Meat Science 61 (2002) 257–265
www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci
Volatile profiles, lipid oxidation and sensory characteristics of
irradiated meat from different animal species§
Y.H. Kima, K.C. Namb, D.U. Ahnb,*
a
Korea Food Research Institute, Songnam, Kyonggi-Do, South Korea
Animal Science Department, Iowa State University, 1221 Kildee, Ames, IA 50011-3150, USA
b
Received 18 July 2001; received in revised form 4 September 2001; accepted 4 September 2001
Abstract
Irradiated meats produced more volatiles and higher 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) than nonirradiated
regardless of animal species. Irradiation not only produced many new volatiles not found in nonirradiated meats but also increased
the amounts of some volatiles found in nonirradiated meats. The amounts of volatiles in aerobically packaged irradiated meats
decreased with storage while those of nonirradiated meats increased. TBARS values were the highest in beef loin, followed by turkey breast and pork loin regardless of irradiation, packaging, and storage time. TBARS of meats showed positive correlation with
total volatiles, but preference scores between irradiated and nonirradiated were similar. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights
reserved.
Keywords: Irradiation; Animal species effect; TBARS; Volatiles; Sensory scores
1. Introduction
The changes of flavor and oxidation of lipids are
among the major concerns in irradiating meat. Irradiation produces volatile compounds responsible for irradiation odor. Ahn, Jo, Du, Olson, and Nam (2000) and
Ahn, Jo, and Olson (2000) showed that several sulfurcontaining compounds not found in nonirradiated pork
were produced in irradiated pork. They also reported
that irradiated meat produced more volatiles than nonirradiated meat. Patterson and Stevenson (1995) reported that dimethyltrisulfide was the most potent off-odor
compound in irradiated raw chicken meat. Hashim,
Resurreccion, and MacWatters (1995) reported that
irradiated chicken breast and thigh produced a characteristic bloody and sweet aroma, and the flavor
remained in the thigh meat after cooking. The mechanisms of volatile production in irradiated meats are not
fully understood, but many published works (Ang &
Lyon, 1990; Lefebvre, Thibault, Charbonneau, & Piette,
§
Journal Paper No. J- 17432 of the Iowa Agriculture and Home
Economics Experiment Station, Ames, IA 50011. Project No. 3706.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-515-294-6595; fax: +1-515-2949143.
E-mail address: duahn@iastate.edu (D.U. Ahn).
1994; Patterson & Stevenson, 1995; Hashim et al., 1995;
Hampson, Fox, Lakritz, & Thayer, 1996; Ahn et al.,
1997; Ahn, Olson, Jo, Chen, Wu, & Lee, 1998; Ahn,
Olson, Lee, Jo, Wu, & Chen, 1998; Ahn, Jo et al., 2000;
Ahn, Jo, Du et al., 2000) suggested that the radiolytic
products of proteins as well as lipid oxidation byproducts
are responsible for the off-odor in irradiated meats.
Ang and Lyon (1990) reported that hexanal and
pentanal had strong correlations with 2-thiobarbituric
acid reactive substances (TBARS) in meat. Other
reporters (Salih, Smith, Price, & Dawson, 1987; Shahidi
& Pegg, 1994) also showed that TBARS values were
correlated well with the amount of volatile compounds
and sensory characteristics of meat products. Ahn, Jo,
and Olson (1999) and Ahn, Olson, Jo, Love, and Jin
(1999) reported that TBARS of irradiated cooked pork
sausages were highly correlated (P < 0.001) with the
production of 1-pentene, hexane, propanal, pentanal,
hexanal, 3-heptanone, 1-pentanol, cyclohexanone, 1hexanol, 1-heptanol, and total volatiles.
The objectives of this study were to compare the
changes of volatiles and lipid oxidation in irradiated
meat from different animal species, and to determine the
effects of packaging and storage on volatile production,
lipid oxidation, and sensory characteristics of irradiated
meat from different animal species.
0309-1740/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0309-1740(01)00191-7
258
Y.H. Kim et al. / Meat Science 61 (2002) 257–265
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sample preparation
Raw turkey breasts, pork loins, and beef loins were
purchased from four local grocery stores. The meat
block purchased from each grocery store was treated as
a replication for each animal species. The meats were
sliced to 3 cm-thick steaks and individually packaged in
either polyethylene oxygen-permeable packaging bags
(46 inches, Associated Bag Company, Milwaukee,
WI) or vacuum bags (nylon/polyethylene, 9.3 mlO2/m2/
24 h at 0 C; Koch, Kansas City, MO). The packaged
meats were irradiated at 0 or 3 kGy using a Linear
Accelerator Facility (LAF; Circe IIIR, Thomson CSF
Linac, St. Aubin, France) at Iowa State University with
10 MeV of energy, 10 kW of power level, and 93.5 kGy/
min of average dose rate. The maximum and minimum
absorbed doses were 3.699 and 2.983 kGy (max/min
ratio was 1.24). Alanine dosimeters were placed on the
top and bottom surfaces of a sample, and were read
using a 104 Electron Paramagnetic Resonance Instrument (Bruker Instruments Inc., Billerica, MA) to check
the absorbed dose. The control (0 kGy) samples were
exposed to ambient temperature while other samples
were being irradiated. After irradiation, the irradiated
and nonirradiated meat samples were immediately
returned to 4 C cold room and stored for 7 days. Volatiles, TBARS, and sensory preference scores of meat
samples were determined at zero and 7 days of storage.
2.2. Volatile analysis
A purge-and-trap apparatus connected to a gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS, HewlettPackard Co., Wilmington, DE) was used to analyze the
volatiles potentially responsible for the off-odor in
meats as described by Ahn, Jo et al. (2000), with some
modifications. Precept II and Purge-and-Trap Concentrator 3000 (Tekmar-Dohrmann, Cincinnati, OH)
were used to purge and trap volatiles from the meat
samples. A GC unit (Model 6890, Hewlett Packard Co.,
Wilmington, DE) equipped with a mass selective detector (MSD, HP 5973, Hewlett Packard Co.) was used to
characterize and quantify the volatiles of meats. Minced
meat sample (2 g) was transferred to a 40-ml sample
vial, and the headspace was flushed with helium gas
(99.999% purity) for 5 s to minimize oxidative changes
during holding time. The maximum holding time in a
refrigerated (4 C) sample tray before loading to Precept
II and Purge-and-Trap Concentrator 3000 was less than
8 h to minimize oxidative changes during the waiting
period before analysis (Ahn, Jo et al., 1999). The sample
was purged with helium gas (40 ml/min) for 15 min at
40 C. Volatiles were trapped at 20 C using a Tenax
trap column (Tekmar-Dohrmann), thermally desorbed
(225 C) into a cryofocusing unit ( 90 C), and then
thermally desorbed at 225 C into a GC column for 30 s.
A HP-624 column (7.5 m, 250 mm i.d., 1.4 mm nominal), a HP-1 column (52 m, 250 mm i.d., 0.25 mm nominal), and a HP-Wax column (7.5 m, 250 mm i.d., 0.25
mm nominal) combined with zero dead-volume column
connectors (Hewlett Packard Co.) was used to improve
the separation of volatiles. A ramped oven temperature
was used (0 C for 2.5 min, increased to 10 C at 2.5 C/
min, increased to 45 C at 5 C/min, increased to 210 C
at 10 C/min). Liquid nitrogen was used to cool the
oven below ambient temperature. Helium was the carrier gas at a constant pressure of 20.5 psi. The ionization
potential of MS was 70 eV, and the scanned mass range
was 18.1–350 m/z. Identification of volatiles was
achieved by comparing mass spectral data of samples
with those of the Wiley library (Hewlett Packard Co.).
Selected standards were used to verify the identities of
some volatiles. Each individual standard was diluted
with methanol, put in a 40-ml sample vial of the Precept
II, purged, and analyzed using the same method used
for minced meat samples. The each peak area was integrated using the Chemstation software (Hewlett Packard Co.) and reported as the amount of volatiles
released (total ion counts104).
2.3. Lipid oxidation
Lipid oxidation was determined by the modified
TBARS method of Buege and Aust (1978). Minced
sample (5 g) was placed in a 50-ml test tube and homogenized with 15 ml deionized distilled water (DDW)
using a Brinkman Polytron (Type PT 10/35, Brinkman
Instrument Inc., Westbury, NY) for 15 s at high speed
(speed setting 8). The meat homogenate (1 ml) was
transferred to a disposable test tube (13100 mm) and
butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT, 7.2%, 50 ml) and thiobarbituric acid/trichloroacetic acid (TBA/TCA) solution (2 ml) were added. The mixture was vortexed and
then incubated in a 90 C water bath for 15 min to
develop color. After cooling for 10 min in cold water,
the sample was centrifuged at 2000g for 15 min at 4 C.
The absorbance of resulting upper layer was determined
at 531 nm against a blank containing 1 ml DDW and 2
ml TBA/TCA solution. The TBARS values were calculated from the standard curve, and expressed as mg of
malondialdehyde per kg of original meat.
2.4. Total lipids and fatty acids composition
Lipids were extracted from meats according to the
method of Folch, Less, and Sloane-Stanley (1957).
Minced meat (5 g), BHT (50 ml, 7.2%), and Folch I solution (30 ml, chloroform:methanol=2:1, v/v) were added
to a 50-ml test tube and homogenized using a Brinkman
Polytron (Type PT 10/35, Brinkman Instrument Inc.,
Y.H. Kim et al. / Meat Science 61 (2002) 257–265
Westbury, NY) for 20 s at high speed. The homogenate
was filtered through a Whatman No.1 filter paper
(Whatman Inc., Cliton, NJ) into a 100-ml graduated
cylinder, and the filter paper was rinsed twice with 10 ml
of Folch I solution. After adding 8 ml of sodium chloride solution (0.88%) to the cylinder, it was capped with
a glass stopper and mixed vigorously. The inside of the
cylinder was washed twice with 5 ml of Folch II solution
(chloroform:methanol:water=3:47:48, v/v). After phase
separation, the volume of lipid layer (lower layer) was
recorded, and the upper layer was completely and carefully siphoned off in order not to contaminate the lipid
layer. The lipid layer was put into a glass scintillation
vial and dried in a block heater for 1 h at 50 C under
nitrogen stream. Total lipid contents was calculated
from the dried lipid and expressed as percent (%) of
meat. Fatty acid composition was analyzed using the
dried lipids. The dried lipids were dissolved with an aliquot of hexane to make 0.1 g fat/ml hexane. One milliliter of methylating agent (boron-trifluoride methanol,
Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) was added to 100
ml of lipid extract and incubated for 1 h in a 90 C water
bath. After cooling to room temperature, 2 ml of hexane and 5 ml of water were added, mixed thoroughly,
and left overnight at room temperature for phase
separation. The top hexane layer containing methylated
fatty acids was analyzed for fatty acids composition
using a GC (HP 6890, Hewlett Packard Co.). A HP-5
column (30 m, 250 mm i.d., 0.25 mm nominal, Hewlett
Packard Co.) was used to separation fatty acids. A
ramped oven temperature condition (180 C for 2.5 min,
increased to 230 C at 2.5 C/min, then held at 230 C
for 7.5 min) was used. Temperatures of both inlet and
detector were 280 C. Helium was the carrier gas at linear flow of 1.1 ml/min linearly. Detector (FID) air,
hydrogen gas, and make-up gas (He) flows were 350, 35,
and 43 ml/min, respectively. Fatty acids were identified by
the retention time of known standards. Relative quantities were expressed as weight % of total fatty acids.
2.5. Sensory evaluation
The preference and descriptive characteristics of odor
were determined using 16 trained sensory panelists.
Training sessions were conducted to familiarize panelists
with the irradiation odor. Meat samples were placed in
scintillation glass vials and presented to each panelist in
isolated booths. The responses from the panelists were
expressed as seven numerical values from one (dislike
most) to seven (like most). Sensory panels were also
asked to characterize the odor that best describe them.
2.6. Statistical analysis
The experiment was designed to determine the effects
of irradiation, packaging, and storage time on volatiles,
259
lipid oxidation, and sensory evaluation. Data were analyzed using the generalized linear model procedure of
SAS software (SAS Institute, 1989). Student–Newman–
Keul’s multiple range test was used to compare differences among mean values of meats from different animal species and receiving different irradiation doses,
and Student’s t-test was used to compare the mean
values between storage times. Mean values and standard error of the means (S.E.M.) were reported. Significance was defined at P < 0.05.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Volatiles
With aerobic packaging (Tables 1 and 2), beef produced the largest amount of total volatiles, and then
followed by turkey and pork. Irradiated meats produced more total volatiles than those of nonirradiated
regardless of animal species, but the degree of increase
varied significantly by animal species: beef produced the
highest amount of total volatiles but the proportional
increase in volatiles after irradiation was the highest in
pork (about 34 times increase compared with nonirradiated in aerobically packaged pork at Day 0). Irradiation produced many new volatiles in all three meats,
such as 1-butene, 1-pentene, 1-hexene, 1-heptene, and
dimethyl disulfide not found in nonirradiated meats as
reported by Ahn, Jo, Du et al. (2000) and Ahn, Jo et al.
(2000). In addition to these new volatiles, irradiation
increased the amounts of volatiles such as butane,
dimethyl sulfide, hexane, and heptane already found in
nonirradiated meats. These new and increased volatiles
such as hydrocarbons and sulfur containing compounds
produced by irradiation supported the idea that irradiation odor in meats was caused by lipids oxidation
products and radiolytic products of amino acids such as
methionine and cysteine (Jo & Ahn, 1999). Turkey and
pork showed similar volatile composition, but beef had
higher amounts of hydrocarbons such as trimethyl pentane, 3-methyl heptane, 2,2,5-trimethyl hexane, 1octene, and 3-methyl-2-heptene than turkey and pork.
At Day 0, major volatiles found in irradiated meats
were butane, 1-butene, pentane, dimethyl sulfide, and
toluene for turkey; butane, pentane, dimethyl sulfide,
and toluene for pork; butane, 2-butene, pentane, hexane, heptane, octane, toluene, and dimethyl sulfide for
beef. At Day 7, however, the compositions of major
volatiles changed significantly forecasting different odor
characteristics from Day 0. Unlike Day 0, the amounts
of total volatiles and the number of volatiles in irradiated meats were similar to that of nonirradiated after
7 days of storage. This suggested that radiolytic volatile
compounds are attributed to the off-odor in irradiated
meat at beginning (Day 0), but volatiles from lipid
260
Y.H. Kim et al. / Meat Science 61 (2002) 257–265
oxidation became important to the odor of aerobically
packaged meats later.
Vacuum packaged meats produced similar kinds of
volatiles as in aerobically packaged meats (Tables 3 and
4). However, the amounts of volatile compounds were
significantly different. On Day 7, the amounts of total
volatiles from irradiated meats were greater with
vacuum packaging than aerobic packaging, but the total
amounts of volatiles from nonirradiated meats were less
with vacuum packaging than aerobic packaging
(Tables 2 and 4). This indicated that odor intensities of
irradiated or nonirradiated meats after storage could be
significantly different depending upon packaging methods. Some researchers (Ahn, Jo, Du et al., 2000; Angel-
ini, Merritt, Mendelshon, & King, 1975; Patterson &
Stevenson, 1995; Wick, Murray, Mizutani, & Koshika,
1967) have suggested that sulfur and carbonyl compounds had low odor thresholds and were considered
major volatiles responsible irradiation odor. Tables 1–4
showed that the sulfur-containing compounds such as
dimethyl disulfide and dimethyl sulfide were produced
newly or increased by irradiation. Among animal species, irradiated pork produced more sulfur-containing
volatiles than the irradiated turkey and beef under
vacuum packaging conditions (Tables 3 and 4). With
aerobic packaging, however, the majority of sulfur-containing compounds disappeared after 7 days of storage
(Tables 1 and 2).
Table 1
Volatiles of turkey, pork, and beef with irradiation dose in aerobic packaging at Day 0a
Volatile compounds
Turkey
Pork
0 kGy
S.E.M.b
Beef
3 kGy
0 kGy
3 kGy
0 kGy
3 kGy
490a
600c
1903ab
1005a
264
98b
182b
0
6473a
62b
31
1246b
0b
117a
176b
605b
0
23
37
293a
42
564b
524b
0
0b
69b
0
18
53
261bc
8b
0b
2666a
302b
721b
277a
229a
19,339
0b
5d
0c
0c
59
0c
0b
0
65b
0c
57
0c
136b
0b
0b
21b
0
0
0
0c
0
0c
3b
0
0b
0c
0
0
0
0c
0b
0b
0c
0c
0b
0b
0b
346
398a
986b
1188bc
491bc
0
178a
194b
0
1061b
0c
0
1123b
514a
135a
246b
474b
0
56
82
185b
0
391b
347b
16
0b
50ab
0
0
0
798a
0b
0b
2188b
194bc
433b
51b
127a
11,906
0b
0d
10c
0c
0
0c
0b
5
373b
5c
98
468c
0b
0b
0b
173b
0
0
5
0c
0
16c
108b
0
12b
0b
14
258
700
0c
35b
57a
0d
45c
161b
30b
24b
2597
362a
1413a
2774a
750ab
247
215a
864a
0
7799a
154a
0
2254a
0b
180a
820a
2360a
26
0
13
331a
111
991a
2869a
18
78a
65a
0
261
632
373b
115a
0b
1542c
496a
1513a
216a
216a
30,058
4
2-Methyl propane
2-Butene
Butane
1-Butene
Acetaldehyde
Methyl cycolopropane
1-Pentene
2-Pentene
Pentane
2,3-Dimethyl propane
2-Propanone
Dimethyl sulfide
Thiourea
2-Methyl propanal
1-Hexene
Hexane
2-Hexene
Methylthio ethane
Methyl cyclopentane
Benzene
3-Methyl butanal
1-Heptene
Heptane
Ethanethionic acid
Pentanal
1-Heptyne
2,3-Dimethyl heptane
2,3,4-Trimethyl pentane
2,3,3-Trimethyl pentane
Dimethyl disulfide
3-Methyl heptane
2,2,5-Trimethyl hexane
Toluene
1-Octene
Octane
2-Octene
3-Methyl-2-heptene
Total
a
b
(pA*s10 )
0b
0d
105c
0c
0
0c
0b
0
790b
0c
5
51c
0b
0b
0b
30b
0
0
0
0c
0
0c
17b
0
0b
0c
0
0
0
0c
0b
0b
23d
0c
8b
0b
0b
1029
Values with a different letter (a–d) within a row are different significantly (P <0.05). n=4.
S.E.M., Standard error of the mean.
114
104
356
137
75
19
87
2
995
12
48
140
69
18
85
232
10
16
27
18
25
77
314
10
6
13
6
70
177
82
20
11
154
58
181
35
31
261
Y.H. Kim et al. / Meat Science 61 (2002) 257–265
of lipid oxidation during storage. Lipid contents and
fatty acid compositions of meats from beef, pork, and
turkey are shown in Table 6. Turkey had the lowest fat
content but had the highest proportion of unsaturated
fatty acids. Beef, on the other hand, had the highest fat
content, but had the lowest percent of unsaturated fatty
acids. The highest TBARS numbers of beef does not
agree with many previously published results, which
showed turkey is more susceptible to oxidative changes
than beef (Ahn, Nam, Du, & Jo, 2001; Akamittath,
Brekke, & Schanus, 1991; Tichivangana & Morrissey,
1986). However, the TBARS of beef at Day 0 (Table 6)
was higher than pork and turkey suggesting that the
starting quality of the meats were different. Ahn, Wolfe,
and Sim (1993) also addressed the importance of the
initial conditions of raw meat on the subsequent storage
stability of cooked meat. Although, the postmortem age
of the meats were not known, we presume that the age
of the beef was older than other meats, which should
have been the contributing factor for its high TBARS.
3.2. Lipid oxidation
Animal species, irradiation dose, storage time, and
packaging methods significantly influenced the TBARS
of meats (Table 5). Beef showed the highest TBARS,
followed by turkey and pork. Irradiation increased the
TBARS, but the increase was significant only in beef
after 7 days of storage under aerobic conditions. With
aerobic packaging, TBARS of turkey and beef on Day 7
were significantly higher than those on Day 0. With
vacuum packaging, however, no difference in TBARS
of turkey and beef between Day 0 and Day 7 was found.
Also, vacuum-packaged meats showed lower TBARS
than aerobically packaged meats on Day 7 (P < 0.05)
suggesting that limiting oxygen access to meat during
storage was more important than irradiation dose in
preventing lipid oxidation for raw meat. Ahn, Lutz, and
Sim (1996) and Ahn, Olson, Jo et al. (1998) reported
that fat content and composition of fatty acids in lipid
of meat were important in determining the development
Table 2
Volatiles of turkey, pork, and beef with irradiation dose in aerobic packaging at Day 7a
Volatile compounds
Turkey
Pork
0 kGy
S.E.M.b
Beef
3 kGy
0 kGy
3 kGy
0 kGy
3 kGy
159c
591b
278ab
0
0
92b
80c
0
3778
0
652b
0b
89b
2836bc
0
1109
0
0
0
0c
343b
0
0
201a
0
0
1197a
0
287
45
0
11,873
0c
0b
0b
0
0
71b
0d
0
139
1977
0c
11b
0b
1883c
0
812
0
385
0
0c
0b
0
0
0b
0
0
20b
0
34
0
0
5359
353b
469b
228ab
0
50
0b
144b
0
715
1010
932b
0b
144b
1239c
0
540
0
0
39
57b
135b
0
0
127a
0
0
913a
0
128
0
0
7223
16c
486b
0b
0
0
649a
0d
0
5517
6820
1696a
489a
0b
5008a
0
1210
253
0
0
0c
944b
383
1187
0b
112
251
14b
172
964
232
125
26,692
550a
1665a
941a
182
65
0b
258a
39
7791
2020
1658a
80b
456a
4655ab
37
1309
0
451
413
667a
2206a
0
78
183a
0
0
1047a
0
1014
0
0
27,936
4
2-Methyl-1-propene
Butane
2-Methyl propane
2-Butene
1-Butene
Acetaldehyde
1-Pentene
2-Pentene
Pentane
2-Propanone
Dimethyl sulfide
Thiourea
1-Hexene
Hexane
2-Methyl hexene
Cyclopentane
2,3-Butandione
2-Butanone
Benzene
1-Heptene
Heptane
2,3,4-Trimethyl pentane
2,3,3-Trimethyl pentane
Dimethyl disulfide
3-Methyl heptane
2,2,5-Trimethyl hexane
Toluene
1-Octene
Octane
2-Octene
3-Methyl-2-heptene
Total
a
b
(pA*s10 )
35c
133b
0b
0
0
279b
0d
0
3490
5832
34c
28b
0b
2871bc
0
1052
0
0
0
0c
0b
0
0
0b
0
0
150b
0
229
19
0
14,261
Values with a different letter (a–d) within a row are different significantly (P <0.05). n=4.
S.E.M., Standard error of the mean.
54
248
198
50
17
110
15
15
1761
1732
148
60
36
506
15
189
103
242
98
120
244
156
374
22
45
89
84
70
251
74
51
262
Y.H. Kim et al. / Meat Science 61 (2002) 257–265
TBARS showed strong correlations (r2=0.95 for turkey; r2=0.73 for pork; r2=0.78 for beef) with the
amount of total volatiles, especially in turkey.
3.3. Sensory evaluation
With aerobic packaging, irradiated beef showed the
lowest sensory preference score, and irradiated turkey
and pork showed similar preference scores (Table 7).
Panelists marked similar preference scores for both
irradiated and nonirradiated meats, except for irradiated turkey. With vacuum packaging, however, no
difference in sensory preference scores among the three
animal species was found. Packaging methods did not
affect the preference scores significantly, except for
nonirradiated pork. Although trained, most panelists
could not differentiate the irradiated meats from the
nonirradiated. Some panelists recognized irradiation
odor and characterized it as sweet, bloody, or sulfide.
Ahn, Jo et al. (2000) also reported that many of the
sensory panelists characterized irradiation odor as a
barbecued corn-like odor, but some described it as
burnt, bloody, sweet, old, sulfur, or pungent, and
showed little objection to the irradiation odor.
Table 3
Volatiles of turkey, pork, and beef with irradiation dose in vacuum packaging at Day 0a
Volatile compounds
Turkey
Pork
0 kGy
S.E.M.b
Beef
3 kGy
0 kGy
3 kGy
0 kGy
3 kGy
937b
822b
486b
733b
293b
0
57b
235b
0
5145a
17b
228
1631ab
0
0
198b
588b
0
92ab
0
499b
0b
425b
302b
0
0
0
87
0
53
119
304b
0b
0b
1892a
192b
363c
99
148
15,945
0c
0b
0b
0c
0b
182
0b
0b
0
125c
0b
102
33b
141
0
18b
214b
0
0c
0
0c
0b
0c
0b
0
0
0
0
0
100
203
109b
0b
0b
33c
198b
360c
83
192
2093
0c
0b
219b
1008a
534a
68
199a
249b
0
656bc
0b
0
3584a
74
36
220b
838b
0
126a
85
142c
0b
283bc
228b
198
0
0
32
0
35
49
2783a
0b
0b
1161b
229b
420c
49
176
13,681
0c
0b
0b
0c
0b
70
0b
0b
0
985bc
0b
817
2902a
0
0
0b
209b
0
0c
0
0c
69b
0c
118b
0
12
0
0
96
317
595
93b
66ab
82a
0c
702a
1278ab
223
653
9275
1616a
1859a
1062a
232c
0b
0
0b
859a
86
2509b
120a
0
2823a
0
0
877a
2156a
40
76b
0
687a
136a
813a
1330a
33
78
121
86
0
503
1071
312b
119a
0b
1017b
800a
1621a
234
545
23,743
4
2-Methyl-1-propene
Butane
2-Methyl propane
2-Butene
1-Butene
Acetaldehyde
Methyl cycolopropane
1-Pentene
2-Pentene
Pentane
2,3-Dimethyl propane
2-Propanone
Dimethyl sulfide
Thiourea
2-Methyl propanal
1-Hexene
Hexane
2-Hexene
Methylthioethane
Methyl cyclopentane
Benzene
3-Methyl butanal
1-Heptene
Heptane
Ethane thionic acid
Pentanal
2,4-Dimethyl hexane
1-Heptyne
2,3-Dimethyl heptane
2,3,4-Trimethyl pentane
2,3,3-Trimethyl pentane
Dimethyl disulfide
3-Methyl heptane
2,2,5-Trimethyl hexane
Toluene
1-Octene
Octane
2-Octene
3-Methyl-2-heptene
Total
a
b
(pA*s10 )
0c
0b
0b
10c
0b
6
0b
26b
0
5446a
0b
262
379b
24
0
0b
292b
0
0c
27
83c
34b
21c
219b
0
0
0
0
0
95
207
43b
0b
0b
132c
405ab
813bc
179
397
9100
Values with a different letter (a–c) within a row are different significantly (P <0.05). n=4.
S.E.M., Standard error of the mean.
158
230
118
87
74
81
26
88
20
534
13
332
626
43
10
76
255
9
13
36
51
20
79
199
48
6
30
25
24
115
309
460
26
14
120
117
198
56
114
263
Y.H. Kim et al. / Meat Science 61 (2002) 257–265
Table 4
Volatiles of turkey, pork, and beef with irradiation dose in vacuum packaging at Day 7a
Volatile compounds
2-Methyl-1-propene
Butane
2-Methyl propane
2-Butene
1-Butene
Acetaldehyde
1-Pentene
2-Pentene
Pentane
2-Propanone
Dimethyl sulfide
Thiourea
1-Hexene
Hexane
2-Hexene
Methylthioethane
2,3-Butandione
2-Butanone
Benzene
Tetramethyl butane
1-Heptene
Heptane
Ethanethionic acid
Pentanal
2,4-Dimethyl hexane
1-Heptyne
2,3,4-Trimethyl pentane
2,3,3-Trimethyl pentane
Dimethyl disulfide
3-Methyl heptane
2,2,5-Trimethyl hexane
Toluene
1-Octene
Octane
3-Methyl-2-heptene
Total
a
b
Turkey
Pork
S.E.M.b
Beef
0 kGy
3 kGy
0 kGy
3 kGy
0 kGy
3 kGy
(pA*s104)
0c
135c
0c
0
0b
0
0c
0b
2999b
633
584b
4442a
0c
206bc
0b
0b
0
0
0c
41b
0d
140bc
0
0
45c
0b
182
296
0
29
0
132c
462
1143bc
635ab
12,104
884b
898b
563ab
0
182a
0
205b
0b
5041a
1373
2351ab
0b
204b
671b
0b
156a
0
67
513a
20b
353b
291b
0
0
0c
132a
105
175
578
0
0
1628a
100
1098bc
0c
17,588
0c
0c
0c
0
0b
0
0c
0b
273c
0
154b
966b
0c
85c
0b
0b
0
0
0c
0b
0d
0c
0
0
0c
0b
95
136
0
0
0
0c
373
706c
445abc
3233
836b
591b
372b
0
201a
126
226b
0b
708c
1030
6386a
101b
265b
620b
0b
189a
0
193
161b
0b
217c
185bc
494
0
0c
77ab
107
200
3097
0
0
1171b
66
804bc
321abc
18,744
8c
154c
0c
0
0b
0
0c
0b
2363bc
0
2272ab
1623ab
0c
285bc
0b
0b
0
0
0c
116a
0d
159bc
0
15
137b
0b
348
634
0
108
39
0c
682
1922b
769a
11,634
1411a
2316a
704a
58
170a
0
1036a
299a
5579a
3901
2548ab
92b
1020a
2664a
124a
14b
245
1032
485a
168a
1033a
2361a
240
70
247a
49ab
537
1139
818
189
278
317c
237
3578a
176bc
35,135
63
112
69
23
15
51
46
12
584
1088
1045
952
47
116
7
20
58
257
20
22
37
62
122
29
23
24
102
252
695
65
114
89
142
281
131
Values with a different letter (a–d) within a row are different significantly (P <0.05). n=4.
S.E.M., Standard error of the mean.
Table 5
TBARS values of turkey, pork, and beef with irradiation dose, packaging, and storage daya,b
Storage
Turkey
0 kGy
Pork
3 kGy
S.E.M.c
Beef
0 kGy
3 kGy
0 kGy
3 kGy
(mg MDA/kg meat)
Aerobic packaging
0 Day
7 Day
S.E.M.
0.30bcy
0.68bcx
0.08
0.31bcy
0.82bcx
0.08
0.13c
0.14c
0.02
0.18c
0.29c
0.03
0.56ab
1.65b
0.39
0.83ay
2.84ax
0.26
0.09
0.26
Vacuum packaging
0 Day
7 Day
S.E.M.
0.27b
0.29b
0.02
0.32b
0.31b
0.01
0.12b
0.17b
0.01
0.19b
0.18b
0.01
0.53a
0.65ab
0.15
0.60a
0.83a
0.16
0.05
0.11
a
b
c
Values with a different letter (a–c) within a row are different significantly (P <0.05). n=4.
Values with a different letter (x,y) within a column with same packaging are different significantly (P< 0.05). n=4.
S.E.M., Standard error of the mean.
264
Y.H. Kim et al. / Meat Science 61 (2002) 257–265
Table 6
Total lipids and composition of typical fatty acids of turkey, pork and beefa
Composition
Turkey
Total lipids
(% of meat)
1.20b
Fatty acids
(% of total lipids)
Myristic acid (C14:0)
Palmitoleic acid (C16:1)
Palmitic acid (C16:0)
Linoleic acid (C18:2)
Oleic acid (C18:1)
Linolenic acid (C18:3)
Stearic acid (C18:0)
Arachidonic acid (C20:4)
0.0b
2.2
24.0b
23.5a
26.1b
2.0
13.7b
8.5a
a
b
Pork
1.97b
0.7b
3.2
23.8b
12.5b
38.3a
4.8
12.4b
4.2ab
Beef
8.42a
3.3a
4.1
29.6a
4.4c
41.0a
3.4
13.1a
1.0b
S.E.M.b
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.9
2.0
2.7
0.8
1.3
1.5
Values with a different letter (a–c) within a row are different significantly (P <0.05). n=4.
S.E.M., Standard error of the mean.
Table 7
Sensory preference score of turkey, pork, and beef with different
packaginga,b
Packaging Turkey
Pork
0 kGy 3 kGy 0 kGy
Aerobic
Vacuum
S.E.M.
4.5a
3.8
0.3
3.1bc
3.0
0.4
S.E.M.c
Beef
3 kGy 0 kGy 3 kGy
3.7abx 3.7ab
2.9y
2.8
0.2
0.4
2.1c
2.7
0.2
2.6bc
3.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
Sensory score is as follows: 1, dislike most; 2, dislike; 3, dislike moderately; 4, normal; 5, like moderately; 6, like; and 7, like most.
a
Values with a different letter (a–c) within a row are different significantly (P <0.05). n=16.
b
Values with a different letter (x,y) within a column are different
significantly (P <0.05). n=16.
c
S.E.M., Standard error of the mean.
4. Conclusions
The amounts of total volatiles and TBARS values were
closely related, especially for turkey. Irradiated meats
produced new volatiles not found in nonirradiated
meats, and the amount of total volatiles and TBARS
were higher than those of nonirradiated regardless of
animal species. However, there were no distinct differences in preference score between irradiated and nonirradiated meats from all three animal species. This
indicates that the effects of irradiation on the lipid oxidation, odor, and sensory characteristics of meat from different animal species are at least similar, if not the same.
References
Ahn, D. U., Jo, C., Du, M., Olson, D. G., & Nam, K. C. (2000).
Quality characteristics of pork patties irradiated and stored in different packaging and storage conditions. Meat Science, 56, 203–209.
Ahn, D. U., Jo, C., & Olson, D. G. (1999). Volatile profiles of raw and
cooked turkey thigh as affected by purge temperature and holding
time before purge. Journal of Food Science, 64, 230–233.
Ahn, D. U., Jo, C., & Olson, D. G. (2000). Analysis of volatile components and the sensory characteristics of irradiate raw pork. Meat
Science, 54, 209–215.
Ahn, D. U., Lutz, S., & Sim, J. S. (1996). Effect of dietary a-linolenic
acids on the fatty acid composition, storage stability and sensory
characteristics of pork loin. Meat Science, 43, 291–299.
Ahn, D. U., Nam, K. C., Du, M., & Jo, C. (2001). The effect of irradiation and packaging conditions on the formation of cholesterol
and lipid oxidation products in meats during storage. Meat Science,
57(4), 413–418.
Ahn, D. U., Olson, D. G., Jo, C., Chen, X., Wu, C., & Lee, J. I.
(1998). Effect of muscle type, packaging, and irradiation on lipid
oxidation, volatile production and color in raw pork patties. Meat
Science, 49, 37–39.
Ahn, D. U., Olson, D. G., Jo, C., Love, J., & Jin, S. K. (1999). Volatile
production and lipid oxidation in irradiated cooked sausage as related to packaging and storage. Journal of Food Science, 64, 226–229.
Ahn, D. U., Olson, D. G., Lee, J. I., Jo, C., Wu, C., & Chen, X.
(1998). Packaging and irradiation effects on lipid oxidation and
volatiles in pork patties. Journal of Food Science, 63, 5–19.
Ahn, D. U., Sell, J. L., Jeffery, M., Jo, C., Chen, X., Wu, C., & Lee, J. I.
(1997). Dietary vitamin E affects lipid oxidation and total volatiles of
irradiated raw turkey meat. Journal of Food Science, 62, 954–958.
Ahn, D. U., Wolfe, F. H., & Sim, J. S. (1993). The effect of free and
bound iron on lipid peroxidation in turkey meat. Poultry Science,
72, 209–215.
Akamittath, J. G., Brekke, C. J., & Schanus, E. G. (1991). Lipid oxidation and color stability in restructured meat systems during frozen storage. Journal of Food Science, 55(6), 1513–1517.
Ang, C. Y. W., & Lyon, B. G. (1990). Evaluation of warmed-over
flavor during chill storage of cooked broiler breast, thigh and skin
by chemical, instrumental and sensory methods. Journal of Food
Science, 55, 644–648, 673.
Angelini, P., Merritt Jr., C., Mendelshon, J. M., & King, F. J. (1975).
Effects of irradiation on volatile constituents of stored haddok flesh.
Journal of Food Science, 40, 197–199.
Buege, J. A., & Aust, S. D. (1978). Microsomal lipid peroxidation.
Methods in Enzymology, 52, 302–310.
Folch, J., Less, M., & Sloane-Stanley, G. M. (1957). A simple method
for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues.
Journal of Biological Chemistry, 226, 97–509.
Y.H. Kim et al. / Meat Science 61 (2002) 257–265
Hampson, J. W., Fox, J. B. Jr., Lakritz, L., & Thayer, D. W. (1996).
Effect of low dose gamma radiation on lipids in five different meats.
Meat Science, 42, 271–276.
Hashim, I. B., Resurreccion, A. V. A., & MacWatters, K. H. (1995).
Disruptive sensory analysis of irradiated frozen or refrigerated
chicken. Journal of Food Science, 60, 664–666.
Jo, C., & Ahn, D. U. (1999). Fat reduces volatiles production in oil
emulsion system analyzed by purge-and-trap dynamic headspace/
gas chromatography. Journal of Food Science, 64, 641–643.
Lefebvre, N., Thibault, C., Charbonneau, R., & Piette, J. P. (1994).
Improvement of shelf-life and wholesomeness of ground beef by
irradiation. 2. Chemical analysis and sensory evaluation. Meat
Science, 36, 371–380.
Patterson, R. L. S., & Stevenson, M. H. (1995). Irradiation-induced
265
off-odor in chicken and its possible control. British Poultry Science,
36, 425–441.
Salih, A. M., Smith, D. M., Price, J. R., & Dawson, L. E. (1987).
Modified extraction 2-thiobarbituric acid method for measuring
lipid oxidation in poultry. Poultry Science, 66, 1483–1488.
SAS Institute, Inc. (1989). SAS users guide. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.
Shahidi, F., & Pegg, R. B. (1994). Hexanal as an indicator of meat
flavor deterioration. Journal of Food Lipids, 1, 177–186.
Tichivangana, J. Z., & Morrissey, P. A. (1986). Metmyoglobin and
inorganic metals as prooxidants in raw and cooked muscle systems.
Meat Science, 15(2), 107–116.
Wick, E. L., Murray, E., Mizutani, J., & Koshika, M. (1967). Irradiation flavor and volatile components of beef. Advanced Chemistry
Series, 65, 12–25.