osmto fpout htddntrcieaporaether- appropriate receive not did re- to that due (1998) products were Cato illnesses of dry. foodborne consumption Also, become -related cooked. most and overcooked fully that ported before be easily done fish of can appear flaking fish products and the of make the surface How- of the may 1997). on flaking change others the color and by the Rombauer ever, salmon 2004; for (Lauer and center change product color surface the by is and judgment 1999). human (Rosenthal of stringent alter- factor in time beneficial the less used a eliminates traditionally it are because methods are native instrumental panels the studies, assessing sensory quality in While food used foods. attributes of sensory juiciness, quality common odor, are color, Taste, texture the consumer. and and the properties intrinsic of fi- food’s preference the the both natural of on acceptability based The is product. product final nal different the in of result attributes can , quality techniques broiling, cooking pref- , Different consumer steaming. , and and include convenience methods on These erence. based chosen are Methods ute erdcinwtotpriso sprohibited is permission without reproduction Further 10.1111/1750-3841.12011 doi: [email protected]). (E-mail: 23669, VA author Hampton, to Univ., inquiries State Direct and and U.S.A. Inst. Research Polytechnic Agricultural Virginia Seafood Center, Univ., Virginia State Extension with and and Inst. U.S.A. Polytechnic 24061, is Technology, Virginia VA and Jahncke Blacksburg, Science Author U.S.A. Food of 24061, VA Virginia Dept. Blacksburg, Engineering, with Univ., Systems State Biological and of Inst. Dept. Polytechnic with Brookmire, are Authors Grisso 10/11/2012. and Accepted Mallikarjunan, 3/9/2012, Submitted 20120374 MS Introduction Grisso R. and Jahncke, M. Mallikarjunan, P. Brookmire, Lauren Salmon Atlantic and Shrimp for Conditions Cooking Optimum C oua osmrcobosdfiete“oees fshrimp of “doneness” the define cookbooks consumer Popular preparation. seafood in used are methods cooking of variety A 03Isiueo odTechnologists Food of Institute 2013 0,23 5,38 12 n 9 o oln xr ub hip aigetajmosrm,biigclsa shrimp, colossal boiling respectively. shrimp, Salmon, jumbo Atlantic extra frying baking pan shrimp, and jumbo extra salmon, boiling Atlantic for baking s shrimp, 399 colossal of and baking reduction 1132, and 3-log from 378, change directly a quality 159, data for of 233, Temperature modeling 100, times method. kinetic cooking difference the optimum finite in the The used using cooking. then were modeled profiles were heating products modeled 2 the the of the profiles to heating destroy applied to The were necessary were models temperatures distribution Studies cooking Weibull FDA. Minimum and evaluated data. the inactivation distribution, were by of Fermi Bigelow, juice recommended inactivation the temperature pressed cooking, internal and the during the loss, on reached mass products performed content, the moisture also as texture, processes color, cooking Product the salmon. during the of attain pan-frying the to and predicting used baking cooking. be in can during useful product modeling be food Mathematical can a cooking. of food during profile the heating occurring of complex inactivation profile microbial heating and overall changes The quality employed. combinations time–temperature and Keywords: Abstract: tde eepromdt oio h rdc etn rfiedrn h aigadbiigo hipadthe and shrimp of boiling and baking the during profile heating product the monitor to performed were Studies okn,dnns,fo ult,slo,shrimp salmon, quality, food doneness, cooking, h ult n aeyo okdfo rdc eed nmn aibe,icuigtecoigmethod cooking the including variables, many on depends product food cooked a of safety and quality The R Salmonella okal nsrm n amn oefcieypeitinactivation predict effectively To salmon. and shrimp in cocktails den, Salmonella were seafood of common Three presence for 2000). the positive seafood for raw samples domestic seafood domestic Salmonella 768 and ported odCd eomnscoigitc s lest ninternal FDA an the to fillets regard, 63 fish of that intact temperature In cooking prod- recommends safe 2008). Code a (NACMCF visually Food ensure to consumers to difficult products for is seafood uct of it doneness that the reported quantify (NACMCF) Foods Crite- Microbiological for on time/temperature ria Committee to Advisory subjected Natl. later The were abuse. or cooking, unprocessed after or ) raw (with cross-contaminated were treatment, mal oscoigmtossc soe aig(hn n others and (Chang baking oven var- as for such studied methods been have cooking processes ious heat- cooking of during modeling profiles mathematical ing ap- The directly inactivation. change be microbial quality and temperature can temperature-dependent addressing the profiles studies and heating to cooked plied modeled being from is attained it data as product a throughout or 2008). cooking (NACMCF these improper contamination of with cross from many associated how were unknown outbreaks is seafood foodborne It of 30.6% 2008). and (NACMCF cases related outbreaks finfish seafood 2004, of to 42.5% 1998 for from accounted that showed etiology known of (CDC) 2000). others and (Heinitz Paratyphi-B rm19 o19,teFAcletdadtse 11 im- 11312 tested and collected FDA the 1998, to 1990 From ahmtclmdl a eue opeittehaigprofile heating the predict to used be can models Mathematical Control Disease of Centers the from data illness Foodborne Salmonella Salmonella Salmonella ihnal 0 fipre a efo n .%of 1.3% and seafood raw imported of 10% nearly with , yhmru;ohr included others Typhimurium; o.7,N.2 2013 2, Nr. 78, Vol. n anann 5 fqaiyatiue are attributes quality of 95% maintaining and Salmonella Senftenberg, ◦ rhge o 5s(D 2009). (FDA s 15 for higher or C nsrm n amnwr determined. were salmon and shrimp in Salmonella Enteritidis, Salmonella Salmonella r Salmonella ora fFo Science Food of Journal eoye on nimported on found serotypes Salmonella eigo,and Lexington, nciainduring inactivation Salmonella Salmonella Hiizadothers and (Heinitz epr,and Newport, thermal Salmonella Weltevre- S303

S: Sensory & Food Quality ) 2 ), and the area (s/cm 2 C for thawed shrimp and ◦ 2 ± C) for 120 s to stop the heating pro- ◦ 2 ± color space readings were made of the products C. All tests were replicated 5 times. After under- ◦ ∗ C plus 15 s was selected for this study since it is b ), the shear firmness (N/s cm ◦ 2 ∗ a ∗ C for salmon samples were kept constant. Five replications ◦ 1 CIE L Immediately after cooking, texture was measured. For the The texture was tested using a Warner-Bratzler shear blade To determine the cooking times necessary for qualitative anal- Initial internal temperatures of 5 The procedure used for the initial time–temperature point stud- Samples were cooked to reach internal temperatures of 45, 50, ± 30.0 mm, andwas an created acquisition to measure rate 3force of specific (N/cm parameters: 200 the pps. maximum shear A macroprogram 55, 60, and 63 shrimp each sample was testedsamples through were the cut 2nd into segment.cylinder Salmon was a cut cylinder appropriately so usingbe that a texture made measurement perpendicular 1.5 would to cm the dia natural flaking corer. of The theattached fish to sample. a TA.XT PlusNew texture analyzer York, N.Y., (Stable U.S.A.). Micro The Systems, speed texture of analyzer 5.0 was mm/s, set posttest to speed a of test 10 mm/s, target distance of ysis, initial studiesthroughout the product during were common cooking performedT-type procedures. thermocouples The with to fiber glass tracka insulation data were the logger attached (21X to Micro temperature Utah., logger, Campbell U.S.A.) Scientific directly Inc., Logan, interfacedcouples were to strategically placed a throughout anFour computer. individual thermocouples The sample. were inserted thermo- into acore, and single surface shrimp’s head, regions. tail, Three thermocouplesa were salmon inserted into slab’s core, surface,couple and was side also region. used Asurroundings. to separate confirm thermo- the temperature of the cooking ies was replicated to obtain cookedInitial samples internal for temperatures qualitative analysis. wereidentical also temperature kept rate constant increase. to ensure an under the curve, whichcut the represents sample. the Shear totalconnecting force the work was origin performed obtained of to as the curve the and slope the of maximum shear the force. line Color analysis Texture analysis Determination of time–temperature profiles Cooking application for qualitative analysis 1 were performed for each cookingMeans were method/product calculated combination. to confirm timebination points in reached which 45, each 50, com- point 55, 60, of and 63 63 plus 15 s. A temperature using a Minolta chromameterLtd., (Model Osaka, CR-300, Japan). Minolta For Camera bothand salmon core and readings were shrimp made. samples, Surfacewere taken surface readings in for the shrimp 2nd samples segmentsalmon from samples the head. were Surface taken readings fromcolor for an of area the representing entire thecooking surface. general time Tests were using replicated 5 5in different times the samples. middle for to The each get samples a were cross sliced sectional sample for core analysis. cess without affecting the structureanalysis of followed immediately. the product. All qualitative going the cooking process,in each a sample refrigerator was (2 immediately placed the internal cooked temperature recommendedCode in (FDA the 2009) 2009 for Food intact seafood products. C ◦ strains C, rep- ◦ 10 ± Salmonella and Atlantic salmon 1.5 cm), oven baking and × values for 6 Vol. 78, Nr. 2, 2013 F) as instructed on the product’s Z r ◦ 6cm and × The oven was preheated to 190 Litopenaeus vannamei C. A constant 10:1 mass ratio of water to D . Identical to constants in the boiling ◦ C (450 ◦ 1 . A medium-sized frying pan was heated on Five were boiled on an oven stove top ± ) and to use the heating profiles to investigate the 1st- Journal of Food Science F) as recommended on the product’s packaging. Five samples Boiled shrimp. Pan-fried salmon Oven-baked shrimp Oven-baked salmon. ◦ 1. 4. 2. 3. The objectives of this study were to determine the quality at- Common cooking methods used by consumers were selected Salmo salar type electric range (Model:U.S.A.) FEF366EC, in Frigidaire, natural Augusta, convection Ga., modesimulate (no general forced home air circulation) cookingfor to these operation. methods The is cooking outlined process below. in water initially 99 pan frying were analyzed. Oven baking was performed in a home- After cooking, the samplesoven and were the immediately foil removed was from removed. the were individually wrapped in aluminum foilcooking and placed tray. Oven on a baking metal the salmon flavor and in is aluminum preferred by wraps consumers preserves (Dufour and others 2006). individually for 7 mincooking and to flipped follow over common half consumer way cooking (4 methods. min) through resenting medium-high heat. Oneoil tablespoon (Food of Lion 100% LLC, vegetable pan Salisbury, to N.C., prevent U.S.A.) undesirable was burning. coated Salmon samples on were the cooked S304 Materials and Methods Cooking processes ( order quality kinetics and inactivation kineticsprocess; during and the cooking determine inoculated into salmon and shrimp. others 2011). tributes of undercookedcommon shrimp cooking and methods; determine salmon theperature after effect and processing of internal by cooking tem- product method moisture; on develop mathematical color,heating profile models texture, in shrimp to juiciness, ( describe and the nan 2002). Simulated heatingquality changes profiles during can the bebeen conducted cooking applied on process. the to quality Several change predict ing studies during of the have thermal various process- speciesand of mollusks others (Chai and 1988).models others Limited to 1991; the Casales studies thermalucts have processing (Banga of applied and nonmolluscan others quality seafood 1993; prod- kinetic Kong and others 2007; Skipnes and Optimum cooking conditions for seafood . . . 1998; Sablani and2000; others Ou 1998), and pan-frying Mittal1996; 2007), (Zorrilla immersion Southern and frying and (Farkas Singh others others and 1993; others 2000), Mallikarjunan and and others microwaving (Chen 1996; Hu and and Mallikarju- (375 in each test. shrimp with an addition of 1 tablespoon of kitchen salt was used for this study. For shrimp, boilingFor and salmon oven baking fillets were analyzed. (10 cm were flipped over at 180 sactions. in order to mimic a consumer’s cooking label. A lightOmaha, coating Nebr., U.S.A.) of was applied PAM tojumbo cooking a shrimp metal spray cooking were (ConAgra tray. flipped Extra Foods, over after 150 s and colossal shrimp a kitchen stove to a center temperature of 220 method, tests were run withwas 5 preheated cooked to together. 232 The oven

S: Sensory & Food Quality uc.Tets a elctd5tmswt eaaesmlsfor samples separate 5 with pressed times the 5 temperature. as replicated each recorded was The was test min. papers The 1 wrap. filter juice. for the plastic kPa of 20 in difference with then wrapped compressed weight was then plates paper was Plexi-glass filter formation 2 The The between dia). mm in filter 110 preweighed placed 5, of pieces Nr. 2 (Whatman between paper placed turn in were squares icso lmnmfi 3 mm (35 between foil placed aluminum and of sample pieces cooked 2 the from removed gram was One core (1994). of Mittal and Mallikarjunan by developed method oeigbt hipadsalmon: and shrimp both modeling samples by separate outlined temperature. 5 each with as at conducted 952.08 were tests Method Five Official (2005). AOAC AOAC the using mass mined the as calculated per- was The cooking product. with- the during loss. removed of change the was composition weight wiping natural product cent lightly the the By affecting of weighed. out exterior and towel moisture paper product, a with wiped ettase models transfer Heat content moisture and loss Mass Juiciness product and time samples. cooking different each 5 using for type times 5 replicated were Tests . . . seafood for conditions cooking Optimum ii oms rnfrdrn h etn rcs a considered. was process heating the during transfer mass No (iii) i)Vlm hneo h rdcsdrn okn a ne- was cooking during products the of change Volume (ii) Assumptions. deter- was salmon and shrimp cooked the of content Moisture lightly was product each process, cooking the after and Before a by determined was products cooked the of juiciness The i h nta eprtr ftepoutwsuniform. was product the of temperature initial The (i) glected. h olwn supin eemd when made were assumptions following The × 5m) h lmnmfoil aluminum The mm). 35 a tlzdwt oe nec the each method in difference nodes finite 5 with The heat utilized salmon. was the Atlantic cooked in for used models geometry transfer slab rectangular 2–Three-dimensional Figure emnsbsdo h egh fec ieto Fgr ) The 2). (Figure direction each of an lengths the for on constructed based equation segments difference finite x the with utilized ettase nterda n xa ietosare: for the directions conditions axial that and boundary so radial The the up cone. in transfer frustum set heat the was of model radii the bottom the along point of frustum any a at coding radius create The to altered shape. was cone coding the cylinder, dimensional ai -iesoa ettase qainue o hipwas: shrimp for used equation transfer heat 2-dimensional basic the in Z constructed shrimp equation for difference The used plane. finite was a cone with frustum prawns 2-dimensional A salmon. and – drcinwseel iie no1 emns(iue1.The 1). (Figure segments 10 into divided evenly was -direction o h oeigo amnfilt,a3dmninlsa was slab 3-dimensional a fillets, salmon of modeling the For 2- a for equation transfer heat the initially the is this While eaaegoere eeue ndvlpn oesfrshrimp for models developing in used were geometries Separate y – z ln.Ec ieto fthe of direction Each plane. r drcinwsdvddeel no5sget n the and segments 5 into evenly divided was -direction kA o.7,N.2 2013 2, Nr. 78, Vol. δ δ δ δ T T t r = = α hA h aildrcinad1 oe nthe direction. in vertical nodes 10 and direction in radial nodes the 5 with utilized was method Finite difference shrimp. cooked for models transfer the heat in used geometry cone 1–Frustum Figure   r 1 T δ δ z T r drcinwsbsdo h o and top the on based was -direction and + x r , ora fFo Science Food of Journal kA x δ y δ and , 2 – r T y 2 δ – δ T z + z z a iie no5even 5 into divided was directions. = δ δ 2 z T hA 2   . T . S305 r – (2) (1) Z

S: Sensory & Food Quality n 28 79 49 78 48 25 4 09 86 46 09 57 38 89 90 19 00 02 41 91 05 72 24 05 98 47 16 38 02 34 ab ...... (6) (7) (8) h 4 5 4 1 9 9 0 5 9 0 9 7 5 13 12 15 10 11 13 13 12 14 12 14 ,and  − − − − − − − − − − − − − Solver 0 − − − − − − − − − − − in Mi- A , H  ∗ Solver 43 24 37 36 3 9 70 77 6 61 18 64 67 3 24 10 81 26 16 58 1 22 50 41 50 17 83 3 74 09 34 09 53 67 5 ...... C is the enthalpy  H ,  kt , ] ) , ∗ 01 28 32 2 558 15 64 26 88018 32 0 26 29 56 20 23 14 81 28 22 3 0873 29 5 48 22 20 15 87 30 17 3 21 16 2241 37 25 67 13 85 30 55 2 14 28 34 27 31 8 4232 31 1 98 4 97 28 n ...... L ) RT =− 4 (  / 11 16 13 23 Q −  ( H − − − − k  inf inf is the absolute temperature, and − [ is the order of the reaction (Kong Q Q e T 0 =− n − − A 97 8 223 33 12 16 3621 8 7 84 9 77 14 51 323 48 16 0428 10 1 28 11 60 47 25 14 18 82 3227 14 6 94 32 26 47 17 54 4 92 5 48 0992 19 20 66 18 01 2 t 0 ab ...... dt h 1 9 9 0 3 6 2 7 3 2 dQ = Q Q 29 20 33 26 41 13 31 45 23  − − − − − − − − − − k − − − − − − − − −  ln ∗ 37 73 16 37 38 68 23 91 43 36 83 1 52 16 10 85 52 53 60 56 10 45 60 15 2 13 91 1 76 7 51 71 5 14 62 12 1279 2 78 1 ...... C Core Surface is the equilibrium quality property after prolonged  is the preexponential constant, is the gas constant, is the quantitative indicator of a quality attribute at time inf 0 R A Q Q ∗ is the rate constant, and 72 0 97 2 41 8870 1 9 64 2 62 0 16 16 02 1 68 5 9325 2 3 42 0 70 14 18 0 78 8 77 2 2634 1 0 90 16 58 2 73 4 69 0 94 0 82 18 0441 1 1 2092 2 17 60 0 L ...... The general change of a quality attribute during thermal pro- k values for specific quality attributes. The procedure described by  , heating time (Levenspiel 1972).crosoft Office The Excel 2007 analysis was used tool to determine the cessing was represented by n Walsh and Diamond (1995) for nonlinear curve fitting using Quality models is the order of the reaction.only The model zero-, was 1st-, constrained to andwere evaluate 2nd-order used reactions. from The thekinetic temperature heat model, data transfer commonly models.model, referred was A to also modified used as in 1st-order a kinetic fractional modeling: conversion where t and others 2007). Aorder modified to Arrhenius equation take wasreaction: into applied account in any temperature dependence of the where change, where ) 3 (3) (5) (4) . C) plane .K to ◦ 2 T . z –  0) y – hA = 63 17 60 15 55 8 50 13 50 17 50 14 63 16 60 12 55 15 55 17 55 20 50 2 63 15 60 15 60 24 60 20 55 7 50 4 63 23 63 24 63 21 60 9 55 7 50 1 x 1125 kg/m t = = at . 0.321 W/(m.K); z T ρ i δ  δ T = 2 T z k ) and Atlantic salmon = 2 kA 3 δ δ T ( + , T 2 T , y 2  δ δ Vol. 78, Nr. 2, 2013 hA r + 1061 kg/m cVdT 2 = ρ T = 3620 J/(kg.K); and x 2 y δ δ T ρ = δ δ =−  P Baked 45 0 Baked 45 3 Pan-fried 45 8 α C kA dt ) = inf , t T T T δ δ  − T hA ( s = Journal of Food Science ¯ hA 3480 J/(kg.K); and x T 0.429 W/(m.K); δ δ = = The boundary conditions for heat transfer in the The thermal properties used for shrimp ( The unsteady state heat conduction equation (applicable to a P kA k Atlantic Salmon Baked 45 4 are: C written for each ofusing the MATLAB 4 (Mathworks, product-cooking Natik, method Mass., combinations U.S.A.) software. represent natural convection in the oven. Separate programs were S306 basic 3-dimensional heat transfer equation can be written as: ProductExtra jumbo shrimp Boiled Cooking method Temperature ( 45 16 Optimum cooking conditions for seafood . . . Table 1–Mean color differencesproduct. (lightness, chroma, and hue angle) during the cooking process as affected by cooking method and ( were from research by Chau and Snyder (1988)(1997). and Radhakrishnan Heat transfercooking coefficients process were and selected obtained from topan Ikediala represent and frying others the and (1996)baking, for Huang the and heat Mittal transfer (1995) for coefficient boiling. was For set oven at 10 W/m small Biot number) used in this study was: Colossal Shrimp Boiled 45 4

S: Sensory & Food Quality rdc okn ehdRW4 05 063 60 55 63 50 65.75 77.01 60 45 74.31 RAW 55 Pan-fried Boiled method Cooking abc 30 50 Boiled salmon Atlantic shrimp Colossal 36.52 shrimp jumbo n/a Extra product. and method 45 cooking by Product affected as process cooking the n/a during content moisture 4–Mean Table Raw Baked Boiled e method Cooking abcd Boiled salmon Atlantic 5 shrimp Colossal shrimp jumbo Extra product. and method cooking by Product affected as process cooking the during juice pressed 3–Mean Table Raw 31 a Raw Raw salmon Atlantic 31 Raw Raw shrimp Colossal Raw shrimp jumbo Extra product. and method cooking by affected as process cooking the during attributes texture 2–Mean Table . . . seafood for conditions cooking Optimum rdc okn ehdTmeaue( Temperature method Cooking Product , a hipual opesol uc u opyia structure. physical to due juice only press to unable shrimp Raw b en ihnaclm ihulk uesrp r infiatydfeet( different significantly are superscript unlike with column a within Means en ihnarwwt niesprcitaesgicnl ifrn ( different significantly are superscript unlike with row a within Means en ihnarwwt niesprcitaesgicnl ifrn ( different significantly are superscript unlike with row a within Means old4 23 45 Boiled a-re 524 6 45 28 45 22 Pan-fried 45 27 Baked 45 Baked 45 Boiled Baked a-re 34 27 28 Pan-fried Baked Baked ae 64 73 73 Baked Baked Baked P 023 18 15 15 9 50 33 32 63 28 60 31 55 50 26 27 28 63 27 60 55 50 31 26 63 25 60 26 55 50 27 24 22 63 25 60 55 50 63 60 55 50 325 28 26 63 60 55 P e < < a a a a P 0.05). 0.05). < 0.05). ◦ )Serfre()Frns Ns oa ok(N.mm) work Total (N/s) Firmness (N) force Shear C) 35 30 61 75 72 enpesdjie(/)Itra eprtr ( temperature Internal (g/g) juice pressed Mean ...... 20 40 64 85 55 31 81 54 61 9 66 79 osuecnet()Itra eprtr ( temperature Internal (%) content Moisture ab ab a a a a a a ab a a ab ...... 46 79 40 61 54 17 60 70 65 94 47 73 53 82 53 34 14 47 22 27 17 71 78 54 53 24 82 15 17 90 28 94 19 b b b b b b a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a b b ab ab a b b 32 30 25 26 27 29 65 56 70 76 72 71 o.7,N.2 2013 2, Nr. 78, Vol...... 60 99 60 84 04 26 14 08 63 94 16 98 bc b ab b a a a ab bc a a ab 30 26 22 27 25 27 65 54 70 76 69 70 Texture 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...... 11 12 17 99 93 61 43 44 86 83 69 35 10 42 31 56 30 40 92 93 70 67 61 73 31 51 44 46 46 92 35 18 32 80 85 53 67 50 20 05 53 25 26 8 33 ab b b b c bc bc ab a a ab ab ab a b ab b ab b b ab a a a a a b ab ab ab ab a b b r c c bc ab a ab a b bc a ab ora fFo Science Food of Journal 25 26 22 25 25 24 63 55 67 74 65 68 ◦ C) ◦ ...... 20 86 80 76 58 67 58 04 76 07 7 7 C) b ab d c bc b a b a b c a 209 336 271 289 251 191 177 146 408 376 378 393 355 363 376 363 338 280 352 379 343 306 328 341 376 310 284 298 297 355 95 74 70 ...... 06 58 23 58 95 9 57 71 93 98 22 77 65 44 82 40 81 03 40 41 36 43 47 19 82 32 78 92 49 78 50 85 04 b b b b b b b b a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a b ab a ab ab ab 62 54 67 73 64 70 24 23 21 24 25 25 S307 ...... 67 18 66 1 92 62 20 20 56 85 45 15 a a b c b ab d c c b a b

S: Sensory & Food Quality Experimental Core Experimental Surface Core Model Experimental Core Experimental Surface Model Core Model Surface Experimental Core Experimental Surface Model Core Model Surface Experimental Core Experimental Experimental Surface Core Model Model Surface Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec) Time (sec) 0 100 200 300 0 100 200 300 400 0 100 200 300 400 0 0 0 0

80 60 40 20 80 60 40 20 80 60 40 20 80 60 40 20

120 100

140 120 100 120 100 120 100

) °C ( Temperature Temperature ( °C ) °C ( Temperature Temperature ( °C ) °C ( Temperature -40 60 160 260 360 ) °C ( Temperature A B A B Figure 6–Temperature profiles of (A) extra jumboshrimp size (oven and baked). (B) colossal size colossal size shrimp (boiled). Figure 5–Temperature profiles of (A) extra jumbo size shrimp and (B) (9) is the gas Paratyphi R Experimental Core Core Model Experimental Surface Surface Model . , Salmonella Newport (6962), and 2 is the preexponential N ) A × exp Y a E RT − − e C in tryptic soy broth (TSB). n used in Study I were obtained Salmonella Vol. 78, Nr. 2, 2013 ◦ pred × r Time (sec) Y used in Study II were purchased Time (sec) 0 ( 1 A is the activation energy, = N a i = Typhi (6539). Individual cultures were E Heidelberg (8326),  Salmonella dt = dN Salmonella σ − Experimental Core Core Model Experimental Surface Surface Model is the temperature. The results were validated Salmonella T Salmonella Salmonella. is the number of survivors, Enteriditis (13076). The serotypes used in the Study II Typhimirium (14028), 0 100 200 300 400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 N Journal of Food Science 0 0

40 30 20 10 90 80 70 60 50 60 40 20 80

100 120 100

Temperature Temperature ( °C ) °C ( Temperature ( °C ) °C ( Temperature Three serotypes of The temperature distributions obtained from the heat transfer cocktail of constant, and using homogenized salmon and shrimp samples inoculated with a Figure 4–Temperature profile of pan-fried Atlantic salmon fillet. S308 Figure 3–Temperature profile of oven-baked Atlantic salmon fillet. Inoculation studies where Microbial inactivation kinetics Optimum cooking conditions for seafood . . . was followed. The error deviations betweenpredicted the quality experimental data and were calculated as: from American Type Culture CollectionU.S.A.). The (ATCC, Manassas, serotypes Va., comprisingSalmonella the cocktail inSalmonella Study I were cocktail were from Remel Microbiologyand 3 Products serotypes (Lanexa, of Kans., U.S.A.), models were also directly applied totivation. calculating A the 1st-order microbial kinetic inac- reaction usingwas the assumed Arrhenius equation factor (frequency factor), B (8759), and initially grown overnight at 36

S: Sensory & Food Quality eaiecnrl eeas nlddfrec apigpoint. time. sampling sampling each for temperature included each also were for controls Negative prepared separate Three were process. heating bags the Kapak for prepared were all until tempera- ture refrigeration at Minn., stored immediately Minneapolis, was Corp., bag (Kapak Each U.S.A.). sealer pouch a with sealed and okal nhmgnzdsrm n salmon. and shrimp homogenized in cocktails usml a eoe n lcdit trl lsi bag plastic sterile a into placed 4’’ and 402, removed Kapak (SealPAK was subsample g 5 nzd sn irppte ape eeiouae ihte3 the with inoculated were S samples micropipette, a Using enized. eeue ovrf ae eprtr cuayof accuracy temperature water a U.S.A.) verify Pa., to Pittsburg, used Thermometer, were Dual Scientific this thermome- (Fisher a in (Fisher to ter used connected heater was thermocouples U.S.A.) K extra Pa., External-type study. an Pittsburg, 2150, containing Isotemp U.S.A.) Scientific, Pa., Pittsburg, 260, Jensen and Berkley, veined, amn(oeesadsils,Au Farms Aqua skinless, and (boneless salmon o h apet ec 0 3 5 n 68 and 65, 63, required 60, time reach to the sample determine the salmon to for both thermocouples for using times shrimp 5 and repeated were studies temperature Initial 10 ettreatment Heat preparation Sample phosphate in cre- diluted 10 was to to (PBS) culture vortexed solution This buffer and culture. “poly” tube mixed sterile a ate a was into culture each transferred of mL subsequently 1 samples, inoculating before Immediately 6–Calculated Table experimental and combination. modeled method product-cooking between each for deviation temperatures Error 5– Table . . . seafood for conditions cooking Optimum apo,V. ...Alsmlswr trda –80 at stored were samples All U.S.A. Va., Hampton, h a eoetsig ape eete hwd1 o1 na in h 16 to 12 2 thawed at then set were refrigerator Samples testing. before day the amnI6 37 60 I Salmon II: a 14 60 1.11 0.20 0.36 0.26 1.64 I Shrimp Surface 0.60 Oven-baked Core Boiled method Cooking salmon Atlantic Boiled shrimp Colossal shrimp jumbo Extra Product rdc Cocktail Product okalI: Cocktail almonella Salmonella n ude rmsmlso amnadsrm eehomog- were shrimp and salmon of samples gram hundred One icltn ae ah(rcso hroSinic Model Scientific, Thermo (Precision bath water circulating A de- peeled, frozen, quick (individually shrimp raw Frozen 8 CFU/mL. Salmonella I6 7 63 II I6 12 60 II Typhi, eoyeccti opouea10 a produce to cocktail serotype Salmonella Enteriditis, a Temperature ± D vle and -values 2 ( Heidelberg, ◦ a-re .41.72 3.37 0.54 3.15 1.97 1.99 Pan-fried Oven-baked Oven-baked 82 68 54 65 53 65 310 63 83 68 35 63 84 68 310 63 ◦ )()( (s) C) Salmonella × C. − 1 TM ’) aswr atndt xrs air express to flattened were Bags 6’’). rnigtecnetaint about to concentration the bringing , n rznrwfilt fAtlantic of fillets raw frozen and ) D Salmonella Newport, Z value vle o 3-strain for -values ...... 80.99 48 10.96 11 809 10 0.92 38 70.97 67 50.95 95 009 4 0.98 80 30.96 43 50.98 75 009 14 0.98 80 40.99 34 50.98 35 009 14 0.97 90 Salmonella aayh B. Paratyphi D TM ◦ value 7 C. r 2 F/ nclt.A inoculate. CFU/g )( eeprhsdin purchased were ) eprtr error Temperature yhmru;Cocktail Typhimurium; eito ( deviation Z -value ◦ )( C) . . . . 40.98 74 80.99 98 60.93 56 50.99 75 Salmonella ± ◦ 0.2 until C Z -value ◦ C) r 2 ◦ ) C. n oeta o ylswr sdi h aclto.The calculation. the in used were cycles log 5 than more ing enlog mean Z ie.Sria uvswt oeta ausi h straight the ( in coefficient values 5 heating correlation than a corresponding more and the with plot- portion against by curves counts curves Survival survival survival times. the log of the portion ting straight the from culated 10 of concentrations create to 1 TSA both in sample, 230 plated each at were For (TSA). s mL agar 0.1 120 soy and for tryptic to in stomached each plated were to and Samples added rpm dilution. was (0.85%) 1:10 PBS a sterile create and bag stomacher 402 hipmyapa tapito oeesbfr h internal the before doneness of of point color a external at The the appear baking. while oven may process, during shrimp boiling gradual the was during change pink color turned External baking. immediately oven with compared boiling during process were replicates combination. Five product–temperature correlation. each calcu- for for the test analyzed significance. to to of differences applied level color was 0.05 lated method) a (REML at analysis fol- variance Multivariate used of To was products. analysis testing cooked 1-way HSD Tukey’s lowing the means, of of groups cook- attributes the and quality compare temperature the of on effect method the ing evaluate to used was U.S.A.) each for determined and was safety time method. microbial cooking cooking quality. both optimal specific times the the quality, cooking for high necessary used the value on infinite the Based value be quality to best assumed the quality was model, conversion best data fractional For of a 2003). (Tucker followed 95% method that reach cooking each to for kinetic cook- necessary determined acceptable each was time an for followed cooking that determined the quality was model, each reduction For log method. 3 ing a for necessary ltnso ahsmln on a sdt eemn the determine to used was 3 point of sampling average each the of experiment, replicated platings data these each and For survivors recorded. for were counted were plates incubation, After nlzdwti 0mn iiu f3rpiae tde were studies replicated and temperature. 3 refrigerator each of the at minimum conducted in A the min. stored an 30 on then in within were based cooled analyzed Samples then time bath. was of water bag period ice each specified Afterwards, a studies. for preliminary samples shrimp the aclto of Calculation 10 and bacteria surviving of Enumeration feto nenltmeaueo color on temperature internal of Effect Discussion and Results analysis Statistical conditions cooking Optimized eecmltl umre ntewtrbt ttmeaue of 68 temperatures and at 65, bath water 63, the 60, in submerged completely were temperatures. values. vle eeetmtdb sn h ierrgeso fthe of regression linear the using by estimated were -values D Kapak a in placed was time) sampling per bags (3 sample Each h hnei oo n etr nsrm a oesudden more a was shrimp in texture and color in change The N.C., Cary, Inc., (SAS package software statistical JMP8 The time cooking the results, model inactivation microbial the Using h aa ascnann h ncltdslo n shrimp and salmon inoculated the containing bags Kapak The vle tm oiatvt 0 ftepplto)wr cal- were population) the of 90% inactivate to (time -values − 2 ltswr aee n nuae o 4ha 36 at h 24 for incubated and labeled were Plates . 10 D vle oprdwt h orsodn heating corresponding the with compared -values o.7,N.2 2013 2, Nr. 78, Vol. D vle and -values ◦ o h amnad6,6,ad68 and 63, 60, and salmon the for C Z -values r ora fFo Science Food of Journal r ) > .0addescend- and 0.90 ◦ Cfor S309 ◦ D C. − - 1

S: Sensory & Food Quality 12 91 05 10 33 08 88 09 13 17 86 98 32 57 25 42 39 σ ...... C. ◦ 3 C, and no sig- ◦ 10 × 25 1 402 0 7007 1 0 413 1 34 0 130 0 215505 2 0 632 0 041 3 07185 0 1 70 23 1 0059 1 0 ) ...... 1 − (difference in brightness) L (min  0 A 3 Heang Time (sec) 10 C. No significant change in shear force Heang Time (sec) ◦ 731 3843 722 7 838998 28784 3 691 2 615 4 866 3 887524 4 50 443 40 226 337 905771 50228 50 953 39670 778 3393 588073 68 64 × ...... Modeled Experimental H  Modeled Experimental C. The oven baked shear force values were not ◦ 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0100200300400

5 0

25 20 15 10

ΔL 0 5

30 25 20 15 10 A ΔL The cooking process had a significant effect on the texture at- The shear force during boiling significantly dropped for ex- B Colossal 35 Colossal 38 Colossal 41 Colossal 47 was found duringboiled the shrimp oven decreased bakingsignificant with (Table differences 2). cooking were Thecooked temperature observed samples. firmness (time) from No of and significant rawshrimp. differences sample Both in cooking to firmness operationsness for fully resulted for baked in salmon. an Due increase in to firm- the high heat transfer in pan frying, the tributes of both salmonsalmon, the and shear shrimp force significantly (Table increased at 2). 45 For pan frying of Figure 8–Modeled and experimental internal Effect of internal temperature on texture significantly different at internal temperatures of 60 and 63 nificant change occurred atof higher temperatures. salmon The did shearprocess force not until significantly 55 change during the oven baking tra jumbo shrimp at 45 for (A) oven baked and (B) pan fried Atlantic salmon. rose L C. The  ◦ ), and hue angle C (difference in chroma)  Pan frying Salmon 39 Pan frying Salmon 17 Baking Extra jumbo 35 Baking Extra jumbo 57 C  C, most likely due to the Extra Jumbo Model Jumbo Extra Experimental Jumbo Extra Colossal Model Colossal Experimental ◦ C. During pan frying, the ◦ values for both the surface and ∗ Vol. 78, Nr. 2, 2013 b r ), chroma ( C, (Table 1), which are similar to ∗ L ◦ a  ∗ Heang Time (sec) C. The shrimp become more opaque as C. of the surface of salmon slightly increased ◦ ◦ C, and then stayed less than 19.00 through h Core Pan frying Salmon 44 Surface Baking Salmon 39 Surface Pan frying Salmon 31 ◦  values increased during both boiling and oven C for extra jumbo and colossal sizes, respectively for the surface of boiled shrimp increased to 26.9 and ◦ L C C  decreased to –23.31 by 63   L 0 50 100 150 200  Journal of Food Science 5 0

15 10 35 30 25 20

C. The ) were calculated from L C Δ (intensity) Surface Boiling Extra jumbo 41 (intensity) Surface Baking Salmon 30 (lightness) Core Boiling Extra jumbo 34 (lightness) Core Baking Salmon 45 ◦ h Cooked shrimp tend to have a red or pink surface color. This Differences in lightness ( For salmon, the external color greatly varied based on whether The core L C L C  ( high temperature application and crust formation (Table 1). is due to thefrom red the carotenoid carotenoproteins called when denaturing astaxanthin,1993). (Muriana The which and is others released and 25.41 at 45 to 4.76 and 5.34, respectfully, at 63 lightness factor of the coreAtlantic portion salmon. best represents the doneness of those reported by Niamnuy and others (2007). Figure 7–Modeled and experimentalduring the surface boiling of shrimp. S310 temperature reached 63 Optimum cooking conditions for seafood . . . Table 7–First-order kinetic parameters for qualityColor of attribute seafood during cooking.  Product area Cooking method Product pan frying or oven bakingsimilar was lightening used. as The the internal internal color temperature reached showed a 63 (Table 1). baking of shrimp, and lightnessing values increased the more rapidly boiling dur- process at 60 core regions of theprocess (Table salmon 1). During and the shrimp ovenquickly baking to throughout of 16.22 the salmon, at the 50 cooking Firmness (N.s) Core Baking Salmon 19 surface 63 the product reached 63    Shear force (N) Core Baking Salmon 39

S: Sensory & Food Quality nteaon fpesdjiefrbt amnadshrimp was and juice effect 55 salmon pressed at significant both mean 26.85% the for a to salmon, juice reduced oven-baked had pressed For treatment of 3). 1997). (Table amount thermal others the and of on Gundavarapu quantity 1984; Patel The and (Lee juiciness ooslszdsrm erae o2.5 n 48% respec- 24.85%, and 25.15% to 63 at decreased tively, shrimp sized colossal p.drn h okn f()srm n B tatcsalmon. Atlantic (B) and shrimp (A) of of cooking inactivation the for during spp. curves kinetic 1st-order 9–Modeled Figure juice pressed on temperature internal of Effect sam- when samples 45 baked oven reached than ples firmer are samples pan-fried sh- of cooking. juice during pressed salmon Atlantic for and parameters rimp kinetic Zero-order 8– Table . . . seafood for conditions cooking Optimum rse uc infiatydopdt 52%a 60 at 25.20% to dropped significantly juice pressed obkdsmlsadti ol eatiue otetp fheat of baking type oven to the convection) only). to and (convection (conduction attributed frying be pan compared could in work this transfer and total samples higher baked process. significantly to cooking the raw had during the samples significantly to Pan-fried vary compared not when did but salmon sig- salmon cooked was the done for work during higher total significantly The nificantly vary samples. cook- the shrimp not for of did process end work cooking the total at The other process. each ing from different not and parable amnOe ae 0.21.01.19 10.90 0.67 100.02 47.24 0.64 142.08 56.69 baked Oven 137.12 Boiled Salmon method Cooking shrimp Colossal Boiled shrimp jumbo Extra Product A h rse uc a hw ob orltdt sensory to correlated be to shown has juice pressed The h enpesdjiefrteetajmoszdsrm and shrimp sized jumbo extra the for juice pressed mean The B Survivors (log cfu/g)

Survivors (log cfu/g) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 0 0 400 300 200 100 0 0 0 0 0 001200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 ◦ .N infiatcag njiiesocre after occurred juiciness in change significant No C. ◦ ,hwvrtefia rns auswr com- were values firmness final the however C, a re 0.01.01.44 16.60 0.70 103.50 0.32 25.58 21.52 141.06 fried 120.79 Pan baked Oven baked Oven Cooking Time(sec) Cooking Time(sec) ◦ ,adfrpnfidslo,mean salmon, pan-fried for and C,  H Baked ColossalShrimp Shrimp Baked ExtraJumbo Shrimp Boiled Colossal Boiled ExtraJumboShrimp A 0 Pan FriedSalmon Baked Salmon ◦ × C. 10 Salmonella − 3 σ nma rse uc o h xr ub,btclsa ieshrimp 63 size at colossal decreased change but significantly jumbo, significant extra juice no the press was for juice there pressed baking, mean oven in the For shrimp. sal n oe rdcin r hw nFgr o6 l models 4 All cook- on 6. based to change 3 temperature Figure in trends in appropriate shown showed are predictions model and moisture 45 the shrimp, at jumbo changed extra significantly For content boiling. during shrimp 4). (Table sal products 3 all for studied processes cooking the during n n a rig h acltderrdvain auswere values deviations error calculated bak- 0.20 oven The and modeling 0.26 frying. in pan results and acceptable ing showed fillet salmon a the to apply also process process. surface boiling baking data inaccurate the for in experimental reasons positioning the The than thermocouple well. model as the shrimp in oven-baked for pace dramatic the more to a increased Similar at initially temperature the agreeable. surface process, considered the process, boiling boiling still modeled the can than model process baking were baking oven values oven deviation the error the for While study. greater this in shrimp of sizes and (Stigter surface, the the adjusted from 2001). away initially others creates further have process probes may of boiling which positioning shrimp, the experi- the Also, the of place- experiments. movement to thermocouple the incorrect compared to during model due the ment be could in This rate data. increased mental greater node a external at initially The predictions. temperature agreeable 5). (Table ex- combination and method product-cooking modeled each the for calculated between were temperatures deviations perimental error The method. ing ntemdlo nosseteprmna a eprtr.The temperature. pan experimental inconsistent chosen a or distance in nodal model the increased the to data due in be experimental may the This in pattern. while increased logarithmic pattern temperature after linear modeled temperature the more in surface, a the increase of dramatic flipping the the processed model the nauiu ol uigtepnfyn fslo,temoisture the 45 salmon, wrapped at of being decreased frying samples pan significantly salmon the content the Atlantic During to foil. in aluminum due content in be moisture may affect baking This oven significantly salmon. The not baking. during did dehydration process the moisture to low baking significantly due the with content However, samples 4). shrimp (Table in process resulted process cooking the with cantly ahmtclmodels Mathematical content moisture on temperature internal of Effect 55 oteauiu rpigfrbkn rcs n nraemass increase and operation. process pan-frying baking during for due transfer moisture wrapping primarily is aluminum final baking the in and process to frying difference cooking pan between The the salmon 4). of of content (Table end baking the to at compared product moisture low icantly a cuaeymdldbfr n fe h ipn rcs with process flipping within the temperatures after model nodes and before all modeled reversing accurately by was action this the simulated in the model of The flipping single salmon. a involved process pan-frying The spectively. oprsno h xeietltmeauepol data profile temperature experimental the of comparison A colos- in change significantly not did content moisture The dropped or maintained either percentages content moisture The sn -iesoa etnua-lb(iue2 orepresent to 2) (Figure rectangular-slab 3-dimensional a Using both for modeled accurately was shrimp of baking oven The in resulted 1) (Figure cone frustum a as shrimp a Representing ◦ o oldetajmosrm n t50 at and shrimp jumbo extra boiled for C y drcin h eprtr rfieo h nenlnode internal the of profile temperature The -direction. ◦ o.7,N.2 2013 2, Nr. 78, Vol. o h oeadsraetmeauedt,re- data, temperature surface and core the for C ± 5 ◦ r feprmna aa While data. experimental of C ora fFo Science Food of Journal ◦ ◦ u i o aysignifi- vary not did but C n eutdi signif- a in resulted and C ◦ C(Table3). ◦ o oldcolos- boiled for C S311

S: Sensory & Food Quality C) C) C) C) C) C) for ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ 6 6 2 8 0 7 ...... Listeria 100 (63 Salmonella models during C  ceptable fits to kinetic models C)C) 1132 (66 399 (70 spp. while maintaining ◦ ◦ 0 8 . . (difference in hue angle) 2 h 1st-order models had higher  L  Shear force (N) Optimal Salmonella values on the surface of the prawns a C  C)C)C)C)C) – 892 (54 – 323 (43 – 159 (71 378 (69 values were modeled with an acceptable ) – 233 (64 L ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ predictive model effectively described the  2 8 0 7 7 6 ...... L C   Core and the predicted mass loss during microwaving. Cooking time (s) C)C)C) 100 (63 C) 233 (64 C) 159 (71 C) 378 (69 996 (59 399 (70 C ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦  9 7 0 5 6 6 values for the oven baking process over pan frying...... Mallikarjunan and others (1995) used temperature distributions The texture data for shear force (N) and firmness (N.s) fit the A 1st-order kinetic model fit the inactivation of There are limited studies on the application of predictive models The 1st-order fractional conversion model also appropriately h representation of both the internal(Figure part of 8). the fillet The and the surface in the fishmethods industry, practiced this by consumers. study focused onobtained optimizing from cooking adevelop heat predictive transfer kinetic model modelsmonocytogenes for for microwaved the shrimp inactivation to of predictive 1st-order kinetic modelsrameters during for oven salmon. baking and TheSimilar pan kinetic frying enthalpy are pa- changes shown in werecesses. Table found 7. The between experimental the textureably cooking data fit pro- for the shrimp predictive models. didraw This not values may accept- for be shear duethe to force the general and high change firmness, initial occurring whichnature of did later the not veins in represent infor the the raw modeling. cooking shrimp process. The resulted The processes in change values followed in unsuitable a pressedand zero-order juice kinetic Atlantic during salmon. model the Thejuice for cooking are parameters both shown in and shrimp Table deviations 8. for pressed each cooking method (Figurecurves, 9). exact From the cooking modeled timesductions. inactivation were The determined study for focused variousthe on FDA’s log consumer recommended cooking re- 3 methods, logucts and reduction was for determined. intact seafood prod- to the quality andOf the microbial studies inactivation available, of kineticimental shrimp models data are and without typically taking salmon. rate fit into constant to account to exper- the temperature. dependency(2007) A of recent evaluated the study the by kineticssalmon Kong quality and of during others thermal reactions processing. leadingthe Quality changes heating to during of changes salmonKong in and sealed others’ in study an focused aluminum more can on were extending studied. the shelf life size. The modeling of the was accurately modeled during boiling, withof error deviation 0.13 values and 0.17(Figure 7). for The extra error jumbo deviationoven baking and values were 3.86 for colossal for extra the sizes, jumbo prawnsprawns. respectively and 0.98 for colossal modeled the color changecorrelation in was salmon not (Tablevalues found 7). over While in time, adequate the salmon surface duringefficiently the fit oven the baking, kinetic modelsof but tested. the pan For fillet both frying and the the did internal surface, area not the Ty - cock- of 0.95 2 C (41 s.); C)C)C)C) 83 (55 226C) (63 103C) (54 274 (56 1132 (66 328 (45 Salmonella ◦ in shrimp. ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ serotype. R polyculture -values and 7 9 5 5 1 1 ...... Enteriditis to D Salmonella for the core area Salmonella C, where a cor- S. . Weltevreden has ◦ L Enteriditis to have 63 values of 10.95 s  .S ) Salmonella Salmonella serotype Weltevreden D Salmonella -values at 60 Heidelberg, which cor- values than the colossal D serotypes in the 2 cock- Heidelberg, which corre- L  S. enterica Salmonella . cocktails in salmon significantly S . Enteriditis and Cand Vol. 78, Nr. 2, 2013 63 of 10.80 s for a ◦ r Typhimurium, which supports the D Salmonella aztecus of 10.80 s for a Salmonella S. 63 -values were calculated using at least 5 D D Salmonella Salmonella Oven bakedPan fried 299 (59 368 (60 Oven baked 206 (59 -values for inoculated C (23 s) for . A study by McPhearson and Zywno (1982) ◦ Z -value of 11 -values fit the data points with an -values for Salmon Cocktail I, Salmon Cocktail C, respectively. The shrimp, unlike the salmon, Z D ◦ Z -values are found in Table 6. values of 10.95 s in salmon and 10.35 s in shrimp. Z Enteriditis and 63 S. Salmonella D -values for the for the surface area were modeled with 1st-order fractional Z Journal of Food Science C (37 s); 62.8 C ◦  The The calculated Bucher and others (2008) found For the changing color attributes in shrimp, The microbial inactivation data for the 3-strain Change in shear force (N) followed kinetic modeling for Atlantic salmon but not for shrimp. The cooking times for each quality attribute are based on when qualities reach 90% of predicted optimal quality. Qualities used were those that were ac tails. The inactivation ratesof in the cocktails reflect mostothers the heat characteristics 2003). resistant Bucher serotypehave and a of others lower thermal (2008) the resistancelates found cocktail than with (Juneja Cocktail and IMazzotta (2000) having found a a lower resistance than Cocktail II. They calculated a resistance of the individual relates with CocktailII. I Mazzotta having a (2000)polyculture lower found containing resistance a thanphimurium, Cocktail which supports thein Cocktail salmon I and 10.35 s in shrimp. differed from one another. This could be due to the varying heat a lower thermal resistance than II, Shrimp Cocktail I,14.75, and and Shrimp 14.56 Cocktail II were 4.98, 10.74, corresponding high quality. Times based on predictive models developed for both inactivation kinetics and quality kinetics. Colossal shrimpAtlantic salmon Boiled Oven baked 1050 120 (62 (59 data points along thecombination. plotted All slope for each temperature–cocktail also showed higher was not able to bemembrane homogenized components into and a a smoothlution, more paste. lumpy which There consistency were may to have provided theinoculated some so- thermal protection to the S312 Quality kinetic models error deviation values forwere 0.54 the and core 1.72, and respectively. surface temperature data Thermal inactivation studies ProductExtra jumbo shrimp Boiled Cooking methoda b 3 log 88 (58 Surface Optimum cooking conditions for seafood . . . Table 9–The timings for the cooking of shrimp and Atlantic salmon to achieve a 3 log reduction in Cocktail I containing inoculated into brown shrimp ( also been shown to be a more heat resistant relation of 0.93 was the highest achievable. The Table 7. The extra jumbo sizedexperimental prawns had and less predicted deviation between internal and conversion kinetic model. These color kineticsizes parameters of for shrimp both undergoing boiling and oven baking are shown in tails (Studies Ifound and in II) Table 6. in The homogenized salmon and shrimp are or higher, except for Salmon Cocktail II at 63 61.4

S: Sensory & Food Quality oln ooslsrm,bkn ooslsrm,bkn Atlantic respectively. baking Salmon, Atlantic shrimp, pan-frying colossal and shrimp, baking salmon, jumbo extra shrimp, baking colossal shrimp, and jumbo 1132, boiling extra 378, boiling 159, for 233, s 100, are main- 399 and attributes quality Salmonella of of reduction 95% log taining 3 op- for The times obtained. cooking were timum conditions cooking optimum and and models salmon kinetic quality trans- to heat Salmonella applied the effectively from were data gradual temperature models a The fer involved time. cook methods microbial during cooking additional kill in the resulting time, that over temperature fact in increase the to due be ihre coasi ud(al ihre nt 55Wilson 1525 Inst. 22209). Va. Fisheries Arlington, 500 (Natl. Ste. Blvd. Fund Scholarship Fisheries method FDA’s the cooking 63 reaching mod- recommended All before reduction agreeable studied. log 3 methods in a achieved cooking combinations resulted diverse the shrimp of for els geometry cone frustum aae R e al E ol L 98 hne ncmoiino usl u othermal to due of composition in Changes 1988. CL. Soule CE, Valle isolated Del serovars MR, Salmonella Casales of resistance Thermal 2008. RA. Holley JY, of degradation D’Aoust thermal O, of Bucher Kinetics 1993. RI. Perez-Martin JM, Interna- Gallardo AOAC AA, Md.: Alonso Gaithersburg, JR, Intl. Banga AOAC of analysis of methods Official 2005. AOAC. References Acknowledgment Conclusions conditions cooking Optimized models. heat predictive from further study data to This temperature models study. applying transfer this of as effectiveness microorganism the or supports of traits kinetics quality the investigate same not the did (1996) others and Mallikarjunan . . . seafood for conditions cooking Optimum ie eebsdo iiiigteqaiyls,ytasrn that achieved. assuring was yet reduction loss, cooking log quality 3 These the a minimizing 9). on were (Table based times method were cooking times cooking optimal each quality, for high determined maintain to and safety time juiciness. determined over for time juiciness point cooking in optimal minimum the loss the was constant that the assumption the to and due was times con- This cook cooking optimization ditions. juiciness overall determining optimum in model, neglected were zero-order acceptably was a in juiciness used by value While modeled infinite models. attributes, the conversion be quality fractional to difference the assumed was color quality the optimum ( the For relationships juiciness). kinetic and used followed force, qualities The that determined. those also 95% were were achieve quality to optimum needed the times of cooking inacti- the The on models. based kinetic determined vation was method cooking each during rcsig odSi53:282–3. Sci Food J Food processing. J Intl feed. broiled pelleted and meat, 124:195–8. nugget Microbiol nuggests/strips, chicken frozen raw, 197:127–31. from U-Technol Lebensm-Wiss . canned in colour surface and thiamine tional. hsrsac a upre yteNt.FseisIs.(NFI) Inst. Fisheries Natl. the by supported was research This and salmon for geometry slab 3-dimensional complex, a Using of reduction log 3 a for necessary times cooking The ycmaigtevroscoigtmst civ microbial achieve to times cooking various the comparing By nciaindrn h okn fsrm n Atlantic and shrimp of cooking the during inactivation ◦ o 5sfritc efo rdcs hsmay This products. seafood intact for s 15 for C  C ,  Salmonella L ,shear aztaA.20.D n -vle fSloel ngon hce ratma.JFo Safety Food J meat. breast chicken ground in Salmonella of cocktail values z- of and cooking D- microwave 2000. AS. Modeling Mazzotta 1996. S. Sci Gundavarapu Food J YC, chilling. Hung carcass P, Mallikarjunan during kinetics quality Meat 1994. Stud GS. Texture Mittal 2nd P, J engineering. Mallikarjunan reaction frankfurters. Chemical In: commercial data. reactor of batch of juiciness Interpretation of 1972. O. Chanhassen, Levenspiel Analysis table. 1984. to KM. ocean from Patel seafood: CM, thermal and Lee during changes cookbook. variation quality saltwater salmon The kinetic of 2004. Kinetics resistance T. 2007. Lauer C. heat Crapo B, and Rasco Growth J, Tang F, 2003. Kong L. Huang HM, 24:87–100. Engr Food Marks J simulation. and VK, modeling heat cooking: Juneja of 1995. modeling GS. element Mittal Finite E, Huang 1996. N. Ben-Abdallah GA, Fenton fish LR, heated and microwave Correia of JN, fish transfer Ikediala in heat of Salmonella modeling of Mathematical 2002. Incidence P. 2000. Mallikarjunan X, SR. Hu Tatini DE, Wagner RD, Ruble ML, Heinitz microwave of quality and acceptance Consumer frying. 1997. immersion AE. Reynolds in Y-C, Hung transfer under S, mass Gundavarapu quality and heat salmon Modeling fresh 1996. TR. of Rumsey Assessment RP, Singh 2006. BE, G. temperature Farkas Fletcher of E, analysis Pierre element R, Finite Wierda 1993. J-P, PE. Dufour Nelson thermally K, of Haghighi distribution RK, temperature Singh for DD, model Chen of Mathematical 1988. oven GV. during Snyder transfer KV, heat Chau Modeling 1998. RT. Toledo JA, Carpenter pasteurized of HC, quality on Chang processing heat of Effect 1991. DV. Schlimme J, Pace KT, Liang T, seafood Chai of implementation and safety seafood with associated values Economic 1998. JC. Cato aln S acteM akO,CsageF 98 oeigo iuaeosha n water and Sk SO, heat Johnsen simulatenous D, of Skipnes Modeling Aspen 1998. F. Md.: Castaigne Gaithersburg, OD, Baik perception. M, Marcotte and SS, Sablani measurement texture: Food 1999. A. Schuster. & Siman Rosenthal N.Y.: York, New cooking. of Joy 1997. Virginia E. Becker Thesis]. MR, [M.S. Becker IS, seafood Rombauer of properties thermal of Measurement 1997. microbial S. for flippings Radhakrishnan with frozen of frying pan in Single-sided boiling 2007. GS. during Mittal shrimp D, Ou of changes Quality 2007. S. Soponronnarit S, Devahastin C, Niamnuy Response 2008. (NACMCF). Foods for Criteria Microbiological on Committee Advisory Natl. of resistance Heat 1982. SR. Zywno Study RM, 1993. MI. McPherson Minguez-Mosquera M, Gallardo-Guerrero V, Ruiz-Gutierrez FJG, Muriana orlaS,SnhR.20.Ha rnfri etptisdrn obesddcoig Food cooking. double-sided during Talanta meat in Solver. transfer Excel Heat Microsoft 2000. RP. using Singh fitting SE, curve Zorrilla Non-linear 1995. D. Diamond Park, College S, Service. Walsh Health Public safe US code. a Food 2009. processing: Administration. Drug Thermal and Food In: U.S. optimization. and calculations value Cook 2003. G. Tucker Nicola N, Scheerlinck JD, simple a Stigter of validation Thermal 2000. L. Eyres B, Howard XD, Chen MM, Farid CR, Southern 20:217–23. 19:97–111. Engr Process Food J shrimp. 59:291–4,302. 41–47. p Wiley. N.Y.: York, New ed. 15:67–73. 18–23. p Publishing. Creative Minn.: 23: Anal 83:510–20. Risk Engr assessment. Food J risk processing. to application its and Salmonella of 199–213. isolates various among 61:796–802. Sci Food J pan-frying. single-side during patties meat Ill. in Chicago, transfer 026043, Nr. Paper Meeting Intl. Annual ASAE 2002 gel. 63:579–95. Prot Food J seafood. 21:71–84. Qual Food J shrimp. cooked 29:211–26. Engr Food J development. 43:253–6. model Sci I, Food Dev micro-extraction. phase solid using conditions 351–68. storage 18: different Engr Food J tissue. potato cylindrical microwaved in distribution 31:608–12. ASAE Trans shrimp. processed 63:257–61. Sci Food J turkeys. unstuffed 56:1292–4. Sci Food J . p. 70 381. Nr. Paper Technical FAO Fisheries FAO Rome programmes. (HACCP) Point Control Critical Analysis Hazard ffre tatccd( cod Atlantic farmed of 31:201–9. U-Technol Lebensm-Wiss process. baking the in transport 1–17. p Publishers. 488–526. p 43–76. p Va. Blacksburg, Tech 80:33–45. Engr Food J simulation. and modeling using safety 72:S289–97. Sci Food J solution. salt Food Fisheries J Marine consumers. Natl. for seafood the 1287–308 safe and for 71(6): Administration parameters Protect Drug cooking and of Food determination regarding the Service by posed questions the to Admin- Drug and Food p. Ala.: 36528 Island, Dauphin stration. Branch. Research Fisheries 114:223–9. Report: Biochem mogenate. J . the in carotenoproteins and lipids the of c eho e 6:130–5. Res Technol Sci Administration. Drug and 42:561–72. Food Services, Human and Health of Dept. US Md.: Research Food Chorleywood & Campden 1–10. p Emond, Group. S. Assn. UK: Campden, Chipping Mass approach. Heat crisp. 48(4):335–44. potato Engr thin Food J a oven. convection of time frying the determine 36:407–12. to Transfer model boundary moving 20(3):331–40. Technol Product Food Aquat J texture. and color o.7,N.2 2013 2, Nr. 78, Vol. au morhua Gadus r ,Svrsi ,Lkn .21.Otmzto fha processing heat of Optimization 2011. O. Lekang M, Sivertsvik T, ara ˚ ¨ ,VnIp F 01 pia etn taeisfra for strategies heating Optimal 2001. JF. Impe Van B, ı ucewt epc oco os ae odn capacity, holding water loss, cook to respect with muscle ) r ora fFo Science Food of Journal S etvee nbonsrm ho- shrimp brown in Weltevreden . S313

S: Sensory & Food Quality