PACKAGING TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE Packag. Technol. Sci.

2008; 21: 395404 Published online 23 July 2008 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pts.819

Effect of Pre-treatment with Carbon Monoxide and Film Properties on the Quality of Vacuum Packaging of Beef Chops
By Estrella Asp,1* Marlene Roeckel,1 M. Cristina Mart2 and Romel Jimnez1
1 2

Departamento de Ingeniera Qumica, Universidad de Concepcin, Chile Departamento de Farmacologa, Universidad de Concepcin, Correo 3, Casilla 160-C, Chile

Beef chops (longissimus dorsi) were pre-treated with 5% carbon monoxide (CO) 95% N2 for 24 h, vacuum packed in thermo-contractile bags and stored at 0 2C. Shelf life, as determined by the viable aerobic bacterial load, was 11 weeks. Vacuum-packed chops with heat-contractile lm produced a smaller drip loss, had a more intense red colour and higher colour stability under storage than chops with non-heat-contractile lm. Chops pre-treated with CO were redder during all the storage period than controls without CO. The pre-treatment did not affect pH, water-holding capacity, drip loss or rancidity of the meat stored in vacuum. Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received 26 October 2007; Revised 08 April 2008; Accepted 22 May 2008
KEY WORDS:

vacuum packaging; beef chops; CO pre-treatment

INTRODUCTION
Vacuum packaging or modied atmosphere packaging (MAP) of meat at temperatures around 0C are the most recommended ways to assure a long shelf life (more than 90 days).1,2 The latter is usually dened by the maximum storage time before the meat loses its nutritional sensory qualities and health safety, and is rejected by the consumer.3 Shelf life has been dened by off odours of the meat after (0.51.0 min) opening the pack4 or by the meat colour;5 however, the total number of aerobes is the most used parameter to dene food shelf life, especially the meat shelf life. Chilean health regulations,6 based on International Commission on Microbiological Specication for Foods recommendations, state that suitable meat for

export purposes should have at most 107 viable bacterial counts per gram of meat. The main advantage of vacuum packaging is the elimination of oxygen contact with the meat; the latter diminishes the aerobic bacterial growth rate, lipid oxidation and meat decomposition.1,7 With this type of packaging, shelf life of up to 90 days has been reported for meat cuts vacuum stored at 1C in pouches with reduced permeability.8 However, vacuum-packed cuts exhibit a dark red or purple colour that affects the consumer perception of good-quality meat and may result in rejection of the product.2,7 The undesirable colour can be overcome by pre-treatment of the meat with low carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations. CO binds to myoglobin, giving a cherry red pigment (carboxymyoglobin) that is more stable than the

* Correspondence to: Estrella Asp, Departamento de Ingeniera Qumica, Fac. de Ingeniera, Universidad de Concepcin, Concepcin, 4070409, Chile. E-mail: easpe@udec.cl

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Packaging Technology and Science

red pigment formed by oxygen binding to myoglobin (oxymyoglobin).4,9 Different CO pre-treatment modalities have been used such as pre-treatment in 0.1100% CO and pre-treatment with ltered smoke with 1540% CO.2,10 The gas barrier properties of the lm used for vacuum packaging are crucial, since the ideal lm material should avoid the loss of the pre-treatment gases and oxygen penetration. Deoxymyoglobin, the main form of myoglobin under vacuum, is expected to be sensitive to oxidation by transferred oxygen through the packaging lms. Thus, knowledge of gas transfer rates through the material is valuable information; unfortunately, industries that manufacture the lms provide scarce information about the oxygen transfer rate, and the literature provides no information regarding CO and CO2 transfer rates. Different vacuum packaging technologies affect the meats nal quality and its shelf life. The most frequently used technologies are vacuum packaging with non-heat-contractile lms and heat-contractile lms. Heat-contractile packaging is used for meat cuts weighing over 1 kg; the vacuum-packed meat is introduced in a tunnel and subjected to temperatures of 8595C for 48 s.1112 Its main advantage over non-heat-contractile packaging is the avoidance of air sacks and air bubbles, thus, diminishing the drip loss during storage. The disadvantage is the lms wrinkled adherence to the meat, especially when used for packing low-weight cuts, which is not appealing to the consumer.13 Although the advantages and disadvantages of the heat-contractile packaging are broadly accepted in the meat industry, they are based on empiric knowledge and no quantitative data has been published in the specialized literature.11 Thus, the effect of pre-treatment and packaging technologies on meat drip loss, water-holding capacity, pH and microbial growth rate, must be investigated. The main goals of this work were to investigate the effect of the abovementioned types of vacuum packaging technologies (vacuum packaging with non heat-contractile and heat-contractile lms) on meat quality, and to determine the effect of CO/N2 pre-treatment followed by vacuum storage on quality, sensory properties and microbial shelf life of beef chops.

E. ASP ET AL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Meat samples
Beef chops (bone-in longissimus dorsi) were supplied by Carnes uble (Chilln, Chile), 3 days after slaughtering. The chops used in the assays had the following average characteristics: (a) chop eye dimensions; (b) 16 8 cm and 2 cm thick; (c) subcutaneous fat 8.9 cm; and (d) weight, 460 g. Cuts were obtained from an Overo Colorado breed, introduced in Chile in the 19th century, and genetically improved via importation of frozen semen and mass selection.14 The cattle were similarly fed, handled and slaughtered; the animals (25) were 18 months old at the time of slaughtering. Carcasses were kept at 4C for 3 days before butchering. After butchering, the cuts were manually trimmed at 04C.

Bags and gas for pre-treatment

Bags lm. Two types of polyethylene and polyamide bags were used for vacuum packaging. The rst bag (B) was a T/330B (Sealed Air, Santiago, Metropolitan Region, Chile) and had the following composition and characteristics: (a) polyamide/ polyethylene/polyamide/ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer/polyamide/polyethylene; (b) thickness, 76 mm; (c) oxygen transmission rate (OTR), 4 cm3/m2/d; (d) water vapour mass transfer rate, 11 g/m2/d; (e) moisture migration, 0.8 mg/dm2; and (f) fat migration, <3 mg/dm2. The second type of bag (HC) was heat-contractile BB4 L (Sealed Air, Santiago de Chile) with the following composition: ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer/ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer/vinylidene chloride polymer/ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer. Characteristics before its contraction were: (a) thickness, 58 mm; (b) OTR, 10 cm3/m2/d; (c) contractility, 2330%; aqueous migration, <0.8 mg/ dm2; and (d) fat migration, 8 mg/dm2.

Experimental design
Vacuum packaging processes without pretreatment. A rst set of experiments was designed to select the best vacuum packaging technology in terms of bacterial growth rate, and on the physico-

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

396

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2008; 21: 395404 DOI: 10.1002/pts

QUALITY OF CO PRE-TREATED VACUUM PACKED BEEF

Packaging Technology and Science

chemical and sensory properties of the packed beef samples. Thus, vacuum packaging in a heatcontractile bag (HC) was compared with packaging in a non-heat contractile bag (B), the latter commonly used for vacuum packaging by the local meat industry. Altogether, 219 beef chops were used for these assays; three of them were used to determine raw meat properties (physico-chemical, microbiological and sensory analyses), 108 chops were assigned to HC packaging and the same amount to the control bag (B) packaging. The bone of the beef chop was covered with a 9 cm boneguard (CRYOVAC, Chile), usually used by Carnes uble to avoid rupture of the bag by the bone, and placed in either type of bag (B or HC) and vacuum-packed. The HC-packed cuts were heated in an air tunnel at 91C for 5 s. The samples were then stored at 0 2C. Each week, three samples assigned to each packaging type were analysed in duplicate (microbial load, physico-chemical and sensory properties), described in sections Bacteriological analysis, Physico-chemical analysis and Sensory assessment and instrumental colour measurement. The experiment lasted 12 weeks. Pre-treatment and vacuum packaging. The second set of experiments was designed to study the effect of CO pre-treatment on the bacterial growth rate, and on the physico-chemical and sensory properties of beef samples vacuum-packed in the bag chosen from the results in the rst set of experiments. Pre-treatment was carried out with 5% CO 95% N2, supplied by INDURA S.A. (Santiago, Metropolitan Region, Chile). Air was removed and the gaseous mixture injected (lling pressure of 750 mbar) into each bag with a Multivac vacuum-packaging machine (model 1960/10, type AG800, Allgau, Germany). Bags were sealed before 4 s had elapsed and stored at 0 2C for 24 h. After this period, the cuts were removed from the bags, the bone covered with a boneguard, placed in HC bags and vacuum packed. The HC packed cuts were heated in an air tunnel at 91C for 5 s. The samples were then stored at 0 2C. A total of 219 beef chops were used for these assays: three of them were used to determine the raw meat properties (physico-chemical, microbiological and sensory analyses), 108 chops were assigned to pre-treatment with 5% CO 95% N2,

and the same amount of chops to vacuum packaging without previous pre-treatment (control). After pre-treatment, the bone of the chop was covered with a boneguard, to avoid rupture of the bag by the bone, and placed in either type of bag (B or HC) and vacuum-packed. The HC-packed cuts were heated in an air tunnel at 91C for 5 s. Control samples were not pre-treated but otherwise handled as the samples, i.e. the bone was covered, vacuum packed in HC and subjected to the heatcontraction process. The samples were then stored at 0 2C. Each week, three samples assigned to each packaging type were analysed in duplicate (microbial load, physico-chemical and sensory properties), as described in the following sections. The experiment lasted 12 weeks.

Bacteriological analysis
Aerobic and anaerobic bacterial viable counts were analysed in triplicate in agar plates, according to the method described in the Bacteriological Analytical Manual.15 Each sample, weighing approximately 25 g, was stomached in 225 ml of Butterelds phosphate diluent for initial dilution and homogenization. Culture medium for both counts (aerobic and anaerobic) was Plate Count Agar (Caseinpeptone-dextrose-yeast agar; Merck No. 1.05463.0500 Merck, KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany). Anaerobiosis was achieved in Gas Pak anaerobic jars (Voigt Global Distribution inc, Kansas, USA), with Anaerocult A (Merck No. 1.13829) for anaerobic medium production. The results were reported as CFU per gram of sample.

Physico-chemical analyses
Drip loss. Drip loss was measured by weighing the entire package (meat sample and lm); then, the sample and any purge were removed from the package and the meat, and the entire package surface was wiped clean with a paper towel. Finally, the meat sample was placed back into its package and re-weighted. The weight of the package without purge was subtracted from the package with purge, and the drip loss (gdrip/ kgmeat) obtained.16

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

397

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2008; 21: 395404 DOI: 10.1002/pts

Packaging Technology and Science

pH. An Ultraturrax (Ultraturrax Karl Korb, Germany) was used to homogenize for 1 min 10 g of ground beef with 90 ml of distilled water. The slurry was ltered (Whatman No. 1 lter paper) and the pH was measured in the ltrate.17 Water holding capacity. In order to determine the water holding capacity, 2 g of ground beef were mixed with 4 ml of 0.6 M NaCl. The mixture was stirred for 1 min with a glass rod, placed on ice for 30 min, stirred again for 1 min with a glass rod and centrifuged at 8000 rpm for 15 min, and the supernatant volume was measured. The meat water-holding capacity was expressed as the 0.6 M NaCl volume retained per kg of meat.1819 Lipid oxidation. To assess the amount of lipid oxidation, the content of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) number was determined using the acid precipitation technique described by Pensel.20 Briey, triplicate 10 g aliquot samples were chopped and processed in a stomacher type homogenizer for 180 s in bags containing 50 ml trichloroacetic acid (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) solution (10% w/v). Slurries were ltered; an equal volume of 0.02 M 2-thiobarbituric acid (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) was added and samples were incubated at 25C overnight until pink colour development. TBARS were determined at maximum absorption (530 nm) and concentrations were calculated using 1,1,3,3-tetraethoxypropane (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) as standard within the range from 0 to 0.5 mM. Results were expressed as mg of malonaldehyde equivalents/kg of fresh meat.21

E. ASP ET AL.

meat was developed; a score of 7 was awarded to a cherry red colour meat and a score of 1 to a greenish-grey or dark brown meat. The package was opened, the raw meat smelled and graded. The sample was unpacked and the colour of the raw meat graded within 10 sec. Instrumental measurement of colour. Surface colour of raw meat was measured within 40 s of opening the package using a Minolta Chroma Metre (model CR-200, Osaka, Japan). The equipment was standardized using a white and black standard plate, and the L*, a* and b* parameters determined. Measurements were repeated six times and the a* value was used to compare the red colour of meat (redness).

Statistical analysis
Treatment means were calculated by analysis of a two-way xed effects analysis of variance (ANOVA) using SPSS program 10.0.522. Differences between means were determined by calculation of Fishers least signicant difference values, when appropriate. Signicance was dened at p < 0.05. Also, a dynamic ANOVA analysis was applied to the data to include the cumulative effect of the stored time on the studied variables so as to assess signicant differences between packaging technologies versus storage time.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Selection of a suitable vacuum packaging process
The instrumental colour and the physico-chemical, microbial and sensory properties of beef chops without CO pre-treatment, and vacuum packed in non-heat-contractile bags (B) or heat-contractile bags (HC) were measured and compared. Based on these measurements, the packaging technology exhibiting the best results was the one selected for the vacuum packaging of CO-pre-treated samples. Microbial load. Table 1 shows the mesophile aerobic and anaerobic counts determined in B- or

Sensory assessment and instrumental colour measurement

An independent laboratory (Laboratorio de Experimentacin, Control y Certicacin de Calidad de la Universidad del Bio Bio, LECYCA, Chilln, Chile) carried out these determinations. Sensory characterization. Odour and colour were assessed by 10 trained panelists using sensory hedonic rating scales (17). A score of 7 was awarded to the normal meat odour while a score of 1 represented the typical foul odour of rotten meat. A 17 hedonic colour rating scale for raw

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

398

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2008; 21: 395404 DOI: 10.1002/pts

QUALITY OF CO PRE-TREATED VACUUM PACKED BEEF

Packaging Technology and Science

Table 1. Mesophile aerobic and anaerobic counts in samples vacuum packed in B and HC as a function of time
Week Vacuum packaging process B HC Vacuum packaging process B HC 0 1 3 5.1 3.5 5.0 3.5 5 6.0 6.2 5.9 6.0 7 5.7 4.8 5.8 5.0 9 5.7 6.2 5.5 6.2 11 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.0

Aerobes [log (CFU/ml)] 3.6 4.0 3.2 3.2 Anaerobes [log (CFU/ml)] 3.0 3.9 2.0 2.0

B, non-heat-contractile bags; HC, heat-contractile bags.

Table 2. Mesophile aerobes and anaerobes viable counts in vacuum packed untreated (Control) and CO pre-treated (PT) beef samples
Week Aerobes [log (CFU/g)] Control PT Anaerobes [log (CFU/g)] Control PT 0 3.2 2.7 2.0 2.5 1 3.2 3.1 2.0 2.8 3 3.5 4.1 3.5 4.0 5 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.2 7 5.5 6.2 5.4 6.1 9 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.9 11 6.0 6.9 6.1 6.8

in HC-packed chops. As shown, no signicant differences were found in microbial counts in samples stored in either bag. In agreement with literature reports for vacuum packed beef[2,23], bacterial counts signicantly increased with storage time (Table 1 and 2). Physico-chemical characterization. Figure 1 shows the drip loss in both types of bags versus storage time. Signicant differences were found in drip loss between the vacuum packaging processes. The mean drip loss was 16.4 g drip/kg of meat for the HC vacuum packaging, while the mean value was 26.0 g drip/kg of meat in samples stored in vacuum packaging using B (p < 0.001). The dynamic ANOVA analysis showed that drip loss became signicantly larger in B than in HC from week 8 of storage (p = 0.045). Storage in B bags produced maximal drip loss values of 45 g drip/kg of meat. Pressure difference

Figure 1. Effect of the type of pouch on drip loss as a function of storage time. (), non heat-contractile bag. () heat-contractile bag.

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

399

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2008; 21: 395404 DOI: 10.1002/pts

Packaging Technology and Science

induces liquid ow from the meat to the void volume, thermal contraction markedly reduces the vacuum void volume and, thus, reduces the liquid ow. Drip loss reduces the meat juiciness and affects consumer acceptance; thus, the heatcontractile vacuum packaging is a better alternative in this respect. This result agrees with the empiric knowledge used by the meat industry13 and the manufacturers of vacuum packaging equipment.12 No signicant differences were observed in pH, water-holding capacity and rancidity between samples vacuum packed in B or HC. Sensory assessment and instrumental colour measurement. Storage time affected in the same way the odour and colour of meat packed in either B or HC. The sensory evaluation showed no signicant differences in odour between samples stored in B or HC (p = 0.311), although a signicant decrease (p = 0.003) in the score assigned to this parameter was observed as a function of the storage time (11 weeks). Signicant differences in colour measurements were determined between samples stored in B or HC (p < 0.001). As shown in Figure 2, no signicant differences were measured up to storage week 6 in the meats red colour between samples packed in B or HC; furthermore, both types of packaging

E. ASP ET AL.

exhibited the same colour stability (a*). The latter result agrees with reports found in the literature for untreated beef23 and pork20 meat, where colour remained relatively stable up to storage weeks 3 and 6, respectively. However, from storage week 4 up to week 7, the a* values were higher in samples stored in HC than in B. From storage week 7, the samples packed in HC exhibited a signicantly higher red colour than those packed in B; moreover, colour remained almost constant in HCpacked samples while the a* value started to decrease in those packed in B. It has been claimed that a decrease in the a* value indicates the formation of oxymyoglobin and later, of metmyoglobin in the meats surface due to small amounts of residual oxygen not susceptible to elimination by the actual vacuum technology.13 This phenomenon becomes evident by storage days 410.10 No reports in the literature were found to explain the better colour stability of CO-untreated samples stored in HC bags as compared with samples stored in the control bags (B). It could be speculated that heat contraction involves a sudden and marked reduction in the bag volume and a strong lm adherence to the meat surface, thus, forcing the residual oxygen to penetrate to deeper muscle layers. The latter will induce oxymyoglobin formation in the interior layers24 and avoid the oxygen concentration in the meats surface, thus, reducing the oxymyoglobin oxidation to metmyoglobin (brown colour). Bone decolouration was not observed in samples stored either in HC bags or in the B bags. In summary, the results of these assays show advantages (less drip loss and better colour stability) of the heat-contractile packaging over the nonheat-contractile technique for vacuum-stored beef chops.

CO pre-treatment and vacuum packaging

Based on the previous results, the heat-contractile process was chosen over vacuum pack pre-treated (5%CO 95%N2 for 24 h) beef chops. Figure 2. Effect of the type of bag used for vacuum packaging on meat red colour. () non heat-contractile bag. () heat-contractile bag. Microbial characterization. Table 2 shows bacterial load of aerobic and anaerobic mesophiles

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

400

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2008; 21: 395404 DOI: 10.1002/pts

QUALITY OF CO PRE-TREATED VACUUM PACKED BEEF

Packaging Technology and Science

in untreated (Control) and pre-treated vacuum packed samples (PT). No signicant differences were observed between the control and pre-treated samples for aerobic (p = 0.088) and anaerobic (p = 0.057) bacterial growth. However, as shown in Table 2, from week 10, the mean aerobic and anaerobic bacterial counts in the pre-treated samples were consistently larger than the control counts. This tendency suggests that the pre-treated samples might reach signicantly larger microbial loads than the control for storage times over 11 weeks. A possible explanation would be the larger number of manipulation to which the pre-treated samples are subjected, but a longer storage time is needed to conrm this difference. As expected10,23,25, bacterial counts signicantly increased with storage time. The initial bacterial counts were close to 103 CFU/g. The lag phase lasted approximately 2 weeks, followed by the exponential growth phase that lasted approximately 3 weeks and nally, the stationary phase. Bacterial counts near 107 CFU/g, recommended as an upper limit by the Chilean health regulation6, were obtained in pre-treated samples by weeks 1011. The mesophile bacterial counts were slightly larger in the rst 5 weeks than the ones reported by Jayasingh et al.;2 however, in the aforemen-

tioned work, the initial bacterial counts were lower than the ones in this work and the CO-pretreatment was carried out using a gaseous mixture containing CO2 (5%CO-35%N260%CO2), a wellknown bacteriostatic agent.1,4,7,10 A possible disadvantage of CO pre-treatment might be the masking of poor microbiological conditions by formation of a stable, bright red colour,26, although off-odours and the bacterial load can still be used as indicators of spoiled meat.4 As shown by our results, the odour and the microbial load were not signicantly different in the CO pretreated and control meat, and in both reected the degree of meat spoilage. Thus, the date of expiration of the product should be the main indicator of spoilage of the meat in CO pre-treated and in control vacuumpacked meat, since there are no signicant differences in their shelf lives regarding the microbial load or the odour of the samples. Physico-chemical characterization. Table 3 shows a summary of the physico-chemical characterization of untreated (Control) and CO pretreated (PT) vacuum-packed samples. As shown, drip loss remained almost stable throughout the storage time. Both samples were vacuum packed in heat-contractile bags and as drip loss is due to the packaging process used, and the pre-treatment

Table 3. Physico-chemical characterization of untreated (Control) and CO-pre-treated (PT) vacuum-packed samples
Drip loss Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Control 13.6 13.0 18.5 9.8 18.0 15.3 17.6 12.2 12.5 8.8 PT 10.1 8.5 12.0 7.6 14.7 13.3 7.3 14.6 12.2 10.5 Control 5.65 5.66 5.68 5.64 5.71 5.73 5.69 5.66 5.68 5.60 5.59 5.49 pH PT 5.56 5.73 5.80 5.73 5.69 5.71 5.76 5.67 5.66 5.55 5.50 5.62 Water holding capacity Control 325.1 428.5 375.4 304.7 415.0 692.7 577.0 676.5 920.6 567.4 563.7 549.1 PT 158.0 384.7 675.2 615.5 594.0 737.4 871.1 774.6 727.9 528.3 530.0 698.4

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

401

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2008; 21: 395404 DOI: 10.1002/pts

Packaging Technology and Science

has no bearing in its generation as no signicant differences were observed between the control and the pre-treated samples (p = 0.176). Likewise, no signicant differences were observed in pH values between the control and the pre-treated samples (p = 0.507). The pH increased during the rst 2 weeks of storage reaching values of 5.8 in the pre-treated samples, but later declined to values close to 5.5 by week 10; however, a tendency to rise was observed at week 11. This tendency is in agreement with reports in the literature for pH behaviour in vacuum-packed meat,1 which describes an increase in aerobes load during the rst few weeks due to some remaining oxygen. After the rst initial period, the anoxic conditions favour the anaerobic degradation of glucose to lactic acid production and pH reduction; once the lactic acid production ends, the pH starts to increase when glucose is depleted.1 Initial pH values lower than 5.9 are considered optimal for vacuum-packed meat,27 a pH value that was never reached in these samples. Furthermore, no signicant differences were observed in water-holding capacity between the control and the CO pre-treated samples (p = 0.204). A close relationship between water-holding capacity and the pH, particularly for the pre-treated samples, was observed. The samples exhibited low TBARS values (<0.15 mg malonaldehyde/kg meat) throughout the duration of the experiments. These low TBARS values were expected, as the lack of oxygen would hinder any lipid oxidation.10,28 No signicant differences (p = 0.720) were observed in TBARS values between the control and the CO-pre-treated samples (results not shown). Sensory evaluation and instrumental colour measurement. Table 4 shows the sensory characterization for untreated (Control) and CO-pretreated (PT) vacuum-packed samples. As shown, no signicant differences (p = 0.121) were observed in odour between control and COpre-treated samples. Scores started to diminish from week 4, but they stayed above the critical score of 3 the limit established as an acceptable odour throughout the duration of the assay (11 weeks). A similar result was reported by Jayasingh et al.2 in 5 and 100% CO pre-treated grinded beef meat.

E. ASP ET AL.

Table 4. Sensory characterization for untreated (Control) and CO-pre-treated (PT) vacuum-packed samples
Odour Week 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Control 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 PT 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0 5.3 7.0 7.0 5.0 5.3 4.3 5.0 4.0 Red colour Control 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 PT 6.0 6.0 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 4.0 4.0

Figure 3. Sensory red colour assessment of vacuumpacked Control and CO-pre-treated (PT) raw meat. () Control samples. ( ) Pre-treated samples.

Colour scores were markedly higher for CO pretreated samples than for the control, as shown in Figure 3. Although colour scores remained constant throughout the assay for control samples, a reduction in 2 score points were shown for pretreated samples between weeks 5 and 10. Instrumental colour measurements are shown in Figure 4. A signicant increase in red colour in the CO pre-treated samples, as compared with the

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

402

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2008; 21: 395404 DOI: 10.1002/pts

QUALITY OF CO PRE-TREATED VACUUM PACKED BEEF

Packaging Technology and Science

Figure 4. Instrumental red colour intensity (a*) of Control and CO-pre-treated (PT) vacuum-packed samples as a function of storage time. () Control samples. ( ) Pretreated samples. controls, was observed. Controls redness rarely surpassed an a* value of 20, while the pre-treated samples exhibited a* values ranging from 21 to 25. Calculated p values indicate that meat redness was signicantly higher in the pre-treated samples (mean a* = 22.09) than in the control samples (mean a* = 18.82). Although a slight decrease in a* was observed beginning on the second week of storage, the statistical analysis indicates that this variation was not signicant (p = 0.976) throughout the duration of the assay (11 weeks). The colour stability as a function of time is higher than the one reported by Jayasingh et al.2 They used storage times up to 5 and 6 weeks at 2C in 5 and 100% CO for 24 h pre-treated beef, respectively and observed red colour stability. Thus, based on the instrumental colour measurement results, it can be stated that CO pre-treatment enhances and maintains the red colour of vacuumpacked beef chops up to 11 weeks of storage.

contractile bags, namely: less drip loss and better colour stability during storage. The latter may be attributed to a reduction of the residual oxygen on the meat surface and, therefore, to less oxymyoglobin oxidation to metmyoglobin. On the other hand, no signicant differences were found in bacterial growth rate, pH, water-holding capacity or raw meat odour between vacuum-packed samples stored in heat-contractile bags and non-heatcontractile bags. Therefore, heat-contractile bags are a better alternative for vacuum packaging of beef meat. A 5% CO 95% N2 pre-treatment of vacuumpacked (heat-contractile bags) beef chops markedly enhanced the red colour and is likely to increase its acceptance by the consumer. Pretreatment did not affect the pH, the water-holding capacity, the drip loss or the rancidity of the stored vacuum-packed meat. However, the CO pretreated meat and the control vacuum-packed meat showed no signicant differences in their shelf lives regarding the microbial load (approximately 11 weeks) or the odour of the samples; hence, the date of expiration of the product should be the main indicator of a safe consumption of the meat.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was possible through grant FONDEF D04i 1142.

REFERENCES
1. Hui YH, Guerrero I, Rosmini MR. Ciencia y Tecnologa de Carnes. Ed. Limusa: Mxico D.F, 2006. 2. Jayasingh P, Cornforth DP, Carpenter CE, Whittier D. Evaluation of carbon monoxide treatment in modied atmosphere packaging or vacuum packaging to increase color stability of fresh beef. Meat Sci. 2001; 59(3): 317324. 3. Masana MO, Meichtri LH, Rodrguez RH. Determinacin de la Vida til en Cortes de Bovinos. Mayor Calidad por ms Tiempo [Shelf-life determination of beef cuts. Better quality for extended time]. Instituto Tecnolgico de alimentos, INTA: Cautelar, 2006. www.inta.gov.ar/ediciones/idia/carne/carnef03. pdf 4. Sorheim O, Nissen H, Nesbakken T. The storage life of beef and pork packaged in an atmosphere with low carbon monoxide and high carbon dioxide. Meat Sci. 1999; 52(2): 157164.

CONCLUSIONS
From the results, it can be concluded that vacuum packaging of beef chops in heat-contractile bags has two advantages over packaging in non-heat-

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

403

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2008; 21: 395404 DOI: 10.1002/pts

Packaging Technology and Science

5. Krause TR, Sebranek JG, Rust RE, Honeyman MS. Use of carbon monoxide for improving the shelf life of pork. J. Food Sci. 2003. 68(8): 25962603.pp. 6. Reglamento sanitario de los alimentos. Decreto supremo N 977/96, Titulo V, Prrafo III, artculo 173. Repblica de Chile, Ministerio de Salud, 1996. 7. Luo M, Roncals P, Djenane D, Beltrn JA. Beef shelf life in low O2 and high CO2 atmospheres containing different low CO concentrations. Meat Sci. 2000; 55(4): 413419. 8. Rodrguez RH, Meichtri LH, Margara CA, et al. Shelf life evaluation of refrigerated vacuum packaged beef kept for extended storage. In Proceedings of the 46th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology. Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2000; 668669. 9. Sebranek JG, Hunt MC, Cornforth DP, Brewer MS. Carbon monoxide packaging of fresh meat. Food Technol. 2006; 60(5): 184. 10. Sorheim O. Prospects for utilization of carbon monoxide in the muscle food industry. In Modied Atmospheric Processing and Packaging of Fish, Otwell WS, Kristinsson HG, Balaban MO (eds). The University of Florida: Orlando, FL, 2006; 103113. 11. Cryovac Bolsas TBG. Envasado de Alimentos, Bolsas; www.cryovac.com/la/es/products/food/ bags.html [accessed 20 January 2007]. 12. Sealed Air. Sealed Air Shrink Packaging Capabilities Brochure, 2007; www.cryovac.com/la/es/products/ psf/shrink_lms.html [accessed 20 January 2007]. 13. L Beltrn, Sales Manager, Sealed Air Chile Industrial Ltda., Santiago de Chile, Chile. Personal communication, 2007. 14. Uribe HA, Smulders JP. Phenotypic, environmental and genetic parameters and trend estimation for milk production traits in Overo Colorado cattle. Arch. Med. Vet. 2004; 36(2): 137146. 15. Maturin, LJ, Peeler JT. Aerobic Plate Count. Hypertext Source: Bacteriological Analytical Manual, Edition 8, Revision A, 1998. Chapter 3. On line: http:// www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/bam-3.html#authors [accessed, January 2007]. 16. Morgan JB. Extending Shelf-Life of Beef Cuts Utilizing Low Level Carbon Monoxide in Modied Atmosphere Packaging System. Oklahoma State University: Stillwater, OK, 2003; www.beef.org/uDocs/ACF13DD. pdf 17. Owen JE, Nez FA, Arias MT, Cano de los Ros O. Manual de Prcticas de Cursos de Tecnologa de la Carne 18. 19. 20.

E. ASP ET AL.

21.

22. 23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

[Laboratory Manual of Meat Technology]. Graduate Program, Faculty of Zootechnology, University of Chihuahua: Chihuahua, Mexico, 1982. Hamm R. Water holding capacity of meat. In Meat, Cole DJA, Lawrie RA (eds). Butterworths: London, UK, 1975; 321337. Price JF, Schweigert BS. Ciencia de la carne y de los productos crnicos, 2nd edn., Editorial Acribia, Zaragoza, Espaa, pp. 378, 1994. Pensel NA Inuence of experimental conditions on porcine muscle and its effect on oxidation. M.Sc. Thesis. Dept. of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, 1990. Descalzo AM, Insani EM, Biolatto A, et al. Inuence of pasture or grain-based diets supplemented with vitamin E on antioxidant/oxidative balance of Argentine beef. Meat Sci. 2005. 70(1): 3544. SPSS Inc., 19891999. SPSS for Windows. Release 10.0.5, November 1999. Brewer MS, Wu S, Field RA, Ray B. Carbon monoxide effects on color and microbial counts of vacuumpackaged fresh beef steaks in refrigerated storage. J. Food Quality 1994. 17(3): 231244. John P, Cornforth DP, Carpenter CE, et al. Color and thiobarbituric acid values of cooked beef top sirloin steaks packaged in modied atmospheres of 80% oxygen, or 0.4% carbon monoxide, or vacuum. Meat Sci. 2005. 69(3): 441449. Zhang M, Sundar Sh. Effect of oxygen concentration on the shelf-life of fresh pork packed in modied atmosphere. Packag. Technol. Sci. 2005. 18(4): 217222. Bustos F. Estrs animal y su efecto en la calidad de la carne [Animal stress and its effect on the meat quality]. Boletn Ganadero N3, PDP Depto de Ganadera Carnes uble S.A.: Chilln, Chile, 2006; 57. Viana ES, Gomide LA, Vanetti MC. Effect of modied atmospheres on microbiological, color and sensory properties of refrigerated pork. Meat Sci. 2005; 71(4): 696705. European Commission. Opinion of the Scientic Committee on Food on the Use of Carbon Monoxide as Component of Packaging Gases in Modied Atmosphere Packaging for Fresh Meat. European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 18 December 2001; http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/index_ en.html

Copyright 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

404

Packag. Technol. Sci. 2008; 21: 395404 DOI: 10.1002/pts