Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Meat Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Review

Quality considerations with high pressure processing of fresh and value added
meat products
Bajo Bajovic, Tomas Bolumar, Volker Heinz ⁎
German Institute of Food Technologies, Prof.-von-Klitzing-Str. 7, D-49610 Quakenbrück, Germany

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

Keywords: Pressure can be applied by high hydrostatic pressure, better known as high pressure processing (HPP), or by
High pressure processing hydrodynamic pressure (HDP) in the form of shockwaves to alter quality parameters, such as shelf-life and tex-
Hydrodynamic pressure ture of meat and meat products. The aim of this review is to give an overview of the use of pressure in the meat
Shockwaves industry and to highlight its usage as a method to inactivate microorganisms but also a novel strategy to alter the
Fresh meat structure and the quality parameters of meat and meat products. Benefits and possibilities of the technologies are
Novel meat products
presented, as well as how to overcome undesired product changes caused by HPP. The use of hydrodynamic
shockwaves is briefly described and a promising newly developed industrial prototype for the generation of
shockwaves by underwater explosion is presented.
© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
2. High hydrostatic pressure (HPP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
2.1. Effect of HPP on the inactivation of microorganisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
2.2. Effect of HPP on meat proteins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
2.3. Effect of HPP on the color of meat and meat products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
2.4. Effect of HPP on lipid oxidation of meat and meat products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
2.5. Effect of HPP on the texture of meat and meat products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
3. Hydrodynamic pressure (HDP) or shockwaves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
3.1. Effect on HDP on meat and meat tissue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
3.2. Development of shock waves by underwater discharges of electric energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
4. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287

1. Introduction
High pressure processing (HPP) in the meat industry is mainly used
to increase the shelf-life and to improve the food safety of ready-to-eat
(RTE) meat products as a novel post-packaging non-thermal decontam-
ination technology. The application of HPP to meat and meat products
results in a modification of quality parameters such as color, texture
and water holding capacity. Alterations have no negative impact on
the nutritional value. Therefore, it can be employed as a new dimension
in product development. HPP has become an industrial reality for the
meat industry within the past twenty years.
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 49 5431 183 0; fax: + 49 5431 183 114.
E-mail address: v.heinz@dil-ev.de (V. Heinz).
The use of HPP for meat and meat products has been extensively
described in different book chapters (Atsushi, Ken, Hiroyuki, Tadayuki,
& Yoshihide, 2006; Garriga & Aymerich, 2009; Hendrickx & Knorr,
2002; Ikeuchi, 2011), in a growing number of reviews targeted to
specific topics (Bermúdez-Aguirre & Barbosa-Cánovas, 2011; Campus,
2010; Cheftel & Culioli, 1997; Patterson, 2005; Sun & Holley, 2010)
and in an increasing number of scientific research papers. HPP is com-
mercially used mainly as a non-thermal decontamination technology
for processed and RTE meat products with high consumer acceptance,
in comparison to other non-thermal decontamination technologies
such as ionizing radiation. This fact is leading to an increased number
of commercial installations.
In addition, pressure can also be applied to meat in the form of hy-
drodynamic pressure treatments in order to induce mechanical tissue

0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.04.024
 B. Bajovic et al. / Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289 281

disintegration and therefore tenderize meat. The present article
provides an overview of the application of hydrostatic (HPP) and hydro-
dynamic (HPD) pressure treatments and their impact on the quality
parameters of meat and meat products.
2. High hydrostatic pressure (HPP)
The response of vegetative pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms
in meat and meat products to HPP is variable and depends on process
parameters such as pressure, temperature and processing time and on
product parameters such as pH, aW, salt content and the presence of
other antimicrobials (Rendueles et al., 2011; Töpfl & Heinz, 2009).
HPP as mentioned is mainly used in a commercial environment as an
effective post-packaging decontamination technology for RTE meat
products particularly in cases where heat treatment is not possible or
convenient. Pressure levels applied for the pasteurization of meats
and meat products, range in an area of 400–600 MPa with short pro-
cessing times of 3–7 min and at room temperature. These treatments
lead in most cases to an inactivation of more than four log units for
the most common vegetative pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms
resulting in an increased shelf-life and improved safety. An overview of
the commercially available “pressurized” meat products and companies
applying HPP is presented in Table 1.
The majority of the commercial available meat products belong to
RTE food category, and only one fresh meat product, minced beef,
which is further processed before its consumption is available in the
pressurized form in the market so far (Table 1). HPP affects quality
parameters of fresh meat, particularly depending on the pressure level
applied, and thus typical characteristic associated with fresh meat like
texture and especially color can be remarkably modified. The meat
becomes more gel-structured and paler losing the typical appearance
of fresh meat.
Depending on the process parameter applied, high pressure treated
meat would possibly not be recognized as fresh meat by consumers.
Under EU regulation “fresh meat” has not undergone any preserving
process other than chilling, freezing or quick-freezing, including meat
that is vacuum-wrapped or wrapped in a controlled atmosphere (The
European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2004).
Overall, the color change induced by HPP in the meat as well as the
current legal definition of fresh meat has drastically limited the use of
HPP for fresh meat in the markets.
An overview of different publications dealing with quality consider-
ations of fresh and processed meat products is given in Table 2.
2.1. Effect of HPP on the inactivation of microorganisms
Moderate level of pressure (10–50 MPa) decreases the rate of growth
and reproduction, whereas higher level of pressure causes inactivation
(Rademacher, 2006). A brief overview of the required pressure level
for the microbial inactivation of different microorganisms in meat
and meat products is demonstrated in Table 3. The basic principles
of HPP microbial inactivation are based on protein denaturation
which results in enzyme inactivation (Barbosa-Canovas, Pothakamury,
& Swanson, 1995), and the agglomeration of cellular proteins (Farr,
1990). The change of the permeability of the cell membrane how-
ever results from the crystallization of fatty acids from phospho-
lipids (Cheftel & Culioli, 1997). The cell membrane is constructed as a
bi-layer of phospholipids and high pressure causes a phase transition
and as a consequence the membrane is destabilized and the perme-
ability is negatively affected (Hazel & Williams, 1990; Shimada et al.,
1993). Further, the inactivation could be linked to protein denaturation
resulting in the dissolution of membrane bound enzymes (Hoover,
Metrick, Papineau, Farkas, & Knorr, 1989; Smelt, 1998). The partial inac-
tivation of enzyme systems by high pressure leads to a breakdown of
metabolic actions in biological systems (Knorr & Heinz, 2001).The pro-
tein denaturation depends on such external factors as pH, salt content,
water activity (aW) and the presence of other ingredients like sugars
(Molina-Höppner, Doster, Vogel, & Gänzle, 2004; Smelt, 1998). Aside
from the product parameters, the processing conditions: pressure (P),
temperature (T) and time (t) have a decisive importance on the inacti-
vation of living cells. In the high temperature domain, it is generally
accepted that pressure and temperature act synergistically on the inac-
tivation of vegetative bacteria (Heinz & Buckow, 2010). For the majority
of microorganisms, the highest pressure tolerance is found between
20 and 30 °C. In the case that lower temperatures are applied the stabil-
ity is decreased (Buckow & Heinz, 2008). Inactivation depends on a
number of factors related to the Gram type, physiological state and
strain particularities (Jofré, Aymerich, Bover-Cid, & Garriga, 2010). Bac-
terial resistance to high pressure is highly variable even among strains
of the same species (Liu, Betti, & Gänzle, 2012). Among the pressure
resistant species, Gram-positive bacteria such as Staphylococcus aureus,
as well as Gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli can be found
(Benito, Ventoura, Casadei, Robinson, & Mackey, 1999; Jofré et al.,
2010; Liu et al., 2012). Combination of elevated temperatures (>50 °C)
with pressure has also been proposed to overcome the problem of pres-
sure resistant strains (Patterson, 2005).
Application of combined hurdles together with HPP has been pro-
posed to increase the microbicidal effect of low pressure processes in
order to minimize the unwanted changes induced by ultra-high hydro-
static pressures (above 400 MPa) in meat and meat products. Synergis-
tic effects with HPP have been described with antimicrobials, low pH,
carbon dioxide, vacuum packaging and chilled storage (Garriga &
Aymerich, 2009). Several examples of combinations of HPP treatments
with additional preservation methods are listed in Table 2. Moreover,
additional hurdles or processes are useful to avoid the recovery of
sublethal injured cells (Jofré et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2012).
Nevertheless, optimization of process parameters is required and
depends on specific testing of the particular application. Shelf‐life

Table 1
Examples of commercially available meat products and companies using HPP.

Country (year) Company Product Source

Romania (2011) Chris Tim Fermented sausages (Cris-Tim, 2012)

Netherlands (2010) Zwaneberg Filet American (Hiperbaric, 2012)
Steak Tartar (Zwaneberg, 2010)
Carpaccio (Zwaneberg, 2012)
USA (2011) Cargill Hamburger (Fressure®) (Cargill, 2011)
Greece (2010) Creta Farm Deli meats infused with extra virgin olive oil (Hiperbaric, 2012)
USA Perdue Farms Poultry strips (Ikeuchi, 2011)
Greece (2010) Ifantis Sliced processed meat (mortadella, ham, and salami) (Ifantis, 2009)
USA Tyson Food Oven roasted chicken (Ikeuchi, 2011)
UK (2011) Deli 24 Meat and cheese snack products (Watson, 2011)
USA (2001) Hormel Natural Choice Product range® (Hormel, 2012)
USA (2011) Columbus Foods Deli meat & fermented meats (Foodprocessing-Technology, 2011)
Spain (2002) Campofrio Thick sliced ham, chicken and turkey products, cooked and Serrano ham, chorizo (Ikeuchi, 2011)
Canada Santa Maria Foods Sliced dry cured meat and cooked meats (Hiperbaric, 2012)
282 B. Bajovic et al. / Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289
tests over storage time have to be performed on a case basis before the
product can be launched to the market.
2.2. Effect of HPP on meat proteins
The application of pressure on proteins leads to different degrees of
protein structure modification. As a general mechanism, the application
of pressure induces unfolding of the protein structure and subsequent
folding after pressure release. This can lead depending on the specific
protein and conditions applied to partial or total denaturation and
tuning of electrostatic interactions which are further explained later.
Based on the principle of Le Chatelier and Braun, reactions with a de-
crease in volume are favored by pressure.
Protein denaturation is one of the key mechanisms for microbial
inactivation and irreversible changes in muscle proteins start at a com-
parative level to that required for the inactivation of microorganisms.
Covalent bonds have a low compressibility and are much less sensitive
to changes in pressure (Cheftel & Culioli, 1997). HPP induces the break-
down of salt bonds, due to electrostriction and also parts of hydrophobic
interactions. In contrast, hydrogen bonds appear to be slightly strength-
ened under pressure (Cheftel & Culioli, 1997). Quaternary structure is
mainly held by hydrophobic interactions and thus they are very sensi-
tive to pressure (Rastogi et al., 2007). Major changes in the tertiary
structure are observed beyond 200 MPa and changes in secondary struc-
ture will take place only at very high pressure above 700 MPa (Rastogi,
Raghavarao, Balasubramanaiam, Niranjan and Knorr, 2007).
Muscle proteins including myofibrillar proteins are unfolded up to
a pressure of 300 MPa. Pressures above this level result in increased
denaturation, gel formation and agglomeration of proteins. This fact
can be employed in product development since enhanced gel structure
and water binding capacity can be achieved by the use of certain HPP
treatments (Sun & Holley, 2010).
One of the remarkable effects of high pressure on meat is the modi-
fication of the actin–myosin complex. Pressure induces structural
changes in the main constituent of muscle filaments, which are possibly
caused by increased ATPase activity at 30 MPa as well as with an
increase of soluble materials from the myofibrils enhanced by pressur-
ization above 150 MPa (Nishiwaki, Ikeuchi, & Suzuki, 1996). Suzuki,
Watanabe, Iwamura, Ikeuchi, and Saito (1990) investigated the effect
of high pressure (100–300 MPa) on post rigor beef muscle for meat ten-
derization and observed that maximum fragmentation was achieved
with 5 min to 300 MPa. Additionally the z-line in myofibrils was not
apparent in the pressurized muscle. In contrast, limited effect is visible
on connective tissue at ambient temperature and little effect is seen at
higher temperatures (Beilken, Macfarlane, & Jones, 1990).
2.3. Effect of HPP on the color of meat and meat products
The color of meat depends on the optical properties of the meat
surface as well as on the myoglobin content of the muscle. In contrast,
the color of cured meat products is mainly created due to the presence
of nitrosylmyoglobin, resulting from the reaction of nitric oxide (from
sodium nitrite or sodium nitrate) with myoglobin. Studies indicate
that HPP provokes drastic changes in fresh meat color, while the changes
in cured meat products are acceptable and depending on the water con-
tent and aW‐value (Ferrini, Comaposada, Arnau, & Gou, 2012).
Carlez, Veciana-Nogues, and Cheftel (1995) evaluated the effect of
HPP on minced beef and concluded that L* color values increased signif-
icantly in the pressure range 200–350 MPa, giving the meat a pink color,
while a* values decreased at 400–500 MPa, resulting in a gray-brown
color. Similar effects on meat color have been described by other
authors. Overall, high pressure caused dramatic changes in the color
of fresh meat and thus makes difficult the commercialization of HPP
fresh meats since they lack the typical color of fresh meat from the con-
sumer's perspective (Cheftel & Culioli, 1997). However, these changes
are not relevant if the products are further processed as for example
into hamburger patties for the food service (Cargill, 2011).
By keeping the ratio oxy- to deoxymyoglobin low before pressuriza-
tion a minor conversion to ferric myoglobin was observed in a model sys-
tem (Wackerbarth, Kuhlmann, Tintchev, Heinz, & Hildebrandt, 2009).
Bak, Lindahl, Karlsson, and Orlien (2012) showed that pork meat treated
above 300 MPa became significantly less red and more yellow within the
first day of storage. This fact was explained by the formation of a short-
lived ferrohemochrome myoglobin specie which is transformed into a
brown, ferric form of the pigment within the first day of storage.
Studies on cured meat products reported an increase in lightness and
a decrease in redness when products are pressurized. But Ferrini et al.
(2012) showed that the changes in lightness and redness were
dependent on the water content of the meat products. HPP treatment
increased L* and reduced a* and b* in raw cured hams with high water
contents. The HPP treatment had negligible effect on the raw cured
hams with low water contents. Comparable results were obtained
when Bak et al. studied the color changes in restructured ham and
showed that the L* and a*-values were best preserved in high pH/ high
salt restructured ham and had no effect on ham dried to 50% weight
loss (Bak, Lindahl, Karlsson, Lloret, et al., 2012). Szerman et al. (2011)
studied the application of HHP on beef carpaccio at three different levels
(400, 500 and 600 MPa) with low temperatures (0–5 °C) and at room
temperature (20 °C) and observed that the negative effect on chromatic
parameters was reduced under frozen conditions and also on the water
holding capacity indicating a minimization of the denaturation of the
sarcoplasmic and myofibrillar proteins but showing a lower inactivation
on microorganisms. In another study about the influence of HPP on mar-
inated poultry products, it was concluded that high pH and the addition
of sodium carbonate, even at low concentrations, improved the color
and the color stability (Schmidgall, Töpfl, Hertel, Bindrich, & Heinz,
2011). In general, the negative impact of HPP on fresh meat and meat
products is dependent on different parameters, which not all of them
are well-understood as of yet. In general, HPP color induced-changes
vary according to the myoglobin content and are more dramatic for
fresh red meat than for white meat and cured meat products. Undesired
changes can be limited by optimizing the process parameters of HPP
treatment such as pressure, time, temperature, curing, oxygen removal
and the increased pH. When looking for a reduction of the color changes
induced by HPP, one should keep in mind that measures to protect
the color quality and stability can result in changed microbial inactiva-
tion kinetics and thus safety and shelf‐life of the final product.
2.4. Effect of HPP on lipid oxidation of meat and meat products
HPP of meat and meat products can trigger lipid oxidation. The
effect of HPP on lipid oxidation on pork (Cheah & Ledward, 1995,
1996, 1997), beef (Ma, Ledward, Zamri, Frazier, & Zhou, 2007;
McArdle, Marcos, Kerry, & Mullen, 2010) and poultry (Beltran, Pla,
Yuste, & Mor-Mur, 2004; Bragagnolo, Danielsen, & Skibsted, 2007;
Dissing, Bruun-Jensen, & Skibsted, 1997; Kruk et al., 2011; Orlien,
Hansen, & Skibsted, 2000; Tuboly, Lebovics, Gaál, Mészáros, & Farkas,
2003) has established that pressure levels between 300 and 600 MPa
are critical for inducing lipid oxidation in fresh meat.
In cured meat products, Fuentes, Ventanas, Morcuende, Estévez, and
Ventanas (2010) reported that pre-sliced dry-cured ham was more
susceptible to oxidative reactions and lipid oxidation compared to the
control (Fuentes et al., 2010). While Clariana, Guerrero, Sárraga, and
Garcia-Regueiro (2011) stated that the oxidative stability of dry-cured
ham pressurized at 600 MPa was not affected. As for the color the effect
on lipid oxidation by HPP is more pronounced for fresh meat than for
cured meat products (Clariana, Guerrero, Sárraga, Díaz, et al., 2011).
The mechanisms by which HPP induces lipid oxidation are not fully un-
derstood. Generally, it has been suggested that HPP triggers lipid oxida-
tion by two mechanisms: increased accessibility for iron from
hemoproteins and membrane disruption. The release of iron from
Table 2
Compilation of studies on the effect of HPP on the quality characteristics of meat and meat products.

Product Processing conditions Main effects Reference

Fresh meat
Chicken breast fillet 300, 450 and 600 MPa, 600 MPa inactivated E. coli, S. typhimurium and (Kruk et al., 2011)
5 min, 15 °C L. monocytogenes below detectable levels.
Increased pressure levels increased the cooking
loss and the colour by increasing L*, a*, b* values.
Increased pressure increased hardness, cohesiveness,
gumminess and chewiness.
Pressure level at 450 MPa induced lipid oxidation.
Volatile basic nitrogen values (VBN) were significantly
reduced. A semi-trained sensory panel found that chicken
breast treated with 450 MPa gave the lowest aroma strength.
Chicken breast fillet 300 MPa, 5 min, 20 °C in The combination of antimicrobial coating and HPP in MAP (Rodríguez-Calleja,
combination with liquid packaging exhibit a strongly synergistic interaction extending Cruz-Romero,
antimicrobial edible coating the shelf-life up to 28 days. The sensory attributes, color, O'Sullivan, García-López,
and MAP packaging. tenderness and overall acceptability were maintained during storage. & Kerry, 2012)
Turkey breast 50–300 MPa, for 0.1 s and 1, 2, 3, 5, HPP could be used as a processing aid in enhancing salt diffusion into (Villacís, Rastogi, & Balasubramaniam,
10 and 15 min at 25 °C. turkey breast. Diffusion coefficient of NaCl infusing into the meat was 2008)
maximum at 150 MPa. Treatment at 150 MPa resulted in turkey

B. Bajovic et al. / Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289

Pork (M. longissimus dorsi),
and chicken and turkey
(pieces of meat)
Beef (M. pectoralis profundus)
Beef
Pork (pre-rigor)
Turkey meat (PSE-like)
Chicken breast
breast with minimum hardness, gumminess and chewiness.
0.1 MPa–600 MPa, for 1 min at 5 °C, Increasing cohesiveness with increasing pressure was observed, (Knorr, 2007)
reaching maximum at 400 MPa. Further increase in pressure resulted in
declining cohesiveness at 500 and 600 MPa. Minimum color changes
were observed till 200 MPa. With increasing pressure, L*-values
decreased. Changes in color were more depending on the applied
pressure than on the holding time.
200, 300 and 400 MPa, Lower pressure levels of 200 MPa minimally affect meat quality (McArdle et al., 2010)
for 20 min at 20 and 40 °C, parameters. Increasing the pressure level and temperature level
increased the cook loss, lipid oxidation and alter the color. Pressure did
not alter the ratio of polyunsaturated/saturated fatty acid (PUFA/SFA),
but increasing the temperature affected the sum higher saturated,
monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids.
500–600 MPa, for 20–300 s, at 10 °C HPP treatment resulted in a 1 week delay of microbial growth (Jung, Ghoul, & de Lamballerie-Anton,
(520 MPa, 260 s). Pressure intensity was more significant than 2003)
holding time for redness, total color difference and metmyoglobin
content. Pressure higher than 300 MPa induces modifications of
meat color parameters.
215 MPa, 15 s, at 33 °C HPP partially inhibited post mortem metabolism, resulting in (Souza et al., 2011)
improved cook and drip loss compared to non-treated meat. HPP
increased the lipid oxidation slightly and HPP treatment caused
lighter products. Tenderness was improved. Myofibrillar solubility
was decreased resulting in decreased functionality relying on
protein–protein bind in further processed pork products produced
with the HPP treated meat compared to the untreated.
50, 100, 150 and 200 MPa, for 5 min at 4 °C HPP treatment with 50 and 100 MPa increased the water holding (Chan et al., 2011)
capacity (WHC) close to the level of normal meat. Low pressure
levels of 50 and 100 MPa increased the total protein solubility of low
and normal pH meat and showed better gel forming ability.
600 MPa, for 2 min at 20 °C HPP treatment alone gave a b3.3 log reduction of L. monocytogenes in (Patterson, Mackle, & Linton, 2011)
cooked chicken. 2% Nalactate + HPP kept Listeria numbers below
50 CFU g− 1 throughout storage.

Processed meat
Cooked ham 400 MPa or 600 MPa, for 10 min at 22 °C HPP inhibit the major bacterial populations in vacuum –packed (Han et al., 2011)
cooked ham over a storage time of 90 days. Weissella viridescens and

283
(continued on next page)
 284
Table 2 (continued)
Product Processing conditions Main effects Reference

Leuconostoc mesenteroides survived HPP treatment and were re-

sponsible for the final spoilage.
Dry cured ham 600 MPa, for 5 min at 15 °C and addition of nisin Depending on the type of dry cured ham inactivation from 1.82 – 3.85 (Hereu, Bover-Cid, Garriga, & Aymerich,
log units for L. monocytogenes by HPP was achieved. L. monocytogenes 2011)
was more resistant to HPP treatment at low aW. Nisin enhanced the
high pressure inactivation.
Marinated beef, cooked ham, 600 MPa, for 6 min at 31 °C HPP treatment at 600 MPa effectively inactivated L. monocytogenes, (Jofré, Aymerich, Grèbol, & Garriga, 2009)
dry cured ham S. enteritica, S. aureus Y. entreocollitica and Debaryomyces hansenii.
During storage at 4 °C, most of the microorganisms maintained

B. Bajovic et al. / Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289

Genoa salami/and pig masseter
Cooked ham
Dry cured ham
Cooked ham
Fermented sausages (low-acid)
Pork Sausages with carrot fibre
483 and 600 MPa 0.5–5 min or 1–12 min, 4.4–35 °C
100–700 MPa, include processing time for 10 min at 5–40 °C, with and without
addition of caprylic acid and lactate–diacetate
600 MPa, for 6 min at 15 °C
400 MPa for 10 min at 17 °C, and in combination with alginate films containing
antimicrobials
400 MPa, 10 min, 17 °C
500 and 600 MPa, for 1 s, 3, 6 and 9 min
at 40, 50 and 60 °C
below the detection limit during the storage (4 °C, 120 days).
HPP inactivated T. spiralis larvae either at 483 or 600 MPa in infected (Porto-Fett et al., 2010)
pig masseter muscle. HPP was effective to control Listeria mono-
cytogenes, E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella ssp. in combination with
fermentation and drying in Genoa salami reaching a 5.0 log reduction
5 log reduction in MAP packed cooked ham could be achieved with (Vercammen et al., 2011)
≥600 MPa at ≥25 °C. HPP treatment delayed the microbial growth
to 59 days whereas in combination with antimicrobials it was
extended to a minimum of 84 days. HPP treatment had no or little
effect on color and sensorial evaluation but increased the drip loss
over storage. A negative influence from the antimicrobials on taste
was detected.
HPP at 600 MPa modified the color of dry cured ham increasing the (Clariana, Guerrero, Sárraga, Díaz, et al.,
L*-value. Sensory attributes resulting in an increase in hardness, 2011a)
chewiness, brightness, odor intensity and saltiness. Higher nitrite
content was found in pressurized ham during light storage indicating
a lower effect of the light as pro-oxidant during 50 days refrigerated
storage in HPP treated cured ham.
Use of HPP resulted in the reduction of 3,4 log units of L. (Marcos, Aymerich, Monfort, & Garriga,
monocytogenes. Combining antimicrobial films with HPP was 2008)
effective to achieve a shelf‐life of 60 days.
HPP treatment after fermentation and drying resulted in minor (Marcos, Aymerich, Dolors Guardia, &
changes in color for chorizo as assessed by a trained panel. No Garriga, 2007)
difference for lipid oxidation was found. Increased cohesiveness,
chewiness and springiness for HPP treated samples were observed.
Addition of carrot fiber improved the emulsion strength and firmness (Grossi, Søltoft-Jensen, Knudsen,
of HPP treated pork sausages. Increase in L* and decrease in a* were Christensen, & Orlien, 2011)
reported with increasing pressure level and temperature level.
 B. Bajovic et al. / Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289 285

Table 3
Reduction of microorganisms by HPP treatments in meat and meat products.

Microorganism Product Pressure Processing time Temperature Microbial reduction Reference

(MPa) (min) (°C) (log10)

Campylobacter jejuni Pork 300 10 25 6 (Shigehisa, Ohmori, Saito, Taji, & Hayashi, 1991)
Campylobacter jejuni Poultry 375 10 25 6 (Solomon & Hoover, 2004)
Escherichia coli O157:H7 Poultry 600 15 20 3 (Patterson, Quinn, Simpson, & Gilmour, 1995)
Staphylococcus aureus Poultry 600 15 20 3 (Patterson et al., 1995)
Listeria monocytogenes Poultry 375 15 20 2 (Patterson et al., 1995)
Listeria monocytogenes Poultry 500 1 40 3.8 (Chen, 2007)
Lactobacillus sakei Cooked ham 500 10 40 4 (Hugas et al., 2002)
Staphylococcus carnosus Cooked ham 500 10 40 1,29 (Hugas et al., 2002)
Pseudomonas flourescens Minced beef 200 20 20 5 (Carlez, Rosec, Richard, & Cheftel, 1993)
Yerisinia enterocolitica Pork 300 10 25 6 (Shigehisa et al., 1991)

hemoproteins can promote lipid oxidation. Several works have ob-
served that the addition of ethylendiamintetraacetic acid (EDTA),
which can chelate metal ions, correlated with a reduction of the lipid
oxidation in meat processed by HP, which indicates that transition
metal ion catalysis is the major cause underlying the increased lipid ox-
idation (Beltran et al., 2004; Cheah & Ledward, 1996, 1997; Ma et al.,
2007). However, iron release was not found after HP treatment of chick-
en breast (Orlien et al., 2000). In the same study, it was also concluded
that no increased catalytic activity of metmyoglobin on lipid oxidation
in a model system was observed, indicating that pressure-induced
changes in the metmyoglobin conformation that facilitates the access
to the catalytic heme group were not taking place. So far, the role of
iron in the induction of lipid oxidation of meats treated by HP is not
well-understood. Membrane disruption facilitates contact between
unsaturated lipids from the membrane and enzymes and heme and
non-heme iron or other metal cations likely contributing to catalyze
lipid oxidation. In a recent work, Bolumar, Skipsted, and Orlien (in
press) described the kinetics of the formation of radical species
under pressures in chicken breast. They found a threshold at
400 MPa for the formation of radicals and proposed a possible link
between the formation of radicals, an early event in lipid oxidation,
and the induction of lipid oxidation.
Nevertheless, the lipid oxidation can be controlled by using anti-
oxidants like rosemary extract (Beltran et al., 2004; Bragagnolo
et al., 2007; Mariutti, Orlien, Bragagnolo, & Skibsted, 2008), and/ or
metal chelators such as citrate or EDTA (Ikeuchi, 2011). Further possi-
bilities proposed to inhibit the lipid oxidation is to limit oxygen avail-
ability in the packaging, use of antioxidant active packaging (Bolumar,
Andersen, & Orlien, 2011) or use of different antioxidants derived
from natural by-products like tomato (Alves, Bragagnolo, da Silva,
Skibsted, & Orlien, 2011).
2.5. Effect of HPP on the texture of meat and meat products
and their combination (Sun & Holley, 2010). Meat tenderization by
HPP is likely caused by lysosome breakdown and subsequent proteolytic
activity release to the medium (Hugas, Garriga, & Monfort, 2002). Pre-
rigor treatment of fresh meat by HPP was shown to be very effective
to improve the tenderness of fresh meat. However, the application of
HPP at pre-rigor state would require the development of hot boning at
slaughterhouses (Rastogi et al., 2007).
Moreover the application of HPP can be used to improve the water
retention properties of raw material used for the production of meat
products and as a result to the development of products with reduced
salt content (Chan et al., 2011). In this sense, Sikes, Tobin, and Tume
(2009) made use of high pressure to reduce the cook loss and to
improve the texture of low-salt beef sausage batters.
Another example is the possibility of using HPP for the production of
liver sausage, a traditional German cooked spreadable sausage, which
requires two individual thermal treatments. Due to the high time and
temperature requirements valuable macro- and micronutrients are
lost (Heinz, Knoch, & Lickert, 2009). These twin thermal treatments
can be replaced by HPP at 600 MPa for 2–5 min at room temperature.
The first pressure treatment of raw material is designed to denature
myofibrillar proteins and to create the correct product characteristics
of consistency and texture, while the second pressure treatment is
carried out after the pressurized raw material is emulsified using raw
liver in the bowl chopper to increase the shelf-life and to ensure final
product characteristics. The comparison of the traditional process and
the novel process is shown in Fig. 1. Replacing the two thermal steps
results in a significantly smoother and homogenous product with an
increased liver-taste as well as significant improvements in time and
energy consumptions and nutritional value (Heinz et al., 2009). Other
meat products that can benefit for the application or similar HPP pro-
cess, with increased quality and improved energy efficiency, are cooked
cured products, such as pork loins or spreadable fermented sausages
(Lickert et al., 2010).

Pressure induces texture modifications by affecting the myofibrillar
protein structure and their gel forming properties. Muscle protein gela-
tion by combined use of high pressure and temperature was reviewed
by Colmenero (2002). The effect of high pressure on the texture of
meat and meat products was reviewed by Sun and Holley (2010).
The thermo-labile nature of muscle proteins and the previously de-
scribed effect of pressure on the gelation properties of meat and meat
proteins will permit the development of novel meat based products
rooted in an improved structure. Economic benefits in terms of time
and energy savings are associated to the use of HPP as a processing
step for the meat industry.
In fresh meat, the application of low pressure levels can be used to
improve the functional and rheological properties of turkey meat with
low pH or PSE meat (Chan, Omana, & Betti, 2011). In general, low pres-
sures (b200 MPa) can tenderize pre-rigor meat, whereas tenderization
post-rigor with HPP can only be achieved by higher temperatures (Sun
& Holley, 2010). The influence of HPP on the meat tenderness is
depending on the rigor stage, pressure and temperature level applied,
3. Hydrodynamic pressure (HDP) or shockwaves
Another way of applying pressure to meat is the use of hydrodynamic
pressure or shockwave. This technology has emerged in the recent years
as a suitable alternative for consistent quality and tenderness of meat
where the problem cannot be addressed commercially and practically
by the existing technologies.
Godfrey (1970) was the first who patented the use of underwater
explosions, called hydrodynamic pressure processing (HDP), for the
application of meat tenderization. Then, Long (1993, 1994) modified
the technology which is called Hydrodyne process. In contrast to high
pressure processing (HPP), HDP involves the instantaneous develop-
ment of shockwaves up to 1 GPa pressure in fraction of milliseconds.
3.1. Effect on HDP on meat and meat tissue
The mechanisms of tenderization of meat by HDP are related to
dissipation of energy and mechanical stress at the boundary areas of
286 B. Bajovic et al. / Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289

a) Traditional Processing b) High Pressure Proccesing

Belly, fatty tissue, heads and lean
Pickling meat of pork for 24h at 5 °C – 7 °C
Grind
Belly, fatty tissue, heads
and lean meat of pork for
24h at 5 °C – 7 °C
Cook Cured pork meat, cooked to 72 °C Pickling

600 MPa, 3 min. at

Grind Cooked raw material 1st HPP ambient temperature
Raw liver is pre-chopped with part of
the curing salt, emulsifiction of the Pre-chopping the raw liver,
Chop ground meat, addition of liver and Chop afterwards emulsification of ground
broth. meat and pre-chopped liver.

Filling in artifical impermeable

Stuff Filling in natural or artifical casings Stuff casings

at 75 – 80 °C, to core temperature of 600 MPa, 3 – 5 min. at

Cook 72 °C 2nd HPP ambient temperature

Cool

Store Cold storage 7°C Store

Fig. 1. Comparison of the traditional process (a) and the novel high pressure processing (b) for the production of German liver sausages.

materials with different sound velocity and acoustic impedance. HDP processing showed 2 log reduction for L. monocytogenes in frank-
Zuckerman and Solomon (1998) studied the effect of shockwaves furters compared to control samples (Patel, Sanglay, & Solomon, 2009).
on the ultra-structural alterations of beef and found, by using trans-
mission electron microscopy, that in the region of the Z-lines and A-
band/I-band juncture myofibrillar fragmentations were taking place. 3.2. Development of shock waves by underwater discharges of electric
They were resulting in the disruption of the myofibrillar structure. energy
Thereby the structural integrity of the muscle and connective
tissue complex which resulted in improved tenderization has been Shockwaves can be generated using explosives detonating under
affected. water, but also by underwater discharge of electrical energy. It is
Beside the tenderization by physical disruption of the sarcomere and obvious that the generation of shockwaves by explosives carry some
the breaking of the myofibrils, HDP seems to have an additional indirect important disadvantages and technical challenges (Solomon et al.,
tenderizing effect on meat (Solomon, Liu, Patel, Bowker, & Sharma, 2006). Within a research project, a pilot plant for the generation of
2006). Bowker, Fahrenholz, Paroczay, Eastridge, and Solomon (2008) electro-hydraulic underwater shockwaves intended to tenderize meat
showed that HDP in combination with aging decreased the intensity has been designed and realized (Heinz et al., 2011). The operational
of the troponin T (TnT) band and enhanced the accumulation of the principle is shown in Fig. 2. Making use of underwater discharges of
30 kD TnT degradation product suggesting that HDP tenderization is electric energy between two electrodes or via an aluminum wire, an
caused by both protein degradation and physical disruption of the myo- energy conversion from electrical to mechanical energy can be achieved.
fibril apparatus. A prototype with an average power of 2 kW and a peak power of 40 kW
Callahan et al. (2002) showed that HDP improved the pork quality, with a vessel volume of 50 l was developed. The unit consists of a high
not instantaneously, but by shortening the time required to produce voltage power supply, a capacitor bank as well as a high voltage/current
tender meat. The necessity of a pre- or post-treatment was also shown switch to discharge the stored electric energy across the electrodes
by Heinz, Töpfl, Schwägele, and Münch (2011), as well as the direct
mechanical effect, biological effects and secondary reactions such as
protein hydrolysis are of high importance for meat tenderness.
Although white meats do not often show tenderness problems, HDP
has also been applied in the past. Turkey breasts treated by hydrodynam-
ic pressure showed enhanced brine absorption, improved processing
yields and textural characteristics with no influence on the color com-
pared to the control (Bowker, Callahan, & Solomon, 2010).
The use of HDP for inactivation of microorganisms remains unclear,
as there are conflicting reports on the inactivation of microorganisms
(Solomon et al., 2006). Williams-Campbell and Solomon (2002)
showed that HDP showed a 1.5–2 log reduction in ground beef and
that after 14 days of storage the HDP treated beef hat 4.5 log lower
total plate count. On the other hand, for pork loins no differences were
found in coliform bacteria counts and aerobic plate counts (Moeller et
al., 1999). Sharma et al. (2008) compared the inactivation of foodborne
viruses by HDP or HPP and found that both technologies significantly Fig. 2. Electrohydraulic shockwave equipment for meat tenderization, operation
reduced foodborne viruses on sausages. The combination of nisin and principle.
 B. Bajovic et al. / Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289
through an aluminium wire. By variations of charging voltage and
capacity, the energy per pulse can be varied from 1 to 20 kJ per pulse
and by variation of electric energy and wire geometry (wire length and
diameter) peak shock intensities up to 600 MPa were achievable (Heinz
et al., 2011; Töpfl & Heinz, 2009). The developed equipment was success-
fully used to decrease the maturation time for beef cuts from 14 days to
7 days (Töpfl & Heinz, 2011). The development of an industrial prototype
for continuous shockwave treatment of meat is now in progress. The con-
struction and testing of the shockwave equipment can represent an effi-
cient alternative to tenderize meat, especially for beef meat where
tenderness is an important factor for consumer acceptability.
4. Conclusion
Two major concerns regarding meat quality, safety and tenderness,
can be addressed by applying pressure either in a hydrostatic or a hy-
drodynamic form. We conclude this review by summarizing important
opportunities of the application of pressure to meat and meat products:
1.) HPP is a well-known method to enable the control of pathogenic
and spoilage microorganisms in meat products. Commercially
applied pressure levels range in an area of 400–600 MPa with
short processing times of 3–7 min at ambient temperatures which
in most cases lead to an inactivation of four log units for the major-
ity of vegetative pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms resulting
in an increased shelf-life and improved safety.
2.) HPP induced changes to the color quality depending on the content
of myoglobin and those are more significant for fresh red meat than
for white meat and cured meat products. Undesired changes can be
limited by changing the process parameters such as pressure, time
and temperature as well as by curing, oxygen removal and the
increase of product pH by ingredients.
3.) The thermo-labile nature of protein meat systems and the described
effects of pressure on meat and meat proteins allow the develop-
ment of novel meat based products and the usage of HPP as a time
and energy saving processing step for the meat industry. Functional
and rheological properties of meat can be improved and novel meat
based products with decreased salt content or higher nutritional
level can be developed.
4.) The involvement of hydrodynamic pressure can be used to control
and improve the tenderness of meat. Due to the continuing design
and building of new process equipment for the generation of
shockwaves, it is expected that the use of HDP will become an
industrial reality in the near future.
References
Alves, A. B., Bragagnolo, N., da Silva, M. G., Skibsted, L. H., & Orlien, V. (2011). Antioxi-
dant protection of high-pressure processed minced chicken meat by industrial to-
mato products. Food and Bioproducts Processing doi:10.1016/j.fbp.2011.10.004
Atsushi, S., Ken, K., Hiroyuki, T., Tadayuki, N., & Yoshihide, I. (2006). Application of high
hydrostatic pressure to meat and meat processing. In Leo M. L. Nollet, & F. Toldra
(Eds.), Advanced technologies for meat processing. Boca Roton: CRC Press.
Bak, K. H., Lindahl, G., Karlsson, A. H., Lloret, E., Ferrini, G., Arnau, J., & Orlien, V. (2012).
High pressure effect on the color of minced cured restructured ham at different
levels of drying, pH, and NaCl. Meat Science, 90(3), 690–696.
Bak, K. H., Lindahl, G., Karlsson, A. H., & Orlien, V. (2012). Effect of high pressure, temper-
ature, and storage on the color of porcine longissimus dorsi. Meat Science doi:10.1016/
j.meatsci.2012.02.002
Barbosa-Canovas, G. V., Pothakamury, U. R., & Swanson, B. G. (1995). State of the art
technologies of sterilization of food by nonthermal processes: Physical methods.
In G. V. Barbosa-Canovas, & J. Welti-Chanes (Eds.), Food preservation by moisture
control: Fundamentals and applications. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Technomic.
Beilken, S. L., Macfarlane, J. J., & Jones, P. N. (1990). Effect of high pressure during heat
treatment on the Wamer–Bratzler shear force values of selected beef muscles.
Journal of Food Science, 55(1), 15–18.
Beltran, E., Pla, R., Yuste, J., & Mor-Mur, M. (2004). Use of antioxidants to minimize ran-
cidity in pressurized and cooked chicken slurries. Meat Science, 66(3), 719–725.
Benito, A., Ventoura, G., Casadei, M., Robinson, T., & Mackey, B. (1999). Variation in resis-
tance of natural isolates of Escherichia coli O157 to high hydrostatic pressure, mild
heat, and other stresses. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 65(4), 1564–1569.
287
Bermúdez-Aguirre, D., & Barbosa-Cánovas, G. (2011). An update on high hydrostatic
pressure, from the laboratory to industrial applications. Food Engineering Reviews,
3(1), 44–61.
Bolumar, T., Andersen, M. L., & Orlien, V. (2011). Antioxidant active packaging for chicken
meat processed by high pressure treatment. Food Chemistry, 129(4), 1406–1412.
Bolumar, T., Skipsted, L. H., & Orlien, V. (in press). Kinetics of the formation of radicals
in chicken breast during high pressure processing. Food Chemistry.
Bowker, B. C., Callahan, J. A., & Solomon, M. B. (2010). Effects of hydrodynamic pressure
processing on the marination and meat quality of turkey breasts. Poultry Science,
89(8), 1744–1749.
Bowker, B. C., Fahrenholz, T. M., Paroczay, E. W., Eastridge, J. S., & Solomon, M. B.
(2008). Effect of hydrodynamic pressure processing and aging on the tenderness
and myofibrillar proteins of beef strip loins. Journal of Muscle Foods, 19(1),
74–97.
Bragagnolo, N., Danielsen, B., & Skibsted, L. H. (2007). Rosemary as antioxidant in pres-
sure processed chicken during subsequent cooking as evaluated by electron spin
resonance spectroscopy. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 8(1),
24–29.
Buckow, R., & Heinz, V. (2008). High pressure processing — A database of kinetic infor-
mation. Chemie Ingenieur Technik, 80(8), 1081–1095.
Callahan, J. A., Solomon, M. B., Paroczay, E. W., Eastridge, J. S., Pursel, V. G., & Mitchell, V.
G. (2002). Enhancement of pork quality using the hydrodynamic pressure process.
In Institute of Food Technologists (Ed.), IFT Annual Meeting Book of Abstracts
(pp. 111). Anaheim, CA.
Campus, M. (2010). High pressure processing of meat, meat products and seafood. Food
Engineering Reviews, 2(4), 256–273.
Cargill (2011). Fressure™ ground beef patties: Freshness without compromise™.
Available at: http://www.cargill.com/wcm/groups/internal/@ccom/documents/
document/na3040085.pdf, Accessed: 17th January 2012.
Carlez, A., Rosec, J. -P., Richard, N., & Cheftel, J. -C. (1993). High pressure inactivation of
Citrobacter freundii, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Listeria innocua in inoculated
minced beef muscle. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und Technologie, 26(4), 357–363.
Carlez, A., Veciana-Nogues, T., & Cheftel, J. -C. (1995). Changes in colour and myoglobin
of minced beef meat due to high pressure processing. LWT-Food Science and
Technology, 28(5), 528–538.
Chan, J. T. Y., Omana, D. A., & Betti, M. (2011). Application of high pressure processing
to improve the functional properties of pale, soft, and exudative (PSE)-like turkey
meat. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 12(3), 216–225.
Cheah, P. B., & Ledward, D. A. (1995). High-pressure effects on lipid oxidation. Journal of
the American Oil Chemists' Society, 72(9), 1059–1063.
Cheah, P. B., & Ledward, D. A. (1996). High pressure effects on lipid oxidation in minced
pork. Meat Science, 43(2), 123–134.
Cheah, P. B., & Ledward, D. A. (1997). Inhibition of metmyoglobin formation in fresh
beef by pressure treatment. Meat Science, 45(3), 411–418.
Cheftel, J. C., & Culioli, J. (1997). Effects of high pressure on meat: A review. Meat
Science, 46(3), 211–236.
Chen, H. (2007). Temperature-assisted pressure inactivation of Listeria mono-
cytogenes in Turkey breast meat. International Journal of Food Microbiology,
117, 55–60.
Clariana, M., Guerrero, L., Sárraga, C., Díaz, I., Valero, Á., & García-Regueiro, J. A. (2011). In-
fluence of high pressure application on the nutritional, sensory and microbiological
characteristics of sliced skin vacuum packed dry-cured ham. Effects along the storage
period. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 12(4), 456–465.
Clariana, M., Guerrero, L., Sárraga, C., & Garcia-Regueiro, J. A. (2011). Effects of high
pressure application (400 and 900 MPa) and refrigerated storage time on the
oxidative stability of sliced skin vacuum packed dry-cured ham. Meat Science,
90(2), 323–329.
Colmenero, F. J. (2002). Muscle protein gelation by combined use of high pressure/
temperature. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 13(1), 22–30.
Cris-Tim (2012). Tehnolologiei de Protectie prin Inhalta Presiune. Available at: http://
www.cris-tim.ro/en, (Accessed: 17th January 2012).
Dissing, J., Bruun-Jensen, L., & Skibsted, L. H. (1997). Effect of high-pressure treatment
on lipid oxidation in turkey thigh muscle during chill storage. Zeitschrift für
Lebensmitteluntersuchung und -Forschung, 205(1), 11–13.
Farr, D. (1990). High pressure technology in the food industry. Trends in Food Science
and Technology, 1, 14–16.
Ferrini, G., Comaposada, J., Arnau, J., & Gou, P. (2012). Colour modification in a cured
meat model dried by Quick-Dry-Slice process® and high pressure processed as a
function of NaCl, KCl, K-lactate and water contents. Innovative Food Science &
Emerging Technologies, 13, 69–74.
Foodprocessing-Technology (2011). Columbus foods slicing and packaging facility,
United States of America. Available at: http://www.foodprocessing-technology.
com/projects/columbus-foods/ (Accessed: 12th March 2012).
Fuentes, V., Ventanas, J., Morcuende, D., Estévez, M., & Ventanas, S. (2010). Lipid and
protein oxidation and sensory properties of vacuum-packaged dry-cured ham
subjected to high hydrostatic pressure. Meat Science, 85(3), 506–514.
Garriga, M., & Aymerich, T. (2009). Advanced decontamination technologies: High hy-
drostatic pressure on meat products. In F. Toldrá (Ed.), Safety of meat and processed
meat (pp. 183–208). New York: Springer.
Godfrey, C. S. (1970). Apparatus for tenderizing food. Patent No. US 1970–3492688.
Grossi, A., Søltoft-Jensen, J., Knudsen, J. C., Christensen, M., & Orlien, V. (2011). Syner-
gistic cooperation of high pressure and carrot dietary fibre on texture and colour
of pork sausages. Meat Science, 89(2), 195–201.
Han, Y., Jiang, Y., Xu, X., Sun, X., Xu, B., & Zhou, G. (2011). Effect of high pressure treatment
on microbial populations of sliced vacuum-packed cooked ham. Meat Science, 88(4),
682–688.
288 B. Bajovic et al. / Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289
Hazel, J. R., & Williams, E. E. (1990). The role of alterations in membrane lipid composition
in enabling physiological adaptation of organisms to their physical environment.
Progress in Lipid Research, 29(3), 167–227.
Heinz, V., & Buckow, R. (2010). Food preservation by high pressure. Journal für
Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 5(1), 73–81.
Heinz, V., Knoch, A., & Lickert, T. (2009). Product innovation by high pressure processing.
New Food(2), 43–47.
Heinz, V., Töpfl, S., Schwägele, F., & Münch, S. (2011). Anwendung elektrohydraulischer
Stoßwellen zur Desintegration biologischer Gewebe am Beispiel der Zartmachung
von Rindfleisch. Forschungskreis der Ernährungsindustrie e. V. (FEI), Bonn.
Hendrickx, M. E. G., & Knorr, D. W. (2002). Ultra high pressure treatments of foods:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Hereu, A., Bover-Cid, S., Garriga, M., & Aymerich, T. (2011). High hydrostatic pressure and
biopreservation of dry-cured ham to meet the food safety objectives for Listeria
monocytogenes. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 154(3), 107–112.
Hiperbaric (2012). Our customers: Who they are. Availalbe at:. http://www.hiperbaric.
com/Pressure-Assisted-Thermal-Sterilization/ (Accessed: 25th March 2012).
Hoover, D. G., Metrick, C., Papineau, A. M., Farkas, D. F., & Knorr, D. (1989). Biological
effects of high hydrostatic pressure on food microorganisms. Food Technology,
43(3), 99–107.
Hormel (2012). About high pressure processing. Available at: http://www.hormelnatural.
com/ASSETS/E89897EB5D8D4AEBBC29E9D32C2A3ECA/High_Pressure_Processing_
Fact_Sheet.pdf, Accessed: 24th March 2012.
Hugas, M., Garriga, M., & Monfort, J. M. (2002). New mild technologies in meat processing:
High pressure as a model technology. Meat Science, 62(3), 359–371.
Ifantis (2009). Technology freshpress — Ultimate food protection. Available at: http://
www.freshpress.gr/index.cfm?action=home&lang=EN, Accessed: 20th March 2012.
Ikeuchi, Y. (2011). Recent advances in the application of high pressure technology to
processed meat products. In J. P. Kerry, & K.J.F. (Eds.), Processed meats — Improving safety,
nutrition and quality (pp. 590–609). Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.
Jofré, A., Aymerich, T., Bover-Cid, S., & Garriga, M. (2010). Inactivation and recovery of
Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica and Staphylococcus aureus after high
hydrostatic pressure treatments up to 900 MPa. International Microbiology, 13(4),
497–503.
Jofré, A., Aymerich, T., Grèbol, N., & Garriga, M. (2009). Efficiency of high hydrostatic
pressure at 600 MPa against food-borne microorganisms by challenge tests on
convenience meat products. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 42(5), 924–928.
Jung, S., Ghoul, M., & de Lamballerie-Anton, M. (2003). Influence of high pressure on
the color and microbial quality of beef meat. LWT- Food Science and Technology,
36(6), 625–631.
Knorr, D. (2007). Effizienz Analyse von Prozess-und Anlagekonzepten zur schonenden
Haltbarmachung von Lebensmittel mittels neuartiger Hochdruckverfahren, BMBF
Forschungsvorhaben 0330089A. Berlin: Technische Universität Berlin.
Knorr, D., & Heinz, V. (2001). Development of nonthermal methods for microbial control. In
S. Block (Ed.), Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation (pp. 853–877). Philadelphia:
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.
Kruk, Z. A., Yun, H., Rutley, D. L., Lee, E. J., Kim, Y. J., & Jo, C. (2011). The effect of high pres-
sure on microbial population, meat quality and sensory characteristics of chicken
breast fillet. Food Control, 22(1), 6–12.
Lickert, T., Badewien, M., Vorwold, G., Töpfl, S., Knoch, A., & Heinz, V. (2010).
Herstellung neuartig innovativer Fleisch- und Wurstprodukte mittels hoher
hydrostatischer Drücke — The production of novel innovative meat products by
high hydrostatic pressure. Fleischwirtschaft, 56–59(6).
Liu, Y., Betti, M., & Gänzle, M. G. (2012). High pressure inactivation of Escherichia coli,
Campylobacter jejuni, and spoilage microbiota on poultry meat. Journal of Food
Protection, 75(3), 497–503.
Long, J. B. (1993). Tenderizing meat. U.S Patent 5273766.
Long, J. B. (1994). Apparatus for tenderizing meat. U.S Patent 5328403.
Ma, H. J., Ledward, D. A., Zamri, A. I., Frazier, R. A., & Zhou, G. H. (2007). Effects of high
pressure/thermal treatment on lipid oxidation in beef and chicken muscle. Food
Chemistry, 104(4), 1575–1579.
Marcos, B., Aymerich, T., Dolors Guardia, M., & Garriga, M. (2007). Assessment of high
hydrostatic pressure and starter culture on the quality properties of low-acid
fermented sausages. Meat Science, 76(1), 46–53.
Marcos, B., Aymerich, T., Monfort, J. M., & Garriga, M. (2008). High-pressure processing
and antimicrobial biodegradable packaging to control Listeria monocytogenes during
storage of cooked ham. Food Microbiology, 25(1), 177–182.
Mariutti, L. R., Orlien, V., Bragagnolo, N., & Skibsted, L. H. (2008). Effect of sage and garlic on
lipid oxidation in high pressure processed chicken meat. European Food Research and
Technology, 227, 334–337.
McArdle, R., Marcos, B., Kerry, J. P., & Mullen, A. (2010). Monitoring the effects of high
pressure processing and temperature on selected beef quality attributes. Meat
Science, 86(3), 629–634.
Moeller, S., Wulf, D., Meeker, D., Ndife, M., Sundararajan, N., & Solomon, M. B. (1999).
Impact of the hydrodyne process on tenderness, microbial load, and sensory
characteristics of pork longissimus muscle. Journal of Animal Science, 77(8),
2119–2123.
Molina-Höppner, A., Doster, W., Vogel, R. F., & Gänzle, M. G. (2004). Protective effect
of sucrose and sodium chloride for lactococcus lactis during sublethal and lethal
high-pressure treatments. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70(4),
2013–2020.
Nishiwaki, T., Ikeuchi, Y., & Suzuki, A. (1996). Effects of high pressure treatment on Mg-
enhanced ATPase activity of rabbit myofibrils. Meat Science, 43(2), 145–155.
Orlien, V., Hansen, E., & Skibsted, L. H. (2000). Lipid oxidation in high-pressure processed
chicken breast muscle during chill storage: Critical working pressure in relation to
oxidation mechanism. European Food Research and Technology, 211(2), 99–104.
Patel, J. R., Sanglay, G. C., & Solomon, M. B. (2009). Control of Listeria monocytogenes on
frankfurters with antimicrobials and hydrodynamic pressure processing. Journal of
Muscle Foods, 20(2), 227–241.
Patterson, M. F. (2005). Microbiology of pressure-treated foods. Journal of Applied
Microbiology, 98(6), 1400–1409.
Patterson, M. F., Mackle, A., & Linton, M. (2011). Effect of high pressure, in combination
with antilisterial agents, on the growth of Listeria monocytogenes during extended
storage of cooked chicken. Food Microbiology, 28(8), 1505–1508.
Patterson, M. F., Quinn, M., Simpson, R., & Gilmour, A. (1995). Sensitivity of vegetative
pathogens to high hydrostatic pressure treatment in phosphate-puffered saline
and foods. Journal of Food Protection, 58, 524–529.
Porto-Fett, A. C. S., Call, J. E., Shoyer, B. E., Hill, D. E., Pshebniski, C., Cocoma, G. J., &
Luchansky, J. B. (2010). Evaluation of fermentation, drying, and/or high pressure
processing on viability of Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7,
Salmonella spp., and Trichinella spiralis in raw pork and Genoa salami. International
Journal of Food Microbiology, 140(1), 61–75.
Rademacher, B. (2006). Ultrahochdruckverfahren zur Keiminaktivierung. Chemie
Ingenieur Technik, 78(11), 1674–1681.
Rastogi, N. K., Raghavarao, K. S. M. S., Balasubramanaiam, V. M., Niranjan, K., & Knorr, D.
(2007). Opportunities and challenges in high pressure processing of foods. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 47, 69–112.
Rendueles, E., Omer, M. K., Alvseike, O., Alonso-Calleja, C., Capita, R., & Prieto, M.
(2011). Microbiological food safety assessment of high hydrostatic pressure pro-
cessing: A review. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 44(5), 1251–1260.
Rodríguez-Calleja, J. M., Cruz-Romero, M. C., O'Sullivan, M. G., García-López, M. L., &
Kerry, J. P. (2012). High-pressure-based hurdle strategy to extend the shelf-life
of fresh chicken breast fillets. Food Control, 25(2), 516–524.
Schmidgall, V. J., Töpfl, S., Hertel, C., Bindrich, U., & Heinz, V. (2011). High hydrostatic pres-
sure treatment of marinated turkey Part 2: Improvement of product safety and pro-
duction planning — Hochdruckbehandlung marinierter Geflügelfleischprodukte Teil
2: Sensorische und Rheologische Veränderungen-Verbesserung der Produktsicherheit
und Produktionsplanung. Fleischwirtschaft, 91(6), 85–91.
Sharma, M., Shearer, A. E. H., Hoover, D. G., Liu, M. N., Solomon, M. B., & Kniel, K. E.
(2008). Comparison of hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressure to inactivate
foodborne viruses. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 9(4), 418–422.
Shigehisa, T., Ohmori, T., Saito, A., Taji, S., & Hayashi, R. (1991). Effects of high hydrostatic
pressure on characteristics of pork slurries and inactivation of microorganisms associ-
ated with meat and meat products. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 12(2–3),
207–215.
Shimada, S., Andou, M., Naito, N., Yamada, N., Osumi, M., & Hayashi, R. (1993). Effects of
hydrostatic pressure on the ultrastructure and leakage of internal substances in the
yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 40(1),
123–131.
Sikes, A. L., Tobin, A. B., & Tume, R. K. (2009). Use of high pressure to reduce cook loss
and improve texture of low-salt beef sausage batters. Innovative Food Science &
Emerging Technologies, 10(4), 405–412.
Smelt, J. P. P. M. (1998). Recent advances in the microbiology of high pressure processing.
Trends in Food Science and Technology, 9(4), 152–158.
Solomon, E. B., & Hoover, D. G. (2004). Inactivation of Campylobacter jejuni by high
hydrostatic pressure. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 38, 505–509.
Solomon, M. B., Liu, M. N., Patel, J. R., Bowker, B. C., & Sharma, M. (2006). Hydrodynamic
pressure processing to improve meat quality and safety. In L. M. L. Nollet, & F.
Toldrá (Eds.), Advanced technologies for meat processing (pp. 219–244). CRC/Taylor
& Francis.
Souza, C. M., Boler, D. D., Clark, D. L., Kutzler, L. W., Holmer, S. F., Summerfield, J. W.,
Cannon, J. E., Smit, N. R., McKeith, F. K., & Killefer, J. (2011). The effects of high pres-
sure processing on pork quality, palatability, and further processed products. Meat
Science, 87(4), 419–427.
Sun, X. D., & Holley, R. A. (2010). High hydrostatic pressure effects on the texture of
meat and meat products. Journal of Food Science, 75(1), R17–R23.
Suzuki, A., Watanabe, M., Iwamura, K., Ikeuchi, Y., & Saito, M. (1990). Effect of high pres-
sure treatment on the ultrastructure and myofibrillar protein of beef skeletal muscle
(food & nutrition). Agricultural and Biological Chemistry, 54(12), 3085–3091.
Szerman, N., Barrio, Y., Schroeder, B., Martinez, P., Sancho, A. M., Sanow, C., & Vaudagna,
S. R. (2011). Effect of high hydrostatic pressure treatments on physicochemical
properties, microbial quality and sensory attributes of beef carpaccio. Procedia
Food Science, 1, 854–861.
The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union. (2004). Regulation
(EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April
2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Official
Journal of the European Union, 139(55), 1–155.
Töpfl, S., & Heinz, V. (2009). New options for targeted product modification.
Fleischwirtschaft International(3), 11–13.
Töpfl, S., & Heinz, V. (2011). Reduktion der Reifungszeit erreicht Zartmachung von
Rindfleisch mittels elektrohydraulischer Stoßwellen. Fleischwirtschaft, 91(2),
46–48.
Tuboly, E., Lebovics, V. K., Gaál, Ö., Mészáros, L., & Farkas, J. (2003). Microbiological and
lipid oxidation studies on mechanically deboned turkey meat treated by high hy-
drostatic pressure. Journal of Food Engineering, 56(2–3), 241–244.
Vercammen, A., Vanoirbeek, K. G. A., Lurquin, I., Steen, L., Goemaere, O., Szczepaniak, S.,
Paelinck, H., Hendrickx, M. E. G., & Michiels, C. W. (2011). Shelf-life extension of
cooked ham model product by high hydrostatic pressure and natural preserva-
tives. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 12(4), 407–415.
Villacís, M. F., Rastogi, N. K., & Balasubramaniam, V. M. (2008). Effect of high pressure
on moisture and NaCl diffusion into turkey breast. LWT-Food Science and Technolo-
gy, 41(5), 836–844.
 B. Bajovic et al. / Meat Science 92 (2012) 280–289
Wackerbarth, H., Kuhlmann, U., Tintchev, F., Heinz, V., & Hildebrandt, P. (2009). Struc-
tural changes of myoglobin in pressure-treated pork meat probed by resonance
Raman spectroscopy. Food Chemistry, 115(4), 1194–1198.
Watson, E. (2011). Deli 24 gains radical shelf-life boost with novel process technology.
Available at: http://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Manufacturing/Deli-24-gains-
radical-shelf-life-boost-with-novel-processing-technology Accessed: 25th March
2012.
Williams-Campbell, A. M., & Solomon, M. B. (2002). Reduction of spoilage microorganisms
in fresh beef using hydrodynamic pressure processing. Journal of Food Protection,
65(3), 571–574.
289
Zuckerman, H., & Solomon, M. B. (1998). Ultrastrucrural changes in bovine longissimus
muscle caused by Hydrodyne process. Journal of Muscle Foods, 9(4), 419–426.
Zwaneberg (2010). Steak tartare improved thanks to unique high pressure technology.
Available at: http://www.zwanenberg.nl/en/334/steak-tartare-improved-thanks-
to-unique-high-pressure-technology/, (Accessed at: 24 March 2012).
Zwaneberg (2012). Carpaccio tastier and ‘silky smooth’ thanks to HPP technology. Available
at: http://www.zwanenberg.nl/en/343/carpaccio-tastier-and-silky-smooth-thanks-
to-hpp-technology/, (Accessed: 24th March 2012).