AMP, ADP, and ATP Concentrations Differentially Affected by Meat Processing, Manufacturing, and Nonmeat Ingredients

N W Smith; J J Sindelar; S A Rankin

doi:10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100287

AMP, ADP, and ATP Concentrations Differentially Affected by Meat Processing, Manufacturing, and Nonmeat Ingredients

J Food Prot. 2024 May 1;87(7):100287. doi: 10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100287. Online ahead of print.

Authors

N W Smith¹, J J Sindelar², S A Rankin³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Food Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53528, USA.
² Meat Science & Animal Biologics Discovery, Department of Animal & Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
³ Department of Food Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53528, USA. Electronic address: sarankin@wisc.edu.

PMID: 38697482
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100287

Abstract

Given its presence in a wide spectrum of soils relevant to food process hygiene, the biological metabolite adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is used as a target for surface hygiene assessments in food processing facilities. Yet, ample evidence demonstrates that ATP is depleted into adenosine di- (ADP) and monophosphate (AMP) homologs resulting in a loss of sensitivity for ATP-based hygiene assays. Yet, there are few studies that denote the degree of these shifts under routine processing conditions such as those encountered during various meat processing steps that may likely alter redox potential and adenosine profiles (e.g., tissue/cellular disruption, application of reducing additives, fermentation, or thermal treatment steps). In this study, meat samples were collected from homogenized beef tissue treated with nonmeat ingredients (sodium chloride, sodium nitrite, sodium erythorbate, natural smoke condensate, and sodium acid pyrophosphate) during manufacture at predetermined steps, and from retail meat products purchased from local markets. Concentrations of ATP, ADP, AMP, and AXP (sum concentration of all homologs) in a lab setting and in situ meat processing venues were determined and compared. Greater differences in AXP were seen during manufacture, where ADP generally comprised ∼90% as a mole fraction of AXP across all treatments, with the exception of the final cook step where AMP predominated. ATP concentrations averaged 2 log values lower than ADP and AMP. Adenosine profiles in retail samples followed similar trends with minimal ATP concentrations with ADP predominant in uncooked samples and AMP predominant in cooked samples. Resultingly, meat processing steps during product manufacture will alter AXP-reliant test sensitivities which should be considered when such technologies are utilized for hygiene verification in meat processing.

Keywords: ATP; Hygiene; Meat processing; Rapid assay; Sanitation.