Next Article in Journal
Stability of Purple Corn Anthocyanin Encapsulated by Maltodextrin, and Its Combinations with Gum Arabic and Whey Protein Isolate
Next Article in Special Issue
Chemical and Bioactive Screening of Green Polyphenol-Rich Extracts from Chestnut By-Products: An Approach to Guide the Sustainable Production of High-Added Value Ingredients
Previous Article in Journal
Aroma Perception of Limonene, Linalool and α-Terpineol Combinations in Pinot Gris Wine
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Microwave Vacuum Freeze-Drying Power on Emulsifying and Structure Properties of Egg White Protein
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/foods12122390
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effects of Shear Stress Waves on Meat Tenderness: Ultrasonoporation

by
Raúl Alberto Reyes-Villagrana
1,*,
Jesús Madrigal-Melchor
2,
América Chávez-Martínez
3,
Juliana Juárez-Moya
3 and
Ana Luis Rentería-Monterrubio
3,*
1
IxM del CONAHCYT, Consejo Nacional de Humanidades, Ciencia y Tecnología, Ciudad de Mexico 03940, Mexico
2
Unidad Académica de Ciencia y Tecnología de la Luz y la Materia, Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, Zacatecas 98000, Mexico
3
Facultad de Zootecnia y Ecología, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua 31453, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(12), 2390; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122390
Submission received: 17 May 2023 / Revised: 9 June 2023 / Accepted: 14 June 2023 / Published: 16 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Innovative Technologies for Improving Food Quality and Safety)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Meat is an important part of the food pyramid in Mexico, to such an extent that it is included in the basic food basket. In recent years, there has been great interest in the application of so-called emerging technologies, such as high-intensity ultrasound (HIU), to modify the characteristics of meat and meat products. The advantages of the HIU in meat such as pH, increased water-holding capacity, and antimicrobial activity are well documented and conclusive. However, in terms of meat tenderization, the results are confusing and contradictory, mainly when they focus on three HIU parameters: acoustic intensity, frequency, and application time. This study explores via a texturometer the effect of HIU-generated acoustic cavitation and ultrasonoporation in beef (m. Longissimus dorsi). Loin-steak was ultrasonicated with the following parameters: time tHIU = 30 min/each side; frequency fHIU = 37 kHz; acoustic intensity IHIU = ~6, 7, 16, 28, and 90 W/cm2. The results showed that acoustic cavitation has a chaotic effect on the loin-steak surface and thickness of the rib-eye due to Bjerknes force, generating shear stress waves, and acoustic radiation transmittance via the internal structure of the meat and the modification of the myofibrils, in addition to the collateral effect in which the collagen and pH generated ultrasonoporation. This means that HIU can be beneficial for the tenderization of meat.

1. Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) has declared the conditions for maintaining a healthy diet [1]. This includes the Eatwell Plate, which describes the basic foods people need to maintain a balanced and nutritious diet [2,3]. The Eatwell Plate includes meat, which has been fundamental since the Homo erectus times for the development and growth of the population [4]. Meat consumption meant a change in human face anatomy, jawline, brain, and speech development. From then on, meat has been part of the human diet.
The concept of meat includes not only beef but veal, mutton, pork venison, squab, chicken, carabeef, chevon, and turkey, as well as meat from marine creatures. There are standards and procedures to study meat quality in addition to the implementation of various tools to meet this quality. Commonly, the consumer determines the quality traits a meat product should fulfill. However, three parameters are fundamental to deciding the final choice: color, juiciness, and tenderness [5].
The meat industry has developed and implemented quality and welfare-friendly slaughter and processing facilities, and they have pointed out where the new trends in terms of infrastructure should focus [6,7,8,9].
Research within the meat industry is mainly aimed at quality [5], predominantly meat tenderness. A variety of practices and processes to tenderize meat include diet modification in live animals [10], stimulation via electromagnetic waves [11], electric current [12], and microwaves [13], among others. Apart from the previously mentioned, there are hybrid processes, such as the generation of hydrodynamic shock waves by controlled explosions or hydrodyne [14,15,16,17].
Nowadays, the food industry has focused on green technologies [18], as well as the so-called non-thermal emerging technologies, to stimulate food, minimize damage, and improve quality [19].
Keeping the latter in mind, one of the most studied technologies regarding the quality, processing, extraction, and preservation of food has been high-intensity ultrasound (HIU) [20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33], also known as power ultrasound [34,35]. The advantages of HIU might surpass other technics due to the acoustic cavitation phenomenon, which causes the generation, growth, and collapse of air and/or vapor bubbles [36].
In meat, HIU has been used particularly to reduce microbial concentration [37], decrease temperature for meat conservation purposes [38], analyze meat quality [39], and support curing [40]. One of the most important parameters to study is tenderness, for example, toughness reduction, meat structure analyses under varying conditions [41,42,43], such as preservation [44,45,46,47] and marinade [48,49,50,51,52,53].
Nowadays, the use of HIU has not been optimized completely, and it has not reached its potential because the theory of ultrasound and the correct application of the technique have not been fully understood. The lack of understanding and the variation of acoustic intensities, frequencies, application times, media propagation, temperature, and types of ultrasonication instruments (such as ultrasonic baths and sonotrodes) reflect the ambiguous results [54,55,56].
The objective of this study was to examine the physical effect that shear stress waves have via the meat structure after ultrasonication in terms of color, pH, and shear force.

2. Background

Meat is deemed as the voluntary striated skeletal muscles of animals, such as bovines, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, and birds, among others. However, seafood products, such as fish and shellfish, can also be considered meat [57]. The major components of meat are water, protein, lipids, and minerals, and their concentration (Table 1) depends on several factors, for example, diet, species, breed, etc.
The striated muscle has a fibrillar structure, and its physical characteristics depend on the physiology of the stress function. The smallest structures formed by the fiber bundles are the myofibrils (Figure 1) [59].
The quality traits of meat are implicitly connected to the structure of the muscle and are based on six factors (Figure 2). Tenderness is one of the most important and studied.
Tenderness is an important organoleptic criterion for consumers, and it has three main influencing factors: meat maturation, connective tissue, and muscle contraction (Figure 3) [60].
Tenderness may vary due to the amount of connective tissue and muscle myofibrils. Meanwhile, aging modifies the nutritional characteristics of meat and also benefits tenderness, reaching its maximum after 10 to 15 days of chilled storage (~0 °C). The normal maturation process can be altered if the muscle rapidly changes its thermodynamic conditions after slaughter, thus affecting muscle contraction, thereby increasing hardness.
The mechanical properties of meat (toughness/tenderness) can be assessed using several methods, such as cutting (Warner-Bratzler and Kramer), compression (Minrinz and Volodkevich), tension (Staples), penetration (Armour), grinding, and fragmentation [61].
There are different methodologies to decrease toughness [62] and increase tenderness (Table 2), including non-thermal technologies [18,63], such as HIU.
Studies in Table 2 are mostly based on beef, pork, chicken, and, in a few cases, seafood. The ultrasonicated meat is either unpacked or vacuum-packed (and marinated). The tenderness is mainly determined using the Warner-Bratzler shear force technique and complemented with electron microscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance, texture profile analyses, transmission electron microscopy, etc., and the data is analyzed primarily using statistical methods. The results (Table 2) are ambiguous, as tenderness is affected positively and negatively, or it was not affected at all.
Almost all studies indicate acoustic properties, such as intensity, frequency, and application times (including times applied to each side on meat fillets), although few of them indicate the temperature. Likewise, the equipment was barely reported. For example, the most recent studies describe the use of ultrasonic baths without including further details.
HIU is a very important tool for the treatment and transformation of the physical, chemical, and biological properties of food. In [96,97], they extensively describe ultrasound and the effect of acoustic cavitation.

Ultrasonoporation

Ultrasonoporation is interpreted as a methodology that involves the effect of acoustic cavitation generated via HIU to modify the internal structure of biological materials, both animal and plant, on a cellular scale. The most common applications are given in the introduction of drugs and tissue regeneration [98]. Ultrasonoporation alters the permeability of the cell plasma membrane via shear stress waves. The Bjerknes force, which is divided by the primary force generated via the acoustic radiation of the bubble in an acoustic field and the secondary force caused by the interaction between two bubbles [99,100], is induced by acoustic cavitation, as seen in Figure 4.

3. Materials and Methods

The effects of shear stress waves via the internal structure of meat after ultrasonication were assessed on beef (m. Longissimus dorsi) 24 h post mortem. The beef came from a 24-month-old Angus × Hereford steer, grazed on native pastures until 18 months. Then, its diet was complemented for 2 months and finished under intensive conditions for 4 months. Then, the animal was slaughtered under national regulations in an abattoir. The carcass was transported to the University Meat Complex 24 h post mortem. m. Longissimus dorsi was divided into two parts: cranial and caudal. Then, 25.48 ± 1.01 mm-tick steaks with the fibers perpendicular to the cut were obtained from each part. The meat samples were measured with a vernier (Mitutoyo®). Finally, the steaks were vacuum packed and stored for 24 h at 4 °C. Subsequently, the fillets were removed from their packaging and left at room temperature (~18 °C and at an atmospheric pressure of 1018.3 hPa) until equilibrium was reached.

3.1. Ultrasonic Treatment

Ultrasonication treatments were randomly assigned to each sample. Samples were obtained from the central part of the steak (rib-eye). Prior to the ultrasonic treatments, fat and connective tissue were removed. Treatments were elaborated by applying acoustic intensities of 6, 7, 16, 28, and 90 W/cm2 with a frequency of 37 kHz, using ultrasonic baths (ELMASONIC®, Singen, Germany). One steak was used as a control sample (without ultrasonication). The ultrasonication time was 60 min (30 min/for each side of the sample), and the temperature of the ultrasonic baths was controlled via a refrigerant system (Julabo®, model: FT200, Seelbach, Germany) at 4 °C. The samples (rib-eye) were placed one by one in 0.5 L of distilled water in each ultrasonic bath, as seen in Figure 5.

3.2. Color Measurement

Meat color was determined instrumentally with a colorimeter (Konica Minolta® Camera, UK, Aperture, 8 mm, Illuminant C, D65) before and after ultrasonic treatments. L, a*, b*, and C* were recorded directly using the colorimeter [101]. Measurements were made in triplicate in each sample. Sampling points were at the vertices of a triangular geometric shape.

3.3. pH Measurement

pH was determined instrumentally with a digital pH meter (Hanna Instrument®, HI99163, Nușfalău, Romania) before and after ultrasonic treatment. The instrument element was placed to a depth of 1.5 cm in the flesh at position of the vertices of a triangular geometric figure.

3.4. Shear Force Measurement

The steaks were cooked simultaneously on both sides, using an electric grill (George Foreman®, GR2080R, China), until reaching an internal temperature of 71 °C in the center. Later these were cooled on an ice bed. Ten 8 mm diameter and 10 cm long cylinders were obtained from the rib-eye of each treatment. The cutting force was analyzed with a TA-Tx plus texturometer (Stable Micro Systems® Ltd., Surrey, UK) and cut with a Warner-Bratzler blade, with a speed of 2 mm/s. Peak force and positive areas were recorded in the system. The results were analyzed in the OriginLab® 8.0 software from OriginLab Corp.

3.5. Statistical Analysis

The design was proposed as a factorial randomized block system 2 × 5 (2 parts of the loin and 5 acoustic intensities) of ultrasonication treatment. The system involves the part of the loin and the acoustic intensities that induce the modification of meat quality variables (color, pH, and shear force). It was analyzed using a generalized linear model. Tukey’s tests were applied to evaluate significant differences among means (α = 0.05). The software SAS-STAT® 9, 2002 was used.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Color

In terms of meat, lightness (L*), is the light-reflecting capacity of the tissue surface. The results showed a statistical difference in lightness (p < 0.0001) among treatments. The control sample presented the lowest L* values. Intermediate acoustic intensities (16 and 28 W/cm2) increased lightness (see Figure 6a). It is considered that there was a superficial rupture of the structure of the samples caused by the shear stress waves. Because of the transient cavitation in cloud and filament mode colliding on the surface of the samples, where the Bjerknes force is implicated, this causes loss of water on the surface of the samples and increased lightness. Some authors [37] report similar results where the ultrasonication time is similar or longer. However, it is not clear how they controlled the parameters that influence the environment during the treatment process. Likewise, the authors do not describe how they control the increase in ultrasonication temperature. It should be noted that the increase in lightness cannot be considered beneficial for meat quality.
With regard to redness (a*), treatments were statistically different (p < 0.0001). Redness is the most important parameter for meat a*, which intrinsically implies an undesirable color and rejection by consumers [102]. Redness is directly correlated with myoglobin; low acoustic intensities (6 and 7 W/cm2) increased a* values (see Figure 6b). The acoustic intensity with 16 W/cm2 is proportional to increasing the L* and the redness of the samples.
The yellowness (b*) of the meat samples showed a statistical difference (p < 0.0001). The acoustic intensities applied within the lower and medium range via the ultrasonic baths (6, 7, and 28 W/cm2) influenced and increased the b* in the samples (see Figure 6c). This could be, associated with ultrasonoporation, as it directly affects the redox state of myoglobin in samples [103]. The increased b* of the meat has been related to brown colorations [104]. However, higher b* values can be ambiguous, so it can be a disadvantage since the brown colorations of the meat can cause consumer rejection [105].
The saturation or chroma index represents the color intensity of an object and includes the coordinates a* and b*, where it represents the magnitude of the variable (see Figure 6d). For this variable, a statistical difference was observed among treatments (p < 0.0001). For the low acoustic intensities generated via the ultrasonic baths (6 and 7 W/cm2), an increase was shown towards the a*; this is due to the fact that the shear stress waves and the second strength of Bjerknes are mild intensity in the surface erosion in meat samples. It has been mentioned that chroma values below 18 are more likely to be rejected by consumers [106]. It is well known that the red and chroma variables are the most relevant to achieve the cherry red color sought by consumers in the market [107].

4.2. pH Measurement

Ultrasonoporation causes a decrease in pH (p = 0.0134) (see Figure 7) and homogenizes its values, regardless of the acoustic intensity. The shear stress waves induce the breaking of the hydrogen bonds of the water molecules and generate an increase in radicals. However, the results are uncertain as some conclude that HIU did not influence pH [71] due to the cell structure damage that releases ions and hides acid groups [84]. Regarding the myofibrillar proteins, the higher pH has been attributed to the denaturation of the proteins and to the free production of radicals, which interact with the protein side chains [46].

4.3. Shear Force Measurement

The shear force did not present statistical differences (p = 0.0544), including those of the cranial and caudal parts (see Figure 8). Shear stress waves influence the erosion of the meat surface. It may be of interest if the working frequency of the ultrasonic baths were modulated. In other words, as the frequency rises, the number of bubbles increases, but their size decreases. Consequently, the first and second strengths of Bjerknes would present a benefit in the tenderness of the meat. However, it has not been shown how high-intensity acoustic transmittance can exist via the meat structure. Even so, there is controversy because some studies do not report a softness effect with HIU [43,71,76], while others have found effects on tenderness, depending on whether cooking was within the range between 50 °C and 70 °C [24,43,56].
Upon reviewing the results described in Table 2, as well as the results obtained in this present study, it is necessary to delve into the following points:
  • The effects of ultrasound on meat tenderness are mainly examined on bovines, poultry, and, in the least cases, seafood. Muscles in beef have different internal anatomical structures. Longissimus dorsi, for instance, has almost all its myofibrils arranged collinearly, thus facilitating the internal exploration of its structure. Other muscles are organized transversally or randomly. The organization of the muscles impacts the results of the Warner-Bratzler technique and the sensory analyses. There is a variation in the mechanical stress–strain relationship of the muscles and a great influence in those that have a greater concentration of connective tissues and bone.
  • The ultrasonic bath and the sonotrode-type ultrasonicator are the most used apparatus. The ultrasonic bath has up to three acoustic emitters attached to the bottom of the ultrasonic basket, and, due to its design, it has a baffle-type acoustic radiation behavior and, consequently, randomly generates clouds of filament-type microbubbles over the entire surface of the ultrasonication basket. The sonotrode-type ultrasonicator is placed directly in the fluid to be ultrasonicated. The emission generated by the ultrasonicator, depending on the acoustic intensity and the type of sonotrode, is an inverted pyramidal or half-sphere microbubble cloud, which subsequently leads to the generation of filament-shaped microbubble clouds. In both ultrasonication systems, the acoustic intensities and the frequency of the ultrasonicator vary.
  • HIU has the greatest application impact on the surface of the material. When applying this technique on meat foods but theoretically ignoring the basics of ultrasonication, different hypotheses or questions will be raised, such as those concerning the application of HIU on both sides of a meat cut or/and increasing the application times. As described in Table 2, most studies similarly vary on the types of muscle, packing (packed or unpacked), or processing (marinated foods). These modifications usually are conducted unaware of the acoustic and thermal properties of the system and the environment, which notably influence the experimental results.
  • Meat products can be studied as deformable materials, and their behavior might be analyzed with time-dependent models, such as Newton, Maxwell, Kelvin, Burger, and Bingham, or their combinations, stimulated via an acoustic source. Then, these results can be correlated with the results from the Warner-Bratzler technique.
  • Previous knowledge of acoustic, mechanical, and thermal properties of the ultrasonication system, as well as of the meat products, would facilitate the prediction of the results and their discussion. The characteristics of acoustic physics in HIU are more than the acoustic intensity and frequency, which describe the speed that the ultrasound pressure exerts, the number of microbubbles generated, as well as the size of them. The experimental methodology should include the control of the variables that can affect this study, for example, the space where the experiments will be carried out, since it may compromise the temperature and atmospheric pressure. Additionally, the volumetric density properties of the fluid should be determined. The vibration generated from the acoustic emitters on the basis (bottom) of the ultrasonic bath and the implosions of acoustic cavitation in a stable and transitory state cause increases in temperature via convection. This influences the variation of thermal wave diffusion that finally reaches a well-defined temperature gradient point. Other studies circulated the fluid to cool it down. However, these settings make the acoustic cavitation shift to hydrodynamic cavitation and the conditions of the experiment change. In this sense, it is important to determine the acoustic field of application, either Fresnel or Fraunhofer. In the studies described in Table 2, the position of the meat with respect to the acoustic emitter is not mentioned. This detail is relevant as the effect of the acoustic radiation on the meat can be defined.
  • Studies on vacuum-packed meat and meat products did not favor tenderness. This might be obvious, as there is no effect of acoustic cavitation via vacuum packaging. In acoustic physics, meat wrapped with a polymer resembles several interphase systems. The acoustic wave will travel through it; thus, the acoustic transmission effect is presented [108]. HIU applied to vacuum-packed meat has no effect on the internal structure of the meat, as the acoustic radiation generated by the shock waves does not pass through the interphase of the package; these are reflected. However, if the meat is packed with brine (or marinated), the acoustic waves have a propagation medium. So, in this case, the acoustic cavitation will influence the structure of the meat. However, the meat and the marinade should not be vacuum-packed, as there will be no effect of the ultrasound on the product.

5. Conclusions

HIU is an emerging tool applied to the treatment and preservation of food products that, given the phenomenology that causes acoustic cavitation, has special effects that provide benefits in food quality, such as ultrasonoporation and shear stress waves. In this study, an analysis of HIU applied to meat products was presented. The effects on bovine meat, specifically the Longissimus dorsi muscle, were studied. The color, pH, and tenderness properties of the steaks were analyzed. Various ultrasonics baths were used, with a variety of acoustic intensities and a single working frequency, and a 60 min treatment (30 min/side of each sample). The results indicate that the treatment with low acoustic intensities of 6 and 7 W/cm2 had a favorable effect on the meat color parameter, increasing L*, the saturation index, and a*. Meanwhile, the pH remained quasi-stable at all applied acoustic intensities. There were no favorable results in tenderness. It should be recommended that if intended to continue exploring the effect of HIU on meat products, several variables must be controlled, such as the amplitude and frequency of the acoustic wave.

Author Contributions

The authors contributed significantly to the research. A.L.R.-M. and R.A.R.-V. were the principal investigators involved with the project writing and design. A.C.-M., J.M.-M. and J.J.-M. contributed to the writing of the final manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study can be made available by the corresponding author upon request.

Acknowledgments

R.A.R.-V. acknowledges the support provided by IxM-CONAHCYT and LUMAT-UAZ by academic stay.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Available online: https://www.who.int/health-topics/nutrition (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  2. Secretaria de Salud (SS). Available online: https://www.gob.mx/salud/articulos/el-plato-del-bien-comer-una-guia-para-una-buena-alimentacion (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  3. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS). Available online: http://www.imss.gob.mx/salud-en-linea/platobiencomer (accessed on 30 April 2023).
  4. Zink, K.D.; Lieberman, D.E. Impact of meat and lower Palaeolithic food processing techniques on chewing in humans. Nature 2016, 531, 500–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. American Meat Science Association. Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation, and Instrumental Tenderness Measurement of Meat, 2nd ed.; AMSA: Kearney, MO, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbur, S. Review: Automatitation and meat quality-global challenges. Meat Sci. 2014, 96, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kristesen, L.; Stoier, S.; Würtz, J.; Hinrischsen, L. Trends in Meat Science and Technology: The future looks bright, but the journey will be long. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 322–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Turantas, F.; Basyingit, G.; Kilic, B. Ultrasound in the meat industry: General applications and decontaminations efficiency. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 198, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, W.; Maheswarapa Naveena, B.; Jo, C.; Sakata, R.; Zhou, G.; Banerjee, R.; Nishiumi, T. Technological demands of meat processing—An Asian perspective. Meat Sci. 2017, 132, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pogge, D.J.; Lonergan, S.M.; Hanse, S.L. Influence of supplementing vitamin C to yearling steers fed a high sulfur diet during the finishing period on meat color, tenderness and protein degradation, and fatty acid profile of the longissimus muscle. Meat Sci. 2014, 97, 419–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Damez, J.-L.; Clerjon, S. Quantifying and predicting meat and meat products quality attributes using electromagnetic waves: An overview. Meat Sci. 2013, 95, 879–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hwang, I.H.; Thompson, J.M. The effect of time and type of electrical stimulation on the calpain system and meat tenderness in beef longissimus dorsi muscle. Meat Sci. 2001, 58, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Clerjon, S.; Damez, J.L. Microwave sensing for meat and fish structure evaluation. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2007, 18, 1038–1045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Solomon, M.B.; Long, J.B.; Eastridge, J.S. The hydrodyne: A new process to improve beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 75, 1534–1537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Solomon, M. Hydrodyne Exploding meat terderness. AG Res. Mag. 1998, 46, 8–10. [Google Scholar]
  16. Solomon, M. The Hydrodyne process for tenderizing meat. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Reciprocal Meat Conference, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA, 28 June–1 July 1998; pp. 171–176. [Google Scholar]
  17. Zuckerman, H.; Solomon, M.B. Ultrastructural changes in bovine longissimus muscle casused by the hydrodyne process. J. Muscle Foods 1998, 9, 419–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Boye, J.I.; Arcand, I. (Eds.) Green Technologies in Food Production and Processing; Springer: Echo Bay, ON, Canada, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sun, D.-W. (Ed.) Emerging Technologies for Food Processing; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mohareb, E.; Piyasena, P. Applications of ultrasound in the food industry: A review. NutraCos 2002, 1, 36–40. [Google Scholar]
  21. Vilkhu, K.; Mawson, R.; Simons, L.; Bates, D. Application and opportunities for ultrasound assisted extraction in the food industry—A review. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2008, 9, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rokhina, E.V.; Lens, P.; Virkutyte, J. Low-frequency ultrasound in biotechnology: State of the art. Trends Biotechnol. 2009, 27, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Soria, A.C.; Villamiel, M. Effect of ultrasound on the technological properties and bioactivity of food: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2010, 21, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chemat, F.; Humma, Z.-E.; Khan, M.K. Applications of ultrasound in food technology: Processing, preservation and extraction. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2011, 18, 813–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mason, T.J.; Lorimer, J.P.; Paniwnyk, L.; Pollet, B. Ultrasound starts quiet revolution in material science. Mater. World 1999, 7, 69–71. [Google Scholar]
  26. Gómez-Díaz, J.; López-Malo, A. Aplicaciones del ultrasonido en el tratamiento de alimentos. Temas. Sel. Ing. Aliment. 2009, 3, 59–73. [Google Scholar]
  27. Delgado, J.O. Aplicación del ultrasonido en la industria de los alimentos. Rev. Espec. Ing. Procesos Aliment. Y Biomater. 2012, 6, 141–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Robles-Ozuna, L.E.; Ochoa-Martínez, L.A. Ultrasonido y sus aplicaciones en el proceso de alimentos. Rev. Iber. Tecnol. Postcosecha 2012, 13, 109–122. [Google Scholar]
  29. Reza Kasaai, M. Input power-mechanism relationship for ultrasonic irradiation: Food and polymer applications. Nat. Sci. 2013, 5, 14–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Sango, D.M.; Abela, D.; McElhatton, A.; Valdramis, V.P. Assisted ultrasound applications for the production of safe foods. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 116, 1067–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Sahin Ercan, S.; Soysal, C. Use of ultrasound in food preservation. Nat. Sci. 2013, 5, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Zhu, F. Impact of ultrasound on structure, physicochemical properties, modification, and applications of starch. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 43, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Bhargava, N.; Mor, R.S.; Kumar, K.; Singh Sharanagat, V. Advances in applications of ultrasound in food processing: A review. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2021, 70, 1205293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Feng, H.; Yang, W.; Hielscher, T. Power Ultrasound. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2008, 14, 433–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Gallego-Juarez, J.A. High power ultrasonic processing: Recent developments and prospective advanvces. Phys. Procedia 2010, 3, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Leighton, T.G. The Acoustic Bubble, 1st ed.; Elsevier Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; ISBN 978-0-323-14413-1. [Google Scholar]
  37. Caraveo, O.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Renteria, A.; Santellano, E.; Paniwnyk, L. Physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of beef treated with high-intensity ultrasound and stored at 4 °C. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2015, 95, 2487–2493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, M.; Haili, N.; Chen, Q.; Xia, X.; Kong, B. Influence of ultrasound-assisted immersion freezing on the freezing rate quality of porcine longissimus muscles. Meat Sci. 2018, 136, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Blasco, A.; Nagy, I.; Hernández, P. Genetics of growth, carcass and meat quality in rabbits. Meat Sci. 2018, 145, 178–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Inguglia, E.S.; Zhang, Z.; Burgess, C.; Kerry, J.; Tiwari, B.K. Influence of extrinsic operational parameters on salt diffusion during ultrasound assisted meat curing. Ultrasonics 2018, 83, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Bhat, Z.F.; Morton, J.D.L.; Mason, S.; Bekhit, A.E.-D. Role of calpain system in meat ternerness: A review. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2018, 7, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mason, T.J.; Paniwnyk, L.; Lorimer, J.P. The uses of ultrasound in food technology. Ultrason. Sonochem. 1996, 3, S253–S260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jayasooriya, S.D.; Bhandari, B.R.; Torley, P.; D’Arcy, B.R. Effect of high power ultrasound wave son properties of meat: A review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2004, 7, 301–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhang, M.; Xia, Z.; Liu, Q.; Chen, Q.; Kong, B. Changes in microstructure, quality and water distribution of porcine longissimus muscles subjected to ultrasound-assisted immersion freezing during frozen storage. Meat Sci. 2019, 151, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. de Lima Alves, L.; da Silva, M.S.; Martins Flores, D.R.; Rodrigues Athayde, D.; Roggia Ruviaro, A.; da Silva Brum, D.; Fagundes Batista, V.S.; de Oliveira Mello, R.; de Menezes, C.R.; Bastianello Campagnol, P.C.; et al. Effect of ultrasound on the physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of Italian salami. Food Res. Int. 2017, 106, 363–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Amiri, A.; Sharifian, P.; Soltanizadeh, N. Application of ultrasound treatment for improving the physicochemical, functional and rheological properties of myofibrillar proteins. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2018, 111, 139–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kang, D.; Zou, Y.; Chen, Y.; Xing, L.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, W. Effects of power ultrasound on oxidation and structure of beef proteins during curing processing. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2016, 33, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ozuna, C.; Cárcel, J.A.; Walde, P.M.; Garcia-Perez, J.V. Low-temperature drying of salted cod (Gadus morhu) assited by high power ultrasound: Kinetics and physical properties. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2014, 23, 146–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kang, D.; Wang, A.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, W.; Xu, S.; Guo, G. Power ultrasonic on mass transport of beef: Effects of ultrasound intensity and NaCl concentration. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2016, 35, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, L.; Luna-Rodriguez, L.; Carrillo-Lopez, L.M.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Garcia-Galicia, I.; Reyes-Villagrana, R. Ultrasound as an alternative to conventional marination: Acceptability and mass transfer. J. Food Qual. 2017, 2017, 8675720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Li, K.; Kang, Z.-L.; Zhao, Y.-Y.; Xu, X.-L.; Zhou, G.-H. Use of high-intensity ultrasound to improve functional properties of batter suspensions prepared from pse-like chicken breast meat. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2014, 7, 3466–3477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Saleem, R.; Ahmad, R. Effect of ultrasonication on secondary structure and heat induced gelation of chicken myofibrils. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 3340–3348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. McDonnell, C.K.; Allen, P.; Morin, C.; Lyng, J.G. The effect of ultrasonic salting on protein and water–protein interactions in meat. Food Chem. 2014, 147, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gambuteanu Filimon, C.; Alexe, P. Effects of ultrasound on technological properties of meat a review. Annals Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 14, 176–182. [Google Scholar]
  55. Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Janacua, H.; Rodriguez, J.C.; Paniwnyk, L.; Mason, T.J. Power ultrasound in meat processing. Meat Sci. 2015, 107, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Carrillo-Lopez, L.M.; Reyes-Villagrana, R.; Huerta-Jimenez, M.; Garcia-Galicia, I.A. Ultrasound and meat quality: A review. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 55, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Hui, Y.H. (Ed.) Handbook of Meat and Meat Processing, 2nd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  58. Badui Dergal, S. La Ciencia de Los Alimentos en la Práctica, 2nd ed.; Pearson Educación De México: Ciudad de México, México, 2015; p. 246. [Google Scholar]
  59. Vilgis, T.A. Soft matter food physics—The physics of food and cooking. Rep. Prog. Phys. 2015, 78, 124602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Toldrá, F. (Ed.) Handbook of Meat Processing, 1st ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Singapore, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  61. Bourne, M.C. Food Texture and Viscosity, Concept and Measurement, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  62. Warner, D.; McDonell, C.; Bekhit, A.E.D.; Claus, J.; Vaskoska, R.; Sikes, A.; Dunshea, F.R.; Ha, M. Systematic review of emerging and innovative technologies for meat tenderization. Meat Sci. 2017, 132, 72–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cummings, E.J.; Lyng, J.G. (Eds.) Emerging Technologies in Meat Processing Production, Processing and Technology, 1st ed.; Wiley Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  64. Nishihara, T.; Doty, P. The sonic fragmentation of collagen macromolecules. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1958, 44, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Reynolds, J.B.; Anderson, D.B.; Schmidt, G.R.; Theno, D.M.; Siegel, D.G. Effects of ultrasonic treatment on binding strength in cured ham rolls. J. Food Sci. 1978, 43, 866–869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Smith, N.B.; Cannnon, J.J.; Novakofski, E.E.; McKeith, F.K.; O’Brien, W.D., Jr. Tenderization of Semitendenious Muscle Using High Intensity Ultrasound. In Proceedings of the IEEE 1991 Ultrasonics Symposium, Orlando, FL, USA, 8–11 December 1991; Volume 2, pp. 1371–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pohlman, F.W.; Dikeman, M.E.; Kropf, D.H. Effects of high intensity ultrasound treatment storage time and cooking method on shear, sensory, instrumental color and cooking properties of packaged and unpackaged beef pectoralis muscle. Meat Sci. 1997, 46, 89–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Pohlman, F.W.; Dikeman, M.E.; Zayas, J.F. The effect of low-intensity ultrasound treatment on shear properties, color stability and shelf-life of vacuum-packaged beef semitendinosus and biceps femoris muscles. Meat Sci. 1997, 45, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lyng, J.G.; Allen, P.; McKenna, B.M. The influence of high intensity ultrasound baths on aspects of beef tenderness. J. Muscle Foods 1997, 8, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Got, F.; Culioli, J.; Berge, P.; Vignon, X.; Astruc, T.; Quideau, J.M.; Lethiecq, M. Effects of high-intensity high-frequency ultrasound on ageing rate, ultrastructure and some physic-chemical properties of beef. Meat Sci. 1999, 51, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Jayasooriya, S.D.; Torley, P.J.; D’Arcy, B.R.; Bhandari, B.R. Effects of high power ultrasound and ageing on the physical properties of bovine semitendinosus and longissimus muscles. Meat Sci. 2007, 75, 628–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Stadnik, J.; Dolatowski, Z.J.; Baranowska, H.M. Effect of ultrasound treatment on water holding properties and microstructure of beef (m. semimembranosus) during ageing. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2008, 41, 2151–2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sikes, A.L.; Mawson, R.; Stark, J.; Warner, R. Quality properties of pre- and post-rigor beef muscle after interventions with high frequency ultrasound. Ultrasound Sonoichem. 2014, 21, 2138–2143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Chen, L.; Feng, X.-C.; Zhang, Y.-Y.; Liu, X.-B.; Zhang, W.-G.; Li, C.-B.; Ullah, N.; Xu, X.-L.; Zhou, G.-H. Effects of ultrasonics processing on caspase-3, calpain expression and myofibrillar structure of chicken during post-mortem ageing. Food Chem. 2015, 177, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Chang, H.-J.; Wang, Q.; Tang, C.-H.; Zhou, G.-H. Effects of ultrasound treatment on connective tissue collagen and meat quality of beef semitendinosus. J. Food Qual. 2015, 38, 256–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hu, J.; Ge, S.; Huang, C.; Cheung, P.C.K.; Lin, L.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, B.; Lin, S.; Huang, X. Tenderization effect of whelk meat using ultrasonic treatment. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 6, 1848–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Cichoski, A.J.; Silva, M.S.; Vaz Leaes, Y.S.; Bauermann Brasil, C.C.; de Menezes, C.R.R.; Smanioto, J.; Wagner, R.P.; Bastianello Campagnol, C. Ultrasound: A promising technology to improve the technological quality of meat emulsions. Meat Sci. 2019, 148, 150–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Basso Pinton, M.; Pereira Correa, L.; Facchi, M.M.X.; Heck, R.T.; Vaz Leaes, Y.S.; Cichoski, A.J.; Lorenzo, J.M.; dos Santos, M.; Rodriguez Pollonio, M.A.; Bastianello Campagnol, P.C. Ultrasound: A new approach to reduce phosphate content of meat emulsions. Meat Sci. 2019, 152, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Zou, Y.; Shi, H.; Xu, P.; Jiang, D.; Zhang, X.; Xu, W.; Wang, D. Combined effect of ultrasound and sodium bicarbonate marination on chicken breast tenderness and its molecular mechanism. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 59, 104735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Gonzalez-Gonzalez, L.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Carrillo-Lopez, L.M.; Garcia-Galicia, I.A.; Huerta-Jimenez, M.; Paniwnyk, L. Does ultrasound equally improve the quality of beef? An insight into longissimus lumborum, infraspinatus and cleidooccipitalis. Meat Sci. 2020, 160, 107963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kang, D.; Gao, X.; Ge, Q.; Zhou, G.; Zhang, W. Effects of ultrasound on the beef structure and water distribution during curing through protein degradation and modification. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2017, 38, 317–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Barekat, S.; Soltanizadeh, N. Improvement of meat tenderness by simultaneous application of high-intensity ultrasonic radiation and papain treatment. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2017, 39, 223–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pena-Gonzalez, E.M.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Renteria, A.; Garcia, I.; Santellano, E.; Quintero, A.; Luna, L. Quality and sensory profile of ultrasound-treated beef. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2017, 29, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Wang, A.; Kang, D.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, C.; Zou, Y.; Zhou, G. Changes in calpain activity, protein degradation and microstructure of beef M. semitendinosus by the application of ultrasound. Food Chem. 2018, 245, 724–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Barekat, S.; Soltanizadeh, N. Effects of ultrasound on microstructure and enzyme penetration in beef longissimus lumborum muscle. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 11, 680–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zou, Y.; Zhang, W.; Kang, D.; Zhou, G. Improvement of tenderness and water holding capacity of spiced beef by the application of ultrasound during cooking. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 53, 828–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Li, K.; Kang, Z.-L.; Zou, Y.-F.; Xu, X.-L.; Zhou, G.-H. Effect of ultrasound treatment on functional properties of reduced-salt chicken meat batter. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 2622–2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ojha, K.S.; Keenan, D.F.; Bright, A.; Kerry, J.P.; Tiwari, B.K. Ultrasound assisted diffusion of sodium salt replacer and effect on physicochemical properties of pork meat. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 51, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Filomena-Ambrosio, A.; Quintanilla-Carvajal, M.X.; Puig, A.; Hernando, I.; Hernandez-Carrion, M.; Sotelo-Diaz, I. Changes of the water-holding capacity and microstructure of panga and tilapia surimi gels using different stabilizers and processing methods. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2016, 22, 68–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Fan, D.; Huang, L.; Li, B.; Huang, J.; Zhao, J.; Yan, B.; Zhou, W.; Zhang, W.; Zhang, H. Acoustic intensity in ultrasound field and ultrasound-assisted gelling of surimi. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 75, 497–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gomez-Salazar, J.A.; Ochoa-Montes, D.A.; Ceron-Garcia, A.; Ozuna, C.; Sosa-Morales, M.E. Effect of Acid marination assisted by power ultrasound on the quality of rabbit meat. J. Food Qual. 2018, 2018, 5754930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. García-Galicia, I.A.; Huerta-Jimenez, M.; Morales-Piñon, C.; Diaz-Almanza, S.; Carrillo-Lopez, L.M.; Reyes-Villagrana, R.; Estepp, C.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D. The impact of ultrasound and vacuum pack on quality properties of beef after modified atmosphere on display. J. Food Process Eng. 2019, 43, e13044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Diaz-Almanza, S.; Reyes-Villagrana, R.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Huerta-Jimenez, M.; Carrillo-Lopez, L.M.; Estepp, C.; Urbina-Perez, J.; García-Galicia, I.A. Time matters when ultrasonicating beef: The best time for tenderness is not the best for reducing microbial counts. J. Food Process Eng. 2019, 42, e13210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Reyes-Villagrana, R.A.; Huerta-Jimenez, M.; Salas-Carrazco, J.L.; Carrillo-Lopez, L.M.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Sanchez-Vega, R.; Garcia-Galicia, I.A. High-intensity ultrasonication of rabbit carcases: A first glance into a small-scale model to improve meat quality traits. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 195, 44–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. García-Galicia, I.A.; Gonzalez-Vacame, V.G.; Huerta-Jimenez, M.; Carrillo-Lopez, L.M.; Tirado-Gallegos, J.M.; Reyes-Villagrana, R.A.; Alarcon-Rojo, A.D. Ultrasound versus traditional ageing: Physicochemical properties in beef longissimus lumborum. CYTA—J. Food 2020, 18, 675–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chávez-Martínez, A.; Reyes-Villagrana, R.A.; Rentería-Monterrubio, A.L.; Sánchez-Vega, R.; Tirado-Gallegos, J.M.; Bolivar-Jacobo, N.A. Low and High-Intensity Ultrasound in Dairy Products: Applications and Effects on Physicochemical and Microbiology Quality. Foods 2020, 9, 1688–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Rentería-Monterrubio, A.L.; Chávez-Martínez, A.; Juárez-Moya, J.; Sánchez-Vega, R.; Tirado-Gallegos, J.M.; Reyes-Villagrana, R.A. High-Intensity Ultrasound and Its Interaction with Foodstuff and Nanomaterials. In Trends and Innovation in Food Science, 1st ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2022; ISBN 978-1-80356-066-3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Delalande, A.; Kotopoulis, S.; Postema, M.; Midoux, P.; Pichon, C. Sonoporation: Mechanistic insights and ongoing challenges for gene transfer. Gene 2013, 525, 191–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. O’Brien, W.D., Jr. Ultrasound—Biophysics mechanisms. Prog. Biophys. Mol. Biol. 2007, 93, 212–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  100. Williams, E.G. Fourier Acoustics, Sound Radiation; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  101. Wiszecki, G.; Stiles, W.S. Color Science, Concepts and Methods, Quantitative Data, and Formulae, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  102. Mancini, R.A.; Hunt, M.C. Current research in meat color. Meat Sci. 2005, 71, 100–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lindahl, G.; Lundström, K.; Tornberg, E. Contribution of pigment content, myoglobin forms and internal reflectance to the colour of pork loin and ham from pure breed pigs. Meat Sci. 2001, 59, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. O’Sullivan, M.G.; Byrne, D.V.; Martens, M. Evaluation of pork colour: Sensory colour assessment using trained and untrained sensory panellist. Meat Sci. 2003, 63, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Nowak, K.W.; Ropelewska, E.; Bekhit, A.E.D.; Markowski, M. Ultrasound Applications in the Meat Industry; Bekhit, A.E.D., Ed.; Advances in Meat Processing; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; Taylor & Francis Group: Oxfordshire, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  106. Macdougall, D.B. Changes in the colour and opacity of meat. Food Chem. 1982, 9, 75–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Killinger, K.M.; Calkins, C.R.; Umberger, W.J.; Feuz, D.M.; Eskridge, K.M. Consumer visual preference and valour for beef steaks differing in marbling level and color. J. Anim. Sci. 2004, 82, 3288–3293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Madrigal-Melchor, J.; Enciso-Muñoz, A.; Contreras-Solorio, D.A.; Saldaña-Saldaña, X.; Reyes-Villagrana, R.A. A new alternative method for the generation of acoustic filters, modulating acoustic impedance: Theorical model. Open J. Acoust. 2017, 7, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Foods 12 02390 g001 550
Figure 1. Composition of striated muscle.
Figure 1. Composition of striated muscle.
Foods 12 02390 g001
Foods 12 02390 g002 550
Figure 2. Meat quality traits.
Figure 2. Meat quality traits.
Foods 12 02390 g002
Foods 12 02390 g003 550
Figure 3. Factors influencing meat tenderness.
Figure 3. Factors influencing meat tenderness.
Foods 12 02390 g003
Foods 12 02390 g004 550
Figure 4. Depiction of ultrasonoporation.
Figure 4. Depiction of ultrasonoporation.
Foods 12 02390 g004
Foods 12 02390 g005 550
Figure 5. Experimental setup: (a) top view and (b) lateral view.
Figure 5. Experimental setup: (a) top view and (b) lateral view.
Foods 12 02390 g005
Foods 12 02390 g006 550
Figure 6. Color analysis: (a) lightness (L*), (b) redness (a*), (c) yellowness (b*), and (d) chroma. a,b,c,d Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Color analysis: (a) lightness (L*), (b) redness (a*), (c) yellowness (b*), and (d) chroma. a,b,c,d Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02390 g006
Foods 12 02390 g007 550
Figure 7. (a) pH analysis and (b) pH detail. a,b Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Figure 7. (a) pH analysis and (b) pH detail. a,b Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02390 g007
Foods 12 02390 g008 550
Figure 8. Shear force analysis.
Figure 8. Shear force analysis.
Foods 12 02390 g008
Table
Table 1. Average composition of various types of meat [58].
Table 1. Average composition of various types of meat [58].
Component
(%)		Meat Type
BeefPorkMuttonChickenTurkeyTunaMojarra
Water71686066706979
Protein21131918212417
Lipids7182015863
Minerals1111111
Table
Table 2. Effects of high-intensity ultrasound in meat products.
Table 2. Effects of high-intensity ultrasound in meat products.
Sample DescriptionUltrasonic Parameters
(Intensity, Frequency, Time, Temperature)		Texture—Tenderness 1Analyses to Demonstrate Changes 2ObservationsRef.
Soluble beef collagen50 W, 9 kHz, 10 to 440 min; 8–11 °C.-SA
ACP		Molecular weights and hydrodynamic conditions were reviewed
Viscosity reduction		[64]
Pork
Cured ham
Cylindric samples
25 long × 3.5 cm diameter		40 kHz; 15, 30, 60, and 120 min.Instron universal testing machineSA
MI		Effects of muscle microstructure, breaking force, cooking performance, and protein stability[65]
Beef
m. Semitendinosus
10 × 5 × 2.5 cm sample size		1000 W, 25.9 kHz, 0, 2, 4, and 8 min (longitudinal cuts); 0, 2, 4 8 and 16 min (cross sections).WBSAIncrease in tenderness in 2 and 4 min[66]
Beef
m. Biceps pectoralis		22 W/cm2; 20 kHz; 0, 5, and 10 minWBSALow effect on tenderness[67]
Beef
Vacuum packed m. Semitendinosus
2.5 × 6.4 × 10.2 cm
2.5 × 5.1 × 10.2 cm
m. Biceps femoris
1.3 × 7.6 × 10.2 cm		1.55 W/cm2; 20 KHz; 8, 16, and 24 min.
1.55 W/cm2; 2 kHz; 30 min (15 min/side).		WBSANo effect on tenderness[68]
Beef
Vacuum packed m. L. thoracis lumborum,
Semimembranosus,
Biceps femoris		Hilsonic: 0.29 W/cm2; 47 kHz.
Kerry: 0.39 W/cm2; 34–42 kHz.
Ultrawave: 0.62 W/cm2; 30–40 kHz.		Bite force trendometerSANo major effects on tenderness[69]
Beef
m. Semimembranosus		10 W/cm2; 2.5 MHz; 2, 6, and 15 s.Universal testing machineSA
MI		Unfavorable effects on tenderness[70]
Beef
m. Semitendinosus and Longissimus
60 mm × 40 cm × 20 mm		12 W/cm2; 24 kHz; 4 min.WBSABeneficial effects on tenderness, including maturity time of 3 and 7 days[71]
Beef
m. Semimembranosus
70 × 70 × 80 mm		2 W/cm2; 4 kHz; 2 min.Nuclear magnetic resonanceSA
MI		Favorable and unfavorable results[72]
Beef
m. L. lumborum pre- and post-rigor		48 kPa–65 kPa at 600 kHz; 48 kPa at MHz.TenderometerSAUnfavorable effects[73]
Chicken
Breast
2.5 × 5.5 × 1.0 cm		1500 W; 40 kHz, 30 or 60 minTransmission electron microscopyACP
SA
MI		Favorable effects[74]
Beef
Vacuum packed m. Semitendinosus
2.5 × 5.0 × 5.0 cm		1500 W; 40 kHz; 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, or 60 min; 20 °C.WB
Optical microscopy
SEM		SA
MI		Favorable effects[75]
Molluscs
2 × 2 × 2 cm		100–250 W; 45 kHz; 2–16 min; 10–60 °C.WB
SEM		SA
MI
Sensory evaluative		Favorable effects[76]
Beef
Lean (100 g)		1000 W; 25 kHz; 60% amplitude 5.5 min, 10 °C.TPASA
ACP		Favorable effects[77]
Beef
Lean (100 g)		230 W; 25 kHz; 60% amplitude 0, 9, and 18 min.TPASA
Sensory evaluative		Unfavorable effects[78]
Chicken
Breast
4 × 4 × 2 cm		350 W; 20 kHz; 5 min.TPA
SEM		SA
MI		Favorable effects[79]
Beef
m. L. lumborum
13 × 9 × 2.5 cm
Infraspinatus, Cleidooccipitalis
6 × 7 × 2.5		11 W/cm2; 40 kHz; 0, 40, 60, and 80 min.WB
SEM		SA
MI		Favorable effects for some muscles and not for others[80]
Beef
m. L. dorsi
20 × 50 × 10 mm		150 and 300 W, 20 kHz; 30 and 120 min.WB
Electronic microscopy via transmission		SA
MI		Increase tenderness[81]
Beef
m. L. lumborum
3 × 3 × 3 cm		100 and 300 W, 20 kHz; 10, 20, and 30 min, 11–17 °C.WB
Optical microscopy		SA
MI		Favorable effects[82]
Beef
m. L. dorsi		11 W/cm2, 40 kHz; 60 min.WBSA
Sensory evaluative		Benefits tenderness[83]
Beef
Vacuum packed m. Semitendinosus
80 × 70 × 25 mm		25 W/cm2, 20 kHz; 20 or 40 min.WB
Transmission electron microscopy		SA
IEM		Benefits tenderness[84]
Beef
m. L. lumborum
3 × 3 × 3 cm		100 and 300 W, 20 kHz; 10, 20, and 30 min. Pulse trainLight microscopy SEMSA
IEM		Benefits tenderness combined with papain[85]
Beef
Flanks
8 × 8 × 8 cm		0, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 W, 20 kHz; 80, 100, and 120 min.TPA
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Transmission electron microscopy		SA
IEM		Benefits tenderness with powers > 800 W and 120 min[86]
Chicken
Breast		300 W, 40 kHz; 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40 min.TPA
SEM
Nuclear magnetic resonance		SA
IEM		There were no beneficial effects[87]
Pork
m. Semitendinosus
60 × 100 × 20 mm		90 and 54.9 W/cm2, 20 kHz; 120 min.WB
Nuclear magnetic resonance		SABenefits tenderness, with intensity 54.9 W/cm2[88]
Fish fillets
Pangasius hypothalamus and Oreochromis niloticus
10 × 10 × 10 mm		150 W, 40 kHz; 15 min.TPA
SEM		SA
IEM		Unfavorable effects[89]
Seafood
Silver carp Surimi gel		300 W; 25, 45, 80, and 130 kHz.Acoustic intensity measurementsSAAs the acoustic intensity increases, the force increases[90]
Rabbit110 W; 40 kHz; 0 and 120 min; 4 °C.TPASAIncreased toughness[91]
Beef
Vacuum packed m. L. lumborum, Semitendinosus
10 × 89 × 2.5 cm		16 W/cm2, 28 W/cm2; 37 kHz; 40 min (20 min/side), 5 °C.WBSAUnfavorable effects[92]
Beef
m. L. lumborum
10 × 5 × 2.5 cm		90 W/cm2; 37 kHz; 0, 10, 20, or 40 min; 4 °C.WBSATenderness benefits in times of 40 min[93]
Rabbit
Vacuum packed m. L. dorsi, Semimembranosus, Semitendinosus		12 W/cm2; 24 kHz; 15 min; 5 °C.WBSAFavorable effects on tenderness[94]
Beef
Vacuum packed m. L. lumborum
2.5 cm thick		90 W/cm2; 37 kHz, 40 min/side, 4 °C.WBSAUnfavorable effects on tenderness[95]
1 WB = Warner–Bratzler shear force, SEM = Scanning Electron Microscopy, TPA = Texture Profile Analysis. 2 SA = Statistical Analysis, ACP = Analytical Chemical Procedures, MI = Microscopy Image, IEM = Images via Electron Microscopy.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Reyes-Villagrana, R.A.; Madrigal-Melchor, J.; Chávez-Martínez, A.; Juárez-Moya, J.; Rentería-Monterrubio, A.L. Effects of Shear Stress Waves on Meat Tenderness: Ultrasonoporation. Foods 2023, 12, 2390. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122390

AMA Style

Reyes-Villagrana RA, Madrigal-Melchor J, Chávez-Martínez A, Juárez-Moya J, Rentería-Monterrubio AL. Effects of Shear Stress Waves on Meat Tenderness: Ultrasonoporation. Foods. 2023; 12(12):2390. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122390

Chicago/Turabian Style

Reyes-Villagrana, Raúl Alberto, Jesús Madrigal-Melchor, América Chávez-Martínez, Juliana Juárez-Moya, and Ana Luis Rentería-Monterrubio. 2023. "Effects of Shear Stress Waves on Meat Tenderness: Ultrasonoporation" Foods 12, no. 12: 2390. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12122390

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop