Meat Science 147 (2019) 162–165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A comparison of the Nix Colour Sensor Pro™ and HunterLab MiniScan™

colorimetric instruments when assessing aged beef colour stability over 72 h
display
⁎
Benjamin W.B. Holman, David L. Hopkins
Centre for Red Meat and Sheep Development, NSW Department of Primary Industries, Cowra, NSW 2794, Australia

A RT I CLE INFO AB S T RA CT

Keywords: We compared the capacity for the Nix Colour Sensor Pro™ (NIX) and HunterLab MiniScan™ (HUNTER) to detect
Colour colour variation using aged (0, 3 and 5 weeks) and then displayed (0, 1, 2 and 3 d) beef M. longissimus lumborum
Instrument comparison samples (n = 8). NIX L* and hue values were found to be respectively higher and lower than for the HUNTER.
Hunter Lab No significant interactions between instrument and display or ageing periods were identified for a* – unlike for
Nix Colour Sensor b* and chroma where NIX measures were observed to be lower than those from the HUNTER. Both
Beef instruments identified ageing and display period effects on colorimetric traits. Based on these results, the
NIX cannot be considered comparable to the HUNTER when measuring beef colour – albeit captured similar
colorimetric trends over display and ageing periods which suggest its independent usefulness to beef colour
assessment.

1. Introduction Furthermore, Stevenson, Weatherall, Littlejohn, and Seman (1991)

Consumers will often base their perception of beef freshness on its
colour and doing so, preferentially purchase beef that presents a bright
red appearance. Meat scientists and industry are aware of this beha-
viour and have focused much effort on optimising beef colour appeal
and endurance (stability) throughout retail display (Suman, Hunt, Nair,
& Rentfrow, 2014). Colorimetric instruments have been applied to
objectively measure meat colour and can provide this information as
CIE colour coordinates (L*, a*, b*) (CIE, 1978). The HunterLab Min-
iScan™ (HUNTER) is a common colorimetric instrument with a history
of use to quantify beef colour (Tapp, Yancey, & Apple, 2011). The Nix
Colour Sensor Pro™ (NIX) has, at present, less of a background in meat
colour measurement, but has garnered interest because of its relative
cheapness, connectivity and user-friendly interface (Hodgen, 2016;
Stiglitz, Mikhailova, Post, Schlautman, & Sharp, 2016).
Previous research has compared colorimeters and spectro-
photometers in terms of their abilities to quantify meat colour. For
example, the Brewer, Zhu, Bidner, Meisinger, and McKeith (2001) and
Brewer, Novakofski, and Freise (2006) studies both found significant
differences between pork colorimetrics measured using the HUNTER
and Minolta CR300 instruments, even when the same Illuminant and
standard observer settings were used. Holman, Ponnampalam, van de
Ven, Kerr, and Hopkins (2015) identified variance between HUNTER
models (45/0-L and 45/0-S) when measuring lamb colour.
found venison colour values varied between HUNTER 6000 and Min-
olta CR200b instruments. A basis for these variations and incon-
sistencies between instruments could stem from the availability of
guidelines that prescribe an optimised method. HUNTER, together with
more general protocols, have instructions available that outline their
use in meat evaluation (AMSA, 2012; Honikel, 1998; HunterLab, 2012).
Recently, NIX measurement recommendations have been outlined –
namely, the necessity for seven technical replicate readings to minimise
variance (Holman, Collins, Kilgannon, & Hopkins, 2018). Consequently,
the capacity for the NIX and HUNTER instruments to detect colour
variation can and must be compared so as to avoid misinterpretation
when assessing their colorimetric measurements. In this study, we
aimed to address this paucity; using aged beef and measuring colour
stability over 3 d of retail display.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Experimental design
A total of eight M. longissimus lumborum (LL) from grass-fed steer
carcasses were randomly selected from the boning room of a colla-
borating Australian abattoir at 24 h post-mortem. These eight LL were
each divided into six equal portions that were assigned to one of three
ageing period (0, 3 and 5 weeks) in duplicate, so that two portions from

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: david.hopkins@dpi.nsw.gov.au (D.L. Hopkins).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.09.009
Received 17 May 2018; Received in revised form 12 September 2018; Accepted 12 September 2018
Available online 14 September 2018
0309-1740/ Crown Copyright © 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.W.B. Holman, D.L. Meat Science 147 (2019) 162–
Hopkins 165

each LL were represented within each ageing period. Ageing was ap- Table 1
plied at the Centre for Red Meat and Sheep Development (Cowra, New Predicted means ( ± standard error; s.e.) for L* and hue according to instru-
South Wales, AUS) with samples held at 2.0 ± 0.7 °C (mean ± ment, ageing and display periods. 1
standard deviation). From each sample, a slice (thickness: 3.0–4.0 cm)
Instrument
was then removed and placed on individual black Styrofoam trays
(dimensions: 13.5 cm × 13.5 cm) so that the muscle fibres on its ex- Trait HUNTER NIX
s.e.
posure surface had a perpendicular orientation. These were over- L* 39.6a 40.4b 0.45
a
wrapped with PVC food film (thickness: 15.0 μm) and allowed to bloom Hue 0.66 0.60b 0.005
Ageing period (weeks)
for 30–40 min and at 2–3 °C before being measured (0 d) in situ and
0 3 5 s.e.
using each of the two different instrument types. Repeat measures were L* 36.0
a b b
42.5 41.5 0.53
taken at daily display intervals (total: 4, 0–3 days) between which Hue 0.61
a
0.62
b
0.66
c
0.008
samples were held under continuous fluorescent lighting (NEC Tubes Display period (d)
58 W delivering approximately 1000 lx to the sample surface, verified 0 1 2 3 s.e.
using a handheld lux meter) and at 3–4 °C. L* 39.1
a
40.4
b
40.2
b
40.3
b
0.47
a b b b
Hue 0.61 0.62 0.65 0.65 0.005
2.2. Colorimetric assessment 1
Means within rows with differing superscripts are significantly (P < 0.05)
different.
The NIX (aperture: 15 mm; Pro Colour Sensor™, Nix Sensor Ltd.,
Ontario, CAN) and HUNTERLAB (aperture: 25 mm; Model 45/0,
measures (Table 2). Again, there was a decline in b* values with ageing
HunterLab Associates Laboratory Inc., Hong Kong, PRC) were both set
(P < 0.001), but there was still a difference in values for meat aged for
to Illuminant D65 and 10° standard observer. The HUNTERLAB was
5 weeks and displayed for 3 days between the two instruments. Fur-
calibrated using black and white tiles (X = 80.4. Y = 85.3, Z =
thermore, chroma values for the HUNTER showed a peak at 1 d display
91.5), whereas this option was not applicable for the NIX – therefore,
irrespective of ageing period, in a similar pattern to a* values, with no
two NIX instruments were used at random throughout each display
such peak for the NIX (Table 2). Chroma values declined with ageing
interval so as to account for device variation. Each sample surface was
period (P < 0.001) with greater absolute change in HUNTER values
then measured with the NIX recording seven replicate measures
than those obtained with the NIX. After 3 weeks of ageing there were no
(Holman et al., 2018) and the HUNTERLAB, four (HunterLab, 2012).
differences between instruments if the beef was displayed for > 1 d.
Instruments were re- positioned after each measure with care to avoid
connective tissue and fat deposits, and ensure complete aperture
coverage. Data from both instruments was then reported as average 4. Discussion
colorimetric values (L*, a*, b*, hue and chroma) (AMSA, 2012).
We observed that the HUNTER and NIX both capture colour trends
2.3. Statistical analysis typical to aged and displayed beef. Characteristically this involves the
discolouration, browning and darkening of beef as ageing and/or dis-
A linear mixed model (Genstat 19th Edition, VSN International Ltd., play time increases, due to myoglobin oxidation and the accumulation
www.vsni.co.uk) was applied to analyse the data with instrument, of metmyoglobin (Suman et al., 2014). Past research using a variety of
ageing period and display period and all relevant second order inter- colorimetric instruments have reported similar outcomes, including
actions included as fixed effects, along with LL and portion within LL HUNTER (Holman, Coombs, Morris, Kerr, & Hopkins, 2017a), Minolta
included as random effects. Differences between predicted means were colorimeter (Pouzo, Descalzo, Zaritzky, Rossetti, & Pavan, 2016), and
judged to be significant if they were at least two times the average Pantone X-RITE spectrophotometer (Li et al., 2012).
standard error of the difference (SED). Generally, HUNTER colorimetric values were higher than their NIX
equivalent. This could have important implications when comparing
3. Results colour results between studies – for example, Holman, van de Ven, Mao,
Coombs, & Hopkins (2017b) consumer threshold (a* ≥ 14.5) for ac-
For all colour traits, except a* there was a difference (P < 0.001) ceptable beef colour was defined using a HUNTER and, based on the
between instruments. There was no significant interaction between present findings, should not be used to interpret NIX results. A possible
instrument and either ageing period or display period for L* or hue, but basis for this disparity may be the larger aperture size of the HUNTER
there were main effects due to instrument, ageing and display period inferring a comparatively greater susceptibility to edge-losses – which
(P < 0.001, Table 1). For the NIX, the L* and hue values were re- can be defined as when sample:aperture coverage is (accidentally) in-
spectively higher and lower than for the HUNTER. L* values increased complete and light that would be reflected is instead lost, and con-
after 3 weeks ageing; and this same colorimetric value was found to sidered absorbed (Holman et al., 2015). This larger aperture would also
peak at 1 d display and thereafter plateaued. Changes in hue with inhibit the efficacy by which HUNTER placement can avoid fatty de-
ageing period showed an increase and, akin to L* values, there was no posits within the measured surface. These would, in turn, infer greater
increase in hue beyond 1 d display. There was a difference (P < 0.001) reflectance than otherwise and doing so could boost lightness (L*),
between instruments for b* and chroma values (P < 0.001), such that brightness (chroma) and colour intensity (hue) measures – as observed.
NIX values were lower than their HUNTER counterparts. For the col- Building on this theme, grass-fed beef was used in this study and this
orimetrics (a*, b*, chroma), there were significant interactions normally contains higher beta-carotene levels than grain-fed beef,
(P < 0.05; Table 2). The interaction effects (P < 0.001) were such which is partitioned to and produces a yellower fat colour (Dunne,
that a* values peaked at 1 d display period when measured with the Monahan, O'Mara, & Moloney, 2009). This in combination with the
HUNTER and irrespective of ageing period, whereas this did not occur unavoidable measurement of fat deposits could, therefore, act as a
with the NIX, when the values instead demonstrated a steady decline as possible source for the HUNTER b* value differences to those measured
the display period increased. These a* values did decrease with ageing, with the NIX.
irrespective of the instrument (P < 0.001) and after 1 d display and An alternative basis for instrument differences could involve their
5 weeks of ageing we found no difference between instruments. Like- respective calibration protocols. The NIX operates via ‘software cali-
wise, b* values also peaked at 1 d display, irrespective of ageing period bration’ (Nix Sensor Ltd., 2018) whereas the HUNTER is calibrated
when measured with the HUNTER – an outcome not shared by the NIX using reference tiles (HunterLab, 2012). In practise, this would translate
16
3
Table 2
Predicted means ( ± standard error; s.e.) for a*, b* and chroma according to the interaction of instrument, ageing period and display period.1

Instrument Display period (d) Ageing period (weeks)

a* b* Chroma

0 3 5 s.e. 0 3 5 s.e. 0 3 5 s.e.

avw bvw cvw avw bvw c av bvwyz cvwxy

HUNTER 0 22.7 15.8 13.6 0.66 16.9 11.5 10.5 0.41 28.3 19.5 17.2 0.76
av bvw cv av bv cv av bvxy cv
1 23.9 16.9 14.7 17.7 12.3 11.3 29.7 20.9 18.5
avw bwx cwxz avw bvw bvw aw bwyz cwxy
2 22.0 15.0 12.8 17.2 11.8 10.7 27.9 19.1 16.7
awx byz cxy aw bwxz bwx awx bwz cwyz
3 21.0 14.1 11.8 16.4 11.0 10.0 26.7 17.9 15.5
avw by cv ax bvw cwx awx bx cxv
NIX 0 22.6 18.4 14.7 0.66 14.2 11.8 10.2 0.41 26.7 21.8 17.9 0.76
avwx bvw cvw axy bwx cx axy bvy cxyz
1 21.1 16.9 13.2 13.7 11.2 9.7 25.1 20.3 16.4
azy bvx czw ayz bxy cyz ayz bwyz cyz
2 20.2 16.0 12.3 13.2 10.8 9.2 24.2 19.3 15.4
az bxz cz az byz cz az bz cz
3 19.5 15.3 11.7 12.7 10.2 8.7 23.3 18.5 14.6

1
Colorimetric means within rows with differing superscripts (a, b, c) are significantly (P < 0.05) different. Colorimetric means within columns with differing
superscripts (v, w, x, y, z) are significantly (P < 0.05) different.
to precision differences that could be expressed as the differing mag-
nitudes and consistencies of colorimetrics across display and ageing
periods. As such, here we found instrumental differences were not
standard across these periods.
Examples of instrumental inconsistences include the tendency for
HUNTER and NIX colorimetric differences to decrease parallel to ageing
period increase, and display period increases provided beef is first aged.
Furthermore, there was a ‘peak’ observed at 1 d display with the
HUNTER, but not the NIX. This latter insight has been previously
identified and akin to our thoughts, is likely due to incomplete
blooming before the initial measure and this resulting in subsequent
colour stabilisation (Coombs, Holman, van de Ven, Friend, & Hopkins,
2016; Holman et al., 2017a). This does pose the question as to why this
event was not observed in the NIX. A potential response involves the
light source and level applied by either instrument in colorimetric de-
termination. The HUNTER applies more light per reading, because of its
large aperture size and Xenon light source, and could therefore pene-
trate further into the sample than the light emitting diode (led) light
source and small aperture size of the NIX would permit. In turn, this
could impact the sub-surface and deoxymyoglobin contributions to
colorimetric values (Mancini & Hunt, 2005). The convergence of in-
strument colorimetrics across ageing and display period could instead
result from muscle fibre degradation and the expansion of inter-myo-
fibrillar space. As a consequence, light applied by the HUNTER is po-
tentially more scattered or lost as sidewards-diffraction within the beef
substrate than that applied by the NIX. This light is therefore not re-
captured as reflectance as degradation progresses (Hughes, Clarke,
Purchas, & Warner, 2017; Xia, Weaver, Gerrard, & Yao, 2008) and
could act to compensate against instrument differences observed on
unaged samples.
5. Conclusion
From these results, we conclude that the NIX is a viable colorimeter
for detecting beef colour variation, but to a lesser degree and not
comparable to HUNTER measures. This was demonstrated with the
failure of the NIX to capture the colorimetric ‘peak’ that the HUNTER
observed at 1 d display period which itself merits future investigation.
Considering the NIX was developed for paint, colour swatch and other
homogeneous material appraisal, we acknowledge its potential and
suggest future versions include larger apertures, comparable light
source, and calibration standards to become comparable to the
HUNTER when evaluating beef colour.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the financial support provided to the first author
(B. W. B. Holman) as a receipt of the Australian Meat Processors
Corporation Award at the Australian Federal Department of Agriculture
and Water Resources, 2017 Science and Innovation Awards for Young
People in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We also acknowledge the
support from NSW Department of Primary Industries (NSW DPI) staff,
Douglas R.G. Silva (UFLA) and our commercial industry collaborators.
References
AMSA (2012). Meat color measurement guidelines (December 2012 ed.).
Champaign, Illinois, USA: American Meat Science Association (AMSA).
Brewer, M. S., Novakofski, J., & Freise, K. (2006). Instrumental evaluation of pH
effects
on ability of pork chops to bloom. Meat Science, 72, 596–602.
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, 169–176.
CIE (1978). Recommendations on uniform color spaces – color equations, psychometric
color terms. pp. 15 (E-11.13.L)Paris, France: Commission Internationale de
l'eclairage (CIE).
Coombs, C. E. O., Holman, B. W. B., van de Ven, R. J., Friend, M. A., & Hopkins,
D. L. (2016). Effect of chilled storage (up to 8 weeks) on lamb meat quality
presented at the 62nd
traits. Paper International Congress of Meat Science and
Technology. Bangkok:
THA.
Dunne, P. G., Monahan, F. J., O'Mara, F. P., & Moloney, A. P. (2009). Colour of
bovine subcutaneous adipose tissue: A review of contributory factors,
associations with carcass and meat quality and its potential utility in
authentication of dietary history. Meat Science, 81, 28–45.
Hodgen, J. (2016). Comparison of nix color sensor and nix color sensor pro to
standard meat science research colorimeters (abstract). Meat Science, 112,
159.
Holman, B. W. B., Collins, D., Kilgannon, A. K., & Hopkins, D. L. (2018). The
effect of technical replicate (repeats) on Nix Pro Color Sensor™ measurement
precision for meat: A case-study on aged beef colour stability. Meat Science,
135, 42–45.
Holman, B. W. B., Coombs, C. E. O., Morris, S., Kerr, M. J., & Hopkins, D. L. (2017).
Effect of long term chilled (up to 5 weeks) then frozen (up to 12 months)
storage at two different sub-zero holding temperatures on beef: 1. Meat quality
and microbial loads. Meat Science, 133, 133–142.
Holman, B. W. B., Ponnampalam, E. N., van de Ven, R. J., Kerr, M. G., & Hopkins,
D. L. (2015). Lamb meat colour values (HunterLab CIE and reflectance) are
influenced by aperture size (5 mm v. 25 mm). Meat Science, 100, 202–208.
Holman, B. W. B., van de Ven, R., Mao, Y., Coombs, C. E. O., & Hopkins, D. L.
(2017).
Using instrumental (CIE and reflectance) measures to predict consumers'
acceptance of beef colour. Meat Science, 127, 57–62.
Honikel, K. O. (1998). Reference methods for the assessment of physical
characteristics of meat. Meat Science, 49, 447–457.
Hughes, J. M., Clarke, F., Purchas, R., & Warner, R. (2017). High pH in beef
longissimus
thoracis reduces muscle fibre transverse shrinkage and light scattering which
con- tributes to the dark colour. Food Research International, 101, 228–238.
HunterLab (2012). Measurement method 5076.00. HunterLab Associates Laboratory
Inc1–4.
Li, K., Zhang, Y., Mao, Y., Cornforth, D., Dong, P., Wang, R., ... Luo, X. (2012).
Effect of very fast chilling and aging time on ultra-structure and meat quality
characteristics of Chinese Yellow cattle M. Longissimus lumborum. Meat
Science, 92, 795–804.
Mancini, R. A., & Hunt, M. C. (2005). Current research in meat color. Meat Science,
71,
100–121.
Nix Sensor Ltd (2018). How do you measure color in your industry?
www.nixsensor.com/
quality-control-solutions/, Accessed date: 16 May 2018.
Pouzo, L. B., Descalzo, A. M., Zaritzky, N. E., Rossetti, L., & Pavan, E. (2016).
Antioxidant status, lipid and color stability of aged beef from grazing steers
supplemented with corn grain and increasing levels of flaxseed. Meat Science,
111, 1–8.
Stevenson, J. M., Weatherall, I. L., Littlejohn, R. P., & Seman, D. L. (1991). A
comparison
of two different instruments for measuring venison CIELAB values and
colour as- sessment by a trained panel. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural
Research, 34,
207–211.
Stiglitz, R., Mikhailova, E., Post, C., Schlautman, M., & Sharp, J. (2016).
Evaluation of an inexpensive sensor to measure soil color. Computers and
Electronics in Agriculture, 121,
141–148.
Suman, S. P., Hunt, M. C., Nair, M. N., & Rentfrow, G. (2014). Improving beef
color stability: Practical strategies and underlying mechanisms. Meat Science,
98, 490–504.
Tapp, W. N., Yancey, J. W. S., & Apple, J. K. (2011). How is the instrumental color of
meat
measured? Meat Science, 89, 1–5.
Xia, J., Weaver, A., Gerrard, D. E., & Yao, G. (2008). Distribution of optical
scattering properties in four beef muscles. Sensing and Instrumentation for Food
Quality and Safety, 2, 75–81.