Advertisement

Napping combined with ultra-flash profile (UFP) methodology for sensory assessment of cod and pork subjected to different cooking methods and conditions

  • Alberto González-Mohíno
  • Teresa Antequera
  • Trinidad Pérez-Palacios
  • Sonia VentanasEmail author
Original Paper
  • 43 Downloads

Abstract

Napping combined with ultra-flash profile (UFP) is a rapid descriptive sensory method which allows discriminating between the samples. Several researches have used napping-UFP as an alternative to other conventional techniques due to the reduction in cost and time. The objective of this work was to study the applicability of napping-UFP to evaluate the influence of cooking methods and conditions on sensory characteristics of pork loin and cod (Gadus morhua). Moreover, quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) was carried out, and comparison between these techniques was presented and discussed. Pork loin samples were oven-cooked at 150 and 180 °C for 45, 60 and 75 min; and confited during 120, 180 and 240 min. Cod samples were oven-cooked at 150 and 180 °C during 10, 15 and 20 min and boiled for 5, 10 and 15 min. Compared to QDA, napping-UFP provided additional information related to the acceptability of samples since participants spontaneously described the similarities and dissimilarities between cod and pork samples. Comparison of napping and QDA revealed that both techniques allowed obtaining a good discrimination among tested samples particularly in relation to the temperature effect, resulting in acceptable Escoufier’s coefficient values between both techniques.

Keywords

Napping-ultra-flash profile (UFP) Quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) Pork loin Cod Cooking 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Alberto González-Mohino Jiménez thanks the “Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad de Empleo” for the “Ayuda de Empleo Juvenil” (PEJ2014-A-33492), and the “Junta de Extremadura, Consejería de Economía e Infraestructuras” for funding the TECAL Research group from Extremadura University (REF: GR15113).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    Hunt MC, Sørhelm O, Slinde E (1999) Color and heat denaturation of myoglobin forms in ground beef. J Food Sci 64:847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roldan M, Antequera T, Armenteros M, Ruiz J (2014) Effect of different temperature-time combinations on lipid and protein oxidation of sous-vide cooked lamb loins. Food Chem 149:129–136.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.10.079 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Skipnes D, Van der Plancken I, Van Loey A, Hendrickx ME (2008) Kinetics of heat denaturation of proteins from farmed Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua). J Food Eng 85:51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.06.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Juárez ME, Carlin SC, Rebollo F et al (2016) Sensory evaluation of cooked pork meat (M. bícepsfemoris) fed with and without ractopamine hydrochloride associated to age but not gender of the non-trained panelist. J Anim Plant Sci 26:40Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sveinsdóttir K, Martinsdóttir E, Hyldig G, Sigurgísladóttir S (2010) Sensory characteristics of different cod products. J Sens Stud 25:294–314.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2009.00259.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stone H, Sidel J, Oliver S et al (1974) Sensory evaluation by quantitative descriptive analysis. Food Technol 28:24–34Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Varela P, Ares G (2012) Sensory profiling, the blurred line between sensory and consumer science. A review of novel methods for product characterization. Food Res Int 48:893–908.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.06.037 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Desmond EM, Kenny TA (2005) Effect of pelvic suspension and cooking method on the processing and sensory properties of hams prepared from two pork muscles. Meat Sci 69:425–431.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.10.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prestat C, Jensen J, Robbins K et al (2002) Physical and sensory characteristics of precooked, reheated pork chops with enhancement solutions. J Muscle Foods.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4573.2002.tb00319.x Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Åsli M, Mørkøre T (2012) Brines added sodium bicarbonate improve liquid retention and sensory attributes of lightly salted Atlantic cod. LWT Food Sci Technol 46:196–202.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Esaiassen M, Østli J, Elvevoll EO et al (2004) Brining of cod fillets: influence on sensory properties and consumers liking. Food Qual Prefer 15:421–428.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2003.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Risvik E, McEwan JA, Colwill JS et al (1994) Projective mapping: A tool for sensory analysis and consumer research. Food Qual Prefer 5:263–269.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0950-3293(94)90051-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pagès J (2003) Recueil direct de distances sensorielles: application à l’évaluation de dix vins blancs du Val-de-Loire. Sci Aliments 23:679–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sieffermann JM (2000) Le profil flash : un outil rapide et innovant d’évaluation sensorielle descriptive. AGORAL 2000—XIIèmes rencontres «L’innovation l’idée au succès », MontpellierGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lorido L, Estévez M, Ventanas S (2018) Fast and dynamic descriptive techniques (flash profile, time-intensity and temporal dominance of sensations) for sensory characterization of dry-cured loins. Meat Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.028 Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perrin L, Symoneaux R, Maître I et al (2007) Comparison of conventional profiling by a trained tasting panel and free profiling by wine professionals. Am J Enol Vitic 58:508Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perrin L, Symoneaux R, Maitre I et al (2008) Comparison of three sensory napping (R) procedure: case of methods for use with the ten wines from Loire valley. Food Qual Prefer 19:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.06.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dehlholm C, Brockhoff PB, Meinert L et al (2012) Rapid descriptive sensory methods—comparison of free multiple sorting, partial napping, napping, flash profiling and conventional profiling. Food Qual Prefer 26:267–277.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.02.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pickup W, Bremer P, Peng M (2018) Comparing conventional descriptive analysis and Napping®-UFP against physiochemical measurements: a case study using apples. J Sci Food Agric 98:1476–1484.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8616 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oliver P, Cicerale S, Pang E, Keast R (2018) Comparison of quantitative descriptive analysis to the napping methodology with and without product training. J Sens Stud 33:e12331.  https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayhew E, Schmidt S, Lee S (2016) Napping-ultra flash profile as a tool for category identification and subsequent model system formulation of caramel corn products. J Food Sci 81:1782–1790.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13338 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lee PY, Kebede BT, Lusk K et al (2017) Investigating consumers’ perception of apple juice as affected by novel and conventional processing technologies. Int J Food Sci Technol 52:2564–2571.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grossi A, Søltoft-Jensen J, Knudsen JC et al (2012) Reduction of salt in pork sausages by the addition of carrot fibre or potato starch and high pressure treatment. Meat Sci 92:481–489.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.05.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lorido L, Estévez M, Ventanas S (2014) A novel approach to assess temporal sensory perception of muscle foods: application of a time-intensity technique to diverse Iberian meat products. Meat Sci 96:385–393.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.035 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cartier R, Rytz A, Lecomte A et al (2006) Sorting procedure as an alternative to quantitative descriptive analysis to obtain a product sensory map. Food Qual Prefer 17:562–571.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.03.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Louw L, Oelofse S, Naes T et al (2015) Optimisation of the partial napping approach for the successful capturing of mouthfeel differentiation between brandy products. Food Qual Prefer 41:245–253.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.12.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moeller SJ, Miller RK, Edwards KK et al (2010) Consumer perceptions of pork eating quality as affected by pork quality attributes and end-point cooked temperature. Meat Sci 84:14–22.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.06.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oh H-S, Kim H-Y, Yang H-S et al (2008) Comparison of meat quality characteristics between crossbreeds. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour 28:171–180.  https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2008.28.2.171 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yan Y, Deng L, He L et al (2014) Determination of maturity value of fully cooked pork loin in cuisine. Trans Chin Soc Agric Eng 30:284–292.  https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1002-6819.2014.12.036 Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Norman J, Berg E, Heymann H, Lorenzen C (2003) Pork loin color relative to sensory and instrumental tenderness and consumer acceptance. Meat Sci 65:927–933.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00310-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Martins SIFS, Jongen WMF, Van Boekel MAJS (2000) A review of Maillard reaction in food and implications to kinetic modelling. Trends Food Sci Technol 11:364–373.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(01)00022-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Karamucki T, Rybarczyk A, Jakubowska M, Sulerzycka A (2017) A comparison of two methods of determining colour change in the assessment of the quality of pork. Acta Sci Polon Technolog Aliment 16:321–329.  https://doi.org/10.17306/J.AFS.2017.0499 Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bejerholm C, Aaslyng MD (2004) The influence of cooking technique and core temperature on results of a sensory analysis of pork—depending on the raw meat quality. Food Qual Prefer 15:19–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(03)00018-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Jeantet R, Croguennec T, Schuck P, Brulé G, Beltrán Gracia JA (2010) Ciencia de los alimentos: Bioquímica-microbiología-procesos-productos. Editorial Acribia, EspañaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yang Z, Lu R, Song H et al (2017) Effect of different cooking methods on the formation of aroma components and heterocyclic amines in pork loin. J Food Process Preserv 41:e12981.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.12981 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Delgado-Andrade C, Fogliano V (2018) Dietary advanced glycosylation end-products (dAGEs) and melanoidins formed through the maillard reaction: physiological consequences of their intake. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 9:271–291.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-030117-012441 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Fernández-Segovia I, Escriche I, Gómez-Sintes M et al (2006) Influence of different preservation treatments on the volatile fraction of desalted cod. Food Chem 98:473–482.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Skipnes D, Østby ML, Hendrickx ME (2007) A method for characterising cook loss and water holding capacity in heat treated cod (Gadus morhua) muscle. J Food Eng.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.08.015 Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Chabanet C, Tarrega A, Septier C et al (2013) Fat and salt contents affect the in-mouth temporal sodium release and saltiness perception of chicken sausages. Meat Sci.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.09.023 Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Clariana M, Guerrero L, Sárraga C et al (2011) Influence of high pressure application on the nutritional, sensory and microbiological characteristics of sliced skin vacuum packed dry-cured ham. Effects along the storage period. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2010.12.008 Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Christensen M, Purslow PP, Larsen LM (2000) The effect of cooking temperature on mechanical properties of whole meat, single muscle fibres and perimysial connective tissue. Meat Sci 55:301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lepetit J (2008) Collagen contribution to meat toughness: theoretical aspects. Meat Sci 80:960–967.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.06.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Aaslyng MD, Bejerholm C, Ertbjerg P et al (2003) Cooking loss and juiciness of pork in relation to raw meat quality and cooking procedure. Food Qual Prefer 14:277–288.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(02)00086-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shahidi F, Samaranayaka AGP, Pegg RB (2014) Cooking of meat|Maillard reaction and browning. Encyclopedia of meat sciences. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 391–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hodge JE (1953) Dehydrated foods, chemistry of browning reactions in model systems. J Agric Food Chem 1:928–943.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jf60015a004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Uran H, Gokoglu N (2014) Effects of cooking methods and temperatures on nutritional and quality characteristics of anchovy (Engraulis encrasicholus). J Food Sci Technol 51:722–728.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0551-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Stephen NM, Shakila JR, Jeyasekaran G, Sukumar D (2010) Effect of different types of heat processing on chemical changes in tuna. J Food Sci Technol 47:174–181.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-010-0024-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Matsuda H, Llave Y, Fukuoka M, Sakai N (2013) Color changes in fish during grilling—influences of heat transfer and heating medium on browning color. J Food Eng 116:130–137.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.11.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Faye P, Brémaud D, Durand Daubin M et al (2004) Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: an alternative to descriptive mappings. Food Qual Prefer.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.009 Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tang C, Heymann H (2002) Multidimensional sorting, similarity scaling and free-choice profiling of grape jellies. J Sens Stud.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459x.2002.tb00361.x Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cruz AG, Cadena RS, Castro WF et al (2013) Consumer perception of probiotic yogurt: performance of check all that apply (CATA), projective mapping, sorting and intensity scale. Food Res Int.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.07.056 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alberto González-Mohíno
    • 1
  • Teresa Antequera
    • 1
  • Trinidad Pérez-Palacios
    • 1
  • Sonia Ventanas
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Meat and Meat Products (IPROCAR), TECAL Research GroupUniversity of ExtremaduraCáceresSpain

Personalised recommendations