Fishery Products 2009
DOI: 10.1002/9781444322668.ch9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Instrumental Texture Measurement

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 125 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The primary characteristics hardness, springiness, adhesiveness and cohesiveness were determined. Chewiness (secondary characteristic) was calculated as the product of hardness, cohesiveness and springiness (Hyldig and Nielsen, 2001; Careche and Barroso, 2009).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The primary characteristics hardness, springiness, adhesiveness and cohesiveness were determined. Chewiness (secondary characteristic) was calculated as the product of hardness, cohesiveness and springiness (Hyldig and Nielsen, 2001; Careche and Barroso, 2009).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Instrumental texture tests have been largely used for fish freshness evaluation (Olafsdottir et al. 2004; Careche and Barroso 2009) including gilthead sea bream (Ginés et al. 2002; Caballero et al.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The complexity of fish shape and size, the nonuniformity of fish muscle and the lack of homogeneity of the samples in general add to the interindividual variation of the measurements considerably, and are considered significant drawbacks in instrumental texture measurement of fish freshness (Careche and Barroso 2009). Additionally, in fish freshness evaluation, there are often problems in correlating instrumental and sensory results, although suggestions have been made to overcome them (Hyldig and Nielsen 2001).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations