European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 244, Issue 5, pp 827–839 | Cite as

Effect of tomato paste addition and high pressure processing to preserve pork burgers

  • Gonzalo Amaro-Blanco
  • Tania Machado
  • Luis Pinto-Andrade
  • Felipe Proaño
  • Raquel Manzano
  • Jonathan Delgado-Adámez
  • Rosario Ramírez
Original Paper


The effect of the addition of different levels of tomato paste for the manufacture of pork burgers after high pressure processing (HPP) was studied after the treatment and during the refrigerated storage. HPP was effective for the inactivation of microorganisms, and the incorporation of tomato paste into the burger retarded the growth of microorganisms. Textural parameters and colour of burgers were affected by HPP although changes were not perceived after cooking. On the other hand, the inclusion of tomato paste allowed the incorporation of lycopene to meat products and it also increased the lipid oxidation stability of burgers during storage. Therefore, the addition of tomato paste to burgers retarded microbial growth and increased the oxidative stability, which combined with the application of HPP would be an interesting alternative to extend the shelf-life of burgers and incorporate bioactive compounds in burgers such as lycopene.


Tomato High pressure processing Burger Shelf-life Lycopene Oxidation stability Texture Colour 



G. Amaro-Blanco (TE14083) and R. Ramírez (TA13025) thank Extremadura Government for their Grant (DOE 07/05/2015 and DOE 22/07/2014). We thank O. Fariña and D. Valcárcel their technical assistance.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Compliance with ethics requirements

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.


  1. 1.
    Oey I et al (2008) Effect of high-pressure processing on colour, texture and flavour of fruit- and vegetable-based food products: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 19(6):320–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Oey I et al (2008) Does high pressure processing influence nutritional aspects of plant based food systems? Trends Food Sci Technol 19(6):300–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Madhavi DL, Salunkhe DK (1998) Tomato. Food science and technology. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 171–202Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Canene-Adams K et al (2005) Symposium: relative bioactivity of functional foods and related dietary supplements. Component interactions for efficacy of functional foods. J Nutr 2:1236–1238Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewinsohn E et al (2005) Not just colors—carotenoid degradation as a link between pigmentation and aroma in tomato and watermelon fruit. Trends Food Sci Technol 16(9):407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Van Het Hof KH et al (2000) Dietary factors that affect the bioavailability of carotenoids. J Nutr 130(3):503–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson EJ (2000) The role of lycopene in health and disease. Nutr Clin Care 3(1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Martinez-Huelamo M et al (2015) The tomato sauce making process affects the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of tomato phenolics: a pharmacokinetic study. Food Chem 173:864–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karabagias I, Badeka A, Kontominas MG (2011) Shelf life extension of lamb meat using thyme or oregano essential oils and modified atmosphere packaging. Meat Sci 88(1):109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Viuda-Martos M et al (2014) Tomato and tomato byproducts. Human health benefits of lycopene and its application to meat products: a review. Critical Rev Food Sci Nutr 54(8):1032–1049CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Deda MS, Bloukas JG, Fista GA (2007) Effect of tomato paste and nitrite level on processing and quality characteristics of frankfurters. Meat Sci 76(3):501–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Østerlie M, Lerfall J (2005) Lycopene from tomato products added minced meat: effect on storage quality and colour. Food Res Int 38(8–9):925–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cava R et al (2012) Assessment of different dietary fibers (tomato fiber, beet root fiber, and inulin) for the manufacture of chopped cooked chicken products. J Food Sci 77(4):C346–C352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alves AB et al (2012) Antioxidant protection of high-pressure processed minced chicken meat by industrial tomato products. Food Bioprod Process 90(3):499–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sorensen G, Jorgensen SS (1996) A critical examination of some experimental variables in the 2-thiobarbituric acid (TBA) test for lipid oxidation in meat products. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch 202(3):205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oliver CN et al (1987) Age-related changes in oxidized proteins. J Biol Chem 262:5488–5491Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tavares CA, Rodriguez-Amaya DB (1994) Carotenoid composition of Brazilian tomatoes and tomatoes products. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft & Technologie 27:219–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dewanto V et al (2002) Thermal processing enhances the nutritional Value of tomatoes by increasing total antioxidant activity thermal processing enhances the nutritional value of tomatoes by increasing total. J Agric Food Chem 50:3010–3014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Candogan K (2002) The effect of tomato paste on some quality characteristics of beef patties during refrigerated storage. Eur Food Res Technol 215(4):305–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Garcia ML, Calvo MM, Selgas MD (2009) Beef hamburgers enriched in lycopene using dry tomato peel as an ingredient. Meat Sci 83(1):45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bak KH et al (2012) High pressure effect on the color of minced cured restructured ham at different levels of drying, pH, and NaCl. Meat Sci 90(3):690–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Carlez A, Veciana-Nogues T, Cheftel J-C (1995) Changes in colour and myoglobin of minced beef meat due to high pressure processing. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-Technologie 28(5):528–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chien S-Y et al (2017) Modeling the inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and uropathogenic E. coli in ground beef by high pressure processing and citral. Food Control 73:672–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garriga M et al (2004) Microbial inactivation after high-pressure processing at 600 MPa in commercial meat products over its shelf life. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 5(4):451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ruiz-Capillas C, Carballo J, Jiménez-Colmenero F (2007) Consequences of high-pressure processing of vacuum-packaged frankfurters on the formation of polyamines: effect of chilled storage. Food Chem 104(1):202–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cardenas FC, Giannuzzi L, Zaritzky NE (2008) Mathematical modelling of microbial growth in ground beef from Argentina. Effect of lactic acid addition, temperature and packaging film. Meat Sci 79(3):509–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ercolini D et al (2006) Changes in the spoilage-related microbiota of beef during refrigerated storage under different packaging conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(7):4663–4671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hygreeva D, Pandey MC (2016) Novel approaches in improving the quality and safety aspects of processed meat products through high pressure processing technology—a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 54:175–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bajovic B, Bolumar T, Heinz V (2012) Quality considerations with high pressure processing of fresh and value added meat products. Meat Sci 92(3):280–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Negi PS (2012) Plant extracts for the control of bacterial growth: efficacy, stability and safety issues for food application. Int J Food Microbiol 156(1):7–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Garriga M, Aymerich T (2009) Advanced decontamination technologies: high hydrostatic pressure on meat products. Safety of meat and processed meat 183–208Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Jofre A et al (2010) Inactivation and recovery of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica and Staphylococcus aureus after high hydrostatic pressure treatments up to 900 MPa. Int Microbiol 13(3):105–112Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Shigehisa T et al. (1991) Effects of high hydrostatic pressure on characteristics of pork slurries and inactivation of microorganisms associated with meat and meat products. International Journal of Food 12(207–215)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Eyiler E, Oztan A (2011) Production of frankfurters with tomato powder as a natural additive. LWT Food Sci Technol 44(1):307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Falowo AB, Fayemi PO, Muchenje V (2014) Natural antioxidants against lipid–protein oxidative deterioration in meat and meat products: a review. Food Res Int 64:171–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mariutti LRB et al (2007) Effect of sage and garlic on lipid oxidation in high-pressure processed chicken meat. Eur Food Res Technol 227(2):337–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Sun XD, Holley RA (2010) High hydrostatic pressure effects on the texture of meat and meat products. J Food Sci 75(1):R17–R23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Jiménez Colmenero F (2002) Muscle protein gelation by combined use of high pressure/temperature. Trends Food Sci Technol 13(1):22–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gonzalo Amaro-Blanco
    • 1
  • Tania Machado
    • 2
  • Luis Pinto-Andrade
    • 2
  • Felipe Proaño
    • 3
  • Raquel Manzano
    • 1
  • Jonathan Delgado-Adámez
    • 1
  • Rosario Ramírez
    • 1
  1. 1.Technological Agri-Food Institute (INTAEX), Centro de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas de Extremadura (CICYTEX)BadajozSpain
  2. 2.Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Escola Superior Agrária, Quinta da Senhora de MérculesCastelo BrancoPortugal
  3. 3.Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher StudiesMonterreyMexico

Personalised recommendations