Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Research International

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres

Using canola oil hydrogels and organogels to reduce saturated animal fat in T
meat batters
Marta Alejandrea, Iciar Astiasarána, Diana Ansorenaa, , Shai Barbutb
⁎

a
Department of Nutrition, Food Science and Physiology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Navarra, Irunlarrea s/n, 31008, IDISNA – Instituto de
Investigación Sanitaria de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain
b
Food Science Department, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Conventional canola oil and structured canola oil systems, consisting of oil in water hydrogelled emulsions (with
Carrageenan 1.5% or 3% kappa carrageenan) and ethylcellulose organogels (12%, with 0%, 1.5% or 3% glycerol mono-
Ethylcellulose stearate), were used to replace beef fat in emulsion type meat batters.
Fat replace Replacement with regular canola oil increased hardness and lightness (P < .05) of the reformulated products
Hydrogelled emulsion
as compared to those with beef fat. Structuring the oil resulted in similar color and texture (P > .05), and lower
Meat emulsion
Organogel
oxidation values (P < .05) of meat batters. Reformulated products also gave rise to a healthier fatty acid profile,
evidenced by a decrease in saturated fatty acids (SFA) from 11.8% to ≈ 2% and an increase in polyunsaturated
fatty acids (PUFA) from 0.3% to ≈ 5%. Omega-6 to omega-3 ratio also decreased (16.2 to ≈ 2) when in-
corporating canola oil into meat batters. Batters formulated with organogels showed improved matrix stability
compared to those with hydrogelled emulsions, which showed some coalescence of fat globules and fat losses
during cooking, resulting in a reduction of fat content (P < .05).

1. Introduction Different strategies based on either structured oil systems, inter-

High intake of dietary saturated fat is of particular concern because
they are correlated with increased risk of cardiovascular diseases (Sacks
et al., 2017; WHO, 2003). A number of dietary guidelines recommend
limiting consumption of processed meats due to their high saturated fat
content (Aranceta-Bartrina et al., 2017; USDA, 2015). Thus, replace-
ment of saturated fats with unsaturated oils in meat products is one of
the most researched options to formulate healthier products.
Unsaturated fats in our diet are mainly coming from plant, fish or
algae sources. Canola oil, one of the most widely consumed vegetable
oils in Canada, has a very low level of saturated fatty acids (SFA) and
substantial amounts of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and
polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA).
Animal fat plays an important role in formulation of products due to
its unique texture (Pehlivanoğlu et al., 2018). Previous studies reported
that simple replacement of animal fat with vegetable oils resulted in
increased hardness of cooked meat products (Barbut & Marangoni,
2019; Barbut, Wood, & Marangoni, 2016a, 2016c; Youssef & Barbut,
2009; Zetzl, Marangoni, & Barbut, 2012). Technological problems were
also reported by Bloukas, Paneras, and Fournitzis (1997) in dry fer-
mented sausages formulated with olive oil.
esterification, or encapsulation have been suggested to cope with this
technological problems (Kılıç & Özer, 2019). Emulsion gels have been
successfully used to replace/reduce animal fat in comminuted meat
products (Paglarini, Martini, & Pollonio, 2019; Pintado et al., 2016;
Pintado, Herrero, Jiménez-Colmenero, & Ruiz-Capillas, 2016; Wang,
Xie, Li, Liu, & Yan, 2018).
Oil in water (O/W) emulsions are produced by forming a stable
emulsion (oil phase dispersed in a continuous phase) in the presence of
an emulsifier, followed by emulsion gelation (Jimenez-Colmenero
et al., 2015; McClements, 2010). In the case of kappa carrageenan, this
gelation is based on a conformational transition of the gum from
random coil to double helix, upon cooling, leading to the formation of
an elastic gel (Stephen & Phillips, 2016). This polysaccharide gum al-
lows wide range of possibilities for incorporating different amounts of
oil (1% - 40%) and kappa carrageenan (1.5% - 3%), making it possible
to be used for applications such as fat reduction and lipid profile
modification.
Previous studies showed that fresh and cured meat products con-
taining an O/W hydrogelled emulsion (40% oil and 1.5% kappa car-
rageenan) as a partial fat replacer (up to 50%) had improved lipid
composition and sensory acceptability (Alejandre, Passarini, Astiasarán,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: dansorena@unav.es (D. Ansorena).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.056
Received 18 January 2019; Received in revised form 14 March 2019; Accepted 25 March 2019
Available online 26 March 2019
0963-9969/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Alejandre, et al.
& Ansorena, 2017; Alejandre, Poyato, Ansorena, & Astiasarán, 2016).
In addition, organogels have recently been used as another lipid
delivery system. They are formed by combining an organic liquid and
an organogelator at specific shearing conditions, resulting in a three-
dimensional cooled networked structure with thermo-reversible prop-
erties (Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2015; Stortz, Zetzl, Barbut,
Cattaruzza, & Marangoni, 2012).
Ethylcellulose (EC), a semi-crystalline cellulose polymer derivative,
consisting of a cellulose backbone with ethoxyl substitutions at the
hydroxyl groups, has been used as an organogelator (Koch, 1937).
Texture and plasticity of vegetable oil based EC oleogels can be
modulated by the addition of surfactants. Glycerol monostearate
(GMS), for instance, is able to structure oil resulting in the formation of
a secondary network due to crystallization (Davidovich-Pinhas, Barbut,
& Marangoni, 2015). This surfactant has been successfully incorporated
into vegetable oil-based EC oleogels with a moderate plasticizing effect
(Davidovich-Pinhas, Barbut, & Marangoni, 2016).
In comminuted meat products, ethylcellulose based organogels have
shown promising results as an oil structuring agent (Barbut et al.,
2016a, 2016c; Barbut, Wood, & Marangoni, 2016b; Zetzl et al., 2012).
However, the use of surfactants in organogels and how they affect meat
products has not been investigated in depth. Overall, only the addition
of the sorbitan monostearate (SMS) surfactant has been tested in meat
products (frankfurters and breakfast sausages) showing similar texture
to full animal fat control products (Barbut et al., 2016a, 2016b). Thus,
as GMS has pretty similar properties to SMS, it can be hypothesized that
GMS may also be of interest in meat products reformulation strategies.
The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of total
animal fat replacement in meat batters, using two structured oil sys-
tems, namely O/W hydrogelled emulsions and organogels. In addition,
the effect of different amounts of carrageenan in the O/W hydrogelled
emulsions and GMS in the organogels were evaluated with respect to
the physicochemical, textural and nutritional properties of the re-
formulated products.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Meat ingredients
Lean beef leg muscles (semitendinosus and biceps femoris) and beef fat
trimming were obtained from the University of Guelph meat laboratory.
The lean beef meat (72.55 ± 0.24% moisture, 24.43 ± 0.52% pro-
tein, and 2.08 ± 0.02% fat) and beef fat (74.82 ± 0.19% fat,
19.34 ± 0.62% moisture and 5.04 ± 0.52% protein; AOAC, 2002a)
were separately chopped in a bowl chopper (Schneidmeister SMK 40,
Berlin, Germany) at the low speed setting for 1 min, to obtain a
homogenous mass, and then frozen (−20 °C) in individual polyethylene
bags (1 kg per bag) and used within 3 months.
2.2. Gel systems ingredients
Canola oil was obtained from Saporito Foods Inc., Markham, (ON,
Table 1
Formulations (%) of meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HG) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or
3%); and organogels (OG) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%).
Treatment Treatment identification Lean beef meat Beef fat Liquid canola oil
1 BF control 39.00 28.00 – –
2 CO control 45.45 – 20.56
3 HGM-1.5% CA 45.45 – –
4 HGM-3% CA 45.45 – –
5 OGM- no GMS 45.45 – –
6 OGM-1.5% GMS 45.45 – –
7 OGM-3% GMS 45.45 – –
All formulated with 2% salt, 1% modified starch and 0.25% sodium tripolyphosphate.
130
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
Canada). Kappa carrageenan (GENU® texturizer type MB-151F) was
provided by CP Kelco, Atlanta, (GA, USA). Polysorbate 80 was pur-
chased from Sigma-Aldrich Chemical, (MO, USA). Ethylcellulose
(ETHOCEL Std.10 Premium) was provided by Dow Chemical, Midland,
(MI, USA), BHT was obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific, (NH, USA)
and GMS was purchased from HallStar, Bedford Park, (IL, USA).
2.3. Oil in water (O/W) hydrogelled emulsions and organogels preparation
The two systems were formulated to supply equal amount of fat to
all the meat batter formulations. O/W hydrogelled emulsions (HG)
were prepared according to the method described by Poyato, Ansorena,
Berasategi, Navarro-Blasco, and Astiasaran (2014) in Pyrex beakers
(300 g). Briefly, the oil phase containing canola oil (40%), polysorbate
80 (0.05%; 0.003 oil: surfactant ratio), BHT (0.01%), and the aqueous
phase containing kappa carrageenan (1.5% or 3%), and deionized
water (up to 100%) were separately heated at 80 °C. After the homo-
genization of both phases, part of the molten gel was kept in Pyrex
beakers to be incorporated in the meat batters, other part split into ten
aliquots of 35 mL in 50 mL polypropylene centrifuge tubes (height:
9.0 cm, diameter: 2.7 cm diameter) for the back extrusion test and sy-
neresis, and the rest poured into cylindrical glass tubes (height:
14.5 cm, inside diameter:1.9 cm) lined with an aluminum foil (Gravelle,
Barbut, & Marangoni, 2013) for texture profile analysis. All parts of the
molten gels were cooled at room temperature for 2 h and stored at 4 °C
overnight.
Organogels (OG) were prepared with 12% ethylcellulose (viscosity
of 10 cP), glycerol monostearate (GMS at 0%, 1.5% or 3%), 0.01%
butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT; to control oxidation) and canola oil
(88%, 86.5% or 85%, depending on the GMS concentration) and
heating in an oven to 140 °C according to Gravelle, Barbut, and
Marangoni (2012). The molten gels were split in the same proportions
as the hydrogelled emulsions into Pyrex beakers, the 50 mL poly-
propylene tubes, and the cylindrical glass tubes. Organogels were kept
in the oven at 100 °C for 1 h, cooled at room temperature for 2 h and
stored at 4 °C overnight.
2.4. Meat batters preparation
Seven treatments were prepared: beef fat control (BF control); ca-
nola oil control (CO control); two meat batters containing oil in water
(O/W) hydrogelled emulsions with 1.5% or 3% carrageenan (CA)
(HGM-1.5% CA and HGM-3% CA); and three meat batters containing
organogels with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations
(OGM-no GMS, OGM-1.5% GMS, and OGM-3% GMS). Formulations of
meat batters are shown in Table 1.
Meat batters (1.5 kg batches) were formulated to contain 11%
protein and 21% fat/oil. The lean meat supplied 2.08% of the fat in the
overall meat batter formulation, and the remainder (18.92%) of the
21% was provided by either added beef fat, liquid canola oil, a canola
oil based ethylcellulose organogel, or a canola oil based O/W carra-
geenan hydrogelled emulsion. Meat and fat were thawed (5 °C)
Organogel (OG) Hydrogelled emulsion (HG) Ice
– 29.75
– – 30.74
– 51.30 –
– 51.30 –
22.84 – 28.46
23.23 – 28.07
23.63 – 27.67
M. Alejandre, et al.
overnight. A common procedure (Youssef & Barbut, 2009) was used to
prepare the meat batters in three separate trials. Briefly, lean meat was
chopped in the bowl chopper (Schneidmeister SMK 40, Berlin, Ger-
many) at the low speed setting for 30 s, followed by the addition of
2.0% NaCl, 0.25% sodium tripolyphosphate and 1% modified waxy
maize starch (FIRM-TEX®; Ingredion, Westchester, IL, USA), and
chopping at high speed for 30 s. This was followed by a 1.5 min break
(allowing time for protein extraction). The fat source was then added
and chopped at the high speed setting for 1 min, followed by ice ad-
dition, and chopping at the high speed for 5 min. Final batter tem-
peratures, for all treatments, did not exceed 12 °C. Each batter was
vacuum-packed (150 Torr, Multivac Model A300/16, Sepp Haggen-
meuller KG, Wolfertschwenden, Germany) to remove trapped air, and
then nine 35-g samples were stuffed into 50 mL polypropylene tubes
(height: 9 cm, diameter: 2.7 cm diameter) which were centrifuged (Fi-
scher Scientific, Model 225, Pittsburgh, PA) at the low speed setting for
30 s to remove any remaining small air bubbles. The tubes were cooked
in a water- bath set to 80 °C (Haake W-26, Berlin, Germany) from 25 °C
to 72 °C within 1.5 h. A thermocouple unit (Fluke Corporation, Model
52, Everett, WA, USA) was used to monitor the core temperature of the
samples. Samples cooked in the polypropylene tubes were kept at 4 °C
until further analyses (cooking loss, proximate composition, TPA, back
extrusion, color and TBARS).
2.5. Analyses of hydrogelled emulsions and organogels
2.5.1. Texture profile analysis (TPA) and back extrusion tests
The mechanical properties were evaluated using two large de-
formation techniques: texture profile analysis (TPA) and the back ex-
trusion test. Both tests were performed using a texture analyzer
(TA.TXT2, Stable Micro Systems, Texture Technologies Corporation,
Scardsdale, NY, USA).
For gels, samples were prepared in the cylindrical glass tubes.
Samples kept at 4 °C were compressed twice to 30% of their original
height, at a crosshead speed of 1.5 mm/s with a cylindrical probe (TA-
30A, 7.6 cm diameter, 1.0 cm tall). The following parameters were re-
corded: hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, chewiness, gumminess,
and resilience (Bourne, 1978). Nine samples per treatment were mea-
sured in each of the three separate trials. The two hydrogelled emulsion
treatments were also analyzed after 10 days of storage at 4 °C to eval-
uate their stability.
Back extrusion samples were prepared in the 50 mL polypropylene
centrifuge tubes and evaluated 24 h after preparation (Zetzl et al.,
2012). A stainless steel probe with a cylindrical shaft (height 9.8 cm,
diameter 1.8 cm) and a truncated spherical tip (height 1.3 cm, diameter
2.0 cm) was used to penetrate 30 mm into each sample. Parameters
collected were: Young's modulus (ratio of the compressive stress to the
longitudinal strain; MPa) and force at maximum penetration (30 mm;
N). Five tubes per treatment were measured in two separate trials.
2.5.2. Syneresis- hydrogelled emulsions
Syneresis of carrageenan gels was measured according to Banerjee
and Bhattacharya (2011) to evaluate their stability at 4 °C for 48 h. The
50 mL polypropylene tubes, containing 30 mL of carrageenan gel, were
weighted (M1) and centrifuged at 5000 rpm (2800 g) for 10 min in a
laboratory model centrifuge (Marathon 21000R, Thermo IEC, Needham
Heights, MA, USA). After centrifugation, gels along with the tubes were
weighed again after discarding the separated water (M2). Syneresis of
gel was calculated as (M1– M2)/M1 and expressed as per cent basis.
Three polypropylene tubes per treatment were measured in two sepa-
rate trials.
2.5.3. Cryo-scanning electron microscopy- hydrogelled emulsions and
organogels
Organogels (40–60 mg) were placed in a 5-mm high stub with single
hole (6 mm diameter x 3 mm deep), and hydrogelled emulsions were
131
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
cut into 2-mm cubes and fit into a slot of the E7449 universal specimen
stub (Quorum Technologies, Lewes, UK). A formulation of water so-
luble glycols and resins (Tissue-Tek O.C.T., Canempco Supplies, St.
Laurent, QC, Canada) was used to provide convenient specimen matrix
for cryostat sectioning. In both cases, the stub was placed in a cryogenic
preparation system (Emitech K1250X, Ashford, Kent, UK) and then
plugged into a liquid nitrogen-slush bath at −210 °C to rapidly freeze
the sample, followed by transfer to the cryogenic preparation system
under vacuum. Samples were fractured with a razor blade and the
frozen phase was sublimed for 5 min (OG samples) or for 30 min (HG
samples) at −90 °C, depending on sample composition. Samples were
then sputter coated with 30 nm of platinum and then transferred to the
SEM unit (Quanta FEG 250, FEI, Hillsboro, OR, USA) to be viewed at
acceleration voltage of 10 kV and a temperature no higher than −
120 °C.
2.6. Analyses of meat batters
2.6.1. Cooking loss and proximate composition
Cooking loss was determined as the fluid collected after heating and
brief cooling of the polypropylene tubes (cold water for 5 min), ex-
pressed as percentage water and fat loss from the raw batter. Liquids
were kept at 4 °C overnight, so fat/oil floated to the top, and measured
the next day.
Proximate analyses were performed on fresh meat and on cooked
meat batters according to the Official Method of Analysis AOAC
International (AOAC, 2002a; AOAC, 2002b; AOAC, 2002c; AOAC,
2002d).
2.6.2. Fatty acid profile and thiobarbituric acid-reactive-substances
(TBARS)
Fatty acid profile was determined on the lipid extracts by gas
chromatography, after initial derivatization to form fatty acid methyl
esters (FAME), following the method of Alejandre et al. (2017).
TBARS were determined on the extracted fat of cooked meat batters
according to Maqsood and Benjakul (2010) with slight modifications
reported in Poyato, Ansorena, Navarro-Blasco, and Astiasaran (2014).
2.6.3. Texture profile analysis (TPA) and back extrusion
Nine cores (16 mm diameter, 10 mm high) taken from samples
cooked in the 50 mL polypropylene tubes the day before were used for
the TPA. Cores were compressed twice to 75% of their original height at
a crosshead speed of 1.5 mm/s.
The back extrusion test (see conditions above) was performed on
samples cooked in the 50 mL polypropylene tubes the day before.
Results were recorded as described by Gravelle, Barbut, Quinton, and
Marangoni (2014).
2.6.4. Light microscopy
Samples (approximately 2.0 × 2.0 × 0.5 cm) from the 50 mL poly-
propylene tubes were cut from the centers of cooked meat batters,
which were then treated and fixed following Youssef and Barbut
(2009), and observed using a microscope (Model BX60, Olympus Op-
tical Co, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan). Average size of fat globules was calculated
using a micrometer.
2.6.5. Color
Samples (27 mm diameter, 1.0 cm height) from the 50 mL poly-
propylene tubes were used to measure the color. Seven measurements
per treatment were done based on Holman, Collins, Kilgannon, and
Hopkins (2018), using a NIX (Nix Pro Color Sensor™, Nix Sensor Ltd.,
ON, Canada) using the CIE L*a*b* system, illuminant D65 and 10°
standard observer settings. Hue [tan−1 (b*/a*)] and Chroma
[(a*2 + b*2)1/2] were also calculated.
M. Alejandre, et al. Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136

Table 2
Texture profile analysis (TPA) and back extrusion parameters of hydrogelled emulsions (HG) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and
organogels (OG) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%).
Parameters HG-1.5% CA HG-3% CA OG-no GMS OG-1.5% GMS OG-3% GMS SEM P value

TPA Hardness (N) 6.35 (0.12)a 15.97 (0.39)c Too soft 11.69 (0.63)b 16.43 (0.29)c 0.75 0.001
Springiness (cm) 0.97 (0.00)b 0.95 (0.00)b Too soft 0.74 (0.02)a 0.84 (0.00)ab 0.04 0.001
Cohesiveness (ratio) 0.73 (0.00)b 0.72 (0.00)b Too soft 0.45 (0.02)a 0.57 (0.00)ab 0.04 0.001
Chewiness (N cm) 4.61 (0.06)a 11.41 (0.22)b Too soft 5.19 (0.26)a 9.38 (0.57)b 0.58 0.001
Gumminess (N) 4.45 (0.07)a 10.86 (0.22)b Too soft 3.85 (0.26)a 7.88 (0.09)b 0.51 0.001
Resilience (ratio) 0.44 (0.00)b 0.41 (0.01)b Too soft 0.12 (0.01)a 0.19 (0.00)a 0.03 0.001
Back extrusion Force at maximum penetration (N) 8.95 (1.67)b 20.65 (1.19)c 0.35(0.29)a 6.74 (0.84)b 19.12 (1.5)c 2.31 0.001
Young's modulus (MPa) 1.07 (0.03)ab 1.57 (0.11)c Too soft 0.87 (0.08)a 1.31 (0.35)bc 0.15 0.001

Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on
post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials.

2.6.6. Statistical analysis compromising the texture.

Analysis was done using the STATA/IC 12.1 program (StataCorp LP,
Texas, USA) to evaluate the random block design which included three
independent trials. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was per-
formed to evaluate statistical significance (P < .05) among treatments.
Treatments were assigned as fixed effect and trial as a random effect.
Multiple comparisons of means were done by the Tukey Post Hoc
procedure to evaluate significance (P < .05) among treatments. Values
reported are the mean values and standard error of the mean (SEM). A
common SEM and P-value for all means was also calculated.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Hydrogelled emulsions and organogels characteristics: texture and
microstructure
Both types of oil delivery systems were evaluated to better under-
stand their physical properties. Texture was evaluated by TPA and back
extrusion tests in all samples except for organogel without surfactant
(OG-no GMS), which was too soft to be measured (Table 2).
Addition of carrageenan (3%) and GMS (3%), in their respective oil
delivery systems, showed a clear dose-effect (P < .05) on hardness,
chewiness and gumminess as compared to emulsions with 1.5% carra-
geenan or GMS (Table 2). Moreover, back extrusion data showed in-
creased force and Young's modulus values at the initial state of de-
formation, confirming the increased firmness when adding more
carrageenan or GMS. These results agree with Poyato, Ansorena,
Berasategi, et al. (2014) who pointed out the increased hardness of
hydrogelled emulsions with higher levels of carrageenan, and the re-
sults of Davidovich-Pinhas et al. (2015) who reported the effect of
surfactant addition on organogel firmness. In addition, Lopez-Martínez,
Charó-Alonso, Marangoni, and Toro-Vazquez (2015) described a sy-
nergistic interaction between ethylcellulose and GMS in canola oil or-
ganogels. An increase in gel firmness was also reported when SMS
(surfactant) was added into ethylcellulose oleogels (Gravelle et al.,
2013). In the present study, the hydrogelled emulsions (HG) showed
higher resilience (a parameter related to the elastic recovery of the
sample) compared to organogels (OG), which demonstrated kappa
carrageenan's ability to produce a more elastic gel.
Differences in gel systems microstructure were also visualized
(Fig. 1). Hydrogelled emulsions with 1.5% carrageenan showed a ty-
pical honeycomb structure (Fig. 1A, B and C) seen after sublimation of a
high amount of water (60% within the original structure). The orga-
nogel with 1.5% GMS (Fig. 1D, E and F) showed a rough and waxy
morphology due to the high oil content in the system. A fairly similar
structure of an organogel was also reported by Laredo, Barbut, and
Marangoni (2011). Only two gel systems were selected since the other
gels showed similar microstructure. These structured oil systems were
later incorporated into our test meat formulations as total animal fat
replacers, with the ultimate goal of improving the lipid profile without
3.2. Meat batters evaluations
Testing for cooking loss is essential to assess the ability of a meat
system to hold water and fat during the protein denaturation phase
(Tahmasebi, Labbafi, Emam-Djomeh, & Yarmand, 2016). Meat batters
formulated with liquid canola oil (CO control) showed significantly
lower water loss (< 1%) compared to beef fat control batters (BF
control; Fig. 2). This reduction by itself could be considered as an ad-
vantage. However, the significant increases (P < .05) in hardness and
springiness in products with liquid canola oil compared to BF control
(Table 3), showed some negative effects. These results are in agreement
with previous studies showing that substitution with liquid vegetable
oil by itself resulted in much firmer comminuted meat products (Barbut
et al., 2016a; Youssef, Barbut, & Smith, 2011; Zetzl et al., 2012).
The reduction in fluid loss and the increased hardness of the CO
control batter can be explained by the oil globules´ size and distribution
within the matrix. Fig. 3 shows that the CO control batter (Fig. 3B) had
much smaller fat globules (average size < 50 μm), compared to fat
globules in BF control batter (average size ≈100 μm; Fig. 3A). The
small fat globules are covered with an interfacial protein film (IPF) and
hence, provided more surface for fat-protein interactions, which results
in more resistance to compression and less chance for fluid exudation
during the cooking process. The same finding was reported in previous
studies using liquid oil in meat batters (Barbut et al., 2016b; Youssef &
Barbut, 2009).
In order to counteract the higher hardness observed by using canola
oil by itself (as compared to the BF control), oil structuring systems
were employed. The hydrogelled emulsions meat products (HGM)
showed a decrease in water loss, compared to the BF control (Fig. 2).
Carrageenan (CA) had a positive effect on water retention. Thus, the
higher level of CA (3%) contributed to a 50% lower water loss com-
pared to 1.5% CA. However, fat was not so well retained in HGM
products; i.e., resulting in fat losses of around 5%. Thus, HGM products
showed higher cooking losses (fat + water) compared to BF control
products.
The use of the organogel system also showed lower water losses
compared to the BF control (Fig. 2). The further addition of glycerol
monostearate (GMS) surfactant did not affect water and fat loss values.
This agrees with previous studies in which sorbitan monostearate (SMS)
was added as a surfactant to a finely comminuted meat product (Barbut
et al., 2016a, 2016c).
Unlike the increased hardness of the CO control, meat batters for-
mulated with the structured oil gel systems (OGM and HGM) showed
similar hardness, cohesiveness, chewiness, gumminess and resilience as
the BF control (P > .05; Table 3). This is desirable as it demonstrates
that vegetable oil can be used, when incorporated into a meat gel
system, without negatively affecting texture. The back extrusion test
showed that penetration force was similar in HGM and OGM-no GMS

132
M. Alejandre, et al.
Fig. 1. Scanning electron micrographs of hydrogelled emulsion (HG) with 1.5% carrageenan (A, B, C); and organogel (OG) with 1.5% glycerol monostearate (GMS)
(D,E,F), at three magnifications (2000x, 10,000x and 20,000x), respectively.
compared to the force used for the BF control, but lower values were
noticed in organogel batters with GMS. However, as was previously
pointed out, these differences were not noticed in hardness measured
by TPA. Barbut et al. (2016b) also reported that the addition of orga-
nogels containing a SMS surfactant, to breakfast sausages, did not affect
the hardness of the products.
The similar textural properties of OGM and the BF control product
may also be explained by looking at microscopy results. Fig. 3E and F
show the microstructure of organogel meat batters formulated with
0.0% GMS and 1.5% GMS, respectively (3% GMS is not shown; as its
structure resembles the 1.5% GMS). Increases of fat globules size,
compared with the CO control, gave rise to a lower IPF surrounding the
globules and hence, lower hardness of these products.
The size of fat globules can also be used to explain the differences
observed in lightness among formulations (Table 4). CO control and
meat batter with organogel (without GMS) showed lighter appearance
as compared to the rest of the products, since more light reflectance is
related to smaller fat globules (Youssef & Barbut, 2010). Meanwhile,
increases of fat globules size in meat batters with organogels plus GMS
133
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
resulted in similar L* values compared to the BF control. Redness and
yellowness values (a*, b*) were significantly lower in the CO control as
compared to the BF control. However, these differences were not no-
ticed in OGM. Wolfer, Acevedo, Prusa, Sebranek, and Tarté (2018) also
reported lighter and less red frankfurters formulated with soybean oil as
replacer of animal fat compared to control, even in treatments where
the oil was structured with rice bran wax. As expected, a decrease in fat
globules size was also observed in soybean oil frankfurters.
Despite the similar texture of HGM, compared to BF control, light
micrographs showed some irregular shaped fat globules and some
coalescence in the CA added treatments (Fig. 3C and D). This helps to
explain the fat losses observed in these treatments. In any case, this fat
morphology did not affect the color of HGM (P > .05; Table 4).
A possible explanation for the fat destabilization in these products
could be related to the addition of Polysorbate 80, as surfactant, in the
hydrogelled emulsions. Previous studies reported a protein matrix ag-
gregation and high cooking losses in meat batters when this surfactant
was added (Youssef et al., 2011).
Nevertheless, in order to clarify the potential origin of the instability
Fig. 2. Fat and water losses (%) of meat batters prepared with
beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsion (HGM)
with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%);
and organogel (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate
(GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%). Means (n = 9) related to
fluid loss with same lower case are not significantly different
(P < .05). Means (n = 9) related to fat loss with same capital
letter are not significantly different (P < .05). Error bars
show the standard error of the mean.
M. Alejandre, et al. Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136

Table 3
Texture profile analysis (TPA) parameters and force of back extrusion of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions
(HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or
3%).
Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Treatment identification BF control CO control HGM-1.5% CA HGM-3% CA OGM- no GMS OGM-1.5% OGM-3% GMS SEM P value
GMS

TPA Hardness (N) 14.78 (0.54)ab 20.72 (0.98)c 14.55 (0.53)ab 15.77 (1.03)ab 17.61 (0.39)b 13.57 (0.61)a 14.62 (0.62)a 0.35 0.001
Springiness (cm) 0.62 (0.05)a 0.88 (0.01)c 0.82 (0.43)bc 0.77 (0.01)abc 0.75 (0.05)abc 0.68 (0.02)ab 0.71 (0.04)abc 0.02 0.003
Cohesiveness (ratio) 0.22 (0.01)ab 0.28 (0.01)b 0.25 (0.02)ab 0.25 (0.01)ab 0.23 (0.01)ab 0.20 (0.01)a 0.23 (0.02)ab 0.01 0.028
Chewiness (N cm) 2.11 (0.36)a 5.14 (0.37)a 4.43 (1.73)a 3.31 (0.55)a 3.28 (0.58)a 1.75 (0.24)a 2.35 (0.34)a 0.35 0.104
Gumminess (N) 3.36 (0.27)a 5.86 (0.38)a 5.24 (1.79)a 4.26 (0.71)a 4.31 (0.49)a 2.55 (0.30)a 3.22 (0.26)a 0.35 0.104
Resilience (ratio) 0.07 (0.00)ab 0.09 (0.00)b 0.08 (0.01)a 0.07 (0.00)ab 0.07 (0.00)ab 0.06 (0.00)a 0.07 (0.01)ab 0.00 0.059
Back extrusion Force (N) 46.42 (0.89)c 52.81 (1.47)d 43.21 (1.56)c 44.71 (1.55)c 42.53 (1.33)bc 33.27 (0.89)a 36.40 (1.40)ab 1.21 0.000

Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on
post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials.

of meat batters formulated with the hydrogelled system (i.e., with
carrageenan) their stability was monitored after 10 days storage at 4 °C
(TPA test and syneresis after centrifugation). No significant differences
in TPA parameters were found before and after storage at both CA
concentrations (data not shown for the 10th day). Syneresis was low for
both HG products (2.96% and 1.85% at 1.5% and 3% CA, respectively).
Consequently, this gel delivery system seemed not to be the cause of
instability. These findings suggest that the origin of destabilization is
affected by the manufacturing process and therefore further study is
needed. It is also interesting to note that the meat batters with beef fat,
canola oil and organogels showed a final end chopping temperature
below 5 °C. However, meat batters formulated with hydrogelled emul-
sions reached temperatures of 10 °C to 12 °C. This might have affected
the protein extraction and the emulsification process. In this regard, it
has been indicated that protein extraction is enhanced at temperatures
of 2 °C to 4 °C (Barbut, 2015; Schmidt, 1984). The reason for reaching a
higher temperature was that no ice was added to the carrageenan
treatments as that water was already incorporated during emulsion
preparation (Table 1).
As the goal of the study was to improve the fatty acid composition of
meat batters, (i.e., via using canola oil as an animal fat replacer),
changes in the nutritional profile were also determined (Table 5).

Fig. 3. Light micrographs of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (A); canola oil (B); hydrogelled emulsion with 1.5% carrageenan (C); hydrogelled emulsion
with 3% carrageenan (D); organogel without glycerol monostearate (GMS) (E); and organogel with 1.5% GMS (F). Scale bar, 200 μm.

134
M. Alejandre, et al. Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136

Table 4
Color parameters of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO); hydrogelled emulsions (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations
(1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS) concentrations (1.5% or 3%).
Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Treatment identification BF control CO control HGM-1.5% CA HGM-3% CA OGM- no GMS OGM-1.5% GMS OGM-3% GMS SEM P value

L* 63.03 (0.04)a 74.28 (0.32)c 68.95 (3.47)abc 64.91 (1.07)a 71.72 (0.45)c 69.22 (0.14)ab 71.10 (0.25)ab 0.92 0.000
a* 7.50 (0.12)b 5.70 (0.05)a 6.88 (0.75)ab 7.15 (0.23)ab 6.78 (0.28)ab 7.20 (0.16)ab 6.95 (0.20)ab 0.16 0.045
b* 10.00 (0.07)b 8.78 (0.18)a 10.18 (0.43)b 10.68 (0.14)b 9.90 (0.05)b 10.05 (0.13)b 10.01 (0.09)b 0.13 0.001
Hue 53.14 (0.39)a 56.98 (0.53)a 56.18 (1.94)a 56.19 (0.91)a 55.60 (0.96)a 54.38 (0.68)a 55.22 (0.94)a 0.42 0.220
Chroma 12.50 (0.11)a 9.55 (1.07)a 11.72 (0.64)a 12.69 (0.30)a 10.95 (0.90)a 11.45 (0.95)a 11.08 (1.06)a 0.33 0.184

Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on
post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials.

Table 5
Proximate composition (%), lipid profile (%) and lipid oxidation (mg MDA/kg product) of cooked meat batters prepared with beef fat (BF); canola oil (CO);
hydrogelled emulsions (HGM) with different carrageenan (CA) concentrations (1.5% or 3%); and organogels (OGM) with different glycerol monostearate (GMS)
concentrations (1.5% or 3%).
Treatment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Treatment identification BF control CO control HG-1.5%CA HG-3%CA OG-no GMS OG-1.5%GMS OG-3%GMS SEM P value

Protein (%) 13.32 (0.12)a 13.58 (0.23)a 12.62 (0.23)a 12.12 (0.31)a 13.41 (0.25)a 13.56 (0.33)a 13.27 (0.14)a 0.09 0.478
Moisture (%) 62.13 (0.44)b 63.57 (0.83)bc 66.73 (1.08)c 65.12 (1.26)c 60.87 (0.23)a 59.82 (0.40)a 59.23 (0.48)a 0.45 0.004
Fat (%) 23.29 (1.03)c 21.94 (0.75)c 16.73 (0.89)a 18.28 (1.19)ab 20.82 (0.19)bc 21.39 (0.16)c 21.85 (0.37)c 0.35 0.005
SFA 11.79 (0.10)d 2.37 (0.08)c 1.57 (0.05)a 1.72 (0.04)ab 1.97 (0.03)bc 2.01 (0.07)bc 2.12 (0.02)bc 0.91 0.001
MUFA 9.87 (0.09)a 14.04 (0.10)c 10.48 (0.10)ab 11.77 (0.13)b 13.31 (0.01)c 13.25 (0.20)c 13.74 (0.10)c 0.38 0.001
PUFA 0.31 (0.04)a 5.45 (0.18)b 4.59 (0.03)b 4.72 (0.04)b 5.47 (0.16)b 5.75 (0.24)b 5.93 (0.13)b 0.47 0.001
Omega-3 0.02 (0.00)a 2.29 (0.01)b 1.51 (0.00)b 1.22 (0.04)b 2.00 (0.01)b 1.89 (0.07)b 1.92 (0.00)b 0.18 0.001
Omega-6 0.26 (0.00)a 3.14 (0.16)b 3.08 (0.00)b 3.49 (0.16)bc 3.45 (0.15)bc 3.85 (0.03)c 3.99 (0.04)c 0.31 0.001
Omega-6/omega-3 16.21 (0.33)b 1.37 (0.06)a 2.05 (0.00)a 2.87 (0.10)a 1.73 (0.07)a 2.03 (0.00)a 2.08 (0.00)a 1.46 0.001
PUFA/SFA 0.03 (0.00)a 2.31 (0.16)b 2.92 (0.01)b 2.75 (0.09)b 2.78 (0.12)b 2.85 (0.02)b 2.80 (0.01)b 0.26 0.001
PUFA + MUFA/SFA 0.86 (0.01)a 8.25 (0.33)b 9.57 (0.12)b 9.60 (0.27)b 9.54 (0.15)b 9.42 (0.010)b 9.27 (0.00)b 0.78 0.001
trans 1.31 (0.04)b 0.04 (0.00)a 0.08 (0.00)a 0.07 (0.00)a 0.07 (0.00)a 0.09 (0.00)a 0.11 (0.00)a 0.11 0.001
TBARS (mg MDA/kg product) 0.84 (0.02)b 1.04 (0.12)b 0.37 (0.06)a 0.48 (0.06)a 0.45 (0.03)a 0.38 (0.08)a 0.42 (0.01)a 0.07 0.284

Standard error of the mean (SEM) appear in parentheses. For each parameter, different letters in the same row indicate significant differences (P < .05) based on
post hoc Tukey test. No significant differences (P > .05) were found between trials. SFA = saturated fatty acids; MUFA = monounsaturated fatty acids;
PUFA:polyunsaturated fatty acids; TBARS = thiobarbituric acid reactive substances; MDA:malonhaldeyde.

Saturated fatty acids (SFA) went down from 11.8% (BF control) to
≈2% (all reformulated products), whereas PUFA increased from 0.3%
to ≈5%. Thus, higher unsaturated fraction (MUFA+PUFA) was
achieved when canola oil was incorporated, mainly due to the high
levels of oleic (omega-9), linoleic (omega-6) and alpha-linolenic
(omega-3) acids (Table S1, Supplementary material). It is also im-
portant to mention that the addition of alpha-linolenic acid resulted in
decreasing the omega-6/omega-3 ratio (from 16.2 to ≈2).
Fat losses during cooking led to a lower fat content in products
formulated with hydrogelled emulsions (Table 5). However, fat content
in treatments 2, 5, 6 and 7 were not significantly different (P > .05)
compared to the BF control.
Increasing unsaturated fatty acids levels can sometime induce lipid
oxidation. However, incorporating canola oil did not show an adverse
effect on TBARS values of meat batters (P > .05). Moreover, oil
structuring strategies significantly reduced TBARS values (P < .05;
Table 5) as compared to the animal fat containing product or to liquid
canola oil addition. This reduction may be explained by the addition of
BHT, helping to control lipid oxidation during gel and meat product
preparation. In particular, this may have occurred in the organogels,
which were prepared by heating to 140 °C, and where the use of an
antioxidant (BHT) was definitely needed. Gravelle et al. (2012) re-
ported a significant increase in oxidation by products if an antioxidant
is not added during organogel preparation. Cooked meat products with
carrageenan have not been reported to show oxidation problems
(Poyato, Ansorena, Berasategi, et al., 2014).
4. Conclusion
Two promising structured oil gel delivery systems (organogels and
hydrogelled emulsions) prepared with different technological strate-
gies, showed adequate properties to be used as total fat replacements in
comminuted meat batters. Using liquid canola oil by itself (i.e., un-
structured) resulted in undesirable attributes (e.g., texture and color)
that could be improved by structuring the oil as organogels or hydro-
gelled emulsions. These gel systems also improved the fatty acid profile
of meat batters and reduced lipid oxidation. Organogels were more
efficiently incorporated into the meat matrix than hydrogelled emul-
sions, showing a more uniform microstructure, and without fat losses
from the cooked meat batters.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad- Spain
(AGL2014–52636-P) for the financial support. We are grateful to “Red
de Excelencia Consolider” PROCARSE (AGL2014-51742-REDC) and
INPROCARSA (AGL2017-90699-REDC). M. Alejandre is grateful to
“Asociación de Amigos de la Universidad de Navarra” for the pre-doc-
toral fellowship. Gobierno de Navarra (Departamento de Educación) is
also acknowledged for the mobility fellowship to M. Alejandre. The
authors would also like to thank A. Gravelle for training M. Alejandre
on how to prepare organogels.

135
M. Alejandre, et al.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.03.056.
References
Alejandre, M., Passarini, D., Astiasarán, I., & Ansorena, D. (2017). The effect of low-fat
beef patties formulated with a low-energy fat analogue enriched in long-chain
polyunsaturated fatty acids on lipid oxidation and sensory attributes. Meat Science,
134, 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.07.009.
Alejandre, M., Poyato, C., Ansorena, D., & Astiasarán, I. (2016). Linseed oil gelled
emulsion: A successful fat replacer in dry fermented sausages. Meat Science, 121,
107–113.
AOAC (2002a). Determination of moisture content. 950.46. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official
method of analysis (pp. 12–13). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of
Official Analytical Chemists.
AOAC (2002b). Crude protein in meat. 981.10. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of
analysis (pp. 7–8). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official
Analytical Chemists.
AOAC (2002c). Ash of meat. 920.153. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official method of analysis (pp.
4). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
AOAC (2002d). Fat (crude) or ether extract in meat. 960.39. In W. Horwitz (Ed.). Official
method of analysis (pp. 12–13). (17th ed.). Gaithersburg, Maryland: Association of
Official Analytical Chemists.
Aranceta-Bartrina, J., Arija-Val, V., Maíz-Aldalur, E., Martínez-Muñoz, E., Ortega-Anta, R.
M., & Pérez-Rodrígo, C. (2017). Nutrición Hospitalaria. Senc, 33(2), 1–21. https://
doi.org/10.3305/nh.2013.28.sup4.6783.
Banerjee, S., & Bhattacharya, S. (2011). Compressive textural attributes, opacity and
syneresis of gels prepared from gellan, agar and their mixtures. Journal of Food
Engineering, 102(3), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.08.025.
Barbut, S. (2015). Principles of meat processing. The Science of Poultry and Meat Processing.
46–54. Retrieved from http://www.poultryandmeatprocessing.com.
Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. (2019). Organogels use in meat processing – Effects of fat/oil
type and heating rate. Meat Science, 149, 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEATSCI.
2018.11.003.
Barbut, S., Wood, J., & Marangoni, A. (2016a). Potential use of organogels to replace
animal fat in comminuted meat products. Meat Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meatsci.2016.08.003.
Barbut, S., Wood, J., & Marangoni, A. (2016b). Quality effects of using organogels in
breakfast sausage. Meat Science, 122, 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.
2016.07.022.
Barbut, S., Wood, J., & Marangoni, A. G. (2016c). Effects of organogel hardness and
formulation on acceptance of frankfurters. Journal of Food Science, 81(9),
C2183–C2188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13409.
Bloukas, J. G., Paneras, E. D., & Fournitzis, G. C. (1997). Effect of replacing pork backfat
with olive oil on processing and quality characteristics of fermented sausages. Meat
Science, 45(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00113-1.
Bourne, M. C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology, 32(72), 62–66.
Davidovich-Pinhas, M., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2015). The role of surfactants on
ethylcellulose oleogel structure and mechanical properties. Carbohydrate Polymers,
127, 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CARBPOL.2015.03.085.
Davidovich-Pinhas, M., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2016). Development, character-
ization, and utilization of food-grade polymer Oleogels. Annual Review of Food Science
and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-041715-033225.
Gravelle, A. J., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2012). Ethylcellulose oleogels:
Manufacturing considerations and effects of oil oxidation. Food Research International,
48(2), 578–583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.05.020.
Gravelle, A. J., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2013). Fractionation of ethylcellulose
oleogels during setting. Food & Function, 4(1), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1039/
C2FO30227F.
Gravelle, A. J., Barbut, S., Quinton, M., & Marangoni, A. G. (2014). Towards the devel-
opment of a predictive model of the formulation-dependent mechanical behaviour of
edible oil-based ethylcellulose oleogels. Journal of Food Engineering, 143, 114–122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2014.06.036.
Holman, B. W. B., Collins, D., Kilgannon, A. K., & Hopkins, D. L. (2018). The effect of
technical replicate (repeats) on Nix Pro Color Sensor™ measurement precision for
meat: A case-study on aged beef colour stability. Meat Science, 135, 42–45. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.09.001.
Jimenez-Colmenero, F., Salcedo-Sandoval, L., Bou, R., Cofrades, S., Herrero, A. M., &
Ruiz-Capillas, C. (2015). Novel applications of oil-structuring methods as a strategy
to improve the fat content of meat products. Trends in Food Science & Technology,
44(2), 177–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TIFS.2015.04.011.
Kılıç, B., & Özer, C. O. (2019). Potential use of interesterified palm kernel oil to replace
animal fat in frankfurters. Meat Science, 148, 206–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
meatsci.2018.08.024.
136
Food Research International 122 (2019) 129–136
Koch, W. (1937). Properties and uses of ethylcellulose. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry,
29(6), 687–690. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie50330a020.
Laredo, T., Barbut, S., & Marangoni, A. G. (2011). Molecular interactions of polymer
oleogelation. Soft Matter, 7(6), 2734–2743. https://doi.org/10.1039/c0sm00885k.
Lopez-Martínez, A., Charó-Alonso, M. A., Marangoni, A. G., & Toro-Vazquez, J. F. (2015).
Monoglyceride organogels developed in vegetable oil with and without ethylcellu-
lose. Food Research International, 72, 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODRES.
2015.03.019.
Maqsood, S., & Benjakul, S. (2010). Comparative studies of four different phenolic
compounds on in vitro antioxidative activity and the preventive effect on lipid oxi-
dation of fish oil emulsion and fish mince. Food Chemistry, 119(1), 123–132. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.06.004.
McClements, D. J. (2010). Emulsion design to improve the delivery of functional lipo-
philic components. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 1(1), 241–269.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.food.080708.100722.
Paglarini, C.d. S., Martini, S., & Pollonio, M. A. R. (2019). Using emulsion gels made with
sonicated soy protein isolate dispersions to replace fat in frankfurters. LWT - Food
Science and Technology, 99, 453–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2018.10.005.
Pehlivanoğlu, H., Demirci, M., Toker, O. S., Konar, N., Karasu, S., & Sagdic, O. (2018).
Oleogels, a promising structured oil for decreasing saturated fatty acid concentra-
tions: Production and food-based applications. Critical Reviews in Food Science and
Nutrition, 58(8), 1330–1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2016.1256866.
Pintado, T., Herrero, A., Ruiz-Capillas, C., Triki, M., Carmona, P., & Jiménez-Colmenero,
F. (2016). Effects of emulsion gels containing bioactive compounds on sensorial,
technological, and structural properties of frankfurters. Food Science and Technology
International, 22(2), 132–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/1082013215577033.
Pintado, T., Herrero, A. M., Jiménez-Colmenero, F., & Ruiz-Capillas, C. (2016). Strategies
for incorporation of chia (Salvia hispanica L.) in frankfurters as a health-promoting
ingredient. Meat Science, 114, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEATSCI.2015.12.
009.
Poyato, C., Ansorena, D., Berasategi, I., Navarro-Blasco, I., & Astiasaran, I. (2014).
Optimization of a gelled emulsion intended to supply omega-3 fatty acids into meat
products by means of response surface methodology. Meat Science, 98(4), 615–621.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.016.
Poyato, C., Ansorena, D., Navarro-Blasco, I., & Astiasaran, I. (2014). A novel approach to
monitor the oxidation process of different types of heated oils by using chemometric
tools. Food Research International, 57, 152–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.
2014.01.033.
Sacks, F. M., Lichtenstein, A. H., Wu, J. H. Y., Appel, L. J., Creager, M. A., Kris-Etherton,
P. M., ... Van Horn, L. V. (2017). Dietary fats and cardiovascular disease: A pre-
sidential advisory from the American Heart Association. Circulation, 136(3), https://
doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000510.
Schmidt, G. R. (1984). Processing effects on meat product microstructure. Journal of Food
Structure, 3(1), 33–39. Available at: http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/
foodmicrostructure/vol3/iss1/5.
Stephen, A. M., & Phillips, G. O. (2016). Food polysaccharides and their applications.
Retrieved fromhttps://doi.org/10.1201/9781420015164.
Stortz, T. A., Zetzl, A. K., Barbut, S., Cattaruzza, A., & Marangoni, A. G. (2012). Edible
oleogels in food products to help maximize health benefits and improve nutritional
profiles. Lipid Technology, 24(7), 151–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/lite.201200205.
Tahmasebi, M., Labbafi, M., Emam-Djomeh, Z., & Yarmand, M. S. (2016). Manufacturing
the novel sausages with reduced quantity of meat and fat: The product development,
formulation optimization, emulsion stability and textural characterization. LWT -
Food Science and Technology, 68, 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LWT.2015.12.
011.
USDA (2015). 2015–2020 Dietary guidelines for Americans. Washington (DC): USDA.
Wang, X., Xie, Y., Li, X., Liu, Y., & Yan, W. (2018). Effects of partial replacement of pork
back fat by a camellia oil gel on certain quality characteristics of a cooked style
Harbin sausage. Meat Science, 146, 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MEATSCI.
2018.08.011.
WHO (2003). Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. Vol. 916World Health
Organization Technical Report Series (I-VIII).
Wolfer, T. L., Acevedo, N. C., Prusa, K. J., Sebranek, J. G., & Tarté, R. (2018).
Replacement of pork fat in frankfurter-type sausages by soybean oil oleogels struc-
tured with rice bran wax. Meat Science, 145, 352–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
MEATSCI.2018.07.012.
Youssef, M. K., & Barbut, S. (2009). Effects of protein level and fat/oil on emulsion sta-
bility, texture, microstructure and color of meat batters. Meat Science.. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.01.015.
Youssef, M. K., & Barbut, S. (2010). Physicochemical effects of the lipid phase and protein
level on meat emulsion stability, texture, and microstructure. Journal of Food Science,
75(2), S108–S114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01475.x.
Youssef, M. K., Barbut, S., & Smith, A. (2011). Effects of pre-emulsifying fat/oil on meat
batter stability, texture and microstructure. International Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 46(6), 1216–1224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02607.x.
Zetzl, A. K., Marangoni, A. G., & Barbut, S. (2012). Mechanical properties of ethylcellu-
lose oleogels and their potential for saturated fat reduction in frankfurters. Food and
Function, 3(3), 327–337. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2fo10202a.