ArticleFood science of animal resources2024
Impact of Humectants on Physicochemical and Functional Properties of Jerky: A Meta-Analysis.
Article in Food science of animal resources, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanisms Associated with Quality Deterioration for Vacuum-Packaged Pork Jerky During Accelerated High-Temperature and High-Humidity Storage.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Characterization of flavor profile of beef jerky from different regions of China using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, electronic tongue, and electronic nose.Food chemistry: X · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the effects of humectants on moisture content, water activity, tenderness, color, microbiological analysis, protein denaturation, and oxidation of jerky. A thorough search for papers published in scientific journals that examined the impacts of humectants on jerky was carried out using Web of Science, Google Scholar, PubMed, and Science Direct. Only 14 studies matched inclusion requirements. They were used in the meta-analysis to synthesise quantitative findings. In the current investigation, jerky produced with beef, poultry, goat, or pork was used. The standardised mean difference (SMD) between treatments with humectants and controls was examined to investigate the effects of humectants using random-effects models. Heterogeneity was investigated using meta-regression. A subgroup analysis was carried out for significant factors. Results revealed that the addition of humectants had no significant impact on water activity, pH, fat, ash, CIE L*, or CIE a* (p>0.05). However, humectant addition significantly increased moisture (SMD=1.28, p<0.05), CIE b* (SMD=1.67, p<0.05), and overall acceptability (SMD=1.73, p<0.05). It significantly decreased metmyoglobin (SMD=-0.96, p<0.05), shear force (SMD=-0.84, p<0.05), and protein (SMD=-1.61, p<0.05). However, it was difficult to get a firm conclusion about how humectants affected the myofibrillar fragmentation index, total plate count, and 2-thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances because there were fewer than ten studies. To sum up, the proper use of humectants in jerky demands careful attention to both type and quantity, needing a delicate balancing act with other contributing factors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.