fish quality evaluation using quality index method
TRANSCRIPT
Fish Quality Evaluation Using Quality Index Method (QIM), Correlating with Physical, Chemical and Bacteriological Changes
During the Ice-Storage Period
National Taiwan Ocean University
Department of Food Science
Seminar
Seminar Instructor:
Yeuk-Chuen Liu, Ph.D
Hong-Ting Victor Lin, Ph.D
Advisor:
Hsiao Hsin-I, Ph.D
Presented by:
Nodali Ndraha
10432071
Outline
2
‐ Introduction
‐ Fish freshness determination using quality index method (QIM)
‐ Shelf-life estimation of the fish, correlating with physical, chemical and bacteriological changes during the ice-storage period
‐ Summary and conclusion
The objectives
To evaluate the current status of fish quality using Quality Index Method (QIM), correlating with physical, chemical and bacteriological changes that occurred during the storage period
To estimate product shelf-life of fish
3
Problems and urgently
• Fish is perishable (5 – 20 days)
• Freshness and change in sensory attributes are critical parameters during fish chain
• Fish is transported all over
4
Postharvest Transport Processing
TransportWarehousingTransport
Retail
Cold Chain in Food Sector
Source: 2015 ITA Cold Chain Top Markets Report
Sensory Evaluation
5
Introduction of Quality Index Method (QIM)
• Quality Index Method (QIM) developed by the Tasmanian Food Research Unit (TFRU) to determine the fish freshness and quality.
• A descriptive, fast and simple method to evaluate the freshness of seafood.
• Estimate the remaining shelf-life of the fish.
• Based on significant sensory parameters for raw fish and a scoring system from 0 to 3 demerit points.
• Evaluates that change most significantly, in each species, during degradation processes
6
Developing quality index
Pre-Observation
Development of the QIM scheme and training of a QIM
panel
Validation of QIM scheme
7
Figure 1. Linear regression between the quality index and storage time of fish
(Martinsdottir et al., 2003)
Developing quality index
Pre-Observation
Development of the QIM scheme and training of a QIM
panel
Validation of QIM scheme
2 or 3 experts in sensory evaluation of fish observe
fish that have been stored for different periods in ice.
All changes occurring in appearance, odor and
texture during storage are listed in a preliminary
scheme
8(Martinsdottir et al., 2003)
Developing quality index
Pre-Observation
Development of the QIM scheme and training of a
QIM panel
Validation of QIM scheme
2 or 3 experts in sensory evaluation of fish observe
fish that have been stored for different periods in ice.
All changes occurring in appearance, odor and
texture during storage are listed in a preliminary
scheme
3–4 different groups of fish, stored different periods
of time in ice are observed. First, preliminary
scheme is explained to the panelists, fish being
stored for different periods
9(Martinsdottir et al., 2003)
Developing quality index
Pre-Observation
Development of the QIM scheme and training of a QIM
panel
Validation of QIM scheme
2 or 3 experts in sensory evaluation of fish observe
fish that have been stored for different periods in ice.
All changes occurring in appearance, odor and
texture during storage are listed in a preliminary
scheme
3–4 different groups of fish, stored different periods
of time in ice are observed. First, preliminary
scheme is explained to the panelists, fish being
stored for different periods
Shelf-life study, at least every third day, The shelf
life study should be repeated to observe if the same
slope was found between the Quality Index and
storage time in ice10(Martinsdottir et al., 2003)
Table 1a. Quality Index Method (QIM) protocol for ice stored gutted Amazonian Pintado (Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum
Leiarius marmoratus) (Lanzarin et al., 2016)
11
Table 1b. QIM protocol for gutted ice-stored tambatinga (Colossoma macropomum Piaractus brachypomum) (Ritter et
al., 2016)
12
Fish freshness determination
• The correlation between the quality index (QI) and storage time of fish
• The correlation between the quality attributes of fish and storage time
• Quality attributes of fish that most changes
• Quality attributes of fish remained stable
• Variable importance in the projection (VIP)
• Principal Component Analysis of quality parameters
13
(Billar dos Santos et al., 2014)(Borges et al., 2014)
1. The correlation between the quality index (QI) and storage time of fish
The QI tends to increase linearly with increasing storage time 14
TambacuAcoupa weakfish
Figure 2. Linear regression between the quality index and storage time of fish (Billar dos Santos et al., 2014;
Borges et al., 2014)
15
(Lanzarin et al., 2016)
The QI tends to increase linearly with increasing storage time
1. The correlation between the quality index (QI) and storage time of fish
(Ritter et al., 2016)
Amazonian Pintado Tambatinga
Figure 3. Linear regression between the quality index and storage time of fish (Lanzarin et al., 2016; Ritter et al.,
2016)
(Agüeria et al., 2015) (Gutiérrez et al., 2015)
1. The correlation between the quality index (QI) and storage time of fish
The QI tends to increase linearly with increasing storage time
- An estimate can be calculated for the remaining shelf-life 16
Red tilapiaCommon carp
Figure 4. Linear regression between the quality index and storage time of fish (Agüeria et al., 2015; Gutiérrez et
al., 2015)
17
Figure 5. Changes occurring in Acoupa weakfish appearance during 16 days of iced storage. a: Fresh gutted fish; b, f
and j: details of eyes shape, cornea and pupil; c, g and k: gills color and mucus; d, h and l: peritoneal membrane, kidney
color and blood vessels; e, i and m: caudal fin (Billar dos Santos et al., 2014)
Figure 6. Mean of demerit points for the quality
attributes for the gutted ice-stored Amazonian
Pintado; A). overall appearance; B). eyes; C). gills;
D). abdomen; and E). fins (Lanzarin et al., 2016)
18
2. The correlation between the quality attributes of fish and storage time
Fins
AbdomenGills
Overall Appearance Eyes
The quality
attributes
tends to
increase with
increasing
storage time
Figure 7. The quality attributes that most changes during storage for the gutted ice-stored Amazonian Pintado and
tambatinga (Lanzarin et al., 2016; Ritter et al., 2016)
19
3. Quality attributes of fish that most changes
Amazonian Pintado Tambatinga
Fins
Storage time (days)Storage time (days)
Qu
alit
y I
nd
ex
Qu
alit
y I
nd
ex
(Lanzarin et al., 2016) (Ritter et al., 2016)
20
3. Quality attributes of fish that most changes
(Ritter et al., 2016)
Gills
Odor
Abdomen
Odor
Overall appearance
Eyes
Off-odor generally is the primary cause of reduction of acceptability of fish. The significant
change of odor during storage may be due to large amounts of non-protein nitrogen, high content
of fat and autolytic enzymes in the fish tissues (Ritter et al., 2016)
Figure 8. Mean of demerit points for the quality attributes for gutted ice-stored tambatinga (Ritter et al., 2016)
Color
Color
Figure 9. Mean of demerit points for the quality attributes for the gutted ice-stored Amazonian
Pintado (Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum x Leiarius marmoratus); A). overall appearance; B). eyes; C).
gills; D). abdomen; and E). fins (Lanzarin et al., 2016)21
4. Quality attributes of fish remained stable
4. Quality attributes of fish remained stable
22
A B
Figure 10. The changes of quality attributes of Amazonian Pintado fish during storage, (A) Gills; (B) abdomen
(Lanzarin et al., 2016)
23
Flesh firmness Eye
intactness
Abdomen colorHead color
Figure 11. The changes of quality attributes of tambacu fish during storage, (A) general appearance; (B)
eyes; (C) head; (D) abdomen (Borges et al., 2014)
4. Quality attributes of fish remained stable
24
Figure 12. Mean of demerit points for the quality
attributes for the gutted ice-stored tambatinga : (A)
Overall aspect; (B) eyes; (C) gills; (D) abdomen; and (E)
Fins. (Ritter et al., 2014)
4. Quality attributes of fish remained stable
25
Godet
Eyes shape
Figure 13. The changes of quality attributes of tambacu fish during storage, (A) general appearance; (B)
eyes; (C) head; (D) abdomen (Borges et al., 2014)
4. Quality attributes of fish remained stable
26
5. Variable importance in the projection (VIP)
Figure 14. Values of variable importance in the projection (VIP) of the Quality Index Method (MIQ)
parameters developed for ice stored gutted Amazonian Pintado (Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum (Leiarius
marmoratus) at 95% reliability (Lanzarin et al., 2016)
5. Variable importance in the projection (VIP)
27
flesh firmness, spot on pupil, eye
shape, gill color and odor,
abdominal color and odor and
pelvic fin moisture and color
Figure 15. Values of VIP of the QIM parameters developed for ice-stored pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus),
with a 95% regression confidence. (Blue = descriptor terms that contribute positively to QIM; white =
descriptor terms low significant contribution to QIM scheme) (Borges et al., 2013)
5. Variable importance in the projection (VIP)
28
Eye shape, lateral line, gill color,
skin glossiness, white spot on pupil,
iris color, flesh firmness, gill odor
and abdomen, eyeball integrity and
abdomen color
Figure 16. Values of VIP of the QIM parameters developed for ice-stored tambacu, with a 95% regression
confidence. (Blue = descriptor terms that contribute positively to QIM; white = descriptor terms low
significant contribution to QIM scheme) (Borges et al., 2014)
29
Figure 17. Principal Component Analysis of the hybrid quality parameters of gutted ice-stored tambacu (A): A1-
A10 represents the parameters of the quality index. BHAM = heterotrophic aerobic mesophilic bacteria, BHAP =
heterotrophic aerobic psychrotrophic bacteria; pH = hydrogen potential, TVB-N = total volatile bases nitrogen,
TBARS = thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (Borges et al., 2014)
A1-A13
BHAM
BHAP
pH
TVB-N
TBARS
Resilience,
Springiness,
Hardness and
Instrumental
glossiness
6. Principal Component Analysis of quality parameters
30
6. Principal Component Analysis of quality parameters
Figure 18. Principal Component Analysis of the hybrid quality parameters of gutted ice-stored tambacu. DI =
day 1, DIV = day 4, DVII = day 7, DXI = day 11, DXIII = day 13, DXVI = day 16 (Borges et al., 2014)
31
Figure 19. Principal Component Analysis of the hybrid quality parameters of gutted ice-stored tambatinga (A):
A1-A10 represents the parameters of the quality index. BHAM = heterotrophic aerobic mesophilic bacteria,
BHAP = heterotrophic aerobic psychrotrophic bacteria; pH = hydrogen potential, TVB-N = total volatile bases
nitrogen, TBARS = thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (Ritter et al., 2016)
A1-A10
BHAM
BHAP
pH
TVB-N
TBARS
32
Figure 20. Principal Component Analysis of the hybrid quality parameters of gutted ice-stored tambatinga. 1 =
day 1, 5 = day 5, 9 = day 9, 12 = day 12, 16 = day 16, 19 = day 19, 23 = day 23, 26 = day 26 and 30 = day 30
(Ritter et al., 2016)
Estimation of the fish shelf-life
Shelf life: number of days that whole fish can be stored in ice until it becomes unfit for human consumption.
Bacterial activity
• Heterotrophic aerobic mesophilic counts (BHAM)
• Heterotrophic aerobic psychrotrophic (BHAP)
• FAO/ICMSF (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/ International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods) 107 CFU
33
Estimation of the fish shelf-life
Chemical activity
• Total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N)
Critical limits of 25, level of 35-40 mg TVB-N/100g of muscle is the limit of acceptability.
• Hydrogen potential (pH)
• Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), formed as a byproduct of lipid peroxidation (i.e. as degradation products of fats).
34
35
Heterotrophic aerobic
psychrotrophic
bacteria (BHAP)
Heterotrophic aerobic
mesophilic counts
(BHAM)
Total volatile basic
nitrogen (TVB-N)
Figure 21. Linear regression between the variables BHAP, BHAM, (TVB-N) and storage time of ice stored gutted
Amazonian Pintado (Lanzarin et al., 2016)
FAO/ICMSF
11
36
Figure 22. Linear regression for the variables heterotrophic aerobic mesophilic bacteria (BHAM), heterotrophic
aerobic psychrotrophic bacteria (BHAP), hydrogen potential (pH), total volatile bases nitrogen (TVB-N),
thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) and ice storage time of the gutted hybrid tambatinga (Ritter et
al., 2016)
BHAP
BHAM
TVB-N
pH
TBARS
FAO/ICMSF
37
Figure 23. Principal Component Analysis of the hybrid quality parameters of gutted ice-stored tambatinga. 1 =
day 1, 5 = day 5, 9 = day 9, 12 = day 12, 16 = day 16, 19 = day 19, 23 = day 23, 26 = day 26 and 30 = day 30
(Ritter et al., 2016)
38
Figure 24. Variation of pH, aerobic mesophilic heterotrophic bacterial count (AMHBC), aerobic psychrotrophic
heterotrophic bacterial count (APHBC) over gutted, ice-stored pacu's (Piaractus mesopotamicus) shelf life
(Borges et al., 2013).
FAO/ICMSF
The longer the ice storage, the greater the microbiological and physicochemical activities leading to changes that directly affect the sensory characteristics of fish, thus accumulating more demerit points (Agüeria et al., 2015; Billar dos Santos et al., 2014; Borges et al., 2014; Gutiérrez et al., 2015; Lanzarin et al., 2016; Ritter et al., 2016)
39
Table 2. QIM schemes built between 2012 and 2016 for fish. The QIM references older than 2012, see Table 1 at Barbosa & Vaz-Pires (2004), Table 1 at Sant’Ana et al. (2011) and Table 1 at Bernardi et al. (2013)
Country Species Product Storage condition Quality IndexEstimated
shelf lifeReferences
Brazil Tambatinga (Colossoma
macropomum x Piaractus
brachypomum)
Gutted 0±0.5°C 0 - 18 10 d (Ritter et al., 2016)
Brazil Amazonian Pintado
(Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum x
Leiarius marmoratus)
Gutted 0±0.5°C 0 - 18 12 d (Lanzarin et al.,
2016)
Argentina Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) Gutted 2±1°C 0 – 19 18 d (Agüeria et al.,
2015)
Columbia Red tilapia (Oreochromis ssp) Gutted
Ungutted
4°C 0 – 21
0 – 29
11 d
9 d
(Gutiérrez et al.,
2015)
Spain Greenland Halibut (Reinhardtius
hippoglossoides)
Raw, whole 4±1°C 0 – 24 5 d (López-García et
al., 2014)
Iceland Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Farmed, 1 and −1◦C 0 – 17 19 d (Cyprian et al.,
2014)
Brazil Tambacu (Colossoma
macropomum × Piaractus
mesopotamicus)
Gutted 0.5±0.1°C 0 – 26 11 d (Borges et al.,
2014)
Brazil Weakfish (Cynoscion acoupa) Gutted 0 – 1°C 0 – 23 14 d (Billar dos Santos
et al., 2014)
Argentina Anchovy
(Engraulis anchoita)
Raw, wholed 0 – 4°C 0 – 28 10 d (Massa et al., 2012)
Croatia Bogue (Boops boops) Ungutted,
cooked, Farmed
Non-farmed
1±1°C 0 - 20 17 d
12 d
(Bogdanović et al.,
2012)
40
Conclusion
• The quality of fish gradually deteriorated with time during storage evaluated by QIM scheme.
• The quality parameters could be deteriorated quickly or slowly, depending on microbiological and chemical activities.
• The combination of microbiological, physicochemical, and sensory analysis provides a more concise and relevant results to assess the fish quality.
• Microbiology activities on fish during storage could be and indicate of shelf life and highly affected the fish quality.
• The changes on pH, TVB-N, and TBARs has occurred on fish during storage, these change could be an indicate for microbiology and chemical activity.
41
42
NODALI NDRAHA
Student
National Taiwan Ocean University
M: +886 905 473 631