Use of natural additives: seaweed oil and citrus fiber and effects marinated chicken meat

Abstract

Omega-3 fatty acids, particularly docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), are associated with numerous health benefits. This research was conducted to evaluate the effects of DHA-rich oil from Schizochytrium sp. algae and citrus fiber as a natural alternative to sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) in marinated chicken breast on moisture, drip loss, DHA concentration, shear force, cooking loss, microbiological analysis, and consumer sensory attributes. Five hundred sixteen chicken breast samples were treated, one group received the DHA and citrus fiber marinade, the second group was untreated (control), and a third group received a conventional marinade containing sodium chloride, sodium tripolyphosphate, and carrageenan (marinade control). Chicken enriched with the DHA and citrus fiber marinade evidenced a lower shear force than the control and conventional treatments, suggesting an improved tenderness. In addition, a significant DHA concentration of approximately 230–236 mg/100 g was achieved, and was constant even after six days of refrigerated storage. The microbiological quality remained satisfactory, with total counts of mesophilic aerobes below 3 log CFU/g and of Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas spp. below 2 log CFU/g. A sensory analysis revealed no noticeable differences in taste, texture, or overall acceptability from the control, indicating a likely consumer acceptability of the enriched chicken. In conclusion, enriching chicken breasts with DHA through an injection technique offers a promising strategy to increase omega-3–fatty-acid intake, particularly for individuals with insufficient consumption of these essential polyunsaturated acids.

Graphical Abstract

Introduction

In recent years, chicken meat has undergone a surge in popularity, outpacing other meats as a result of several key conditions. Competitive prices and lower cost than those of other meats (Augustyńska-Prejsnar et al., 2019; Dalle Zotte et al., 2020; Sujiwo et al., 2018), high-quality protein content (Chmiel et al., 2019; Yalcin et al., 2019), and appealing sensory qualities (Damaziak et al., 2019) have all contributed to the increase that is projected to reach 34.4 kg per capita annually by 2030 (OECD, 2021). Of particular note is that poultry is expected to account for over half of this growth and thus constitute the primary driver of the meat market to further solidify its present leading position.

More recently, marinating has emerged as a popular technique for enhancing the quality of chicken meat. This technology involves the contact between the meat and solutions containing various concentrations of phosphate-containing salts, spices, organic acids, and/or herbs (Smith & Young, 2007). This process demonstrably improves the meat’s appearance, quality, and yield—and even the shelf life (Latif, 2010; Sheard & Tali, 2004). Moreover, marinades enhance juiciness and tenderness by increasing water-retention capacity. The injection marinating technique is the most widely used method, since it allows the dosing of a quantity of brine and standardization of the products without the loss of time required for immersion (Alvarado and McKee, 2007).

On the other hand, the growing demand for "clean-label" products has spurred interest in reducing the use of inorganic additives in foods. This trend is particularly relevant to chicken meat processors, who traditionally rely on phosphates in their marinades. As consumers seek healthier options, alternative ingredients are needed (Fuhrman, 2018). Accordingly, recent research has explored the potential of incorporating ingredients containing plant proteins to partially or completely replace phosphates in meat products (Goemaere et al., 2021).

In view of the demand for healthier and more sustainable food options, citrus fiber emerges as a promising natural alternative to synthetic additives in meat marination. As a by-product of the juice industry—extracted from the orange pulp, albedo, and peel—citrus fiber offers unique functional properties (Howard et al., 2024). Indeed, citrus fiber is characterized by a high internal surface area and rich fiber content (Trejo Márquez et al., 2016; Betancur Ancona et al., 2003), which endow the fiber with several key functionalities: water retention, fat replacement, and emulsification. Studies have demonstrated that incorporating citrus fiber into marinade solutions at low concentrations (2–5%) can achieve results comparable to those obtained with sodium tripolyphosphate (Powell, 2017). Indeed, this natural alternative not only improves the texture of marinated meats but also enhances their organoleptic attributes.

Besides, the supplementation with omega-3 in chicken meat could contribute to reducing cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer, and the loss of cognitive function. Omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) have been increasingly recognized for their beneficial impacts on human health. Numerous studies have documented these benefits, underscoring the potential of omega-3-PUFAs to promote well-being (Li et al., 2021; Quinn et al., 2010; Shahidi & Ambigaipalan, 2018; Sun et al., 2018; Tan et al., 2012; Vakhapova et al., 2014; Xu, 2015).

Within the context of meat production, several research efforts have explored the potential of enriching meat products with omega-3-PUFAs through various methods. Pietrasik et al. (2013) obtained good results in the retention of fatty acids in chicken meat by adding canola oil emulsified with isolated soy protein. Baublits et al. (2007) showed satisfactory results by significantly increasing the proportion of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) in beef. Other researchers have incorporated it into animal feed, achieving different levels of n-3 fatty acids in meat (Upadhyaya et al., 2022 Wang et al., 2020, Konieczka et al., 2017, Surai 2020). However, there were no records found of the incorporation of docosahexaenoic acid (DHA, 22:6 n-3) through direct injection into unprocessed meat, especially from seaweed sources. This approach offers a unique opportunity to enhance meat quality and provide considerable health benefits.

While fish and shellfish are the traditional sources of omega-3-PUFAs, their consumption remains low compared to other food groups (Lee et al., 2019; Rubio Rodríguez et al., 2010). The low antinutritional factor levels, greater sustainability, and high DHA content of microalgal extracts make them a compelling option for enriching food products with this essential fatty acid (Khan et al., 2021).

The present study was aimed at evaluating the effect of incorporating seaweed oil rich in DHA, 22:6 w-3 and citrus fiber on the nutritional, sensory, and microbiological quality of chicken breasts (Pectoralis major) through the use of a marination-injection technique.

Materials and methods

Experimental design

A total of 516 chicken-breast fillets (Pectoralis major) used in this study was obtained from a commercial processing plant in Concepción del Uruguay, Entre Ríos, Argentina, 24 h after slaughter and was free of skin, superficial fat, and visible myopathies. The fillets, with average weight of 250 ± 50 g, were originated from chickens with an average weight of 3,500 ± 500 g. A completely randomized design with three replications was used, where individual breast fillets served as the experimental units. This model included two factors: the treatments (T1, T2, and T3), as detailed in Table 1, and the storage time (1, 3, and 6 days).

Table 1 Percentage (% w/v) of additives in the marinade solutions

The marinade solutions were incorporated into the chicken breasts by means of an automatic multi-needle injector (36 needles—Fricor, Argentina) at a temperature of 5 °C. Each breast received an average volume of 10 ml of solution at a pressure of 1.5 bar per 100 g of meat. Then, the chicken breasts were weighed to verify the volume injected. Within factor 1, Treatment 2 (T2) and Treatment 3 (T3) received the respective marinade solutions (Table 1), while Treatment 1 (T1) consisted of unmarinated samples (control).

The concentrations of the formulations used with each additive were equivalent to those typically found in commercially available products for meat marination. The specific products used in this study were:

• Sodium chloride (fine salt): Tresal, Argentina.

  STPP: Xingfa, China (minimum 94% purity, refined, cold-soluble, gelling).

  Iota carrageenan (cold-soluble): Ceamgel ® 1313 HF, Ceamsa, Spain.

• Citrus fiber powder: Ceamfibre® 7000 SF, Ceamsa, Spain.

• Seaweed oil (Schizochytrium sp.): Life's DHA® S35-O300, DSM, Switzerland (minimum 35% DHA, 22:6 w-3; 350 mg/g oil).

• STTP was used in concentrations of 1.5% (w/v) in brine solution to obtain a maximum allowable final concentration of 0.5% (w/w) in meat.

Citrus fiber was added in concentrations of 1% (w/v). While this fiber is a natural additive without limitations in its use, the supplier's report indicates a perceptible "metallic" flavor at concentrations exceeding this concentrations. The incorporation of seaweed oil followed the guidelines of Regulation No. 432/2012 of the European Commission, which requires a minimum concentration of 40 mg DHA, 22:6 w-3 per 100 g of product, and is consistent with the recommended daily intake of 0.25 g DHA. A minimum of 2% was used to obtain the desired concentration in meat. Higher concentrations were not chosen so that undesirable flavors were not perceived.

Immediately after injection, the chicken breasts were refrigerated at 4 °C and analyzed on three separate days: Day 1, Day 3, and Day 6 (Factor 2). These days were chosen because they are the average meat storage times by consumers in refrigeration.

Physicochemical analysis

The moisture content of the samples was measured in triplicate according to the oven-drying method 950.45B of AOAC (2000). The moisture content was expressed as g/100 g of sample. An ashing was carried out according to the technique 923.03 of AOAC (2005) in a muffle furnace (ORL, Argentina). Lipids were determined after Soxhlet extraction according to the technique 991.36 of AOAC (2005).

The determination of sodium was carried out by atomic-absorption spectrometry at 589 nm (Simondi et al., 2018).

Color determinations were performed with a CM-700d colorimeter (Minnolta, Japan), under the conditions established by King et al. (2023) for the CIE L a* b* model parameters. Illuminant “A” and observer angle “10”. Three repetitions of n = 3 samples (27 determinations) were carried out for each treatment and corresponding day of refrigerated storage.

The pH measurements were performed with a “meat skewer” electrode (Testo 205, Argentina) with automatic temperature compensation, at a 3-cm depth in the cranial area and another measurement in the caudal area of ​​the filet of each breast.

The DHA analyses were carried out on the corresponding methyl esters after O'Fallon et al. (2007). The methyl ester mixture was injected into a CLARUS 680 gas chromatograph (Perkin Elmer, USA) with a flame-ionization mass detector. To separate the fatty acids, an HP-88 capillary column was used under the following temperature-programming sequence: 80 to 220 °C, at a rate of 4 °C/min for 5 min; subsequently 240 °C at 2 °C/min for 10 min. The quantitative analysis was carried out through the use of C₁₁H₂₂O₂, (Fluka, United Kingdom) as an internal standard. The fatty-acid identification was performed by comparing the retention time of methyl esters of the experimental fatty acids with a standard mixture of methyl esters of fatty acids ranging from C₄ through C₂₄ (Supelco Inc., USA), with the standard cis- and trans 9, 11- and 10, 12-octadecadienoic acids (Sigma-Aldrich, United States) plus a standard mixture of polyunsaturated fatty acids omega-3-PUFA No. 2 (Supelco Inc., US). The DHA content—i. e., 22:6 w-3—was expressed as mg/100 g of sample.

Within factor 1, the drip loss, or water-holding, capacity was determined according to the procedure described by Honikel (1998) with a digital scale (Ohaus Analytical Plus, Switzerland) at 24, 48, and 72 h (only on Day 0 of storage).

The percentage of weight loss was calculated by the equation:

$$\text{Weight loss }(\%) = (\text{initial weight }+\text{ final weight})/ (\text{initial weight}) \times 100$$

(1)

The cooking loss was determined by the difference in the prior and subsequent weights. The cooking involved a grilling at 200 ± 20 °C in a double-contact cast-iron plate (20 mm thick) coated with Teflon (Atma, Argentina). The breasts were heated to an internal temperature of 71 ± 1 °C at the geometric center, as measured with a temperature probe (ThermPro, China). The cooking loss was expressed as the percent difference in weight between the raw and the cooked samples by means of the following equation:

$$\text{Cooking loss }(\%) = [\text{weight before cooking }(\text{g})] - [\text{weight after cooking }(\text{g})] / [\text{weight before cooking }(\text{g})] \times 100$$

(2)

To measure the cutting force, 3 1.3-cm cylinders of meat were extracted parallel to the muscle fibers of each individual chicken breast after 24 h of cooking, with a manual sampling device. The cylinders were cut perpendicular to the muscle fibers as determined by a texturometer (Stable Micro Systems TXT, UK) with a Warner–Bratzler blade probe (Zhang & Mittal, 1993). The result was expressed as the average of three values, in N.

Microbiological analysis

Of each sample, 25 g was weighed in a sterile bag and diluted with 225 mL of buffered peptone water (Acumedia. Neogen Corporation, Michigan, United States). Serial dilutions were carried out (ISO 6887–6, 2013). The following counts of total aerobic mesophilic microorganisms (ISO Standard 4833–1, 2013) were performed in duplicate: total Enterobacteriaceae (ISO Standard 21528–2, 2017) plus Pseudomonas spp. (Jawher & Hassan, 2022). The results were expressed as the log CFU/g sample. The detection of Salmonella spp. was carried out (ISO 6579–1:2017/Amd. 1, 2020).

Sensory analysis

Institutional approval for conducting the study was obtained. The respondents accepted to participate in a consent page provided before starting the sensory session. Consumers (n = 85) were randomly recruited from people between 18 and 64 years old (61% women and 39% men) who attended the Bromatologia Faculty, Gualeguaychú, Entre Ríos, Argentina, on the day of the study, and they signed an informed consent. The cooking involved a grilling at 200 ± 20 °C in a double-contact cast-iron plate (20 mm thick) coated with Teflon (Atma, Argentina). The breasts were heated to an internal temperature of 71 ± 1 °C at the geometric center, as measured with a temperature probe (ThermPro, China). After cooking, the breast fillets were cut into 10 g portions and kept at 75 °C until analysis. The three formulations were presented following a balanced randomization (multiple orthogonal Latin square), to avoid systematic biases (Varela & Ares, 2012), on plastic plates coded with 3-digit random numbers, and accompanied by unsalted water cookies and mineral water. Consumers rated overall acceptability and acceptability of attributes, in a 7-point horizontal hedonic scale.

Statistical analysis

The results obtained were analyzed by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) in a 3 × 3 factorial arrangement with the Statgraphics Centurion XV program (Version 15.2.06). The means were compared by Fisher's LSD (Least significant difference) test. In all instances, a significance level of 0.05 was used. The results were expressed as the mean value of the replicates analyzed plus the corresponding standard deviation. In the sensory evaluation, a multiple-regression analysis was performed to evaluate the frequency in measuring the specific sensory attributes (color, flavor, hardness, and saltiness) for each sample evaluated. Minitab 18 statistical software (LLC, United States) was used.

Results and discussion

Moisture, ash, and total fat

The moisture and fat content in chicken breasts are key indicators of their juiciness, flavor, texture, and nutritional value. This study indicated significant changes (P < 0.05) in certain parameters of the components in the breast meat among the treatments with the different marinates (Table 2). The same changes were not observed, however, after different lengths of storage, indicating an influence of specific treatments but not storage time. Furthermore—and of essential relevance—no interactions (P < 0.05) were found between treatments and storage time for any of the parameters measured.

Table 2 Percent humidity, total fat, total ash, DHA and sodium in samples in the different treatments and days of storage at 4 °C

The results obtained for the T1 control group are consistent with those reported in previous studies. Gallinger (2016) found a similar moisture (74%) and ash (1.4%) level in chicken breasts, while Chmiel et al. (2019) reported a comparable fat content (1.2% on Day 1 and 1.3% on Day 6) in refrigerated vacuum-packaged breasts. The moisture values observed in the present study are slightly higher than those reported by Chmiel et al. (2019), at 74.3% on Day 1 and 74.2% on Day 6. Daly et al. (2013) obtained similar moisture values for their control and salt-injection treatments (7.25% NaCl and 2.5% STPP), at 74.7% for the unmarinated control and 77.1% for the injected breast meat. Likewise, the results for T2 group align with those reported by Ortega-Heras et al. (2020), at 77.1% moisture and 1.96% total ash.

Table 2 reveals a decrease in the moisture content of T1 group after 3 days of storage, with no significant difference compared to Day 6. The highest moisture content was observed in T2 group, which was marinated with a solution containing sodium chloride, STPP, and carrageenan. These findings are in agreement with the literature supporting the high water-holding capacity of these additives (Barbut, 2002; Xiong et al., 2000).

As to the total ash content, although the T2 group exhibited the highest percentage, all the treatments evidenced significant differences (P < 0.05) among themselves. This finding is consistent with the inclusion of salts in T2.

Similarly, all the treatments manifested significant differences (P < 0.05) in total fat content, with the T3 group exhibiting the highest percentage due to the incorporation of seaweed oil.

The composition of the chicken breast varied significantly among different marination treatments, there most likely attributed to the varying availability of components within the muscle tissue as a result of the marinade solutions used.

Sodium concentration

Concerning the sodium concentration as can be seen in Table 2, the control sample fell within the established range for naturally occurring sodium in chicken breast meat (USDA, 2005; FSA, 2006): 68 to 77 mg per 100 g. All the treatments exhibited significant differences (P < 0.05) in sodium content, with the T2 group containing the highest concentration (279 ± 1 mg/100 g) owing to the added salt mixture. When phosphates were used with NaCl, a combined ionization effect occurred, increasing the solution's ionic strength. The resulting increase in anion repulsion between proteins increased the filament spacing, a phenomenon known as flesh bloat (Offer & Trinick, 1983). This increased space possibly facilitated a greater water absorption and retention potential. The T3 group, especially displayed a lower sodium value (56.2 ± 2.5 mg/100 g) than the control (72.6 ± 1.3 mg/100 g), as a likely result of the dilution effect introduced by the additional marinade solution.

Color and pH

The color parameters used to evaluate the freshness and quality of meat are influenced by pH (Table 3).

Table 3 Results of the color and pH determinations in the different treatments and days of conservation

No significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in the L, a*, and b* color parameters within individual treatments throughout the storage period, while significant differences were found between the treatments. The higher exudate loss in the T3 group likely led to an increased water reflectance and myoglobin denaturation due to the water solubility of this protein. That loss may explain the differences observed in b* (yellowness) and L (luminosity) values in T3 from the values in other treatments, which shifts were probably influenced by the inherent color of the seaweed oil.

Perlo et al. (2010) reported similar color parameters for unmarinated chicken breasts and those marinated with higher concentrations of sodium chloride and polyphosphates (unmarinated control: L: 48.9, a*: 4.6; b*: –0.4). The findings obtained in this study agree with those of Kaewthong et al. (2019) regarding the pH and color values for refrigerated chicken breasts in the T1 group.

Throughout the storage period, no significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in the L, a*, and b* color parameters within individual treatments; but significant differences emerged between the treatments. T3 group exhibited higher b* and L values as a result of the seaweed oil's inherent color and potential water reflectance caused by exudate loss.

The pH values measured fall within the acceptable range for the quality of chicken breast (5.7–6.0, Glamoclija et al., 2015). While no significant differences (P > 0.05) were detected between storage days for individual treatments, comparisons between treatments revealed significant variations (P < 0.05). T2 displayed a higher pH than the other groups, which agrees with the literature indicating that the alkaline phosphates present in a marinade increases the pH of meat, thus affecting the protein structure and water retention (Sen et al., 2005; Wynveen et al., 2001;). In T1 group the results coincide with those reported by Augustyńska-Prejsnar et al. (2019) and Ortega-Heras et al. (2020).

DHA Concentration (22:6 w-3)

As can be seen in Table 2, initial DHA (mg/100 g) levels (Day 0) were: T1 group (6.64 ± 1.27), T2 group (5.00 ± 0.81), and T3 group (236.16 ± 24.73). T3 group maintained high DHA (mg/100 g) concentrations throughout storage (Day 3: 244.27 ± 40.19; Day 6: 230.68 ± 24.10).

The DHA content in the T1 group meat agrees with reports by Gallinger et al. (2016) and the Danish food composition Table (6.00 mg/100 g; Haug et al., 2011). The DHA level is higher than the value listed in the Argenfood Food Composition Table (2010) for w-3 fatty acids (4.00 mg/100 g), though remaining within the same order of magnitude.

The T3 group exhibited significantly higher DHA levels (P < 0.05) than either the T1 or the T2 group, exceeding concentrations achievable through the dietary enrichment in chickens during rearing (Keegan et al., 2019; Moran et al., 2018). These results illustrate the effectiveness of the direct injection with of seaweed oil in enriching chicken breasts with DHA. Consumers would benefit nutritionally from the injection of seaweed oil into chicken breasts in terms of the concentration obtained in this study for the time periods examined.

Drip loss

Treatment significantly impacted the drip loss, a key indicator of chicken breast water-retention capacity (Kaewthong et al., 2019). As Kaewthong noted, temperature and storage time play major roles in myofibrillar water retention under cold-storage conditions. Figure 1 depicts the observed differences in drip loss among the treatments.

Fig. 1

Drip loss at 24, 48, and 72 h in refrigeration (4° C). In the bar graph, the percent drip loss, determined from the ratio of the weight on each day in g divided by the weight on Day O, is plotted on the ordinate for each of the periods in cold storage indicated on the abscissa. Panel B: Blue bars: T1, orange bars: T2 and gray bars: T3. Different letters indicate significant differences between treatments (P < 0.05)

Figure 1 indicates that T1 and T2 groups are not significantly different (P > 0.05) in drip loss throughout the storage time at 4° C. This agreement suggests a synergistic water-retention effect by the combined action of NaCl and STPP (Xiong et al., 2000) along with the gelling properties of carrageenan in controlling moisture (Eliasson, 2006).

In contrast, T3 group exhibits a statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) in drip loss from that of the other treatments. While the low water-retention capacity of the fiber may contribute to this effect, of particular relevance here was that T3 group manifested much less weight loss during storage than the initial value.

Cooking losses and cutting force

Table 4 summarizes the cooking performance of the breasts as well as the shear-force measurements after the different treatments and during the storage period.

Table 4 Cooking losses (% w/w) and shear force (N) of cooked breasts on the different days of conservation

Whereas the cooking losses did not differ significantly throughout the storage period except for a slight increase in T1 on Day 3 compared to Day 0, in the other two groups treatment effects were evident. The T2 group exhibited the lowest cooking losses, likely due to the synergistic action of its additives. Sodium chloride enhances protein solubility and ionic strength (Medyński et al., 2000; Xiong et al., 2000), while STPP promotes protein hydration and interaction (Sen et al., 2005; Wynveen et al., 2001). This combination most notably led to lower losses than otherwise occurring with individual additives, as had been observed by Sheard and Tali (2004).

The results of the present study agree with Howard et al. (2024), who also found a similar pattern with a tumbler marinade (analogues of T1, 20.3%, and T2, 18.7%). In contrast, a citrus fiber-containing treatment in their study resulted in higher losses (25.0%). Compared to the work of Roidoung et al. (2020) with mango fiber and immersion marination, our values were lower (STPP, 30.4%; NaCl, 28.9%; mango fiber, 33.6%), possibly owing to differences in the oven type and cooking methods. A further investigation into the underlying mechanisms behind the higher losses in the T3 meat is certainly warranted.

The T3 breasts exhibited a lower cutting force than that of the control, suggesting increased tenderness and thus adding another advantage in the DHA enrichment of meats. This finding could be attributed to the lubricating properties of the oil and fiber within the meat matrix.

Regarding cutting force, similar values were reported for the groups T1 and T2 to those reported by Howard et al. (2024) and Vasquez Mejía et al. (2019) with the data obtained in this study having been slightly lower. While Komoltri and Pakdeechanuan (2012) and Perlo et al. (2010) reported slightly lower shear-force values using different NaCl and STPP concentrations, these results remain within the acceptable range for tenderness in chicken-breast meat.

Of relevance is that no significant differences (P < 0.05) in the shear force were observed between the storage days after cooking for a given treatment, thus pointing to the stability of meat tenderness throughout the refrigeration period.

Microbiological analysis

Table 5 lists the counts in colony-forming units (CFU) of microorganisms after the different days of refrigerated storage at 4° C.

Table 5 Microbiological counts (log CFU/g) on the different days of storage in the treatments

The observed low counts of total mesophilic aerobes microorganisms, Enterobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas spp. in all the treatments can be attributed to the quality of the raw material and the combined effects of injection, pH control, and low oxygen concentration during vacuum packaging. These conditions contribute to a stable microbiological profile for up to 6 days, as demonstrated by the consistent results in all three treatments.

The findings for total mesophilic aerobes microorganisms and Enterobacteriaceae coincide with the similar values reported by Ortega-Heras et al. (2020). While their data for Enterobacteriaceae were slightly higher than those obtained in this study, the overall low counts throughout all treatments would certainly argue for the use of chicken breast meat as a safe and suitable raw material for application to these types of food products.

No samples analyzed in this study contained Salmonella spp., indicating a high level of microbial safety in the samples throughout the storage period.

Sensory analysis

Figure 2 summarizes the sensory properties color, hardness, flavor, and the saltiness of the cooked and treated chicken breasts. The figure takes into account the data from each treatment including the values from the days of refrigeration.

Fig. 2

Sensory profile for the attributes of color, hardness, flavor, and saltiness of cooked and treated chicken breasts. Blue line, T1; orange line, T2; black line, T3. The figure reveals the degree to which each of the two marinated preparations enhances the four sensory properties above their constitutive levels in the unmarinated controls, with the orange diamond lying well within both the blue and the black diamonds

None of the parameters analyzed—color, hardness, flavor, and saltiness—exhibited statistically significant differences (P > 0.05), suggesting that the inclusion of additives in both T2 and T3 was imperceptible to consumers. This could explain why the seaweed oil does not have the typically strong aromas associated with oils of marine origin. This conclusion is in agreement with Fig. 3, where consumers displayed no discernible differences in their acceptance of the two marinated preparations. They could not differentiate the flavor profiles or perceive any noticeable changes in texture, particularly those potentially attributable to the seaweed oil and citrus fiber in T3.

Fig. 3

Consumer acceptability of the different treatments. In the bar graph, the point intensity is plotted on the ordinate for each of the three groups indicated on the abscissa. |Equal lowercase letters between the different bars| indicate that the means are not significantly different (P < 0.05) for each treatment (1, 2, and 3)

This result suggests that the fiber may have played a role in mimicking the mouthfeel of fat, further contributing to the absence of sensory variations between treatments. As reported by Kim et al. (2015), the presence of dietary fiber can improve meat-product consistency, potentially agreeing with the observation of similar acceptability scores for all three treatments.

Figure 3 reveals the absence of any discernible differences in consumer acceptability between T1 and T3 for the parameters evaluated). This finding strongly suggests that the chosen additives in T3 were highly successful in effectively enhancing desirable quality characteristics of the meat—such as texture, flavor, or moisture retention—without altering the overall sensory profile perceived by consumers. This timely choice of ingredients underscores the potential of seaweed oil and citrus fiber for improving chicken breast nutritional quality without compromising consumer acceptance.

Conclusions

Chicken breast marinated with seaweed oil and citrus fiber exhibited a higher concentration of DHA after refrigerated storage (Day 3: 244 ± 40 mg/100 g; Day 6: 231 ± 24 mg/100 g, p < 0.05 than either the standard solution or the control groups. This marinade significantly elevates DHA levels, bringing them closer to the recommended daily requirements and thus potentially contributing to improved consumer health outcomes. An economic analysis was not conducted because the seaweed oil was donated by a company that produces it. The aim of this study was to assess the viability of the marination process to obtain the nutritional benefits of DHA.

The DHA marinade solutions effectively retained functionally relevant levels of DHA within the meat tissue for the entire 6-day storage period. This retention suggests a sustained bioavailability with potential health benefits throughout the shelf life of the product.

An essential finding was that consumers were unable to detect any off-putting aromas or flavors associated with the seaweed oil and citrus-fiber marinade solutions; including color, hardness, flavor, and saltiness. This result underscores the success of the chosen ingredients in maintaining a neutral sensory profile while delivering the desired DHA enrichment.

The use of this oil as a DHA source provides an alternative to fish oil, offering a viable option to reduce the environmental impact of overfishing.