LWT - Food Science and Technology 61 (2015) 105e111

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

LWT - Food Science and Technology

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

Dietary fiber as fat substitute in emulsified and cooked meat model

system
Marcio Schmiele a, *, Maria Cristina Chiarinelli Nucci Mascarenhas a,
Andrea Carla da Silva Barretto b, Marise Aparecida Rodrigues Pollonio a
a
Department of Food Technology, Faculty of Food Engineering, University of Campinas, Rua Monteiro Lobato, 80, Zip Code 13.083-862 Campinas, SP, Brazil
b
Department of Food Technology and Engineering, UNESPdSa ~o Paulo State University, Rua Cristova
~o Colombo 2265, Zip Code 15.054-000 Sa
~o Jos
e do Rio
Preto, SP, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Fat intake has been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and diabetes. The
Received 28 May 2014 aim of this study was to reformulate meat products using amorphous cellulose fiber (Z-trim®) as a fat
Received in revised form substitute. Based on a Response Surface Methodology, an emulsified and cooked meat model system was
2 November 2014
carried out with a standard formulation with 20 g/100 g pork fat, and replacement levels of pork fat
Accepted 17 November 2014
Available online 23 November 2014
(from 0 to 20 g/100 g) by amorphous cellulose fiber (from 0 to 1.5 g/100 g). The independent variables
within the levels studied influenced the dependent variables emulsion stability (from 73.64 to 91.76 g/
100 g), firmness (from 27.32 to 48.02 N), hardness (from 50.86 to 83.00 N), b* color coordinate (14 days)
Keywords:
Fat substitute
(from 13.08 to 14.45), and weight loss during storage (from 1.88 to 5.16 g/100 g). Comparing the fitted
Amorphous cellulose fiber models to the results of the standard sample, it is possible to obtain products with 1.3 g/100 g amorphous
Meat emulsion cellulose fiber and 10 g/100 g pork fat (50% fat reduction), with technological characteristics similar to
Emulsion stability the standard sample.
Texture © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Processed meat products are important protein sources with
high biological value, energy, vitamins (B6 and B12), and minerals
(Fe and Zn). Such products, however, have been criticized due to
their high sodium content, low fiber content, and high animal fat
level in several formulations (20e30 g/100 g), being often consid-
ered harmful to health (Judge, Aberle, Forrest, Hedrick, & Merkel,
1989; Pearson & Tauber, 1984; Trindade, 1998; Webb & O'neill,
2008). Decrease fat in diet is needed because many researches
correlate fat intake with chronic disease event like cardiovascular
diseases (mainly saturated fat and cholesterol), cancer, type 2 dia-
betes, and others related to obesity (Decker & Park, 2010; Giese,
1996; Lima & Nassu, 1996; Monteiro, Mondini, & Costa, 2000;
Santarelli, Pierre, & Corpet, 2008; Scho € nfeldt & Gibson, 2008;
Vasconcelos, 2004; Vickery & Rogers, 2002).
Animal fat has high saturated fatty acids content (from 30 to
60 g/100 g), which show influences on final consistency of meat
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ55 19 35214004; fax: þ55 19 32893617.
E-mail address: marciosc@fea.unicamp.br (M. Schmiele).
URL: http://www.fea.unicamp.br/
products. The pork back fat consisting of roughly 90 g/100 g fat and
10 g/100 g moisture and is mostly used to make processed meat
products with high technological quality due to its significant
properties, such as high melting point due to its fatty acid
composition, and desirable sensory characteristics. However, there
is on average 61 mg/100 g cholesterol and it can vary with breed,
sex and diet (Feiner, 2006).
Increasing demand for products with low and/or reduced fat
levels systems from the need to have healthier diets and has led to
the development of new products to replace the fat in traditional
formulation. Three different techniques can be applied in meat
product segmentto decrease fat, such as modifying carcass chem-
ical composition for meat with lower fat content, manipulating
animal raw material by selecting leaner meat, and making meat
products through use of fat substitutes, by adding water and
functional ingredients. This latter tactic depicts a considerable op-
portunity to add value to processed meat products by the addition
of new ingredients, additives and technological process research,
aiming for healthier products (Bernardi, Oetterer, & Contreras-
Castillo, 2008; Mendoza, Garcia, Casas, & Selgas, 2001; Trindade,
1998).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.11.037
0023-6438/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
106 M. Schmiele et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 61 (2015) 105e111
Neverthelles, replacing animal fat in meat products is an enor-
mous technological challenge. Although being a high caloric
formulation ingredient, animal fat in meat products holds a great
and positive way in terms of softness, succulence, taste, and
important attributes of quality.
Chemical and physical properties of fat such as viscosity, heat
stability, plasticity, dispersion, physical stability (emulsification,
migration, and coalescence), chemical stability (rancidity and
oxidation), and microbiological stability (water activity and food
safety) affect fat intake and shelf-life of meat (Jones, 1996; Webb &
O'neill, 2008).
Reducing and/or replacing fat in processed meat products,
therefore, can cause a big hit on sensorially portrayed final prod-
ucts, mainly on traits such as appearance, aroma (taste intensity
and sense), satiety, and texture sensation (succulence, creamy
texture and palatability), as well as on physical stability of products,
mainly on emulsified meat products (Jones, 1996; Lima & Nassu,
1996; Monteiro, Carpes, Kalluf, Dyminski, & Ca ^ndido, 2006;
Nonaka, 1997; Rodrigues-Amaya, 2003).
By excessively decreasing fat in meat products, other in-
gredients which supply products sensorial quality traits can help in
achieving this challenge, such as spices, flavorings, and suchlike,
which works as fat substitutes (Jime nez-Colmenero, Reig, & Toldra ,
2006; Rogers, 2001) are needed in order to avoid products
becoming dry, hard and tasteless (Nabeshima, 1998).
According to Giese (1996), fat substitutes are divided into three
main groups as those derived from protein e milk, eggs, or vege-
tables (i.e. soy protein isolate); derived from modified lipids -
synthetic lipid (Olestra® sucrose polyester); and derived from car-
bohydrates e modified starches, resistant starches and dietary fi-
bers (Hahn, 1997; Monteiro et al., 2006).
Substitutes derived from carbohydrates are usually hydro-
philic due to the large number of hydrogen bonds with water,
creating a fat-based system depending on the food texture aimed
(Nonaka, 1997). They are commonly obtained from cereals or
leguminous plants used more frequently than others (Hahn,
1997).
The amorphous cellulose fiber (Z-trim®) is a carbohydrate based
fat substitute that has been few studied in creating meat products.
It is used in food products since its discovery in 1996, commonly in
milk and bakery products (Z-TRIM, 2014). It is an insoluble fiber
from the husk of oat, soya, rice grains, wheat or corn bran (Akoh,
1998). It is available in market as powder and turns into a gel
when rehydrated. When it is ingested, it does not contain calories
(Xu et al., 2010), holding a cellulose:hemicellulose ratio of roughly
80:20 (Z-TRIM, 2014). Campagnol, Santos, Wagner, Terra, and
Pollonio (2012) studied the effect of the replacement of pork back
fat by amorphous cellulose fiber on several quality parameters of
fermented sausages and found that the substitute up to 50 g/100 g
of pork back fat content not decreased the product quality, which
allows the production of healthier fermented sausages due to a
decrease in fat and cholesterol levels by approximately 45% and
15%, respectively.
When the amorphous cellulose fiber particles absorb water,
they swell promoting viscosity and, sensorially, a sense of
smoothness, softness and plasticity in the mouth (Z-TRIM, 2014).
Furthermore, Z-TRIM is considered a GRAS (Generally Recognized
as Safe) ingredient, and does not cause any problems when inges-
ted (Hahn, 1997; Monteiro et al., 2006).
The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of the use of
amorphous cellulose fiber as fat substitute in an emulsified and
cooked meat model system. Through the Response Surface Meth-
odology, are investigated the physicochemical parameters such as
emulsion stability, cooking loss, weight loss during storage and
instrumental color and texture.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Characterization of raw material
Quality assured beef (Margen, Sa ~o Paulo/BRA), and pork meat
~o Paulo/BRA) were purchased in a local
and pork fat (Marchiori, Sa
supermarket. The raw materials were characterized for moisture,
crude protein, and ash content according to AOAC methods
(Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1997) and fat content
was determined according to the Bligh & Dyer's method (Bligh &
Dyer, 1959). Carbohydrates were calculated by difference. The
amorphous cellulose fiber (Z-trim®) was donated by Kraki Kienast
& Kratschmer Ltda (Sa~o Paulo/BRA).
2.2. Water holding capacity of the amorphous cellulose fiber
The water holding capacity of the amorphous cellulose fiber was
determined in triplicate according to the methodology reported by
Smith, Juhn, Carpenter, Mattil, and Cater (1973) with modifications.
For that, 1.0 g amorphous cellulose fiber (dry basis) was placed into
a 50 mL centrifuge tube and 20 mL saline solution (3.5% w/v NaCl,
pH adjusted at 6.2 with 100 mmol/L HCI or 100 mmol/L NaOH) was
added. The tubes were placed in a TE-052 thermostatic bath at
85.0 ± 0.2  C (TECNAL® Dubnoff Fibralimentar, Piracicaba/BRA) and
stirred for 15 min at 100 rpm. Then, the tubes were cooled in
running water for 5 min. The suspension was centrifuged at
2200  g for 10 min using a 204NR centrifuge (FANEM, Piracicaba,
BRA). The supernatant was discarded and the water holding ca-
pacity was determined by the ratio: [(weight of wet fiber  weight
of sample on dry basis)/weight of sample on dry basis].
2.3. Standard formulation of the meat model system
The standard formulation of the meat model system contained
27.82 g/100 g beef, 27.82 g/100 g pork meat, 20 g/100 g pork fat,
19.80 g/100 g ice, 2.0 g/100 g sodium chloride, 2.0 g/100 g malto-
dextrin (GLOBE® 1905, with 5.0 maximum dextrose equivalent,
Corn Products International e Mogi Guaçu/BRA), 0.015 g/100 g
sodium nitrite, 0.045 g/100 g sodium erythorbate, and 0.50 g/100 g
potassium tripolyphosphate. The pork fat used in the standard
formulation was varied in the trials according to the experimental
design.
2.4. Experimental design
The replacement of pork fat by amorphous cellulose fiber was
assessed by a two-variables Central Composite Design (CCD), with
four factorial trials, four axial trials and three repetitions at the
center point, resulting in 11 trials, and the corresponded levels are
shown in Table 1. The amount of fat replaced by the fiber was
adjusted by addition of ice.
The dependent variables were emulsion stability (batter),
weight cooking loss (product not sliced), and instrumental color
and texture (sliced product) after 24 h of storage at 5  C in a BOD
Table 1
Levels of independent variables in the central composite design to substitution of
pork fat by amorphous cellulose fiber.
Encoding Independent variables Levels
a 1 0 þ1 þa
X1 Pork fat (g/100 g) 0 2.9 10 17.1 20
X2 Amorphous cellulose fiber (g/100 g) 0 0.2 0.75 1.3 1.5
±jaj ¼ 1.41.
 M. Schmiele et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 61 (2015) 105e111
(Electro Lab, S~ao Paulo/BRA). The weight loss and instrumental
color were also assessed after 14 days of storage. The product was
sliced to pieces of 20 mm thickness, vacuum-packaged, and kept at
room temperature for 2 h before analysis to reach thermal
equilibrium.
2.5. Manufacture process of the emulsified and cooked meat model
system
Both raw meat and fat were kept at around 0  C. The commi-
nution was carried out in a GARANT MTK 661 cutter (MADO,
Dornhan/DEU) at two different speeds (1400 and 2800 rpm). First,
beef, pork, sodium chloride, sodium nitrite, and half of the ice were
added at low speed. Then, potassium tripolyphosphate, maltodex-
trin, sodium erythorbate, and fat were comminuted at high speed
until the meat batter reached 7  C. Soon after, the remaining ice and
the amorphous cellulose fiber were added, and the mixture
comminuted at high speed until the batter reached 14  C. Three
repetitions were performed for each formulation, in which 500 g
batter was cooked in an electric oven at 180  C, until the geomet-
rical center reached 72e75  C, which was monitored by inserting
cooper-constantan-thermocouples into the meat batter.
2.6. Determination of moisture and fat contents
The moisture content was determined according to the method
24,002 AOAC (1997), and fat content was determined as described
by Bligh and Dyer (1959). The analyses were performed in tripli-
cate, and the results were expressed in percentage.
2.7. Emulsion stability
The emulsion stability was determined according to the meth-
odology reported by Parks and Carpenter (1987). Three portions
(50 g each) were sampled at random from the raw batter, packed in
heat-resistant bags, vacuum-sealed using a HP 60 seal machine
until 93,325.66 N/m2 (Selovac, S~
ao Paulo/BRA), and immersed in a
TE-052 thermostatic bath at 70.0 ± 0.5  C for 60 min. After cooling,
the liquid was drained, the sample was reweighted, and the result
was expressed in percentage.
2.8. Cooking loss
The cooking loss was determined in triplicate after 24 h of
manufacture. The weight before cooking and after cooking and
stored until 24 h at room temperature were measured. The differ-
ences were determinated and the results were expressed in
percentage.
2.9. Weight loss during storage
Three slices of about 40 g were weighted and stored in nylon-
polyethylene bags, vacuum-sealed using a HP 60 seal machine
until 93,325.66 N/m2, and stored at 5  C in a BOD for 14 days. The
weight loss was quantified by measuring the differences between
the initial and final sample weight. The results were expressed in
percentage.
2.10. Instrumental color
Color measurements were performed in a Colorquest II spec-
trophotometer (Hunter Lab, Reston/USA), previously calibrated,
with illuminant D65, observer angle 10 , in RSEX and CIELab color
system (Tapp, Yancey, & Apple, 2011). The calibration was done
with black and white standards. Samples were analyzed in
107
sextuplicate after 24 h of manufacture and at 14 days of storage in a
BOD at 5  C.
2.11. Texture
Firmness, hardness and shear force were determined in the
sliced samples using a texture analyzer TA XT2i (Stable Micro
Systems, Haslemere, GBR) in sextuplicate. The parameters for
firmness and hardness were pre-test speed: 1.0 mm/s; test speed:
1.0 mm/s; post-test speed: 10.0 mm/s; 25% distance; time 60 s, with
a cylindrical probe P/35 on hold until time mode. For the shear force,
the parameters were pre-test speed: 3.70 mm/s; speed test:
3.70 mm/s; post-test speed: 3.70 mm/s; distance: 35 mm; break
distance: 4.0 mm; threshold force: 100 g; time: 5 s using Warner
Bratzler probe (HDP/WBV) type knife “V” on hold until time mode.
2.12. Statistical analysis
The data were analyzed by Tukey's test and response surface
methodology using the statistical program Statistica 7.0 (Statsoft,
Tulsa/USA) (Statistica for Windows, 1995) at 5% significance level.
To ensure the prediction validity by the mathematical model and to
determine the response surfaces, the minimum regression coeffi-
cient determined by ANOVA was R2 ¼ 0.80.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Characterization of the raw material
Table 2 shows the proximate composition of the raw materials.
It is observed that both meats had low fat content (lower than 10 g/
100 g, according to data reported by Li, Siriamornpun, Wahlqvist,
Mann, & Sinclair, 2005), thus being classified as lean meat. In
addition, no significantly difference (p  0.05) was observed for
moisture, protein, and fat content. Nevertheless, the ash content
was higher in pork meat than in beef. The high moisture content
(19.89 g/100 g) and crude protein (2.64 g/100 g) found in pork fat
indicates the presence of meat, which was not totally trimmed from
the pork back fat.
3.2. Water holding capacity of the amorphous cellulose fiber
The water holding capacity of the amorphous cellulose fiber was
12.59 ± 0.90 g of gel/g of samples (in dry weight). The water holding
capacity of a fat substitute is one of the most important charac-
teristics from the technological point of view, once it contributes to
the emulsion integrity during the manufacturing process and shelf
life of the product.
3.3. Moisture and fat content of the samples
The results of moisture and fat contents of the samples are
shown in Table 3. Higher moisture contents were found in the trials
containing lower fat levels due to the addition of high amounts of
water to the formulations. No significant difference was observed
for the fat content of the trial 6 when compared to the control
sample (both with 20 g/100 g of fat content). However, the trials
containing similar fat contents presented lower moisture with
increasing the concentration of amorphous cellulose fiber.
For the fat contents was observed that the addition of amor-
phous cellulose fiber did not showed influence, because no signif-
icant differences were observed for the treatments 7, 8, and central
points, respectively for the lower, higher and middle level for the
amorphous cellulose fiber. Significant differences (p  0.05) were
108 M. Schmiele et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 61 (2015) 105e111

Table 2
Approximate composition of raw material expressed as g/100 g.

Raw material Moisturea Proteina Fata Asha Carbohydrateb

Beef 71.36 ± 0.18a 20.68 ± 0.48a 5.81 ± 0.04b 0.98 ± 0.01b 1.12
Pork meat 71.16 ± 0.30a 20.75 ± 0.14a 5.76 ± 0.18b 1.03 ± 0.01a 1.35
Pork fat 19.89 ± 0.31b 2.64 ± 0.01b 76.46 ± 0.24a 0.10 ± 0.01c 3.91
a
Mean of three repetitions ± standard deviation.
b
Calculated by difference; means with different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences between samples by Tukey test (p  0.05).

observed for the fat content of treatments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, but it contamination, and physicochemical changes, affecting the sensory
was attributed to the different moisture content of the samples. characteristics (Pereda et al., 2005).

3.4. Emulsion stability 3.6. Texture profile analysis

As can be seen in Table 4, the emulsion stability varied from Table 4 shows the firmness values of the trials, which ranged
73.64 to 91.76 g/100 g. Higher concentrations of both pork fat and from 27.32 to 48.02 N. The ANOVA showed that Fcalculated was 11.44
amorphous cellulose fiber conferred higher stability to the samples. times higher than Ftabulated, with p-value <0.001, and coefficient of
Once the Fcalculated was 86.43 times higher than the Ftabulated, p- determination 92.73%, thus a predictive model fitted in first order
value <0.001, and the coefficient of determination was 98.97%, thus (Table 5) and response surface (Fig. 1c) was performed. Data sug-
a predictive model fitted in first order (Table 5) and response sur- gest that the increase of both pork fat and amorphous cellulose
face (Fig. 1a) was performed. The results showed that the addition fiber contents resulted in higher firmness values. However, by
of 1.3 g/100 g amorphous cellulose fiber and 50% fat reduction reducing 50% fat content and adding 1.2 g/100 g amorphous cel-
resulted in emulsion stability similar to that found for the standard lulose fiber allowed for obtaining firmness values closer to the
sample (86.34 g/100 g). standard sample.
With respect to the hardness, as can be seen in Table 4, the re-
3.5. Cooking loss sults ranged from 50.86 to 83.00 N. The ANOVA showed that Fcal-
culated was 10.51 times higher than Ftabulated, with p-value <0.001,
The cooking losses varied from 3.80 to 8.41 g/100 g, as shown in and coefficient of determination 91.14%, thus a predictive model
Table 5. The ANOVA showed that the Fcalculated was 7.90 times fitted in first order (Table 4) and response surface (Fig. 1d) was
higher than Ftabulated, with p-value <0.001, and coefficient of performed. The results showed that the higher pork fat and
determination 81.80% thus a predictive model fitted in first order amorphous cellulose fiber contents resulted in higher hardness
(Table 5) and response surface (Fig. 1b) was performed. These re- values, as occurred in firmness. Nevertheless, by reducing 50% pork
sults showed that the cooking loss decreased as pork fat content fat and adding 1.3 g/100 g amorphous cellulose fiber allowed for
increased due the better emulsification performance of the batter
and the lower water content added to the formulation. As shown in
Table 4
the fitted predictive model, cooking losses similar as in the stan- Data for the dependent variables with statistically significant effect (p  0.05).
dard sample were observed with the addition of 15 g/100 g pork fat
Trials ES (g/100 g)a CWL Firmness Hardness SWL
to the formulation.
(g/100 g)a (N)b (N)b (g/100 g)a
The addition of water in the treatments containing lower pork
back fat content increased the cooking loss due to the increase in 1 73.64 ± 1.22 7.40 ± 0.53 27.32 ± 1.18 50.86 ± 3.22 5.45 ± 0.69
2 85.93 ± 1.05 3.85 ± 0.52 35.95 ± 0.47 65.16 ± 1.50 2.79 ± 0.21
exudation because this promotes a weakening to the batter emul- 3 80.81 ± 1.01 5.99 ± 0.26 36.45 ± 1.27 62.36 ± 3.76 3.93 ± 0.20
sification stability. Thus, the shelf life of the product may also be 4 91.76 ± 0.30 4.18 ± 0.24 45.51 ± 1.93 79.31 ± 2.97 1.88 ± 0.20
affected due to the higher water activity, microbiological 5 74.48 ± 0.74 8.41 ± 0.35 28.89 ± 0.65 53.30 ± 1.93 5.16 ± 0.35
6 90.13 ± 0.42 3.80 ± 0.33 48.02 ± 1.17 83.00 ± 1.43 2.13 ± 0.5
7 76.42 ± 0.50 6.10 ± 0.16 29.46 ± 1.46 54.38 ± 3.03 4.51 ± 0.34
Table 3 8 87.51 ± 0.13 4.93 ± 0.55 42.61 ± 0.83 74.14 ± 1.09 2.49 ± 0.19
Moisture and fat levels found in trials and standard sample. 9 83.22 ± 0.56 4.43 ± 0.16 40.25 ± 1.14 71.49 ± 2.05 3.17 ± 0.38
10 82.90 ± 0.38 5.37 ± 0.75 36.99 ± 0.84 63.39 ± 1.18 3.45 ± 0.15
Trial Encoded level Real level (g/100 g) Moisture Fat (g/100 g)a 11 82.39 ± 0.57 5.17 ± 0.50 39.16 ± 0.78 68.91 ± 2.39 2.66 ± 0.28
(g/100 g)a Standard 86.34 ± 0.28 4.45 ± 0.32 41.17 ± 1.57 73.65 ± 2.51 2.56 ± 0.20
x1 x2 X1 X2
a
Means of three repetitions ± standard deviation.
1 1 1 2.9 0.2 74.78 ± 0.04b 5.78 ± 0.03de b
Means of six repetitions ± standard deviation; ES ¼ Emulsion stability;
2 þ1 1 17.1 0.2 63.97 ± 0.06g 14.35 ± 0.23b
CWL ¼ cooking weight loss; SWL ¼ 14-day storage weight loss.
3 1 þ1 2.9 1.3 73.97 ± 0.02c 6.41 ± 0.26d
4 þ1 þ1 17.1 1.3 62.61 ± 0.08h 14.31 ± 0.69b
5 a 0 0.0 0.75 76.30 ± 0.05a 4.70 ± 0.16e
6 þa 0 20.0 0.75 61.59 ± 0.18i 16.50 ± 0.04a Table 5
7 0 a 10.0 0.0 68.84 ± 0.18df 10.95 ± 0.23c Mathematical models for significant dependent variables.
8 0 þa 10.0 1.5 68.62 ± 0.05f 10.01 ± 0.49c
Dependent variable Predictive model fitted R2
9 0 0 10.0 0.75 69.17 ± 0.03d 10.63 ± 0.26c
10 0 0 10.0 0.75 69.07 ± 0.06de 10.14 ± 0.53c Emulsion stability (g/100 g) 82.65 þ 5.68x1 þ 3.59x2 0.9897
11 0 0 10.0 0.75 68.83 ± 0.04ef 10.64 ± 0.25c Cooking weight loss (g/100 g) 5.42e1.49x1 0.8180
Standard e e e e 61.58 ± 0.10i 16.12 ± 0.54a Firmness (N) 37.33 þ 5.60x1 þ 4.67x2 0.9273
Hardness (N) 66.03 þ 9.17x1 þ 6.71x2 0.9214
x1 and x2 denote encoded levels and X1 and X2 denote real levels for pork fat and
Color b* (14 day storage) 13.87 þ 0.31x1 þ 0.33x2  0.14x21 0.9438
amorphous cellulose fiber, respectively; Fat values expressed in wet basis.
a Storage weight loss (g/100 g) 3.42e1.12x1  0.66x2 0.9364
Means of three repetitions ± standard deviation; Means with different letters in
the same column indicate statistically significant difference between trials and x1 and x2 denote encoded levels for pork fat and amorphous cellulose fiber,
standard sample by Tukey test (p  0.05). respectively; R2 e determination coefficient.
 M. Schmiele et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 61 (2015) 105e111 109

Fig. 1. Response surfaces: (a) emulsion stability; (b) cooking weight loss; (c) firmness; (d) hardness; (e) b* color coordinate (14 days); (f) storage weight loss.

obtaining a product with hardness similar to the standard sample
(73.65 N).
The values of shear force varied from 10.73 to 14.49 N. However,
it was not possible to create a predictive model because the Ftabu-
lated value was lower than Fcalculated (0.18 times), with p-value 0.544
and coefficient of determination 47.39%. Shear force is directly
related to sliceness and integrity of the product, therefore the
results showed that the sliceness was not affected by the replace-
ment of pork fat by amorphous cellulose fiber, with no changes in
this parameter.
According to Kaack, Larke, and Meyer (2006), the palatability of
meat product containing fibers from potato pulp can be improved
by the addition of water to the formulation, limiting the water
holding capacity of the fiber. Some authors also have reported that
110 M. Schmiele et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 61 (2015) 105e111
the higher the soluble and non-starchy polysaccharides contents
and the lower cellulose and lignin contents of fiber as fat substitute
in meat products, the higher the tenderness and aroma retention of
the final product will be, thus increasing consumers acceptability.
Mendoza et al. (2001) elaborated fermented sausages with
50e75 % fat reduction and found a significant (p  0.05) decrease in
juiciness, tenderness, elasticity, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness,
and an increase in hardness, gummosity, and chewiness when
compared to the control. The authors also produced fermented
sausages with addition of inullin (6 and 11.5%) and found significant
improvement in the texture profile, once the addition of 10% inullin
did not affect hardness, and tenderness, gummosity, and adhe-
siveness were similar to the control.
Caceres, Gargya, Toro, and Selgas (2004) used FOS in low-fat
cooked sausage, and found no significant effect on hardness, elas-
ticity, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness when compared to the
control.
3.7. Instrumental color
The parameters L*, a*, and b* (day 0), and L and a* (14 days of
storage) (Fig. 2) were not significantly different, once the ANOVA
for all parameters showed Fcalculated lower than Ftabulated, with p-
value >0.05 and coefficient of determination lower than 80%. Thus,
it is possible to state that the replacement of pork fat by amorphous
cellulose fiber did not statistically influence these parameters.
The b* values (14 days of storage) varied from 13.08 to 14.45
(Table 4). The ANOVA showed that the Fcalculated was 9.01 times
higher than Ftabulated, p-value <0.001, and the coefficient of
Fig. 2. Data for instrumental color for the trials and the standard sample.
determination was 94.38%, thus a predictive model fitted in first
order (Table 5) and response surface (Fig. 1e) was performed.
Higher pork fat and amorphous cellulose fiber contents resulted
in higher b* values. When compared to the standard sample, the
reduction of 50% pork fat, and the addition of 1.07 g/100 g amor-
phous cellulose fiber to the formulations resulted in a final product
with similar characteristics, with regard to b* values during the 14-
day storage.
The addition of potato fiber as fat substitute in pork liver pate 
did not influence the luminosity of the product. A decrease of a* and
b* values was observed in the samples with high water added,
being lower in the product surface as compared to the core (Kaack
et al., 2006).
Caceres et al. (2004) evaluated the addition of 0e12 g/100 g FOS
as fat substitute in mortadellas. Although lower luminosity (L)
values were observed for the low-fat samples, the addition of fiber
did not change the a* and b* coordinates.
3.8. Weight loss during storage
As can be seen in Table 4, the weight loss during storage was
between 1.88 and 5.16 g/100 g. The ANOVA showed that the Fcal-
culated was 13.20 times higher than Ftabulated, with p-value <0.001
and coefficient of determination 93.64%. Based on such results, a
predictive model fitted in first order (Table 5) and response surface
(Fig. 1f) was performed. The weight loss during storage decreased
with increasing pork fat and amorphous cellulose fiber contents.
However, the predictive model suggested that the products with
50% fat reduction could present a behavior similar to the control
 M. Schmiele et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 61 (2015) 105e111
sample when the amorphous cellulose fiber was added at the
ceres et al. (2004) made
concentration of 1.4 g/100 g. However, Ca
mortadellas with addition of FOS, and did not found a significant
effect on the weight loss during the 90-day storage.
4. Conclusions
Considering the conditions of this study, the addition of amor-
phous cellulose fiber and pork fat did not influence the shear force,
but significantly increased the emulsion stability, consistency,
hardness, b* color coordinate, and the 14-day storage weight loss,
while the addition of fat significantly influenced the cooking loss.
It was possible to obtain low-fat products (about 50% fat
reduction) with technological properties similar to the standard
sample, using 1.3 g/100 g of amorphous cellulose fiber.
The amorphous cellulose fiber proved to be a promising func-
tional ingredient as fat substitute in meat products.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to acknowledge the National Council for
Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnolo gico eCNPq), and Coordination
of Improvement of Higher Education (Coordenaça ~o de Aperfeiçoa-
mento de Pessoal de Nível Superior e Capes) for granting scholarship,
and Kienast & Kratschmer Ltda. for donating the amorphous cel-
lulose fiber.
References
Akoh, C. C. (1998). Fat replacers. Food Technology, 52, 47e53.
AOAC. (1997). Official methods of analysis (16th ed.). Washington, DC: Association of
Official Analytical Chemists.
Bernardi, S., Oetterer, M., & Contreras-Castillo, C. J. (2008). Embutidos c arneos:
melhoramento no valor nutritivo e aplicaça ~o de antioxidantes naturais. Revista
Nacional da Carne, agosto, 30e38.
Bligh, E. G., & Dyer, W. J. (1959). A rapid method of total lipid extraction and pu-
rification. Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology. Ottawa, 37, 911e917.
Caceres, E., Gargya, M. L., Toro, J., & Selgas, M. D. (2004). The effect of fructooligo-
saccharides on the sensory characteristics of cooked sausages. Meat Science, 67,
87e96.
Campagnol, P. C. B., Santos, B. A., Wagner, R., Terra, N. N., & Pollonio, M. A. R. (2012).
Amorphous cellulose gel as a fat substitute in fermented sausages. Meat Science,
90, 36e42.
Decker, E. A., & Park, Y. (2010). Healthier meat products as functional foods. Meat
Science, 86(1), 49e55.
Feiner, G. (2006). Meat products handbook: Practical science and technology (p. 672).
Boca Raton: Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Giese, J. (1996). Fats, oils and fat replacers. Food Technology, 50, 78e84.
Hahn, N. I. (1997). Replacing fat with food technology. Journal of the American Di-
etetic Association, 97, 15e16.
Jimenez-Colmenero, F., Reig, M., & Toldra , F. (2006). New approaches for de
development on functional meat products. In L. M. L. Nollet, & F. Toldra  (Eds.),
Advances technologies for meat processing (pp. 275e308). Boca Raton, USA: CRS
Press.
111
Jones, S. A. (1996). Physical, chemical and sensory aspects of fat replacement. In
S. Roller, & S. A. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of fat replacers (pp. 59e86). Boca Raton,
USA: CRC Press.
Judge, M. D., Aberle, E. D., Forrest, J. C., Hedrick, H. B., & Merkel, R. A. (1989).
Principles of meat science (2nd ed.). USA: Kendal.
Kaack, K., Larke, H. N., & Meyer, A. S. (2006). Liver pate enriched with dietary fibre
extracted from potato fibre as fat substitutes. European Food Research and
Technology, 223, 267e272.
Li, D., Siriamornpun, S., Wahlqvist, M. L., Mann, N. J., & Sinclair, A. J. (2005). Lean
meat and heart health. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 14, 113e119.
Lima, J. R., & Nassu, R. T. (1996). Substitutos de gorduras em alimentos: caracter-
ísticas e aplicaço~es. Química Nova, 19, 127e134.
Mendoza, E., Garcia, M. L., Casas, C., & Selgas, M. D. (2001). Inulin as fat substitute in
low fat, dry fermented sausages. Meat Science, 57, 387e393.
Monteiro, C. S., Carpes, S. T., Kalluf, V. H., Dyminski, D. S., & Ca ^ndido, L. M. B. (2006).
Evoluça ~o dos substitutos de gordura utilizados na tecnologia de alimentos.
Boletim do Centro de Pesquisa e Processamento de Alimentos, 24, 347e362.
Monteiro, C. A., Mondini, L., & Costa, R. B. L. (2000). Mudanças na composiça ~o e
adequaça ~o nutricional da dieta familiar nas  areas metropolitanas do Brasil
(1988e1996). Revista de Saúde Pública. Sa ~o Paulo, 34, 251e258.
Nabeshima, E. H. (1998). Amidos Modificados em Produtos C arneos de Baixo Teor de
Gordura. Higiene Alimentar, 12, 36e41.
Nonaka, H. H. (1997). Plant carbohydrate e Derived products as fat replacers and
calorie reducers. Cereal Foods World, AACC, St. Paul, 42, 377e378.
Parks, L. L., & Carpenter, J. A. (1987). Functionality of six nonmeat proteins in meat
emulsion systems. Journal of Food Science, 52, 271e274, 278.
Pearson, A. M., & Tauber, F. W. (1984). Processed meats (2nd ed.). EUA: AVI Pub-
lishing Company Inc.

Pereda, J. A. O., Rodríguez, A. I. C., Alavarez,  n, G. D. G. F.,
L. F., Sanz, M. L. G., Minguillo
Perales, L. H., et al. (2005). Tecnologia de alimentos. In Alimentos de origem
animal (Vol. 2, p. 279). Porto Alegre, Brasil: Artmed.
Rodrigues-Amaya, D. B. (2003). Rotas bioquímicas e químicas para a formaç~ ao de
compostos vol ateis em alimentos. In M. R. B. Franco (Ed.), Aroma e Sabor de
Alimentos (pp. 177e194). Sa ~o Paulo, Brasil: Varela.
Rogers, R. W. (2001). Manufacturing of reduced-fat, low-fat and fat-free emulsion
sausages. In Y. H. Hui, W.-K. Nip, R. W. Rogers, & O. A. Young (Eds.), Meat science
and applications (pp. 443e462). New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Santarelli, R. L., Pierre, F., & Corpet, D. E. (2008). Processed meat and colorectal
cancer: a review of epidemiologic and experimental evidence and perspectives.
Nutrition and Cancer, 60, 131e144.
Scho€nfeldt, H. C., & Gibson, N. (2008). Changes in the nutrient quality of meat in an
obesity context. Meat Science, 80, 20e27.
Smith, C. G., Juhn, H., Carpenter, Z. L., Mattil, K. F., & Cater, C. M. (1973). Efficacy of
protein additives as emulsion stabilizers in frankfurters. Journal of Food Science,
Chicago, 38, 849e855.
Statistica for Windows (1995) e Release 5.0 A. Tulsa: Statsoft Inc.
Tapp, W. N., Yancey, J. W. S., & Apple, J. K. (2011). How is the instrumental color of
meat measured? Meat Science, 89, 1e5.
Trindade, C. S. F. (1998). Produtos Ca rneos com baixo teor de gordura. Higiene Ali-
mentar, 12, 13e18.
Vasconcelos, M. I. L. (2004). Gorduras Vegetais e Animais, Aminoa cidos e Ca ^ncer. In
D. L. Waitzberg (Ed.), Dieta, Nutriça ~ o e Ca
^ncer (pp. 179e186). Sa ~o Paulo, Brasil:
Atheneu.
Vickery, A. P., & Rogers, R. W. (2002). The use of fat replacers in low-fat pepperoni.
Journal of Muscle Foods, 13, 205e222.
Webb, E. C., & O'neill, H. A. (2008). The animal fat paradox and meat quality. Meat
Science, 80, 28e36.
Xu, J., Cheng, W., Inglett, G. E., Wu, P., Kim, S., Liu, S. X., et al. (2010). Micro-het-
erogeneity of cellulosicfiber biopolymer prepared from corn hulls. LWT e Food
Science and Technology, 43, 977e981.
Z-TRIM. (2014). [Internet document] URL http://www.ztrim.com/pages/about_z_
trim/2.php. Accessed 05.05.14.