Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Journal of Food Quality
Volume 2017, Article ID 9170768, 8 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/9170768
Research Article

Drip Loss Assessment by Different Analytical Methods and Their Relationships with Pork Quality Classification

1Instituto de Ciências Exatas e Tecnológicas, Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), Campus UFV Florestal, 35690-000 Florestal, MG, Brazil
2Departamento de Ciência dos Alimentos, Universidade Federal de Lavras (UFLA), P.O. Box 3037, 37200-000 Lavras, MG, Brazil
3Departamento de Tecnologia de Alimentos, Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV), 36570-000 Viçosa, MG, Brazil

Correspondence should be addressed to Eduardo Mendes Ramos; rb.alfu.acd@somarme

Received 21 July 2016; Revised 23 December 2016; Accepted 5 February 2017; Published 12 March 2017

Academic Editor: Susana Fiszman

Copyright © 2017 Robledo de Almeida Torres Filho et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

We analyzed drip loss in pork by comparing the standard bag (DL), filter-paper wetness (FPW), and EZ-DripLoss methods by weighing the meat juice container and dabbed sample after 24 h and 48 h. Samples were classified into quality categories based on pH, color, and drip loss. The relationship between DL and FPW revealed the cut-off of 5% DL as corresponding to FPW of 139 mg; 1.89% when analyzed by weighing meat juice container or dabbed sample after 24 h; and 3.18% and 3.74% for those analyzed by weighing both meat juice container and dabbed sample after 48 h, respectively. Highest correlations were observed between DL and EZ when the meat juice container was weighed after 48 h (). The EZ-DripLoss method in which the meat juice container was weighed after 24 h was able to distinguish drip loss into meat-quality categories in accordance with the bag method. Therefore, this method is recommended for meat categorization because of its greater standardization and ease of application.