Next Article in Journal
An Assessment of the Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Probiotics and Prebiotics among the Population of the United Arab Emirates
Previous Article in Journal
Advances and Drawbacks of Sous-Vide Technique—A Critical Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 13
Issue 14
10.3390/foods13142218
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

From Waste to Consumption: Tomato Peel Flour in Hamburger Patty Production

by
Betül Karslıoğlu
1,*,
Eda Demirok Soncu
2,
Beyzanur Nekoyu
1,
Erdem Karakuş
1,
Gülsedef Bekdemir
1 and
Barış Şahin
1
1
Department of Gastronomy and Culinary Arts, Faculty of Tourism, Hasan Kalyoncu University, Gaziantep 27000, Turkey
2
Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ankara University, Ankara 06110, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2024, 13(14), 2218; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142218
Submission received: 12 June 2024 / Revised: 7 July 2024 / Accepted: 12 July 2024 / Published: 15 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Meat)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tomato is a widely cultivated crop and its processing produces large quantities of wastes, such as pulp, seed, and peel. In recent years, the valorization of these wastes in the production of high-value-added food products has gained popularity in achieving environmental sustainability and zero waste. From this viewpoint, dried tomato peel (DTP-1%, 2%, 3%, 4%) flour was included in hamburger formulations. In patty samples, ash, carbohydrate, and dietary fiber amounts were increased due to the high fiber content of DTP flour, while moisture and fat percentages decreased with increasing amounts of DTP flour (p < 0.05). The inclusion of DTP flour retarded lipid oxidation during cooking (p < 0.05). The significantly highest cooking yield was calculated in samples including 4% DTP flour. In parallel, water-holding capacity, moisture, and fat retention values increased with increasing levels of DTP flour (p < 0.05). The enrichment of patties with DTP flour resulted in hard texture, less gumminess, and a darker, more reddish and yellowish color (p < 0.05). Hamburger samples containing 1% or 2% DTP flour were graded with closer scores in the sensory panel as compared to the control (0% DTP). Overall, our findings demonstrated that DTP flour up to 2% could be used to improve the nutritional and technological properties of patty samples.

1. Introduction

Waste management is one of the most critical concerns in the food sector, and as food safety and sustainability become more important, subjects such as recycling food waste and manufacturing high-value-added goods have gained attraction [1,2,3]. While annually increasing food waste has been reported to be approximately 1.3 billion tons globally, according to the United Nations (UN) Food Waste Index Report 2021, the per capita annual food waste in Turkey has been determined to be 93 kg per person [4,5]. The fruit and vegetable sector produces the highest amount of waste in Turkey, with tomatoes being the most manufactured agricultural product [5]. The industrial processing of tomatoes yields large quantities of by-products that contain a variety of reusable and high-value components with economic potential [6,7].
Tomatoes are consumed both fresh and in various processed forms, with the majority being made into products such as paste, sauce, puree, soup, juice, ketchup, and canned tomatoes [8,9]. Due to the high demand, the tomato industry generates approximately 15 million tons of waste both before and after processing. Pre-processing waste, which accounts for about 1–6% of total tomato production, includes damaged and green tomatoes.
The primary post-processing waste is tomato pomace, which consists of a mix of seeds, peels, fibrous parts, and a small amount of pulp [10]. The utilization of these wastes is quite limited [11,12,13]. Skins and seeds comprise about 1–4% (w/w) of the total tomato processed for tomato products and are usually destined for landfill or to be used for animal feed [14]. While these waste materials contribute to food loss and waste, they also result in environmental pollution due to unnecessary CO2 emissions [7]. However, these tomato waste parts contain many valuable components that are beneficial to human health [15]. For instance, tomato peels provide a rich and natural source of dietary fiber and other components [16]. Additionally, numerous studies have highlighted that waste components like tomato seeds and peels are rich in compounds such as dietary fiber, protein, fat, minerals, and carotenoids [14,17,18]. Therefore, the recycling of these wastes offers significant opportunities for developing innovative and nutritious additives to enhance healthy meat products [19,20,21].
Fiber constitutes the major component of tomato peel and serves as a valuable source of human nutrition [22]. Tomato peels, which contain approximately five times more dietary fiber than tomato pulp, contain approximately 8.9% soluble dietary fiber and 48.5% insoluble dietary fiber [23,24]. Direct incorporation of dietary fiber obtained from tomato peels into meat products not only enables the reuse of tomato peels but also enhances the nutritional quality of the final product, thanks to its high fiber content. Considering these properties, the utilization of tomato peels in the formulation of meat patties appears to be a promising approach to improve both the organoleptic and nutritional qualities of the products. Several researchers have studied the addition of dietary fibers to meat products during storage to preserve their features or improve health benefits [17,25,26,27,28,29].
However, relatively few researchers have investigated the incorporation of tomato peels to enhance dietary fiber content in meat products. Dietary fiber, a form of carbohydrate, is an important component of nutraceuticals that protects gastrointestinal health [30]. Dietary fiber consumption has been associated with various health benefits, such as the preservation of intestinal integrity and the reduction and regulation of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and blood sugar levels [31,32,33]. Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that including dietary fiber in specific food formulations improves their nutritional value and sensory appeal while lowering the cost of producing meat products [34,35,36,37]. It is possible to successfully add dietary fiber to a wide variety of foods, including meat products. To create meat products with acceptable sensory qualities in this situation, ingredients like beets, wheat, oats, soy fiber, pea fiber, flaxseed flour, and fruit fibers have been utilized [38]. An alternative ingredient that lowers formulation costs, minimizes cooking loss, and enhances the textural qualities of meat products is fiber from tomato peel [39]. The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of tomato peel waste on the physicochemical, sensory, and textural properties of hamburger patties and to reveal their potential for use. Additionally, this study aims to determine the appropriate DTP (dried tomato peel) flour concentration that can be used in hamburger patties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Reagents

In this study, approximately 12 kg of medium fat (20%) minced meat obtained from mature cattle carcasses (Native Black Cattle) was provided by Aydiz Co. in Gaziantep, Turkey. The research materials included a variety of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.), which were purchased from a local supermarket in Gaziantep. Garlic, onion powder, black pepper, and breadcrumbs to be added to the hamburger patties were supplied from Bağdat Baharat Co. (Ankara, Turkey), in sealed packages. All solvents used in the study were of analytical grade and were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany) and Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany). Protease, 2-Thiobarbituric acid, α-Amylase, Amyloglucosidase, 2 (N-morpholino) ethanesulfonic acid (MES), Tris (hydroxymethyl) aminomethane reagents were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich Merck Group company (St. Louis, MO, USA).

2.2. Preparation of Dried Tomato Peel (DTP) Flour

Tomato peel flour was prepared using the method outlined by Savadkooh et al. [40]. After washing the tomatoes with tap water, the tomato peels were removed to a thickness of 2 to 4 mm using a knife. Tomato peels were dried (Magic Mill Pro Food Dehydrator Machine, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA) at 50 °C for 18 h to a moisture content of 6.2% (wet-weight). The airflow rate was set at 2.5 m/s. The dried tomato peels were ground using a kitchen grinder (Bosch MultiTalent, 3 MCM3501M, Rosenau, Germany). After sifting through a 75-mesh sieve (212 µm), the resulting flour was stored under dark conditions (25 °C) in vacuum-sealed polyethylene bags (Multilayer Thick Type 20 × 26 cm; Klikal, Turkey) until the analysis day.

2.3. Physicochemical Analysis of DTP Flour

The analysis of the proximate composition of DTP flour samples was determined following the procedures outlined in the AOAC methods. Total (TDF), soluble (SDF), and insoluble (IDF) dietary fiber in DTP flour were determined by enzymatic and gravimetric methods described in AOAC (991.43). The titratable acid (TA) as citric acid was determined according to the method of Lisiewska and Kmiecik [41]. A digital pH meter was used to measure the pH of homogenates of flour samples (10 g) in 100 mL of distilled water (Hanna HI 221, Ann Arbor, MI, USA). To determine the physicochemical properties of DTP flour, oil absorption capacity (OAC), water absorption capacity (WAC), and swelling capacity (SC) were analyzed using the methods defined by Okaka and Potter, as well as by Öztürk and Turhan [42,43].

2.4. Production of Hamburger Patties

Based on the sensory panel results from preliminary trials of hamburger patties and literature outputs, five different concentrations (0%, 1%, 2%, 3%, 4%) of DTP flour were used in hamburger patty formulations, which were created using the recipe described in Table 1. The minced meat was mixed with salt, bread crumbs, water, DTP flour, black pepper, onion powder, and garlic powder. DTP flour was added in its dry form without any pre-treatment. The control group did not include any DTP flour. The hamburger patties were produced in the Culinary Arts Kitchen of the Department of Gastronomy at Hasan Kalyoncu University in Turkey. Within the scope of the study, 1 kg of each batch mixture was produced. For every batch of hamburger mixture, the ingredients were combined using a Kitchen Aid mixer (Bosch MultiTalent, 3 MCM3501M) for 4 min, and the mixture was subsequently divided into five equal portions.
The first portion was kept as a control. Four different amounts of DTP flour (1%, 2%, 3%, 4%) were added to the remaining four meat portions, respectively, and each group was mixed until a homogeneous distribution was achieved, utilizing the Kitchen Aid mixer (Bosch Multi Talent, 3 MCM3501M, Blaichach, Germany). The meat doughs were left for approximately 30 min at 7 °C before the meatballs were formed. Subsequently, the hamburger patties were shaped to be 50 g ± 0.5 g in weight, with a diameter of 10 cm and a height of 1 cm. The appearance of raw hamburger patties at the end of production is presented in Figure 1. The hamburger patties were pan-fried at 180 °C until they reached a core temperature of 72 °C. All batches were manufactured in two replications at different times. The meat utilized in these formulations had an initial chemical composition of 69.05% moisture, 18.37% protein, and 19.37% fat (wet-basis).

2.5. Cooking Procedure and Measurements in Hamburger Patties

After measuring the diameter and thickness of the raw hamburger patties with the help of a digital micrometer (Insize 3109-100A), the meatballs were cooked for 4 min so that the internal temperature of the meatballs was 72 °C. The diameter, thickness, and weight measurements of cooked hamburger samples were taken from five different points. The changes in the cooking yield, thickness, and diameter of the hamburger patties were calculated according to the equations provided by Soncu et al. [33] and Akcan et al. [34]. Moisture and oil retention were also calculated using relevant equations to evaluate fiber quality [44]. Each hamburger sample was wrapped in stretch film, frozen in the refrigerator, and stored at −18 °C until the relevant analyses were completed. Sensory analysis, texture profile analysis (TPA), color, TBARS, and pH measurements were conducted on the same day as the hamburger production.

2.6. Physicochemical Parameters and Chemicals Composition of Hamburger Patties

The moisture (950.46), fat (991.36), protein (955.04), aw (978.18), ash (920.153), and dietary fiber contents (991.43) of the samples were analyzed following the methods outlined in AOAC (2000). The pH values of hamburger patties (10 g) were determined by measuring them in 100 mL of distilled water using a digital pH meter (Hanna HI 221, Ann Arbor, MI, USA). Additionally, the carbohydrate content of the samples was calculated by subtracting the sum of moisture, ash, protein, and fat percentages from 100 [45]. Protein, fat, ash, carbohydrate, and dietary fiber results were calculated as g/100 g dry matter (DM). The following factors were also used to evaluate the energy content of hamburger patties: 4 kcal/g for carbohydrates, 9 kcal/g for lipids, and 4 kcal/g for proteins. TBARS values (mg malondialdehyde/kg) for both raw and cooked hamburger patties on day 0 were determined following the method described by Mielnik et al. [46]. In addition to all these parameters, the water-holding capacity of the hamburger samples was determined according to the method provided by Akcan et al. [34].

2.6.1. Color Measurement

The surface color of the hamburger patty samples was assessed at 10 different points using a Minolta Colorimeter (CR 300, Osaka, Japan). The CIELAB L*, a*, and b* values were recorded to indicate lightness, redness (+ for red; − for green), and yellowness (+ for yellow; − for blue), respectively. The color difference (ΔE) for each DTP-including group was computed using the AMSA formula, with the control sample serving as a blank [47].
ΔE = [(L* − L0*)2 + (a* − a0*)2 + (b* − b0*)2]0.5

2.6.2. Texture Profile Analysis (TPA)

The textural properties of the cooked hamburger patties were evaluated using a Texture Analyzer (TA Plus, Stable Micro Systems Ltd., Surrey, UK) equipped with a 50 mm aluminum cylindrical probe (model P/50R) and a 50 kg load cell [48]. The pre-test speed was considered to be 1 mm/s with 5 mm/s of test and post-test speed. Hamburger patties were removed from the refrigerator and allowed to sit at room temperature for 1 h. Texture measurements were performed on 5 different meat cut surfaces with a dimension of 1 × 2 × 2 cm per replication. The hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, and chewiness properties of the samples that were double-compressed with a compression ratio of 60% were calculated from the curves.

2.6.3. Sensory Evaluation

Sensory evaluation was performed in a well-lit and well-ventilated room (21 ± 1 °C, 55% ± 5% relative humidity) designed with separated tables at Hasan Kalyoncu University. Before the panel, panelists were informed about the study and signed the consent form. Patties from each formulation were cooked under the previously specified conditions and kept warm in the oven (30 °C) until they were tested. In the sensory panel, hamburger patty samples were numbered with 3-digit random numbers, and unsalted bread and water were provided to panelists to cleanse the palate. A 9-point hedonic scale (1 = extremely dislike, 5 = ‘neither like nor dislike’, and 9 = extremely like) was used to evaluate product liking and acceptability of color, taste, texture, appearance, and general acceptability parameters of cooked hamburger patty samples [49]. Sensory analysis was carried out by experienced panelists aged 25–43, consisting of eight men and 10 women.

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Two replications were conducted at different times, and all parameters were measured in duplicate. The mean values of each parameter analyzed in the hamburger patties were evaluated by variance analysis using Minitab statistical software (Version 22.1, Minitab Inc., Enterprise Drive, State College, PA, USA). Regarding TBARS value, two-way ANOVA statistical design was used in which different amounts of DTP flour and cooking treatments were used as independent variables. For the statistical evaluation of the remaining dependent variables, a one-way ANOVA was conducted, with the different amounts of DTP flour as the only independent variable. When the p-value was lower than 0.05, the main or interaction effect of variables on results was determined by using Tukey’s post hoc test. The results were given as mean ± SEM (standard error of the mean). On the other side, Principal component analysis (PCA) was also utilized to examine the relationship among hamburger patties (DTP0, DTP1, DTP2, DTP3, DTP4), and Pearson correlation analysis was performed in order to evaluate the relationship between dependent variables by using Minitab Statistical Software (Version 22.1, Minitab Inc., Enterprise Drive, State College, PA, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physicochemical, Chemical, and Functional Properties of DTP Flour

Table 2 shows some chemical and physicochemical characteristics of DTP flour. The data obtained in the study indicated that tomato peel powder was a rich source of total fiber (72.88%) and carbohydrates (76.58%), with low mass fractions of protein (10.15%), moisture (6.20%), fat (1.61%), and ash (5.46%). Additionally, the pH, titratable acidity, and water activity of the DTP flour were determined to be 4.18, 7.75%, and 0.41, respectively. Similar to our investigation, Grassino et al. found that the pH values ranged from 4.35 to 5.63, ash content was in the range of 1.90% to 3.00%, and total dietary fiber varied between 57.70% and 66.30%, in two different varieties of dried tomato peels [16]. There are very similar studies specifically reporting the composition of tomato by-products, especially tomato peels [16,27,50,51].
The data obtained in this study are consistent with some previous studies, while they show significant differences in certain aspects. Gonzalez et al. found that tomato peels have higher protein (13.3%), higher fat (6%), and lower ash content (3%) [51]. Similarly, Elbadrawy et al. reported findings of 78.56% carbohydrates, 10.5% protein, 5.90% ash, and 4.04% fat in tomato peels, which were consistent with our study [27]. The properties of dried tomato peels were found to vary depending on the growing area, climatic conditions, and genetic diversity. Another factor contributing to this variability is the difference in the chemical composition of the seed and peel parts.
The composition of soluble and insoluble fiber fractions in DTP are the main factors affecting the technological functionality and nutritional value of food, and these two parameters (12.13% and 60.75%) are shown in Table 2. According to these results, it was observed that DTP has an extremely high dietary fiber content. This indicates the potential for using tomato peels, which emerge as waste, to develop functional hamburger patties rich in dietary fiber. On average, these values were consistent with the reported results [27,29,52,53].
Additionally, in order to determine the physicochemical properties of this DTP rich in high IDF content, water absorption capacity (WAC), oil absorption capacity (OAC), and swelling capacity (SC) were also determined. The length of the fiber structure of DTP flour, the fiber’s particle size, and the condition of the water-soluble fibers were assessed using OAC, WAC, and SC parameters. The results showed that these values were 82.01%, 50.75%, and 140%, respectively [54,55]. Akubor and Owuse also reported similar values in DTP flour [56]. As indicated in Table 2, DTP flour exhibited a higher oil absorption capacity compared to its water absorption capacity. The soluble and insoluble fiber ratio affects the water absorption capacity of the fiber source; hence, DTP flour with a higher proportion of insoluble fiber showed lower water absorption capacity. This phenomenon has been explained by the greater affinity of the non-polar chains of proteins in DTP flour for lipid molecules [57]. Swelling capacity, which is related to water retention capacity, was found to be 140% for DTP. In summary, the tomato peel flour (DTP) analyzed in this study has a high dietary fiber content, consisting largely of insoluble fibers. Due to its chemical and physicochemical properties, DTP has the potential to be a new non-meat ingredient for the preparation of low-calorie, high-fiber meat products. These characteristics indicate that DTP could significantly contribute to the development of healthy and functional products in the food industry. Additionally, the use of DTP can enhance environmental sustainability by reducing food waste and increasing economic value, thereby providing solutions in line with the principles of industrial ecology.

3.2. Chemical Composition of Hamburger Patty Samples

The chemical composition, aw, and pH value results of cooked hamburger patties with different proportions of DTP flour are summarized in Table 3. As observed, the addition of DTP flour significantly affected all composition parameters (pH, moisture, protein, fat, dietary fiber, and carbohydrate contents) of hamburger patties (p < 0.05). As the amount of DTP flour increased, the protein, ash, dietary fiber, and carbohydrate content increased, while fat content decreased. The fat contents ranged from 26.92% to 38.43%, and significant differences were observed among the hamburger samples (p < 0.05).
The highest moisture content was observed in the control sample (54.56%), whereas the lowest value was found in the sample enriched with 4% DTP flour (50.47%). It was observed that the dry matter content of the final product increased with an increasing amount of DTP flour (p < 0.05). The fat contents were in the range of 34.23% and 26.92% in DTP flour-containing samples. These significant differences in the composition of meatballs were directly related to the composition of DTP flour and its addition to meatballs. It was also reported by various researchers that meatballs supplemented with food ingredients are influenced by these components [30,42,45,58]. On the other side, the addition of DTP flour did not change energy values (p > 0.05).
It was determined that the DTP flours used in this study were rich in fiber and approximately 70% of the DTP consisted of dietary fibers (Table 1). These findings are also consistent with the literature, as the primary constituents of tomato peel are pectin, cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignins, and gums [24,59]. In this study, the dietary fiber content of hamburger patties varied between 4.23 and 8.55% dry matter. DTP4 had the significantly highest dietary fiber content among all the treatments (p < 0.05). The results indicate that a higher amount of fiber in the peel also results in a higher amount of fiber in the product into which it is incorporated. Similar results were also reported in different studies [30,60,61,62].
pH is a key quality parameter in meat products, impacting their texture, cooking losses, tenderness, and susceptibility to microbial activity [35]. The pH values of hamburger patties were affected by the addition of DTP flour due to its lower pH value (4.18 as given in Table 2) (p < 0.05). The hamburger patty samples had a pH value ranging from 5.47 to 5.70. The highest value was observed in the control group, and the lowest pH value was observed in the samples including 4% DTP flour (p < 0.05). The reduction in pH value of hamburger patties including DTP flour may be attributed to the presence of tartaric acid and citric acid, the predominant organic acids in tomatoes [35]. These acids could have imparted acidity to the DTP flour utilized in this study. This was also reported by Candogan, who found that the lowest pH value was obtained with the highest inclusion (15%) of tomato paste in beef patties [25]. The water activity values were in the range of 0.881 and 0.890, and no statistically significant difference was found between the patty samples including different amounts of DTP flour (p > 0.05).

3.3. TBARS Values of Hamburger Patty Samples

The TBARS value is a significant indicator of lipid oxidation in meat and meat products, reflecting the number of secondary oxidation products such as malondialdehyde (MDA) [63,64]. Table 4 presents the TBARS values of raw and cooked hamburger patty samples. Initial TBARS values for raw hamburger patties ranged from 0.07 to 0.25 mg MA kg−1, while those for cooked hamburger patties varied between 0.83 and 2.05 mg MA kg−1, respectively. As seen in Table 4, TBARS values decreased with the increase in DTP flour in both raw and cooked hamburger patties (p < 0.05). Depending on the heat treatment application, TBARS values increased in all groups (p< 0.05). Similar to our results, in a study conducted on chicken breast and beef loin samples that were cooked to an internal temperature of 75 °C, the TBARS values were found to increase with heat treatment [65]. In another study, chicken and duck meats were cooked to internal temperatures of 60, 70, and 80 °C, and an increase in TBARS values was observed in all samples due to the heat effect [66].
In both raw and cooked samples, the highest TBARS value was found in the control, while the lowest TBARS values were observed in the DTP3 and DTP4 groups containing high concentrations of DTP flour. Our findings demonstrated that the addition of DTP flour to hamburger patty samples was highly effective in mitigating lipid oxidation. In many studies, it has been shown that tomato peels have a high content of antioxidants, including phenolic compounds and lycopene [27,51,67]. Lycopene, a carotenoid, is the most abundant compound in tomatoes and has been reported to exhibit high antioxidant activity. It acts both indirectly by binding Fe2+ and directly by scavenging reactive oxygen species [68]. The antioxidant activity of tomatoes is not solely attributed to lycopene but rather to the synergistic effect of various phenolic compounds [69]. This outcome underscores the antioxidant properties of phenolic compounds, which exhibit high antioxidant activity through chelation of Fe2+ and direct scavenging of reactive oxygen species [70,71,72].

3.4. Cooking Characteristics of Hamburger Patty Samples

The appearance characteristics of meat products after cooking are an important quality parameter that influences consumer preferences. Particularly, the addition of new ingredients to product formulations can lead to significant shape changes in meatballs. Therefore, maintaining dimensional stability and investigating the effects of the added new components are crucial [73]. For these reasons, in this study, parameters such as water holding capacity (WHC) and cooking efficiency were also analyzed to evaluate the cooking properties and functionality of hamburger patties, and the relevant results are presented in Table 5.
It was found that the cooking yield of hamburger meatballs varied between 69.13% and 80.99%, with the lowest cooking loss observed in the samples with 4% DTP flour added (p < 0.05). In addition, the diameter reduction and thickness increase measured in hamburger patty samples varied between 8.14–5.85% and 7.62–15.93%, respectively. (p < 0.05). The changes in these parameters were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). The highest thickness increase and the lowest reduction in diameter were detected in hamburger patties containing 4% DTP flour. The high cooking yield of hamburger patties to which DTP flour was added could be attributed to the high water and oil absorption capacity of DTP flour (Table 1). This can be explained by the decrease in fat content and higher dietary fiber content in samples with increasing DTP flour addition [74,75]. Similarly, in meatball samples containing between 3% and 9% acorn flour, the researchers found that cooking yield increased depending on the addition of acorns [45]. Additionally, some researchers have stated that there is a correlation between dietary fiber addition to meat products, cooking loss, and texture, which has not yet been elucidated [76].
In the study, the shrinkage parameter was also determined to observe the changes resulting from protein denaturation and the cooking process [77]. Although the shrinkage parameter increased gradually in samples containing DTP compared to the control group, this difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). On the other hand, in the study conducted with pork burgers enriched with albedo fiber powder (2.5% and 5%) obtained from yellow passion fruit, it was observed that the shrinkage values were lower than the samples containing 0% albedo powder [78].
Moisture and fat retention in hamburger patties are important parameters that determine the sensory properties of the cooked product and therefore the eating quality of the food [45]. Moisture retention values for the hamburger patty samples ranged from 58.57% to 70.73%, while fat retention values were in the range of 74.66% and 79.22%. In hamburger patties, the lowest moisture and oil retention values were in the control group, and the highest moisture and oil retention values were in the group containing 4% DTP (p < 0.05). This was because tomato peels are an ingredient rich in dietary fiber, which possess a certain amount of WAC and OAC, as observed in Table 2.
This situation is associated with the high water and fat retention capacity of many hydroxyl (OH) groups in the structure of dietary fibers [79]. These results are in agreement with Essa and Elsebaie who reported that there was an increment in the water and fat retention values when the levels of date pit powder were increased in beef burgers [80]. Additionally, in another study, it was found that moisture and fat retention rates increased with the addition of purple eggplant flour to meatball samples [79].
Various levels of DTP addition significantly influenced the WHC of the patty samples. This characteristic is very important as it affects yield, as well as the juiciness, texture, and flavor of the product, which are characteristics valued by consumers [40,81]. It was found that WHC values tended to increase in all samples with increasing amounts of DTP flour (p < 0.05). Similarly, in a study conducted on hamburger patties including a varying range of grape skin flour (0.5% to 3%), WHC gradually increased as well [40].

3.5. Color Characteristics of Hamburger Patty Samples

Figure 2 presents the color measurement results of cooked meatball samples. The L* value of the control hamburger patty was 40.15, while it gradually decreased to the range of 38.82–34.12 as the enrichment amount of DTP flour increased in hamburger patties (p < 0.05). The a* value of the control group was found to be 7.75, and this measurement also increased with the increasing amount of DTP flour in hamburger samples, which could be an indicator for a more reddish color in patties including DTP flour compared to the control group (p < 0.05). This could be attributed to the reddish color of the tomato powder. While the b* value of the control group was measured as 14.09, the meatball samples enriched with DTP flour, which exhibited a more yellowish color, ranged from 15.69 to 18.09 (p < 0.05). The total color difference (ΔE) between DTP-added hamburger patties and the control group was highest in DTP4 (8.50), followed by DTP3, DTP2, and DTP1 (p < 0.05). Our color findings in hamburger patties showed that the addition of DTP significantly affected the color parameters, and the ΔE values of hamburger patties containing DTP exhibited a significant color change compared to DTP0. Similar to our results, the addition of different concentrations of pumpkin flour into hamburger patties significantly differed the color parameters [82]. Similar color findings have also been reported in tomato pomace cookies [8] and biscuits with tomato peel flour [56]. In summary, it has been concluded that the addition of DTP to meat products significantly affects the color parameters (p < 0.05). Based on these findings, the use of DTP in meat products can enhance color quality, and the potential use of this component should be evaluated in further studies.

3.6. Textural Properties of Hamburger Patties

In this study, the addition of DTP was found to affect all textural parameters analyzed (p < 0.05) (Table 6). As the amount of DTP flour increased in the hamburger patty samples, the hardness and chewiness parameters gradually increased (p < 0.05). Other analyzed textural parameters (gumminess, cohesiveness, and springiness) were found to decrease with the addition of DTP, and there were significant differences compared to the control group (p < 0.05). Particularly, the cohesiveness index of meatballs containing DTP flour was significantly different in the DTP2, DTP3, and DTP4 groups, as compared to DTP0 (p < 0.05).
Factors such as stromal protein content, extracted protein, degree of comminution, and the type of ingredients added to meat products greatly affect the textural properties of meat and meat products. In addition, ingredients such as extenders, binders, and starch added to hamburger patties play an important role in determining the hardness of the product. Therefore, using higher amounts of DTP in this study resulted in greater firmness and chewiness, especially in DTP3 and DTP4 patties, which contain high dietary fiber. Because, as is known, most of the fiber content of DTP consists of cellulose and lignin [83,84]. Specifically, pectin content affects springiness, while cellulose and lignin content influence hardness and gumminess. Moreover, similar to how the fiber content of DTP flour influences the textural properties of hamburger patties, it is recognized that proteins, fats, and other components play a role in shaping the textural properties of the meat products by influencing their water-binding capacity and lipid crystallization states [85,86]. Similar to our study, it was observed that the addition of adzuki bean flour, which has a high carbohydrate content, to hamburger patties increased the hardness and chewiness parameters [58]. Similar textural results have also been obtained by many researchers [11,63,85,87].

3.7. Sensory Properties of the Hamburger Patty Samples

The sensory evaluation results of the hamburger patty samples including DTP flour are shown in Figure 3. In the study, all sensory parameters were impacted by the addition of DTP flour (p < 0.05). In particular, the DTP3 and DTP4 groups differed from the control group, although there was no statistically significant difference between them (p > 0.05). The addition of DTP flour enhanced the meatballs’ flavor and odor while also improving their appearance and structure. The DTP2 had higher scores for overall acceptability, taste, texture, and appearance than the control group (p > 0.05). However, the DTP4 had lower scores for many evaluated parameters.
The appearance/color and odor scores for the DTP3 and DTP4 groups were significantly lower than those for the control or the other two DTP-including groups (p < 0.05). Groups with high concentrations of DTP, which exhibit a reddish-orange hue when lycopene content rises, may be to blame for the decline in appearance and color liking. An increase in this hue results in a color that is quite different from what is expected in traditional hamburger patties. The results obtained from the tenderness and juiciness parameters were consistent with those measured by instrumental analysis. These two measurements were significantly lower in the DTP4 group. The addition of DTP flour had a negative effect on the indices of flavor and overall acceptability, particularly at concentrations of 3% and 4%. The tomato flavor in the hamburger patties with DTP caused alterations in taste, deviating from the typical flavor associated with this meat product.
Consequently, it is possible to argue that adding DTP flour to hamburger patties did not adversely affect the samples’ sensory qualities. When compared to the control group, the overall acceptability parameter of hamburger patties including 1% or 2% DTP flour had higher scores than the control and graded with very close scores with the samples including 3% and 4% DTP flour. These sensory findings demonstrated that the addition of DTP flour into hamburger patties up to 2% is acceptable to consumers.

3.8. Principal Component Analysis

Physical, chemical, and sensory parameters of DTP-added hamburger patties and relationships among groups with different concentrations of DTP flour were assessed using Principal Component Analysis (PCA). PCA plots help us understand the correlations, similarities, and differences between groups following the addition of DTP to hamburger patties. The arrangement of the principal components is determined by how much of the explained variance in the variables they encompass. Table 7 indicates that the first and second components, representing proportions of 0.930 and 0.041, respectively, had the highest explained variances among all 29 extracted components. As can also be seen in Table 7, most of the information of the dataset is in the first component. The positions of hamburger patty groups are shown in Figure 4a, while the distribution of quality parameters in the space defined by the first and second PCA dimensions is illustrated in Figure 4b. The sum of PC1 and PC2 principal components explains 97.1% of the variation among the hamburger patty groups. PC1 accounts for the majority of the variability (97.1%), while 4.1% is attributed to PC2. It is clearly evident from the results (Figure 4a) that the addition of DTP flour to hamburger patties caused changes in each parameter examined.
It is clearly evident from Figure 4a that the group without the addition of DTP flour, the DTP0 group was the only sample located in the third quadrant. This indicates a change in the parameter values measured in hamburger patties after the addition of DTP flour. Samples DTP1 and DTP2 were located in the first quadrant, while DTP3 and DTP4 samples were in the fourth quadrant, suggesting the least significant difference between these groups. Figure 4b demonstrates that each measured parameter significantly affected the groups with different concentrations of DTP flour (DTP1, DTP2, DTP3, DTP4). As can be seen from Figure 4b, most of the data are associated with the positive part of PC1. All sensory parameters evaluated in hamburger patties, including chewiness, gumminess, and springiness, along with some physicochemical properties, are located in the positive part of PC1. In addition, Figure 4b shows that the DTP1 and DTP2 sample groups are located close to each other in the positive parts of both PCs, indicating a positive correlation between the measurements. This reveals the effect of DTP addition on the samples. Although there were no exact expectations of sample classification before the analysis, the plot of the PCA-1 shows some clustering of hamburger patty samples. In summary, Figure 4b shows that the DTP 2 sample significantly affected the measured parameters.

3.9. Pearson Correlation Results

The correlation within some of the dependent variables was evaluated and is demonstrated in Figure 5. Most of the correlations (except three of them; fat content and ΔE, juiciness and ΔE, fat content and moisture retention) were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). A strong correlation was determined between moisture content and L* value (0.95) or tenderness (0.94). The increase in TDF was significantly correlated with the increase in WHC (0.99), cooking yield (0.93), and hardness (0.92). The correlation value between WHC and hardness was 0.95, which was explained as an increase in WHC resulting in a hard texture. In a similar way, hardness increased with the increasing percentage of fat retention (0.97) or cooking yield (0.94), which was supported by a strong correlation between these parameters.
On the other hand, statistical evaluation demonstrated negative strong correlations between some of the dependent variables. For instance, an increase in moisture content was negatively correlated with a decrease in TDF (−0.92), WHC (−0.92), cooking yield (−0.95), moisture retention (−0.89), and hardness (−0.93). Additionally, a significant negative correlation value was calculated between tenderness and TDF (0.95) or WHC (0.94). These results could be given as an explanation for the reduction in tenderness with the increasing amount of TDF or WHC as the amount of DTP flour increased in hamburger patties. Similarly, a strong negative correlation was found between all sensory parameters and cooking yield, hardness, moisture, or fat retention values.

4. Conclusions

In this study, the potential use of tomato peels as a valuable food ingredient in hamburger patties was investigated, aiming to develop a meat product rich in dietary fiber. The addition of DTP flour improved the cooking properties of hamburger patties, resulting in higher moisture and fat retention and a significant reduction in cooking loss. Overall, our findings indicate that the addition of up to 2 g/100 g of tomato peel flour can enhance the nutritional, textural, technological, and sensory qualities of the hamburger patties without adversely affecting sensory acceptance. Our results provide valuable insights into the potential use of tomato waste as a food ingredient, which potentially provides environmental sustainability by reducing the waste. However, further research is needed to clarify the impact of using tomato peels as an ingredient in different kinds of food products in terms of consumer acceptance, its health effects, food quality, and safety.

Implications for Research and Practice

This study was conducted using a specific variety of tomato peel flour only in a hamburger patty formulation. Future research should be conducted on the use of different varieties of tomato wastes in different kinds of food products in order to evaluate the effect of this valorization on food quality, safety, consumer acceptance, and economic feasibility. Future studies in this scope will help us gain a more comprehensive understanding of the usability of tomato wastes in food production. Additionally, more detailed studies on the environmental impacts and a cost–benefit analysis of using tomato waste in the food industry should be performed. However, it should not be forgotten that the limitation of this kind of study is that a high concentration of these wastes may lead to unacceptable results in color, sensory, and texture parameters.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing: B.K.; Writing—original draft, visualization, investigation: E.D.S., B.N., E.K., G.B. and B.Ş.; Supervision, conceptualization, methodology, writing—review and editing: B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by University Students Research Projects of Turkey (TUBITAK) This Project was supported by grant number [grant number 1919B012217006].

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We thank Mehmet Lütfi Yola and the research team at Hasan Kalyoncu University Environmental Research and Application Center for their valuable assistance and suggestions. All authors have consented to this acknowledgment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Thyberg, K.L.; Tonjes, D.J. Drivers of food waste and their implications for sustainable policy development. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 106, 110–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Khorakian, A.; Baregheh, A.; Jahangir, M.; Heidari, A.; Saadatyar, F.S. Household food waste prevention behavior: The role of religious orientations, emotional intelligence, and spiritual well-being. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2024, 67, 59–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Xue, L.; Liu, G. Introduction to global food losses and food waste. In Saving Food; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 1–31. [Google Scholar]
  4. Tkáč, F.; Košičiarová, I.; Horská, E.; Mušinská, K. Socioeconomic relations of food waste in selected European countries. Economies 2022, 10, 144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Melikoglu, M.; Tekin, A. Biohydrogen production from food and agricultural wastes: A global review and a techno-economic evaluation for Turkey. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2024, 62, 913–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Piccolo, V.; Pastore, A.; Maisto, M.; Keivani, N.; Tenore, G.C.; Stornaiuolo, M.; Summa, V. Agri-Food Waste Recycling for Healthy Remedies: Biomedical Potential of Nutraceuticals from Unripe Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Foods 2024, 13, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Almeida, P.V.; Gando-Ferreira, L.M.; Quina, M.J. Tomato Residue Management from a Biorefinery Perspective and towards a Circular Economy. Foods 2024, 13, 1873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Bhatkar, N.S.; Shirkole, S.S.; Mujumdar, A.S.; Thorat, B.N. Drying of tomatoes and tomato processing waste: A critical review of the quality aspects. Dry. Technol. 2021, 39, 1720–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Moraes, C.C.d.; Costa, F.H.D.O.; Silva, A.L.d.; Delai, I.; Pereira, C.R. Does resilience influence food waste causes? A systematic literature review. Gestão Produção 2019, 26, e4474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Matei, E.; Râpă, M.; Predescu, A.M.; Țurcanu, A.A.; Vidu, R.; Predescu, C.; Bobirica, C.; Bobirica, L.; Orbeci, C. Valorization of agri-food wastes as sustainable eco-materials for wastewater treatment: Current state and new perspectives. Materials 2021, 14, 4581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. García, M.L.; Calvo, M.M.; Selgas, M.D. Beef hamburgers enriched in lycopene using dry tomato peel as an ingredient. Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 45–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Celma, A.R.; Cuadros, F.; López-Rodríguez, F. Characterisation of industrial tomato by-products from infrared drying process. Food Bioprod. Process. 2009, 87, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Albanese, D.; Adiletta, G.; D′Acunto, M.; Cinquanta, L.; Di Matteo, M. Tomato peel drying and carotenoids stability of the extracts. Int. J. Food Sci. 2014, 49, 2458–2463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Szabo, K.; Dulf, F.V.; Teleky, B.-E.; Eleni, P.; Boukouvalas, C.; Krokida, M.; Kapsalis, N.; Rusu, A.V.; Socol, C.T.; Vodnar, D.C. Evaluation of the Bioactive Compounds Found in Tomato Seed Oil and Tomato Peels Influenced by Industrial Heat Treatments. Foods 2021, 10, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Coelho, M.C.; Rodrigues, A.S.; Teixeira, J.A.; Pintado, M.E. Integral valorisation of tomato by-products towards bioactive compounds recovery: Human health benefits. Food Chem. 2023, 410, 135319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Grassino, A.N.; Halambek, J.; Djaković, S.; Rimac Brnčić, S.; Dent, M.; Grabarić, Z. Utilization of tomato peel waste from canning factory as a potential source for pectin production and application as tin corrosion inhibitor. Food Hydrocoll. 2016, 52, 265–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Savadkoohi, S.; Hoogenkamp, H.; Shamsi, K.; Farahnaky, A. Color, sensory and textural attributes of beef frankfurter, beef ham and meat-free sausage containing tomato pomace. Meat Sci. 2014, 97, 410–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Skwarek, P.; Karwowska, M. Fatty acids profile and antioxidant properties of raw fermented sausages with the addition of tomato pomace. Biomolecules 2022, 12, 1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Chabi, I.B.; Zannou, O.; Dedehou, E.S.; Ayegnon, B.P.; Odouaro, O.B.O.; Maqsood, S.; Galanakis, C.M.; Kayodé, A.P.P. Tomato pomace as a source of valuable functional ingredients for improving physicochemical and sensory properties and extending the shelf life of foods: A review. Heliyon 2024, 10, 25261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Giuffrè, A.; Capocasale, M. Physicochemical composition of tomato seed oil for an edible use: The effect of cultivar. Int. Food Res. J. 2016, 23, 583–591. [Google Scholar]
  21. Song, Q.; Guan, W.; Liu, W.; Liu, L.; Wei, C.; Cai, L. Preparation and physicochemical stability of tomato seed oil microemulsions. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 5385–5396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kumar, M.; Tomar, M.; Bhuyan, D.J.; Punia, S.; Grasso, S.; Sa, A.G.A.; Carciofi, B.A.M.; Arrutia, F.; Changan, S.; Singh, S. Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) seed: A review on bioactives and biomedical activities. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2021, 142, 112018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gu, M.; Fang, H.; Gao, Y.; Su, T.; Niu, Y.; Yu, L.L. Characterization of enzymatic modified soluble dietary fiber from tomato peels with high release of lycopene. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 99, 105321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lu, Z.; Wang, J.; Gao, R.; Ye, F.; Zhao, G. Sustainable valorisation of tomato pomace: A comprehensive review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 172–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Candogan, K. The effect of tomato paste on some quality characteristics of beef patties during refrigerated storage. EUR Food Res Technol. 2002, 215, 305–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nour, V.; Panaite, T.D.; Ropota, M.; Turcu, R.; Trandafir, I.; Corbu, A.R. Nutritional and bioactive compounds in dried tomato processing waste. CYTA-J. Food 2018, 16, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Elbadrawy, E.; Sello, A. Evaluation of nutritional value and antioxidant activity of tomato peel extracts. Arab. J. Chem. 2016, 9, S1010–S1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Eyiler, E.; Oztan, A. Production of frankfurters with tomato powder as a natural additive. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 44, 307–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wang, Q.; Xiong, Z.; Li, G.; Zhao, X.; Wu, H.; Ren, Y. Tomato peel powder as fat replacement in low-fat sausages: Formulations with mechanically crushed powder exhibit higher stability than those with airflow ultra-micro crushed powder. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2016, 118, 175–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Rahmah, L.; Choiriyah, N. Increasing levels of fibre and mineral (Fe, Ca, and K) in chicken meatballs added dragon fruit peel and oyster mushroom. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Agriculture and Bio-Industry (ICAGRI 2021), Banda Aceh, Indonesia, 13–14 October 2021; p. 012093. [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, X.; Petrov, M.S. Dietary Fibre for the Prevention of Post-Pancreatitis Diabetes Mellitus: A Review of the Literature and Future Research Directions. Nutrients 2024, 16, 435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Barber, T.M.; Kabisch, S.; Pfeiffer, A.F.; Weickert, M.O. The health benefits of dietary fibre. Nutrients 2020, 12, 3209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gill, S.K.; Rossi, M.; Bajka, B.; Whelan, K. Dietary fibre in gastrointestinal health and disease. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2021, 18, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Polizer-Rocha, Y.J.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Pompeu, D.; Rodrigues, I.; Baldin, J.C.; Pires, M.A.; Freire, M.T.A.; Barba, F.J.; Trindade, M.A. Physicochemical and technological properties of beef burger as influenced by the addition of pea fibre. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 55, 1018–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Das, A.K.; Nanda, P.K.; Madane, P.; Biswas, S.; Das, A.; Zhang, W.; Lorenzo, J.M. A comprehensive review on antioxidant dietary fibre enriched meat-based functional foods. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 99, 323–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Das, A.; Biswas, S.; Nanda, P.; Chatterjee, N.; Pal, S.; Dhar, P.; Verma, A.K.; Bhattacharya, D.; Koshy, R.; Das, A.K. Moringa pod derived antioxidant dietary fibre as a quality enhancer in goat meat nuggets. Sustain. Food Technol. 2024, 2, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yuan, D.; Liang, X.; Kong, B.; Xia, X.; Cao, C.; Zhang, H.; Liu, Q.; Li, X. Influence of seaweed dietary fibre as a potential alternative to phosphates on the quality profiles and flavour attributes of frankfurters. Meat Sci. 2024, 213, 109511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Lindberg, L.; McCann, R.R.; Smyth, B.; Woodside, J.V.; Nugent, A.P. The environmental impact, ingredient composition, nutritional and health impact of meat alternatives: A systematic review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2024, 149, 104483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kumar, S.; Yadav, S.; Rani, R.; Pathera, A.K. Effects of plum powder and apple pomace powder addition on the physico-chemical, sensory, and textural properties of buffalo meat emulsion. Nutr. Food Sci. 2024, 54, 421–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. de Alencar, M.G.; de Quadros, C.P.; Luna, A.L.L.P.; Neto, A.F.; da Costa, M.M.; Queiroz, M.A.Á.; de Carvalho, F.A.L.; da Silva Araújo, D.H.; Gois, G.C.; dos Anjos Santos, V.L. Grape skin flour obtained from wine processing as an antioxidant in beef burgers. Meat Sci. 2022, 194, 108963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Lisiewska, Z.; Kmiecik, W. Effect of storage period and temperature on the chemical composition and organoleptic quality of frozen tomato cubes. Food Chem. 2000, 70, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Öztürk, T.; Turhan, S. Physicochemical properties of pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo L.) seed kernel flour and its utilization in beef meatballs as a fat replacer and functional ingredient. J. Food Process. 2020, 44, e14695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Okaka, J.C.; POTTER, N.N. Functional and storage properties of cowpea powder-wheat flour blends in breadmaking. J. Food Sci. 1977, 42, 828–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. El-Magoli, S.B.; Laroia, S.; Hansen, P. Flavor and texture characteristics of low fat ground beef patties formulated with whey protein concentrate. Meat Sci. 1996, 42, 179–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Akcan, T.; Önel, E.; Ergezer, H. Acorn (Quercus ithaburensis) Flour’s effect on the physicochemical, textural, and sensory characteristics of raw and cooked beef meatballs. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2024, 35, 100887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mielnik, M.B.; Olsen, E.; Vogt, G.; Adeline, D.; Skrede, G. Grape seed extract as antioxidant in cooked, cold stored turkey meat. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 39, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. King, D.A.; Hunt, M.C.; Barbut, S.; Claus, J.R.; Cornforth, D.P.; Joseph, P.; Kim, Y.H.B.; Lindahl, G.; Mancini, R.A.; Nair, M.N. American Meat Science Association guidelines for meat color measurement. Meat Muscle Biol. 2023, 6, 12473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ulu, H. Effects of carrageenam and guar gum on the cooking and textual properties of low fat meatballs. Food Chem. 2006, 95, 600–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. da Silva, A.N.; dos Santos Navarro, R.d.C.; Ferreira, M.A.M.; Minim, V.P.R.; da Costa, T.d.M.T.; Perez, R. Performance of hedonic scales in sensory acceptability of strawberry yogurt. Food Qual. 2013, 30, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Liu, F.; Cao, X.; Wang, H.; Liao, X. Changes of tomato powder qualities during storage. J. Powder Technol. 2010, 204, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Navarro-González, I.; García-Valverde, V.; García-Alonso, J.; Periago, M.J. Chemical profile, functional and antioxidant properties of tomato peel fiber. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 1528–1535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shao, D.; Atungulu, G.; Pan, Z.; Yue, T.; Zhang, A.; Chen, X. Separation methods and chemical and nutritional characteristics of tomato pomace. Trans. ASABE 2013, 56, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Herrera, P.G.; Sánchez-Mata, M.; Cámara, M. Nutritional characterization of tomato fiber as a useful ingredient for food industry. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2010, 11, 707–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chandra, S.; Singh, S.; Kumari, D. Evaluation of functional properties of composite flours and sensorial attributes of composite flour biscuits. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 3681–3688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Thangavelu, K.P.; Tiwari, B.K.; Kerry, J.P.; Álvarez, C. A comprehensive study on the characterisation properties of power ultrasound-treated apple pomace powder and coffee silverskin powder. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2022, 248, 1939–1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Akubor, P.I.; Owuse, A.U. Chemical composition, functional and biscuit making properties of tomato peel flour. S. Asian J. Food Technol. Environ. 2020, 6, 874–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Menegotto, A.L.L.; de Souza, L.E.S.; Colla, L.M.; Costa, J.A.V.; Sehn, E.; Bittencourt, P.R.S.; de Moraes Flores, É.L.; Canan, C.; Colla, E. Investigation of techno-functional and physicochemical properties of Spirulina platensis protein concentrate for food enrichment. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 114, 108267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Aslinah, L.; Mat Yusoff, M.; Ismail-Fitry, M. Simultaneous use of adzuki beans (Vigna angularis) flour as meat extender and fat replacer in reduced-fat beef meatballs (bebola daging). J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 3241–3248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Szymańska-Chargot, M.; Chylińska, M.; Gdula, K.; Kozioł, A.; Zdunek, A. Isolation and characterization of cellulose from different fruit and vegetable pomaces. Polym. J. 2017, 9, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Tuffi, L.C.; Longhi, D.A.; Hernandes, J.C.; Gregório, P.C.; Rocha Garcia, C.E. Grape residue flour as an antioxidant and fiber source in beef meatballs. Br. Food J. 2021, 123, 2831–2843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Yadav, S.; Malik, A.; Pathera, A.; Islam, R.U.; Sharma, D. Development of dietary fibre enriched chicken sausages by incorporating corn bran, dried apple pomace and dried tomato pomace. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 46, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Santhi, D.; Kalaikannan, A.; Natarajan, A. Characteristics and composition of emulsion-based functional low-fat chicken meat balls fortified with dietary fiber sources. J. Food Process Eng. 2020, 43, e13333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Zwolan, A.; Pietrzak, D.; Adamczak, L.; Chmiel, M.; Kalisz, S.; Wirkowska-Wojdyła, M.; Florowski, T.; Oszmiański, J. Effects of Nigella sativa L. seed extracts on lipid oxidation and color of chicken meatballs during refrigerated storage. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 130, 109718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Wang, Z.; He, Z.; Emara, A.; Gan, X.; Li, H. Effects of malondialdehyde as a byproduct of lipid oxidation on protein oxidation in rabbit meat. Food Chem. 2019, 288, 405–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Min, B.; Cordray, J.C.; Ahn, D.U. Effect of NaCl, Myoglobin, Fe(II), and Fe(III) on Lipid Oxidation of Raw and Cooked Chicken Breast and Beef Loin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58, 600–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Hoac, T.; Daun, C.; Trafikowska, U.; Zackrisson, J.; Åkesson, B. Influence of heat treatment on lipid oxidation and glutathione peroxidase activity in chicken and duck meat. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2006, 7, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Valdez-Morales, M.; Espinosa-Alonso, L.G.; Espinoza-Torres, L.C.; Delgado-Vargas, F.; Medina-Godoy, S. Phenolic content and antioxidant and antimutagenic activities in tomato peel, seeds, and byproducts. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 5281–5289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shi, J.; Maguer, M.L. Lycopene in tomatoes: Chemical and physical properties affected by food processing. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2000, 40, 1–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chen, X.; Li, H.; Zhang, B.; Deng, Z. The synergistic and antagonistic antioxidant interactions of dietary phytochemical combinations. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 5658–5677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhang, Y.; Holman, B.W.; Ponnampalam, E.N.; Kerr, M.G.; Bailes, K.L.; Kilgannon, A.K.; Collins, D.; Hopkins, D.L. Understanding beef flavour and overall liking traits using two different methods for determination of thiobarbituric acid reactive substance (TBARS). Meat Sci. 2019, 149, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Toor, R.K.; Savage, G.P. Antioxidant activity in different fractions of tomatoes. Food Res. Int. 2005, 38, 487–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Martínez-Valverde, I.; Periago, M.J.; Provan, G.; Chesson, A. Phenolic compounds, lycopene and antioxidant activity in commercial varieties of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum). J. Sci. Food Agric. 2002, 82, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ježek, F.; Kameník, J.; Macharáčková, B.; Bogdanovičová, K.; Bednář, J. Cooking of meat: Effect on texture, cooking loss and microbiological quality–a review. Acta Vet. Brno. 2020, 88, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Serdaroğlu, M.; Yıldız-Turp, G.; Abrodímov, K. Quality of low-fat meatballs containing legume flours as extenders. Meat Sci. 2005, 70, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Park, J.-H.; Lee, Y.-J.; Lim, J.-G.; Jeon, J.-H.; Yoon, K.-S. Effect of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) starch and seeds on the physicochemical and textural and sensory properties of chicken meatballs during frozen storage. Foods 2021, 10, 1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Ahmad, S.S.; Khalid, M.; Younis, K. Interaction study of dietary fibers (pectin and cellulose) with meat proteins using bioinformatics analysis: An In-Silico study. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 119, 108889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Meng, X.; Wu, D.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, H.; Wu, P.; Xu, Z.; Gao, Z.; Mintah, B.K.; Dabbour, M. An overview of factors affecting the quality of beef meatballs: Processing and preservation. Nutr. Food Sci. 2022, 10, 1961–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. López-Vargas, J.H.; Fernández-López, J.; Pérez-Álvarez, J.Á.; Viuda-Martos, M. Quality characteristics of pork burger added with albedo-fiber powder obtained from yellow passion fruit (Passiflora edulis var. flavicarpa) co-products. Meat Sci. 2014, 97, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bunmee, T.; Setthaya, P.; Chaiwang, N.; Sansawat, T. Effect of Purple Eggplant Flour on Physicochemical, Lipid Oxidation, and Sensory Properties of Low-Fat Beef Patties. Int. J. Food Sci. 2022, 1, 9753201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Essa, R.; Elsebaie, E.M. Effect of Using Date Pits Powder as a Fat Replacer and Anti-Oxidative Agent on Beef Burger Quality. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 9, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cheng, Q.; Sun, D.-W. Factors Affecting the Water Holding Capacity of Red Meat Products: A Review of Recent Research Advances. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2008, 48, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Marconato, A.M.; Hartmann, G.L.; Santos, M.M.R.; Amaral, L.A.d.; Souza, G.H.O.d.; Santos, E.F.d.; Novello, D. Sweet potato peel flour in hamburger: Effect on physicochemical, technological and sensorial characteristics. Braz. J. Food Technol. 2020, 23, e2019115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Knoblich, M.; Anderson, B.; Latshaw, D. Analyses of tomato peel and seed byproducts and their use as a source of carotenoids. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2005, 85, 1166–1170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Li, N.; Feng, Z.; Niu, Y.; Yu, L. Structural, rheological and functional properties of modified soluble dietary fiber from tomato peels. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 77, 557–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Ran, M.; Chen, C.; Li, C.; He, L.; Zeng, X. Effects of replacing fat with Perilla seed on the characteristics of meatballs. Meat Sci. 2020, 161, 107995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Glorieux, S.; Steen, L.; De Brabanter, J.; Foubert, I.; Fraeye, I. Effect of Meat Type, Animal Fatty Acid Composition, and Isothermal Temperature on the Viscoelastic Properties of Meat Batters. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 1596–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Hu, G.; Yu, W. Effect of hemicellulose from rice bran on low fat meatballs chemical and functional properties. Food Chem. 2015, 186, 239–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 13 02218 g001
Figure 1. Visual of meatballs including DTP flour at different concentrations: DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Figure 1. Visual of meatballs including DTP flour at different concentrations: DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Foods 13 02218 g001
Foods 13 02218 g002
Figure 2. CIE L*, a*, b* color values in hamburger samples and ΔE calculation: DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour. a–e: Means followed by different lower case letters for each color value are significantly different. (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. CIE L*, a*, b* color values in hamburger samples and ΔE calculation: DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour. a–e: Means followed by different lower case letters for each color value are significantly different. (p < 0.05).
Foods 13 02218 g002
Foods 13 02218 g003
Figure 3. Sensory evaluation results of the hamburger patties: DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Figure 3. Sensory evaluation results of the hamburger patties: DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Foods 13 02218 g003
Foods 13 02218 g004
Figure 4. Principle component analysis (PCA) of hamburger patty samples: (a) the location of different groups; (b) the location of quality parameters; DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Figure 4. Principle component analysis (PCA) of hamburger patty samples: (a) the location of different groups; (b) the location of quality parameters; DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Foods 13 02218 g004
Foods 13 02218 g005
Figure 5. Pearson correlation analysis results. Cont: content, TDF: Total dietary fiber, WHC: Water holding capacity, Ret: retention, CA: color/appearance, T: Tenderness, J: Juiceness, OA: Overall acceptability.
Figure 5. Pearson correlation analysis results. Cont: content, TDF: Total dietary fiber, WHC: Water holding capacity, Ret: retention, CA: color/appearance, T: Tenderness, J: Juiceness, OA: Overall acceptability.
Foods 13 02218 g005
Table 1. Formulation of hamburger patties (%).
Table 1. Formulation of hamburger patties (%).
DTP0DTP1DTP2DTP3DTP4 *
Ingredients
Beef7574737271
Bread crumbs1010101010
Water77777
Salt22222
Black pepper22222
Onion powder22222
Garlic powder22222
DTP flour01234
* DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Table 2. The physicochemical properties of DTP flour (n = 2).
Table 2. The physicochemical properties of DTP flour (n = 2).
ParametersMean ± SEM
Moisture (%)6.20 ± 0.51
aw0.41 ± 0.80
pH4.18 ± 0.55
Titratable acidity (%)7.75 ± 0.86
Protein (%)10.15 ± 1.19
Fat (%)1.61 ± 1.51
Ash (%)5.46 ± 0.65
Total dietary fiber (%) (TDF)72.88 ± 0.56
Soluble dietary fiber (%) (SDF)12.13 ± 0.98
Insoluble dietary fiber (%) (IDF)60.75 ± 0.79
Carbohydrate (%)76.58 ± 1.09
Oil absorption capacity (%) (OAC)82.01 ± 0.98
Water absorption capacity (%) (WAC)50.75 ± 0.73
Swelling capacity (%) (SC)140.00 ± 0.81
Table 3. Compositional, physical, and chemical parameters of cooked hamburger patties formulated with different levels of DTP flour (n = 2).
Table 3. Compositional, physical, and chemical parameters of cooked hamburger patties formulated with different levels of DTP flour (n = 2).
ParametersDTP0DTP1DTP2DTP3DTP4 *
pH5.70 ± 0.01 a5.62 ± 0.06 b5.59 ± 0.06 b5.49 ± 0.03 c5.47 ± 0.02 c
Water activity (aw)0.889 ± 0.006 a0.882 ± 0.005 a0.890 ± 0.008 a0.885 ± 0.003 a0.881 ± 0.001 a
Moisture (%)54.66 ± 1.36 a54.27 ± 0.92 ab52.10 ± 0.10 bc51.79 ± 0.015 bc50.47 ± 0.50 c
Protein (%DM) #42.94 ± 0.62 d44.44 ± 0.64 a43.67 ± 0.11 c43.83 ± 0.81 bc44.10 ± 0.03 ab
Fat (%DM)38.43 ± 0.92 a34.23 ± 1.15 ab32.55 ± 1.04 ab27.21 ± 2.63 b26.92 ± 3.47 b
Ash (%DM)4.57 ± 0.79 a4.62 ± 0.05 a5.15 ± 0.04 a5.17 ± 0.17 a5.60 ± 0.13 a
Carbohydrate (%DM)5.61 ± 0.11 e6.78 ± 0.03 d9.68 ± 0.02 c10.41 ± 0.01 b11.22 ± 0.11 a
Dietary fiber (%DM)0.07 ± 0.04 e4.23 ± 0.04 d5.98 ± 0.03 c7.77 ± 0.04 b8.55 ± 0.10 a
Energy value (kcal/100 g)263.19 ± 4.29 a261.97 ± 3.56 a264.41 ± 4.60 a262.68 ± 12.26 a263.00 ± 19.20 a
a–e: Means followed by different lowercase letters in the same row, are significantly different. * DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour. # DM: Protein, fat, ash, carbohydrate, and dietary fiber results were calculated as g/100 g dry matter (DM).
Table 4. TBARS values (mg MDA/kg meat) of hamburger patties formulated with different levels of DTP flour (n = 2).
Table 4. TBARS values (mg MDA/kg meat) of hamburger patties formulated with different levels of DTP flour (n = 2).
DTP0DTP1DTP2DTP3DTP4 *
Raw0.23 ± 0.13 ay0.25 ± 0.13 ay0.10 ± 0.01 ay0.08 ± 0.02 ay0.07 ± 0.01 ay
Cooked2.05 ± 0.07 ax1.51 ± 0.03 bx1.62 ± 0.02 bx0.93 ± 0.03 cx0.83 ± 0.03 cx
a–c: Means with different uppercase letters in the same row are significantly different due to the effect of DTP supplementation (p < 0.05). x,y: Means with different lowercase letters in the column are significantly different due to the effect of cooking treatment (p < 0.05). * DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Table 5. Cooking measurements and functional results of hamburger patties formulated with different levels of DTP flour (n = 2).
Table 5. Cooking measurements and functional results of hamburger patties formulated with different levels of DTP flour (n = 2).
DTP0DTP1DTP2DTP3DTP4 *
Cooking properties
Cooking yield (%)69.13 ± 1.39 d71.88 ± 0.40 d74.24 ± 0.41 c77.08 ± 0.43 b80.99 ± 1.23 a
Diameter reduction (%)8.51 ± 0.54 a8.68 ± 0.43 ab8.14 ± 0.26 ab7.32 ± 0.29 ab5.85 ± 0.98 b
Thickness increase (%)7.62 ± 0.55 c9.29 ± 0.93 bc10.45 ± 0.55 bc13.03 ± 0.54 ab15.93 ± 1.29 a
Shrinkage (%)12.78 ± 1.05 a13.52 ± 1.56 a13.93 ± 0.98 a14.68 ± 3.35 a14.98 ±4.44 a
Functional properties
Moisture retention (%)58.57 ± 1.05 c61.01 ± 0.12 bc62.94 ± 1.79 bc66.86 ± 2.34 ab70.73 ± 1.72 a
Fat retention (%)74.66 ± 0.78 d75.48 ± 0.69 cd76.06 ± 0.08 c77.49 ± 0.71 b79.22 ± 0.58 a
WHC (%)70.76 ± 0.63 d75.80 ± 0.23 c77.93 ± 0.32 b79.93 ± 1.28 a81.43 ± 0.75 a
a–d: Means followed by different lowercase letters in the same row, are significantly different (p < 0.05). * DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Table 6. Texture profile analysis results in hamburger patties formulated with different levels of DTP flour (n = 2).
Table 6. Texture profile analysis results in hamburger patties formulated with different levels of DTP flour (n = 2).
DTP0DTP1DTP2DTP3DTP4 *
Parameters
Hardness (N)6260.3 ± 83.0 c6708.0 ± 293 bc7094.0 ± 256 b7707.0 ± 293 a8113.3 ± 70.7 a
Cohesiveness (N mm)0.81 ± 0.020 a0.76 ± 0.011 ab0.74 ± 0.01 b0.72 ± 0.01 b0.71 ± 0.01 b
Springiness (mm)0.78 ± 0.02 a0.76 ± 0.01 ab0.73 ± 0.01 bc0.71 ± 0.01 cd0.70 ± 0.01 d
Gumminess (N)5216.4 ± 10.5 a5148.1 ± 42.3 a5144.0 ± 13.90 a4386.7 ± 13.20 b4324.8 ± 72.5 b
Chewiness (N mm)4030.3 ± 21.6 d4140.9 ± 18.5 d4443.6 ± 16.3 c4586.9 ± 57.9 b4896.4 ± 14.6 a
a–d: Means followed by different lowercase letters in the same row, are significantly different. * DTP0: Control (without DTP flour), DTP1: Burger including 1% DTP flour, DTP2: Burger including 2% DTP flour, DTP3: Burger including 3% DTP flour, DTP4: Burger including 4% DTP flour.
Table 7. The eigenvalues and the proportions of the explained variances for the 4 components.
Table 7. The eigenvalues and the proportions of the explained variances for the 4 components.
ComponentEigenvalueProportion
126.9830.930
21.2030.041
30.5860.020
40.2280.008
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

Karslıoğlu, B.; Soncu, E.D.; Nekoyu, B.; Karakuş, E.; Bekdemir, G.; Şahin, B. From Waste to Consumption: Tomato Peel Flour in Hamburger Patty Production. Foods 2024, 13, 2218. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142218

AMA Style

Karslıoğlu B, Soncu ED, Nekoyu B, Karakuş E, Bekdemir G, Şahin B. From Waste to Consumption: Tomato Peel Flour in Hamburger Patty Production. Foods. 2024; 13(14):2218. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142218

Chicago/Turabian Style

Karslıoğlu, Betül, Eda Demirok Soncu, Beyzanur Nekoyu, Erdem Karakuş, Gülsedef Bekdemir, and Barış Şahin. 2024. "From Waste to Consumption: Tomato Peel Flour in Hamburger Patty Production" Foods 13, no. 14: 2218. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13142218

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