Quality Assessment of Lightly Salted Atlantic Salmon Fillets Injected With Brine Solutions Containing Sodium Bicarbonate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to produce lightly salted Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) fillets with improved technical and sensory attributes. Brine containing 0, 50, 150 or 250 g/L NaCl with or without additional 25 g/L sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) was injected into the fillets. 24 hours after injection, the muscle NaCl concentration ranged from 0.2 to 2.4%, and pH ranged from 6.18 to 6.48. Untreated fillets lost 1% weight, whereas the weight increase was 4% of the fillets injected with NaCl or a combination of NaCl and NaHCO3. Liquid loss (LL) during storage at 4°C for three days were similar for the untreated fillets and the fillets injected with 50 g/L NaCl (LL 12%), while LL was reduced to 7.5% with the addition of NaHCO3 to the 50 g/L brine. LL was the lowest for the groups injected with 250 g/L NaCl. Injection of NaCl resulted in higher lipid oxidation compared with untreated fillets, determined as doubled levels of alkanals (4.3 vs. 10.4 ng/g) and pentenols (8.0 vs. 15.1 ng/g), but addition of NaHCO3 counteracted the action of NaCl as a pro-oxidant. Furthermore, NaHCO3 addition of the 50 g/L brine significantly improved the color of raw and cooked fillets (higher a*-value, Salmo Fan score, red/orange color tone). Sensory assessment of cooked fillet revealed that brine added NaHCO3 gave superior odor (less rancid), flavor (less metallic) and higher scores for tenderness. In conclusion, addition of NaHCO3 to the brine solutions improved liquid retention, storage stability, color, odor and flavor of lightly salted salmon fillets.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".