Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractEffects of carbon dioxide and ozone treatments on the volatile composition and sensory quality of dry-cured ham    Next AbstractIntroduction of a Biphenyl Moiety for a Solvent-Responsive Aryl Gold(I) Isocyanide Complex with Mechanical Reactivation »

Meat Sci


Title:Effects of phosphine and methyl bromide fumigation on the volatile flavor profile and sensory quality of dry cured ham
Author(s):Sekhon RK; Schilling MW; Phillips TW; Aikins MJ; Hasan MM; Corzo A; Mikel WB;
Address:"Department of Food Science, Nutrition, and Health Promotion, Box 9805, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, United States"
Journal Title:Meat Sci
Year:2010
Volume:20100524
Issue:2
Page Number:411 - 417
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.05.026
ISSN/ISBN:1873-4138 (Electronic) 0309-1740 (Linking)
Abstract:"In separate experiments, randomized complete block designs with three replications were utilized to evaluate the effects of phosphine (PH(3)) (0, 200 and 1000ppm for 48h) and methyl bromide (MB) (0, 4, 8, 16, and 32mg/L for 48h) fumigation concentration on the volatile flavor compound concentrations in dry cured ham. Minimal differences existed (P>0.05) in the presence and concentration of aroma active compounds in both PH(3) and MB fumigated hams but sulfur and oxidation compounds were more prevalent (P<0.05) in the fumigated treatments when compared to the control. As phosphine fumigation concentration increased, the residual concentration of phosphine also increased in the hams (P<0.05), but all samples contained levels that are lower than the legal limit of phosphine allowed in stored food products (0.01ppm) in the United States. A triangle test (n=56) indicated that consumers could not discriminate (P>0.75) between the control hams and those that were fumigated with PH(3). Minimal aroma/flavor differences existed among MB, PH3 and control hams, and dry cured ham that was fumigated with PH(3) was safe for consumption based on residual phosphine concentrations in the meat tissue"
Keywords:"Animals Consumer Behavior Food Technology Fumigation/adverse effects/legislation & jurisprudence/*methods Humans *Hydrocarbons, Brominated Meat/*standards *Odorants Oxidation-Reduction *Phosphines/analysis Sulfur Compounds Swine *Taste United States Volat;"
Notes:"MedlineSekhon, R K Schilling, M W Phillips, T W Aikins, M J Hasan, M M Corzo, A Mikel, W B eng Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't England 2010/06/18 Meat Sci. 2010 Oct; 86(2):411-7. doi: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.05.026. Epub 2010 May 24"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 22-11-2024