LWT - Food Science and Technology 187 (2023) 115294

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Effects of high-pressure processing on the physicochemical properties of

prosciutto and microbe inactivation
Sumi Lee a, b, Jiseon Lee a, Jihye Shin b, Mi-Jung Choi a, *
a
Department of Food Science and Biotechnology of Animal Resources, Konkuk University, Seoul, 05029, South Korea
b
Food Research Institute, Ourhome Ltd., South Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, the effect of high-pressure processing (HPP) conditions (0.1–600 MPa) on the physicochemical
High-pressure processing properties, inactivation of microorganisms such as hepatitis E virus pathogen, Escherichia coli, and Listeria
Hepatitis E virus monocytogenes and total cell number in prosciutto were evaluated. In the results of appearance and pH, there was
Prosciutto
no tendency according to level of HPP. The results of hardness were decreased with HPP, and the water content,
Pathogen
Food safety
and water-holding capacity were increased compared to control (0.1 MPa) due to leading to changes in the
protein structure of prosciutto. Above 500 MPa, lipid oxidation was significantly decrease and protein oxidation
was slightly increase. In the results of microbial analyses above 500 MPa, E. coli and L. monocytogenes were
reduced by approximately 4- and 1-log (p < 0.05), respectively and the viral content slightly decreased in HPP
samples compared to those in the control. These results indicate that HP treatment above 500 MPa for 9 min is an
effective strategy for enhancing food safety, advancing the non-thermal food industry. With further study, it will
be necessary to confirm whether HPP treatment has a positive effect on sensory evaluation.

Verardo, Gómez-Caravaca, Caboni, & Alonso-Ramírez, 2013; Hong,

1. Introduction
Consuming fresh, uncooked, cured, or smoked ham poses potential
health risks, as it could contain harmful microorganisms, such as bac­
teria or viruses, that can induce foodborne illnesses (Gianluigi &
Alberto, 2021). Moreover, foodborne illnesses caused by viruses are a
serious global health concern. Microorganisms can be present in the
meat due to improper processing, handling, or storage. The hepatitis E
virus (HEV) can be present in raw or undercooked pork and can cause
acute hepatitis in humans (Kleines, SSchellenberg, & Ritter, 2003). HEV
can persist in pork products even after cooking and is largely spread
through the consumption of infected food or water. The number of re­
ported cases of human HEV infection has increased (Kingsley, Guan,
Hoover, & Chen, 2006; Nan, Wu, Zhao, & Zhou, 2017). Pigs are
considered an important source of viruses that cause human HEV in­
fections, and the prevalence of HEV among pigs of approximately 6
months of age has likely increased.
High-pressure processing (HPP), also referred to as high-pressure
pasteurization or cold pasteurization, is a non-thermal food processing
technique that uses high pressure to inactivate microorganisms and
other undesirable substances in food products (Gómez-Caravaca,
Park, Kim, Lee, & Min, 2005). The process involves placing packaged or
bulk food products in a high-pressure chamber and subjecting them to
pressures of up to 600 MPa for several minutes to hours (Petrus, Churey,
& Worobo, 2020). HPP is a popular alternative to traditional thermal
processing methods, such as heat pasteurization or sterilization, which
can alter the taste, texture, and nutritional value of food products (Hong,
Chun, Lee, & Choi, 2012). One of the primary reasons for using HPP in
the meat industry is to eliminate harmful bacteria and pathogens such as
Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Listeria that may be present in raw meat
or meat products (Balakrishna, Wazed, & Farid, 2020). HPPs in the
range of 50 to MPa for 5 min or less were mainly used for microbial
inactivation (Abera, 2019; Yang et al., 2015). The effects of
high-pressure processing on food and biological materials appear from
about 100 MPa. At about 200 MPa, protein dissociation, destruction of
cell membranes, and changes in enzyme reaction rate occur. At
200–300 MPa, reversible inactivation of enzymes occurs. At 400 MPa,
the death of microorganisms and viruses can be observed. At 400–500
MPa, starch is gelatinized, protein denaturation and precipitation occur,
and above 500 MPa, enzymes are irreversibly inactivated, and changes
such as death of heat-resistant spores occur. If these effects are applied to
food, they can be used in various fields such as improving preservation,

* Corresponding author. Department of Food Science and Biotechnology of Animal Resources, Konkuk University, 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, 05029,
South Korea.
E-mail address: choimj@konkuk.ac.kr (M.-J. Choi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115294
Received 26 April 2023; Received in revised form 8 September 2023; Accepted 11 September 2023
Available online 18 September 2023
0023-6438/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
S. Lee et al.
Abbreviations
a* redness;
b* yellowness;
CFU colony-forming units;
HEV hepatitis E virus;
HPP high-pressure processing;
L* lightness;
PFU plaque-forming units;
SEM scanning electron microscopy;
TBARS thiobarbituric acid reactive substances;
TPA texture profile analysis;
VBN volatile basic nitrogen;
WHC water holding capacity;
ΔE total color difference.
preventing microbial contamination, and improving physical properties
(Abera, 2019). Consequently, HPP meat products can have a longer shelf
life without the use of preservatives, allowing them to remain fresh and
retain their quality for extended periods (Hong, Ko, Choi, & Min, 2008).
Moreover, HPP can enhance the texture and tenderness of meat prod­
ucts, since high pressure can break down connective tissue, resulting in
more tender products. Additionally, meat products subjected to HPP
tend to retain their natural color, flavor, and juiciness, rendering them
more appealing to consumers (Hong et al., 2005; Li, Deng, Liang, Li, &
Chen, 2018).
The pressure applied during HPP can cause physical damage to the
outer protective layer of the virus, rendering it inactive or killing it
entirely (Considine, Kelly, Fitzgerald, Hill, & Sleator, 2008). However, it
is important to note that not all viruses are susceptible to HPP, and the
effectiveness of the process may vary depending on the virus type,
concentration, and the food matrix (Zhang, Zhao, & Sun, 2015). The
viral envelope, protecting the virus from environmental stressors,
including temperature, pH, and mechanical stress, is a protective layer
surrounding some types of viruses, including foodborne viruses such as
hepatitis A, norovirus, and rotavirus (Raval & Rahman, 2015; Tang
et al., 2010). Notably, the exact mechanism by which HPP destroys vi­
ruses may vary depending on the specific virus type and its resistance to
high pressure (Govaris & Pexara, 2021). However, the physical damage
caused by pressure is a common mechanism that has been observed in
several types of viruses.
These and other studies have demonstrated that HPP can effectively
reduce or eliminate pathogens and HEV in various food products.
However, it is important to note that the efficacy of HPP may vary
depending on the specific food matrix and processing parameters used,
and further research is needed to fully understand the effectiveness of
HPP against HEV. This study aimed to investigate the effect of HPP on
the inactivation of HEV, E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes, and
on the physicochemical properties of prosciutto.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Prosciutto was supplied by OURHOME (Seoul, Korea). HEV was
purchased from Chang-Ang University (Seoul, Korea). E. coli O157:H7
(NCCP 15739) and L. monocytogenes KCCM 40307 were diluted in
Buffered Peptone Water (Difco, Detroit, MI, USA) before use.
2.2. Sample preparation
The manufacturing steps described here are supplied by OUR­
HOME’s own method and briefly described in Supplementary data 1.
2
LWT 187 (2023) 115294
Thereafter HPP was achieved using a high-pressure treatment (55L HPP
Plant, Hiperbaric, Burgos, Spain), with a 55 L pressure vessel and water
as the pressure medium. Packaged prosciutto samples (50 g) were
pressurized to 300, 400, 500, or 600 MPa with a hold time at 9 min.
Analysis was performed 24 h after HPP treatment.
2.3. Visible appearance and color profile analysis
Images of prosciutto samples were acquired using a digital camera
(α350; Sony, Tokyo, Japan), and their characteristics were observed.
Color values were measured using a color reader (CR-10; Konica Minolta
Sensing Inc., Tokyo, Japan) calibrated with a white standard plate
(lightness (L*), 97.83; redness (a*), 0.43; and yellowness (b*), 1.98).
The instrument was directly placed at different points on the prosciutto
surface. A numerical total color difference (ΔE) was calculated using the
following formula (Eq. 1):
ΔE = √(L*2− L*1)2+(a*2− a*1)2+(b*2− b*1)2 (1)
where L*1, a*1, and b*1 are the coordinates of the color space CIE L*, a*,
and b* on the surface of raw prosciutto, and L*2, a*2, and b*2 are the
coordinates of the color space CIE L*, a*, and b* on the surface of the
prosciutto after HPP, respectively.
2.4. pH measurement
To measure pH, prosciutto samples (5 g) were homogenized in
distilled water (45 mL) for 1 min. The pH values were measured using a
pH meter (S-220; Mettler Toledo Co., Zurich, Switzerland). Readings
were acquired in triplicate for each sample.
2.5. Water content measurement
The water content of prosciutto samples was determined following
the heating drying method (AOAC, 2012). Approximately 2 g of pro­
sciutto sample were weighed and dried at 105 ◦ C using a dry-oven
(OF-105; Daihan Scientific Co., Ltd., Gangwon-do, Korea) until a con­
stant weight was reached (for approximately 6 h). Water content was
calculated using the following formula (Eq. 2):
Water content (%) = [(W1– W2)/ W1] × 100 (2)
where W1 and W2 are the initial and final weights of the samples,
respectively.
2.6. Water holding capacity (WHC)
The capacity of prosciutto samples to retain moisture was assessed
according to the method by Choi, Abduzukhurov, Park, Kim, and Hong
(2018) with modifications. Approximately 1 g of prosciutto sample was
placed into a 15-mL centrifuge tube and centrifuged at 3,000 ×g for 10
min at 4 ◦ C. WHC was calculated by Eq. (3):
WHC (%) = (W2/W1) × 100 (3)
where W1 is the initial sample weight, and W2 is the sample weight after
centrifugation.
2.7. Texture profile analysis (TPA)
TPA was performed using a texture analyzer (CT3; Brookfield Co.,
USA). The prosciutto samples (1 × 1 × 1 cm) were collected and com­
pressed twice to 50% of their original height at 1 mm/s speed and 100 g
trigger load using a circular plate probe (TA4/1000; 38.1 mm in diam­
eter). Sample hardness, adhesiveness, cohesiveness, springiness, gum­
miness, and chewiness were calculated from the force and time curves
(Al-Hinai, Guizani, Singh, Rahman, & Al-Subhi, 2013; Mounir,
Téllez-Pérez, Sunooj, & Allaf, 2019). The maximum force during the first
S. Lee et al.
Fig. 1. Appearance of prosciutto. Control samples (A); samples after application of high pressure processing (HPP) at 300 MPa (B); 400 MPa (C); 500 MPa (D); and
600 MPa (E).
compression cycle occurs during the hardness. Adhesiveness is defined
as the area of curve during first compression (A1). Springiness is the ratio
of the second compression distance to the first compression distance
(D2/D1). The cohesiveness (defined as the area of curve during the
second compression divided by the area of curve during the first
compression, or A2/A1) is how well it resists a second deformation in
comparison to its resistance to the first deformation. The gumminess is
defined as the hardness × cohesiveness. Only solid products are affected
by chewiness, which is calculated as gumminess × springiness.
2.8. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM)
Prosciuttos were cut into thin slices and the morphology was
observed using a scanning electron microscope (TM4000Plus; Hitachi,
Tokyo, Japan) with backscattered electron detection at 15×kV and 500
× magnification.
2.9. 2-Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS)
Secondary lipid oxidation was determined from the TBARS values
obtained using a slight modification of the method by Lee, Kim, Park,
and Choi (2021). The samples (4 g) were homogenized in 16 mL of
distilled water and then allowed to elute for 30 min. The homogenates
(20 mL) were filtered, and 0.5 mL of the sample was mixed with 4.5 mL
of TBA solution (0.25 N hydrochloric acid, 15% trichloroacetic acid, and
0.375% TBA regent) to evaluate TBARS. Thereafter, the sample was
heated at 95 ◦ C for 15 min in a water bath (Shaking Water Bath MaX­
turdy 45; DAIHAN®). The heated mixture was cooled at room temper­
ature for 30 min, followed by centrifugation at 3000 ×g for 10 min at
25 ◦ C. The absorbance of the supernatant at 532 nm was measured using
a spectrophotometer (Multiskan™ GO UV/VIS; Thermo Fisher, Wal­
tham, MA, USA).
2.10. Volatile basic nitrogen (VBN) content
VBN content was determined according to the Conway micro­
diffusion method with slight modifications (Lee et al., 2021). The sample
(4 g) was homogenized in 16 mL of distilled water and then allowed to
elute for 30 min. The homogenate (20 mL) was filtered through a
Whatman No. 1 filter paper (GE Healthcare Life Science, Sheffield, UK).
The filtered sample (1 mL) was placed in the outer section of the Conway
dish with a mixture of 0.01 N H3BO3 (1 mL) and Conway solution (100
3
LWT 187 (2023) 115294
μL), and a mixture of 0.066% methyl red and 0.066% bromocresol green
in aqueous ethanol was dropped into the inner section. Additionally,
50% of K2CO3 (1 mL) was added to the outer section of the dish. Next,
the Conway dish was incubated at 37 ◦ C for 2 h and titrated using 0.02 N
H2SO4 until the Conway reagent changed to a red color. The VBN values
were calculated from the titration volume of 0.02 N H2SO4 (mL) (A), the
titration volume of the blank (mL) (B), the factor of H2SO4 (f), the weight
(g) of the sample (S), and the dilution amount (C), according to Eq. (4):
VBN (mg/100 g) = [14.007 × (A-B) × f × 100 × C]/S (4)
2.11. Preparation and inoculation of prosciutto
To confirm the HPP effects, prosciutto (20 g) mixed with 1 mL of 50-
fold diluted HEV stock (106 plaque-forming units (PFU)/mL), 100 μL of
E. coli O157:H7 (NCCP 15739) stock (103–104 colony-forming units
(CFU)/mL), and 100 μL of L. monocytogenes KCCM 40307 stock
(103–104 CFU/mL), and the samples were packed in sterile polyethylene
pouches. After drying, is the samples were vacuum-packed and sub­
jected to HPP.
2.12. Microbiological analyses
To confirm the effects of HPP, each sample was aseptically trans­
ferred to a filtered stomacher bag (3M Science, MN, USA), diluted with
the same volume of saline water, and homogenized for 5 min. The
mixture was centrifuged (4 ◦ C) at 10,000 ×g for 30 min and the super­
natant was centrifuged (4 ◦ C) at 8,000 ×g for 15 min. RNA was extracted
from the supernatant using a QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit (QIAGEN,
Hilden, Germany) according to the protocol.
To evaluate the inactivation of E. coli and L. monocytogenes, 200 mg
of the sample were suspended in 1.8 mL of sterile saline and serially
diluted with sterile saline. Next, the samples were stomached for 2 min
using stomacher blender (BKST-04C, Bio Konvision, Gwacheon, Korea),
and the stomachate was spread on EC 3M™ Petrifilm™ (3M Microbi­
ology Products, St. Paul, MN, USA) for E. coli, and 20 mL of Oxford agar
(Oxford Listeria agar, Oxoid Ltd. Basingstoke, UK) for L. monocytogenes
and incubated using incubator (HB-103 M, Vision lab & instrument,
Incheon, Korea) at 36 ◦ C for 24 h. In addition, to determine the microbial
safety of prosciutto samples, total plate counts were determined on plate
count agar (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, Michigan, USA) after incubating
S. Lee et al. LWT 187 (2023) 115294

Table 1
Color measurement of prosciutto.
L* a* b* ΔE
a c a
Control 37.73 ± 1.12 5.72 ± 0.24 4.67 ± 0.36
300* 33.47 ± 0.96d 7.79 ± 0.34ab 4.43 ± 0.36a 4.69 ± 0.96a
400 33.76 ± 0.61cd 6.14 ± 0.42c 4.39 ± 0.17a 4.03 ± 0.63ab
500 35.16 ± 0.50bc 7.34 ± 0.24b 4.60 ± 0.04a 2.95 ± 0.53b
600 36.30 ± 0.83ab 8.04 ± 0.46a 4.86 ± 0.09a 2.59 ± 0.79b
a-d
Means with different letters in a column are significant different (p < 0.05).
a
High pressure level (MPa).

at 36 ◦ C for 24 h.

2.13. Statistical analysis

All experiments were conducted in triplicate and the results are

presented as the mean ± standard deviation. The means were compared
using one-way ANOVA followed by Duncan’s multiple range test (p <
0.05). Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 24.0 software
(SPSS, INC., Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Appearance and color

Changes in the appearance and color of prosciutto under variable

pressure conditions are shown in Fig. 1 and the relevant values are listed
Table 1. HPP may lead to changes in the color of meat products by
influencing the pigments and enzymes responsible for color (Hong et al.,
2005). No substantial changes were observed in the acquired images.
Regarding color measurements, the L* value of untreated prosciutto was
37.73. L* values tended to decrease in the samples subjected to rela­
tively moderate high pressure to 33.47 and 33.76 at 300 MPa and 400
MPa, respectively. In contrast, L* values slightly increased to 35.16 and
36.30 in the samples treated at 500 MPa and 600 MPa, respectively. The
redness (a*) of raw ham tended to increase by HPP treatment. The
control untreated group had the lowest value at 5.72, but a* values
increased to 7.79, 6.14, 7.34, and 8.04 in the samples subjected to high
pressures of 300, 400, 500, and 600 MPa, respectively. Yellowness (b*
values) did not differ significantly between prosciutto samples treated
with high pressure and untreated samples. In the samples treated with
pressure, the total color difference (ΔE) values of prosciutto treated with
300 and 400 MPa and those of samples treated with 500 and 600 MPa
were comparable. This result indicates that the ΔE values of prosciutto
treated at 500 and 600 MPa markedly decreased, likely due to an in­
crease in redness and a decrease in lightness. Changes in color by
high-pressure treatment have been reported in many studies. Zhao,
Alba, Sun, and Tiwari (2019) showed that HPP treatment had no sig­
nificant effect on the overall color of beef muscle. However, the redness
and yellowness values increased while lightness value decreased after
HPP treatment. However, the extent of color changes may depend on
various factors, such as the type of meat and processing and storage
conditions. Meat can have a different color after HPP treatment because
myoglobin, which affects meat color, can change during HPP (Chai &
Sheen, 2021). When meat is subjected to high pressure, muscle fibers
and connective tissues are compressed, which can alter the structure of
myoglobin (Chai & Sheen, 2021). In some cases, this can lead to a darker
meat color, while, in other cases, the meat may appear lighter or pinker.
Fig. 2. pH (A), water content (B), and water holding capacity (C) of prosciutto
The degree and nature of these color changes can vary depending on
subjected to HPP. Error bars represent SD. * High pressure level (MPa). a–e
several factors, including the type of meat, initial meat color, applied Means with different superscript letters in a column are significantly different
pressure, and time held at pressure (Ye, Yue, Yuan, & Wu, 2018). (p < 0.05).

3.2. pH

The change in the pH of prosciutto under variable pressure

4
S. Lee et al. LWT 187 (2023) 115294

Table 2
Texture profile analysis of prosciutto.
Hardness (g) Adhesiveness (mJ) Cohesiveness Springiness (mm) Gumminess (g) Chewiness (mJ)
a a a a a
Control 1.48 ± 0.17 0.12 ± 0.02 3.87 ± 3.29 181.62 ± 60.73 8.56 ± 11.74 1610.38 ± 508.26a
300* 0.74 ± 0.20b 0.11 ± 0.03a 3.36 ± 0.53a 122.11 ± 37.18a 6.06 ± 3.23a 1401.40 ± 276.65a
400 0.71 ± 0.26b 0.08 ± 0.02a 4.61 ± 2.48a 131.75 ± 56.01a 7.52 ± 6.37a 1279.63 ± 136.56a
500 0.98 ± 0.26b 0.11 ± 0.03a 3.98 ± 1.82a 149.27 ± 53.66a 6.08 ± 2.26a 1304.13 ± 142.14a
600 0.86 ± 0.22b 0.09 ± 0.05a 3.97 ± 1.03a 175.45 ± 163.28a 8.61 ± 8.22a 2340.18 ± 1500.67a
a-b
Means with different letters in a column are significant different (p < 0.05).
*
High pressure level (MPa).

conditions is shown in Fig. 2A. The initial pH of untreated prosciutto was
5.89. As the pressure level increased, pH increased slightly compared to
that in the control. Similarly, previous studies investigated the effect of
HPP on meat pH and reported that the pH of beef samples subjected to
HPP was not significantly different from that of untreated samples (Liu,
Xue, Li, & Wu et al., 2015; Utrera, Morcuende, & Estévez, 2018).
Oey, Lille, Loey, and Hendrickx (2008) discussed several quality
parameters, including pH, and noted that HPP had no significant effect
on the pH of samples. However, that review paper stressed other
important property changes that may occur due to HPP, such as color,
texture, and flavor changes. Numerous factors, including microbial
development, enzymatic activity, and chemical processes, can influence
the pH of meat products. Bacteria and other microorganisms contribute
to organic acid content as they grow and metabolize, which can lead to
decreases in meat pH. Similar to how proteins are broken down into
smaller molecules such as amino acids to produce organic acids and
lower pH, meat naturally contains enzymes that have these functions.
The pH of meat can also be lowered by chemical processes such as lipid
oxidation, which can result in the production of acidic chemicals. The
pH did not change during the holding time or application of
high-pressure level (Dave & Ghaly, 2011; Sivertsvik, Jeksrud, & Rosnes,
2002).
3.3. Water content and WHC
The effects of various pressure conditions on water content and WHC
of prosciutto are shown in Fig. 2B and C. Water content of untreated
sample was significantly lower than that of HP-treated samples (p <
0.05). There was not significant difference between HP-treated samples
regardless of increasing pressure (p > 0.05). The WHC of untreated
prosciutto was 73.13% and tended to increase with the level of high-
pressure treatment. The highest WHC value was 82.17% at 500 MPa.
The WHC at 600 MPa was 80.65%, slightly lower than that at 500 MPa
(p > 0.05). Interestingly, a significant difference in the WHC of raw ham
was noted when comparing the values at 300 and 400 MPa to those at
500 and 600 MPa. This trend can be compared with that reported in
several other studies. HPP can cause changes in the protein structure and
WHC of meat. When meat is subjected to high pressure, water is forced
into the meat, leading to increased hydration and swelling of muscle
fibers (Liu, Xue, Li, & Wu, 2015). This results in an increase in the WHC
of meat, as muscle fibers can retain water better. Additionally, HPP can
cause protein denaturation, leading to an increase in surface hydro­
phobicity. This could promote protein–protein interactions, which may
result in the formation of a gel-like network that further enhances WHC.
Overall, the combination of pressure-induced hydration and protein
denaturation can lead to meat with higher WHC after HPP.
3.4. TPA
The effect of pressurization on the texture properties of prosciutto is
presented in Table 2. The hardness of prosciutto tended to decrease after
HPP. The hardness value of the untreated control sample was the highest
among all samples. In the HP-treated samples, hardness values showed
increasing trend from 0.74 g to 0.86 g with pressure increases from 300
to 600 MPa. The extent of these changes depends on various factors,
such as the pressure level, treatment time, and initial texture of the meat
(Hong et al., 2005; Sun & Holley, 2010). HPP induces changes in the
conformation of proteins and texture properties of pork and the pressure
level used determines HPP treatment (Ye et al., 2018). In particular,
protein structure is considerably modified by application of HPP at 600
MPa, resulting in softer pork samples. Therefore, HPP treatment may
enhance the quality characteristics of fresh pork. There were no

Fig. 3. Scanning electron microscopy images of prosciutto. (A) control sample; (B) samples after HPP at 300 MPa; (C) 400 MPa; (D) 500 MPa; and (E) 600 MPa. The
scale bar is 100 μm.

5
S. Lee et al. LWT 187 (2023) 115294

Fig. 4. TBARS (A) and VBN (B) values of prosciutto after HPP. Error bars
represent SD. * High pressure level (MPa). a–c Means with different superscript
letters in columns are significantly different (p < 0.05).

significant differences in adhesiveness and cohesiveness between pro­

sciutto samples treated with high pressure and untreated samples.
Springiness and gumminess can be changed by high-pressure treatment.
The springiness and gumminess of the high-pressure-treated groups up
to 500 MPa decreased compared to those in the control group. This trend
was also observed for chewiness. Garcia-Gil et al. (2014) reported
changes in the instrumental texture values, which could be related to
SEM. In the results of SEM images (Fig. 3), there were no differences
between samples.
Other studies suggest that treatment can affect the changes texture
properties of raw ham. Li, Ma, Deng, Liang, and Li (2021) reported that
HPP treatment had a significant effect on the texture properties of the
ham, including hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, and chewiness.
Hardness and chewiness decreased significantly after HPP, while cohe­ Fig. 5. Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes (A), total bacteria
siveness and springiness increased. This phenomenon was probably due (B), and hepatitis E virus (HEV) RNA copies (C) in prosciutto after HPP. Error
to changes in the protein structure of ham, which was also affected by bars represent SD. * High pressure level (MPa). a–c Means with different su­
perscript letters in the same samples are significantly different (p < 0.05). CFU,
HPP, leading to changes in the secondary structure of proteins. Zhang
colony-forming unit.
et al. (2015) reported that the microstructure of ham was also affected
by HPP, with higher pressures causing more protein denaturation and
aggregation, resulting in a denser and smoother texture; according to that HPP can affect the texture of prosciutto, with some reporting an
these authors, at 300 and 400 MPa, the texture parameters of hardness, increase in tenderness and others reporting a decrease in hardness.
springiness, cohesiveness, and chewiness decreased significantly, while, Specific effects may vary depending on the processing conditions (e.g.,
at 500 MPa, they increased significantly. These studies generally report pressure and time), and initial meat characteristics (e.g., fat content and

6
S. Lee et al.
pH).
3.5. TBARS
TBARS is a measure of lipid oxidation in meat products. To deter­
mine the effect of high-pressure treatment on the degree of lipid
oxidation in meat and the results are shown in Fig. 4A. The TBARS value
of the untreated control sample was 0.40 mg/kg. TBARS values tended
to decrease with application of high pressure, and prosciutto treated
with 300, 500, and 600 MPa showed values in the range of 0.25 and
0.26 mg/kg. In contrast, the TBARS value of 400 MPa sample had a
higher (0.44 mg/kg), comparable to that of the control. When meat is
subjected to high pressure, changes in the cellular structure can be
induced that can activate enzymes that affect lipid oxidation. Several
studies have shown that HPP can reduce TBARS values in meat, indi­
cating that this can be an effective tool for minimizing lipid oxidation
and improving the quality of meat products (Bolumar, Middendorf,
Toepfl, & Heinz, 2016; Dave & Ghaly, 2011; Hong et al., 2005). The type
of meat, initial TBARS levels, and level and duration of applied pressure
are some of the variables that can influence the effect of HPP on TBARS
values. Therefore, controlling the processing and storage conditions,
such as temperature, pH, and packaging, becomes important, as these
parameters can also play a role in lipid oxidation.
3.6. VBN levels
The effect of various pressure conditions on the VBN levels in pro­
sciutto is shown in Fig. 4B. HPP can influence the levels of VBN in meat,
and, by assessing protein degradation and bacterial activity, VBN is
commonly used as an indicator of meat freshness and quality. The VBN
value of untreated prosciutto was 0.77 mg/100 g. The VBN values
increased with pressure increases up to 400 MPa and then decreased; all
differences were statistically significant. After high-pressure treatment
up to 500 MPa, VBN values slightly increased compared to that of the
control (p > 0.05). Lorenzo et al. (2014) described changes in beef
patties treated under various levels of high pressure and found that high-
pressure treatment at 400 MPa for 5 min did not significantly affect VBN
values compared to untreated beef patties. Another study, by Kruk et al.
(2011) investigated the effect of high-pressure treatment on VBN con­
tent in chicken breast fillet and found that high-pressure treatment at
450 MPa resulted in lower VBN levels than in untreated sample. In
contrast, Munekata, Barretto, Pires, Trindade, and Lorenzo (2019) found
that VBN content decreased with increasing pressure and treatment
time, indicating a reduction in the level of microbial activity and protein
breakdown. However, the effect of HPP on VBN depends on several
factors, including the type of meat, the initial VBN levels, the level of
applied pressure, and the time held at pressure. Thus, further research is
needed to investigate the specific effects on raw ham.
3.7. Inactivation of microorganisms
The results on the behavior of microorganisms in prosciutto after
HPP are illustrated in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5A, HPP was significantly reduced
the number of E. coli O157:H7 and L. monocytogenes populations by 3
and 2-log CFU/g, respectively. Especially, E. coli counts were not
detected at pressures ≥500 MPa. However, application of HPP on total
bacterial count (Fig. 5B) showed no significant trend (p > 0.05). Por­
to-Fett et al. (2010) observed similar results and reported only minor
reductions (<2 log CFU/g) in gram-positive pathogen populations
(L. monocytogenes and Salmonella spp.) after HPP, although HPP was
effective at reducing E. coli numbers (≥5 log CFU/g).
The HEV counts in prosciutto tended to decrease by applying high
pressure of up to 400 MPa (p < 0.05) (Fig. 5C). However, HEV counts in
raw ham treated with pressure >500 MPa increased and did not differ
from those in the control. The mechanism of HEV inactivation by HPP is
not yet understood. The pressure applied during HPP could induce
7
LWT 187 (2023) 115294
structural changes in the virus, resulting in its inactivation. Song, Qi,
Wu, Zhang, and Guo (2015) reported that application of HPP at 600 MPa
for 5 min at 50 ◦ C completely inactivated HEV in pork liver sausages.
HEV is an RNA virus that is encased in a lipid envelope. Under high
pressure, the virus can experience changes in the conformation of its
RNA, lipids, and proteins, which can disrupt its structure and damage its
capacity to infect cells. HPP can destabilize the lipid envelope, and result
in viral RNA leakage, which is required for the virus to infect cells. In
addition, high pressure can damage the viral nucleic acid, which is the
genetic material that allows it to replicate and cause infection. This
damage prevents the virus from replicating, effectively killing it (Raval
& Rahman, 2015). For the effective inactivation of viruses and other
harmful microorganisms, adherence to the recommended processing
parameters for HPP is crucial. During processing, this requires main­
taining the proper temperature and holding times at the appropriate
pressure levels (Garriga, Grèbol, Aymerich, Monfort, & Hugas, 2004).
4. Conclusion
The results presented here show that HPP could improve the safety
and maintain the physicochemical characteristics of the prosciuttos.
Above 500 MPa HPP for 9 min, the water contents and water-holding
capacity was increased, and hardness was decreased compared to con­
trol sample (0.1 MPa). Especially, the number of harmful bacteria and
pathogens were significantly decreased due to distortion of cell struc­
ture. These results provided a potential explanation for the resulting
increase in prosciutto tenderness and food safety. Therefore, the appli­
cation of HPP will be useful for enhancing food security and retaining
qualities in the meat industry.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Sumi Lee: Methodology, Software, Investigation, Conceptualization,
Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Jiseon Lee: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - orig­
inal draft, Writing – review & editing. Jihye Shin: Data curation,
Investigation, Methodology. Mi-Jung Choi: Conceptualization, Super­
vision, Writing – review & editing, Project administration.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115294.
References
Abera, G. (2019). Review on high-pressure processing of foods. Cogent Food & Agriculture,
5, Article 1568725.
Al-Hinai, K. Z., Guizani, N., Singh, V., Rahman, M. S., & Al-Subhi, L. (2013). Instrumental
texture profile analysis of date-tamarind fruit leather with different types of
hydrocolloids. Food Science and Technology Research, 19(4), 531–538.
AOAC. (2012). Official methods of analysis of AOAC International (19th ed.). Maryland,
USA: AOAC International.. Method 979.12.
Balakrishna, A. K., Wazed, M. A., & Farid, M. (2020). A review on the effect of high
pressure processing (HPP) on gelatinization and infusion of nutrients. Molecules, 25
(10), 2369.
Bolumar, T., Middendorf, D., Toepfl, S., & Heinz, V. (2016). Structural changes in foods
caused by high-pressure processing. High Pressure Processing of Food, 509–537.
Chai, H. E., & Sheen, S. (2021). Effect of high pressure processing, allyl isothiocyanate,
and acetic acid stresses on Salmonella survivals, storage, and appearance color in raw
ground chicken meat. Food Control, 123, Article 107784.
S. Lee et al.
Choi, M. J., Abduzukhurov, T., Park, D. H., Kim, E. J., & Hong, G. P. (2018). Effects of
deep freezing temperature for long-term storage on quality characteristics and
freshness of lamb meat. Food Science of Animal Resources, 38, 959–969.
Considine, K. M., Kelly, A. L., Fitzgerald, G. F., Hill, C., & Sleator, R. D. (2008). High-
pressure processing – effects on microbial food safety and food quality. FEMS
Microbiology Letters, 281(1), 1–9.
Dave, D., & Ghaly, A. E. (2011). Meat spoilage mechanisms and preservation techniques:
A critical review. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences, 6(4),
486–510.
Garcia-Gil, N., Santos-Garcés, E., Fulladosa, E., Laverse, J., Nobile, M. A. D., & Gou, P.
(2014). High pressure induces changes in texture and microstructure of muscles in
dry-cured hams. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 22, 63–69.
Garriga, M., Grèbol, N., Aymerich, M. T., Monfort, J. M., & Hugas, M. (2004). Microbial
inactivation after high-pressure processing at 600 MPa in commercial meat products
over its shelf life. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 5, 451–457.
Gianluigi, F., & Alberto, V. (2021). Hepatitis E virus in the food of animal origin: A
review. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease, 18(6), 368–377.
Gómez-Caravaca, A. M., Verardo, V., Gómez-Caravaca, A. M., Caboni, M. F., & Alonso-
Ramírez, J. (2013). Effects of high-pressure processing on the physicochemical and
nutritional properties of Spanish dry-cured ham. Journal of Food Processing and
Preservation, 37(5), 750–758.
Govaris, A., & Pexara, A. (2021). Inactivation of foodborne viruses by high-pressure
processing (HPP). Foods, 10(2), 215.
Hong, G.-P., Chun, J.-Y., Lee, S.-K., & Choi, M.-J. (2012). Effects of non-meat protein
binders and acidification on the efficiency of cold-set pork restructuring by high
pressure. Food Science of Animal Resources, 32(3), 301–307.
Hong, G.-P., Ko, S.-H., Choi, M.-J., & Min, S.-G. (2008). Effect of glucono-δ-lactone and
κ-carrageenan combined with high pressure treatment on the physico-chemical
properties of restructured pork. Meat Science, 79(2), 236–243.
Hong, G.-P., Park, S.-H., Kim, J.-Y., Lee, S.-K., & Min, S.-G. (2005). Effects of time-
dependent high pressure treatment on physico-chemical properties of pork. Food
Science and Biotechnology, 14(6), 808–812.
Kleines, M., Sschellenberg, K., & Ritter, K. (2003). Efficient extraction of viral DNA and
viral RNA by the chemagic viral DNA/RNA kit allows sensitive detection of
cytomegalovirus, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis G virus by PCR. Journal of Clinical
Microbiology, 41(11), 5273–5276.
Kruk, Z. A., Yun, H., Rutley, D. L., Lee, E. J., Kim, Y. J., & Jo, C. (2011). The effect of high
pressure on microbial population, meat quality and sensory characteristics of
chicken breast fillet. Food Control, 22(1), 6–12.
Lee, S. Y., Kim, E. J., Park, D. H., & Choi, M. J. (2021). Two-stage air thawing as an
effective method for controlling thawing temperature and improving the freshness of
frozen pork loin. LWT, 140, Article 110668.
Li, K., Deng, Y., Liang, Y., Li, L., & Chen, H. (2018). Effects of high pressure processing on
texture, microstructure, and protein degradation of Jinhua ham. Meat Science, 145,
383–389.
Li, K., Ma, C., Deng, Y., Liang, Y., & Li, L. (2021). Effects of high pressure processing on
texture properties and protein structure of dry-cured ham. LWT, 139, Article
110619.
LWT 187 (2023) 115294
Liu, X., Xue, S., Li, X., & Wu, J. (2015). Effect of high-pressure processing on pH, water
holding capacity and protein solubility of beef. Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 52(10), 6522–6527.
Mounir, S., Téllez-Pérez, C., Sunooj, K. V., & Allaf, K. (2019). Texture and color
characteristics of swell-dried ready-to-eat Zaghloul date snacks: Effect of operative
parameters of instant controlled pressure drop process. Journal of Texture Studies, 51
(2), 197–370.
Munekata, P. E., Barretto, A. C., Pires, M. A., Trindade, M. A., & Lorenzo, J. M. (2019).
Effect of high pressure processing on the quality of dry-cured ham: Physicochemical,
microbiological, and volatile profile analysis. Meat Science, 156, 163–171.
Nan, Y., Wu, C., Zhao, Q., & Zhou, E. M. (2017). Zoonotic hepatitis E virus: An ignored
risk for public health. Frontiers in Microbiology, 8, 2396.
Oey, I., Lille, M., Loey, A. V., & Hendrickx, M. (2008). Effect of high-pressure processing
on colour, texture and flavour of fruit- and vegetable-based food products: A review.
Trends in Food Science and Technology, 19(6), 320–328.
Petrus, R. R., Churey, J. J., & Worobo, R. W. (2020). Challenging a range of high pressure
processing parameters to inactivate pathogens in orange juice. High Pressure
Research, 40(4), 537–542.
Porto-Fett, A. C. S., Call, J. E., Shoyer, B. E., Hill, D. E., Pshebniski, C., Cocoma, G. J.,
et al. (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.
Raval, C. B., & Rahman, S. A. (2015). Difficult airway challenges-intubation and
extubation matters in a case of large goiter with retrosternal extension. Anesthesia:
Essays and Researches, 9(2), 247–250.
Sivertsvik, M., Jeksrud, W. K., & Rosnes, J. T. (2002). A review of modified atmosphere
packaging of fish and fishery products – significance of microbial growth, activities
and safety. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 37, 107–127.
Song, H., Qi, Y., Wu, S., Zhang, X., & Guo, X. (2015). Inactivation of hepatitis E virus in
pork liver sausage by high pressure processing. Meat Science, 110, 174–178.
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), 17–23.
Utrera, M., Morcuende, D., & Estévez, M. (2018). High-pressure processing of meat:
Effects on oxidative and proteolytic enzyme activities, myoglobin oxidation, and
physicochemical properties. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety,
17(1), 233–249.
Yang, H., Han, M., Bai, Y., Han, Y., Xu, X., & Zhou, G. (2015). High pressure processing
alters water distribution enabling the production of reduced-fat and reduced-salt
pork sausages. Meat Science, 102, 69–78.
Ye, M., Yue, T., Yuan, Y., & Wu, D. (2018). Effect of high hydrostatic pressure on water
holding capacity, protein conformation and texture of fresh pork. Innovative Food
Science and Emerging Technologies, 47, 203–210.
Zhang, X., Zhao, Y., & Sun, D. (2015). Effect of high pressure processing on texture and
icrostructure of dry-cured ham. Food Science and Technology International, 21(8),
624–632.
Zhao, Y. M., Alba, M. de, Sun, D. W., & Tiwari, B. (2019). Principles and recent
applications of novel non-thermal processing technologies for the fish industry – a
review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 59, 728–742.