Response Surface Optimization of GABA-Enriched Fermented Pork with Co-Fermentation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum CP1.2 and Pediococcus acidilactici CP1.4 and Packaging Effects on Product Shelf-Life
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials and Chemicals
2.2. Processing and Optimization Experimental Design
2.3. Analytical Methods
2.3.1. pH
2.3.2. Titrated Acidity
2.3.3. Gamma-Aminobutyric Acid
2.3.4. Formol Nitrogen Content
2.3.5. Protein Content NH4+ by Indophenol Blue
2.3.6. Counts of Total Yeast, Mold and Aerobic Bacteria
2.3.7. Lactic Acid Bacteria
2.3.8. Sensory Evaluation
2.4. Statistical and Data Analysis
3. Result and Discussion
3.1. Optimization of Fermentation Conditions to Increase GABA Content in Nem Chua
3.2. Confirmatory Experiments to Validate the Optimal Conditions
3.3. Effect of Packaging Type on the Quality of Nem Chua During Storage
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Pannerchelvan, S.; Rios-Solis, L.; Faizal Wong, F.W.; Zaidan, U.H.; Wasoh, H.; Mohamed, M.S.; Tan, J.S.; Mohamad, R.; Halim, M. Strategies for improvement of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) biosynthesis via lactic acid bacteria (LAB) fermentation. Food Funct. 2023, 14, 3929–3948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, Q.; Sun, Q.; Tan, X.; Zhang, S.; Zeng, L.; Tang, J.; Xiang, W. Characterization of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-producing Saccharomyces cerevisiae and coculture with Lactobacillus plantarum for mulberry beverage brewing. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 2020, 129, 447–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çelebi Sezer, Y.; Bozkurt, H. Use of antimicrobial packaging systems in the production and storage of meat and meat products. Food Health 2021, 7, 150–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alkay, Z.; Tuncil, Y.E.; Durak, M.Z.; Yilmaz, M.T.; Dertli, E. Enhancing γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in Boza, a fermented Turkish beverage: Role of monosodium glutamate and Lactobacillus strains. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2025, 2025, 7139222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noorolahi, Z.; Sahari, M.A.; Ahmadi Gavlighi, H.; Barzegar, M. The effect of pistachio green hull extract and packaging type on antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of ω3/low-fat fermented sausage. LWT 2025, 231, 118355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nascimento, A.P.S.; Barros, A.N. Sustainable innovations in food microbiology: Fermentation, biocontrol, and functional foods. Foods 2025, 14, 2320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hashem, M.; Yasmin, M.; Ali, M.; Al Sabid, A.; Al Noman, M. Effect of vacuum and aerial packaging on the quality and shelf life of broiler meat treated with extra virgin olive oil. Meat Res. 2023, 3, 62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nauman, K.; Jaspal, M.H.; Asghar, B.; Manzoor, A.; Akhtar, K.H.; Ali, U.; Ali, S.; Nasir, J.; Sohaib, M.; Badar, I.H. Effect of Different packaging atmosphere on microbiological shelf life, physicochemical attributes, and sensory characteristics of chilled poultry fillets. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2022, 42, 153–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lohita, B.; Srijaya, M. Novel technologies for shelf-life extension of food products as a competitive advantage: A review. In Food Production, Diversity, and Safety Under Climate Change; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 285–306. [Google Scholar]
- Deshmukh, R.K.; Gaikwad, K.K. Natural antimicrobial and antioxidant compounds for active food packaging applications. Biomass Convers. Biorefin. 2024, 14, 4419–4440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ząbek, K.; Miciński, J.; Milewski, S.; Sobczak, A. Effect of modified atmosphere packaging and vacuum packaging on quality characteristics of lamb meat. Arch. Anim. Breed. 2021, 64, 437–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vu, N.D.; Hang, N.T.T.N.; Mi, K.D.Q.; Anh, N.H.T.; Pham, B.A. Exploring the nutritional composition, physicochemical properties, and biological characteristics of mature banana varieties (Musaceae). Food Chem. X 2025, 28, 102594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nguyen, L.; Hwang, E.-S. Quality Characteristics and antioxidant activity of yogurt supplemented with aronia (Aronia melanocarpa) juice. Prev. Nutr. Food Sci. 2016, 21, 330–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- AOAC Official Method 947.05 Acidity of Milk. In Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2023.
- Tram, H.T.N.; Van Thinh, P.; Minh, T.N.; Mui, D.T.; Vu, N.D.; Pham, B.A.; Pham, D.T.N.; Phu, L.H.; Thuy, C.X. Enhanced production of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) in Mang Buk Brown rice via optimal fermentation conditions with Lactobacillus brevis, Lactobacillus pentosus, and Lactobacillus plantarum. J. Agric. Food Res. 2025, 21, 101896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herawati, H.; Afifah, D.N.; Kusumanigtyas, E.; Usmiati, S.; Soemantri, A.S.; Miskiyah; Kamsiati, E.; Bachtiar, M. Characterization of GABA (gamma-aminobutyric acid) levels some fermented food in Indonesia. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2021, 819, 012068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gump, B.H.; Zoecklein, B.W.; Fugelsang, K.C.; Whiton, R.S. Comparison of analytical methods for prediction of prefermentation nutritional status of grape juice. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 2002, 53, 325–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skoutelas, D.; Ricardo-da-Silva, J.M.; Laureano, O. Validation and Comparison of formol and ft-ir methods for assimilable nitrogen in vine grapes. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 2016, 32, 262–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Huang, C.; Gao, M.; Luo, H.; Xu, Y. Indophenol blue colorimetric method to determine grain protein content of cereal plants. In Plant Functional Genomics; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2024; pp. 257–263. [Google Scholar]
- Vu, N.D.; Nguyen, N.H.K.; Tran, T.T.; Long, T.B.; Tan, L.V.; Nhi, T.T.Y. Changes in the recovery efficiency, nutritional and safety quality of dried sergestid shrimp (Acetes species) during commercial production. Int. J. Food Stud. 2024, 13, 72–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ngouénam, J.R.; Momo Kenfack, C.H.; Foko Kouam, E.M.; Kaktcham, P.M.; Maharjan, R.; Ngoufack, F.Z. Lactic acid production ability of Lactobacillus sp. from four tropical fruits using their by-products as carbon source. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naghili, H.; Tajik, H.; Mardani, K.; Rouhani, S.M.R.; Ehsani, A.; Zare, P. Validation of drop plate technique for bacterial enumeration by parametric and nonparametric tests. Vet. Res. Forum 2013, 4, 179. [Google Scholar]
- Vu, N.D.; Tran, N.T.Y.; Le, T.D.; Phan, N.T.M.; Doan, P.L.A.; Huynh, L.B.; Dao, P.T. Kinetic model of moisture loss and polyphenol degradation during heat pump drying of soursop fruit (Annona muricata L.). Processes 2022, 10, 2082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linares, D.M.; Martín, M.; Ladero, V.; Alvarez, M.A.; Fernández, M. Biogenic Amines in dairy products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2011, 51, 691–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jorge, J.M.P.; Nguyen, A.Q.D.; Pérez-García, F.; Kind, S.; Wendisch, V.F. Improved fermentative production of gamma-aminobutyric acid via the putrescine route: Systems metabolic engineering for production from glucose, amino sugars, and xylose. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2017, 114, 862–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Myers, R.H.; Montgomery, D.C. Response surface methodology. IIE Trans. 1996, 28, 1031–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siragusa, S.; De Angelis, M.; Di Cagno, R.; Rizzello, C.G.; Coda, R.; Gobbetti, M. Synthesis of γ-Aminobutyric acid by lactic acid bacteria isolated from a variety of italian cheeses. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 7283–7290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cui, Y.; Miao, K.; Niyaphorn, S.; Qu, X. Production of gamma-aminobutyric acid from lactic acid bacteria: A systematic review. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, Q.; Shah, N.P. High γ-aminobutyric acid production from lactic acid bacteria: Emphasis on Lactobacillus brevis as a functional dairy starter. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 3661–3672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holzapfel, W.H.; Haberer, P.; Snel, J.; Schillinger, U.; Huis in’t Veld, J.H. Overview of gut flora and probiotics. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1998, 41, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hammes, W.P.; Bantleon, A.; Min, S. Lactic acid bacteria in meat fermentation. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 1990, 87, 165–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhakal, R.; Bajpai, V.K.; Baek, K.-H. Production of gaba (Y—Aminobutyric acid) by microorganisms: A review. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2012, 43, 1230–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yogeswara, I.B.A.; Maneerat, S.; Haltrich, D. Glutamate decarboxylase from lactic acid bacteria—A key enzyme in GABA synthesis. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 1923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phupaboon, S.; Kontongdee, P.; Hashim, F.J.; Kanpipit, N.; Matra, M.; Totakul, P.; Prommachart, R.; Phesatcha, B.; Wanapat, M. Bioaccessibility and microencapsulation of Lactobacillus sp. to enhance nham protein hydrolysates in thai fermented sausage. Foods 2022, 11, 3846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Icer, M.A.; Sarikaya, B.; Kocyigit, E.; Atabilen, B.; Çelik, M.N.; Capasso, R.; Ağagündüz, D.; Budán, F. Contributions of gamma-aminobutyric acid (gaba) produced by lactic acid bacteria on food quality and human health: Current applications and future prospects. Foods 2024, 13, 2437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, H.; Qiu, T.; Huang, G.; Cao, Y. Production of gamma-aminobutyric acid by Lactobacillus brevis NCL912 using fed-batch fermentation. Microb. Cell Fact. 2010, 9, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Castrica, M.; Pavlovic, R.; Balzaretti, C.M.; Curone, G.; Brecchia, G.; Copelotti, E.; Panseri, S.; Pessina, D.; Arnoldi, C.; Chiesa, L.M. Effect of high-pressure processing on physico-chemical, microbiological and sensory traits in fresh fish fillets (Salmo salar and Pleuronectes platessa). Foods 2021, 10, 1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Falk, K.G.; McGuire, G. Ammonia test for meat spoilage. J. Biol. Chem. 1919, 37, 547–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TCVN 7046:2019; Fresh Meat. Vietnamese Technical Standard: Ha Noi, Vietnam, 2019; pp. 1–15.
- Toldra, F. Proteolysis and lipolysis in flavour development of dry-cured meat products. Meat Sci. 1998, 49, S101–S110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leroy, F.; Verluyten, J.; De Vuyst, L. Functional meat starter cultures for improved sausage fermentation. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2006, 106, 270–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laranjo, M.; Elias, M.; Fraqueza, M.J. The use of starter cultures in traditional meat products. J. Food Qual. 2017, 2017, 9546026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, A.M.; Tarfeen, N.; Mohamed, H.; Song, Y. Fermented foods: Their health-promoting components and potential effects on gut microbiota. Fermentation 2023, 9, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leroy, F.; De Vuyst, L. Lactic acid bacteria as functional starter cultures for the food fermentation industry. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2004, 15, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ray, B.; Bhunia, A. Fundamental Food Microbiology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; ISBN 9781003346616. [Google Scholar]
- QCVN 8-3:2012/BYT; National Regulations on Microbial Contamination in Food. Vietnam Ministry of Health: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2012.
- Pitt, J.I.; Hocking, A.D. Fungi and Food Spoilage; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-387-92206-5. [Google Scholar]


| Run | Experimental Factor | Analytical Fermentation Parameter | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salt (w/w) | Sugar (w/w) | MSG (w/w) | Initial pH | Final pH | Lactic Acid (g/kg) | GABA (mg/g) | |
| 1 | 0.00 | 16.00 | 3.00 | 5.65 ± 0.01 f | 4.67 ± 0.03 g | 18.77 ± 0.23 a | 5.26 ± 0.07 hi |
| 2 | 0.81 | 13.62 | 1.81 | 5.59 ± 0.00 g | 4.73 ± 0.04 defg | 18.36 ± 0.23 ab | 5.63 ± 0.13 fghi |
| 3 | 0.81 | 13.62 | 4.19 | 5.72 ± 0.02 bc | 4.88 ± 0.02 abcde | 17.42 ± 0.41 abcd | 6.58 ± 0.13 cde |
| 4 | 0.81 | 18.38 | 1.81 | 5.59 ± 0.01 g | 4.70 ± 0.02 fg | 18.77 ± 0.23 a | 5.74 ± 0.07 fgh |
| 5 | 0.81 | 18.38 | 4.19 | 5.73 ± 0.02 ab | 4.85 ± 0.06 abcdef | 17.96 ± 1.02 abcd | 5.81 ± 0.13 fgh |
| 6 | 2.00 | 12.00 | 3.00 | 5.65 ± 0.01 f | 4.75 ± 0.01 defg | 17.96 ± 0.23 abcd | 4.99 ± 0.10 i |
| 7 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 1.00 | 5.53 ± 0.03 h | 4.71 ± 0.03 efg | 18.23 ± 0.41 ab | 7.28 ± 0.13 b |
| 8 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 3.00 | 5.66 ± 0.00 ef | 4.79 ± 0.02 cdefg | 17.82 ± 0.62 abcd | 7.06 ± 0.36 bcd |
| 9 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 3.00 | 5.70 ± 0.03 bcd | 4.78 ± 0.08 cdefg | 18.09 ± 0.70 abc | 7.22 ± 0.03 bc |
| 10 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 3.00 | 5.68 ± 0.01 cdef | 4.82 ± 0.05 bcdefg | 17.55 ± 0.62 abcd | 8.05 ± 0.03 a |
| 11 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 3.00 | 5.65 ± 0.01 f | 4.83 ± 0.05 bcdefg | 17.42 ± 0.62 abcd | 7.27 ± 0.18 b |
| 12 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 3.00 | 5.67 ± 0.01 def | 4.85 ± 0.06 abcdef | 17.55 ± 0.70 abcd | 7.42 ± 0.20 ab |
| 13 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 3.00 | 5.67 ± 0.01 def | 4.84 ± 0.02 bcdefg | 17.82 ± 0.23 abcd | 7.63 ± 0.50 ab |
| 14 | 2.00 | 16.00 | 5.00 | 5.77 ± 0.02 a | 4.84 ± 0.06 ab | 15.93 ± 0.41 cd | 6.48 ± 0.28 de |
| 15 | 2.00 | 20.00 | 3.00 | 5.69 ± 0.01 bcdef | 4.89 ± 0.03 abcd | 17.15 ± 0.62 abcd | 5.16 ± 0.15 hi |
| 16 | 3.19 | 13.62 | 1.81 | 5.57 ± 0.01 gh | 4.86 ± 0.15 abcdef | 17.15 ± 2.23 abcd | 6.24 ± 0.10 ef |
| 17 | 3.19 | 13.62 | 4.19 | 5.70 ± 0.01 bcde | 4.92 ± 0.09 abc | 16.20 ± 1.07 bcd | 5.57 ± 0.18 ghi |
| 18 | 3.19 | 18.38 | 1.81 | 5.68 ± 0.01 cdef | 4.81 ± 0.02 cdefg | 17.96 ± 0.23 abcd | 5.52 ± 0.22 ghi |
| 19 | 3.19 | 18.38 | 4.19 | 5.71 ± 0.01 bcd | 5.01 ± 0.04 a | 15.80 ± 0.41 d | 5.99 ± 0.38 efg |
| 20 | 4.00 | 16.00 | 3.00 | 5.71 ± 0.01 bcd | 4.98 ± 0.03 ab | 15.93 ± 0.23 cd | 5.32 ± 0.13 hi |
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean Square | F-Value | p-Value | Note |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 14.92 | 9 | 1.66 | 8.96 | 0.001 | significant |
| A-Salt | 0.0038 | 1 | 0.0038 | 0.021 | 0.8875 | |
| B-Sugar | 0.038 | 1 | 0.038 | 0.21 | 0.6602 | |
| C-MSG | 0.015 | 1 | 0.015 | 0.082 | 0.7801 | |
| AB | 0.0095 | 1 | 0.0095 | 0.052 | 0.8249 | |
| AC | 0.16 | 1 | 0.16 | 0.89 | 0.3679 | |
| BC | 0.00386 | 1 | 0.00386 | 0.021 | 0.8879 | |
| A2 | 7.2 | 1 | 7.2 | 38.96 | <0.0001 | |
| B2 | 8.92 | 1 | 8.92 | 48.27 | <0.0001 | |
| C2 | 0.3 | 1 | 0.3 | 1.63 | 0.2303 | |
| Residual | 1.85 | 10 | 0.18 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 1.21 | 5 | 0.24 | 1.91 | 0.247 | not significant |
| Pure Error | 0.63 | 5 | 0.13 | |||
| Cor Total | 16.76 | 19 | ||||
| Std. Dev. | 0.43 | R2 | 0.8897 | |||
| Mean | 6.31 | Adj R2 | 0.7905 | |||
| C.V.% | 6.81 | Pred R2 | 0.3514 | |||
| PRESS | 10.87 | Adeq Precision | 7.612 |
| No. | Experimental Factor | Fermentation Parameter | GABA Content (mg/g) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salt (% w/w) | Sugar (% w/w) | MSG (% w/w) | Initial pH | Final pH | Lactic Acid (g/kg) | Theoretical | Actual | |
| 1 | 2.00 | 15.92 | 2.86 | 5.92 | 4.71 | 18.23 | 7.44 | 8.59 |
| 2 | 2.00 | 15.92 | 2.86 | 5.95 | 4.71 | 17.82 | 7.44 | 8.14 |
| 3 | 2.00 | 15.92 | 2.86 | 5.93 | 4.68 | 19.44 | 7.44 | 8.24 |
| Average | 5.93 ± 0.02 | 4.70 ± 0.02 | 18.50 ± 0.84 | 7.44 | 8.32 ± 0.24 | |||
| Time (Day) | Package | Chemical Parameter | Microbiological Parameter | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial pH | Final pH | Lactic Acid (g/kg) | GABA (mg/g) | Ammoniacal Nitrogen (g/kg) | Formol Nitrogen (g/kg) | LAB Counts (log CFU/g) | Mold and Yeast Counts (log CFU/g) | Total Aerobic Counts (log CFU/g) | ||
| DC * | - | 4.54 | 20.75 | 2.37 | - | 1.53 | 8.02 | 0.42 | 4.33 | |
| 1 | PE | 5.55 | 4.56 a | 21.87 c | 8.84 a | 0.093 d | 2.35 e | 9.64 a | 0.30 b | 2.35 e |
| PP | 5.55 | 4.52 a | 20.92 c | 8.72 a | 0.091 d | 2.10 e | 9.58 b | 0.29 b | 2.10 e | |
| 3 | PE | 5.55 | 4.48 b | 23.22 b | 7.73 b | 0.101 c | 3.75 c | 9.60 b | 0.36 a | 3.75 c |
| PP | 5.55 | 4.46 b | 23.22 b | 7.68 b | 0.098 cd | 2.95 d | 9.53 cd | 0.37 a | 2.95 d | |
| 5 | PE | 5.55 | 4.43 bc | 24.70 a | 6.81 c | 0.111 b | 3.88 c | 9.56 bc | 0.37 a | 3.88 c |
| PP | 5.55 | 4.43 bc | 24.98 a | 6.48 c | 0.101 c | 4.02 c | 9.51 d | 0.38 a | 4.02 c | |
| 7 | PE | 5.55 | 4.41 c | 24.97 a | 5.07 d | 0.130 a | 6.44 a | 9.46 e | 0.37 a | 6.44 a |
| PP | 5.55 | 4.40 c | 24.84 a | 4.74 d | 0.113 b | 5.87 b | 9.41 f | 0.39 a | 5.87 b | |
| Factor | Indicator | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time (Day) | Package | Color | Aroma | Taste | Firmness | Appearance |
| 1 | PE | 3.50 ± 0.17 | 3.50 ± 0.13 | 3.25 ± 0.12 | 3.25 ± 0.11 | ![]() |
| PP | 3.25 ± 0.13 | 3.75 ± 0.12 | 3.25 ± 0.14 | 3.50 ± 0.21 | ![]() | |
| 3 | PE | 3.00 ± 0.11 | 3.25 ± 0.14 | 3.25 ± 0.05 | 3.25 ± 0.21 | ![]() |
| PP | 2.75 ± 0.16 | 3.50 ± 0.16 | 2.75 ± 0.13 | 3.50 ± 0.11 | ![]() | |
| 5 | PE | 2.25 ± 0.21 | 3.00 ± 0.25 | 2.50 ± 0.21 | 2.75 ± 0.17 | ![]() |
| PP | 2.00 ± 0.10 | 2.50 ± 0.15 | 2.50 ± 0.17 | 3.00 ± 0.13 | ![]() | |
| 7 | PE | 2.25 ± 0.18 | 2.25 ± 0.07 | 2.25 ± 0.11 | 2.75 ± 0.21 | ![]() |
| PP | 1.75 ± 0.13 | 2.50 ± 0.05 | 2.00 ± 0.12 | 3.00 ± 0.15 | ![]() | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Thanh, N.N.; Tu, S.T.C.; Chau, L.M.; Dang Long, B.H.; Nguyen, T.T.N.H.; Pham, B.A.; Vu, N.D.; Thanh, N.V.; Phong, H.X. Response Surface Optimization of GABA-Enriched Fermented Pork with Co-Fermentation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum CP1.2 and Pediococcus acidilactici CP1.4 and Packaging Effects on Product Shelf-Life. Fermentation 2025, 11, 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11110649
Thanh NN, Tu STC, Chau LM, Dang Long BH, Nguyen TTNH, Pham BA, Vu ND, Thanh NV, Phong HX. Response Surface Optimization of GABA-Enriched Fermented Pork with Co-Fermentation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum CP1.2 and Pediococcus acidilactici CP1.4 and Packaging Effects on Product Shelf-Life. Fermentation. 2025; 11(11):649. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11110649
Chicago/Turabian StyleThanh, Nguyen Ngoc, Son Thi Cam Tu, Luu Minh Chau, Bui Hoang Dang Long, Trinh Thi Nhu Hang Nguyen, Binh An Pham, Ngoc Duc Vu, Nguyen Van Thanh, and Huynh Xuan Phong. 2025. "Response Surface Optimization of GABA-Enriched Fermented Pork with Co-Fermentation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum CP1.2 and Pediococcus acidilactici CP1.4 and Packaging Effects on Product Shelf-Life" Fermentation 11, no. 11: 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11110649
APA StyleThanh, N. N., Tu, S. T. C., Chau, L. M., Dang Long, B. H., Nguyen, T. T. N. H., Pham, B. A., Vu, N. D., Thanh, N. V., & Phong, H. X. (2025). Response Surface Optimization of GABA-Enriched Fermented Pork with Co-Fermentation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum CP1.2 and Pediococcus acidilactici CP1.4 and Packaging Effects on Product Shelf-Life. Fermentation, 11(11), 649. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation11110649









