Meat Science 96 (2014) 521–525

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate /meatsc i

Chemical composition, techno-functional and sensory properties andeffects of three dietary fibers on the quality characteristics of Tunisianbeef sausage

Naourez Ktari a, Slim Smaoui b, Imen Trabelsi b, Moncef Nasri a, Riadh Ben Salah b,⁎a Laboratoire de Microbiologie et de Génie Enzymatique, Université de Sfax, Ecole Nationale d'Ingénieurs de Sfax, Route de Soukra, BP 1173, 3038 Sfax, Tunisiab Laboratoire des Microorganismes et des Biomolécules, Université de Sfax, Centre de Biotechnologie de Sfax, Route de Sidi Mansour Km 6, BP “1177”, 3018 Sfax, Tunisia

⁎ Corresponding author at: Laboratoire de MicroorganiCentre de Biotechnologie de Sfax, Route de Sidi MansouTunisia. Tel./fax: +216 74 87 04 51.

E-mail addresses: riadh_fss@yahoo.fr, riadh.bensalah@

0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.07.038

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 26 February 2013Received in revised form 29 July 2013Accepted 31 July 2013Available online 19 August 2013

Keywords:Dietary fiberTechno-functional propertiesSensory propertiesBeef sausage

This study determined the effects of three dietary fibers namely, VITACEL LC200 powdered cellulose (LC200),barley beta-glucan concentrate (BBC), and VITACEL KF500 potato fiber (KF500), on the techno-functional andsensory properties and quality characteristics of Tunisian beef sausage. The findings revealed interesting func-tional properties for LC200 fiber. This fiber displayed highwater binding capacity (WBC) and oil binding capacity(OBC), values of 16.2 g/g and 10.2 g/g, respectively, which are higher than reported for most fruit and vegetablefiber concentrates. The application of LC200 improved the masticability and elasticity of beef sausage formula-tions and minimized their hardness and production costs without negatively affecting their sensory properties.Overall, the findings demonstrate the potential functional and economic utility of LC200 fiber as a promisingsource of dietary fiber.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Meat products generally contain up to 30% fat (Woo, Lee, & Kim,1995). The latter plays important roles in meat products, such as stabi-lization of meat emulsions, improvement of water-holding capacity(WHC), and supplementation of the flavor, juiciness and acceptability(Muguerza, Fista, Ansorena, Astiasaran, & Bloukas, 2002). Animal fathowever, provides high amounts of saturated fatty acids and cholesterol(Ozvural & Vural, 2008). High intakes of animal fat are associated witha wide range of health consequences, including increased risks of obesi-ty, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, and coronary heart diseases(Moon, Jin, Hah, & Kim, 2008).

With increasing concerns over consumer safety, there is a risingdemand for the reduction of animal fat in meat products and its sub-stitution by non-meat ingredients, such as dietary fiber, compoundsof plant carbohydrate polymers, namely oligosaccharides and polysa-ccharides (cellulose, hemicelluloses, gums, resistant starch, inulin)that may be associatedwith lignin and other non-carbohydrate compo-nents, including polyphenols, waxes, saponins, cutin, phytates, and pro-tein (Fuentes-Zaragoza, Riquelme-Navarrete, Sánchez-Zapata, & PérezÁlvarez, 2010). Dietary fibers offer the advantages of inhibiting hydroly-sis, digestion and absorption in the human small intestine, enhancingfecal bulk, stimulating colonic fermentation, decreasing postprandial

smes et de Biomolécules (LMB),r Km 6, BP “1177”, 3018 Sfax,

cbs.rnrt.tn (R. Ben Salah).

ghts reserved.

blood glucose (reduces insulin responses), and reducing pre-prandialcholesterol levels (Fuentes-Zaragoza et al., 2010). They are also valuabletherapeutics for a wide range of health disorders, including obesity anddiabetes (Goni, Valdivieso, & Garcia-Alonso, 2000).

Dietary fibers can be integrated in food products (meat, dairy, jam,soup, and bakery products), to enhance textural properties, avoid syner-esis, and stabilize high-fat food and emulsions (Abdul-Hamid & Luan,2000; Mansour & Khalil, 1997; Montesinos-Herrero, Cottell, O'Riordan,& O'Sullivan, 2006; Paraskevopoulou, Boskou, & Kiosseoglou, 2005).They have been incorporated in beef burgers to reduce caloric contentthrough fat substitution (Mansour & Khalil, 1997). Surplus white andred beeswings, i.e., undigested fibers from wheat bran, have been intro-duced to replace some of the fat in beef burgers, reduce the levels ofcholesterol, and improve cooking loss and texture (Mansour & Khalil,1997). Likewise, the addition of citrus fiber, with its associated bioactivecompounds, namely polyphenols, to bologna sausage decreased residualnitrite levels and effectively inhibited lipid oxidation (Fernández-Ginés,Fernández-López, Sayas-Barberá, Sendra, & Pérez- Alvarez, 2003). Theaddition of fiber concentrate was also reported to yield products whosephysico-chemical and sensory properties were similar to those of stan-dard sausage (sobrassada) (Eim, Simal, Rosselló, & Femenia, 2008).

Considering the continuous search for efficient, safe, and cost-effective fibers for application in the meat industry and the opportuni-ties that dietary fibers might open with regard to these concerns, thepresent study investigates the potential effects of three dietary fibersthat are abundantly available in nature, namely BBC, LC200, and KF500,with regard to the quality characteristics of Tunisian beef sausage. The ef-fects of the addition of these dietary fibers to beef sausage formulations

522 N. Ktari et al. / Meat Science 96 (2014) 521–525

particularly in terms of physico-chemical, techno-functional, textural(hardness, cohesiveness, chewiness, etc.) and sensorial qualities, aswell as overall production cost are reported.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Origin of dietary fiber concentrates

BBC, LC200, andKF500fiberswere supplied in powder formby a localmeat company (CHAHIA, Sfax, Tunisia). They were initially purchasedfromF.P.S. GROUPEMANE (Marne LaVallee, France). Theywere incorpo-rated to meat after adding water as described in Table 1.

BBC is an excellent functional ingredient in a wide range of food andbeverage applications. It is one of the richest available sources of con-centrated natural beta glucan soluble fiber which is commonly used tomake foods and beverages healthier.

LC200 is a raw fiber concentrate containing 94% of crude cellulose.Due to a sophisticated manufacturing process, through extraction andfibrillation fromwood,finefibrillation, i.e. particle structure,was achievedwith an intensive capillary network effect and surface activity. The aver-age length of the particle was 200 μm.

KF500 is a cellulose fiber with a patented alkaline resistant coat-ing, specifically engineered and manufactured in an ISO 9001 certi-fied facility.

2.2. Chemical analysis of the three dietary fibers

The oil contents of the fibers were estimated by an automatic SoxhletSER1 48 Solvent Extractor (VELP Scientifica, Europe) using petroleumether extraction (Merck Co., Darmstadt, Germany).

Crude protein, crude lipid, and ash contents were determinedaccording to the AOAC methods (AOAC, 1997). Data were expressedas percent of dry weight. To determine total ash content, samples wereignited and incinerated in a muffle furnace at about 550 °C for 8 h(AOAC, 1990). Total nitrogen content was determined by the Kjeldahlmethod. Protein was calculated using the factor, 6.25.

OBC was measured according to Lin, Humbert, and Sosulski (1974).The three fibers were added at a concentration of 100 mg to 10 mlof corn oil in 50-ml centrifuge tubes. The mixtures were stirred andthe tubes were then centrifuged at 2500 g for 30 min. The free oil wasdecanted and absorbed oil determined.

WBC was measured according to Mac-Connel, Eastwood, andMitchell (1974). Briefly, the threefiberswere separately added at a con-centration of 100 mg to 10 ml of distilled water in 50-ml centrifugetubes and stirred overnight at 4 °C. Themixtures were then centrifugedat 10,000 g for 30 min. The free water was decanted, and absorbedwater determined.

Water activity (aw) was measured at 25 °C using an electric hygrom-eter Novasina thermoconstanter TH200 (Novasina, Zurich, Switzerland).The pH was measured using a pH meter (Model 340, Mettler-ToledoGmbH, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland) in slurry made by mixing 5 g ofbeef sausage with 5 ml of distilled water.

Table 1Formulations of beef sausages with the three fibers; P: product.

Ingredients (%) Control P1 P2 P3

Meat 64.42 43.94 49.03 57.31Fat 12.43 12.43 12.43 12.43Spices 9.05 9.05 9.05 9.05Water 14.09 34.08 30.99 20.71LC200 0 0.50 0 0BBC 0 0 0.5 0KF500 0 0 0 0.5Total 100 100 100 100

P1: product 1; P2: product 2; P3: product 3.

All analytical determinations were performed at least in triplicate.Values of different parameters were expressed as themean ± standarddeviation.

2.3. Incorporation of the three fibers in beef sausage

Meat was purchased from a local meat company (CHAHIA, Sfax-Tunisia). They were stored at −20 °C until analysis. The meat waspartially replaced by the three fibers and water. The three fibers wereformulated into beef sausage as described in Table 1. The percentagesof oil and spice additives were unchanged compared to the controlsample. The main difference consisted in decreasing meat content andincreasing fiber content.

2.4. Proximate analyses of beef sausage

Dry matter and ash contents were measured as described above(Besbes, Blecker, Attia, Massaux, & Deroanne, 2002). The water-holdingcapacity (WHC) of raw beef sausage was measured after the centrifuga-tion of 5 g at 9000 g for 30 min at 4 °C. The centrifuged tubes weredrained for 20 min. WHC was expressed as follows:

WHC ¼ ðinitial moisture−loss of waterÞ � 100=initial moisture:

2.5. Cooking loss

The batters were stuffed into casing (initial weight) and heated at75 °C for 30 min. The cooked samples were then cooled to room tem-perature for 3 h. They were then reweighed and cooking loss valueswere calculated according to the following equation.

Cooking loss ðg=100Þ¼ ðweight of raw beef sausage−weight of cooked beef sausageÞ

� 100=weight of raw beef sausage:

2.6. Texture profile analysis

Texture profile analysis (TPA) was performed at room tempera-ture using a texture analyzer (TA-XT2i, Stable Micro Systems Ltd.,Surrey England). Samples were taken from the central portion ofeach beef sausage. Texture analyses were performed under the follow-ing conditions: pre-test speed 2.0 mm/s, post-test speed 5.0 mm/s,maximum load 2 kg, head speed 2.0 mm/s, distance 8.0 mm, andforce 5 g. Values of hardness (N), springiness, cohesiveness, adhesive-ness (N), and chewiness (N) were determined as described by Bourne(1978).

2.7. Sensory evaluation

Samples were prepared by cooking as described above. They wereheld for 30 min at 65 °C prior to submission for sensory evaluation.

The sensory attributes were evaluated by a panel of 36 trained per-sons. Each person had to evaluate texture (toughness or juiciness) andflavor (sourness or sweetness). The beef sausages were individuallypresented in covered small porcelain dishes to each panelist in a sepa-rate area where distractions, noises and odors were minimized. Thejudges were not informed about the experimental approach and thesamples were blind-coded with 3-digit random numbers. A five-pointhedonic scale (5 = like extremely, 4 = like moderately, 3 = neitherlike nor dislike, 2 = dislike moderately, 1 = dislike extremely) wasused for evaluation of the overall acceptability.

Table 3Physico-chemical properties of beef sausages formulated with the three fibers.

Control BBC LC200 KF500

Dry matter (%)1 52.53 ± 0.15a 52.97 ± 0.74a 52.59 ± 0.32a 50.03 ± 0.40a

Ash 1 7.39 ± 0.52a 7.19 ± 0.74a 5.96 ± 0.25b 5.90 ± 0.13b

WHC (%)1 10.08 ± 0.83a 13.57 ± 0.58b 14.63 ± 0.18b 18.21 ± 0.35c

aw1 0.862 ± 0.01a 0.867 ± 0.01a 0.987 ± 0.01a 0.879 ± 0.01a

±SD: Standard deviation of three replicates.a–c: Averages with different letters in the same line are different (P b 0.05).

1 All given values are means of three determinations.

523N. Ktari et al. / Meat Science 96 (2014) 521–525

2.8. Statistical analysis

A 4 × 3 × 3 completely randomized experimental design consistedof 4 treatments, 3 pieces of meat and 3 replications. On each samplingoccasion, three independent samples from each processing conditionwere subjected to physico-chemical properties, cook loss and dimen-sional changes and sensory analysis. All measurements were carriedout in triplicate. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA)using the General Linear Models procedure of the Statistical AnalysisSystem software of SAS Institute (SAS, 1990). Differences among themean values of the various treatments were determined by the leastsignificant difference (LSD) test, and the significance was defined atP b 0.05. The differences equal to ormore than the identified LSD valueswere considered statistically significant.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Chemical properties of the three fibers

The physico-chemical properties of the three dietary fibers arepresented in Table 2. They reveal that the three dietary fibers wererich in fat (up to 3.59%) and dry matter (up to 94%). BBC, LC200, andKF500 had crude protein dry matter bases of 3.09, 2.38, and 3.19%, re-spectively. The differences recorded between the three fibers could bemainly attributed to their different origins and to the different extrac-tion procedures.

Ash content ranged between 0.23 g per 100 g for BBC fiber and 1.05for KF500. The pH values for thefibers ranged between 4.5 and 5.6. Highproportions of total carbohydrate (drymatter basis)were present in thethree fibers, namely 93.09, 94.09, and 93.07% for BBC, LC200, and KF500,respectively.

Interestingly, the fibers all displayed virtually the same aw value.This could be attributed to their richness in components with higherwater retention capacities, such as proteins. The fact that the aw valuesexhibited by the three fibers were lower than 0.6 provided evidencethat they could be stored safe from humidity at ambient temperatureswithout risks of micro-organism growth, a highly valued property interms of shelf-life (El-Gerssifi, 1998).

3.2. Techno-functional properties of the three fibers

The techno-functional properties of the three fibers are presentedin Table 2. A significant difference (P b 0.05) was observed betweenthe WBC of the three fibers (9 g/g, 16.2 g/g, and 6 g/g for BBC, LC200,and KF500, respectively) (Table 2). The high WBC of the three fiberssuggests that they could be used as functional ingredients in food for-mulations to modify texture and viscosity, reduce dehydration duringstorage, and reduce energetic value.

Furthermore, significant differences (P b 0.05) were observed interms of the oil binding capacity (OBC) displayed by the three fibers

Table 2Physico-chemical compositions of the BBG, LC200, and KF500 fibers.

BBC LC200 KF500

Total carbohydrates (%)1 93.09 ± 0.07a 94.09 ± 0.07a 93.07 ± 0.07a

Fat (%)1 3.59 ± 0.10a 2.58 ± 0.10b 2.69 ± 0.10b

Protein (%)1 3.09 ± 0.80a 2.38 ± 0.80b 3.19 ± 0.80a

Ash (%)1 0.23 ± 0.014a 0.95 ± 0.015b 1.05 ± 0.04b

aw1 0.64 ± 0.15a 0.59 ± 0.15a 0.68 ± 0.15a

pH1 4.5 ± 0.21a 4.8 ± 0.14a 5.6 ± 0.21b

WBC (g/g)1 9 ± 0.91a 16.2 ± 1.65b 6 ± 0.56a

OBC (g/g)1 6.8 ± 1.02a 10.2 ± 0.87b 2.5 ± 0.21c

±SD: Standard deviation of three replicates.a–c: Averages with different letters in the same line are different (P b 0.05).

1 All given values are means of three determinations.

(Table 2), which reached 6.8 g/g, 10.2 g/g, and 2.5 g/g for BBC, LC200,and KF500, respectively (Table 2).

The values recorded for the WBC and OBC of the fibers could be re-lated to their origins and their processing procedures that could havesignificantly affected their compositions, physical structures, porosities,and particle sizes. Moreover, the values registered for OBC could be ofspecial interest particularly for the holding of fat during industrial pro-cessing and storage or during culinary preparations, such as frying.

3.3. Techno-functional properties of beef sausage formulated with the threefibers

The physico-chemical characteristics of the beef sausages are illus-trated in Table 3. The incorporation of the three dietary fibers had nosignificant effects (P N 0.05) on aw values. However, significant effects(P b 0.05) were noted for the ash contents in the sausage formulationsto which LC200, and KF500 fibers were added. The water-holdingcapacity (WHC) of the beef sausage was, on the other hand, seen to un-dergo a significant (P b 0.05) increase with the added fibers. This couldbe attributed to the high water binding capacity (WBC) of the threefibers. No significant difference (P N 0.05) in dry matter content wasobserved between the control and the three fibers.

Cooking loss is reported to be affected by the cooking method (Yoo,Kook, Park, Shim, & Chin, 2005), the type of additive (Garcia-Garcia &Totosaus, 2008), the type of fat (Choi et al., 2009), and the amount offat in themeat product (Hong, Lee, &Min, 2004). The effects of the sub-stitution of meatwith the three fibers on the cooking loss are illustratedin Table 4. As clearly shown, the addition of the three dietary fibersinduced a significant (P b 0.05) decrease in cooking loss.

The presence of different fibers was previously reported to inducedifferent modes of behavior, ranging from no effect on cooking loss inlow-fat beef burgers (Desmond, Troy, & Buckley, 1998) to significantimprovements in low-fat bologna (Claus & Hunt, 1991). There is,however, strong evidence that the addition of fiber seems to favorwater binding and fat absorption (Thebaudin, Lefebvre, Harrington,& Bourgeois, 1997). This explains the reduction of cooking loss ob-served in Table 3. Similar results were reported by Turhan, Sagir,and Ustin (2005), who used hazelnut pellicle fibers in beef sausageformulations.

When compared to the beef sausages to which the three fibers wereadded, the beef sausage used as a control underwent more reduction, interms of diameter, by cooking (P b 0.05). This reduction in diametercould be attributed to the denaturation of meat proteins and the lossof water and fat (Turhan et al., 2005).

Table 4Cook loss and dimensional changes of beef sausages formulated with the three fibers.

Parameters Control BBC LC200 KF500

Cook loss (%)1 37.77 ± 0.66a 36.45 ± 0.22b 35.59 ± 0.21c 35.24 ± 0.55c

Diameterreduction (%)1

41.34 ± 0.32a 33.68 ± 0.35b 29.38 ± 0.29b 18.37 ± 0.15c

Thickness (%)1 50 ± 0.44a 50 ± 0.41a 50 ± 0.65a 60 ± 0.87b

±SD: Standard deviation of three replicates.a–c: Averages with different letters in the same line are different (P b 0.05).

1 All given values are means of three determinations.

7,4

7,6

7,8

8

8,2

8,4

8,6

8,8

9

T LC200 BBC KF500

Sample

Spri

ngin

ess

(mm

)

Fig. 3. Effects of added fibers on the springiness of the beef sausages. Data are expressed asmean ± SD (n = 3 replications). Control sample (T) was without the addition of fibers.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

T LC200 BBC KF500

Sample

Adh

esiv

enes

s (g

mm

)

Fig. 4. Effects of added fibers on the adhesiveness of the beef sausages. Data are expressedasmean ± SD(n = 3 replications). Control sample (T)waswithout the addition of fibers.

0

5

10

15

20

25

T LC200 BBC KF500

Har

dnes

s (g

)

Sample

Fig. 1. Effects of the added fibers on the hardness of the beef sausages. Data are expressedasmean ± SD(n = 3 replications). Control sample (T)waswithout the addition of fibers.

524 N. Ktari et al. / Meat Science 96 (2014) 521–525

In addition to cooking loss and reduction in diameter, the highestvalues recorded in terms of “thickness” were observed in the beef sau-sage formulated with KF500. The samples formulated with BBC andLC200 fibers showed a “thickness” value close to the control sample.This response could be attributed to the stabilizing properties of thesefibers, which restricted the distortion of the product on cooking. Theimprovement in cooking performance, due to the addition of LC200,could presumably be related to their high WBC and OBC.

3.4. Textural properties of beef sausage formulated with the three fibers

The analysis of texture parameters of the beef sausage to which thefibers were added and the control is shown in Figs. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Theyshow that the addition of the three fibers induced a decrease in hard-ness (Fig. 1). This could presumably bedue to their higherwater content(Table 3). It could also be attributed to differences in composition,resulting in different protein/fat/water ratios, which is a determiningfactor in the consistency of the resulting gel. These findings are, in fact,in accordance with the results of Cofrades, Guerra, Carballo, Fernandez-Martin, and Jimenez Colmenero (2000).

The effects of the three fibers on the cohesiveness of the beef sau-sages are shown in Fig. 2. The results indicate that the beef sausagesto which the fibers were added underwent significant reduction incohesiveness as compared to the control. The reduction tendencies ob-served for springiness and adhesiveness were similar to those recorded

0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0,4

0,5

T LC200 BBC KF500

Sample

Coh

esiv

enes

s (N

/A)

Fig. 2. Effects of the added fibers on the cohesiveness of the beef sausages. Data areexpressed as mean ± SD (n = 3 replications). Control sample (T) was without the addi-tion of fibers.

for hardness (Figs. 3–4). In fact, chewiness reflected results pertainingto hardness, which was not unexpected since it is a secondary parame-ter that depends on hardness (Fig. 5).

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

T LC200 BBC KF500

Sample

Che

win

ess

(g)

Fig. 5. Effects of added fibers on the chewiness of the beef sausages. Data are expressed asmean ± SD (n = 3 replications). Control sample (T) was without the addition of fibers.

Table 5Sensory properties of beef sausages formulated with the three fibers.

Control BBC LC200 KF500

Flavor1 4.13 ± 0.13a 4 ± 0.06a 3.53 ± 0.05b 3.60 ± 0.09b

Texture1 4.36 ± 0.09a 5.56 ± 0.1a 5.55 ± 0.09a 3.33 ± 0.11a

Overall acceptability1 4.29 ± 0.12a 4.43 ± 0.09a 4.79 ± 0.11a 4.48 ± 0.1a

±SD: Standard deviation of three replicates.a–b: Averages with different letters in the same line are different (P b 0.05).

1 All values given are means of three determinations.

525N. Ktari et al. / Meat Science 96 (2014) 521–525

3.5. Sensory properties and costs of beef sausage formulated with the threefibers

The flavor, texture, and overall acceptability scores recorded for thecooked beef sausages formulated with the three dietary fibers areshown in Table 5. The beef sausages formulated with the three fibershad higher acceptability scores than the control. Overall, the acceptabil-ity results showed that the sample formulated with the LC200 fiberreceived the highest score (4.79), followed by the sample formulatedby KF500 (4.48).

The addition of the three fibers induced no negative effects on theflavor and texture of the sausages. A slight reduction (P b 0.05) in flavorscores was observed for the samples formulated with the three fibers,but these did not significantly interfere with the results obtained fromthe sensory study showing that the samples formulated with the threefibers had no significant (P N 0.05) effects on the flavor, texture andthe overall acceptability of the sausages.

The samples formulated with the LC200 fiber showed a reductionin the cost of 150 billion US dollars per year.

4. Conclusion

The findings provide evidence that dietary fiber is a potentialalternative fiber source that can be used to substitute a significantportion of meat employed in beef sausage formulations. In particular,LC200 fiber could improve the cooking properties of beef sausages,which is attributed to its high oil binding capacity. The increasedfiber content also offers a nutritional benefit for the consumer sinceit allowed reduction of meat incorporation rates from ~64% in thecontrol to ~44% in the product with LC200 fiber. The results demon-strate that this natural dietary fiber, LC200, can help reduce costsassociated with beef sausages. The dietary fiber described in thiswork could be a strong candidate for future applications in a widerange of products.

Acknowledgments

The authorswish to express their sincere gratitude to Prof. HammadiATTIA for texture analysis and Mr Anouar Smaoui and Mrs Hanen BenSalem from the English Language Unit at the Sfax Faculty of Sciencefor their valuable language editing and polishing services.

References

Abdul-Hamid, A., & Luan, Y. S. (2000). Functional properties of dietary fiber preparedfrom defatted rice bran. Food Chemistry, 68, 15–19.

AOAC (1990). Official methods of analyses.Washington, DC: Association of Official analyticalchemist.

AOAC (1997). Official methods of analyses.Washington, DC: Association of Official analyticalchemist.

Besbes, S., Blecker, C., Attia, H., Massaux, C., & Deroanne, C. (2002). Comparison of Ricottacheese made by high pressure treatment with that produced by heat treatment ofsweet whey. Sciences des Aliments, 22, 601–615.

Bourne, M. C. (1978). Texture profile analysis. Food Technology, 32, 62–66.Choi, Y. S., Choi, J. H., Han, D. J., Kim, H. Y., Lee, M.A., Kim, H. W., Jeono, J. Y., & Kim, C. J.

(2009). Characteristics of low-fat meat emulsion systems with pork fat replaced byvegetable oils and rice bran fiber. Meat Science, 82, 266–271.

Claus, J. R., & Hunt, M. C. (1991). Low-fat, high-added water bologna formulated withtexture-modifying ingredients. Journal of Food Science, 56, 643–647.

Cofrades, S., Guerra, M.A., Carballo, J., Fernandez-Martin, F., & Jimenez Colmenero, F.(2000). Plasma protein and soy fiber content effect of bologna sausage propertiesas influenced by fat level. Journal of Food Science, 65, 281–287.

Desmond, E., Troy, D. J., & Buckley, J. (1998). Comparative studies on non-meat ingredientsused in the manufacture of low-fat beef burgers. Journal of Muscle Foods, 9, 221–224.

Eim, V. S., Simal, S., Rosselló, C., & Femenia, A. (2008). Effects of addition of carrot dietaryfibre on the ripening process of a dry fermented sausage (sobrassada). Meat Science,80, 173–182.

El-Gerssifi, M. (1998). Les défauts des produits de pâtisserie et de biscuiteries au cours dustockage: La prévention par la formulation. Indian Alimentaire Agricole, 7, 82–88.

Fernández-Ginés, J. M., Fernández-López, J., Sayas-Barberá, E., Sendra, E., & Pérez- Alvarez,J. A. (2003). Effect of storage conditions on quality characteristics of bologna sausagesmade with citrus fiber. Journal of Food Science, 68, 710–715.

Fuentes-Zaragoza, E., Riquelme-Navarrete, M. J., Sánchez-Zapata, E., & Pérez Álvarez, J. A.(2010). Resistant starch as functional ingredient: a review. Food Research International,43, 931–942.

Garcia-Garcia, E., & Totosaus, A. (2008). Low-fat sodium-reduced sausages: effect of theinteraction between locust bean gum, potato starch and j-carrageenan by a mixturedesign approach. Meat Science, 78, 406–413.

Goni, I., Valdivieso, L., & Garcia-Alonso, A. (2000). Nori seaweed consumption modifiesglycemic response in healthy volunteers. Nutrition Research, 20, 1367–1375.

Hong, G. P., Lee, S., & Min, S. G. (2004). Effect of substituted level of added water for fat onthe quality characteristics of spreadable liver sausage. Food Science and Biotechnology,13, 397–402.

Lin, M. J. Y., Humbert, E. S., & Sosulski, F. W. (1974). Certain functional properties ofsunflower meal products. Journal of Food Science, 39, 368–370.

Mac-Connel, A. A., Eastwood, A., & Mitchell, W. D. (1974). Physical characterizationof vegetable foodstuffs that could influence bowel function. Journal of the Science ofFood and Agriculture, 25, 1457–1464.

Mansour, E. H., & Khalil, A. H. (1997). Characteristics of low fat beef burgers as influencedby various types of wheat fibres. Food Research International, 30, 199–205.

Montesinos-Herrero, C., Cottell, D. C., O'Riordan, E. D., & O'Sullivan, M. (2006). Partialreplacement of fat by functional fiber in imitation cheese: effects on rheology andmicrostructure. International Dairy Journal, 16, 910–919.

Moon, S. S., Jin, S. K., Hah, K. H., & Kim, I. S. (2008). Effects of replacing back fat with fatreplacers and olive oil on the quality characteristics and lipid oxidation of low-fatsausage during storage. Food Science and Biotechnology, 17, 396–401.

Muguerza, E., Fista, G., Ansorena, D., Astiasaran, I., & Bloukas, J. G. (2002). Effect of fat leveland partial replacement of pork backfat with olive oil on processing and quality char-acteristics of fermented sausages. Meat Science, 61, 397–404.

Ozvural, E. B., & Vural, H. (2008). Utilization of interesterified oil blends in the productionof frankfurters. Meat Science, 78, 211–216.

Paraskevopoulou, A., Boskou, D., & Kiosseoglou, V. (2005). Stabilization of olive oil–lemonjuice emulsion with polysaccharide. Food Chemistry, 90, 627–634.

SAS (1990). SAS/STAT user's guide. Cary, NC, USA: Statistical Analysis System Institute, Inc.Thebaudin, J. Y., Lefebvre, A.C., Harrington, M., & Bourgeois, C. M. (1997). Dietary fibers:

nutritional and technological interest. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 8, 41–48.Turhan, S., Sagir, I., & Ustin, N. S. (2005). Utilization of hazelnut pellicle in low-fat beef

burgers. Meat Science, 71, 312–316.Woo, M. J., Lee, K. T., & Kim, C. J. (1995). Quality characteristics of emulsion-type sausages

manufacturedwith cottonseed oil. Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources,15, 187–191.

Yoo, S. S., Kook, S. H., Park, S. Y., Shim, J. H., & Chin, K. B. (2005). Evaluation of curing andflavor ingredients, and different cooking methods on the product quality and flavorcompounds of low-fat sausages. Food Science and Biotechnology, 14, 634–638.