Effects of chlorine and lactic acid treatments on chicken legs and chicken wings
Authors:   , Luo Patrick 
Published: October 2023

Food spoilage is a multifactorial process in which microbial spoilage plays a crucial role. In a companion study, we applied 50 ppm chlorine (C) and 2 percent lactic acid (LA) to study antimicrobial effects on fresh chicken breasts and found that a very low amoun t of Chryseobacteria and Pseudomonas are present on the surface of the chicken in all of the treatments. In this study, we investigated the effects of C and LA on several quality indicators for raw (R) and deep fried (D) chicken legs and wings from the sam e carcasses. The hypothesis was that there were no differences in quality (P < 0.05) due to treatments. Untreated chicken carcasses (N = 54) were obtained from a small abattoir, transported on ice to the university and evenly allocated to the C, LA or dri nking water (W) rinse treatment using a completely random design. After separating the breasts for the microbial study, the legs and wings of each carcass were separated, labeled, vacuum packed, and frozen for later evaluation. One leg and wing from each c hicken were used for the R group, and the other used for the D group. The wings were deep fried at 175 degreesC for 6 minutes, and the legs were deep fried at 175 degreesC for 10 minutes. Color, pH, water activity, water holding capacity (WHC), and moisture content (M (WHC), and moisture content (MC) were tested using routine methods. The texture of skin C) were tested using routine methods. The texture of skin was measured in triplicate by driving a probe at a specific rate into samples to quantify was measured in triplicate by driving a probe at a specific rate into samples to quantify hardness.hardness. In group 1, for the leg data group, the LA samples had lower pH for R (5.65) and D In group 1, for the leg data group, the LA samples had lower pH for R (5.65) and D (6.15) than W (6.15) than W and C (6.18, 6.21 R; 6.40, 6.42 D) treatments (P < 0.05). For water activity, the and C (6.18, 6.21 R; 6.40, 6.42 D) treatments (P < 0.05). For water activity, the LA samples had higher Aw for R (0.94) and D (0.92) than W (0.92 R; 0.88 D) treatments (P < LA samples had higher Aw for R (0.94) and D (0.92) than W (0.92 R; 0.88 D) treatments (P < 0.05). There were no significant treatment differences in color. Deep0.05). There were no significant treatment differences in color. Deep--frying did refrying did reduce (P < duce (P < 0.05) L value (R = 78.2, D = 61.0) and increase b value (R = 14.2, D = 28.8) for color. For 0.05) L value (R = 78.2, D = 61.0) and increase b value (R = 14.2, D = 28.8) for color. For MC, both C and LA groups were lower than the W group in both R (W 59, C 45, LA 44 percent) MC, both C and LA groups were lower than the W group in both R (W 59, C 45, LA 44 percent) and D (W 37, C 30, LA 32 percent) treatments, but not significantly. For WHC,and D (W 37, C 30, LA 32 percent) treatments, but not significantly. For WHC, in the R group, C in the R group, C (6.10) is significantly higher than W (4.64). In D, C (6.19) is higher than W (5.18), and LA is (6.10) is significantly higher than W (4.64). In D, C (6.19) is higher than W (5.18), and LA is lower than W (3.77). There was no difference (P > 0.05) in texture in all treatments which lower than W (3.77). There was no difference (P > 0.05) in texture in all treatments which averaged 601 g for R and 648 g for D.averaged 601 g for R and 648 g for D. In group 2, In group 2, there was no significant difference found in WHC, color, MC, there was no significant difference found in WHC, color, MC, aaww. For texture, . For texture, there was no significant difference found in any treatments for legs. In the wings group, in R, there was no significant difference found in any treatments for legs. In the wings group, in R, V had a significant difference in texture when compared to C. For pH, V was V had a significant difference in texture when compared to C. For pH, V was significantly significantly lower in pH when compared to C in both raw wings and legs.lower in pH when compared to C in both raw wings and legs. In the wing data group, the LA samples also had lower pH for R (5.75) and D (6.04) In the wing data group, the LA samples also had lower pH for R (5.75) and D (6.04) than W and C (6.38, 6.31 R; 6.52, 6.50 D) treatments (P < 0.05). No significant differences in than W and C (6.38, 6.31 R; 6.52, 6.50 D) treatments (P < 0.05). No significant differences in watewater activity or color due to the treatments were found in W, C and LA (0.96, 0.96, 0.96 R; r activity or color due to the treatments were found in W, C and LA (0.96, 0.96, 0.96 R; 0.85, 0.88, 0.84 D). Deep0.85, 0.88, 0.84 D). Deep--frying did (P < 0.05) lower L values (R = 77.4, D = 56.6) increase b frying did (P < 0.05) lower L values (R = 77.4, D = 56.6) increase b value (R = 13.8, D = 24.8) for color. For MC, LA had a higher content in value (R = 13.8, D = 24.8) for color. For MC, LA had a higher content in both R (W 45 percent, C both R (W 45 percent, C 45 percent, LA 51 percent) and D (W 22 percent, C 20 percent, LA 31 percent) groups. For WHC, C (5.38) and LA (6.11) 45 percent, LA 51 percent) and D (W 22 percent, C 20 percent, LA 31 percent) groups. For WHC, C (5.38) and LA (6.11) are significantly lower than W (7.62) in R, and no significant differences were found in D are significantly lower than W (7.62) in R, and no significant differences were found in D group. For texture, LA (762.9) is significantly higher than W (64group. For texture, LA (762.9) is significantly higher than W (641.2) in D, and no significant 1.2) in D, and no significant differences in R.differences in R. In conclusion, the C and LA treatments did not significantly alter the quality In conclusion, the C and LA treatments did not significantly alter the quality measurements other than a reduction in pH for the LA and observed changes in L and b measurements other than a reduction in pH for the LA and observed changes in L and b values for color which were affected by cookvalues for color which were affected by cooking. These findings can help reassure processors ing. These findings can help reassure processors to apply decontamination treatments. Future sensory panels can be performed to further to apply decontamination treatments. Future sensory panels can be performed to further investigate the palatability effects of treatments on chicken exposed to decontamination investigate the palatability effects of treatments on chicken exposed to decontamination solutions.solutions.