USE OF LIQUID SMOKE IN CONJUNCTION WITH FOOD GRADE COATINGS TO CONTROL PEST INFESTATIONS

Abstract

A food-grade coating composition for controlling pest infestation and pest reproduction on or in food, or both, wherein the composition comprises mixtures containing liquid smoke and at least one of xanthan gum, propylene glycol, alginate, and/or carrageenan, and the composition can be infused into a container to be placed on or around the food.

Claims

1. A food-grade coating composition for controlling pest infestation and pest reproduction on or in food, or both, wherein the composition comprises mixtures containing liquid smoke and at least one of xanthan gum, propylene glycol, alginate, and/or carrageenan.

2. The composition of claim 1, comprising about 1% to about 5% by weight or volume of at least one of xanthan gum, propylene glycol, alginate, and/or carrageenan, and about 1% to about 5% by weight or volume of liquid smoke.

3. The composition of claim 1, comprising about 1% by weight or volume of xanthan gum, and about 1% to about 2% by weight or volume of liquid smoke.

4. The composition of claim 1, further comprising a food-grade acceptable carrier for the composition.

5. The composition of claim 4, wherein the carrier is an edible coating or a food container.

6. The composition of claim 5, wherein the food container is a wrap or net.

7. The composition of claim 4, wherein the carrier is a net and the net is a cotton, a cotton blend, a polymer, or a polymer blends.

8. The composition of claim 4, wherein the carrier is a food container, and the food container is a bag, wrap, mesh, net, sock or a combination thereof, that is soaked or infused with the liquid smoke and at least one of xanthan gum.

9. The composition of claim 1, wherein the food is ham, pork, cheese, egg, fermented soy food product, or a combination thereof, and the pests are mites.

10. The composition of claim 1, wherein the composition has the form of a gel, a freeze-dried powder, a film, or a combination thereof.

12. A method for controlling pest infestation and pest reproduction on or in food, or both, the method comprising: applying a food-grade coating composition on or in the food, or both, for controlling food pests and pest infestations and reproduction on the food; the composition comprising liquid smoke and at least one of xanthan gum, propylene glycol, alginate, and/or carrageenan.

13. The method of claim 1, wherein the applying step includes infusing at least one food container for containing the food, with the composition applied on or in the food, for storing, processing, aging, curing, or a combination thereof, and wrapping or covering the food with the at least one food container.

14. The method of claim 12, wherein the composition comprises about 1% to about 5% by weight or volume of xanthan gum, and about 1% to about 5% by weight or volume of liquid smoke.

15. The method of claim 12, wherein the composition comprises about 1% by weight or volume of xanthan gum, and about 1% to about 3% by weight or volume of liquid smoke.

16. The method of claim 12, wherein the food is pork, including ham cheese fermented soy food product, or a combination thereof, and the pests are mites.

17. The method of claim 12, wherein the at least one food container is a bag, wrap, mesh, net, or a combination thereof.

18. The method of claim 12, wherein the applying of the composition on or in the food, or both, in an effective amount is by spraying, misting, dipping, machine coating, manual coating, or a combination thereof.

19. A container for controlling pest infestation and pest reproduction on or in food, wherein the container has been treated or infused with the food-grade coating composition of claim 1, wherein the food is either treated or is not treated with an effective amount of the composition, and wherein the container is for storing, processing, aging, curing, or a combination thereof, of the food.

20. The container of claim 19, wherein the container is a bag, wrap, mesh, net, or a combination thereof, that provides contact with the food.

21. The container of claim 19, wherein the container has been treated or infused with the food-grade coating composition of claim 1, and sealed for storage.

Description

DESCRIPTION OF EXEMPLARY EMBODIMENTS

[0035] The details of one or more embodiments of the presently-disclosed subject matter are set forth in this document. Modifications to embodiments described in this document, and other embodiments, will be evident to those of ordinary skill in the art after a study of the information provided in this document. The information provided in this document, and particularly the specific details of the described exemplary embodiments, is provided primarily for clearness of understanding and no unnecessary limitations are to be understood therefrom. In case of conflict, the specification of this document, including definitions, will control.

[0036] While the terms used herein are believed to be well understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, certain definitions are set forth to facilitate explanation of the presently-disclosed subject matter.

[0037] Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as is commonly understood by one of skill in the art to which the invention(s) belong.

[0038] All patents, patent applications, published applications and publications, and other published materials referred to throughout the entire disclosure herein, unless noted otherwise, are incorporated by reference in their entirety.

[0039] Although any methods, devices, and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of the presently-disclosed subject matter, representative methods, devices, and materials are described herein.

[0040] Following long-standing patent law convention, the terms “a”, “an”, and “the” refer to “one or more” when used in this application, including the claims, unless the context clearly dictates otherwise. Thus, for example, reference to “a polypeptide” includes one or more of such polypeptides, and so forth.

[0041] Unless otherwise indicated, all numbers expressing quantities of ingredients, properties such as reaction conditions, and so forth used in the specification and claims are to be understood as being modified in all instances by the term “about”. Accordingly, unless indicated to the contrary, the numerical parameters set forth in this specification and claims are approximations that can vary depending upon the desired properties sought to be obtained by the presently-disclosed subject matter.

[0042] As used herein, the term “about,” when referring to a value or to an amount of mass, weight, time, volume, concentration or percentage is meant to encompass variations of in some embodiments ±20%, in some embodiments ±10%, in some embodiments ±5%, in some embodiments ±1%, in some embodiments ±0.5%, and in some embodiments ±0.1% from the specified amount, as such variations are appropriate to perform the disclosed method.

[0043] As used herein, ranges can be expressed as from “about” one particular value, and/or to “about” another particular value. It is also understood that there are a number of values disclosed herein, and that each value is also herein disclosed as “about” that particular value in addition to the value itself. For example, if the value “10” is disclosed, then “about 10” is also disclosed. It is also understood that each unit between two particular units are also disclosed. For example, if 10 and 15 are disclosed, then 11, 12, 13, and 14 are also disclosed.

[0044] Provided herein are food grade coatings compositions made from generally recognized as safe polysaccharides infused with liquid smoke. In some embodiments, the food grade coating compositions are used to control pests through coating applications of food product surface or packaging that is used to contain the food products.

[0045] The presently-disclosed subject matter is further illustrated by the following specific but non-limiting examples. The following examples may include compilations of data that are representative of data gathered at various times during the course of development and experimentation related to the presently-disclosed subject matter.

Examples

[0046] Materials and Methods

[0047] Food Grade Coatings Materials

[0048] Dry-cured hams (average 6.5-7.5 kg) that were aged for three months were sourced from a commercial ham producer in Tennessee. Ham nets (polyester, with 25 inches stitch length per 200 needles) were provided by Dickson Industries Inc. (Des Moines, IA). Xanthan gum (XG, Pre-Hydrated Ticaxan Rapid-3) was provided by TIC Gums (Belcamp, MD), and food-grade propylene glycol (product number 912752) was purchased from Hawkins Inc. (Roseville, MN). Two liquid smoke products, Charsol Supreme Poly (SP) and Charsol Select 24P (24P), were provided by Red Arrow (Manitowoc, WI).

[0049] Ham Cube Preparation

[0050] Whole dry-cured hams that had been aged for three months were unwrapped, washed, and sliced (2.5 cm thickness) at the Mississippi State University Meat Science and Muscle Biology laboratory. The slices were vacuum-packaged in Clarity™ 3-Mil vacuum pouches (Bunzl Processor Division, North Kansas City, MO) with an Ultravac® 2100 Double Chamber Vacuum Packaging Machine (Ultrasource LLC, Kansas City, MO) and stored in a walk-in cooler at 2-4° C. until the ham slices were cut into ham cubes (2.5×2.5×2.5 cm.sup.3). Five cubes were assigned to each treatment from each ham prior to the coating or infusion of treatment solutions into ham nets.

[0051] Solution Preparation

[0052] The food-grade coating solution formulas for experiment 1 included: (1) 1% SP+1% XG, (2) 2% SP+1% XG, (3) 1% SP only, (4) 2% SP only, and (5) 1% XG+20% PG. The food-grade coating solution formulas for experiment 2 included: (1) 2% 24P+1% XG, (2) 1% 24P only, (3) 2% 24P only, and (4) 1% XG+20% PG.

[0053] To prepare the solution with XG, the XG was first added to the water slowly while stirring using a mini electronic mixer (Good Cook, Rancho Cucamonga, CA). If PG was an ingredient in the treatment, it was then added and stirred with a glass stick. Liquid smoke was then added using an Accu-jet® pro pipette controller (BrandTech Scientific, Inc., Wertheim, Germany), while vigorously mixing the solution. The solutions were prepared the same day that the nets and cubes were coated. Xanthan gum is soluble in both cold and hot water, and the viscosity of its solutions changes very little with temperature (Huber and Bemiller, 2017). Since liquid smoke contains volatile compounds (Montazeri et al., 2013b), selecting polysaccharides that can dissolve in water without heating was more feasible to avoid the potential evaporation of the chemical compounds in the liquid smoke.

[0054] Net Coating and Cube Coating

[0055] Net pieces (14.5×13 cm.sup.2) were fully submerged in the respective solutions for 1 min and squeezed by hand to ensure that the net was covered with the coating. The soaked net pieces were then removed from the treatment solutions and rolled with hand operated rolling pins (Walmart Stores Inc., Bentonville, AR) to squeeze the extra solution gently out of the nets. The target absorbance for the treatment solutions without gum was 2.9-3.4 times the original weight of the net, and for the solution with gum was 5.2-6.8 times the original weight of the net.

[0056] The previously cut cubes were randomly selected and five of them were assigned to each group. The net treatments were wrapped around their designated cubes and tied using a cotton string. For direct coating treatments (no net), cubes were then directly dipped into the coating solution for 1 min and then hung in the air on a shelf for 5 min to dry. All netted and coated cubes were individually placed in ventilated glass Mason jars (118 mL, 6.4 cm diameter, 5.7 cm height; Ball Corp., Broomfield, CO). The bottom of each jar was covered with pre-cut black construction paper. The top of each jar was covered with filter paper (Fisherbrand™ P4 Grade filter paper, Ottawa, Canada) to replace the metal jar ring to allow access to oxygen to facilitate mite growth. The sealed jars were stored at 2-4 C.° until the ham cubes were inoculated with mites on the following day.

[0057] Mite Reproduction Assay

[0058] The mite culture that was used in this experiment was provided by Dr. Thomas Phillip's lab in the Department of Entomology at Kansas State University. The culture was reared as described by Abbar et al. (2016b). The mite culture jar was stored in a plastic tray filled with a basin of dish soap water, and petroleum jelly (Equate brand, Bentonville, AR) was smeared along the rim to prevent mites from escaping the tray if any were to escape their jars. The tray was stored in a dark cabinet at 23±2° C. and 70±5% relative humidity. Twenty mixed-sex mites (at least 12 females) were inoculated on the cubes in ventilated mason jars as described previously. The inoculated jars were stored in an environmental chamber (LH-10 Economy Line Humidity Chamber, 0.28 cubic meter volume, Associated Environmental Systems, Acton, MA) at 24° C. and 75% relative humidity. After two weeks, the jars were taken out, and the mites (live adults and mobile immature stages) that were present on the cubes, black construction paper, nets (if applied), and the inside jar surfaces were counted under a stereomicroscope (Model 568, American Optical Company, Buffalo, NY), and the values were combined to estimate the total mite population growth for each treatment.

[0059] Water Activity, Moisture Content and Weight Loss

[0060] Simultaneous experiments were conducted as described above in section 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 in the materials and methods. Non-inoculated ham cubes were used to evaluate water activity (a.sub.w), moisture content and weight loss of the numbered ham cubes. The treatment solutions were selected from the solutions that controlled mite growth. After two weeks of storage in the programmed environmental chamber, the jars were removed, and the ham cubes were cut into fine particles using a knife. The water activity of each ham cube was measured at room temperature with a water activity meter (AquaLab Series 3 TE, Decagon Devices, Inc., Pullman, WA). The moisture content of the samples was determined by drying the minced ham sample (2.0±0.1 g) in an Isotemp® oven (Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) at 105±2° C. until a constant weight was obtained (AOAC, 2000). A desiccator was used to cool dried samples prior to weighing on an analytical balance (Ohaus, item number E10640, Parsippany, NJ). The moisture content was expressed as a percentage and was calculated using the formula as shown below (AOAC, 2000).

[00001]$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Moisture}\mathrm{content}\left(\%\right)=\frac{\left(W1-W2\right)}{W1}\times 100& \left(3.1\right)\end{array}$

[0061] Where W1=weight of the sample before drying in an oven [0062] W2=weight of the sample after drying in an oven

[0063] The weight of each numbered cube was measured both before (Wb) 14 days of aging and after (Wa). The weight loss of the ham cube was calculated as follows (Zhang et al., 2018):

[00002]$\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Weight}\mathrm{loss}\left(\%\right)=\frac{\left(Wb-\mathrm{Wa}\right)}{Wb}\times 100& \left(3.2\right)\end{array}$

[0064] Where Wb=weight of the ham cube before aging [0065] Wa=weight of the ham cube after aging for 14 days

[0066] Sensory Evaluation-Difference from Control Test

[0067] A difference from control test was used to determine if trained panelists perceived a difference between control ham samples and treated samples (Campbell et al., 2017; Civille & Carr, 2015). The treatment solutions were selected based on their efficacy at controlling mites. The coating solution and ham slices were prepared as mentioned previously. All coating solutions were made in 400 ml batches. Center slices of each ham were selected and wrapped with treated nets or wrapped with the untreated original DK 409 net, or with no net wrapped. Food-grade net socks (Dickson Inc., Des Moines, IA) were cut from factory rolls so that they were 15 cm wide×30 cm length. The pre-cut net socks were then soaked into the assigned coating solution for 1 min to fully absorb the coating solution. Each ham slice was placed into the randomly assigned net sock individually. The open ends of the net were sealed with a cotton string. The sealed net with the ham slices inside were laid on a cutting board to allow excess coating to drain from the net. After 20 min, the slices were put into zip-loc bags and sealed (Great Value, Walmart Inc., Bentonville, AR) and stored at 4° C. for 14 d.

[0068] Before cooking, ham slices were equilibrated to ambient temperature. Each ham slice was rinsed with tap water at room temperature and then wrapped in heavy-duty aluminum foil (Reynolds Wrap, Reynolds Kitchens, Richmond, VA). Wrapped slices were then baked in an oven (Viking Range LLC., Model #VGRC605-6G-SS, Greenwood, MS) at 177° C. to an internal temperature of 71° C. that was verified using a digital thermometer (Winco TMT-DG6, Winco food, Boise, Idaho; Marriott and Ockerman, 2004). After baking, the slices rested for 5-10 min prior to transfer to a cutting board. Ham slices were then cut into rectangular pieces (1.3×1.3×2.5 cm.sup.3) from the same muscle category for each treatment that was served to individual panelists to avoid sensory variability among muscles. Upon serving, ham pieces were placed into 29.5 ml clear plastic containers (Dart Container Corporation, Mason, MI) and coded with 3-digit random numbers.

[0069] Samples were provided to the trained panelists (n=6) with purified water, apple juice (Great Value, Walmart Inc., Bentonville, AR), napkins, forks, plates, expectorant cups, and unsalted crackers (Great Value, Walmart Stores Inc., Bentonville, AR) in separate tasting booths. A labeled control sample and blind control with a 3-digit random number were included in each test as baselines for all blind coded samples and coating treated samples, respectively. Trained panelists, each with greater than 30 h of experience in evaluating dry-cured ham, were asked to evaluate the labeled control sample first and then rate how different the treatment samples were from the control with respect to flavor, texture, and moistness. The scale for the difference from control test was: 0=no difference, 1=slight difference, 2=moderate difference, 3=large difference, 4=very large difference (Civille and Carr, 2015).

[0070] Statistical Analysis

[0071] For mite growth experiments, a randomized complete block design with two replications and five subsamples was used to determine the effect of different treatments on ham mite reproduction. A randomized complete block design with two replications and three subsamples was used to determine the effect of different treatments on water activity, moisture content and weight loss. For all experiments related to sensory evaluation, a randomized complete block design with three replications and six subsamples of each replication was used to determine if trained panelists detected a difference between treated and control hams (P<0.05). Difference from control test data collection was performed using Compusense software (Compusense Cloud, Guelph, CA). When significant differences (P<0.05) occurred among treatments, Duncan's new multiple range test was used to separate treatment means.

[0072] Results and Discussion

[0073] Mite Counts

[0074] As seen in previous research by Campbell et al. (2018) and Zhang et al. (2018), the net only treatment reduced mite counts on ham cubes in comparison to the negative control with no net (Table 1). However, with 100 mites, the net alone was ineffective at controlling mites, since this number is greater than the inoculation level of 20. The use of 1% SP liquid smoke mixed with 1% XG controlled mite growth both as a coating and in a coated net (F.sub.10,10=30.12, P<0.0001) since the mite count was less than 20 and was less (P<0.05) than the net control. The addition of 2% SP into 1% XG (2% SP+1% XG treatment) did not control mite growth when coated on ham cubes (NS) in comparison to the net control, but controlled mites when infused in the net and wrapped on cubes. Although applying SP only (1% and 2%) did not (NS) control mite growth in both coatings and nets, the use of the net infused with SP (1% and 2%)+1% XG controlled mite growth. This shows that xanthan gum with SP could potentially be used as an alternative to propylene glycol in coated nets. It was also interesting that 2% SP seemed desirable to the mites if used as a direct coating. The addition of liquid smoke Charsol 24P controlled mite growth when used at 2% with 1% XG (Table 2), whether used in a coating or a coated net treatment (F.sub.8,8=8.11, P=0.0039). Coating 1% and 2% 24P on the ham cube surface did not control mite growth when compared to both the control and net control. However, when the 1% or 2% 24P solution was infused into the net, they both controlled mite growth, as evidenced by the mite counts being less than 20. This indicated that the liquid smoke 24P could be used in nets both with and without xanthan gum in the place of propylene glycol in coated nets.

TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 1 Mean number of mites on inoculated ham cubes (20 mites/cube, n.sub.cube = 5) coated with liquid smoke Charsol Supreme Poly (SP) and xanthan gum after 2 wks incubation at 25° C. and 75% relative humidity. Treatments.sup.1 Mean Negative control (no net) 228.2 ± 24.6 .sup.b Negative control (net)  .sup. 100 ± 17.2 .sup.c 1% SP + 1% XG (no net) 19.4 ± 6.3.sup.d  1% SP + 1% XG (net) 12.5 ± 4.4.sup.d  2% SP + 1% XG (no net) 32.6 ± 9.7.sup.cd 2% SP + 1% XG (net) .sup. 8.2 ± 2.9.sup.d 1% SP only (no net) 282.7 ± 45.5.sup.ab 1% SP only (net) 60.3 ± 9.7.sup.cd 2% SP only (no net) 312.4 ± 25.0.sup.a  2% SP only (net)  41.4 ± 4.1 .sup.cd 1% XG + 20% PG (net) 0.sup.d .sup.a-dMeans with the same letter within each column are not significantly (NS) different using Duncan's New Multiple Range Test. .sup.1Control ham cubes was not coated; XG: xanthan gum; PG: propylene glycol; SP: liquid smoke Charsol Supreme Poly.

TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 2 Mean number of mites on inoculated ham cubes (20 mites/cube, n.sub.cube = 5) coated with liquid smoke Charsol 24P and xanthan gum after 2 wk incubation at 25° C. and 75% relative humidity. Treatment.sup.1 Mean NO. of mites Negative control (no net) 253.8 ± 42.9.sup.a  Negative control (net) 105.7 ± 18.0.sup.bc  2% 24P + 1% XG (no net) 0.8 ± 0.5.sup.c 2% 24P + 1% XG (net) 1.5 ± 1.4.sup.c 2% 24P only (no net) 175.5 ± 37.4.sup.ab  2% 24P only (net) 9.4 ± 3.6.sup.c 1% 24P only (no net) 163.4 ± 15.3.sup.ab  1% 24P only (net) 4.6 ± 1.6.sup.c 1% XG + 20% PG (net) 0.sup.c .sup.a-cMeans with the same letter within each column are not significantly (NS) different using Duncan's New Multiple Range Test. .sup.1Control ham cubes was not coated; XG: xanthan gum; PG: propylene glycol; 24P: liquid smoke Charsol Select 24P

[0075] Four stages are involved in the pyrolysis of wood, which leads to the formation of carboxylic acids, carbonyl compounds and phenolic compounds (Ramakrishnan and Moeller, 2002; Šimko, 2005). Phenolic compounds (Faith et al., 1992; Suñen, 1998; Suñen et al., 2001), carbonyl components (Milly et al., 2008; Milly et al., 2005; Montazeri et al., 2013b) and organic acids (Vitt et al. 2001) contribute to the antimicrobial activity of liquid smoke. Liquid smoke is effective at controlling Listeria (Martin et al., 2010; Messina et al., 1988; Pittman et al., 2012), Salmonella (Kim et al., 2012; Van Loo et al., 2012) and E. coli growth (Estrada-Munoz et al., 1998; Fretheim et al., 1980; Van Loo et al., 2012). The concentration of phenolic compounds in liquid smoke is 9.9-11.1 mg/ml (Ramakrishnan and Moeller, 2002), and the carbonyl concentration is 2.6-4.6% (Milly et al., 2005). Suñen (1998) used seven commercial smoke condensates (four liquid types and three solid types) and tested their antimicrobial activity in vitro. The most effective condensate at the level tested possessed a high concentration of phenols, but acetic acid was the most concentrated compound. The author suggested that this condensate's antimicrobial ability may be due to the synergistic reaction between phenols and acetic acid (Faith et al., 1992; Suñen, 1998). Further tests that were conducted by the author (Suñen et al., 2001) indicated that liquid smoke's phenol concentration is not directly correlated with its antimicrobial activity.

[0076] Some liquid smoke products from Red Arrow company (Manitowoc, WI) were evaluated for their antimicrobial and more specifically their antifungal effectiveness. In these studies, Wendorff (1981) used several types of liquid smoke from Red Arrow company (Manitowoc, WI), and 0.25% (v/v) CharSol C-6 decreased Staphylococcus aureus growth by 72%. Wendorff et al. (1993) also tested three types of liquid smoke for their ability to inhibit the growth of mold on smoked Cheddar cheese. In this experiment, all three types of liquid smoke increased the lag time in the growth of all three molds (Aspergillus oryzae, Penicillium camemberti, and Penicillium roqueforti). The growth rate of P. camemberti was significantly reduced by the smoke solutions. This mold species (P. camemberti) was identified by Hendrix et al. (2018) as one of the major types of mold that grow on the surface of dry-cured hams. The growth of Penicillium spp. is undesirable during dry-cured ham aging because they can generate off-flavor, off-odors and contribute to health issues for workers who are allergic to Penicillium (Asefa et al., 2009). Some species of mold also function as shelter for mites and provide food and water for mites (Hubert et al., 2004; Canfield and Wrenn, 2010). Per the manufacturer, 24P has less acetic acid but more carbonyl compounds than SP, and a similar concentration of phenolic compounds.

[0077] The individual components of liquid smoke are evaluated to determine their efficacy at controlling mites. In particular, liquid smokes, 24P and SP, help control mites due to their antimicrobial properties, which control mold and thus limit the mites' accessibility to food and water.

[0078] Sensory Evaluation-Difference from Control

[0079] There were no sensory differences (Table 3) between liquid smoke SP treated sample and blind control samples with respect to texture (F.sub.3, 61=2.26, P=0.025), flavor (F.sub.3, 61=1.00, P=0.456) and moistness (F.sub.3, 61=1.68, P=0.105). No sensory differences were detected (Table 4) between 24P treated sample and blind control samples with respect to texture (F.sub.4, 78=0.93, P=0.520) and flavor (F.sub.4, 78=1.19, P=0.311). Significant difference was found with respect to moistness (F.sub.4,78=3.04, P=0.002) when slices were treated with 2% 24P+1% XG solution infused nets compared to that of blind control. None of the liquid smoke treated ham slices were rated above 2 on average (2=moderately different).

TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 3 Sensory differences in texture, flavor, and moistness of 2.5 cm thick ham slices that were wrapped in saturated nets with solutions containing liquid smoke Charsol ® Supreme Poly and different gums using a 5-point difference from control test (n = 6) after 14 days of storage at 2-4° C. Treatment.sup.1 Texture.sup.2 Flavor Moistness Blind Control 1.00 ± 0.24 1.44 ± 0.23 0.94 ± 0.17 1% SP + 1% XG (net) 1.05 ± 0.24 2.05 ± 0.29 1.05 ± 0.19 2% SP + 1% XG (net) 1.33 ± 0.19 1.83 ± 0.23 1.17 ± 0.18 1% XG + 20% PG (net) 1.56 ± 0.23 1.61 ± 0.28 1.44 ± 0.23 .sup.1XG: xanthan gum; SP: liquid smoke Charsol Supreme Poly. .sup.2Scale for difference from control test- 0 = no difference, 1 = slight difference, 2 = moderate difference, 3 = large difference, 4 = very large difference

TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 4 Sensory differences in texture, flavor, and moistness of 2.5 cm thick ham slices that were wrapped in saturated nets with solutions containing liquid smoke Charsol ® Select 24P and different gums using a 5-point difference from control test (n = 6) after 14 days of storage at 2-4° C. Treatment.sup.1 Texture.sup.2 Flavor Moistness Blind Control 1.11 ± 0.24 1.27 ± 0.25 0.94 ± 0.15.sup.b 2% 24P + 1% XG (net) 1.56 ± 0.26 1.61 ± 0.30 1.56 ± 0.27.sup.a 2% 24P (net) 0.94 ± 0.26 0.88 ± 0.17 0.66 ± 0.18.sup.b 1% 24P (net) 1.11 ± 0.24 1.44 ± 0.27 0.94 ± 0.18.sup.b 2% 24P + 1% XG (coating) 1.16 ± 0.25 1.50 ± 0.27 0.94 ± 0.25.sup.b .sup.a-bMeans with the same superscript in a column indicate no difference (P > 0.05). .sup.1XG: xanthan gum. 24P: liquid smoke Charsol Select 24P. .sup.2Scale for difference from control test- 0 = no difference, 1 = slight difference, 2 = moderate difference, 3 = large difference, 4 = very large difference

[0080] As indicated above, a pharmacist from Kansas invented a liquid smoke flavor from primary smoke condensate in the late 19th century for curing hams and bacon at home (Pszczola, 1995; Simon et al., 2005). The application of liquid smoke provides several benefits including quick addition, controllability, consistency of the solution, and reproducibility of the final product (Knowles et al., 1975; Suñen et al., 2001). The highly concentrated nature of liquid smoke makes it advantageous for use in sauces or brines or topical applications to meat products, including frankfurters, ham, sausages, and bacon (Lingbeck et al., 2014; Rozum, 2009). A wide range of products use liquid smoke as an ingredient including meats, cheeses, tofu, and pet foods.

[0081] It is appropriate to use the difference from control test when heterogeneous products such as dry-cured meat products (Civille and Carr, 2015). The test was used in Rogers et al. (2020) research to determine if using C.sub.8C.sub.9C.sub.10 fatty acids to coat dry-cured ham slices directly or indirectly (on net) caused sensory differences when compared to untreated dry-cured ham slices. Results from direct coating experiments indicated that differences in texture, flavor and moistness were caused by applying 1% XG+10% C.sub.8C.sub.9C.sub.10 and 1% carrageenan (CG)+1% propylene glycol alginate (PGA)+10% C.sub.8C.sub.9C.sub.10. In indirect (on net) experiments, differences in texture, flavor and moistness were detected between the untreated control and soybean oil+10% C.sub.8C.sub.9C.sub.10 and CG+PGA+10% C.sub.8C.sub.9C.sub.10 treatments. No difference in texture was detected when 1% XG+10% C.sub.8C.sub.9C.sub.10 treatment was applied. Differences in that study were likely due to the volatile nature of the octanoic, nonanoic, and decanoic acids, which impart flavor to the ham. Liquid smoke also contains volatile flavor compounds (Guillén and Ibargoitia, 1996), including phenols which impart smoke flavors. In the current research, the only statistical difference was found for treatment 2% 24P+1% XG (in net) with respect to moistness when compared to the blind control. This could potentially be due to the solution stabilizing effect of xanthan gum which prevented moisture from evaporating in the ham cube (Huber and Bemiller, 2017).

[0082] Different types of overall different tests were used in research related to liquid smoke. Montazeri et al. (2013a) used four types of liquid smoke produced from Kerry Ingredients and Flavors (Monterey, TN) to test their listericidal effects and conducted a simple difference test. In the simple difference test, thirty-six cold-smoked salmon fillets were treated with AM-3 liquid smoke (Kerry Ingredients and Flavors, Monterey, TN) and the other thirty-six cold-smoked salmon (control) were not treated with liquid smoke. The simple difference test results indicated that panelists could not differentiate the control from the liquid smoke treated samples. Nithin et al. (2016) used liquid smoke that was pyrolyzed from coconut husk to evaluate its effect in Masmin (a smoked and dried product prepared from skipjack tuna) production. A difference-from-control test was conducted as described by Civille and Carr (2015), and results indicated that the soaking of cooked skipjack tuna in liquid smoke for 30 min can produce Masmin with similar sensory attributes to traditional Masmin which is smoked and dried.

[0083] The use of both types of liquid smoke in current research did not cause significant differences in flavor and texture compared to the untreated control, and no ratings were greater than 2. Therefore, the liquid smoke has the potential to be used during dry-cured ham aging without affecting the sensory attributes of the final product.

[0084] Water Activity (Aw), Moisture Content and Weight Loss

[0085] The a.sub.w of treatments with 1% SP+1% XG and 2% SP+1% XG were greater than control and net control ham cubes (F.sub.4, 24=9.79, P<0.0001), but there were no differences in a.sub.w between the liquid smoke and PG treatments with 1% XG (Table 5). Ham cubes netted with 1% SP+1% XG, 2% SP+1% XG and 1% XG+20% PG had greater (P<0.05) moisture content than the control (F.sub.4, 24=3.14, P<0.0328), but were not (NS) different (P>0.05) from the net control. No statistical differences (NS) were detected when the weight loss of the 1% SP+1% XG and 2% SP+1% XG treatment nets to that of control and net control (F.sub.4, 24=2.24, P=0.0949).

TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 5 Water activity (a.sub.w), moisture content and weight loss of dry cured ham cubes wrapped with different treated nets after 2 weeks of storage at 23 ± 2° C. and relatively humidity of 75 ± 5%. Moisture content Treatments.sup.1 Water activity (%) Weight loss (%) Control 0.866 ± 0.009 .sup.b 49.4 ± 2.28 .sup.b 18.2 ± 3.0 Net control 0.878 ± 0.124 .sup.b .sup. 52.4 ± 1.53 .sup.ab 21.5 ± 1.9 1% SP + 1% 0.906 ± 0.007 .sup.a 57.4 ± 1.81 .sup.a 15.6 ± 2.1 XG (net) 2% SP + 1% 0.909 ± 0.003 .sup.a 55.7 ± 1.78 .sup.a 15.7 ± 2.1 XG (net) 1% XG + 20% 0.919 ± 0.004 .sup.a 56.4 ± 1.89 .sup.a 11.5 ± 2.7 PG (net) .sup.a-b Means with same letter within each column are not different (P > 0.05) using Duncan's New Multiple Range test. .sup.1XG: xanthan gum, PG: propylene glycol; SP: liquid smoke Charsol Supreme Poly.

[0086] Treatments that included liquid smoke 24P had greater a.sub.w (F.sub.5, 29=25.07, P<0.0001) than that of the control and net control (Table 6). In addition, when 2% 24P and 1% XG were used as ingredients, the a.sub.w of ham cubes was greater than (P<0.05) ham cubes that were treated with 1% 24P. The 2% 24P net treatment did not differ (NS) in a.sub.w when compared to the 1% 24P net. When 24P was used, the 2% 24P+1% XG net treatment contained more moisture (P<0.05) than the control and net control (F.sub.5, 29=2.96, P=0.0279). All other treatments (coating 2% 24P+1% XG, net 2% 24P and net 1% 24P) did not differ (NS) in moisture content when compared to the control. The weight loss of all treatments was not different (NS) from the control (F.sub.5, 29=3.20, P=0.0201). The ham cubes that were coated with 2% 24P+1% XG had greater (P<0.05) weight loss than ham cubes in the coated net with 2% 24P+1% XG. When nets were used, adding XG to 24P did not affect (NS) the weight loss of ham cubes in comparison to ham cubes treated only with 24P.

TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 6 Water activity (aw), moisture content and weight loss of dry cured ham cubes wrapped with different treated nets after 2 weeks of storage at 23 ± 2° C. and relatively humidity of 75 ± 5%. Moisture content Treatments.sup.1 Water activity (%) Weight loss (%) Control 0.872 ± 0.005 .sup.c 51.4 ± 0.8 .sup.bc .sup. 16.9 ± 1.6 .sup.abc Net control 0.858 ± 0.006 .sup.d 50.3 ± 1.2 .sup.c  .sup. 21.4 ± 2.0 .sup.ab 2% 24P + 1% 0.905 ± 0.005 .sup.a  53.1 ± 2.2 .sup.abc 23.4 ± 4.7 .sup.a XG (coating) 2% 24P + 1% 0.899 ± 0.003 .sup.a 57.3 ± 1.0 .sup.a  13.9 ± 2.0 .sup.c XG (net) 2% 24P (net) .sup. 0.895 ± 0.003 .sup.ab 55.7 ± 1.8 .sup.ab 14.5 ± 1.6 .sup.c 1% 24P (net) 0.888 ± 0.008 .sup.b 52.2 ± 1.7 .sup.bc .sup. 16.4 ± 2.8 .sup.bc .sup.a-d Means with same letter within each column are not different (P > 0.05) using Duncan's New Multiple Range test. .sup.1XG: xanthan gum; 24P: liquid smoke Charsol 24P.

[0087] The a.sub.w value of all ham cubes decreased compared to the ham cubes original a.sub.w value before the two weeks of incubation (a.sub.w=0.923 on average). Mikel and Newman (2002) conducted a basket survey on thirty-eight various country-cured ham products with their pH, a.sub.w, salt percentage, and moisture/protein ratio measured. The a.sub.w values ranged from 0.74 to 0.93 with an average of 0.88. USDA-FSIS requires country ham processors to monitor water activity to not more than 0.92 when nitrite or nitrate is not used (USDA-FSIS, 9 CFR 319.106, 2021). Ham cube treatments in nets with 1% SP+1% XG and 2% SP+1% XG exhibited greater (P<0.05) a.sub.w than control and net control ham cubes but did not exceed the market range of 0.74 to 0.93 (Mikel and Newman, 2002).

[0088] In contrast to a.sub.w, the moisture content and weight loss of ham cubes in the nets with 1% SP+1% XG and 2% SP+1% XG did not differ from the net control. This indicates that the xanthan gum still allowed moisture loss but did not lower water activity due to the functionality of the xanthan gum. The treatments with 24P have significantly higher a.sub.w than that of control and net control. However, all water activities are within the normal market value range of 0.74 to 0.93 (Mikel and Newman, 2002). The ham cubes in the 2% 24P+1% XG net treatment has greater moisture content than the control and net control. This is reasonable since XG slows moisture migration from the meat (Huber and Bemiller, 2017) and keeps the liquid smoke solutions on the nets longer. All treatments with 24P cause the ham cubes to lose similar weight (NS) to the control. This might support that using the solution designed in current research in the aging house will not cause insufficient weight loss. USDA FSIS requires all aged hams to lose at least 18% of their original weight to be legally sold in the market (USDA-FSIS, 9 CFR 319.106, 2021).

[0089] Food-grade coatings of XG+PG and CG+PGA+PG were used by Hendrix et al. (2018) to evaluate the effects of temperature (24, 28 and 32° C.) and relative humidity (RH, 55, 65, 75 and 85%) on controlling T. putrescentiae. Minimal differences were found in a.sub.w when nets were coated with XG+PG or CG+PGA+PG in similar environmental conditions to those in the current study (24° C. and 75% RH). Zhang et al. (2018) used netting infused with food-grade ingredients, including lard, PGA+CG or XG, and PG, to wrap ham cubes and measured the change in a.sub.w after 4-wks and 8-wks of storage. Their results indicated that the a.sub.w value in the net control was less compared to that of treatments containing gum, lard, and PG after 4-wks of storage. In the future, the current liquid smoke treatments with XG can be scaled up in commercial aging facilities to evaluate a.sub.w, moisture content and weight loss to determine if yields will be increased, leading to more profits, and to verify that the product is still safe, based on either having a water activity of 0.92 or the use of sodium nitrate and the loss of at least 18% of its moisture.

[0090] In summary, the addition of 1% or 2% SP to 1% XG to ham nets controlled mite growth. The use of 2% 24P with 1% XG also controlled mite growth when used as either a coating or a coated netting. Using 1% 24P or 2% 24P alone and infused in nets controlled mite growth. In addition, liquid smoke did not cause differences in texture, flavor and moistness, with the exception of 2% 24P+1% XG treatment, which only differed in moistness. SP and 24P treatments had similar (NS) weight loss when compared with the control, indicating that yields would not be impacted by using liquid smoke. In future work, liquid smoke added treatments should be scaled up and tested in ham aging facilities to confirm their efficacy at controlling mites in real world applications.

[0091] The above detailed description is presented to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention. Specific details have been revealed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the present invention and are used for explanation of the information provided. These specific details, however, are not required to practice the invention, as is apparent to one skilled in the art. Descriptions of specific applications, analyses, and calculations are meant to serve only as representative examples. Various modifications to the preferred embodiments may be readily apparent to one skilled in the art, and the general principles defined herein may be applicable to other embodiments and applications while still remaining within the scope of the invention. There is no intention for the present invention to be limited to the embodiments shown and the invention is to be accorded the widest possible scope consistent with the principles and features disclosed herein.

[0092] While various embodiments of the present invention have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example and not limitation. It will be apparent to persons skilled in the relevant art(s) that various changes in form and detail can be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the present invention. In fact, after reading the above description, it will be apparent to one skilled in the relevant art(s) how to implement the invention in alternative embodiments. Thus, the present invention should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments.

[0093] The compositions, processes, systems, and methods of the present invention are often best practiced by empirically determining the appropriate values of the operating parameters, or by conducting simulations to arrive at best design for a given application. Accordingly, all suitable modifications, combinations, and equivalents should be considered as falling within the spirit and scope of the invention.

REFERENCES

[0094] Abbar, S., Amoah, B., Schilling, M. W., Phillips, T. W., 2016a. Efficacy of selected food-safe compounds to prevent infestation of the ham mite, Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) (Acarina: Acaridae), on southern dry-cured hams. Pest Manag. Sci. 72, 1604-1612. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.4196 [0095] Abbar, S., Schilling, M. W., Phillips, T. W., 2016b. Time-Mortality Relationships to Control Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae) Exposed to High and Low Temperatures. J. Econ. Entomol. 109, 2215-2220. https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/tow159 [0096] AOAC, 2000. Determination of moisture content—AOAC Official Methods of Analysis. 17th Edition. Gaithersburg, MD. [0097] Armentia, A., Fernandez, A., Perez-Santos, C., De la Fuente, R., Sanchez, P., Sanchis, F., Mendez, J., Stolle, R., 1994. Occupational allergy to mites in salty ham, chorizo and cheese. Allergol. Immunopathol. (Madr). 22, 152. [0098] Asefa, D. T., Gjerde, R. O., Sidhu, M. S., Langsrud, S., Kure, C. F., Nesbakken, T., Skaar, I., 2009. Moulds contaminants on Norwegian dry-cured meat products. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 128, 435-439. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Ijfoodmicro.2008.09.024 [0099] Boczek, J., 1991. Mite pests in stored food. Ecol. Manag. food Ind. pests. Arlingt. FDA Tech. Bull. 4, 57-79. [0100] Bond, E. J., 1984. Manual of fumigation for insect control. pp. 78-103. [0101] Campbell, Y. L., Zhang, X., Shao, W., Williams, J. B., Kim, T., Goddard, J., Abbar, S., Phillips, T. W., Schilling, M. W., 2018. Use of nets treated with food-grade coatings on dry-cured ham to control Tyrophagus putrescentiae infestations without impacting sensory properties. J. Stored Prod. Res. 76, 30-36. [0102] Campbell, Y. L., Zhao, Y., Zhang, X., Abbar, S., Phillips, T. W., Schilling, M. W., 2017. Mite Control and Sensory Evaluations of Dry-Cured Hams with Food-Grade Coatings. Meat Muscle Biol. 1, 100-108. [0103] Canfield, M. S., Wrenn, W. J., 2010. Tyrophagus putrescentiae mites grown in dog food cultures and the effect mould growth has on mite survival and reproduction. Vet. Dermatol. 21, 58-63. [0104] Civille, G. V., Carr, B. T., 2015. Sensory evaluation techniques. CRC Press, pp. 79-81. 108-110. [0105] Cunnington, A. M., 1969. Physical limits for complete development of the copra mite, Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank)(Acarina: Acaridae), in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Acarology. pp. 241-248. [0106] Estrada-Munoz, R., Boyle, E. A. E., Marsden, J. L., 1998. Liquid smoke effects on Escherichia coli o157:h7, and its antioxidant properties in beef products. J. Food Sci. 63, 150-153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1998.tb15697.x [0107] Faith, N. G., Yousef, A. E., Luchansky, J. B., 1992. Inhibition Of Listeria Monocytogenes By Liquid Smoke And Isoeugenol, A Phenolic Component Found In Smoke. J. Food Saf. 12, 303-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.1992.tb00086.x [0108] FDA, 2021. 21 CFR 184.1666, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-184/subpart-B/section-184.1666 (accessed on 10/28/21). [0109] Fields, P. G., 1992. The control of stored-product insects and mites with extreme temperatures. J. Stored Prod. Res. 28, 89-118. [0110] Fields, P. G., White, N. D. G., 2002. Alternatives to methyl bromide treatments for stored-product and quarantine insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 47, 331-359. [0111] Fretheim, K., Granum, P. E., Vold, E., 1980. Influence of generation temperature on the chemical composition, antioxidative, and antimicrobial effects of wood smoke. J. Food Sci. 45, 999-1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb07497.x [0112] Garcia, N., 2004. Efforts to control mites on Iberian ham by physical methods. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 32, 41-50. [0113] Guillén, M. D., Ibargoitia, M. L., 1996. Volatile components of aqueous liquid smokes from vitis viniferal shoots and fagus sylvatical wood. J. Sci. Food Agric. 72, 104-110. [0114] Gulati, R., Mathur, S., 1995. Effect of eucalyptus and mentha leaves and curcuma rhizomes on Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank)(Acarina: Acaridae) in wheat. Exp. Appl. Acarol. 19, 511-518. [0115] Hanson, D. J., Rentfrow, G., Schilling, M. W., Mikel, W. B., Stalder, K. J., Berry, N. L., 2014. US products-dry-cured hams, Handbook of fermented meat and poultry: second edition. Wiley Blackwell, Department of Food, Bioprocessing and Nutrition Sciences, North Carolina State University. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118522653.ch40 [0116] Hendrix, J. D., Zhang, X., Campbell, Y. L., Zhang, L., Siberio, L., Cord, C. L., Silva, J. L., Goddard, J., Kim, T., Phillips, T. W., Schilling, M. W., 2018. Effects of temperature, relative humidity, and protective netting on Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) (Sarcoptiformes: Acaridae) infestation, fungal growth, and product quality of dry cured hams. J. Stored Prod. Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2018.05.005 [0117] Huber, K. C., BeMiller, J. N., 2017. Chapter 3., Carbohydrates. Fennema's Food Chemistry. Damodaran, S., Parkin, K. L., CRC Press, pp. 152-154. [0118] Hubert, J., Stejskal, V., Munzbergova, Z., Kubatova, A., Vañovà, M., Žd'árková, E., 2004. Mites and fungi in heavily infested stores in the Czech Republic. J. Econ. Entomol. 97, 2144-2153. [0119] Kim, S. P., Kang, M. Y., Park, J. C., Nam, S. H., Friedman, M., 2012. Rice hull smoke extract inactivates Salmonella typhimurium in laboratory media and protects infected mice against mortality. J. Food Sci. 77, M80-M85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02478.x [0120] Knowles, M. E., Gilbert, J., McWeeny, D. J., 1975. Phenols in smoked cured meats. Phenolic composition of commercial liquid smoke preparations and derived bacon. J. Sci. Food Agric. 26, 189-196. [0121] Lingbeck, J. M., Cordero, P., O'Bryan, C. A., Johnson, M. G., Ricke, S. C., Crandall, P. G., 2014. Functionality of liquid smoke as an all-natural antimicrobial in food preservation. Meat Sci. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.0.2014.02.003 [0122] Marriott, N. G., Ockerman, H. W., 2004. The Ultimate Guide to Country Ham: An American Delicacy. Brightside Press. Radford, VA [0123] Marriott, N. G., Schilling, M. W., 2004. Dry cured pork research review, in: White Paper. National Country Ham Association, Inc. National Country Ham Association Annual Meeting. pp. 1-62. [0124] Martin, E. M., O'Bryan, C. A., Lary, R. Y., Griffis, C. L., Vaughn, K. L. S., Marcy, J. A., Ricke, S. C., Crandall, P. G., 2010. Spray application of liquid smoke to reduce or eliminate Listeria monocytogenes surface inoculated on frankfurters. Meat Sci. 85, 640-644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.0.2010.03.017 [0125] Messina, M. C., Ahmad, H. A., Marchello, J. A., Gerba, C. P., Paquette, M. W., 1988. The Effect of Liquid Smoke on Listeria monocytogenes. J. Food Prot. 51, 629-631. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-51.8.629 [0126] Mikel, W. B., Newman, M., 2002. Development of appropriate intervention methods to reduce the occurrence of pathogenic bacteria on country-cured hams, USDA-FSIS, Listeria Interventions for Country Hams. [C-20]. URL: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media file/2020-09/New_Technology_C-20_Abstract_2003.pdf [0127] Milly, P. J., Toledo, R. T., Chen, J., 2008. Evaluation of liquid smoke treated ready-to-eat (RTE) meat products for control of Listeria innocua M1. J. Food Sci. 73, M179-M183. [0128] Milly, P. J., Toledo, R. T., Ramakrishnan, S., 2005. Determination of minimum inhibitory concentration of liquid smoke fractions. J. Food Sci. 70, M12-M17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j 0.1365-2621.2005.tb09040.x [0129] Montazeri, N., Himelbloom, B. H., Oliveira, A. C. M., Leigh, M. B., Crapo, C. A., 2013a. Refined liquid smoke: a potential antilisterial additive to cold-smoked sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka). J. Food Prot. 76, 812-819. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-368 [0130] Montazeri, N., Oliveira, A. C. M., Himelbloom, B. H., Leigh, M. B., Crapo, C. A., 2013b. Chemical characterization of commercial liquid smoke products. Food Sci. Nutr. 1, 102-115. [0131] Mueller, D. K., Kelley, P. J., VanRyckeghem, A. R., 2006. Mold mites Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Shrank) in stored products, in: 9th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection. p. 1122. [0132] Nithin, C. T., Yathavamoorthi, R., Chatterjee, N. S., Ananthanarayanan, T. R., Mathew, S., Bindu, J., Srinivasa Gopal, T. K., 2016. Assessment of efficiency of an indigenous liquid smoke for masmin production 53(2), 110-114. [0133] Osteen, C., 2003. Methyl bromide phaseout proceeds: Users request exemptions. Amber Waves 1, 23-27. [0134] Pittman, J. R., Schmidt, T. B., Corzo, A., Callaway, T. R., Carroll, J. A., Donaldson, J. R., 2012. Effect of stressors on the viability of Listeria during an in-vitro cold-smoking process. Agric. Food Anal. Bacteriol 2, 195-208. [0135] Pszczola, D. E., 1995. Tour highlights production and uses of smoke-based flavors. Food Technol. 49 (1), 70-74. [0136] Ramakrishnan, S., Moeller, P., 2002. Liquid smoke: product of hardwood pyrolysis. Fuel Chem. Div. Prepr. 47, 366. [0137] Rentfrow, G., Chaplin, R., Suman, S. P., 2012. Technology of dry-cured ham production: Science enhancing art. Anim. Front. 2, 26-31. [0138] Rogers, W., Campbell, Y. L., Zhang, X., Shao, W., White, S., Phillips, T. W., Schilling, M. W., 2020. The application of food grade short chain fatty acids to prevent infestation of Tyrophagus putrescentiae on dry cured ham and the effects on sensory properties. J. Stored Prod. Res. 88, 101684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101684 [0139] Rozum, J. J., 2009. Smoke flavor, in: Ingredients in Meat Products: Properties, Functionality and Applications. Springer New York, Red Arrow International, LLC, pp. 211-226. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-71327-4_10 [0140] Sánchez-Ramos, I., Castañera, P., 2000. Acaricidal activity of natural monoterpenes on Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank), a mite of stored food. J. Stored Prod. Res. 37, 93-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-474X(00)00012-6 [0141] Šimko, P., 2005. Factors affecting elimination of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons from smoked meat foods and liquid smoke flavorings. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 49, 637-647. [0142] Simon, R., de la Calle, B., Palme, S., Meier, D., Anklam, E., 2005. Composition and analysis of liquid smoke flavouring primary products. J. Sep. Sci. 28, 871-882. [0143] Soares, J. M., da Silva, P. F., Puton, B. M. S., Brustolin, A. P., Cansian, R. L., Dallago, R. M., Valduga, E., 2016. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activity of liquid smoke and its potential application to bacon. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 38, 189-197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2016.10.007 [0144] Suñen, E., 1998. Minimum inhibitory concentration of smoke wood extracts against spoilage and pathogenic micro-organisms associated with foods. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 27, 45-48. [0145] Suñen, E., Fernandez-Galian, B., Aristimuño, C., 2001. Antibacterial activity of smoke wood condensates against Aeromonas hydrophila, Yersinia enterocolitica and Listeria monocytogenes at low temperature. Food Microbiol. 18, 387-393. https://doi.org/10.1006/fmic.2001.0411 [0146] USDA-FSIS, 9 CFR 319.106, 2021 https://ecfr.io/Title-09/se9.2.319_1106 (Accessed Dec. 15, 2020). [0147] USDA-FSIS 9 CFR 424.21, 2021. 9 CFR 424.21 Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/424.21 (Accessed on Sep. 10, 1921). [0148] Van Loo, E. J., Babu, D., Crandall, P. G., Ricke, S. C., 2012. Screening of commercial and pecan shell-extracted liquid smoke agents as natural antimicrobials against foodborne pathogen. J. Food Prot. 75, 1148-1152. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-543 [0149] Vitt, S. M., Himelbloom, B. H., Crapo, C. A., 2001. Inhibition of Listeria innocua and L. monocytogenes in a laboratory medium and cold-smoked salmon containing liquid smoke. J. food Saf. 21, 111-125. [0150] von Paula Schrank, F., 1781. Enumeratio insectorum Austriae indigenorum. Klett et Franck. [0151] Wendorff, W. L., 1981. Antioxidant and bacteriostatic properties of liquid smoke, in: Proceedings of Smoke Symposium. Red Arrow Products Co. Manitowoc, WI, pp. 73-87. [0152] Wendorff, W. L., Riha, W. E., Muehlenkamp, E., 1993. Growth of molds on cheese treated with heat or liquid smoke. J. Food Prot. 56, 963-966. [0153] Žd'árková, E., 1973. Orientation of Tyrophagus putrescentiae (Schrank) towards olfactory stimuli, in: Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of Acarology. Springer, pp. 385-389. [0154] Zhang, X., Byron, M. D., Goddard, J., Phillips, T. W., Schilling, M. W., 2018. Use of lard, food grade propylene glycol, and polysaccharides in infused nets to control Tyrophagus putrescentiae (schrank; sarcoptiformes: acaridae) infestation on dry cured hams. Meat Muscle Biol. 2, 36-45. https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb2017.09.0044 [0155] Zhang, X., Campbell, Y. L., Phillips, T. W., Abbar, S., Goddard, J., Schilling, M., 2017. Application of food-grade ingredients to nets for dry cured hams to control mite infestations. Meat Muscle Biol. 1, 53-60. [0156] Zhao, Y., Abbar, S., Amoah, B., Phillips, T. W., Schilling, M. W., 2016a. Controlling pests in dry-cured ham: A review. Meat Sci. 111, 183-191. [0157] Zhao, Y., Abbar, S., Phillips, T. W., Schilling, M. W., 2014. Development of food grade coatings to prevent mite infestation on dry cured ham, in: Annual International Research Conference on Methyl Bromide Alternatives and Emission Reduction, Orlando, FL. p. 34. [0158] Zhao, Y., Abbar, S., Phillips, T. W., Williams, J. B., Smith, B. S., Schilling, M. W., 2016b. Developing food-grade coatings for dry-cured hams to protect against ham mite infestation. Meat Sci. 113, 73-79. [0159] Zhao, Y., Teixeira, J. S., Gänzle, M. M., Saldaña, M. D. A., 2018. Development of antimicrobial films based on cassava starch, chitosan and gallic acid using subcritical water technology. J. Supercrit. Fluids 137, 101-110.