Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Sep 1;9(9):1203.
doi: 10.3390/foods9091203.

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Coatings on Preservation and Shelf Life of Fresh Chicken Breast Fillets Under Cold Storage

Affiliations

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Coatings on Preservation and Shelf Life of Fresh Chicken Breast Fillets Under Cold Storage

Johanna Garavito et al. Foods. .

Abstract

Fresh poultry products such as chicken breast are very convenient for consumption due to their availability and nutritional and sensory characteristics but they have a short shelf life (3-5 days) due to their high water activity and propensity to microbial contamination and spoilage. In this work, the characteristics of edible coatings (EC) prepared from various formulations of guar gum (GG) and isolated soy protein were evaluated. From this evaluation, and due to the guar gum EC being the most suitable, antimicrobial coatings were prepared with different proportions of GG, nisin, and oregano oil to determine its effect on shelf life and change in physicochemical and microbiological properties of chicken breast fillets under refrigerated conditions. Fresh samples were coated with a coating-forming solution based on GG and stored at 4 °C for 16 days. During this time, the change in color, firmness, acidity, pH, growth of microorganisms was determined, and sensory tests of appearance, taste, and odor were performed. GG-coated samples retained color and firmness during storage. Likewise, a decrease in weight loss was achieved in the treated samples, and the sensory attributes were preserved compared to the uncoated samples. The application of the coating considerably delayed the growth of microorganisms, increasing the product shelf life (9 days) compared to the control samples (6 days).

Keywords: cold storage; food packaging; poultry; shelf life.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
In vitro growth of Pseudomonas spp. under different antimicrobial treatments at 4 °C. T1: control; T2: 1% nisin + 0.05% oregano essential oil; T3: 0.05% oregano essential oil; T4: 1% nisin. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments for the same sampling day. The asterisk indicates significant differences between consecutive measurement days for the same treatment according to Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05). Standard deviation included (n = 3).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Weight loss (%) of chicken breast fillets with and without the antimicrobial coating stored at 4 °C. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments for the same sampling day. The asterisk indicates significant differences between consecutive measurement days for the same treatment according to Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05). Standard deviation included (n = 3).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Firmness of chicken breast fillets with and without the antimicrobial coating stored at 4 °C. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments for the same sampling day. The asterisk indicates significant differences between consecutive measurement days for the same treatment according to Tukey’s HSD test (p ≤ 0.05). Standard deviation included (n = 3).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Sensory profile of chicken breast fillets without (A) and with (B) the EC antimicrobial coating stored at 4 °C.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Visual comparison of chicken breast fillets with (A) and without (B) the EC antimicrobial.

References

    1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations—FAO Developing Sustainable Food Value Chains Guiding Principles. [(accessed on 19 June 2020)];2014 Available online: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i3953e.pdf.
    1. Nääs I., Mollo Neto M., Canuto S., Waker R., Oliveira D., Vendrametto O. Brazilian Chicken Meat Production Chain:A 10-Year Overview. Braz. J. Poultry Sci. 2015;17:87–94. doi: 10.1590/1516-635x170187-94. - DOI
    1. López-Andrés J.J., Aguilar-Lasserre A.A., Morales-Mendoza L.F., Azzaro-Pantel C., Pérez-Gallardo J.R., Rico-Contreras J.O. Environmental Impact Assessment of Chicken Meat Production via an Integrated Methodology Based on LCA, Simulation and Genetic Algorithms. J. Clean. Prod. 2018;174:477–491. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.307. - DOI
    1. Wiedemann S.G., McGahan E.J., Murphy C.M. Resource Use and Environmental Impacts from Australian Chicken Meat Production. J. Clean. Prod. 2017;140:675–684. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.086. - DOI
    1. FENAVI—Federación Nacional de Avicultores de Colombia . Consumo Per cápita Mundo—Pollo. Federación Nacional de Avicultores de Colombia; Bogotá, Colombia: 2018. [(accessed on 7 August 2020)]. Available online: https://fenavi.org/estadisticas/consumo-per-capita-mundo-pollo/

LinkOut - more resources