Descriptive Sensory Analysis of Broiler Breast Fillets Marinated
in Phosphate, Salt, and Acid Solutions1
B. G. Lyon,2 D. P. Smith, and E. M. Savage
USDA, Agricultural Research Service, Russell Research Center, PO Box 5677, Athens, Georgia, 30604
eral linear model SAS procedures to determine significant
differences (P ≤ 0.05) in individual sensory attributes due
to marinade treatment. All sensory attributes were scored
in the low intensity range (1.5 to 5.0). Brothy, vinegar,
and residual particles were the only individual attributes
rated significantly different (P ≤ 0.05) due to treatment.
Multivariate analyses indicated that all sensory attributes
formed 2 dimensions that explained 57% of variation in
the data. The low intensity values for texture attributes
indicated possible negative consequences due to phosphates, salt, and acids when used with fully aged fillets.
ABSTRACT Sensory attributes of fully aged broiler
breast fillets marinated in a 6% NaCl solution containing
2% sodium tripolyphosphate (2P), 2% citric acid (2C), 2%
acetic acid (2A), 1% citric acid plus 1% phosphate solution
(1C), or 1% acetic acid solution plus 1% phosphate (1A)
were studied. A 6% NaCl (6S) solution with no additives
was used as control. Oven-cooked samples (177C° oven;
75°C internal temperature) were evaluated by a 9-member
trained descriptive analysis sensory panel that rated the
intensities of 26 different flavor and texture attributes
using 15-point line scales. Data were analyzed using gen-
(Key words: broiler fillet, sensory, marination, flavor, texture)
2005 Poultry Science 84:345–349
pickup (weight difference before and after marination,
expressed as a percentage of initial weight). Marination
with acids or phosphates may cause pH changes and
unfolding of secondary protein structure to allow more
water to be absorbed and bound to the protein molecules.
USDA limits total phosphate in the finished product to
no more than 0.5%.
Marination may also benefit product quality by
allowing the addition of spices and flavorings to add or
enhance flavor. Marinades containing phosphates tend to
reduce rancidity development and warmed-over flavor,
increase shelf life, and improve color of poultry meat.
With increased water-holding capacity, products tend to
be perceived as more juicy and tender. Through the action
of the salt and phosphate on the myofibrils and connective
tissue, the structure of the muscle fibers may be weakened
to increase the perception of tenderness (Schults and
Wierbicki, 1973; Goodwin and Maness, 1984).
Weak organic acids, such as citric and acetic acids, are
components of flavored marinades used with meats in
limited quantities. Acetic and citric acids differ respectively in molecular weight (60.1 vs. 192.1), carbon atoms
(2 vs. 6), and carboxy groups (1 vs. 3). These acids have
been used to some extent on beef muscle (Aktas and
Kaya, 2001) and are believed to influence the collagen
INTRODUCTION
The quantity of marinated poultry breast meat continues to grow as the demand for new further-processed
items increases. Reports have indicated that some textural
and color problems in finished cooked products can be
attributed to addition of polyphosphates (Young and
Lyon, 1994). Commercial marination involves addition
of a solution of water, salt, phosphate, and sometimes
flavorings and other ingredients, by means of soaking,
blending, tumbling, or injecting (Smith and Acton, 2001).
Marination reportedly increases product value by enhancing flavor, improving or preserving color, tenderizing muscle, increasing juiciness, and extending shelf life
by reducing off-flavors. The consumer benefits from this
practice through the perception of enhanced quality, and
the processor benefits from increased yield and longer
shelf life.
Raw poultry muscle is composed of about 21% protein,
75% water, and 3% fat. Typical marinade solutions are
made of 90% water, 6% salt, and 4% sodium tripolyphosphate. This formula is based on an average of a total 10%
2005 Poultry Science Association, Inc.
Received for publication March 11, 2004.
Accepted for publication August 31, 2004.
1
Mention of a product or specific equipment does not constitute a
guarantee or warranty by the US Department of Agriculture and does
not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products that may also
be suitable.
2
To whom correspondence should be addressed: [email protected].
Abbreviation Key: 2P = 2% phosphate solution; 2A = 2% acetic acid
solution; 2C = 2% citric acid solution; 1A = 1% acetic acid + 1% phosphate
solution; 1C = 1% citric acid + 1% phosphate solution; 6S = 6% NaCl
solution; GPA = generalized Procrustes analysis.
345
346
LYON ET AL.
TABLE 1. Marination formulations for broiler breast fillets
Treatments
Code
H2O
Salt
1A
2A
1C
2C
2P
6S
92
92
92
92
92
92
6
6
6
6
6
6
Phosphate
Acid
1
0
1
0
2
0
1
2
1
2
0
0
(%)
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
+ phosphate1 + acetic
+ acetic
+ phosphate + citric
+ citric
+ phosphate
only
1
STPNEW, a commercial sodium tripolyphosphate.
connective tissue to cause some tenderization. In a freechoice profiling experiment on acid solutions, Rubico and
McDaniel (1992) demonstrated that different acids have
different sensory characteristics. The characteristics of
muscle tissue marinated in acids along with phosphates
and salt have not been studied extensively. The purpose
of this study was to determine the sensory descriptive
profiles of broiler breast muscle marinated in solutions
containing sodium chloride, sodium polyphosphate, and
acetic or citric acid.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Broilers, commercially grown and processed in a local
poultry plant under normal operating conditions, were
obtained as fully aged whole carcasses, placed on ice, and
transported to the laboratory. Breast fillets were removed
from each carcass and assigned to a marination treatment.
Ten fillets per treatment were used for each of 4 replications conducted on 4 separate days. The fillets from a
treatment were weighed together for batch weight and
then placed in a vacuum tumbler. A marination solution
(10% of the batch weight) was added to the batch. Vacuum
tumbling was accomplished at 15 mmHg for 20 min in a
2°C cold room.
Formulas used for marinade solutions are presented in
Table 1. A 6% NaCL (6S) base solution was used as a
control. Variations to this solution included 2% sodium
tripolyphosphate3 (2P); 2% acetic acid (2A), 2% citric acid
(2C), 1% sodium tripolyphosphate plus 1% acetic acid
(1A) or 1% sodium tripolyphosphate plus 1% citric acid
(1C). After being tumbled, each fillet was drained 2 min,
weighed, placed in individual heat-seal bags,4 and heat
sealed with a slight vacuum.5 Samples were frozen at
−30°C until evaluated within 3 wk.
Cooking and Sample Preparation
Samples were removed from the freezer, placed on
trays, and thawed overnight in a 2°C refrigerator. The
3
BRIFISOL STPNEW, BK Giulini Corporation, Simi Valley, CA.
Hantover, Kansas City, MO.
5
Henkelman, Delta Products, Inc., Newto, MA.
6
Compusense, Inc., Ontario, Canada.
7
Senstools, 2003, Version 3.1.4, OP&P Product Research BV, Utrecht,
The Netherlands.
4
thawed samples were removed from individual bags one
at a time and weighed. Samples were placed in 22.5 ×
32.5 cm glass cooking dishes (4 to 5 samples/dish), covered with foil, labeled, and placed in refrigerator until
cooking time.
Samples were cooked in a 177°C (350°F) oven to a
final temperature of 80°C. Internal temperatures were
monitored with a handheld thermometer. Samples were
removed from the oven and tempered 5 min in the pan
before weighing each individual piece.
Samples were prepared for sensory analysis by cutting
a 1.9 cm wide strip parallel to fibers. This strip was then
cut into 2 to 3 cubes of 1.9 cm. Occasionally the bottom
of a strip was trimmed to assure uniform sample cubes
for the panel. Samples were placed in prewarmed 178mL (6-oz) glass custard dishes that were nested in coded
styrofoam cups to maintain serving temperature (55°C).
Sample containers were coded with 3-digit numbers and
presented to panelists (n = 9) in individual sensory
workstations equipped with computers for data collection
using the CompusenseFive Sensory Analysis System.6
Panelists used one cube for flavor and one cube for texture
to evaluate the intensity of the sample attributes and mark
the responses on 15-point line scales, from low (1) to
high (15).
Sensory Evaluation
A trained descriptive analysis panel (n = 9) was used
in this study. Panelists had from 1 to 10 yr experience
working in descriptive sensory analysis. Sensory attributes (n = 26) and definitions used by the descriptive
panel to evaluate cooked breast meat are detailed in Table
2. Flavor, basic tastes, texture, and afterfeel/aftertaste
terms represented different phases of evaluation. The lexicon of flavor and texture terms was developed by the
trained descriptive sensory panel during previous studies
(Lyon, 1987; Lyon et al., 2001; Lyon and Lyon, 2000).
During orientation sessions for this study, the lexicon
and panel performance were validated through sampling,
discussions, and reference materials. The sample cooking
and presentation to panelists followed a monadic sequence at 20-min intervals to allow for fatigue recovery
between samples. Sensory evaluations were replicated
4 times. Sample order presentations to panelists were
randomized across sessions.
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using generalized Procrustes analysis (GPA) for sensory data.7 This multivariate analysis
procedure is used in sensory profiling to analyze treatment effects, panelist effects, and attribute performance.
Treatment means are subsequently plotted in a 2-dimensional space to visualize their relationships according to
a reduced set of factors derived from the attributes. In
addition, the individual attributes were analyzed for
treatment effects by GLM procedures (SAS Institute,
1998), and mean values were obtained.
347
SENSORY ANALYSIS OF MARINATED FILLETS
1
TABLE 2. Sensory attributes and definitions used to profile the flavor and texture of broiler breast meat
Attribute
Definition
I. Flavor
1. Brothy
2. Chickeny/meaty
3. Cardboardy
4. Wet feathers
5. Barnyardy
6. Bloody/serumy
7. Metallic/tinny
8. Vinegar/acetic acid
Basic flavor
9. Sweet
10. Salty
11. Sour
12. Bitter
II. Texture
13. Springiness
14. Cohesiveness
15. Hardness
16. Moisture release
17. Wetness
18. Particle size
19. Cohesiveness of mass
20. Bolus size
21. Chewiness
22. Toothpack
23. Residual particles
II. Afterfeel/aftertaste
24. Phosphate
Aromatic taste sensation associated with
Meat stock
Cooked white or dark chicken muscle
Cardboard, wet paper
Wet poultry feathers
Chicken coop; combination of manure, moldy hay, feed, poultry odors
Raw or ‘rare’ lean meat/serum
The smell of the inside of a tin can
Aromatic/taste sensation associated with white vinegar (not cider vinegar) or acetic acid
Taste on tongue stimulated by
Sugar and high potency sweeteners
Sodium salts, especially sodium chloride (table salt)
Acids
Caffeine or quinine
Attributes evaluated from first bite to swallow
Degree the sample returns to original shape after partial compression on first bite (low to high)
Distance to which one can bite into sample before it breaks, cracks, crumbles on first bite (low to high)
Force to compress the sample with molars during first 2 bites (low to high)
Amount of moisture (liquid/fat) coming from sample during first 5 chews (low to high)
Amount of moisture in the wad at 10-15 chews
Size of meat particles in wad during chewdown (small/mealy to large/fibrous)
Degree the chewed sample holds together in a wad at 10-15 chews
Size of wad during chewdown (small to large)
Amount of work required to chew the sample to point of swallow (low to high)
Fibers stuck between teeth after swallow
Amount of small particles in mouth after swallow
Attributes evaluated after swallow
Aromatic/taste of bitter, metallic, chemical associated with further processed meats and poultry;
may produce numbing mouthfeel
Flat chemical feeling factor stimulated on the tongue by metals
Chemical feeling factor on tongue or other surface of oral cavity described as dry
and puckering; associated with tannins or alum
25. Metallic/tinny
26. Astringent
1
Sensory attribute intensities were scored on a scale where 1 = low to 15 = high, based on the universal scale anchors (Meilgaard et al., 1999).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The sensory attributes represented flavor, texture and
aftertaste/afterfeel properties that were detected in preliminary training samples. Of the 15 flavor and aftertaste/
afterfeel attributes, significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) were
found only for brothy, vinegar, and sour (Table 3). All
intensity values for aroma and flavor of the samples were
very low on the 1-to-15 universal scale. The 2P samples
were scored the highest intensity for brothy, and 2A samples were scored the lowest intensity. Vinegar flavor note
was significantly higher in samples marinated in 2A,
whereas the intensity of vinegar flavor/aroma in 1A was
similar to all other samples. Sour was significantly differ-
TABLE 3. Mean values1 (±SD) of flavor attributes for broiler breast fillets subjected to six marination treatments
Treatment2
Attribute
Aromatics
1. Brothy
2. Chickeny/meaty
3. Cardboard
4. Wet feathers
5. Barnyard
6. Bloody/serumy
7. Metallic
8. Vinegar/acetic acid
Basic flavor
9. Sweet
10. Salty
11. Sour
12. Bitter
1A
1C
2A
2C
6S
2P
3.67
4.28
2.65
2.84
2.63
2.90
2.98
1.93
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.75abc
0.47
0.78
0.85
1.01
0.90
0.87
1.38b
3.91
4.23
2.46
2.41
2.50
2.89
2.95
1.89
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.82ab
0.56
0.89
0.87
0.91
0.92
0.94
1.29b
3.47
4.18
2.69
2.66
2.60
2.89
3.26
2.95
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.84c
0.48
0.87
0.79
0.92
0.99
0.94
1.49a
3.57
4.12
2.69
2.62
2.56
2.75
3.20
1.86
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.86bc
0.48
0.74
0.82
1.02
0.89
0.95
1.34b
4.05
4.31
2.51
2.54
2.62
2.81
3.00
1.74
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.72a
0.50
0.97
1.03
1.11
0.95
1.03
1.20b
3.83
4.18
2.68
2.51
2.53
2.87
2.77
1.95
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.89abc
0.48
0.91
0.91
1.10
0.82
1.04
1.23ab
2.63
2.81
2.96
1.76
±
±
±
±
0.74
0.81
0.88b
1.09
2.65
2.91
2.89
1.82
±
±
±
±
0.58
0.81
0.87b
0.94
2.54
2.96
3.40
2.11
±
±
±
±
0.74
0.86
0.84a
0.98
2.60
3.06
3.14
1.91
±
±
±
±
0.59
0.88
0.84ab
0.98
2.69
2.95
2.89
1.86
±
±
±
±
0.67
1.03
0.85b
0.94
2.70
2.96
3.20
1.98
±
±
±
±
0.79
0.78
0.75ab
1.02
Means within the same row not followed by common superscript letters are significantly different (P ≤ 0.05).
Values are means of 36 observations (9 panelists × 4 replications) for each sample.
2
Code abbreviations for marination treatments are 1A = 1% acetic acid + 1% phosphate + 6% salt; 1C = 1% citric acid + 1% phosphate +
6% salt; 2A = 2% acetic acid + 2% phosphate + 6% salt; 2C = 2% citric acid + 2% phosphate + 6% salt; 2P= 2% phosphate + 6% salt; 6S =
6% salt.
a–c
1
348
LYON ET AL.
1
TABLE 4. Mean values (±SD) of texture and aftertaste/afterfeel attributes for evaluation of marination effects on broiler breast fillets
Treatment2
Attribute
Texture
13. Springiness
14. Cohesiveness
15. Hardness
16. Moisture release
17. Wetness
18. Particle Size
19. Cohesiveness of mass
20. Bolus size
21. Chewiness
22. Toothpack
23. Residual particles
Aftertaste/feel
24. Phosphate
25. Metallic
26. Astringent
1A
3.51
4.06
3.90
3.17
3.55
2.90
5.12
3.49
4.10
2.79
3.40
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.90
1.17
0.96
0.58ab
0.62b
0.76
1.86
0.65
0.75
1.07
0.84b
2.95 ± 1.15
3.14 ± 0.90
2.10 ± 1.00
1C
3.62
4.18
3.96
3.42
3.93
2.91
4.83
3.23
3.96
2.77
3.49
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
2A
0.84
0.83
0.89
0.71a
0.70a
0.82
1.87
0.90
0.73
0.98
0.68b
2.95 ± 0.90
3.14 ± 1.00
1.95 ± 1.11
3.71
4.07
4.03
3.08
3.56
2.96
5.01
3.59
4.25
2.95
3.91
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.82
0.94
0.91
0.61b
0.74b
0.79
1.82
0.96
0.73
1.04
0.88a
2.99 ± 1.23
3.07 ± 1.01
2.21 ± 1.21
2C
3.51
3.89
3.98
3.21
3.67
2.90
5.02
3.41
4.13
2.94
3.76
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.90
1.02
0.95
0.58ab
0.64ab
0.68
1.76
0.74
0.85
1.02
0.70ab
3.01 ± 1.28
3.05 ± 1.09
2.04 ± 1.21
2P
3.46
3.83
3.63
3.43
3.81
2.97
4.96
3.42
3.98
2.90
3.65
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.75
0.90
0.74
0.60a
0.63ab
0.76
1.94
0.70
0.67
1.16
0.76ab
3.06 ± 1.05
2.95 ± 0.98
2.11 ± 1.11
6S
3.44
3.75
3.74
3.34
3.78
2.90
4.92
3.40
4.05
2.79
3.60
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
±
0.86
1.06
0.82
0.75ab
0.81ab
0.74
1.85
0.66
0.69
1.05
0.83ab
3.00 ± 1.11
3.28 ± 0.92
2.01 ± 1.02
a,b
Means within the same row not followed by common superscript letters are significantly different (P = 0.05).
Values are means of 36 observations (9 panelists × 4 replications) for each sample.
2
Code abbreviations for marination treatments are 1A = 1% acetic acid + 1% phosphate + 6% salt; 1C = 1% citric acid + 1% phosphate +
6% salt; 2A = 2% acetic acid + 2% phosphate + 6% salt; 2C = 2% citric acid + 2% phosphate + 6% salt; 2P = 2% phosphate + 6% salt; 6S =
6% salt.
1
ent for 2A samples. However, the other 3 samples with
acids (1A, 1C, and 2C) were not rated significantly (P ≤
0.05) more sour than samples without acid (i.e., 2P and
6S). The level of acid or the presence of salt and/or phosphate with lower levels of acid diminished the sour taste.
The acid samples without phosphates had detectable metallic tastes. Sour is the predominant flavor note of organic
acids. However, acids may also impart bitter and astringency as well as various other taste sensations (Rubico
and McDaniel, 1992; Siebert, 1999).
Texture attributes were also affected by different marinade ingredients (Table 4). However, the intensity values
of texture character notes were very low on the scale, in
the range of detectable to slight. The 2A treatments were
more springy, slightly harder, and more chewy. The 2A
samples also had less moisture released on chewing,
larger bolus size, and the greatest amount of residual
particles. Springiness, cohesiveness, moisture release, and
wetness of the samples at first bite or first 5 chews revealed the most differences among samples. Apparently
the differences associated with the marinade ingredients
had the most effect at the early stages of texture evaluation. As the samples were chewed to the point of swallow,
the differences in the samples due to marinade ingredients narrowed or became nonexistent. At final evaluation,
there were differences in the samples due to residual
particles left in the mouth after swallow. The 2A and 2C
samples were scored the highest for residual particles.
This finding would indicate that phosphates in the presence of acids, as in 1A and 1C, may ameliorate some
attributes that could be construed as negative, such as
increased quantity of residual particles. Another explanation could be that the sensory differences are due to the
level of acid (1 vs. 2%).
The results of the GPA are given in Figure 1. GPA
maximizes the agreement among panelists with respect
to scoring of individual samples. A consensus configuration of the samples, graphically represented in Figure 1,
illustrates intersample distances. Samples were plotted
by their coordinates of dimensions 1 and 2, which ex-
FIGURE 1. Consensus product map from generalized Procrustes
analyses (GPA) of broiler breast fillets marinated in phosphates, salt,
and acids. Sample abbreviations for products: 6% NaCl (6S) solution
containing 2% sodium tripolyphosphate (2P), 2% citric acid (2C), 2%
acetic acid (2A), 1% citric acid plus 1% phosphate solution (1C), or 1%
acetic acid solution plus 1% phosphate solution (1A). Dimension 1,
explaining 33% variation in the data, was defined by positive loadings
for bitter (bit), wetness (wet), particle size (psz), and astringent (astr).
Attributes loading negatively for dimension 1 were brothy (bro), salty
(slt), and residual particles (resd). Dimension 2, explaining 24% variation, was defined by positive loadings for metallic (met) and cohesiveness of mass (cohm) and by negative loadings for chickeny (chk),
moisture release (mrel), and metallic aftertaste (amet).
SENSORY ANALYSIS OF MARINATED FILLETS
plained 33 and 24% variation in the data, respectively,
for a cumulative total variation explained of 57%. Attributes are plotted to show their position in the product
space. The meaning of the dimensions can be subjectively
interpreted by observing the loadings (correlations) for
the individual attributes for each dimension. Bitter, wetness, particle size, and astringency loaded positively on
dimension 1 and brothy, salty, and residual particles
loaded negatively. For dimension 2, metallic and cohesiveness of mass loaded positively and chickeny, moisture
release, and metallic aftertaste/afterfeel loaded negatively. Sample 2P was plotted further from the origin of
dimensions 1 and 2, being perceived as more metallic,
higher cohesiveness of mass, more bitter, more wet, more
astringent, and having larger particle sizes. The 6S sample
was positive on dimension 1 (bitter, wet, particle size,
astringent) but negatively loaded on chickeny, moisture
release, and metallic. Samples 1C and 1A were both plotted in the negative quadrants of dimensions 1 and 2,
indicating the perception as less chickeny, less moisture
released, less metallic, less brothy, less salty, and with
fewer residual particles. Sample 2A would be considered
fairly neutral on either dimension, whereas 2C was plotted as less brothy, less salty, and with fewer residual
particles but more metallic and higher cohesiveness of
mass.
The samples in this study were fully aged. Therefore,
the addition of acid to adjust the pH may not be as beneficial in marinade solutions of fully aged product as would
the addition for samples in a pre-or peri-rigor state. The
effects of acid in solutions to marinate samples in the preor peri-rigor state should be investigated. Consumer tests
are needed to complement the descriptive studies.
349
REFERENCES
Aktas, N., and M. Kaya. 2001. The influence of marinating with
weak organic acids and salts on the intramuscular connective
tissue and sensory properties of beef. Eur. Food Res. Technol.
213:88–94.
Goodwin, T. L., and J. B. Maness. 1984. The influence of marination, weight, and cooking techniques on tenderness of
broilers. Poult. Sci. 63:1925–1929.
Lyon, B. G. 1987. Development of chicken flavor descriptive
attribute terms aided by multivariate statistical procedures.
J. Sens. Stud. 2:55–67.
Lyon, B. G., and C. E. Lyon. 2000. Sensory differences in broiler
breast meat due to electrical stimulation, deboning time, and
marination. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 9:234–241.
Lyon, B. G., W. R. Windham, C. E. Lyon, and F. E. Barton. 2001.
Sensory characteristics and near-infrared spectroscopy of
broiler breast meat from various chill-storage regimes. J.
Food Qual. 24:435–452.
Meilgaard, M. C., C. V. Civille, and B. T. Carr. 1999. Sensory
Evaluation Techniques. 3rd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Rubico, S. M., and M. R. McDaniel. 1992. Sensory evaluation of
acids by free-choice profiling. Chem. Senses 17:273–289.
SAS Institute. 1998. SAS User’s Guide: Statistics. Version 7.0.
SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Schults, G. W., and E. Wierbicki. 1973. Effects of sodium chloride
and condensed phosphates on the water-holding capacity,
pH and swelling of chicken muscle. J. Food Sci. 38:991–994.
Siebert, K. J. 1999. Modeling the flavor thresholds of organic
acids in beer as a function of their molecular properties. Food
Qual. Pref. 10:129–137.
Smith, D. P., and J. C. Acton. 2001. Marination, cooking, and
curing of poultry products. Chapter 15 in Poultry Meat Processing. A. R. Sams, ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Young, L. L., and C. E. Lyon. 1994. Effects of rigor state and
addition of polyphosphate on the color of cooked turkey
meat. Poult. Sci. 73:1149–1152.