Dynamic Changes of Headspace Gases in CO, and N,
Packaged Fresh Beef
YANYUN ZHAO, JOHN HENRY WELLS,
ABSTRACT
Two independentexperiments were conducted to examine the effects of
initial packaging/product conditions and storage conditions on in-pack-
age headspacepressure changes for modified atmospherepackagedbeef
during 12 hr storage. Headspace-to-meatvolume ratio 1.8 to 5.9, surface
area 200-800 cm*, sample volume 0.22-0.75L, storage at 3-13°C and
initial gas composition 20-100% CO, balanced with N, were studied.
Headspace-to-meatvolume ratio was the most important packaging pa-
rameter, but surface area and meat volume also affected headspaceCO,
changes. Decreased storage temperature reduced CO, concentration re-
maining in headspace. Higher initial CO2 concentration resulted in
greater concentration changes.
Key Words: beef, headspacegases,modified atmospheres
INTRODUCTION
DEMANDS FOR ENHANCEMENT OF QUALITY and shelf-life of
meats have increased applications of modified atmospherepack-
aging (MAP) of fresh meats. The in-package microenvironments
of MAP meats are affected by dynamic changes of headspace
gases (Seideman et al., 1979; Sebranek, 1986). Zhao et al.
(1994) reviewed research on headspace CO, concentration
changes during storage for CO& gas atmospheres,which in-
dicated that meat absorption or evolution of CO, depended on
initial headspace CO,, temperature, packaging configuration,
and meat characteristics.With high concentrations of CO, in the
headspace of packaged meat, CO, would be absorbed by the
muscle and fat tissue until saturation or apparent equilibrium
resulted (Bush, 1991). Absorption of CO, causes a decreasein
(headspace)volume in MAP resulting in shrunken or collapsed
packages. Gill and Penney (1988) indicated that the effect of
CO, addition in MAP would be complete only if CO, quantities
were in excess of those required for meat saturation.
Models for prediction of gas concentrations in MAP systems
for fresh produce have been based on Fick’s Law of Diffusion
to predict the rate of diffusion into the commodity (Arthur et
al., 1989; Henig and Gilbert, 1975). Models analogous to those
for fresh produce are not available for MAP meat. Furthermore,
little quantative research has been reported on interactions
among meat and gas headspace. Zhao (1993) developed a
method to measure headspace CO, changes during storage of
MAP fresh meats based on the ideal gas law, which enabled
control and quantitative evaluation of product packaging config-
urations and MAP conditions created within a model package
system. Results indicated that absorption was dependent upon
size and shape of meat pieces, composition of exposed surfaces,
boundary conditions at those surfaces (e.g., gas pressure and
CO, concentration), and the ratio of headspaceto meat volume
(Gill, 1988; Taylor and MacDougall, 1973). Storage temperature
and initial CO, concentration also directly affect CO, absorption
(Spahl et al., 1981; Seideman et al., 1979; Enfors and Molin,
Author Wells is with the Dept. of Biological & Agricultural Engi-
neering and author McMillin is with the Dept. of Animal Science,
Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State Uni-
versity Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. Author
Zhao’s current address: Dept. of Animal Science, Iowa State
Univ., Ames, IA.
Volume 60, No. 3, 1995-JOlJRNAL
and KENNETH W. McMlLLlN
1984; Jackson, et al. 1992). Additionally, meat composition
(e.g., moisture and fat content), pH, and other biological factors
can greatly affect CO, absorption in packaged meat (Gill, 1988).
Such relationships have not been expressed in precise mathe-
matical terms.
Our specific objective was to quantify headspaceCO, changes
as related to product packaging configurations and storage con-
ditions within the in-package modified atmosphereenvironment.
The influence of packaging/product configuration on CO, ab-
sorption was modelled with a series of experiments conducted
in a model package. The effect of storage conditions on CO,
absorption coefficient was modelled with an experimental ap-
proach considering different storage temperatures and initial gas
compositions.
MATERIALS & METHODS
Model of CO, absorption coefficient
From the ideal gas law, headspaceCO, changes with time can be
related directly to headspacepressure change:
where dnc,/dt is the amount of CO, change with time (g,&r), V, is
the headspacevolume of package, T is the temperature (K), $ is the
gas constant (8.3144 J/molaK), and dP/dt is the headspacegas pressure
change over time (kPa/hr). As with fresh produce (Arthur et al., 1989),
CO, absorption coefficient on a mass/massbasis is then defined as:
VH/M dp
Rco2=(f+Mm=-
R&n dt
-
wherehoz is the CO, absorptioncoefficient(g,,,/kg,,, * hr), V,, is
the headspace-to-meatvolume ratio, and pm is the density of the meat
sample (kg/m-‘).
Apparatus
A constant volume and gas impermeable chamber (255 mm diam by
110 mm high and 10 mm thick) was constructed of aluminum as a
physical model of a MAP package. The change in CO, within the head-
space of the model package was calculated from Eq. (1) by monitoring
headspacegas pressure changes with time, using a pressure transducer
(Omega Engineering Inc., PX 304-1OOAV) in the lid of the chamber
connected to a strip chart recorder (ABB GOERZ Aktiengeschaft, Aus-
tria, Model SE120). Temperature inside the chamber was measuredwith
a copper-constantan thermocouple probe (Omega Engineering Inc.,
Model CPSS-18G-8-RP) connected to the second channel of the strip
chart recorder. Two metering valves attached to the chamber (Swagelok
Co., Model SS-31RF2) were connected to a premixed gas bottle and
vacuum pump (Thomas Industries Inc., Model 607CA32) for evacuation
and gas back-flushing to replace the internal chamber atmosphere. A
sampling port for withdrawal of gas samples and a pressurereleasevalve
were connected to the chamber.
The composition of headspacegasesin the chamber was measuredby
removing 30 mL of gas via gas-tight syringe (Becton Dickinson and
Company, Model B-D) through a shimadzu septum (Chemical Research
Supplies, Model 77) attached to the sampling port. The volume per-
centage of individual gases was measured using a CO,/O, gas analyzer
(Servomex Co., Model 1450) to confirm the initial and final gas com-
position within the chamber during CO, absorption experiments.
The chamber volume was determined by the total volume of water
that could be injected into the chamber (5.16L). The seal integrity of the
OF FOOD SCIENCE-571
 CO, ABSORPTION IN MAP BEEF. .

for monitoring headspacechanges resulting in package collapse in high

. 3% + 8% l 13% CO, atmospherepackages(Zhao, 1993). Pressurechangesduring storage
were recorded and the CO, absorption (per unit mass of meat) was cal-

Storage conditions
A 3 X 3 factorial, completely randomized design, with two replica-
tions (18 beef samples) was conducted to study time dependent head-
space CO, changes-(absorption/evolution)with three temperatures(3, 8,
and 13°C) and 3 initial oremixed eas comnositions (1OO%CO,:O%N~.
SO%CO,:5O%N~,and 2i%CO,:8Oo;bN,). during this‘ experiment, ai1
packaging/productparametersfor beef samples were held constant (V,,
= 2.5, V, = 0.34L, and S, = 400 cm*).
During the experiment, each beef sample was placed in the chamber
120 - and maintained at the desired temperature. The atmosphere in the cham-
ber was adjusted to that of premixed gasesusing the vacuum/back-flush
115’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ ’ procedure. The initial gas concentration was measured to verify the
012 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 composition of commercially obtained premix gases. Final CO, and 0,
Time (hr) concentrations were analyzed and each beef sample was weighed after
12 hr inside the chamber. For each treatment combination, the CO,
Fig. I-Observed (symbols) and predicted (lines) time dependent change in headspacewas determined by monitoring the time dependent
pressure change for fresh beef stored at different temperatures pressure change within the apparatus.
with 100% CO2 atmosphere.

chamber was determined by monitoring pressure change in nitrogen (in- Statistical procedures
itial gas pressure 207 kPa) during 24 hr. In order to achieve isothermal Experimental data from packaging/product con&rations and storage
conditions, the test apparatuswas located inside a temperature controlled conditions were analyzed by statistical regressions (SAS Institute Inc.,
chamber (Master-Bilt, Standex Company, Model D34LCD82) that was 1989). Data for time dependent headspacegas pressure changes were
adjusted to the desired temperature 12 hr before the start of each exper- used to develop pressure drop equations by least square regression using
iment. the SAS REG procedure. The statistical modeling technique of backward
elimination was used to identify significant (p < 0.05) packaging/prod-
Preparation of meat samples uct and storage parameters that affected CO, absorption. Polynomial
equations including significant parameters-headspace-to-meat volume
Semimembranosus muscles were obtained 72 hr postmortem either ratio, surface area and volume of meat samples, as well as storage tem-
from the LSU Agricultural Center, Dept. of Animal Science (for pack- perature and initial CO, concentration-were generated for CO, absorp-
aging/product configurations) or a local commercial slaughter house (for tion values using the SAS general linear model REG procedure.
storage conditions). Primal cuts were trimmed free of external fat and
cut into rectangular pieces (samples) ranging from 260-86Og, as required
to adjust meat volume and surface area. All samples were initially vac- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
uum packaged using a chamber-type, heat-seal vacuum packaging ma- Pressure drop associated with CO, absorption
chine (Westglen Corp., Model VM 200H). Sample bags were numbered
and stored at 4 + 05°C for <7 days prior to beginning each experiment. A function describing the time dependent pressure drop for
Vacuum storage of samples prior to treatment exposure allowed for ex- CO, and N, packaged fresh beef was established using linear
perimental control of variability anticipated due to differences in muscles regression (SAS Institute Inc., 1989.) A logarithmic function
between animals and within muscle variation for each animal. For each described time dependent pressure:
experiment, one beef sample was selected according to a previously as-
signed random order. P=ki - b ln(t+l) (3)
Proximate compositions of all samples were determined after testing
using rapid analytical microwave procedures (CEM AVC-80 and Au- where t is the time (hr), Pi is initial absolute pressure of head-
tomatic Extraction System). The pH of each sample was measured with space gas as predicted by regression, and b is the initial pressure
a glass body combination pH surface electrode attached to a digital pH drop rate coefficient. The time dependent pressure drop fitted
meter (Oyster, Economy pH Meter, Model 301013-03-B). Various bio- with Eq. (3) for beef muscle stored at 3, 8, and 13°C was com-
logical factors that could influence CO, absorption could not be con- pared under 100% CO, atmosphere (Fig. 1). The pressure drop
trolled and were assumed constant for our experimental trials. All for beef stored with 20%, 50%, and 100% CO, (balance of NJ
samples within an experiment were obtained from cattle with the same atmosphere at 3°C was also compared at 3°C (Fig. 2). Pressure
age and degree of finish, and were processedby a uniform procedure of
slaughtering, chilling, and fabrication. drop model, Eq. (3), could be widely used to describe headspace
pressure changes caused by CO, absorption under various stor-
age temperatures and gas atmospheres (R* values for each re-
Packaging/product configuration gression line were 0.98 to 0.99). Since the initial pressure was
Beef samples (20) were tested to estimate the effect of headspace-to: constant for all experimental trials, the pressure drop rate co-
meat volume ratio and surface area on CO, absorption. Headspace-to- efficient b was related to different packaging conditions and
meat volume ratios from 1.8 to 5.9 were established by varying chamber intrinsic characteristics of the meat.
volume with addition of gas impermeable inserts and/or different meat Therefore, CO, absorption coefficient could be related to in-
sample volumes. Rectangular beef samples were chosen for ease of sam- itial pressure drop rate coefficient b by:
ple preparation and surface area measurement,with variations in surface
area from 200 to 800 cm2 and volume from 0.22 to 0.75L.
For each trial, a beef sample was placed in the test chamber main- R co2 =--44VA b
tained at 13 2 0.5”C. We chose 13°C as a representativeabusive storage VP, (t+ 1)
condition for MAP meat. The chamber was sealed and connected to a Eq. (4) indicates that CO, absorption coefficient is inversely
vacuum pump and back-flushed using 100% CO,. The vacuum/back- proportional to time by the pressure drop rate coefficient (b) for
flush cycle was repeated three to four times until 99.0 f 1.O% CO, had
been reached. The initial headspaceabsolute gas pressure was adjusted conditions of Pi = Pi. The larger the observed initial pressure
to 155 + 14 kPa by bleeding excessheadspacegas through the metering drop rate, the more CO, absorbed by the meat tissue. Note that
valve. Initial CO, concentration was verified by gas analysis. the CO, absorption would not continue unbounded, as the drop
Each beef sample remained inside the chamber for a 12-hr monitoring in CO, partial pressure within the headspacelikely would reach
period. Preliminary research indicated this 124~ period was appropriate some limiting threshold such that CO, would not diffuse across

572-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 60, No. 3, 1995

 170 235
x 20% co, l 80% co, * 100% co, ( . 1.5 kg whole chicken 50% CO,/50% N,
165 x 0.8 kg chopped pork 100% CO,
230 1.5 kg ground beef 100% CO,
160 p=l53.791-1.2931’ln(t+l) R’=0.81
l

s * ,-. A 3
a.155 A A x $225
~~154.53~3.1335’ln(t+l) R’=0.98
2 I P=226.815-3.1429’ln(t+l) FE0.98
;220

PI \ P=153.285-13.4391’ln(t+l) lE0.99
I’ ifi
'n
,,,215
5
B
$210
a
125
205
120

115""""""' 200
0 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO I1 I2 012 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Time(hr) Time (hr)

Fig. 2-Observed (symbols) and predicted (lines) time dependent Fig. 3-Pressure change resulting from CO2 absorption by
pressure change for fresh beef packaged with different levels of chicken, pork, and beef at 13°C.
CO2 balanced with N2 at 3°C.

tissue membranes. This characteristic is reflected in the deriva-space pressure change caused by CO, absorption was related
tive of Eq. (3), dP/dt = b/(t + l), indicating that dP/dt = 0 directly to the package/product configuration by the headspace
after long time intervals. Figures 1 and 2 support the hypothesisvolume (V,,) and mass of meat sample (M,), and to package
that the rate of headspacegas pressuredrop decreaseswith stor- storage conditions by storage temperature (T). Other factors in-
age time. High pressure differential is the primary driving forcefluencing CO, absorption could be indirectly related through
for CO, absorption in beef tissue (Gill, 1988). As CO, is ab- functional correlation with the pressuredrop rate coefficient (b).
sorbed, the partial pressure(concentration) difference decreases,For beef the average initial moisture was 72.00 +- 2.05%, fat
and the rate of headspacepressure drop would also decrease. content 2.5 * 2.0%, and pH was 5.5 ? 0.2%.
The CO, absorption during the first 12 hr of storage could be The pressuredrop rate coefficient (b) values for 20 packaging/
calculated: product configurations were compared (Table 1). Since head-
space-to-meatvolume ratio (V,,M), surface area (S,) and volume
(V,) of beef sampleswere assumedto be related to the pressure
A,,@= 12)= s R,, dt= - 2 b In(t+ l)/,=,, (5) drop rate’coefficient (b), a backwards elimination regression
z m modeling technique was used to identify significant parameters.
Where A&t = 12) is the accumulated amount of CO, absorbed F-values observed with these packaging/product parameters
(g/kg,,,,3 during 12 hr storage. Longer observation would likely were compared (Table 2). They indicate that the rate of head-
reveal pressure changes associated with chemical conversions space gas pressure changes caused by CO, absorption in fresh
and microbial metabolic processesand not CO, absorption alone beef was related to headspace-to-meatvolume ratio, surface
(Zhao et al., 1994). area, and volume of beef sample, as well as interactions of those
parameters.
Pressure drop with different meats Assuming S, and V, are constant, b could be approximated
by the inverse of V,,,:
The general form of Eq. (3) was validated on studies with
chicken, beef, and pork (unreported data). Examples of resulting
pressure change data fitted by Eq. (3) were compared (Fig. 3). b-b,,++ (6)
” H/M
Results indicated that CO, absorption was related to type of
muscle (i.e. different pressure curves reflect different CO, ab- Equation (6) indicates that the initial pressure drop rate coeffi-
sorption of different muscles.) For example, a l&kg whole cient decreasedwith V,,, when V,,, was relatively small, but
chicken absorbed about 1.8 g of CO, in about 12 hr from an the effect of V,, on b became small with increasing V,, (Fig.
initial gas mixture of 50% CO, and 50% N,. A 1.5-kg portion 4). We hypothesized that there may be a critical point of V,,
of ground beef and chopped pork absorbed about 4.5g and 5.3g such that a package would contain the minimum CO, in the
of CO,, respectively, at an initial 100% CO, gas atmosphere. headspacefor meat to reach CO, absorption equilibrium. Em-
Gill (1988) reported that CO, absorption in muscle tissue of pH pirically this could be further explained since a smaller V,,,
5.5 at 0°C was = 960 mL (about 1.89 g/kg of tissue at STP) would contain a smaller absolute amount of CO, within the
and that CO, absorption increased with increased tissue pH by headspace.When CO, in headspaceis less than the minimum
360 mL/kg for each pH unit, and decreasedwith increasedtem- required to reach CO, absorption equilibrium (i.e. V,,, is rela-
perature by 19 mL/kg for each 1°C rise. Bush (1991) reported tively small), headspacegas pressure would decreaserapidly as
that a whole chicken weighing 0.8-kg would absorb about 1.lg meat tissue absorbed CO,.
of CO, in 8 hr at equilibrium mixture of 50% CO, and 50% N,, Since a critical V,,, value may reflect the minimum CO,
a 0.25-kg beef slice absorbed 0.4g of CO, in about 6 hr, and available in the headspaceto reach equilibrium, an increase in
thin ham slices required only about 30 min under the same con- V,,, would representexcessCO, within the headspacesuch that
ditions to absorb the same amount of CO,. the initial pressure drop rate would increase because of an in-
creased concentration gradient. Thus, V,,, may be a critical
Effects of packaging/product parameters on CO, package design parameter to achieve CO, absorption equilib-
absorption rium for beef in 100% CO, microenvironment. Packagecollapse
caused by CO, absorption in 100% CO, packaged meat may be
Equation (5) indicates that changes in headspacegas pressure avoided or minimized by increasing V,, above a critical thresh-
directly reflect the amount of CO, absorbed by meat. The head- old (-3.3 for the conditions observed).

Volume 60, No. 3, 1995-JOlJRNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-573

CO, ABSORPTION IN MAP BEEF. . .

Table l-CO2 absorption after 12 hr as related to packaging/product con-

figuration of fresh beef (T=13?0.5”C, Pi=155?14 kPa, and Hr=99?1.0% 12
CO7 for all samples)
Sample size Wll S% Kl Vit/M be ACC2 (t=12jf
mm 9 cm2 L kPa/hr glkgrneat
164X118x29 643.6 550.6 0.5363 1.797 10.88 0.8404
165~132~23 638.2 572.2 0.5318 1.820 11.32 0.9540
180~135x23 642.8 630.9 0.5357 2.435 8.99 0.9241
140~124~26 520.6 484.5 0.4338 2.458 9.00 0.9195
150x148~25 660.4 593.0 0.5730 2.867 6.86 0.8458
150~145x25 655.0 582.5 0.5683 2.899 8.45 0.8471
180~170x24 868.4 780.0 0.7503 3.165 5.23 0.7016
180X100x42 849.8 595.2 0.7342 3.256 4.68 0.6677
180~170x24 848.0 780.0 0.7327 3.265 5.08 0.7238
180~100~40 841 .O 584.0 0.7269 3.299 5.20 0.7426
170x90x50 813.6 566.0 0.7059 3.427 4.23 0.6294
150x90x30 437.0 414.0 0.3642 4.052 5.93 0.9964
180~110x30 717.0 570.0 0.5976 4.229 8.18 1.1531
140x115x17 410.4 408.7 0.3421 4.379 6.13 1.1237
160x110x33 613.8 530.2 0.5116 5.108 5.69 1.1743
160~110x20 360.4 460.0 0.3001 5.130 6.75 1.3977 I 1 I I I I I L
125X90X20 284.6 211.0 0.2372 5.324 7.13 1.6222
128X83x20 264.2 296.6 0.2202 5.812 8.42 1.9880 1.8 2.3 2.8 3.3 3.8 4.3 4.8 5.3 5.8
144x110x15 323.8 393.0 0.2699 5.817 6.59 1.5986
142~120~22
V “IY
491.4 456.1 0.4095 5.899 4.74 1.1035
eM,,, equals initial mass of individual samples. Fig. 4-Pressure drop rate coefficient as related to headspace-to-
bS, equals measured surface area of the sample. meat volume ratio for fresh beef.
CV, equals volume of each sample.
dVt+,Mequals headspace to meat volume ratio.
eb equals initial pressure drop rate. Table 3-F values for significant variables for 12 hr CO2 absorption
‘Acts equals amount of CO2 absorbed per unit mass of meat.
Regression
Variable coefficient+ F valuea
Table 2-F values for significant variables for the headspace pressure drop Intercept -8.582 32.67
rate coefficient
VH/M 2.403 54.80
Regression %ll 194.382 37.16
Variable coefficient& F valuea V”l 20.424 34.99
Intercept 9.886 19.70 (0.0008) &i/MXSrn -44.497 41.02
1NHlM -37.440 14.67 (0.0024) v”lx%l -421.365 9.47
S”l - 186.753 17.00 (0.0014) VH/MXVrn -5.848 37.66
V”l -23.975 13.09 (0.0035) VH/MxVmXSm 111.525 38.23
%J%~/M 838.784 17.92 (0.0012) a F-value fall probabilities were 0.0001).
&-~NH/M 86.394 12.97 (0.0036) b Regression coefficients are given for the mathematical model used for this statisti-
cal analysis:
;gYvm -1803.865
467.332 15.91 (0.0024)
14.67 (0.0018)
A~~=~~+~~VH/M+~~S~+~~V~+~~V,VH/M+~~VH/MS~+~~V~S~+~V,VH~~S,
a F-value (probability of a large number of F)
b Regression coefficients are given for the mathematical model used for this statistical Coefficient of determination: R* = 0.97
analysis:

Effects of storage conditions on headspace CO, changes

Coefficient of determination for this model R2 = 0.91
The F-values for Acoz(t = 12) with packaging/product para-
meters were obtained by the elimination of variable method (Ta-
ble 3). They indicate that in addition to V-, 12 hr CO,
absorption was related to surface area, volume of beef sample,
and interactions of these parameters. The significant F-value for
S, and V,, X S, showed that the surface area of a beef sample
affected 12 hr CO, absorption, but the influence of S, on A&t
= 12) was dependent on V-. This indicates that the larger the
surface area, the higher would be the 12 hr CO, absorption.
Since surface area can vary with geometry for a given volume
or mass of meat, selection of suitable geometry for meat in the
design of a MAP system can assist in controlling CO, absorp-
tion. For example, to achieve CO, absorption equilibrium
quickly, a thin and long meat sample should be used instead of
a relatively thick sample with the same volume.
While absorption is influenced by beef sample volume, it is
also related to meat surface area and headspace-to-meatvolume
ratio as indicated by significant F-values for V, X V,, X S,
(Table 3). This indicates that CO, absorption in packaged meat
is not strictly a surface phenomenon, but also that CO, diffused
and penetrated inside the meat. However, since the volume of
beef samples was difficult to control and limited, the quantitative
effect of V, and relationship of V, to S, and V,, was re-
stricted. Further investigation with a controlled meat sample vol-
ume is needed to determine how CO, absorption is affected by
vm.
Data on the effects of storage temperature and initial CO,
concentration on amounts of CO, changes in 12 hr were sum-
marized (Table 4). The measure “amount of CO, change” in-
stead of “CO, absorption” was used because CO, evolution
from beef tissues was observed when gas mixtures of CO, and
N, were used. The net action of absorption and evolution was
calculated as the final amount of CO, change in the headspace.
The 12 hr CO, changes as related to temperature were com-
pared for each initial CO, concentration (Fig. 5). For an initial
100% CO, package, headspace CO, absorption decreased with
increased temperature. Within the range 3-13°C the amount of
CO, change decreased linearly by -0.02 g/kg,,, (about 10.2
mLk,,, at standard conditions) for each 1°C rise (Fig. 5). For
an initial atmosphere of 50% CO,/50% N,, 12 hr amount of CO,
change was almost parallel with the 100% CO, line, and tem-
perature effect on CO, absorption was almost the same as the
100% CO, atmosphere. When an initial atmosphereof 20% CO,
plus 80% N, was used, the 12 hr CO, change appeared negative
(Fig. 5). This was because additional CO, was evolved from
beef tissues in excess’of that absorbed, even at lower tempera-
tures. The higher the storage temperature, the more CO, evolved
from the beef.
The initial CO, concentration in headspace greatly affected
the dynamic conditions inside the package microenvironment.
The major factors that influence the amount of CO, changes
include CO, absorption in meat, diffusion of CO, from pre-
formed CO, pools within the meat, aerobic energy metabolism
of meat cells, and other biochemical reactions (Enfors and

574--JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 60, No. 3, 1995

Table 4-CO2 absorption after 12 hr as related to storage conditions of
fresh beef (VH/M=2.5, S,=400 cm2, and V,=O.34 L for all samples) 2
n 100% co, x5o%co, l 20% co,
Temp Initial MAP P? pb Nil Aco2 lt=12) 2 1.8
“C CO2% N2% kP; kPg 9 gco,hn,,t
100 0 155.69 119.63 395.8 1.5235 56 1.6- =---.-
155.48 116.87 396.6 '1.5873 5 1.4- .
50 50 155.44 146.17 402.8 0.3700 2 1.2-
3 155.34 138.73 389.0 0.6963 8
20 80 154.79 157.55 395.6 -0.1134 r” l-
154.79 155.34 398.2 -0.0220 ; 0.8 -
100 0 155.48 123.42 351.4 1.3310
155.14 118.59 390.6 1.4756
$ 0.6 -
50 50 155.14 147.90 401.0 0.3004 B 0.4 -
8 154.45 141.00 392.6 0.5429 E3 0.2 -
20 80 155.14 157.90 393.2 -0.1454
155.14 158.24 394.4 -0.1296 g 0
100 0 154.10 123.08 399.0 1.2656 ij -0.2 -
155.14 120.66 386.6 1.4147
50 50 155.14 147.90 329.6 0.2953
13 154.79 144.80 389.2 0.4102 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
20 80 155.14 166.86 383.8 -0.4779
Temperature (“C)
155.14 162.93 385.8 -0.3183
'Pi equals Initial headspace gas absolute pressure.
Fig. 5-Headspace CO2 changes as related to storage tempera-
bpf equals Headspace gas absolute pressure at the end of 12 hr. tures for 12 hr storage of fresh beef.

Molin, 1984; Gill, 1988). For an initial 100% CO, package,

401 I
respiration and other aerobic energy metabolism are considered
to be inhibited by a high concentration of CO, in headspace.
Since CO, is highly soluble in both water and oil, it would be 3
35
. 3% x 0% * 13QC
I
3 30-
absorbed by the muscle and fat tissues until apparent equilib-
rium. When a gas mixture of 50% CO,/50% N, was used in 5 25-
headspace,CO, absorption still was important headspace gas & 20-
changes. However, the amount of CO, absorbed by beef was
much less than 100% CO, package (Fig. 2). When the initial 8 15-
P
CO, concentration was decreasedto 20%, the amount of CO, co lo-
c
evolved was in excessof that absorbed by meat. Therefore, the ; 5--- ______
final amount of CO, in the headspaceincreased, appearing as a
negative amount of CO, absorbed. 17 0
+------x/ d
A headspacechange model, Eq. (5) was applied to the 12 hrs B - -------- ------------------
amount of CO, change using the SAS REG procedure: d .lO+L-----d
A&=12) = 6.203158 - 0.024193 T + 0.020377 H, (7)
where A,,,(t = 12) is the 12 hr amount of CO, change, ex- ::::
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
pressed as a linear function of T, the absolute temperature (K),
and H,, the initial CO, concentration (%). No significant inter- Initial concentration of CO, (%)
actions between temperature and initial CO, concentration were Fig. GPressure changes in headspace as related to storage tem-
noted. The coefficient of determination for Eq. (7) was 0.97. peratures and initial CO2 concentrations for 12 hr storage of fresh
beef.

Engineering design criteria for MAP packaged meat

Meat composition (e.g., moisture and fat content), pH and
other biological factors can greatly affect CO, absorption in
packaged meat (Gill, 1988). Quantative determination of the ef-
fects of packaging/product configuration on CO, absorption
would require a comprehensive study to precisely elucidate the
many factors involved. Our results show that headspace-to-meat
volume ratio is an important packaging parameter on 12 hr CO,
absorption while surface area and volume of beef sample were
less influential. The specific influence of beef sample volume on
this conclusion is unclear.
In flexible packaging systems the headspacegas pressure in-
fluences the external appearance.A headspacepressureless than
atmospheric causes collapse, whereas pressure higher than at-
mospheric would result in swollen and possibly broken pack-
ages. For each storage temperature there is an initial gas
composition range that could minimize headspacegas pressure
changes within a narrow range (almost constant) during storage
(Fig. 6). For example, an initial concentration of 28% to 45%
CO, balanced with N, within a package could achieve stable
headspace gas pressure (0 ? 5.0 kPa) at 13°C (Fig. 6). The
initial concentration of CO, required to achieve stable headspace
pressure is related to temperature. The lower the storage tem-
perature, the lower the initial CO, concentration needed to
achieve constant headspacegas pressure. Furthermore, packag-
ing parameters,such as headspace-to-meatvolume ratio and sur-
face area and volume of meat sample, are important factors in
determining headspacegas pressure changes.
CONCLUSIONS
IN MAP HEADSPACE-TO-MEAT VOLUME RATIO is the mostim-
portant factor influencing CO, headspacechanges. Surface area
and volume of a meat sample also influence changes in head-
space CO,. Temperature and initial gas composition greatly af-
fect CO, headspacechanges.When initial CO, percentage was
>35% (balanced with N,) for product at 13°C the net absorp-
tion of headspaceCO, was observed in packaged meat, other-
wise, net CO, evolution occurred. Both CO, absorption and
evolution were influenced by storage temperature. Higher tem-
peratures reduced CO, absorption, while increasing CO, evo-
lution. -Continued on page 591

Volume 60, No. 3, 1995JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-575