt is the moisture of the rehydrated meat at time t (kg H2O/kg d.m.), m0 is the initial moisture of the dried sample (kg H2O/kg d.m.), Mt is the material mass after the rehydration time t (g), DMt is the dry matter content of the sample after the rehydration time t (%), Md is the dried material mass before rehydration (g), and DMd is the dry matter content of the dried sample before rehydration (%).

2.3.4. Hygroscopic Properties

The hygroscopicity of the dried meat was evaluated by measuring the sorption of water vapor when the samples were exposed to an environment with a water activity of 1.0. by placing them in a desiccator over distilled water. The samples were removed after 1, 3, 6, 9, and 24 h, and their masses were recorded. The hygroscopicity (H) was quantified as grams of adsorbed water per 100 g of dry matter [g H2O/100 g d.m.]. The measurements were conducted in duplicate for each sample.

2.3.5. Color

The samples’ surface color measurement was conducted using a chromameter CM-5 (Konica Minolta, Osaka, Japan) employing the reflection method in the CIE Lab* system, where the L* parameter represents the brightness of the sample, the a* coordinate indicates the contribution of green (−) and red (+) hues, and the b* chromatic coordinate describes the relative contribution of blue (−) and yellow (+) hues. A measurement aperture with a diameter of 8 mm, illuminant D65 light, and a standard 2° colorimetric observer were used. The angle between the light beam and the normal to the sample was set at 0°. Before the measurements, the device was calibrated for black and white standards. The analysis was conducted in ten repetitions for each sample.
The total change in the color (ΔE) of the dried samples was estimated according to Kipcak et al. [39]. Furthermore, to determine the degree of browning of the meat surface after drying, the browning index (BI) was calculated using the following equations [40]:
BI = 100 (x − 0.31)/0.17
where
x = (a* + 1.75 L*)/(5.645 L* + a* − 3.012 b*)

2.3.6. Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and Macroscopic Photographs

The analysis of the internal structure of the dried material was performed based on the images obtained from a scanning electron microscope (TM 3000, Hitachi Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) [41]. Strips approximately 2 mm thick were cut from the middle part of each rectangular prism using a razor blade, and then affixed to a metal stage with carbon tape. The images of the specimens were captured at accelerating voltages of 10 kV using magnifications of 100 and 200, and the data were saved through SEM software (TM3000, Hitachi Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).
Macroscopic photographs capturing the internal topography of the dried poultry meat were acquired using a Nikon D7000 digital camera (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). A camera objective was positioned at an elevation of 100 cm above the samples, situated within an opaque enclosure devoid of external illumination. The specimen was subjected to daylight illumination emanating from four fluorescent lamps.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The samples underwent ANOVA analysis using TIBCO company software (STATISTICA program, version 13, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Post hoc grouping of the samples was accomplished through Tukey’s test (α = 0.05).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. The Influence of Pretreatment on the Kinetics of the Hot Air- and Freeze-Drying Processes of Poultry Meat

The influence of pretreatment on the kinetics of the hot air- (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) processes of poultry meat was studied. Figure 1 shows the drying curves recorded within the time of the hot air- and freeze-drying of the poultry meat that was and was not subjected to the PEF pretreatment. Additionally, Figure 2 presents the drying time of intact and PEF-treated poultry meat dried with hot air and freeze-drying to moisture ratio (MR) equal 0.20 and MR = 0.04. Presented curves on Figure 1 demonstrate that both processes were the most intense in the beginning and progressively slowed down as the moisture ratio decreased. The PEF pretreatment affected the course of the water removal in opposite ways regarding different drying methods. In the case of the traditional drying at 60 °C, the application of the PEF slowed down the dynamics of dehydration compared to the untreated sample. That observation was unexpected, considering that in meat processing, the PEF is used as a factor that loosens the structure of the material to make it softer and more tender, thus usually improving mass transfer [42]. Nevertheless, the results obtained in this research suggest that the broken structure of the material could have collapsed and trapped contained moisture inside the sample, reducing its mobility. Another possible explanation may be related to the PEF improving the gelling properties of meat-origin protein [43], which could cause water holding and crust formation that led to slower moisture release. Additionally, elevated water-holding properties were also observed during thawing of the meat subjected to the PEF treatment, which resulted in significantly reduced leakage [44]. On the other hand, the freeze-drying process was improved after the PEF application in the process efficiency and lower equilibrium moisture ratio. Electroporation, which destroyed the cells building the dried tissue, followed by its preservation due to freezing, allowed the vapor to effectively migrate from the material without damaging its structure and shape [45]. Thanks to the low shrinkage and shape maintenance, freeze-dried materials are remarkably porous, and that increased porosity (see Figure 3) may be considered one of the crucial parameters enhancing mass transfer during drying, due to the open structure that is no longer a barrier. The improvement in the freeze-drying of samples subjected to a PEF may be also related to the formation of a large number of ice nucleation centres during freezing, resulting from the phenomena of electroporation and perforation of the cell membranes [46].
However, the pretreatment application notably changed the shape of the drying curves. Statistical analysis indicated that the PEF treatment did not affect the drying time needed to reach a moisture ratio at the level of 0.2 (Figure 2, on Figure 1 mark with red line). The reduction of the relative water content to a value of 0.2 or below is necessary for the production of meat snacks known as “jerky” [47]. Nevertheless, drying time measured until the material’s moisture ratio decreased to 0.04 shows the impact of the PEF pretreatment. During hot air-drying, only the highest energy intake (30 kJ/kg) caused a significant prolongation of the drying time by 68%, while treatment with lower parameters did not influence the final drying time. In the case of freeze-drying, the time of the process was significantly shortened after the PEF treatment. The dehydration through sublimation was 50% faster in the PEF-treated poultry meat, regardless of the parameters applied to the intact sample. The results obtained for hot air-drying are not consistent with previous findings. For example, Ghosh et al. [48] proved that the combination of HA at 60 °C with a PEF in chicken breast processing allows for a significant reduction in drying time and energy consumption of this type of processing. They also indicated that the temperature of 60 °C, which was also used in this research, gave the best outcome in terms of the PEF pretreatment beneficial effect of the parameters tested (50, 60, 70, 80 °C). On the contrary, the freeze-drying time reduction was consistent with previous studies [49]. Irrespective of the impact of the pretreatment, surprisingly, in this research, freeze-drying turned out to be a more effective solution to remove water from poultry meat samples. Such findings seem to be interesting for future research and practical implementation, especially combined with a PEF, considering that freeze-drying is known for being an extensively long and energy-consuming process [50].

3.2. The Influence of PEF Pretreatment on the Structure of the Hot Air- and Freeze-Dried Poultry Meat

Removing water from material during drying causes many physical changes, which include shrinkage of the product and changes in its internal structure and porosity [51,52]. Figure 3 show microphotographs of dried meat taken using a scanning electron microscope. Hot air-dried meat resulted in high shrinkage and this influences its compact structure and high density. When analyzing cross-sectional images of freeze-dried poultry meat, it can be stated that it is characterized by higher porosity, low shrinkage, and a developed surface with a spongy structure.
After the PEF treatment, the meat structure were loosened and some cracks and large voids were observed on irregular surfaces (Figure 3). The damage was more pronounced in the freeze-dried material than in the hot air-dried meat. Such structural damage in some places can be explained by the action of mechanism of the PEF on the meat’s microstructure, caused by the electroporation of the cell membranes [53]. The application of a PEF to meat has been noted to improve the mass transfer process during drying [54], as well as lowering the microbial load [29], and it can also be used in the brining of meat products [28]. Similarly, Fauster et al. [55] stated that for PEF treatment applied prior to the freeze-drying of strawberries and bell peppers, the creation of pores due to electroporation not only shortened the drying time but also resulted in reduced shrinkage of the PEF-treated material. Furthermore, the pulsed electric field, by causing electroporation of the cell membranes, affects the process of ice nucleation on damaged membrane fragments and also enables the crystallization of water in extracellular spaces [55]. Therefore, SEM photos show clear damage to the microstructure of the muscle tissue in the form of empty and disordered spaces, which may also be the remains of ice crystals removed during sublimation.

3.3. The Influence of PEF Pretreatment on the Physical Properties of the Hot Air- and Freeze-Dried Poultry Meat

3.3.1. Dry Matter Content and Water Activity

The dry matter content of the dried meat samples untreated and treated with the PEF ranged from 90.2 to 97.2% (Table 3). For the hot air (HA)-dried meat, only the sample pretreated with the PEF at an energy intake of 30 kJ/kg achieved a significantly lower (p < 0.05) dry matter content compared to the untreated reference sample. In the case of the freeze-dried (FD) samples, there were no significant differences (p > 0.05) in this parameter between the PEF pretreated samples and the untreated ones. As is shown in Table 3, the FD samples were characterized by about 5% higher dry matter content compared to the hot air-dried samples, irrespective of the energy input setting. Although the PEF increased the permeability of the cell membrane [56], accelerating the mass and heat transfer during further processing [57], there is the risk of quantitative losses of soluble substances. In addition, an increase in the PEF energy input may result in the cross-linking of cell membrane fragments, creating structures with high water-holding capacity [58]. As Alahakoon et al. [58] showed in the example of beef semitendinosus muscles, a PEF induces the rupture of myofibrils along the Z lines, which reorganizes the myofibrillar structure and makes the muscles more porous. The simultaneous loss of water and heat exposure during conventional drying may enhance this ability, as myofibrillar proteins are denatured and a rigid surface layer is formed [15]. In turn, freeze-drying can increase the intercellular and extracellular space in the muscles through ice crystal formation and improve the removal of water during the sublimation process. Therefore, the final product has a low water content and great susceptibility to rehydration [14]. As Mediani et al. [9] summarized, the freeze-drying method allows the preservation of the dried meat’s original features to the maximum possible degree.
Dried products usually have water activity (aw) below 0.7 [8], but the critical aw at which microorganisms can grow is 0.60 [59]. Nevertheless, the greatest stability of dried food can be achieved for aw in the range of 0.07–0.35 [60]. The water activity of the dried poultry meat varied from 0.080 to 0.486 (Table 3). Statistical analysis showed that PEF pretreatment at 30 kJ/kg increased the water activity of the HA-dried meat compared to other samples preserved with the same drying method. The PEF application did not have a meaningful influence (p > 0.05) on the water activity of the FD samples (Table 3). The opposite effect was obtained by Lammerskitten et al. [61] in the case of freeze-dried apples. Although the water activity and water content are not directly proportional, it was observed that lower water activity was associated with a higher dry matter content in all the meat samples. Therefore, the FD meat exhibited about a 4-fold lower water activity than the HA-dried poultry meat (Table 3). Greater differences in the water activity of dried meat could appear as a function of its storage time, because at aw ≤ 0.1 the activity of lipases increases [9]. Accordingly, this parameter could be higher for untreated meat compared to PEF pretreated samples, in which presumably lipases were partially or completely inactivated (depending on the electric field strength) [62]. Taking into account the above-mentioned considerations, the results suggest that the drying method, rather than the use of PEF pretreatment, exerts a predominant effect on both the dry matter content and the water activity of poultry meat.

3.3.2. Rehydration Rate

Due to the removal of water, the structure of dried material differs significantly from the structure of fresh raw material. The scale of changes depends on the drying method used, the applied process parameters, and the individual characteristics of the matrix [55,63,64,65]. Rehydration and hygroscopic properties are among the features of dry products. They concern the ability to absorb and adsorb water, respectively [66].
Figure 4 shows the rehydration rate (RR) and soluble solids loss (SSL) of the untreated and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried using the hot air- and freeze-dried methods. As can be seen from Figure 4a, in most of the analyzed cases, the amount of absorbed water increased with the passage of rehydration time. The FD poultry meat samples exhibited significantly higher RR values than the HA-dried poultry meat samples. Unlike the FD samples, a clear maximum RR is visible for the HA samples, which was reached after 90 min. The trends obtained for the FD samples depend on the analyzed process time—after 15 min, a higher RR was recorded for the untreated FD samples. In comparison, after 30 min, the PEF-pretreated FD samples showed a higher value of this parameter. In turn, the untreated HA samples showed a higher RR than the PEF-pretreated HA samples at each analyzed process time. It was also observed that the more water absorbed by the sample, the higher the SSL (Figure 4b), which results from the leaching phenomenon occurring during rehydration [63]. In the case of the SSL, it was observed that after 30 min of the rehydration process, the soluble solid loss was significantly higher for the FD samples than for the HA-dried meat (Table 3). The poultry meat dried by FD had more than twice the SSL of the poultry meat dried with the usage of hot air (Table 3). Such a situation was connected with the high porosity of the FD samples and the easier leaking of compounds from the meat structure compared to the HA-dried meat. In addition, the one-way analysis of variance showed no significant differences in the SSL (after 30 min) between the untreated and PEF-pretreated dried samples.
The poultry meat dried by FD had an RR that was more than twice as high (after 30 min of the process) as that of the poultry meat dried using HA (Table 3). The structure of the FD samples was much more porous than the structure of the HA samples (see Figure 3), which results in their higher ability to rebind water. Also, Elmas et al. [21] and Rahman et al. [67] noted a higher RR of meat samples dried by freeze-drying than those dried with the usage of hot air. The performed one-way analysis of variance showed no significant differences in RR after 30 min of the process between the untreated and PEF-pretreated dried samples (p > 0.05). Despite the lack of statistically significant differences, a slightly lower value of this parameter can be observed for the PEF-pretreated HA samples compared to the untreated samples dried in the same way. Additionally, the more energy supplied during the PEF pretreatment, the lower the RR. It can be concluded that as the degree of damage to the material tissue, as a result of electroporation, increased, the scale of irreversible structural changes also rose, which prevented the rebinding of water during rehydration [68].

3.3.3. Hygroscopic Properties

Another feature typical of dried products, as mentioned above, is hygroscopicity. Figure 5 presents the hygroscopic properties as a function of time. As seen in Figure 5a,b, the amount of adsorbed moisture increased with time. The FD poultry meat samples showed considerably higher hygroscopicity than the HA-dried poultry meat samples. In the case of both types of drying, for a longer analysis period, the untreated samples showed lower hygroscopicity than the PEF-pretreated samples. This lasted until the last measurement because, after 24 h of the process, all the samples contained a comparable amount of adsorbed moisture for each type of drying method.
The poultry meat dried by FD exhibited higher hygroscopic properties than the poultry meat dried with the usage of hot air (HA) (Table 3). As in the case of rehydration, this tendency can be explained by the more porous structure of the FD samples than that of the HA samples (see Figure 3), which could result in a higher ability to adsorb moisture. Moreover, the hot air flowing over the dried material could have led to the formation of a hardened layer on the sample surface, making it difficult to adsorb moisture [13,22,69]. One-way analysis of variance showed that the untreated HA-dried poultry meat did not differ in hygroscopic properties (after 24 h) from the PEF-treated samples dried in the same way. However, there were statistically significant differences in the samples treated with the PEF—the one with less energy supplied (15 kJ/kg) showed higher hygroscopicity than the sample with higher PEF energy input (30 kJ/kg). In the case of the FD samples, one-way analysis of variance showed that the untreated sample had the same hygroscopic properties as the milder-processed PEF-treated sample (15 kJ/kg), but at the same time the second sample treated with the PEF (30 kJ/kg) had significantly lower hygroscopicity. Perhaps the higher PEF energy input led to the overtreatment of the materials, which resulted in significant damage to the structure, preventing the adsorption of water vapor [70].

3.3.4. Color

Figure 6 shows the differences in the colors of the hot air- and freeze-dried meat products, while the optical properties of the studied samples expressed in the CIE L*a*b* system are presented in Table 4.
The PEF treatment did not exert any significant effect on either the a* or b* color coordinates of meat before drying. Meanwhile, the sample after being exposed to the PEF at 15 kJ/kg exhibited a decrease in brightness (L*) compared to the raw meat. Baldi et al. [34] noticed that the variations of the L* color parameter of raw chicken meat treated with a PEF mainly depend on the electric field strengths. In turn, Arroyo et al. [71] reported that PEF treatment at <50 kJ/kg did not affect the color parameters of both beef and turkey meats. Furthermore, as is shown in Table 4, the PEF decreased the L* parameter of the dried meat compared to the untreated samples, regardless of the drying method. The value of the a* parameter did not change, while the b* parameter depended on both the PEF treatment and the drying method, e.g., for the pretreated HA-dried samples, the b* parameter decreased, but for the pretreated FD samples, it increased in comparison with the untreated dried meat. In turn, as reported by Lammerskitten et al. [72], the PEF reduced the brightness of freeze-dried strawberries compared with untreated fruits while not affecting the values of the a* and b* parameters.
When comparing the optical properties of the meat dried using different methods, it was noticed that the FD meat exhibited the brightest color, which was confirmed by the highest values of the L* parameter in the range of 71.2 to 81.0 (Table 4) and the visible effect on the macroscopic photographs (Figure 6). This can be explained by uniform light reflection from the surface of the freeze-dried meat due to the presence of relatively large pores [24] as well as by mild conditions during the FD process (limited air access, low drying temperature) [73]. Furthermore, statistical analysis showed that the untreated FD meat had a significantly lower browning index (BI) than the PEF-pretreated FD samples. On the other hand, the HA-dried samples were characterized by the highest BI values, irrespective of the application of the PEF (Table 4). The reason for intensifying these changes may be that the meat was not cured before processing [7]. Thus, the color of the meat depended importantly on the form and content of myoglobin. When the ratio of oxymyoglobin (OMb) to metmyoglobin (MMb) is low, the meat is perceived as brown. During heating, the iron in MMb is oxidized and brown iron hemichrome is formed. Then the change of meat color from red to brown is irreversible [18]. The color loss is slightly different in freeze-drying, where the degradation and aggregation of meat proteins can also occur. The main reason for protein denaturation is the impact of frozen concentrated solutes. In addition, the frozen proteins are quite prone to oxidation when the temperature in a freeze-dryer is increased with ice sublimation during primary drying. The oxidation of proteins leads to the aggregation of disulfide bonds [74].
As a result of drying, the samples lost the color of raw meat, which was expressed numerically by the total color change (ΔE), ranging from 19.9 to 31.2. Intriguingly, the freeze-dried samples showed a greater total color change in comparison with the raw sample (Table 4). When comparing the dried meat pretreated with the PEF to their untreated counterparts (HA or FD), for which ΔE > 5, an observer can form the impression of two different colors [75]. The color of dried food depends on both physical and chemical properties [72]. During drying, structural changes of the meat surface, Maillard reactions, and oxidative transformations of heme pigments and lipids, may occur [17]. Interestingly, the color change can be intensified by the release of fat during tissue dehydration. Similar observations were presented by Domínguez-Niño et al. [19] in their study of the influence of different dehydration methods on the color changes of chicken breast meat.

4. Conclusions

Dried meat can serve as a protein-rich product suitable for easy transport and storage. Thus, the study focused on assessing the influence of pulsed electric field treatment on the quality of poultry meat during hot air-drying and freeze-drying. The method of drying as well as the pulsed electric field (PEF) pretreatment induced significant physical changes in the poultry meat. The PEF improves drying efficiency in the case of freeze-drying due to electroporation, which affects cell membranes, shortening the drying time and reducing shrinkage, whereas for hot air-drying the PEF-treated samples resulted in prolonged drying, which may have been caused by extensive damage to the muscle structures and high shrinkage. Drying lowered water activity and increased dry matter content, ensuring safety. The freeze-dried material exhibited a higher rehydration rate, hygroscopic properties, and better meat color compared to the hot air-dried material. Furthermore, microscopic analysis revealed distinct differences: hot air-drying led to high shrinkage and a dense structure, while the freeze-dried meat showed higher porosity and a spongy surface. The PEF treatment resulted in loosened structures with cracks and voids, which were more pronounced in the freeze-dried meat. Nevertheless, precise parameter selection for pretreatment and drying is crucial to ensure a high quality of the dried meat product.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.N. and A.W.; methodology, M.N., A.W. and K.R.; software, K.R.; validation, M.N. and K.R.; formal analysis, M.N.; investigation, K.R. and M.N.; resources, D.W.-R.; data curation, I.S., M.K., A.M. and M.S.; writing—original draft preparation, M.N., I.S., K.R., A.M., M.K. and M.S.; writing—review and editing, D.W.-R., M.N. and A.W.; visualization, M.N., I.S., A.M. and M.K.; supervision, M.N.; project administration, M.N.; funding acquisition, D.W.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Jakub Byczewski for his help.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Geiker, N.R.W.; Bertram, H.C.; Mejborn, H.; Dragsted, L.O.; Kristensen, L.; Carrascal, J.R.; Bügel, S.; Astrup, A. Meat and Human Health—Current Knowledge and Research Gaps. Foods 2021, 10, 1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. OECD/FAO. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023–2032; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  3. Chmiel, M.; Roszko, M.; Adamczak, L.; Florowski, T.; Pietrzak, D. Influence of Storage and Packaging Method on Chicken Breast Meat Chemical Composition and Fat Oxidation. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 2679–2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lapan, C.; Greenwood, J.; Kline, C. Eating Sustainably: Protein Consumption at Home, at Restaurants, and While Traveling. J. Gastron. Tour. 2020, 4, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. di Corcia, M.; Tartaglia, N.; Polito, R.; Ambrosi, A.; Messina, G.; Francavilla, V.C.; Cincione, R.I.; della Malva, A.; Ciliberti, M.G.; Sevi, A.; et al. Functional Properties of Meat in Athletes’ Performance and Recovery. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Combat Feeding Directorate. Warfighter’s Guide to Performance Nutrition and Operational Rations; Combat Feeding Directorate: Natick, MA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  7. Rahman, M.; Hashem, M.; Azad, M.; Choudhury, M.; Bhuiyan, M. Techniques of Meat Preservation—A Review. Meat Res. 2023, 3, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mishra, B.; Mishra, J.; Pati, P.; Rath, P. Dehydrated Meat Products: A Review. Int. J. Livest. Res. 2017, 7, 10–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mediani, A.; Hamezah, H.S.; Jam, F.A.; Mahadi, N.F.; Chan, S.X.Y.; Rohani, E.R.; Che Lah, N.H.; Azlan, U.K.; Khairul Annuar, N.A.; Azman, N.A.F.; et al. A Comprehensive Review of Drying Meat Products and the Associated Effects and Changes. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 1057366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Guiné, R.P.F. The Drying of Foods and Its Effect on the Physical-Chemical, Sensorial and Nutritional Properties. ETP Int. J. Food Eng. 2018, 4, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Aykın-Dinçer, E.; Kılıç-Büyükkurt, Ö.; Erbaş, M. Influence of Drying Techniques and Temperatures on Drying Kinetics and Quality Characteristics of Beef Slices. Heat Mass Transf. 2020, 56, 315–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sanztchurn, S.J.; Arnaud, E.; Zakhia-Rozis, N.; Collignan, A. Drying: Principles and Applications. In Handbook of Meat and Meat Processing, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012; pp. 469–478. ISBN 9781439836842. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kulwinder, K.; Singh, A.K. Drying Kinetics and Quality Characteristics of Beetroot Slices under Hot Air Followed by Microwave Finish Drying. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 9, 1036–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Hu, L. High Efficient Freeze-Drying Technology in Food Industry. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 3370–3388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shi, S.; Zhao, M.; Li, Y.; Kong, B.; Liu, Q.; Sun, F.; Yu, W.; Xia, X. Effect of Hot Air Gradient Drying on Quality and Appearance of Beef Jerky. LWT 2021, 150, 111974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Demiray, E.; Ergezer, H.; Özünlü, O.; Gökçe, R. Influence of Hot-Air Drying on Drying Kinetics and Some Quality Parameters of Sliced Chicken Breast Meat. Res. Sq. 2022, preprint. [CrossRef]
  17. Aksoy, A.; Karasu, S.; Akcicek, A.; Kayacan, S. Effects of Different Drying Methods on Drying Kinetics, Microstructure, Color, and the Rehydration Ratio of Minced Meat. Foods 2019, 8, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Faustman, C.; Sun, Q.; Mancini, R.; Suman, S.P. Myoglobin and Lipid Oxidation Interactions: Mechanistic Bases and Control. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Domínguez-Niño, A.; Lucho-Gómez, A.M.; Pilatowsky-Figueroa, I.; López-Vidaña, E.C.; Castillo-Téllez, B.; García-Valladares, O. Experimental Study of the Dehydration Kinetics of Chicken Breast Meat and Its Influence on the Physicochemical Properties. CyTA—J. Food 2020, 18, 508–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Babić, J.; Cantalejo, M.J.; Arroqui, C. The Effects of Freeze-Drying Process Parameters on Broiler Chicken Breast Meat. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 42, 1325–1334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Elmas, F.; Bodruk, A.; Köprüalan, Ö.; Arıkaya, Ş.; Koca, N.; Serdaroğlu, F.M.; Kaymak-Ertekin, F.; Koç, M. The Effect of Pre-Drying Methods on Physicochemical, Textural and Sensory Characteristics on Puff Dried Turkey Breast Meat. LWT 2021, 145, 111350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Si, X.; Chen, Q.; Bi, J.; Wu, X.; Yi, J.; Zhou, L.; Li, Z. Comparison of Different Drying Methods on the Physical Properties, Bioactive Compounds and Antioxidant Activity of Raspberry Powders. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 2055–2062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dziki, D. Recent Trends in Pretreatment of Food before Freeze-Drying. Processes 2020, 8, 1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Afifah, N.; Ratnawati, L.; Indrianti, N.; Sarifudin, A. The Effect of Pre-Drying Treatments on the Quality of Dehydrated Ground Beef. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 924, 012006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ciurzyńska, A.; Janowicz, M.; Karwacka, M.; Galus, S.; Kowalska, J.; Gańko, K. The Effect of Hybrid Drying Methods on the Quality of Dried Carrot. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Llavata, B.; García-Pérez, J.V.; Simal, S.; Cárcel, J.A. Innovative Pre-Treatments to Enhance Food Drying: A Current Review. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2020, 35, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Jadhav, H.B.; Annapure, U.S.; Deshmukh, R.R. Non-Thermal Technologies for Food Processing. Front. Nutr. 2021, 8, 657090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bhat, Z.F.; Morton, J.D.; Mason, S.L.; Bekhit, A.E.-D.A. Current and Future Prospects for the Use of Pulsed Electric Field in the Meat Industry. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 1660–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Gómez, B.; Munekata, P.E.S.; Gavahian, M.; Barba, F.J.; Martí-Quijal, F.J.; Bolumar, T.; Campagnol, P.C.B.; Tomasevic, I.; Lorenzo, J.M. Application of Pulsed Electric Fields in Meat and Fish Processing Industries: An Overview. Food Res. Int. 2019, 123, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nowosad, K.; Sujka, M.; Pankiewicz, U.; Kowalski, R. The Application of PEF Technology in Food Processing and Human Nutrition. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 397–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Tomasevic, I.; Heinz, V.; Djekic, I.; Terjung, N. Pulsed Electric Fields and Meat Processing: Latest Updates. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2023, 22, 857–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, C.; Lyu, X.; Arshad, R.N.; Aadil, R.M.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, W.; Yang, R. Pulsed Electric Field as a Promising Technology for Solid Foods Processing: A Review. Food Chem. 2023, 403, 134367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Beňo, F.; Škorpilová, T.; Pohůnek, V.; Podskalská, T.; Mrlík, M.; Tobolková, A.; Ševčík, R. Effect of Pulsed Electric Field Treatment on Beef Cuts Properties: Tenderness, Colour, Drip Loss, PH, Electrical Conductivity, Water Activity, Cooking Losses, Drying. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2023, 89, 103482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Baldi, G.; D’Elia, F.; Soglia, F.; Tappi, S.; Petracci, M.; Rocculi, P. Exploring the Effect of Pulsed Electric Fields on the Technological Properties of Chicken Meat. Foods 2021, 10, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, R.; Lebovka, N.; Marchal, L.; Vorobiev, E.; Grimi, N. Comparison of Aqueous Extraction Assisted by Pulsed Electric Energy and Ultrasonication: Efficiencies for Different Microalgal Species. Algal Res. 2020, 47, 101857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, H.; Liu, Z.-L.; Vidyarthi, S.K.; Wang, Q.-H.; Gao, L.; Li, B.-R.; Wei, Q.; Liu, Y.-H.; Xiao, H.-W. Effects of Different Drying Methods on Drying Kinetics, Physicochemical Properties, Microstructure, and Energy Consumption of Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) Cubes. Dry. Technol. 2021, 39, 418–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Abril, B.; Sanchez-Torres, E.A.; Bou, R.; Benedito, J.; Garcia-Perez, J.V. Influence of Pork Liver Drying on Ferrochelatase Activity for Zinc Protoporphyrin Formation. LWT 2022, 171, 114128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lammerskitten, A.; Shorstkii, I.; Parniakov, O.; Mykhailyk, V.; Toepfl, S.; Rybak, K.; Dadan, M.; Nowacka, M.; Wiktor, A. The Effect of Different Methods of Mango Drying Assisted by a Pulsed Electric Field on Chemical and Physical Properties. J. Food Process Preserv. 2020, 44, e14973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kipcak, A.S.; İsmail, O. Microwave Drying of Fish, Chicken and Beef Samples. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 281–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Mohapatra, D.; Bira, Z.M.; Kerry, J.P.; Frías, J.M.; Rodrigues, F.A. Postharvest Hardness and Color Evolution of White Button Mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus). J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, E146–E152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Ciurzyńska, A.; Popkowicz, P.; Galus, S.; Janowicz, M. Innovative Freeze-Dried Snacks with Sodium Alginate and Fruit Pomace (Only Apple or Only Chokeberry) Obtained within the Framework of Sustainable Production. Molecules 2022, 27, 3095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Mungure, T.E.; Farouk, M.M.; Birch, E.J.; Carne, A.; Staincliffe, M.; Stewart, I.; Bekhit, A.E.-D.A. Effect of PEF Treatment on Meat Quality Attributes, Ultrastructure and Metabolite Profiles of Wet and Dry Aged Venison Longissimus Dorsi Muscle. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 65, 102457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wang, Q.; Wei, R.; Hu, J.; Luan, Y.; Liu, R.; Ge, Q.; Yu, H.; Wu, M. Moderate Pulsed Electric Field-Induced Structural Unfolding Ameliorated the Gelling Properties of Porcine Muscle Myofibrillar Protein. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2022, 81, 103145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Chang, C.-K.; Lung, C.-T.; Gavahian, M.; Yudhistira, B.; Chen, M.-H.; Santoso, S.P.; Hsieh, C.-W. Effect of Pulsed Electric Field-Assisted Thawing on the Gelling Properties of Pekin Duck Meat Myofibrillar Protein. J. Food Eng. 2023, 350, 111482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Parniakov, O.; Bals, O.; Lebovka, N.; Vorobiev, E. Pulsed Electric Field Assisted Vacuum Freeze-Drying of Apple Tissue. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2016, 35, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wiktor, A.; Schulz, M.; Voigt, E.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D.; Knorr, D. The Effect of Pulsed Electric Field Treatment on Immersion Freezing, Thawing and Selected Properties of Apple Tissue. J. Food Eng. 2015, 146, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Konieczny, P.; Kowalski, R.; Prycz, J. Wybrane Wyróżniki Jakościowe Suszonych Przekąsek z Mięsa Wołowego. Żywność Nauka Technologia Jakość 2004, 3, 32–39. [Google Scholar]
  48. Ghosh, S.; Gillis, A.; Levkov, K.; Vitkin, E.; Golberg, A. Saving Energy on Meat Air Convection Drying with Pulsed Electric Field Coupled to Mechanical Press Water Removal. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 66, 102509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Palma-Acevedo, A.; Pérez-Won, M.; Tabilo-Munizaga, G.; Ortiz-Viedma, J.; Lemus-Mondaca, R. Effects of PEF-Assisted Freeze-Drying on Protein Quality, Microstructure, and Digestibility in Chilean Abalone “Loco” (Concholepas concholepas) Mollusk. Front. Nutr. 2022, 9, 810827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Duan, X.; Yang, X.; Ren, G.; Pang, Y.; Liu, L.; Liu, Y. Technical Aspects in Freeze-Drying of Foods. Dry. Technol. 2016, 34, 1271–1285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Tylewicz, U.; Aganovic, K.; Vannini, M.; Toepfl, S.; Bortolotti, V.; Dalla Rosa, M.; Oey, I.; Heinz, V. Effect of Pulsed Electric Field Treatment on Water Distribution of Freeze-Dried Apple Tissue Evaluated with DSC and TD-NMR Techniques. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2016, 37, 352–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Witrowa-Rajchert, D.; Rząca, M. Effect of Drying Method on the Microstructure and Physical Properties of Dried Apples. Dry. Technol. 2009, 27, 903–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alahakoon, A.U.; Faridnia, F.; Bremer, P.J.; Silcock, P.; Oey, I. Pulsed Electric Fields Effects on Meat Tissue Quality and Functionality. In Handbook of Electroporation; Miklavcic, D., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  54. Wiktor, A.; Iwaniuk, M.; Śledź, M.; Nowacka, M.; Chudoba, T.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D. Drying Kinetics of Apple Tissue Treated by Pulsed Electric Field. Dry. Technol. 2013, 31, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fauster, T.; Giancaterino, M.; Pittia, P.; Jaeger, H. Effect of Pulsed Electric Field Pretreatment on Shrinkage, Rehydration Capacity and Texture of Freeze-Dried Plant Materials. LWT 2020, 121, 108937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kotnik, T.; Frey, W.; Sack, M.; Haberl Meglič, S.; Peterka, M.; Miklavčič, D. Electroporation-Based Applications in Biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 480–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kim, S.-Y.; Lee, B.-M.; Hong, S.-Y.; Yeo, H.-H.; Jeong, S.-H.; Lee, D.-U. A Pulsed Electric Field Accelerates the Mass Transfer during the Convective Drying of Carrots: Drying and Rehydration Kinetics, Texture, and Carotenoid Content. Foods 2023, 12, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Alahakoon, A.U.; Oey, I.; Silcock, P.; Bremer, P. Understanding the Effect of Pulsed Electric Fields on Thermostability of Connective Tissue Isolated from Beef Pectoralis Muscle Using a Model System. Food Res. Int. 2017, 100, 261–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Alp, D.; Bulantekin, Ö. The Microbiological Quality of Various Foods Dried by Applying Different Drying Methods: A Review. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 1333–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rahman, M.S.; Labuza, T. Water Activity and Food Preservation. In Handbook of Food Preservation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 447–476. [Google Scholar]
  61. Lammerskitten, A.; Mykhailyk, V.; Wiktor, A.; Toepfl, S.; Nowacka, M.; Bialik, M.; Czyżewski, J.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D.; Parniakov, O. Impact of Pulsed Electric Fields on Physical Properties of Freeze-Dried Apple Tissue. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2019, 57, 102211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yang, S.; Suwal, S.; Andersen, U.; Otte, J.; Ahrné, L. Effects of Pulsed Electric Field on Fat Globule Structure, Lipase Activity, and Fatty Acid Composition in Raw Milk and Milk with Different Fat Globule Sizes. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2021, 67, 102548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dehghannya, J.; Farshad, P.; Khakbaz Heshmati, M. Three-Stage Hybrid Osmotic–Intermittent Microwave–Convective Drying of Apple at Low Temperature and Short Time. Dry. Technol. 2018, 36, 1982–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Miraei Ashtiani, S.-H.; Sturm, B.; Nasirahmadi, A. Effects of Hot-Air and Hybrid Hot Air-Microwave Drying on Drying Kinetics and Textural Quality of Nectarine Slices. Heat Mass Transf. 2018, 54, 915–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Tepe, T.K.; Tepe, B. The Comparison of Drying and Rehydration Characteristics of Intermittent-Microwave and Hot-Air Dried-Apple Slices. Heat Mass Transf. 2020, 56, 3047–3057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Xu, K.; Zhang, M.; Mujumdar, A.S.; Liu, Y. A Novel Two-step Process to Produce High-quality Basil Flavoured Chicken Powder: Effect of Ultrasonication Followed by Microwave Vacuum and Hot Air Drying. Flavour. Fragr. J. 2021, 36, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Rahman, M.S.; Salman, Z.; Kadim, I.T.; Mothershaw, A.; Al-Riziqi, M.H.; Guizani, N.; Mahgoub, O.; Ali, A. Microbial and Physico-Chemical Characteristics of Dried Meat Processed by Different Methods. Int. J. Food Eng. 2005, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Matys, A.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D.; Parniakov, O.; Wiktor, A. Assessment of the Effect of Air Humidity and Temperature on Convective Drying of Apple with Pulsed Electric Field Pretreatment. LWT 2023, 188, 115455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lee, C.-W.; Oh, H.-J.; Han, S.-H.; Lim, S.-B. Effects of Hot Air and Freeze Drying Methods on Physicochemical Properties of Citrus ‘Hallabong’ Powders. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2012, 21, 1633–1639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Matys, A.; Dadan, M.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D.; Parniakov, O.; Wiktor, A. Response Surface Methodology as a Tool for Optimization of Pulsed Electric Field Pretreatment and Microwave-Convective Drying of Apple. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 3392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Arroyo, C.; Eslami, S.; Brunton, N.P.; Arimi, J.M.; Noci, F.; Lyng, J.G. An Assessment of the Impact of Pulsed Electric Fields Processing Factors on Oxidation, Color, Texture, and Sensory Attributes of Turkey Breast Meat. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lammerskitten, A.; Wiktor, A.; Mykhailyk, V.; Samborska, K.; Gondek, E.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D.; Toepfl, S.; Parniakov, O. Pulsed Electric Field Pre-Treatment Improves Microstructure and Crunchiness of Freeze-Dried Plant Materials: Case of Strawberry. LWT 2020, 134, 110266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bhatta, S.; Janezic, T.S.; Ratti, C. Freeze-Drying of Plant-Based Foods. Foods 2020, 9, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lee, S.; Choi, Y.-S.; Jo, K.; Jeong, H.G.; Yong, H.I.; Kim, T.-K.; Jung, S. Processing Characteristics of Freeze-Dried Pork Powder for Meat Emulsion Gel. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 997–1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Mokrzycki, W.; Tatol, M. Color Difference Delta E—A Survey. Mach. Graph. Vis. 2011, 20, 381–441. [Google Scholar]
Applsci 14 01808 g001
Figure 1. Drying kinetics—dimensionless moisture content (MR) in untreated and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with (a) hot air (HA) and (b) freeze-drying (FD) methods.
Figure 1. Drying kinetics—dimensionless moisture content (MR) in untreated and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with (a) hot air (HA) and (b) freeze-drying (FD) methods.
Applsci 14 01808 g001
Applsci 14 01808 g002
Figure 2. Drying time of intact and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) methods to MR = 0.20 (lighter color of the columns) and MR = 0.04 (darker color of the columns). The same letters above columns (capital letters for MR = 0.20, lowercase for MR = 0.04) show homogeneous groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Drying time of intact and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) methods to MR = 0.20 (lighter color of the columns) and MR = 0.04 (darker color of the columns). The same letters above columns (capital letters for MR = 0.20, lowercase for MR = 0.04) show homogeneous groups (p < 0.05).
Applsci 14 01808 g002
Applsci 14 01808 g003
Figure 3. Scanning electron microscope photographs of intact and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) methods (100× magnification).
Figure 3. Scanning electron microscope photographs of intact and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) methods (100× magnification).
Applsci 14 01808 g003
Applsci 14 01808 g004
Figure 4. Effect of PEF treatment (15 and 30 kJ/kg) of poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) on (a) rehydration rate (RR) and (b) soluble solids loss (SSL).
Figure 4. Effect of PEF treatment (15 and 30 kJ/kg) of poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) on (a) rehydration rate (RR) and (b) soluble solids loss (SSL).
Applsci 14 01808 g004
Applsci 14 01808 g005
Figure 5. Hygroscopic properties of intact and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with (a) hot air (HA) and (b) freeze-drying (FD) methods.
Figure 5. Hygroscopic properties of intact and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with (a) hot air (HA) and (b) freeze-drying (FD) methods.
Applsci 14 01808 g005
Applsci 14 01808 g006
Figure 6. Macroscopic photographs of intact and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) methods.
Figure 6. Macroscopic photographs of intact and PEF-treated (15 and 30 kJ/kg) poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) methods.
Applsci 14 01808 g006
Table 1. Change in the mass of raw material after the pulsed electric field treatment.
Table 1. Change in the mass of raw material after the pulsed electric field treatment.
MaterialMass Change (%)Dry Matter Content [%]aw [−]
RAW-24.8 ± 0.8 b0.954 ± 0.025 a
PEF 15 kJ/kg −0.50 ± 0.24 a 125.3 ± 0.7 ab0.976 ± 0.001 b
PEF 30 kJ/kg −2.82 ± 0.45 b26.7 ± 1.0 a0.976 ± 0.002 b
1 Mean values ± standard deviation with different letters in the same column are statistically different (p < 0.05).
Table 2. Code and types of the obtained samples.
Table 2. Code and types of the obtained samples.
CodePEF Specific Energy Input [kJ/kg]Drying
Hot Air (HA)Freeze-Drying (FD)
RAW-−−
PEF 15 kJ/kg 15−−
PEF 30 kJ/kg 30 −−
HA -+−
HA_PEF 15 kJ/kg 15+−
HA_PEF 30 kJ/kg 30 +−
FD -−+
FD_PEF 15 kJ/kg 15−+
FD_PEF 30 kJ/kg 30 −+
Table 3. Effect of PEF treatment (15 and 30 kJ/kg) of poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) on dry matter content, water activity, rehydration rate (RR) and soluble solids loss (SSL) after 30 min of rehydration process, and hygroscopic properties after 24 h under water activity equal to 1.
Table 3. Effect of PEF treatment (15 and 30 kJ/kg) of poultry meat dried with hot air (HA) and freeze-drying (FD) on dry matter content, water activity, rehydration rate (RR) and soluble solids loss (SSL) after 30 min of rehydration process, and hygroscopic properties after 24 h under water activity equal to 1.
MaterialDry Matter
Content [%]		aw [−]RR [−]SSL [−]Hygroscopic
Properties [−]
After 30 minAfter 30 minAfter 24 h
HA92.6 ± 0.3 b 10.408 ± 0.039 b1.400 ± 0.128 b0.009 ± 0.001 b1.146 ± 0.011 ab
HA_PEF 15 kJ/kg92.9 ± 1.0 b0.386 ± 0.066 b1.334 ± 0.090 b0.009 ± 0.001 b1.164 ± 0.013 b
HA_PEF 30 kJ/kg90.2 ± 0.2 a0.486 ± 0.038 c1.311 ± 0.036 b0.008 ± 0.001 b1.122 ± 0.015 a
FD96.1 ± 0.5 cd0.101 ± 0.024 a2.924 ± 0.114 a0.019 ± 0.001 a1.241 ± 0.010 d
FD_PEF 15 kJ/kg97.2 ± 0.2 d0.080 ± 0.009 a2.981 ± 0.500 a0.019 ± 0.003 a1.223 ± 0.007 cd
FD_PEF 30 kJ/kg96.0 ± 1.1 c0.116 ± 0.032 a2.731 ± 0.524 a0.018 ± 0.003 a1.213 ± 0.015 c
1 Mean values ± standard deviation with different letters in the same column are statistically different (p < 0.05).
Table 4. Color parameters (L*—brightness, a*—green/red color, b*—blue/yellow color) and browning index (BI), total color change (ΔE) in comparison to raw material and to the untreated dried material.
Table 4. Color parameters (L*—brightness, a*—green/red color, b*—blue/yellow color) and browning index (BI), total color change (ΔE) in comparison to raw material and to the untreated dried material.
MaterialL* (−)a* (−)b* (−)BI [−]ΔE (−)
Compared to Raw MaterialCompared to
HA/FD
RAW53.1 ± 1.9 d 1−1.9 ± 0.4 a4.0 ± 1.7 a---
PEF 15 kJ/kg46.5 ± 3.9 c−2.7 ± 0.4 a2.8 ± 1.1 a-7.3 ± 3.0 -
PEF 30 kJ/kg52.0 ± 5.9 d−3.1 ± 0.7 a3.4 ± 2.0 a-5.3 ± 3.4-
HA44.4 ± 5.2 bc7.2 ± 1.5 c18.5 ± 2.8 cd65.8 ± 12.3 c19.9 ± 2.6-
HA_PEF 15 kJ/kg40.8 ± 3.6 ab6.6 ± 1.6 c17.0 ± 3.5 bc65.3 ± 14.1 c20.3 ± 2.9 5.9 ± 2.8
HA_PEF 30 kJ/kg38.7 ± 5.3 a7.0 ± 2.1 c15.8 ± 3.8 b65.2 ± 13.5 c21.4 ± 3.2 8.2 ± 4.1
FD81.0 ± 7.1 f2.9 ± 1.7 b15.2 ± 3.8 b24.0 ± 9.3 a31.2 ± 4.8-
FD_PEF 15 kJ/kg75.9 ± 3.0 e4.0 ± 1.5 b20.6 ± 2.2 d35.2 ± 5.8 b29.0 ± 2.18.1 ± 2.4
FD_PEF 30 kJ/kg71.2 ± 5.4 e4.1 ± 1.7 b20.1 ± 1.9 d37.2 ± 5.8 b25.3 ± 4.111.8 ± 3.9
1 Mean values ± standard deviation with different letters in the same column are statistically different (p < 0.05).
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nowacka, M.; Szymanska, I.; Rybak, K.; Karwacka, M.; Matys, A.; Wiktor, A.; Slowinski, M.; Witrowa-Rajchert, D. Effect of PEF Treatment on Chosen Properties of Raw and Hot Air- and Freeze-Dried Poultry Meat. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1808. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051808

AMA Style

Nowacka M, Szymanska I, Rybak K, Karwacka M, Matys A, Wiktor A, Slowinski M, Witrowa-Rajchert D. Effect of PEF Treatment on Chosen Properties of Raw and Hot Air- and Freeze-Dried Poultry Meat. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(5):1808. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051808

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nowacka, Malgorzata, Iwona Szymanska, Katarzyna Rybak, Magdalena Karwacka, Aleksandra Matys, Artur Wiktor, Miroslaw Slowinski, and Dorota Witrowa-Rajchert. 2024. "Effect of PEF Treatment on Chosen Properties of Raw and Hot Air- and Freeze-Dried Poultry Meat" Applied Sciences 14, no. 5: 1808. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051808

APA Style

Nowacka, M., Szymanska, I., Rybak, K., Karwacka, M., Matys, A., Wiktor, A., Slowinski, M., & Witrowa-Rajchert, D. (2024). Effect of PEF Treatment on Chosen Properties of Raw and Hot Air- and Freeze-Dried Poultry Meat. Applied Sciences, 14(5), 1808. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14051808

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop