Open Access

Bioimpedance as an alternative tool for subjective, visual scoring of a prevalent ham quality defect

Sisay Mebre Abie

Sisay Mebre Abie

Faculty of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life SciencesÅs, Norway
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Abie, Sisay Mebre
, 
Paweł Suliga

Paweł Suliga

Faculty of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life SciencesÅs, Norway
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Suliga, Paweł
, 
Bjørg Egelandsdal

Bjørg Egelandsdal

Faculty of Chemistry, Biotechnology and Food Science, Norwegian University of Life SciencesÅs, Norway
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Egelandsdal, Bjørg
 and 
Daniel Münch

Daniel Münch

  • Faculty of Ecology and Natural Resource Management, Norwegian University of Life SciencesÅs, Norway
  • Animalia, Norwegian Meat and Poultry Research CenterOslo, Norway
Search for this author on
Sciendo|Google Scholar
Münch, Daniel
  
Jun 28, 2024
Bioimpedance as an alternative tool for subjective, visual scoring of a prevalent ham quality defect's Cover Image
About this article
Previous Article
Next Article
Cite
Download Cover
Published Online: Jun 28, 2024
Page range: 75 - 84
Received: Nov 16, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/joeb-2024-0008
Keywords
© 2024 Sisay Mebre Abie et al., published by Sciendo
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Fig. 1.

The two different muscles, for which bioimpedance, ultimate meat pH and CIELAB color values were measured. AD: adductor muscle, SM: semimembranosus muscle.
The two different muscles, for which bioimpedance, ultimate meat pH and CIELAB color values were measured. AD: adductor muscle, SM: semimembranosus muscle.

Fig. 2.

Visual DES defect scoring results of the two observers for N = 111 pork ham samples. A) the average visual scores for the two observers (note the 0.5 steps instead of integers). B, C) The distribution of the visual DES scores for the two observers separately. Both the average and individual score data sets show a sufficiently heterogeneous distribution, with all DES ranks being represented by a larger number of individuals and no heavily skewed distribution.
Visual DES defect scoring results of the two observers for N = 111 pork ham samples. A) the average visual scores for the two observers (note the 0.5 steps instead of integers). B, C) The distribution of the visual DES scores for the two observers separately. Both the average and individual score data sets show a sufficiently heterogeneous distribution, with all DES ranks being represented by a larger number of individuals and no heavily skewed distribution.

Fig. 3.

Bioimpedance response (Py parameter) distribution for two ham muscles, which were also included with the more global visual DES evaluation. A) Py parameter distribution for the AD muscle location. B) Py parameter distribution for the central SM location. C) Correlation plot of Py values scores for SM and AD testing indicating a strong correlation (r = 0.8).
Bioimpedance response (Py parameter) distribution for two ham muscles, which were also included with the more global visual DES evaluation. A) Py parameter distribution for the AD muscle location. B) Py parameter distribution for the central SM location. C) Correlation plot of Py values scores for SM and AD testing indicating a strong correlation (r = 0.8).

Fig. 4.

Correlation coefficients between visual destructured (DES) score and bioimpedance (BI) measurements, pHu, and CIELAB for the AD muscle. All shown correlations were found to be significant at (P < 0.05), except Py vs L* with P = 0.39.
Correlation coefficients between visual destructured (DES) score and bioimpedance (BI) measurements, pHu, and CIELAB for the AD muscle. All shown correlations were found to be significant at (P < 0.05), except Py vs L* with P = 0.39.

Estimated coefficients of the model statistics with P values_

Estimate SE tSTAT P - Value
(Intercept) −82.022 74.573 −1.0999 0.274
pHu 17.343 13.121 1.3217 0.189
L* 2.3323 1.5671 1.4883 0.139
a* 0.85357 0.38534 2.2151 0.029
b* 0.21135 0.089393 2.3643 0.02
Py −0.83391 0.27336 −3.0506 0.003
pHu x L* −0.54006 0.2669 −2.0235 0.045
pHu x Py 0.11651 0.045719 2.5484 0.012
L* x Py 0.0033977 0.0011399 2.9807 0.003
L*2 0.0054231 0.0029521 1.837 0.069
a*2 −0.035111 0.013828 −2.5392 0.012

The four-rank visual DES scoring scheme for destructured ham cuts, including the semimembranosus and adductor muscle_ Scoring was based on evaluating structural disintegration and visual color (adapted from [19, 24])_

Score
Visual colour Reddish (> 3) From pale to reddish (1 - 3) Very pale (1 - 2)
Muscle structure defect Compact fibre structure

Absence of fibrillar structure in the affected area

Destructured meat

Absence of fibrillar structure in the affected area

Soft and doughy, destructured meat Fluid exudate
Area affected None Small areas on the surface with single patches of destructured zones More than 50% of both muscle areas Lesions beneath the surface
Observations No visible defects Small, pale areas on the surface Lesion less than approx. 2cm in depth Lesion more than approx. 2cm in depth
Language:
English
Publication timeframe:
1 times per year
Journal Subjects:
Engineering, Bioengineering and Biomedical Engineering, Biomedical Electronics, Life Sciences, Biophysics, Medicine, Biomedical Engineering, Physics, Spectroscopy and Metrology
Journal RSS Feed