4.7 Article

Effect of hydrostatic pressure and holding time on physicochemical quality and microbial inactivation kinetics of black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon)

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ifset.2015.12.002

关键词

High pressure processing; Holding time; Black tiger shrimp; Color; Lipid oxidation; Microbial destruction kinetics

资金

  1. National Agricultural Innovation Project (NAIP), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effects of high pressure processing (HPP), applied within 300-600 MPa for 3-15 min at ambient temperature (27 +/- 2 degrees C) on physicochemical (color, texture, trimethylamine nitrogen and thiobarbituric acid content) attributes and inactivation kinetics of natural microbiota (total aerobic mesophiles, psychrotrophs, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus) in black tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) were investigated. The color parameters L* (lightness) and b* (yellowness) increased but a* (redness) decreased with pressure and holding time imparting a brighter and mildly cooked appearance to shrimp muscle. Pressure-induced lipid oxidation accelerated at pressure treatments of 400-600 MPa. Hardness was found to be influenced by both pressure level and holding time. Among the group of microorganisms studied, pressure sensitivity of E. coli was found to be maximum whereas aerobic mesophiles were least sensitive (z(p) values of 421 MPa and 714 MPa; Delta V values of -18.60 x 10(-5) and -9.13 x 10(-5) m(3) mol(-1), respectively). Industrial relevance: High pressure processing (HPP) is a promising seafood preservation technique and has been successfully applied over a range of seafood. Shrimp is a high value commodity with constant demand in the seafood market, but it is highly perishable. This study will demonstrate the changes induced by HPP in black tiger shrimp which may further be applied to develop the process technology to preserve the valuable catch. (C) 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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