Food Analytical Methods

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 652–657 | Cite as

An Innovative Detection of Mechanically Separated Meat in Meat Products

  • Matej Pospiech
  • Tomas Zikmund
  • Zdeňka JavůrkováEmail author
  • Jozef Kaiser
  • Bohuslava Tremlová


In meat products, mechanically separated meat (MSM) is often used as a raw material. Usage of MSM has economic benefit for meat industries and height utilization of animal raw material. In opposite is consumer concern for height quality of meat products. In order to detect MSM, invasive/destructive methods are mainly used and their nature is largely based on demonstrating the accompanying substances or structures. This paper describes a new non-invasive method to detect bone fragments as accompanying structures of MSM and it is based on X-ray micro computed tomography (μCT). μCT method was tested on a cooked meat product containing 50% of MSM. Bone tissue detected based on the higher density via μCT was confirmed by the image analysis and histochemical method using alizarin red staining which is used for detection of bone tissue. The μCT method was verified as a suitable non-destructive method to analyze bone fragments in meat products with the possibility to determine their shape parameters.


Micro computed tomography Bone fragment Meat products Histochemistry Mechanically separated meat 


Funding information

This work was supported by the project of CEITEC 2020 (LQ1601) with financial support from the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic under the National Sustainability Programme II and CEITEC Nano Research Infrastructure (MEYS CR, 2016-2019).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Matej Pospiech declares that he has no conflict of interest. Tomas Zikmund declares that he has no conflict of interest. Zdeňka Javůrková declares that she has no conflict of interest. Jazef Kaser declares that he has no conflict of interest. Bohuslava Tremlová declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Studies

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animal performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.


  1. Branscheid W, Troeger K (2012) Mechanical recovery of meat and residual meat in poultry. Fleischwirtschaft 92(1):98–105Google Scholar
  2. Donis-González IR, Guyer DE, Pease A, Barthel F (2014) Internal characterisation of fresh agricultural products using traditional and ultrafast electron beam X-ray computed tomography imaging. Biosyst Eng 117:104–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) (2013) Scientific opinion on the public health risks related to mechanically separated meat (MSM) derived from poultry and swine. European Food Safety Authority, p 11Google Scholar
  4. European Union. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the council no. 1169/2011 of 25 October 2011, on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC) No 1925/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Commission Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directive 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 1999/10/EC, Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, Commission Directives 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004. In: Official Journal of the European Union L No. 304, 22/11/2011, p 18–63Google Scholar
  5. Field RA (2000) Ash and calcium as measures of bone in meat and bone mixtures. Meat Sci 55(3):255–264. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA (2003a) Mechanically separated (species). Office of the Federal Register, MD, Title 9, Section 319. 5:295–296Google Scholar
  7. Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA (2003b) Limitations with respect to use of Mechanically Separated (Species). Office of the Federal Register, MD, Title 9, Section 319.6, p 297. Accessed 20 July 2018
  8. Frisullo P, Laverse J, Marino R, Del Nobile MA (2009) X-ray computed tomography to study processed meat microstructure. J Food Eng 94(3):283–289. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frisullo P, Marino R, Laverse J, Albenzio M, Del Nobile MA (2010) Assessment of intramuscular fat level and distribution in beef muscles using X-ray microcomputed tomography. Meat Sci 85(2):250–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Haff RP, Toyofuku N (2008) X-ray detection of defects and contaminants in the food industry. Sens & Instrumen Food Qual 2(4):262–273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Josefowitz VP, Hildebrandt G, Islam R, Mare HJ (2007) Characteristics of the quality of mechanically separated turkey meat. Fleischwirtschaft 87(11):122–126Google Scholar
  12. Ketteritzsch K (2007) Berichte fur Schwerpunktaufgaben, Nachwies von Separatorenfleisch in Wursten und Fleischerzeugnissen mitteis Ca-Bestimmung und histologischer Undersuchng. Landesamt fur Verbraucherschutz Sachsen-Anhalt, p 1–2Google Scholar
  13. Léonard A, Blacher S, Nimmol C, Devahastin S (2008) Effect of far-infrared radiation assisted drying on microstructure of banana slices: An illustrative use of X-ray microtomography in microstructural evaluation of a food product. Journal of Food Engineering, 85(1):154–162.
  14. Lim KS, Barigou M (2004) X-ray micro-computed tomography of cellular food products. Food Res Int 37(10):1001–1012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pickering K, Evans CL, Hargin KD, Stewart CA (1995) Investigation of methods to detect mechanically recovered meat in meat products—III: microscopy. Meat Sci 40(3):319–326. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Santos-Garcés E, Muñoz I, Gou P, Garcia-Gil N, Fulladosa E (2014) Including estimated intramuscular fat content from computed tomography images improves prediction accuracy of dry-cured ham composition. Meat Sci 96(2):943–947. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schoeman L, Williams P, du Plessis A, Manley M (2016) X-ray micro-computed tomography (μCT) for non-destructive characterisation of food microstructure. Trends Food Sci Technol 47:10–24. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tao Y, Ibarra JG (2000) Thickness-compensated X-ray imaging detection of bone fragments in deboned poultry—model analysis. Trans ASAE 43(2):453–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Toldrá F, Aristoy MC, Mora L, Reig M (2012) Innovations in value-addition of edible meat by-products. Meat Sci 92(3):290–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tremlová B, Sarha P, Pospiech M, Buchtová H, Randulová Z (2006) Histological analysis of different kinds of mechanically recovered meat. J Food Saf Food Qual 57(3):85Google Scholar
  21. Zarkadas CG, Yu Z, Zarkadas GC, Minero-Amador A (1995) Assessment of the protein quality of beefstock bone isolates for use as an ingredient in meat and poultry products. J Agric Food Chem 43(1):77–83. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zatočilová A, Zikmund T, Kaiser J, Paloušek D, Kutný D (2016) Measurement of the porosity of additive-manufactured Al-Cu alloy using X-ray computed tomography. Solid State Phenom 258(1):448–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matej Pospiech
    • 1
  • Tomas Zikmund
    • 2
  • Zdeňka Javůrková
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jozef Kaiser
    • 2
  • Bohuslava Tremlová
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical Sciences BrnoBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.CEITEC—Central European Institute of TechnologyBrno University of TechnologyBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations