Preparation, characterization, and evaluation of antioxidant activity of turmeric flour in chicken patties

Abstract

This study evaluated the use of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) flour as a natural antioxidant in chicken patties. Patties were prepared with different concentrations of turmeric flour: 0% (Control), 0.25% (TC_0.25%), 0.50% (TC_0.50%), and 0.75% (TC_0.75%). A “treatment-as-usual” patty with 0.25% sodium erythorbate (SE) was prepared. Turmeric flour showed high contents of carbohydrates (78.12%), phenolic compounds (8.13 mg GAE g^-1), and flavonoids (29.68 mg QE ^g-1), as well as high antioxidant activity, determined by DPPH (48.71% inhibition) and FRAP (9.11 mg QE g^-1) assays. Patties were analyzed after 1, 15, 30 and 45 days of storage at -18 °C. The addition of turmeric resulted in less reddish, and darker, more yellowish patties. Changes in chemical composition, pH, or shrinkage percentage were not observed. TC_0.75% obtained the highest cooking yield (91.27%). TC_0.25% was the softest, while TC_0.75% and Control had the lowest cohesiveness. Differences in resilience between TC_0.25%, TC_0.75%, and Control were not observed. Changes in springiness and chewiness were not observed. Turmeric patties showed similar oxidative stability to the SE formulation, differing from Control throughout the entire storage period. Turmeric flour prevented lipid oxidation in chicken patties to the same extent as the synthetic antioxidant, demonstrating potential as a natural antioxidant.

Keywords:
phenolic compounds; color; lipid oxidation; texture profile

1 Introduction

The sensorial characteristics of the burger, combined with its convenient preparation, make it a widely consumed meat product. However, its lipid-rich composition, in conjunction with the meat grinding during the manufacturing process, make patties more susceptible to lipid oxidation, resulting in undesirable flavors and odors, nutritional value loss, and formation of potentially toxic substances (Reddy et al., 2018; Ribeiro et al., 2019).

Aiming to reduce oxidative processes and increase the shelf life of processed foods, the industry utilizes antioxidants, mainly synthetic ones (Serpa Guerra et al., 2020). However, some have been associated with gastrointestinal disorders, food allergies, and carcinogenic effects (Oliveira et al., 2013). Due to these issues, as well as consumers' search for healthier foods, the replacement of synthetic antioxidants with natural antioxidants has been studied (Ribeiro et al., 2019). There are reports of herbs, fruits, and spices used as natural antioxidants, such as olive leaves, oregano, basil, rosemary, and garlic; flaxseed meal; pomegranate peel and bagasse powder (Zhang et al., 2016; Sharma & Yadav, 2020); and turmeric powder (Mancini et al., 2015, 2016; Carvalho et al., 2020; Kilic et al., 2021). These natural antioxidants were utilized in different food matrices, such as bread (Lim et al., 2011) and meat products (Fernandes et al., 2016; Cócaro et al., 2019; Patriani et al., 2021).

Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) is an herbaceous perennial plant native to southern Africa that belongs to the Zingiberaceae family. It is widely used in India and in worldwide cuisine due to its flavor, coloring, and antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and antioxidant properties (Hewlings & Kalman, 2017). For preservation purposes, the turmeric rhizome is dehydrated and ground into a powder, rich in carbohydrates and phenolic compounds, such as curcumin. Curcumin eliminates reactive oxygen species, such as hydroxyl radicals, superoxide anions, and singlet oxygen, which are related to cell damage and lipid oxidation (Lim et al., 2011; Sueth-Santiago et al., 2015). Thus, the objective of this study was to elaborate and characterize turmeric flour, as well as to evaluate the effect of its addition in different concentrations in chicken patties.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Preparation and characterization of turmeric flour

The turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) was acquired from a local producer (Londrina-PR, Brazil). To obtain turmeric flour, the rhizomes were selected and washed in water after being sanitized with a 2.5% sodium hypochlorite solution. Afterwards, the roots were ground with the peel in a food processor (Multi Pro All in One 2, Philco, Brazil) and then dried in an air circulating oven (TE-394/2, Tecnal, Brazil) at 50 °C for 7 hours.

The dehydrated material was ground again in a coffee grinder (MDR301, Cadence, Brazil) and sieved on a 24-mesh sieve. The turmeric flour obtained was stored in plastic packaging and kept in a dry and ventilated place until the time of analysis.

2.2 Color analysis and proximate composition of turmeric flour

The color was evaluated using a Minolta CR400 colorimeter. The L* (lightness), a* (redness) and b* (yellowness) values were determined by the CIELab system.

The proximate composition (moisture, protein, lipid, and ash) was determined according to Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2000) methodologies. The carbohydrate content was determined by difference.

2.3 Evaluation of the antioxidant activity of turmeric flour

Extract preparation

To evaluate antioxidant activity, turmeric extracts were prepared in triplicate based on the methodologies described by Sulaiman et al. (2011) and Sepahpour et al. (2018), with modifications. Turmeric (1.00 g) was added to 20.00 mL of 80% acetone solution and this mixture was stirred at 150 rpm on a shaking table (MA 140/CFT, Marconi, Brazil) for 30 minutes (20 °C). The supernatant was then filtered on a filter paper. The filtering and stirring with acetone solution process was repeated, resulting in a final extract volume of 60.00 mL, with a turmeric concentration of 16.66 mg mL^-1.

Antioxidant activity and determination of phenolic and flavonoid compounds in turmeric flour

The antioxidant capacity of turmeric flour was determined by the DPPH assay as described by Sepahpour et al. (2018) and Sulaiman et al. (2011), with adaptations (0.1 mL of the extract at a concentration of 8.33 mg mL^-1 was mixed with 3.9 mL of 0.1 mmol L^-1 DPPH solution prepared in methanol, stirred, and left in the dark for 30 min./25 °C). The results were expressed as percent inhibition.

Antioxidant activity was determined by the ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) assay (Sepahpour et al., 2018). Quercetin (QE) was used as a standard and the results were expressed in milligrams of QE equivalent per gram of turmeric (mg QE g^-1).

The total phenolic compounds content was determined according to the method from Sepahpour et al. (2018). Gallic acid (GAE) was used as a standard and the results were expressed in milligrams of GAE equivalent per gram of turmeric (mg GAE g^-1).

Total flavonoid compounds were determined according to Sepahpour et al. (2018). QE was used as a standard at concentrations of 16 to 400 μg mL^-1. The results were expressed in mg QE g^-1.

2.4 Preparation and evaluation of chicken patties

Preparation of the chicken patties

The chicken patties were prepared with different concentrations of turmeric flour: 0.00% (Control), 0.25% (TC_0.25%), 0.50% (TC_0.50%), and 0.75% (TC_0.75%). A formulation with 0.25% synthetic antioxidant sodium erythorbate (SE) was also prepared.

The chicken breast (60%) was ground in a food processor (Multi Pro All in One 2, Philco, Brazil), along with the skin (15%). Subsequently, the mechanically deboned meat (15%) and the other ingredients (soy protein isolate 7.8%, water 10%, salt 1.7%, onion powder 0.06%, garlic powder 0.20%, white pepper 0.15%) were added until the mixture was completely homogenized. The patties were shaped into 90 g units (± 10 g), transferred to a tray, wrapped in a plastic bag, and identified with their respective codes. The samples were stored at -18 °C until the time of analysis.

Physicochemical analysis and proximate composition of the patties

Immediately after the patties were prepared, the chemical composition was determined as described in section 2.2. The pH measurements (n=3) were obtained in the lateral region of the samples using a potentiometer equipped with an insertion electrode (Testo 205, Testo, Germany). Cooking yield, shrinkage, color, and texture profile of the patties were analyzed after 1, 15, 30, and 45 days of storage at -18 °C.

For the yield analysis, the samples (n=3) were weighed before and after cooking in an electric pot at 215 °C for 3 minutes on each side with the lid off, and another 3 minutes with the lid on. The cooking yield was expressed as a percentage according to the Equation 1:

$\%cookingyield=100\%-\left[\left(\frac{IW-FW}{FW}\right)x100\%\right]$ (1)

where IW = initial weight of the sample and FW = final weight of the sample after cooking.

For shrinkage evaluation, a digital caliper was used. The diameter of the samples (n=3) was measured before and after cooking (performed according to yield analysis). The result was expressed in percent shrinkage, according to the Equation 2:

$\%shrinkage=\left(\frac{di-df}{di}\right)x100\%$ (2)

where d_i = initial diameter and d_f = final diameter.

Color parameters (n=9) were determined using a colorimeter (CR400, Konica Minolta, Japan), with illuminant D65 and 10° observation angle. The L* (lightness), a* (redness) and b* (yellowness) values were determined by the CIELab system.

Texture profile analysis (TPA) was performed (n=6) on a TA-XTplus Texture Analyzer (Stable Micro Systems, UK), with a cylindrical probe (P35), as described by Bourne (1978). The parameters employed were height 50 mm, pre-test speed 5.0 cm min^-1, test speed 20.0 cm min^-1, post-test speed 10 cm min^-1, distance 0.70 cm, and force 0.98 N. After cooking in an electric pan (according to yield analysis), the patties were cut into 1 cm³ cubes. The parameters evaluated were hardness (N), springiness (mm), cohesiveness, chewiness (N mm), and resilience.

Evaluation of lipid oxidation

The lipid oxidation of the patties (n=4) was evaluated after 1, 15, 30 and 45 days of storage at -18 °C by the thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) assay, as described by Tarladgis et al. (1960). The results were expressed in mg of malonaldehyde (MDA) kg^-1 sample.

2.5 Statistical analysis

The results were analyzed using the Statistica 7.0 for Windows by analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Tukey test at 5% probability.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Proximate composition, total phenolic and flavonoids compounds, and antioxidant activity of turmeric

Turmeric flour had a carbohydrate content of 78.12% (Table 1), which is the main component of its matrix. Similar results have been described by other authors, with values ranging from 70 to 76.39% (Lim et al., 2011; Mushtaq et al., 2019; Restrepo-Osorio et al., 2020). The ash, protein, and lipid values were 5.48, 5.20, and 1.22 g 100 g^-1, respectively. The moisture content of 9.98% allows the powder obtained to be characterized as flour, meeting the current legislation that requires a maximum value of 15% (Brasil, 2005).

Table 1
Proximate composition, total phenolic and flavonoid compounds content, DPPH and FRAP assays, and turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) flour color (L*, a*, and b*).

Parameter	Turmeric flour
Moisture (g 100 g-1)	9.98 ± 0.21
Proteins (g 100 g-1)	5.20 ± 0.03
Lipids (g 100 g-1)	1.22 ± 0.78
Ash (g 100 g-1)	5.48 ± 0.19
Carbohydrates (g 100 g-1)	78.12 ± 0.15
Total phenolic compounds (mg GAE g-1)	8.13 ± 1.12
Total flavonoid compounds (mg QE g-1)	29.68 ± 0.83
FRAP (mg QE g -1)	9.11 ± 0.70
DPPH (% inhibition)	48.71 ± 3.57
L*	62.34 ± 0.86
a*	11.32 ± 0.31
b*	53.32 ± 1.13

• Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation.

The total phenolic compounds content in turmeric extracts (8.13 mg GAE g^-1) (Table 1), were similar to the values found by Soares et al. (2021), of 8.67 mg GAE g^-1 and Sulaiman et al. (2011), with 7.9 mg GAE g^-1. These studies also used acetone as the extracting solvent. The solvent employed is important because the phenolic compounds in turmeric, such as curcumin, are apolar, poorly soluble in water (Jiang et al., 2021).

Turmeric flour showed a total flavonoid compounds of 29.68 mg QE g^-1 (Table 1). This value was higher than that obtained by Ali et al. (2021), of 4.30 mg QE g^-1, who evaluated turmeric extract using a 70% ethanol and 0.1% formic acid solution.

By FRAP assay, turmeric flour showed antioxidant activity of 9.11 mg QE g^-1 (Table 1). Soares et al. (2021) found similar values (10.09 mg QE g^-1) for commercial organic turmeric powder, while Sepahpour et al. (2018) reported higher values (85.0 mg QE g^-1) for resuspended freeze-dried turmeric extract. This result is expected since the dried extract was employed instead of the crude filtrate.

By the DPPH method, the antioxidant activity was 48.71% inhibition (Table 1). This value is twice as high as those obtained by Soares et al. (2021) for conventionally dried commercial organic turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) powder. Possibly, oven drying turmeric at a low temperature (50 °C) preserved the antioxidant compounds.

Regarding color, the turmeric flour was yellowish (b*=53.32) and dark (L*=62.34) (Table 1), probably due to the incorporation of the peel in its preparation.

3.2 Evaluation of the chicken patties

The raw chicken patties showed adequate approximate chemical composition (Table 2). All formulations met the requirements demanded by Brazilian legislation (Brasil, 2000), with fat values below 23%, protein values above 15%, and total carbohydrate values below 3%.

Table 2
Proximate composition, pH of raw chicken patties prepared with 0% (Control), 0.25% (TC_0.25%), 0.50% (TC_0.50%), and 0.75% (TC_0.75%) of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) flour, and 0.25% of sodium erythorbate (SE).

Parameter	Chicken patty formulation
	Control	SE	TC0.25%	TC0.50%	TC0.75%
Moisture (g 100 g-1)	71.13a ± 0.30	71.16a ± 0.50	69.81a ± 0.59	69.60a ± 0.79	70.66a ± 0.61
Proteins (g 100 g-1)	15.64a ± 0.42	15.92a ± 0.37	16.00a ± 0.72	16.02a ± 1.45	16.02a ± 0.46
Lipids (g 100 g-1)	9.59a ± 0.29	9.34a ± 0.57	10.10ab ± 0.85	10.98b ± 0.70	9.53a ± 0.72
Ash (g 100 g-1)	2.69a ± 0.01	2.71a ± 0.06	2.74a ± 0.14	2.80a ± 0.05	2.78a ± 0.04
Carbohydrates (g 100 g-1)	0.94a ± 0.15	0.87a ± 0.59	1.35a ± 0.42	1.34a ± 1.97	1.01a ± 0.20
pH	6.10a ± 0.05	6.07a ± 0.04	6.00a ± 0.09	6.04a ± 0.05	6.11a ± 0.03

• Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n=3). ^a-b Means followed by different lowercase letters in the same row differ significantly by the Tukey test (p<0.05).

Moisture, protein, and ash contents did not differ (p>0.05) among formulations. TC_0.50% showed the highest lipid content, followed by TC_0.25% which did not differ from the rest. Probably, the higher lipid content was due to intrinsic variations of the raw materials used since turmeric flour is not rich in lipids.

Regarding pH, no differences (p>0.05) were observed between the formulations. The values ranged from 6.00 to 6.11 (Table 2).

Regarding cooking yield (Table 3), on day 1, the Control formulation showed the lowest yield (p<0.05), while SE and TC_0.50% obtained the highest values. In the periods of 15, 30, and 45 days, TC_0.75% yield values were greater or equal to the other formulations, while Control showed lower yields (p<0.05). Probably, the addition of turmeric flour increased the yield because of its high carbohydrate content. It is possible that the soluble fibers of the flour, due to their gel-forming ability, positively contributed to the stability of the final patty, and its water holding capacity (Cócaro et al., 2019).

Table 3
Percent cooking yield and shrinkage of chicken patties after cooking at 215 °C prepared with 0% (Control), 0.25% (TC_0.25%), 0.50% (TC_0.50%) and 0.75% (TC_0.75%) of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) flour and 0.25% of sodium erythorbate (SE).

Parameter	Period (days)	Chicken patty formulation
		Control	SE	TC0.25%	TC0.50%	TC0.75%
	1	83.61dA ± 0.45	88.92abA ± 0.67	86.81cA ± 0.41	89.45aA ± 0.52	87.47bcA ± 0.48
Cooking yield (%)	15	83.66bA ± 0.98	84.39bB ± 0.50	86.63abA ± 0.66	88.26aAB ± 0.81	86.02abA ± 1.43
	30	73.80bB ± 0.58	74.92abC ± 0.80	78.11abC ± 1.41	79.81abC ± 1.07	84.34aA ± 7.01
	45	83.89bcA ± 0.72	82.87cB ± 1.16	82.13cB ± 0.32	87.11bB ± 0.23	91.27aA ± 0.72
Shrinkage (%)	1	12.92aA± 0.84	13.35aA ± 0.97	13.53aA ± 1.86	13.06aA ± 1.07	11.35aA ± 0.82
	15	13.93aA ± 0.30	13.06aA ± 1.15	13.46aA ± 1.93	12.84aA ± 1.18	13.20aA ± 0.86
	30	15.97aB ± 0.42	15.74aA ± 0.94	15.99aA ± 1.39	15.16aA ± 0.50	13.10aA ± 2.79
	45	13.31aA ± 0.99	13.30aA ± 1.41	14.87aA ± 1.08	14.64aA± 1.03	11.35aA ± 0.57

• Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n=3). ^a-c Means followed by different lowercase letters in the same row differ significantly by the Tukey test (p<0.05). ^A-C Means followed by different capital letters in the same column differ significantly by the Tukey test (p<0.05).

After 30 days of storage, aside from TC_0.75%, all formulations showed a reduction in yield when compared to the initial periods (1 and 15 days). After 45 days, however, no reduction was observed.

As for the percent shrinkage of the patties, there was no difference (p>0.05) between the formulations (Table 3), nor the storage times - except for the Control formulation, which showed greater shrinkage on the 30th day of storage.

Regarding color, TC_0.75% was darker than SE on the first day but did not differ from the Control and the other formulations with turmeric flour (Table 4). Mancini et al. (2015) found similar L* values (54.15), when evaluating rabbit patties with 3.5% turmeric; as did Karpińska-Tymoszczyk & Draszanowska (2019), who obtained L* of 59.21 for chicken meatballs prepared with sodium erythorbate.

Table 4
Color parameters L*, a* and b* of raw chicken patties prepared with 0% (Control), 0.25% (TC_0.25%), 0.50% (TC_0.50%) and 0.75% (TC_0.75%) of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) flour and 0.25% of sodium erythorbate (SE). During storage at -18 °C for 1, 15, 30 and 45 days.

Parameter	Period (days)	Chicken patty formulation
		Control	SE	TC0.25%	TC0.50%	TC0.75%
L*	1	57.30abA ± 3.37	58.25aA ± 1.18	57.07abA ± 1.83	56.11abA ± 1.88	54.51bA ± 2.33
	15	56.12aA ± 1.14	56.75aA ± 1.85	55.23abAB ± 1.83	53.60bB ± 1.59	54.48abA ± 2.60
	30	55.56abA ± 1.66	56.31aA ±1.85	54.49bcB ± 1.94	53.09cB ± 0.42	54.58bcA ± 0.83
	45	57.44aA ± 0.87	54.38bB ± 1.65	54.21bB ± 1.16	54.31bB ± 0.64	54.64bA ± 1.06
a*	1	6.14bA ± 1.17	7.72aA ± 1.09	5.33bcA ± 0.84	4.18cdAB ± 0.65	3.75dA ± 0.97
	15	6.12bA ± 0.42	7.41aA ± 1.17	4.37cAB ± 0.72	3.12cB ± 0.38	4.06cA ± 0.99
	30	5.48bA ± 0.26	7.40aA ± 0.48	4.83bcAB ± 0.53	4.76bcA ± 0.76	4.29cA ± 0.99
	45	6.62aA ± 1.07	6.71aA ± 0.82	3.94bB ± 1.27	3.96bAB ± 0.90	3.92bA ± 0.89
b*	1	11.84bA ± 2.12	13.65bA ± 1.44	20.24aA ± 0.80	22.18aA ± 2.96	22.94aA ± 2.05
	15	11.30cA ± 1.61	12.73cA ± 0.94	17.16bB ± 1.33	20.25aAB ± 2.05	22.42aA ± 2.24
	30	10.24cA ± 1.64	12.84cA ± 1.98	17.02bB ± 1.99	19.46abAB ± 2.94	21.95aA ± 3.45
	45	11.65cA ± 1.17	10.16cB ± 2.19	15.47bB ± 2.57	18.80aB ± 2.09	21.00aA ± 2.93

• Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n=9). ^a-d Means followed by different lowercase letters in the same row differ significantly by the Tukey test (p<0.05). ^A-B Means followed by different capital letters in the same column differ significantly by the Tukey test (p<0.05).

On the 15^th day of storage, TC_0.50% was lighter than the Control and SE formulations. However, at 30 days, the turmeric formulations were the darkest. At 45 days, all samples, except the Control, showed L* around 54 and did not differ (p>0.05). In general, the addition of turmeric flour contributed to the browning of the patties, due to the color of the flour itself (Table 1).

For the a* parameter, TC_0.25%, TC_0.50% and TC_0.75% showed lower results (p<0.05) when compared to the Control and SE formulations at all analyzed times, indicating a less reddish color. Similar results were found by Kilic et al. (2021), who evaluated raw chicken meatballs with 0.5% of turmeric. This is due to the low a* value of the flour.

Regarding the b* parameter, TC_0.25%, TC_0.50%, and TC_0.75%, were more yellowish (p<0.05) than the Control and SE formulations. Kilic et al. (2021) obtained higher average b* values (26.75) than those obtained in the present study, when evaluating raw chicken meatballs with 1% turmeric - probably due to the higher concentration of turmeric added. Over the storage time, small variations in color were observed, solely TC_0.75% did not vary.

The texture profiles of the chicken patties after cooking at 215 °C are presented in Table 5. Regarding the hardness parameter, TC_0.25% was the softest from day 1 to day 30 of storage. SE was the second softest on the 1^st and 15^th day. On day 45, however, there was no difference (p>0.05) between the formulations. Up to 30 days of storage, springiness did not differ between the formulations. At 45 days, TC_0.50% was less springy than the others.

Table 5
Texture profile analysis (TPA) of chicken patties after cooking at 215 °C prepared with 0% (Control), 0.25% (TC_0.25%), 0.50% (TC_0.50%) and 0.75% (TC_0.75%) of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) flour and 0.25% of sodium erythorbate (SE), during storage at -18 °C for 1, 15, 30 and 45 days.

Parameter	Period (days)	Control	SE	TC0.25%	TC0.50%	TC0.75%
Hardness (N)	1	12.40aB ± 1.77	10.39bcB ± 1.34	9.35cB ± 1.11	11.56abB ± 0.48	12.47aA ± 0.71
	15	15.62aA ± 2.33	11.14bcB ± 0.51	9.26cB ± 0.81	14.93aA ± 2.63	11.97bAB ± 0.65
	30	11.73bB ± 1.19	14.9aaA ± 2.20	9.63cB ± 1.07	12.47bAB ± 1.42	11.12bcB ± 1.02
	45	11.59aB ± 0.84	12.04aB ± 1.66	11.69aA ± 1.31	12.47aB ± 2.31	10.06aC ± 0.62
Springiness (mm)	1	6.41aA ± 0.10	6.45aA ± 0.04	6.45aA ± 0.06	6.41aA ± 0.08	6.37aA ± 0.08
	15	6.39aA ± 0.06	6.46aA ± 0.03	6.41aA ± 0.09	6.38aA ± 0.09	6.41aA ± 0.06
	30	6.33aA ± 0.06	6.42aA ± 0.06	6.43aA ± 0.07	6.10bB ± 0.18	6.38aA ± 0.10
	45	6.38abA ± 0.08	6.45aA ± 0.04	6.41aA ± 0.08	6.27bAB ± 0.10	6.42aA ± 0.06
Cohesiveness	1	0.87dB ± 0.02	1.00aA ± 0.03	1.01aA ± 0.02	0.96bA ± 0.02	0.91cB ± 0.01
	15	0.89cB ± 0.01	0.97aA ± 0.02	0.95abB ± 0.05	0.88cB ± 0.03	0.92bcAB ± 0.01
	30	0.89abB ± 0.01	0.86bB ± 0.02	0.91aB ±0.03	0.85bB ± 0.03	0.87abC ± 0.04
	45	0.95abA ± 0.02	0.99aA ± 0.03	0.92bB ± 0.02	0.97abA ± 0.05	0.95abA ± 0.02
Chewiness (N mm)	1	69.99aA ± 3.41	62.96aA ± 3.58	61.32aA ± 8.40	70.93aA ± 1.70	70.93aA ± 5.59
	15	74.28aA ± 10.09	69.84aA ± 3.81	63.13aA ± 4.38	73.75aA ± 8.08	69.23aA ± 3.93
	30	65.86aA ± 3.04	75.78aA ± 12.73	62.04aA ± 2.92	69.71aA ± 7.55	62.33aA ± 1.82
	45	68.62aA ± 5.29	67.27aA ± 5.11	67.62aA ± 6.50	70.56aA ±13.97	61.98aA ± 2.86
Resilience	1	0.44bcA ± 0.01	0.48aA ± 0.02	0.45abcA ± 0.03	0.46abA ± 0.01	0.42cA ± 0.02
	15	0.43bA ± 0.01	0.46aA ± 0.01	0.43bAB ± 0.02	0.42bB ± 0.01	0.43bA ± 0.02
	30	0.40bcB ± 0.01	0.43aB ± 0.02	0.41abB ± 0.01	0.39cdC ±0.00	0.38dB ± 0.01
	45	0.44abA ± 0.01	0.45aAB ± 0.02	0.42bAB ± 0.01	0.45aA ± 0.02	0.44abA ± 0.01

• Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n=6). ^a-d Means followed by different lowercase letters in the same row differ significantly by the Tukey test (p<0.05). ^A-C Means followed by different capital letters in the same column differ significantly by the Tukey test (p<0.05).

When compared to the other texture parameters, cohesiveness was higher (p<0.05) in the SE and TC_0.25% formulations, while TC_0.75% and Control had the lowest values. Regarding the chewiness parameter, there was no difference between the formulations, demonstrating that this important texture parameter was not altered by turmeric flour. For patties treated with pomegranate peel and bagasse powder, Sharma & Yadav (2020) had observed increases in chewiness values. The highest resilience was observed in SE throughout the entire storage period. TC_0.25% and TC_0.75% showed similar values to the Control formulation. At 45 days, all formulations showed similar resilience values.

Regarding lipid oxidation, Control showed greater oxidation in comparison with the other formulations on days 1, 30, and 45 (Table 6), confirming the importance of the use of antioxidants in the preparation of patties. At day 1 of storage, the SE formulation did not differ from TC_0.25% and TC_0.50%, showing approximately 1.9 times lower TBARS values than the Control. TC_0.75% showed the lowest lipid oxidation value, more than 2 times lower than Control.

Table 6
Lipid oxidation values (mg malonaldehyde kg^-1 sample) of raw chicken patties prepared with 0% (Control), 0.25% (TC_0.25%), 0.50% (TC_0.50%) and 0.75% (TC_0.75%) of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) flour and 0.25% of sodium erythorbate (SE), during storage at -18 °C for 1, 15, 30 and 45 days.

Period (days)	Control	SE	TC0.25%	TC0.50%	TC0.75%
1	0.47aB ± 0.02	0.27bB ± 0.01	0.27bA ± 0.03	0.23bcB ± 0.02	0.21cC ± 0.03
15	0.51aB ± 0.20	0.28aB ±0.05	0.40aA ± 0.09	0.42aAB ± 0.05	0.35aAB ± 0.01
30	2.52aA ± 0.17	0.38bA ± 0.07	0.48bA ± 0.04	0.45bAB ± 0.06	0.36bA ± 0.05
45	1.27aB ± 0.64	0.33bAB ± 0.01	0.62abA ± 0.34	0.59abA ± 0.28	0.28bB ± 0.01

• Values expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n=4). ^a-c Means followed by different lowercase letters in the same row differ significantly by the Tukey test (p<0.05). ^A-B Means followed by different capital letters in the same column differ significantly by the Tukey test (p<0.05).

On day 15 of storage, differences between the formulations were not observed, probably due to the large standard deviation obtained for the Control formulation. On day 30 of storage, the Control formulation was 6 times more oxidized than the SE and turmeric formulations, demonstrating that turmeric acted as an antioxidant, similarly to sodium erythorbate. On the 45^th day of storage, SE and TC_0.75% did not differ, and had the lowest TBARS values when compared to the rest. Mancini et al. (2016) also found lower TBARS values for rabbit patties cooked with 3.5% turmeric (0.13 mg kg^-1) and 0.1% ascorbic acid (0.18 mg kg^-1) when compared to the control (0.30 mg kg^-1). The use of turmeric also prevented the increase in TBARS values in chicken meatballs (0.17 versus 0.39 mg MDA kg^-1), when compared to the control (Kilic et al., 2021).

Evaluating the storage time, TBARS values increased up to 30 days in all formulations. This showed that this period had the maximum peak of MDA formation, and subsequently the oxidation values were reduced with the decomposition of this compound, this behavior can occur in some products from lipid oxidation (Channon & Trout, 2002), due to secondary reactions of malonaldehyde, as observed by Savoldi et al. (2021) in Brazilian sausage. After 30 days of storage, the control formulation showed higher TBARS values than the human detection threshold of 2 mg MDA kg^-1 (Campo et al., 2006), making the rancid taste and aroma perceptible to consumers.

The lipid oxidation results suggest that turmeric flour has similar antioxidant activity to sodium erythorbate, showing great potential for replacing this synthetic antioxidant without changes in chemical composition, shrinkage, and texture profile.

4 Conclusion

Turmeric flour showed high content of carbohydrates (78.12%), flavonoids (29.68 mg QE g^-1), and total phenolic compounds (8.13 mg GAE g^-1), as well as antioxidant activity. The use of turmeric flour as a substitute for synthetic antioxidants in chicken patties resulted in a meat product with no changes in chemical composition or texture profile, improved cooking yield and oxidative stability similar to the synthetic antioxidant.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Academic Writing Center of UEL for assistance with English language translation and developmental editing.

• Practical Application: Turmeric flour showed great potential as a natural antioxidant in meat products.

References

• Ali, A., Wu, H., Ponnampalam, E. N., Cottrell, J. J., Dunshea, F. R., & Suleria, H. A. R. (2021). Comprehensive profiling of most widely used spices for their phenolic compounds through LC-ESI-QTOF-MS2 and their antioxidant potential. Antioxidants, 10(5), 721. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox10050721 PMid:34064351.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antiox10050721
• Association of Official Analytical Chemists - AOAC. (2000). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International (17th ed.). Gaithersburg: AOAC International.
• Bourne, M. C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology, 32(7), 62-66.
• Brasil, Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. (2000, August 3). Aprova o regulamento técnico de identidade e qualidade de almôndega, de apresuntado, de fiambre, de hambúrguer, de kibe, de presunto cozido e de presunto (Instrução Normativa SDA, nº 20, de 31 de julho de 2000). Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil
• Brasil, Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. (2005, September 29). Aprova o regulamento técnico para produtos de cereais, amidos, farinhas e farelos (Resolução nº 263, de 22 de setembro de 2005). Diário Oficial [da] República Federativa do Brasil
• Campo, M. M., Nute, G. R., Hughes, S. I., Enser, M., Wood, J. D., & Richardson, R. I. (2006). Flavour perception of oxidation in beef. Meat Science, 72(2), 303-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.07.015 PMid:22061558.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.07.015
• Carvalho, F. A. L., Munekata, P. E. S., Oliveira, A. L., Pateiro, M., Domínguez, R., Trindade, M. A., & Lorenzo, J. M. (2020). Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) extract on oxidative stability, physicochemical and sensory properties of fresh lamb sausage with fat replacement by tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus L.) oil. Food Research International, 136, 109487. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109487 PMid:32846569.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109487
• Channon, H. A., & Trout, G. R. (2002). Effect of tocopherol concentration on rancidity development during frozen storage of a cured and an uncured processed pork product. Meat Science, 62(1), 9-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00221-2 PMid:22061186.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00221-2
• Cócaro, E. S., Laurindo, L. F., Alcantara, M., Martins, I. B. A., Benevenuto, A. A. B. Jr., & Deliza, R. (2019). The addition of golden flaxseed flour (Linum usitatissimum L.) in chicken burger: effects on technological, sensory, and nutritional aspects. Food Science & Technology International, 26(2), 105-112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1082013219871410 PMid:31461368.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1082013219871410
• Fernandes, R. P. P., Trindade, M. A., Tonin, F. G., Lima, C. G., Pugine, S. M. P., Munekata, P. E. S., Lorenzo, J. M., & Melo, M. P. (2016). Evaluation of antioxidant capacity of 13 plant extracts by three different methods: cluster analyses applied for selection of the natural extracts with higher antioxidant capacity to replace synthetic antioxidant in lamb burgers. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 53(1), 451-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-1994-x PMid:26787964.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-1994-x
• Serpa Guerra, A. M., Gómez Hoyos, C., Velásquez-Cock, J. A., Vélez Acosta, L., Gañán Rojo, P., Velásquez Giraldo, A. M., & Zuluaga Gallego, R. (2020). The nanotech potential of turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) in food technology: a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60(11), 1842-1854. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1604490 PMid:31017458.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1604490
• Hewlings, S. J., & Kalman, D. S. (2017). Curcumin: a review of its effects on human health. Foods, 6(10), 92. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods6100092 PMid:29065496.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods6100092
• Jiang, T., Ghosh, R., & Charcosset, C. (2021). Extraction, purification and applications of curcumin from plant materials: a comprehensive review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 112, 419-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.04.015
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.04.015
• Karpińska-Tymoszczyk, M., & Draszanowska, A. (2019). The effect of natural and synthetic antioxidants and packaging type on the quality of cooked poultry products during frozen storage. Food Science & Technology International, 25(5), 429-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1082013219830196 PMid:30786758.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1082013219830196
• Kilic, S., Oz, E., & Oz, F. (2021). Effect of turmeric on the reduction of heterocyclic aromatic amines and quality of chicken meatballs. Food Control, 128, 108189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108189
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108189
• Lim, H. S., Park, S. H., Ghafoor, K., Hwang, S. Y., & Park, J. (2011). Quality and antioxidant properties of bread containing turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) cultivated in South Korea. Food Chemistry, 124(4), 1577-1582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.08.016
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2010.08.016
• Mancini, S., Preziuso, G., & Paci, G. (2016). Effect of turmeric powder (Curcuma longa L.) and ascorbic acid on antioxidant capacity and oxidative status in rabbit burgers after cooking. World Rabbit Science, 24(2), 121-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2016.4207
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/wrs.2016.4207
• Mancini, S., Preziuso, G., Dal Bosco, A., Roscini, V., Szendrő, Z., Fratini, F., & Paci, G. (2015). Effect of turmeric powder (Curcuma longa L.) and ascorbic acid on physical characteristics and oxidative status of fresh and stored rabbit burgers. Meat Science, 110, 93-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.07.005 PMid:26188362.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.07.005
• Mushtaq, Z., Nadeem, M. T., Arshad, M. U., Saeed, F., Ahmed, M. H., Ain, H. B. U., Javed, A., Anjum, F. M., & Hussain, S. (2019). Exploring the biochemical and antioxidant potential of ginger (Adric) and turmeric (Haldi). International Journal of Food Properties, 22(1), 1642-1651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2019.1666138
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2019.1666138
• Oliveira, D. F., Coelho, A. R., Burgardt, V. C. F., Hashimoto, E. H., Lunkes, A. M., Marchi, J. F., & Tonial, I. B. (2013). Alternativas para um produto cárneo mais saudável: uma revisão. Brazilian Journal of Food Technology, 16(3), 163-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1981-67232013005000021
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1981-67232013005000021
• Patriani, P., Hellyward, J., Hafid, H., Apsari, N. L., & Hasnudi. (2021). Application of sweet basil (Ocimum basilicum) on physical and organoleptic qualities of chicken meatballs. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 782(2), 022083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/782/2/022083
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/782/2/022083
• Reddy, D. M., Reddy, G. V. B., & Mandal, P. K. (2018). Application of natural antioxidants in meat and meat products: a review. Food & Nutrition Journal, 7(3), 100073. http://dx.doi.org/10.29011/2575-7091.100073
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.29011/2575-7091.100073
• Restrepo-Osorio, J., Nobile-Correa, D. P., Zuñiga, O., & Sánchez-Andica, R. A. (2020). Determination of nutritional value of turmeric flour and the antioxidant activity of Curcuma longa rhizome extracts from agroecological and conventional crops of Valle del Cauca-Colombia. Revista Colombiana de Quimica, 49(1), 26-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/rev.colomb.quim.v1n49.79334
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.15446/rev.colomb.quim.v1n49.79334
• Ribeiro, J. S., Santos, M. J. M. C., Silva, L. K. R., Pereira, L. C. L., Santos, I. A., Lannes, S. C. S., & Silva, M. V. (2019). Natural antioxidants used in meat products: a brief review. Meat Science, 148, 181-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.10.016 PMid:30389412.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.10.016
• Savoldi, D. C., Mendonça, F. J., Vicenzi, B. G., Marchi, D. F., Marchi, J. F., Tonial, I. B., & Soares, A. L. (2021). Evaluation of traditional Brazilian sausage (linguiça calabresa) elaborated with oregano and basil extracts as natural antioxidants. Semina: Ciências Agrárias, 42(6 Suppl 2), 3757-3776. http://dx.doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2021v42n6Supl2p3757
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5433/1679-0359.2021v42n6Supl2p3757
• Sepahpour, S., Selamat, J., Manap, M. Y. A., Khatib, A., & Razis, A. F. A. (2018). Comparative analysis of chemical composition, antioxidant activity and quantitative characterization of some phenolic compounds in selected herbs and spices in different solvent extraction systems. Molecules, 23(2), 402. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules23020402 PMid:29438306.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules23020402
• Sharma, P., & Yadav, S. (2020). Effect of incorporation of pomegranate peel and bagasse powder and their extracts on quality characteristics of chicken meat patties. Food Science of Animal Resources, 40(3), 388-400. http://dx.doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2020.e19 PMid:32426718.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2020.e19
• Soares, A. L., Mendonça, F. J., Negrão, I. D. A., Pavanello, A. C. L., Gerônimo, B. C., Michalichen, K. C., Carreira, C. M., & Venturini, D. (2021). Determinação do teor de compostos fenólicos totais e capacidade antioxidante de cúrcuma orgânica comercial. In S. M. C. Siqueira (Ed.), Farmacologia aplicada à enfermagem: aspectos teóricos e práticos (Cap. 4, pp. 61-72). São Paulo: Científica Digital.
• Sueth-Santiago, V., Mendes-Silva, G. P., Decoté-Ricardo, D., & de Lima, M. E. F. (2015). Curcumina, o pó dourado do açafrão-da-terra: introspecções sobre química e atividades biológicas. Quimica Nova, 38(4), 538-552. http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0100-4042.20150035
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5935/0100-4042.20150035
• Sulaiman, S. F., Sajak, A. A. B., Ooi, K. L., Supriatno, & Seow, E. M. (2011). Effect of solvents in extracting polyphenols and antioxidants of selected raw vegetables. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 24(4), 506-515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2011.01.020
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2011.01.020
• Tarladgis, B. G., Watts, B. M., Younathan, M. T., & Dugan, L. Jr. (1960). A distillation method for the quantitative determination of malonaldehyde in rancid foods. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society, 37(1), 44-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02630824
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02630824
• Zhang, H., Wu, J., & Guo, X. (2016). Effects of antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of spice extracts on raw chicken meat quality. Food Science and Human Wellness, 5(1), 39-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2015.11.003
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fshw.2015.11.003

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  06 Jan 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  02 Aug 2022
• Accepted
  25 Oct 2022