Using Principle Component Analysis for Evaluation of the Camel Burger quality

مجله پژوهشهای علوم و صنایع غذایی ایران

Article 6, Volume 14, Issue 6 - Serial Number 54, January and February 2019, Pages 139-146   

Document Type: Research Article-en

DOI: 10.22067/ifstrj.v0i0.65293

Authors

Fatemeh Heydari; Mohammad Javad Varidi^* ; Mehdi Varidi; Mohebbat Mohebbi

Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.

Abstract

In the present study the cow meat was replaced with camel meat (0, 25, 50, 75 and 100%) in burger formulation. Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed to understand quality variables differences and similarities of thirty-five sample burgers. Score plot, represents Principal component analysis of datasets derived from evaluated variables of thirty-five samples (samples contain of 0, 25, 50, 75 and 100% camel meat). Overall, six principal component was obtained which 65.8% of the total variance was concentrated into three first PCs. Cooked L*, cooked b* shrinkage, springiness, flavor, texture, juiciness, color and overall acceptability were the variables which separated by the first PC. The PC2 is characterized by the rest of instrumental texture parameters and the third by cooked a* and fat. The evaluation of  score plot shows burgers contain higher amount of  camel meat (50, 75 and 100%)  had the higher moisture and fat content after cooking, higher scores in flavor, texture, juiciness and overall acceptability.

Keywords

Camel meat burger; Principal component analysis; Overall acceptability

References

1. AMSA. (1995). Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. Chicago: American Meat Science Association in cooperation with National Livestock and Meat Board.
2. Ahmed, P. O., Miller, M. F., Lyon, C. E., Vaughters, H. M., & Reagan, J. O. (1990). Physical and sensory characteristics of low fat fresh pork sausage processed with various levels of added water. Journal of Food Science 55, 625–628.
3. Berry, B., Joseph, R., & Stanfield, M. (1996). Use of electrical stimulation, hot processing and carrageenan for processing low-fat ground beef. Journal of Meat Science, 42:1, 111–123.
4. Bower, J. A. (2013). Statistical Methods for Food Science (Second Edition).
5. Detherage, F.G. (1963). The effect of water and inorganic salts on tendermess. Proc. 18th Ann. Reciprocal meat confrence. USA. 45.
6. Elsharif, M. A. E. (2008). Effect of Added Camel Meat on Physicochemical Properties of Fresh Beef Sausages. Meat Science Thesis. University of Khartoum.
7. Gregg, L. L., Claus, J. R., Hackney, C. R., & Marriott, N. G. (1993). Low-fat, high added water bologna from massaged, minced batter. Journal of Food Science 58, 259-264.
8. Johnson, H.V. (1946). Water content changes of poultry held in frozen storage as related to patability. Ph.D. thesis lowa state college, USA.
9. Naes, T., Brockhoff, P.B., Tomic, O. (2010).Statistics for Sensory and Consumer Science.
10. Serdaroglu, M., & SapancıO zsumer, M. (2003). Effects of soy protein, whey powder and wheat gluten on quality characteristics of cooked beef sausages formulated with 5%, 10% and 20% fat. Electronic Journal of Polish Agricultural University, Series: journal of Food Science and Technology 6:2.
11. Serdaroglu, M.,YıldızTurp, G., & Abrodımov, K. (2005). Quality of low-fat meatballs containing Legume flours as extenders. Journal of Meat Science 70, 99–105.
12. Troutt, E., Hunt, M., Johnson, D., Claus, J., Kastener, C., Kropf, D., & Stroda, S. (1992). Characteristics of low-fat ground beef containing texture-modifying ingredients. Journal of Food Science 57:1, 19–23.
13. Valin, C. Ressell, C. H. and Smith. S. B.1 (992). Tissue development in relation to meat quality in Neimag soresen, A and tribe. P.t(ed- in chief). World Animal Science.