| Literature DB >> 34966580 |
Abstract
Seafood is very perishable and can quickly spoil due to three mechanisms: autolysis, microbial degradation, and oxidation. Primary commercial sectors within the North Atlantic fisheries include demersal, pelagic, and shellfish fisheries. The preservation techniques employed across each sector can be relatively consistent; however, some key differences exist across species and regions to maintain product freshness. Freezing has long been employed as a preservation technique to maintain product quality for extended periods. Freezing allows seafood to be held until demand improves and shipped long distances using lower-cost ground transportation while maintaining organoleptic properties and product quality. Thawing is the opposite of freezing and can be applied before additional processing or the final sale point. However, all preservation techniques have limitations, and a properly frozen and thawed fish will still suffer from drip loss. This review summarizes the general introduction of spoilage and seafood spoilage mechanisms and the latest preservation techniques in the seafood industry, focusing on freezing and thawing processes and technologies. This review also considers the concept of global value chains (GVC) and the points to freeze and thaw seafood along the GVC to improve its quality with the intention of helping Newfoundland and Labrador's emerging Northern cod (Gadus morhua) fisheries enhance product quality, meet market demands and increase stakeholder value. ©2021 Brown and Dave.Entities:
Keywords: Fisheries; Freezing; Global value chains; Northern cod; Preservation; Seafood; Spoilage; Thawing
Year: 2021 PMID: 34966580 PMCID: PMC8667752 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.12526
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Time-temperature effect on spoilage for fish products.
Source: Huss et al., 1995.
| Shelf life in days of fish products stored in ice (0 °C) | Shelf life at chill temperatures (days) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 °C | 10 °C | 15 °C | |
| 6 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 1 |
| 10 | 4.4 | 2.5 | 1.6 |
| 14 | 6.2 | 3.5 | 2.2 |
| 18 | 8.0 | 4.5 | 2.9 |
Phases of cod spoilage.
Source: Huss et al., 1995.
| Phase | Description | Time | Characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Fresh | 0–2 days | Sweet, seaweedy and delicate taste; can be slightly metallic. |
| II | Neutral | 2–6 days | Loss of characteristic taste and odour; no off-flavours. The texture is still pleasant. |
| III | Stale | 6–12 days | Spoilage increases during this phase and produces a range of volatile, unpleasant odours. Trimethylamine (TMA) production generates the ”fishy” smell. |
| IV | Spoiled | 12–15 days | Spoiled and putrid |
Figure 1Schematic views of freezing: (A) Indirect contact freezing systems, and (B) direct contact freezing systems.
Source: Singh & Heldman, 2009.
Figure 2Schematic depiction of freezers: (A) Typical batch air blast freezer, and (B) typical continuous tunnel freezer.
Figure 3Examples of freezing systems: (A) Still air, (B) air blast, (C) tunnel, (D) horizontal plate, (E) cryogenic, (F) brine immersion, (G) vertical plate, and (H) spiral.
Photo and drawing credits: Pete Brown.
Overview of commercial freezing techniques.
| Evaluation criteria | Still freezing | Blast freezing | Plate freezing | Immersion freezing | Cryogenic freezing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Employs cold, still air to freeze the product. | Employs cold, forced, convective air to freeze the product. | Employs compression between two chilled plates to freeze the product. | Employs immersing the product in a refrigerated bath to freeze the product. | Employs spraying liquified gas directly into the freezing cabinet to freeze the product. |
|
| −5 to −30 °C | −18 to −30 °C | −30 to −50 °C | −20 to −55 °C | −50 °C |
|
| Natural convection air | Forced convection air | Refrigerant | Brine | Liquified CO2 or N2 |
|
| |||||
|
| - Cold storage and transportation of frozen products | - Highspeed freezer | - High cooling rates | - Very high cooling rates | - Ultrahigh cooling rates - Does not require uniform product size and shape |
|
| - Slow cooling rates | - Potential for freezer burn | - Lack of versatility | - Possible off-flavours | - Operational cost |
|
| Lowest cost freezer | More expensive to purchase and operate than a still freezer | Low operating costs. | Low capital and operating cost | Low capital cost. High operating cost. |
|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( |
Figure 4Number of research articles found in the Web of Science database when searching “fish” and “freezing” vs “fish” and “thawing” published between 2017 and 2021 (conducted on April 2, 2021).
Figure 5Examples of thawing systems: (A) still air, (B) air blast, (C) warm humidified air, (D) still water, (E) automated, (F) aerated water, (G) high-pressure.
Photo and drawing credits: Pete Brown.
Figure 6Temperature-pressure phase diagram for water.
Overview of commercial thawing techniques.
| Evaluation Criteria | Still air thawing | Air blast thawing | Thawing in humidified air | Immersion thawing | Ultrahigh pressure thawing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Employs natural convection and conduction to thaw. | Employs forced convection and conduction to improve thawing rates. | Employs forced convection of heated and humidified air to improve thawing rates. | Employs a bath of running water to thaw product more quickly. Aerating the water can improve thawing. | Employs a water bath under ultrahigh pressure (∼210 MPa) and allowed to thaw more rapidly and at lower temperatures. |
|
| 10 mm h−1 at 15 ° C | 25 mm h−1 at 20 ° C and 8 m s−1 | 25-34 mm h−1 at 15.5 ° C | <100 mm h−1 at 10 ° C and 200 MPa | |
|
| - Is simple to set up. | - Prevents boundary layer from forming. | - Efficient thawing. | - Faster than thawing in air. | - High heat transfer rates. |
|
| - Slow process. | - Requires ample space. | - Higher capital and operating costs. | - Absorption of water and loss of flavour. | - Very high capital and operating costs. |
|
| Lowest cost. | More expensive than still-air thawing. | Higher capital, maintenance and operating costs compared to air blast thawing. | Higher cost compared to thawing in air. | Highest cost solution. |
|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( |
Figure 7Generalized seafood value chain depicting frozen, processed seafood being sold in a different state, province or country than where it was landed.
Image data sources: Knútsson, Kristófersson & Gestsson, 2016; Witter & Stoll, 2017.
Summary of freezing and thawing commercial North Atlantic seafood species.
| Demersal Species | Pelagic Species | Shellfish Species | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Near Bottom | Mid to high in the water column | Seafloor |
|
| Sedentary | Highly active | Inactive |
|
| Low | High | Varies by species |
|
| Increased shelf life allows the product to be shipped to lower-cost regions for secondary processing or larger markets, allows the product to be held until demand improves, freezing before rigour can enhance product quality. | Increased shelf life allows the product to be shipped to lower-cost regions for secondary processing or larger markets. | Allows echinoderms to be shipped to market after processing, will enable crustaceans to be cooled quickly and shipped for secondary processing or market. |
|
| Drip loss, protein denaturation, lipid oxidation, and texture changes if the temperature is not maintained below −30 °C. | Drip loss, lipid oxidation, denaturation of proteins, discolouration of flesh, not effective for some species (i.e., capelin, anchovies, and sardines). | Not effective for mollusks, it can result in drip loss, textural changes in crustaceans due to protein denaturation, and lipid oxidation if not adequately performed. |
Figure 8Map of Newfoundland and Labrador NAFO regions.
Image data sources: Becker et al. 2018; Bivand, Keitt & Rowlingson, 2021; Bivand & Lewin-Koh, 2021; Hijmans 2021; McIlroy et al. 2020; R Core Team 2021; Wickham, 2016; https://www.nafo.int/Data/GIS.
Figure 9Price ladder for cod products in US$.
Image data source: Sackton, 2014.