4.1 Article

Combined Effect of Ozonized Water Pretreatment and Ozonized Flake Ice on Maintaining Quality of Japanese Sea Bass (Lateolabrax japonicus)

Journal

JOURNAL OF AQUATIC FOOD PRODUCT TECHNOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 2, Pages 168-180

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10498850.2011.589040

Keywords

ozonized water; ozonized flake ice; Japanese sea bass; storage; fish quality; shelf life

Funding

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 project) [2007AA091801]
  2. Priority Theme Project of Zhejiang Province [2008C13063]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The effect of the combined application of ozonized water pretreatment and ozonized flake ice (O+OIce) as compared with traditional flake ice (CK), ozonized flake ice (OIce), and ozonized water pretreatment and traditional flake ice (O) was investigated for the storage of Japanese sea bass. Microbiological, chemical, and sensory analysis and moisture content were carried out throughout a storage period of 18 days. A slower increase of total viable mesophilic count (TVC), total volatile base nitrogen (TVB-N), and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) was observed for O+OIce as compared with OIce, O, and CK. Treatment of O+OIce also allowed a better control of pH as compared with OIce, O, and CK. None of the treatments resulted in a significant difference in myofibrillar protein extractability and moisture content. The shelf life of Japanese sea bass treated with CK, OIce, O, and O+OIce, determined by sensory evaluation, was 9, 15, 12, and more than 18 days, respectively. Principal component analysis results showed that the treatments significantly affected the fish quality during storage, and the sensory attributes had a significant correlation with TVB-N, TVC, and TBARS. In conclusion, the combined application of ozonized water and ozonized flake ice had the best effect on fish quality maintenance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available