| Literature DB >> 32328262 |
Qiufeng Feng1, Suisui Jiang1, Xiao Feng2, Xiaodong Zhou3, Haiyan Wang3, Yujin Li1,4, Jinmei Wang4,5, Shuwei Tang1, Yiping Chen1, Yuanhui Zhao1.
Abstract
Sous vide can keep the nutritional properties and improve taste of food compared with other conventional methods. In addition, this method may reduce the risk of recontamination after cooking and during storage. The purpose of this paper was to study the effects of four cooking methods (steaming, microwaving, baking, and frying) on the sensory and digestibility on sturgeon steak pretreated by sous vide during the cold storage (0-25 days). The results showed that the digestibility of steaming and microwaving groups (range from 80.34% to 90.12%) significantly higher than that of the other treatment groups (p < .05); however, the overall acceptability of the two groups was lower. What more, the frying group has the highest acceptability and the lowest digestibility (range from 65.12% to 70.89%). The springiness (4.12-6.56 mm) and chewiness (1.75-3.12 mm) of the frying group were significantly higher than those of the other treatment groups, which was consistent with the results of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) that frying treatment group has a denser structure and smaller pores. With the prolonged refrigeration time, especially between 15 and 25 days, the volatile flavor components (nitrogen oxide, methane, and alcohol) and stagnant water (T21) were significantly decreased. Principal component analysis showed that the moisture content was the main factor affecting the overall acceptability and best consumption time of the sturgeon was within 15 days. Simulating the effects of home cooking conditions and refrigeration storage time on the quality of sturgeon steak provided a reference for consumers using similar products.Entities:
Keywords: cooking method; fish steak; in vitro digestibility; quality acceptability; sous vide; sturgeon
Year: 2020 PMID: 32328262 PMCID: PMC7174215 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1483
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Photos of sturgeon steak cooked with different cooking methods Means in the same column represent different cooking methods and the vertical axis represents different storage times
| Days (d) | Cooking methods | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Steamed | Microwaved | Baked | Fried | |
| 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Color, odor, and acceptability of sturgeon steak treated with sous vide. Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different at p < .05 by least significant test. Data were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 10)
| Days | Cooking methods | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Steamed | Microwaved | Baked | Fried | ||
| Color | 0 | 5.25 ± 1.64aA | 6.80 ± 0.75bB | 7.80 ± 0.40bC | 8.00 ± 1.06aC |
| 5 | 5.42 ± 1.05aA | 7.25 ± 1.11aB | 8.25 ± 0.66aC | 8.10 ± 0.45aC | |
| 15 | 5.25 ± 1.39aA | 6.125 ± 1.03cB | 7.88 ± 0.60bC | 7.87 ± 0.78aC | |
| 25 | 4.88 ± 0.93bA | 5.00 ± 1.73dA | 7.34 ± 0.53cB | 7.88 ± 0.93aC | |
| Odor | 0 | 6.50 ± 0.50aA | 6.60 ± 0.48aA | 7.40 ± 0.49aB | 7.71 ± 0.70aB |
| 5 | 6.00 ± 0.99bA | 6.75 ± 1.22aA | 7.50 ± 0.67aB | 7.50 ± 0.71aB | |
| 15 | 5.5 ± 1.12cA | 6.00 ± 1.12aA | 6.50 ± 0.60bB | 7.40 ± 0.99aC | |
| 25 | 4.25 ± 1.79dA | 5.50 ± 1.00aB | 6.88 ± 0.60bC | 7.75 ± 0.83aD | |
| Acceptability | 0 | 6.25 ± 1.30aA | 6.75 ± 1.30aA | 8.12 ± 0.01aB | 7.86 ± 1.13aB |
| 5 | 6.11 ± 0.97aA | 6.25 ± 0.66aA | 8.25 ± 0.83aB | 8.00 ± 0.71aB | |
| 15 | 5.25 ± 0.97bA | 5.75 ± 0.66bA | 7.87 ± 0.60bB | 7.85 ± 1.00aB | |
| 25 | 5.00 ± 1.20bA | 5.59 ± 1.03bA | 6.50 ± 0.70cB | 7.75 ± 0.93aC | |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different storage days. Uppercase letters represent significant differences between different cooked methods (p < .05). Structured 9‐points hedonic scale: 9—Like extremely, 8—Like very much, 7—Like moderately, 6—Like slightly, 5—Neither Like or Dislike, 4—Dislike slightly, 3—Dislike moderately, 2—Dislike very much and 1—Dislike extremely.
Cooking yields (%) and compositions of cooked samples (per 100 g of sample). Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different at p < .05 by least significant test. Data were expressed as mean ± SD (n = 10)
| Days (d) | Cooking methods | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooking yield (%) | Moisture (%) | Protein (%) | Fat (%) | ||
| Steamed | 0 | 85.27 ± 0.79aA | 64.89 ± 0.63aA | 20.34 ± 0.09cC | 9.41 ± 0.46bB |
| 5 | 84.58 ± 0.41bA | 64.00 ± 1.67aA | 21.35 ± 0.09bC | 10.57 ± 0.96aB | |
| 15 | 84.08 ± 0.38bA | 64.77 ± 1.17aA | 21.14 ± 0.53bD | 10.24 ± 0.20aC | |
| 25 | 82.42 ± 0.07cA | 63.18 ± 0.16bA | 23.43 ± 0.41aC | 9.74 ± 0.20bC | |
| Microwaved | 0 | 81.47 ± 0.68aB | 61.97 ± 1.21cC | 24.34 ± 0.12cA | 9.85 ± 0.50bC |
| 5 | 78.33 ± 0.28cB | 64.57 ± 1.15aA | 24.745 ± 0.12cA | 9.52 ± 0.17bC | |
| 15 | 79.11 ± 0.48bB | 62.81 ± 0.71bB | 25.64 ± 0.29bA | 10.19 ± 0.50aC | |
| 25 | 79.91 ± 0.38bAB | 60.57 ± 0.71dB | 26.43 ± 0.13aA | 9.85 ± 0.63bC | |
| Baked | 0 | 79.17 ± 2.01aBC | 63.95 ± 1.80aB | 24.43 ± 0.48bA | 9.51 ± 0.46bB |
| 5 | 78.12 ± 0.17bB | 61.06 ± 1.34bB | 24.43 ± 0.48bA | 10.75 ± 0.36abB | |
| 15 | 79.26 ± 1.78aB | 61.13 ± 0.89bC | 24.03 ± 0.09bB | 11.08 ± 0.78aB | |
| 25 | 80.72 ± 1.11aB | 59.00 ± 1.12cC | 27.3 ± 0.34aA | 10.44 ± 0.37abB | |
| Fired | 0 | 72.59 ± 1.12cC | 65.07 ± 1.86aA | 22.12 ± 0.48cB | 14.64 ± 0.45cA |
| 5 | 74.94 ± 0.78aC | 60.84 ± 1.26bC | 22.12 ± 0.48cB | 15.44 ± 0.66bA | |
| 15 | 74.10 ± 0.15abC | 60.01 ± 1.54bD | 23.44 ± 0.81bC | 15.30 ± 0.66bA | |
| 25 | 73.43 ± 1.11bC | 58.53 ± 1.36cC | 25.57 ± 0.37aB | 16.90 ± 1.01aA | |
Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different storage days. Uppercase letters represent significant differences between different cooked methods (p < .05).
Figure 1Distribution of T2 relaxation times in sturgeon steak treated with four different cooking methods during the shelf life
Figure 2Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) of sturgeon steak treated with four different cooking methods during the shelf life. Different lowercase–uppercase letters indicate significant differences between different storage days. Uppercase letters represent significant differences between different cooked methods (p < .05)
Figure 3Loading analysis and principal component analysis of electronic nose analysis of sturgeon steak treated with four different cooking methods during the shelf life
Figure 4Springiness (a), chewiness (b), and gumminess (c) of sturgeon steak treated with four different cooking methods during the shelf life. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences between different storage days. Uppercase letters represent significant differences between different cooked methods (p < .05)
Figure 5Microstructures (SEM, ×5,000) of sturgeon steak treated with four different cooking methods under refrigeration conditions in 5th days and 25th days
Figure 6Pepsin (a) and trypsin (b) digestibility of sturgeon steak treated with four different cooking methods during the shelf life. Different lowercase–uppercase letters indicate significant differences between different storage days. Uppercase letters represent significant differences between different cooked methods (p < .05)
Figure 7Principal Component analysis the effects of different cooking methods on the quality of sturgeon steak treated with sous vide