A total number of 100 random samples of meat products represented by 25 samples of minced meat, beef burger, sausage and luncheon were collected from different supermarkets in Cairo and Giza cities. Each sample was packed in plastic bag and transferred immediately with a minimum period of delay to the laboratory in an icebox to be examined organoleptically, microbiologically and chemically. Organoleptic evaluation: Regarding the color, odor and taste, the percentages of undesirable samples of minced meat were 28%, 28% and 24%, respectively, of beef burger were 20%, 20% and 16% respectively, of luncheon were 24%, 20% and 24%, respectively and of sausage were 16%, 16% and 24%, respectively.

Microbiological evaluation: Regarding minced beef, the mean values of APC, Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus aureus count were 3.3x10⁵, 4.27x10³ and 0.2x10², respectively and the number of samples positive to E.coli and salmonella was 4 and 3, respectively. Regarding beef burger, the mean values of APC, Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus aureus count were 1.6x10⁴, 7.12x10² and 0.1x10², respectively and the number of samples positive to E.coli and salmonella was 3 and 1 respectively. Regarding the luncheon, the mean values of APC, Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus aureus count were 2.3x10³, 5x10² and <102, respectively and the number of samples positive to E.coli and salmonella was3 and 2, respectively. Regarding sausage, the mean values of APC, Enterobacteriaceae and Staphylococcus aureus count was 4.5x10⁵, 7x10³ and 0.3x10², respectively and the number of samples positive to E.coli and salmonella was 5 and 6, respectively.

Chemical examination: Regarding minced beef, the results revealed that the mean values of pH, TVN and TBA were 5.89, 24.69 and 0.70, respectively and the number of accepted samples with regards to TVN and TBA was 15 and 19, respectively. Regarding beef burger, the mean values of pH, TVN and TBA were 5.8, 17.01 and 0.44, respectively. Regarding sausage, the mean values of pH, TVN and TBA were 5.9, 16.23 and 0.45, respectively and the number of accepted samples of sausage with regard to TVN and TBA were 23 and 25, respectively. Regarding luncheon, the mean values of pH, TVN and TBA were 5.9, 22.01 and 0.25, respectively.

Keywords: quality assurance, processed meat products, microbiological evaluation, organoleptic evaluation, TVN and TBA

Considering the consumers’ demand for fresh, durable and safe foods, it is obligatory for the food industries to present their products at the best¹, because the link between nutrition and health becomes more and more a hot topic.² Red meat is a complete and high source of protein that is easy to digest, in addition to all essential amino acids required to the adult diet, including histidine and arginine, which are considered to be essential for children.³ Food borne illness causes an estimated 76 cases annually resulting in billions dollars in economic and productivity losses. Food borne pathogens result in over 5000 deaths / year, one-third of which can be attributed to meat and poultry.⁴

Organoleptic examination

1. The samples were evaluated physically for color, odor, taste and texture according to Gracey⁵; Miller⁶ and Marriot⁷
2. Flavour⁸

Chemical examination

1. Determination of Thiobarbituric acid number (TBA):⁹ with additional modification of.¹⁰
2. Determination of total volatile nitrogen¹¹
3. Determination of pH value¹²

Microbiological examination

1. Determination of Aerobic plate count at 30 °C¹³
2. Total enterobacteriaceae count¹⁴
3. Enumeration of Staphylococcus aureus count¹¹
4. Isolation and identification of some food borne pathogens
5. Isolation and identification of E.coli¹⁴
6. Identification of coli¹⁵
7. Morphological characters
8. Biochemical reactions
9. Vogusproskauer test (V.P.) ¹⁶
10. Serological identification of the isolated coli¹⁷

Isolation and identification of Salmonellae

Isolation of Salmonellae¹⁸

Identification of the isolated Salmonellae

1. 1 Morphological examination
2. 2 Biochemical reactions
3. 3 Serological identification of Salmonella¹⁹

Table 1 revealed the following

• Minced beef: Regarding color, odor and taste, the percentage of undesirable samples were 28, 28 and 24 % respectively

Beef burger: Regarding color, odor and taste, the percentage of undesirable samples were 20, 20 and 16 % respectively

Luncheon: Regarding color, odor and taste, the percentage of undesirable samples were 24, 20 and 24 % respectively. Samir-Shimaa²⁰ obtained nearly similar results regarding the color and odor.

Sausage: Regarding color, odor and taste, the percentage of undesirable samples were 16, 16 and 24 % respectively. The obtained results were higher than those reported by Mohamed-Manal²¹

Microbiological evaluation

Contamination of meat products by bacteria can be due to the poor sanitation applied in the factories, the poor technology adopted more manual handling of the product and manual filling and absence of the tunnel freezing of the product which may reduce the propagation of bacteria during the phase of preparation. ^22,23

• Minced beef: Results demonstrated in Table 2 reveal that the mean values of APC (CFU/g), Staphylococcus aureus count (CFU/g) and Enterobacteriaceae (CFU/g) of the examined samples were 3.3x10⁵, 0.2x10² and 4.27x10³, respectively. Nearly similar results were obtained by Hassan Hala 8x10² regarding Staphylococcus aureus

Beef burger: Results demonstrated in Table 2 reveal that the mean values of APC (CFU/g),Staphylococcusaureus count (CFU/g) and Enterobacteriaceae (CFU/g) of the examined samples were 1.6x10⁴, <10² and 7.12x10², respectively. lower results (8.20 x 10²) for APC were reported by El-Shamy-Samar (2015),²⁴ Higher results for Staphylococcus aureus count were recorded by El-Mossalami 9×10² and Nearly similar results (5.27x10²) were reported by El-Shamy-Samar²⁵ regarding Enterobacteriaceae

Luncheon: Results demonstrated in Table 2 reveal that the mean values of APC (CFU/g),Staphylococcusaureus count (CFU/g) and Enterobacteriaceae (CFU/g) of the examined samples were 2.3x10³, 0.1x10² and 5x10² Higher results were reported by Ashraf-Abeer (2016)²⁶ 8.9 x 103 regarding APC, Higher results were reported by Ashraf-Abeer (2016) 1.1x10³ regarding Staphylococcus aureus countand nearly similar results were reported by El-Shamy-Samar²⁴ (2015) 4.65x10² regarding enterobacteriaceae count.

Sausage: Results demonstrated in table 2 reveal that the mean values of APC (CFU/g), Staphylococcus aureus count (CFU/g) and Enterobacteriaceae (CFU/g) of the examined samples were 4.5x10⁵, 0.3x10² and 7x10³ Nearly similar results were obtained by Abd El-Latef²⁷ 3.2x10⁵, for APC, higher results for Staphylococcus aureus count were recorded by Abd El-Latef²⁷ 2.8x10⁴ and lower results were obtained by El-Shamy-Samar²⁴ Enterobacteriaceae count.

Chemical examination

The increase in the values of TVN might be attributed to post processing circumstances particularly at the shop level, such as failure in freezing at storage during distribution and marketing (Table 3).²⁸ The increase in the values of TBA could be due to the use of old meat or the bad handling of the meat during processing, which enable the fat to get oxidized, or due to the poor technology available in the factories.

• Minced beef: It is evident from Table 4 that the mean values of pH, TVN and TBA are 5.89, 24.69 and 0.70, respectively. El-Shabrawy-Hanaa²⁵ reported nearly similar results regarding pH (5.63) and lower results regarding TVN (5.23) and TBA (0.10); Kortoma²⁹ reported nearly similar results regarding TBA (0.67) and higher results regarding TVN (12.60).

Beef burger: It is evident from Table 4 that the mean values of pH, TVN and TBA are 5.8, 17.01 and 0.44 respectively. Nearly similar results were reported by Mohamed-Manal (2002) regarding pH (5.7), TVN (15.9) and TBA (0.64).

Sausage: It is evident from Table 4 that the mean values of pH, TVN and TBA are 5.9, 16.23 and 0.45 respectively. El-Shabrawy-Hanaa²⁵ reported nearly similar results regarding pH (5.62) and lower results regarding TVN (6.20) and TBA (0.12); Kortoma²⁹ reported nearly the same results regarding TBA (0.68) and TVN (15.90).

Luncheon: It is evident from Table 4 that the mean values of pH, TVN and TBA are 5.9, 22.01 and 0.25 respectively. Samir-Shimaa²⁰ reported nearly similar results in regards to pH (13.37) and TBA (0.18), while reported.³⁰

None

Author declares there is no conflict of interest.

1. Jaeger H, Knorr D, Meneses N. Food safety – Shelf life extension technologies, in Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems. 2^nd In. Alfen V, editor. Academic Press: London; 2014. p. 289–303.
2. Aggett PJ. Passclaim, Process for the Assessment of Scientific Support for Claims on Foods. Eur J Nutr. 2009;48(1):S23–26.
3. Nutritional Qualities of Beef. Food research center: Ireland; 2012.
4. Centers for disease control and prevention. Food borne and diarrheal diseases. 2005.
5. Gracey JF. Meat hygiene. 8^th The English long Book Sic and Baillier: Tindall; 1986.
6. Miller RK. Quality characteristics. In: Kinsmam KM, Kotula AW, Breidenstein BC, editors. Muscle Foods. Chapman and Hall: New York. 1994.
7. Marriot N. Score sheet for pane test. Personal communication. 1995.
8. Grossklaus D, Bruhann W, Levetzow R, et al. Geflugelfleisch-hygiene Tierhaltung, Schlachtung, Lebendtier und fleischuntersuchung, Erzeugisse Rechtsgrundlagen. Verlag Paul parey: Berlin und Hamburg; 1979.
9. Tarladgis BG, Watts BM, Younathan MT, et al. A distillation method for the quantitative determination of malonaldehyde in rancid foods. J Am Oil Chem Soc. 1960;37(1):44–48.
10. Pikul J, Leszezynski DE, Kummerow F. Elimination of sample autoxidation by butlyatedhydroxytoulene additions before thiobarbituricacid assay for malonaldehyde in fat from chicken meat. J Agric Food chem. 1983;31(6):1338–1342.
11. Food and Agriculture organization of United Nation annuals of Food Quality Control. 1980.
12. Chamber J, Brechbill DO, Hill DA. A microbiological survey of raw ground beef in Ohio. J Milk Food Tech. 1976;39(8):530–535.
13. Swanson KM, Busta F, Peterson EH. Colony count methods. In: Vanderzant C, O Splittoesser, editors. Compendium of methods for microbiological examination of foods. American public Health Association: Washington DC; 1992. p. 75–96.
14. International Committee on Microbiological Specification for Foods. 2^nd edn. Univ of Toronto Press: Toronto; 1978.
15. Kreig NR, Holt JC. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. Williams and Wilkins: Baltimore; 1986.
16. Collins CH, lyne PM. Microbiological methods. 5^th Butter and TunnerEtd: Boston 1984.
17. Sojka J. Bacteria in domestic animals and poultry. Farnhem Royal, Commonwealth, Agricultural Bureaux. 1965.
18. Vassiliadis P, Trichopoulos D, Pateraki E, et al. Isolation of salmonella from minced meat by using a new procedure of enrichment. Zentralbl Bakteriol Orig B. 1978;166(1):81–86.
19. Kauffman F. Kauffman white Scheme. Acta Path Microbiol Scand: 1974. 61 p.
20. Samir Shimaa. Quality assessment of some heat processed meat products. M V Sc Thesis: Alexandria; 2016.
21. Mohamed, Manal. Quality improvement of some Egyptian frozen meat products. Cairo Univ: Egypt; 2002.
22. Ayres JC. Temperature relationships and some other characteristics of the microbial flora developing on refrigerated beef. Food Res. 1960;25(1):1–18.
23. Niven CJ. Microbiology, in the science of meat of meat products. 3^rd In; JF Price, BS Schweigert, editors. Food and Nutrition Press: Westport; 1989.
24. El-Shamy Samar. Microbiological criteria of some meat products. Alexandria University; 2015.
25. El-Shabrawy Hanaa. Bacteriological and chemical profile of some meat products. Alexandria University; 2015.
26. Ashraf Abeer. Microbial evaluation of heat treated meat products. Alexandria University; 2016.
27. Abd El-Latef A. Microbial load of some meat products. Alexandria University; 2014.
28. Cross HR, Durland PR, Seideman SC. Sensory qualities of meat, in muscle as a food. PJ Bechtel, editor. Academic Press: Orlando; 1986.
29. Kortoma S. Chemical composition of some Egyptian meat products. Alexandria University; 2016.
30. Mosbah M. Incidence of some pathogenic bacteria in meat products. Alexandria University. 2017.