Bragg, Jimmy D.

Gentles, Darlene

ScholarWorks@UARK

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of ScienceVolume 47 Article 381993Quality of Shrimp Available to Consumers inArkansasDarlene GentlesHenderson State UniversityJimmy D. BraggHenderson State UniversityFollow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaasPart of the Other Food Science CommonsThis article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able toread, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking priorpermission from the publisher or the author.This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the ArkansasAcademy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu.Recommended CitationGentles, Darlene and Bragg, Jimmy D. (1993) "Quality of Shrimp Available to Consumers in Arkansas," Journal of the ArkansasAcademy of Science: Vol. 47 , Article 38.Available at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol47/iss1/38140Quality of Shrimp Available to Consumers inArkansasDarlene Gentles and J. D.BraggGarland County Community CollegeHot Springs, AR 71901Henderson State UniversityArkadelphia, AR 71923The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not setstandards for the bacteriological and chemical quality offresh shrimp sold by retailers, but itis currently develop-ing the criteria and methods needed for such evaluation(Sloan and Hagen, 1992). These efforts have resultedfrom national attention being focused on seafood qualityand the dangerous lack of regulation in the seafoodindustry. However, several published studies have sug-gested acceptable levels of bacterial and chemical parame-ters to be used indetermining seafood quality (Cobb andVanderzant, 1975; Matches, 1982; Shamshad et al., 1990).This study utilizes these recommendations in investigat-ing the quality of "fresh" shrimp available to Arkansasconsumers.Quantities of shrimp (454 g) were purchased fromretail outlets throughout the state. After transport (30-45min) to the laboratory on ice, the tail, shell and exposedanterior tissue were removed and discarded. The remain-ing muscle tissue was divided into 10 g (wet weight)amounts and held at approx. 20 °C until analyses were car-ried out on the same day.Total aerobic bacteria were enumerated from alomogenate of 10 g of shrimp and 90 ml diluent (0.1%iacto Peptone, 0.9% NaCl) by spread plating on tryp-tone soy agar (Difco). Allcolony forming units (cfu) werecounted after 48 h incubation at 25 °C (Shamshad et al.,1990). Triplicate counts were performed on each sampleand a mean determined. Plates with more than 200 cfuwere recorded as too numerous to count (TNTC).The pH was determined for homogenate of 10 g ofshrimp and 20 ml of chilled (4°C) distilled, sterilizedwater (Shamshad et al., 1990). Two measurements were>erformed and the median recorded for each sample.Retail vendors tended to display shrimp either frozenapprox. 20°C), or on ice (approx. 0°C), or refrigeratedapprox. 10°C). For analysis, the date were groupedaccordingly.Shamshad et al. (1990) determined a mean number ofbacteria for fresh shrimp to be 5.0 x 105 cfu/g. Increasesn bacterial counts were proportional to storage time andtemperature, reaching 3.5 x 10 7 cfu/g after 16 days at0°C which was recommended as the limitof acceptabilityor human consumption. Acceptable limits for bacterialnumbers have not been determined by the FDA (Sloanand Hagen, 1992), but elevated levels in sea water andother shellfish (oysters, clams, muscles and crabs) havebeen declared a health hazard (FDA Compliance PolicyGuides #7108.25 and #7119.12, 1989).Of the 34 samples analyzed during this study, only 12(35%) were found to be below the suggested upper limitfor total aerobic bacteria (Table 1). The best quality wasfound for shrimp kept uniformly frozen. Six of ninefrozen samples (66.7%) were found to be below theacceptable limit suggested for total bacteria. Shrimp heldon ice decreased considerably in quality compared tothose frozen. Only five of 13 samples (38.5%) were suit-able for consumption. Refrigeration appeared to be themost inadequate inmaintaining quality, since only one oftwelve samples (8.3%) was below the recommended limitfor bacterial numbers.Table 1. Bacterial and chemical quality of fresh shrimp.On Ice RefrigerationCommercial Display: FrozenTotal Bacteria (cfux K)Vg)13 125.97 12.295.03 6.7819.50 28.001.20 2.0038.5% 8.3%4 67.42 7.990.15 0.417.59 8.387.25 7.27100.0% 16.7%%Samples Acceptable* 100.0%*As proposed by Shamshad et al. (1990)+ As proposed by Cobb and Vanderzant (1975)The relationship between pH and sensory acceptabilityof shrimp was noted byboth Shamshad et al. (1990), andCobb and Vanderzant (1975). The initial pH of freshshrimp increased proportionally with storage time andtemperature. The acceptable pH values of fresh shrimpwere from 7.05 to 7.60 (Cobb and Vanderzant, 1975).Once the pH exceeded 7.60, shrimp were rated as spoiledor unfit for consumption. Accordingly, the sweet, fishyNumber ofSamples 9Mean 2.97S.D. 3.08High 11.00Low 1.10% Samples Acceptable* 66.7%pHValueNumber ofSamples 3Mean 7.40S.D. 0.19High 7.60Low 7.24Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.47, 1993140Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 38Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1993I141smell becomes a disagreeable, putrid odor and the oncefirm flesh deteriorates into a mushy or grainy texturedmass. Fourteen samples were tested for pH. Only ninehad pH values within the recommended limits (Table 1).The majority of these acceptable samples were purchasedfrom retailers who kept the shrimp uniformly frozen(100%) or on ice (100%). The poorest quality sampleswere displayed in the open refrigeration section of themeat department. Only one of six samples (16.9%) keptin the refrigerator section had an acceptable pH value.Although temperature was considered the significantvariable in this study, time from harvest is another obvi-ous variable which would affect quality. Fresh shrimpdecompose to a point considered unsuitable in a matterof days, even when kept frozen. Matches (1982) deter-mined that frozen shrimp willbecome unfit for corn-sumption in as little as 11 days after being harvested.However, information regarding time from harvest wasunattainable form most of the retailers.The study indicated a need for regulation of storagetemperature at or below 0°C until the product reachesthe consumer. Excessive numbers of bacteria are consid-ered unacceptable, but do not always indicate spoilage.However, high bacterial counts incombination with highpH values suggest that product has lost some of its qualityand may not be suitable for human consumption. Thisstudy indicated, in contrast to Shamshad et al. (1990), andMatches (1982), and Cobb and Vanderzant (1975), thatpH and bacterial number as measurements of quality didnot always agree. Only 25% of the samples had acceptablebacterial numbers, but 64% of the samples had an accept-able pH. According to the literature, the percentage ofacceptable samples in terms of bacteria counts and pHshould be nearly the same.Results of this study indicated that the consumer hasonly about one chance in four of buying "fresh" shrimpin Arkansas. However, until the FDA established guide-lines for quality, these contaminated and possibly danger-ous products willremain on the market.Literature CitedCobb III,B.F., and C. Vanderzant. 1975. Developmentof a Chemical Test for Shrimp QualityJ. FoodScience. 40:121.FDA Compliance Policy Guides. 1989. Chapter 8 -Fishand Seafood. Guide 7108.25.FDA Compliance Policy Guides. 1989. Chapter 8 -Fishand Seafood. Guide 7119.12.Matches, J.R. 1982. Effects ofTemperature on theDecomposition of Pacific Coast Shrimp (Pandalus jor-dani).]. Food Science. 47:1044.Shamshad, S.I., Kher-Un-Nisa, R.Zuberi and R.B.Quadri. 1990. Shelf Lifeof Shrimp (Penaeus mer-guiensis) Stored at Different Temperatures./J. FoodScience. 55(5):1201.Sloan, E. and K.Hagen. 1992. PersonalCommunications. Department of Health and HumanServices. Denver, CO.AcknowledgementsThis research was partially funded by a grant fromHenderson State University. Iam especially grateful toMs. Edna Sloan and Mr. Kurt Hagen of the Departmentof Health and Human Services, Denver, Colorado fortheir personal communication and assistance.Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.47, 1993141Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 38http://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol47/iss1/38

Quality of Shrimp Available to Consumers in Arkansas

UARK (University of Arkansas )

Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science Volume 47 Article 38 1993 Quality of Shrimp Available to Consumers in Arkansas Darlene Gentles Henderson State University Jimmy D. Bragg Henderson State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas  Part of the Other Food Science Commons Recommended Citation Gentles, Darlene and Bragg, Jimmy D. (1993) "Quality of Shrimp Available to Consumers in Arkansas," Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science: Vol. 47 , Article 38. Available at: https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol47/iss1/38 This article is available for use under the Creative Commons license: Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-ND 4.0). Users are able to read, download, copy, print, distribute, search, link to the full texts of these articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This General Note is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact scholar@uark.edu. 140Quality of Shrimp Available to Consumers inArkansasDarlene Gentles and J. D.BraggGarland County Community CollegeHot Springs, AR 71901Henderson State UniversityArkadelphia, AR 71923The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not setstandards for the bacteriological and chemical quality offresh shrimp sold by retailers, but itis currently develop-ing the criteria and methods needed for such evaluation(Sloan and Hagen, 1992). These efforts have resultedfrom national attention being focused on seafood qualityand the dangerous lack of regulation in the seafoodindustry. However, several published studies have sug-gested acceptable levels of bacterial and chemical parame-ters to be used indetermining seafood quality (Cobb andVanderzant, 1975; Matches, 1982; Shamshad et al., 1990).This study utilizes these recommendations in investigat-ing the quality of "fresh" shrimp available to Arkansasconsumers.Quantities of shrimp (454 g) were purchased fromretail outlets throughout the state. After transport (30-45min) to the laboratory on ice, the tail, shell and exposedanterior tissue were removed and discarded. The remain-ing muscle tissue was divided into 10 g (wet weight)amounts and held at approx. 20 °C until analyses were car-ried out on the same day.Total aerobic bacteria were enumerated from alomogenate of 10 g of shrimp and 90 ml diluent (0.1%iacto Peptone, 0.9% NaCl) by spread plating on tryp-tone soy agar (Difco). Allcolony forming units (cfu) werecounted after 48 h incubation at 25 °C (Shamshad et al.,1990). Triplicate counts were performed on each sampleand a mean determined. Plates with more than 200 cfuwere recorded as too numerous to count (TNTC).The pH was determined for homogenate of 10 g ofshrimp and 20 ml of chilled (4°C) distilled, sterilizedwater (Shamshad et al., 1990). Two measurements were>erformed and the median recorded for each sample.Retail vendors tended to display shrimp either frozenapprox. 20°C), or on ice (approx. 0°C), or refrigeratedapprox. 10°C). For analysis, the date were groupedaccordingly.Shamshad et al. (1990) determined a mean number ofbacteria for fresh shrimp to be 5.0 x 105 cfu/g. Increasesn bacterial counts were proportional to storage time andtemperature, reaching 3.5 x 10 7 cfu/g after 16 days at0°C which was recommended as the limitof acceptabilityor human consumption. Acceptable limits for bacterialnumbers have not been determined by the FDA (Sloanand Hagen, 1992), but elevated levels in sea water andother shellfish (oysters, clams, muscles and crabs) havebeen declared a health hazard (FDA Compliance PolicyGuides #7108.25 and #7119.12, 1989).Of the 34 samples analyzed during this study, only 12(35%) were found to be below the suggested upper limitfor total aerobic bacteria (Table 1). The best quality wasfound for shrimp kept uniformly frozen. Six of ninefrozen samples (66.7%) were found to be below theacceptable limit suggested for total bacteria. Shrimp heldon ice decreased considerably in quality compared tothose frozen. Only five of 13 samples (38.5%) were suit-able for consumption. Refrigeration appeared to be themost inadequate inmaintaining quality, since only one oftwelve samples (8.3%) was below the recommended limitfor bacterial numbers.Table 1. Bacterial and chemical quality of fresh shrimp.On Ice RefrigerationCommercial Display: FrozenTotal Bacteria (cfux K)Vg)13 125.97 12.295.03 6.7819.50 28.001.20 2.0038.5% 8.3%4 67.42 7.990.15 0.417.59 8.387.25 7.27100.0% 16.7%%Samples Acceptable* 100.0%*As proposed by Shamshad et al. (1990)+ As proposed by Cobb and Vanderzant (1975)The relationship between pH and sensory acceptabilityof shrimp was noted byboth Shamshad et al. (1990), andCobb and Vanderzant (1975). The initial pH of freshshrimp increased proportionally with storage time andtemperature. The acceptable pH values of fresh shrimpwere from 7.05 to 7.60 (Cobb and Vanderzant, 1975).Once the pH exceeded 7.60, shrimp were rated as spoiledor unfit for consumption. Accordingly, the sweet, fishyNumber ofSamples 9Mean 2.97S.D. 3.08High 11.00Low 1.10% Samples Acceptable* 66.7%pHValueNumber ofSamples 3Mean 7.40S.D. 0.19High 7.60Low 7.24Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.47, 1993140Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 38Published by Arkansas Academy of Science, 1993I141smell becomes a disagreeable, putrid odor and the oncefirm flesh deteriorates into a mushy or grainy texturedmass. Fourteen samples were tested for pH. Only ninehad pH values within the recommended limits (Table 1).The majority of these acceptable samples were purchasedfrom retailers who kept the shrimp uniformly frozen(100%) or on ice (100%). The poorest quality sampleswere displayed in the open refrigeration section of themeat department. Only one of six samples (16.9%) keptin the refrigerator section had an acceptable pH value.Although temperature was considered the significantvariable in this study, time from harvest is another obvi-ous variable which would affect quality. Fresh shrimpdecompose to a point considered unsuitable in a matterof days, even when kept frozen. Matches (1982) deter-mined that frozen shrimp willbecome unfit for corn-sumption in as little as 11 days after being harvested.However, information regarding time from harvest wasunattainable form most of the retailers.The study indicated a need for regulation of storagetemperature at or below 0°C until the product reachesthe consumer. Excessive numbers of bacteria are consid-ered unacceptable, but do not always indicate spoilage.However, high bacterial counts incombination with highpH values suggest that product has lost some of its qualityand may not be suitable for human consumption. Thisstudy indicated, in contrast to Shamshad et al. (1990), andMatches (1982), and Cobb and Vanderzant (1975), thatpH and bacterial number as measurements of quality didnot always agree. Only 25% of the samples had acceptablebacterial numbers, but 64% of the samples had an accept-able pH. According to the literature, the percentage ofacceptable samples in terms of bacteria counts and pHshould be nearly the same.Results of this study indicated that the consumer hasonly about one chance in four of buying "fresh" shrimpin Arkansas. However, until the FDA established guide-lines for quality, these contaminated and possibly danger-ous products willremain on the market.Literature CitedCobb III,B.F., and C. Vanderzant. 1975. Developmentof a Chemical Test for Shrimp QualityJ. FoodScience. 40:121.FDA Compliance Policy Guides. 1989. Chapter 8-Fishand Seafood. Guide 7108.25.FDA Compliance Policy Guides. 1989. Chapter 8-Fishand Seafood. Guide 7119.12.Matches, J.R. 1982. Effects ofTemperature on theDecomposition of Pacific Coast Shrimp (Pandalus jor-dani).]. Food Science. 47:1044.Shamshad, S.I., Kher-Un-Nisa, R.Zuberi and R.B.Quadri. 1990. Shelf Lifeof Shrimp (Penaeus mer-guiensis) Stored at Different Temperatures./J. FoodScience. 55(5):1201.Sloan, E. and K.Hagen. 1992. PersonalCommunications. Department of Health and HumanServices. Denver, CO.AcknowledgementsThis research was partially funded by a grant fromHenderson State University. Iam especially grateful toMs. Edna Sloan and Mr. Kurt Hagen of the Departmentof Health and Human Services, Denver, Colorado fortheir personal communication and assistance.Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol.47, 1993141Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science, Vol. 47 [1993], Art. 38https://scholarworks.uark.edu/jaas/vol47/iss1/38

English

https://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2037&context=jaas

Quality of Shrimp Available to Consumers in Arkansas

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks@UARK

UARK (University of Arkansas )