Table 2. Summary of major factors affecting meat juiciness and related research

Factors	Meat sample	key findings	References
pH and WHC	Beef (pHu levels: intermediate ≥5.8, normal <5.6)	• Intermediate pHu group▸ Significantly higher juiciness• Higher WHC▸ Linked to expanded myofibrillar microstructure and enhanced water-binding ability	Patinho et al. (2024)
	Beef (Ribeye steak)	• High pH (6.14) and marbling▸ Increased juiciness acceptability• Higher pH▸ Associated with greater WHC▸ Contributed to higher juiciness and tenderness acceptability	Leighton et al. (2023)
IMF	Pork (High vs. Low IMF)	• Increased intramuscular fat▸ Improved juiciness and tenderness• Higher SFA, MUFA, and PUFA levels▸ Enhanced juiciness, linked to lipid composition and moisture retention from phospholipids	Tian et al. (2025)
	Pork	• Intramuscular fat▸ Between muscle fibers▸ Surrounded by connective tissue▸ Enhancing tenderness, flavor, and juiciness; key factor for meat quality improvement	Qiu et al. (2025)
	Hanwoo (sirloin)	• Positive correlations with juiciness (r=0.47), tenderness (r=0.55), and flavor (r=0.47)• Negative correlation with shear force (r=–0.39), indicating increased juiciness and reduced toughness	Gajaweera et al. (2020)
	Pork (classified by carcass quality grades)	• Higher backfat thickness and intramuscular fat content▸ Increased juiciness and tenderness scores ↑• High-fat carcasses▸Well-distributed IMF between muscle fibers▸Reduced moisture loss during chewing and improved tenderness, contributing to enhanced juiciness	Valente et al. (2024)
	Beef (Intramuscular fat 7%–17%)	• Increased IMF▸ Positively associated with flavor preference; contribution to juiciness plateaus beyond a certain level• IMF >17%▸ Further improvement in juiciness markedly reduced	Moyes et al. (2025)
	Lamb (Intramuscular fat 1%–6%)	• IMF around 3.6%–4.1%▸ Juiciness: peaks at 3.6%–4.1%, followed by plateau or slight decrease• Juiciness preference▸ Moderate IMF (2.5%–3.5%) favored by some consumers, higher IMF favored by others	Realini et al. (2021)
Muscle structure and aging	Lamb	• Juiciness increase▸ aging 5 → 14 days, most cuts• Juiciness plateau▸ aging 14 → 21 days, most cuts• Juiciness determined by interaction of water-holding capacity, protein degradation, collagen characteristics, and muscle metabolites	Moyes et al. (2024)
	Beef (Aging methods and freezing/thawing)	• 14 day aging▸ Peak juiciness, maintained until 28 days for most samples• Juiciness at 14 days▸ Similar regardless of freezing/thawing• Dry-aging▸ Higher juiciness than wet-aging at same aging period (p<0.05)▸ Moisture loss during aging → relative fat concentration• 28-day frozen/thawed samples▸ Reduced juiciness due to increased moisture loss	Guimarães et al. (2024)
Muscle structure and aging	Beef (Accelerated aging treatment)	• 21 day refrigerated aging▸ Highest juiciness, followed by control group (3 day)• Accelerated aging based on low-temperature long-time (LTLT) cooking▸ Increased moisture loss leading to reduced juiciness• Accelerated aging▸ Improved tenderness and microbial safety	Jeneske et al. (2024)
Cooking methods	Lamb (Grill vs. Roast)	• Roast▸ Decreased juiciness scores ↓, Relatively higher contribution of juiciness to overall acceptability ↑▸ Increased fiber denaturation, moisture loss, and cooking loss• Grill▸ Higher moisture retention → leading to significantly higher juiciness scores	Moyes et al. (2025)
	Pork (Sous vide treatment)	• 59°C for 4.5 h▸ Highest juiciness and overall acceptability scores• High-temperature, long-time treatment▸ Increased cooking loss and decreased juiciness	Kurp and Danowska-Oziewicz (2024)
Other factors	Lidia Breed Cows (Slaughter Type)	• Cull cows▸ Increased juiciness and overall acceptability compared to nulliparous cows ↑• Older animals▸ Higher intramuscular fat content → Positive effects on water-holding capacity, reduced thawing/drip/cooking losses, and enhanced perception of juiciness	Cantarero-Aparicio et al. (2025)
	Lamb (8 Muscle Cuts)	• Sirloin, rump, and foreleg▸ Higher juiciness scores• Knuckle and shank▸ Lower juiciness scores• Correlation among sensory traits: juiciness, tenderness, and flavor (r=0.71–0.91)• Juiciness▸ Contribution to overall acceptability	Moyes et al. (2025)