Next Article in Journal
Special Issue: Innovative Pasta with High Nutritional and Health Potential
Next Article in Special Issue
Inulin from Globe Artichoke Roots: A Promising Ingredient for the Production of Functional Fresh Pasta
Previous Article in Journal
Detection of Nitrated, Oxygenated and Hydrogenated Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds in Smoked Fish and Meat Products
Previous Article in Special Issue
Sustainable Design of Innovative Kiwi Byproducts-Based Ingredients Containing Probiotics
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 11
Issue 16
10.3390/foods11162447
foods-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 the Application of a Green Preservative Strategy on Minced Meat Products: Antimicrobial Efficacy of Olive Mill Wastewater Polyphenolic Extract in Improving Beef Burger Shelf-Life

by
Rossana Roila
1,
Beatrice Sordini
2,
Sonia Esposto
2,*,
David Ranucci
1,*,
Sara Primavilla
3,
Andrea Valiani
3,
Agnese Taticchi
2,
Raffaella Branciari
1,† and
Maurizio Servili
2,†
1
Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Perugia, Via San Costanzo 4, 06126 Perugia, Italy
2
Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Perugia, 06126 Perugia, Italy
3
Istituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale dell’Umbria e delle Marche “Togo Rosati”, Via G. Salvemini 1, 06126 Perugia, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Foods 2022, 11(16), 2447; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11162447
Submission received: 19 July 2022 / Revised: 9 August 2022 / Accepted: 11 August 2022 / Published: 14 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Valorization of Food Processing By-Products)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The mincing process of raw meat favors microbial spoilage as well as chemical and enzymatic oxidation processes. In order to limit this degradative process, preservatives are routinely added to minced meat products. The role of olive mill wastewater polyphenolic extract as a replacement for synthetic preservatives in beef burger was assessed. The antioxidant capacity of the extract experimentally added to beef burger was evaluated using the oxygen radical absorbance capacity method (ORACFL) to assess the shelf-life, while the lipid oxidation was measured by thiobarbituric reactive substance (TBAR) determination. The antimicrobial activity was assayed by means of classical methods and predictive microbiology. The experimental addition of polyphenolic extract led to 62% lower lipid oxidation and 58% higher antioxidant capacity; it also successfully modulated spoilage microbial populations with an average growth reduction of 15% on day 7. Results indicate that olive mill wastewater polyphenolic extracts could be added to raw ground beef meat to act as natural antioxidants and to modulate microbial growth.

1. Introduction

Burger is one of the most appreciated meat products worldwide for its ease of preparation and versatility of consumption, which is considered a time-saving strategy in the modern lifestyle [1,2,3]. Nevertheless, the grinding process for raw meat, resulting in the disruption of muscle structure, leads to a less stable food matrix favoring microbial spoilage as well as chemical and enzymatic oxidation processes with possible repercussions on safety and health [4,5]. Several strategies, such as peculiar production processes, packaging and food additives, have been studied during the last few decades in order to reduce the above-mentioned phenomena and enhance the shelf-life of these meat products [6,7,8,9,10]. Studies in the literature demonstrate that antioxidant molecules protect the grinded meat from oxidation and delay the microbial growth [11]. Consequently, in fresh ground meat preparations, additives with antioxidant properties are usually employed. Although food additives are strictly regulated (Regulation (EC) No. 1333/2008, s.m.i.) [12], chemical compounds intentionally added into food are considered with mistrust by consumers due to their potential long-term adverse effects linked to hypersensitivity, asthma, cancer, skin irritation, allergies and gastrointestinal problems [13,14]. As a consequence, growing interest has been demonstrated by consumers towards products with natural antioxidants, encouraging food industries to continuously research for the newest natural food additives to replace synthetic ones [15].
Several spices, essential oils, extracts, powders and other plant by-products have been studied in recent decades in order to assess their activity and their effects on meat products as food supplementation [16,17,18,19]. Among these, olive oil by-products can be considered a source of bioactive molecules that are potentially applicable for processed meat preservation [20]. It is known that olive oil by-products are characterized by a high number of hydrophilic phenols, mainly secoiridoids, found exclusively in the Oleaceae family, that have been proven to inhibit or delay the rate of growth of a wide range of Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria as well as to have high antioxidant properties [21,22]. In particular, the olive mill wastewater generated in olive oil production has a high generation rate (49% of total mass), and the possible exploitation of this agro-industrial waste through the recovery of high-value bioactive compounds could positively affect the economic and environmental sustainability of agro-industry [23].
Although the chemical composition and the antioxidant capacity of olive oil by-products as well as their application in foodstuff have been previously studied by several authors [20,24,25], information on the effect of the olive mill wastewater polyphenolic extract on the microbial population of minced meat products to improve their shelf-life is still limited.
In this sense, the role of this natural extract in the replacement of synthetic preservatives in meat products is postulated. With this aim, the antioxidant activity and antimicrobial capacity of olive mill wastewater polyphenolic extract during beef burger shelf-life was evaluated. In order to estimate the potential activity of this polyphenolic extract in comparison with synthetic additives, different formulations were tested and compared to a control formulation and a control formulation with synthetic preservatives (sodium ascorbate) during a period of 7 days of cold storage.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Olive Mill Waste Water Extract and Compositon

The crude phenolic extract (PE) used in the beef burger formulation was obtained through a three-step membrane filtration process using fresh olive mill wastewaters from processing olives of the Umbrian Moraiolo cultivar, as reported by Ianni et al. [26]. To obtain a stable powder formulation, the extracts were spray-dried after their combination with maltodextrin (1:1 dw), which functioned as a carrier, and is largely used in spray drying in the food industry [27]. The phenolic composition of the spray-dried extracts was assessed by means of high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) [28] and is reported in Table 1.

2.2. Beef Burger Formulation

Beef burgers were produced in an EU-approved meat processing plant located in Umbria, Central Italy. The meat for the preparation of beef burger was obtained from cuts (beef rump and shoulder muscle) of 18-month-old female Chianina cattle reared and slaughtered in Italy in accordance with European Union Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 s.m.i.) [29]. After 12 days of carcass aging, 40 kg of meat cuts was ground twice in a professional trimmer equipped with a 4 mm-hole plate. The grinded meat was divided into four different formulations, each 5 kg in weight, and aseptically hand-mixed with the following ingredients for 2 min (basic recipe): 10 g/kg NaCl, 60 g/kg grated parmesan, 80 g/kg breadcrumbs and 2 eggs/kg. The four different formulations were elaborated as follows: C, basic recipe with no addition; A, basic recipe plus 10 g/kg commercial antioxidant mix (CM) (CondiHamb, MEC Import, Perugia, Italy); AP, basic recipe plus 5 g/kg CM plus 350 mg/kg PE crude extract; P, basic recipe plus 700 mg/kg PE crude extract. The chemical composition of the burger was characterized by an average of 22% protein and 8 % fat. Each batch was further mixed for 2 min, and the burgers were then molded (about 100 g each) and placed in a display refrigerator at 4 ± 2 °C for 7 days, under alternating exposure to fluorescent light (12 h light/12 h darkness) to simulate retail storage conditions.

2.3. Antioxidant Capacity of PE and Mix Extracts and Beef Burger

The antioxidant capacity was evaluated for the synthetic and natural additives and burgers over the course of their shelf-life using the oxygen radical absorbance capacity method (ORACFL). One gram each of CM, PE and burger samples was separately mixed with a buffer, 75 mM, pH 7.2, containing 13.19 g of K2HPO4 and 10.26 g of KH2PO4 in 900 mL of deionized water, homogenized with an Ultra-Turrax homogenizer (Ultra Turrax T25 Basic, IKA Labortechnik Janke & Kunkel GmbH, Stavfen, Germany) for 1 min, and then vortexed for 2 min. The homogenates were centrifuged at 6000 rpm at 4 °C for 20 min, and the supernatant was used for the determination of the antioxidant capacity using the oxygen radical absorbance capacity method (ORACFL) based on the fluorescence decay rate of a probe in the presence of a radical oxygen species (ROO) and compared with that of a reference standard, Trolox (6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid, Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany). The ORACFL assays were carried out on a FLUO-star OPTIMA microplate fluorescence reader (BMGLABTECH, Offenburg, Germany) at an excitation wavelength of 485 nm and an emission wavelength of 520 nm. The results are expressed as µg of Trolox equivalents (TE) per 100 g sample.

2.4. Lipid Oxidation of Beef Burger

Lipid oxidation over the course of shelf-life was measured by thiobarbituric reactive substance (TBAR) determination, performed according to Tarladgis et al. [30] and measured by an Ultrospec 2100 pro UV–visible spectrometer (Amersham Pharmacia Biotech, Amersham, UK) at 532 nm. Quantification was performed using a standard calibration curve and with a concentration range of 1E6 to 1E5 M (y = 2E + 07x + 0.0046, R2 = 0.9999), corresponding to a range of 0.4–4 mg of malonaldehyde (MDA)/kg meat. The MDA recovery was determined by spiking the samples with a known volume of 0.2 mM TMP. The TBAR concentration was expressed as mg MDA/kg meat.

2.5. Antimicrobial Activity of Commercial Mix and PE Extract

The evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of CM and PE extract was performed through the agar well diffusion technique [31,32] on some micro-organisms relevant for the food industry, such as Staphylococcus aureus (WDCM 00034), Escherichia coli (WDCM 00013) and Pseudomonas fluorescens (WDCM 00115). The selected reference strains were revitalized in Brain Heart Infusion (BHI) broth and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h with the exception of P. fluorescens, which was incubated at 25 °C for 24–48 h. An initial suspension of 0.5 McFarland in 0.9% sterile saline solution was prepared for each micro-organism, and 100 µL was then distributed on Mueller–Hinton Agar (MHA, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Milan, Italy) plates with a swab, making four 90° rotations. At the time of use, the extracts were suspended with sterile demineralized water to obtain a concentration of 750 mg/mL, and then two dilutions were performed at 375 and 187 mg/mL. In each inoculated MHA plate, 7 mm-diameter holes were produced with a sterilized cork borer and then filled with 50 µL of extract suspension at different concentrations [31,32]. The plates were incubated according to the most suitable growth conditions, as reported above. For each bacterial strain, CM and PE extract were tested, and a negative control was set up with sterile demineralized water. At the end of the incubation period, the diameter of the inhibition halo was measured by a gauge and expressed in mm.

2.6. Microbial Analysis of Beef Burger

After 0, 2, 5 and 7 days of storage (T0, T1, T2 and T3, respectively), 10 g of each sample was aseptically removed and placed in a sterile stomacher bag with 90 mL of Buffered Peptone Water (Oxoid Ltd., Basingstoke, UK). After homogenization (Stomacher 400 circulator, Seward Ltd., Norfolk, UK), decimal serial dilutions were performed, and the below-reported microbiological determination was carried out in duplicate. Total viable count (TVC) was performed on Plate Count Agar (PCA, Oxoid Ltd.) incubated at 30 °C for 72 h according to ISO 4833-1 [33]. Enterobacteriaceae were enumerated according to a validated alternative method of ISO 21528-2 [34] (AFNOR AES 10/07-01/08) on Rebecca™ EB (bioMérieux, Mercy Etoile, France) incubated at 37 °C for 24 h. The lactic acid bacteria (LAB) count was performed on de Man, Rogosa and Sharpe agar (MRS, Oxoid Ltd.) incubated at 30 °C for 72 h, while the Pseudomonas spp. count was performed on Pseudomonas Agar Base with CFC selective agar supplement (Oxoid Ltd.) and incubated for 48 h at 25 °C. Coagulase-positive staphylococci were enumerated on Baird Parker Agar with the addition of RPF supplement (Biolife, Milano, Italy) and incubated at 37 °C for 48 h. Results were recorded as colony-forming units (CFUs) and converted into log10 values to obtain Log CFU/g of meat prior to statistical analysis according to Gill and Jones [35]. In order to assess the microbiological safety over the course of beef burgers’ shelf-life, the Salmonella spp. detection was performed according to ISO 6579–1: 2017 [36] at T0, T1, T2 and T3, in compliance with Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 [37].
Corresponding with the end of the manufacturing process (T0), the enumeration of E. coli was performed according to ISO 16649 [38] on all experimental groups as a process hygiene criterion of Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005 [37].

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using the GLM procedure of SAS [39]. An ANOVA model was used with sample (C, A, AP, P) and time (T0, T1, T2, T3) as the fixed factors. The replicate effect was found not significant and removed from the model. The differences in the means were detected using the Tukey’s test and considered significant when p < 0.05. The effects of formulation on the growth of the target micro-organisms were evaluated with the DMFit tool of the free predictive microbiology software Combase (https://www.combase.cc/index.php/en/DMFit, accessed on 20 June 2022), allowing for the definition of growth parameters such as lag phase duration (λ, 1/h) and maximum growth rate (µmax, 1/h) by means of the Baranyi and Roberts model [40]. The fitted results were analyzed by one-way ANOVA (with the sample as a fixed variable) and Tukey’s test (p < 0.05).

3. Results and Discussion

A higher antioxidant activity was found in the PE in comparison with the CM containing ascorbic acid (554.42 ± 3.38 and 1149.02 ± 13.69 µg TE/100 g in CM and PE, respectively). The high antioxidant activity recorded in the PE is in agreement with a previous studies that reported the powerful antioxidant activity of olive phenolic compounds [22,41,42,43,44]. The results for the lipid oxidation and antioxidant activity of minced beef meat indicated by TBARs and ORACFL values are reported in Table 2.
Concerning lipid oxidation, increased TBARs values were detected during storage for all experimental formulations, and, among groups, differences were reported starting from 2 days with higher values for C samples. The addition of 700 mg/kg PE in meat (P group) guaranteed the lowest level of TBARS in the second part of storage (days 5–7) with a reduction of 62% of lipidic oxidation on day 7 for P compared to C samples. Similar results, albeit with a lower magnitude, have been reported by Martínez-Zamora et al. [43], demonstrating how the incorporation of synthetic hydroxytyrosol reduced the oxidation of lamb patties by 35% with respect to the control sample at the end of shelf-life. The hamburger formulation and storage time significantly affected the lipid oxidation, and the interaction between these two factors was also significant (Table 2). A PE-concentration-dependent effect preserving lipid oxidation was also observed by other studies in the literature both in raw and grilled beef burger [20].
The ORACFL assay revealed differences in the antioxidant activity of four experimental groups, with the highest mean values recorded in the P group (Table 2). A reduction in the antioxidant activity during storage was recorded in A, AP and P. This reduction, as found in a previous study, is due mainly to the oxidative degradation phenomena of phenols or antioxidant molecule that occur during storage [20,44]. Despite the degradation of phenols, the higher level of integration in beef meat (P group) ensures considerable antioxidant activity until the end of storage time. It is well-known that phenols can act as hydrogen donors and compounds linked with a o-dihydroxyl functionality possess a high antioxidant activity, due to the formation of intramolecular hydrogen bonds observed during the reaction with free radicals [22]. Among these, the highest antioxidant activity was attributed to 3,4-DHPEA (hydroxytyrosol) and secoiridoid derivatives such as 3,4-DHPEA-EDA (oleacein) [22]. In particular, hydroxytyrosol’s strong antioxidant potential is strictly related to its chemical structure: a phenol ring formed by a catechol group and three hydroxyl groups [43]. The combination of these functional groups could represent the main explanation for its preservative action in products of animal origin, as previously demonstrated in the literature [45,46].
The preliminary evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of the CM and PE performed through the agar well diffusion technique revealed that the PE possessed greater in vitro antimicrobial activity compared to the CM. Indeed, after incubation, the inhibition halos were measured for each strain, and the PE showed halos of 16, 13 and 11 mm for P. fluorescens, 14, 11 and 9 mm for S. aureus, and 9, 7 and 0 mm for E. coli for 750, 375 and 187 mgPE/mL, respectively. The assay’s results suggest that the CM had no effect on microbial growth as the inhibition halos were absent for all the concentrations and micro-organisms tested.
Concerning the microbial analysis of beef burger, the Salmonella spp. detection showed that the pathogen was absent during the entire duration of products’ shelf-life in all the experimental groups, complying with the food safety criterion of EU Regulation [37]. Similarly, the process hygiene criterion of E. coli in meat preparations was fully respected as the microbial count at T0 was below 2 Log CFU/g for all experimental groups [37]. This evidence confirms both the satisfactory safety and the hygiene levels of the beef burger production process.
The results of microflora evolution during storage for refrigerated beef burgers are depicted in Table 3. As shown, a significant (p < 0.001) increase was observed for all microbial populations and for all experimental groups studied as storage time elapsed. Immediately after production (T0), higher microbial populations were recorded for the TVC and LAB count followed by Pseudomonas spp. The initial (T0) TVC in all studied groups was approximately 4.4 Log CFU/g, which can be considered a characteristic value for minced meat products after manufacturing [47]. Indeed, this result is in agreement with the levels reported in the available literature for similar minced beef meat products [48,49], albeit other studies have found higher values [50] or lower ones [51]. It has been reported that a possible explanation for this relatively high initial TVC contamination in beef burgers may be attributed to the mincing process, which contributes to the total viable counts, likely as a consequence of the disruption of muscle structure, making nutrients easily available to micro-organisms [49]. However, the low initial value of Enterobacteriaceae counts (average value 1.33 Log CFU/g) confirms the optimal initial microbiological quality attributable to the good physiological status of the animal at slaughter and to proper postmortem meat acidification as well as to the good hygienic conditions during slaughter, handling and production processes [47,52].
As above mentioned, following TVC, LAB and Pseudomonas spp. where the two microbial population with the highest initial value (T0), with average levels among experimental groups of 4.09 and 4.05 Log CFU/g, respectively. Similar counts were recorded for analogous products by Zamuz et al. [47] and Andres et al. [53], while slightly higher values were recorded by Parafati et al. [54] and Marrone et al. [55] for Pseudomonas in minced beef meat products.
At the end of the storage period (day 7), significant (p < 0.001) differences between experimental groups were observed for TVC, Pseudomonas and Enterobatteriaceae (Table 3). Specifically, the lowest value for this microbial population corresponded to those burgers formulated with the highest amount of PE (P group), suggesting that the bioactive molecules contained in the extract affected this microbial population by limiting its growth, as preliminary suggested by an in vitro assay.
The parameters characterizing the growth curves of targeted microbial populations in the four experimental groups were obtained by modeling growth data by means of the Baranyi equation [40] and are summarized in Table 4.
Regarding the TVC, the addition of polyphenols in beef burger resulted in an extended lag phase (λ) in P samples in comparison with C and A and a reduction in the maximum growth rate (μmax) in AP compared with all other groups and the final value for P. For Staphylococcus spp., the experimental treatment affected the microbial growth by extending the λ in P samples in comparison with C and A and by reducing the μmax in P compared with all other groups and in AP compared to C. The final value was also affected by a significant reduction in the two experimentally manufactured burger groups (AP, P). Considering Pseudomonas spp., the P group recorded a longer λ compared to C and A samples while AP was not statistically different from the other experimental groups; concerning μmax, both AP and P showed lower values compared to C and A. For this microbial population, the final value was significantly reduced in the P group.
Neither λ nor the final value of the LAB population were different among groups, while the μmax was slightly higher in AP and P compared to C and A, agreeing with previous results from Servili et al. [56], who reported that olive by-product polyphenols did not affect LAB growth in fortified foodstuff. For Enterobacteriaceae, data show a reduction in the final value in the AP and P, while no significant differences were highlighted for λ and μmax; however, an increasing trend was recorded for λ and a decreasing one was noted for μmax (p = 0.06 and p = 0.056, respectively, data not shown).
In agreement with what is reported above, Mexis et al. [57] noticed a reduced growth rate in TVC, LAB and pseudomonads in ground chicken meat with the addition of Citrus spp. extracts. In Mortadella meat products with citrus fiber, thyme and rosemary, essential oil lowered the growth rate of the TVC during storage [58]. Roila et al. [25] reported that the addition of olive oil by-product polyphenols in Fior di Latte cheese brine resulted in an extended λ for P. fluorescens and Enterobacteriaceae and in a reduced μmax for P. fluorescens.
As shown, the result of growth data modeling appears to be related to the influence exerted by the experimental addition of olive-mill-wastewater-derived polyphenols on extending the λ and reducing the μmax and the final value. Analogous conclusions have been previously reported for similar compounds and for other preservation methods, albeit a systematic comparison is difficult as the characteristics of microbial growth curves can be affected by differences in food matrices, storage condition and duration [25,59].
Concerning the antimicrobial activity, it has been demonstrated that the dialdehydic structure of olive phenols exerts an antimicrobial effect by strongly interacting with amino acids, proteins and membrane molecules, promoting membrane permeabilization and bacterial cell lysis [60]. Indeed, studies have shown that tyrosol inhibits the activity of cyclooxygenase enzymes and hydroxytyrosol has a protein-denaturing ability [60]. Other studies report that many polyphenolic compounds are potent iron scavengers, and the lack of iron affects the growth of certain pathogenic bacteria by a reduction in the ribonucleotide precursor of DNA [61]. Besides the molecular mechanisms, the microbial growth inhibition exerted by this phenolic compound is strongly related to its chemical structure; as a consequence, the key factor determining the antibacterial activity of the phenolic extracts is their phenolic profile [62].

4. Conclusions

Consumers’ interest in meat products formulated with natural preservatives has motivated researchers to evaluate the effectiveness and applicability of naturally occurring compounds with antioxidant and antimicrobial purposes. This study has proved that olive mill wastewater extracts are characterized by a phenolic profile and are able to significantly improve the oxidative and microbial stability of beef burger during cold storage.
Therefore, it was concluded that olive mill wastewater extracts could be successfully added to raw ground beef meat to act as natural antioxidants and antimicrobials with added health, environmental and economic benefits as well as increased consumer appeal.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, R.B., S.E. and R.R.; methodology, S.E. and R.B.; validation, S.E.; formal analysis, R.R., S.P. and A.T.; investigation, R.R., A.V. and B.S.; resources, A.V. and M.S.; data curation, R.R. and R.B.; writing—original draft preparation, R.R.; writing—review and editing, D.R., R.B. and S.P.; visualization, B.S.; supervision, R.B., S.E. and M.S.; project administration, M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is part of the research project (PSR GO-Nuovi alimenti—PSR “Dalla tradizione Umbra nuovi alimenti di origine animale ricchi in molecole bioattive per migliori caratteristiche di sicurezza e qualità salutistica” Programma di Sviluppo Rurale per l’Umbria 2014–2020—Misura 16—Sottomisura 16.1) funded by the European Commision, through the Umbrian Region (Italy), to develop rural agriculture and animal production in the member states.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Fattoria Luchetti and Clarita Cavallucci for their collaboration in the research activities. The study has been developed in the context of the project: Study of “green” strategies to ensure the hygiene and safety of prepared and processed foods of animal origin.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Moghtadaei, M.; Soltanizadeh, N.; Goli, S.A.H. Production of sesame oil oleogels based on beeswax and application as partial substitutes of animal fat in beef burger. Int. Food Res. J. 2018, 108, 368–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rabadán, A.; Álvarez-Ortí, M.; Martínez, E.; Pardo-Giménez, A.; Zied, D.C.; Pardo, J.E. Effect of replacing traditional ingredients for oils and flours from nuts and seeds on the characteristics and consumer preferences of lamb meat burgers. LWT 2021, 136, 110307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Branciari, R.; Ranucci, D.; Urbani, E.; Valiani, A.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M.; Dal Bosco, A.; Franceschini, R. Freshwater fish burgers made from four different fish species as a valuable strategy appreciated by consumers for introducing EPA and DHA into a human diet. J. Aquat. Food Prod. Technol. 2017, 26, 686–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mancini, S.; Paci, G.; Fratini, F.; Torracca, B.; Nuvoloni, R.; Dal Bosco, A.; Preziuso, G. Improving pork burgers quality using Zingiber officinale Roscoe powder (ginger). Meat Sci. 2017, 129, 161–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Mancini, R.; Hunt, M. Current research in meat color. Meat Sci. 2005, 71, 100–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hygreeva, D.; Pandey, M.C. Novel approaches in improving the quality and safety aspects of processed meat products through high pressure processing technology-A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 54, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jiang, J.; Xiong, Y.L. Natural antioxidants as food and feed additives to promote health benefits and quality of meat products: A review. Meat Sci. 2016, 120, 107–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Overholt, M.F.; Mancini, S.; Galloway, H.O.; Preziuso, G.; Dilger, A.C.; Boler, D.D. Effects of salt purity on lipid oxidation, sensory characteristics, and textural properties of fresh, ground pork patties. LWT 2016, 65, 890–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Shahidi, F.; Ambigaipalan, P. Phenolics and polyphenolics in foods, beverages and spices: Antioxidant activity and health effects–A review. J. Funct. Foods 2015, 18, 820–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Yang, H.J.; Lee, J.H.; Won, M.; Song, K.B. Antioxidant activities of distiller dried grains with solubles as protein films containing tea extracts and their application in the packaging of pork meat. Food Chem. 2016, 196, 174–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Falowo, A.B.; Fayemi, P.O.; Muchenje, V. Natural antioxidants against lipid–protein oxidative deterioration in meat and meat products: A review. Food Res. Int. 2014, 64, 171–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. EC (European Community). Commission regulation (EC) No. 1333/2008: On food additives. Off. J. 2008, 354, 16. [Google Scholar]
  13. Silva, M.M.; Lidon, F.C. An overview on applications and side effects of antioxidant food additives. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2016, 28, 823–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Etienne, J.; Chirico, S.; McEntaggart, K.; Papoutsis, S.; Millstone, E. EU Insights–Consumer perceptions of emerging risks in the food chain. EFSA Support. Publ. 2018, 15, 1394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aminzare, M.; Hashemi, M.; Ansarian, E.; Bimakr, M.; Hassanzad Azar, H.; Mehrasbi, M.R.; Afshari, A. Using natural antioxidants in meat and meat products as preservatives: A review. Adv. Anim. Vet. 2019, 7, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ranucci, D.; Miraglia, D.; Branciari, R.; Morganti, G.; Roila, R.; Zhou, K.; Haiyang, J.; Braconi, P. Frankfurters made with pork meat, emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum Schübler) and almonds nut (Prunus dulcis Mill.): Evaluation during storage of a novel food from an ancient recipe. Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Bellés, M.; Alonso, V.; Roncalés, P.; Beltrán, J.A. Sulfite-free lamb burger meat: Antimicrobial and antioxidant properties of green tea and carvacrol. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 464–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mancini, S.; Preziuso, G.; Dal Bosco, A.; Roscini, V.; Szendrő, Z.; Fratini, F.; Paci, G. Effect of turmeric powder (Curcuma longa L.) and ascorbic acid on physical characteristics and oxidative status of fresh and stored rabbit burgers. Meat Sci. 2015, 110, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Beya, M.M.; Netzel, M.E.; Sultanbawa, Y.; Smyth, H.; Hoffman, L.C. Plant-Based Phenolic Molecules as Natural Preservatives in Comminuted Meats: A Review. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Barbieri, S.; Mercatante, D.; Balzan, S.; Esposto, S.; Cardenia, V.; Servili, M.; Rodriguez-Estrada, M.T. Improved Oxidative Stability and Sensory Quality of Beef Hamburgers Enriched with a Phenolic Extract from Olive Vegetation Water. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fasolato, L.; Cardazzo, B.; Balzan, S.; Carraro, L.; Taticchi, A.; Montemurro, F.; Novelli, E. Minimum bactericidal concentration of phenols extracted from oil vegetation water on spoilers, starters and food-borne bacteria. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2015, 4, 4519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Servili, M.; Sordini, B.; Esposto, S.; Urbani, S.; Veneziani, G.; Maio, I.D.; Selvaggini, R.; Taticchi, A. Biological activities of phenolic compounds of extra virgin olive oil. Antioxidants 2013, 3, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Kowalska, H.; Czajkowska, K.; Cichowska, J.; Lenart, A. What’s new in biopotential of fruit and vegetable by-products applied in the food processing industry. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 2017, 67, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Miraglia, D.; Esposto, S.; Branciari, R.; Urbani, S.; Servili, M.; Perucci, S.; Ranucci, D. Effect of a Phenolic extract from olive vegetation water on fresh salmon steak quality during storage. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2016, 5, 6167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Roila, R.; Valiani, A.; Ranucci, D.; Ortenzi, R.; Servili, M.; Veneziani, G.; Branciari, R. Antimicrobial efficacy of a polyphenolic extract from olive oil by-product against “Fior di latte” cheese spoilage bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 295, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ianni, F.; Gagliardi, A.; Taticchi, A.; Servili, M.; Pinna, N.; Schoubben, A.; Sardella, R.; Bruscoli, S. Exploiting food-grade mesoporous silica to preserve the antioxidant properties of fresh olive mill wastewaters phenolic extracts. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Zbicinski, I.; Delag, A.; Strumillo, C.; Adamiec, J. Advanced experimental analysis of drying kinetics in spray drying. Chem. Eng. J. 2002, 86, 207–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Selvaggini, R.; Esposto, S.; Taticchi, A.; Urbani, S.; Veneziani, G.; Di Maio, I.; Sordini, B.; Servili, M. Optimization of the temperature and oxygen concentration conditions in the malaxation during the oil mechanical extraction process of four Italian olive cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 3813–3822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. EC (European Community). Commission regulation (EC) No. 853/2004; Laying down Specific Hygiene Rules for on the Hygiene of Foodstuffs. Off. J. 2004, L139, 55. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:139:0055:0205:EN:PDF (accessed on 23 May 2022).
  30. Tarladgis, B.G.; Watts, B.M.; Younathan, M.T.; Dugan, L., Jr. A distillation method for the quantitative determination of malonaldehyde in rancid foods. JAOCS J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc. 1960, 37, 44–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Balouiri, M.; Sadiki, M.; Ibnsouda, S.K. Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. J. Pharm. Anal. 2016, 6, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Di Michele, A.; Pagano, C.; Allegrini, A.; Blasi, F.; Cossignani, L.; Raimo, E.D.; Faieta, M.; Oliva, E.; Pittia, P.; Primavilla, S.; et al. Hazelnut shells as source of active ingredients: Extracts preparation and characterization. Molecules 2021, 26, 6607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. ISO 4833–1: 2013; 44–Microbiology of the Food Chain-Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of Microorganisms-Part 1: Colony Count at 30 °C by the Pour Plate Technique. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013.
  34. ISO 21528-2: 2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain–Horizontal Method for the Detection and Enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae–Part 2: Colony-Count Technique. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  35. Gill, C.; Jones, T. Microbiological sampling of carcasses by excision or swabbing. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. ISO 6579-1: 2017; Microbiology of the Food Chain–Horizontal Method for the Detection, Enumeration and Serotyping of Salmonella–Part 1: Horizontal Method for the Detection of Salmonella spp. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2017.
  37. EC (European Community). Commission regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005; Microbiological Criteria for Foodstuffs. Off. J. 2005, 338, 1. [Google Scholar]
  38. ISO 16649; Microbiology of Food and Animal FeedingStuffs—Horizontal Method for the Enumeration of b-Glucuronidase-Positive Escherichia coli. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001.
  39. SAS Institute. JMP®9 Basic Analysis and Graphing; SAS Institute Inc.: Cary, NC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Baranyi, J.; Roberts, T.A. A dynamic approach to predicting bacterial growth in food. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1994, 23, 277–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ranucci, D.; Branciari, R.; Cobellis, G.; Acuti, G.; Miraglia, D.; Olivieri, O.; Roila, R.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M. Dietary essential oil mix improves oxidative stability and hygienic characteristic of lamb meat. Small Rum. Res. 2019, 175, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Roila, R.; Valiani, A.; Miraglia, D.; Ranucci, D.; Forte, C.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M.; Servili, M.; Codini, M.; Branciari, R. Olive mill wastewater phenolic concentrate as natural antioxidant against lipid-protein oxidative deterioration in chicken meat during storage. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2018, 7, 7342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Martínez-Zamora, L.; Ros, G.; Nieto, G. Synthetic vs. Natural Hydroxytyrosol for Clean Label Lamb Burgers. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Di Maio, I.; Esposto, S.; Taticchi, A.; Selvaggini, R.; Veneziani, G.; Urbani, S.; Servili, M. HPLC–ESI-MS investigation of tyrosol and hydroxytyrosol oxidation products in virgin olive oil. Food Chem. 2011, 125, 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nieto, G.; Martínez-Zamora, L.; Castillo, J.; Ros, G. Hydroxytyrosol extracts, olive oil and walnuts as functional components in chicken sausages. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 3761–3771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Shah, M.A.; Bosco, S.J.D.; Mir, S.A. Plant extracts as natural antioxidants in meat and meat products. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 21–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zamuz, S.; López-Pedrouso, M.; Barba, F.J.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Domínguez, H.; Franco, D. Application of hull, bur and leaf chestnut extracts on the shelf-life of beef patties stored under MAP: Evaluation of their impact on physicochemical properties, lipid oxidation, antioxidant, and antimicrobial potential. Food Res. Int. 2018, 112, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Fernandes, R.D.P.P.; Trindade, M.A.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Munekata, P.E.S.; De Melo, M.P. Effects of oregano extract on oxidative, microbiological and sensory stability of sheep burgers packed in modified atmosphere. Food Control 2016, 63, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hayes, J.E.; Stepanyan, V.; Allen, P.; O’grady, M.N.; Kerry, J.P. Effect of lutein, sesamol, ellagic acid and olive leaf extract on the quality and shelf-life stability of packaged raw minced beef patties. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 613–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Comi, G.; Tirloni, E.; Andyanto, D.; Manzano, M.; Iacumin, L. Use of bio-protective cultures to improve the shelf-life and the sensorial characteristics of commercial hamburgers. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 62, 1198–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sun, Y.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Bai, B. Nanoemulsion-based edible coatings loaded with fennel essential oil/cinnamaldehyde: Characterization, antimicrobial property and advantages in pork meat patties application. Food Control 2021, 127, 108151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Branciari, R.; Galarini, R.; Trabalza-Marinucci, M.; Miraglia, D.; Roila, R.; Acuti, G.; Giuseppone, D.; Dal Bosco, A.; Ranucci, D. Effects of olive mill vegetation water phenol metabolites transferred to muscle through animal diet on rabbit meat microbial quality. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Andrés, A.I.; Petrón, M.J.; Adámez, J.D.; López, M.; Timón, M.L. Food by-products as potential antioxidant and antimicrobial additives in chill stored raw lamb patties. Meat Sci. 2017, 129, 62–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Parafati, L.; Palmeri, R.; Trippa, D.; Restuccia, C.; Fallico, B. Quality maintenance of beef burger patties by direct addiction or encapsulation of a prickly pear fruit extract. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Marrone, R.; Smaldone, G.; Ambrosio, R.L.; Festa, R.; Ceruso, M.; Chianese, A.; Anastasio, A. Effect of beetroot (Beta vulgaris) extract on Black Angus burgers shelf life. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2021, 10, 9031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Servili, M.; Rizzello, C.G.; Taticchi, A.; Esposto, S.; Urbani, S.; Mazzacane, F.; Di Maio, I.; Selvaggini, M.; Gobbetti, R.; Di Cagno, R. Functional milk beverage fortified with phenolic compounds extracted from olive vegetation water, and fermented with functional lactic acid bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 147, 45–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mexis, S.F.; Chouliara, E.; Kontominas, M.G. Shelf life extension of ground chicken meat using an oxygen absorber and a citrus extract. LWT 2012, 49, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Manuel, V.M.; Yolanda, R.N.; Juana, F.L.; José Angel, P.A. Effect of packaging conditions on shelf-life of Mortadella made with citrus fibre washing water and thyme or rosemary essential oil. Food Nutr. Sci. 2011, 2, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Altieri, C.; Scrocco, C.; Sinigaglia, M.; Del Nobile, M.A. Use of chitosan to prolong mozzarella cheese shelf life. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 2683–2688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Medina, E.; Brenes, M.; Garcia, A.; Romero, C.; de Castro, A. Bactericidal activity of glutaraldehyde-like compounds from olive products. J. Food Prot. 2009, 72, 2611–2614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lim, C.K.; Penesyan, A.; Hassan, K.A.; Loper, J.E.; Paulsen, I.T. Effect of tannic acid on the transcriptome of the soil bacterium Pseudomonas protegens Pf-5. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 3141–3145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Belaqziz, M.; Tan, S.P.; El-Abbassi, A.; Kiai, H.; Hafidi, A.; O’Donovan, O.; McLoughlin, P. Assessment of the antioxidant and antibacterial activities of different olive processing wastewaters. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0182622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Composition of spray-dried crude phenolic extract (PE).
Table 1. Composition of spray-dried crude phenolic extract (PE).
Crude PE (mg/g)
3,4-DHPEA *9.2 ± 0.2
p-HPEA4.3 ± 0.0
Verbascoside5.9 ± 0.2
3,4-DHPEA-EDA8.1 ± 0.2
Sum of phenols27.6 ± 0.3
Purity2.7%
* Results are the mean of two independent analytical determinations ± standard deviation. 3,4-DHPEA = hydroxytyrosol, p-HPEA = tyrosol, 3,4-DHPEA-EDA = oleacein.
Table
Table 2. Lipid oxidation (TBARS) and antioxidant capacity (ORACFL) in beef burger during storage.
Table 2. Lipid oxidation (TBARS) and antioxidant capacity (ORACFL) in beef burger during storage.
Days of StorageSEMp-Value
0257 TSTXS
TBARS
(mg MDA/kg)		C0.13 a0.34 bW0.47 cW0.63 dW
A0.14 a0.20 bX0.25 cX0.30 dX0.012<0.001<0.001<0.001
AP0.14 a0.17 abXZ0.19 bZ0.29 cX
P0.15 a0.16 aZ0.18 aZ0.24 bZ
ORACFL
(µg TE /100 g)		C24.44 W24.43 W24.44 W24.41 W
A34.19 aX32.11 bX27.08 cX25.59 dW0.475<0.001<0.001<0.001
AP38.87 aY38.18 aY36.17 bY35.89 bX
P44.45 aZ43.89 aZ40.01 cZ38.73 bY
C = control group; A = basic recipe with addition of 10 g/kg commercial antioxidant; AP = basic recipe with addition of 5 g/kg commercial antioxidant and 350 mg/kg phenolic extract; P = basic recipe with addition of 700 mg/kg phenolic extract. Different letters in the same row (a, b, c, d) indicate differences between mean values during sampling times (p ≤ 0.001); different letters in the same column (W, X, Y, Z) indicate differences between mean values for different experimental groups (p ≤ 0.001). SEM, standard error of the mean. T = time; S = sample.
Table
Table 3. Microbial quality (Log CFU/g) of the four formulations of beef burger stored at 4 °C under aerobic conditions for 7 days.
Table 3. Microbial quality (Log CFU/g) of the four formulations of beef burger stored at 4 °C under aerobic conditions for 7 days.
Days of StorageSEMp-Value
0257 TSTXS
TVCC4.29 a5.50 b6.85 cW7.41 dW
A4.37 a5.48 b6.82 cW7.38 dW0.124<0.001<0.0010.002
AP4.61 a5.31 b6.36 cX6.98 dWX
P4.48 a5.11 b6.24 cX6.52 cX
Staphylococcus spp.C1.46 a2.07 b2.78 cW2.89 c
A1.28 a1.90 b2.67 cW2.87 c0.159<0.0010.0050.671
AP1.32 a1.78 a2.47 bWX2.67 b
P1.38 a1.67 ab2.05 bcX2.49 c
Pseudomonas spp.C4.02 a5.18 b6.67 cW7.05 dW
A4.11 a5.23 b6.75 cW7.20 dW0.199<0.001<0.0010.163
AP4.09 a4.74 b5.96 cX6.91 dWX
P3.98 a4.47 a5.63 bX6.11 bX
LABC4.15 a4.46 ab4.83 b4.96 b
A4.20 a4.48 ab4.79 b4.88 b0.142<0.0010.5080.999
AP4.04 a4.39 ab4.82 b4.94 c
P3.98 a4.29 ab4.75 b4.83 c
EnterobacteriaceaeC1.38 a1.80 ab2.58 c3.60 dW
A1.30 a1.66 a2.53 b3.58 cW0.182<0.001<0.0010.102
AP1.24 a1.46 a2.27 b3.17 cW
P1.28 a1.36 a2.10 b2.36 bX
C = control group; A = basic recipe with addition of 10 g/kg commercial antioxidant; AP = basic recipe with addition of 5 g/kg commercial antioxidant and 350 mg/kg phenolic extract; P = basic recipe with addition of 700 mg/kg phenolic extract. Different letters in the same row (a, b, c, d) indicate differences between mean values during sampling times (p ≤ 0.001); different letters in the same column (W, X, Y, Z) indicate differences between mean values for different experimental groups (p ≤ 0.001). SEM, standard error of the mean. T = time; S = sample.
Table
Table 4. Output parameters estimated by the DMFit program for each microbial population in the four formulations of beef burgers.
Table 4. Output parameters estimated by the DMFit program for each microbial population in the four formulations of beef burgers.
Micro-Organism and ParametersCAAPP
TVC
λ8.97 ± 3.45 a6.12 ± 3.45 a15.84 ± 8.20 ab23.27 ± 11.74 c
µmax0.0286 ± 0.0014 b0.0286 ± 0.0013 b0.0218 ± 0.0024 a0.0248 ± 0.0048 b
Final value7.44 ± 0.03 b7.44 ± 0.03 b7.11 ± 0.07 b6.62 ± 0.10 a
R20.9990.9990.9950.98
SE of Fit0.0410.03970.0800.139
Staphylococcus spp.
λ 10.78 ± 5.35 a11.86 ± 3.64 a17.95 ± 3.82 ab20.84 ± 6.03 b
µmax 0.0163 ± 0.0015 bc0.0171 ± 0.0010 c0.0151 ± 0.0009 b0.0092 ± 0.0001 a
Final value 2.92 ± 0.02 b2.89 ± 0.02 b2.69 ± 0.02 a2.66 ± 0.00 a
R20.9970.9990.9980.998
SE of Fit0.03460.02620.02630.065
Pseudomonas spp.
λ 12.33 ± 9.84 a14.33 ± 8.32 a20.38 ± 9.25 ab29.73 ± 2.07 b
µmax 0.0324 ± 0.004 b0.033 ± 0.004 b0.024 ± 0.003 a0.025 ± 0.000 a
Final value 7.16 ± 0.10 b7.30 ± 0.09 b7.07 ± 0.11 b6.10 ± 0.02 a
R20.990.9930.9980.999
SE of Fit0.1360.120.110.025
LAB
λ 10.66 ± 8.589.86 ± 4.4411.33 ± 3.1917.03 ± 4.67
µmax 0.0083 ± 0.0010 a0.0071 ± 0.0000 a0.0095 ± 0.0040 b0.0102 ± 0.0002 b
Final value 4.94 ± 0.024.89 ± 0.094.95 ± 0.084.83 ± 0.12
R20.9930.9980.9990.997
SE of Fit0.02940.0130.01280.0209
Enterobacteriaceae
λ 34.38 ± 10.8238.59 ± 6.2144.40 ± 2.5549.036 ± 10.74
µmax 0.0205 ± 0.00260.022 ± 0.00150.0201 ± 0.00060.0176 ± 0.0035
Final value 3.80 ± 0.12 c3.88 ± 0.07 c3.38 ± 0.025 b2.41 ± 0.05 a
R20.9890.9960.9990.987
SE of Fit0.1120.06720.02380.063
λ = lag phase (h); µmax = maximum growth rate (Log/CFU/g/h); final value (Log/CFU/g); SE = standard error of fitting; R2 = adjusted R-square statistics of the fitting. C = control group; A= basic recipe with addition of 10 g/kg commercial antioxidant; AP = basic recipe with addition of 5 g/kg commercial antioxidant and 350 mg/kg phenolic extract; P = basic recipe with addition of 700 mg/kg phenolic extract. Different letters in the same row (a, b, c) indicate differences between mean values for different experimental groups (p ≤ 0.001).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Roila, R.; Sordini, B.; Esposto, S.; Ranucci, D.; Primavilla, S.; Valiani, A.; Taticchi, A.; Branciari, R.; Servili, M. Effect of the Application of a Green Preservative Strategy on Minced Meat Products: Antimicrobial Efficacy of Olive Mill Wastewater Polyphenolic Extract in Improving Beef Burger Shelf-Life. Foods 2022, 11, 2447. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11162447

AMA Style

Roila R, Sordini B, Esposto S, Ranucci D, Primavilla S, Valiani A, Taticchi A, Branciari R, Servili M. Effect of the Application of a Green Preservative Strategy on Minced Meat Products: Antimicrobial Efficacy of Olive Mill Wastewater Polyphenolic Extract in Improving Beef Burger Shelf-Life. Foods. 2022; 11(16):2447. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11162447

Chicago/Turabian Style

Roila, Rossana, Beatrice Sordini, Sonia Esposto, David Ranucci, Sara Primavilla, Andrea Valiani, Agnese Taticchi, Raffaella Branciari, and Maurizio Servili. 2022. "Effect of the Application of a Green Preservative Strategy on Minced Meat Products: Antimicrobial Efficacy of Olive Mill Wastewater Polyphenolic Extract in Improving Beef Burger Shelf-Life" Foods 11, no. 16: 2447. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11162447

APA Style

Roila, R., Sordini, B., Esposto, S., Ranucci, D., Primavilla, S., Valiani, A., Taticchi, A., Branciari, R., & Servili, M. (2022). Effect of the Application of a Green Preservative Strategy on Minced Meat Products: Antimicrobial Efficacy of Olive Mill Wastewater Polyphenolic Extract in Improving Beef Burger Shelf-Life. Foods, 11(16), 2447. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11162447

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