4.7 Article

New integrated process for production of edible and fishmeal powders from sardines: Drying kinetics and quality attributes

期刊

PROCESS SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 352-365

出版社

INST CHEMICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2018.12.019

关键词

Integrated process; Drying; Blanching; Quality; Sardine; Byproducts

资金

  1. Italy-Tunisia cross-border cooperation program
  2. Biotechnologie Marine Vecteur d'Innovation Qualite [BIOVecQ PS1.3_08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The edible parts of fishes (fleshes with/without skeleton) as well as the by-products (heads and viscera) are processed into two types of powders intended for human consumption and aqua feeding respectively. Sardine fleshes were blanched in water (100 degrees C, 30 s), air-dried at different temperatures (50, 60 and 70 degrees C) and then ground to fine powders. Sardines by-products were cooked in water (90 degrees C, 20 min), air-dried at 75 degrees C and then ground to fine powder. The drying kinetics of fleshes and by-products were evaluated and fitted to five mathematical models. The effects of pretreatments and drying temperatures on the physicochemical, techno-functional properties (water and oil retention capacities), microbiological quality and quality degradation indicators (biogenic amines, TVB-N and TBARS) of the obtained powders were examined. Results showed that drying of fleshes and by-products occurred in the falling rate period. The examined models were found to fit adequately to the experimental data with the exception of two term model. Drying and blanching do not affect protein content. Even though these operations lead to decreased fat and mineral contents, the obtained powders are rich on protein and omega-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA). Microbiological analysis showed that drying of blanched sardine flesh at 60 degrees C and cooked by-products at 75 degrees C provides safe end-products. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers.

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

4.7
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