Impact of various decontaminants on the physico-chemical properties of poultry meat

Introduction

Over the past few decades, chicken meat has become more and more popular throughout the world. The nation produced 10.25 million tonnes of meat in total. About 48.96% of India's total meat production comes from poultry (BAHS, 2024). The primary factors driving up demand for poultry meat were its affordable prices, high nutritional content, and absence of religious taboos. Zoonotic infections like Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. coli, and Listeria can contaminate poultry carcasses during the slaughter process, resulting in human illness epidemics. Decontamination is the technique of removing, inactivating, or killing pathogens to make the environment clean and safe (Fraise et al., 2008; Godbey, 2014; MC Donnell, 2017) [10, 11, 17] . Physical methods, such as the application of hot water and steam. Antimicrobial agents, such as acetic acid, citric acid, hydrogen peroxide and chlorine have also been tested with various levels of success. As organic acids like acetic or lactic acid have good bactericidal activity and are generally regarded as safe (GRAS) additives, they have been used to sanitize carcasses Dickson et al. (1997) [9] . Surface decontamination of carcass with a novel decontaminant plays a pivotal role in improving meat quality and extending the shelf life. Recently, a combination of peroxyacetic acid and hydrogen peroxide has been tried as a potent decontaminant in the meat sector. Due to its excellent efficacy, nearly non-existent hazardous residues, easy application (in water solution), and reasonably low cost, peracetic acid is becoming a more commonly used antibacterial in a variety of industries relating to food and drinks. Peracetic acid combinations are permitted in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved as a sanitizer on food contact surfaces (21 CFR 178.1010) and meat, poultry and seafood (21 CFR 173.370), (Warburton Richard, 2014).

Materials and Methods

Forty-eight broiler birds, aged 6 weeks and weighing between 1.25 to 1.5 kg, were sourced from the local market in Hyderabad and were slaughtered using a humane method (the birds were shackled and sent through an electrical water bath stunner set at 100 mA current and 50 volts for 5 seconds). The amount of current was monitored by an ammeter in the experimental abattoir of ICAR-National meat research institute (NMRI), Hyderabad. The carcass was split into two halves duly removing the skin. Then the visible fat and connective tissue residues were removed using a sterile, sharp stainless-steel knife. Four carcasses were subjected to treatment at a time without any dipping (Control), dipping in water (T 1 ), chlorine 100ppm (T 2 ) and peroxyacetic acid 50ppm (T 3 ) concentrations for about five minutes and drained off excess water. The breast meat was packaged in LDPE bags under vacuum and stored at 4±1°C. Analysis was done for chilled samples on 0, 3, 6 and 9 days of storage. For super chilled samples, the super chilling cabinet was maintained at -1.5±-2.5 °C and the samples were analyzed on 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30 days. Four trials were conducted; samples were analysed for pH, Water Holding Capacity (WHC), Thiobarbituric Acid Value (TBA), Tyrosine parameters and data were analyzed.

Statistical Analysis

The data obtained from the experiment will be analyzed statistically as per the method outlined by (Snedecor and Cochran, 1995) method and the data generated for different meat quality parameters were compiled and analyzed using SPSS (version 20.0 for Windows; SPSS, Chicago. 111, U.S.A).

Results and Discussion pH

The pH value of the chicken meat in control samples increased significantly from day 0 (5.61±0.77) to day 9 (6.02±0.41), which was in agreement with Shivaji et al., (2022) [24] , who reported an increase in pH during the refrigerated storage of chicken meat. Similar findings were observed by Rathod et al., (2022) [20] , who reported that pH values increase significantly from day 0 to day 5 and from day 10 to day 20 during storage. Under refrigeration storage of poultry meat, the pH value has been consistently observed to increase significantly, primarily due to the accumulation of metabolites, such as amines and ammonia, produced by microbial growth, particularly psychrotrophic bacteria (Shin et al. (2011) [23] . This effect is supported by a reported positive correlation between pH and total aerobic bacteria growth on fresh chicken carcass during storage at 4±1 °C Aksu et al. (2006) [2] . In the present study, treatment groups T 1 and T 3 experienced a significant (p<0.05) increase in pH values from day 0 to day 9, which aligns with findings from Bertram et al. (2019) [5] , who reported increased pH in water and Peroxyacetic acid (PAA)-treated turkey breast fillets stored under refrigeration (4±1 °C) from day 1 to day 12. In the T 2 group, values increased significantly (p<0.05) from day 3 (5.58±0.08) to day 6 (5.58±0.08). Similar findings were reported by Shivaji et al., (2022) [24] , who observed an increase in the pH value of chlorine dioxide (100ppm) treated poultry carcass from day 0 to day 7 under refrigeration storage (4±1 °C). Furthermore, samples from treatments T 2 and T 3 consistently exhibited significantly (p<0.05) lower pH values compared to the control (C) and T 1 samples on day 6 (5.82±0.10, 5.72±0.19, 5.97±0.31, 5.96±0.34) and day 9 (5.84±0.09, 5.80±0.09, 6.02±0.41, 6.02±0.18), respectively. These results are consistent with the experiment by Bertram et al., (2019) [5] , which examined the effect of water and PAA spray treatments on the microbial and sensory quality of turkey breast fillet stored under refrigeration.

Water Holding Capacity (WHC)

The Water Holding Capacity values in chicken meat samples during the chiller storage were depicted in the Figure 2. The values decreased significantly in control samples of chicken meat from day 0 (66.32±1.16) to day 9 (56.31±4.78), and the results were in accordance with studies of Kaale et al. (2014) [14] , where, WHC of salmon breast fillet values decreased from day 1 to day 7 during chilled storage. According to Kondaiah et al. (1986) [16] , the reduction in water holding capacity (WHC) during storage can be linked to the speed at which post-mortem pH falls, elevated ionic strength, protein denaturation, and increased water movement into the extracellular space. In treatment T 1 , the WHC values decreased significantly (p<0.01) from the 0 th day to the 9 th day. In T 2 , T 3 WHC values did not decrease significantly, even up to the 9 th day. The research work on the effect of contaminants on WHC could not be traced in the available literature.

THIO Barbituric Acid Value (TBA)

The TBA values of chicken meat samples during the chiller storage were depicted in the Figure 3. A significant increase in the TBA values in both control and T 1 , T 2 samples was noticed from day 6 to day 9. Results regarding control were in agreement with Kaewthong et al. (2019) [15] study, which showed significant increase in TBA values of chicken breast meat sample from day 0 to day 8 during refrigeration storage. Vacuum packaged meat samples showed reduced TBA values as lipid oxidation slowed down in cold storage (Jouki and Khazaei, 2012) [13] . Results regarding water dipped broiler carcass were in agreement with Sonale et al. (2014) [26] study was a significant increase in TBA values of quail breast meat sample was observed from day 0 to day 15 during chilled storage. Results regarding 100ppm chlorine dioxide dipped broiler carcass were in accordance with Shivaji et al. (2022) [24] study, was TBARS values increased significantly from day 0 to day 7 during refrigeration storage. The TBARS results observed in (Tims and Watts, 1958) study were far less than the threshold level of (1-2 mg /malonaldehyde) in meat, and at this level, the sensory panel members were unable to detect the flavour. In treatment group T 3 also a significant increase was also observed from day 0 (0.011±0.02) to day 9 (0.040±0.05). However, the TBA values were within the limit of the threshold value. The research work on the effect of contaminants on TBA value could not be traced in the available literature. Amongst treatments the TBA values in T 3 and T 2 were significantly lower than control and T 1 samples on day 6 to day 9, respectively, during storage.

Tyrosine Value

The Tyrosine values of chicken meat samples during the chiller storage were presented in Figure 4. The results depicted that in control samples, a significant increase was observed from day 0 (1.73±0.04) to day 9 (7.06±0.08). In treatment groups T 1 , T 2 and T 3 also a significant increase was noticed from day 0 (1.60±0.06, 1.18±0.03, 1.14±0.03) to day 9 (7.02±0.09, 5.07±0.06, 4.69±0.12) respectively. Results regarding water-dipped carcass were in agreement with Sonale et.al. (2014) [26] , who reported that breast meat samples from quail also showed an increase in tyrosine values from day 0 to day 15 during frozen storage. Increase in the tyrosine values was attributed to autolytic changes in meat and bacterial action during the storage (Agnihotri, 1998; Dainty et al., 1975; Strange et al., 1977) [1,7,27] . Amongst the treatment groups, on day 0 onwards, the tyrosine values were significantly lower in T 3 (1.14±0.03) than in control (1.73±0.04) and T 1 (1.60±0.06) groups during storage. This indicated that PAA effectively controlled the proteolysis in the T 3 samples; however, the research work on the effect of contaminants on tyrosine values could not be traced in the available literature.

Physico-chemical properties in super chilled storage pH

The pH values of chicken meat samples during superchilled storage are depicted in Figure 5. Control samples exhibited a significant increase in pH from day 0 (5.61±0.77) to day 30 (6.26±0.05), consistent with findings by Kaewthong et al., (2019) [15] , who reported increased pH in chicken breast meat stored at -1.5 to -2.5 °C over 28 days. The increase in pH can be attributed to different factors over time. Initially (days 0-10), the rise in pH could result from the accumulation of inorganic phosphoric acid following the depletion of muscle adenosine triphosphate, as reported by Scherer et al., (2006) [21] in grass carp. Subsequent increases in pH (days 15-20) are likely due to the production of ammonia, amines, and other substances resulting from protein denaturation caused by microbial activity and endogenous enzymes, a mechanism described by Muela et al., (2010) [18] in lamb. Generally, the increase in pH during storage is associated with enzymatic protein breakdown and microbial activity. In the treatment groups, T 1 and T 2 samples showed a significant increase in pH from day 0 to day 30. T 3 samples maintained stable pH values up to day 20, but then increased significantly between day 20 and day 30. Across the treatments, T 3 and T 2 samples consistently maintained significantly lower pH values compared to the control (C) and T 1 samples from day 15 to day 30. Notably, on days 20 and 30, the differences in pH values among all treatments were statistically significant.

Water Holding Capacity (WHC)

The Water Holding Capacity values for chicken meat samples stored in the chiller are depicted in Figure 6. The WHC levels of chicken meat in control samples significantly decreased (p<0.01) from the 10 th day (64.35±1.09) to the 30th day (51.74±1.73). Our control values differed from those reported by Kaale et al., (2013), who found a substantial decrease (p<0.01) in WHC of Atlantic salmon fillets from the first day to 21 st days of ultra-cold storage. The current study's findings were consistent with those of Kondaiah et al., (1986) [16] , who claimed that the decrease in WHC during storage could be ascribed to the rate of postmortem pH fall, elevated ionic strength and protein denaturation, and increased transport of water into extracellular spaces. WHC readings in treatment group T 1 fell significantly from day 0 to day 5 and from day 20 to day 30.

The WHC levels in the T 2 sample fell considerably from day 0 to day 5 and from day 15 to day 30 (65.08±1.49) and 62.08±0.86, respectively. There were no significant differences in the T 3 group during storage. Amongst the treatments on the 25 th day, WHC values were significantly higher in T 3 (64.25±1.11), T 2 (62.86±1.16) than in control (67.62±1.79) and T 1 (57.83±1.48). There is a significant reduction in WHC of super-chilled meat, indicating a severe effect of denaturation of muscle proteins at -2±0.5°C reported by (Dunn and Rustard, 2007) in superchilled cod fillets.

Thiobarbituric Acid Value (TBA)

The TBA values for chicken meat samples during storage in the chiller are depicted in Figure 7. There was a significant increase in the TBA values for both the control and T 1 , T 2 and T 3 samples from the 25 th day to the 30 th day. Our findings for the control values align with those of Chen et al., (2020), who found that the TBARS values of vacuum-packed beef cuts significantly decreased (p<0.05) from day 0 to day 20 during storage at super-chilled temperatures (-1.5 to -2.5 °C). In the treatments, the TBA values for T 3 and T 2 were significantly lower than those of the control and T 1 samples between the 25 th and 30 th days of storage. The findings of this study concerning TBA values align with Sen (1996), who noted that TBA values increase during the entire storage duration, which could be attributed to the oxygen permeability of the packaging material. Additionally, Strange et al., (1977) [27] suggested that lipid oxidation in the meat could be a contributing factor. The TBA values experienced a substantial rise (p<0.05) over the storage period, which may be attributed to the onset of lipid oxidation as reported by Benjakul and Bauer (2001) [4] . They also indicated that the formation of ice crystals leads to damage in muscle tissue, resulting in the release of pro-oxidants that promote lipid oxidation.

TYROSINE Value

The Tyrosine values of chicken meat samples stored in the chiller are depicted in Figure 8. The tyrosine values for both control and T 1 samples exhibited a significant increase from day 0 (1.73±0.04, 1.60±0.06) to day 30 (5.27±0.24, 5.20±0.24), respectively. These findings regarding the control values were consistent with the results of Rathod et al. (2022) [20] , who indicated that the tyrosine values in vacuum-packed broiler meat decreased significantly from day 0 to day 20 during super-chilled storage at temperatures ranging from -1.5 to -2.5 °C. In treatment group T 2 the tyrosine values increased significantly from day 10 (3.20±0.06) to day 20 (4.07±0.05) and day 30 (5.20±0.04), respectively. Amongst the treatment groups, on the 20 th day and 30 th day the tyrosine values were significantly lower in T 3 than control and T 1 , T 2 groups during storage. These findings were in agreement with (Agnihotri., 1998; Dainty et al., 1975; Strange et al., 1977) [1,7,27] who reported that an increase in tyrosine values during the entire storage period could be due to autolytic changes in meat and bacterial action. According to Muela et al. (2010) [18] , the rise in tyrosine levels during storage could be attributed to protein degradation caused by bacteria associated with meat spoilage by intrinsic enzymes.

Conclusion

The current study found that broiler meat treated with peroxyacetic acid retained a low pH and freshness, thus preserving its quality and extending its shelf life to 9 days in chiller storage and 30 days in super chiller storage. In comparison, with other decontaminants like chlorine, extended shelf life up to 6 days in chiller storage and 25 days in super chiller storage, while water resulted in 6 days in chiller and 20 days in super chiller storage. Control samples had an even shorter shelf life, lasting only 3 days in the chiller and 15 days in the super chiller storage.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors express their gratitude to the Director of NMRI, Hyderabad for the financial support to conduct this research.

References

1. Agnihotri MK. A comparative study on shelf life and microbial spoilage of refrigerated buffalo meat [Ph.D. thesis]. Izatnagar: Indian Veterinary Research Institute; 1988.
2. Aksu MI, Karaoglu M, Esenbuga N, Kaya M, Macit M. Effect of meat piece, packaging and storage on pH, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and microbial counts in broilers fed diets supplemented with ram horn hydrolysate. Food Sci Technol Int. 2006;12(2):133-143. doi:10.1177/1082013206064192
3. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying (DAHD). Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics 2024. Government of India; 2024.
4. Benjakul S, Bauer F. Biochemical and physicochemical changes in catfish (Silurus glanis Linne) muscle as influenced by different freeze-thaw cycles. Food Chem. 2001;72(2):207-17. DOI: 10.1016/S0308-8146(00)00222-3
5. Bertram R, Kehrenberg C, Seinige D, Krischek C. Peracetic acid reduces Campylobacter spp. numbers and total viable counts on broiler breast muscle and drumstick skins during modified atmosphere package storage. Poult Sci. 2019;98(10):5064-5073. DOI: 10.3382/ps/pez266
6. Chen X, Zhu L, Liang R, Mao Y, Hopkins DL, Li K, et al. Shelf-life and bacterial community dynamics of vacuum packaged beef during long-term super-chilled storage sourced from two Chinese abattoirs. Food Res Int. 2020;130:108937. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108937
7. Dainty RH, Shaw BG, Boer DKA, Scheps ES. Protein changes caused by bacterial growth on beef. J Appl Bacteriol. 1975;39(1):73-81. DOI: 10.1111/j.13652672.1975.tb00547.x
8. Demirok E, Veluz G, Stuyvenberg WV, Castañeda MP, Byrd A, Alvarado CZ. Quality and safety of broiler meat in various chilling systems. Poult Sci. 2013;92(4):111726. doi:10.3382/ps.2012-02493
9. Dickson JS, Anderson ME. Microbiological decontamination of food animal carcasses by washing and sanitizing systems: A review. J Food Prot. 1992;55(2):133-40. doi:10.4315/0362-028X-55.2.133
10. Fraise AP, Maillard JY, Sattar S. Principles and practice of disinfection, preservation and sterilization. 4 th Ed. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
11. Godbey WT. Microbial killing. In: An introduction to biotechnology. 2014. p.143-64.
12. Duun AS, Rustad T. Quality changes during superchilled storage of cod (Gadus morhua) fillets. Food Chem. 2007;105(3):1067-75. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.05.020
13. Jouki M, Khazaei N. Color and oxidation changes in camel meat during storage. Int J Pharma Bio Sci. 2012;3(1).
14. Kaale LD, Eikevik TM, Rustad T, Nordtvedt TS. Changes in water holding capacity and drip loss of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) muscle during superchilled storage. LWT Food Sci Technol. 2014;55(2):528-535. DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2013.10.021
15. Kaewthong P, Pomponio L, Carrascal JR, Knøchel S, Wattanachant S, Karlsson AH. Changes in the quality of chicken breast meat due to superchilling and temperature fluctuations during storage. J Poult Sci. 2019;56(4):308317. DOI: 10.2141/jpsa.0180106
16. Kondaiah N, Anjaneyulu ASR, Kesava Rao V, Sharma N. Effect of different handling conditions on quality of minced buffalo meat. Indian J Anim Sci. 1986;56:677679. 17. McDonnell GE. Antisepsis, disinfection, and sterilization: types, action, and resistance. 2 nd Ed. Washington (DC): ASM Press; 2017.
17. Muela E, Sañudo C, Campo MM, Medel I, Beltrán JA. Effect of freezing method and frozen storage duration on instrumental quality of lamb throughout display. Meat Sci. 2010;84(4):662-669. DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.10.028
18. Qiao M, Fletcher DL, Northcutt JK, Smith DP. The relationship between raw broiler breast meat color and composition. Poult Sci. 2002;81(3):422-427. DOI: 10.1093/ps/81.3.422
19. Rathod K, Ambadkar R, Naveena B. Superchilling of poultry meat for improved storage stability. Indian J Anim Sci. 2022;92:477-83. DOI: 10.56093/ijans.v92i4.124172
20. Scherer R, Augusti P, Bochi V, Steffens C, Fries L, Daniel A, et al. Chemical and microbiological quality of grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) slaughtered by different methods. Food Chem. 2006;99:136-42. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.06.048
21. Sen AR. Quality changes in buffalo meat due to freezethaw cycles during storage [Ph.D. Thesis]. Izatnagar: Indian Veterinary Research Institute; 1996.
22. Shin J, Harte B, Selke S, Lee YS. Use of a controlled chlorine dioxide (ClO₂) release system with modified atmosphere packaging to control pathogen growth. J Food Qual. 2011;34:220-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.17454557.2011.00381.x
23. Shivaji A. Effect of chlorine dioxide as a decontaminant on physico-chemical and microbiological parameters of chicken meat under refrigeration storage; 2022.
24. Snedecor GW, Cochran WG. Statistical methods. 8 th Ed. New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing; 1995.
25. Sonale OV, Chappalwar AM, Devangare AA. Effect of frozen storage on physico-chemical quality and histology of quail breast meat. Indian J Vet Anim Sci Res. 2014;43(6):426-435.
26. Strange ED, Benedict RC, Smith JL, Swift CE. Evaluation of rapid tests for monitoring alterations in meat quality during storage. J Food Prot. 1977;40(12):843-847. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X40.12.843
27. Tims MJ, Watts BM. Protection of cooked meats with phosphate. Food Technol. 1958;12:240.
28. Micciche AC, Rubinelli PM, Ricke SC. Source of water and potential sanitizers and biological antimicrobials for alternative poultry processing food safety applications. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2018;2:82. DOI: 10.3389/fsufs.2018.00082
29. Wardlaw FB, McCaskill LH, Acton JC. Effect of postmortem muscle changes on poultry meat loaf properties. J Food Sci. 1973;38:421-423.
30. Witte VC, Krause GF, Bailey ME. A new extraction method for determining 2-thiobarbituric acid values of pork and beef during storage. J Food Sci. 1970;35(5):582-585. DOI: 10.1111/j.13652621.1970.tb04815.x