Content uploaded by Shaoling Yang
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Shaoling Yang on Jun 05, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Quality Evaluation of Crisp Grass Carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idellus C. ET V) Based on Instrumental
Texture Analysis and Cluster Analysis
Shaoling Yang &Laihao Li &Bo Qi &Ya nyan Wu &
Xiao Hu &Wanling L in &Shuxian Hao &Hui Huang
Received: 7 November 2014 /Accepted: 20 January 2015
#Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract In order to compensate for the weaknesses of the
sensory evaluation method for the quality of crisp grass carp
fish and to establish an objective and practical method based
on instrumental texture analysis, two experiments were car-
ried out: (1) tracking the quality evolution of crisp grass carp
during the whole culture period with both instrumental anal-
ysis and sensory evaluation in order to find out which instru-
mental texture parameter make greater contribution to the for-
mation of crisp, compact quality and (2) determining the qual-
ity of crisp grass carp in different markets to investigate the
real quality distribution and then grading the quality based on
this survey with method of cluster analysis. Results showed
that the instrumental hardness and chewiness of crisp grass
carp showed a significant correlation with its sensory crisp-
ness evaluation and made greater contribution to the formation
of quality characteristics of crisp grass carp than the instru-
mental springiness and instrumental cohesiveness. So, the
quality of crisp grass carp was finally classified into three
grades based on the instrumental hardness and the instrumen-
tal chewiness with method of cluster analysis.
Keywords Quality evaluation .Crisp grass carp .
Instrumental texture analysis .Cluster analysis
Texture is an important parameter that determines the compre-
hensive quality of food products. It has been described as a
multi-parameter attribute, and a large number of terms were
used to describe it. The texture parameters were classified into
two groups, the primary parameters including hardness, cohe-
siveness, springiness, adhesiveness, and viscosity and the sec-
ondary parameters including brittleness (fracturability),
chewiness, and gumminess, introduced originally by
Szczesniak in 1963, and can be obtained by the texture profile
analysis (TPA).
Texture properties are the primary determinants of food
product quality and it is closely related to both the acceptabil-
ity of consumers and manufacturers (Garcia Loredo and
Guerrero 2011; Llull et al. 2002;Laurieetal.2013), especially
to the freshwater fish crisp grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon
idellus C. ET V). Crisp grass carp is just a grass carp
(C. idellus) fed with broad bean as the sole food, but it is very
different from ordinary grass carp and famous for its unique
taste that it tastes more compact and crisper than ordinary
grass carp (Zhu et al. 2013). Crisp grass carp originated in
China and its products have been exported to Hongkong,
America, and many countries in Southeast Asia and Latin
America in recent years, with growing popularity. At the same
time, more and more researches on crisp grass carp were done
both at home and abroad. Studies showed that crisp grass carp
had significant differences with ordinary grass carp in sensory
taste, instrumental texture properties, and ingredients etc., al-
though they were not easy to be distinguished from appear-
ance (ADTSG 2010; Lin et al. 2012;Yangetal.2014).
The crisp taste is the main characteristic of crisp grass carp
and directly related to the consumer’s acceptability, so up to
now the quality evaluation of crisp grass carp products is
carried out only by the sensory evaluation method to grade
the degree of crispness (ADTSG 2010). But sensory
S. Yang (*):L. Li (*):B. Qi :Y. W u :X. Hu :W. Lin :S. Hao :
H. Huang
Key Laboratory of Aquatic Product Processing, Ministry of
Agriculture, South China Sea Fisheries Institute, Chinese Academy
of Fishery Sciences, No. 231 Xingangxi Road,
Guangzhou 510300, China
e-mail: shaoling278@163.com
e-mail: laihaoli@163.com
Food Anal. Methods
DOI 10.1007/s12161-015-0101-2
evaluation is time consuming, laborious, tedious, subjective,
and expensive (Koç et al. 2013; Jaworska and Hoffmann
2008), so it is inevitable to adopt a more objective method to
evaluate the original quality of crisp grass carp. Compared
with sensory methods, mechanical methods are more objec-
tive and reliable by reasons of reducing the variations from
human factors. Studies had shown that there were useful non-
linear or linear correlations between objective instrumental
texture parameters and sensory evaluation scores to texture
attributes of food samples, especially for the instrumental
hardness (Garcia Loredo and Guerrero 2011; Mørkøre and
Einen 2003; Meinert et al. 1999; Nielsen et al. 2005), that
was to say the instrumental texture analysis could indicate
human’s taste and acceptability. So, the quality evaluation
with method of mechanical texture analysis had been used
widely (Cheng et al. 2014; Di Monaco et al. 2008; Xiong
et al. 2006; Hyldig and Nielsend 2001;Rahmanetal.2012).
According to Lin’sstudy(2013), the instrumental hardness
and springiness played a decisive role in the crisp taste of crisp
grass carp. So, in this paper, the instrumental texture analysis
would be used to evaluate the quality of crisp grass carp. Two
experiments were carried out: (1) tracking the quality evolu-
tion of crisp grass carp during the whole culture period with
both instrumental analysis and sensory evaluation in order to
find out which instrumental texture parameter make greater
contribution to sensory acceptability and (2) determining the
quality of crisp grass carp in different markets to investigate
the real quality distribution and then grading the quality of
crisp grass carp based on this survey with method of cluster
analysis. The aim of this research was to provide an objective
method to grade crisp grass carp quality.
Material and Methods
Experiment 1
The first experiment was to track the texture evolution of crisp
grass carp during the culture period by both instrument and
sensory evaluation in order to find out which texture parame-
ter make greater contribution to sensory evaluation. For this
experiment, 500 grass carps with an average weight of 3.5 kg
were cultured in a pond located in Zhongshan, China, in June
of 2013. During the culture period, they were fed with broad
beans as the sole food for 100 days firstly (first stage) in order
to become crisp, then fed no beans but with common fish food
for 30 days (second stage) to prevent mass mortality caused by
stopping feeding beans suddenly. The samples were netted on
the day beforefeeding beans, the last day of feeding beans, the
final day before harvest, and days during first stage at irregular
intervals according to the fish health. Three fishes were sam-
pled every time to reduce the variation among individuals.
After being caught randomly by traditional cast net in the
morning, the fish were kept in water with oxygen at room
temperature and transported to our laboratory within 2 h.
Then, all three samples were relayed in city water at room
temperature, and finally slaughtered and determined one by
one within 8 h. For this experiment, one side of the epaxial
muscle from the fish was used for the instrumental texture
analysis; another side of the epaxial muscle was used for the
sensory evaluation.
Experiment 2
The second experiment was to determine the instrumental
texture quality of the crisp grass carp alive in different markets
so as to investigate the quality distribution and then to grade it.
Fish for this experiment were purchased randomly from dif-
ferent markets in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province of China,
then kept in water with oxygen and transported to our labora-
tory within 2 h, and finally slaughtered and determined within
8 h. In total, 25 fishes were sampled with several batches.
Only one side of the epaxial muscle from each fish was used
in this experiment for the instrumental texture analysis.
Sample Preparation
Each fish were mechanically stunned and weighed. Each
epaxial muscle was cut out immediately, rinsed out blood with
city water, peeled, and then sliced into five raw samples
(20 mm×20 mm ×10 mm, length×width ×thickness). The
raw samples were steamed for 5 min, then cooled to ambient
temperature and determined or evaluated as soon as possible.
Texture Profile Analysis
All texture measurements were performed using QTS-25 tex-
ture analyzer from CNS Farnell Ltd., Hertfordshire, England.
The instrument was controlled by a computer using Texture-
Pro version 2 Software (CNS Farnell Ltd., Hertfordshire,
England). A flatted cylindrical probe with a diameter of
6 mm was applied and moved at a constant speed of
30 mm min
−1
. The target value of compression was 4 mm.
The texture parameters, including hardness, chewiness,
springiness, and cohesiveness, were calculated by the soft-
ware as described in the QTS-25 manual. Five samples from
each fish were determined.
Sensory Crispness Evaluation with Experienced Experts
The sensory evaluation was conducted at the Key Laboratory
of Aquatic Product Processing, Ministry of Agriculture, by
five experienced experts (male, ages 40–50). All the experts
must have been participated in sensory evaluation of crisp
grass carp products for at least 5 years. They were trained
before each sampling to rate the sensory crispness according
Food Anal. Methods
to their abundant experience using a 9-point intensity scale
(1= not crisp at all, 2∼4=a little crisp but not enough, 5= crisp,
6∼8=high crisp in different degree, 9 =very crisp).
Evaluations were conducted in individual panel booths. At
the same culture stage, three fishes were evaluated. Five sam-
ples from each fish were prepared according to the method
mentioned above, and each sample was divided into two
halves of same size before being presented to the experts so
as to be evaluated with two replicates. Samples were served in
30 individual plastic dishes coded with random numbers and
were presented in 6 batches, 2 replicates of 3 fish samples, at
10 min intervals. The experts received room temperature sam-
ples, tasted every sample, scored the crispness, and were asked
to rinse their mouth with distilled water between samples.
Statistical Analysis
All statistical analysis was performed with SPSS software
(20.0, IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA).
In order to reduce the error caused by the anthropic factor
in preparing samples or individual sample deformation in
steaming, the highest and the lowest texture values of each
fish were eliminated, and the three remaining data were sub-
jected to calculate the means, standard deviations, and statis-
tically significant differences.
The significant difference of samples was analyzed by way
of one-way ANOVA at P<0.01.
Cluster analysis was performed to classify samples on the
basis of similarities of their instrumental texture properties.
Results and Discussion
Experiment 1: Quality Evolution of Crisp Grass Carp
During Culture
The quality change of crisp grass carp during the whole cul-
ture period was shown in Table 1. In the first stage, as the time
of feeding beans was prolonged, the sensory crispness of fish
meat increased continuously. This change agreed with the
culture experience, and the evaluation score at the end of this
stage was satisfactory. This meant the grass carp had eventu-
ally turned into a completely different fish, crisp grass carp.
All four instrumental texture parameters had increased in dif-
ferent degree in stage 1, corresponded with the Gan’sstudy
(2010), but the hardness and chewiness showed a more similar
tendency with the sensory crispness than the springiness and
cohesiveness that increased only in the first 50 days and then
changed little throughout stage 1. In the second stage of feed-
ing no beans, both the sensory crispness and the four instru-
mental texture parameters decreased a little.
The results of significant difference analysis showed that
all the instrumental texture values starting from the 50th day,
while the instrumental springiness starting from the 30th day,
were extremely significantly different with the initial values
when they were ordinary grass carp (Day 0, P<0.01). Itmeant
that the instrumental texture properties from that day had ex-
tremely significant difference with that of ordinary grass carp.
In other words, it could be taken for granted that the fishat this
time was not what they were and the unique texture feature of
crisp grass carp had been already half forming. So, the texture
change after day 50 would be important to the quality differ-
ence of crisp grass carp, and the texture parameters which
changed significantly differently would make greater contri-
bution to the quality difference than the others that did not
changed significantly.
During the period from Day 50 to the end of whole culture,
the instrumental hardness and chewiness changed significant-
ly differently, very similar to the change of sensory crispness,
but the instrumental springiness and cohesiveness remained
stable and was different from the sensory crispness. In general,
the instrumental hardness and chewiness made greater contri-
bution to the formation of quality characteristics of crisp grass
carp than the instrumental springiness and cohesiveness. As
the primary attributes and the main quality assessment factor
of crisp grass carp (ADTSG 2010), the sensory crispness
Tabl e 1 Significant difference analysis of texture of crisp grass carp during culture
Time (days) Instrumental texture Sensory crispness
Hardness (g) Chewiness (g⋅mm) Springiness (mm) Cohesiveness
0 118.78±16.79
a
149.80±6.08
a
2.61±0.17
a
0.48±0.02
a
1.00±0.00
a
30 240.67±14.61
a
387.48±50.61
a
2.99±0.07
b
0.55±0.07
a
2.07±0.12
b
50 432.89±56.11
b
1064.30±103.71
b
3.22±0.03
c
0.77±0.01
b
3.93±0.23
c
70 507.00±48.64
b
1309.39±47.80
b
3.23±0.11
c
0.78±0.03
b
6.33±0.61
d
100 893.11 ±71.31
c
2046.15±180.10
d
3.15±0.06
bc
0.75±0.00
b
8.00±0.20
e
130 775.44±74.88
c
1778.30±105.69
c
3.18±0.09
bc
0.74±0.01
b
7.40±0.35
e
Values are reported as means±SD
Means with different letters in the same column differ extremely significantly according to the Duncan test at P<0.01
Food Anal. Methods
indicated the comprehensive quality and the consumer
acceptability of crisp grass carp products. Therefore, from
the result of this study, the instrumental hardness and
chewiness could, on behalf of the sensory crispness, be used
in the quality evaluation. Quite closely, Lin et al. (2013)found
that the instrumental hardness played a decisive role in the
crisp taste of crisp grass carp. So, from the sight of significant
difference analysis, both the instrumental hardness and the
instrumental chewiness would be useful to the subsequent
quality evaluation and grading of crisp grass carp products.
Fig. 1 Linear correlation between instrumental texture parameters and sensory crispness. Chewiness was y
1
(black square), hardness was y
2
(black
triangle), springiness was y
3
(multiplication sign), and cohesiveness was y
4
(white circle)
Tabl e 2 Instrumental texture variation of crisp grass carp in different markets
No Weight (kg) Hardness (g) Chewiness (g⋅mm) Springiness (mm) Cohesiveness
1 4.6 695.00±28.05
bcde
1606.42±98.42
bcdef
3.16±0.02
a
0.73±0.02
ab
2 4.5 710.67±71.62
cde
1635.96±126.61
bcdef
3.13±0.11
a
0.76±0.03
bcd
3 4.7 752.67±45.98
ef
1630.04±111.29
bcdef
3.12±0.03
a
0.71±0.03
a
4 5.7 540.00±50.41
a
1135.90±157.49
a
3.08±0.11
a
0.73±0.02
ab
5 5.0 597.67±49.90
abcd
1386.86±105.57
abcd
3.13±0.08
a
0.76±0.01
bcd
6 4.7 735.33±40.50
def
1781.33±194.39
defg
3.16±0.05
a
0.77±0.01
cde
7 4.4 708.67±85.68
cde
1638.55±191.68
bcdef
3.19±0.11
ab
0.74±0.02
abc
8 4.8 730.33±16.77
def
1754.98±140.32
defg
3.16±0.04
a
0.75±0.01
abcd
9 4.4 537.67±11.85
a
1325.32±96.56
abc
3.24±0.03
ab
0.74±0.02
abc
10 4.5 735.33±24.85
def
1742.11± 70.71
defg
3.18±0.05
ab
0.75±0.01
bcd
11 4.7 745.67±8.33
ef
1772.84±71.91
defg
3.15±0.02
a
0.75±0.01
abcd
12 5.6 678.33±74.10
bcde
1602.80±121.61
bcde
3.20±0.04
ab
0.77±0.00
cde
13 5.1 575.33±46.54
abc
1440.19±109.61
abcd
3.09±0.14
a
0.78±0.01
de
14 5.9 944.33±85.93
h
2221.83±206.94
h
3.09±0.02
a
0.75±0.01
bcd
15 4.1 707.67±64.22
cde
1664.84±176.99
cdef
3.15±0.06
a
0.75±0.01
bcd
16 4.6 923.33±24.19
gh
2218.45±122.37
h
3.21±0.03
ab
0.75±0.02
abcd
17 4.8 866.00±24.64
fgh
1948.97±40.20
efgh
3.14±0.09
a
0.75±0.02
abcd
18 3.8 796.33±74.85
efg
1875.38±173.02
efgh
3.20±0.03
ab
0.73±0.01
ab
19 3.9 692.33±15.50
bcde
1665.71±27.25
cdef
3.25±0.04
ab
0.75±0.01
abcd
20 4.1 543.00±46.68
a
1254.26±110.78
ab
3.14±0.04
a
0.75±0.01
abcd
21 3.7 511.00±22.73
a
1339.16±63.53
abc
3.35±0.06
b
0.78±0.01
de
22 4.2 563.33±4.04
ab
1473.76±132.71
abcd
3.21±0.06
ab
0.80±0.03
e
23 4.3 849.33±23.76
fgh
2087.00±166.85
gh
3.24±0.03
ab
0.73±0.03
abc
24 3.9 1064.67±126.11
i
2574.61±354.00
i
3.19±0.09
ab
0.75±0.01
abcd
25 6.5 866.00±75.41
fgh
2004.48±241.11
fgh
3.13±0.12
a
0.74±0.01
abc
Values are reported as means±SD
Means with different letters in the same column differ extremely significantly at P<0.01
Food Anal. Methods
The correlation between sensory crispness and the instru-
mental texture parameters was analyzed with the method of
linear regression using the instrumental texture as dependent
variables and the sensory crispness as independent variable.
The prediction equation was shown in Fig. 1. It can be seen
that both the instrumental hardness and the instrumental
chewiness showed higher positive correlations with sensory
crispness (R
2
=0.97, 0.94, respectively, P< 0.05) than springi-
ness (R
2
=0.57, P<0.05) and cohesiveness (R
2
=0.70,
P<0.05). The results of linear regression analysis agreed with
that of significant difference analysis, and the reliability of
data of instrumental hardness and chewiness was confirmed
by the positive correlations with the sensory evaluation.
Experiment 2: Texture Investigation of Crisp Grass Carp
in Markets
The investigation results of texture quality distribution of crisp
grass carp in different markets were shown in Table 2.
Fig. 2 Normal distribution plots of crisp grass carp based on four texture parameters: hardness (a), chewiness (b), springiness (c), and cohesiveness (d)
Food Anal. Methods
As shown in Table 2, the crisp grass carp in different mar-
kets varied in weight and differed greatly in texture quality. In
general, most of the crisp grass carp sampled were 4∼5kg
weight. But, even if they had the same weight, all their texture
attributes differed significantly from fish to fish, that is to say
there were no useful correlation between the four texture
scores and the body weight, respectively. So, it could be seen
that the body weight of crisp grass carp could not indicate its
texture characteristics.
For the four instrumental texture parameters of these 25
samples, most determining results were within the scope of
Experiment 1 (especially after the 70th days), and only a few
were higher than the maximum value in Experiment 1 which
might be related to the longer culture time of feeding beans
(Tan and Li 2006). The data of all four parameters had an
extremely significant difference (P<0.01) from fish to fish.
But the hardness and chewiness varied more widely than the
springiness and cohesiveness. The value of instrumental hard-
ness and chewiness changed from 500 to 1100 g and from
1200 to 2600 g⋅mm, respectively, and both of them were di-
vided into nine levels according to the result of corresponding
significant difference analysis (P<0.01). While the springi-
ness varied from 3.0 to 3.4 mm and only was divided into
two levels, the cohesiveness changed from 0.7 to 0.8 and
was divided into five levels.
The distributions of all four instrumental texture parame-
ters were close to normal distribution (Fig. 2).
Quality Grading Based on the Instrumental Hardness
and Chewiness
It had been mentioned above that the instrumental hardness
and chewiness made greater contribution to the quality differ-
ence of crisp grass carp than the other two, springiness and
cohesiveness. So, in this experiment, cluster analysis was per-
formed to grade the quality of crisp grass carp in markets
based on the data of the instrumental hardness and chewiness.
The results were showed in Fig. 3.
Fig. 3 Cluster analysis
dendrogram using the Ward
method based on hardness and
chewiness
Tabl e 3 Cluster analysis
classification of crisp
grass carp based on
hardness and chewiness
Groups Sample no.
Group A 14,16,17,23,24,25
Group B 1,2,3,6,7,8,10,11,12,15,18,19
Group C 4,5,9,13,20,21,22
Food Anal. Methods
As shown in Fig. 3, with the method of cluster analysis, the
quality of crisp grass carp samples in markets were clustered
into three big groups named group A, B, and C (Table 3), and
the order was group A> group B> group C according to the
data of two instrumental texture parameters from high to low.
In group A, the data of hardness changed from 849 to 1064 g
and that of chewiness changed from 1948 to 2574 g⋅mm. In
group B, the data of hardness was within the scope of 678 to
796 g and chewiness was from 1602 to 1875 g⋅mm. In group
C, hardness varied from 511 to 575 g and chewiness was from
1135 to 1440 g⋅mm. According to the positive correlation
between the instrumental texture parameters and sensory
crispness mentioned above, the product quality in group A,
B, and C was divided into high, medium, and low grade,
respectively. The classification results accorded with the nor-
mal distribution results.
Conclusions
It was found that the data of instrumental hardness and instru-
mental chewiness changed in a more similar tendency with
that of sensory crispness than the instrumental springiness and
cohesiveness during the whole culture period and had a very
significant positive correlation with sensory evaluation.
Compared with the instrumental springiness and cohesive-
ness, the instrumental hardness and chewiness made greater
contribution to the quality difference and sensory acceptability
of crisp grass carp products.
The investigation results of quality distribution showed that
the distributions of all four instrumental texture parameters of
crisp grass carp products from different markets were all close
to normal distribution. According to the analysis result men-
tioned in the preceding paragraph, the product quality was
finally classified into three groups based only on two instru-
mental parameters, hardness and chewiness, with method of
cluster analysis.
Texture properties were the primary determinants for the con-
sumer acceptability of crisp grass carp products. But because the
sensory evaluation method was subjective and expansive, the
assessment of instrumental quality became the preferred analysis
method for characterizing the crisp grass carp meat. Through this
study, the results showed that it was feasible to evaluate the
quality of crisp grass carp with the method of instrumental tex-
ture parameters and cluster analysis, and it was found that,
among these four instrumental texture parameters mentioned
above, hardness and chewiness were the key factors of grading
the quality of crisp grass carp products.
Acknowledgments This work was financed by fund of the Key Labo-
ratory of Aquatic Product Processing, Ministry of Agriculture, China
(NYJG201304) and National Natural Science Foundation of China
(31401625).
Compliance with Ethics Requirements This article does not contain
any studies with human or animal subjects.
Conflict of Interest Shaoling Yang declares that she has no conflict of
interest. Laihao Li declares that he has no conflict of interest. Bo Qi
declares that he has no conflict of interest. Yanyan Wu declares that she
has no conflict of interest. Xiao Hu declares that he has no conflict of
interest. Wanling Lin declares that she has no conflict of interest. Shuxian
Hao declares that she has no conflict of interest. Hui Huang declares that
she has no conflict of interest.
References
ADTSG (Administration of Quality and Technology Supervision of
Guangdong Province) (2010) Zhongshan crisp grass-carp.
Standards Press of China, Beijing
Cheng JH, Sun DW, Han Z, Zeng XA (2014) Texture and structure
measurements and analyses for evaluation of fish and fillet freshness
quality: a review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food 13:52–61
Di Monaco R, Cavella S, Masi P (2008) Predicting sensory cohesiveness,
hardness and springiness of solid foods from instrumental measure-
ments. J Texture Stud 39:129–149
Gan CL (2010) Studies on the properties and storage stability of crisp
grass carp muscle [D]. Huanzhong Agricultural University, Wuhan,
pp 28–33
Garcia Loredo AB, Guerrero SN (2011) Correlation between instrumen-
tal and sensory ratings by evaluation of some texture reference
scales. Int J Food Sci Technol 46:1977–1985
Hyldig G, Nielsend D (2001) A review of sensory and instrumental
methods used to evaluate the texture of fish muscle. J Texture Stud
32:219–242
Jaworska D, Hoffmann M (2008) Relative importance of texture proper-
ties in the sensory quality and acceptance of commercial crispy
products. J Sci Food Agric 88:1804–1812
Koç H, Vinyard CJ, Essick GK, Foegeding EA (2013) Food oral process-
ing: conversion of food structure to textural perception. Annu Rev
Food Sci Technol 4:237–266
Laurie SM, Faber M, Calitz FJ, Moelich EI, MullerdN, Labuschagne MT
(2013) The use of sensory attributes, sugar content, instrumental
data and consumer acceptability in selection of sweet potato varie-
ties. J Sci Food Agric 93:1610–1619
Lin WL, Zeng QX, Zhu ZW, Guo SS (2012) Relation between protein
characteristics and TPA texture characteristics of crisp grass carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idellus C. ET V) and grass carp
(Ctenopharyngodon idellus). J Texture Stud 43:1–11
Lin WL, Yang XQ, Li LH, Hu X, Diao SQ, Hao SX, Wei Y, Deng JC, Wu
YY (2013) Research of relationship between texture and sensory
evaluation of crisp grass carp. Mod Food Sci Technol 29:1–7
Llull P, Simal S, Benedito J, Rosselló C (2002) Evaluation of textural
properties of a meat-based product (sobrassada) using ultrasonic
techniques. J Food Eng 53:279–285
Meinert EM, Beorão LH, Teixeira E (1999) Sensory and instrumental
texture evaluation of restructured shrimp. Br Food J 101:893–900
Mørkøre T, Einen O (2003) Relating sensory and instrumental texture
analyses of Atlantic Salmon. J Food Sci 68:1492–1497
Nielsen D, Hyldig G, Nielsen J, Nielsen HH (2005) Liquid holding ca-
pacity and instrumental and sensory texture properties of herring
(Clupea harengus L.) related to biological and chemical parameters.
J Texture Stud 36:119–138
Rahman MS, Al-Shamsi Q, Abdullah A, Claereboudt MR, Al-Belushi B,
Al-Maqbaly R, Al-Sabahi J (2012) Classification of commercial
Omani Halwa by physico-chemical properties and instrumental tex-
ture profile analysis (TPA). Ital J Food Sci 24:292–304
Food Anal. Methods
Szczesniak AS (1963) Classification of textural characteristics. J Food Sci
28:385–389
Tan QK, Li HS (2006) Effects of diets dose and water quality on the
transformation of common grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon
idellus C. ET V) to crisped grass carp. Acta Ecol Sin 26:
2409–2415
Xiong R, Cavitt LC, Meullenet JF, Owens CM (2006) Comparison of
Allo-Kramer, Warner-Bratzler and razor blade shears for predicting
sensory tenderness of broiler breast meat. J Texture Stud 37:179–
199
Yang SL, Qi B, Li LH,Lin WL, Ma HX, Yang XQ, Hao SX, Wu YY, Cen
JW (2014) Optimization of hardness determination of crisp grass
carp’s dorsal muscle. Sci Technol Food Ind 35:97–99
Zhu ZW, Ruan Z, Li BS, Meng MY, Zeng QX (2013) Quality loss as-
sessment of Crisp Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idellus C. ET V)
fillets during ice storage. J Food Process Preserv 37:254–261
Food Anal. Methods
