امکان سنجی استفاده از روش استریولوژی برای تعیین درصد گوشت بکار رفته در محصولات گوشتی خام (همبرگر) و حرارت دیده (سوسیس)

نویسندگان
آزاده رشیدی مهر 1
پریسا فلاحی 2
عزیزاله زرگران 3
فاطمه اسفرجانی 3
مریم امیراحمدی 4
سهیل اسکندری 5
1 استادیار گروه علوم پایه، دانشکده دامپزشکی، دانشگاه لرستان
2 محقق، کارشناس ایمنی مواد غذایی در صنعت غذا و رئیس کمیته فنی انجمن فرآورده‌های گوشتی کشور، تهران، ایران
3 استادیار، انستیتو تحقیقات تغذیه‌ای و صنایع غذایی کشور، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی و خدمات بهداشتی درمانی شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
4 استادیار، اداره کل آزمایشگاه‌های مرجع کنترل غذا، دارو و تجهیزات پزشکی، سازمان غذا و دارو، وزارت بهداشت، درمان و آموزش پزشکی، تهران، ایران
5 عضو هیات علمی مرکز تحقیقات آزمایشگاهی غذا و دارو
10.22034/FSCT.20.137.49
چکیده
برچسب‌گذاری دقیق مواد غذایی برای تجارتی منصفانه و توانمندسازی مصرف کنندگان جهت داشتن انتخابی آگاهانه از اهمیت بالایی برخوردار است. صحه‌گذاری میزان گوشت به‌کار‌ رفته در تهیه فرآورده‌های گوشتی از مهم‌ترین فاکتورهای ارزیابی این فرآورده‌ها می‌باشد. لذا هدف از این تحقیق، کارایی آزمون استریولوژی در تشخیص مقدار گوشت بکار رفته در فرآورده‏های گوشتی خام (همبرگر) و حرارت دیده (سوسیس) بود. سه نمونه همبرگر (حاوی 30، 60 و 90 درصد گوشت) به عنوان فرآورده گوشتی خام و سوسیس (حاوی 40، 60 و 90 درصد گوشت) به عنوان فرآورده گوشتی حرارت دیده تهیه شدند. نمونه‌برداری Fractionator برای به دست آوردن بلوک‌های تصادفی یکنواخت سیستماتیک[1] استفاده شد. در مجموع از هر نمونه 12 بلوک به دست آمد و هر بلوک در فرمالین خنثی 10 درصد تثبیت و در پارافین بلوک‌گیری شد. نمونه‌های به دست آمده، پس از تهیه مقاطع بافتی و رنگ‌آمیزی با هماتوکسیلین و ائوزین (H&E)، توسط میکروسکوپ نوری مورد مطالعه قرار گرفتند. داده‌ها با روش آمـاریone-way ANOVA آنالیز و جهت مقایسه تفاوت‌های آماری بین گروه‌ها، از t-test استفاده شد. آنالیز استریولوژی نشان داد که درصد تعیین شده گوشت در همبرگر در درصدهای مختلف با درصد واقعی دارای اختلاف معنی‏داری نبوده، اما در مورد سوسیس بین درصد تخمین زده و درصد واقعی گوشت اختلاف معنی‏دار بوده است. روش استریولوژی می‌تواند روش مکمل مناسبی برای تشخیص مقدار گوشت اضافه شده به فرآورده‌های گوشتی خام باشد.


[1] Systematic uniform random sampling










کلیدواژه‌ها
ایمنی مواد غذایی
تقلب
اصالت
حقوق مصرف کننده
برچسب مواد غذایی

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Feasibility study of the stereological method to determine the percentage of meat used in raw (Hamburger) and heat-treated (Sausage) meat products

نویسندگان English

Azadeh Rashidimehr 1
Parisa Falahi 2
Azizollah Zargaran 3
Fatemeh Esfarjani 3
Maryam Amirahmadi 4
Soheyl Eskandari 5
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Basic Sciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran
2 Researcher, Private Sector Food Safety Expert and Head of the Technical Committee of Iran Meat Products Association, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, National Nutrition and Food Technology Research Institute (NNFTRI), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences and Health Services (SBMU), Tehran, Iran
4 Food and Drug Laboratory Research Center (FDLRC), Food and Drug Administration (IR-FDA), Ministry of Health and Medical Education (MoH+ME), Tehran, Iran
5 ood and Drug Administration (IR-FDA), Ministry of Health and Medical Education
چکیده English

Accurate food labelling is of utmost importance for fair trade and empowering consumers to make knowledgeable choices. Quantitative assessment of the meats is one of the most important factors in authentication of this meat product. Therefore, the purpose of this research was the efficiency of the stereological method for detection of the percentage of meat used in raw (Hamburger) and heat-treated (Sausage) meat products. In this study, three samples of beef burger (containing 30, 60 and 90 % meat) and sausage (containing 40, 60 and 90 % meat) were prepared. Each sample was flattened, and then fractionator sampling using a perforated plate as a cutting guide was used for getting systematic uniform random blocks. Totally, 12 blocks were taken from each sample. Each block was fixed in 10 % neutral formalin and embedded in paraffin. The obtained samples, after preparation of tissue sections and staining using haematoxylin and eosin (H&E), were studied by a light microscope. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA statistical method and t-test was used to compare significance difference between groups. Stereological analysis showed that the estimated meat percentages in beef burger in different percentages (30, 60 and 90%) did not have a significant difference with the real percentages of meat. In the case of sausage, there was significant difference between the estimated meat percentages and the real percentages of meat in different samples of sausage. Stereology method can be a suitable complementary method to detect the amount of meat used in raw meat products.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Food safety
Fraud
authenticity
Consumer rights
Food Label
1. Galal-Khallaf, A. 2021. Multiplex PCR and 12S rRNA gene sequencing for detection of meat adulteration: A case study in the Egyptian markets. Gene. 764: 145062.
2. FAO, Meat Consumption. 2019: Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/themes/en/meat/background.html. Last accessed August 2019.
3. Delgado, C.L. 2003 Rising consumption of meat and milk in developing countries has created a new food revolution. The Journal of nutrition. 133(11): 3907-3910.
4. Hertzler, S.R., J.C. Lieblein-Boff, M. Weiler, and C. Allgeier. 2020. Plant Proteins: Assessing Their Nutritional Quality and Effects on Health and Physical Function. Nutrients. 12(12): 3704.
5. Galili, G., R. Amir, R. Hoefgen, and H. Hesse. 2005. Improving the levels of essential amino acids and sulfur metabolites in plants. Biological Chemistry. 386(9): 817-831.
6. Galili, G. and R. Amir. 2013. Fortifying plants with the essential amino acids lysine and methionine to improve nutritional quality. Plant biotechnology journal. 11(2): 211-222.
7. Soman, M., R.J. Paul, M. Antony, and S. Padinjarattath Sasidharan. 2020. Detecting mislabelling in meat products using PCR–FINS. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 57(11): 4286-4292.
8. European Commission, E., The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed 2013 Annual Report; European :union:. 2014, Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/rasff_annual_report_2013.pdf (accessed on 27 July 2020). Luxembourg.
9. Naaum, A.M., H.R. Shehata, S. Chen, J. Li, N. Tabujara, D. Awmack, C. Lutze-Wallace, and R. Hanner. 2018. Complementary molecular methods detect undeclared species in sausage products at retail markets in Canada. Food Control. 84: 339-344.
10. Teh, A.H.T. and G.A. Dykes, eds. Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, 2nd edn. 2014. pp. 265–269.
11. Dolch, K., S. Andrée, and F. Schwägele. 2020. Comparison of real-time PCR quantification methods in the identification of poultry species in meat products. Foods. 9(8): 1049.
12. Aida, A.A., Y.C. Man, C.M.V.L. Wong, A.R. Raha, and R. Son. 2005. Analysis of raw meats and fats of pigs using polymerase chain reaction for Halal authentication. Meat science. 69(1): 47-52.
13. Ballin, N.Z. 2010. Authentication of meat and meat products. Meat science. 86(3): 577-587.
14. Abbasy-Fasarani, M., H. Hosseini, G.R. Jahed-Khaniki, M. Adibmoradi, and S. Eskandari. 2013. Histological study of industrial hamburgers containing 30 and 60 percent meat for presence of unpermitted edible tissues and correlation of this factor to meat connective tissue chemical indices. Iranian Journal of Nutrition Sciences & Food Technology. 7(5): 311-318. [Persain].
15. Fekri, M., H. Hosseini, S. Eskandari, G.R. Jahed, and M. Adib-Moradi. 2013. Histological study of sausages in point of unpermitted edible tissues assessment and its relationship to collage and hydroxyprolin of product Journal of Sciences & Food Technology. 10 (41): 107-116. [Persian].
16. Abdel Hafeez, H.H., R.S. Zaki, and A.E.-M.D. S. 2016. Applying Light, Histochemical and Scanning Histological Methods for the Detection of Unauthorized Animal and Herbal Content in Street Meat Sandwich: What is in the Sandwich We Eat? Journal of Food Processing & Technology. 7:12: 643.
17. Mokhtar, D.M., D.M. Abd-Elaziz, H. Youssef, and A. Taha. 2018. Applied histological and chemical analysis for detection of adulteration of minced meat and sausage. Journal of Advanced Microscopy Research. 13(3): 345-53.
18. Kale, M., S. Hasırcıoglu, C. Ozturk, A.S. Akcan Kale, and Y. Dogruer. 2012. Detection of central nervous system tissue as bovine spongiform encephalopathy specified risk material in traditional Turkish meat products. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. 92(8): 1653-1656.
19. Prayson, B., J.T. McMahon, and R.A. Prayson. 2008. Fast food hamburgers: what are we really eating? Annals of Diagnostic Pathology. USA. 12(6): 406-409.
20. Prayson, B.E., J.T. McMahon, and R.A. Prayson. 2008. Applying morphologic techniques to evaluate hotdogs; what is in the hotdogs we eat? . Annals of Diagnostic Pathology. USA. 12(6): 98-102.
21. Royet, J.P. 1991. Stereology: a method for analyzing images. Progress in neurobiology. 37(5): 433-474.
22. Mandarim-de-Lacerda, C.A., C. Fernandes-Santos, and M.B. Aguila, Image analysis and quantitative morphology. In Histology Protocols. 2010: Humana Press, Totowa, NJ.
23. Basgen, J.M. 2003. Basic stereology. Microscopy Today. 11(1): 12-17.
24. Casteleyn, C., W. Van den Broeck, and P. Simoens. 2007. Histological characteristics and stereological volume assessment of the ovine tonsils. Veterinary immunology and immunopathology. 120(3-4): 124-135.
25. Gundersen, H.J.G., P. Bagger, T.F. Bendtsen, S.M. Evans, L.X.M.N. Korbo, N. Marcussen, A. Miziller, K. Nielsen, J.R. Nyengaard, B. Pakkenberg, F.B. Sizirensen, A. Vesterby, and M.J. West. 1988. The new stereological tools: disector, fractionator, nucleator and point sampled intercepts and their use in pathological research and diagnosis. Apmis. 96(7‐12): 857-881.
26. Gundersen, H.J. and E.B. Jensen. 1987. The efficiency of systematic sampling in stereology and its prediction. Journal of microscopy. 147(3): 229-263.
27. Sadeghinezhad, J., B. Hajimohammadi, F. Izadi, F. Yarmahmoudi, and R. Latorre. 2016. Evaluation of the morphologic method for the detection of animal and herbal content in minced meat. Czech Journal of Food Sciences. 33(6): 564-569.
28. Tremlova, B. and P. Starha. 2002. Histometric evaluation of meat prod‌ucts-determination of size and number of objects. Czech Journal of Food Sciences. 20(5): 175-180.
29. Tremlova, B. and P. Starha. 2003. Histometric evaluation of meat prod‌ucts: Determination of area and comparison of results ob‌tained by histology and chemistry. Czech Journal of Food Sciences. 21(3): 101-106.
30. Řezáčová Lukášková, Z., M. Pospiech, B. Tremlová, E. Renčová, and M. Petrášová. 2015. Quantitative immunohistochemical method for detection of wheat protein in model sausage. Acta Veterinaria Brno. 83(10): 71-76.
31. Maghami, N.D., A. Nabipour, M. Mohsenzadeh, and M. Torabi. 2022. Histological and stereological approaches for detection of tissues and fraud in some meat products. Veterinary Research Forum. 13(1): 47.
32. Hajimohammadi, B., K. Fattahi, Z. Kavyani Yekta, J. Sadeghinezhad, H. Morovvati, and A. Akhondzadeh Basti. 2020. Experimental Study of the Histological Method for Quantitative Detection of Meat in Kabab and Cooked Sausage Model. Journal of Veterinary Research. 75(3): 366-370.[Persian].
33. Sadeghinezhad, J., H. Morowati, Z.K. Yekta, K. Fattahi, and R.B. Bafrouie. 2019. Evaluation of the Histological Method in Quantitative Detection of Unauthorized Tissues (chicken skin and bone) in Reconstructed Kabab Loghme and Kielbasa. Tolooebehdasht. 18(2): 57-69.[Persain]