Sensory and hedonic impact of the replacement of synthetic antioxidant for pink pepper residue extract in chicken burger

  • Erick Saldaña
  • Juan Serrano-León
  • Miriam Mabel Selani
  • Carmen J. Contreras-CastilloEmail author
Original Article


This study aimed to evaluate the sensory and hedonic perceptions of chicken burger manufactured with pink pepper residue extract (PPE) added to the meat and to the chitosan film. Five samples were manufactured: CT: control, without antioxidant; DP and FP: addition of PPE to the meat batter and to the film, respectively; C1 and C2: commercial brands of chicken burgers. Consumers characterized the samples using the overall liking test and Check-all-that-apply questions. The samples showed a medium–high level of acceptance and no significant differences were found between them. DP was the farthest sample from the ideal and FP showed positive results, since its characteristics were like the commercial samples. The direct extract application may lead to a reduction in the liking of chicken burgers, demonstrating that the technology of active films is a viable alternative to the use of natural antioxidant extracts in meat products.


CATA questions Pink pepper Active packaging Meat product 



Erick Saldaña received his Ph.D. Scholarship from the “Consejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Tecnológica—CONCYTEC” from Perú (CIENCIACTIVA programme, contract agreement No. 104-2016-FONDECYT). Juan S. Serrano-León thanks the “Secretaría Nacional de Educación Superior, Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación” (SENESCYT), Ecuador, for the scholarship and financial support.


  1. Ares G, Jaeger SR (2013) Check-all-that-apply questions: influence of attribute order on sensory product characterization. Food Qual Prefer 28:141–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ares G, Jaeger SR (2015a) Check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions with consumers in practice: experimental considerations and impact on outcome. In: Delarue J, Lawlor JB, Rogeaux M (eds) Rapid sensory profiling techniques and related methods: applications in new product development and consumer research. Woodhead Publishing, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Ares G, Jaeger SR (2015b) Examination of sensory product characterization bias when check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions are used concurrently with hedonic assessments. Food Qual Prefer 40:199–208. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ares G, Varela P (2017) Trained vs. consumer panels for analytical testing: fueling a long lasting debate in the field. Food Qual Prefer 61:79–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ares G, Tárrega A, Izquierdo L, Jaeger SR (2014) Investigation of the number of consumers necessary to obtain stable sample and descriptor configurations from check-all-that-apply (CATA) questions. Food Qual Prefer 31:135–141. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bergamaschi KB (2016) Extração, determinação da composição fenólica e avaliação do potencial de desativação de espécies reativas de oxigênio e da atividade anti-inflamatória de resíduos de amendoim, pimenta rosa e pimenta do reino (Ph.D. thesis). Universidade de São Paulo, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  7. Brazil (2001) Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA). Pub. L. No. Resolução- RDC no 12, de 2 de janeiro de 2001. Dispõe sobre os padrões microbiológicos para alimentosGoogle Scholar
  8. Estévez M (2017) What’s new in meat oxidation? In: Purslow PP (ed) New aspects of meat quality. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp 91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gower JC (1966) Some distance properties of latent root and vector methods used in multivariate analysis. Biometrika 53:325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jaeger SR, Ares G (2014) Lack of evidence that concurrent sensory product characterisation using CATA questions bias hedonic scores. Food Qual Prefer 35:1–5. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Karre L, Lopez K, Getty KJK (2013) Natural antioxidants in meat and poultry products. Meat Sci 94:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lorenzo JM, Pateiro M, Domínguez R et al (2017) Berries extracts as natural antioxidants in meat products: a review. Food Res Int. Google Scholar
  13. Mielby LH, Andersen BV, Jensen S et al (2016) Changes in sensory characteristics and their relation with consumers’ liking, wanting and sensory satisfaction: using dietary fibre and lime flavour in Stevia rebaudiana sweetened fruit beverages. Food Res Int 82:14–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morell P, Piqueras-Fiszman B, Hernando I, Fiszman S (2015) How is an ideal satiating yogurt described? A case study with added-protein yogurts. Food Res Int 78:141–147. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nuñez De Gonzalez MT, Boleman RM, Miller RK et al (2008) Antioxidant properties of dried plum ingredients in raw and precooked pork sausage. J Food Sci. Google Scholar
  16. O’Sullivan MG (2017) Sensory Affective (hedonic) testing. In: O’Sullivan MG (ed) A handbook for sensory and consumer-driven new product development. Woodhead Publishing, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Packer VG, Melo PS, Bergamaschi KB et al (2015) Chemical characterization, antioxidant activity and application of beetroot and guava residue extracts on the preservation of cooked chicken meat. J Food Sci Technol 52:7409–7416. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Resconi VC, Keenan DF, Barahona M et al (2016) Rice starch and fructo-oligosaccharides as substitutes for phosphate and dextrose in whole muscle cooked hams: sensory analysis and consumer preferences. LWT Food Sci Technol 66:284–292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rodríguez-Carpena J-G, Morcuende D, Andrade M-J et al (2011) Avocado (Persea americana Mill.) phenolics, in vitro antioxidant and antimicrobial activities, and inhibition of lipid and protein oxidation in porcine patties. J Agric Food Chem 59:5625–5635. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rogers L (2017) Discrimination testing in sensory science a practical handbook. Woodhead Publishing, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Saldaña E, Behrens JH, Serrano JS et al (2015) Microstructure, texture profile and descriptive analysis of texture for traditional and light mortadella. Food Struct. Google Scholar
  22. Saldaña E, de Oliveira Garcia A, Selani MM et al (2018a) A sensometric approach to the development of mortadella with healthier fats. Meat Sci 137:176–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Saldaña E, Rios-Mera J, Arteaga H et al (2018b) How does starch affect the sensory characteristics of mazamorra morada?. Int J Gastron Food Sci, A study with a dessert widely consumed by Peruvians. Google Scholar
  24. Saldaña E, Saldarriaga L, Sanchez JC et al (2018c) Descriptive analysis of bacon smoked with Brazilian woods from reforestation: methodological aspects, statistical analysis, and study of sensory characteristics. Meat Sci 140:44–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Selani MM, Contreras-Castillo CJ, Shirahigue LD et al (2011) Wine industry residues extracts as natural antioxidants in raw and cooked chicken meat during frozen storage. Meat Sci. Google Scholar
  26. Selani MM, Shirado GAN, Margiotta GB et al (2016) Effects of pineapple byproduct and canola oil as fat replacers on physicochemical and sensory qualities of low-fat beef burger. Meat Sci 112:69–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Serrano-León JS, Bergamaschi KB, Yoshida CMP et al (2018) Chitosan active films containing agro-industrial residue extracts for shelf life extension of chicken restructured product. Food Res Int 108:93–100. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Siripatrawan U, Noipha S (2012) Active film from chitosan incorporating green tea extract for shelf life extension of pork sausages. Food Hydrocoll. Google Scholar
  29. Utrera M, Morcuende D, Ganhão R, Estévez M (2015) Role of phenolics extracting from Rosa canina L. on meat protein oxidation during frozen storage and beef patties processing. Food Bioprocess Technol 8:854–864. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Valentin D, Chollet S, Lelie M (2012) Quick and dirty but still pretty good: a review of new descriptive methods in food science. Int J Food Sci Technol 47:1563–1578. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Varela P, Ares G (2018) Recent advances in consumer science. In: Ares G, Varela P (eds) Methods in consumer research, vol 1. Woodhead Publishing, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Villanueva NDM, Petenate AJ, Da Silva MAAP (2005) Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Qual Prefer 16:691–703. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Worch T (2018) Ideal profile method. In: 14th Sensometrics: going further. Montevideo, Uruguay, 9–12 april, 2018Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Escola Superior de Agricultura “Luiz de Queiroz”, Departamento de Agroindústria, Alimentos e NutriçãoUniversidade de São PauloPiracicabaBrazil
  2. 2.Centro de Ciências da NaturezaUniversidade Federal de São Carlos, Campus Lagoa do SinoBuriBrazil
  3. 3.Facultad de Ciencias QuímicasUniversidad Central del EcuadorQuitoEcuador
  4. 4.Facultad de Ingeniería AgroindustrialUniversidad Nacional de Moquegua (UNAM)MoqueguaPerú

Personalised recommendations