Arshad Muhammad Waqas, Tariq Muhammad Rizwan, Ali Shinawar Waseem, Basharat Zunaira, Umer Zujaja, Nayik Gulzar Ahmad, Ramniwas Seema, Aloufi Abeer S, Alharbi Sulaiman Ali, Ansari Mohammad Javed, Ercisli Sezai
Department of Food Sciences, University of the Punjab, Quid-i-Azam Campus, Lahore 54590, Pakistan.
Department of Food Science & Technology, Govt. Degree College Shopian, J&K 192303, India.
ACS Omega. 2023 Jul 10;8(29):26548-26555. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c03385. eCollection 2023 Jul 25.
The current research attempted to evaluate the impact of various thawing techniques (R: control group, R: water immersion thawing, R: low-temperature thawing, R: combined thawing, water thawing then low-temperature thawing, R: combination thawing, low temperature thawing then water thawing, and R: oven thawing) on the quality, microbiota, and organoleptic characteristics of chicken meat fillets. The findings showed that moisture content varied from 74.43 to 72.33%; thawing loss peaked in R at 4.66%, while it was minimum in R at 2.10%. Lipid content varied from 1.09% in R to 1.03% in R, while protein content varied from 22.06% in R to 23.10% in R. The values of shear force, protein, and lipid oxidation increased for all treatments compared to control, ranging from 7.94 N to 9.54 N, 0.99-1.21 nm/mg protein, and 0.74-1.15 mg MDA/Kg, respectively. On the other hand, pH (5.94 in R) and protein solubility (238.63 mg/g in R) were decreased in contrast to the control group (6.08 and 298.27 mg/g). In association with different methods, R and R showed minimal thawing loss and the highest lipid and protein oxidation rates. However, R showed reduced shear force and lipid oxidation comparatively. TPC was significantly ( < 0.05) increased in both R and R. Sensory evaluation indicated that R and R showed better color and taste, while R showed minimum scores for organoleptic attributes. R, R, and R obtained a higher sensory score whereas R, R, and R showed a lower score. However, R exhibited better results in close association with the control group (R). Hence, it can be concluded that freezing and subsequent thawing decrease the quality of chicken fillets due to the time required for thawing. In the present study, the best quality of chicken fillets was retained by R and R due to their reduced thawing periods.
当前研究试图评估各种解冻技术（R：对照组，R：水浸解冻，R：低温解冻，R：组合解冻，先水解冻后低温解冻，R：组合解冻，先低温解冻后水解冻，以及R：烤箱解冻）对鸡肉片质量、微生物群和感官特性的影响。研究结果表明，水分含量在74.43%至72.33%之间变化；解冻损失在R组达到峰值4.66%，而在R组最低，为2.10%。脂质含量从R组的1.09%变化到R组的1.03%，而蛋白质含量从R组的22.06%变化到R组的23.10%。与对照组相比，所有处理的剪切力、蛋白质和脂质氧化值均增加，分别为7.94 N至9.54 N、0.99 - 1.21 nm/mg蛋白质和0.74 - 1.15 mg MDA/Kg。另一方面，与对照组（pH为6.08，蛋白质溶解度为298.27 mg/g）相比，pH值（R组为5.94）和蛋白质溶解度（R组为238.63 mg/g）降低。与不同方法相关联，R组和R组解冻损失最小，脂质和蛋白质氧化率最高。然而，相对而言，R组的剪切力和脂质氧化降低。R组和R组的总需氧菌数显著（<0.05）增加。感官评价表明，R组和R组颜色和味道较好，而R组感官属性得分最低。R组、R组和R组获得较高的感官评分，而R组、R组和R组得分较低。然而，R组与对照组（R组）密切相关，表现出更好的结果。因此，可以得出结论，由于解冻所需时间，冷冻及随后的解冻会降低鸡肉片的质量。在本研究中，R组和R组由于解冻时间缩短，保留了鸡肉片的最佳质量。
