Content uploaded by Moath Othman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Moath Othman on Jul 02, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132564 www.mdpi.com/journal/foods
Review
Advanced Red Meat Cooking Technologies and Their Effect on
Engineering and Quality Properties: A Review
Bandar M. Alfaifi 1, Saleh Al-Ghamdi 1,*, Moath B. Othman 1,2, Ali I. Hobani 1 and Gamaleldin M. Suliman 3
1 Department of Agricultural Engineering, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University,
P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia; balfaifi@ksu.edu.sa (B.M.A.); moath204@hotmail.com (M.B.O.);
hobani@ksu.edu.sa (A.I.H.)
2 Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Foods & Environment, Sana’a University,
Sana’a 13020, Yemen
3 Department of Animal Production, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University,
P.O. Box 2460, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia; gsuliman@ksu.edu.sa
* Correspondence: sasaleh@ksu.edu.sa; Tel.: +966-597932220; Fax: +966-11-4678502
Abstract: The aim of this review is to investigate the basic principles of red meat cooking technolo-
gies, including traditional and modern methods, and their effects on the physical, thermal, mechan-
ical, sensory, and microbial characteristics of red meat. Cooking methods were categorized into two
categories: traditional (cooking in the oven and frying) and modern (ohmic, sous vide, and micro-
wave cooking). When red meat is subjected to high temperatures during food manufacturing, it
undergoes changes in its engineering and quality attributes. The quality standards of meat products
are associated with several attributes that are determined by food technologists and consumers
based on their preferences. Cooking improves the palatability of meat in terms of tenderness, flavor,
and juiciness, in addition to eliminating pathogenic microorganisms. The process of meat packaging
is one of the important processes that extend the life span of meat and increase its shelf life due to
non-exposure to oxygen during cooking and ease of handling without being exposed to microbial
contamination. This review highlights the significance of meat cooking mathematical modeling in
understanding heat and mass transfer phenomena, reducing costs, and maintaining meat quality.
The critical overview considers various production aspects/quality and proposed methods, such as,
but not limited to, hurdle technology, for the mass production of meat.
Keywords: red meat; cooking technologies; engineering properties; packaging;
mathematical modeling
1. Introduction
Red meat refers to raw meat such as beef, lamb, pork, horsemeat, camel meat, and
venison and may also include meat from other types of mammals. It is commonly red in
color when it is raw due to its myoglobin content (a muscle cell pigment). Red meat is a
rich source of proteins, fatty acids, iron, zinc, B vitamins, and many other important nu-
trients [1].
Recent advances in meat cooking and preservation technologies have played an es-
sential role in increasing the production of red meat globally. This increase is anticipated
to continue, especially in developing countries like China, India, Brazil, and Russia, due
to increases in populations and incomes [2]. The total global meat production is about 337
million tons/annually, of which 206 million tons are red meat and 131 million tons are
white meat, while the production of processed meat is 27 million tons [3].
Meats are subjected to different thermal processes before they reach consumers. Meat
cooking is among such processes, as it changes the original color, texture, and palatability.
Temperature and cooking time are the most important factors that lead to changes in the
Citation: Alfaifi, B.M.;
Al-Ghamdi, S; Othman, M.B.;
Hobani, A.I.; Suliman, G.M.
Advanced Red Meat Cooking
Technologies and Their Effect on
Engineering and Quality Properties:
A Review. Foods 2023, 12, 2564.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
foods12132564
Academic Editor: Hüseyin Bozkurt
Received: 28 May 2023
Revised: 18 June 2023
Accepted: 28 June 2023
Published: 30 June 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license
(https://creativecommons.org/license
s/by/4.0/).
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 2 of 28
physical and structural properties of meat, which results in a change in nutritional value
due to loss of nutrients [4].
Red meat is made of muscle fibers, known as myofibrils, that are linked together by
connective tissue, such as collagen and elastin. Knowing the type and amount of connec-
tive tissue in meat is important in selecting the appropriate cooking method [1]. There
are several methods of cooking red meats, including traditional ones, such as cooking in
the oven and frying, and modern ones, such as sous vide cooking, microwaving, and
ohmic cooking. Recently, interest has increased in using modern cooking techniques to
reduce the costs of energy consumption, raise the production rate, and improve meat
quality, as well as to change consumer behavior from preferring traditional cooking to
ordering ready-to-eat meals [5]. During cooking, both muscle fibers and connective tissues
shrink, destroying cell membranes. Moreover, proteins play a major role in changing the
characteristics of cooked meat, which affects the tenderness and general acceptability of
cooked meat [6–8]
Quality standards of meat products are associated with several physical, thermal,
mechanical, and sensory properties that are usually determined by producers and con-
sumers. Some of these properties are determined by consumer preferences for a specific
food product and not others, and those properties are color, taste, smell, consistency, and
texture. Hence, sensory properties are important in identifying the acceptability and pal-
atability of cooked meat, as these properties can determine the quality of meat. On the
other hand, the importance of thermal properties lies in determining and understanding
the temperature distribution inside the meat during heat treatment [9]. Determination of
these properties is important since they establish engineering elements for equipment de-
sign, manufacturing, processing, and control processes [10]. The meat cooking process
aims to improve meat quality properties and reduce the development of microorganisms
responsible for meat spoilage since meat is considered a quickly perishable food material
due to its high moisture content and the presence of several nutritional elements that make
it an appropriate environment for the development of microorganisms like bacteria, fungi,
and yeasts. The process of meat packaging before and after cooking is regarded as one of
the modern techniques that have been increasingly used, as it is used to preserve struc-
tural quality properties of meat in addition to conserving meat flavor, decreasing micro-
bial risks, and reducing labor costs [11].
During meat cooking, heat and mass transfer occur because of the difference in tem-
perature and moisture content between the product and the surrounding air, and mois-
ture evaporates from the product’s surface [12]. There are many factors affecting heat and
mass transfer, including cooking temperature, air flow velocity, type of cooked product,
and cooking medium. Mathematical modeling of the meat cooking process helps in stud-
ying the effect of these factors to understand the processes of mass and heat transfer,
which may help in the development and design of the equipment used and planning the
manufacturing process. This would thus improve the quality and flavor of cooked meat,
extend its shelf life, reduce cooking losses, and control variables during heat treatment
[13].
This study aims to review the basic principles of red meat cooking techniques, in-
cluding traditional and modern cooking methods and their impact on the physical, me-
chanical, thermal, sensory, and microbial properties of meat as well as modern techniques
used to preserve cooked meat and model the cooking process.
2. Meat Cooking Methods
Cooking is defined as the science and art of preparing fresh food to be consumable
after heat treatment over a specific time. The cooking process was discovered by chance
due to a forest fire, at which point ancient humans noticed that grilled meat tasted better
than raw meat. The method of cooking meat by grilling lasted for a long time, and over
the passage of time, humans began to use plant leaves in the cooking process, followed
by numerous developments in the cooking process, including the use of clay pots, ovens,
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 3 of 28
and boiling water [14]. This was followed by rapid developments in food processing tech-
niques and processes aimed at meeting the needs and desires of consumers, preserving
meat quality for as long as possible, reducing labor costs, and saving energy consumption.
These newer techniques included ohmic, microwave, and sous vide cooking [15].
The cooking method and conditions such as heating rate, cooking time, and temper-
ature are among the most important factors leading to changes in the composition of meat,
which results in a change in nutritional value due to a loss of nutrients [16]. The choice of
cooking method depends on many factors, the most important of which are the cut of
meat being cooked, the number of connective tissues, the size and shape of the meat, and
consumer preference [17,18]
Compositional quality standards for meat products are associated with several phys-
ical, mechanical, and sensory properties. These properties are usually determined by food
science and technology scientists, factories, and consumers. The properties are color, taste,
smell, consistency, and texture, which can be perceived sensuously. The quality properties
of cooked meat are also affected by many factors, the most important of which are the
method of cooking, the method of heat transfer from the source to the piece of meat, and
the cut of meat used in cooking [5]. Table 1 shows some red meat cooking methods at
various cooking conditions in different published studies.
Table 1. Synopsis of previous studies investigating different types of red meat and cooking meth-
ods.
Type of Meat
Cooking Method
Cooking Conditions
Highlights Reference
Camel meat
(Latissimus
dorsi)
Sous vide and
electrical oven
cocking
70, 80, 90, and 100 °C
and 30, 60, 90, 120,
150, and 180 min
The study showed an increase in pH, cooking
loss, and yellowing color compounds and a
decrease in density, water activity, lightness,
and redness. The sensory properties showed
an increase in tenderness and flavor but a de-
crease in juiciness. The study
concluded that
the best cooking method for the meat is sous
vide at a temperature of 100 °C for 180 min.
[19]
Pork loins
(M.
longissimus) Sous vide
60 °C and 65 °C
for 2,
3, and 4 h, and 70 °C
and 75 °C for 1, 1.5,
and 2 h
The cooking loss increased with increasing
temperature and cooking time but had no ef-
fect on pH and water activity values. Pork
cooked at 60 °C or 65 °C
for 4 h showed more
tenderness and flavor compared to other
cooking temperatures.
[20]
Beef strip
loins (longissi-
mus
lumborum)
Grilling and oven
roasting 150 °C and 230 °C
Grilled dry-
aged beef had a stronger roasted
flavor than that cooked in an oven. Moreover,
grilling dry-aged beef at 150
°C resulted in a
higher intensity of cheesy flavor, whereas at
230°C resulted in a greater intensity of roasted
flavor compared to wet-aged beef. Hence,
grilling can be considered a promising cook-
ing method for improving the flavor of dry-
aged beef.
[21]
Pork (short
shank)
Sous vide and
ohmic cooking 70 °C
The results showed that the tenderness of the
meat increased in all ways and thus increased
the acceptance of sensory assessors. There
were no significant differences between the
different methods of cooking losses and water
holding capacity.
[22]
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 4 of 28
Beef steaks
Electrical and Gas
Oven Up to 110 °C
The study found that protein and water con-
tents and physical properties of electric and
gas oven-
cooked smoked meats were similar.
Electric oven-cooked smoked meats had
higher fat content but lower TBA and perox-
ide values compared to gas oven-cooked
smoked meats.
[23]
Foal steaks Frying 150–190 °C
The results showed that the cooking losses
and the shear force in the microwave cocking
were higher, followed by frying, while the
color compounds were higher in fried horse-
meat using olive oil.
[24]
Ground beef
Ohmic cooking 20, 30, and 40 V/cm
The results showed that ohmic cooking was
faster than traditional cooking at a signifi-
cance level (p < 0.05). Moreover, ohmic cock-
ing was more stable and cohere
nt compared
to conventional cocking.
[25]
Beef steaks
Atmospheric
pressure, sous-
vide, and cook-
vide
60, 70, and 80 °C
15, 30, 45, and 60 min
Sous-vide and cook-
vide produced beef that
retained more moisture and tenderness com-
pared to atmospheric pressure cooking. In ad-
dition, sous-vide cooked beef exhibited supe-
rior color retention due to the oxygen-de-
pleted cooking environment compared to at-
mospheric pressure cook-vide cooking.
[4]
2.1. Traditional Cooking Methods
2.1.1. Electric Oven Cooking
The electric oven cooking method belongs to the traditional ones used to cook meat,
where the temperature inside the oven reaches as high as 250 °C. During meat cooking in
an electric oven, electrical energy is converted into thermal energy. Figure 1 shows a dia-
gram of the electric oven, which consists of a heat source, a fan, switches, and sensor to
control the temperature and time, and a rack to place the meat on; the heat source consists
of a rod located on the upper and lower sides of the oven. In this type of cooking, heat is
transferred to the meat through radiation, convection, and conduction [26]. Figure 2
shows an illustration of heat transfer during meat cooking in an electric oven by a combi-
nation of radiation, convection, and conduction [17].
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 5 of 28
Figure 1. Electric oven layout adapted with modification from Burlon et al. [27] (Permission is
obtained).
Figure 2. Illustration of heat transfer during meat cooking in an electric oven [17] (Permission is
obtained).
There are many factors that affect cooking using the electric oven method, the most
important of which are temperature, cooking time, components of the food, and the per-
centage of steam in the oven [5]. During oven cooking, the meat is dried from the outer
surface to reduce the cooking time through natural and forced convection heating [28].
There are several studies that have discussed the effect of cooking red meat in an electric
oven [19,28,29]. In his study of the effect of cooking with an electric oven on the sensory
and physical properties of camel meat, Dawood [29] stated that the higher the animal’s
age is, the longer the necessary cooking time, that the palatability of the meat of younger
camels is better than the palatability of the meat of older camels, and that juiciness de-
creases with the increase in the camel’s age. In the study of the effect of aging and oven
cooking on the protein consistency and texture of beef muscles at 70–80 °C, Palka [28]
noticed the occurrence of deterioration and damage in proteins, and at temperatures
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 6 of 28
above 80 °C, damage occurred in most proteins. Protein damage is considered one of the
most important factors that increase protein hardness and thus affects the tenderness of
meat due to its effect on fiber hardness. Therefore, electric oven cooking can be combined
with steam for more tender meat, where the moisture from steam can prevent meats’ outer
surfaces from drying out and shrinking, maintaining the tenderness and juiciness of the
cooked meat [30]. On the other hand, Hobani et al. [19] reported that pH, cooking loss,
density, and color components of camel meat were significantly affected by the electric
oven cooking method. The authors added that cooking by the electric method had
prompted a loss of water, minerals, as well as free amino acids of protein fibers due to low
thermal conductivity resulting from the dry, hot air used for cooking.
2.1.2. Frying
Frying is a traditional cooking technique where cooking oil is used as a medium for
heat transfer as it is in direct contact with the meat. During fry cooking, heat transfer also
occurs between the frying pan and the meat through direct contact between them [5].
There are many factors affecting the efficiency of the fry cooking method, the most im-
portant of which are the components of the food material, the surface area of meat exposed
to oil, and the initial oil temperature [31].
During fry cooking, a piece of meat undergoes four basic stages. In the first stage, a
heat transfer occurs through convection between the meat’s surface and the surrounding
ambient heat, while in the second stage, water begins to leave the meat through evapora-
tion, in addition to other changes caused by thermal convection between the oil and meat,
and natural convection is transformed to forced convection. In the third stage, the tem-
perature begins to rise, and a hard layer forms on the surface of the meat. Finally, in the
fourth stage, the temperature increases in the center of the piece of meat until it is well-
cooked [31].
Many changes occur during the cooking of meat in hot oil, such as a rapid loss of
moisture content, rapid protein denaturation, oil absorption, discoloration, and the for-
mation of a hard-outer layer on the meat. This method is also characterized by a very short
cooking time [32]. Sosa-Morales et al. [33] stated in their study on mass and heat transfer
and the quality aspects of frying pork in cooking oil that the process of frying depends on
the temperature of the frying oil, and the thermal diffusion remain constant throughout
the cooking time, while the coefficient of thermal conductivity decreases with increased
frying time due to the loss of moisture content in the meat.
2.2. Modern Cooking Methods
2.2.1. Ohmic Cooking
The basic principle of ohmic heating is that electrical energy is converted into thermal
energy within the food product [34]. When an electric current passes through a conductor,
the charges stimulate the molecules, which leads to a rise in the temperature inside the
metal conductor due to the movement of electrons, and in food materials, the charges are
in the form of ions like proteins that move to the electrode and heat the food material
[35,36]. It was noted that the higher the voltage difference, the higher the temperature will
be, and thus there will be an increase in the rate of heat, as the heat produced inside the
meat is distributed homogeneously and results in changes in the physical and mechanical
properties of the food material [37]. There are many benefits of ohmic cooking, including
short cooking time and a decrease in energy consumption [38]. Parrott [39] also stated that
there are many advantages of ohmic heating, including that it does not require a surface
for thermal transfer, making it a fast method, and the product remains thermally homo-
geneous. Ohmically processed food materials have a longer shelf life, preserved color and
nutritional value, and are perceived as environmentally friendly technologies compared
to conventional methods [37].
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 7 of 28
Figure 3 shows an illustration of the ohmic cooking system, which consists of a cu-
boid container, stainless steel electrodes covered with a titanium coating, a power supply,
devices to control voltage differences and current, a data logger, a thermocouple, and a
transformer. In this method, the piece of meat is placed in a cooking container through
which an alternating electric current with a certain voltage difference and current inten-
sity is passed, which is controlled by the voltage controller, and then heat is generated in
the meat [40].
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of ohmic heating system reproduced from Lee et al. [41] (Permission
is obtained).
There are several studies on the ohmic cooking of meat. Bozkurt and Icier [25] inves-
tigated the effect of ohmic cooking on the quality traits of beef. The meat was treated with
an electric field intensity of 20, 30, and 40 V/c and fat contents of 2%, 9%, and 15%. The
study found that ohmic cooking was significantly faster than traditional cooking. Moreo-
ver, the samples cooked by the ohmic method were more stable and cohesive than sam-
ples cooked using the traditional method. The cooking loss in ohmic cooking was 9.6%,
while in traditional cooking, it was 31.39%. In another study by Aydin et al. [42], the effect
of ohmic and traditional (water bath) cooking methods on the microbiological, sensory,
and color values of fish Pâté was investigated. The findings showed that the cooking time
for meat using ohmic cooking was less than the traditional method. Furthermore, the sen-
sory properties of ohmic cooking were superior to those of the traditional method with
respect to appearance, flavor, and odor scores. Ghnimi et al. [43] investigated the impact
of ohmic cooking on the electrical conductivity of ground beef. The study found that the
components of ground meat played a significant role in increasing the heating rate during
ohmic cooking, resulting in an increase in the electrical conductivity of the meat and ulti-
mately improving its quality attributes. Yildiz and Dere [44]also studied the effect of in-
frared cooking on meatballs that were pre-cooked with ohmic heating, and it was noted
that ohmic heating cooks homogeneously but does not give a dark color on the surface of
the meatballs, and the appearance of the meatballs was improved after infrared cooking.
Therefore, ohmic cooking and infrared cooking were combined to maintain a better qual-
ity of the sensory properties of meatballs.
2.2.2. Sous Vide Cooking
The Advisory Committee for Cooks defined sous vide cooking as food being placed
in vacuumed and sealed plastic pouches and cooked in a water bath for longer than usual
times at a precisely controlled temperature [45]. Meat is typically cooked at a low
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 8 of 28
temperature of 65–90 °C for a time of 2–8 h, depending on the food ingredients [46]. It was
originally a French method that spread globally due to its convenience and ease of appli-
cation and can also be used to market cooked meat to restaurants. There are many ad-
vantages of this method, including reducing water loss and preserving volatile flavors
and odors, thus preserving the sensory quality of meat [47]. Furthermore, Mortensen et
al. [48] also indicated that the method of cooking in vacuumed plastic bags with a constant
internal temperature in the meat maintains the color gradient and texture inside the piece
of meat, and it also maintains the flavor and freshness and gives texture and homogeneity
to the color of the meat.
Many changes occur in the physical, mechanical, and sensory properties of meat, and
cooking meat products with sous vide yields better results than traditional methods due
to the use of low temperatures for cooking versus the high temperatures traditional meth-
ods rely on. The denaturation of and damage to protein fibers, color changes, and sensory
properties in the sous vide are lower compared to conventional methods [49].
It is recommended that when cooking beef and lamb using sous vide, the tempera-
ture should be between 58 and 63 °C for 10 to 48 h [47]. It has recently been noted that
using vacuum packaging to cook meat at a low temperature over a long time has become
one of the most used cooking methods. Figure 4 shows a diagram of the sous vide cooking
method.
Figure 4. Schematic chart of Sous vide cooking.
There are several studies on the cooking of red meat using the sous vide method.
Becker et al. [50] cooked pork at low temperatures (53 °C, 58 °C, and 60 °C) for 20 h and
studied its improvement in physicochemical and sensory properties. The results showed
a significant effect on the tenderness of the meat. It has also been shown that when meat
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 9 of 28
is cooked at 60 °C over time, the meat’s tenderness decreases and its juiciness increases
and its quality is acceptable when cooked at 53 °C. Vaudagna et al. [51] cooked beef using
the sous vide method to study the effect of low temperature and long times on quality
properties and stable storage. They observed that the shear force and cooking losses de-
creased at temperatures between 50 and 65 °C at times of 90–360 min, and the temperature
was sufficient to kill microbes such as Clostridium and polonium, and the microbial qual-
ity of the product remained acceptable.
2.2.3. Microwave Cooking
The microwave cooking method is one of the methods that should be addressed in
this review as an advanced cooking method. Microwave is a form of electromagnetic
waves with frequencies ranging from 300 MHz to 300 GHz. Most industrial and commer-
cial microwave ovens operate at frequencies of 915 MHz and 2450 MHz, which corre-
spond to wavelengths of 32.8 cm and 12.2 cm, respectively. In contrast, domestic micro-
wave ovens only operate at a frequency of 2450 MHz [52].
Figure 5 shows the components of a domestic microwave oven that is used in the
cooking process. It consists of a cavity surrounded by metal walls with a door in the front,
a voltage transformer to convert the low input voltage (110–220 volts) into high output
voltage (3000–4000 volts), a magnetron to generate the microwave and a waveguide to
direct the microwave to the cavity. In addition, a cooling fan motor is installed to protect
the magnetron from overheating, a turning disc to improve heat distribution in the food,
and a control panel [53].
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of microwave heating system reproduced with permission from
Cooper [53] (Permission is obtained).
Unlike conventional heating, where heat is transferred from outer surfaces to the in-
teriors gradually, microwave heating occurs by the conversion of electromagnetic energy
into thermal energy volumetrically within the meat due to dipolar and ionic mechanisms.
The importance of these mechanisms arises when an electromagnetic wave passes
through the meat. Polar molecules, such as water molecules, rotate, causing molecular
friction and collisions, and dissolved charged molecules (ions), such as salt molecules, os-
cillate back and forth, generating heat throughout the meat [52].
There are many factors affecting the microwave cooking process, such as the physi-
cal, thermal, and dielectric properties of meat and its components. One significant com-
ponent in meat is the moisture content, as water is among the polar molecules, and salt,
as salt is among the dissolved charged molecules (ions), where they, dipoles and ions,
play an important role in generating heat within meat processed in microwave ovens. A
major advantage of using microwave cooking as compared to conventional cooking
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 10 of 28
methods is the rapid generation of heat within the material. This advantage may help to
reduce the quality degradation of meat and energy consumption [54].
Several studies have been conducted to investigate the potential of microwave red
meat cooking. Early studies were reported in the 1950s by Causey et al. [55–57]. The grow-
ing demand for both consumers and meat manufacturers to improve the quality and
safety of meat, throughput, and energy efficiency raised the interest in continuing to study
microwave meat cooking until today. In terms of quality, physical properties, protein de-
naturation, microstructure, and volatiles were investigated for microwave yak meat cook-
ing. The findings indicated that cooking yak meat with a microwave resulted in better
texture and volatile properties but greater cooking loss and decolorization compared to
traditional boiling cooking [58]. In terms of health concerns, microwave cooking showed
the lowest amount of total volatile N-nitrosamines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons,
which are two of the most hazardous compounds for human health, in beef cocktail smok-
ies compared to pan-frying and grilling cooking [59]. In terms of energy saving, micro-
wave cooking had lower energy consumption than traditional cooking for beef burgundy
cooking due to the reduced cooking time, 56% compared to traditional cooking [60].
Some concerns with microwave meat cooking still exist, such as uneven heating, ab-
sence of browning and crust formation, and unpreferable textural changes. However,
these concerns can be overcome by accompanying microwave cooking with another cook-
ing method, such as convection, induction, and radiative heating [61].
3. Effects of Cooking Methods on Meat Engineering and Quality Properties
3.1. Physical Properties
During the cooking of meat, many changes occur in its physical properties [5]. Stud-
ying the effect of cooking on the physical properties of meat is important to determine the
extent of consumer acceptance of meat. Physical properties are considered one of the most
important properties affecting the palatability of meat among consumers, including pH,
cooking losses, water activity, and color.
3.1.1. pH
The pH of meat is one of the most important physical properties that affect cooked
meat quality characteristics, as it affects meat muscles. There are many factors that affect
the pH of meat, the most important of which are the animal’s treatment before slaughter,
the glycogen storage percentage in the muscles, the glycogen consumption, and the accu-
mulation of lactic acid in the pre-slaughtering stage, as these factors affect meat tenderness
and juiciness [62]. The pH of red meat ranges from 5.5–6.6 [4,63]. It was also noted that
the pH of the meat of young animals is high, while the meat of large animals has a rela-
tively low pH due to low glycogen [63].
There are many studies that have studied the effect of different cooking methods on
pH, including the study of Aprisal et al. [64] on the physicochemical properties of ohmic-
cooked beef balls with the addition of different levels of salt (2, 3, and 4%), where meat
was cooked at 140 volts, and the pH was measured after cooking. The results showed that
the pH increases with increasing salt levels. Karakaya et al. [65] studied the differences in
physical properties between lamb, beef, goat, and rabbit meats. They noted that the acidity
in lamb and goat meats is higher than in beef and rabbit and that cooking losses in lamb
are lower than in other meats. They also found that the meat cooking losses are 33.2% in
lamb, 33.9% in goat, 35% in beef, and 33.8% in rabbit meat. Table 2 shows the pH values
of some types of red meat cooked with different methods.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 11 of 28
Table 2. pH level of some types of red meat cooked using various techniques.
Type Meat Cooking
Method
Cooking Con-
ditions pH Level References
Beef
(
M. Longissimus
dorsi)
Frying 200 °C, 6 min 5.66
[66] Oven 200 °C, 9 min 5.62
Microwave 4.5 min 5.63
Carabeef (Semi-
membranosus) Water bath 100 °C, 60 min
6.48 [9]
Camel
(Latissimus
dorsi)
Sous vide 70–100 °C, 30–
180 min
6.04–6.57
[19]
Oven 5.90–6.44
Beef- meatball
Ohmic 140 V 5.16 [64]
3.1.2. Cooking Loss
Cooking loss is a crucial factor that affects the meat industry because it can change
the shape and protein levels in meat, leading to reduced eating quality and financial re-
turns from the cooking process [67,68]. Cooking loss is defined as a mixture of liquids and
solids lost from meat during cooking and depends on many factors: cooking temperature,
cooking duration, connective tissue components, and muscle fibers. Cooking losses can
be calculated based on the weight of meat before and after heat treatments, where water
comes out of the meat in the form of liquid or vapor. At a temperature above 70 °C, the
cooking loss increases in thermal treatments [8].
Cooking loss can be calculated by weighing meat steak samples before cooking, cook-
ing the samples, drying them using drying paper, and weighing the samples again after
cooking. Table 3 shows the cooking losses of some types of red meat cooked using differ-
ent methods. The following relationship can be used to calculate cooking loss [19,69,70]:
Cooking loss (%)=
× 100
(1)
where m1 is the raw meat sample (g), and m2 is the cooked meat sample (g).
Table 3. Cooking loss for some types of red meat cooked in different cooking methods.
Type Meat Cooking Method Cooking Conditions
Cooking Loss, % References
Goat
(Semimembranosus)
Sous vide 50 °C–90 °C 5.91–41.25 [71]
Bovine (M. Semiten-
dinosus)
Electric Oven 200 °C, 15 min 31 [72]
Sous vide 60 °C, 60 min 19
Beef-meatball Ohmic cooking 75 °C 15.75 [73]
Beef (Longissimus
dorsi)
Electric Oven 110 °C, 15 min 13.6 [23]
Gas oven 11.79
Foal (Longissimus
dorsi)
Microwave 1000 W, 1.5 min 32.49
[74] Frying 180 °C, 4 min 23.73
Electric oven 200 °C, 12 min 26.71
Camel
(Latissimus dorsi)
Sous vide 70–100 °C, 30–180 min
31.87–48.56 [19]
Oven 1.52–46.1
Bovine
(Semitendinosus) Sous vide 80 °C, 4 h 45 [75]
Pork loins (M.
longissimus) Sous vide 70 °C, 2 h 30.58 [20]
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 12 of 28
Several studies have investigated the effects of different cooking methods on cooking
losses of meat. Lorenzo et al. [24] conducted a study to determine the effect of four differ-
ent cooking methods (grilling, microwave, roasting, and frying) on the physicochemical
properties of foal meat. The authors observed that microwave cooking resulted in higher
losses compared to the other cooking methods. In a study by Fabre et al. [76], the effect
of different cooking methods (electric oven, sous vide, and grilling) on cooking losses in
various cuts of beef was investigated. The results revealed that the electric oven cooking
method had a significant impact on cooking losses. Tian et al. [77] compared the ohmic
and water bath cooking methods on the structural quality properties of pork treated with
different levels of fat (0–40%). The results showed that the cooking losses in the water bath
cooking method were higher than in the ohmic cooking. In another study, Hobani et al.
[19] reported a significant increase in cooking loss of camel meat when cooked using the
sous vide method compared to the electric oven.
3.1.3. Color
The color of meat is an important physical property that can affect the perceived
quality and appeal of the meat to the consumer. The color of meat can be influenced by
several factors, including the animal’s breed, age, and diet, the type of muscle fibers, the
concentration of myoglobin pigments in the muscles, the amount of fat, and the cooking
method used [78]. Different cooking methods can have varying effects on the color of
meat, depending on factors such as the cooking time, the temperature, and the presence
of oxygen. For example, grilling and frying can result in a browned or charred exterior
and a pink interior, while roasting in an oven can also produce a browned exterior and
pink interior but with a more even color throughout the meat [79]. On the other hand,
some cooking methods, such as sous vide, can enhance the retention of the natural color
of meat by cooking it at low temperatures for longer periods of time [80]. In addition to
the cooking method, the color of meat can also be affected by the presence of additives
such as spices and marinades, as well as the packaging and storage conditions [78]. How-
ever, cooking methods play a significant role in the final color of the meat. By understand-
ing the effects of different cooking methods on the color of meat, manufacturers can adapt
appropriate cooking techniques to achieve desired results.
Several studies have investigated the effect of different cooking methods on the phys-
ical properties of meat, including color. García-Segovia et al. [4] studied the effect of cook-
ing methods on the color and mechanical properties of beef pectoral muscles and observed
that the color of beef steaks cooked in a vacuum package tended to be red. Yildiz and Dere
[44] investigated the effect of infrared and ohmic cooking on meatballs and found that
combining these methods resulted in improved appearance and sensory properties. Oz et
al. [66] evaluated the effects of different cooking methods, including deep fat frying, hot
plate, boiling, microwave, panfrying with oil, panfrying without fat or oil, and oven cook-
ing, on the color of steaks. The results showed that cooking methods significantly im-
pacted the color of the steaks, with lightness (L*) and yellowness (b*) values increasing,
while redness (a*) values decreased during cooking. The study concluded that cooking
methods affected the color of steaks due to protein denaturation and losses of substances
like minerals during cooking. Additionally, the study found that the highest mineral sub-
stance loss occurred with the microwave cooking method. Table 4 shows the color com-
pounds of various types of red meat cooked using different cooking methods.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 13 of 28
Table 4. Color compounds for some types of red meat cooked using different techniques.
Type Meat Cooking Method
Cooking Conditions
L* a* b* References
Beef
(M. Longissimus
dorsi)
Frying 200 °C, 6 min 41.32 13.48 6.60
[66] Oven 200 °C, 9 min 41.42 14.21 6.14
Microwave 4.5 min 41.74 14.17 6.23
Camel
(Latissimus
dorsi)
Sous vide 70 °C–100 °C,
30–180 min
55.4–30.9
14.2–7.1 15.6–3.29
[19]
Oven 55.4–31.8
17.8–4.12 15.6–3.3
Lamb
(Longissimus
dorsi) Microwave 70 °C 48.44 12.71 11.45 [81]
Beef (Transversus
thoracis) Sous vide 60 °C–70 °C,
12–36 h 51.5–45 11.5–11.2 16.1–14.1
[82]
Pork loins (M.
longissimus) Sous vide 70 °C, 2 h 70.81 7.86 13.46 [20]
3.2. Chemical Properties
The cooking method and its conditions, such as temperature and cooking time, are
reported as the most important factors affecting the chemical properties of fresh meat.
One of the disadvantages of treating meat at high temperatures for long periods is the loss
of vitamins, such as vitamins B1, B2, and C, as well as the loss of many minerals, such as
zinc, iron, and calcium [83]. Moreover, Czerwonka et al. [84] reported that some food nu-
trients could be completely lost after cooking procedures. Nikmaram et al. [85] investi-
gated the effect of the cooking method on the chemical composition, quality, and cooking
loss of camel meat compared to veal. The results showed that moisture content decreases
due to the high temperature, which causes protein denaturation and loss of minerals. Go-
ran et al. [86] studied the effects of three different cooking methods (roasting, boiling, and
microwave cooking) on the mineral content of beef and pork. The study found that cook-
ing increased mineral concentrations in cooked samples compared to raw meat, with
roasted samples showing the highest mineral concentration. When compared to pork, the
amounts of trace elements in beef were greatly higher. The concentration of Na decreased
in all samples of pork, indicating that Na has been lost with water, while Zn content in
cooked beef samples showed significant differences from those of cooked pork. Oz et al.
[66] investigated the effects of various cooking methods (deep fat frying, hot plate, boiling,
microwave, pan-frying with oil, pan-frying without fat or oil, and oven cooking) on qual-
ity characteristics (water content, pH, and color values) and mineral composition of beef,
as well as other properties of both raw and cooked samples. The study found that cooking
methods had a significant impact on all the parameters studied, except for some mineral
content (Fe, Mn, Ni, and Pb). The water content and all measured mineral levels decreased
significantly. Furthermore, cooking resulted in the loss of less than 10% of the quantities
of Fe, Pb, S, and Zn, in contrast to 13.6 to 21.1% for other minerals.
Moreover, the cooking process of meat has many advantages, the most important of
which are enhanced meat palatability and improved digestion. Meat texture remains a
critical aspect of meat-eating quality, which is significantly affected by temperature and
cooking time through structural changes in meat tissue during different thermal processes
[87]. The meat proteins denature and cause structural changes such as fiber shrinkage or
aggregation, solubilization of collagen and connective tissues, and sarcoplasmic and my-
ofibril gel formations [88].
3.3. Mechanical Properties
The mechanical properties of meat are important criteria that reflect the quality of
meat. There are many devices for measuring mechanical properties, including the texture
analyzer [89]. The texture of the meat can be defined as a set of properties that can be
perceived by the mouth and eyes, and the texture profile analysis (TPA) is one of the most
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 14 of 28
important mechanical tests for determining consumer acceptance of the food product. The
TPA test involves pressing meat twice in a reciprocating movement that simulates jaw
movement when chewing food [4].
There are many factors that affect the mechanical properties of meat, including tem-
perature, time, cooking method, age of the animal, gender, and breed [28,90]. Many
changes occur in the composition of the muscles when cooked at a high temperature. It
was found that when meat is treated at a temperature of 50 °C, the protein fibers begin to
deteriorate, while at a temperature of 60 °C, the muscle fibers begin to contract; at 70 °C,
the contraction of muscle fibers increases more; at 80 °C, the breakdown and contraction
of muscle fibers increase and the denaturation of collagen increases [6].
Figure 6 illustrates the texture profile analysis curve of beef. The figure depicts the
basic properties of TPA, namely hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, adhesiveness, and
chewiness. Hardness (N) is defined as the peak of the maximum force during the first
pressing cycle (first bite) and represents the force needed to maintain a specific defor-
mation; cohesiveness is equal to Area 2/Area 1; springiness is defined as the distance that
the sample recovers during the time between the end of the first bite and the beginning of
the second bite and is equal to Length 2/Length 1; adhesiveness is the negative area
under the baseline between the pressing cycles (bites) and is equal to Area 3; chewiness is
defined as the product of hardness × cohesiveness × springiness [6].
Figure 6. Typical texture profile analysis (TPA) of a longissimus thoracis rib steak [6].
There are many studies that have investigated the effect of cooking methods on the
mechanical properties of meat, including that of James and Yang [72], who study the effect
of cooking methods (oven, pressure cooking, vacuum cooking, and sous vide) on beef
muscles. It was found that the highest value of shear force was in the oven cooking method
due to the contraction of muscle fibers and the wrinkling of protein fibers. Nikmaram et
al. [7] observed that when beef muscles are treated at a temperature of 70–80 °C, degrada-
tion and damage to some proteins occur, while at a temperature above 80 °C, damage
occurs to most proteins. The denaturation of proteins is one of the most important factors
affecting the tenderness of meat due to its effect on the hardness of the fibers. Table 5
presents the mechanical properties of some types of red meat cooked with different meth-
ods.
1
2
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 15 of 28
Table 5. Mechanical properties of some types of red meat cooked in different ways.
Type Meat Cooking Method Cooking Conditions Shear Force (N)
Hardness (N)
References
Veal (Longissi-
mus dorsi) Microwave 100 °C 37 - [7]
Camel (Latissi-
mus dorsi)
Sous vide 70 °C–100 °C, 30–180 min
60.9–14.4 20.5–4.6 [91]
Oven 59.9–28.3 13.9–0.3
Beef (Deep pec-
toral) Sous vide 80 °C, 60 min 60 - [4]
Bovine (M. Se-
mitendinosus)
Oven 200 °C, 15 min 100 - [72]
Sous vide 60 °C, 60 min 75 -
Beef (Transver-
sus thoracis) Sous vide 60 °C–70 °C, 12–36 h 19.3–18.9 21.9–17.9 [82]
Beef (biceps fem-
oris) Sous vide 65 °C, 8 h, 12 h 47.5–43.6 29.7–25.8 [92]
Beef (longissi-
mus thoracis) Sous vide 65 °C, 2.5 h 20.4 - [93]
3.4. Thermal Properties
Information related to the thermal properties of food materials, including meat, is
essential for researchers in the field of food processing, as this makes it possible to under-
stand the temperature distribution within the food. Studying the thermal properties of
meat depends on many factors, the most important of which are the temperature, the state
of food and its chemical composition, the size and shape of the fibers, the moisture con-
tent, and the amount of fat [94,95]. The most important of these properties are the coeffi-
cient of thermal conductivity (k), the coefficient of thermal diffusion (α), and specific heat
(CP).
The importance of studying thermal properties lies in the fact that they represent
important engineering parameters in meat and food processing methods and play a piv-
otal role in the design of equipment [96]. It also determines the mechanism of thermal
transfer within the product during processing [69].
The coefficient of thermal conductivity expresses the ability of a material to transfer
or conduct heat through the thickness unit of the product if the temperature differs on the
two edges of the unit thickness [97]. The coefficient of thermal conductivity is affected by
several factors, the most important of which are temperature, components of the food ma-
terial, and the location of the measuring probe, as it was observed that at high tempera-
tures, there is an increase in the value of the coefficient of thermal conductivity [94]. The
coefficient of thermal conductivity of meat can be measured in many ways, including the
use of a thermal conductivity sensor, which is a circular cylinder with a high thermal con-
ductivity coefficient in the form of a needle equipped with an insulated wire. Measure-
ments are taken after the needle is inserted into the meat for measurement. This method
has been used in many studies, including those by Hobani and Elanssari [94] and Pan
and Singh [95].
The thermal diffusion coefficient of meat expresses its ability to distribute and diffuse
heat to neighboring molecules or the ability of meat to absorb heat at a specified temper-
ature during various processes [5]. Temperature, moisture content, and food material
components are the most important factors affecting the thermal diffusion coefficient [97].
The coefficient of thermal diffusion of meat can be calculated using different devices or
equations given the coefficient of thermal conductivity, specific heat, and density. Specific
heat is defined as the thermal property that expresses the ability of the material to gain or
lose heat, and the specific heat of meat can be determined with several methods, including
the mixing method. In this method, the sample of meat is placed inside the calorimeter,
and the specific heat is calculated with the equilibrium equation or by using the mass
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 16 of 28
density of the product and the amount of total heat and temperature difference [98]. Fur-
thermore, the value of specific heat can be calculated through the following relation:
=
×
(2)
where Cp is specific heat, k is the thermal conductivity coefficient, (α) is the thermal diffu-
sion coefficient, and (
) is density.
There are many studies that have investigated methods of cooking and their effect
on the thermal properties of meat. In their study on some thermal properties of camel
meat (Hashi) within the temperature range of 5–45 °C, Hobani and Elanssari [94] stated
that the thermal conductivity coefficient of camel meat is (0.487) W/m. °C, and the thermal
diffusion coefficient is 1.275 × 10−7 m2/s. Elansari and Hobani [96] also studied the effect of
temperature and moisture content on the thermal conductivity coefficient of four types of
meat (Hashi camel meat, Veal, Najdi, and Nuaimi) and noted that the coefficient of ther-
mal conductivity has a linear relationship with the increase in temperature levels in the
four types of meat, and the average coefficient of thermal conductivity ranged between
0.170–0.670 W/m. °C. Pan and Singh [95] studied the physical and thermal properties of
minced beef during cooking in a study aiming to know the rate of change in the physical
and thermal properties of meat inside a water bath at a temperature in the range of 40–70
°C for a time of up to 20 min. The results showed that the coefficient of thermal conduc-
tivity decreases with increasing temperature. Table 6 provides a summary of the thermal
diffusion coefficient for various types of cooked red meat.
Table 6. Thermal diffusion and thermal conductivity for different types of processed red meat.
Type Meat Cooking Method
Thermal Diffusion Coef-
ficient (m2/s)
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m.K) References
Beef (longissimus) Grill 0.23 × 10−7–0.25 × 10−7 0.55–0.57 [69]
Beef (strip loins) Grill 0.16 × 10−7–0.18 × 10−7 0.48–0.47 [99]
Camel (Latissimus
dorsi)
Sous vide 1.46 × 10−7–1.16 × 10−7 0.51–0.37 [91]
Oven 1.4 × 10−7–1.17 × 10−7 0.51–0.36
Lean pork (leg muscle)
Frying 0.24 × 10−7–0.25 × 10−7 0.79–0.35 [33]
Beef-burger Oven - 1.22–1.82 [100]
Beef- meatball Frying 0.287 × 10−7 1.33 [101]
Ground beef Water bath - 0.35–5.41 [95]
Mortadella Oven 2.4 × 10−7 - [102]
Sausage Frying 3.85 × 10−7–1.31 × 10−7 - [103]
3.5. Sensory Properties
The quality standards for meat products are related to several sensory properties
identified by food technologists and consumers, as consumers will accept specific food
products but not others, and these properties include color, taste, smell, appearance, and
texture, which can be perceived sensorially. Most researchers specializing in the sensory
evaluation of food products prefer to use the sensory evaluation method, which relies on
the subjective senses of the evaluators. Evaluators are highly trained to distinguish the
flavor of the food product being evaluated and can sense small changes in the flavor of
the product. Sensory evaluation is defined as a set of tests used to judge the quality prop-
erties of meat and is the result of a combination of physical and sensory properties such
as color, tenderness, flavor, taste, and juiciness [104]. There are many factors affecting the
sensory properties of meat, including the amount of connective tissue, the length of pro-
tein fibers, and the structure of different muscles, which has differences due to the age,
sex, and diet of the animal [105].
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 17 of 28
3.5.1. Tenderness
The tenderness of meat expresses the efficiency of breaking down meat by chewing
in the mouth or the consumers’ perception that the structure of the meat is tender during
chewing. It is considered one of the most important sensory properties that indicate the
quality of meat to the consumer. The degree of tenderness of the meat can be determined
by the assessors judging the ease with which the teeth penetrate the meat, the ease of
separating the parts of the meat, and the amount of residue between the teeth. The ten-
derness of the meat is inversely proportional to the shear force, as the softer the meat, the
lower the shear force [106]. There are several factors that determine the degree of tender-
ness of meat: the amount of connective tissue, the length of protein fibers, the amount of
protein damaged after slaughtering the animal, the structure of different muscles, the
method of cooking, and the size of the piece of meat [105].
During meat cooking, a set of changes occur in collagen, fiber, and tissue. There are
several studies that are concerned with improving the tenderness of cooked meat, includ-
ing that of Ha et al. [107] on the processes and cooking of meat to improve the structural
properties and tenderness of meat. They stated that the tenderness of meat is one of the
most important quality properties for consumers of each cut of meat and that the physical
and chemical properties contribute to improving the texture and tenderness of meat.
N’gatta et al. [75] also studied the effect of combining the method of sous vide cooking
with added spices on the tenderness of beef, where the meat was cooked at 50, 60, and 80
°C for 1 and 4 h. Later, the shear force and cooking losses of the spiced and non-spiced
meat samples were measured. The results showed that the shear force of the spiced sam-
ples decreased by 20% compared with the non-spiced samples. It has also been observed
that the process of adding spices before cooking increases the tenderness of the meat.
Dominguez-Hernandez et al. [74] conducted a review of cooking meat at 50–65 °C
for a long period of time, like sous vide cooking, where they observed that cooking at a
low temperature over a long time increases the tenderness and improves the appearance
of meat when compared to cooking at a high temperature. Vasanthi et al. [9] studied the
effect of the cooking method (water bath and pressure cooking), cooking temperature (80–
100 °C), and cooking time (30–60 min) on the sensory and structural properties of buffalo
meat. The results showed that with increasing cooking temperature and time, the shear
force decreased, and the tenderness of the meat increased. Moreover, there was no statis-
tical difference in tenderness when cooking meat in a water bath or pressure cooker at 100
°C for 45 min.
3.5.2. Flavor
Flavor is a mixture of sensations that include both the taste and smell of meat prod-
ucts. The clarity of meat flavor is related to many factors, the most important of which are
the method and conditions of cooking, the age of the animal, and storage conditions. It is
observed that the flavor of meat differs from one animal to another, and this difference is
due to volatile substances associated with fatty tissue and streaky fat. The tongue is the
organ responsible for distinguishing the taste of different foods, as there are specialized
areas on the tongue to transmit the sense of taste, while smell is distinguished by the cy-
toplasm protrusions present in nose tissue [10].
Flavor is one of the most important factors that determine the degree of palatability
of meat for the consumer, through which the consumer will also judge the quality of the
meat. Different types of meat have a special flavor that distinguishes them from others, as
the aqueous extract produced from muscle tissue contains free amino acids that play an
essential role in giving the meat a distinctive flavor [48]. Chiavaro et al. [108] observed a
direct relationship between the cooking method and the formation of volatile compounds,
as these compounds affect smells and tastes experienced by the consumer.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 18 of 28
3.5.3. Juiciness
Juiciness is the amount of fluid in the mouth when chewing a food material, which
depends on how moist the food is and the presence of juiciness fortifiers. The water and
fat that exist in meat are considered the source of juiciness and can therefore affect the
fibers’ capability to retain water. Fat stimulates the salivary glands in the secretion of sa-
liva from the mouth and affects the sensation of juiciness [109].
Juiciness depends on the amount of moisture in the meat when chewing, as it plays
an important role in conveying the taste to consumers. The juice contains many flavor
ingredients that help assess the meat during chewing, as dry meat is less juicy and pro-
vides the feeling of roughness in the muscle fibers, giving the impression of hardness re-
gardless of the degree of its juiciness [10]. Aaslyng et al. [67] noticed that when cooking
pork chops in the oven at different temperatures (60–80 °C), there were significant differ-
ences in the juiciness of the cooked meat, and that juiciness decreased with increased tem-
perature.
There are numerous studies that have been concerned with the sensory evaluation of
cooked meat, including Mortensen et al.’s [48] research on the effect of long cooking times
and low temperatures on the sensory properties of beef cooked with the sous vide method,
where beef steaks were cooked at times of 3, 6, 9, and 12 h at temperatures of 56, 58, and
60 °C. The results showed that the sensory properties of cooked beef were acceptable
when the meat was heated at 60 °C for 12 h. Das and Rajkumar [110] also studied the effect
of different levels of fat on the sensory properties of goat meat cooked in a microwave,
and the results showed that the cooking time decreased with the increase in fat content in
the meat and a decrease in cooking losses was observed with a decrease in the fat content
of goat meat. Ángel-Rendón et al. [22] investigated the effect of cooking methods (ohmic,
sous vide, pan, and pressure cooker) on the structural, sensory, and physiochemical prop-
erties of pork, with the temperature at the center of the meat set at 70 °C for all cooking
methods. The results showed that, at a 5% significance level, the tenderness, juiciness, and
taste of meat cooked with pan and ohmic methods were similar, and consumers preferred
meat cooked using those methods over other methods.
3.6. Microbial Properties
Meat is a perishable food material due to its high moisture content and the presence
of many mineral elements, which makes it a suitable medium for the growth of microor-
ganisms such as bacteria, fungi, and yeasts. The growth of microorganisms leads to unde-
sirable changes in meat [111]. These are classified into changes in physical properties, such
as discoloration, and chemical changes, such as changes in proteins and fats. There are
many factors affecting the spoilage of meat, including temperature, moisture content, ox-
ygen content, type of microorganisms, and the suitability of conditions for the growth of
microbes.
There are many parameters that indicate microbial spoilage of meat, including the
stickiness of meat due to the growth of B. Bacillus and Lactobacillus bacteria. Meat rot oc-
curs due to the decomposition of proteins that leads to the formation of an undesirable
flavor and smell due to the growth of Pseudomonas, Lactobacillus bacteria, and the fungi
Cladosporium and Aspergillus. Changes in meat color occur due to the growth and repro-
duction of some microorganisms, which leads to the decomposition of pigments in the
meat. Black spots are due to the fungus Cladosporium; white spots are because of Spo-
rotrichum; a bluish-green color is due to the growth of the fungus Penicillium [112].
Adequate cooking of meat is essential to ensure that it is preserved, preventing spoil-
age, and that pathogens are eliminated. Meat cooking is one of the most important meth-
ods used to preserve meat [14,111]. Several researchers have highlighted the health risks
of meat, as these risks are associated with the presence of toxin-producing bacteria at
steady temperatures, which are selective aerobic bacteria [113]. Vaudagna et al. [51] stated
that 50–60 °C is sufficient to kill vegetative microbes but not B. clostridium. Cayre et al.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 19 of 28
[114] also conducted mathematical modeling to investigate the growth rate of lactic acid
bacteria in the emulsion of meat cooked in vacuum bags and stored at 0, 8, and 15 °C.
They then studied the effect of storage temperature on the growth of lactic acid-producing
bacteria under low-oxygen conditions at different storage temperatures. The Gompertz
equation was used to predict the maximum growth rate of bacteria, and the results
showed that the maximum growth rate of bacteria was at the temperature of 15 °C.
In another study, Zeleňáková et al. [115,116] assessed the microbial quality of meat
products cooked during their shelf life. Microbial analysis of cooked pork and processed
meats (sausages) was carried out during the storage period. The growth rate of Entero-
bacteriaceae and coliforms was analyzed, and the results showed that the highest growth
rate of microorganisms in cooked meat was after 21 days, while in processed meat, it was
5 days within the temperature range of 2–6 °C. Yang et al. [117] also studied the effect of
sequential sous vide cooking and cold storage conditions on the microbial properties of
beef when it was cooked at 39 °C for one hour, then at 49 °C for one hour, then at 59 °C
for 4 h, and then was stored for 28 days at −1.5 °C and 2 °C. The results showed that meat
cooked using this method remained acceptable throughout the storage period. It was also
noticed that during storage, the bacteria responsible for lactic acid did not grow. Xu et al.
[118] also conducted a review on the uses of micro-preservatives in controlling the spoil-
age of beef and lamb and their impact on meat quality. They stated that these substances
could be used to control the growth of undesirable microorganisms in fresh and cooked
meat, as these substances can extend the shelf life of meat and maintain the sensory qual-
ity of meat.
4. Packaging and Shelf Life of Cooked Meat
The cooking process aims to preserve the quality of meat and its consumption in the
best possible manner. The technique of cooking meat in vacuum bags is one of the modern
technologies that have been recently spread [51,117]. The process of packaging meat
started long ago to facilitate the process of transportation and storage and preserve the
meat, preventing spoilage. Over time, the development of this technology has increased,
and over the past two decades, different methods have been discovered to preserve meat,
including the process of cooking meat in vacuum-sealed cooking pouches, known as Sous-
vide Supreme. As mentioned earlier, this is considered one of the most important methods
to save time and money and preserve the flavor and quality of meat for longer. Recently,
there has been an increased demand for meat cooked in vacuumed plastic bags because it
allows cooked meat to be easily handled without microbial contamination [51].
There are many factors affecting the process of packaging cooked meat, the most im-
portant of which is the type of packaging material and its tolerance to heat, as the pack-
aging material consists of polymers that provide the basic structure to preserve the cooked
product for as long as possible [119]. The packaging material for cooked meat must be
resistant to high cooking temperatures and highly flexible to withstand sudden tempera-
ture drops below freezing [120]. It should also be airtight to prevent oxygen from entering
and preserve the product for as long as possible, and it should be printable and highly
heat sealable [121].Previous studies have shown that meat packaging before and after
cooking extends the shelf life of meat up to 21 days due to a decrease in the oxygen content
of vacuumed plastic bags and, thus, a decrease in the growth of aerobic microbes
[51,116,117]. They also preserve the structural properties of the meat and its color hue,
increase the tenderness of the meat, reduce the loss of water and mineral elements, and
preserve the volatile flavors and odors [11,46,122].
The packaging and assessment of cooked meat and its shelf life have been investi-
gated and evaluated by many studies, where the shelf life of cooked meat was strongly
associated with several sensory and microbial properties. This includes the study of Cayre
et al. [114] on the effect of storage temperature (0, 15, and 8 °C) and gas permeability on
the growth of lactic acid bacteria and Brochothrix thermosphacta bacteria in the emulsion of
meat cooked in vacuumed bags. Several predicted variables from the Gompertz equation
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 20 of 28
and the analysis of the effect of packaging permeability and temperature on the growth
rate of bacteria were used, and the results showed a significant effect of the factors at the
level of (p < 0.001). Horita et al. [123] conducted a review of the combination of packaging
cooked meat and using non-thermal treatments to remove microbial contamination of
ready-to-eat cooked meat. In their study, they stated that cooked meat is damaged by Lis-
teria monocytogenes microorganisms, which appear after the cooking process and grow
rapidly, leading to meat deterioration. Therefore, some non-thermal techniques are used,
such as ultraviolet light and pulsed electric field, to eliminate decontamination and mi-
croorganisms after packaging and reduce the activity of pathogenic microorganisms pre-
sent on the surface of cooked meat.
5. Mathematical Modeling
Meat cooking can be mathematically modeled by considering the heat transfer and
mass transfer processes that occur during cooking. Mathematical modeling of the meat
cooking process is essential for understanding heat and mass transfer phenomena, de-
signing devices, maintaining the quality of consumed meat, reducing production costs,
improving meat quality, and extending the shelf life of meat. Mathematical models consist
of a set of mathematical equations or relationships that describe the meat cooking process.
These models are used to simulate or predict the behavior of the meat cooking under dif-
ferent conditions and can be used to optimize or control the cooking process parameters
such as the cooking time, internal temperature, and final texture and flavor of the cooked
meat. However, it is important to validate the results of the simulations with experimental
data to ensure accuracy and reliability [124].
Typically, when cooking meat in an oven, heat is transferred from the surrounding
environment to the surface of the meat through convection and radiation. This causes the
surface of the meat to become hot, and heat is then conducted towards the center of the
meat. Internal moisture is transported toward the meat surface by diffusion and convec-
tion mechanisms and lost to the air by evaporation [125].
The governing equations for heat and mass transfer during meat cooking can be com-
pleted due to the involvement of various physical factors, including heat and energy
transport, mass transport, fluid flow dynamics, and mechanical changes such as shrinkage
and swelling [13]. The heat transfer (conduction and convection) within the meat is gov-
erned using the energy conservation equation [126]:
+ . (−)+ ,. = 0
(3)
where , , and are the density (kg/m3), specific heat (J/kg·K), and thermal conduc-
tivity (W/m·K) of the meat, respectively, , ,, and u are the density (kg/m3), specific
heat (J/kg·K), and thermal conductivity (W/m·K) of the liquid transported within the meat,
respectively, and T is the temperature (C°), and t is time cooking (sec).
The governing equation of mass transfer (by diffusion and convection) within the
meat is based on the mass conservation equation [126]:
+ . (− + )= 0
(4)
where C is moisture concentration (mol/m3), and DW is the moisture diffusion coefficient
(m2/s) in the meat.
Darcy’s law can be used to describe the velocity of the fluid in the pores within the
meat from the conservation of momentum:
=
(5)
where x is the permeability of the meat (m2), is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid
(Pa·s), and is the pressure gradient vector (Pa/m).
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 21 of 28
Overall, the most accurate models for predicting cooking times will take into account
the specific cooking method, the cut and thickness of the meat, and any other relevant
factors that may affect the mass and heat transfer and cooking process. There have been
many attempts to design mathematical models for cooking meat where several influenc-
ing factors have been ignored, including stickiness, contraction, and elasticity, and many
equations have arisen based on the principle of conservation of mass, energy, and balance
of forces [124].
Many studies have conducted mathematical modeling of meat during cooking, in-
cluding the study of Ahmad et al. [127], where a mathematical model was developed for
the process of cooking minced meat using the C++ program, and the meat was cooked in
a cylinder with a diameter of 6.6 cm, a length of 18 cm, and a weight of 650 g. In this study,
the temperature of the cylinder rose during natural and forced convection, as the mixing
of cold air and boiling temperatures was predicted, and the mathematical model was
solved using the Rung–Kuta fourth-order equation. The results obtained from the model
were compared with the laboratory values. Many of the assumptions necessary for math-
ematical modeling were relied upon, including the use of thermal diffusion and moisture
as constants, and the fat transfer was neglected and based on the above assumptions. The
mathematical model describes the heat and mass transfer during the cooking of minced
meat in a cylinder well. In another study, a 3D computational model was developed using
COMSOL Multiphysics 5.2a to simulate heat and mass transfer, as well as deformation,
during steak cooking on a double-sided pan with different cooking times and meat thick-
nesses. The results showed that the model accurately predicted the central temperature
and cooking time of the steak with root mean squared errors of 2.16 °C for very rare, 3.56
°C for rare, and 4.57 °C for well-done cooking, and 1.48%, 2.08%, and 2.40% water loss,
respectively. The authors concluded that the developed model is a useful tool for improv-
ing cooking processes in the food industry, helping to improve the consistency and quality
of cooked meats [128],
Experimental mathematical relationships have also been developed on water reten-
tion and the storage coefficient. In another study, Nelson et al. [124] performed mathe-
matical modeling of cooked beef where a two-dimensional mathematical model of steaks
was utilized cooking using the Flory–Reihner theory, and this method depends on the
presence of an elastic medium saturated with liquids. It was observed that with the rise
in cooking temperature, deformation of the meat protein occurs, which leads to water and
mineral elements leaving, causing shrinkage in the piece of meat during cooking; it has
been observed that the piece of meat shrinks up to 30% during cooking. Table 7 shows
some mathematical models used in various studies about meat cooking.
Table 7. Mathematical models used to solve some red meat cooking in recent years.
Meat Cooking Study
Mathematical Model Results Reference
Optimization of beef
heat treatment using
CFD simulation: Mod-
eling of protein dena-
turation degree
Computational fluid dy-
namics (CFD) simula-
tion
The CFD model accu-
rately predicted the de-
gree of protein denatura-
tion and can be used to
optimize the heat treat-
ment process of beef, re-
sulting in a more con-
sistent and high-quality
product.
[129]
Color changes in beef
meat during pan cook-
ing: kinetics, modeling
and application to pre-
dict turn over time
The finite element
method through COM-
SOL Multiphysics
The developed mathemat-
ical model effectively pre-
dicted the time required
to achieve a desired color
[130]
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 22 of 28
change in beef during pan
cooking.
A Mathematical model
for meat cooking
The finite difference
equations using Flory-
Rehner Theory with C++
A mathematical model for
meat oven roasting was
developed, accounting for
the effect of shrinkage on
the cooking process. The
results of the numerical
simulations demonstrated
a good agreement with
the experimental data.
[131]
Model for electrical
conductivity of muscle
meat during Ohmic
heating
Empirical equations
A mathematical model
was developed and vali-
dated to accurately simu-
late the changes in the
electrical conductivity of
muscle meat during
ohmic heating.
[132]
Mathematical model-
ing of ground beef in a
cooking cylinder
The finite difference
equations through the
fourth-order Runge-
Kutta method with C++
A mathematical model
was developed to predict
the temperature history of
meat cylinders during dif-
ferent cooking conditions.
Temperature predictions
were in agreement with
experimental values.
[127]
The ohmic heating of
meat ball: Modeling
and quality determina-
tion
Sukprasert’s model and
an adjusted finite differ-
ence model
The Sukprasert and the
adjusted finite difference
models used in this study
were the most precise to
accurately predict the
changes in temperature of
pork meatballs during
ohmic heating.
[133]
Prediction of cooking
times and weight
losses during meat
roasting
The finite element
method using COMSOL
Multiphysics and
MATLAB
The developed model was
validated using experi-
mental data, and it was
found to accurately pre-
dicts cooking times and
weight losses for beef
cooked in an oven.
[134]
Solid food pasteuriza-
tion by ohmic heating:
Influence of process
parameters
The finite element
method using COMSOL
Multiphysics
A previously developed
model was successfully
used to investigate the in-
fluence of meat pasteuri-
zation process parameters
on temperature distribu-
tion, resulting in a uni-
formly pasteurized prod-
uct
[135]
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 23 of 28
6. Conclusions
This review can be summarized as follows:
1. When red meat is processed at high temperatures, several changes occur in the engi-
neering properties and structural quality. There are many factors affecting these
properties, the most important of which are the method of cooking and cooking con-
ditions like heating rate, cooking time, and temperature;
2. Determining the engineering properties of meat before and after cooking is essential
to establish the extent of consumer acceptance of meat and identify the composition
of meat before and after the cooking process. The engineering properties of food ma-
terials play an important role in understanding the process of heat and mass transfer
to and from a food material. The quality standards for meat products are also linked
to many sensory and microbial properties that have been determined by food tech-
nologists and consumers so that the consumer will accept a specific food product but
not another. These properties include taste, smell, texture, and appearance, which
can be perceived sensorially;
3. The importance of mathematical modeling of the meat cooking process lies in the
rapid development of various cooking techniques, creating the need to reduce the
costs of laboratory experiments and understand the phenomena of heat and mass
transfer. This allows for the possibility of maintaining the quality of meat, reducing
production costs, and improving the quality of meat flavor;
4. There are many methods that were not addressed in this scientific review. However,
they have great research potential since they can be combined using hurdle technol-
ogy to eliminate the highest ratio of microorganisms, obtain high quality, and reduce
the rate of energy consumption.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.M.A., A.I.H. and M.B.O.; software and models, B.M.A.
and M.B.O.; validation, A.I.H. and G.M.S.; investigation, B.M.A., A.I.H., M.B.O., G.M.S. and S.A.-
G.; resources, G.M.S. and S.A.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, B.M.A., A.I.H. and M.B.O.;
writing—review and editing, G.M.S. and S.A.-G.; project administration, A.I.H. and S.A.-G. All au-
thors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is
not applicable to this article.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia.
Conflicts of Interest: All authors declare that there are no financial and personal relationships with
other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) this work.
References
1. Dikeman, M.; Devine, C. Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; Volume I.
2. Henchion, M.; McCarthy, M.; Resconi, V.C.; Troy, D. Meat consumption: Trends and quality matters. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 561–
568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.06.007.
3. FAO. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. FAOSTAT. 2020. Available online: http://fao-
stat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx (accessed on 15 March 2023).
4. García-Segovia, P.; Andrés-Bello, A.; Martínez-Monzó, J. Effect of cooking method on mechanical properties, color and structure
of beef muscle (M. pectoralis). J. Food Eng. 2007, 80, 813–821. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.07.010.
5. Pathare, P.B.; Roskilly, A.P. Quality and energy evaluation in meat cooking. Food Eng. Rev. 2016, 8, 435–447.
6. Caine, W.R.; Aalhus, J.L.; Best, D.R.; Dugan, M.E.R.; Jeremiah, L.E. Relationship of texture profile analysis and Warner-Bratzler
shear force with sensory characteristics of beef rib steaks. Meat Sci. 2003, 64, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0309-
1740(02)00110-9.
7. Nikmaram, P.; Yarmand, M.S.; Emamjomeh, Z.; Darehabi, H.K. The effect of cooking methods on textural and microstructure
properties of veal muscle (Longissimus dorsi). Glob. Veterinaria. 2011, 6, 201–207.
8. Vujadinović, D.P.; Grujić, R.D.; Tomović, V.M.; Vukić, M.S.; Jokanović, M.R. Cook Loss as a Function of Meat Heat Treatment
and Regime. Qual. Life 2014, 10, 3–4. https://doi.org/10.7251/QOL1402081V.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 24 of 28
9. Vasanthi, C.; Venkataramanujam, V.; Dushyanthan, K. Effect of cooking temperature and time on the physico-chemical, histo-
logical and sensory properties of female carabeef (buffalo) meat. Meat Sci. 2007, 76, 274–280.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.11.018.
10. AMSA. Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation, and Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Fresh Meat; American
Meat Science Association National Livestock and Meat Board: Chicago, IL, USA, 2016. Available online:
http://www.meatscience.org/sensory (accessed on 12 March 2023).
11. Rosinski, M.J.; Barmore, C.R.; Bridges, W.C., Jr.; Dick, R.L.; Acton, J.C. Phosphate type and salt concentration effects on shear
strength of and packaging film adhesion to processed meat from a cook-in packaging system. J. Food Sci. 1989, 54, 1422–1425.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1989.tb05125.x.
12. Chang, P.-S.; Chen, L.-J.; Wang, Y.-C. The effect of ultraviolet irradiation, heat, pH, ozone, salinity and chemical disinfectants
on the infectivity of white spot syndrome baculovirus. Aquaculture 1998, 166, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0044-8486(97)00238-
x.
13. Cepeda, J.F.; Weller, C.L.; Negahban, M.; Subbiah, J.; Thippareddi, H. Heat and Mass Transfer Modeling for Microbial Food
Safety Applications in the Meat Industry: A Review. Food Eng. Rev. 2013, 5, 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-013-9063-6.
14. Warriss, P.D. Meat Science: An Introductory Text; CABI Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2001.
15. Decareau, R.V. Microwaves in the Food Processing Industry; Academic Press: Orlando, FL, USA, 1985.
16. Combes, S.; Lepetit, J.; Darche, B.; Lebas, F. Effect of cooking temperature and cooking time on Warner–Bratzler tenderness
measurement and collagen content in rabbit meat. Meat Sci. 2004, 66, 91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0309-1740(03)00019-6.
17. Bejerholm, C.; Tørngren, M.A.; Aaslyng, M.D. Cooking of meat. Encycl. Meat Sci. 2014, 1, 370–376.
18. Cheng, Q.; Sun, D.-W.; Scannell, A.G. Feasibility of water cooking for pork ham processing as compared with traditional dry
and wet air cooking methods. J. Food Eng. 2005, 67, 427–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2004.05.011.
19. Hobani, A.I.; Othman, M.B.; Fickak, A.A.; Suliman, G.M. Effects of the Sous Vide and Conventional Electric Oven Cooking
Methods on the Physio-Sensory Quality Attributes of Arabian Camel (Camelus dromedarius) Meat. Processes 2023, 11, 182–200.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010182.
20. Kurp, L.; Danowska-Oziewicz, M.; Kłębukowska, L. Sous vide cooking effects on physicochemical, microbiological and sensory
characteristics of pork loin. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2365. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052365.
21. Lee, D.; Lee, H.J.; Yoon, J.W.; Ryu, M.; Jo, C. Effects of cooking conditions on the physicochemical and sensory characteristics
of dry- and wet-aged beef. Anim. Biosci. 2021, 34, 1705–1716. https://doi.org/10.5713/ab.20.0852.
22. Ángel-Rendón, S.V.; Filomena-Ambrosio, A.; Hernández-Carrión, M.; Llorca, E.; Hernando, I.; Quiles, A.; Sotelo-Díaz, I. Pork
meat prepared by different cooking methods. A microstructural, sensorial and physicochemical approach. Meat Sci. 2020, 163,
108089. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108089.
23. Lorenzo, J.M.; Cittadini, A.; Munekata, P.E.; Domínguez, R. Physicochemical properties of foal meat as affected by cooking
methods. Meat Sci. 2015, 108, 50–54.
24. Bozkurt, H.; Icier, F. Ohmic cooking of ground beef: Effects on quality. J. Food Eng. 2010, 96, 481–490.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2009.08.030.
25. Palka, K.; Daun, H. Changes in texture, cooking losses, and myofibrillar structure of bovine M. semitendinosus during heating.
Meat Sci. 1999, 51, 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0309-1740(98)00119-3.
26. Burlon, F.; Tiberi, E.; Micheli, D.; Furlanetto, R.; Simonato, M. Transient model of a Professional Oven. Energy Procedia 2017, 126,
2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.08.045.
27. Palka, K. The influence of post-mortem ageing and roasting on the microstructure, texture and collagen solubility of bovine
semitendinosus muscle. Meat Sci. 2003, 64, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0309-1740(02)00179-1.
28. Dawood, A.A. Physical and sensory characteristics of Najdi-camel meat. Meat Sci. 1995, 39, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-
1740(95)80007-7.
29. Danowska-Oziewicz, M.; Karpińska-Tymoszczyk, M.; Borowski, J. The effect of cooking in a steam-convection oven on the
quality of selected dishes. J. Foodserv. 2007, 18, 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4506.2007.00065.x.
30. Farkas, B.E.; Singh, R.P.; Rumsey, T.R. Modeling heat and mass transfer in immersion frying. II, model development. J. Food
Eng. 1996, 29, 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-8774(95)00048-8.
31. Mir-Bel, J.; Oria, R.; Salvador, M.L. Influence of temperature on heat transfer coefficient during moderate vacuum deep-fat
frying. J. Food Eng. 2012, 113, 167–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.06.009.
32. Sosa-Morales, M.E.; Orzuna-Espíritu, R.; Vélez-Ruiz, J.F. Mass, thermal and quality aspects of deep-fat frying of pork meat. J.
Food Eng. 2006, 77, 731–738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.07.033.
33. Sastry, S.K.; Barach, J.T. Ohmic and inductive heating. J. Food Sci. 2000, 65, 42–46.
34. İçier, F.; Yildiz, H.; Baysal, T. Polyphenoloxidase deactivation kinetics during ohmic heating of grape juice. J. Food Eng. 2008, 85,
410–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2007.08.002.
35. Wang, W.C.; Sastry, S.K. Salt diffusion into vegetable tissue as a pretreatment for ohmic heating: Electrical conductivity profiles
and vacuum infusion studies. J. Food Eng. 1993, 20, 299–309.
36. Sastry, S.K. Ohmic heating. In Encyclopedia of Agricultural Food and Biological Engineering; Heldman, D.R., Moraru, C.I., Eds.; CRC
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 1142–1146.
37. Yildiz-Turp, G.; Sengun, I.; Kendirci, P.; Icier, F. Effect of ohmic treatment on quality characteristic of meat: A review. Meat Sci.
2013, 93, 441–448. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.10.013.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 25 of 28
38. Parrott, D.L. Use of ohmic heating for aseptic processing of food particulates: Dielectric and ohmic sterilization. Food Technol.
1992, 46, 68–72.
39. Özcan, A.U.; Maskan, M.; Bedir, M.; Bozkurt, H. Effect of ohmic cooking followed by an infrared cooking method on lipid
oxidation and formation of polycylic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) of beef muscle. Grasas Y Aceites 2018, 69, 279–289.
https://doi.org/10.3989/gya.0101181.
40. Lee, S.-Y.; Ryu, S.; Kang, D.-H. Effect of frequency and waveform on inactivation of escherichia coli O157:H7 and salmonella
enterica serovar typhimurium in salsa by ohmic heating. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 10–17.
https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.01802-12.
41. Aydin, C.; Kurt, U.; Kaya, Y. Effect of cooking treatment on microbial, sensory and colour characteristics of fish Pâté: Compar-
ison of ohmic and traditional cooking techniques. Çukurova J. Agric. Food Sci. 2021, 36, 253–262.
42. Ghnimi, S.; Flach-Malaspina, N.; Dresch, M.; Delaplace, G.; Maingonnat, J.F. Design and performance evaluation of an ohmic
heating unit for thermal processing of highly viscous liquids. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 2008, 86, 626–632.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2008.02.005.
43. Yildiz, G.; Dere, Ş. The effects of elevated-CO2 on physiological performance of Bryopsis plumosa. Acta Oceanol. Sin. 2015, 34,
125–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-015-0652-5.
44. Creed, P.G. Sensory and nutritional aspects of sous-vide processed foods. In Sous vide and Cook Chill Processing for the Food
Industry; Ghazala, S., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1998; pp. 57–88.
45. Baldwin, D.E. Sous vide cooking: A review. Int. J. Gastron. Food Sci. 2012, 1, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2011.11.002.
46. Christensen, L.; Gunvig, A.; Tørngren, M.A.; Aaslyng, M.D.; Knøchel, S.; Christensen, M. Sensory characteristics of meat cooked
for prolonged times at low temperature. Meat Sci. 2012, 90, 485–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.09.012.
47. Mortensen, L.M.; Frøst, M.B.; Skibsted, L.H.; Risbo, J. Effect of time and temperature on sensory properties in low-temperature
long-time sous-vide cooking of beef. J. Culin. Sci. Technol. 2012, 10, 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/15428052.2012.651024.
48. Ayub, H.; Ahmad, A. Physiochemical changes in sous-vide and conventionally cooked meat. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 17,
100145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2019.100145.
49. Becker, A.; Boulaaba, A.; Pingen, S.; Krischek, C.; Klein, G. Low temperature cooking of pork meat—Physicochemical and sen-
sory aspects. Meat Sci. 2016, 118, 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.03.026.
50. Vaudagna, S.R.; Sanchez, G.; Neira, M.S.; Insani, E.M.; Picallo, A.B.; Gallinger, M.M.; Lasta, J.A. Sous vide cooked beef muscles:
Effects of low temperature-long time (LT-LT) treatments on their quality characteristics and storage stability. Int. J. Food Sci.
Technol. 2002, 37, 425–441. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2621.2002.00581.x.
51. Tang, J.; Chan, T.V. Microwave and radio frequency in sterilization and pasteurization applications. In Heat Transfer in Food
Processing; Yanniotis, S., Sunden, B., Eds.; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2007; pp. 101–142.
52. Cooper, N.S. Microwave ovens. In Development of Packaging and Products for Use in Microwave Ovens, 2nd ed.; Lorence, M.W.,
Pesheck, P.S., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 177–198.
53. Chandrasekaran, S.; Ramanathan, S.; Basak, T. Microwave food processing—A review. Food Res. Int. 2013, 52, 243–261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.02.033.
54. Causey, K.; Andreassen, E.G.; Hausrath, M.E.; Along, C.; Ramstad, P.E.; Fenton, F. Effect of thawing and cooking methods on
palatability and nutritive value of frozen ground meat. I. Pork. Food Res. 1950, 15, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-
2621.1950.tb16471.x.
55. Causey, K.; Hausrath, M.E.; Ramstad, P.E.; Fenton, F. Effect of thawing and cooking mefhods on palatability and nutritive value
of frozen ground meat. II. Beef. Food Res. 1950, 15, 249–255.
56. Causey, K.; Hausrath, M.E.; Ramstad, P.E.; Fenton, F. Effect of thawing and cooking methods on palatability and nutritive value
of frozen ground meat. III. Lamb. Food Res. 1950, 15, 256–261. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1950.tb16473.x.
57. Li, S.; Tang, S.; Yan, L.; Li, R. Effects of microwave heating on physicochemical properties, microstructure and volatile profiles
of yak meat. J. Appl. Anim. Res. 2019, 47, 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2019.1624553.
58. Mirzazadeh, M.; Sadeghi, E.; Beigmohammadi, F. Comparison of the effects of microwave cooking by two conventional cooking
methods on the concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and volatile N-nitrosamines in beef cocktail smokies
(smoked sausages). J. Food Process. Preserv. 2021, 45, e15560.
59. Jouquand, C.; Tessier, F.J.; Bernard, J.; Marier, D.; Woodward, K.; Jacolot, P.; Laguerre, J.-C. Optimization of microwave cooking
of beef burgundy in terms of nutritional and organoleptic properties. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 60, 271–276.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.07.038.
60. Datta, A.K.; Rakesh, V. Principles of Microwave Combination Heating. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2013, 12, 24–39.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2012.00211.x.
61. Fletcher, D.L.; Qiao, M.; Smith, D.P. The relationship of raw broiler breast meat color and pH to cooked meat color and pH.
Poult. Sci. 2000, 79, 784–788. https://doi.org/10.1093/ps/79.5.784.
62. Kadim, I.T.; Mahgoub, O.; Al-Marzooqi, W.; Al-Zadjali, S.; Annamalai, K.; Mansour, M.H. Effects of age on composition and
quality of muscle Longissimus thoracis of the Omani Arabian camel (Camelus dromedaries). Meat Sci. 2006, 73, 619–625.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.03.002.
63. Aprisal, A.N.; Ali, H.M.; Salengke, S. The physico-chemical properties of beef meatballs processed by addition of different salt
concentration using the ohmic heating method. method. Hasanuddin J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 2, 91–97.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 26 of 28
64. Karakaya, M.; Saricoban, C.; Yilmaz, M.T. The effect of Mutton, goat, Beef and Rabbit-Meat species and state of rigor on some
technological parameters. J. Muscle Foods. 2006, 17, 56–64.
65. Oz, F.; Aksu, M.I.; Turan, M. The effects of different cooking methods on some quality criteria and mineral composition of beef
steaks. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2016, 41, e13008. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13008.
66. Aaslyng, M.D.; Bejerholm, C.; Ertbjerg, P.; Bertram, H.C.; Andersen, H.J. Cooking loss and juiciness of pork in relation to raw
meat quality and cooking procedure. Food Qual. Preference 2003, 14, 277–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-3293(02)00086-1.
67. Dawood, A.A.; Alkanhal, M.A. Nutrient composition of Najdi-camel meat. Meat Sci. 1995, 39, 71–78.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(95)80008-5.
68. Hernandez, M.S.; McClennan, J.T.; Martini, S.; Allen, K.; Ban, H.; Legako, J.F. Thermophysical Properties of Beef Steaks Varying
in USDA Quality Grade and Internal Temperature. Meat Muscle Biol. 2022, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.13900.
69. Yoo, J.H.; Kim, J.W.; Yong, H.I.; Baek, K.H.; Lee, H.J.; Jo, C. Effects of searing cooking on sensory and physicochemical properties
of beef steak. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2020, 40, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2019.e80.
70. Liu, F.; Meng, L.; Gao, X.; Li, X.; Luo, H.; Dai, R. Effect of end point temperature on cooking losses, shear force, color, protein
solubility and microstructure of goat meat. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2013, 37, 275–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
4549.2011.00646.x.
71. James, B.J.; Yang, S.W. Effect of Cooking Method on the Toughness of Bovine M. Semitendinosus. Int. J. Food Eng. 2012, 8, 1–17.
https://doi.org/10.1515/1556-3758.2762.
72. Sengun, I.Y.; Turp, G.Y.; Icier, F.; Kendirci, P.; Kor, G. Effects of ohmic heating for pre-cooking of meatballs on some quality
and safety attributes. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 55, 232–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.08.005.
73. Suryanto, E.; Armunanto, R. The effect of heating process using electric and gas ovens on chemical and physical properties of
cooked smoked-meat. Procedia Food Sci. 2015, 3, 19–26.
74. Dominguez-Hernandez, E.; Salaseviciene, A.; Ertbjerg, P. Low-temperature long-time cooking of meat: Eating quality and un-
derlying mechanisms. Meat Sci. 2018, 143, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.032.
75. N’gatta, K.C.A.; Kondjoyan, A.; Favier, R.; Sicard, J.; Rouel, J.; Gruffat, D.; Mirade, P.S. Impact of combining tumbling and sous-
vide cooking processes on the tenderness, cooking losses and colour of bovine meat. Processes 2022, 10, 1229.
76. Fabre, R.; Dalzotto, G.; Perlo, F.; Bonato, P.; Teira, G.; Tisocco, O. Cooking method effect on Warner-Bratzler shear force of
different beef muscles. Meat Sci. 2018, 138, 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2017.12.005.
77. Tian, X.; Shao, L.; Yu, Q.; Silva-Vera, W.; Li, X.; Dai, R. Comparative analysis of quality uniformity of ohmic and water bath
heating treated pork batter with different fat content. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14377. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14377.
78. King (née Turner), N.J.; Whyte, R. Does it look cooked? A review of factors that influence cooked meat color. J. Food Sci. 2006,
71, R31–R40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00029.x.
79. Suman, S.P.; Joseph, P. Myoglobin chemistry and meat color. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 4, 79–99.
80. Kong, F.; Li, X.; Li, N.; Xia, X. Effects of different cooking methods on the physicochemical properties of beef. Meat Sci. 2018,
145, 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.06.016.
81. Rant, W.; Radzik-Rant, A.; Świątek, M.; Niżnikowski, R.; Ślęzak, M.; Szymańska, Ż.; Morales-Villavicencio, A. The effect of
cooking method on the physico-chemical characteristics and fatty acid composition in lamb longissimus dorsi muscle. Emir. J.
Food Agric. 2019, 31, 118–124. https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.2019.v31.i2.1914.
82. Karki, R.; Bremer, P.; Silcock, P.; Oey, I. Effect of sous vide processing on quality parameters of beef short ribs and optimisation
of sous vide time and temperature using third-order multiple regression. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2022, 15, 1629–1646.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-022-02849-6.
83. Polidori, P.; Di Girolami, P.; Vincenzetti, S. Vitamins and minerals in raw and cooked donkey meat. In Meat and Nutrition;
Ranabhat, C.L. Eds; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2021. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.96666 (accessed on
14 June 2023).
84. Czerwonka, M.; Szterk, A. The effect of meat cuts and thermal processing on selected mineral concentration in beef from Hol-
stein–Friesian bulls. Meat Sci. 2015, 105, 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.03.011.
85. Nikmaram, P.; Yarmand, M.S.; Emamjomeh, Z. Effect of cooking methods on chemical composition, quality, and cook loss of
camel muscle (Longissimus dorsi) in comparison with veal. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 10478–10483.
86. Goran, G.V.; Tudoreanu, L.; Rotaru, E.; Crivineanu, V. Comparative study of mineral composition of beef steak and pork chops
depending on the thermal preparation method. Meat Sci. 2016, 118, 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.03.031.
87. Brooks, J.C.; Belew, J.B.; Griffin, D.B.; Gwartney, B.L.; Hale, D.S.; Henning, W.R.; Savell, J.W. National Beef Tenderness Survey-
1998. J. Anim. Sci. 2000, 78, 1852–1860. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.7871852x.
88. Tornberg, E. Effects of heat on meat proteins–Implications on structure and quality of meat products. Meat Sci. 2005, 70, 493–
508.
89. Morey, A.; Owens, C.M. Methods for measuring meat texture. In Poultry Quality Evaluation; Petracci, M., Berri, C., Eds.; Wood-
head Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2017; pp. 115–132.
90. Bouton, P.E.; Harris, P.V.; Ratcliff, D. Effect of cooking temperature and time on the shear properties of meat. J. Food Sci. 1981,
46, 1082–1087. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1981.tb02996.x.
91. Othman, M.B. Effect of Cooking Method on the Physical, Mechanical, Thermal and Sensory Properties of Camel Meat. Master
Thesis, College of Food and Agriculture Sciences, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia, 2018.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 27 of 28
92. Naqvi, Z.B.; Thomson, P.C.; Campbell, M.A.; Latif, S.; Legako, J.F.; McGill, D.M.; Wynn, P.C.; Friend, M.A.; Warner, R.D. Sen-
sory and physical characteristics of m. Biceps femoris from older cows using ginger powder (Zingibain) and sous vide cooking.
Foods 2021, 10, 1936.
93. Kaliniak-Dziura, A.; Domaradzki, P.; Kowalczyk, M.; Florek, M.; Skałecki, P.; Kędzierska-Matysek, M.; Stanek, P.; Dmoch, M.;
Grenda, T.; Kowalczuk-Vasilev, E. Effect of heat treatments on the physicochemical and sensory properties of the longissimus
thoracis muscle in unweaned Limousin calves. Meat Sci. 2022, 192, 108881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108881.
94. Hobani, A.I.; Elansari, A.M. Measurement and prediction of some thermal properties of 'Hashi' camel meat. J. King Saud Univ.
Sci. 2004, 16, 153–160.
95. Pan, Z.; Singh, R.P. Physical and Thermal Properties of Ground Beef During Cooking. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2001, 34, 437–444.
https://doi.org/10.1006/fstl.2001.0762.
96. Elansari, A.M.; Hobani, A.I. Effect of Temperature and Moisture Content on Thermal Conductivity of Four Types of Meat. Int.
J. Food Pro. 2009, 12, 308–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942910701687519.
97. Sahin, S.; Sumnu, S.G. Physical Properties of Foods; Springer Science and Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
98. Berezovskiy, Y.M.; Korolev, I.A.; Sarantsev, T.A. Calculation of heat capacity in meat during its freezing considering phase
change. Theory Pr. Meat Process. 2020, 5, 22–26. https://doi.org/10.21323/2414-438x-2020-5-1-22-26.
99. Gardner, T.; Vierck, K.R.; Martini, S.; Allen, K.; Ban, H.; Miller, R.K.; Legako, J.F. Thermophysical Properties of Beef Steaks of
Varying Thicknesses Cooked With Low and High Grill Surface Temperatures. Meat Muscle Biol. 2020, 4, 1-11
https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.10916.
100. Sheridan, P.S.; Shilton, N.C. Determination of the thermal diffusivity of ground beef patties under infrared radiation oven-shelf
cooking. J. Food Eng. 2002, 52, 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0260-8774(01)00083-8.
101. Ateba, P.; Mittal, G.S. Modelling the deep-fat frying of beef meatballs. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 1994, 29, 429–440.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1994.tb02084.x.
102. Carciofi, B.A.; Faistel, J.; Aragão, G.M.; Laurindo, J.B. Determination of thermal diffusivity of mortadella using actual cooking
process data. J. Food Eng. 2002, 55, 89–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0260-8774(02)00029-8.
103. Dincer, I.; Yildiz, M. Modelling of thermal and moisture diffusions in cylindrically shaped sausages during frying. J. Food Eng.
1996, 28, 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0260-8774(95)00026-7.
104. Liang, R.R.; Zhu, H.; Mao, Y.W.; Zhang, Y.M.; Zhu, L.X.; Cornforth, D.; Wang, R.H.; Meng, X.Y.; Luo, X. Tenderness and sensory
attributes of the longissimus lumborum muscles with different quality grades from Chinese fattened yellow crossbred steers.
Meat Sci. 2016, 112, 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.10.004.
105. Wheeler, T.L.; Koohmaraie, M. Measurement of Warner–Bratzler shear force. In Recip. Meat Conference of the American Meat
Science Association Proceedings; USA, 1994; Volume 47, pp. 49–50.
106. Choe, J.-H.; Choi, M.-H.; Rhee, M.-S.; Kim, B.-C. Estimation of Sensory Pork Loin Tenderness Using Warner-Bratzler Shear Force
and Texture Profile Analysis Measurements. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 29, 1029–1036.
https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0482.
107. Ha, M.; Warner, R.D.; Sikes, A.; Vaskoska, R. Cooking and novel postmortem treatments to improve meat texture and tender-
ness. In New Aspects of Meat Quality; Purslow, P., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2022; pp. 473–506.
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-323-85879-3.00004-0.
108. Chiavaro, E.; Barbanti, D.; Vittadini, E.; Massini, R. The effect of different cooking methods on the instrumental quality of po-
tatoes. J. Food Eng. 2006, 77, 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.06.060.
109. Schönfeldt, H.; Naudé, R.; Bok, W.; van Heerden, S.; Sowden, L.; Boshoff, E. Cooking- and juiciness-related quality characteris-
tics of goat and sheep meat. Meat Sci. 1993, 34, 381–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(93)90085-v.
110. Das, A.K.; Rajkumar, V. Effect of different fat level on microwave cooking properties of goat meat patties. J. Food Sci. Technol.
2013, 50, 1206–1211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-011-0443-8.
111. Lücke, F.-K. Utilization of microbes to process and preserve meat. Meat Sci. 2000, 56, 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0309-
1740(00)00029-2.
112. Toldrá, F. Safety of Meat and Processed Meat; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
113. Church, I.J.; Parsons, A.L. Modified atmosphere packaging technology: A review. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1995, 67, 143–152.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740670202.
114. Cayré, M.E.; Vignolo, G.; Garro, O. Modeling lactic acid bacteria growth in vacuum-packaged cooked meat emulsions stored at
three temperatures. Food Microbiol. 2003, 20, 561–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0740-0020(02)00154-5.
115. Zelenáková, L.; Kunová, S.; Lopašovsky, L. Evaluation of microbiological quality of cooked meat products during their shelf
life. Maso Int. Brno. 2011, 1, 15–20. https://doi.org/10.2754/avb201101010015.
116. Zeleňáková, M. Flood risk assessment and management in Slovakia. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2011, 146, 61–70.
117. Yang, X.; Wang, H.; Badoni, M.; Zawadski, S.; McLeod, B.; Holman, D.; Uttaro, B. Effects of a novel three-step sous-vide cooking
and subsequent chilled storage on the microbiota of beef steaks. Meat Sci. 2020, 159, 107938.
118. Xu, L.; Liu, S.; Cheng, Y.; Qian, H. The effect of aging on beef taste, aroma and texture, and the role of microorganisms: A review.
Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 31, 2129–2140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1971156.
119. Baldwin, D.E. Sous-Vide for the Home Cook; Paradox Press LLC: Scottsdale, AZ, USA, 2010.
120. Ahn, D.U.; Nam, K.C.; Du, M.; Jo, C. Effect of irradiation and packaging conditions after cooking on the formation of cholesterol
and lipid oxidation products in meats during storage. Meat Sci. 2001, 57, 413–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.07.009.
Foods 2023, 12, 2564 28 of 28
121. Vasavada, M. Use of Natural Antioxidants to Control Oxidative Rancidity in Cooked Meats. Ph.D. Thesis, Utah State University,
Logan, UT, USA, 2006.
122. Hrdina-Dubsky, D.L. Sous-vide finds its niche. Food Eng. Int. 1989, 14, 40–42.
123. Horita, C.N.; Baptista, R.C.; Caturla, M.Y.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Barba, F.J.; Sant’ana, A.S. Combining reformulation, active packaging
and non-thermal post-packaging decontamination technologies to increase the microbiological quality and safety of cooked
ready-to-eat meat products. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 72, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.12.003.
124. Nelson, H.; Deyo, S.; Granzier-Nakajima, S.; Puente, P.; Tully, K.; Webb, J. A mathematical model for meat cooking. Eur. Phys.
J. Plus. 2020, 135, 1–19.
125. Singh, N.; Akins, R.G.; Erickson, L.E. Modeling heat and mass transfer during the oven roasting of meat. J. Food Process. Eng.
1984, 7, 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4530.1984.tb00303.x.
126. Bird, R.B.; Stewart, W.E.; Lightfoot, E.N. Transport Phenomena, 2nd ed.; John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007.
127. Ahmad, S.; Khan, M.A.; Kamil, M. Mathematical modeling of meat cylinder cooking. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 60, 678–683.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.10.061.
128. Moya, J.; Lorente-Bailo, S.; Salvador, M.L.; Ferrer-Mairal, A.; Martínez, M.A.; Calvo, B.; Grasa, J. Development and validation
of a computational model for steak double-sided pan cooking. J. Food Eng. 2021, 298, 110498.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2021.110498.
129. Szpicer, A.; Wierzbicka, A.; Półtorak, A. Optimization of beef heat treatment using CFD simulation: Modeling of protein dena-
turation degree. J. Food Process. Eng. 2022, 45, e14014. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpe.14014.
130. Moya, J.; Lorente-Bailo, S.; Ferrer-Mairal, A.; Martínez, M.A.; Calvo, B.; Grasa, J.; Salvador, M.L. Color changes in beef meat
during pan cooking: Kinetics, modeling and application to predict turn over time. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2021, 247, 2751–2764.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-021-03821-y.
131. Shehadeh, H.A.; Deyo, S.; Nakajima, S.G.; Puente, P.; Tully, K.; Webb, J. A mathematical model for meat cooking. arXiv 2019,
arXiv preprint: 1908.10787.
132. Van der Sman, R.G.M. Model for electrical conductivity of muscle meat during Ohmic heating. J. Food Eng. 2017, 208, 37–47.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.03.029.
133. Engchuan, W.; Jittanit, W.; Garnjanagoonchorn, W. The ohmic heating of meat ball: Modeling and quality determination. Innov.
Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2014, 23, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2014.02.014.
134. Goñi, S.M.; Salvadori, V.O. Prediction of cooking times and weight losses during meat roasting. J. Food Eng. 2010, 100, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.03.016.
135. Zell, M.; Lyng, J.G.; Morgan, D.J.; Cronin, D.A. Minimizing heat losses during batch ohmic heating of solid food. solid food.
Food Bioprod. Process. 2011, 89, 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbp.2010.04.003.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
