Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41496394›Full record

ArticleUltrasonics sonochemistry2026

Direct contact ultrasound tempering of frozen pork: Effects on physicochemical properties, myofibrillar protein and microstructure.

Xin You, Liyun Wu, Feilong Zhang, Yuze Ou, Juming Tang, Hu Shi, Fanbin Kong, Feng Li, Qingqing Zeng, Yang Jiao

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Xin YouCollege of Food Science and Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China; Engineering Research Center of Food Thermal-processing Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China.
Liyun WuCollege of Food Science and Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China; Engineering Research Center of Food Thermal-processing Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China.
Feilong ZhangCollege of Food Science and Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China; Engineering Research Center of Food Thermal-processing Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China.
Yuze OuCollege of Food Science and Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China; Engineering Research Center of Food Thermal-processing Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China.
Juming TangDepartment of Biosystems Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-6120, USA.
Hu ShiCollege of Food Science and Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China; Engineering Research Center of Food Thermal-processing Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China.
Fanbin KongDepartment of Food Science & Technology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.
Feng LiCollege of Food Science and Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China; Engineering Research Center of Food Thermal-processing Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China.
Qingqing ZengHefei Hualing Co., Ltd, Hefei 230000, China.
Yang JiaoCollege of Food Science and Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China; Engineering Research Center of Food Thermal-processing Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China. Electronic address: yjiao@shou.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional ultrasound-assisted meat tempering usually adopts the water-immersion method, which requires water as a coupling medium and is inconvenient for application in most scenarios. Direct contact ultrasound tempering treatment was proposed to improve the tempering conveniency and retain the freshness of frozen meat products. In this study, the effects of water immersion ultrasound (WUT), direct contact ultrasound with water bag (CUTW), and direct contact ultrasound with ultrasonic couplant bag (CUTC) were compared with traditional air (AT) and water (WT) tempering on the tempering rate and quality of meat. The results demonstrated that, compared with conventional ultrasound methods, direct contact ultrasound tempering (CUTW) achieved comparable efficiency while avoiding the need for water immersion. CUTW produced the highest water-holding capacity (74.64 %) and the lowest cooking loss (25.26 %). It also reduced myofibrillar protein (MP) aggregation and oxidation during tempering, and caused less disruption to MP tertiary structures. Microstructural observations further revealed that muscle fibers in the CUTW-treated samples were denser and exhibited minimal damage. Overall, CUTW provides an effective alternative to immersion-based ultrasound tempering, offering similar or even improved quality outcomes without the inconvenience of water usage, making it more practical for household refrigerator applications.

Indexed as

Chemical PhenomenaFood HandlingFreezingMyofibrilsUltrasonic WavesAnimalsFood, ProcessedSwineWaterWaterContact ultrasound-assisted temperingMicrostructurePork qualityTempering rate

Identifiers

PMID41496394
PMCPMC12926034

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.