Next Article in Journal
Phenolic Profiling and In-Vitro Bioactivities of Corn (Zea mays L.) Tassel Extracts by Combining Enzyme-Assisted Extraction
Next Article in Special Issue
Conceptualization of Rice with Low Glycaemic Index: Perspectives from the Major European Consumers
Previous Article in Journal
Characterization and Classification of Direct and Commercial Strawberry Beverages Using Absorbance–Transmission and Fluorescence Excitation–Emission Matrix Technique
Previous Article in Special Issue
Why Being ‘Stressed’ Is ‘Desserts’ in Reverse—The Effect of Acute Psychosocial Stress on Food Pleasure and Food Choice
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Multivariate Nature of Fish Freshness Evaluation by Consumers

1
Instituto de Química, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149, Rio de Janeiro 21949-909, RJ, Brazil
2
Departamento de Tecnologia de Alimentos, Faculdade de Veterinária, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rua Vital Brazil Filho, 64, Niterói 24230-340, RJ, Brazil
3
Núcleo de Análise de Alimentos (NAL), LADETEC, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Av. Horácio Macedo, 1281, Rio de Janeiro 21941-598, RJ, Brazil
4
Departamento de Tecnologia de Alimentos, Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, BR 456, km 7, Seropédica 23897-000, RJ, Brazil
5
PDJ-CNPq/Embrapa Agroindústria de Alimentos, Av. das Américas, 29501, Rio de Janeiro 23020-470, RJ, Brazil
6
Embrapa Agroindústria de Alimentos, Av. das Américas, 29501, Rio de Janeiro 23020-470, RJ, Brazil
7
Instituto Nacional de Controle de Qualidade em Saúde, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Av. Brasil, 4365, Rio de Janeiro 21040-900, RJ, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2022, 11(14), 2144; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142144
Submission received: 29 June 2022 / Revised: 15 July 2022 / Accepted: 18 July 2022 / Published: 20 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Consumer Behavior and Food Choice—Volume II)

Abstract

:
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the sensory acceptability limit of refrigerated fish through a multivariate approach, involving classic physicochemical and bacteriological indicators and considering different consumer profiles. The results of the survival analysis demonstrated that, in general, consumers still considered the fish to be suitable for purchase (4.128 days of storage), despite being microbiologically unsuitable for consumption. However, the subsequent division of consumers into clusters indicated that women and individuals with high income and education levels tend to reject fish with few days of storage (3.650 days), mainly due to discoloration, despite still being microbiologically suitable for consumption. Thus, these segments present a safer behavior regarding the purchase of fresh fish. The influence of different frequencies of fish consumption and age of consumers on the assessment of fish freshness was not clarified. The responsibility for ensuring safe and healthy products at the point of sale must lie with the producers and distributors. However, improving consumers’ ability to make good choices when buying fresh fish would bring social and economic benefits related to public health and to the seafood industry, because it would enable them to make relevant claims and demand their rights.

1. Introduction

Fish is rich in nutrients related to health benefits; however, its high perishability negatively impacts the global average consumption, in addition to representing the main reasons of economic loss and waste generation towards the fish production chain [1,2]. Consumers usually evaluate fish quality and freshness based on its appearance at the point of sale, because fresh fish is frequently sold in clear packaging [3,4,5]. Nonetheless, changes in sensory attributes such as color and texture occur progressively due to multiple microbial and physicochemical processes, which lead consumers to have difficulties and uncertainties when conducting freshness assessments [6]. Freshness misjudgment not only affects the acceptance of food products, but can also lead to malnutrition, health problems and/or food waste [7,8].
The determination of freshness and acceptability limits are crucial to industry and consumers, because they influence the commercial value of fresh fish. Previous studies [9,10] observed that some classes of consumers are willing to pay more for high-quality attributes. Furthermore, the decision to consume or reject food depends not only on its intrinsic quality attributes, but on a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic factors [11,12]. For instance, Østli et al. [13] reported that elder consumers tended to choose fresher fish to buy when compared with younger consumers. Therefore, affective, cognitive, and behavioral components also influence the final purchase decision, which may differ between socioeconomic groups [14,15] and can influence the development of marketing strategies.
To assess consumers’ acceptability limits for fish over storage, many consumer tests have adopted pre-established scoring scales. However, they do not always reflect the consumer’s decision to accept or reject the product. Thus, acceptability limits can be better assessed by the survival analysis methodology, where a risk function capable of describing product rejection during storage is obtained through consumer responses [16]. Such methodology has been extensively applied to estimate the sensory shelf life of several food products such as dairy [17], bakery [18,19] and vegetables [20,21]. To the best of our knowledge, survival analysis has only been applied once in fish; however, it was used as a single freshness indicator for determining the shelf life of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) stored in ice [13].
Similarly, assessments of fish quality and safety by unique physicochemical and/or microbiological indicators are hampered by the multifactorial characteristics of the degradative processes. Despite the advances in developing novel techniques for evaluating fish freshness, there are still many challenges on this matter. In fact, some methodologies may be limited by their high cost and delay in obtaining satisfactory results [2,22]. Moreover, it is difficult to choose a limiting indicator because its relevance may also vary according to fish species, storage procedures and processing conditions [23,24]. Considering these facts, it is important to assess the relationship between the most common analytical freshness parameters and the acceptability limits defined by consumers. From an appropriated assessment, it is possible to observe which parameters influence the consumers’ rejection decision and whether this decision is, in general, reliable and safe.
In this context, the present research aimed to: (i) determine the consumers’ acceptability limit for the purchase and consumption of refrigerated Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets through survival analysis; (ii) identify the relationship between consumers’ purchase rejection with analytical freshness parameters; and (iii) investigate the influence of consumers’ socioeconomic characteristics on the acceptability limit for purchasing the refrigerated Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Material and Experimental Design

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Clementino Fraga Filho at UFRJ, Brazil (No. 27822620.9.0000.5257).
The Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) was chosen for our study because it is one of the most cultivated species globally and presents great popularity among consumers [1]. Moreover, refrigerated storage is possibly the simplest method of preserving fish for a short time and, despite its low efficiency, it is still preferred by consumers. Indeed, consumers seem to relate high levels of processing with a loss of quality, safety, and healthiness [25,26].
The present study used a reverse storage design in order to allow the consumers to evaluate all samples in a single session at the end of the total storage period [27]. Therefore, the fish samples were collected from the same producer at the same conditions, at each previously established time point of analysis (days 8, 6, 4, 2 and 0). A total mass of 15 kg of fresh Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets (192.60 ± 4.39 g each) was purchased from a local fish farm in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. On each day of purchase, 16 fillets were immediately transported on filtered ice (0 °C) in Styrofoam boxes to the laboratory. Then, 10 fillets were randomly divided to form five different repeats (n = 5) for bacteriological and physicochemical analyses, and six fillets were allocated for consumer evaluation. All fillets were placed onto polystyrene trays and over-wrapped with oxygen-permeable 0.6 mm thick polyvinylchloride film (Delta Pack Ltd., São Paulo, Brazil). The trays were stored under refrigeration (4 ± 1 °C) and aerobic conditions in order to simulate retail conditions. On the last day of purchase, which corresponded to time zero of the storage, sensory, bacteriological, and physicochemical evaluations were performed on fish samples from each time point (days 8, 6, 4, 2 and 0). The sensory evaluation was performed by 104 consumers. All bacteriological and physicochemical analyses were performed in triplicate.

2.2. Consumers’ Sensory Evaluation

2.2.1. Participants

A total of 104 consumers participated in the study (Table 1).
Consumers were recruited by convenience sampling, which does not represent a real population, but provides valuable qualitative inferences. Students, employees, and visitors from a research institution (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) participated in the study, invited by telephone or e-mail, and the only criterion for selection was their willingness to participate in the study.

2.2.2. Experimental Procedures

The fish fillets (from days 8, 6, 4, 2 and 0 of storage) were presented to participants in white plastic dish coded with three-digit numbers and in a balanced order of presentation. The consumers were instructed to visually rate how much they liked the color and the overall liking of the fish samples through a 9-point hedonic scale ranging from 1 (extremely disliked) to 9 (extremely liked) [28]. In addition, they answered whether they would accept or reject each sample by selecting “yes” or “no” for the questions (a) and (b) below [27]:
(a) “Supposing that this product is available on the market. Would you buy it?”
(b) “Supposing you bought this product and it is in your fridge. Would you consume it?”
Finally, they were asked to answer some socioeconomic questions (gender, age, education, and income) and their frequency of fish consumption. Data were collected using Compusense-Cloud (Compusense Inc., Guelph, ON, Canada). The test was performed on a single day, at the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Guaratiba, Rio de Janeiro/RJ). The sensory booths were designed in accordance with ISO 8589 [29], under artificial daylight and controlled temperature (22 °C).

2.3. Freshness Parameters

2.3.1. Bacteriological Analyses

Serial dilutions of fish samples homogenates were inoculated through the pour-plate technique on the Plate Count Agar (PCA, Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) in Petri dishes to determine the total aerobic mesophilic count (TAMC) and the total aerobic psychrotrophic count (TAPC). The TAMC and TAPC were enumerated after incubation at 37 °C for 48 h and 10 °C for 7 days, respectively [30]. The results were expressed as log of CFU (colony-forming units)/g fish sample.

2.3.2. Physicochemical Analyses

Lipid and Protein Oxidation

Lipid oxidation was evaluated using the 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) technique [31], adapted by Joseph et al. [32]. The absorbance values were recorded at 532 nm in a UV-1800 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan), and the results were expressed as mg malondialdehyde (MDA)/kg fish sample from a standard curve (R2 = 0.999) constructed with eight different MDA concentrations (0.5 to 400 µmol). Protein oxidation was evaluated by the methodology described by Oliver et al. [33], with modifications [34,35]. The protein carbonyl groups were detected and measured by reaction with 2,4 dinitrophenylhydrazine (DNPH). The absorbance of the samples was measured at 370 nm for carbonyl content and 280 nm for protein content using a UV-1800 spectrophotometer (Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan). Results were expressed as nmol carbonyls/mg protein, based on the molar extinction coefficient of 21,000 M−1 cm−1.

Torrymeter Readings

The torrymeter readings were performed using the GR Torry Fish Freshness Meter (Distell Industries, West Lothian, Scotland). This equipment measures the dielectric properties of the tissues to assess the freshness of the samples. The sensors were applied directly onto three random locations on the surface of the fish fillets with temperatures between 0 and 10 °C [36]. Results were displayed on a convenient scale in the range of 0 (very spoiled) to 16 (very fresh) and expressed as the average values of the readings.

Instrumental Color Parameters’ Measurement

The instrumental color measurements were performed at three random locations on the surface of the fish fillets using a portable spectrophotometer CM-600D (Konica Minolta Sensing Inc., Osaka, Japan) with a measuring aperture diameter of 8 mm, illuminant A and 10° standard observer. The results were expressed as the average values of lightness (L*), redness (a*) and yellowness (b*). Additionally, the chroma (C*) and hue angle (H°) were calculated using the following equations [37]:
C* = [(a*)2 + (b*)2]1/2
H° = arctan (b*/a*)

Instrumental Texture Profile

Texture profile analysis (TPA) was performed in standardized size fillets (2 × 2 × 2 cm3) using a Texture Analyzer TA-XT plus (Stable Micro Systems, Surrey, UK) equipped with a 36 mm cylindrical probe (P/36). The TPA was conducted using two 50% compression cycles with 5 s intervals between compressions. The pre-test, test and post-test speeds were 1, 1 and 5 mm/s, respectively [38]. Hardness (HAD), chewiness (CWS), cohesiveness (CHS) and springiness (SPS) were calculated using the Exponent software package, version 6.1.9.1 (Stable Micro Systems, Surrey, UK).

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Survival analysis methodology (XLSTAT 2014.6.01, Addinsoft, Paris, France) was applied on consumer acceptance/rejection responses (questions “a” and “b”; no = 0; yes = 1) regarding two stages of the decision-making process (purchase and consumption) to estimate the sensory shelf life of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored at 4 ± 1 °C. The best data fit was obtained by applying a parametric survival regression model based on the Weibull distribution, using a 50% rejection level as a reference. The censoring of consumer data was performed in accordance with Hough et al. [27]. Results of consumers who rejected the fresh samples (day 0) were excluded from the study, resulting in a final data set of 92 consumers. The effect of storage time on the bacteriological and physicochemical parameters, as well as on the consumer acceptance, was assessed by one-way ANOVA and Duncan’s multiple range test (XLSTAT 2014.6.01, Addinsoft, Paris, France).
Consumer segmentation was based on purchase acceptance/rejection data over storage through means of hierarchical cluster analysis, following Euclidean distances and Ward’s method (Statistica® 10, Statsoft, Tulsa, USA). Then, survival analysis methodology was applied on cluster data, as previously described. Frequency counts were tabulated for consumers’ socioeconomic characteristics, and the chi-squared test per cell was conducted to assess the significant associations and trends between the consumer clusters [39]. A partial least square regression (PLSR) was performed to identify which freshness parameters contributed positively or negatively to consumers’ purchase rejection before and after consumer segmentation. A confidence level of 95% was considered for all analyses.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Consumers’ Evaluation

3.1.1. Consumers’ Acceptability Limit Based on Survival Analysis

The Weibull distribution revealed that the acceptability limit of refrigerated Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets was estimated to be 4.128 (μ = 1.563 and σ = 0.395) and 4.946 (μ = 1.743 and σ = 0.394) days for purchase and consumption, respectively, considering a 50% consumer rejection probability (Figure 1).
These results indicate, as expected, that consumers are more rigorous when selecting a product at purchase than at the consumption stage. According to Giménez et al. [40], consumers are more tolerant when they have already bought the product because they do not want to discard it. This behavior can be triggered by economic, social and/or environmental concerns [41]. Therefore, considering the aims of the present study, only the acceptability limit at the time of purchase was used as a reference for carrying out the following discussion.

3.1.2. Survival Analysis Versus Hedonic Scores for Assessing Consumers’ Acceptability Limits

Consumers are usually unable to touch or smell fish fillets at retail; therefore, fish freshness evaluations are commonly based on visual cues such as color, shape, and surface characteristics. Consumers’ hedonic reactions towards appearance and specific sensory traits of the products can be measured by asking their degree of liking using a hedonic scale [42]. Regarding fish and fish products, the scores assigned by consumers usually decrease over storage due to the occurrence of deteriorative processes that negatively affect their appearance [43,44]. Accordingly, in the present study, the overall liking (OL) and color liking (CL) scores of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) decreased (p < 0.05) when comparing day 0 (OL: 7.99 ± 1.04; CL: 7.80 ± 1.38) with day 8 (OL: 2.98 ± 2.18; CL: 3.02 ± 2.14) of refrigerated storage. Nonetheless, overall liking scores revealed information regarding consumer dissatisfaction, and not necessarily the consumer rejection of the product [16].
In this way, the determination of acceptability limits based on hedonic scores requires the selection of a cut-off point, which may differ among researchers [45]. Monteiro et al. [24] and Rong et al. [43] selected a score of 4, whereas Moawad et al. [46] selected a score of 5 as the acceptability limit for refrigerated Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets in a 9-point hedonic scale. Nonetheless, a score of 5 is more suitable to be used as a cut-off point, once point 4 is in the dislike range in the aforementioned scale. In the present study, the OL and CL scores on day 4 of storage were 5.74 ± 2.17 and 5.48 ± 2.24, whereas on day 6, they were 4.00 ± 2.20 and 3.70 ± 1.98, respectively. Therefore, applying the previously suggested cut-off point, the consumers’ acceptability limit would agree with that obtained by the survival analysis methodology.

3.2. Freshness Parameters and Their Relationship with Consumers’ Purchase Rejection

Bacteriological, physicochemical, and instrumental color and texture parameters were compared, considering the last day of storage in which the samples were accepted (day 4; D4) and the first day of storage in which the samples were rejected (day 6; D6) by consumers, according to survival analysis.

3.2.1. Bacteriological Parameters

Bacterial growth directly impacts the safety of fish consumption, in addition to being considered the most important cause of fish spoilage and quality loss, which is commonly observed during refrigerated storage [38,47]. Likewise, the total aerobic mesophilic count (TAMC) and total aerobic psychrotrophic count (TAPC) increased (p < 0.05) over storage, including from D4 to D6 (Table 2).
According to the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods [48], fish is considered unfit for consumption when the TAPC reaches 7 log CFU/g. In our study, refrigerated Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets exceeded this limit on day 4, when consumers still considered them suitable for purchase by the survival analysis results. These results are alarming because the metabolites resulting from microbial growth, in addition to causing sensory alterations, are toxic and may cause foodborne illnesses [49,50]. Moreover, they also highlight the importance of developing sensors that indicate quality through the detection of compounds arising from degradation [22].

3.2.2. Lipid and Protein Oxidation

Inherent fish characteristics, such as the high amount of unsaturated fatty acids and proteins, increase the susceptibility to oxidation damage [51]. Lipid and protein oxidation occur in a similar pathway based on complex free radical chain reaction, which starts immediately after slaughtering, mainly due to the attenuation of the endogenous antioxidant defense mechanisms and to the increased exposure to oxidation agents such as oxygen, light, temperature, metals, and enzymes [52]. Both lipid and protein oxidation lead to the development of secondary products that cause unpleasant alterations in sensory attributes such as color, flavor, and texture, representing some of the main limitations for consumers’ acceptability of fish [53].
Although only carbonyl levels increased (p < 0.05) from D4 to D6, both carbonyl and malondialdehyde (MDA) levels increased (p < 0.05) over storage (Table 2). The connection between the mechanisms of lipid and protein oxidation is well-recognized, which indicates that they start together and can interact with each other [54]. Monteiro et al. [38] also observed this pattern during the refrigerated storage of tilapia fillets. Dergal et al. [55] proposed a threshold of 0.85 mg MDA/kg for Nile tilapia, corresponding to the value at which fish were rejected by the sensory control. In the present study, refrigerated Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets did not exceed this limit during the entire storage period. Despite the relevance of protein oxidation for food quality, there are no suggested limits based on sensory rejection for carbonyl levels in fish.

3.2.3. Torrymeter Readings

A torrymeter is used to instrumentally evaluate the freshness of fish by measuring the modified dielectric properties of the tissue [56]. The dielectric properties of fish skin and muscle are altered due to the cellular structure degradation caused by bacteriological and enzyme activity during spoilage. Therefore, modifications on torrymeter readings are mainly associated with alterations in texture and have been used as quality indicators [36].
In the present study, the torrymeter readings decreased (p < 0.05) from D4 to D6 (Table 2). Similar trends were observed by Ochrem et al. [57] in chilled carp (Cyprinus carpio), and by Sant’Ana et al. [58] in ice-stored blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo). According to the equipment manufacturer, scores below 4 indicate that fish is not suitable for consumption. Nonetheless, in the present study, this score was never reached, even when the Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets were rejected by consumers (D6) or reached the suggested bacterial limit (D4). Therefore, despite indicating the decline in freshness over storage time, the torrymeter readings were not sufficient to predict quality limits, which was also observed by Badiani et al. [59] in cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis L.) under iced storage.

3.2.4. Instrumental Color Parameters

Among the specific characteristics that contribute to the appearance of fish and other meat types, color is the one that most influences consumers’ choice [60]. L*, b*, C* and H° values increased, whereas a* values decreased during storage (p < 0.05). Moreover, only a* values were different (p < 0.05) when comparing D4 and D6 (Table 2). In agreement with our results, Chen et al. [61] evaluated the quality of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets during ice storage and reported a decrease in a* values. They also observed that redness was the only color parameter that presented a significant difference between the last day of sensory acceptance and the first day of unacceptance; however, it was based on a 5-point rating scale (5 = desirable; 1 = extremely unacceptable). A decrease in redness during storage is well known and suggests browning of the fish surface due to the oxidation of myoglobin into metmyoglobin [37].
The increases in lightness and yellowness were previously reported in freshwater fish species stored under refrigeration [62,63]. These results may be associated with changes in the light scattering due to protein denaturation, and consequent increases in unbound water [64], and with the increase in yellow pigments yielded from the oxidation of lipids and proteins [65]. Regarding C* and H° values, a similar trend was observed by Joseph et al. [62] in sunshine bass during refrigerated storage. C* and H° were calculated and interpreted from a* and b* values. Thus, a progressive increase in C* during storage indicated that the increase in b* values was numerically more pronounced than the decrease in a* values. Moreover, greater H° values means greater deviation from red color over the storage period [37].

3.2.5. Texture Profile Analysis

Fish texture is considered to be important quality attribute for palatability and exerts a considerable effect on consumers’ purchase decisions [66]. Hardness and chewiness decreased (p < 0.05) when comparing D4 and D6, whereas cohesiveness and springiness remained stable over storage (p > 0.05) (Table 2). Monteiro et al. [38] and Saéz et al. [67] also observed a decrease in hardness and chewiness in tilapia and rainbow trout fillets under refrigerated storage, respectively. These results indicate that the fish fillets became softer over storage due to the activity of endogenous and microbial proteolytic enzymes, which induce the degradation of myofibrillar proteins and the disruption of the connective tissue [68]. Regarding cohesiveness and springiness, they describe the resistance and the ability of muscles to recover their original form after deformation. In agreement with our results, Saéz et al. [67] reported that storage time did not affect these parameters in rainbow trout fillets.

3.3. Multivariate Analysis of Freshness Parameters and Consumers’ Rejection

The partial least square regression (PLSR) model (Figure 2) explained 100% of consumer purchase rejection (Y axis) and 82.1% of the freshness parameters (X axis), yielding an accumulated Q2 of 0.997.
The freshness parameters were considered relevant when their respective variable importance projection (VIP) values were greater than 1.0 [69]. Among the parameters evaluated, only L*, C*, cohesiveness and springiness were not retained as determinants for consumers’ rejection decisions. The TAMC, TAPC, protein oxidation, lipid oxidation, H° and b* parameters were positively correlated with consumer purchase rejection, whereas hardness, chewiness, a* and torrymeter readings presented a negative correlation.
Among these parameters, TAMC, TAPC, protein oxidation, torrymeter readings, a*, hardness and chewiness values differed from D4 to D6, indicating that they were the main freshness indicators influencing fish rejection. Furthermore, the changes in a* values presented the greatest contribution to consumer rejection when compared with other color parameters.
On the other hand, although lipid oxidation, H° and b* values influenced the consumers’ purchase rejection, they did not (p > 0.05) present individual differences between accepted (D4) and rejected (D6) samples. These results reinforce the idea that consumers’ decisions are mostly based on multidimensional criteria, rather than on specific product traits. In addition to intrinsic food factors, individual consumer characteristics strongly influence the decision to accept or reject a product [15].

3.4. Consumers’ Acceptability Limits Are Driven by Socioeconomic Characteristics and Fish Consumption Frequency

Two groups of consumers clearly differed in purchase rejection patterns and socioeconomic characteristics in terms of gender, education, and income (p < 0.05; Table 3).
There were no differences (p > 0.05) regarding age and fish consumption frequency. Cluster 1 (n = 62; 67,4% of total consumers) presented a higher number of women (p >0.05) and graduate consumers, whereas cluster 2 (n = 30; 32,6% of total consumers) presented significantly more men and consumers from lower educational levels. Income differed only in some levels between the two clusters, with a tendency for lower-income consumers to belong to cluster 2. Cluster 1 was characterized by an early rejection, presenting 48.33%, 63.33%, 93.33% and 100% of consumers rejecting the samples on days 2, 4, 6 and 8 of storage, respectively. Cluster 2 was characterized by a late rejection, where the percentage of consumers rejecting the samples on days 2, 4, 6 and 8 were 20%, 16.67%, 56.67% and 63.33%, respectively. In relation to survival analysis, it revealed that the acceptability limit for purchase of refrigerated Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets for consumers of cluster 1 was estimated at 3.650 (μ = 1.378 and σ = 0.227), and for cluster 2, it was 5.275 (μ = 1.833 and σ = 0.464) days (Figure 3).
In general, women and people with higher education levels are more aware of the importance of fish quality assessments for general health. These segments usually seek reliable information from professionals to make safer fish choices [70]. Moreover, men tend to be less concerned than women with the possible negative effects of food and place less importance on freshness attributes [71].
Income and education are highly correlated; therefore, variations in these segments tend to demonstrate similar behaviors. Low-income and less educated consumers usually present low motivation towards healthy eating and attach less importance to quality [72]. Therefore, their purchasing decisions tend to be based on other attributes, rather than on fish appearance [12]. Obviously, the high price of fish is perceived as a barrier for these consumers, who can accept low-quality products because they are cheaper choices [73].
Partial least square regression (PLSR) was also conducted separately for both clusters (Figure 4 and Figure 5).
For cluster 1, the PLSR model explained 100% of consumer purchase rejection (Y axis) and 82% of the freshness parameters (X axis), yielding an accumulated Q2 of 0.974. For cluster 2, the PLSR model explained 100% of consumer purchase rejection (Y axis) and 83% of the freshness parameters (X axis), yielding an accumulated Q2 of 0.990. The parameters that differed between the two segmented groups were b* and H° that were considered important for cluster 1, but not for cluster 2; torrymeter readings were important for cluster 2, but not for cluster 1. Moreover, most parameters did not contribute to the same degree for both clusters. Based on the regression analyses, three parameters (a*, b* and H°) of high importance for cluster 1 were directly associated with color, whereas there was only one (a*) for cluster 2. Furthermore, the three most important parameters for cluster 2 were directly related to texture (torrymeter readings, chewiness, and hardness). It was assumed, therefore, that consumers in cluster 1 mainly based their choices on the discoloration of Nile tilapia fillets, whereas for consumers in cluster 2, the dominant aspect in the perception of freshness was the consistency of the fillets. In addition, differently from cluster 1, the least important parameters for cluster 2 were TAMC and TAPC, suggesting a greater difficulty for this group to visually estimate the bacteriological safety of the fillets.
These results indicate that consumers with profiles similar to cluster 2 are more likely to buy spoiled fillets because the bacteriological limit indicated for safe consumption was reached on day 4 of storage. This behavior can lead to greater post-purchase dissatisfaction because, in addition to the increased risk of foodborne diseases, there is also the accumulation of compounds responsible for off-flavors in fish [8,12]. On the other hand, the early rejection of fresh fish by consumers such as those in cluster 1 is worrying due to increases in economic loss and food waste at retail [7], which have been identified by the FAO [1] as one of the main problems to fish market expansion.

4. Conclusions

The present study demonstrated that the multivariate approach was more suitable to evaluating fish spoilage and consumers’ purchase rejection than using multiple freshness indicators singly. It was also observed that socioeconomic characteristics of consumers, such as gender, education, and income, affected the assessment and interpretation of the intrinsic attributes related to the fish freshness. Nonetheless, the influence of different frequencies of fish consumption and age of consumers on the assessment of fish freshness was not clarified. This result may be related to the limitations imposed by our sample of consumers, and also by the scale used to verify these parameters in the present study. Therefore, ignoring the heterogeneity of consumers can lead to the loss of important data. This information should be considered when developing new studies and educational campaigns related to fish consumption, which are most effective when adapted to the needs of well-defined target audiences.
In addition, investments must be made in the development of technologies that facilitate the assessment of fish quality at the point of sale and that are accessible to all types of consumers. The responsibility for ensuring safe and healthy products at the point of sale must lie with producers and distributors. However, improving consumers’ ability to make good choices when buying fresh fish would bring social and economic benefits related to public health and to the seafood industry, which would enable them to make relevant claims and demand their rights.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.M.V., M.L.G.M., R.D. and C.A.C.-J.; Formal Analysis, F.M.V., M.L.G.M., R.G.F., Y.S.M., I.B.A.M., A.P.A.A.S. and M.D.A.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, F.M.V.; Writing—Review and Editing, M.L.G.M., R.D. and C.A.C.-J.; Supervision, R.D., S.B.M. and C.A.C.-J.; Funding Acquisition, R.D., S.B.M. and C.A.C.-J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) [grant numbers E-26/201.790/2020, E-26/200.581/2018, E-26/010.101.007/2018]; and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) [grant number 406777/2018-7].

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital Clementino Fraga Filho at UFRJ, Brazil (Protocol code 27822620.9.0000.5257; 20 February 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data of the present study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020; Sustainability in Action; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020; Available online: http://www.fao.org/state-of-fisheries-aquaculture (accessed on 12 November 2021).
  2. Prabhakar, P.K.; Vatsa, S.; Srivastav, P.P.; Pathak, S.S. A comprehensive review on freshness of fish and assessment: Analytical methods and recent innovations. Food Res. Int. 2020, 133, 109157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Freitas, J.; Vaz-Pires, P.; Câmara, J.S. Quality Index Method for fish quality control: Understanding the applications, the appointed limits and the upcoming trends. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 111, 333–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cheng, J.-H.; Sun, D.-W.; Han, Z.; Zeng, X.-A. Texture and Structure Measurements and Analyses for Evaluation of Fish and Fillet Freshness Quality: A Review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2014, 13, 52–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Martinsdóttir, E.; Sveinsdóttir, K.; Luten, J.; Schelvis-Smit, R.; Hyldig, G. Reference Manual for the Fish Sector: Sensory Evaluation of Fish Freshness; QIM Eurofish: Ijmuiden, The Netherlands, 2001; 49p. [Google Scholar]
  6. Hicks, D.; Pivarnik, L.; McDermott, R. Consumer perceptions about seafood—An Internet survey. J. Foodserv. 2008, 19, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Aschemann-Witzel, J.; de Hooge, I.; Amani, P.; Bech-Larsen, T.; Oostindjer, M. Consumer-Related Food Waste: Causes and Potential for Action. Sustainability 2015, 7, 6457–6477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Freitas, M.A.; Costa, J.C. Shelf life determination using sensory evaluation scores: A general Weibull modeling approach. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2006, 51, 652–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hossain, A. Quantity or quality of fish in a developing country: A hedonic analysis. J. Appl. Aquac. 2021, 1, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Nguyen, T.T.; Haider, W.; Solgaard, H.S.; Ravn-Jonsen, L.; Roth, E. Consumer willingness to pay for quality attributes of fresh seafood: A labeled latent class model. Food Qual. Prefer. 2015, 41, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tomić, M.; Matulić, D.; Jelić, M. What determines fresh fish consumption in Croatia? Appetite 2016, 106, 13–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Verbeke, W.; Vermeir, I.; Brunsø, K. Consumer evaluation of fish quality as basis for fish market segmentation. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 651–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Østli, J.; Esaiassen, M.; Garitta, L.; Nøstvold, B.; Hough, G. How fresh is fresh? Perceptions and experience when buying and consuming fresh cod fillets. Food Qual. Prefer. 2013, 27, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Manzocco, L. The Acceptability Limit in Food Shelf Life Studies. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 56, 1640–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Costell, E.; Tarrega, A.; Bayarri, S. Food Acceptance: The Role of Consumer Perception and Attitudes. Chemosens. Percept. 2009, 3, 42–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Hough, G.; Garitta, L. Methodology for Sensory Shelf-Life Estimation: A Review. J. Sens. Stud. 2012, 27, 137–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Richards, M.; De Kock, R.; Buys, E.M. Multivariate accelerated shelf-life test of low fat UHT milk. Int. Dairy J. 2014, 36, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Giménez, A.; Varela, P.; Salvador, A.; Ares, G.; Fiszman, S.; Garitta, L. Shelf life estimation of brown pan bread: A consumer approach. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 196–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Giménez, A.; Gagliardi, A.; Ares, G. Estimation of failure criteria in multivariate sensory shelf life testing using survival analysis. Food Res. Int. 2017, 99, 542–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Alongi, M.; Sillani, S.; Lagazio, C.; Manzocco, L. Effect of expiry date communication on acceptability and waste of fresh-cut lettuce during storage at different temperatures. Food Res. Int. 2018, 116, 1121–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Condurso, C.; Cincotta, F.; Tripodi, G.; Merlino, M.; Giarratana, F.; Verzera, A. A new approach for the shelf-life definition of minimally processed carrots. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2020, 163, 111138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cheng, J.-H.; Sun, D.-W.; Zeng, X.-A.; Liu, D. Recent Advances in Methods and Techniques for Freshness Quality Determination and Evaluation of Fish and Fish Fillets: A Review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 55, 1012–1225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gama, L.; Bressan, M.; Rodrigues, E.; Rossato, L.; Moreira, O.; Alves, S.; Bessa, R. Heterosis for meat quality and fatty acid profiles in crosses among Bos indicus and Bos taurus finished on pasture or grain. Meat Sci. 2012, 93, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Monteiro, M.L.G.; Mársico, E.T.; Mano, S.B.; Teixeira, C.E.; Canto, A.C.V.C.S.; Vital, H.C.; Conte-Júnior, C.A. Influence of good manufacturing practices on the shelf life of refrigerated fillets of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) packed in modified atmosphere and gamma-irradiated. Food Sci. Nutr. 2013, 1, 298–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Carlucci, D.; Nocella, G.; De Devitiis, B.; Viscecchia, R.; Bimbo, F.; Nardone, G. Consumer purchasing behaviour towards fish and seafood products. Patterns and insights from a sample of international studies. Appetite 2015, 84, 212–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Eltholth, M.; Fornace, K.; Grace, D.; Rushton, J.; Haesler, B. Characterization of production, marketing and consumption patterns of farmed tilapia in the Nile Delta of Egypt. Food Policy 2015, 51, 131–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Hough, G.; Langohr, K.; Gomez, G.; Curia, A. Survival Analysis Applied to Sensory Shelf Life of Foods. J. Food Sci. 2003, 68, 359–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Meilgaard, M.; Civille, G.V.; Carr, B.T. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2006; p. 387. [Google Scholar]
  29. ISO 8589; Sensory Analysis: General Guidance for the Design of Test Rooms. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998.
  30. APHA. Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
  31. Yin, M.C.; Faustman, C.; Riesen, J.W.; Williams, S.N. α-Tocopherol and ascorbate delay oxymyoglobin phospholipid oxidation in vitro. J. Food Sci. 1993, 58, 1273–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Joseph, P.; Suman, S.; Rentfrow, G.; Li, S.; Beach, C.M. Proteomics of Muscle-Specific Beef Color Stability. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 3196–3203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Oliver, C.N.; Ahn, B.-W.; Moermant, E.J.; Goldstein, S.; Stadtman, E.R. Age-related changes in oxidized proteins. J. Biol. Chem. 1987, 262, 5488–5491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Armenteros, M.; Heinonen, M.; Ollilainen, V.; Toldrá, F.; Estévez, M. Analysis of protein carbonyls in meat products by using the DNPH-method, fluorescence spectroscopy and liquid chromatography-electrospray ionisation-mass spectrometry (LC-ESI-MS). Meat Sci. 2009, 83, 104–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mercier, Y.; Gatellier, P.; Viau, M.; Remignon, H.; Renerre, M. Effect of dietary fat and vitamin E on colour stability and on lipid and protein oxidation in Turkey meat during storage. Meat Sci. 1998, 48, 301–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Duflos, G.; Le Fur, B.; Mulak, V.; Becel, P.; Malle, P. Comparison of methods of differentiating between fresh and frozen-thawed fish or fillets. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2002, 82, 1341–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. AMSA. Meat Color Measurement Guidelines; American Meat Science Association: Champaign, IL, USA, 2012.
  38. Monteiro, M.L.G.; Mársico, E.T.; Mutz, Y.D.S.; Castro, V.S.; Moreira, R.V.D.B.P.; Álvares, T.D.S.; Conte-Junior, C.A. Combined effect of oxygen-scavenger packaging and UV-C radiation on shelf life of refrigerated tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Symoneaux, R.; Galmarini, M.V.V.; Mehinagic, E. Comment analysis of consumer’s likes and dislikes as an alternative tool to preference mapping. A case study on apples. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 24, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Giménez, A.; Ares, F.; Ares, G. Sensory shelf-life estimation: A review of current methodological approaches. Food Res. Int. 2012, 49, 311–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Eriksson, M.; Strid, I.; Hansson, P.-A. Food waste reduction in supermarkets—Net costs and benefits of reduced storage temperature. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2016, 107, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lawless, H.T.; Heymann, H. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  43. Rong, C.; Qi, L.; Chang-Hu, X.; Bang-Zhong, Y. Microbiological, chemical and sensory assessment of (I) whole ungutted, (II) whole gutted and (III) filleted tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) during refrigerated storage. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 2243–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Santos, J.D.S.L.; Mársico, E.T.; Cinquini, M.A.; Silva, F.; Junior, C.A.C.; Monteiro, M.L.G. Physicochemical and sensory characterization of three different portions from commercial pirarucu (Arapaima gigas) fillets. Braz. J. Food Technol. 2018, 21, e2017178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Corrigan, V.; Hedderley, D.; Harvey, W. Modeling the Shelf Life of Fruit-Filled Snack Bars Using Survival Analysis and Sensory Profiling Techniques. J. Sens. Stud. 2012, 27, 403–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Moawad, R.K.; Mohamed, G.F.; Hanna; El-Banna, A.; Bareh, G.F.; Mahmoud, K.F. Assessment of hurdle technology to preserve Nile tilapia fillets during refrigeration with the application of marjoram oil/polyphosphates dipping. Asian J. Sci. Res. 2017, 10, 116–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Khalafalla, F.A.; Ali, F.H.; Hassan, A.-R.H. Quality improvement and shelf-life extension of refrigerated Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets using natural herbs. Beni-Suef Univ. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2015, 4, 33–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. ICMSF. Microorganisms in Foods, 2nd ed.; Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  49. Silla Santos, M.H. Biogenic amines: Their importance in foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1996, 29, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fraser, O.P.; Sumar, S. Compositional changes and spoilage in fish (part II)—Microbiological induced deterioration. Nutr. Food Sci. 1998, 98, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Baron, C.P. Protein oxidation in aquatic foods. In Antioxidants and Functional Components in Aquatic Foods, 1st ed.; Kristinsson, H.G., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2014; pp. 23–42. [Google Scholar]
  52. Baron, C.P.; Andersen, H.J. Myoglobin-Induced Lipid Oxidation. A Review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 3887–3897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hematyar, N.; Rustad, T.; Sampels, S.; Dalsgaard, T.K. Relationship between lipid and protein oxidation in fish. Aquac. Res. 2019, 50, 1393–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Estévez, M. Oxidative damage to poultry: From farm to fork. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1368–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Dergal, N.B.; Degand, G.; Douny, C.; Brose, F.; Daube, G.; Rodrigues, A.; Scippo, M.L. Microbial, biochemical and sensorial quality assessment of Algerian farmed tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) stored at 4 and 30 °C. Afr. J. Food Sci. 2013, 7, 498–507. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lougovois, V.P.; Kyranas, E.R.; Kyrana, V.R. Comparison of selected methods of assessing freshness quality and remaining storage life of iced gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata). Food Res. Int. 2003, 36, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ochrem, A.S.; Zapletal, P.; Maj, D.; Gil, Z.; Zychlińska-Buczek, J. Changes in physical and dielectrical properties of carp meat (Cyprinus carpio) during cold storage. J. Food Process. Eng. 2014, 37, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sant’Ana, L.S.; Soares, S.; Vaz-Pires, P. Development of a quality index method (QIM) sensory scheme and study of shelf-life of ice-stored blackspot seabream (Pagellus bogaraveo). LWT 2011, 44, 2253–2259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Badiani, A.; Bonaldo, A.; Testi, S.; Rotolo, M.; Serratore, P.; Giulini, G.; Pagliuca, G.; Gatta, P.P. Good handling practices of the catch: The effect of early icing on the freshness quality of cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis L.). Food Control 2012, 32, 327–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pérez-Alvarez, J.A.; Fernández-López, J. Chemical and Biochemical Aspects of Color in Muscle Foods; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; pp. 25–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chen, H.; Wu, Y.; Chen, Z.; Jia, Y.; Han, P.; Cheng, C. Effect of pullulan hydrolysates on the quality of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets during ice storage. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019, 43, e14043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Joseph, P.; Suman, S.; Li, S.; Xiong, Y.; Webster, C.; Thompson, K.; Metts, L. Fishmeal-based diet decreases the redness of sunshine bass (Morone chrysops × Morone saxatilis) fillets. LWT 2008, 42, 730–734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Masniyom, P.; Benjakul, S.; Visessanguan, W. Shelf-life extension of refrigerated seabass slices under modified atmosphere packaging. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2002, 82, 873–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Robb, D.; Kestin, S.; Warriss, P. Muscle activity at slaughter: I. Changes in flesh colour and gaping in rainbow trout. Aquaculture 2000, 182, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Carlsen, C.U.; Møller, J.K.; Skibsted, L.H. Heme-iron in lipid oxidation. Coord. Chem. Rev. 2005, 249, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Li, T.; Li, J.; Hu, W.; Li, X. Quality enhancement in refrigerated red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) fillets using chitosan coatings containing natural preservatives. Food Chem. 2012, 138, 821–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sáez, M.; Suárez, M.; Martínez, T. Effects of alginate coating enriched with tannins on shelf life of cultured rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fillets. LWT 2019, 118, 108767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lougovois, V.P.; Kyrana, V.R. Freshness quality and spoilage of chill-stored fish. In Food Policy, Control and Research; Riley, A.P., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 35–86. [Google Scholar]
  69. Wold, S.; Sjöström, M.; Eriksson, L. PLS-regression: A basic tool of chemometrics. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2001, 58, 109–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W.; Scholderer, J.; Brunsø, K.; Olsen, S.O. European consumers’ use of and trust in information sources about fish. Food Qual. Prefer. 2007, 18, 1050–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Birch, D.; Lawley, M. Buying seafood: Understanding barriers to purchase across consumption segments. Food Qual. Prefer. 2012, 26, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Pieniak, Z.; Verbeke, W.; Olsen, S.O.; Hansen, K.B.; Brunsø, K. Health-related attitudes as a basis for segmenting European fish consumers. Food Policy 2010, 35, 448–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Thong, N.T.; Solgaard, H.S. Consumer’s food motives and seafood consumption. Food Qual. Prefer. 2016, 56, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Probability of consumers’ rejection for the consumption and purchase of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets versus storage time at 4 ± 1 °C by Weibull distribution; 50% rejection points are indicated by the dashed line.
Figure 1. Probability of consumers’ rejection for the consumption and purchase of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets versus storage time at 4 ± 1 °C by Weibull distribution; 50% rejection points are indicated by the dashed line.
Foods 11 02144 g001
Figure 2. Partial least square regression (PLSR) model for the freshness parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored at 4 ± 1 °C for 8 days. X axis = freshness parameters; Y axis = consumer’s purchase rejection (CPR). LOX—lipid oxidation; POX—protein oxidation; C*—chroma; H°—hue angle; TAMC—Total aerobic mesophilic count; TAPC—total aerobic psychrotrophic count.
Figure 2. Partial least square regression (PLSR) model for the freshness parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored at 4 ± 1 °C for 8 days. X axis = freshness parameters; Y axis = consumer’s purchase rejection (CPR). LOX—lipid oxidation; POX—protein oxidation; C*—chroma; H°—hue angle; TAMC—Total aerobic mesophilic count; TAPC—total aerobic psychrotrophic count.
Foods 11 02144 g002
Figure 3. Probability of clusters 1 and 2 consumers’ rejection for the purchase of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets versus storage time at 4 ± 1 °C by Weibull distribution; 50% rejection points are indicated by the dashed line.
Figure 3. Probability of clusters 1 and 2 consumers’ rejection for the purchase of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets versus storage time at 4 ± 1 °C by Weibull distribution; 50% rejection points are indicated by the dashed line.
Foods 11 02144 g003
Figure 4. Weighted regression coefficients of cluster 1 for freshness parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored at 4 ± 1 °C for 8 days by partial least square regression (PLSR). X axis = freshness parameters; Y axis = consumer purchase rejection (CPR). a*—redness; b*—yellowness; H°—hue angle; LOX—lipid oxidation; POX—protein oxidation; TAMC—total aerobic mesophilic count; TAPC—total aerobic psychrotrophic count.
Figure 4. Weighted regression coefficients of cluster 1 for freshness parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored at 4 ± 1 °C for 8 days by partial least square regression (PLSR). X axis = freshness parameters; Y axis = consumer purchase rejection (CPR). a*—redness; b*—yellowness; H°—hue angle; LOX—lipid oxidation; POX—protein oxidation; TAMC—total aerobic mesophilic count; TAPC—total aerobic psychrotrophic count.
Foods 11 02144 g004
Figure 5. Weighted regression coefficients of cluster 2 for freshness parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored at 4 ± 1 °C for 8 days by partial least square regression (PLSR). X axis = freshness parameters; Y axis = consumer purchase rejection (CPR). a*—redness; LOX—lipid oxidation; POX—protein oxidation; TR—torrymeter readings; TAMC—total aerobic mesophilic count; TAPC—total aerobic psychrotrophic count.
Figure 5. Weighted regression coefficients of cluster 2 for freshness parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored at 4 ± 1 °C for 8 days by partial least square regression (PLSR). X axis = freshness parameters; Y axis = consumer purchase rejection (CPR). a*—redness; LOX—lipid oxidation; POX—protein oxidation; TR—torrymeter readings; TAMC—total aerobic mesophilic count; TAPC—total aerobic psychrotrophic count.
Foods 11 02144 g005
Table 1. Socioeconomic information of the consumers (n = 104).
Table 1. Socioeconomic information of the consumers (n = 104).
Consumers
N104
Gender (%)
Female54.8
Male45.2
Age (years) (%)
18–259.6
26–3531.7
36–4536.5
46–5510.6
56–659.6
>651.9
Education (%)
Primary school1.9
Secondary school18.3
Under graduation16.3
Graduation63.5
Income—minimum Brazilian wage (BRL 998.0)a (%)
1 to 526.0
>5 to 1027.9
>10 to 2028.8
>20 to 3011.5
>305.8
a In Brazilian currency (BRL).
Table 2. Freshness parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored at 4 ± 1 °C for 8 days.
Table 2. Freshness parameters of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) fillets stored at 4 ± 1 °C for 8 days.
Freshness ParametersDays of Storage
02468
Bacteriological
Total aerobic mesophilic count (TAMC)4.94 ± 0.47 e5.82 ± 0.32 d6.92 ± 0.24c7.93 ± 0.23b8.60 ± 0.21 a
Total aerobic psychrotrophic count (TAPC)5.5 ± 0.17 e6.41 ± 0.44 d7.47 ± 0.53c8.43 ± 0.24b9.24 ± 0.46 a
Physicochemical
Lipid oxidation *0.03 ± 0.00 c0.03 ± 0.01 c0.04 ± 0.01b0.05 ± 0.01ab0.05 ± 0.01 a
Protein oxidation #5.52 ± 0.92 d6.76 ± 1.28 c7.57 ± 1.25bc9.15 ± 1.84a8.27 ± 1.03 ab
Torrymeter readings11.14 ± 0.92 a10.64 ± 0.93 a11.33 ± 1.05a8.34 ± 1.64b7.73 ± 1.11 b
Color
Lightness (L*)47.35 ± 2.31 b51.69 ± 1.30 a50.72 ± 1.15a50.57 ± 1.64a50.82 ± 1.28 a
Redness (a*)2.10 ± 0.38 ab2.19 ± 0.39 a1.81 ± 0.37b0.89 ± 0.10c1.00 ± 0.32 c
Yellowness (b*)1.64 ± 0.33 c2.65 ± 0.71 b3.02 ± 0.69b2.90 ± 0.90b4.51 ± 1.37 a
Chroma (C*)5.08 ± 0.87 c8.31 ± 1.66 b8.29 ± 0.47b8.30 ± 0.93b13.56 ± 2.62 a
Hue angle (H°)0.57 ± 0.09 c1.07 ± 0.20 b1.18 ± 0.19ab1.31 ± 0.15a1.18 ± 0.14 ab
Texture
Hardness (N)10.33 ± 2.48 a8.97 ± 2.71 a8.60 ± 2.79a5.80 ± 1.38b5.88 ± 1.27 b
Chewiness (N × mm)5.45 ± 1.58 a4.50 ± 1.44 abc4.66 ± 1.16ab3.19 ± 0.72c3.95 ± 0.92 bc
Cohesiveness (ratio)0.69 ± 0.02 a0.69 ± 0.02 a0.71 ± 0.03a0.70 ± 0.04a0.69 ± 0.03 a
Springiness (ratio)0.89 ± 0.08 a0.87 ± 0.07 a0.91 ± 0.05a0.90 ± 0.06a0.91 ± 0.04 a
Results are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (n = 5). Means without common superscripts (a, b, c, d and e) in a row are different (p < 0.05). , Expressed as log CFU (colony-forming units)/g. *, Expressed as milligrams of malondialdehyde per kilogram of sample. #, Expressed as nanomoles of carbonyl per milligram of protein. Day 4 in bold: last storage time where the samples were accepted by consumers, considering the 50% limit of rejection. Day 6 in bold: first storage time where the samples were rejected by consumers, considering the 50% limit of rejection.
Table 3. Socioeconomic characteristics of consumers from clusters 1 and 2 (n = 92).
Table 3. Socioeconomic characteristics of consumers from clusters 1 and 2 (n = 92).
Socioeconomic CharacteristicsConsumers
Cluster 1Cluster 2
N6230
Gender (%)
Female65 (+) **33 (−) **
Male35 (−) **67 (+) **
Education (%)
Primary school0 (−) *7 (+) *
Secondary school0 (−) ***53 (+) ***
Undergraduate10 (−) *30 (+) *
Graduation90 (+) ***10 (−) ***
Income—minimum Brazilian wage (BRL 998.00)a (%)
1 to 516 (−) **47 (+) **
>5 to 102730
>10 to 2035 (+) *13 (−) *
>20 to 30157
>3063
a In Brazilian currency (BRL). Effect of the chi-square per cell. (+) or (−) indicate that the observed value is higher or lower than the expected theoretical value, respectively: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Viana, F.M.; Monteiro, M.L.G.; Ferrari, R.G.; Mutz, Y.S.; Martins, I.B.A.; Salim, A.P.A.A.; De Alcantara, M.; Deliza, R.; Mano, S.B.; Conte-Junior, C.A. Multivariate Nature of Fish Freshness Evaluation by Consumers. Foods 2022, 11, 2144. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142144

AMA Style

Viana FM, Monteiro MLG, Ferrari RG, Mutz YS, Martins IBA, Salim APAA, De Alcantara M, Deliza R, Mano SB, Conte-Junior CA. Multivariate Nature of Fish Freshness Evaluation by Consumers. Foods. 2022; 11(14):2144. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142144

Chicago/Turabian Style

Viana, Fernanda M., Maria Lucia G. Monteiro, Rafaela G. Ferrari, Yhan S. Mutz, Inayara B. A. Martins, Ana Paula A. A. Salim, Marcela De Alcantara, Rosires Deliza, Sérgio B. Mano, and Carlos A. Conte-Junior. 2022. "Multivariate Nature of Fish Freshness Evaluation by Consumers" Foods 11, no. 14: 2144. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11142144

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop