Quality enhancement of frozen chicken meat marinated with phosphate alternatives

Mahabbat Ali1,2, Shine Htet Aung1,3, Edirisinghe Dewage Nalaka Sandun Abeyrathne1,4, Ji-Young Park1, Jong-Hyun Jung5, Aera Jang6, Jong Youn Jeong7, Ki-Chang Nam1,*
Author Information & Copyright
1Department of Animal Science and Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon 57922, Korea.
2Department of Animal Production and Management, Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh.
3Department of Zoology, Kyaukse University, Kyaukse 05151, Myanmar.
4Department of Animal Science, Uva Wellassa University, Badulla 90000, Sri Lanka.
5Jung P&C Institute, Yongin 16950, Korea.
6Department of Applied Animal Science, Kangwon National University, Chencheon 24341, Korea.
7School of Food Biotechnology & Nutrition, Kyungsung University, Busan 48434, Korea.
*Corresponding Author: Ki-Chang Nam, Department of Animal Science & Technology, Sunchon National University, Suncheon 57922, Korea. Phone: +82-61-750-3231. E-mail:

© Copyright 2022 Korean Society for Food Science of Animal Resources. This is an Open-Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Sep 28, 2022 ; Revised: Nov 07, 2022 ; Accepted: Nov 22, 2022

Published Online: Nov 24, 2022


The effects of phosphate alternatives on meat quality in marinated chicken were investigated with the application of chilling and freezing. Breast muscles were injected with solution of the green weight containing 1.5% NaCl and 2% sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) or phosphate alternatives. Treatment variables consisted of control (-) (no phosphate), control (+) (0.3% STPP), 0.3% prune juice (PJ), 0.3% oyster shell (OS), 0.3% nano-oyster shell (N-OS), and 0.3% yeast and lemon extract (YLE) powder. One-third of the meat samples were stored at 4℃ for 1-day, and the rest of the meats were kept in -18℃ for 7 days. In chilled meat, a lower drip loss was noted for control (+) and YLE, whereas higher cooking yield in YLE compared to all tested groups. Compared with control (+), the other treatments except PJ  showed higher pH, water holding capacity, moisture content, and lower thawing and cooking loss, and shear force. Natural phosphate alternatives except for PJ, improved the lightness (L*) value compared to control (-), and upregulated total protein solubility. However, phosphate alternatives showed similar or higher oxidative stability and impedence measurement compared to control (+), and an extensive effect on myofibrillar fragmentation index. A limited effect was observed for C*, h°, and free amino acids in treated meat. Eventually, the texture profile attributes in cooked of phosphate alternatives improved except for PJ. The results indicate high potential use of the natural additives could be promising and effective methods for replacing synthetic phosphate in chilled and frozen chicken with quality enhancement.

Keywords: chicken meat quality; marination; phosphate; natural phosphate alternatives