» Articles » PMID: 35273231

Application of Texture Analysis Methods for the Characterization of Cultured Meat

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2022 Mar 11
PMID 35273231
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Mechanical characterization supposes a key step in the development of cultured meat to help mimicking the sensorial properties of already existing commercial products based on traditional meat. This work presents two well stablished methods that can help studying cultured meat mechanical characteristics: texture profile analysis (double compression test) and rheology. These techniques provide data about the elastic and viscous behaviour of the samples but also values about other texture characteristics such as springiness, cohesiveness, chewiness and resilience. In this work, we present a comparison of cultured meat-based samples with commercial of the shelf common meat products (sausage, turkey and chicken breast). Results show that both Young's and Shear modulus in the cultured meat samples can be compared to commercial products in order to understand its properties. The texture characteristics for the cultured meat studied, show values within the range of commercial products. These results demonstrate the applicability of this methodology for the adjustment of mechanical properties of cultured meat products.

Citing Articles

Texture profile analysis and rheology of plant-based and animal meat.

Dunne R, Darwin E, Perez Medina V, Levenston M, St Pierre S, Kuhl E Food Res Int. 2025; 205:115876.

PMID: 40032452 PMC: 11885209. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2025.115876.


Fabrication and Characterization of Buforin I-Loaded Electrospun Chitosan/Polyethylene Oxide Nanofibrous Membranes with Antimicrobial Activity for Food Packing Applications.

Roshanak S, Yarabbi H, Movaffagh J, Shahidi F Polymers (Basel). 2025; 17(4).

PMID: 40006211 PMC: 11859488. DOI: 10.3390/polym17040549.


Muscle Characteristics Comparison Analysis Reveal Differences in the Meat Quality and Nutritional Components of Three Shanghai Local Pig Breeds.

Tu W, Wang H, Zhang Y, Jiang W, He C, Huang J Foods. 2025; 14(4).

PMID: 40002013 PMC: 11854645. DOI: 10.3390/foods14040569.


Cutting-Edge Technologies of Meat Analogs: A Review.

Lee S, Lee D, Mariano Jr E, Park J, Han D, Choi Y Food Sci Anim Resour. 2025; 45(1):223-242.

PMID: 39840249 PMC: 11743842. DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2024.e129.


The mechanical and sensory signature of plant-based and animal meat.

St Pierre S, Darwin E, Adil D, Aviles M, Date A, Dunne R NPJ Sci Food. 2024; 8(1):94.

PMID: 39548076 PMC: 11568319. DOI: 10.1038/s41538-024-00330-6.


References
1.
U-Chupaj J, Malila Y, Gamonpilas C, Kijroongrojana K, Petracci M, Benjakul S . Differences in textural properties of cooked caponized and broiler chicken breast meat. Poult Sci. 2017; 96(7):2491-2500. DOI: 10.3382/ps/pex006. View

2.
Rizo A, Pena E, Alarcon-Rojo A, Fiszman S, Tarrega A . Relating texture perception of cooked ham to the bolus evolution in the mouth. Food Res Int. 2019; 118:4-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.073. View

3.
Post M . Cultured beef: medical technology to produce food. J Sci Food Agric. 2013; 94(6):1039-41. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.6474. View

4.
Samard S, Ryu G . A comparison of physicochemical characteristics, texture, and structure of meat analogue and meats. J Sci Food Agric. 2018; 99(6):2708-2715. DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.9438. View

5.
Selway N, Stokes J . Soft materials deformation, flow, and lubrication between compliant substrates: impact on flow behavior, mouthfeel, stability, and flavor. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol. 2014; 5:373-93. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-food-030212-182657. View