ARTICLE

Effects of Mustard Seed Extract on Physicochemical and Storage Characteristics of Dry-aged Pork Loin Ham

Han-Gyeol Cho1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3117-1585, Hack-Youn Kim1,2,*https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5303-4595
Author Information & Copyright
1Department of Animal Resources Science, Kongju National University, Yesan 32439, Korea
2Resources Science Research, Kongju National University, Yesan 32439, Korea
*Corresponding author : Hack-Youn Kim, Department of Animal Resources Science, Kongju National University, Yesan 32439, Korea, Tel: +82-41-330-1241, Fax: +82-41-330-1249, E-mail: kimhy@kongju.ac.kr

© 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Received: Jun 09, 2023 ; Revised: Jul 27, 2023 ; Accepted: Aug 16, 2023

Published Online: Nov 01, 2023

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of mustard seed extracts on physicochemical and storage characteristics of dry-aged pork loin ham during the aging period. In experiment 1, antioxidant activity was assessed for mustard seed extracted with varying ethanol concentrations and the results showed high antioxidant activity at 25%, 50%, and 75% ethanol concentrations. In experiment 2, pork loin was treated with mustard seed extracts obtained using different ethanol concentrations: not treated (control), 25% (MS25), 50% (MS50), and 75% (MS75). Physicochemical and storage characteristics of pork loin ham were measured in wk 0, 2, 4, and 6. The pH, aw, CIE b*, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and volatile basic nitrogen values were lower in treated samples compared to the control (p<0.05). In conclusion, applying mustard seed extracts, particularly MS75, in the dry-aged pork loin ham production process could enhance storage stability and improve color attributes without having negative impacts on product quality.

Keywords: mustard seed; natural antioxidant; pork loin ham; dry-aging; storage characteristics

Introduction

During the production of dry-aged pork loin ham, proteins and lipids that make up the meat are broken down into free amino acids and free fatty acids by the action of enzymes such as calpain, cathepsin, and lipase (Toldrá et al., 1997). The oxidation of these fatty acids contributes to the flavor formation of meat products. On the other hand, if oxidation occurs in an environment where appropriate temperature and humidity conditions are not met, the risk of meat spoilage and rancidity increases (Morrissey et al., 1998). To ensure storage stability of dried meat products, manufacturers are using oxidation prevention [butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA)] called synthetic antioxidants (Oswell et al., 2018).

Recently, consumer awareness of the potential carcinogenicity of synthetic antioxidants has led to an increase in research to replace BHT and BHA (Karre et al., 2013). Natural additives with antioxidant activity, such as rosemary, berries, and cruciferous plants, have been identified as having antioxidative effects (Lorenzo et al., 2018; Ramirez et al., 2020; Sebranek et al., 2005). In particular, the high phenol and flavonoid content of cruciferous plants has led to research on the possibility of replacing synthetic antioxidants (Ramirez et al., 2020).

Mustard (Brassica juncea), which belongs to the cruciferous, has been reported to have high contents of glucosinolates and phenolic compounds (Nicácio et al., 2021; Sharma et al., 2018). And the plant enzyme myrosinase hydrolyzes the glucosinolates to isothiocyanates (ITC; Barba et al., 2016). ITC, which contribute to the pungency of mustard, are functional additives with anticancer and antimicrobial properties (Lin et al., 2000). The antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of these glucosinolates and phenolic compounds are greatly influenced by the ratio of water to ethanol during the extraction process for additives (Moudache et al., 2016).

Mustard seeds have been widely researched as natural antioxidants due to their proven efficacy. However, studies comparing the storage enhancement effects of different extraction solvents in dried meat products are difficult to find. Therefore, we compared the antioxidant capacities of various ethanol concentrations extracted from ground mustard seeds and selected the treatment group with superior antioxidant capacity for addition during the curing process of dry-aged pork loin ham. Subsequently, we analyzed the storage characteristics of the dry-aged pork loin ham during 6 wk of drying. This research aimed to provide foundational data for understanding the changes in antioxidant capacities of the substances contained in mustard seeds depending on the extraction solvent and their functions within meat.

Materials and Methods

Experiment I: Antioxidant activity of mustard seed extract
Mustard seed extraction

Yellow mustard seeds (B. juncea, bb Royal, India) were ground by grinder (DP-5800BL, Guangdong Xinbao Electrical Appliances Holdings, Guangdong, China) for 5 min at room temperature (23°C). The solvents which used for extraction were distilled water (DW) and ethanol, 5 different ratios (DW:ethanol; 0:100, 25:75, 50:50, 75:25, 100:0, v/v). The ground seeds were mixed with each solvent separately at a ratio of 1:10 and stirred for 24 h at room temperature. After centrifugation at 2,731×g for 30 min (Supra R22, Hanil, Daejeon, Korea), the filtrate of supernatant was stored at –80°C to freeze it before being freeze-dried by a freeze-dryer (FD12008, ilShinBioBase, Dongducheon, Korea). The 5 groups of freeze-dried extracts were dissolved in each solvent to make a stock (20%, w/v) used for experiments and loin ham manufacturing.

Extraction yield measurement

The ground seeds were weighed before extraction (initial weight), and the freeze-dried extracts were weighed again (final weight). The extraction yield percentage was calculated using the following formula:

Extraction yield = Final weight Initial weight × 100
(1)
Antioxidant activity measurement
Sample preparation

The 5 groups of stocks were used in the antioxidant experiment, which were made from extracts of mustard seeds that had been extracted with 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% ethanol, and 100% DW (0% ethanol). The most suitable dilution factor was determined through preliminary experiments conducted in this study, and each extract was finally diluted 100 times and used for experiments (Amarowicz et al., 1996).

Total phenolic contents (TPC)

To determine TPC, a method using the Folin-Ciocalteu reagent was adapted from Choi et al. (2022). Each stock (40 μL) and 80 μL of 2 N Folin-Ciocalteu reagent were mixed by vortex mixer (SVM-10, SciLab Korea, Seoul, Korea) and incubated for 3 min. Then, 800 μL of 20% Na2CO3 (w/v) was added to the mixture, and incubated for 30 min at 37°C in the dark. The absorbance was measured at 765 nm using multi-mode microplate reader (SpectraMax iD3, Molecular Devices, San Jose, CA, USA). Gallic acid solutions (0–150 μg/mL) were used for the standard curve and the results were expressed as mg gallic acid equivalents (GAE)/g.

Total flavonoid contents (TFC)

The method proposed by Woisky and Salatino (1998) was chosen for measuring the TFC. In this process, 100 μL of 1 N NaOH and 1 mL of diethylene glycol were mixed with 100 μL of each stock respectively. The mixture was then vortexed using a vortex mixer (SVM-10, SciLab Korea) and incubated in a darkroom at 37°C for 1 h. The absorbance was measured at 420 nm (SpectraMax iD3, Molecular Devices). The standard curve was generated using naringin (0–150 μL/mL), and the results were expressed as mg naringin acid equivalents (NE)/g.

2, 2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazy (DPPH) free radical scavenging activity

The method described by Choi et al. (2022) was chosen for measuring the DPPH free radical scavenging activity. This involved mixing each stock (500 μL) with an equal volume of DW, followed by the addition of 1 mL of 0.2 mM DPPH solution. The mixture was reacted in a darkroom for 30 min at 23°C. The absorbance was measured at 517 nm (SpectraMax iD3, Molecular Devices). For the standard curve, Trolox (0–600 μg/mL) was used, and the results were expressed as mg Trolox equivalents (TE)/g.

Experiment II: Effects on dry-aged pork loin ham of mustard seed extract
Sample preparation

Pork loin (M. longissimus dorsi) was obtained 24 h after slaughter from I-homemeat (Seoul, Korea). The excess fat and connective tissues of the pork loins were removed, and the loins were cut into portions of approximately 500 g each. The portions were then randomly divided into 4 groups. For each group, 1% (w/v) of mustard seed extract stock, extracted using different ethanol concentrations (25%, 50%, and 75%), was added to the curing solution to create the experimental groups (MS25, MS50, MS75). Pork loins cured without added antioxidants served as the control. Each pork loin was weighed and packed in a polyethylene bag (WJpackage, Seoul, Korea) before being immersed in a 100% curing solution (w/w) containing 3.5% salt and 2% sugar (Table 1). After 7 d of curing at 4°C, the pork loins were placed on a tray to allow for a 2 h period of exudate release. To ensure uniform distribution of the curing solution, the polyethylene bags containing the loins were flipped once a day during the curing process. Finally, pork loins were dried in a dry-aging refrigerator (DA-45, Korea Alesso, Seoul, Korea) for 6 wk at 12°C with a relative humidity of 60%–70%.

Table 1. Formulation of dry-aged pork loin with mustard extracts stock
Ingredients (%) Treatment
Control MS25 MS50 MS75
Main Meat 100 100 100 100
Curing solution Water 100 100 100 100
Salt 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Sugar 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Et251) NA 1 NA NA
Et502) NA NA 1 NA
Et753) NA NA NA 1

1) Et25, mustard extract with 25% ethanol.

2) Et50, mustard extract with 50% ethanol.

3) Et75, mustard extract with 75% ethanol.

Control, pork loin without mustard extract; MS25, pork loin with mustard seed extract with 25% ethanol; MS50, pork loin with mustard seed extract with 50% ethanol; MS75, pork loin with mustard seed extract with 75% ethanol; NA, not applicable.

Download Excel Table
Microbial analysis

Aerobic bacteria (AB), Staphylococcus spp. (ST), and Escherichia coli (EC) were selected to evaluate the microbial population. Dry-aged pork loin ham sample (25 g) was mixed with 50 mL of sterile saline in a sterile bag and then homogenized. This homogenate was diluted by adding 1 mL of it to 9 mL of sterile saline, and further dilutions were made as required. The diluted solution was then plated onto Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA) for AB, Mannitol Salt Agar (MSA) for ST, and 3MTM Petrifilm (3M, Saint Paul, MN, USA) for EC and incubated (37°C, 24 h). Cultured colonies were counted and their numbers were expressed as Log CFU/g.

Color

The dry-aged pork loin ham samples were cut in half and allowed to bloom for 30 min prior to color measurement. The measurements were performed using a colorimeter (CR-10, Minolta, Tokyo, Japan), calibrated with a white standard plate (CIE L*: +97.83, CIE a*: –0.43, and CIE b*: +1.98) under an 8-lx illumination angle.

Proximate compositions

The proximate compositions of dry-aged pork loin ham samples were analyzed as per the guidelines set forth by association of official analytical chemists (AOAC, 2010). Each content was measured through the following methods:

  • ▪ The moisture content: oven-drying at 105°C (AOAC 950.46)

  • ▪ The protein content: Kjeldahl method (AOAC 928.08)

  • ▪ The fat content: Soxhlet method (AOAC 991.36)

  • ▪ The ash content: dry ashing method at 550°C (AOAC 920.153)

Aging loss

Each dry-aged pork loin ham sample was weighed following the respective aging periods (wk 2, 4, and 6). All aging loss measurements were expressed as a percentage of the weight before aging (wk 0), and the percentage was calculated using the following formula:

Aging loss  ( % ) = Weight before aging  ( g ) weight after aging  ( g ) Weight before aging  ( g ) × 100
(2)
pH

For the pH analysis, dry-aged pork loin ham samples were mixed with DW (1:4, v/v). The mixture was then homogenized. After homogenization, a pH meter (Model S220, Mettler-Toledo, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland) was utilized to determine the pH of the samples.

Water activity (aw)

The aw was carried out at 25°C with a LabMaster-aw neo instrument (Novasina AG, Lachen, Switzerland). Measurement results are expressed in terms of %.

Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS)

TBARS were measured by the method described by Jeong et al. (2022). Dry-aged pork loin ham sample (10 g) was homogenized with 97.5 mL of DW and 200 μL of 0.3% BHT. The homogenized sample was then transferred into a round-bottom flask and 2.5 mL of 4N HCl, 1 mL of anti-foaming agent, 3 boiling stones were added and the homogenized sample was steam-distilled. Following this, the distillate was combined with an equal volume of 0.02 M TBA solution and then heated at 100°C for 35 min. The absorbance was measured at 538 nm. 1,1,3,3-Trethoxypropane was used for preparing a standard curve to calculate the amount of malondialdehyde (MDA). The TBARS value was expressed as mg MDA/kg.

Volatile basic nitrogen (VBN)

VBN was determined using the method of Choi et al. (2018). Dry-aged pork loin ham sample (10 g) and 30 mL of DW were homogenized. Then, brought to a final volume of 100 mL with DW and filtered, and 1 mL of filtrate was filled to the outer compartment of the Conway dish and 1 mL of 0.01 N H3BO3 was filled to the inner compartment. Then the inner compartment was added with 100 μL of Conway reagent, while the outer compartment added 1 mL of 50% K2CO3 and the Conway dish was sealed. The sealed dish was incubated at a temperature of 37°C for 2 h. After incubation, H3BO3 in the inner compartment underwent titration with 0.02 N H2SO4 and the resulting data was then processed by the subsequent formula:

VBN  ( mg % ) = ( X Y ) × ( f × 0.02 N × 0.14 × 100 × d ) / S
(3)

X, volume of sulfuric acid consumed for the sample titration (μL); Y, volume of sulfuric acid consumed for the blank titration (μL); f, factor of reagent; N, normality; d, dilution factor; S, sample weight (g).

Statistical analysis

Each experiment was conducted a minimum of 3 times to collect the data. All data were presented as the mean value and SD, and processed using the General Linear Models procedure for one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in the SAS software (version 9.4 for Windows, SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). One-way ANOVA was performed separately for each of the two factors: the presence of mustard seed extract and the dry-aging period. To discern significant differences among the data, Duncan’s multiple range test was utilized with a significance level of p<0.05.

Results and Discussion

Experiment I: Antioxidant activity of mustard seed extract
Extraction yield and antioxidant activity

Table 2 shows the extraction yield, TPC, TFC, and DPPH free radical-scavenging activity of mustard seed extracts with different extraction solvents. The highest extraction yield of the mustard seed was in 0% ethanol (100% DW) at 24.28% (p<0.05), and the yield then decreased significantly with an increase in ethanol concentration in the solvent. The lowest extraction yield was 11.43% in 100% ethanol (p<0.05). The extraction yield of mustard seed depends upon the polarity of its constituents (Nawaz et al., 2020). Mustard seeds contain a variety of substances such as glucosinolates, phenolic compounds, and other polar compounds (Szydłowska-Czerniak et al., 2015). The high extraction yield observed in 100% DW is owing to the increased solubility of these polar substances in DW, which is a highly polar solvent. This indicates that mustard seeds contain a high proportion of hydrophilic substances.

Table 2. Extraction yield and antioxidant measurements of mustard extracts with various levels of ethanol concentrations
Traits Ethanol (%)
0 25 50 75 100
Extraction yield (%) 24.28±0.28a 17.72±0.40b 16.18±0.50c 13.46±0.79d 11.43±0.36e
TPC (mg GAE/g) 18.87±1.49c 19.85±0.56bc 21.06±0.36b 26.84±0.81a 16.18±1.16d
TFC (mg NE/g) 113.47±9.96b 142.18±18.36b 324.80±25.18a 334.66±27.43a 16.98±6.04c
DPPH (%) 49.75±1.93d 56.93±1.28c 83.23±0.12b 86.60±0.25a 17.32±2.72e

All values represented as mean±SD.

a–e Means in the same row marked with different letters denote significant differences (p<0.05).

TPC, total phenolic contents; GAE, gallic acid equivalents; TFC, total flavonoids contents; DPPH, 2, 2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazy free radical scavenging activity.

Download Excel Table

The TPC, TFC and DPPH free radical scavenging activity of the mustard seed extracts increased with an increase in ethanol concentration in the extraction solvent from 0% to 75% (p<0.05), but the lowest phenol and flavonoid content and DPPH radical-scavenging capacity was obtained at 100% ethanol concentration (p<0.05). DW and ethanol are mainly used to extract antioxidants such as phenol and flavonoids (Hikmawanti et al., 2021). We believe that higher TPCs obtained in mixed solvents as phenolic compounds are generally hydrophilic but the main phenolic compound in mustard seeds is sinapic acid (Nicácio et al., 2021), which is soluble in both water and ethanol (Shakeel et al., 2016). Flavonoids are known to exhibit a higher extraction efficacy in mixed solvents than in pure ethanol or DW, indicating that they are both hydrophilic and hydrophobic (Moudache et al., 2016). The DPPH is proportional to TPC (Muzolf-Panek and Waśkiewicz, 2022), and we observed similar results in this experiment. Therefore, the antioxidant capacity of the extract does not always match the extraction yield, and the extraction efficacy of antioxidants can be reduced when DW is used for extraction (Moudache et al., 2016). Szydłowska-Czerniak et al. (2015) reported that mustard seed’s antioxidants showed a high extraction efficacy in mixed solvents, as observed in this study. We observed that mustard seed extracts in 25%, 50%, and 75% ethanol had a higher antioxidant capacity than those in 0% and 100% ethanol. Therefore, we selected 25%, 50%, and 75% ethanolic extracts in the pork loin-manufacturing process in the current study.

Experiment II: Effects on dry-aged pork loin ham of mustard seed extract
Microbial analysis and color

Table 3 shows the AB and ST as well as color measurement results at 0, 2, 4, and 6 wk. We did not detect EC in both mustard seed extract-treated and control samples. AB and ST increased significantly in the control samples during the dry-aging period (p<0.05). The mustard seed extract-treated samples showed a significant increase in AB and ST until wk 4 (p<0.05) but no significant change between wks 4 and 6. We observed significantly higher levels of AB and ST at all wk in control samples compared to those in treated samples, except at wk 0 (p<0.05). At wk 6, MS50 and MS75 had lower AB levels than MS25. ST was lower in MS50 and MS75 than in MS25 from wk 4 onwards (p<0.05). When the cell membrane of mustard seed collapses due to physical shock, glucosinolates are released, which are hydrolyzed into ITC by myrosinase (Barba et al., 2016). ITC is known to inhibit the growth of pathogenic microorganisms, including S. aureus and EC, by disrupting cellular respiration, collapsing cell membranes, and inhibiting enzymatic activity (Lin et al., 2000). Mustard has a high glucosinolate content that can be useful for producing ITC (Sharma et al., 2018). The polarity of the extraction solvent influences the extraction efficiency of glucosinolates (Nawaz et al., 2020), as these have a higher extraction efficacy in mixed solvents (i.e., solvents with higher ethanol ratio; Doheny-Adams et al., 2017). Therefore, MS50 and MS75 exhibited a superior bactericidal capacity compared to MS25 owing to their higher extraction efficacy.

Table 3. Microbial analysis (Log CFU/g) and color of dry-aged pork loin ham treated with mustard extract at different ethanol concentrations
Traits Treatments Aging period (wk)
0 2 4 6
AB (Log CFU/g) Control 4.34±0.08dA 5.15±0.13cA 6.19±0.16bA 6.55±0.12aA
MS25 4.28±0.17cA 4.53±0.49bB 5.33±0.46aB 5.50±0.20aB
MS50 4.28±0.13cA 4.64±0.11bB 5.14±0.29aB 5.19±0.20aC
MS75 4.23±0.15cA 4.68±0.15bB 5.26±0.23aB 5.25±0.20aC
ST (Log CFU/g) Control 1.70±0.15cA 3.70±0.20bA 4.37±0.11aA 4.33±0.17aA
MS25 1.69±0.21dA 3.11±0.12cB 3.71±0.1bB 3.99±0.16aB
MS50 1.70±0.15cA 2.83±0.23bC 3.18±0.13aC 3.24±0.19aC
MS75 1.67±0.24cA 2.83±0.32bC 3.23±0.27aC 3.26±0.29aC
EC (Log CFU/g) Control ND ND ND ND
MS25 ND ND ND ND
MS50 ND ND ND ND
MS75 ND ND ND ND
CIE L* Control 50.16±1.85aA 47.33±1.19bA 45.98±0.58cA 44.18±1.08dA
MS25 50.11±1.48aA 47.02±1.21bA 46.37±0.87cA 44.01±0.53dA
MS50 49.79±0.90aA 46.92±0.94bA 46.06±0.32cA 43.66±0.47dA
MS75 49.65±0.62aA 47.27±0.64bA 45.99±0.36cA 44.42±0.92dA
CIE a* Control 7.25±0.38aA 5.93±0.39bB 5.53±0.10cB 4.34±0.29dB
MS25 7.41±0.27aA 6.97±0.20bA 6.28±0.39cA 5.22±0.31dA
MS50 7.28±0.23aA 6.91±0.15bA 6.11±0.44cA 5.10±0.28dA
MS75 7.34±0.18aA 6.88±0.19bA 6.19±0.43cA 5.17±0.34dA
CIE b* Control 9.91±0.97aA 8.57±0.23bA 6.93±0.42cA 5.93±0.33dA
MS25 9.63±0.61aA 8.63±0.26bA 5.73±0.30cB 4.96±0.44dB
MS50 9.74±0.59aA 8.48±0.43bA 5.62±0.75cB 4.81±0.23dB
MS75 9.81±0.57aA 8.66±0.29bA 5.87±0.40cB 4.90±0.47dB

All values represented as mean±SD.

A–C Means in the same column marked with different letters denote significant differences (p<0.05).

a–d Means in the same row marked with different letters denote significant differences (p<0.05).

Control, dry-aged pork loin ham without mustard extract; MS25, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extract with 25% ethanol; MS50, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extract with 50% ethanol; MS75, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extract with 75% ethanol.

AB, total aerobic bacteria; ST, Staphylococcus spp.; EC, Escherichia coli; ND, not detected.

Download Excel Table

Across all samples, there was a significant decrease in CIE L*, CIE a*, and CIE b* during the dry-aging period (p<0.05). However, no significant difference was observed in CIE L* between control and the mustard seed extract-treated samples throughout the dry-aging period. The decrease in CIE L*, seen during the dry-aging process, was owing to reduced light scattered by the meat surface due to a decrease in moisture (Hughes et al., 2020). CIE a* and CIE b* did not differ significantly between the control and treated samples at wk 0. However, when compared to the control, a higher CIE a* in all treated samples after wk 2 and a lower CIE b* in all treated samples after wk 4 (p<0.05) were observed. Reduction in CIE a* is associated with the production of metmyoglobin, which exhibits brownness due to oxidation of myoglobin (Wang et al., 2021). Myoglobin is known to form ferrylmyoglobin, which appears green, due to ferryl oxidation and reaction with hydrogen peroxide, causing a decrease in CIE a* but increase in CIE b* (Reeder et al., 2002). This result suggests that the more modest decline in CIE a* within the treatment groups, as compared to the control groups, results from the enhanced antioxidant activity by the addition of mustard seed extract. This increased activity is thought to have decelerated the CIE a* reduction and impeded the CIE b* increase. Furthermore, green sulfmyoglobin produced by the reaction of myoglobin and hydrogen sulfide generated during proteolysis by microorganisms increases the CIE b* of meat (Liu et al., 2022). The increased bacterial count seen in the control groups, compared to that in treatment groups, is consistent with the above observations. The addition of mustard seed extract improves pork colors, such as increasing CIE a* of dry-aged pork loin ham and decreasing CIE b*, by promoting antioxidant and antibacterial activity.

Proximate compositions and aging loss

Table 4 shows the proximate compositions of dry-aged pork loin ham at wk 0, 2, 4, and 6. All the samples demonstrated a significant decrease in moisture content (p<0.05), while their protein, fat, and ash content displayed a significant increase during the dry-aging period (p<0.05). We did not observe any significant differences between treated and control samples over the dry-aging period. Moisture content was negatively correlated with protein, fat, and ash content. This is mostly due to a relative increase in the dry-matter content resulting from decreased moisture content (Seong et al., 2015). Kim and Lee (2003) demonstrated that fat and water contents of meat are inversely proportional, as observed in the present study as well.

Table 4. Proximate compositions of dry-aged pork loin ham treated with mustard extract at different ethanol concentrations
Traits (%) Treatments Dry-aging periods (wk)
0 2 4 6
Moisture Control 73.94±1.19a 60.59±0.55b 35.57±0.85c 26.48±1.32d
MS25 73.77±0.54a 60.78±0.77b 34.84±1.42c 26.12±1.04d
MS50 74.04±0.42a 59.68±1.22b 35.30±1.67c 26.53±0.49d
MS75 74.13±0.48a 60.24±1.02b 34.57±1.66c 26.20±0.46d
Protein Control 21.63±1.12d 35.20±1.02c 56.15±0.63b 65.62±1.15a
MS25 21.61±0.65d 34.92±1.78c 55.74±0.77b 64.95±0.77a
MS50 21.57±0.50d 35.34±1.40c 56.05±1.27b 65.16±1.74a
MS75 21.47±1.03d 34.29±1.23c 55.86±0.90b 65.26±1.73a
Fat Control 1.52±0.03d 2.72±0.05c 4.11±0.03b 5.79±0.74a
MS25 1.49±0.05d 2.71±0.04c 4.07±0.27b 5.71±0.88a
MS50 1.54±0.06d 2.70±0.08c 4.10±0.06b 5.65±0.97a
MS75 1.50±0.03d 2.73±0.04c 4.08±0.07b 5.41±1.23a
Ash Control 0.85±0.01d 1.98±0.08c 3.81±0.13b 5.98±0.40a
MS25 0.85±0.02d 2.02±0.05c 3.82±0.09b 5.88±0.28a
MS50 0.86±0.03d 2.04±0.06c 3.85±0.19b 5.82±0.19a
MS75 0.83±0.04d 2.03±0.07c 3.78±0.07b 5.93±0.18a

All values represented as mean±SD.

No significant differences were observed between the means in the same column.

a–d Means in the same row marked with different letters denote significant differences (p<0.05).

Control, dry-aged pork loin ham without mustard extracts; MS25, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 25% ethanol; MS50, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 50% ethanol; MS75, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 75% ethanol.

Download Excel Table

Fig. 1 illustrates the aging loss of dry-aged pork loin ham samples at wk 2, 4, and 6 compared to the wk 0. The amount of aging loss increased significantly in all the samples throughout the dry-aging period (p<0.05), and the primary reason for this is believed to be the reduction in moisture content. Over the dry-aging period, the control and the mustard seed extract-treated samples showed no significant difference in the amount of aging loss. Similar to the results of the present study, Andrés et al. (2017) reported that adding pomegranate, grape, and tomato extract did not affect the weight loss in lamb patties (longissimus thoracis). While manufacturing dry-aged pork loin ham, high reduction of weight during aging can lead to economic loss and decline in quality (Bonfatti and Carnier, 2020). In this study, mustard seed extracts did not affect the composition change or yield during the dry-aging of pork loin ham. Therefore, we believe that the addition of mustard seed extracts can improve storage without any decline in quality of dry-aged pork loin ham.

kosfa-43-6-961-g1
Fig. 1. Aging loss of dry-aged pork loin ham treated with mustard extracts at different ethanol concentrations. a–c Means in the same color with different numbers are significantly different (p<0.05). No significant differences were observed between the means in the same wk. Control, dry-aged pork loin ham without mustard extracts; MS25, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 25% ethanol; MS50, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 50% ethanol; MS75, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 75% ethanol.
Download Original Figure
pH and aw

Table 5 shows the pH and aw of dry-aged pork loin ham samples at wk 0, 2, 4, and 6. The pH of the control and MS25 samples tended to increase with the passage of the dry-aging period, and the highest pH value was measured at wk 6 (p<0.05). MS50 and MS75 showed no significant change in pH over all wk. The mustard seed extract-treated samples and control samples did not show a significant difference in pH at wk 0, but significantly higher pH values were observed in control starting from wk 2 (p<0.05). The lowest pH was observed in MS50 and MS75 samples at wk 4 and 6 (p<0.05). Increased pH in meat products signifies decay or growth of pathogenic microorganisms (Sujiwo et al., 2018), which is consistent with the microbial content trends observed in the control and MS25 samples. Conversely, AB tended to increase in MS50 and MS75 over the dry-aging period even though pH decreased. This might be due to the inhibition of pathogenic microorganisms and delayed changes in pH because of the lactic acid produced by lactic acid bacteria (Leroy and De Vuyst, 2004). The curing solution used for preparing the dry-aged pork loin ham in this experiment (Table 1) contained sugar. The lactic acid bacteria present in meat might have used this sugar for metabolism (Gänzle, 2015).

Table 5. pH and aw of dry-aged pork loin ham treated with mustard extract at different ethanol concentrations
Traits Treatments Dry-aging periods (wk)
0 2 4 6
pH Control 5.76±0.06cA 5.82±0.02bA 5.83±0.00bA 5.96±0.04aA
MS25 5.76±0.05cA 5.75±0.04cB 5.81±0.01bB 5.85±0.01aB
MS50 5.75±0.03aA 5.75±0.02aB 5.75±0.02aC 5.76±0.02aC
MS75 5.76±0.04aA 5.75±0.03aB 5.75±0.02aC 5.75±0.02aC
aw Control 0.97±0.00aA 0.92±0.00bA 0.85±0.00cA 0.77±0.00dA
MS25 0.97±0.00aA 0.90±0.01bB 0.84±0.00cB 0.74±0.00dB
MS50 0.97±0.00aA 0.90±0.00cC 0.80±0.00cC 0.74±0.00dB
MS75 0.97±0.00aA 0.93±0.01bA 0.84±0.00cB 0.74±0.00dB

All values represented as mean±SD.

A–C Means in the same column marked with different letters denote significant differences (p<0.05).

a–d Means in the same row marked with different letters denote significant differences (p<0.05).

Control, dry-aged pork loin ham without mustard extracts; MS25, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 25% ethanol; MS50, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 50% ethanol; MS75, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 75% ethanol.

Download Excel Table

The aw of dry-aged pork loin ham samples were decreased significantly during the dry-aging period (p<0.05). The samples did not show a significant difference in aw at wk 0. But at wk 6, significantly lower aw was measured in the mustard seed extract-treated samples compared to the control sample (p<0.05). In the proximate composition analysis, all the samples had 73%–74% moisture at wk 0 and this significantly decreased over time to 26–27% at wk 6, indicating that the major factor in aw reduction was the dry-aging process. Furthermore, the mustard seed extract was added to the pork loin in the form of a stock dissolved in a solvent, including ethanol. Ethanol has been reported to potentially influence microbial metabolism inhibition and the reduction of aw (Hallsworth and Nomura, 1999). This could have had an impact on the aw measurements in this study. aw is an indicator of the moisture level that can be used for growth of microorganisms. Maintaining the aw of the final dried meat product below 70% effectively inhibits the proliferation of harmful bacteria and ensures stability during storage (Syamaladevi et al., 2016). We observed that addition of the mustard seed extracts in dry-aged pork loin ham reduced microorganisms and aw.

Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) and volatile basic nitrogen (VBN)

Table 6 shows the TBARS and VBN of dry-aged pork loin ham samples at wk 0, 2, 4, and 6. All the samples had significantly higher levels of TBARS at wk 6 than at wk 0 (p<0.05), but there was no significant change in TBARS after wk 2. While there was no significant difference in TBARS between the mustard seed extract-treated samples, they consistently exhibited lower TBARS than the control every wk (p<0.05). Continuous exposure of lipids to oxygen results in accumulation of malondialdehyde in meat due to an oxidative reaction, which is assessed by measuring TBARS levels (Zhao et al., 2020). The lack of significant difference in TBARS levels, observed in the different treatment samples during the experimental duration, is most likely due to the low-fat content of the meat (Fuentes et al., 2014). All the treated samples had lower TBARS levels than the control sample owing to the antioxidant activity of the mustard seed extracts (Nicácio et al., 2021).

Table 6. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and volatile basic nitrogen of dry-aged pork loin ham treated with mustard extract at different ethanol concentrations
Traits Treatments Dry-aging periods (wk)
0 2 4 6
TBARS (mg MDA/kg) Control 0.51±0.02bA 0.67±0.04aA 0.65±0.00aA 0.66±0.03aA
MS25 0.43±0.02bB 0.51±0.01aB 0.50±0.00aB 0.51±0.02aB
MS50 0.40±0.00bB 0.49±0.04aB 0.49±0.02aB 0.48±0.02aB
MS75 0.40±0.02bB 0.49±0.02aB 0.49±0.04aB 0.49±0.01aB
VBN (mg %) Control 9.18±0.81cA 10.38±0.13bA 14.90±0.43aA 15.79±0.56aA
MS25 8.74±0.22dB 9.58±0.21cB 12.04±0.38bB 12.99±0.18aB
MS50 6.72±0.22dD 7.54±0.13cD 11.14±0.28bC 12.26±0.21aC
MS75 7.62±0.39dC 8.59±0.26cC 11.59±0.21bC 12.60±0.38aBC

All values represented as mean±SD.

A–D Means in the same column marked with different letters denote significant differences (p<0.05).

a–d Means in the same row marked with different letters denote significant differences (p<0.05).

Control, dry-aged pork loin ham without mustard extracts; MS25, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 25% ethanol; MS50, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 50% ethanol; MS75, dry-aged pork loin ham with mustard seed extracts with 75% ethanol.

TBARS, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; VBN, volatile basic nitrogen.

Download Excel Table

VBN increased continuously in all the samples throughout the dry-aging period (p<0.05). The control sample showed significantly higher VBN than all the treated samples continuously from wk 0 to 6 (p<0.05). We observed the lowest VBN in MS50 from wk 0 to 2 (p<0.05). MS50 and MS75 samples had significantly lower VBN compared to the control sample and MS25 from wk 4 onwards (p<0.05). During the dry-aging period, the level of VBN increases due to protein degradation and metabolism of microorganisms (Sujiwo et al., 2018). Mustard seed extract-treated samples had significantly lower VBN levels due to the inhibitory action of mustard seeds against microorganisms (Kanemaru and Miyamoto, 1990). Therefore, levels of VBN tended to be consistent with the results of microbial analysis. In summary, the mustard seed extracts effectively inhibited lipid oxidation and protein deterioration during the dry-aging process of the pork loin, and the greatest effect was observed in MS50 and MS75.

Conclusion

This study evaluated the effects of mustard seed extracts on storage characteristics of dry-aged pork loin ham during the aging period. Based on the study conducted, mustard seed extracts, especially those obtained from 50% and 75% ethanol, positively influenced the physicochemical and storage characteristics of dry-aged pork loin ham. These extracts significantly inhibited bacterial growth, stabilized pH levels, and reduced water activity, contributing to overall improved storage stability. In terms of color attributes, treatments with mustard seed extracts resulted in higher CIE a* and lower CIE b* compared to the control. Additionally, the levels of TBARS and VBN were lower in samples treated with mustard seed extracts. Therefore, these extracts could serve as an effective natural alternative to synthetic antioxidants, promoting enhanced safety, color, and storage longevity of dry-aged pork loin ham. This contributes towards the development of healthier and more naturally preserved dry-aged pork products.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

Agricultural Science and Technology Development’s Cooperative Research Program provided support for this research (Project No. RS-2023-00231378).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Kim HY. Data curation: Cho HG. Formal analysis: Cho HG, Kim HY. Methodology: Kim HY. Software: Cho HG, Kim HY. Validation: Cho HG. Investigation: Cho HG, Kim HY. Writing - original draft: Cho HG. Writing - review & editing: Cho HG, Kim HY.

Ethics Approval

This article does not require IRB/IACUC approval because there are no human and animal participants.

References

1.

Amarowicz R, Wanasundara UN, Karamać M, Shahidi F. 1996; Antioxidant activity of ethanolic extract of mustard seed. Food/Nahrung. 40:261-263

2.

Andrés AI, Petrón MJ, Adámez JD, López M, Timón ML. 2017; Food by-products as potential antioxidant and antimicrobial additives in chill stored raw lamb patties. Meat Sci. 129:62-70

3.

AOAC. 2010 Official methods of analysis. 16th ed Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, DC, USA. .

4.

Barba FJ, Nikmaram N, Roohinejad S, Khelfa A, Zhu Z, Koubaa M. 2016; Bioavailability of glucosinolates and their breakdown products: Impact of processing. Front Nutr. 3:24

5.

Bonfatti V, Carnier P. 2020; Prediction of dry-cured ham weight loss and prospects of use in a pig breeding program. Animal. 14:1128-1138

6.

Choi DM, Lee SH, Kim HY. 2022; Antioxidant activity of different fractions from freeze-dried broccoli and its effect on storage properties of emulsion-type pork sausage. J Korean Soc Food Sci Nutr. 51:580-587

7.

Choi YJ, Lee HW, Yang JH, Hong SW, Park SH, Lee MA. 2018; Changes in quality properties of kimchi based on the nitrogen content of fermented anchovy sauce, Myeolchi Aekjeot, during fermentation. Food Sci Biotechnol. 27:1145-1155

8.

Doheny-Adams T, Redeker K, Kittipol V, Bancroft I, Hartley SE. 2017; Development of an efficient glucosinolate extraction method. Plant Methods. 13:17

9.

Fuentes V, Estévez M, Ventanas J, Ventanas S. 2014; Impact of lipid content and composition on lipid oxidation and protein carbonylation in experimental fermented sausages. Food Chem. 147:70-77

10.

Gänzle MG. 2015; Lactic metabolism revisited: Metabolism of lactic acid bacteria in food fermentations and food spoilage. Curr Opin Food Sci. 2:106-117

11.

Hallsworth JE, Nomura Y. 1999; A simple method to determine the water activity of ethanol‐containing samples. Biotechnol Bioeng. 62:242-245

12.

Hikmawanti NPE, Fatmawati S, Asri AW. 2021; The effect of ethanol concentrations as the extraction solvent on antioxidant activity of katuk (Sauropus androgynus (L.) Merr.) leaves extracts. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 755:012060

13.

Hughes JM, Clarke FM, Purslow PP, Warner RD. 2020; Meat color is determined not only by chromatic heme pigments but also by the physical structure and achromatic light scattering properties of the muscle. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 19:44-63

14.

Jeong CH, Lee SH, Kim HY. 2022; Analysis of food storage stability of biodegradable containers made of pork skin gelatin polymer with walnut shell powder. Polymers. 14:1940

15.

Kanemaru K, Miyamoto T. 1990; Inhibitory effects on the growth of several bacteria by brown mustard and allyl isothiocyanate. Nippon Shokuhin Kogyo Gakkaishi. 37:823-829

16.

Karre L, Lopez K, Getty KJK. 2013; Natural antioxidants in meat and poultry products. Meat Sci. 94:220-227

17.

Kim CJ, Lee ES. 2003; Effects of quality grade on the chemical, physical and sensory characteristics of Hanwoo (Korean native cattle) beef. Meat Sci. 63:397-405

18.

Leroy F, De Vuyst L. 2004; Lactic acid bacteria as functional starter cultures for the food fermentation industry. Trends Food Sci Technol. 15:67-78

19.

Lin CM, Preston JF, Wei CI. 2000; Antibacterial mechanism of allyl isothiocyanate. J Food Prot. 63:727-734

20.

Liu J, Mesfin FM, Hunter CE, Olson KR, Christopher Shelley W, Brokaw JP, Manohar K, Markel TA. 2022; Recent development of the molecular and cellular mechanisms of hydrogen sulfide gasotransmitter. Antioxidants. 11:1788

21.

Lorenzo JM, Pateiro M, Domínguez R, Barba FJ, Putnik P, Kovačević DB, Shpigelman A, Granato D, Franco D. 2018; Berries extracts as natural antioxidants in meat products: A review. Food Res Int. 106:1095-1104

22.

Morrissey PA, Sheehy PJA, Galvin K, Kerry JP, Buckley DJ. 1998; Lipid stability in meat and meat products. Meat Sci. 49:S73-S86

23.

Moudache M, Colon M, Nerín C, Zaidi F. 2016; Phenolic content and antioxidant activity of olive by-products and antioxidant film containing olive leaf extract. Food Chem. 212:521-527

24.

Muzolf-Panek M, Waśkiewicz A. 2022; Relationship between phenolic compounds, antioxidant activity and color parameters of red table grape skins using linear ordering analysis. Appl Sci. 12:6146

25.

Nawaz H, Shad MA, Rehman N, Andaleeb H, Ullah N. 2020; Effect of solvent polarity on extraction yield and antioxidant properties of phytochemicals from bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) seeds. Braz J Pharm Sci. 56e17129

26.

Nicácio AE, Rodrigues CA, Visentainer JV, Maldaner L. 2021; Evaluation of the QuEChERS method for the determination of phenolic compounds in yellow (Brassica alba), brown (Brassica juncea), and black (Brassica nigra) mustard seeds. Food Chem. 340:128162

27.

Oswell NJ, Thippareddi H, Pegg RB. 2018; Practical use of natural antioxidants in meat products in the U.S.: A review. Meat Sci. 145:469-479

28.

Ramirez D, Abellán-Victorio A, Beretta V, Camargo A, Moreno DA. 2020; Functional ingredients from Brassicaceae species: Overview and perspectives. Int J Mol Sci. 21:1998

29.

Reeder BJ, Svistunenko DA, Sharpe MA, Wilson MT. 2002; Characteristics and mechanism of formation of peroxide-induced heme to protein cross-linking in myoglobin. Biochemistry. 41:367-375

30.

Sebranek JG, Sewalt VJH, Robbins KL, Houser TA. 2005; Comparison of a natural rosemary extract and BHA/BHT for relative antioxidant effectiveness in pork sausage. Meat Sci. 69:289-296

31.

Seong PN, Park KM, Kang GH, Cho SH, Park BY, Van Ba H. 2015; The impact of ripening time on technological quality traits, chemical change and sensory characteristics of dry-cured loin. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 28:677-685

32.

Shakeel F, Haq N, Raish M, Anwer MK, Al-Shdefat R. 2016; Solubility and thermodynamic analysis of sinapic acid in various neat solvents at different temperatures. J Mol Liq. 222:167-171

33.

Sharma A, Rai PK, Prasad S. 2018; GC–MS detection and determination of major volatile compounds in Brassica juncea L. leaves and seeds. Microchem J. 138:488-493

34.

Sujiwo J, Kim D, Jang A. 2018; Relation among quality traits of chicken breast meat during cold storage: Correlations between freshness traits and torrymeter values. Poult Sci. 97:2887-2894

35.

Syamaladevi RM, Tang J, Villa-Rojas R, Sablani S, Carter B, Campbell G. 2016; Influence of water activity on thermal resistance of microorganisms in low-moisture foods: A review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 15:353-370

36.

Szydłowska-Czerniak A, Tułodziecka A, Karlovits G, Szłyk E. 2015; Optimisation of ultrasound-assisted extraction of natural antioxidants from mustard seed cultivars. J Sci Food Agric. 95:1445-1453

37.

Toldrá F, Flores M, Sanz Y. 1997; Dry-cured ham flavour: Enzymatic generation and process influence. Food Chem. 59:523-530

38.

Wang Z, Tu J, Zhou H, Lu A, Xu B. 2021; A comprehensive insight into the effects of microbial spoilage, myoglobin autoxidation, lipid oxidation, and protein oxidation on the discoloration of rabbit meat during retail display. Meat Sci. 172:108359

39.

Woisky RG, Salatino A. 1998; Analysis of propolis: Some parameters and procedures for chemical quality control. J Apic Res. 37:99-105

40.

Zhao B, Zhou H, Zhang S, Pan X, Li S, Zhu N, Wu Q, Wang S, Qiao X, Chen W. 2020; Changes of protein oxidation, lipid oxidation and lipolysis in Chinese dry sausage with different sodium chloride curing salt content. Food Sci Hum Wellness. 9:328-337