LWT - Food Science and Technology 72 (2016) 55e62

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

LWT - Food Science and Technology

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

Vacuum packaging as an effective strategy to retard off-odour

development, microbial spoilage, protein degradation and retain
sensory quality of camel meat
Sajid Maqsood*, Nassra Ahmed Al Haddad, Priti Mudgil
Department of Food Science, College of Food and Agriculture, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, 15551, United Arab Emirates

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

Article history: Impact of different packaging conditions [Air (A), Vacuum (V) and Wrapped (W)] on various quality
Received 20 December 2015 attributes of camel meat during 18 days of refrigerated storage was investigated. The results showed that
Received in revised form camel meat packed under vacuum displayed lower lipid oxidation and microbial load as depicted by
10 April 2016
lower thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) and lower counts for different microorganisms,
Accepted 15 April 2016
respectively, compared to samples packed under air and those which were wrapped. Redness (a*) values
Available online 19 April 2016
for the samples packed under vacuum were higher compared to other samples. Sensory evaluation of
camel meat revealed that the vacuum packed samples received superior scores on odor, color and overall
Keywords:
Vacuum packaging
acceptability compared to other samples. Interestingly, the vacuum packed samples after day 14 of
Lipid oxidation storage displayed lower degradation for all detected protein bands compared to other samples. More-
Microbial count over, vacuum packed sample retained the hardness values (1070.05 g) while samples packed under air
Sensory evaluation (597.0 g) and wrapped sample (567.02 g) showed lower hardness on day 14 of storage. Therefore, vacuum
Camel meat packaging was very effective in retarding lipid oxidation, microbial growth and protein degradation, as
well as maintaining the sensory quality for the fresh camel meat.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction which can act as a pro-oxidant to cause lipid oxidation (Maqsood,

Camel meat is an important source of high quality protein for
people living in arid and semi-arid regions. The world consumption
of camel meat has shown an increase during the recent years and
the main camel meat eaters with more than 2 kg/habitant/year
are in Somalia, Mauritania, Western Sahara, Oman, Emirates and
Mongolia (Faye and Bonnet, 2012). Moreover, the demand of camel
meat as a healthy red meat is increasing in the middle eastern as
well as Asian countries. Camel carcass is known to produce good
amount of meat with certain parts of carcass considered as a deli-
cacy and favored among the consumers. Many researchers sug-
gested that camel meat is healthy and nutritious due to its low fat
and cholesterol content, relatively high polyunsaturated fatty acid
content and it is considered as a good source of minerals (Babiker &
Yousif, 1990; Kadim et al., 2006; Kadim, Mahgoub, & Purchas, 2008;
Kurtu, 2004). However, camel meat is known to contain higher
amounts of haem protein like myoglobin and high iron content,
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sajid.m@uaeu.ac.ae (S. Maqsood).
Abushelaibi, Manheem, & Kadim, 2015). Therefore, camel meat is
expected to be more susceptible to lipid oxidation and off-odour
development. Lipid deterioration takes place easily and can limit
the shelf-life of meat during refrigerated storage (Maqsood &
Benjakul, 2010a). Lipid oxidation, color change coupled with mi-
crobial spoilage are the critical factor limiting the shelf-life and
consumer acceptability of the camel meat displayed on refrigerated
shelves (Maqsood, Abushelaibi, Manheem, Al Rashedi, & Kadim,
2015). Therefore, there is a need to identify a preservative strat-
egy which can retard the spoilage process and retain the quality of
camel meat during refrigerated display.
Using an appropriate packaging and storage conditions can play
a major role in color enhancement and preservation of meat during
storage (Lavieri & Williams, 2014). Recent strategies of industries
and researchers are directed towards the use of packaging system
without the use of any synthetic additives which can minimize lipid
oxidation and off-odour development with signicant retardation
of microbial growth. Vacuum packaging (VP) provides anaerobic
conditions which extend both the microbiological and the oxidative
shelf life of meat (Sahoo & Kumar, 2005; Strydom & Hope-Jones,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.04.022
0023-6438/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 S. Maqsood et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 72 (2016) 55e62
2014). Although camels are reared in many countries of the world,
camel meat is the least researched meat among other red meats. No
sound scientic study has been conducted on exploring the use of
vacuum packaging in quality retention and preservation of camel
meat. Therefore, objective of this study was to evaluate efcacy of
vacuum packaging in prevention of lipid oxidation, microbial and
sensorial quality deterioration of fresh camel meat during refrig-
erated storage.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Chemicals and reagents
Chloroform, ethanol, and methanol were obtained from BDH
Prolabo (Briare, France). Sodium chloride and hydrochloric acid
were obtained from Scharlau Chemicals (Barcelona, Spain). 1,1,3,3-
tetramethoxypropane (MDA) (99% purity), cumene hydroperoxide,
wide range molecular weight marker and bovine serum albumin
(BSA) (>98% purity), were procured from SigmaeAldrich Chemical
Co. (St. Louis, MO, USA). All other chemicals used were of analytical
grade. All the microbiological media were obtained from Hiemedia
Laboratories (India, Mumbai).
2.2. Preparation of camel meat samples
Meat was obtained from three female camels (Arabian
dromedary one-humped camel, Camelus dromedarius), which
have been reared in a semi-intensive management system and
fed ad libitum on a Rhodes grass (Chlorisgayana) hay diet mixed
with date seed powder. Camels were slaughtered at an age of 4e5
years and possessing body weigh of 430 25 kg at Al Ain
slaughterhouse in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) following UAE-
Standard No. 993/2000 concerning animal slaughtering re-
quirements. Semitendinosus (ST) muscle was carefully removed
with a sterile sharp knife from the carcass of the camels within
24 h of slaughter. Separated meat portions were carefully packed
in polyethylene bags and stored in insulated box lled with ice
during transportation to laboratory of Department of Food Sci-
ence, UAE University. Upon arrival, the meat was washed with
chilled sterilized and deionised water, cut into slices
(3 cm
3 cm
3 cm), and the connective tissue and visible fat
were removed manually. Meat samples obtained from the carcass
of three female camels were divided into three batches (or rep-
licates) and packed under 3 different packaging conditions [vac-
uum (V), air (A) and wrapped (W)] and stored at 4  C for 18 days.
Vacuum sample were packed using a Vac-Star vacuum packaging
machine (Ch-1786, Sugiez, Switzerland). Samples packed under
air were placed on the thermoform trays and kept without any
cover during the storage, while as the wrapped samples were
covered or wrapped with a cling lm after being place on a
thermoform tray. Each replicates for each packaging condition
contained 8 meat slices. As a general practice, camel meat is
displayed on the refrigerated shelves either without any package
(air) or it is wrapped with a plastic lm, which limits the shelf life
of camel meat. Therefore, it is expected that vacuum packaging
might retard the quality changes and thus extend the shelf-life of
camel meat under refrigeration. During storage, the samples were
evaluated on day 0, 4, 9 and 14 for peroxide value (PV), thio-
barbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), total haem pigments
and color values and microbiological counts were monitored until
18 days. Sensory evaluation was carried out on day 12, while
protein degradation and hardness values were determined out on
day 0 day 14.
2.3. Analysis
2.3.1. Peroxide value (PV)
Peroxide value (PV) was determined following the method of
Richards and Hultin (2000) with a slight modication as described
by Maqsood, Abushelaibi, Manheem, and Kadim (2015). A standard
curve was prepared using cumene hydroperoxide with the con-
centration range of 0.5e2 ppm.
2.3.2. Thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS)
Thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS) were deter-
mined by the method of Buege and Aust (1978) as described by
Maqsood, Abushelaibi, Manheem, and Kadim (2015). A standard
curve was prepared using 1,1,3,3-tetramethoxypropane (MAD) at
the concentration ranging from 0 to 10 ppm and TBARS were
expressed as mg of MAD equivalents/kg sample.
2.3.3. Determination of total haem pigment
Total haem pigment in the camel meat was determined ac-
cording to the method of Hornsey (1956) with some modications
as described by Maqsood, Abushelaibi, Manheem, and Kadim
(2015).
2.3.4. Color analysis
Color of the meat samples was measured using a colorimeter
(Hunter Lab, Model color Flex, Reston, VIRG, USA) with the port size
of 0.50 inch. The determination of color was done on three different
samples. Standardization of the instrument was done using a black
and white Minolta calibration plate. The values were reported in
the CIE color prole system as L* (lightness), a* (redness), and b*
(yellowness/blueness).
2.3.5. Hardness values of camel meat
Hardness values were determined on day 0 and 14 by using a
TA-XT2i texture analyser (Brookeld, CA, USA) with cylindrical
aluminum probe (50 mm diameter). Detailed procedures
mentioned by Maqsood, Abushelaibi, Manheem, and Kadim (2015)
were followed to determine hardness values of camel meat.
2.3.6. Sensory evaluation of camel meat packaged under different
packaging conditions
Sensory evaluation of camel meat was conducted for color, odor
and overall acceptability on day 12 of storage, as after day 12 air and
wrapped samples were almost spoiled. 30 female untrained pan-
elists aged between 20 and 25 years and familiar with camel meat
consumption were recruited to conduct the sensory test. Assess-
ment of raw samples for sensory attributes was conducted using a
9-point hedonic scale (Mailgaad, Civille, & Carr, 1999): 1, dislike
extremely to 9, like extremely. Panelists evaluated 3 randomly
selected samples taken from three different replicates of each
package for all the sensory attributes. All raw camel meat samples
from different packaging conditions were coded with 3-digit
random codes and offered to the panelist in the random order.
Samples were presented to panelist to score odor rst followed by
color and overall acceptability.
2.3.7. Protein degradation as analyzed by SDS- polyacrylamide gel
electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE).
Fresh camel meat obtained at day 0 and samples packed under
different condition and stored for 14 days were subjected to SDS-
PAGE according to the method of Laemmli (1970) as described by
Maqsood and Benjakul (2010b). 5% SDS was used to solubilize the
meat proteins. The samples (15 mg protein) were loaded onto the
polyacrylamide gel made of 10% separating gel and 4% stacking gel.
Protein identication was done based on the molecular weight of
 S. Maqsood et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 72 (2016) 55e62
the retained protein bands. Wide range molecular weight markers
ranging from 200 kDa to 20 kDa was used for estimation of mo-
lecular weight of proteins.
2.3.8. Microbiological analysis
Camel meat packed under different packaging conditions during
18 days of refrigerated storage were evaluated for microbiological
quality by determining Mesophillic bacterial count (MBC) using
plate count agar, coliform bacteria by Violet Red Bile agar (VRB),
staphylococcus by Mannitol Salt agar (MS), lactic acid bacteria by
MRS agar and Escherichia coli by (mEC) agar. Incubation time and
temperature was 37  C for 48 h (Hasegawa, 1987). Psychrophilic
bacterial count (PBC) was determined by plate count agar (PCA)
incubated at 7  C for 7 days (Cousin, Jay, & Vasavada, 1992). Data
were represented in log of colony forming units (cfu) per g of camel
meat.
2.3.9. Statistical analysis
Experiments were carried out in triplicate using three different
lots of meat samples obtained from three different camels. For all
analyses, the determinations were also run in triplicate. The
experimental data were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
and the differences between means were evaluated by Duncan's
New Multiple Range Test. For pair comparison, T-test was used
(Steel & Torrie, 1980). Data analysis was performed using a SPSS
package (SPSS 14.0 for Windows, SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Effect of different packaging systems on lipid oxidation products
in camel meat
Fresh camel meat was composed of 73.3% 3.5 moisture,
20.5% 1.9 protein, 3.3% 0.14 lipid and 0.96% 0.07 ash. Changes
in peroxide value (PV) and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances
(TBARS) values of camel meat packaged under three different
packaging conditions (vacuum, air and wrapped) during refriger-
ated storage are shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b), respectively.
Peroxide value (PV) increased slightly during the rst four days
for all three packaging conditions. From day 4 to day 9, the peroxide
value increased signicantly for all packaging conditions to reach
the highest level before it started to decrease. Peroxide values of
vacuum packaged and wrapped camel meat were higher than air
packed samples at day 9 (p < 0.05). This may be due to accumu-
lation of primary oxidation products in the former two packaging
systems and faster breakdown of primary oxidation products into
the secondary oxidation products in the later. This corroborates
well with the lower values for TBARS observed in vacuum packaged
camel meat which may be due to inhibiting role of oxygen un-
availability on the propagation step of lipid oxidation. After day 9 of
storage, the peroxide value decreased sharply for all packaging
condition and displayed the lowest value on day 14.
The rate of secondary damage to lipids in the camel meat
expressed as the amount of melanoaldehyde is shown in Fig 1b and
it displayed very low values during the rst 4 days for all packaging
conditions (p > 0.05). On day 9, slight increase in TBARS value for
vacuum packed samples was observed and for air packaged and
wrapped samples TBARS value displayed a steep increase. This may
be due to unavailability of oxygen in the vacuum packaged system
to propagate the oxidation reaction and prevent breakdown of
primary oxidation products into the secondary oxidation products.
On day 14, no signicant decrease (p > 0.05) in TBARS value of
vacuum packaged samples was observed however the wrapped
samples displayed a signicant decrease (p < 0.05) in TBARS value
on day 14 compared to day 9. The reason being the wrapped
57
samples were highly oxidized and TBARS reached the threshold
values and start to decompose or interact with other compounds,
thus resulting in the lower values during extended storage of 14
days. For the air packed samples, TBARS value increased sharply
and reached the highest value on day 14 of storage (p < 0.05),
indicating facilitating role of oxygen to promote lipid oxidation. The
effects of storage time and package method as the signicant fac-
tors for lipid oxidation have also been conrmed by other authors.
Recently, Brenesselova et al. (2015) also reported lower formation
of TBARS in vacuum packed ostrich meat compared to non-vacuum
packed counterparts during 21 days of refrigerated storage.
Ferna
ndez-Lo
pez et al. (2008) reported that melanoaldehyde in the
ostrich steaks exposed to air were signicantly higher compared
with vacuum-packed samples during 18 days of storage at 2  C.
Furthermore, Go
mez and Lorenzo (2012) also observed increase in
TBARS value during storage of fresh foal meat for 14 days (p
< 0.001) except for vacuum packaged samples, which showed no
signicant differences (p 0.156) in TBARS with increasing storage
days. Jouki & Khazaei, 2012 also found the lowest TBARS value for
vacuum packaged camel meat compared to air packaged (AP) and
MAP (60% CO240% N2) during chilled storage for 21 days. There-
fore, vacuum packaging can be used as an effective packaging
strategy to retard lipid oxidation and its deleterious consequences.
3.2. Effect of the packaging conditions on total pigment and color of
camel meat
Changes in total haem pigment of camel meat under three
packaging conditions is shown in Fig. 1 (c). Total haem pigment is a
measure of haematin, which is related to haem containing proteins
such as myoglobin, haemoglobin and cytochrome. Total haem
content of the fresh camel meat in this study was found to be
95.66 mg haematin/g of sample which is slightly higher than what
was earlier reported in camel meat (92.3 mg haematin/g of sample)
(Maqsood, Abushelaibi, Manheem, & Kadim, 2015). Total pigment
of the meat samples displayed insignicant (p > 0.05) change for all
the packaging conditions from day 0 until day 4. After day 4 the
total pigment of vacuum samples increased slightly until day 14 but
a signicant increase (p < 0.05) was noticed in air packed samples.
On day 14, vacuum packed and wrapped sample displayed a sig-
nicant increase in total pigment (p < 0.05) and the air packed
samples displayed signicant decrease in total pigment on day 14.
Decrease in total haem pigment after day 9 of storage for air packed
samples could be due to higher denaturation and oxidation of the
haem pigment in air packed samples during the extended storage
(Chaijan, Benjakul, Visessanguan, & Faustman, 2005). Degradation
of haem pigment during storage is intensied in presence of oxy-
gen. Decrease in total haem pigment during storage has also been
reported in different red meats like lamb, beef and pork (Luciano
et al., 2009; Maqsood & Benjakul, 2010a, 2011). Vacuum pack-
aging and wrapping has succeeded in preventing oxidative degra-
dation of heam pigment compared to air packaged samples, thus
displaying an increase in total haem pigment.
Changes in color parameters, L* (lightness), a* (redness) and b*
(yellowness) of camel meat under three packaging conditions for
14 days are presented in Table 1. L* value of the vacuum packaged
camel meat did not show signicant change (p > 0.05) during the
rst 9 days of storage. However, on day 14, signicant increase in L*
value was found in the vacuum packaged sample. Air packaged
sample displayed signicant increase (p < 05) in L*on day 4,
however no signicant change (p > 0.05) was found during the
subsequent storage days. Several authors reported an increase in
lightness during storage of different types of meat (Fern
andez-
Lo
pez et al., 2008) and others showed a decrease at the end of
storage (Bingol & Ergun, 2011).
58 S. Maqsood et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 72 (2016) 55e62

Fig. 1. Lipid oxidation products [Peroxide value (a) and Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (b)] and (c) total haem content of camel meat packed under different packaging
conditions. Data represented mean SD (n 3) from three replicates.

Table 1
Changes in color parameters (L*, a* and b*) in camel meat packed in different packaging conditions during refrigerated storage.

Color parameters Samples/days 0 4 9 14

L* V 30.09 0.29abA 29.9 0.35bA 30.22 0.2abB 31.22 0.06aA

A 21.55 1.11bB 30.5 1.0aA 29.70 0.3aB 30.65 0.22aA
W 31.1 0.60Aa 27.6 0.44bB 32.14 0.42aA 26.59 0.28bB
a* V 21.5 1.11cA 24.7 0.95aA 23.3 0.31abA 22.0 0.78bcA
A 19.42 0.38aB 17.56 0.46bC 15.15 0.27cC 13.73 0.12dB
W 20.25 1.18aAB 20.9 0.47aB 17.27 0.96bB 14.7 0.38cB
b* V 17.4 1.11bA 19.29 0.44aA 17.2 0.37bA 21.11 0.47aA
A 14.76 0.90bC 17.2 0.1aB 15.1 0.30bB 15.62 0.16bB
W 16.9 1.18aB 17.5 0.43aB 14.62 0.26bB 13.88 0.25bC

Different small letters in the row indicated signicant difference in L* or a* or b* values between different storage times and different capital letters in the column indicated
signicant difference among the packaging conditions on a specic storage time.

Redness is the most important color parameter to evaluate
freshness of meat. On day 14 of storage period, vacuum packed
samples were able to maintain higher redness (a*) (22.0 0.78)
values when compared to air packed (13.73 0.12) and wrapped
samples (14.7 0.38) (p < 0.05). Filgueras et al., (2010) reported
that the redness values a* were in general higher in vacuum-
packaged meat than in air-packaged meat, whatever the muscle
considered. For air packaged samples a* value depicted progressive
decrease from 19.42 on day 0 to 13.73 on day 14 (p < 0.05). Pro-
longed exposure to air in packaging system induces the oxidation of
oxymyoglobin (bright red color) into brown metmyoglobin. This
change decreases the redness a* and makes the meat unacceptable
for the consumers (Renerre, 2000). Myoglobin oxidation is also
proposed to be responsible for decrease in redness, especially in
meats with pH value above 6 (Seydim, Acton, Hall, & Dawson,
2006). pH values in the camel meat packed under different stor-
age condition ranged from 6.4 to 5.7. On day 0, average pH in camel
meat stored under different packaging condition was found to be
6.4 0.33 which reduced to 5.7 0.29 with no difference among
the different packaging condition (p < 0.05) (Data not shown). The
greater colour stability of samples from vacuum packed was also
~o
reported by other authors in different meats (Cayuela, Gil, Ban
n, &
Garrido, 2004), which could be attributed to the absence of oxygen
thus inhibiting the chances of myoglobin to oxidise and form
metmyoglobin (Brewer, Zhu, Bidner, Meisinger, & McKeith, 2001).
Hence, different packaging systems had a signicant effect
(p < 0.05) on redness of the meat with vacuum packaged resulting
in higher redness a* value.
All the samples did not display a signicant change in the b*
values when compared between the samples at the beginning
and at the end of storage. The b* value does not contribute
strongly to the appearance of meat and is frequently not dis-
cussed (Leygonie, Britz, & Hoffman, 2011). Therefore, it can be
concluded that vacuum packaging signicantly improved the
 S. Maqsood et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 72 (2016) 55e62
colour stability of camel meat by maintaining the higher redness
(a*) values.
3.3. Sensory evaluation of camel meat packed under three different
conditions
Sensory scores assessed for color, odor and overall acceptance of
camel meat under three packaging conditions on day 14 of refrig-
erated storage are present in Fig. 2. Vacuum packed samples
received higher score in all sensory attributes followed by air
packaged and wrapped samples (p < 0.05). High score on vacuum
packed samples in color corroborated well with the higher value of
redness (a*) (Table 1) and total haem pigment (Fig. 1c) compared to
air packaged and wrapped samples. Higher score for odor in case of
vacuum packaged samples is attributed to the lower rancidity
which is manifested in the lower values of TBARS formation
(Fig. 1b) and microbial load (Fig 5). The vacuum packed samples
also got a higher score for over all acceptability compared to
wrapped and air packaged samples (p < 0.05). Our ndings are well
supported by Go
mez and Lorenzo (2012) who found that scores for
sensorial evaluation for fresh foal meat were unacceptable after 10
days of storage in samples in overwrap and MAP packs, but they
were still acceptable in vacuum packs. Brenesselova et al., (2015)
reported minimal differences in sensory properties between the
vacuum packed meat from day 1 and the vacuum-packed from day
3 of storage. However, in the non-vacuum-packed meat the best
sensory quality was found on day 1 of storage which gradually
declined with storage. Therefore, vacuum packaging could signi-
cantly improve the sensory acceptance of the camel meat during
storage, when compared to other packaging conditions.
3.4. Texture analysis of camel meat packed under three different
conditions
Effect of different packaging conditions on hardness values of
camel meat during storage period of 14 days is shown in Fig. 3. On
day 0, prior to packaging, no signicant difference (p > 0.05) was
found in the hardness of the fresh camel meat samples from
different camels which were later on vacuum packaged, wrapped
and air packaged. On day 14, vacuum packaged samples displayed
Fig. 2. Changes in sensory quality (color, odor and overall acceptability) of camel meat
as inuenced by different packaging conditions. Different letters indicate signicant
differences in each sensory attributes between camel meat packed under different
packaging conditions. Data represented mean SD (n 30).
59
Fig. 3. Hardness values of camel meat as inuenced by different packaging conditions.
Different capital letters indicate signicant difference between camel meat packed
under same packaging conditions but on different storage period, while different small
letters indicate signicant difference between camel meat packed under different
packaging conditions on a specic storage period. Data represented mean SD (n 3)
from three replicates.
signicant (p < 0.05) increase in hardness, however, air packaged
and wrapped samples displayed a signicant decrease (p < 0.05) in
hardness. Increase in hardness of vacuum packaged samples could
be due to the higher drip loss and compression of the samples
caused by vacuum packaging. Drip loss in the camel meat packed
under different packaging conditions ranged from
1.47% 0.11e9.57% 0.38, with vacuum packed samples displaying
higher drip loss compared to samples packed under air and
wrapped samples (Data not shown). Decrease in hardness in case of
air packaged and wrapped samples could be due to microbial
enzymatic degradation of muscle proteins. This corroborates with
the higher total plate and psychrophilic bacterial counts in case of
air packed and wrapped samples compared to vacuum packed
samples (P < 0.05). Therefore, vacuum packaging was able to
reduce the undesirable softness of the meat which might be caused
by the action of endogenous microbial enzymatic degradation of
the different proteins in camel meat.
3.5. Effect of different packaging conditions on degradation of
camel meat proteins
Changes in protein pattern of camel meat packed under three
different packaging systems during 14 days of refrigerated storage
are presented in Fig. 4. The detectable protein bands in fresh camel
meat were myosin heavy chain (MHC) (200 kDa), c-protein, a-
actinin, tropomyosin, actin (44 KDa), a-tropomyosin, b-tropomy-
osin, troponin T (32 KDa), troponin C (30 KDa) and myosin light
chain MLCs (16e25 KDa). During the storage in different packaging
conditions at refrigerated temperature for 14 days, different pro-
teins in the camel meat underwent degradation at different degrees
as depicted in Fig. 4. MHC, C-protein, alpha actinin as well as
tropomyosin bands showed a noticeable degradation on day 14 of
storage in case of wrapped sample and a mild degradation in air
packaged samples. However, no noticeable change was observed in
the protein fractions of the vacuum packaged samples. In wrapped
samples, bands corresponding to a-tropomyosin and b-tropomy-
osin have undergone a signicant degradation and a mild change
was also noticed in air packaged samples. Similarly, degradation of
bands corresponding to troponin-T, troponin-C and MLCs were also
evident in wrapped samples. The degradation of different protein
bands in wrapped and air packed camel meat was mainly due to
enzymatic degradation of proteins caused by higher bacterial load
in those sample compared with those of vacuum packed camel
60 S. Maqsood et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 72 (2016) 55e62
Fig. 4. Protein degradation as analysed by SDS-PAGE in camel meat as inuenced by different packaging conditions. M: Marker; F: Fresh samples; V: vacuum packed samples; Air:
Air packed samples; W: Wrapped samples; SDS-PAGE: Sodium dodecyl sulphate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis.
meat. Moreover, protein oxidation can also lead to protein degra-
dation (Park, Xiong, & Alderton, 2007). Endogenous and microbial
proteinases such as cathepsin and calpain can also result in protein
degradation (Masniyom, Benjakul, & Visessanguan, 2004).
Masniyom et al., (2004) and Maqsood and Benjakul (2010b) also
found no marked change in protein pattern of seabass and catsh
slices stored under MAP, compared with fresh sample. Thus, vac-
uum packaging could prevent protein degradation of refrigerated
camel meat to some degree.
3.6. Microbial analysis of camel meat packed under three different
conditions
Changes in microbial counts for different microorganism in
camel meat packed under vacuum, wrapped and air are shown in
Fig. 5. The average total plate count (TPC) and psychrophilic bac-
teria count of the fresh camel meat samples at the beginning were
3.42 and 2.34 log CFU/g, respectively (Fig. 5a & b). After 14 days of
storage, overwrap packaged samples showed higher TPC (7.28 log
CFU/g) than vacuum and air packaged ones (Fig. 5a). It is assumed
that vacuum packaging reduces the aerobic bacterial count during
storage by limiting oxygen availability for the growth of bacteria.
Bacterial counts in vacuum samples were lower (p < 0.05) than in
air packaged and wrapped samples.
The growth of mesophillic bacteria or TPC varied depending on
packing conditions. The rate of growth was similar (p > 0.05) in
samples from vacuum and air packages till day 4. In vacuum
packaged samples an insignicant increase (p > 0.05) occurred
during the rst 14 days and afterwards, counts increased signi-
cantly (p < 0.05) however, the counts were always lower (p < 0.05)
than those from overwrap packed samples. After day 14, air pack-
aged and wrapped samples were completely spoiled and the counts
exceeded limit and therefore were not reported (Fig. 5a) (data not
shown).
As counts of 7 log10 CFU/g is the approximate point at which
meat becomes unacceptable (Dainty & Mackey, 1992). Therefore,
the shelf life of camel meat stored in vacuum packaging com-
plemented with refrigerated storage could be extended to 18 days
while for air packed and wrapped samples it was less than 14 days
based on the total bacterial counts. Higher shelf life has been re-
ported for other red meat packed under vacuum conditions. Blixt
and Borch (2002) have reported shelf life values ranging from 14
to 21 days for beef and pork packed under vacuum.
Psychrophilic bacteria count (PBC) showed a noticeable differ-
ence among treatments. The wrapped and air packed samples
crossed 6 log CFU/g on day 4 of storage, while the vacuum packaged
samples did not reach 7 log10 CFU/g even on 18 days of storage
(Fig. 5b). After day 4, PBC in wrapped and air packaged samples
exceeded the 8 log CFU/g. Several authors reported that overwrap
packages showed the highest psychrophilic bacteria counts
compared to vacuum packaging (Bingol & Ergun, 2011; Fern
andez-

pez et al., 2008; Lorenzo & Go
Lo
mez, 2012).
Vacuum packaging limited the coliform count in comparison to
overwrap and air packed conditions (Fig. 5c). Coliform count of the
fresh meat on day 0 was 3 log10 CFU/g which did not show any
signicant change (p > 0.05) through day 3 for all three packaging
conditions. On day 18, wrapped sample displayed the highest
coliform count of about 4 log10 CFU/g and vacuum packaged sample
displayed the least count of about 3.5 log10 CFU/g. Furthermore,
vacuum packaging was also effective in retarding the growth of
Enterobacteriaceae, E. coli as well as Lactic acid bacteria (LAB)
counts in comparison to overwrap and air packed conditions (Fig. 5
d, e & f). The counts from all these bacteria showed an abrupt in-
crease from day 4 to day 9 of storage and but were found to be
lower in vacuum packed samples (p < 0.05). Similar results were
obtained by Go
mez and Lorenzo (2012) for Enterobactericeae and
 S. Maqsood et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 72 (2016) 55e62 61

Fig. 5. Inuence by different packaging conditions on growth of different bacteria in camel meat during refrigerated storage. TPC: Total Plate Count; PBC: Psychrophilic Bacterial
Counts; LAB: Lactic Acid Bacteria; E. Coli: Escherichia coli. Data represented mean SD (n 3) from three replicates.

LAB on foal meat packaged under vacuum, air and high and low O2
MAP. Soldatou, Nerantzaki, Kontominas & Savvaidis (2009) also
found the similar trend for Enterobacteriaceae counts in lamb meat
packed under vacuum in comparison with overwrap packed sam-
ples. Recently, Brenesselova et al. (2015) reported total viable count,
enterobacteriaceae and staphylococcus were signicantly lower in
vacuum packed compared to non-vacuum ostrich meat during
refrigerated storage. Overall, it was found that vacuum packaging
was effective in retarding the growth of different bacteria being
monitored during the course of 18 days under refrigeration in this
study and kept it well below the threshold of 7 log10 CFU/g at which
meat is rendered unacceptable.
4. Conclusions
The results of this study revealed that vacuum packaging was
very effective in retarding lipid oxidation, microbial growth and
protein degradation, as well as maintaining the higher redness (a*)
values of camel meat. Moreover, the sensory panelist perceived
vacuum packed camel meat to be of superior quality compared to
meat packed under other packaging conditions. Therefore, vacuum
packaging can maintain the quality of the camel meat for longer
period by limiting the microbial load, lipid oxidation and preser-
ving the color of the meat. Thus, can be applied as an effective
preservation strategy for displaying the fresh camel meat on the
refrigerated shelves as well as for transportation of the meat from
one country to another without freezing the meat.
Acknowledgment
Authors are thankful to Department of Food Science, UAE Uni-
versity to provide facilities to conduct this research.
References
Babiker, S. A., & Yousif, K. H. (1990). Chemical composition and quality of camel
meat. Meat Science, 27, 283e287.
Bingol, E. B., & Ergun, O. (2011). Effects of modied atmosphere packaging (MAP) on
the microbiological quality and shelf life of ostrich meat. Meat Science, 88,
62 S. Maqsood et al. / LWT - Food Science and Technology 72 (2016) 55e62
774e785.
Blixt, Y., & Borch, E. (2002). Comparison of shelf life of vacuum-packed pork and
beef. Meat Science, 60, 371e378.
Brenesselova, M., Kore
nekov
a, B., Macanga, J., Marcinc

, P., Pipov

ak, S., Jevinova a, M.,
et al. (2015). Effects of vacuum packaging conditions on the quality, biochemical
changes and the durability of ostrich meat. Meat Science, 101, 42e47.
Brewer, M. S., Zhu, L. G., Bidner, B., Meisinger, D. J., & McKeith, F. K. (2001).
Measuring pork color: effects of bloom time, muscle, pH and relationship to
instrumental parameters. Meat Science, 57, 169e176.
Buege, J. A., & Aust, S. D. (1978). Microsomal lipid peroxidation. Methods in Enzy-
mology, 52C, 302e310.
Cayuela, J. M., Gil, M. D., Ban ~o

n, S., & Garrido, M. D. (2004). Effect of vacuum and
modied atmosphere packaging on the quality of pork loin. European Food
Research and Technology, 219, 316e320.
Chaijan, M., Benjakul, S., Visessanguan, W., & Faustman, C. (2005). Changes of
pigments and color in sardine (Sardinella gibbosa) and mackerel (Rastrelliger
kanagurta) muscle during iced storage. Food Chemistry, 93, 607e617.
Cousin, M. A., Jay, J. M., & Vasavada, P. C. (1992). Psychrotrophic microorganism. In
C. Vanderzand, & D. F. Splittstoesser (Eds.), Compendium of methods for the
microbiological examination of foods (pp. 153e168). Washington, DC: American
Public Health Association.
Dainty, R. H., & Mackey, B. M. (1992). The relationship between the phenotypic
properties of bacteria from chill-stored meat and spoilage processes. The Journal
of Applied Bacteriology, 73, 103e114.
Faye, B., & Bonnet, P. (2012). Camel sciences and economy in the world: current
situation and perspectives. In E. H. Johnson, O. Mahgoub, A. H. Eljack,
I. T. Kadim, P. A. Bobade, M. H. Tageldin, et al. (Eds.), Third proceeding ISOCARD
conference (pp. 2e15). Muscat, Sultanate of Oman.
Ferna
ndez-Lo
pez, J., Sayas-Barbera
, E., Mun
~ oz, T., Sendra, E., Navarro, C., & Pe
rez-


Alvarez, J. A. (2008). Effect of packaging conditions on shelf-life of ostrich
steaks. Meat Science, 78, 143e152.
Filgueras, R. S., Gatellier, P., Aubry, L., Thomas, A., Bauchart, D., Durand, D., et al.
(2010). Colour, lipid and protein stability of Rhea americana meat during air-
and vacuum-packaged storage: inuence of muscle on oxidative processes.
Meat Science, 86, 665e673.
Go
mez, M., & Lorenzo, J. M. (2012). Effect of packaging conditions on shelf-life of
fresh foal meat. Meat Science, 91, 513e520.
Hasegawa, H. (1987). Determination of total viable count (TVC). In H. Hasegawa
(Ed.), Laboratory manuals on analytical methods and procedure for sh and sh
products. Part E (pp. 2.1e2.3). Singapore: Marine Fisheries Research
Department.
Hornsey, H. C. (1956). The colour of cooked cured pork. Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture, 7, 534e540.
Jouki, M., & Khazaei, N. (2012). Lipid oxidation and color changes of fresh camel
meat stored under different atmosphere packaging systems. Journal of Food
Processing and Technology, 3, 1e11.
Kadim, I. T., Mahgouba, O., Al-marzooqi, W., Al-Zadjali, S., Annamalai, K., &
Mansour, M. H. (2006). Effects of age on composition and quality of muscle
Longissimus thoracis of the Omani Arabian camel. Meat Science, 73, 619e625.
Kadim, I. T., Mahgoub, O., & Purchas, R. W. (2008). A review of the growth, and of
the carcass and meat quality characteristics of the one-humped camel. Meat
Science, 80, 555e569.
Kurtu, M. Y. (2004). An assessment of the productivity for meat and carcass yield of
camel (Camelus dromedarius) and the consumption of camel meat in the
Eastern region of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 36, 65e76.
Laemmli, U. K. (1970). Cleavage of structural proteins during assembly of head of 17
bacteriophage T4. Nature, 227, 680e685.
Lavieri, N., & Williams, S. K. (2014). Effects of packaging systems and fat concen-
trations on microbiology, sensory and physical properties of ground beef stored
at 4 1 C for 25 days. Meat Science, 97, 534e541.
Leygonie, C., Britz, T. J., & Hoffman, L. C. (2011). Protein and lipid oxidative stability
of fresh ostrich M. Iliobularis packaged under different modied atmospheric
packaging conditions. Food Chemistry, 127, 1659e1667.
Lorenzo, J. M., & Go
mez, M. (2012). Shelf life of fresh foal meat under MAP, over-
wrap and vacuum packaging conditions. Meat Science, 92, 610e618.
Luciano, G., Monahan, F. J., Vasta, V., Pennisi, P., Bella, M., & Priolo, A. (2009). Lipid
and colour stability of meat from lambs fed fresh herbage or concentrate. Meat
Science, 82, 193e199.
Mailgaad, M., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (1999). Sensory evaluation techniques. Boca
Raton, FL: CRS Press.
Maqsood, S., Abushelaibi, A., Manheem, K., & Kadim, I. T. (2015). Characterisation of
the lipid and protein fraction of fresh camel meat and the associated changes
during refrigerated storage. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 41,
212e220.
Maqsood, S., Abushelaibi, A., Manheem, K., Al Rashedi, A., & Kadim, I. T. (2015). Lipid
oxidation, protein degradation, microbial and sensorial quality of camel meat as
inuenced by phenolic compounds. LWT- Food Science and Technology, 63,
953e959.
Maqsood, S., & Benjakul, S. (2010a). Preventive effect of tannic acid in combination
with modied atmospheric packaging on the quality losses of the refrigerated
ground beef. Food Control, 21, 1282e1290.
Maqsood, S., & Benjakul, S. (2010b). Synergistic effect of tannic acid and modied
atmospheric packaging on the prevention of lipid oxidation and quality losses
of refrigerated striped catsh slices. Food Chemistry, 121, 29e38.
Maqsood, S., & Benjakul, S. (2011). Effect of bleeding on lipid oxidation retardation
and quality retention of seabass (Lates calcarifer) slices during iced storage. Food
Chemistry, 124, 459e467.
Masniyom, P., Benjakul, S., & Visessanguan, W. (2004). ATPase activity, surface
hydrophobicity, sulfhydryl content and protein degradation in refrigerated
seabass muscle in modied atmosphere packaging. Journal of Food Biochemistry,
28, 43e60.
Park, D., Xiong, Y. L., & Alderton, A. L. (2007). Concentration effects of hydroxyl
radical oxidizing systems on biochemical properties of porcine muscle myo-
brillar protein. Food Chemistry, 3, 1239e1246.
Renerre, M. (2000). Oxidative processes and myoglobin. In E. Decker, C. Faustman, &
C. J. Lopez-Bote (Eds.), Antioxidants in muscle foods, nutritional strategies to
improve quality (pp. 113e133). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Richards, M. P., & Hultin, H. O. (2000). Effect of pH on lipid oxidation using trout
hemolysate as a catalyst: a possible role for deoxyhemoglobin. Journal of the
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 48, 3141e3147.
Sahoo, J., & Kumar, N. (2005). Quality of vacuum packaged muscle foods stored
under frozen conditions: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 42,
209e213.
Seydim, A. C., Acton, J. C., Hall, M. A., & Dawson, H. L. (2006). Effects of packaging
atmosphere on the shelf-life quality of ground ostrich meat. Meat Science, 73,
503e510.
Soldatou, N., Nerantzaki, A., Kontominas, M. G., & Savvaidis, I. N. (2009). Physico-
chemical and microbiological changes of SouvlakidA Greek delicacy lamb
meat product: evaluation of shelf-life using microbial, colour and lipid oxida-
tion parameters. Food Chemistry, 113, 36e42.
Steel, R. G. D., & Torrie, J. H. (1980). Principles and procedures of statistics (pp.
106e107). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Strydom, P. E., & Hope-Jones, M. (2014). Evaluation of three vacuum packaging
methods for retail beef loin cuts. Meat Science, 98, 689e694.