Food Control 15 (2004) 457–461

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

Texture profile analysis of meat products treated with

commercial liquid smoke flavourings
O. Martinez, J. Salmer

on, M.D. Guill
en, C. Casas *

Departamento de Farmacia, Nutrici

on, Tecnolog
ıa y Producci

on Animal Area de Nutrici

on y Bromatolog
ıa, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad del Pa
ıs
Vasco (UPV), 01006 Vitoria, Spain
Received 23 March 2003; received in revised form 14 July 2003; accepted 14 July 2003

Abstract
The texture of two meat products (salted pork loin and salted bacon) treated with two commercial liquid smoke flavourings
(immersion for 30 s in either F1 or F2) was examined by instrumental texture profile analysis after 15, 30 and 90 days of storage. The
two flavourings caused changes to the texture parameters of the products. Smoke flavouring F1, which is poor in carbonyl com-
pounds, modified the cohesiveness, springiness and gumminess of the loin, and the hardness, fracturability and springiness of the
bacon. Smoke flavouring F2, which is rich in carbonyl compounds, caused changes in springiness and gumminess of the loin, and
of all the investigated texture parameters in bacon. Generally, significant changes occurred over time on the texture attributes
evaluated.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Liquid smoke flavourings; Meat products; Texture

1. Introduction It would appear that the use of the smoke flavourings

instead of other smoking procedures play an important
Meat products are smoked mainly because of the role in the sensorial properties of foods to which they
attractive smell and flavour this confers upon them. The are applied (Guill
en & Manzanos, 1996). Texture is one
treatment of meat and meat products with ‘‘liquid of the most important determinants of organoleptic
smoke flavouring’’ is becoming increasingly common quality in meat products (Ordo~ nez, Rovira, & Jaime,
since it has several advantages over traditional smoking 1996). An adequate texture means acceptance on behalf
methods (Pszczola, 1995). of the consumer, but meat products with poor tex-
Knowledge on the composition of these preparations ture will be rejected (Stanley, 1976; Szczesniak, 1975).
is indispensable when trying to establish their effects on Texture can be influenced by a multitude of factors,
meat products. Though several investigations have been including interactions between smoke and food com-
performed on the composition (Baltes & Sochtig, 1979; ponents (Sokolov, Tschechowskaja, & Chekhowskaya,
Edye & Richards, 1991), antioxidant effects (Barclay, 1976).
Xi, & Norris, 1997; Guill
en & Ibargoitia, 1998; Lu & Many research groups have conducted instrumental
Liu, 1992), antimicrobial activity (MacRae, Hudson, & texture profile analysis (TPA) for assessing the textural
Towers, 1989) and their influence on organoleptic properties of food (Tabilo, Flores, Fiszman, & Toldr
a,
qualities (Guill
en, Manzanos, Ibargoitia, Cabo, & So- 1999). Much research has been published on the texture
pelana, 1998; Kim, Kurata, & Fujimaki, 1974; Toth & of fresh meat (Bouton, Ford, Harris, & Ratcliff, 1975;
Potthast, 1984) very few references exist on how they Johnson, Romans, Muller, Costello, & Jones, 1990;
might affect meat texture (Maga, 1988; Sink & Hsu, Virgili, Parolari, Schivazappa, Soresi Bordini, & Borri,
1979). 1995) and that of manufactured meat products texture
(Guerrero, Gou, & Arnau, 1999; Ordo~ nez, Rovira, &
Jaime, 2001; Parolari, Virgili, & Schivazappa, 1994;
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-945-013078; fax: +34-945-
Virgili et al., 1995), but very few reports are available
013014. on the texture of meat products treated with smoke
E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Casas). flavourings (Sink & Hsu, 1979).
0956-7135/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0956-7135(03)00130-0
458 O. Martinez et al. / Food Control 15 (2004) 457–461

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 2.3. Instrumental evaluation of the texture
two commercial liquid smoke flavourings (F1 and F2)
on the texture of two different meat products, one es- Texture measurements in form of texture profile
sentially lean (salted pork loin), and the other essentially analysis (Bourne, 1978) were performed at room tem-
fatty (salted bacon), using TPA analysis, and to deter- perature with a TA XT2 Texture Analyser (Stable Micro
mine whether texture qualities change with storage time. Systems, Godalming, England).
This will allow relationships to be established between Nine samples (14 mm cube) parallel to the longitu-
smoke flavouring composition and behaviour, and, dinal orientation of the muscular fibres were taken from
therefore, their better use. the central part of each portion from each group. Prior
to analysis, samples were allowed to equilibrate to room
temperature (20 °C, 3 h).
2. Materials and methods Each sample was immobilized between specially
stainless steel plates and then compressed, perpendicular
2.1. Liquid smoke flavourings to muscle fibre orientation, in two consecutive cycles of
30% compression with 5 s between cycles, using a cy-
Two commercial liquid smoke flavourings (F1 and lindrical probe of 4 cm diameter. The cross-head moved
F2) employed in the Spanish food industry were used to at a constant speed of 1 mm/s.
From the resulting force–time curve (Fig. 1) the fol-
smoke the sausages.
F1 had a clear brown colour and very intense and lowing parameters were determined: hardness (N/cm2 ),
pungent odour. F2 had a dark brown colour, and a maximum force required to compress the sample;
dense, viscous appearance. The composition of both fracturability (N/cm2 ), the force during the first com-
(Table 1) was studied by gas chromatography/mass pression at which the material fracture; Cohesiveness,
spectrometry and gas chromatography with flame ion- extent to which the sample could be deformed prior to
ization detector (Guill
en & Ibargoitia, 1996; Guill
en & rupture (A2=A1, were A1 was the total energy required
Manzanos, 1996). for the first compression and A2 the total energy required
for the second compression); springiness (cm) ability of
sample to recover its original form after the deforming
2.2. Samples and treatments force is removed; gumminess (N/cm2 ), the force needed
to disintegrate a semisolid sample to a steady state of
Loin cuts and belly bacon were obtained from nine swallowing (hardness
cohesiveness); chewiness (N/cm),
sows of equal weight (all belonging to the same lot) at a the work needed to chew a solid sample to a steady state
commercial abattoir. All samples were maintained at of swallowing (springiness
gumminess).
4 °C during transport to the laboratory.
After cleaning, all remains of adjacent tissues were
removed and three groups organised, each containing 2.4. Statistical methods
three loin and three bacon samples from different ani-
mals. One groups was treated by immersion in F1 for 30 SPSS (1997) was used for data analysis. One-way
s, another was treated with F2 in the same way, and the variance analysis (F -statistics) was used to test for dif-
third prepared with no smoke flavour treatment.
Once drained, all samples were completely covered
FIRST SECOND
with course grain salt and kept for 24 h at 4 °C. They COMPRESSION COMPRESSION
were then brushed and cleaned of the salt and cut into
three portions of approximately equal size. All portions Hardness
were wrapped in permeable netting and kept at 4 °C
Fracturability
until analysis at 15, 30 or 90 days of storage.
FORCE

Table 1
Concentration (%) of the main identified components of the com-
A1 A2
mercial liquid smoke flavourings (F1 and F2)
Compound F1 F2
Phenol derivatives 72.7 30.0
Carbonyl compounds 2.6 60.0
Alkyl–aryl ethers 7.0 1.7
TIME
Hydrocarbons 9.7 0.6
Terpenic derivatives 1.7 – Fig. 1. A typical texture profile analysis force–time obtained from the
Others 6.3 7.7 TA XT2 Texture Analyser.
 O. Martinez et al. / Food Control 15 (2004) 457–461 459

ferences between samples (n ¼ 9). Significance was greatest springiness at 30 days. In LF1, springiness
defined at p 6 0:05. showed the lowest value at 90 days and the highest at 30.
Finally, in LF2, cohesiveness showed the lowest value
at 30 days and the highest at 90.
3. Results
3.2. Bacon
3.1. Loin
Table 3, show the TPA parameters of control (CB)
Table 2, show the TPA parameters of control (CL) and F1 and F2 treated bacon (BF1 and BF2) after 15, 30
and F1 and F2 treated loins (LF1 and LF2) after 15, 30 and 90 days of storage.
and 90 days of storage. At 15 days, BF1 showed significant differences
At 15 days, LF1 showed no significant differences (p 6 0:05) compared to controls, with respect to all tex-
(p > 0:05) in any texture parameter compared to con- ture parameters except for hardness and fracturability.
trols. At 30 days, a significant difference (p 6 0:05) in After 30 days, differences were only seen in springiness.
gumminess was observed. At 90 days differences were At 90 days, significant differences (p 6 0:05) were seen
seen with respect to cohesiveness, springiness and in hardness, fracturability and springiness.
gumminess. In BF2, the same variations were seen as in the
In the loin treated with smoke flavouring F2 (LF2), BF1. At 30 days, significant differences (p 6 0:05) were
significant differences (p 6 0:05) were seen at 15 days, seen in all parameters, including hardness and fractu-
compared to controls, with respect to hardness, fractu- rability. These same differences were observed at 90
rability and cohesiveness. At 30 days, the difference in days.
cohesiveness was maintained and new differences in With respect to changes in texture parameters during
springiness and gumminess recorded. At 90 days, sig- storage, the highest texture parameter values for all
nificant differences (p 6 0:05) were only seen in springi- three lots of bacon were seen at 30 days with few ex-
ness and gumminess. ceptions. In BF1, the highest values for fracturability
Texture parameter values all increased over time for were seen at 90 days and the highest for springiness
the control, LF1 and LF2 products, with few exception. at 15 days. BF2 only showed greater springiness at 15
The controls showed the lowest cohesiveness and the days.

Table 2
TPA parameters of the salted pork loins treated with commercial liquid smoke flavourings (F1 and F2)
TPA parameter Storage time (days) Batch
CL LF1 LF2
2 ac ac
Hardness (N/cm ) 15 78.5 75.2 66.2bc
30 111.6ab 108.3ab 105.5ab
90 130.4aa 135.5aa 137.9aa
Fracturability (N/cm2 ) 15 39.2ac 37.6ac 36.6bb
30 55.8ab 54.1ab 56.9aa
90 62.9aa 67.7aa 62.1aa
Cohesiveness (ratio) 15 0.4bb 0.4bb 0.5aa
30 0.4bb 0.5ba 0.5aa
90 0.6aa 0.5ba 0.6aa
Springiness (cm) 15 1.0ab 1.0ab 1.0ab
30 1.1aa 1.1aa 1.0bb
90 1.0ba 0.9ca 1.0aa

Gumminess (N/cm2 ) 15 36.9ac 32.3ac 38.4ac

30 50.2bb 54.1ab 58.0ab
90 78.2ba 73.1ca 84.1aa
Chewiness (N/cm) 15 38.3ab 33.9ac 39.1ac
30 57.2ab 62.2ab 60.9ab
90 78.2aa 66.5aa 90.0aa
Different letters (a, b, c) in the same row indicate significant differences between means (p 6 0:05).
Different letters (a, b, c) in the same column for each parameter indicate significant differences between means ðp 6 0:05Þ.
CL, non-smoked control loin; LF1, loin treated with smoke flavouring F1; LF2, loin treated with smoke flavouring F2.
460 O. Martinez et al. / Food Control 15 (2004) 457–461

Table 3
TPA parameters of the salted bacon treated with commercial liquid smoke flavourings (F1 and F2)
TPA parameter Storage time (days) Batch
CB BF1 BF2
Hardness (N/cm2 ) 15 14.9ab 17.0ab 14.8ab
30 34.2ba 29.2ba 44.8aa
90 33.7ba 28.8ca 39.8aa
Fracturability (N/cm2 ) 15 7.4ab 8.6ab 7.4ab
30 18.1ba 14.6ba 22.4aa
90 16.8ba 14.8ca 19.9aa
Cohesiveness (ratio) 15 0.4bb 0.5ab 0.5ab
30 0.6ba 0.6ba 0.6aa
90 0.6ba 0.6ba 0.6aa

Springiness (cm) 15 0.6ba 0.8aa 0.7aa

30 0.6ba 0.7ab 0.7aa
90 0.5ba 0.6ab 0.7aa
Gumminess (N/cm2 ) 15 7.1cb 9.2ab 8.0bb
30 20.8ba 17.8ba 28.7aa
90 20.5ba 17.2ba 25.5aa
Chewiness (N/cm) 15 4.3bb 7.4ab 6.0ab
30 13.3ba 12.8ba 20.3aa
90 12.1ba 11.2ba 17.8aa
Different letters (a, b, c) in the same row indicate significant differences between means (p 6 0:05).
Different letters (a, b, c) in the same column for each parameter indicate significant differences between means ðp 6 0:05Þ.
CB, non-smoked control loin; BF1, loin treated with smoke flavouring F1; BF2, loin treated with smoke flavouring F2.

4. Discussion sorption properties of meat products are affected by

changes in their surface, e.g., by the chemical reaction of
To control the effects of treatment with liquid smoke smoke constituents with proteins, or by a loss in hu-
flavourings, and adjust them to provide the desired midity (Toth & Potthast, 1984). So, reactions between
quality of meat products, it is important to understand carbonyls and proteins impart greater firmness to meat
how these flavourings affect organoleptic quality. One of products treated with smoke (Guill
en et al., 1998). In the
the most important determinants of this quality is texture. present study, the hardness of F2-treated loin at 90 days
In pork loin, F1, which is rich in phenolic compounds was greater than that of controls although the difference
and poor in carbonyl derivatives mostly caused changes was not significant (p > 0:05). The gumminess (a pa-
in the cohesiveness, springiness and gumminess. How- rameter directly related to hardness) of the F2-treated
ever, in bacon, it mostly affected hardness, fracturability loins at 30 and 90 days was greater, and significant
and springiness. Rongrong, Carpenter, and Cheney differences were seen with respect to controls (p 6 0:05).
(1998) reported that hardness, springiness and cohe- F2 caused changes in all the texture parameters of
siveness are primary mechanical parameters that can be bacon. F2-treated bacon showed the highest values in all
used to characterize the texture properties of smoked parameters investigated except for hardness and
sausages. fracturability at 15 days. Carbonyl derivatives may have
The F1-treated bacon had the lowest values for less capacity than phenolic compounds to establish hy-
hardness, fracturability, cohesiveness, gumminess and drogen bonds with water, and therefore to retain it.
chewiness. Sink and Hsu (1979), in their study on According to Rongrong et al. (1998), less water would
frankfurters, reported that all palatability properties tend to increase hardness, springiness and cohesiveness,
were significantly correlated with the smokiness of the which would explain the high values seen in the F2-
product (phenol content), which softened it. Phenolic treated bacon.
derivatives can form hydrogen bonds with water, which The products treated with F1 and F2 showed very
can influence the meat’s water holding capacity (Maga, few variations in texture parameters as storage time
1988), and springiness, cohesiveness and hardness de- progressed. In another study performed with sausages,
creased with increasing water content (Rongrong et al., Sink and Hsu (1979), also reported that storage time
1998). generally had little effect on sensory attributes.
F2, which is rich in carbonyl compounds and poor in In conclusion, the two commercial smoke flavourings
phenolic derivatives, also produces texture changes in studied cause changes to the texture of meat products.
loin, especially in springiness and gumminess. The ad- Their behaviour is different and changes more accentu-
 O. Martinez et al. / Food Control 15 (2004) 457–461 461

ated in bacon than in loin. Fat levels in bacon (71%) rometry and flame ionization detectors. Advances in Food Science,
were higher than loin (18%) which would explain this 18, 121–127.
Guill
en, M. D., Manzanos, M. J., Ibargoitia, M. L., Cabo, N., &
behaviour. Storage time influences these changes. But Sopelana, P. (1998). Efectos del ahumado en los productos
changes over time are significant and greater than the c
arnicos. Alimentaci
on, Equipos y Tecnolog
ıa, 1, 107–114.
differences due to smoke flavourings F1 and F2. How- Johnson, R. C., Romans, J. R., Muller, T. S., Costello, W. J., & Jones,
ever, with texture exclusively in mind, the flavourings K. W. (1990). Physical, chemical and sensory characteristics of four
studied could be used to smoke these products since types of beaf steaks. Journal of Food Science, 55, 1264–1273.
Kim, K., Kurata, T., & Fujimaki, M. (1974). Identification of flavor
differences compared to controls are not great. These constituents in carbonyl, non-carbonyl, neutral and basic fractions
results are but the beginning of our understanding of of aqueous smoke condensates. Agricultural and Biological Chem-
how these flavourings affect the textural properties of istry, 35, 53–63.
meat products. Lu, H., & Liu, G. T. (1992). Anti-oxidant activity of dibenzocyclooc-
tene lignans isolated from Schisandraceae. Planta Medica, 58, 311–
313.
MacRae, W. D., Hudson, J. B., & Towers, G. H. N. (1989). The
Acknowledgements antiviral action of lignans. Planta Medica, 55, 531–535.
Maga, J. A. (1988). Smoke in food processing. Boca Rat
on, FL: CRC
The work was supported by the Comisi
on Inter- Press.
Ordo~ nez, M., Rovira, J., & Jaime, I. (1996). Estudio de la textura de
ministerial de Ciencia y Tecnolog
ıa of the Spanish
salchichas cocidas. Alimentaci
on Equipos y Tecnolog
ıa, 6, 25–29.
Ministerio de Educaci
on y Ciencia (CICYT), Proyect Ordo~ nez, M., Rovira, J., & Jaime, I. (2001). The relation between the
AGL2000-1696 and the University of Basque Country, composition and texture of conventional and low-fat frankfurters.
Proyect (1/UPV 00101.125-E-14815/2002). International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 36, 749–758.
Parolari, G., Virgili, R., & Schivazappa, C. (1994). Relationship
between cathepsin B activity and compositional parameters in dry
cured hams of normal and defective texture. Meat Science, 38, 117–
References 122.
Pszczola, D. E. (1995). Tour highlights production and uses of smokes-
Baltes, W., & Sochtig, I. (1979). Low molecular weight ingredients of based flavours. Food Technology, 49, 70–74.
smoke flavour preparations. Zeitschrift f€ur Lebensmittel-Untersu- Rongrong, L., Carpenter, J. A., & Cheney, R. (1998). Sensory and
chung Und-Forschung, 169, 9–16. instrumental properties of smoked sausage made with technically
Barclay, L. R. C., Xi, F., & Norris, J. Q. (1997). Antioxidant separated poultry (MSP) meat and wheat protein. Journal of Food
properties of phenolic lignin model compounds. Journal of Wood Science, 63, 923–929.
Chemistry and Technology, 17, 73–90. Sink, J. D., & Hsu, L. A. (1979). Chemical effects of smoke-processing
Bourne, M. C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology, 32, on frankfurter quality and palatability characteristics. Meat
62–66. Science, 3, 247–253.
Bouton, P. E., Ford, A. L., Harris, P. V., & Ratcliff, D. (1975). Sokolov, A. A., Tschechowskaja, W. T., & Chekhowskaya, V. T.
Objective–subjective assessment of meat tenderness. Journal of (1976). Structure formation in smoked and non-smoked raw
Texture Studies, 6, 315–328. sausage. Fleischwirtschaft, 30, 15–20.
Edye, L. A., & Richards, G. N. (1991). Analysis of condensates from SPSS. (1997). Release 8.0.0. SPSS Inc., 444N, Michigan Avenue,
wood smoke: components derived from polysaccharides and Chicago, IL, 60611.
lignins. Environmental Science and Technology, 25, 1133–1137. Stanley, D. W. (1976). Texture of meat and its measurement. In J. M.
Guerrero, L., Gou, P., & Arnau, J. (1999). The influence of meat pH de Man, P. W. Voisey, V. Rasper, & D. W. Stanley (Eds.),
on mechanical and sensory textural properties dry-cured ham. Rheology and texture in food quality (p. 405). Wetport: The Avi
Meat Science, 52, 267–273. Publishing Company Inc.
Guill
en, M. D., & Ibargoitia, M. L. (1996). Volatile components of Szczesniak, A. S. (1975). General foods texture profile revisited-ten
aqueous liquid smokes from Vitis vinifera L shoots and Fagus years perspective. Journal of Texture Studies, 6, 5–17.
sylvatica L wood. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, Tabilo, G., Flores, M., Fiszman, S. M., & Toldr
a, F. (1999).
72, 104–110. Postmortem meat quality and sex affect textural properties and
Guill
en, M. D., & Ibargoitia, M. L. (1998). New components with protein breakdown of dry-cured ham. Meat Science, 51, 255–260.
potential antioxidant and organoleptic properties, detected for the Toth, L., & Potthast, K. (1984). Chemical aspects of the smoking of
first time in liquid smoke flavoring preparations. Journal of meat and meat products. Advances in Food Research, 29, 87–158.
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 46, 1276–1285. Virgili, R., Parolari, G., Schivazappa, C., Soresi Bordini, C., & Borri,
Guill
en, M. D., & Manzanos, M. J. (1996). Study of the components of M. (1995). Sensory and texture quality of dry-cured ham as affected
an aqueous smoke flavouring by means of fourier transform by endogenous cathepsin B activity and muscle composition.
infrared spectroscopy and gas chromatography with mass spect- Journal of Food Science, 60, 1183–1186.