Search

Abstract Superchilling entails lowering the fish temperature to between the initial freezing point of the fish and about 1–2°C lower. The temperature of superchilled fresh fishery products (SFFP) in boxes without ice was compared to that of products subject to the currently authorised practice in boxes with ice (CFFP) under the same conditions of on‐land storage and/or transport. A heat transfer model was developed and made available as a tool to identify under which initial configurations of SFFP the fish temperature, at any time of storage/transport, is lower or equal to CFFP. A minimum degree of superchilling, corresponding to an ice fraction in the fish matrix of SFFP equal or higher than the proportion of ice added per mass of fish in CFFP, will ensure with 99–100% certainty (almost certain) that the fish temperature of SFFP and the consequent increase of relevant hazards will be lower or equal to that of CFFP. In practice, the degree of superchilling can be estimated using the fish temperature after superchilling and its initial freezing point, which are subject to uncertainties. The tool can be used as part of ‘safety‐by‐design’ approach, with the reliability of its outcome being dependent on the accuracy of the input data. An evaluation of methods capable of detecting whether a previously frozen fish is commercially presented as ‘superchilled’ was carried out based on, amongst others, their applicability for different fish species, ability to differentiate fresh fish from fish frozen at different temperatures, use as a stand‐alone method, ease of use and classification performance. The methods that were considered ‘fit for purpose’ are Hydroxyacyl‐coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) test, α‐glucosidase test, histology, ultraviolet–visible–near–infrared (UV‐VIS/NIR) spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging. These methods would benefit from standardisation, including the establishment of threshold values or classification algorithms to provide a practical routine test.

Superchilling entails lowering the fish temperature to between the initial freezing point of the fish and about 1-2°C lower. The temperature of superchilled fresh fishery products (SFFP) in boxes without ice was compared to that of products subject to the currently authorised practice in boxes with ice (CFFP) under the same conditions of on-land storage and/or transport. A heat transfer model was developed and made available as a tool to identify under which initial configurations of SFFP the fish temperature, at any time of storage/transport, is lower or equal to CFFP. A minimum degree of superchilling, corresponding to an ice fraction in the fish matrix of SFFP equal or higher than the proportion of ice added per mass of fish in CFFP, will ensure with 99-100% certainty (almost certain) that the fish temperature of SFFP and the consequent increase of relevant hazards will be lower or equal to that of CFFP. In practice, the degree of superchilling can be estimated using the fish temperature after superchilling and its initial freezing point, which are subject to uncertainties. The tool can be used as part of 'safety-by-design' approach, with the reliability of its outcome being dependent on the accuracy of the input data. An evaluation of methods capable of detecting whether a previously frozen fish is commercially presented as 'superchilled' was carried out based on, amongst others, their applicability for different fish species, ability to differentiate fresh fish from fish frozen at different temperatures, use as a stand-alone method, ease of use and classification performance. The methods that were considered 'fit for purpose' are Hydroxyacyl-coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) test, α-glucosidase test, histology, ultraviolet--visible--near--infrared (UV-VIS/NIR) spectroscopy and hyperspectral imaging. These methods would benefit from standardisation, including the establishment of threshold values or classification algorithms to provide a practical routine test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract On‐land transport/storage of fresh fishery products (FFP) for up to 3 days in ‘tubs’ of three‐layered poly‐ethylene filled with freshwater and ice was compared to the currently authorised practice (fish boxes of high‐density poly‐ethylene filled with ice). The impact on the survival and growth of biological hazards in fish and the histamine production in fish species associated with a high amount of histidine was assessed. In different modelling scenarios, the FFP are stored on‐board in freshwater or seawater/ice (in tubs) and once on‐land they are ‘handled’ (i.e. sorted or gutted and/or filleted) and transferred to either tubs or boxes. The temperature of the FFP was assumed to be the most influential factor affecting relevant hazards. Under reasonably foreseeable ‘abusive’ scenarios and using a conservative modelling approach, the growth of the relevant hazards (i.e. Listeria monocytogenes, Aeromonas spp. and non‐proteolytic Clostridium botulinum), is expected to be < 0.2 log10 units higher in tubs than in boxes after 3 days when the initial temperature of the fish is 0°C (‘keeping’ process). Starting at 7°C (‘cooling‐keeping’ process), the expected difference in the growth potential is higher (< 1 log10 for A. hydrophila and < 0.5 log10 for the other two hazards) due to the poorer cooling capacity of water and ice (tub) compared with ice (box). The survival of relevant hazards is not or is negligibly impacted. Histamine formation due to growth of Morganella psychrotolerans under the ‘keeping’ or ‘cooling‐keeping’ process can be up to 0.4 ppm and 1.5 ppm higher, respectively, in tubs as compared to boxes after 3 days, without reaching the legal limit of 100 ppm. The water uptake associated with the storage of the FFP in tubs (which may be up to 6%) does not make a relevant contribution to the differences in microbial growth potential compared to boxes.

On‐land transport/storage of fresh fishery products (FFP) for up to 3 days in 'tubs' of three‐layered poly‐ethylene filled with freshwater and ice was compared to the currently authorised practice (fish boxes of high‐density poly‐ethylene filled with ice). The impact on the survival and growth of biological hazards in fish and the histamine production in fish species associated with a high amount of histidine was assessed. In different modelling scenarios, the FFP are stored on‐board in freshwater or seawater/ice (in tubs) and once on‐land they are 'handled' (i.e. sorted or gutted and/or filleted) and transferred to either tubs or boxes. The temperature of the FFP was assumed to be the most influential factor affecting relevant hazards. Under reasonably foreseeable 'abusive' scenarios and using a conservative modelling approach, the growth of the relevant hazards (i.e. Listeria monocytogenes, Aeromonas spp. and non‐proteolytic Clostridium botulinum), is expected to be < 0.2 log10 units higher in tubs than in boxes after 3 days when the initial temperature of the fish is 0°C ('keeping' process). Starting at 7°C ('cooling‐keeping' process), the expected difference in the growth potential is higher (< 1 log10 for A. hydrophila and < 0.5 log10 for the other two hazards) due to the poorer cooling capacity of water and ice (tub) compared with ice (box). The survival of relevant hazards is not or is negligibly impacted. Histamine formation due to growth of Morganella psychrotolerans under the 'keeping' or 'cooling‐keeping' process can be up to 0.4 ppm and 1.5 ppm higher, respectively, in tubs as compared to boxes after 3 days, without reaching the legal limit of 100 ppm. The water uptake associated with the storage of the FFP in tubs (which may be up to 6%) does not make a relevant contribution to the differences in microbial growth potential compared to boxes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]