Meat Science 71 (2005) 300–305
www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Quality characteristics of irradiated turkey breast rolls
formulated with plum extract
E.J. Lee, D.U. Ahn
¤
Department of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 2276 Kildee, Ames, IA 50011-3150, United States
Received 3 November 2004; received in revised form 22 March 2005; accepted 22 March 2005
Abstract
The eVects of adding 1%, 2% and 3% plum extract on the quality characteristics of vacuum-packaged, irradiated ready-to-eat turkey breast rolls were determined. Turkey breast rolls were sliced, packaged and irradiated at 0 or 3 kGy using a Linear Accelerator.
Lipid oxidation, volatile proWles, color, texture, proximate analysis and sensory characteristics of sliced turkey breast rolls were
determined at 0 and 7 days of storage. Addition of plum extract had no detectable eVect on the proximate analysis of turkey breast
rolls. Plum extract increased a* and b* values, and decreased L* value of turkey breast rolls due to the original color of plum extract.
Addition of >2% plum extract to turkey breast rolls was eVective in controlling lipid oxidation of irradiated meat and the production
of aldehydes (hexanal, heptanal, octanal, and nonanal) in non-irradiated meat at Day 0. Texture of turkey breast rolls was not inXuenced, but juiciness was increased by plum extract. Therefore, addition of 3% or higher of plum extract is recommended to improve
mouth-feel and antioxidant eVect in irradiated turkey breast rolls. However, the color of turkey breast rolls with 3% plum extract was
dark and might not be appealing to consumers.
 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ready-to-eat turkey rolls; Color; Flavor; Volatiles; Irradiation; Lipid oxidation
1. Introduction
Ready-to-eat (RTE) cooked meat products such as
turkey breast rolls and turkey hams have been the subject of large product recalls and multistate outbreaks
linked to Listeria monocytogenes. The 1999 multistate
listeriosis outbreak was linked to »100 cases and 21
deaths and resulted in the recall of »20 million pounds
of RTE product (CDC, 2002). The Food Safety and
Inspection Service conducted a 10-year microbial prevalence study for ready-to-eat meat and poultry products
produced from approximately 1800 federally inspected
establishments (Levine, Rose, Green, Ransom, & Hill,
2001). These reports clearly show the seriousness of food
safety problem in ready-to-eat meat products, especially
¤
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 515 294 6595; fax: +1 515 294 9143.
E-mail address: duahn@iastate.edu (D.U. Ahn).
0309-1740/$ - see front matter  2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.03.017
for sliced ham. Considering a series of recent outbreaks
and product recalls due to pathogenic bacteria in meat,
the expanded application of irradiation technology in
meat products becomes especially important.
Irradiation is an eVective way to eliminate pathogens,
including L. monocytogenes, Salmonella, Yersinia enterocolitica, and others (Patterson, Damoglou, & Buick,
1993; Sommers, Niemira, Tunick, & Boyd, 2002; Tarte,
Murano, & Olson, 1996; Thayer, 1995; Thayer & Boyd,
2001), but its application to meat is limited partially
because irradiation produces a characteristic aroma, and
changes color, Xavor and taste of meat that signiWcantly
impact upon consumer acceptance (Ahn, Jo, Du, Olson,
& Nam, 2000a; Du, Ahn, Mendonca, & Wesley, 2002; Jo
& Ahn, 2000; Patterson & Stevenson, 1995). Therefore,
enhanced quality characteristics of irradiated RTE turkey breast roll are critical to increase its acceptability to
consumers.
E.J. Lee, D.U. Ahn / Meat Science 71 (2005) 300–305
Unlike turkey ham (5–7% fat), RTE turkey breast roll
generally has a “dry” mouth-feel due to its relatively low
fat content (1–2% fat). Plum extract contains sorbitol, a
known humectant, which naturally binds moisture and
thus has the potential to alleviate the “dry” mouth-feel
in low fat contents meat. The addition of plum extract to
ground beef resulted in the production of hamburgers
with a mouth-feel and texture that closely simulated the
presence of fat in the cooked meat (Anon., 2000). Decker
(1999) reported that moisture retention of hamburgers
added with plum puree was improved by 15.8% in precooked patties reheated to 102 °C and held warm for up
to 4 h. More importantly, plum extract contains antioxidants (Keeton, Rhee, Boleman, & Nunez, 2001); therefore, it can reduce the development of oV-odors from
lipid oxidation in this meat product during irradiation.
The objective of this study was to determine the eVect
of plum extract on quality characteristics of vacuumpackaged, irradiated RTE turkey breast rolls. Lipid oxidation, sensory characteristics, volatiles, color, texture
and proximate analysis of RTE turkey breast rolls formulated with plum extract during storage were evaluated.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample preparation
Oven-roasted turkey breast rolls with diVerent plum
concentration were freshly processed in the Meat Laboratory at Iowa State University. Raw turkey breasts
were purchased from a local turkey processing plant.
Plum extract puree was obtained from the California
Plum Board (Sunsweet Growers Inc., Yuba City, CA).
Plum extract was dissolved in distilled water before use.
The amount of water added was adjusted to make the
total amount of water plus plum extract the same for all
the treatments. Four plum concentrations were prepared, which included basic formula without plum
extract (control), and with 1%, 2% and 3% plum extract.
The basic formula for turkey breast rolls was 90% meat,
6.5% ice water, 1.25% sodium chloride, 1% transglutaminase, 0.5% sodium caseinate, 0.5% dextrose, and
0.25% sodium tripolyphosphate. Four batches of each
plum treatments were prepared.
Each plum extracts treatment and the basic meat ingredients were mixed with ground turkey breast for 3 min
using a 3-mm plate and stuVed into large cellulose casings
(10.5 cm in diameter), which were clipped and stored overnight at 4 °C to facilitate cross-link formation by transglutaminase. Next morning, the rolls were heat-processed in a
smoke house to an internal temperature of 75 °C, immediately chilled with a cold water shower for 10 min, and
stored at 4 °C for 4 h. The cooked, chilled rolls were sliced
(2.0-cm thick slices for texture measurement and 1.0-cm
thick slices for other quality analyses) and vacuum-pack-
301
aged. The vacuum-packaged breast slices from each additive treatment were randomly divided into two groups
and irradiated at 0 or 3 kGy using Linear Accelerator
(Surebeam; Chicago, IL, USA). Samples were transported
to the irradiation facility in ice boxes containing ice to
maintain the temperature of samples close to 0 C in the
dark. The energy and power level used were 10 MeV and
10 kW, respectively, and the conveyer speed was 25 ft/min.
To conWrm the target dose, two alanine dosimeters per
cart were attached to the top and bottom surfaces of a
sample. The alanine dosimeters were read using a 104
Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Instrument (Bruker
Instruments Inc., Billerica, MA, USA). The max/min ratio
was approximately 1.18 (avg.). After irradiation, turkey
hams were stored at 4 °C. Color, volatiles, texture and
TBARS were analyzed at 0 and 7 day, and sensory characteristics were determined after 5 days of storage.
2.2. Chemical analyses
A purge-and-trap apparatus (Solatek 72 and Concentrator 3100; Tekmar–Dohrmann, Cincinnati, OH, USA)
connected to a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer
(GC/MS; Hewlett–Packard Co., Wilmington, DE, USA)
was used to analyze volatiles produced. The conditions
of the purge-and-trap apparatus and GC/MS were
described by Lee and Ahn (2003a). The area of each
peak was integrated using the ChemStation (Hewlett–
Packard) software, and the total peak area (pA¤s £ 104)
was reported as an indicator of volatiles generated
from the sample. Lipid oxidation was determined by the
2-thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS)
method described by Ahn et al. (1998). The amounts of
TBARS were expressed as milligrams of malondialdehyde (MDA) per kilogram of meat. The color of meat
was measured on the surface of packaged samples using
a Labscan spectrophotometer (Hunter Associated Labs
Inc., Reston, VA, USA) that had been calibrated against
white and black reference tiles packaged in the same
bags as those used for meat packaging. CIE L* – (lightness), a* – (redness), and b* – (yellowness) values were
obtained using an illuminant A. Area view and port size
were 0.25 and 0.40 in., respectively. An average value
from two random locations on each sample surface was
used for statistical analysis.
The texture of turkey breast roll was determined at
room temperature by the Texture ProWle Analysis (TPA)
method using a TA-XT2i® Texture Analyzer (Texture
Technology Corp., New York, NY, USA). Turkey breast
roll was immobilized between specially constructed
stainless steel plates and a star-shaped, cherry-pitter
probe was used to penetrate the slices perpendicularly.
Each sample underwent two cycles of 50% compression
using the above probe Wtted to a TA-XT2i® Texture
Analyzer. Two separate TPA were done per slice, and
four slices were used for each treatment. Five textural
302
E.J. Lee, D.U. Ahn / Meat Science 71 (2005) 300–305
parameters, hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, chewiness, and resilience, were obtained from the force-time
curve and calculated as described by Bourne (1994).
diVerences in the mean values were compared by the
SNK (Student–Newman–Keuls) multiple range test, and
mean values and standard error of the means (SEM)
were reported (P < 0.05).
2.3. Sensory evaluation
Ten trained sensory panelists characterized overall
odor characteristics, color and texture of the samples.
Panelists were selected based on interest, availability,
and performance in screening tests conducted with samples similar to those to be tested. During training, a lexicon of aroma terms to be used on the ballot was
developed and references to anchor the rating scale
were identiWed. Sensory panelists were asked to rate the
intensity of oV-aroma (irradiated), color, and texture
included hardness, springiness, and juiciness on 9-unit
linear scales (from 1: none to 9: extremely). Both irradiated and non-irradiated samples were presented to panelists. Panelists distinguished the diVerences in Xavor
characteristics between irradiated and non-irradiated
meat, and references to anchor the rating scale were
identiWed.
Samples were warmed in a microwave oven to 60 °C
before serving. Each slice of turkey rolls was cut into
quarters and a single piece was served in a covered 4 oz
polyfoam container labeled with a random three-digit
code. Each panelist evaluated eight samples per session
and four test sessions were conducted. Heating was randomized and the samples were presented simultaneously.
Panelists were instructed to evaluate the samples in the
randomized order presented on the computer screen.
Water and unsalted crackers were available to the panelists. Participants were instructed to rinse their mouths
with water before starting to taste, and also between
samples. Testing was conducted in partitioned booths
and under red Xuorescent lights. Data were collected by
using a computerized sensory scoring system (COMPUSENSE Wve, v 4.4, Compusense, Inc., Guelph, Ont., Canada N1H3N4). A complete block design was used for
each of the tests.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Data were processed by the General Linear Model
(GLM) of Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 2000). The
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Chemical analyses
Table 1 shows the proximate analysis of RTE turkey
breast rolls with plum extract added at Day 0. All composition, especially moisture and lipid contents, of RTE
turkey breast rolls with plum extract-added was similar
to that of control. The TBARS values of irradiated samples immediately after irradiation were lower than those
of non-irradiated samples (Table 2). After 7 d of storage
at 4 °C, irradiated samples did not developed lipid oxidation because turkey breast meat had low lipid contents
and all samples were vacuum-packaged. Plum extract
signiWcantly reduced the TBARS of irradiated turkey
breast rolls at Day 7. Our previous studies also indicated
that irradiation accelerated lipid oxidation of meat only
under aerobic conditions, and irradiation had no correlation with TBARS under vacuum packaging conditions
(Ahn et al., 1997; Ahn, Jo, & Olson, 2000b). Also,
decrease of TBARS after irradiation was observed in
fatty acid or oil emulsion samples (Lee & Ahn, 2003b).
Addition of 1% plum extract to turkey breast roll had no
eVect, but >2% plum extract was eVective in controlling
lipid oxidation, especially in irradiated meat. Diehl
(1995) indicated that irradiation of aqueous systems produced hydrogen peroxide, particularly in the presence of
oxygen. During post-irradiation storage, hydrogen peroxide gradually disappears while other constituents of
the system are oxidized. Obviously, some oxidized compounds not present, or present at lower concentrations
immediately after irradiation, can increase after hours or
days after irradiation.
Irradiation increased the amounts of hydrocarbons
and sulfur compounds, which are known to cause irradiation oV-odor (Ahn et al., 2000a) in turkey breast rolls
(Table 3). The amounts of hydrocarbons also increased
during storage. Plum extract decreased the amounts of
aldehydes at Day 0, and hydrocarbons and cyclo
Table 1
Proximate analysis of RTE turkey breast roll with plum extract added
Control (%)
Moisture
Protein
Ash
Lipid
Carbohydrate
1% Plum (%)
2% Plum (%)
72.06a
72.27a
72.38a
72.09a
0.27
a
a
a
a
0.17
0.05
0.07
0.10
23.91
1.64a
1.61a
0.78a
23.45
1.67a
1.63a
0.98a
23.48
1.65a
1.64a
0.85a
SEM is standard error of the means. n D 4.
a
Values with the same superscript within a row within the same storage time are not diVerent (P < 0.05).
3% Plum (%)
23.92
1.71a
1.57a
0.71a
SEM (%)
E.J. Lee, D.U. Ahn / Meat Science 71 (2005) 300–305
303
Table 2
TBARS of RTE turkey breast roll with plum extract added
0 Day
Non-IR
IR
SEM
7 day
Non-IR
IR
SEM
Control
(mg MDA/kg meat)
1% Plum
(mg MDA/kg meat)
2% Plum
(mg MDA/kg meat)
3% Plum
(mg MDA/kg meat)
SEM
(mg MDA/kg meat)
1.59ax
1.10ay
0.04
1.50abx
1.01aby
0.06
1.58ax
0.94by
0.04
1.36bx
0.81cy
0.03
0.06
0.03
1.14abx
0.89by
0.01
1.22ax
0.91by
0.02
1.09bx
0.84cy
0.02
0.03
0.02
1.19abx
0.95ay
0.03
SEM is standard error of the means, n = 4.
a–c
Values with diVerent superscripts within a row are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05).
x–y
Values with diVerent superscripts within a column with the same storage time are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05).
Table 3
Volatile compounds of turkey breast rolls with plum extract
Total ion counts £ 104
Non-IR
Control
0 Day
Alcohols
Aldehydes
Cyclo compounds
Hydrocarbons
Ketones
Sulfur compounds
34817a
29146ab
447a
2078a
11753a
908a
7 Day
Alcohols
Aldehydes
Cyclo compounds
Hydrocarbons
Ketones
Sulfur compounds
44266a
32882a
1304a
18374a
10846a
631a
IR
1% Plum
2% Plum
3% Plum
SEM
Control
1% Plum
2% Plum
3% Plum
SEM
35733a
37318a
395a
1716a
21791a
1153a
32074a
22172b
411a
1782a
15031a
900a
34906a
18544b
540a
1691a
15144a
724a
1900
3763
43
150
3235
233
90561a
27056a
1552a
10711a
14457b
24291a
74835a
28032a
1397a
10916a
16194b
20562a
66168a
23183a
1370a
8776a
16756b
21048a
70866a
20761a
1734a
7010a
20200a
21339a
7344
2776
109
954
995
903
42074a
30602a
1109a
15291ab
12615a
577a
42417a
22338a
754b
12873b
8686a
466a
38700a
19895a
764b
10574b
13355a
525a
1506
3466
66
1331
1530
69
35305a
28842a
2237a
14319a
13277a
15369a
31813a
32151a
2455a
16653a
13366a
13823a
36997a
24062a
2207a
12476a
6479b
16130a
44120a
24890a
1907a
12370a
14608a
10358a
8768
5180
232
1798
956
2329
Non-IR means non-irradiated and IR means irradiated samples. Cyclo compounds: toluene, cyclodecene. p-xylene; Hydrocarbons: 1-heptene,
3-methyl undecane, decane heptane, hexane, octane, pentane; Ketones: 2-heptanone, 3-octanone, 2-octanone, 2-butanone, 2-propanone; Alcohols:
ethanol, 1-octen-3-ol, 1-pentanol, 2-propanol, 2-butanol; Aldehydes: 2-methyl butanal, 2-methyl propanal, 3-methyl butanal, heptanal, hexanal, nonanal, pentanal, octanal; Sulfur compounds: dimethyl disulWde, dimethyl trisulWde.
SEM is standard error of the means. n D 4.
a–c
Values with diVerent superscripts within a row with the same storage time and irradiation dose are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05).
compounds at Day 7 of non-irradiated turkey roll, but
had no eVect in reducing the sulfur compounds. Aldehydes are known to contribute to oxidation Xavor (rancidity) of cooked meat, and hexanal is the predominant
aldehyde in cooked meat (Shahidi & Pegg, 1994). Our
results indicated that plum extract treatment showed
reducing trends in lipid oxidation-dependent volatiles
in turkey breast rolls, which agreed with the TBARS
values.
Irradiation and storage had no eVects on color L*, a*
and b* values, but plum extract increased redness (a*
value) and yellowness (b* value) and decreased lightness
(L* value) in turkey breast rolls at 0 and 7 days
(Table 4). However, the color change of turkey breast
rolls added with plum extract was caused by the original
dark purple color of plum extract.
Irradiation and storage had no eVect on the texture
proWle of turkey breast rolls (Table 5). Plum extract
slightly inXuenced the springiness, cohesiveness and
resilience of irradiated and non-irradiated turkey breast
rolls but the diVerences were very small and not consistent. Lavelle and Foegeding (1993) reported that salt was
important for the turkey breast and thigh myoWbrils to
form good gelation with heating, and Zhu et al. (2004)
reported that the cross linking of amino acid was also
important for the texture proWle of turkey breast roll.
3.2. Sensory evaluation
Table 6 shows the sensory evaluation of non-irradiated and irradiated turkey breast rolls with plum
extract. According to the panel discussion, oV-odor or
304
E.J. Lee, D.U. Ahn / Meat Science 71 (2005) 300–305
Table 4
CIE color values of non-irradiated and irradiated turkey breast rolls with plum extract
Non-IR
IR
Control
1% Plum
2% Plum
3% Plum
SEM
Control
1% Plum
2% Plum
3% Plum
SEM
0 Day
L
a
b
77.81a
6.09d
12.88d
74.67b
8.04c
18.02c
71.01c
9.14b
21.37b
68.10d
10.34a
23.39a
0.28
0.13
0.28
77.01a
7.87d
11.43d
74.03b
9.39c
17.26c
70.70c
10.84b
21.23b
68.37d
11.61a
23.17a
0.32
0.20
0.34
7 Day
L
a
b
77.12a
6.17d
14.35d
73.33b
8.01c
19.31c
70.96c
8.83b
21.56b
67.97d
10.23a
24.18a
0.42
0.17
0.29
77.51a
7.30d
13.28d
74.26b
8.92c
18.34c
71.38c
10.00b
21.35b
68.23d
10.76a
23.46a
0.57
0.20
0.36
3% Plum
SEM
Non-IR means non-irradiated and IR means irradiated samples.
SEM is standard error of the means, n = 16.
a–c
Values with diVerent superscripts within a row with the same irradiation dose are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05).
Table 5
Texture data of non-irradiated and irradiated turkey breast rolls with plum extract
Non-IR
Control
IR
1% Plum
2% Plum
0 Day
Hardness
Springiness
Cohesiveness
Chewiness
Resilience
3.87a
0.74b
0.56a
1.61a
0.18a
4.13a
0.78a
0.54a
1.74a
0.17a
4.06a
0.74b
0.53a
1.59a
0.17a
7 Day
Hardness
Springiness
Cohesiveness
Chewiness
Resilience
4.10a
0.75ab
0.55ab
1.69a
0.18a
4.08a
0.76a
0.56a
1.73a
0.17a
4.18a
0.72b
0.51b
1.52a
0.15a
3% Plum
SEM
Control
1% Plum
2% Plum
3.74a
0.74b
0.55a
1.51a
0.17a
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01
3.99a
0.74a
0.57a
1.70a
0.18a
4.08a
0.73a
0.56a
1.68a
0.18a
3.77a
0.72a
0.55a
1.51a
0.17a
4.03a
0.72a
0.56a
1.62a
0.17a
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
3.93a
0.73ab
0.54ab
1.55a
0.16a
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01
4.01a
0.75a
0.57b
1.72a
0.17b
4.10a
0.75a
0.59a
1.83a
0.21a
3.91a
0.73a
0.57b
1.61a
0.18b
3.86a
0.75a
0.54c
1.56a
0.16b
0.18
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.01
Non-IR means non-irradiated and IR means irradiated samples.
SEM is standard error of the means, n D 8.
*
Unit: hardness (N, the peak force during the Wrst compression cycle); springiness (the ratio of length between the Wrst compression (L1) and second
compression (L2): L2/L1); cohesiveness (the ratio of the area of work during the second (A2) compression divided by the area of work during the Wrst
(A1) compression: A2/A1); chewiness (hardness £ cohesiveness £ springiness); resilience (the ratio of the area during the withdrawal of the Wrst compression divided by the area of the Wrst compression).
a–c
Values with diVerent superscripts within a row with the same irradiation dose are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05).
Table 6
Sensory evaluation of non-irradiated and irradiated turkey breast rolls with plum extract
Non-IR
IR oV-odor
Color
Texture
Hardness
Springiness
Juiciness
IR
Control
1% Plum
2% Plum
3% Plum
SEM
Control
a
2.4
2.6d
a
2.7
4.8c
a
2.6
6.2b
a
1% Plum
2% Plum
3% Plum
a
a
a
4.2
5.9b
a
2.2
7.6a
0.5
0.4
4.3
2.6d
4.3
4.6c
5.8a
5.1a
3.6a
4.8a
4.9a
4.1a
4.7a
4.8a
4.4a
4.1a
4.4a
4.8a
0.5
0.4
0.5
5.7a
4.3a
3.6b
5.0ab
5.2a
4.0b
SEM
4.3
7.3a
0.8
0.3
4.2bc
4.9a
4.7ab
3.8c
5.1a
5.3a
0.3
0.5
0.4
Non-IR means non-irradiated and IR means irradiated samples.
1 D none, 9 D extremely.
SEM is standard error of the means, n D 10.
a–c
Values with diVerent superscripts within a row with the same irradiation dose are signiWcantly diVerent (P < 0.05).
oV-Xavor associated with irradiation was metal-like,
oxidized, sulfur and sweet. Ahn et al. (2000b) described
the irradiation odor from irradiated pork as “barbecued corn-like” and Hashim, Resurreccion, and
MaWatters (1995) found that irradiated raw chicken
had higher bloody and sweet aroma intensities than
non-irradiated refrigerated and frozen chicken. In this
study, the intensity of irradiation odor in irradiated
E.J. Lee, D.U. Ahn / Meat Science 71 (2005) 300–305
samples was two times higher than those of non-irradiated samples, but plum extract had no eVect in reducing the irradiation odor. This result agrees with the
data for volatiles, in which plum extract had no eVect in
reducing the sulfur compounds in turkey breast rolls
(Table 3). Plum extract increased color intensity of turkey breast rolls in sensory evaluation. The dark color in
plum extract-added turkey rolls was caused by the original color of plum extract, which was dark purple. Irradiation had no eVect to color change in turkey breast
rolls and sensory evaluation also agreed with those of
CIE color analysis (Table 4). Sensory panels found that
irradiation had no eVect on the texture of turkey breast
rolls, but plum extract decreased hardness at >2% level
and increased juiciness at 3% level in irradiated samples. This indicates that plum extracts work as humectant, which naturally binds moisture and thus improves
the texture of turkey breast roll from “dry” mouth-feel
in low fat contents meat.
It is concluded that addition of 3% of plum extract is
recommended to improve mouth-feel and antioxidant
eVect in irradiated turkey breast rolls. However, the
color of turkey rolls with 3% plum extract was dark and
might not be appealing to consumers.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the California Plum
Board (Sunsweet Growers Inc., Yuba City, CA), and the
NASA Food Technology Commercial Space Center at
Iowa State University (Ames, IA).
References
Ahn, D. U., Sell, J. L., JeVery, M., Jo, C., Chen, X., Wu, C., et al. (1997).
Dietary vitamin E aVects lipid oxidation and total volatiles of irradiated raw turkey meat. Journal of Food Science, 62, 954–959.
Ahn, D. U., Olson, D. G., Jo, C., Chen, X., Wu, C., & Lee, J. I. (1998).
EVect of muscle type, packaging, and irradiation on lipid oxidation,
volatile production and color in raw turkey patties. Meat Science,
47(1), 27–39.
Ahn, D. U., Jo, C., Du, M., Olson, D. G., & Nam, K. C. (2000a).
Quality characteristics of pork patties irradiated and stored in
diVerent packaging and storage conditions. Meat Science, 56,
203–209.
Ahn, D. U., Jo, C., & Olson, D. G. (2000b). Analysis of volatile components and the sensory characteristics of irradiated raw pork. Meat
Science, 54, 209–215.
Anon (2000). Not a prune, more a dried plum. International Food
Ingredients, 6, 37–38.
Bourne, M. C. (1994). Food texture and viscosity (p. 330). New York:
Academic Press.
305
Center for Disease Control and Prevention. (2002). Foodborne illnesses
(p. 83). CDC fact book 2000/2001.
Decker, K. J. (1999). Designing moister meat: a plum assignment. Food
Product Design.
Diehl, J. F. (1995). Safety of irradiated foods (pp. 78–80). Karlsruhe,
Germany: Marcel Dekker.
Du, M., Ahn, D. U., Mendonca, A. F., & Wesley, I. V. (2002). Quality
characteristics of irradiated ready-to-eat breast rolls from turkeys
fed conjugated linoleic acid. Poulty Science, 81, 1378–1384.
Hashim, I. B., Resurreccion, A. V. A., & MaWatters, K. H. (1995). Disruptive sensory analysis of irradiated frozen or refrigerated
chicken. Journal of Food Science, 60, 664–666.
Jo, C., & Ahn, D. U. (2000). Volatiles and oxidative changes in irradiated pork sausage with diVerent fatty acid composition and
tocopherol content. Journal of Food Science, 65, 270–275.
Keeton, J. T., Rhee, K. S., Boleman, R. M., & Nunez, M. T. (2001).
Antioxidant properties of dried plum ingredients in fresh and precooked pork sausage. A Wnal report to the California Dried Plum
Board (pp. 2–3).
Lavelle, C. L., & Foegeding, E. A. (1993). Gelation of turkey breast and
thigh myoWbrils-eVects of pH, salt and temperature. Journal of
Food Science, 58, 727–730.
Levine, P., Rose, B., Green, S., Ransom, G., & Hill, W. (2001). Pathogen
testing of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products collected at federally inspected establishments in the United States from 1990 to
1999. Journal of Protection, 64, 1188–1193.
Lee, E. J., & Ahn, D. U. (2003a). EVect of antioxidants on the production of oV-odor volatiles and lipid oxidation in irradiated turkey
breast meat and meat homogenates. Journal of Food Science, 68(5),
1631–1638.
Lee, E. J., & Ahn, D. U. (2003b). Production of oV-odor volatiles from
fatty acids and oils by irradiation. Journal of Food Science, 68(1),
70–75.
Patterson, M. F., Damoglou, A. P., & Buick, R. K. (1993). EVects of
irradiation dose and storage temperature on the growth of Listeria
monocytogenes on poultry meat. Food Microbiology, 10, 197–203.
Patterson, R. L., & Stevenson, M. H. (1995). Irradiation-induced oVodor in chicken and its possible control. British Poultry Science, 36,
425–441.
SAS® Institute. (2000). SAS user’s guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Shahidi, F., & Pegg, R. B. (1994). Hexanal as an indicator of the Xavor
deterioration of meat and meat products. In Lipids in food Xavors
(pp. 256–279). Washington, DC: American Chemistry Society
(ACS).
Sommers, C. H., Niemira, B. A., Tunick, M., & Boyd, G. (2002). EVect
of temperature on the radiation resistance of virulent Yersinia
enterocolitica. Meat Science, 61, 323–328.
Tarte, R. R., Murano, E. A., & Olson, D. G. (1996). Survival and injury
of Listeria monocytogenes, Listeria innocua and Listeria ivanovii in
ground pork following electron beam irradiation. Journal of Food
Protection, 59, 596–600.
Thayer, D. W. (1995). Use of irradiation to kill enteric pathogens on
meat and poultry. Journal of Food Safety, 15, 181–192.
Thayer, D. W., & Boyd, G. (2001). Reduction of normal Xora by irradiation and its eVect on the ability of Listeria monocytogenes to multiply on ground turkey stored at 7 °C when packaged under a
modiWed atmosphere. Journal of Food Protection, 63, 1702–1706.
Zhu, M. J., Mendonca, A., Min, B., Lee, E. J., Nam, K. C., Park, K., et
al. (2004). Electron beam irradiation and antimicrobials on the
quality of ready-to-eat turkey breast roll. Journal of Food Science,
69(5), c382–c387.