4.5 Article

Quality index method developed for raw anglerfish (Lophius piscatorius) stored in ice

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13197-022-05647-2

关键词

Lophius piscatorius; Quality index method; Sensory analysis; Spoilage bacteria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study updated the previously proposed quality index (QI) scheme for fresh and whole Lophius piscatorius stored in ice by including 3 characters, namely appearance, eye, and fin, for a total of 18 demerit points. A positive linear correlation between QI score and storage time was observed, and the proposed scheme offers a ready-to-use freshness assessment of the anglerfish.
The quality index method (QIM) is a widely accepted solution to establish the state of fish freshness quickly and effectively. The present study aims to determine increasingly reliable freshness parameters for fresh and whole Lophius piscatorius stored in ice. Sensory and microbiological analyses were performed on 148 anglerfishes. Sensory evaluations were performed based on the QIM, updating a previously proposed quality index (QI) scheme. Total viable count and specific spoilage organisms were determined through microbiological analyses of the tail musculature, evaluating their correlations with the QI scores over time. The updated QI scheme included 3 characters, namely appearance, eye, and fin, for a total of 18 demerits points. A positive linear correlation between QI score and storage time was observed such that the sensory rejection time (8th day) can be predicted within +/- 1 day with the developed scheme. At the sensory rejection point, loads of the spoilage microbial flora were not high enough to be relatable to the appreciated alterations probably due to the anglerfish morphology in which the tail musculature is isolated from the gills and viscera, the main sources of bacterial contamination. The proposed scheme offers a ready-to-use freshness assessment of the anglerfish although further validations are needed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据