<%BANNER%>

Sensory Assessment of Shrimp Exposed to Phosphate Treatments for Moisture Control


PAGE 1

1 SENSORY ASSESSMENT OF SHRIMP EXPO SED TO PHOSPHATE TREATMENTS FOR MOISTURE CONTROL By DANIELLE BOGAN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Danielle Bogan

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to first thank my major advisor, Dr. Steven Otwell for all of his advice and support. I would also like to thank my other gr aduate committee members, Dr. Charlie Sims and Dr. Raymon Littell. Secondly, I appreciate everythi ng that both Laura and Victor Garrido have done for me in my academic journey. Zina Williams was always available with a helping hand or a sympathetic ear. I would like to distinguish Janna Underhill, as she always has the solution to every problem. I also would lik e to recognize all of my labmat es, both past and present, who aided me in my research: Sebastian Shaw, Rebecca Crouthamel, Leann Manley, and Kelley Zhou. A special thanks goes to Lance Nacio, John Bell, and Jeff Schwab for their assistance and accompaniment in collecting my shrimp samples. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and family, who were always suppor tive of me throughout all the ha rdships I encountered along the way.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........6 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........7 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..............9 CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................11 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........11 Use of Phosphates.............................................................................................................. .....12 Consumer Perceptions........................................................................................................... .13 Patents........................................................................................................................ .............14 Regulations Concerning Phosphates.......................................................................................15 Phosphate Applications......................................................................................................... .16 Monitoring the Use of Phosphates..........................................................................................17 2 JUSTIFICATION AND APPROACH...................................................................................20 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................................................21 Sample Collection and Treatment..........................................................................................21 Sample Analyses................................................................................................................ .....22 Sample Selection and Preparation..........................................................................................23 Trained Sensory Panel.......................................................................................................... ..24 Consumer Sensory Panel........................................................................................................27 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................32 Composition of Shrimp.......................................................................................................... .32 Trained Panel Sensory Assessments.......................................................................................34 Consumer Panel Assessments.................................................................................................37 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... .........39 APPENDIX A FORM PRESENTED TO TRAINED PAN EL FOR SHRIMP CHARACTERIZATION....74 B FORM PRESENTED TO CONSUMER PA NEL TO JUDGE ACCEPTABILITY OF SHRIMP......................................................................................................................... ........76 C PICTURE SCALES USED FOR COLO R, PLUMPNESS, AND OPACITY.......................79

PAGE 5

5 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..80 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................83

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Raw data for moisture, phosphorus, sodi um, and total salt in all 24 experimental sample combinations..........................................................................................................29 3-2 Texture standards created with an Instr on machine for use with the trained sensory panel.......................................................................................................................... .........30 3-3 Demographic data for the untra ined consumer sensory panel...........................................31 4-1 Raw data for moisture, phosphorus, sodium and total salt in the 12 samples presented to panelists................................................................................................................... ......41 4-2 Cooked data for moisture, phosphorus, s odium and total salt in the 12 samples presented to panelists.........................................................................................................42 4-3 Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples exposed to 0% NaCl concentration....................................................................................43 4-4 Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples exposed to 1.5% NaCl concentration.................................................................................44 4-5 Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples exposed to 2.5% NaCl concentration.................................................................................45 4-6 Significant differences in consumer panel in the zero salt concentration..........................46 4-7 Significant differences in consumer panel in the 1.5% salt concentration........................47 4-8 Significant differences in consumer panel in the 2.5% salt concentration........................48

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1 Total phosphorus change from raw to cooked shrimp samples.........................................49 4-2 Moisture content ch ange from raw to cooked shrimp samples..........................................50 4-3 Influence of cooking on weight of sample s treated with different combinations of STP and NaCl after cooking..............................................................................................51 4-4 Ratio of percent moisture content to total phosphorus in raw shrimp samples.................52 4-5 Ratio of percent moisture content to to tal phosphorus in cooked shrimp samples............53 4-6 Total salt content change from raw to cooked shrimp.......................................................54 4-7 Sodium content change from raw to cooked shrimp.........................................................55 4-8 Average responses by trai ned panel regarding Color........................................................56 4-9 Average responses by trained panel regarding Translucency............................................57 4-10 Average responses by traine d panel regarding Plumpness................................................58 4-11 Average responses by traine d panel regarding Moistness.................................................59 4-12 Texture ratings for trained panel corr esponding to maximum compressive load (N).......60 4-13 Average responses by trained pa nel regarding Hardness/Firmness...................................61 4-14 Average responses by traine d panel regarding Chewiness................................................62 4-15 Average responses by trained panel regarding Saltiness...................................................63 4-16 Average responses by trai ned panel regarding Flavor.......................................................64 4-17 Histogram of overall appearance as rated by consumer panel...........................................65 4-18 Average responses by consumer panel regarding Overall Appearance.............................66 4-19 Average responses by consumer panel regarding Flavor..................................................67 4-20 Histogram of saltiness as rated by consumer panel...........................................................68 4-21 Average responses by consumer panel responses regarding Saltiness..............................69 4-22 Histogram of firmness as rated by consumer panel...........................................................70

PAGE 8

8 4-23 Average responses by consumer panel regarding Moistness.............................................71 4-24 Histogram of moistness as rated by consumer panel.........................................................72

PAGE 9

9 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science SENSORY ASSESSMENT OF SHRIMP EXPO SED TO PHOSPHATE TREATMENTS FOR MOISTURE CONTROL By Danielle Bogan May 2007 Chair: W. Steven Otwell Major: Food Science and Human Nutrition Proper use of water retention agents in pro cessing of shrimp remains in controversy relative to appropriate amounts applied and product consequen ces. In the absence of any regulations for specific limits, sensory assessm ents were conducted to determine sensory detection and consumer preference and acceptabi lity for phosphate and moisture content in processed shrimp. A range of moisture contents was created by treating th e shrimp in different sodium chloride (NaCl) and sodium tripolyphosphat e (STP) concentrations to yield a matrix with cooked moisture contents ranging from 79 to 84%. The intent was to provide a range of product conditions relative to various customary phosph ate treatments. Both trained and consumer sensory panels were used to assess product se nsory consequences. A panel of 11 experts was trained to rate sensory attr ibutes most commonly influenced by phosphate treatments. Descriptors included eight categor ies for aroma, flavor, texture, and appearance. A consumer panel was utilized to illu strate acceptability across all phosph ate treatments. Both panels were presented with identical samples. The mode for daily sample presentation differed by NaCl concentration to avoid any bias for salt flavor. The trained panel was able to detect changes in sensory attributes with increas ing exposure to NaCl and STP. Significant differences were observed in every attribute except for sour. However, their ability to detect had little influence on

PAGE 10

10 the consumer panels preference. For product wi th no prior exposure to NaCl, the untrained consumer panel scored significant differences ac ross the various phosphate treatments for overall acceptance, firmness, and moisture percep tion categories. Depending on prior phosphate exposure, saltiness, firmness, moisture percepti on and overall liking were all significantly different for shrimp exposed to 1.5% NaCl. Th e highest mean rating for overall acceptance, aroma and flavor was for shrimp exposed to the 1.5% NaCl and the highest (4%) STP treatments. No significant differences we re rated by the consumer panel for aroma or aftertaste.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Moisture is the single largest component of shrimp. It contai ns the water soluble nutrients that influence flavor. It can a ffect product color, curl, glossi ness and transparency; and most importantly, it determines the texture, mouthf eel and mastication of the cooked products. Too little or excessive moisture cont ent in shrimp can result in objectionable or inferior product quality. Low moisture results in dry and overcoo ked shrimp and high moisture content can cause a slippery texture or glassy appearance (Garri do 2004). Consequently, mois ture is the dominant component on influencing shrimp quality, as th e right amount significan tly impacts preference by the consumer (Otwell 2004). Some of the factors that can influence the fi nal moisture content in shrimp are time of exposure to ice, ice slush and/or any water following Good Manufacturi ng Practices (GMPs, 21 CFR Part 110). Additional factors include the dura tion in frozen storage, product exposure to freezing and thawing cycles, and most importa ntly, how the product is cooked. Proper cooking requires knowledge of the shrimp size to accoun t for the time required for the product to reach the internal temperature to reduce bacterial lo ads as recommended by federal authorities (21 CFR 123). It is also important to stop the cook or heating process with immediate cooling. If the shrimp is cooked at a processing plant, most commercial plants have cooking schedules to account for these controls. However, the majority of the shrimp consumed worldwide is either cooked at home or in restaurants. In many instances the shrimp is overcooked, either by consumers or by chefs. Mindful of these concer ns, commercial practices have evolved with processing aids to help protect and retain mo isture during harvest, processing, distribution, storage and buyer preparation. P hosphate applications are one of the most common controls.

PAGE 12

12 Use of Phosphates Naturally occurring phosphates such as ade nosine triphosphate (A TP) are involved in muscle activities and water bi nding. The muscle food industrie s recognized this and were pioneers in using additional phosph ates, a multipurpose group of co mpounds, to protect moisture content in edible muscle by increasing the wa ter binding capability of the protein (Molins 1991). The initial compound of choice of the shrimp industry was sodium tripolyphosphate (STP), followed with the introduction of blends with additiona l ingredients to impa rt variable effects and applications (Otwell 1993). Currently, STP a nd various phosphate blends are often used to process other seafood products such as scallops, lobster tails, a nd various fish. The intended use is to protect the product moisture content du ring freezing, frozen storage, thawing and cooking. The moisture loss that is often reported after the cooking of shri mp is caused by a volatilization of water, decrease in holding cap acity of the denatured muscle proteins, and pressure created when connective tissue begins to shrink. The us e of multivalent phosphates helps increase the protein water holding capacity due to ionic interactions with the muscle proteins. The addition of sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) has been most effec tive relative to smaller shrimp sizes. This is thought to be due to the larger surface-to-volum e ratio of the small shrimp results in better absorption of STP into the volume (Erdogdu and others 2003). Similarly, in 1980, Crawford showed that the use of phosphates aided in the processing of cold water shrimp. The phosphate increased case hardening of the flesh, which en hanced removal of the shrimp shell from the cooked product. Phosphates are also thought to impart textural quality and to reduce oxidative rancidity and development of other off-flavors by sequesteri ng multivalent cations (Ellinger 1972). Studies and commercial trials have shown (Banks and ot hers 1998) that phosphates reduce bacterial populations in meat, thus extending the shelf lif e of the product. Studies on the effect of

PAGE 13

13 polyphosphate on textural propertie s of meat products have not only shown improvements but the phosphate also help to stabilize color, flavor and sensory characteris tics (Tenhet and others 1981). Phosphates have also been known to preven t the formation of struvite, a problem common in the canning industry with tuna and salmon. Str uvite are transparent crystals of magnesium ammonium phosphate, often mistaken by consumer s as glass shards (Ellinger 1972). Sodium hexametaphosphate blends have been used in the scallop industry to remove crystalline precipitates, also known as white spots (Fisher 1993). Consumer Perceptions Previous studies have demonstrated a consumer preference for properly phosphated shrimp. Phosphated implies the pr oduct was treated with some fo rm of phosphating agents to control moisture content. Garrido and others (1993) demonstrated that consumers (n=125) significantly preferred phos phate treated shrimp products over the untreated controls. In a taste panel designed to evaluate phosphate treated sh rimp and scallops, it was shown with sensory triangle tests that over half of the consumers could detect the treated product, and their ability to detect these products increased as moisture content increased. In the same study, consumers indicated a preference for the treated product and rated the ph osphated shrimp and scallops higher in the categories of general appearance flavor, purchase value, and overall quality (Garrido and others 1993.) This work demonstrat ed that adding and retaining moisture can be beneficial rather than common adve rse claims for adulteration. Claims for moisture adulteration have occu rred with products exposed to excessive phosphate treatments that diminished product qua lity. Abusive treatments can result in slimy, glassy product due to excessive water content (Love and Abel 1966). It should be stressed that there is no benefit to excessive treatments, a nd overexposure can result in adulterated products (Sturno 1987).

PAGE 14

14 Patents Patents regarding the use of phosphates in processing have been around for many years. An early patent filed in 1946 in cluded the use of raw shrimp in an aqueous solution containing 2% by weight dibasic sodium phosphate for a pe riod of two hours (Garnatz and others 1946). In the canning industry, it is common to encounter problems with st ruvite, a glasslike crystal formation. To avoid this problem, Ekkehard file d a patent describing the use of water soluble glassy alkali phosphate in an am ount sufficient to substantially suppress the crystallization of struvite (Ekkehard and others 1949). In 1953, th e improvement of fish meat was patented by exposure to a sodium chloride brine with polym eric phosphoric acid in concentration from 0.2 2.0% by weight. It claimed to impr ove taste, digestibility and also the stability of fish meat (Meyer 1952). A method of preserving frozen fi sh involving the use of sodium and potassium salts of molecularly dehydrated phosphoric acids was developed in order to inhibit the loss of moisture, soluble protein, minerals and vitami ns (Mahon 1960). In the late 1960s, a patent was filed to increase the yield of bonito (a medi um sized predatory fish) meat by treating with molecularly dehydrated phosphate such as ST P or orthophosphate prior to cooking (Swartz 1969). The use of polyphosphate in fish fillets, with or without the use of sa lt, was first patented by JH Mahon of Hagan Chemicals and Controls, In c. in 1962. Sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) is used at concentrations between 1.0 and 2.0% incorpor ated in the water used to make the ice; as the ice melts and forms slush, the phosphate comes in contact with the shrimp and continues to preserve it. This is different from the phosphate soak, where the phosphate is used at a higher concentration and the phosphate is mixed into the water and added to the slush ice along with the shrimp.

PAGE 15

15 Many other patents were file d regarding the use of phosphates in the 1970s and 1980s. One filed by McAuley in the UK was concerned with color, flavor, and water binding capacity improvements in fresh meats. It involved the addition of 0.3 to 0.7% acidic phosphate, with the preferred species identified as sodium and potassium salts of phosphoric and pyrophosphoric acids (McAuley 1984). The use of 0.3 to 1.0% solution of STP, hydrated with a solution containing citrus juice solids a nd also autolyzed yeast extract, was used in a patent which claimed to improve flavor and c ook yield in patties prepared from certain meat cuts such as shank (Bender and others 1985). An abandoned pa tent filed in 1977 involved a process that comprised of soaking whole, peeled and deveined shrimp in an aqueous solution that contained at least one phosphate salt, and th ereafter freezing to preserve sa id shrimp to later cooking and consumption. It also included carrying out sa id soaking step for sufficient time and in the presence of an effective amount of a trace me tal salt selected from the group consisting of calcium salts, magnesium salts, and mixtures thereof, in order to substantially maintain the trace metal content in said shrimp, whereby said treated shrimp will have white tissue coloration and a natural tender texture af ter cooking (Falci 1977). A process describing flaked or crushed ice containing a moisture-binding phosphate used to store shrimp from the time it is harvested until it is processed was developed in 1981. STP concentrations between 1.0 and 2.0% were incorporated into the wate r used to make the ice; as it melted and formed slush, STP came in contact with the shrimp and continued to preserve it. Regulations Concerning Phosphates In the USA, phosphates have been affirmed as a generally recognized as safe, or GRAS substance by the Food and Drug Administration in a review published in the December issue of the 1979 Federal Register (FDA 21 CF R 182.1810, 182.6760, 182.6787). Processors can use phosphates unrestricted so long as the product is used in amounts to achieve an intended

PAGE 16

16 effect and it is processed in accordance with the good manufacturing practices found at 21 CFR 182.1(b). Prior use of phosphates must be declared in the ingredient statement on the product label. Previous attempts have been made to establish regulatory limits at 0.5% residual phosphate expressed as P2O5. This regulatory proposal was ne ver approved (FR Vol. 44 No. 244) European regulations allow for certain leve ls of phosphoric acid and certain phosphates (including sodium tripolyphosphate) to be added individually or in combination, expressed as phosphorus pentoxide, or P2O5. For unprocessed and processed mollusks and crustaceans frozen and deep frozen the allowabl e level of added phosphate is 5g/kg, or 0.5% (expressed as P2O5). This is with the assumption that the naturally occurring level of phosphate in the shrimp product is approximately 5 g/kg P2O5, (calculated per phosphate conten t), which interprets to an allowable level of P2O5 in the product not to exceed 10 g/kg or 1.0%. This regulation is complicated in that measurement of 0.5% is in the cooked final product, after having followed the directions of cooking on the produc t package (European Council on Foods 1994). The current guideline passed down from th e poultry and red meat industry is 0.5% phosphates added to the product to decrease th e amount of cooked out juices and to help protect flavor. (9 CFR Part 381.147 and 9 CFR Part 318.7). However, this guideline assumes that the premeasured phosphate treatment as expos ed to the product is co mpletely incorporated. This assumption is not directly applicab le to shrimp and other seafood muscle. Phosphate Applications Customary phosphate applications throughout th e shrimp industry typically consist of exposing the raw shrimp to a phospha te solution with or without salt for a certain period of time with or without agitation. Vacuum tumbling, a practice borrowed from the meat industry, has also been used extensively to treat shrimp, assuming the agitation and changes in atmospheric

PAGE 17

17 pressure aids penetration. However, this type of treatment, even though proven very effective, can have an adverse affect on the quality of the shrimp, and requires special equipment. Therefore, most processing plants rely on static exposure to phos phate solutions. Salt, specifically sodium chloride (NaCl), ha s been proven to improve the penetration and effects of the phosphate solutions. The salt also helps to improve the flavor as well as the necessary ionic interactions w ith the meat proteins. However, too much salt will increase osmotic pressure of the phosphate solutions whic h can decrease water rete ntion. Previous studies with turkey breast have shown that sensory pr operties, such as bindi ng, juiciness and flavor, were significantly improved by the presence of NaCl with phosphate solutions (Froning and Sackett 1985). While the use of STP is the most common fo rm for fresh fish and seafood, experiments have shown that the use of tetr asodium pyrophosphate was more eff ective in preventing drip loss in prepacked, chilled fish (Gibson and others 1973). This particular method involved automatic dipping or spraying lines to fish fillets, scallops, and shrimp before freezing. Based on experience and personal communica tion with numerous fish a nd phosphate distributors, the following phosphate concentrations are commonly used in commercial practice with seafood: Ice making 3% solution Dipping/washing 2% solution for 2 minutes Spraying 5% solution Tumbling 2% solution Injecting 5% solution Dry additions 0.3.5% to comminuted systems Monitoring the Use of Phosphates Phosphate additions to retain moisture in sh rimp can be monitored by analyzing for total phosphorus and percent moisture. However, co mpositional summaries by Sidwell (1981) and

PAGE 18

18 Sullivan and Otwell (1992) reported phosphate c ontents for shrimp can vary from 39 to 397 mg/100g expressed as P2O5. Likewise, percent moisture cont ent was reported to range from 71.8% to 87.0% (Otwell 1994). Th erefore, routine monitoring of phosphate residuals was complicated due to variation in the indigenous phosphorus and mo isture content in the shrimp muscle (Garrido 1991). In 1991, Garrido and Otwell conducted a series of studies that measured the moisture content for several tropical shrimp species ( Farfantepenaeus ) from various countries. The shrimp were followed from routine harvest through proc essing to assure authen ticity for non-treated samples. They measured the total phosphorus and moisture content levels of 15 different raw and cooked shrimp prior to any exposure to phosphate s. Total moisture and total phosphorus were also determined for the shrimp following va rious phosphate treatmen ts. Upon harvest, the moisture content in the various raw shrimp sp ecies ranged between 74 to 76%. After traditional processing following established federal Good Ma nufacturing Practices, (21 CFR Part 110) the peeled shrimp can be expected to contain betw een 80 to 83% moisture. However, depending on residence time in the various pro cessing steps, moisture values can range as high as 88% without any exposure to phosphate solutions. Thus the mo isture content of peeled shrimp without any prior exposure to phosphates can range from 81 to 88%. Incorporation of phosphate treatments after peeling resulted in moisture levels of 83 to 86%. For this reason, moisture contents with or without phosphate treatments depend on the method of processing. Therefore, the study concluded that moisture values alone cannot be used to determine prior phosphate treatment of shrimp. Accompanying data was necessary regardi ng the phosphate content in the treatment of shrimp. Untreated shrimp analyzed for tota l phosphorus were found to contain between 150 mg/100g phosphorus. The levels of phosphorus in shri mp treated with STP were higher than 250

PAGE 19

19 mg phosphorus/100 g edible meat. The moisture a nd total phosphorus results were consistent for all species studied; therefore, values previously reported in the literat ure most likely included shrimp samples of unknown history, which could have been previously exposed to phosphate treatments. This study (Garrido and Otwell, 1994) also suggested that sens ory assessments are important in determining phosphate treatment s in shrimp. Overtreated shrimp can look translucent, shiny and glassy. A soapy feel may also be detected. The re port specified that in order to detect or observe treatment in shrim p, it is easier for the product to be cooked. The current status of the phosphate i ndustry is one of confusion.

PAGE 20

20 CHAPTER 2 JUSTIFICATION AND APPROACH The most important sensory characteristics of shrimp are texture, flavor, and mouthfeel. Moisture content plays a dominant role in all th ree of these factors. T oo little moisture causes a dry, overcooked product and too much moisture leads to a chewy, wate ry product. Both are unappealing to the consumer. Phosphates can influence the sensory at tributes by retaining moisture in the product throughout processing and eventual cooking. Correct moisture retention in shrimp production is important to the processor as an aid to the manufacture of shrimp relative to consumer acceptance and as weight loss carr ies an economic burden. Incorrect or abusive phosphate treatment can cause controversy over the question of an adultera ted product; therefore, it is important to find a means to monitor for the consequence of phosphate use to retain moisture in shrimp. Several different variables in the phosphate treatment process can affect the shrimp product. Soak times, temperature, concentration, and presence of salt are just a few of the variables. Different phosphate and salt levels can be combined to achieve various moisture levels in shrimp. The human palate is often one of the most important means of measuring acceptability, and the consumer is the ultimat e judge of quality. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine if humans could detect phosphate use with shrimp and if they preferred the phosphated product. It is hypothesized that sensor y assessments can be used to detect and also demonstrate a consumer preference for phosphated shrimp. For th is study, the approach was to prepare various phosphated shrimp for use with sensory pane ls to measure percep tion and preference.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Sample Collection and Treatment To assure no prior use or exposure to phosphate agents, all shrimp samples were collected during three days of harvest on a commercial vessel trawling near Dulac, Louisiana. Approximately 800 lbs of white shrimp ( Penaeus setiferus ) were collected by customary trawling. Samples were transmitted to a local pr ocessing plant, deheaded, peeled and graded. Medium size shrimp, 31 tail count per pound, were used for this study. Samples were exposed to solutions containing different phosphate and salt combinations. The chosen phosphate was sodium tripolyphosphate (STP), produced by A & B Chemical Company of Loveland, Colorado. Ten pounds of peeled shrimp were treate d in each solution. Twelve solutions included the combinations of 0, 1.5, 3.0, and 4.0% STP and 0, 1.5 and 2.5% sodium chloride (NaCl). The controls for the experiment were shrimp samp les with no exposure to phosphates or NaCl (0%NaCl and 0% STP). Each treatment was appl ied for both a short term (one hour) and a long term (four hours) exposure in order to impart various moisture levels. Based on two exposure times for each of the twelve solutions, there we re 24 initial phosphate treatments. The treatment solution to shrimp ratio was 2 lbs of solution to every 1 lb of product (w/w). The treatment solutions were maintained at 15C (59F) exposur e. This method of application was chosen as opposed to tumbling because experience indi cated tumbling can cause adverse product appearance. Samples were then drained, rins ed, weighed, and boxed with approximately five pounds of shrimp per each box. Water glaze was si mply an addition of tap water to protect product during frozen storage. Shrimp were fro zen in a blast freezer. Excess shrimp were also boxed and saved for preliminary analyses. All fro zen boxes were shipped to the University of Florida where they were held in frozen storage (-10C /14F).

PAGE 22

22 Sample Analyses Thawed samples were then analyzed for mois ture, sodium, total salt, and phosphorus in raw state. Prior to analysis, samples were degl azed (thawed) using the revised Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) official met hod 967.13 for frozen shrimp and seafood. For this method, the contents are placed in a wire me sh basket and immersed in approximately four gallons of fresh water at 26 3C (80 5F) so that the top of the basket extends over the water level. Water at the same temperature is introduced from the bottom of the container at a flow rate of one to three gallons/minute. Upon product thaw ing, all material is tran sferred to a 12 inch No. 8 sieve. Without shifting the product, the sieve is inclined approximately 30 from the horizontal to facilitate draining. Two mi nutes from time placed on sieve, product is transferred to a previously weighed pan to determin e drained weight of product. Moisture analysis was performed us ing AOAC method 950.46 for drying under a vacuum. Samples were ground into a homogeno us mixture with GE Deluxe Chopper food processor prior to placing appr oximately two grams of the blend in a tared aluminum pan. Sample weights were recorded before they we re placed in a vacuum oven at 212F (100C) and less than 100 mg Hg for five hour s. After the five hours, samples were cooled in a desiccator and reweighed to determine moisture lost based on weight change. Total salt was measured using AOAC me thod 935.47, which involves the addition of HNO3 under boiling conditions and concentrated aqueous KMnO4. Phosphorus and sodium were analyzed using Environmental Protection Ag ency (EPA) method SW6010, which is based on AOAC methods 990.08 and 985.01, which require an inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometer apparatus.

PAGE 23

23 Yields were determined by weight differe nce of the shrimp prior to cooking and immediately after cooling. Sample Selection and Preparation Table 3-1 provides the resulting compositions for the raw shrimp prepared through the 24 treatments. Sample coding first lists the STP c oncentration followed by th e NaCl concentration and then the exposure time. For example, 0/0/L indicated a solution with a 0% STP, and 0% NaCl used for a long exposure time, and 3/1.5/ S indicates a 3% STP 1.5% NaCl treatment solution with short exposure time. A progressive se ries in moisture contents was created mindful that similar moisture contents could have di fferent properties dependi ng on exposure to NaCl and exposure times. For example, both the 0/0/L and 1.5/1.5/L combinations had a raw moisture content of approximately 84% but the former had a sodium content of 57.70 mg/100g while the latter had a 231.50 mg/100g sodium content. The influence of these factors becomes more obvious during the panel judgments. Samples co uld not be identified by phosphorus level or moisture content alone, as a result, the ba sis for the coding system must rely on the combinations. Moisture levels can be achieve d through a variety of soak times, salt, and phosphate concentrations. Phosphorus levels can not be accounted by moisture content alone. Sub samples from each phosphate treatments were thawed and then cooked followed by immediate chilling. The samples were cooked in a forced convection style cooker manufactured by Laitram Machinery, then immediately chilled. Samples were placed on a conveyer belt for 100 seconds to achieve a 165F (73.8C) internal temperature at the end of cooking. The steam tunnel had a continuous flow fo r even cooking at 100F (37.7C.) Shrimp were immediately cooled in ice slush for two minutes and then refrigerated until presen tation to panelists, approximately four hours later.

PAGE 24

24 The cooked samples were analyzed to obtain mo isture and salinity content (AOAC methods 950.46 and 990.08). The intent for selection of 12 samples across the 24 treatments was to assure a series of treatments that yielded a progres sive increase in moisture leve ls. Table 3-1 shows the twelve combinations that were chosen from the origin al 24 treatments. A simple sample coding was used to identify product from each treatment. Exposure time variation was necessary only to achieve a gradient in moisture contents. Panel sessions were conducted on samples prepared by exposure to treatments with similar salt concentrations. This allowed thr ee sessions (0, 1.5 and 2.5% NaCl) so as not to influence the panelists with a possible preference to salt content. One session was held per day. On each day, 100 consumer panelists analyzed th e samples, while 11 trained panelists observed the same samples, with only 4 different samples per day (each from the same salt concentration so as to avoid panel exhaustion.) Trained Sensory Panel A prescreened, pretrained sensory panel was used for the trained panel evaluation. The 11 member trained panel spent seve ral weeks prior to testing refi ning their sensory skills and developing the lexicon and ballot for the shrimp samp les. Further, panelists agreed to participate by signing a standard IRB (Institut ional Review Board) agreement prepared in accordance with the University of Florida resear ch protocol involving human subj ects. Training for basic tastes was achieved by following guidelines outlined in the Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 3rd edition (Meilgaard and others, 1999) for the ranking and rating tests. The Spectrum Descriptive Analysis method, designed by Civille (1996), was used for the trained panel. This method is characterized by the panelist scoring the percei ved intensities with reference to pre-learned intensity scales, which leads to high repeatability. The method pr ovides an array of standard attribute names

PAGE 25

25 (lexicons) each with a set of standards to defi ne the scale of intensity. Training took place over six weeks with panelists meeting once per week fo r an hour per session to become familiar with the basic tastes and standard references. This was important to reduce the variation between panelists. After training, the selected pa nelists developed the final ratin g form used to analyze the shrimp samples (Appendix A). The form asked pane lists to rate the shrimp in the categories of appearance, aroma, basic taste, flavor/mouthfeel and texture. Additional space was provided for any extra comments regarding their impressions fo r the shrimp samples. All attributes were rated on a 0 with 0=least intense and 10=most intense with respect to each attribute. The responses were recorded and then averaged per salinity session to achieve group ratings. Color, translucency, and plumpness were ra ted per the Appearance of Shrimp category. Standards were based on a standard picture sc ale of actual shrimp samples (Appendix C). These scales were created using white shrimp ( Penaeus setiferus ) treated to impart a range in appearance. Intensity was the only attribute for Typical Shrimp Aroma. Based on a sample of previously untreated shrimp, the pa nelists were instructed to rate similar samples as a 10, or the most intense shrimp aroma possible. The attributes for the Basic Tastes were all standardized using liquid solutions as outlined in the Sensor y Evaluation Techniques manual (Meilgaard et al, 1999). Sour was created using diffe rent concentrations of citric acid in water. Sweetness utilized sugar in water, and salty incorporated table salt additions to water. Bitter was based on additions of caffeine to water. Umami was created using concentrat ions of monosodium glutamate in water. Panelists were instructed to take a small sip of each sample to familiarize themselves with the intensities and rate the shrimp accordingly. In the category of Flavor and Mouthfeel, the moisture scale was developed by using shrimp with different percent moistures

PAGE 26

26 based on previous moisture analys is. This scale was created by usi ng shrimp that were treated in different manners to achieve the various intensities of the scale. Shrimp were soaked overnight in water and then overcooked to obt ain the 0 example, and shrimp were exposed to an abusive phosphate treatment to achieve the 10 rating. Va rious combinations of cooking and treatment were used to create an array of moisture contents to complete the rest of the scale. Panelists were given several defi nitions to assist in their abili ty to perceive the different attributes: Moisture was define d as the degree of oil and/or water in the sample during chewing; hardness/firmness was defined as the perceived force required to compress a substance between molar teeth; and chewiness wa s defined as the number of chews required to masticate a sample at one chew per second and cons tant rate of force application to reduce to a consistence suitable for swallowing. The Typical Fresh Shrimp Flavor was represented by a fresh, untreated white shrimp ( Penaeus setiferus) sample that corresponded to a rating of 10. For the Texture attribute of chewin ess, panelists were given a sli ce of Kraft American cheese (at room temperature) which repres ented a standard rating of two, as outlined in Meilgaards book (Meilgaard 1999). The Hardness/Firmness scale was developed by using the Instron texture analyzer and different shrimp samples. The scale was develope d using the same compressi on test as for testing the treated samples. Shrimp samples with known Instron readings were us ed to develop a scale shown in influence by moisture content as associ ated with compression (Table 3-2). Aftertaste was a subjective rating based on the intensity of the sensation experienced. Panelists were instructed to mark a 10 for severe aftertaste and a 0 if no aftertaste was detected. Aftertaste was defined as the sensation following the remova l of a taste stimulus that may comprise a

PAGE 27

27 continuation of the sensory quality perceived duri ng the presence of the stimulus, or a different quality induced by salivary dilution, rinses with water, or the act of swallowing (Lawless 1998). Trained panelists were presented four samp les per day over a time period of three days, similar to the procedures used for the consumer panel. Samples were rated one at a time, and panels lasted one hour each day. Special care was taken so that there were no outside influences. Unscented cleaners were used in the area where the shrimp were analyzed and the panelists were instructed not to wear any scen ted lotions or perfumes. Unsalted crackers and bottled water were provided for consumption in between each shrimp sample to cleanse the palate before tasting the next sample. Panelists were instructed not to discuss or comp are their responses. Consumer Sensory Panel The untrained consumer panel consisted of 100 panelists per session (300 total) randomly selected from the University of Florida. Solic itation included signs posted outside of the sensory lab advertising a shrimp taste panel offering a small reward. Table 3-3 illustrates the demographic data collected from the 300 consumer panelists. Over 68% of the participants range in age from 18 years, and 90% ea t shrimp at least once per month. The panelists were presented with the different shrimp one at a time and asked to rate their acceptability for overall appearance, aroma, flav or, and overall liking on a 1-9 hedonic scale. A rating of one signified Dislike extremely, and a rating of nine signified Like extremely. The form also included questions with a 1 scale fo r saltiness, firmness, and moistness of the product. Word anchors for these questions ranged from Not at all (descriptor) for a one and Too much (descriptor) for a rating of five. A yes/no question for the prevalence of aftertaste promoted an intensity question with a Yes resp onse. This offered choices of mild, moderate, and strong.

PAGE 28

28 The experimental design used in this study was a Randomized Complete Block for each NaCl concentration. This design was evaluated with an Analysis of Variance test (ANOVA). Tukeys test was used at the 0.05% significance level.

PAGE 29

29 Table 3-1. Raw data for moisture, phosphorus, sodium, and total salt in all 24 experimental sample combinations prepared to provide for a selection of test samples based on progressive changes in moisture content. Samples with an asterisk (*) samples represent the 12 products that were chosen to be cooked and presented to panelists. Sample Codes % Moisture Phosphorus (mg/100g) Sodium (mg/100g) Total % Salt 0/0/S 82.79 169.00 72.75 0.19 0/0/L* 84.03* 132.33* 57.70* 0.11* 0/1.5/S 82.77 147.33 203.500.50 0/1.5/L* 83.44* 120.00* 159.00* 0.30* 0/2.5/S 82.31 143.66 131.00 0.31 0/2.5/L* 81.89* 127.33* 327.50* 0.66* 1.5/0/S 83.59 182.33103.50 0.17 1.5/0/L* 84.33* 163.33* 102.50* 0.10* 1.5/1.5/S 83.14 180.00 214.00 0.38 1.5/1.5/L* 84.02* 164.66* 231.50* 0.38* 1.5/2.5/S 82.44 195.00 353.50 0.65 1.5/2.5/L* 84.10* 173.00* 392.50* 0.77* 3/0/S* 84.18* 217.33* 154.50* 0.12* 3/0/L 85.78 227.66 210.50 0.10 3/1.5/S* 83.65* 195.33* 260.00* 0.33* 3/1.5/L 84.89 251.66 330.50 0.47 3/2.5/S* 83.23* 220.66* 355.00* 0.54* 3/2.5/L 85.25 213.00 345.00 0.55 4/0/S* 84.95* 239.33* 190.50* 0.11* 4/0/L 85.57 296.33 314.00 0.15 4/1.5/S* 83.55* 250.33* 344.50* 0.52* 4/1.5/L 84.69 306.66 447.50 0.70 4/2.5/S* 83.60* 234.33* 396.50* 0.73* 4/2.5/L 83.88 333.33 668.00 1.16 Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% ST P, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure. 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure.

PAGE 30

30 Table 3-2. Texture standards created in refere nce to compression measured with an Instron machine for use with the trained sensory pa nel. Moisture content (%) represents the cooked moisture content of the shrimp samples. Rating 0 1 234567 8 910 Moisture % 84% 82% 80%78% 76% Compression Force (N) 13 17 23 Note: Rating signifies panelist response, with co rresponding moisture values and Instron reading. Type of test used was a comp ression test designed using a #2 pr obe and a 7mm gauge reading.

PAGE 31

31 Table 3-3. Demographic data for the untrained consumer sensory panel used to rate the cooked shrimp samples. Age Range Ethnicity Income Consumption Male Female Caucasian 160 <20,000 118 >1/day 1 <18 3 9 African American 25 2035,000 43 1/day 1 1820 46 79 Native American 2 3650,000 30 23/week 11 2124 38 43 Asian/Pacific Islander 52 5175,000 17 1/week 38 2550 32 33 Hispanic 42 76100,000 22 23/ month 93 >50 12 5 Other 13 >100,000 30 1/ month 128 Decline answer 6 Decline answer 40 1/ year 28 Total 131 169 300 300 300 Note: Consumption means average amount of shrimp products eaten by consumer.

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Composition of Shrimp Analyses were performed on the shrimp samples after the phosphate treatments (Table 4-1) prior to cooking and after cooking (Table 4-2). Resulting moisture content in the raw shrimp ranged from 82% to 85% as influenced by exposu re time and phosphate concentration. The data is arranged according to increas ing phosphate concentration us ed in the treatments. This illustrates how phosphorus content in the shrimp increases with the increasing phosphate treatment. Obviously the resulting phosphorus and corresponding phosphate content expressed as P2O5 increased in the raw shrimp treated with increas ing concentrations and exposure time for the phosphating agent, STP. From these limited treatments, all treated products had total phosphorus contents in excess of 160 mg/100 g of raw shrimp. The strongest phosphate treatment, 4% STP, imparted a phosphorus c oncentration as high as 250 mg/100 g during one hour (short term) exposure. These raw concentra tions tended to increase or decrease during cooking relative to the le vel of prior phosphate exposure (Fig ure 4-1). Total phosphorus in the cooked samples decreased in shrimp treated w ith higher concentrations of phosphate and less exposure time, but they increased in shrimp tr eated with no and lower levels of phosphate for longer exposure time (four hours.) This is thought to be because hi gher levels of sodium compete with the phosphate in absorption to the product and potential satura tion of the binding sites. The shrimp muscle tissue may be limited in the carrying capacity for phosphates. Likewise, the longer exposure time may have allowed deeper penetration or absorp tion of the phosphates. An additional explanation of the changes in phosphorus levels during cooking was due to the expected decreases in moisture content for all cooked shr imp (Figure 4-2). Large changes in moisture content for the samples from treatment s with no or less phosphati ng agents suggest the

PAGE 33

33 amount of phosphates were not able to retain the moisture, and de hydration elevated the phosphorus content in the cooked shrimp. In cont rast, the samples from the higher phosphate treatments were apparently able to better retain moisture such that some of the water soluble phosphorus levels decreased by le eching due to pressure from shrinking connective tissues and proteins exposed to heat. Moisture loss corres ponded with the loss in product weight during cooking (Figure 4-3). Again, prior exposure to stronger phosphate treatm ents reduced weight loss during cooking. A synergistic effect is obvious for the moistu re retention by increasi ng concentrations of salt and phosphate. The higher sa lt concentrations aid the wate r binding capacity of the phosphates. These interactions clearly demons trate the influence of phosphates in managing moisture levels in shrimp. For this reason, th e composition and character of the raw shrimp differed substantially from that of the cooked sh rimp and these changes could not be predicted by initial measures for moisture content alone. While the moisture content of the raw samples ranged between 82 to 85%, the resulting moisture contents after cooking ranged from 79 to 84%. Interestingly, the ratio for moisture conten t to phosphorus levels revealed a distinct decreasing pattern for the samples previously exposed to increasing concentrations of the phosphating agent, STP (Figures 4-4 and 4-5). The pattern was more pronounced for the raw shrimp (Figure 4-4). These patt erns could serve as a possibl e measure for phosphated shrimp relative to product assessme nt in sensory panels. The compositional patterns for salt and sodium content were less obvious other than the expected increases with increasing exposure to hi gher salt concentrations (Figure 4-6 and 4-7). Likewise, the magnitude of change for sodium c ontent was influenced by additions of sodium

PAGE 34

34 from the phosphating agent, STP as well as the salt. These results indicate use of salt definitely increases the salt level in the raw shrimp and these differences persist after cooking. Trained Panel Sensory Assessments Average ratings and significant differences det ected by the trained panel are illustrated in the Tables 4-3 through 4-5. In keeping with the experimental design, thes e tables are arranged according to the separate panel sessions for shrimp exposed to different NaCl concentrations in order to avoid confounding influence of salt. Aver age results indicated that trained panelists rated significant differences for all sensory attr ibutes relative to phospha te treatments, except sour. It was not unexpected that sour would be a minor characteristic influenced by the addition of salt or phosphate. The significant differences detected for a ppearance suggested the increasing moisture content through increasing phosphate treatments ch anged the color of the cooked shrimp due to increasing muscle translucency and plumpness (F igure 4-8 through 4-10). Significant differences were noted for color at all NaCl concentrati ons except for the highest salt treatment, 2.5%. Average ratings for color displayed a decreasi ng trend, product appeari ng lighter, as STP concentrations increased (Fi gure 4-8). Differences were more obvious at lower NaCl concentrations. All samples fell within the aver age to light range for color. The related appearance measures for translucency were rate d significantly different for all STP treatments, which suggest the panel could detect increa sing translucency. Trai ned panel ratings for translucency significantly increased with incr easing phosphate exposure (Figure 4-9). Sample ratings for translucency were similar across all sa linities. This is a natu ral consequence of adding water. Even with minor additions, the trained panel had the ability to detect changes. This figure reveals a pattern that increased phosphate exposure causes the product to become more translucent, as to be expected with a white muscle food. Water increase diluted the concentration

PAGE 35

35 of the color and added to the transparency. The lost color was also due to the expansion of surface to volume ratio, which was noted as plumpness. As illustrated by the significant differences, the panelists felt that product appeared plumper with the addition of phosphates and wate r (Figure 4-10). As expected, the addition of water obviously caused the product to expand. The lowest rating for plumpness(3.5) was that for no added phosphate and the highest ratings (>7.0) were that for cooked shrimp exposed to the highest phosphate concentrations. Relative to the average ratings, the trained panelist scored the cooked shrimp exposed to 4.0% STP as twice the a pparent size as the same shrimp exposed to no STP. Plumpness was obvious but further training may be necessary to reduce variation in ratings at lower phosphate treatments. Among the texture attributes, the trained panel scored si gnificant differences for hardness/firmness, chewiness, and moisture. Thes e were the most dramatic sensory attributes. The influence of higher phosphate treatments on increasing moisture content was also detected by ratings for moist mouthfeel (Figure 4-11). Adde d moisture in the shrimp product is thought to have a lubricating effect, thus giving the phos phated samples a softer mouthfeel. The trained panel detected a higher moistn ess as phosphate treatments incr eased. The panel detected a transition from dry to moist mouthfeel. A graph (Figure 4-12) illustrating how the samples rated against the maximum mechanical compressive fo rce shows a decreasing trend as the phosphate concentration increases. In the texture ratings, th e higher the mechanical Instron score, the firmer the product, as more compressive force was required to puncture the shrimp. As expected, those samples that had not been treated with phosphate we re the firmest, or drier, and those that had the highest amount of phosphate treatment ranked the least firm or moister. (Figure 4-13). Nontreated products often seem to be harder due to the dryer textur e. The relation between

PAGE 36

36 increasing moistness and decreasing firmness w ith increasing phosphate exposure was detected as increasing mu shy mouthfeel. Chewiness was similar in response to hardne ss/firmness. These attributes are closely related. Figure 4-14 shows the same decreasing tr end as the phosphate concentration increases. Chewiness and hardness/firmness exhibited an in verse relationship to moistness. The influence of phosphate seems to be that of a lubricant to decrease the perceptions of chewiness and hardness/firmness. Again, chewiness progresses to mushy mouthfeel as the phosphate treatments increased moisture in the shrimp. For the flavor attributes of salty, sweet, s our, bitter, umami and general flavor, the most important significant differences were in saltiness and general flavor, except for the low NaCl level. Obviously increased exposure to salt in the phosphate treatments elevated detection for salty flavor (Figure 4-15). For example, 4/2.5/S, the strongest exposure in terms of both STP and NaCl, had the highest average rati ng for salty (6.5), which was considered to be above average. Saltiness also becomes the key factor in the general flavor attribute as the ratings also increase with the addition of NaCl (Figure 4-16).The addition of salty flavor through increasing treatments with increasing concentrations of STP and salt favorably influenced the trained panels detection ratings for flavor, yet there seems to be a threshold as the ratings for shrimp with the highest salt concentration drop at the highest phosphate conc entration, perhaps due to the additional sodium from the phosphating agent. As for the other basic tastes, no significant differences were observe d in sweetness at the zero salt concentration. Significan t differences for sweetness we re only calculated as the phosphate concentration increased, which could sugge st that the panelists had confusion in rating for sweetness. This is a common problem in trai ned panels for foods that are both sweet and

PAGE 37

37 salty. Bitter, umami, and aftertaste were onl y rated significantly different at the 2.5% salt concentration. This suggested that a high salt co ncentration plays a role in these attributes, or that the panelists detected something but were not sure as to how to rate or classify it. In the attribute of aroma, significant differences were only in the 2.5% NaCl concentration, where ratings ranged from a high (7.6) at the 1.5% ST P concentration, and a low (6.0) at the 0% STP concentration. Consumer Panel Assessments The ratings by trained panelists based on standard references demonstrated the ability of humans to detect some significant differences relative to previous exposure to phosphate treatments, but most of the untrained consumer ratings were not influenc ed by these differences. Although the untrained consumer s did detect some significant differences in overall acceptability, flavor, saltiness, firmness, moistne ss, and overall liking (Tables 4-6 through 4-8), there was no distinct pattern re lative to the phosphate treatmen ts (Figures 4-17 through 4-25). Mindful that the trained panel ha d the ability to detect significant differences in some plumpness and translucency (clarity), the da ta suggest that some consumers may be influenced while others are not. In the absence of a st andard scale, consumer respons es varied. This is often why commercial complaints are based on comparisons of two products. The influence of a phosphate treatment on appearance of the pr oduct is best judged by comparis ons with a standard, as it is difficult to make these judgments based on one product alone. If only one product is judged at a time, ratings could be in either dir ection based on a personal preference. The histogram of ratings for overall appearance varied si gnificantly across all phosphated treatments (Figure 4-17), yet the average ratin gs per phosphate treatment simply ranged between Like Slightly (6) and Neither Like nor Dislik e (5) on a 10 point rating scale. These ratings

PAGE 38

38 indicated that there were few differences betw een the samples based on overall appearance. The highest mean rating (5.9) was given to the 4% STP concentration with 2.5% added STP and the lowest (5.0) was at the 0% STP a nd 0% NaCl treatment combination. Likewise, the patterns in average consumer ratings for flavor were similar across all phosphate treatments (Figure 4-19). Significant differences in cons umer scores with increased phosphate did not appear until NaCl was used with the STP treatments (Tables 4-7 and 4-8). This reflects that a portion of consum ers preferred the salty flavor. Recall from Table 4-1 that an increase in the phosphate and NaCl treatments increased the sodium and total salt contents of the samples. A histogram of saltiness ratings shows that NaCl concentrations were never considered a negative attribute (Figure 4-20). Therefore, treatments as high as 2.5% NaCl do not impart adverse consequences. Figure 4-21 shows that all ratings fall in the rang e of Not quite salty enough to just right. In comparison with th e trained panelists, th e consumers had higher preference ratings for those samples that the trained panel rated higher in saltiness. As with the trained panel, consumer detecti on and preference was most significant for the texture attributes. There was a pattern in the pe rception of firmness (Figure 4-13), but no adverse ratings (Figure 4-22). Significant differences agai n suggest that the role of lubrication through addition of moisture and phosphate favorably influenced consumer preference. Across all treatments, the majority of the panelists felt that it was just right. The same inverse relationship between firmness and moisture influenced consum ers just as with the trained panel (Figure 423). The detection of a firmer product corresponded with the detection of a dryer product. Across all treatment combinations, moisture conten t was rated as just right (Figure 4-24). Consumer ratings for general Overall Liking suggested there was a slight difference in consumer preference (Figure 4-25). Consumer pr eference favored shrimp exposed to increasing

PAGE 39

39 concentrations of STP and salt. Salt influenced taste and moisture influenced firmness, both of which were favorable attributes. Interestingly, consumer preferen ce did not diminish for shrimp exposed to phosphate treatments up to 4% STP which are considered strong or excessive for commercial use. Conclusion In terms of shrimp composition, moisture co ntent, salinity, phosphorus, and sodium all increase with the addition of phosphate. Upon cooking, all samples expe rienced a loss in moisture content, but the amount of loss in moisture and co rresponding product weight was less for shrimp exposed to increasing phosphate trea tments. Based on these compositional changes, sensory differences in product coul d be detected and did influence some consumer preferences. Responses from the trained panel indicate th at humans have the ability to detect differences in color, translucency, moistness, and various flavors, with the most dramatic differences noted for the textur al attributes of plumpness, ha rness/firmness, and chewiness. Increasing exposure to phosphate treatments incl uding salt resulted in cooked shrimp products that were detected to be more translucent and pl ump with less color and softer texture. Likewise, the increasing additions of salt a nd sodium imparted a significant detection for salty flavor. No differences were detected for sour across all treatment combinations. Although the trained panel could detect sensory differences due to phosphate treatments, preference of the consumer panel was only affect ed in limited categories. Consumers preferred the saltier, moister product. The added moisture gi ves a lubricating effect which imparts a softer mouthfeel that is preferable to the consumer a nd additions of salt were considered favorable. Untrained consumer panels were unable to dis tinguish appearance and colo r attributes without a standard reference or comparison.

PAGE 40

40 These few differences noted by untrained c onsumer ratings did not influence their preference for overall liking of cooked shrimp e xposed to phosphate concentrations as high as 1.5% STP for four hours or 4% STP for one hour These treatments are consistent with commercial applications to protect moisture cont ent in frozen and cooked shrimp. Contrary to some common industry complaints, the proper add ition of phosphate does not impart adverse consequences to the shrimp product.

PAGE 41

41 Table 4-1. Raw data for moisture, phosphorus, s odium and total salt in the 12 samples presented to panelists. Raw Sample % Moisture Phosphorus (mg/100g) P2O5 equivalent Sodium (mg/100g) Total % Salt 0/0/L 84.03 132.33303.0357.700.11 0/1.5/L 83.44 120.00274.80159.000.30 0/2.5/L 83.04 127.33291.58327.500.66 1.5/0/L 84.33 163.33374.02102.50.10 1.5/1.5/L 84.02 164.66377.07231.500.38 1.5/2.5/L 84.19 173.00396.17392.500.77 3/0/S 84.18 217.33497.68154.500.12 3/1.5/S 83.65 195.33447.30260.000.35 3/2.5/S 82.23 220.66505.31355.000.54 4/0/S 84.95 239.33548.06190.500.11 4/1.5/S 83.55 250.33573.25344.500.52 4/2.5/S 83.06 234.33536.61396.500.73 Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% ST P, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour).

PAGE 42

42 Table 4-2. Cooked data for moisture, phosphorus sodium and total salt in the 12 samples presented to panelists. Cooked Sample % Moisture Phosphorus (mg/100g) P2O5 equivalent Sodium (mg/100g) Total % Salt 0/0/L 79.10 141.00322.8949.550.12 0/1.5/L 79.66 138.00316.02130.500.25 0/2.5/L 81.86 136.00311.02265.000.54 1.5/0/L 81.71 179.00409.91104.500.08 1.5/1.5/L 82.25 169.00387.01232.000.34 1.5/2.5/L 82.90 174.00398.46353.500.68 3/0/S 81.21 211.33483.94141.000.14 3/1.5/S 80.40 181.00414.49179.000.32 3/2.5/S 81.75 205.00469.45436.000.44 4/0/S 83.57 181.67416.02166.000.10 4/1.5/S 82.73 215.00492.35102.900.42 4/2.5/S 82.43 218.00499.22133.500.63 Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% ST P, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour).

PAGE 43

43 Table 4-3. Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples exposed to treatments with 0% NaCl concentration. Significant differences were determined by ANOVA. Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank Color Bitter 0/0L 5.0 a 0/0/L 0.5 a 1.5/0/L 3.5 b 1.5/0/L 0.2 a 3/0/S 2.9 bc 3/0/S 0.3 a 4/0/S 1.9 c 4/0/S 0.6 a Translucency Umami 0/0/L 1.9 c 0/0/L 0.8 a 1.5/0/L 5.1 bc 1.5/0/L 0.8 a 3/0/S 4.6 b 3/0/S 1.6 a 4/0/S 8.2 a 4/0/S 1.6 a Plumpness Flavor 0/0/L 3.5 c 0/0/L 4.5 a 1.5/0/L 5.1 bc 1.5/0/L 5.0 a 3/0/S 6.0 b 3/0/S 5.2 a 4/0/S 7.8 a 4/0/S 4.0 a General Shrimp Aroma Aftertaste 0/0/L 5.8 a 0/0/L 0.8 a 1.5/0/L 6.0 a 1.5/0/L 0.8 a 3/0/S 6.0 a 3/0/S 0.6 a 4/0/S 5.5 a 4/0/S 1.2 a Salty Hardness/Firmness 0/0/L 1.0 a 0/0/L 7.5 a 1.5/0/L 1.6 a 1.5/0/L 5.6 b 3/0/S 1.2 a 3/0/S 4.2 b 4/0/S 1.0 a 4/0/S 2.5 c Sweet Chewiness 0/0/L 1.4 a 0/0L 7.0 a 1.5/0/L 1.6 a 1.5/0/L 5.1 b 3/0/S 1.6 a 3/0/S 3.3 c 4/0/S 0.6 a 4/0/S 2.6 c Sour Moistness 0/0/L 0.8 a 0/0/L 3.0 c 1.5/0/L 0.5 a 1.5/0/L 3.6 bc 3/0/S 0.3 a 3/0/S 4.7 b 4/0/S 0.7 a 4/0/S 6.8 a Note: Samples with the same letter ranking are no t significantly different. Those with different letter rankings were st atically different. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% ST P, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour).

PAGE 44

44 Table 4-4. Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples exposed to treatments with 1.5% NaCl concentration. Significant differences were determined by ANOVA. Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank Color Bitter 0/1.5/L 3.8 a 0/1.5/L 0.3 a 1.5/1.5/L 2.8 ab 1.5/1.5/L 0.1 a 3/1.5/S 2.8 ab 3/1.5/S 0.0 a 4/1.5/S 2.2 b 4/1.5/S 0.0 a Translucency Umami 0/1.5/L 2.6 c 0/1.5/L 0.8 a 1.5/1.5/L 4.2 b 1.5/1.5/L 1.5 a 3/1.5/S 4.5 b 3/1.5/S 0.8 a 4/1.5/S 5.9 a 4/1.5/S 1.3 a Plumpness Flavor 0/1.5/L 4.9 b 0/1.5/L 5.6 b 1.5/1.5/L 5.7 b 1.5/1.5/L 6.5 ab 3/1.5/S 6.2 b 3/1.5/S 6.0 a 4/1.5/S 7.8 a 4/1.5/S 6.8 a General Shrimp Aroma Aftertaste 0/1.5/L 6.8 a 0/1.5/L 0.0 a 1.5/1.5/L 7.6 a 1.5/1.5/L 0.5 a 3/1.5/S 7.1 a 3/1.5/S 0.2 a 4/1.5/S 7.8 a 4/1.5/S 0.5 a Salty Hardness/Firmness 0/1.5/L 1.8 b 0/1.5/L 6.6 a 1.5/1.5/L 2.2 b 1.5/1.5/L 4.8 bc 3/1.5/S 2.1 b 3/1.5/S 6.0 ab 4/1.5/S 5.5 a 4/1.5/S 3.8 c Sweet Chewiness 0/1.5/L 1.0 b 0/1.5/L 6.0 a 1.5/1.5/L 1.6 ab 1.5/1.5/L 4.7 b 3/1.5/S 1.2 ab 3/1.5/S 5.3 ab 4/1.5/S 1.8 a 4/1.5/S 3.3 c Sour Moistness 0/1.5/L 0.2 a 0/1.5/L 4.8 b 1.5/1.5/L 0.2 a 1.5/1.5/L 4.5 b 3/1.5/S 0.0 a 3/1.5/S 4.8 b 4/1.5/S 0.1 a 4/1.5/S 6.8 a Note: Samples with the same letter ranking are no t significantly different. Those with different letter rankings were st atically different. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% ST P, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour).

PAGE 45

45 Table 4-5. Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples exposed to treatments with 2.5% NaCl concentration. Significant differences were determined by ANOVA. Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank Color Bitter 0/2.5/L 4.3 a 0/2.5/L 0.0 b 1.5/2.5/L 3.5 a 1.5/2.5/L 0.2 a 3/2.5/S 3.0 a 3/2.5/S 0.0 b 4/2.5/S 3.2 a 4/2.5/S 0.0 b Translucency Umami 0/2.5/L 2.6 c 0/2.5/L 0.3 b 1.5/2.5/L 4.8 b 1.5/2.5/L 1.6 a 3/2.5/S 5.3 b 3/2.5/S 2.1 a 4/2.5/S 6.9 a 4/2.5/S 1.3 a Plumpness Flavor 0/2.5/L 3.3 c 0/2.5/L 3.8 b 1.5/2.5/L 6.2 ab 1.5/2.5/L 6.6 a 3/2.5/S 6.0 b 3/2.5/S 6.9 a 4/2.5/S 7.6 a 4/2.5/S 4.8 ab General Shrimp Aroma Aftertaste 0/2.5/L 6.0 b 0/2.5/L 0.1 b 1.5/2.5/L 7.6 a 1.5/2.5/L 0.0 b 3/2.5/S 6.5 ab 3/2.5/S 0.1 b 4/2.5/S 6.8 ab 4/2.5/S 0.7 a Salty Hardness/Firmness 0/2.5/L 1.0 c 0/2.5/L 7.4 a 1.5/2.5/L 4.6 b 1.5/2.5/L 5.6 b 3/2.5/S 4.0 b 3/2.5/S 5.6 b 4/2.5/S 6.5 a 4/2.5/S 4.0 c Sweet Chewiness 0/2.5/L 0.6 b 0/2.5/L 7.0 a 1.5/2.5/L 1.9 a 1.5/2.5/L 5.6 b 3/2.5/S 1.3 ab 3/2.5/S 4.6 b 4/2.5/S 1.2 a 4/2.5/S 3.1 c Sour Moistness 0/2.5/L 0.2 a 0/2.5/L 3.2 c 1.5/2.5/L 0.1 a 1.5/2.5/L 5.5 b 3/2.5/S 0.3 a 3/2.5/S 5.5 b 4/2.5/S 0.3 a 4/2.5/S 7.3 a Note: Samples with the same letter ranking are significantly similar. Those with different letter rankings were stati cally different. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% ST P, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour.)

PAGE 46

46 Table 4-6. Significant differences in consumer panel between the different samples in the zero salt concentration as determined by ANOVA test. Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank Overall Appearance Firmness 0/0/L 5.0 b 0/0/L 3.32 0.82 a 1.5/0/L 5.1 ab 1.5/0/L 3.02 0.56 b 3/0/S 5.6 a 3/0/S 2.92 0.58 b 4/0/S 5.3 ab 4/0/S 2.65 0.83 c Aroma Moistness 0/0/L 4.1 a 0/0/L 2.7 c 1.5/0/L 4.0 a 1.5/0/L 2.8 bc 3/0/S 4.3 a 3/0/S 3.0 b 4/0/S 4.4 a 4/0/S 3.3 a Flavor Aftertaste 0/0/L 4.8 a 0/0/L 1.4 a 1.5/0/L 4.9 a 1.5/0/L 1.5 a 3/0/S 5.0 a 3/0/S 1.5 a 4/0/S 4.6 a 4/0/S 1.5 a Saltiness Overall Liking 0/0/L 2.1 a 0/0/L 4.6 a 1.5/0/L 2.1 a 1.5/0/L 4.7 a 3/0/S 2.2 a 3/0/S 5.0 a 4/0/S 2.1 a 4/0/S 4.6 a Note: (5% significance level Tukeys HSD=0.582) Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% ST P, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour).

PAGE 47

47 Table 4-7. Significant differences in consumer panel between the different samples in the 1.5% salt concentration as determined by ANOVA test. Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank Overall Appearance Firmness 0/1.5/L 5.4 a 0/1.5/L 3.2 a 1.5/1.5/L 5.5 a 1.5/1.5/L 2.9 bc 3.0/1.5/S 5.4 a 3.0/1.5/S 3.0 ab 4.0/1.5/S 5.7 a 4.0/1.5/S 2.7 c Aroma Moistness 0/1.5/L 4.5 a 0/1.5/L 2.8 b 1.5/1.5/L 4.5 a 1.5/1.5/L 2.9 b 3.0/1.5/S 4.3 a 3.0/1.5/S 2.9 b 4.0/1.5/S 4.6 a 4.0/1.5/S 3.2 a Flavor Aftertaste 0/1.5/L 5.4 a 0/1.5/L 1.4 a 1.5/1.5/L 5.3 b 1.5/1.5/L 1.5 a 3.0/1.5/S 5.4 b 3.0/1.5/S 1.5 a 4.0/1.5/S 6.0 a 4.0/1.5/S 1.5 a Saltiness Overall Liking 0/1.5/L 2.3 b 0/1.5/L 5.4 b 1.5/1.5/L 2.2 b 1.5/1.5/L 5.5 ab 3.0/1.5/S 2.3 b 3.0/1.5/S 5.4 b 4.0/1.5/S 2.9 a 4.0/1.5/S 5.9 a Note: (5% significance level Tukeys HSD=0.582) Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% ST P, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour).

PAGE 48

48 Table 4-8. Significant differences in consumer panel between the different samples in the 2.5% salt concentration as determined by ANOVA test. Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank Overall Appearance Firmness 0/2.5/L 5.2 b 0/2.5/L 3.3 a 1.5/2.5/L 5.7 a 1.5/2.5/L 3.0 b 3/2.5/S 5.5 ab 3/2.5/S 2.9 b 4/2.5/S 5.9 a 4/2.5/S 2.6 c Aroma Moistness 0/2.5/L 4.4 a 0/2.5/L 2.5 c 1.5/2.5/L 4.5 a 1.5/2.5/L 2.8 b 3/2.5/S 4.5 a 3/2.5/S 3.0 ab 4/2.5/S 4.5 a 4/2.5/S 3.2 a Flavor Aftertaste 0/2.5/L 4.9 b 0/2.5/L 1.5 a 1.5/2.5/L 5.7 a 1.5/2.5/L 1.5 a 3/2.5/S 5.4 ab 3/2.5/S 1.6 a 4/2.5/S 5.6 a 4/2.5/S 1.4 a Saltiness Overall Liking 0/2.5/L 2.0 c 0/2.5/L 4.9 b 1.5/2.5/L 2.4 b 1.5/2.5/L 5.7 a 3/2.5/S 2.4 b 3/2.5/S 5.4 a 4/2.5/S 3.0 a 4/2.5/S 5.5 a Note: (5% significance level Tukeys HSD=0.582) Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% ST P, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour).

PAGE 49

49 Figure 4-1. Total phosphorus change from raw to cooked shrimp samples previously exposed to different phosphate treatments. Sample s are grouped by STP concentrations, increasing NaCl combinations (0, 1.5, and 2.5%), and exposure time (long=four hours, short=one hour.) Total Phosphorus (mg/ 100g) 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP ----------------------L----------------------------------------------------------------S--------------------------0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% NaCl

PAGE 50

50 Figure 4-2. Moisture content cha nge from raw to cooked shrimp samples previously exposed to different phosphate treatments. Sample s are grouped by STP concentrations, increasing NaCl combinations (0, 1.5, and 2.5%), and exposure time (long=four hours, short=one hour.). 0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85% Moisture Content 0% 1.5% .5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% NaCl ------------------L -------------------------------------S ----------------------

PAGE 51

51 -30.00% -25.00% -20.00% -15.00% -10.00% -5.00% 0.00% 0/0/L0/1.5/L0/2.5/L1.5/0/L1.5/1.5/L1.5/2.5/L3/0/S3/1.5/S3/2.5/S4/0/S4/1.5/S4/2.5/S Sample Treatment CodePercent Weight Change Figure 4-3. Influence of cooking on weight of samples treated w ith different combinations of STP and NaCl after cooking. Note: Percen t change calculated from measurements taken at raw and cooked state. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% ST P, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour).

PAGE 52

52 Figure 4-4. Ratio of percent moisture conten t to total phosphorus in raw shrimp samples exposed to different concentrations of STP and NaCl. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour). 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0/0/L0/1.5/L0/2.5/L1.5/0/L1.5/1.5/L1.5/2.5/L3/0/S3/1.5/S3/1.5/S4/0/S4/1.5/S4/2.5/S SamplesRatio of Percent Moisture to Total Phosphorus Raw Shrimp

PAGE 53

53 Figure 4-5. Ratio of percent moisture content to total phosphorus in cooked shrimp samples exposed to different concentrations of STP and NaCl. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl, Short term exposure (one hour). 2 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0/0/L 0/1.5/L0/2.5/L1.5/0/L1.5/1.5/L1.5/2.5/L 3/0/S3/1.5/S3/1.5/S4/0/S4/1.5/S4/2.5/S SamplesRatio of Percent Moisture to Total Phosphorus Cooked Shrimp

PAGE 54

54 Figure 4-6. Total salt content change from raw to cooked shrimp exposed to different combinations of STP and NaCl. Samp les are grouped by STP concentrations, increasing NaCl combinations (0, 1.5, and 2.5%), and exposure time (Long=four hours, s=one hour.) 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Total Salt (NaCl) 0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0%STP ----------------------------L-----------------------------------------S----------------------------------0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% NaCl

PAGE 55

55 Figure 4-7. Sodium content change from ra w to cooked shrimp exposed to different combinations of STP and NaCl. Samp les are grouped by STP concentrations, increasing NaCl combinations (0, 1.5, and 2.5%), and exposure time (long=four hours, short=one hour.) Sodium (Na) Content (mg/100g) 0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP ------------------------------L-------------------------------------------------S------------------------------0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% NaCl

PAGE 56

56 Figure 4-8. Average responses by trained pane l regarding Color for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corres ponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClLight Average Dark

PAGE 57

57 Figure 4-9. Average responses by trained panel regarding Translu cency for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corres ponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClVery Translucent Translucent Opaque

PAGE 58

58 Figure 4-10. Average responses by trained pane l regarding Plumpness for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corres ponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0% STP1.5% STP3.0%STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClVery Plump Plump Shriveled

PAGE 59

59 Figure 4-11. Average responses by trained panel regarding Moistness for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corres ponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClVery Moist Average Very Dry

PAGE 60

60 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2020.5217.218.3915.5115.0415.3515.3614.9216.5114.4315.6Compressive Load (N)Rating Figure 4-12. Texture ratings fo r trained panel corresponding to maximum compressive load (N) as measured by the Instron machine for sh rimp samples of different STP and NaCl concentrations. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCl Short term exposure (one hour).

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4-13. Average responses by trained pa nel regarding Hardness/Firmness for samples treated with different con centrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corresponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClExtremely Firm Average Extremely Mushy

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4-14. Average responses by trained panel regarding Chewiness for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corres ponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0% STP1.5% STP3% STPP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClExtremely Chewy Average Not Chewy

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4-15. Average responses by trained panel regarding Saltiness for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corres ponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClVery Salty Average Not Very Salty

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4-16. Average responses by trained pane l regarding Flavor for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corres ponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0% STP1.5 % STP3% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClExtremely Like Average Extremely Dislike

PAGE 65

65 Overall Appearance0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 123456789 Panelist RankngNumber of Responses (0) 1.5 % P (0) 3% P (0) 4 % P (0) Control (1.5) 1.5 % P (1.5) 3% P (1.5) 4 % P (1.5) Control (2.5) 1.5 % P (2.5) 3% P (2.5) 4 % P (2.5) Control Figure 4-17. Histogram of overall appearance as rated by consumer panel for shrimp treated with different concentrations of STP a nd NaCl. Ratings ranged from extremely dislike (1) to extremely like (9).

PAGE 66

66 Figure 4-18. Average responses by consumer pa nel regarding Overall Appearance for samples treated with different con centrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corresponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClDislike Extremely Dislike Very Much Dislike Moderately Dislike Slightly Neither Like nor Dislike Like Slightly Like Moderately Like Very Much Like Extremely

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4-19. Average responses by consumer pane l regarding Flavor for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corres ponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClDislike Extremely Dislike Very Much Dislike Moderately Dislike Slightly Neither Like nor Dislike Like Slightly Like Moderately Like Very Much Like Extremely

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4-20. Histogram of saltiness as rated by c onsumer panel for shrimp treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl. Ratings ranged from not salty enough (1) to much too salty (5). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12345 Panelist RankngNumber of Responses (0) 1.5 % P (0) 3% P (0) 4 % P (0) Control (1.5) 1.5 % P (1.5) 3% P (1.5) 4 % P (1.5) Control (2.5) 1.5 % P (2.5) 3% P (2.5) 4 % P (2.5) Control

PAGE 69

69 Figure 4-21. Average responses by consumer pa nel responses regarding Saltiness for samples treated with different con centrations of STP and NaCl Word anchors corresponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClNot at all Salty Enough Not quite Salty Enough About right Somewhat too Salty Much too Salty

PAGE 70

70 Figure 4-22. Histogram of firmness as rated by c onsumer panel for shrimp treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl. Ratings ranged from not at all firm enough (1) to much too firm (5). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 12345 Panelist RankngNumbe r of Responses (0) 1.5 % P (0) 3% P (0) 4 % P (0) Control (1.5) 1.5 % P (1.5) 3% P (1.5) 4 % P (1.5) Control (2.5) 1.5 % P (2.5) 3% P (2.5) 4 % P (2.5) Control

PAGE 71

71 Figure 4-23. Average responses by consumer pa nel regarding Moistne ss for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl. Word anchors corresponding to ratings are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClNot at all Moist Enough Not quite Moist Enough About right Somewhat too Moist Much too moist

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4-24. Histogram of moistness as rate d by consumer panel for shrimp treated with different concentrations of STP and Na Cl. Ratings ranged fro m not at all moist enough (1) to much too moist (5). 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 12345 Panelist RankngNumber of Responses (0) 1.5 % P (0) 3% P (0) 4 % P (0) Control (1.5) 1.5 % P (1.5) 3% P (1.5) 4 % P (1.5) Control (2.5) 1.5 % P (2.5) 3% P (2.5) 4 % P (2.5) Control

PAGE 73

73 Figure 4-25. Average responses by consumer pane l regarding Overall Liking for samples treated with different concentrations of STP and NaCl. Word anchors corresponding to rating are included on the vertical axis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0% STP1.5% STP3.0% STP4.0% STP 0% NaCl 1.5% NaCl 2.5 % NaClDislike Extremely Dislike Very Much Dislike Moderately Dislike Slightly Neither Like nor Dislike Like Slightly Like Moderately Like Very Much Like Extremely

PAGE 74

74 APPENDIX A FORM PRESENTED TO TRAINED PAN EL FOR SHRIMP CHARACTERIZATION Shrimp Product Characterization Form Form includes standards used in scales and corresponding ratings. Panelist: __________________________________ Date:_____________________________________ Sample Number:____________________________ APPEARANCE OF SHRIMP Color: Light Dark 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Opacity/Translucency: Opaque Translucent Very Translucent 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Plumpness: Shriveled Plump Very Plump 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 AROMA General: Extremely Dislike Extremely Like 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 BASIC TASTES Salty: Very Bland Very Salty Std5 Std10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 100 200 300 400 500 Mg of Na 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.55 % NaCl Sweet: Not Very Sweet Very Sweet 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ritz

PAGE 75

75 Sour: Not Very Sour Very Sour Std5 Std10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.38g 0.75g Bitter: Not Very Bitter Very Bitter Std5 Std10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0.38g 0.71g Umami: Not-Umami like Very Umami Std5 Std10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1/4tsp 1/2tsp FLAVOR & MOUTH FEEL Moisture: Very Dry Very Moist 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 76% 78% 80% 82% 84% Flavor: Extremely Dislike Extremely like 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Aftertaste: None Extreme 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Aftertaste detected:___________________________________________ TEXTURE Hardness/Firmness: Extremely Mushy Extremely Firm 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Instron Chewiness : Not Chewy Extremely Chewy 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Cheese DEFINITIONS Moistness: The perceived degree of oil an d/or water in the sample during chewing. Hardness/Firmness: perceived force required to compress a substance between molar teeth. Chewiness: Number of chews required to mas ticate a sample at one chew per second and constant rate of force app lication to reduce to a consis tence suitable for swallowing.

PAGE 76

76 APPENDIX B FORM PRESENTED TO CONSUMER PANEL TO JUDGE ACCEPTABILITY OF SHRIMP Question 1. Please indicate your gender: Male Female Question 2. Which of the following ranges includes your age? Under 18 18-20 21-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-65 Over 65 Question 3. Which of the following represents your race? Caucasian African American Native American Asian or Pacific Islander Hispanic Other Decline to answer Question 4. Which of the following categories describes your household annual inco me before taxes? Under 20,000 $20-35,000 $36-50,000 $51-75,000 $76-100,000 Over $100,000 Decline to answer Question 5. How often do you eat shrimp (eith er at home or ordered out)? More than once a day Once a day 2-3 times a week Once a week 2-3 times a month Once a month Once a year Question 6.

PAGE 77

77 Please look at sample # (sample number here) but do not taste yet. Answer the following question about the APPEARANCE. Please disregard the presence of the vein and indicate how much you like the OVERALL APPEARANCE. Dislike extremely Dislike very much Dislike moderately Dislike slightly Neither like nor dislike Like slightly Like moderately Like very much Like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question 7. Please look at sample # (sample number here) but do not taste yet. Answer the following question about the AROMA. Dislike extremely Dislike very much Dislike moderately Dislike slightly Neither like nor dislike Like slightly Like moderately Like very much Like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question 8. Please take a bite of cracker a nd a sip of water to rinse your mouth. The following questions deal with the TASTE, FLAVOR, MOISTURE and TEXT URE of the shrimp. Please taste just enough to be able to answer each question. Please indicate how mu ch you like the FLAVOR. Dislike extremely Dislike very much Dislike moderately Dislike slightly Neither like nor dislike Like slightly Like moderately Like very much Like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question 9. Would you say that the SALTINESS of the product is.? Not at all salty enough Not quite salty enough About right Somewhat too Salty Much too Salty 1 2 3 4 5 Question 10. Would you say that the FIRMNESS of the product is.? Not at all firm enough Not quite firm enough About right Somewhat too Firm Much too Firm 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 78

78 Question 11. Would you say that the MOIS TNESS of the product is.? Not at all moist enough Not quite moist enough About right Somewhat too moist Much too moist 1 2 3 4 5 Question 12. Does this product have an aftertaste? Yes No Question 13. How would you describe the AF TERTASTE of this product? Mild aftertaste Moderate aftertaste Strong aftertaste 1 2 3 Question 14. Please indicate how much you like the sample OVERALL. Dislike extremely Dislike very much Dislike moderately Dislike slightly Neither like nor dislike Like slightly Like moderately Like very much Like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 79

79 APPENDIX C PICTURE SCALES USED FOR COLO R, PLUMPNESS, AND OPACITY Trained panel characterization scales. Opacity/Translucency Plumpness 0 Shriveled 5 Plump 10 Very Plump Opacity 10 Translucent 5 0 Opaque 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PAGE 80

80 LIST OF REFERENCES Banks, W.T., Wang, C., and Br ewer, M.S. 1998. Sodium lactate/sodium tripolyphosphate combination effects on aerobic plate counts, pH and color of fresh pork longissimus muscle. Meat Science 50 (4): 499-504. Bender, F.G., Everson, C.W., and Swartz, W. E., inventors. 1985 Feb. 19. Increasing the organoleptic acceptability of shank meat. U.S. patent 4,500,559. Civille, G.V. and Lyon, B.G. 1996. Aroma and fla vor lexicon for sensor y evaluation: terms, definitions, references and examples. ASTM Data Series Publications DS 66m West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. Crawford, D. L. 1980. Meat yield and shell re moval functions of shrimp processing. Oregon State University Extension Marine Adviso ry Program. Land Grant/Sea Grant Cooperative Special Report 597. 6p. Crawford, D.L. 1981. Composition for treating fish fillet to increase yield and shelf life U.S. patent 4,293,578. Ekkehard, L.K., and McFee, E.P. 1949 Dec 10. Process of canning fish and shellfish and resultant product. U.S. patent 2,555,236. Ellinger, R.H. 1972. The functions and applic ations of phosphates in food systems. In Phosphates as Food Ingredients. Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press. p 31. Erdogdu, F., Balaban, M.O., Otwell, W.S., Garri do, L.R. 2003. Cook-related yield loss for pacific white ( Penaeus vannamei ) shrimp previously treated with phosphates : effects of shrimp size and internal temperature dist ribution. J Food Engine ering. 64(3): 297-300. Falci, K. J, and Scott, R.N. 1977 Aug. 1. Wate r and color retention treatment for frozen processed shrimp. U.S. patent 4, 221, 819. Fisher, R.A. 1993. Overview of phosphate use in sea scallop processing. Proceedings Third Joint Conference Atlantic Fisheries Technology Societ y and Tropical and S ubtropical Fisheries Technology Society, Williamsburg, Virginia. Sea Grant Publication-in press. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. Gloucester Point, VA. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu Froning, G. W., and Sackett, B. 1985. Effect of salt and phosphates duri ng tumbling of turkey breast muscle on meat characterist ics. J Poultry Science. 64:1328. Garnatz, G., Volle, N.H., and Deatherage, F.E. 1946 Feb. 6. Processing of shrimp. U.S. patent 2,488,184.

PAGE 81

81 Garrido, L. R., Applewhite, L. D ., and Otwell, W. S. 1992. Initial studies to measure consumer perception of water added to shrimp with phosphate treatments. Proceeding Seventeenth Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technological Conference of the Americas, Meridia, Yucatan, Mexico. Florida Sea Gran t Publication 113, p. 86-88. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu Garrido, L.R., Applewhite, L.D., and Otwell, W. S. 1993. Consumer perceptions for phosphate treated shrimp and scallops. Proceedings Third Joint Conference Atlantic Fisheries Technology Society and Tropical and Subt ropical Fisheries Technology Society, Williamsburg, Virginia. Sea Grant Publication-in press. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu Garrido, L.R., Applewhite, L.D., and Otwell, W. S. 1993. Consumer evaluations of phosphated shrimp and scallops. FL department of Agri culture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Seafood and Agriculture, University of Florida. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu Gibson, D. M. and Murray, C. K. 1973. Polyphos phates and fish. Chemical studies, J. Food Technology. 8 (197) Heitkemper, D., Kaine, L., Jackson, D. and Wo lnik, K. 1993. Determination of tripolyphosphate and related hydrolysis products in proce ssed shrimp. Proceedings from the Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Tec hnological Conference of the Americas, Williamsburg, Va. 1993. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu Lall, S. P. 1995. Macro and trace elements in fish and shellfish. In: A. Ruiter, editor. Fish and fishery products. CAB International. Lampila, Lucina E. 1992. Functions and uses of phosphates in the seafood industry. J Aquatic Food Product Tech. 1 (3/4). Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H. 1998. Sensory evaluation of food: prin ciples and practices. New York: Chapman and Hall. Lewis, D.F., Groves, K.H.M., and Holgat e, JH. 1986. Action of polyphosphates in meat products. Food Microstructure. 5:53. Love, R. M., and Abel, G. 1966. The effect of pho sphate solution on the denaturation of frozen cod muscle. J Food Technol. 1:323-333. Lute, J. B., Borresen, T., and Oehlenschlater J. 1997. Seafood from producer to consumer, integrated approach to quality. Neth erlands: Elsevier Publishing Company. Mahon, J.H., and Township, S. 1960 Jul. 11. Preservation of fish. U.S. patent 3,036,923. McAuley, B.J. 1984. Improvement in and relatin g to the processing of meat, UK Patent Application GB2, 126,865 A.

PAGE 82

82 Meilgaard, M.C., Civille, G., and Carr, B.T. 1999. Sensory Evaluati on Techniques, Third Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Meyer, A. 1952 May 19. Process for the improvement of taste, digestibility, and stability of fish meat. U.S. patent 2,735,777. Molins, Ricardo A. 1991. Phosphates in Food. Boca Raton: CRC press. Otwell, Steven W. 1993. Use of phosphates with s outhern penaeid shrimp. Proceedings from the Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technological Conference of the Americas, Williamsburg, Va. 1993. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu Regenstein, J., Lu, x., Eilmeier, D. 1993. Functi onality of polyphosphates. Proceedings from the Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technological Conference of the Americas, Williamsburg, Va. 1993. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu Sturno, M.M. 1987. Development of a rapid high performance liquid chro matography technique for detecting phosphate treatment in shrimp. University of Florida masters thesis. Stone, E. W. 1981. Method of treating fresh shrimp to reduce moisture and nutrient loss. U.S. patent 4,293,578, Swartz, L.E. 1969 Jan. 29. Bonito processing. U.S. patent 3,620,767. Tenhet, V., Finne, G. Nickelson, R. and Toloda y, D. 1981. Phosphorous levels in peeled and deveined shrimp treated with sodium tripolyphosphate. J Food Sci. 46(2):344-349. Vyncke, W. 1978. Influence of sodi um tripolyphosphate and citric acid on the shelf life of thornback ray (Raja clavata L.). Z Lebensm Unters Forsch.166(5):284-6. Webb, N.B., Howell, A.J., Barbour, B.C., Monr oe, R.J., and Hamana, D.D. 1975. Effect of additives, processing techniques and frozen storage on the texture of shrimp. J Food Sci 40(1975): 322-326.

PAGE 83

83 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Danielle Bogan was born in Winter Park, Fl orida and graduated from Lake Howell High School in 2001. She earned her bachelors degree in food science and hum an nutrition from the University of Florida in 2005. She then earned her masters degree in food science and human nutrition from the same department from the University of Florida in 2007.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101112_AAAAEC INGEST_TIME 2010-11-12T19:50:53Z PACKAGE UFE0020141_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 36246 DFID F20101112_AACNHQ ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH bogan_d_Page_16.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
9326c43d0ba4d5f16bb28201ebed17d8
SHA-1
561f0c7e7bba459242838c90ee618eea8e46eeac
40520 F20101112_AACMQY bogan_d_Page_73.jpg
a5e2adc7d7fe4b8fc60f8c91c343b6f1
351b90a2044b2fa7aaa91e935e94f912d29d3037
40457 F20101112_AACNCT bogan_d_Page_43.pro
629b868a0366531c432dd467165e19d5
b3129c2de138bddcce7c50b8af99241195e0c4c3
37629 F20101112_AACMVV bogan_d_Page_69.jpg
03eb47778f33b32e9d6cd92608d352c8
3865a36d617133660713df328f30aeb615e77202
8736 F20101112_AACNHR bogan_d_Page_16thm.jpg
0be2d494ba04176301e720116d3a1a6a
ba6b651ac334fc7e7d4291add8b3cbebd721ec50
2652 F20101112_AACMQZ bogan_d_Page_81.txt
4e960e47fb4f3225cc87ae9d632a60d2
ee73ec5afc9d21a051f1abf179498302551b79ff
38184 F20101112_AACNCU bogan_d_Page_44.pro
1e10bb184b7b15363af23ac35c371c88
6cab0da7b207a68041d1bf4ce82dfaf6136fed37
37454 F20101112_AACMVW bogan_d_Page_70.jpg
88dc3ebc98a1b73de1816e8bccdfb0b1
a00285e121b044325eec58dcea44ad787be1cf19
31430 F20101112_AACNHS bogan_d_Page_17.QC.jpg
2a6aaec92a91c85c4729a36e94f1f26d
d6875e9259a13912e02764ab73802babb6a22d96
38594 F20101112_AACNCV bogan_d_Page_45.pro
95e6db0cc252b2195bfc29b1a7e16a28
01d107703fb03fd50e881f5c042ce8b5c77adfb4
35641 F20101112_AACMVX bogan_d_Page_71.jpg
2da76ccd9e203f90fc343fdca0749444
dc459f212ac311f2915ced16f91ff6e3380b3b69
8251 F20101112_AACNHT bogan_d_Page_17thm.jpg
e63ab9b8fbe7cb86160f235461b9f7a6
9f8de5637b941c77e0246c623d5032719e3a984c
39188 F20101112_AACNCW bogan_d_Page_47.pro
dc24e0494be75d346836d35c82cdd35e
9743ddceed9867a8edc6ec0ae7837535d974f7f5
9671 F20101112_AACMTA bogan_d_Page_40.QC.jpg
f5705f7aa9e28093842c9bf4fc9876c0
164e52efda6365f03e841f3a0ae94eb1093ca847
45173 F20101112_AACMVY bogan_d_Page_74.jpg
57c148f968f3304965ccbe14a632ddee
bcb01dc247d4bd54dcf3a7b1267d78919f2c8ad4
36477 F20101112_AACNHU bogan_d_Page_18.QC.jpg
41f62664e083fb075972bd2bcf619a2f
d07661ef1dedeccdf503c1e91c810c9c3c879d14
38639 F20101112_AACNCX bogan_d_Page_48.pro
21c2409ba6f2245cfec360d68ab2b3a8
1c39b4f8504e1fc0aec931a34d213bda4512aed2
326384 F20101112_AACMTB bogan_d_Page_64.jp2
1a8244ea56bde2948dd83a56a265ca72
43c66267ce46a51cd3600d10f3e4ca782ee54bd2
58232 F20101112_AACMVZ bogan_d_Page_75.jpg
ba2acdc44e3a054fb1cb14024ecedb84
c965fe47407687691f33016623e1038eefe0212a
9054 F20101112_AACNHV bogan_d_Page_18thm.jpg
0f648d3bf745c83138542d6dbae34165
7505cd1c628d13dcee853216de080cef5b23d464
13409 F20101112_AACNCY bogan_d_Page_49.pro
59c97eea524b61278c0613af9a6c1f64
4456cbb504c4e2983cb679d83f950420feec15a7
83840 F20101112_AACMTC bogan_d_Page_77.jp2
33194c479e6bcbb84127c45c4d0820e5
8dcb7f4b7d379f3d3dac17d94895d4d0e4d6f621
14027 F20101112_AACNHW bogan_d_Page_19.QC.jpg
7a4a690eb0fa6676da2b6b720e44012a
0b8944bd772485a700f4b21601e34e50af5b8deb
329400 F20101112_AACMYA bogan_d_Page_61.jp2
b1d4173981ebd8973c86809cfd01fe5a
b2a48a5c2ba9104e76f230415dd8aab77cb12031
25271604 F20101112_AACNAA bogan_d_Page_41.tif
e7e3f9c31723b801ff6de7ef348339e2
45aa374fdfbd3be6fd8cc7b2a9a9c36cfe4dc6ef
13288 F20101112_AACNCZ bogan_d_Page_50.pro
5f95783a45869e0335e1838abe30e6a8
13ff9df642470d4a444f1a0df76f03a06cb9ba68
14308 F20101112_AACMTD bogan_d_Page_49.QC.jpg
8c840d326c728e2ed804e5850d1fc1af
0a096c161c34e3009d15f0692a0cb5e9a67c2ecd
3681 F20101112_AACNHX bogan_d_Page_19thm.jpg
ab946780d9846634125bb54f752e68b3
6de67d0fc75a303fa514f1ead494287ed5337770
329807 F20101112_AACMYB bogan_d_Page_62.jp2
e69c27de4e23c070e93ac6cc6b522de9
242639c137475da19c55dd35d4407dd7ad1f23de
F20101112_AACNAB bogan_d_Page_43.tif
fa7bc31c42a99c4dec05884e734c09aa
66883e582f0e5f4567bdbd27e2cd7494eb5f3bc7
404997 F20101112_AACMTE bogan_d_Page_51.jp2
714068d38e888e0ca44afaca1e288a82
f3c7086d6777e8b40594e68abaa8cd1a9099382a
35401 F20101112_AACNHY bogan_d_Page_21.QC.jpg
3a8ef4f9fbb6d216cbd0e3507497094b
bc8a2a9c08946eb0928fe3b423ef0ca9d57339db
329508 F20101112_AACMYC bogan_d_Page_63.jp2
d1c6c0a161b216248ab302929e769193
c79c20d66f22e569454e062677ed97e6d74b0ed6
F20101112_AACNAC bogan_d_Page_44.tif
2f75ebecfd0b00868f5a94e3838497b1
538054673dcaf5c8abeef623b420335392a5bf12
112272 F20101112_AACMTF bogan_d_Page_16.jpg
7118697e51b6109acdf9a01cad83309d
6227ae5f7b6e4026877d6df60c01dbdc0f243d82
8542 F20101112_AACNHZ bogan_d_Page_21thm.jpg
a81d3f7a42d578a3890251b77583d94d
9d23187eb43f9c0099dc519b6599971c8bf2dc03
1094 F20101112_AACNFA bogan_d_Page_31.txt
6bceee9cb6ed3d65f359414a4de376ce
0ea407b5081f91088b5c9f9d4dc25bec78d0fa79
446256 F20101112_AACMYD bogan_d_Page_65.jp2
cb927faa65ac622faee6ee191543e881
331af3b6383e797d039e8d4e23d01931fcc67cd2
F20101112_AACNAD bogan_d_Page_45.tif
e18dca004d4655d75d8e57056cb61e23
ab4ae4f02acec70c1695381e5f90b558352c2bc8
104734 F20101112_AACMTG bogan_d_Page_36.jpg
2ab19f4d377654953462039d4512203a
fef7fe7d853c2bae36fefa2f5a2f9a7bff45666b
2189 F20101112_AACNFB bogan_d_Page_32.txt
cfdeb45da4a2604fcb52756a7a8a64ac
9ff00888ba2e265f558dfb8fc5f84d7847193e6e
357607 F20101112_AACMYE bogan_d_Page_66.jp2
b8f4be7d1c33dac4db836e619430d896
4d1ee9c7900b79520967e10cd59b08cc7b223586
F20101112_AACNAE bogan_d_Page_47.tif
7aaa3a50b4d6d880d34b4dd3043c4417
4c5c92d0b8163046ff5e3d3b54089de81bdfb626
2219 F20101112_AACMTH bogan_d_Page_38.txt
006a1936a6e5ba549e2c6a4af005357a
e7347fe4eb7f54e43edad33e86d141f52d844176
14929 F20101112_AACNKA bogan_d_Page_55.QC.jpg
083dabe15756e14e139efd75cd7243ed
ffda48feb3b61dc5d0fdf13d01efe498cd9593a7
2001 F20101112_AACNFC bogan_d_Page_33.txt
c6164b9530ae27105963e4a0b9374c32
495b3e6afda9985a1810d984b0f372d2a42f004e
352990 F20101112_AACMYF bogan_d_Page_67.jp2
ee166c1defe05ca8f0e5e3811c5fb45b
0318b389bd0416b5db268abc225f96be4cbab8f5
F20101112_AACNAF bogan_d_Page_48.tif
a9ac9cf7b6b661df4277a3d03b7b0114
143e4b17a2acf2619c0021f122a6b14793cabe4a
364 F20101112_AACMTI bogan_d_Page_56.txt
7a1abaa2c956beb6ee1b6e8d132bbb27
48113931ef43fa471a7a8457639dcb449e51af5c
4722 F20101112_AACNKB bogan_d_Page_55thm.jpg
39bca173286e9a5985139bdca5e12107
19c4a962cb29a5ffb0b982a8c1426ae836cd3469
2241 F20101112_AACNFD bogan_d_Page_34.txt
616ad5ef5ebcd720d77a186ab07c0ae4
8948cbe790659ad5a2f237531cab7f1e03c27714
355938 F20101112_AACMYG bogan_d_Page_68.jp2
674ac62bef91dfec6857c455f18e71b2
3b64324b779e113216d689791c517185b18f4abf
8423998 F20101112_AACNAG bogan_d_Page_49.tif
7ca83765fbc1d315ec6a6bffe1bae0f9
9ab6854d25a01c732f22d1a9165ff54f8244de23
106689 F20101112_AACMTJ bogan_d_Page_24.jpg
a57a92288f6af658728daa15b808aab4
c69377053994962267a630964b115dcde36219f0
13636 F20101112_AACNKC bogan_d_Page_56.QC.jpg
7ef212815ca38acf43e85d51fda0ad28
d51d185acd1eb3b526fb18569c54e7abfc047859
2146 F20101112_AACNFE bogan_d_Page_35.txt
c7d81da4c48988cb676e1f2cb5c1e41a
efb039b89d2c7dd1b2e5ce8fc8f66f3d213ff487
321269 F20101112_AACMYH bogan_d_Page_69.jp2
9ec1e50d5e1cd9bf8e156f6b57862230
3c4907f2806b2609c98ab8ca7e6242afc4851095
F20101112_AACNAH bogan_d_Page_50.tif
48d7a23682c507e2f387b721cb234c8f
33584d1ded5cf562739c4feec1ed0a75a64e4b2a
5690 F20101112_AACMTK bogan_d_Page_79thm.jpg
2a349764ea82f31882c27f553110efdb
15191162c11e157517bce5c9866e1bcd0c146f46
3986 F20101112_AACNKD bogan_d_Page_56thm.jpg
690e260f608753d0da862ac1c6b6614f
131d735d6279529180e8fce6843c4b8a9ee82ea7
2086 F20101112_AACNFF bogan_d_Page_36.txt
a4e806012dea79426f41f51edeb650fc
5a09722c5e516c2dfe39e9e948688ca0eed8f18e
346469 F20101112_AACMYI bogan_d_Page_70.jp2
21cec540bf05a5b5b2156b1b09a3ce20
eb0f545755a797d196b331a36f9526ce2450f0d4
F20101112_AACNAI bogan_d_Page_51.tif
3f2718836a4591aef663ea9c7601af3d
f63b49843ad783df165203ed436f0ff9efac9fd3
7578 F20101112_AACMTL bogan_d_Page_20thm.jpg
28a2f1dca009dbe660ba3f2693a0d422
434b9a5f6729483d46170fdb869a7bb7255ffdb3
2127 F20101112_AACNFG bogan_d_Page_37.txt
da242da62e3f0a23415aa0b37090bdb0
d3850f75c392db5e28708ae1a64e87f2b1adfd38
299789 F20101112_AACMYJ bogan_d_Page_71.jp2
7b1193eb87ea047730882b18153903a9
9e7815a9be94559be87dcf6195ca3080386883ea
F20101112_AACNAJ bogan_d_Page_52.tif
a5daa83ba7986b6285ab2f810e57d848
b23c381d1f1ea66edbf7355bebbe66ff68dbe079
447 F20101112_AACMTM bogan_d_Page_62.txt
f5157c01ac4f00cfa1ab4ff588383c1c
a8098d5a37625495eafdcadab4c4f05c84fd519f
13666 F20101112_AACNKE bogan_d_Page_57.QC.jpg
db6119aaf7e806bfbf66a0645b3e3b8c
2a9923692b8fdd2ed5eb5c167f21bd1031b4afe6
2037 F20101112_AACNFH bogan_d_Page_39.txt
121336b85d25079edafa1e336b615729
3d2d505d8933969ce932260bec03bb4051bb5e97
344940 F20101112_AACMYK bogan_d_Page_72.jp2
3d66bfdd5b4afc31ad888cac75d216a7
e0762feaf2b0bd9fe8e1d97e35d83225e1cb966a
F20101112_AACNAK bogan_d_Page_53.tif
0107f6e99e54315dcd1b19bf0541dfbe
ff0b5550e735958d90a6d2dcfae7e347c502ca69
30076 F20101112_AACMTN bogan_d_Page_20.QC.jpg
d3ca3eb6b8b1a3c8fdc751690bf8ab2f
03aa15e7847c7282181bdb0805de17b04a74c72c
13192 F20101112_AACNKF bogan_d_Page_58.QC.jpg
db79719f22d5062e71201d184380a7dc
8a87f8f5ec88af34b054944b2b63844efa188d96
519 F20101112_AACNFI bogan_d_Page_40.txt
74438400397971da5c24f0c154bb4253
b15fb72a1c876447f200e17877acd5da46b2917c
355003 F20101112_AACMYL bogan_d_Page_73.jp2
f10d734902dbe7bc4dd8a34dfeb738bf
41325fc97973998c775acc4d136bb9d7a0a9a149
F20101112_AACNAL bogan_d_Page_54.tif
2f457ffffb1a10506339a36767256d58
545e36dd54773cca3f37943228321eb4fe8aac89
4260 F20101112_AACNKG bogan_d_Page_58thm.jpg
aa15c22d244ef38077b1bc203fdf2705
9a9a5891778593770acc6b1e3b62729fc030d3d8
1258 F20101112_AACNFJ bogan_d_Page_41.txt
d2e10029a0eae1334a68407543732627
b9a5d3ecd32bfbf7cdef89fef471c36809663268
47348 F20101112_AACMYM bogan_d_Page_74.jp2
cacb3898764eddcd285df24b2db1aa4c
e51d84a6fcfbc52b448d368596c5c6e4a93f160a
F20101112_AACNAM bogan_d_Page_55.tif
38c226973e5109ad97ad82cef49bd906
e24a240005e3bc9758ed328a446582bf22a23649
414175 F20101112_AACMTO bogan_d_Page_52.jp2
62b06b1beb15cd6e7989104d455eeaf9
e30b673ccf11a71ea6a4099882be5b1d2a121699
14158 F20101112_AACNKH bogan_d_Page_59.QC.jpg
c86b1855495b1acf219a21d0cae5dc5c
4eaeab3e0e8c8ec52f2a1b8ebe8f1eb8c63acab9
1244 F20101112_AACNFK bogan_d_Page_42.txt
a3da08890a8657434c230f0de0902fdf
d619f34c2ec2f5541b13393364f715577f1c9309
F20101112_AACNAN bogan_d_Page_57.tif
f197afa4bafb5256ce311ace7f75a1c7
6ff641f5ac8fd42d4f71c56a7442dd19c5e37ce9
115296 F20101112_AACMTP bogan_d_Page_15.jpg
e3b08ec5877897e92b43dc18264c870b
ba26747b4cc7e894de83a1720b99ee24bc326dc1
62580 F20101112_AACMYN bogan_d_Page_75.jp2
6831e845e53ab693923f39910d911331
232ca5b5e2eedc6b583635a6c36a3163f0d73309
4071 F20101112_AACNKI bogan_d_Page_59thm.jpg
c1a49e44c114d937769e5ef2f347cd8e
9a9bb392a241360e080ad731b8be31dbcd72337a
1827 F20101112_AACNFL bogan_d_Page_44.txt
39dc307b1df2fbba6c3932b035b9f62e
aea77f3faa9422a5232a923856a58a37f77b9894
F20101112_AACNAO bogan_d_Page_58.tif
4ec08423d10c5760f1ea8291b9b73be3
d4efdaf096dd2e0ca2994c5e4cae75a873086c5c
8286 F20101112_AACMTQ bogan_d_Page_01.QC.jpg
21d30d0baaf41d5e2bae961cc30a3296
7b4d4b2889a5049514e053b71f164db1094f2931
38715 F20101112_AACMYO bogan_d_Page_78.jp2
eb4d1e84bc9fb40085fb15d7aa481ea6
8489957851013314ec00e09c74e01c5e5c92b6da
11329 F20101112_AACNKJ bogan_d_Page_60.QC.jpg
1ad2cd5ce156c7ffe23eebc60796d55c
e0d587e4d25f7c2164fd61157547d83019d19279
1823 F20101112_AACNFM bogan_d_Page_45.txt
c23bcfe76715f7cc43e41b93804c49ca
2c544ed70d77b24315eec67a6a017d70e9b9dabc
F20101112_AACNAP bogan_d_Page_59.tif
bd786437e39c4ffdf4b0b8da1964196d
009e5139332e37d81ab5ded1dfe2c3ed95c5ed29
124841 F20101112_AACMTR UFE0020141_00001.xml FULL
4d0c8248b495c3002bab0ed194916867
65f450bdca5f2477b45e5be18662b2a9837e2972
637908 F20101112_AACMYP bogan_d_Page_79.jp2
52a5e884fb98b279684ed7553804fe22
99788c545a4e9697b39a74975385f9699e25a933
3730 F20101112_AACNKK bogan_d_Page_60thm.jpg
501e03497f5d8ba73cb851cef78a6934
7840ea9633ea6786acb5d58ef290286cf25a4667
1225 F20101112_AACNFN bogan_d_Page_46.txt
13062c038f4f2b2f1a9e780c7687e6ef
3a08a650e0226f7ec9e8100fc7297c26512b14ed
F20101112_AACNAQ bogan_d_Page_61.tif
255764de91cce9991c2a84502e15556a
aeb3f7a7a5ab7eafddf88adcf552215d892d85f3
96823 F20101112_AACMYQ bogan_d_Page_82.jp2
8def522d05ea94b5e725be4797d1e014
d8bcd929e45e691b585e0047cde5cc45f1699ca9
4229 F20101112_AACNKL bogan_d_Page_61thm.jpg
842ab2a1d88bc087ffcac3ecf4818c99
6afdc1ea8001130b72c7c093de6c2aa9e28bb919
2016 F20101112_AACNFO bogan_d_Page_48.txt
040960f7d226a6292263fff57840efa7
0e1a32d3083b7af4d49c20b218d599225b4289aa
F20101112_AACNAR bogan_d_Page_62.tif
10036d35fffa661cb3b5d937a9f0790f
302462669cf3cbc4e6154c5465ecda9d6f29c942
25249 F20101112_AACMYR bogan_d_Page_83.jp2
2884b36e7830825f7b189c86d2862b8c
60cc06f07796b5170c79015d34b74dbaad136006
14017 F20101112_AACNKM bogan_d_Page_62.QC.jpg
523c1c83279251664c8bf2e97f232605
c5bbce716736c15bf83a25d8031efdedae6a7702
623 F20101112_AACNFP bogan_d_Page_49.txt
7751ce727317fbb1460684af71eeacdd
9739ba0523902490eb744bdb69e6fcfdfc15f072
F20101112_AACNAS bogan_d_Page_63.tif
40205af8c1fd22290ea73b7760041268
8746f4e069ff5a6a06801bb40321ef582c812908
3850 F20101112_AACMTU bogan_d_Page_02.jpg
71675d14cab15ef9917db07272e91f3a
54796a8c00604374d044fe9831980bd606082fd4
1053954 F20101112_AACMYS bogan_d_Page_01.tif
f305c4f4756fb36836d2641ccbf8ea25
8dd697e8bcafd5279d95079f30359e403ac6edd3
14194 F20101112_AACNKN bogan_d_Page_63.QC.jpg
6b68c2d937e1f480f93a14ae8153c655
5089f6c4965b33b850b56d3c745f353b0c6c7aeb
736 F20101112_AACNFQ bogan_d_Page_50.txt
360869efd4f5d53df7839f6587186a1a
40b3e8183304ab82f9cedbc31676149b50b7e690
F20101112_AACNAT bogan_d_Page_64.tif
2e8064a6b7ac3db677114b1a06e4aeaf
be8cd4443af672f070cee9229261590b402e126d
54656 F20101112_AACMTV bogan_d_Page_03.jpg
881aeebe5becc83a4d3e74689f7eadd0
c6fbc73ab296ac2c41d89c591cb26de8efbf861a
4178 F20101112_AACNKO bogan_d_Page_63thm.jpg
7e1140135712d2824c84de9ab8025a43
fe79da04399c74c01efdfe715874ec600d517a30
656 F20101112_AACNFR bogan_d_Page_51.txt
4131cb45313d873659729e9bc2c3cfb3
cca679b454f80a4a07a2aabaea5248941a1ce548
111596 F20101112_AACMTW bogan_d_Page_04.jpg
22e2e55df03bc556b934775464805bd2
0f49eb83d1c8d794de9ff92392be14358f0aac55
F20101112_AACMYT bogan_d_Page_02.tif
f3506a541b74fd7f4ea6e28c5994bed9
0d8c922a36c4a8fd6b68d2b18af0d80508c4fdd7
F20101112_AACNAU bogan_d_Page_65.tif
413c4ea0e426aee79c7fe5c6de1e863b
77443af25bff797ed02df3d0cdf8f74b4502c7da
14468 F20101112_AACNKP bogan_d_Page_64.QC.jpg
48f0555061959933cca00e7d4f84e4ca
ad8ce21de1ff096102058c696fe0db91246b0e2f
598 F20101112_AACNFS bogan_d_Page_52.txt
c4d5a503af8efa17ac9b5bc6c3106c28
cc8476496dae8ec74cb8249b39ac209924712466
12640 F20101112_AACMTX bogan_d_Page_05.jpg
402bfc142b47386da92dd4adfb946856
1fac3160f199b6890c5f5cba7f179b6f772af918
F20101112_AACMYU bogan_d_Page_04.tif
b2335af292e7a7af71fe31b37f428f33
b63ead42e8ddcac0855488e9d98359116dba4504
F20101112_AACNAV bogan_d_Page_66.tif
21a4071f0a4f031a3225816e862bbc09
5a985c2f2007c328719042a71e4457b4d0ce77c4
4199 F20101112_AACNKQ bogan_d_Page_64thm.jpg
f68d87001a8a76d5d7c6d1598d681efa
e1131ea2b1a726f6c757334a57b75d932db22db1
675 F20101112_AACNFT bogan_d_Page_53.txt
b22d168f1c6f300b60e6d5697d2ce878
641918b653de6b8465fb395d1c75d7712d3f711b
89599 F20101112_AACMTY bogan_d_Page_06.jpg
0c666f92ad975acaa355045a1ff5e558
f5ce6205f40218dca99f85261743928bac80d1a4
F20101112_AACMYV bogan_d_Page_06.tif
2293f80e1696c1cb9ede453215d24734
6e4b6264df852c470a73b031d42ca3d966463f1b
F20101112_AACNAW bogan_d_Page_67.tif
b4c2857d12d73f79c535f61e0ef09564
d3efb3613f75cc38b15f511999afff4956d9d3c0
F20101112_AACMRA bogan_d_Page_23.tif
cec79cfb1b9a8a0b24ab7198a8d5d153
d38456852136ae2f360f18c09d5b5af9145675f5
4163 F20101112_AACNKR bogan_d_Page_65thm.jpg
ddd6af867c4f8689ef6cfcf7806711a5
7f7045ee7b78d270e0bc7e0577c98615c5cd468b
710 F20101112_AACNFU bogan_d_Page_54.txt
138ad17799ad8a3f8ea706feda5468a2
5636ec4f552de21cd6250b68532c59428f5315cd
120992 F20101112_AACMTZ bogan_d_Page_07.jpg
f575b45def518173ea187db67af2aca7
4768f5f217fa5298f9834d14928e2a8166c5d678
F20101112_AACMYW bogan_d_Page_07.tif
cc9d93e79fc48d55743e09e73e419282
b18d388ea4d3263e4dfdcd428a57ff6360822993
F20101112_AACNAX bogan_d_Page_68.tif
cbf4a6e67c55ceee80a68d022630e6bd
c54403eaa91169391c9bde759ed3c5b8f09e9859
121366 F20101112_AACMRB bogan_d_Page_38.jp2
84001bb57a62802dfdcce51e07928e95
ce5e3d569905fb9b58f4f799615e0cef86f33c28
14209 F20101112_AACNKS bogan_d_Page_66.QC.jpg
9a32922d5485c32a72838847482906e2
24ad5288f5100efbd047efda6deeb75d81528a80
624 F20101112_AACNFV bogan_d_Page_55.txt
e3ff30893db51a50b938e1e01f26097f
5d73206cf56625066d6c192d5f13295ed9ea5423
F20101112_AACMYX bogan_d_Page_08.tif
56691fa4afca1e7a1307d4f709ee64ed
a86172f23d22677dd8e82b3596d5f798a4b1d9b6
F20101112_AACNAY bogan_d_Page_70.tif
e4df19a116d34fa286c97fe4bcfbb142
cd0b09e59a7ddcdf49a4a5a90004fb89c39ad399
8483 F20101112_AACMRC bogan_d_Page_26thm.jpg
7e5a9a4fff4299111e439971a2b0620a
4198a649688aad7bf70a1e70a976107d117443e3
4195 F20101112_AACNKT bogan_d_Page_66thm.jpg
e16ecf2fde12fc71d014b9d0526ffee0
c5a39450add42a1dba2c68ad961bd21605a769ce
648 F20101112_AACNFW bogan_d_Page_58.txt
485bf721d66b04882ba86f17c6380cf8
2cb8fab578e395420f0adebcaa42aa222b3c4f02
85868 F20101112_AACMWA bogan_d_Page_77.jpg
22a19d60ef96a79f1b94ccbbd997d105
90fe96b26105d9f23a516031e677ce5c052b6d1c
F20101112_AACMYY bogan_d_Page_09.tif
64ea2fec0ff1807f3a849b6dac814105
8a0d63489d3398304234e61199b66b491579a178
F20101112_AACNAZ bogan_d_Page_71.tif
17c5776619efe13bf24d5e7205cc177c
fc5fd098d1d2bac741b18317d802293507e66894
F20101112_AACMRD bogan_d_Page_03.tif
7ecd6fea85cae29560ea063f54ade277
a175f77f2b1f20f9fd1f6cbedf169c6211ca9b22
13831 F20101112_AACNKU bogan_d_Page_67.QC.jpg
d8c5dc9e0989dfe0bc886dac23304cdf
0462de1cd4cefaccfb85f51dd8a508f615cc39e6
678 F20101112_AACNFX bogan_d_Page_59.txt
80f598a2b77511d2c2883becd2cc027a
8105f8e47bc630e3cccfe8fcab4c05f1bb4220df
39234 F20101112_AACMWB bogan_d_Page_78.jpg
6532577d078e0fd46796a32c7ad7357e
07fae76313841939903e012d6c083b83ce312163
F20101112_AACMYZ bogan_d_Page_10.tif
429406c9cc43a4ea0b8020f512cc52e3
33cf414ca3df8d0ac15e558838fd7c0728a0eb72
8413 F20101112_AACMRE bogan_d_Page_36thm.jpg
546b11f84244481c5cfddc12eae242c5
d822000f92c3ab497f7cb356a2c3ef86a2ac31a4
4092 F20101112_AACNKV bogan_d_Page_67thm.jpg
96a078f7fc64a352838171419009ba21
3d87649840c60dfbf41eb3079d639886015f8f48
661 F20101112_AACNFY bogan_d_Page_60.txt
0bcb4107122a818b98091425d91c1168
7706cd3faadd86fde599a444cd683e26698136e3
53204 F20101112_AACMWC bogan_d_Page_79.jpg
32ef8a637eaa41168603a07f78f387c5
e8cb36e3d4ffaa75a8b818481306b76e0b9c5c8a
117613 F20101112_AACMRF bogan_d_Page_35.jp2
112c4003b5c5a6646ff90300bbaa412c
af0742355e337dbfb416fb2d1946e04af1c99a7d
12991 F20101112_AACNKW bogan_d_Page_68.QC.jpg
87a5c5c2e85942b34881461a5627e872
f2734c503c3a0258c400e15ab84878e19f68b726
732 F20101112_AACNFZ bogan_d_Page_61.txt
8efeb6ee148f537f4f52bf0e007af14f
3039167edec5ed23b74c4f16743bd2921329e9d3
12251 F20101112_AACNDA bogan_d_Page_51.pro
5b578a7e11ff4fd20505ea31747f057e
45bf2c8250f763979656ae3b988fdda03d4af84e
115776 F20101112_AACMWD bogan_d_Page_80.jpg
734f346eac54a2b267b01846997cbbc8
32fbf67998a181d97fa22b5263dd12b532223270
9152 F20101112_AACMRG bogan_d_Page_25thm.jpg
283fc6cd204c346396dfebba5b06435f
11e0b435f858db1c3b56485e23fbede597dc7c9b
4203 F20101112_AACNKX bogan_d_Page_68thm.jpg
f225b0b09ebe6452da936405247492b4
484c4b36e1d44b8dcc67df84a3f05ca5f3f2699c
13494 F20101112_AACNDB bogan_d_Page_52.pro
db1092859a221e873b5a7546d3712920
ca35d1edccec4fa3a1d6769cf60273e67a7e8339
131225 F20101112_AACMWE bogan_d_Page_81.jpg
ea8c0edd06808886fb98328cd498c57e
afad58fc97c4e2e0009f49e187a5f3ac74707775
F20101112_AACMRH bogan_d_Page_46.tif
f2f38d0bb64fcafc1364fc4dbe96bdea
716642d6eba5e1c2d6156e944f0357e7ded15e7f
13405 F20101112_AACNKY bogan_d_Page_69.QC.jpg
5cee86817088b51b4623c7aa5f52ccb1
12ebc8841b0ee3ecc04680e3077f82da70a95a3c
31918 F20101112_AACNIA bogan_d_Page_22.QC.jpg
4696ebbe0531d0a17828ca819cc85f88
5cf3c6334d61ac9cc61f8b76fab52e0c1f420624
11633 F20101112_AACNDC bogan_d_Page_53.pro
21b1832f7291581d162073f1ff10c953
745fef4412b071d0e634dd01ee1a6786553809fe
24869 F20101112_AACMWF bogan_d_Page_83.jpg
2886ca88734080d1e29f8b8377b05649
6a021f2a6adbf83d569c2947277c2b16a38ac772
46079 F20101112_AACMRI bogan_d_Page_51.jpg
9da1723d1f16773358f5bf92809f85e2
19255d52e43416eb4004ee9804df8cf96c0b20b4
12837 F20101112_AACNKZ bogan_d_Page_70.QC.jpg
4864b026573cb23d4879e460b7e0c047
1bda26798052c6ec88c15861036c57a6066326d4
33596 F20101112_AACNIB bogan_d_Page_23.QC.jpg
dd64269a202a04d16a2a7d5e9a522d63
f5c878e33c500ff1bc856cbd7929f7e494a06bcf
13366 F20101112_AACNDD bogan_d_Page_54.pro
41a1da12d49723bcaf2fd241d7817819
2fcf37b9115f016c960a35b28dcf16068f8f474b
24374 F20101112_AACMWG bogan_d_Page_01.jp2
c8643c052e9b6a038424b690708004f8
2053ec44c0497f2c8ba1e7ed3721e7dc133427f3
11841 F20101112_AACMRJ bogan_d_Page_73.pro
4069272e1038ec7b498b6e22aad12c35
8def48ee03e92ddbad6a7b52c68c9a98de195db0
13442 F20101112_AACNDE bogan_d_Page_55.pro
efba6c850d4e31e77b5b29dd2a7055af
8d5a6609289a2765a2a1662fedcca624ab1ab8f5
5053 F20101112_AACMWH bogan_d_Page_02.jp2
3fb4114820d6d8dce90fed50d6cd2dfb
40c43eb41f6c41cbeaa467c29d7c93ce72f00714
F20101112_AACMRK bogan_d_Page_11.tif
8d4bfe1a43f7306aa04284c1997baead
d3a6ce95e7ad78cfe372c90c01eb32d5d10aa775
8421 F20101112_AACNIC bogan_d_Page_23thm.jpg
efbb33d8892b7e8d3de93fe1dad93f87
672d2cf5a41115ac5c54930cda008bea9e06697a
7722 F20101112_AACNDF bogan_d_Page_56.pro
7c301dc53a65fcfcc677829a1e1614e3
f81e5d2d463e020b8c0a1cc3c75da6027a94ae77
57541 F20101112_AACMWI bogan_d_Page_03.jp2
33085e9b2bd7bf813c0d7895eaa380fc
c44bc300d85a194bdf124dc312144def7148f9cd
300443 F20101112_AACMRL bogan_d_Page_60.jp2
935d268cdba73665f3bfe01c0bf304f2
efe4d5884947c90a5932032a0510735b0fb369de
35123 F20101112_AACNID bogan_d_Page_24.QC.jpg
585658b83c7e4b49e96e864e4e11b1c9
7f743d70f04038e7579745523cc10da3c27bcf96
10181 F20101112_AACNDG bogan_d_Page_58.pro
5d38b18cb801d81a12592096ac0f5e0a
26ffbd19b9563591c15fcc517290725f7bba0f87
161805 F20101112_AACMWJ bogan_d_Page_05.jp2
0aacca53f7b0411ac54ce26c330f52ae
9d3cc2690297820047e36e748cd17f998b462d16
8187 F20101112_AACNIE bogan_d_Page_24thm.jpg
12f2432d0acc73c20224e9fcb0c577c4
99d5e096a2be48ec01407b8aca3ba998d5f38e73
9279 F20101112_AACNDH bogan_d_Page_59.pro
803d807f279075c6f6fe8f5e7ef8bede
edaccfa5211975b58c2c6d1a8781d4a7d8431af4
1051958 F20101112_AACMWK bogan_d_Page_06.jp2
90f1aa7c2022fc68ff8d4ccf267f792b
5d1e2148065343849a42cf5d70f3c30437405ce4
1983 F20101112_AACMRM bogan_d_Page_06.txt
0fdc453a27fca0d47f2ae918b5c9b95b
6f9f77ef4c11c725286c2f5923770997f2118d46
36192 F20101112_AACNIF bogan_d_Page_25.QC.jpg
8c6eda6ae8673bf9fe012fa06131f025
1378ef57ec71eba9538b24586d924c11af891943
11657 F20101112_AACNDI bogan_d_Page_60.pro
1f70389ebd94b03d8f2e1fecb54239ae
5f4f663de8d5e1b73be08e4e3bf18385f32c9a57
1051967 F20101112_AACMWL bogan_d_Page_07.jp2
15dcdefc2e756fe1e817102cfff91e79
1ccf720f54c34aef814d320e41bb796004b2c965
F20101112_AACMRN bogan_d_Page_20.tif
fb7a10f57fe984f90a861f27b3e9998a
dddff4469eb86d2dea1ba0a62686ea747f430301
34192 F20101112_AACNIG bogan_d_Page_27.QC.jpg
85c224721b6dfe1dd911ff1c2dde0bf2
a6591c70161e11de130bc6018fb6c1715079f4ae
10469 F20101112_AACNDJ bogan_d_Page_61.pro
9762beba4c0f61b71c5ba1cdac1b2d5f
37e2b07bc8a72d86d3462cbe1480691d3bfb08fa
218430 F20101112_AACMWM bogan_d_Page_08.jp2
91faed171ebf2ed3acb5762bd66ab730
06455d15b4d2a8bd07601976c37b6d05e76cefb0
14452 F20101112_AACMRO bogan_d_Page_73.QC.jpg
3aa3a9424b83d8a9a356f253288e8e99
e6249a2092f2796721637b3f723b6ae3d247d7bc
8724 F20101112_AACNIH bogan_d_Page_27thm.jpg
c360bd510ba2173e96a6c9e13769d324
3a30477729b7662c90ff1c7d32de24c3d51fac6c
11535 F20101112_AACNDK bogan_d_Page_63.pro
cfdc561f34d75f49772ffe855b10d094
a932cd55319eb9903309c3c5d02337d9b5831d1e
106358 F20101112_AACMWN bogan_d_Page_09.jp2
0c68b600b4f12242f5e25087ace491c8
ac5025d8f76cdbe2a7a88226b0b37b61b15ce7d8
42478 F20101112_AACMRP bogan_d_Page_55.jpg
8d3381c43f2570e7e23a45a36ee95482
16aed0ed056b4e4fb6293507903f4d637c7300f6
5954 F20101112_AACNII bogan_d_Page_28.QC.jpg
d091c0ec76b6d8f81b11e310c52147d8
1ee2ae9a1f2bbeed33bfcda6ab45cf6af12de8c4
20083 F20101112_AACNDL bogan_d_Page_65.pro
ff8ef6b2fa9be212074535eda8bf446d
5f7c0eeecccb7227c6a86411fa789c8d7d25050c
40796 F20101112_AACMWO bogan_d_Page_10.jp2
483a838a0fe4a80b265543ba1a14c896
cbe2a4e2bd1e70fc42ebc4e5f93815a30958dcfd
4262 F20101112_AACMRQ bogan_d_Page_57thm.jpg
3e44e06e42ffaef81e9adf9713508329
847f31073114cc6de3c1fc7d97054388f79bdfd8
1571 F20101112_AACNIJ bogan_d_Page_28thm.jpg
0bbbc67d9498c48e58fd19273d453e73
f8416c8abaadac38d2d503bee6507d3592d16b69
12051 F20101112_AACNDM bogan_d_Page_66.pro
435f50bac4ae4d796b4931a0f40c386e
a7146747ddc79f71db3b76b42a177238d9c0b662
110388 F20101112_AACMWP bogan_d_Page_11.jp2
4589e00f6bdbad910c9e71583b0b8b7d
13d7b05aaca3a0d1b3b9f0d675e58ad46bb2d1b0
8507 F20101112_AACMRR bogan_d_Page_64.pro
640323e26e6212c4eedf0aabc477751a
0a734d66477d032e5be31056fda8fb2db44e31b7
19216 F20101112_AACNIK bogan_d_Page_29.QC.jpg
05eee1fbd29935ba263dcc73ca67dc19
8421a5e2d316a21ecd30f8baa2b0af7bed90ff3d
11637 F20101112_AACNDN bogan_d_Page_67.pro
ceaa87face5cd8a7b9031a8f0e2f4853
2e92594ac7f15aed463effe6b59d6e549d57251a
119900 F20101112_AACMWQ bogan_d_Page_12.jp2
f0d48a7ce02b0f42498c234c30975900
0e8691bb29c3ecd16ab0e65c945fc91cb9ff34ba
37637 F20101112_AACMRS bogan_d_Page_15.QC.jpg
2467f36f3b684e72c93e4e5bfeb0d2c2
856f01739b137dd2098731da91afde3e3b64f54c
4826 F20101112_AACNIL bogan_d_Page_29thm.jpg
62a1984bf2971c9a77ef56d51aef91f4
cae78e9e0f1143e3f59b6f6f1ca5f8314cbd0ddf
16972 F20101112_AACNDO bogan_d_Page_68.pro
fbb2b6f59c5d65b326e1aa33b14fa69e
49ef3030a4947de174c6cdc235335aa7c60b1b53
1164 F20101112_AACMRT bogan_d_Page_76.txt
115a571701e755008a014592b6942454
8a624034b976938619195f064563c4586ff381a0
2639 F20101112_AACNIM bogan_d_Page_30thm.jpg
dc6923db7defeb034201893fc9bdc94b
9967f308083fbb7ec428e52755a688fde68085ef
23276 F20101112_AACNDP bogan_d_Page_70.pro
de6f002c0814f2d4bd0224bb4919641d
23ebebff48993819f1f13b11ba8b4649c617b03c
108795 F20101112_AACMWR bogan_d_Page_14.jp2
c422a03d43dc4abc22f3289783edaefd
b66fc16a83c07fdefda17d6177c54e0e9a5511e2
105719 F20101112_AACMRU bogan_d_Page_11.jpg
cc0a7b71fd6df2ac7e208006e872fc0d
1fcabfbcdecf8e23a5d5524a377f92806475b076
10304 F20101112_AACNIN bogan_d_Page_31.QC.jpg
0719969701abd0f1ba146d7e0218975b
bf54881ea6ceec46702e5447ca584e4573f34496
121084 F20101112_AACMWS bogan_d_Page_15.jp2
16dff99fe6dffa9f8fd5e5b7fd9d66bc
73017a64578989a16bc67f929c42f45425a6e70f
51746 F20101112_AACMRV bogan_d_Page_21.pro
bb2c2ead71676262b05a4de0f398bba9
270d458875a03cbadcedcc1fa577a65ff46af47b
9942 F20101112_AACNDQ bogan_d_Page_71.pro
9bcfe018525c4e3d53a044ed7205050e
564d7c069f45cf726d63eb80358d429539e2d611
2695 F20101112_AACNIO bogan_d_Page_31thm.jpg
e668ffac3fb611a7cb09e47342f1d1b6
7494c6ab101f15a0eb1a17771aed18da0ebec9b5
104752 F20101112_AACMWT bogan_d_Page_17.jp2
5ee49488ad2aae592432a6c9eb2405f1
cd5fb967d40eee620f127231cc9401c7265fb97a
1038 F20101112_AACMRW bogan_d_Page_03.txt
869a5f60d5fdb58a8b513d65be9ae1ed
67cfdccfb9030b1c7f1953e54aa9af4e5e635100
15390 F20101112_AACNDR bogan_d_Page_72.pro
144c6524d31838ef82b9ea5e8bcb5538
92fe66a069fa67b32e15d2957a1b79fe80975947
36030 F20101112_AACNIP bogan_d_Page_32.QC.jpg
cd0f298cf29103d4a7813ec329a64415
ec2f31c5b7d49250f294bea565c1878e16a2dc20
120308 F20101112_AACMWU bogan_d_Page_18.jp2
f2f7956ab64d47453649b41d311d217b
7d813dd4a36f3b2b62e817636edb8f2140be57f5
91505 F20101112_AACMRX bogan_d_Page_82.jpg
12b05cf44dafd3543482da6a9ac2ae69
bc08a1af0bb2f8d854eb5a91c91183448f9f7969
23775 F20101112_AACNDS bogan_d_Page_74.pro
306fcc4f9e15313f3790517e98390d16
4c33f6b980834f7bd60d2787cfe2ca495c0fe871
8604 F20101112_AACNIQ bogan_d_Page_32thm.jpg
358b8c681d92e67cfdd5ab9e2f0c5442
2abae94e657c0fd7ced442ae43c937b46cc7097c
43897 F20101112_AACMWV bogan_d_Page_19.jp2
2cb4943100e2d373985eac85aa18c1e4
1f863500d5ea05768548cdceb8fbe491bb3fe2ba
40770 F20101112_AACMRY bogan_d_Page_64.jpg
5543e06121a7dd4a3a2dd9eb9a109308
237b8d9608b498363beb15d6490b358ffd36ddec
31733 F20101112_AACNDT bogan_d_Page_75.pro
a549a42243d0ed9fa10366ceebc771d1
baee0ec89c72319e07351b3a2cc57fc69684eccd
32854 F20101112_AACNIR bogan_d_Page_33.QC.jpg
e828fca78fba4f724d7e5fd454a2c2a9
240e179ab90b0507bb8eb1040bdf804e5de9ca06
100268 F20101112_AACMWW bogan_d_Page_20.jp2
5160ab26b238e12b21b67ae33d8490df
f28a3826522208aac7515408e646d6cb8e1756e2
20340 F20101112_AACMRZ bogan_d_Page_78.pro
42321ef87d2a60f92cbc7811516e97c3
1bfb257b5146082ec3fa04cfa0537dd47118be03
22395 F20101112_AACNDU bogan_d_Page_76.pro
e1b6cd67350547085fed3e9dbfc8581b
1e4144244e7e64a6bae5d052afafed5fdfd36524
8036 F20101112_AACNIS bogan_d_Page_33thm.jpg
e9839d687c37623088ba5addf1ccf8c1
13b20c995fd70fae939e1467f2d1880c38c87fc3
113508 F20101112_AACMWX bogan_d_Page_21.jp2
6f099c59b16dc4abfd9873a1679231dd
17e99b33826cf1ab23389480b6b6eeb517c87e65
42212 F20101112_AACNDV bogan_d_Page_77.pro
b96dc2d7fe0b10650cfcd46c9909acf6
7d3bf2f9c007c227d8ad36094053089dac739910
36875 F20101112_AACNIT bogan_d_Page_34.QC.jpg
b3f2ea1c0c33366961d21073f1f49de9
66398ac230640608fb56322aea6f5bb3885e76fa
106623 F20101112_AACMWY bogan_d_Page_22.jp2
ac443c56f362a2e2093c730fa0be6e37
0a235aaf579c945ab91f23201e2836a734feee80
9734 F20101112_AACNDW bogan_d_Page_79.pro
0fe1f9f409470390759a986e3e9f4869
dc45d1624fdd9d3abdbf112a3f882890b412dc1b
14419 F20101112_AACMUA bogan_d_Page_08.jpg
6697e5d744779faa19d90895edd21151
d37892137d2f69f2c8a8d0ce5b6ab2cb2b0b7030
9063 F20101112_AACNIU bogan_d_Page_34thm.jpg
300403adce5fefad80c0e4c6879bfabc
b807ab688255de9b5dfcaef6657daa3ef78cb053
114805 F20101112_AACMWZ bogan_d_Page_24.jp2
d8e0503a475de405f0343c261f1d0f54
94d48e3f73bdf8e76c751ee18296c855469935d0
65568 F20101112_AACNDX bogan_d_Page_81.pro
ecf83557af1da7834bf529b520f43a18
a10e800edd350bc9ddd8ec0755142de9df1414d3
100870 F20101112_AACMUB bogan_d_Page_09.jpg
df5e91c0ae289c6891234d5f0d97f16c
a6e95941ae183080771bbdfa64d9ea7f6e3410cb
9007 F20101112_AACNIV bogan_d_Page_35thm.jpg
c87e920da90ce40d070a023872fa83d5
d8d3fd5a35df91b2392f18b7b2ecbba9c5b4d557
45231 F20101112_AACNDY bogan_d_Page_82.pro
a11260d6d5fb8ef3d136a3e1bec4e8bf
867821bbeb54bcc9606c955c91fed048fcabce6e
114416 F20101112_AACMUC bogan_d_Page_12.jpg
74e6187132f6fbc9400091b7940f87f8
be98ec30295e054e4587a3507b78981fd3011c84
33918 F20101112_AACNIW bogan_d_Page_36.QC.jpg
b7b8f10c5de3aa4f90571e107ef79b8e
b065bf770802ce49d7da1647bb471713d1452f34
F20101112_AACMZA bogan_d_Page_12.tif
0f8a93d25c9f3223c334d3302e9d4655
b0cce334c429109662bd118c908791ee44488d09
F20101112_AACNBA bogan_d_Page_72.tif
cb4890c6e44c45551c4d127f3ac1d789
f96ae03e74a0dbe60cddc6a374f5201af61d5139
9834 F20101112_AACNDZ bogan_d_Page_83.pro
34383beee3a517834bfcc629beb26547
35e8a1e7ab47b694ccb9f4afa1996f52b1c277eb
107109 F20101112_AACMUD bogan_d_Page_13.jpg
00f8ce6bdda5def31c94175edc8ca336
e3812a756c555a8aac1b31ae0ceaa8f9f06018d5
8205 F20101112_AACNIX bogan_d_Page_37thm.jpg
6d42f5210684e1776d93df3720189b55
656f96350007b3f4def2bd25559fbf1737faae34
F20101112_AACMPH bogan_d_Page_42.tif
b38da2d5e46fc2a89fa9d35e97d1f8ab
78218d61023d35c8b4abfdd4a4c93fcc9fe285c4
F20101112_AACMZB bogan_d_Page_13.tif
74e42ddf52b87cc657e5d52bb17d54f6
7ef9d2d8ab6635be857d2fb8b7861617ac790666
F20101112_AACNBB bogan_d_Page_73.tif
a80334e7bb5018fc516066742a0da87e
ba42be2a38ebb916772f054ebe32f05c0578fa00
102610 F20101112_AACMUE bogan_d_Page_14.jpg
60283a738eb669bd4d093135f31c6f6d
dcd34d677b6c8dd27e4cfc8b020c2c42e8198ffe
36863 F20101112_AACNIY bogan_d_Page_38.QC.jpg
e37d52326f218b9c74e4705a5a4bc700
ec07316d1cf57f9f66437ee16c5009b67b9c5ebf
13530 F20101112_AACMPI bogan_d_Page_65.QC.jpg
c6ebf7bfb71b5e59f03e41620534cac1
1a13a22ad601e0abacadd09b093181bee2f77f3b
F20101112_AACMZC bogan_d_Page_14.tif
d48c3b29dcc7b04cf1097ec0e28d8559
984c050f531cc74f5d1052fef309a62597c435cb
F20101112_AACNBC bogan_d_Page_74.tif
565a1fffd011cafa4a70dbc6c6e3b33c
ddb293026189773eb5d7a0399dff77ee24d662fd
97683 F20101112_AACMUF bogan_d_Page_17.jpg
1f00af1b45288d31784fb8d7d0d40b20
22ffb2d84a83a7e8a5a18fc03d605c710a651bf2
9113 F20101112_AACNIZ bogan_d_Page_38thm.jpg
ac2175eeccf0af33487043a1f3614b01
aad85619a8eea55e4db6e3bd34b459fa2f8ca522
771 F20101112_AACNGA bogan_d_Page_63.txt
e37089f13237a7c02b7a51f3a5fa793e
acd48ade32bc2b093ee329bcd544a83b0485ce7a
43432 F20101112_AACMPJ bogan_d_Page_50.jpg
9211caf1a168b6abf02a4d31a61f3047
967970960d18ffe90901201c50b88a403d0f8789
F20101112_AACMZD bogan_d_Page_15.tif
8034e02deb7674e413866b967d3aae1d
0296a2991770f15d509a0a3c48dcfe94b84c16e1
F20101112_AACNBD bogan_d_Page_76.tif
b8f8dcb5f6fc5a5ec4f6fb70edbcbb16
025c30091fc126056b5cf9c7c68a9a205e0233f1
113375 F20101112_AACMUG bogan_d_Page_18.jpg
1da6b82e8eaf75dd4e1de483c0d16121
3bba80caf95408f389baa138f20574cf27599fcf
498 F20101112_AACNGB bogan_d_Page_64.txt
afb1c43e7fa08e64ef3b1242eab784a3
c72893f96cd6a14b63e3b48e053569f096a04bbd
F20101112_AACMZE bogan_d_Page_16.tif
abc97c09da67585df93cc4011033276f
21a2054e07ce7d26a3dbd3fa7c98e7e3f322f36e
F20101112_AACNBE bogan_d_Page_77.tif
2c526492da036de8cb5dd31ab9cea91b
3582f16cb2fc5448c2f014bbeb9d52193d74d2d5
41134 F20101112_AACMUH bogan_d_Page_19.jpg
948a497290e1dcd965340b7af8065344
fc97fe3883c995ce4f1dcb5460e669b73e190d4f
4043 F20101112_AACNLA bogan_d_Page_70thm.jpg
5e7202f9dbe2fc605d64365e4af40bf1
ae15eba87e63d1ca25ba0cff88afe235e851c267
1452 F20101112_AACNGC bogan_d_Page_65.txt
a43e975081a71ec70e3cdc90dd68d85b
15e5a3255d782ed631b500b95c04e6ad28af70bb
110071 F20101112_AACMPK bogan_d_Page_35.jpg
f0d230354dc995c325d6118afd0c234a
4710b4b48e506d7373396c24693d6d26e239ea0a
F20101112_AACMZF bogan_d_Page_17.tif
872771f855bebc7e230c8fe4e10c0e18
f2210b58b157f85a9b953a89db86d6f0afde9efd
F20101112_AACNBF bogan_d_Page_79.tif
19c91370cbae935bc8f5ea3619e309ed
170eb204e65d62fe0ec353848c85126ab6c353c9
94749 F20101112_AACMUI bogan_d_Page_20.jpg
f7bfa9e279e40fa7698f46838967fbab
b53646fd5eece83ebd0cdf431189b6a952f9ef59
3898 F20101112_AACNLB bogan_d_Page_71thm.jpg
8ccfaa1be2fb6a3b28a4165cef589b30
e73866f59a01bf8f949298ab83fb622666bdda56
605 F20101112_AACNGD bogan_d_Page_67.txt
d49785a09efd5be25b90152450e22b9b
18b86e08c542bb695b580d7d1d56eea739edc1c1
F20101112_AACMPL bogan_d_Page_60.tif
47a228de7bbb932fce9488a885da2251
763301edcfb90d45413a13be17afa981225d1c30
F20101112_AACMZG bogan_d_Page_18.tif
f8607135d8e2b104d8bc0b61ffa5aa74
dc6eea693cb945bb5e0f11240609eb03c60eb385
F20101112_AACNBG bogan_d_Page_80.tif
9f68a16e2f4d74efca1c95b821fa879a
1aaf22999f82a9039f494017076bc725ce8a47b4
107421 F20101112_AACMUJ bogan_d_Page_21.jpg
a2b14657cbeaf4a56ebbf630bd845c0a
7a7fa48853e2e4fa22ba9ffa97499815685f19ff
12777 F20101112_AACNLC bogan_d_Page_72.QC.jpg
9c030690da772af474b92664989910cc
f711966ef7b3932d21e46042abd54bfb285729f8
1123 F20101112_AACNGE bogan_d_Page_68.txt
c8c7e4b627d495ac53ca41d35e8a8c6d
280803e4ac59ca3f0a114846af6828903a75530a
4044 F20101112_AACMPM bogan_d_Page_69thm.jpg
bbf8946e483887d9c7676a60d48c2a67
219e4a70e4e2c6172f09c4bbf005100ae3ce8c76
F20101112_AACMZH bogan_d_Page_19.tif
fadac5d2d27523ae05f6b01896276a42
2c48138b33b2ba57cbdb55b7ad0befa334b1e5c5
F20101112_AACNBH bogan_d_Page_81.tif
a8d01699591ed67005bf7360391210b0
af73f9373bf0c3e7f606769a020b5e57f688f8c4
100168 F20101112_AACMUK bogan_d_Page_22.jpg
f3c5a0733a56ce4a250fe2b6933b82c5
d7379923a50ca0a65472aae645f81cb1cd099653
4039 F20101112_AACNLD bogan_d_Page_72thm.jpg
d37e706196e3c64774df67b2bd2d7d81
2f6bb6316986ef31bc335a8ce5c841d0efcde6cb
700 F20101112_AACNGF bogan_d_Page_69.txt
f4849d1eea1925f01b8b574fb16cda57
6b0c0d16816a893bbb6b6287de440bd0d1356c81
37264 F20101112_AACMPN bogan_d_Page_10.jpg
3422305b663eaa69a57974a48d5be1a7
030d2f51ab7cfa2abb3fb8a911326561f25050d3
F20101112_AACMZI bogan_d_Page_21.tif
efc7339adf07090f6c6454be746a8051
3c1b728486102ffb6ec8f8fa9a712d31316f73dc
F20101112_AACNBI bogan_d_Page_82.tif
1f25d8d605fe828b94df092ba7a0fe13
7ab414773460788226daed852e1488ab5f5e596b
103412 F20101112_AACMUL bogan_d_Page_23.jpg
48069739f429082ed51a38d5d69e8615
129c4f2cb07b56d1033234622cd9005eb6fa7f0b
4060 F20101112_AACNLE bogan_d_Page_73thm.jpg
e98f8c165a10e4baad7d45301346d6f0
aa58e42cb1e90f7193e41744e1811867a67c8689
1564 F20101112_AACNGG bogan_d_Page_70.txt
6b4954231955e3d2338755a64639d0b6
8f49e78493e034e37c77b6f83aab63e8f5541d2e
33599 F20101112_AACMPO bogan_d_Page_26.QC.jpg
ab30388a378b90a90f59bf11f88efb4e
5eee232a22f49400b0833fbbf3f461b327e4cd52
F20101112_AACMZJ bogan_d_Page_22.tif
85906f2abf649f35b3819e6ee416ace1
261f920384bdf7372bd2af9a49d26e7daa1193cc
F20101112_AACNBJ bogan_d_Page_83.tif
c15d40be0d439747a57c921c671a5adb
9985aa02b1055a77ba3203594875a47812192460
109859 F20101112_AACMUM bogan_d_Page_25.jpg
0060ab192f14b00b7255e99703156822
f523c69b294a12005aaf3214e578accb0ae3ba47
479 F20101112_AACNGH bogan_d_Page_71.txt
9843959c7141a10eb49663bacf4a123a
ac2bbd6f8889bf64c636103716a95a7d5ee7b7f9
784 F20101112_AACMPP bogan_d_Page_30.txt
8a4a9ef7794e7eef9409868eadd20695
7fed76c4cf21ad01a69df1ca16e6aa50cf142a9c
F20101112_AACMZK bogan_d_Page_24.tif
7b80a150e23b9dc25a1f4c76610bb41b
1c5acede92e95f0209b0d2d67220934699e652f2
7788 F20101112_AACNBK bogan_d_Page_01.pro
d3c10d209cb890348ba77ea5c4e4c06c
582ae7ed300ba66bf29e217ff02863a080798596
105493 F20101112_AACMUN bogan_d_Page_26.jpg
1a25f2deb5515ac31a4de3056cca36de
218b10ab95272a8e500fdc8a92e400e5d192599d
15784 F20101112_AACNLF bogan_d_Page_74.QC.jpg
9a974ddb2255a8ba12a319f7aa496b37
cecd94075b69e68bd6d29f17a681d33875b77618
1493 F20101112_AACNGI bogan_d_Page_72.txt
48aafc50066d3e1f8e19e8188d66a0c0
79c5341dd0c3d057144260e20edb7d9a984cd470
8256 F20101112_AACMPQ bogan_d_Page_11thm.jpg
cbaae09fe520f740dc361da480664554
c18d0c6392e895f9b94b0f9e1797c9637d2d93f1
F20101112_AACMZL bogan_d_Page_25.tif
f6a70215fe7ec4e66d546154aea21d81
e2c8f4d2ba9e7c060e062b7106d7826e25469c3f
832 F20101112_AACNBL bogan_d_Page_02.pro
479764082ca5ec33ab7c93c71a6d030c
280f978a3a5f5120758bbd0fb172d8dafbb05d20
105967 F20101112_AACMUO bogan_d_Page_27.jpg
758ab8eaa526b21098e9fbc379325597
8b9790240edd52dbf7a4683cd861b841cdf02a14
5091 F20101112_AACNLG bogan_d_Page_74thm.jpg
4e76a9325758ad4fc6bef2bd0d6f23fe
0d8dbb7e971d1eb5ca92e0659a5147702d987545
1439 F20101112_AACNGJ bogan_d_Page_74.txt
a8489da67c56ce8cdddc96af7da06ab4
7e170b26650b1ccc9c392534b039cd658ccbcd03
16037 F20101112_AACMPR bogan_d_Page_46.QC.jpg
9e0802082cd74dbebcea7e1e8cf74da7
17ced715b4a99a21797a78632c7dd3f4aa152840
F20101112_AACMZM bogan_d_Page_26.tif
1acc7e48b5e38b1ea1f6176c2136b870
80522376f48dbde79ac866f020d047350c1adc53
25202 F20101112_AACNBM bogan_d_Page_03.pro
e60b75e7822a64f476a436ea853ff767
ecdb4646b42ff13c6f83be8d151e3564e7f410ad
5731 F20101112_AACNLH bogan_d_Page_75thm.jpg
5c120a13fd121e9658ca5e1c367aa7a0
190430c1d3017d3d2909bc41ef7889efd164666a
1990 F20101112_AACNGK bogan_d_Page_75.txt
ae488e5fe3d2288ca8285ace1f21f538
eb6f48dbd08a4f5ced358f6921a49a25b7e7ba01
50611 F20101112_AACMPS bogan_d_Page_33.pro
88f4fd624059a2aa82addb765c60a425
1444966997b20cd58d153da311d61063de892c93
F20101112_AACMZN bogan_d_Page_27.tif
e5963c0334e8be72331d01a9b7c9d53c
b1fb20d80194941ec3787a267504282894d82e64
79556 F20101112_AACNBN bogan_d_Page_04.pro
b6d772fddbb4cc5e4a07b1a201d75a66
45e26f6ce5cd821a1df489364b45552a3e30afd2
16276 F20101112_AACMUP bogan_d_Page_28.jpg
9b93479d5a09073eacdff354c452b378
295e8dbef6fa28a6ceb834eb5c0cdff2f5a3ad8c
3757 F20101112_AACNLI bogan_d_Page_76thm.jpg
f2f69100b87c728ec9c7188bca1b2e86
f380d3cca6a63fddb3e5afb4f000ab36eccfa528
1934 F20101112_AACNGL bogan_d_Page_77.txt
d0082b7a7733cd391ca2553e33e1bff7
acd10e644c2a449f184d8d03492906e549536712
1940 F20101112_AACMPT bogan_d_Page_22.txt
ec8e46bc05acc78ac20ca9f484e12e61
8b40962e8de55d7dc654375f1f6175afb7ee1bb7
F20101112_AACMZO bogan_d_Page_28.tif
b8172e1da898f5fd510cc91fcc18e57b
59bc7a6966a2e395b53cd7ec3757e7b575670508
7571 F20101112_AACNBO bogan_d_Page_05.pro
55fa85748b568c0d136cda5533cbaa2b
52663dff2a8d3dd9c68352661241272cab399087
70586 F20101112_AACMUQ bogan_d_Page_29.jpg
d1802c32a68483cf3b42e1439ccd0e17
c9dca8b783a98272bfd3ff65e35972999f3c76f6
26160 F20101112_AACNLJ bogan_d_Page_77.QC.jpg
aeeb13dfa5dce5c1b9635f9cd9e46584
5365fb222c56690b0f4698ccbe690cfe96ad19c2
1042 F20101112_AACNGM bogan_d_Page_78.txt
9eac74a62d92979be72cce492a576b1c
eb0cc7261244e824f383884aac5c01066b14bcfc
F20101112_AACMPU bogan_d_Page_69.tif
2ffe637505f1ce0b990b0fb47d881436
ed4f49b0b04396a6dc22e83506e69d8ac30d416b
F20101112_AACMZP bogan_d_Page_29.tif
736633890e794af174c906e47ad4edc9
861f9c6e373cee6f410028e63a735719a8e8d284
48241 F20101112_AACNBP bogan_d_Page_06.pro
8b68d181451af0084c55097aa247d492
26eddb997de451d3d6cd24a113d7e265783deebf
32780 F20101112_AACMUR bogan_d_Page_30.jpg
c32423ddb91495e6743d14bc01cedfe7
410504a8d00526d58f519a1fedead141c3f083f4
6756 F20101112_AACNLK bogan_d_Page_77thm.jpg
40b8617af98d79b81cea887929ec30c4
d45cba43b7c788de3d0eaa8fe77511ae66f732f9
488 F20101112_AACNGN bogan_d_Page_79.txt
ac76ca0b2297a448688073bf99f7f560
f70aa70a2b007bc6a7a83b83fe99abe740eade29
8265 F20101112_AACMPV bogan_d_Page_62.pro
1ba63ac2250e6f2533496b3111828d78
0af74e0102b8b0dcf24e11ab8f43809306f439a4
F20101112_AACMZQ bogan_d_Page_30.tif
4b64f9bd2eec5750a16769be78568470
cc682abd78cb4cc7ff0e897736768622d7b21ef6
65711 F20101112_AACNBQ bogan_d_Page_07.pro
22d4aa492a3ab5a42d2b6dcdf3a16122
0abaf7934be1f0c335fc77ffcf7257356cf43ad6
32893 F20101112_AACMUS bogan_d_Page_31.jpg
d7203330737e4edeee92f70ca497a71c
f840a1bf897dda45c84655c173996653c5a30d81
12342 F20101112_AACNLL bogan_d_Page_78.QC.jpg
d1cf7914265f63ba9a55fe5b34d5765c
355f520f01ac75d6ad0b0b269fa0646702ef1f2a
2424 F20101112_AACNGO bogan_d_Page_80.txt
c773f9e9f89b585a796787f64c3ca219
9a80e01612fce153d04ea74b5a24f768bca0e6d6
14212 F20101112_AACMPW bogan_d_Page_76.QC.jpg
8662c2953cd18661357d25aa2c35ecda
8fa8ae34a4a4fe576610280b1a87e3cf31139195
F20101112_AACMZR bogan_d_Page_31.tif
c5d6b88f95971af387f75387c8af5308
e0200c419a167dd7313a66842e723957d1b47af1
5659 F20101112_AACNBR bogan_d_Page_08.pro
1bda82cbf752c2402202d8efc9cffd81
a3a86743c2590391c67bee9142f0430c496596f9
109908 F20101112_AACMUT bogan_d_Page_32.jpg
74dcc0b743ae3decfddb51d432468529
a80392d2aed847035a119d36f5614df0d56f98d1
3579 F20101112_AACNLM bogan_d_Page_78thm.jpg
0b92aaec6ef59cabbdc0a8365d4291c4
8d23d81beeec27a700707de72689f8f0590ff30d
2023 F20101112_AACNGP bogan_d_Page_01thm.jpg
d269bb716b3df5c0e9ea4f532682a2b0
fa60d9187175c8a5fba31918c0dbfd7e98235697
33769 F20101112_AACMPX bogan_d_Page_80.QC.jpg
45a9c5c139e5256364a4422416da9b5b
e960ec017ffd59da3e974fcaf906215d1a0b17bd
F20101112_AACMZS bogan_d_Page_32.tif
93b165ee66295e22193e4fdfb8fa3127
ba0950b3c55c9f1dc218d7379607006da760f402
16962 F20101112_AACNBS bogan_d_Page_10.pro
aeae4ad04b853a2bd0fc5172c9a8b420
e6365521318f14997fe8cb2ce2c5707f1f52bd3b
103186 F20101112_AACMUU bogan_d_Page_33.jpg
d94014ea8c33c0f0505e1a688a48f3f5
052f397b4dc793c8c76aea4692d2eff6b8f092c3
18651 F20101112_AACNLN bogan_d_Page_79.QC.jpg
083d3031799d61a1ce6f08a7b3579d67
a91385ed3b56f3d44a47916a6e1edb62e9655bfc
1138 F20101112_AACNGQ bogan_d_Page_02.QC.jpg
f1ee3b923a5ff9dc4622d5863d45b847
f6c66ad7537dfe818a53fc51e87b0c92205c9df0
F20101112_AACMZT bogan_d_Page_33.tif
babcfab4bba52f134b18b3195bc0cf8e
2f66e4ff1596a043d99bd35620592919585427d0
51561 F20101112_AACNBT bogan_d_Page_11.pro
e827e2c31aaff3fd9f582d8004845199
56379cad60f7dbda9e796c58ce363fac0b4102f2
112750 F20101112_AACMUV bogan_d_Page_34.jpg
4fbab92f0095f98506c2273816bfcf61
5ccfdb75e6a75c66063ce40a397b9f2909077ed2
620 F20101112_AACMPY bogan_d_Page_66.txt
0a6584265b0b31fc52f440f8114fa49a
95a5fb1a68f5015fd1b7945237a39714fc2854db
8228 F20101112_AACNLO bogan_d_Page_80thm.jpg
1d2f59c0770752a2e4eb8a3cc750f341
a8317e01bbd3d9d4bc6c40f6af5e286c3779ba78
516 F20101112_AACNGR bogan_d_Page_02thm.jpg
b95c21e7d22f84b9d69dc37814b4caa6
b2e9ea1ff4e98f8f8fbd4d687bae0ceebc5f5131
55910 F20101112_AACNBU bogan_d_Page_12.pro
69058b3915457c5862738162e83dd855
8e96fd0209dadbeb372ba4023414774659af8430
105529 F20101112_AACMUW bogan_d_Page_37.jpg
2ead70c89046b47b8249e11ea7687173
373aff8fb0c0dac8d89ca146684de687c4dda706
10749 F20101112_AACMPZ bogan_d_Page_57.pro
52d191ee016a3ae75100b0b7b2662049
3365239db8677f053930cbf0488ce2a66cc8b6da
9367 F20101112_AACNLP bogan_d_Page_81thm.jpg
75245d8a9ba37309559c8f7530939246
13401c07503d3d518314b314f356498f60078ed5
18340 F20101112_AACNGS bogan_d_Page_03.QC.jpg
8900ceea0a2fe8da2f46d9ce2c215ccf
44d9a50eb5bb2d597d7670847ee94fcd83f28b98
F20101112_AACMZU bogan_d_Page_34.tif
763bda41fbe0ea40960479a7c217f719
1c232380f5c2faedb7b917444ba385e264195234
53165 F20101112_AACNBV bogan_d_Page_13.pro
759a1694ccee3c052fc6b5bdd41d2353
969a7526929d38a9858c8d69d3a30dcec6cd3336
113408 F20101112_AACMUX bogan_d_Page_38.jpg
8057bbcc3349f40b381cb0eb0e122b00
a1623051d6b7d679a74666640409e38ea6cd03a9
26880 F20101112_AACNLQ bogan_d_Page_82.QC.jpg
417f63e4c6859a5a3fad6cae68e5e1cf
4d21d121ac69e2bce718a685098f5eee8f454af5
4378 F20101112_AACNGT bogan_d_Page_03thm.jpg
5bee149e0c93a9d6f895e62e989e6971
1fc03d245b2df472a172e91f216c3d1c204ce2d4
F20101112_AACMZV bogan_d_Page_35.tif
5cfbe256e73f7df2ac83f61d91f0ff42
28ab8a238caaa90ed3ebe30d6062fc23a636e624
50421 F20101112_AACNBW bogan_d_Page_14.pro
a3bdbc92ad962dbd0e6b9caa3377945d
0d62c422ffed40d24cc025d4e3878c987c0cd8e8
118820 F20101112_AACMSA bogan_d_Page_25.jp2
cc97c257b6437ac2835020d859065d10
fd7852a5550a2172231c75cc02d210858264c8f5
101385 F20101112_AACMUY bogan_d_Page_39.jpg
9730db397b68ec163c2750cdda80e316
0f4592bced60b816fe14b18bad7ffb21f69a69a9
6657 F20101112_AACNLR bogan_d_Page_82thm.jpg
e4ad16027b926480212471c97f3e977e
b2295c75cbee505797d416abd2abf9958e18e841
27038 F20101112_AACNGU bogan_d_Page_04.QC.jpg
0bb3932c789705ce781803edee86dac0
87270aee8d6632bebbf73bac6a2c585e323e630a
F20101112_AACMZW bogan_d_Page_36.tif
1de439a7fced16038346e0878c4e39a6
91338b3e0287aa9dfd4387f157e5020ef8e10c04
56423 F20101112_AACNBX bogan_d_Page_15.pro
d5c7fe3985ff59b1d6eb59cd0ed9d5e4
4b41c5d8d64b6cb280a4c96169717c670dc4b2e0
48245 F20101112_AACMSB bogan_d_Page_09.pro
7853391cf7bd87a4443e5cd24faee6c5
7585cd779e953f490f1e9e3d5c894cc9d0ddc60f
28972 F20101112_AACMUZ bogan_d_Page_40.jpg
8d8747147bf9bff7a17c98036cd8ccbb
7d1277ce76fb769d4512cb1d6980e24d331f32b0
7720 F20101112_AACNLS bogan_d_Page_83.QC.jpg
653d1f57e39f7fdb54a162f4c0ddef91
4c40d01718564f796492f0384fc7422ba5b96d65
6672 F20101112_AACNGV bogan_d_Page_04thm.jpg
3bfce3941f8a1a767e043859cd96febd
b60b8051ada234a62b589a17190fb5d9585ab4fe
F20101112_AACMZX bogan_d_Page_37.tif
9bfee1384623e3915235e36a91517c4d
8c88b5503f4bf92dc952b1178c3e6c654bdc1561
54032 F20101112_AACNBY bogan_d_Page_16.pro
7251f1dbca4f6173865cc163a7fb0a33
885d3f2102f9268551c2b8833e7fd538db89e1b4
11958 F20101112_AACMSC bogan_d_Page_69.pro
8f755d0b2e50254d7af3b8c4c1857671
41334aefc612c3327efa48609f1de04933779147
1968 F20101112_AACNLT bogan_d_Page_83thm.jpg
9c4b097dfc179515da9db86f0dd57999
cda66a8109f0ea2c9b7f1fb9683ffef81446b3f9
3628 F20101112_AACNGW bogan_d_Page_05.QC.jpg
24a1f791b0f5cb04f1aa7dae6de553ac
5b07eacbd8e109f779a5c5f588b5fa8eeed6b0ea
F20101112_AACMZY bogan_d_Page_38.tif
f7a9d2db3a3fbf041da69d58dfa51ca9
8a2c1a5583e53e384c7cc735d4f2b71df0affea1
54669 F20101112_AACNBZ bogan_d_Page_18.pro
b63918752f0b913a784b4a040defab16
83fbbb8da024adec4945a9384d7342044c961306
664 F20101112_AACMSD bogan_d_Page_57.txt
fd79b5eab34ccbfc72cad87dbcbfe91e
fdfbcdc957e862d2e19fbd11fc270093b49db381
17659 F20101112_AACMXA bogan_d_Page_28.jp2
9cf6c9c77a9085a0b7fe4d92236930e6
90c999112e9a7ff43a1bb7830fe2590ca1d6e4fd
96676 F20101112_AACNLU UFE0020141_00001.mets
5e8fd8ea4447f547966bbe7ea97459a6
81ed0e96d1e71e561848b7fe1464d03a25b7a55b
1135 F20101112_AACNGX bogan_d_Page_05thm.jpg
3f0e826d12d537fc87cfbb9312a4fca6
d3691d550233f965ae438437ee60fb4deea91792
F20101112_AACMZZ bogan_d_Page_40.tif
d0d54f1fe8db43e4c343ee64800ddf1a
2bb0348ba73cddcb6b97d8adc04c72ab7b99cda7
50052 F20101112_AACMSE bogan_d_Page_76.jp2
443249c3c18d349a06484a0e03b1b711
67a6415991eb8abbd49c63b4f8b6a0392e020014
75973 F20101112_AACMXB bogan_d_Page_29.jp2
148ad81bcff7227cbf77e58999cbc5b8
d302806b1315b0b326bb7b1b9e733c41988bebda
24151 F20101112_AACNGY bogan_d_Page_06.QC.jpg
8550fd95cdae306f07a6b063e534e4aa
75fc37ace071871f1e8e5e0f34aa603151505e10
1835 F20101112_AACMSF bogan_d_Page_82.txt
fd48f65c03bda9d27d4fbbcbe5467e64
34e3c21839496ae9183865b48e08f2efc7cc1292
34074 F20101112_AACMXC bogan_d_Page_30.jp2
1a3d62221d55daf5852a8f6f30df7b78
47043d6c577209f787357b1ef33f9e3abba4eee8
6402 F20101112_AACNGZ bogan_d_Page_06thm.jpg
546450551eda1203b73e71887f464ca6
5681f0b64c1b899ef4cf481619f67e0d7899dcd8
607 F20101112_AACMSG bogan_d_Page_73.txt
76375e2326fe86c43e2ee590e66390f1
4872e34550e4a9223bd13719a9df5f0acf95b127
487 F20101112_AACNEA bogan_d_Page_01.txt
1510858b958d64778824bfe88329eb6d
f995571c7c3e647d4c3c893badf3391898c000de
34198 F20101112_AACMXD bogan_d_Page_31.jp2
f11d3650ed5912250b101960daaef1a4
57011b62f8763134ccba2aca5eaabb9c0c77d796
117482 F20101112_AACMSH bogan_d_Page_16.jp2
c4b993a77013215357265652f1e09194
6d2dcb3b741a4da4a0acf94a2f4effd04fbb6923
88 F20101112_AACNEB bogan_d_Page_02.txt
02b224c8c47b94bf26e915bbb3f22080
15586c3283658fd5cd6771c80db29751b53e8987
116033 F20101112_AACMXE bogan_d_Page_32.jp2
b801c950ed2e319917a9ea421c72de61
fae8716dadb030416764cc29843bb1f70f60d02f
33200 F20101112_AACNJA bogan_d_Page_39.QC.jpg
850e275777714a12bd31765d3075861e
fe9c026557e836da03c9f8128d24b9c5ff7e2486
113583 F20101112_AACMSI bogan_d_Page_27.jp2
ea117a11f13dc6261fb47dbddac0d2a6
bf4c028fd834e9857f622eea3f271b25cbc1a2ef
3299 F20101112_AACNEC bogan_d_Page_04.txt
51fa1201804335a8eacc2794150d940b
42d592dfb7e58841894fa0e7071fabbe23d45d8e
110209 F20101112_AACMXF bogan_d_Page_33.jp2
04ab204c5294e1e3924c0409033a609a
efbdb407329827354ccfa763c7412878e0ed12a3
8491 F20101112_AACNJB bogan_d_Page_39thm.jpg
2187c4b083a474e53d69a90213a69364
26d46b7b70f001f2510045e759f56c2cd6709d5a
F20101112_AACMSJ bogan_d_Page_75.tif
a29388136ca4f50deca3ba272dc7e506
268f54dd17378ee7f01f39bce24e58eca92897f7
300 F20101112_AACNED bogan_d_Page_05.txt
c4631943eb76a9d2e313eb0d16ea48f5
ab0156bf90bcd2a3bdf0d7b1b95a7b815f3a2540
121432 F20101112_AACMXG bogan_d_Page_34.jp2
a659dda976dc982b4cc0f13358854161
50e0d874e31bfccdc299a6d900e990ac9f34c187
2445 F20101112_AACNJC bogan_d_Page_40thm.jpg
7c2a2b244bb2acca094585a4c247a1a6
e3f4e7bdd2c97a65dc28f3233e667d5f6729b3bc
1051966 F20101112_AACMSK bogan_d_Page_81.jp2
0811b83882c5d324a80b953cbe8d8b84
4f39b9f7380384d12cf4e5b60264ddd6b0618d71
2621 F20101112_AACNEE bogan_d_Page_07.txt
2c60c64243de24a72bea2f89bff4e0c7
c04abccb0466ade4763eefadf166a016843eada7
115030 F20101112_AACMXH bogan_d_Page_36.jp2
e201b9ec140a6835e2bc8621512cd76b
f78207a5ac401f8b041a15d6ee67695a65210bde
48471 F20101112_AACMSL bogan_d_Page_17.pro
f41ec8baeca7a0395cfac213912c418c
415e64dbc882635ca497bdbeb2985980a4f154bf
227 F20101112_AACNEF bogan_d_Page_08.txt
8683802dd4d08c3c9cdf7156575b2cd3
64125424a2b117a36f4316a14d72be066afd8230
114409 F20101112_AACMXI bogan_d_Page_37.jp2
26c6ddf1d407d923890c9ed5bd87ee42
3f8474dcf1f064fd945ff318982d3068f02981f3
16330 F20101112_AACNJD bogan_d_Page_41.QC.jpg
d174295faf88732341cc81177221e2bb
6a4fb331da353f9da67735c6c6decbe4d8091ad5
26041 F20101112_AACMSM bogan_d_Page_46.pro
2ebf937d8daa33f5196e282ce74a1c0f
4b4340d017e6e75d9df4c4a4c4b5feb8b3efdde7
2105 F20101112_AACNEG bogan_d_Page_09.txt
28a4f94485ab257735068549adb7c8da
264f74014e46ea5e8829266de9ffb5c56b3d10dd
110345 F20101112_AACMXJ bogan_d_Page_39.jp2
d60fbc4aaed7864e591118e561f00fc1
0623022fbaa2ea4804cc59caab37249f536a1b10
F20101112_AACNJE bogan_d_Page_41thm.jpg
ddae9226cb1c3d0220878c7327425302
19cf87c6aa136086781072ec80ecb15450dd81c9
673 F20101112_AACNEH bogan_d_Page_10.txt
0ba0af64f0b4a7d5b95fd41e1e9a3781
7fdb7d732678fcae703e03099bdbbdda8978af2b
31282 F20101112_AACMXK bogan_d_Page_40.jp2
c5c3a1393c973011fd28f66f1eaaee02
5858d9cd527cb7073ff68750e7e3bd83380ed9d2
16482 F20101112_AACNJF bogan_d_Page_42.QC.jpg
94b92c7f814c957ea7fc19bf9b93b1a2
d869cb4f4453c0932e3ca78686001a1ef4e7e0fa
53399 F20101112_AACMSN bogan_d_Page_37.pro
ee9d99872fe5689d076fd76e49f6be60
3570f5db67770115c810d231df24a7ccc4a5f7c0
2138 F20101112_AACNEI bogan_d_Page_11.txt
3e4237c4a76b7ff23e21be1eee28fb81
78015a917df2ca41e0727fd1d6d1815a98b9b5d8
945263 F20101112_AACMXL bogan_d_Page_41.jp2
b90c104be89e612e665e5114ccdf6dfb
3b06baca9e4144a1d2aa2f2518581fe974c07df0
4021 F20101112_AACNJG bogan_d_Page_42thm.jpg
07b1f481428240c879c11c5e4e84f85f
00562dfda8433cdd6ecafe03c6d0b48b71f34321
1051982 F20101112_AACMSO bogan_d_Page_04.jp2
c4d056bf9146bc922c4287ed71083197
3f09ed8ba5188f9196077985b317cefd1a4fca13
2232 F20101112_AACNEJ bogan_d_Page_12.txt
fd493368f45dff5098cae9b730da557e
95e85c067f5540e69da312fde98529d03122b52b
948004 F20101112_AACMXM bogan_d_Page_42.jp2
2c492881237eefec9bee118dba0a4fd5
32a76f235a3a9f2fe91ae17967b80c0f629ed6e8
6460 F20101112_AACNJH bogan_d_Page_43thm.jpg
652c05001ef0420cb0ff53b87da0a03d
7cb84686005cbb7ea7770e2bf6bb6ec3eafd8c4c
37111 F20101112_AACMSP bogan_d_Page_81.QC.jpg
187fdef18b8dc66e55a3c0abc5b30590
14337481a2c4d26c30345af7a1c9eda8c9e17b02
2124 F20101112_AACNEK bogan_d_Page_13.txt
3dd4053e4981cc2a2e0a449b6dba865e
73881461891ccc9195fcfe76d18c66d9253265ec
1051925 F20101112_AACMXN bogan_d_Page_44.jp2
dc58e575627a40aa53c1f6918880dbcf
1ef334f6d7afbfd2dc5e560dba33e3b825ee75fc
24334 F20101112_AACNJI bogan_d_Page_44.QC.jpg
c22cb5e6e3fbd46df49059c5c06c8cbc
9168c52b09d03e59c152e3bcccdf0bc2abefcab0
8101 F20101112_AACMSQ bogan_d_Page_22thm.jpg
578073ab43a79805ddf5e2877ded44cf
7789603def8c91e58bc7b76dce06be53ad1f7653
2031 F20101112_AACNEL bogan_d_Page_14.txt
8460a976f7a1f144b196ae4e7f3a7bb2
465efb2a5b8db767c43199394d6684b62358f1c6
1051850 F20101112_AACMXO bogan_d_Page_45.jp2
2e4d9f99cc92a0cfda8e025e3dfdc194
19ead8b670507141412bb9b115c5080be5e9b648
6791 F20101112_AACNJJ bogan_d_Page_44thm.jpg
4f38f337c097ff6f53a58c53850a63bd
dd5488d71681f759845c401b8d0df23346db2fde
75044 F20101112_AACMSR bogan_d_Page_43.jpg
56f5ad4817783f42a47e18e020b69bd6
60ac37883acc80f9cbe1b620eb455a4a857b2fd1
2247 F20101112_AACNEM bogan_d_Page_15.txt
2dd8d179c56bf3f74faef15ce8105506
2cee4936bbb401f157d3a03391a123f844d22f02
868384 F20101112_AACMXP bogan_d_Page_47.jp2
42c9739e730a6db97b8f1f389a9985ee
67a6293b38f6c27a9aab5292659878420a48fc18
24253 F20101112_AACNJK bogan_d_Page_45.QC.jpg
a0c5aeb044c61d73a940a9f2fcae4b2b
bb81ac0cbee6f8e4c0ec54ea12acf3431674f2d5
429 F20101112_AACMSS bogan_d_Page_83.txt
70cb5c8abaf0eed49f55bf9c350839b0
07197749d3d5284dacb959bd487d41f46735b143
2161 F20101112_AACNEN bogan_d_Page_16.txt
6c593e72f4927e87e339f5e78ef4bedf
5e64759d25ad617655cd3933614f7c2423c65170
860198 F20101112_AACMXQ bogan_d_Page_48.jp2
85db517368c1554f367b844be7f475cc
639a2cd6dd8c21fafa9e730b10e1294ee744ef3f
6731 F20101112_AACNJL bogan_d_Page_45thm.jpg
c61f8901523259582388bc9ba6174af2
40377bf623a04c85ebcd2eb88b5a10b7caa43199
54677 F20101112_AACMST bogan_d_Page_35.pro
5c9b78ba371b61f788c6c7233a3b0b24
61b0cf7cab9f80d91d697a7314f83f67634e3d28
2000 F20101112_AACNEO bogan_d_Page_17.txt
3a558cd4e2babdbd48b91318b886b87e
9a1217fcbc7d883849ef55b52e18d7eb8b9d021c
358811 F20101112_AACMXR bogan_d_Page_49.jp2
30e66a05d0010b70e4618aa516b2235d
df378a5ac81ba2978628238715185f7d037c0d14
4611 F20101112_AACNJM bogan_d_Page_46thm.jpg
0bfe1e81ea5c71c2e7573c7737f70888
75cfd4e5cdc9d3e4eb4c6ef5c1bc21f416cfeee9
2140 F20101112_AACNEP bogan_d_Page_18.txt
6448595154d6b0759bb0c36f2f29bdab
5beefc296eb65b3b8110e3608c1ee5f40ebbc60f
113806 F20101112_AACMSU bogan_d_Page_26.jp2
b34a1845b1c567c7da34d9c4a1167dad
abaf92b9f3ea7dc26fe78bc00e040235c492521b
4861 F20101112_AACNJN bogan_d_Page_47thm.jpg
8c71ccf44404f9ccf3a6fe2a54a674f5
a037b1b3fa31103b25eec2e70faaa90904eeba59
759 F20101112_AACNEQ bogan_d_Page_19.txt
bdff04f76d4676e4c0dde23a63d9b6e0
e61810ca6146fe8c6b4ed74729a6ac0d63b8ba09
352446 F20101112_AACMXS bogan_d_Page_50.jp2
10377495d3cdeca4a84509c800a60232
27e8de030771a61536177fdeaf23802add3a92ac
14323 F20101112_AACMSV bogan_d_Page_61.QC.jpg
343300e6eb719fb317fc18f0637c83dc
e9f1433e12c0936289a4c590308b931c1ffeddcd
16522 F20101112_AACNJO bogan_d_Page_48.QC.jpg
34cafdc2f06ea6ada9e55470d8a15ee7
3cf3c41692c467717329be9166347c4368c1119a
1893 F20101112_AACNER bogan_d_Page_20.txt
7d244fcfb556f866f7a061b58de880d2
0ced801373cfd74336b8571792225512a982575b
406321 F20101112_AACMXT bogan_d_Page_53.jp2
bf1827f30b6d0a80145c418211fccc63
4ced15fcf0c2f6bef074444708b37364ec154a54
5201 F20101112_AACMSW bogan_d_Page_52thm.jpg
f7baef2854f8ace33923daa1a99aa76d
b14b751c5937f6e9d5b9024b78418a31233f8886
4674 F20101112_AACNJP bogan_d_Page_48thm.jpg
88b382cd352f570d6b6a66b1d39fb7be
b5a8fdb1e9dbb2f2a6d71a103c09975b77aff6eb
F20101112_AACNES bogan_d_Page_21.txt
c29e5aab8216458826c5f8aac8eaa17e
4a36d7ff80549c441510abe0c494e8a03d9de843
335764 F20101112_AACMXU bogan_d_Page_54.jp2
98e44e737ed869d5aca31a16bbefd3ae
019a7cea70d8bfd0c80c954f8200b718ea5d726f
115783 F20101112_AACMSX bogan_d_Page_13.jp2
45552c9989f9387ad9086a510f0275ae
2fb153d2123a4090b180a7b2aa0964b4e4175253
4735 F20101112_AACNJQ bogan_d_Page_49thm.jpg
ffbab6e41d385f622985eb04f6454229
57c313fde3b9f1490584f9a4ff94e2bd12caab81
2029 F20101112_AACNET bogan_d_Page_23.txt
38b8f925939ac5551924f59bd592dcc5
639edabe6a18dd0dd6405abc23bae85578300db9
360103 F20101112_AACMXV bogan_d_Page_55.jp2
1bbabe706f98a61c3b322afe27f7a4bb
d91d7339ed0d67b1cc73c26490ddc478949101ba
39261 F20101112_AACMQA bogan_d_Page_56.jpg
5d36a6edfa8602e98b736882b15c58d0
3cf6dfc3599be92f7a84bfd0663aefe2f5ba6c20
25715 F20101112_AACMSY bogan_d_Page_01.jpg
a10c463444fbfa8abd45086999caf7c6
add615e77ebe508be06b9fc6678d33fd9a8edd46
15138 F20101112_AACNJR bogan_d_Page_50.QC.jpg
cd6e4aa5ee39ae742912deef50e1c623
3a40e62d77b455512b9eb8b709118f36044fe087
2119 F20101112_AACNEU bogan_d_Page_24.txt
4e2f853ffe6e9f2ecdff3e7ff099daf2
00f08515961bbc28ec912f28c1f9720b757523c5
304612 F20101112_AACMXW bogan_d_Page_56.jp2
bc1a8fda211cc916c6ce3568931dfa5c
270451bcde75e0ffb1ec0ef9fe0a1cc8589b0d71
12666 F20101112_AACMQB bogan_d_Page_71.QC.jpg
a9365e84d8843bd827b019129dcd979b
28df67edaffa597df2b2c27e1496867b417022fc
F20101112_AACMSZ bogan_d_Page_05.tif
ab26bd5e5b6ba845a9cd9264303181d1
5bc39d80fdb16aa05c47f07edf3c85037f519746
4646 F20101112_AACNJS bogan_d_Page_50thm.jpg
5284bba0c13ee3c6dac367eec3adcc16
3cfb6e4683e41644cd132b081eafda98f7f263e1
2172 F20101112_AACNEV bogan_d_Page_25.txt
a00963038f71aac1919cba9553d485f9
afdea0cb483f85594f62760c6032197ab51f9687
334866 F20101112_AACMXX bogan_d_Page_57.jp2
c1baa626a577004b8460aa3cb06e294c
a1203e84cd570a3b4acb6371910df5894c9d2005
22808 F20101112_AACMQC bogan_d_Page_43.QC.jpg
11661120b5d06af6c2ea70831b151bc1
683ca76ef7eb2f518570bb2a7880207ee8e4b3fc
14656 F20101112_AACNJT bogan_d_Page_51.QC.jpg
96c570bf25eeafea274bf2d9f44026ae
d0183215992cbe9f59674ade2926e9f30188f9ea
2064 F20101112_AACNEW bogan_d_Page_26.txt
8b5ba5ced707ed43288aa27178d8da63
cb4ff32009d0def6d9ccdccdb7224b78ec2533ba
57406 F20101112_AACMVA bogan_d_Page_41.jpg
ac94fcfebedb5dd85997f50b841b1c71
f5c39b3f476d0def0d03f56923475d09f9b639d1
322829 F20101112_AACMXY bogan_d_Page_58.jp2
b23be1010aa13af19b7d26d4091f7ac9
df30b229cfa060d779fdd66104169270bcfa6fdb
10009 F20101112_AACMQD bogan_d_Page_30.QC.jpg
8af5dfdcc740780e56a9fa925f6a1eb1
1c73d522e1d24c10389c333238a04196b62c1231
F20101112_AACNJU bogan_d_Page_51thm.jpg
77f613fb6bdf1aa54fc05f0549838ce4
2ecc53001a0ec82b3834bec2527922be064d0d20
2120 F20101112_AACNEX bogan_d_Page_27.txt
f79cbbffd53fc655d76a51aaac3e7333
eccfc30214a9903baf179bdf0536922f7d6fbd6a
58031 F20101112_AACMVB bogan_d_Page_42.jpg
3b5f4533661107d876ec2628cdef4b35
bd103c6e604739fe47e48b617f3da9933617f444
319338 F20101112_AACMXZ bogan_d_Page_59.jp2
15efbc9bfe39174f90f218968cd09d40
b6cd1344424f0ca566dfa2a647966f2624fffdc9
1997 F20101112_AACMQE bogan_d_Page_43.txt
0d2d802dcb96626b66f056b4dc2c79ff
628588f9829c70068b3729c60fd165c33131e79a
17416 F20101112_AACNJV bogan_d_Page_52.QC.jpg
b999f9964ff2cd592353e02bc4a69f8b
90ad69b9dc4139fc6c0081ef6357bd7983d82d89
255 F20101112_AACNEY bogan_d_Page_28.txt
967cd86cda493902cc81ae2ee3d6c9a4
87cb03039b38dd71e2fa3ad87ddd5b566afb7d2e
81719 F20101112_AACMVC bogan_d_Page_44.jpg
84a9489385138db198d2c20f7d403761
9b30fe1d130290c50f8d35ebb0158d61f4fea39c
4166 F20101112_AACMQF bogan_d_Page_62thm.jpg
ed1a3a0abf3cb8b19916ea52282d04dc
f0f00e15413d1b35331d5a891eabde97c476849c
16063 F20101112_AACNJW bogan_d_Page_53.QC.jpg
566fc9c3d57fb971ad384f1a343b0784
ce0230b448322910293afa29ba595fe829b2ceae
2240 F20101112_AACNEZ bogan_d_Page_29.txt
33bf4f45cb2f235156d419b52da2fc16
e7a1038d1c0d68b1831e554ea2e4d5a2c30f9b31
81513 F20101112_AACMVD bogan_d_Page_45.jpg
7d50ab1f7d90842828987887b4eb853f
85d9384ea6b29e9873a3d08c3f1fbd3b89325c53
35342 F20101112_AACMQG bogan_d_Page_37.QC.jpg
3c507829a65f3574d9e8cc33bf061ea6
a53a9552f449f5c40639478546d9964e590fa5d3
18916 F20101112_AACNCA bogan_d_Page_19.pro
c95b0bfa0056c8038d0abb34e2a1cdb6
d66882c8800104ee6e1cb58bdae2d1560e86158e
5014 F20101112_AACNJX bogan_d_Page_53thm.jpg
2ee5adf4fe38751cdfbcf0e741af5ffa
aaf8020ead7085fe6e3fb5baaf196e2afa0f4b26
54075 F20101112_AACMVE bogan_d_Page_46.jpg
ce784d6a3efc0736b5e94be6d06b36e8
b4018225ff4cc6117fb6d66fb1a125a950921f8d
44932 F20101112_AACMQH bogan_d_Page_76.jpg
8c8925b1e3d1007c43ae176a612d7be8
d8a8862b692e5c8893ad5fda1c6b055ec996ad31
45965 F20101112_AACNCB bogan_d_Page_20.pro
1b5a048fcd48177a218a0cfbd347cdde
6c815cf209a475dead8fad4ea912a6c54efd8d23
14683 F20101112_AACNJY bogan_d_Page_54.QC.jpg
bbddd426f7159c1ca86057ae806dcdac
fdf9d7514c2e8ed1cda2a7a9da3eef0b1e0c1f95
34748 F20101112_AACNHA bogan_d_Page_07.QC.jpg
2c7f57a836c8b0e70c91e29457feb387
12efa5be377675ca614de13cd9092952c1b795e3
57038 F20101112_AACMVF bogan_d_Page_47.jpg
0c7c2c64c89640a964620cb06c2c84d2
ab028b9e7dcfbaa22d66dbf6a7cd4a5dc921e953
35386 F20101112_AACMQI bogan_d_Page_35.QC.jpg
f741d0fb1d4036d298b81e89543c8a15
733c11426591e7ba4d2be8848ee651f9ea51101a
47805 F20101112_AACNCC bogan_d_Page_22.pro
7712a2a6b1d01fc5882e35370198afc5
1cf1aae0b4471a86ee8f9fb7806a7ef66c88ca7b
4642 F20101112_AACNJZ bogan_d_Page_54thm.jpg
2f1fe1c9094bf8a8fb3d9d50237c4391
28823d4d6402a95bec9963c94f0567fc0e88ab3c
55866 F20101112_AACMVG bogan_d_Page_48.jpg
43b76233eb3064da838faa9ae9a135a7
222c1fdf5443fdaf0575d418367bbee997286c36
826015 F20101112_AACMQJ bogan_d_Page_46.jp2
1c14871cfe1b5b94bac8384a14914916
8598fa4f1d7ae0859b4d7bf0bd32766e25a1f784
50397 F20101112_AACNCD bogan_d_Page_23.pro
7ad9f4bbdc2215ce235b2eeae0be8eb6
8650990d0a4fc56d6d2d79f302f2d60090897ad3
8566 F20101112_AACNHB bogan_d_Page_07thm.jpg
777afbae51c71d03fd55c005540f2e1b
c84e2568f975e2c2bbca371ad62d4b25b48e65b2
40732 F20101112_AACMVH bogan_d_Page_49.jpg
41c3b48982eedf1012e7c2c99ea94a17
143bc83446b3210f490667f709b391d228014db8
19114 F20101112_AACMQK bogan_d_Page_75.QC.jpg
69726cea4bfecea38d1ecb8c6ea44d68
8aa40a46efbb9261c15541e5d90e1e42007f0152
53032 F20101112_AACNCE bogan_d_Page_24.pro
17d93003fcec013cfd298da3ae4afe89
1cfd42c88bb2252983d577dfb07a80cd944f7d9c
4709 F20101112_AACNHC bogan_d_Page_08.QC.jpg
a2a0f485a3bbc824752a3de58ab24d05
169aaf1bd8b76951bb586f00161a2d55b8d8b407
50585 F20101112_AACMVI bogan_d_Page_52.jpg
5d0a19e81a79d99e967a2ed55659b182
84ad09919e9d1d3d59b3971306c439599a1e4822
55348 F20101112_AACNCF bogan_d_Page_25.pro
53e71b2163bab4c972b582b730e680df
ff41d7dff296719d955ba874633504f323b1ffd1
1390 F20101112_AACNHD bogan_d_Page_08thm.jpg
e5d3ee202ecc9255c02c71edc1699ce1
fcb03f1705a3d5e07b05297e6073af407c7e0d02
49352 F20101112_AACMVJ bogan_d_Page_53.jpg
9a30d66bf34d0be1d0b1e841bf294cdc
a576f88fbe6bb92e6054391d30c598327b3d5621
17132 F20101112_AACMQL bogan_d_Page_47.QC.jpg
e4815499bc595f97c43013f33196e262
57b0254f03d24fed8e754488bd53e7773ca40ba8
52414 F20101112_AACNCG bogan_d_Page_26.pro
1d5b4dd35a304f1e5028cce90bd94052
0126309e705b587e8e01fd34cd0f845e0afe814e
31812 F20101112_AACNHE bogan_d_Page_09.QC.jpg
1979f26168ffacb2e5f072b88722e0e2
5fc4e28fd31694181b02271bfb62323e36dd86fa
39928 F20101112_AACMVK bogan_d_Page_54.jpg
46bad47eaff7084d541008bc5be170d1
047ad4e27eedd7deff344290b8b05be27aae0de5
110635 F20101112_AACMQM bogan_d_Page_23.jp2
7de3fa7c63033d4286702136d290e6fc
e21354933ab6ce10f549735eeee83949bdc28f06
52805 F20101112_AACNCH bogan_d_Page_27.pro
67783300ae22bd5568d27898c0a533f8
766ec6a86d0bb784664b118d998cdd659a6f5e72
7960 F20101112_AACNHF bogan_d_Page_09thm.jpg
ccc9554c65f5fb3d4922bbde2e0f776e
a8bbdd75e656ac948c1775527b63914869013b80
39039 F20101112_AACMVL bogan_d_Page_57.jpg
e0e72aea75bc1e12e86554b44b5a0303
c4c08f753294fb8fbaa932d62e3c2eeb91afcbc1
124919 F20101112_AACMQN bogan_d_Page_80.jp2
7ffc5e9be46841b9ee9b0feb3dc52f13
455a6d0767b9d778778ba030c00560e2a55266d2
6216 F20101112_AACNCI bogan_d_Page_28.pro
776138520c28824c84aab590d7044b2f
68b8b68bb86547fe97a0f505c24a1131cdedec2b
13091 F20101112_AACNHG bogan_d_Page_10.QC.jpg
48ec5dde558f8219c006da03255c05ac
91ec1d0f2c055e615a2b47546b910c6c98389d55
37815 F20101112_AACMVM bogan_d_Page_58.jpg
c0107d718873f14f5f77ca74823a4d56
a7a38ad559ebe2b296017710599c0cb3c5e8827b
21492 F20101112_AACMQO bogan_d_Page_31.pro
40cb9eff0abf1c3e63dfbcf97c2faf9b
f1c3739b63736dd17bd70720848532ede197ed32
46766 F20101112_AACNCJ bogan_d_Page_29.pro
d5f6ea2fbb570995a13009f261ba4a70
f92058dea6d22fe2e2ed16604915346d2aa9a786
3105 F20101112_AACNHH bogan_d_Page_10thm.jpg
79356e584205d4ddf7434ccfc1c78daf
de3b0ca092d01fec21f07ab86c7a3403a39020ec
40626 F20101112_AACMVN bogan_d_Page_59.jpg
3b211c65784c3a68fb570ded08a4c69b
053dd45c8f44a5e139adceea1ae0f3efb16335fa
F20101112_AACMQP bogan_d_Page_78.tif
fbe830ecd170056ee9322d00e53c1dea
04b49032fbe0c4debad4ea1574cf69633931daba
15460 F20101112_AACNCK bogan_d_Page_30.pro
5e932a210a05e438a87e807c1cdb930b
13628464794826a71daff7def0a1fe12eed27445
34253 F20101112_AACNHI bogan_d_Page_11.QC.jpg
a5673f13cb5dafdbe081219c661dd16b
f26c5a90ca3c292d7832dc4083f3ac07fd66f96d
35806 F20101112_AACMVO bogan_d_Page_60.jpg
63b5fd032c3e3819ccf577f640becba5
1fbf239f33a4cef8285e21c20c7c8c2a38ebbf4f
2022 F20101112_AACMQQ bogan_d_Page_47.txt
ebe005a73cafc9b89df3f4b4f9ab8181
cff3376ff3f9e450bf9601bab84d46c6f2d15070
53111 F20101112_AACNCL bogan_d_Page_32.pro
2f5d32c1b8ba8b52b6e06dc4b70a28f3
015aac618e8594d25135df07be196ed32cc74e82
36781 F20101112_AACNHJ bogan_d_Page_12.QC.jpg
04df15c5471ea829359e6193cacbf889
ec5fe9c12b53ba2d1fc97d72f3934f34816f2d86
41346 F20101112_AACMVP bogan_d_Page_61.jpg
03925aedbaa55ac19d0dbebbfc1e5e4a
92b8fe35a402a879c811f215a201c5aa3b705ed7
59610 F20101112_AACMQR bogan_d_Page_80.pro
5ffb098641f10e0d46ad78d243c2b555
88a091418708a46211af316a695c2c168bae0e6f
56536 F20101112_AACNCM bogan_d_Page_34.pro
30e6161b39df1cdd38df834929238c34
d28b87e39593115cec397080c3e062f221a9a7c5
8591 F20101112_AACNHK bogan_d_Page_12thm.jpg
b4aa76ece7ccd9b8a3da89618911566f
cad7778a3e23ea7ba8a2e01aa881b03baae43e24
38056 F20101112_AACMQS bogan_d_Page_72.jpg
0f1ba24f2f22a5afca8a1816d6d86ad3
2be4de2ff76f33cc1fd6675bbdde76edcfe60759
52953 F20101112_AACNCN bogan_d_Page_36.pro
8d56a06c16cf049af261c38d4ee46b44
44ecdfe4618486a901beba0c5862650c29509535
35468 F20101112_AACNHL bogan_d_Page_13.QC.jpg
6e20f7f4e051ee8e34b6fa5c963a791d
7b3b539eb6c31642fe10fb79e4567d2590cc037c
F20101112_AACMQT bogan_d_Page_56.tif
bb65f860f6f583325ca470bfb3efd1c6
6e57fcdca0adcb17e8b737ff100fce3ebda1d778
56384 F20101112_AACNCO bogan_d_Page_38.pro
171fd991ca209ff813ced3b384d79ca2
6d30cde4849bf4fe34dfbdb05c25a28732296023
F20101112_AACMVQ bogan_d_Page_62.jpg
6055c5f4917826208d9ac77bcdd3e384
06aa8d2833efe86382168a1c681603106609ef52
8412 F20101112_AACNHM bogan_d_Page_13thm.jpg
83caee3d77a234a40967a76461881120
a94a0cd83a715bacfd52ef411879f670340278eb
299411 F20101112_AACMQU bogan_d.pdf
b68e21091d0f9dc856d81c67a2fd8d61
01aa38194f358b29d74294126a2736c4e7b95e3f
50520 F20101112_AACNCP bogan_d_Page_39.pro
6312567c54f96032e4eb5c1c088d9f5f
2908b8883e491de46add7906ca6634430b781a3a
41106 F20101112_AACMVR bogan_d_Page_65.jpg
9be3aa3695f41804281fbe73fffe0a24
ad25a5a05dd4d98ee6c46ea742192d80f9f5acf0
33074 F20101112_AACNHN bogan_d_Page_14.QC.jpg
0579717e5320e4fc8a0f46977682de34
50de8900a15a5daadfc0db536053345632c03066
F20101112_AACMQV bogan_d_Page_39.tif
fec76c2feee879277654ab7630fc6181
c425d22fbf37cd3267ed965a330f52cab47393ff
12865 F20101112_AACNCQ bogan_d_Page_40.pro
8389012dd9c9f8b263578a39af1cd109
578df92162e1a92586de78b3ef9d26f7f3ee6692
41637 F20101112_AACMVS bogan_d_Page_66.jpg
a4bda9b33594c388817efc94d70381eb
ee1a684ef30b7b74298a42ae73f69717b9e1e471
8431 F20101112_AACNHO bogan_d_Page_14thm.jpg
851fab5d126f4747a849ff2dfd415d05
5fd3ec21ecc69b2d896a9d141e524058db60de91
40933 F20101112_AACMQW bogan_d_Page_63.jpg
a9bdb4dea0cfc7edd695e0f26b9aa18a
630f77d8183f92ebff4d0046092e4c334b4b1760
26338 F20101112_AACNCR bogan_d_Page_41.pro
3bdc55ffb9ae025ccee315e574e635f7
cc42e5940e7df782e9855670aecabd4ade8e7a90
38926 F20101112_AACMVT bogan_d_Page_67.jpg
e9f59c9de8d3f14d9a26a1c4353ade02
7711e890b44c8ec3336c4e5aaa5ac1c73c3a7d6d
8958 F20101112_AACNHP bogan_d_Page_15thm.jpg
b493f069cbf2d1f9e7d01e60c947d3cd
edee577b935bc55a8fefe8480c0c85913f3cdc65
1051974 F20101112_AACMQX bogan_d_Page_43.jp2
6c82aeeb2abeb1bc2276088438276330
b5272ffd90d4b0f0a4a68c59dfdf7314477377a4
26298 F20101112_AACNCS bogan_d_Page_42.pro
be4e7e3fec9bfb26708d29b3ba6bdf91
b476796a2d65abcb4aa2d17d7853923c1f7f2a4e
38366 F20101112_AACMVU bogan_d_Page_68.jpg
c82c1cfaa127e730f4297d5efbc7b02e
51268f25e3388d1bdeaa24c78617703b1ba95e43


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020141/00001

Material Information

Title: Sensory Assessment of Shrimp Exposed to Phosphate Treatments for Moisture Control
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020141:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0020141/00001

Material Information

Title: Sensory Assessment of Shrimp Exposed to Phosphate Treatments for Moisture Control
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0020141:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





SENSORY ASSESSMENT OF SHRIMP EXPOSED TO PHOSPHATE TREATMENTS FOR
MOISTURE CONTROL





















By

DANIELLE BOGAN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































2007 Danielle Bogan









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to first thank my major advisor, Dr. Steven Otwell for all of his advice and

support. I would also like to thank my other graduate committee members, Dr. Charlie Sims and

Dr. Raymon Littell. Secondly, I appreciate everything that both Laura and Victor Garrido have

done for me in my academic journey. Zina Williams was always available with a helping hand or

a sympathetic ear. I would like to distinguish Janna Underhill, as she always has the solution to

every problem. I also would like to recognize all of my labmates, both past and present, who

aided me in my research: Sebastian Shaw, Rebecca Crouthamel, Leann Manley, and Kelley

Zhou. A special thanks goes to Lance Nacio, John Bell, and Jeff Schwab for their assistance and

accompaniment in collecting my shrimp samples. Finally, I would like to thank my friends and

family, who were always supportive of me throughout all the hardships I encountered along the

way.










TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ...............................................................................................................3

LIST OF TABLES ........................ ...........................................6

LIST OF FIGU RE S ................................................................. 7

ABSTRAC T ...........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................11

Introduction ......................................................................................... .. ..............11
U se o f P h o sp h ate s ............................................................................................................. 12
C onsum er P exceptions ................................................................13
P a te n ts .................................... ........................................................................................... 1 4
Regulations Concerning Phosphates ................................................................ ........ ......... ....15
P hosphate A applications .................................................................16
M monitoring the U se of Phosphates ...................................................................... 17

2 JUSTIFICATION AND APPROACH ....................... ...... ...............20

3 M A TER IA L S A N D M ETH O D S ..................................................................................... 21

Sam ple Collection and Treatm ent ............................................................. 21
Sam ple A nalyses....................................................... 22
Sam ple Selection and Preparation ............................................... ............... 23
T rained Sensory P anel ................................................................24
C onsum er Sensory P anel ................................................................27

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................. 32

C om position of Shrim p ............................ ...................................... .... ...........................32
Trained Panel Sensory A ssessm ents................................................................................. 34
Consum er Panel A ssessm ents ............................ .................... ............... ............... 37
C conclusion ................................................. .............. ..................... 39

APPENDIX

A FORM PRESENTED TO TRAINED PANEL FOR SHRIMP CHARACTERIZATION ....74

B FORM PRESENTED TO CONSUMER PANEL TO JUDGE ACCEPTABILITY OF
SH R IM P ...................................................................... ........ ...........76

C PICTURE SCALES USED FOR COLOR, PLUMPNESS, AND OPACITY .......................79


4









L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ............................................................................... ...........................80

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ............................................................................... .....................83









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Raw data for moisture, phosphorus, sodium, and total salt in all 24 experimental
sam ple com binations........ ......................................................................... ...... .. .... 29

3-2 Texture standards created with an Instron machine for use with the trained sensory
p a n e l ................... ...................3...................0..........

3-3 Demographic data for the untrained consumer sensory panel ..................................31

4-1 Raw data for moisture, phosphorus, sodium and total salt in the 12 samples presented
to panelists. ............................................................................... 4 1

4-2 Cooked data for moisture, phosphorus, sodium and total salt in the 12 samples
presented to panelists. ........................ .......... .. .. ... ...... .. .............42

4-3 Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples
exposed to 0% N aC l concentration ..................................................................................43

4-4 Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples
exposed to 1.5% N aCl concentration....................................................... .............. 44

4-5 Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples
exposed to 2.5% N aCl concentration....................................................... .............. 45

4-6 Significant differences in consumer panel in the zero salt concentration..........................46

4-7 Significant differences in consumer panel in the 1.5% salt concentration ......................47

4-8 Significant differences in consumer panel in the 2.5% salt concentration ......................48









LIST OF FIGURES


Figure p e

4-1 Total phosphorus change from raw to cooked shrimp samples............... ...................49

4-2 Moisture content change from raw to cooked shrimp samples.......................................50

4-3 Influence of cooking on weight of samples treated with different combinations of
STP and N aCl after cooking. ...... ........................... .......................................... 51

4-4 Ratio of percent moisture content to total phosphorus in raw shrimp samples .................52

4-5 Ratio of percent moisture content to total phosphorus in cooked shrimp samples............53

4-6 Total salt content change from raw to cooked shrimp ..................................................54

4-7 Sodium content change from raw to cooked shrimp. .............................. ................55

4-8 Average responses by trained panel regarding Color ........................................................56

4-9 Average responses by trained panel regarding Translucency................ ..................57

4-10 Average responses by trained panel regarding Plumpness..............................................58

4-11 Average responses by trained panel regarding Moistness..........................................59

4-12 Texture ratings for trained panel corresponding to maximum compressive load (N). ......60

4-13 Average responses by trained panel regarding Hardness/Firmness.............................. 61

4-14 Average responses by trained panel regarding Chewiness........................ .............62

4-15 Average responses by trained panel regarding Saltiness...........................................63

4-16 Average responses by trained panel regarding Flavor ................................................64

4-17 Histogram of overall appearance as rated by consumer panel ..................................65

4-18 Average responses by consumer panel regarding Overall Appearance...........................66

4-19 Average responses by consumer panel regarding Flavor ..............................................67

4-20 Histogram of saltiness as rated by consumer panel ................................. ............... 68

4-21 Average responses by consumer panel responses regarding Saltiness ...........................69

4-22 Histogram of firmness as rated by consumer panel .................... ......................... 70









4-23 Average responses by consumer panel regarding Moistness..............................71

4-24 Histogram of moistness as rated by consumer panel ......................................................72









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

SENSORY ASSESSMENT OF SHRIMP EXPOSED TO PHOSPHATE TREATMENTS FOR
MOISTURE CONTROL
By

Danielle Bogan

May 2007

Chair: W. Steven Otwell
Major: Food Science and Human Nutrition

Proper use of water retention agents in processing of shrimp remains in controversy

relative to appropriate amounts applied and product consequences. In the absence of any

regulations for specific limits, sensory assessments were conducted to determine sensory

detection and consumer preference and acceptability for phosphate and moisture content in

processed shrimp. A range of moisture contents was created by treating the shrimp in different

sodium chloride (NaC1) and sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) concentrations to yield a matrix with

cooked moisture contents ranging from 79 to 84%. The intent was to provide a range of product

conditions relative to various customary phosphate treatments. Both trained and consumer

sensory panels were used to assess product sensory consequences. A panel of 11 experts was

trained to rate sensory attributes most commonly influenced by phosphate treatments.

Descriptors included eight categories for aroma, flavor, texture, and appearance. A consumer

panel was utilized to illustrate acceptability across all phosphate treatments. Both panels were

presented with identical samples. The mode for daily sample presentation differed by NaCl

concentration to avoid any bias for salt flavor. The trained panel was able to detect changes in

sensory attributes with increasing exposure to NaCl and STP. Significant differences were

observed in every attribute except for sour. However, their ability to detect had little influence on









the consumer panel's preference. For product with no prior exposure to NaC1, the untrained

consumer panel scored significant differences across the various phosphate treatments for overall

acceptance, firmness, and moisture perception categories. Depending on prior phosphate

exposure, saltiness, firmness, moisture perception and overall liking were all significantly

different for shrimp exposed to 1.5% NaC1. The highest mean rating for overall acceptance,

aroma and flavor was for shrimp exposed to the 1.5% NaCl and the highest (4%) STP treatments.

No significant differences were rated by the consumer panel for aroma or aftertaste.









CHAPTER 1
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Moisture is the single largest component of shrimp. It contains the water soluble nutrients

that influence flavor. It can affect product color, curl, glossiness and transparency; and most

importantly, it determines the texture, mouthfeel and mastication of the cooked products. Too

little or excessive moisture content in shrimp can result in objectionable or inferior product

quality. Low moisture results in dry and overcooked shrimp and high moisture content can cause

a slippery texture or glassy appearance (Garrido 2004). Consequently, moisture is the dominant

component on influencing shrimp quality, as the right amount significantly impacts preference

by the consumer (Otwell 2004).

Some of the factors that can influence the final moisture content in shrimp are time of

exposure to ice, ice slush and/or any water following Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs, 21

CFR Part 110). Additional factors include the duration in frozen storage, product exposure to

freezing and thawing cycles, and most importantly, how the product is cooked. Proper cooking

requires knowledge of the shrimp size to account for the time required for the product to reach

the internal temperature to reduce bacterial loads as recommended by federal authorities (21

CFR 123). It is also important to stop the cook or heating process with immediate cooling. If the

shrimp is cooked at a processing plant, most commercial plants have cooking schedules to

account for these controls. However, the majority of the shrimp consumed worldwide is either

cooked at home or in restaurants. In many instances the shrimp is overcooked, either by

consumers or by chefs. Mindful of these concerns, commercial practices have evolved with

processing aids to help protect and retain moisture during harvest, processing, distribution,

storage and buyer preparation. Phosphate applications are one of the most common controls.









Use of Phosphates

Naturally occurring phosphates such as adenosine triphosphate (ATP) are involved in

muscle activities and water binding. The muscle food industries recognized this and were

pioneers in using additional phosphates, a multipurpose group of compounds, to protect moisture

content in edible muscle by increasing the water binding capability of the protein (Molins 1991).

The initial compound of choice of the shrimp industry was sodium tripolyphosphate (STP),

followed with the introduction of blends with additional ingredients to impart variable effects

and applications (Otwell 1993). Currently, STP and various phosphate blends are often used to

process other seafood products such as scallops, lobster tails, and various fish. The intended use

is to protect the product moisture content during freezing, frozen storage, thawing and cooking.

The moisture loss that is often reported after the cooking of shrimp is caused by a volatilization

of water, decrease in holding capacity of the denatured muscle proteins, and pressure created

when connective tissue begins to shrink. The use of multivalent phosphates helps increase the

protein water holding capacity due to ionic interactions with the muscle proteins. The addition of

sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) has been most effective relative to smaller shrimp sizes. This is

thought to be due to the larger surface-to-volume ratio of the small shrimp results in better

absorption of STP into the volume (Erdogdu and others 2003). Similarly, in 1980, Crawford

showed that the use of phosphates aided in the processing of cold water shrimp. The phosphate

increased "case hardening" of the flesh, which enhanced removal of the shrimp shell from the

cooked product.

Phosphates are also thought to impart textural quality and to reduce oxidative rancidity and

development of other off-flavors by sequestering multivalent cations (Ellinger 1972). Studies and

commercial trials have shown (Banks and others 1998) that phosphates reduce bacterial

populations in meat, thus extending the shelf life of the product. Studies on the effect of









polyphosphate on textural properties of meat products have not only shown improvements but

the phosphate also help to stabilize color, flavor, and sensory characteristics (Tenhet and others

1981). Phosphates have also been known to prevent the formation of struvite, a problem common

in the canning industry with tuna and salmon. Struvite are transparent crystals of magnesium

ammonium phosphate, often mistaken by consumers as glass shards (Ellinger 1972). Sodium

hexametaphosphate blends have been used in the scallop industry to remove crystalline

precipitates, also known as white spots (Fisher 1993).

Consumer Perceptions

Previous studies have demonstrated a consumer preference for properly phosphated

shrimp. Phosphated implies the product was treated with some form of phosphating agents to

control moisture content. Garrido and others (1993) demonstrated that consumers (n=125)

significantly preferred phosphate treated shrimp products over the untreated controls. In a taste

panel designed to evaluate phosphate treated shrimp and scallops, it was shown with sensory

triangle tests that over half of the consumers could detect the treated product, and their ability to

detect these products increased as moisture content increased. In the same study, consumers

indicated a preference for the treated product and rated the phosphated shrimp and scallops

higher in the categories of general appearance, flavor, purchase value, and overall quality

(Garrido and others 1993.) This work demonstrated that adding and retaining moisture can be

beneficial rather than common adverse claims for adulteration.

Claims for moisture adulteration have occurred with products exposed to excessive

phosphate treatments that diminished product quality. Abusive treatments can result in slimy,

glassy product due to excessive water content (Love and Abel 1966). It should be stressed that

there is no benefit to excessive treatments, and overexposure can result in adulterated products

(Sturno 1987).









Patents

Patents regarding the use of phosphates in processing have been around for many years.

An early patent filed in 1946 included the use of raw shrimp in an aqueous solution containing

2% by weight dibasic sodium phosphate for a period of two hours (Garnatz and others 1946). In

the canning industry, it is common to encounter problems with struvite, a glasslike crystal

formation. To avoid this problem, Ekkehard filed a patent describing the use of water soluble

glassy alkali phosphate in an "amount sufficient to substantially suppress the crystallization of

struvite" (Ekkehard and others 1949). In 1953, the improvement of fish meat was patented by

exposure to a sodium chloride brine with polymeric phosphoric acid in concentration from 0.2-

2.0% by weight. It claimed to improve taste, digestibility and also the stability of fish meat

(Meyer 1952). A method of preserving frozen fish involving the use of sodium and potassium

salts of molecularly dehydrated phosphoric acids was developed in order to inhibit the loss of

moisture, soluble protein, minerals and vitamins (Mahon 1960). In the late 1960s, a patent was

filed to increase the yield of bonito (a medium sized predatory fish) meat by treating with

molecularly dehydrated phosphate such as STP or orthophosphate prior to cooking (Swartz

1969).

The use of polyphosphate in fish fillets, with or without the use of salt, was first patented

by JH Mahon of Hagan Chemicals and Controls, Inc. in 1962. Sodium tripolyphosphate (STP) is

used at concentrations between 1.0 and 2.0% incorporated in the water used to make the ice; as

the ice melts and forms slush, the phosphate comes in contact with the shrimp and continues to

preserve it. This is different from the phosphate soak, where the phosphate is used at a higher

concentration and the phosphate is mixed into the water and added to the slush ice along with the

shrimp.









Many other patents were filed regarding the use of phosphates in the 1970s and 1980s. One

filed by McAuley in the UK was concerned with color, flavor, and water binding capacity

improvements in fresh meats. It involved the addition of 0.3 to 0.7% acidic phosphate, with the

preferred species identified as sodium and potassium salts of phosphoric and pyrophosphoric

acids (McAuley 1984). The use of 0.3 to 1.0% solution of STP, hydrated with a solution

containing citrus juice solids and also autolyzed yeast extract, was used in a patent which

claimed to improve flavor and cook yield in patties prepared from certain meat cuts such as

shank (Bender and others 1985). An abandoned patent filed in 1977 involved a process that

comprised of "soaking whole, peeled and deveined shrimp in an aqueous solution that contained

at least one phosphate salt, and thereafter freezing to preserve said shrimp to later cooking and

consumption." It also included "carrying out said soaking step for sufficient time and in the

presence of an effective amount of a trace metal salt selected from the group consisting of

calcium salts, magnesium salts, and mixtures thereof, in order to substantially maintain the trace

metal content in said shrimp, whereby said treated shrimp will have white tissue coloration and a

natural tender texture after cooking" (Falci 1977).

A process describing flaked or crushed ice containing a moisture-binding phosphate used

to store shrimp from the time it is harvested until it is processed was developed in 1981. STP

concentrations between 1.0 and 2.0% were incorporated into the water used to make the ice; as it

melted and formed slush, STP came in contact with the shrimp and continued to preserve it.

Regulations Concerning Phosphates

In the USA, phosphates have been affirmed as a "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS

substance by the Food and Drug Administration in a review published in the December issue of

the 1979 Federal Register (FDA 21 CFR 182.1810, 182.6760, 182.6787). Processors can use

phosphates unrestricted so long as the product is used in amounts to achieve an "intended









effect" and it is processed in accordance with the good manufacturing practices found at 21 CFR

182.1(b). Prior use of phosphates must be declared in the ingredient statement on the product

label. Previous attempts have been made to establish regulatory limits at 0.5% residual

phosphate expressed as P205. This regulatory proposal was never approved (FR Vol. 44 No.

244)

European regulations allow for certain levels of phosphoric acid and certain phosphates

(including sodium tripolyphosphate) to be added individually or in combination, expressed as

phosphorus pentoxide, or P205. For "unprocessed and processed mollusks and crustaceans frozen

and deep frozen" the allowable level of added phosphate is 5g/kg, or 0.5% (expressed as P205).

This is with the assumption that the naturally occurring level of phosphate in the shrimp product

is approximately 5 g/kg P205, (calculated per phosphate content), which interprets to an

allowable level of P205 in the product not to exceed 10 g/kg or 1.0%. This regulation is

complicated in that measurement of 0.5% is in the cooked final product, after having followed

the directions of cooking on the product package (European Council on Foods 1994).

The current guideline passed down from the poultry and red meat industry is 0.5%

phosphates added to the product to "decrease the amount of cooked out juices" and to "help

protect flavor." (9 CFR Part 381.147 and 9 CFR Part 318.7). However, this guideline assumes

that the premeasured phosphate treatment as exposed to the product is completely incorporated.

This assumption is not directly applicable to shrimp and other seafood muscle.

Phosphate Applications

Customary phosphate applications throughout the shrimp industry typically consist of

exposing the raw shrimp to a phosphate solution with or without salt for a certain period of time

with or without agitation. Vacuum tumbling, a practice borrowed from the meat industry, has

also been used extensively to treat shrimp, assuming the agitation and changes in atmospheric









pressure aids penetration. However, this type of treatment, even though proven very effective,

can have an adverse affect on the quality of the shrimp, and requires special equipment.

Therefore, most processing plants rely on static exposure to phosphate solutions.

Salt, specifically sodium chloride (NaC1), has been proven to improve the penetration and

effects of the phosphate solutions. The salt also helps to improve the flavor as well as the

necessary ionic interactions with the meat proteins. However, too much salt will increase

osmotic pressure of the phosphate solutions which can decrease water retention. Previous studies

with turkey breast have shown that sensory properties, such as binding, juiciness and flavor,

were significantly improved by the presence ofNaCl with phosphate solutions (Froning and

Sackett 1985).

While the use of STP is the most common form for fresh fish and seafood, experiments

have shown that the use of tetrasodium pyrophosphate was more effective in preventing drip loss

in prepacked, chilled fish (Gibson and others 1973). This particular method involved automatic

dipping or spraying lines to fish fillets, scallops, and shrimp before freezing. Based on

experience and personal communication with numerous fish and phosphate distributors, the

following phosphate concentrations are commonly used in commercial practice with seafood:

* Ice making 3% solution
* Dipping/washing 2-6% solution for 2-20 minutes
* Spraying 5-10% solution
* Tumbling 2-6% solution
* Injecting 5-8% solution
* Dry additions 0.3-0.5% to comminuted systems


Monitoring the Use of Phosphates

Phosphate additions to retain moisture in shrimp can be monitored by analyzing for total

phosphorus and percent moisture. However, compositional summaries by Sidwell (1981) and









Sullivan and Otwell (1992) reported phosphate contents for shrimp can vary from 39 to 397

mg/100g expressed as P205. Likewise, percent moisture content was reported to range from

71.8% to 87.0% (Otwell 1994). Therefore, routine monitoring of phosphate residuals was

complicated due to variation in the indigenous phosphorus and moisture content in the shrimp

muscle (Garrido 1991).

In 1991, Garrido and Otwell conducted a series of studies that measured the moisture

content for several tropical shrimp species (Farfantepenaeus) from various countries. The shrimp

were followed from routine harvest through processing to assure authenticity for non-treated

samples. They measured the total phosphorus and moisture content levels of 15 different raw and

cooked shrimp prior to any exposure to phosphates. Total moisture and total phosphorus were

also determined for the shrimp following various phosphate treatments. Upon harvest, the

moisture content in the various raw shrimp species ranged between 74 to 76%. After traditional

processing following established federal Good Manufacturing Practices, (21 CFR Part 110) the

peeled shrimp can be expected to contain between 80 to 83% moisture. However, depending on

residence time in the various processing steps, moisture values can range as high as 88% without

any exposure to phosphate solutions. Thus the moisture content of peeled shrimp without any

prior exposure to phosphates can range from 81 to 88%. Incorporation of phosphate treatments

after peeling resulted in moisture levels of 83 to 86%. For this reason, moisture contents with or

without phosphate treatments depend on the method of processing. Therefore, the study

concluded that moisture values alone cannot be used to determine prior phosphate treatment of

shrimp. Accompanying data was necessary regarding the phosphate content in the treatment of

shrimp. Untreated shrimp analyzed for total phosphorus were found to contain between 150-250

mg/100g phosphorus. The levels of phosphorus in shrimp treated with STP were higher than 250









mg phosphorus/100 g edible meat. The moisture and total phosphorus results were consistent for

all species studied; therefore, values previously reported in the literature most likely included

shrimp samples of unknown history, which could have been previously exposed to phosphate

treatments.

This study (Garrido and Otwell, 1994) also suggested that sensory assessments are

important in determining phosphate treatments in shrimp. Overtreated shrimp can look

translucent, shiny and glassy. A soapy feel may also be detected. The report specified that in

order to detect or observe treatment in shrimp, it is easier for the product to be cooked. The

current status of the phosphate industry is one of confusion.









CHAPTER 2
JUSTIFICATION AND APPROACH

The most important sensory characteristics of shrimp are texture, flavor, and mouthfeel.

Moisture content plays a dominant role in all three of these factors. Too little moisture causes a

dry, overcooked product and too much moisture leads to a chewy, watery product. Both are

unappealing to the consumer. Phosphates can influence the sensory attributes by retaining

moisture in the product throughout processing and eventual cooking. Correct moisture retention

in shrimp production is important to the processor as an aid to the manufacture of shrimp relative

to consumer acceptance and as weight loss carries an economic burden. Incorrect or abusive

phosphate treatment can cause controversy over the question of an adulterated product; therefore,

it is important to find a means to monitor for the consequence of phosphate use to retain moisture

in shrimp.

Several different variables in the phosphate treatment process can affect the shrimp

product. Soak times, temperature, concentration, and presence of salt are just a few of the

variables. Different phosphate and salt levels can be combined to achieve various moisture levels

in shrimp. The human palate is often one of the most important means of measuring

acceptability, and the consumer is the ultimate judge of quality. Therefore, this study was

conducted to determine if humans could detect phosphate use with shrimp and if they preferred

the phosphated product.

It is hypothesized that sensory assessments can be used to detect and also demonstrate a

consumer preference for phosphated shrimp. For this study, the approach was to prepare various

phosphated shrimp for use with sensory panels to measure perception and preference.









CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample Collection and Treatment

To assure no prior use or exposure to phosphate agents, all shrimp samples were

collected during three days of harvest on a commercial vessel trawling near Dulac, Louisiana.

Approximately 800 lbs of white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) were collected by customary

trawling. Samples were transmitted to a local processing plant, deheaded, peeled and graded.

Medium size shrimp, 31-35 tail count per pound, were used for this study. Samples were

exposed to solutions containing different phosphate and salt combinations. The chosen phosphate

was sodium tripolyphosphate (STP), produced by A & B Chemical Company of Loveland,

Colorado. Ten pounds of peeled shrimp were treated in each solution. Twelve solutions included

the combinations of 0, 1.5, 3.0, and 4.0% STP and 0, 1.5 and 2.5% sodium chloride (NaC1). The

controls for the experiment were shrimp samples with no exposure to phosphates or NaCl

(0%/NaCl and 0% STP). Each treatment was applied for both a short term (one hour) and a long

term (four hours) exposure in order to impart various moisture levels. Based on two exposure

times for each of the twelve solutions, there were 24 initial phosphate treatments. The treatment

solution to shrimp ratio was 2 lbs of solution to every 1 lb of product (w/w). The treatment

solutions were maintained at 150C (590F) exposure. This method of application was chosen as

opposed to tumbling because experience indicated tumbling can cause adverse product

appearance. Samples were then drained, rinsed, weighed, and boxed with approximately five

pounds of shrimp per each box. Water glaze was simply an addition of tap water to protect

product during frozen storage. Shrimp were frozen in a blast freezer. Excess shrimp were also

boxed and saved for preliminary analyses. All frozen boxes were shipped to the University of

Florida where they were held in frozen storage (-100C /140F).











Sample Analyses

Thawed samples were then analyzed for moisture, sodium, total salt, and phosphorus in

raw state. Prior to analysis, samples were deglazed (thawed) using the revised Association of

Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) official method 967.13 for frozen shrimp and seafood. For

this method, the contents are placed in a wire mesh basket and immersed in approximately four

gallons of fresh water at 26 30C (80 50F) so that the top of the basket extends over the water

level. Water at the same temperature is introduced from the bottom of the container at a flow rate

of one to three gallons/minute. Upon product thawing, all material is transferred to a 12 inch No.

8 sieve. Without shifting the product, the sieve is inclined approximately 300 from the horizontal

to facilitate draining. Two minutes from time placed on sieve, product is transferred to a

previously weighed pan to determine drained weight of product.

Moisture analysis was performed using AOAC method 950.46 for drying under a

vacuum. Samples were ground into a homogenous mixture with GE Deluxe Chopper food

processor prior to placing approximately two grams of the blend in a tared aluminum pan.

Sample weights were recorded before they were placed in a vacuum oven at 2120F (1000C) and

less than 100 mg Hg for five hours. After the five hours, samples were cooled in a desiccator and

reweighed to determine moisture lost based on weight change.

Total salt was measured using AOAC method 935.47, which involves the addition of

HNO3 under boiling conditions and concentrated aqueous KMnO4. Phosphorus and sodium were

analyzed using Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) method SW6010, which is based on

AOAC methods 990.08 and 985.01, which require an inductively coupled plasma emission

spectrometer apparatus.









Yields were determined by weight difference of the shrimp prior to cooking and

immediately after cooling.

Sample Selection and Preparation

Table 3-1 provides the resulting compositions for the raw shrimp prepared through the 24

treatments. Sample coding first lists the STP concentration followed by the NaCl concentration

and then the exposure time. For example, 0/0/L indicated a solution with a 0% STP, and 0%

NaCl used for a long exposure time, and 3/1.5/S indicates a 3% STP 1.5% NaCl treatment

solution with short exposure time. A progressive series in moisture contents was created mindful

that similar moisture contents could have different properties depending on exposure to NaCl

and exposure times. For example, both the 0/0/L and 1.5/1.5/L combinations had a raw moisture

content of approximately 84% but the former had a sodium content of 57.70 mg/100g while the

latter had a 231.50 mg/100g sodium content. The influence of these factors becomes more

obvious during the panel judgments. Samples could not be identified by phosphorus level or

moisture content alone, as a result, the basis for the coding system must rely on the

combinations. Moisture levels can be achieved through a variety of soak times, salt, and

phosphate concentrations. Phosphorus levels cannot be accounted by moisture content alone.

Sub samples from each phosphate treatments were thawed and then cooked followed by

immediate chilling. The samples were cooked in a forced convection style cooker manufactured

by Laitram Machinery, then immediately chilled. Samples were placed on a conveyer belt for

100 seconds to achieve a 165F (73.80C) internal temperature at the end of cooking. The steam

tunnel had a continuous flow for even cooking at 100F (37.70C.) Shrimp were immediately

cooled in ice slush for two minutes and then refrigerated until presentation to panelists,

approximately four hours later.









The cooked samples were analyzed to obtain moisture and salinity content (AOAC methods

950.46 and 990.08).

The intent for selection of 12 samples across the 24 treatments was to assure a series of

treatments that yielded a progressive increase in moisture levels. Table 3-1 shows the twelve

combinations that were chosen from the original 24 treatments. A simple sample coding was

used to identify product from each treatment. Exposure time variation was necessary only to

achieve a gradient in moisture contents.

Panel sessions were conducted on samples prepared by exposure to treatments with

similar salt concentrations. This allowed three sessions (0, 1.5 and 2.5% NaC1) so as not to

influence the panelists with a possible preference to salt content. One session was held per day.

On each day, 100 consumer panelists analyzed the samples, while 11 trained panelists observed

the same samples, with only 4 different samples per day (each from the same salt concentration

so as to avoid panel exhaustion.)

Trained Sensory Panel

A prescreened, pretrained sensory panel was used for the trained panel evaluation. The 11

member trained panel spent several weeks prior to testing refining their sensory skills and

developing the lexicon and ballot for the shrimp samples. Further, panelists agreed to participate

by signing a standard IRB (Institutional Review Board) agreement prepared in accordance with

the University of Florida research protocol involving human subjects. Training for basic tastes

was achieved by following guidelines outlined in the Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 3rd edition

(Meilgaard and others, 1999) for the ranking and rating tests. The Spectrum Descriptive Analysis

method, designed by Civille (1996), was used for the trained panel. This method is characterized

by the panelist scoring the perceived intensities with reference to pre-learned intensity scales,

which leads to high repeatability. The method provides an array of standard attribute names









(lexicons) each with a set of standards to define the scale of intensity. Training took place over

six weeks with panelists meeting once per week for an hour per session to become familiar with

the basic tastes and standard references. This was important to reduce the variation between

panelists.

After training, the selected panelists developed the final rating form used to analyze the

shrimp samples (Appendix A). The form asked panelists to rate the shrimp in the categories of

appearance, aroma, basic taste, flavor/mouthfeel, and texture. Additional space was provided for

any extra comments regarding their impressions for the shrimp samples. All attributes were

rated on a 0-10 with 0=least intense and 10=most intense with respect to each attribute. The

responses were recorded and then averaged per salinity session to achieve group ratings.

Color, translucency, and plumpness were rated per the "Appearance of Shrimp" category.

Standards were based on a standard picture scale of actual shrimp samples (Appendix C). These

scales were created using white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) treated to impart a range in

appearance. Intensity was the only attribute for "Typical Shrimp Aroma." Based on a sample of

previously untreated shrimp, the panelists were instructed to rate similar samples as a 10, or the

most intense shrimp aroma possible. The attributes for the "Basic Tastes" were all standardized

using liquid solutions as outlined in the Sensory Evaluation Techniques manual (Meilgaard et al,

1999). "Sour" was created using different concentrations of citric acid in water. "Sweetness"

utilized sugar in water, and "salty" incorporated table salt additions to water. "Bitter" was based

on additions of caffeine to water. "Umami" was created using concentrations of monosodium

glutamate in water. Panelists were instructed to take a small sip of each sample to familiarize

themselves with the intensities and rate the shrimp accordingly. In the category of "Flavor and

Mouthfeel," the moisture scale was developed by using shrimp with different percent moistures









based on previous moisture analysis. This scale was created by using shrimp that were treated in

different manners to achieve the various intensities of the scale. Shrimp were soaked overnight in

water and then overcooked to obtain the 0 example, and shrimp were exposed to an abusive

phosphate treatment to achieve the 10 rating. Various combinations of cooking and treatment

were used to create an array of moisture contents to complete the rest of the scale.

Panelists were given several definitions to assist in their ability to perceive the different

attributes: Moisture was defined as "the degree of oil and/or water in the sample during

chewing;" hardness/firmness was defined as the "perceived force required to compress a

substance between molar teeth;" and chewiness was defined as the "number of chews required to

masticate a sample at one chew per second and constant rate of force application to reduce to a

consistence suitable for swallowing." The "Typical Fresh Shrimp Flavor" was represented by a

fresh, untreated white shrimp (Penaeus setiferus) sample that corresponded to a rating of 10. For

the "Texture" attribute of chewiness, panelists were given a slice of Kraft American cheese (at

room temperature) which represented a standard rating of two, as outlined in Meilgaard's book

(Meilgaard 1999).

The "Hardness/Firmness" scale was developed by using the Instron texture analyzer and

different shrimp samples. The scale was developed using the same compression test as for testing

the treated samples. Shrimp samples with known Instron readings were used to develop a scale

shown in influence by moisture content as associated with compression (Table 3-2). "Aftertaste"

was a subjective rating based on the intensity of the sensation experienced. Panelists were

instructed to mark a 10 for severe aftertaste and a 0 if no aftertaste was detected. Aftertaste was

defined as "the sensation following the removal of a taste stimulus that may comprise a









continuation of the sensory quality perceived during the presence of the stimulus, or a different

quality induced by salivary dilution, rinses with water, or the act of swallowing" (Lawless 1998).

Trained panelists were presented four samples per day over a time period of three days,

similar to the procedures used for the consumer panel. Samples were rated one at a time, and

panels lasted one hour each day. Special care was taken so that there were no outside influences.

Unscented cleaners were used in the area where the shrimp were analyzed and the panelists were

instructed not to wear any scented lotions or perfumes. Unsalted crackers and bottled water were

provided for consumption in between each shrimp sample to cleanse the palate before tasting the

next sample. Panelists were instructed not to discuss or compare their responses.

Consumer Sensory Panel

The untrained consumer panel consisted of 100 panelists per session (300 total) randomly

selected from the University of Florida. Solicitation included signs posted outside of the sensory

lab advertising a shrimp taste panel offering a small reward. Table 3-3 illustrates the

demographic data collected from the 300 consumer panelists. Over 68% of the participants range

in age from 18-24 years, and 90% eat shrimp at least once per month.

The panelists were presented with the different shrimp one at a time and asked to rate their

acceptability for overall appearance, aroma, flavor, and overall liking on a 1-9 hedonic scale. A

rating of one signified "Dislike extremely," and a rating of nine signified "Like extremely." The

form also included questions with a 1-5 scale for saltiness, firmness, and moistness of the

product. Word anchors for these questions ranged from "Not at all descriptorr)" for a one and

"Too much descriptorr)" for a rating of five. A yes/no question for the prevalence of aftertaste

promoted an intensity question with a "Yes" response. This offered choices of mild, moderate,

and strong.









The experimental design used in this study was a Randomized Complete Block for each

NaCl concentration. This design was evaluated with an Analysis of Variance test (ANOVA).

Tukey's test was used at the 0.05% significance level.










Table 3-1. Raw data for moisture, phosphorus, sodium, and total salt in all 24 experimental
sample combinations prepared to provide for a selection of test samples based on
progressive changes in moisture content. Samples with an asterisk (*) samples
represent the 12 products that were chosen to be cooked and presented to panelists.
Sample % Moisture Phosphorus Sodium Total % Salt
Codes (mg/100g) (mg/100g)


0/0/S 82.79
O/O/L* 84.03*
0/1.5/S 82.77
0/1.5/L* 83.44*
0/2.5/S 82.31
0/2.5/L* 81.89*
1.5/0/S 83.59
1.5/0/L* 84.33*
1.5/1.5/S 83.14
1.5/1.5/L* 84.02*
1.5/2.5/S 82.44
1.5/2.5/L* 84.10*
3/0/S* 84.18*
3/0/L 85.78
3/1.5/S* 83.65*
3/1.5/L 84.89
3/2.5/S* 83.23*
3/2.5/L 85.25
4/0/S* 84.95*
4/0/L 85.57
4/1.5/S* 83.55*
4/1.5/L 84.69
4/2.5/S* 83.60*
4/2.5/L 83.88
Example coding: 0/0/L = 0%
NaC1, Short term exposure.


169.00 72.75 0.19
132.33* 57.70* 0.11*
147.33 203.50 0.50
120.00* 159.00* 0.30*
143.66 131.00 0.31
127.33* 327.50* 0.66*
182.33 103.50 0.17
163.33* 102.50* 0.10*
180.00 214.00 0.38
164.66* 231.50* 0.38*
195.00 353.50 0.65
173.00* 392.50* 0.77*
217.33* 154.50* 0.12*
227.66 210.50 0.10
195.33* 260.00* 0.33*
251.66 330.50 0.47
220.66* 355.00* 0.54*
213.00 345.00 0.55
239.33* 190.50* 0.11*
296.33 314.00 0.15
250.33* 344.50* 0.52*
306.66 447.50 0.70
234.33* 396.50* 0.73*
333.33 668.00 1.16
STP, 0% NaCI, Long term exposure. 4/2.5/S


= 4% STP, 2.5%










Table 3-2. Texture standards created in reference to compression measured with an Instron
machine for use with the trained sensory panel. Moisture content (%) represents the
cooked moisture content of the shrimp samples.
Rating
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Moisture % 84% 82% 80% 78% 76%
Compression 13 17 23
Force (N)
Note: Rating signifies panelist response, with corresponding moisture values and Instron reading.
Type of test used was a compression test designed using a #2 probe and a 7mm gauge reading.










Table 3-3. Demographic data for the untrained consumer sensory panel used to rate the cooked
shrimp samples.
Age Range Ethnicity Income Consumption
Male Female Caucasian 160 <20,000 118 >l/day 1
<18 3 9 African American 25 20-35,000 43 I/day 1
18-20 46 79 Native American 2 36-50,000 30 2-3/week 11
21-24 38 43 Asian/Pacific Islander 52 51-75,000 17 I/week 38
25-50 32 33 Hispanic 42 76-100,000 22 2-3/month 93
>50 12 5 Other 13 >100,000 30 1/ month 128
Decline answer 6 Decline answer 40 1/ year 28
Total 131 169 300 300 300
Note: Consumption means average amount of shrimp products eaten by consumer.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Composition of Shrimp

Analyses were performed on the shrimp samples after the phosphate treatments (Table 4-1)

prior to cooking and after cooking (Table 4-2). Resulting moisture content in the raw shrimp

ranged from 82% to 85% as influenced by exposure time and phosphate concentration. The data

is arranged according to increasing phosphate concentration used in the treatments. This

illustrates how phosphorus content in the shrimp increases with the increasing phosphate

treatment. Obviously the resulting phosphorus and corresponding phosphate content expressed as

P205 increased in the raw shrimp treated with increasing concentrations and exposure time for

the phosphating agent, STP. From these limited treatments, all treated products had total

phosphorus contents in excess of 160 mg/100 g of raw shrimp. The strongest phosphate

treatment, 4% STP, imparted a phosphorus concentration as high as 250 mg/100 g during one

hour (short term) exposure. These raw concentrations tended to increase or decrease during

cooking relative to the level of prior phosphate exposure (Figure 4-1). Total phosphorus in the

cooked samples decreased in shrimp treated with higher concentrations of phosphate and less

exposure time, but they increased in shrimp treated with no and lower levels of phosphate for

longer exposure time (four hours.) This is thought to be because higher levels of sodium compete

with the phosphate in absorption to the product and potential saturation of the binding sites. The

shrimp muscle tissue may be limited in the carrying capacity for phosphates. Likewise, the

longer exposure time may have allowed deeper penetration or absorption of the phosphates.

An additional explanation of the changes in phosphorus levels during cooking was due to

the expected decreases in moisture content for all cooked shrimp (Figure 4-2). Large changes in

moisture content for the samples from treatments with no or less phosphating agents suggest the









amount of phosphates were not able to retain the moisture, and dehydration elevated the

phosphorus content in the cooked shrimp. In contrast, the samples from the higher phosphate

treatments were apparently able to better retain moisture such that some of the water soluble

phosphorus levels decreased by leeching due to pressure from shrinking connective tissues and

proteins exposed to heat. Moisture loss corresponded with the loss in product weight during

cooking (Figure 4-3). Again, prior exposure to stronger phosphate treatments reduced weight

loss during cooking.

A synergistic effect is obvious for the moisture retention by increasing concentrations of

salt and phosphate. The higher salt concentrations aid the water binding capacity of the

phosphates. These interactions clearly demonstrate the influence of phosphates in managing

moisture levels in shrimp. For this reason, the composition and character of the raw shrimp

differed substantially from that of the cooked shrimp and these changes could not be predicted

by initial measures for moisture content alone. While the moisture content of the raw samples

ranged between 82 to 85%, the resulting moisture contents after cooking ranged from 79 to 84%.

Interestingly, the ratio for moisture content to phosphorus levels revealed a distinct

decreasing pattern for the samples previously exposed to increasing concentrations of the

phosphating agent, STP (Figures 4-4 and 4-5). The pattern was more pronounced for the raw

shrimp (Figure 4-4). These patterns could serve as a possible measure for phosphated shrimp

relative to product assessment in sensory panels.

The compositional patterns for salt and sodium content were less obvious other than the

expected increases with increasing exposure to higher salt concentrations (Figure 4-6 and 4-7).

Likewise, the magnitude of change for sodium content was influenced by additions of sodium









from the phosphating agent, STP as well as the salt. These results indicate use of salt definitely

increases the salt level in the raw shrimp and these differences persist after cooking.

Trained Panel Sensory Assessments

Average ratings and significant differences detected by the trained panel are illustrated in

the Tables 4-3 through 4-5. In keeping with the experimental design, these tables are arranged

according to the separate panel sessions for shrimp exposed to different NaCl concentrations in

order to avoid confounding influence of salt. Average results indicated that trained panelists

rated significant differences for all sensory attributes relative to phosphate treatments, except

sour. It was not unexpected that sour would be a minor characteristic influenced by the addition

of salt or phosphate.

The significant differences detected for appearance suggested the increasing moisture

content through increasing phosphate treatments changed the color of the cooked shrimp due to

increasing muscle translucency and plumpness (Figure 4-8 through 4-10). Significant differences

were noted for color at all NaCl concentrations except for the highest salt treatment, 2.5%.

Average ratings for color displayed a decreasing trend, product appearing "lighter," as STP

concentrations increased (Figure 4-8). Differences were more obvious at lower NaCl

concentrations. All samples fell within the "average" to "light" range for color. The related

appearance measures for translucency were rated significantly different for all STP treatments,

which suggest the panel could detect increasing translucency. Trained panel ratings for

translucency significantly increased with increasing phosphate exposure (Figure 4-9). Sample

ratings for translucency were similar across all salinities. This is a natural consequence of adding

water. Even with minor additions, the trained panel had the ability to detect changes. This figure

reveals a pattern that increased phosphate exposure causes the product to become more

translucent, as to be expected with a white muscle food. Water increase diluted the concentration









of the color and added to the transparency. The lost color was also due to the expansion of

surface to volume ratio, which was noted as plumpness.

As illustrated by the significant differences, the panelists felt that product appeared

plumper with the addition of phosphates and water (Figure 4-10). As expected, the addition of

water obviously caused the product to expand. The lowest rating for plumpness(3.5) was that for

no added phosphate and the highest ratings (>7.0) were that for cooked shrimp exposed to the

highest phosphate concentrations. Relative to the average ratings, the trained panelist scored the

cooked shrimp exposed to 4.0% STP as twice the apparent size as the same shrimp exposed to no

STP. Plumpness was obvious but further training may be necessary to reduce variation in ratings

at lower phosphate treatments.

Among the texture attributes, the trained panel scored significant differences for

hardness/firmness, chewiness, and moisture. These were the most dramatic sensory attributes.

The influence of higher phosphate treatments on increasing moisture content was also detected

by ratings for moist mouthfeel (Figure 4-11). Added moisture in the shrimp product is thought to

have a lubricating effect, thus giving the phosphated samples a softer mouthfeel. The trained

panel detected a higher moistness as phosphate treatments increased. The panel detected a

transition from dry to moist mouthfeel. A graph (Figure 4-12) illustrating how the samples rated

against the maximum mechanical compressive force shows a decreasing trend as the phosphate

concentration increases. In the texture ratings, the higher the mechanical Instron score, the firmer

the product, as more compressive force was required to puncture the shrimp. As expected, those

samples that had not been treated with phosphate were the firmest, or drier, and those that had

the highest amount of phosphate treatment ranked the least firm, or moister. (Figure 4-13).

Nontreated products often seem to be harder due to the dryer texture. The relation between









increasing moistness and decreasing firmness with increasing phosphate exposure was detected

as increasing mushy mouthfeel.

Chewiness was similar in response to hardness/firmness. These attributes are closely

related. Figure 4-14 shows the same decreasing trend as the phosphate concentration increases.

Chewiness and hardness/firmness exhibited an inverse relationship to moistness. The influence

of phosphate seems to be that of a lubricant to decrease the perceptions of chewiness and

hardness/firmness. Again, chewiness progresses to mushy mouthfeel as the phosphate treatments

increased moisture in the shrimp.

For the flavor attributes of salty, sweet, sour, bitter, umami and general flavor, the most

important significant differences were in saltiness and general flavor, except for the low NaCl

level. Obviously increased exposure to salt in the phosphate treatments elevated detection for

salty flavor (Figure 4-15). For example, 4/2.5/S, the strongest exposure in terms of both STP and

NaC1, had the highest average rating for salty (6.5), which was considered to be above average.

Saltiness also becomes the key factor in the general flavor attribute as the ratings also increase

with the addition ofNaCl (Figure 4-16).The addition of salty flavor through increasing

treatments with increasing concentrations of STP and salt favorably influenced the trained panels

detection ratings for flavor, yet there seems to be a threshold as the ratings for shrimp with the

highest salt concentration drop at the highest phosphate concentration, perhaps due to the

additional sodium from the phosphating agent.

As for the other basic tastes, no significant differences were observed in sweetness at the

zero salt concentration. Significant differences for sweetness were only calculated as the

phosphate concentration increased, which could suggest that the panelists had confusion in rating

for sweetness. This is a common problem in trained panels for foods that are both sweet and









salty. Bitter, umami, and aftertaste were only rated significantly different at the 2.5% salt

concentration. This suggested that a high salt concentration plays a role in these attributes, or

that the panelists detected something but were not sure as to how to rate or classify it. In the

attribute of aroma, significant differences were only in the 2.5% NaCl concentration, where

ratings ranged from a high (7.6) at the 1.5% STP concentration, and a low (6.0) at the 0% STP

concentration.



Consumer Panel Assessments

The ratings by trained panelists based on standard references demonstrated the ability of

humans to detect some significant differences relative to previous exposure to phosphate

treatments, but most of the untrained consumer ratings were not influenced by these differences.

Although the untrained consumers did detect some significant differences in overall

acceptability, flavor, saltiness, firmness, moistness, and overall liking (Tables 4-6 through 4-8),

there was no distinct pattern relative to the phosphate treatments (Figures 4-17 through 4-25).

Mindful that the trained panel had the ability to detect significant differences in some plumpness

and translucency (clarity), the data suggest that some consumers may be influenced while others

are not. In the absence of a standard scale, consumer responses varied. This is often why

commercial complaints are based on comparisons of two products. The influence of a phosphate

treatment on appearance of the product is best judged by comparisons with a standard, as it is

difficult to make these judgments based on one product alone. If only one product is judged at a

time, ratings could be in either direction based on a personal preference.

The histogram of ratings for overall appearance varied significantly across all phosphated

treatments (Figure 4-17), yet the average ratings per phosphate treatment simply ranged between

Like Slightly (6) and Neither Like nor Dislike (5) on a 10 point rating scale. These ratings









indicated that there were few differences between the samples based on overall appearance. The

highest mean rating (5.9) was given to the 4% STP concentration with 2.5% added STP and the

lowest (5.0) was at the 0% STP and 0% NaCl treatment combination.

Likewise, the patterns in average consumer ratings for flavor were similar across all

phosphate treatments (Figure 4-19). Significant differences in consumer scores with increased

phosphate did not appear until NaCl was used with the STP treatments (Tables 4-7 and 4-8). This

reflects that a portion of consumers preferred the salty flavor. Recall from Table 4-1 that an

increase in the phosphate and NaCl treatments increased the sodium and total salt contents of the

samples. A histogram of saltiness ratings shows that NaCl concentrations were never considered

a negative attribute (Figure 4-20). Therefore, treatments as high as 2.5% NaCl do not impart

adverse consequences. Figure 4-21 shows that all ratings fall in the range of "Not quite salty

enough" to "just right." In comparison with the trained panelists, the consumers had higher

preference ratings for those samples that the trained panel rated higher in saltiness.

As with the trained panel, consumer detection and preference was most significant for the

texture attributes. There was a pattern in the perception of firmness (Figure 4-13), but no adverse

ratings (Figure 4-22). Significant differences again suggest that the role of lubrication through

addition of moisture and phosphate favorably influenced consumer preference. Across all

treatments, the majority of the panelists felt that it was "just right." The same inverse relationship

between firmness and moisture influenced consumers just as with the trained panel (Figure 4-

23). The detection of a firmer product corresponded with the detection of a dryer product. Across

all treatment combinations, moisture content was rated as "just right" (Figure 4-24).

Consumer ratings for general Overall Liking suggested there was a slight difference in

consumer preference (Figure 4-25). Consumer preference favored shrimp exposed to increasing









concentrations of STP and salt. Salt influenced taste and moisture influenced firmness, both of

which were favorable attributes. Interestingly, consumer preference did not diminish for shrimp

exposed to phosphate treatments up to 4% STP which are considered strong or excessive for

commercial use.

Conclusion

In terms of shrimp composition, moisture content, salinity, phosphorus, and sodium all

increase with the addition of phosphate. Upon cooking, all samples experienced a loss in

moisture content, but the amount of loss in moisture and corresponding product weight was less

for shrimp exposed to increasing phosphate treatments. Based on these compositional changes,

sensory differences in product could be detected and did influence some consumer preferences.

Responses from the trained panel indicate that humans have the ability to detect

differences in color, translucency, moistness, and various flavors, with the most dramatic

differences noted for the textural attributes of plumpness, harness/firmness, and chewiness.

Increasing exposure to phosphate treatments including salt resulted in cooked shrimp products

that were detected to be more translucent and plump with less color and softer texture. Likewise,

the increasing additions of salt and sodium imparted a significant detection for salty flavor. No

differences were detected for sour across all treatment combinations.

Although the trained panel could detect sensory differences due to phosphate treatments,

preference of the consumer panel was only affected in limited categories. Consumers preferred

the saltier, moister product. The added moisture gives a lubricating effect which imparts a softer

mouthfeel that is preferable to the consumer and additions of salt were considered favorable.

Untrained consumer panels were unable to distinguish appearance and color attributes without a

standard reference or comparison.









These few differences noted by untrained consumer ratings did not influence their

preference for "overall liking" of cooked shrimp exposed to phosphate concentrations as high as

1.5% STP for four hours or 4% STP for one hour. These treatments are consistent with

commercial applications to protect moisture content in frozen and cooked shrimp. Contrary to

some common industry complaints, the proper addition of phosphate does not impart adverse

consequences to the shrimp product.









Table 4-1. Raw data for moisture, phosphorus, sodium and total salt in the 12 samples presented
to panelists.
Raw % Phosphorus P205 Sodium Total %
Sample Moisture (mg/100g) equivalent (mg/100g) Salt
0/0/L 84.03 132.33 303.03 57.70 0.11
0/1.5/L 83.44 120.00 274.80 159.00 0.30
0/2.5/L 83.04 127.33 291.58 327.50 0.66
1.5/0/L 84.33 163.33 374.02 102.5 0.10
1.5/1.5/L 84.02 164.66 377.07 231.50 0.38
1.5/2.5/L 84.19 173.00 396.17 392.50 0.77
3/0/S 84.18 217.33 497.68 154.50 0.12
3/1.5/S 83.65 195.33 447.30 260.00 0.35
3/2.5/S 82.23 220.66 505.31 355.00 0.54
4/0/S 84.95 239.33 548.06 190.50 0.11
4/1.5/S 83.55 250.33 573.25 344.50 0.52
4/2.5/S 83.06 234.33 536.61 396.50 0.73
Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaC1, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4%
STP, 2.5% NaC1, Short term exposure (one hour).









Table 4-2. Cooked data for moisture, phosphorus, sodium and total salt in the 12 samples
presented to panelists.
Cooked % Phosphorus P205 Sodium Total %
Sample Moisture (mg/100g) equivalent (mg/100g) Salt
0/0/L 79.10 141.00 322.89 49.55 0.12
0/1.5/L 79.66 138.00 316.02 130.50 0.25
0/2.5/L 81.86 136.00 311.02 265.00 0.54
1.5/0/L 81.71 179.00 409.91 104.50 0.08
1.5/1.5/L 82.25 169.00 387.01 232.00 0.34
1.5/2.5/L 82.90 174.00 398.46 353.50 0.68
3/0/S 81.21 211.33 483.94 141.00 0.14
3/1.5/S 80.40 181.00 414.49 179.00 0.32
3/2.5/S 81.75 205.00 469.45 436.00 0.44
4/0/S 83.57 181.67 416.02 166.00 0.10
4/1.5/S 82.73 215.00 492.35 102.90 0.42
4/2.5/S 82.43 218.00 499.22 133.50 0.63
Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaC1, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4%
STP, 2.5% NaC1, Short term exposure (one hour).











Table 4-3. Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples exposed
to treatments with 0% NaCl concentration. Significant differences were determined
by ANOVA.
Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank
Color Bitter


5.0 a
3.5 b
2.9 bc
1.9 c
Translucency
1.9 c
5.1 bc
4.6 b
8.2 a
Plumpness
3.5 c
5.1 bc
6.0 b
7.8 a
General Shrimp Aroma
5.8 a
6.0 a
6.0 a
5.5 a
Salty


0/OL
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S


0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/OL
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S


Umami
0.8
0.8
1.6
1.6
Flavor
4.5
5.0
5.2
4.0
Aftertaste
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.2
Hardness/Firmness
7.5
5.6
4.2


Chewiness


Moistness

Moistness


0/0/L 0.8 a 0/0/L 3.0 c
1.5/0/L 0.5 a 1.5/0/L 3.6 bc
3/0/S 0.3 a 3/0/S 4.7 b
4/0/S 0.7 a 4/0/S 6.8 a
Note: Samples with the same letter ranking are not significantly different. Those with different
letter rankings were statically different.
Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCI, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4%
STP, 2.5% NaC1, Short term exposure (one hour).


Sweet


Sour











Table 4-4. Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples exposed
to treatments with 1.5% NaCl concentration. Significant differences were determined
by ANOVA.
Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank
Color Bitter


3.8 a
2.8 al
2.8 al
2.2 b
Translucency
2.6 c
4.2 b
4.5 b
5.9 a
Plumpness
4.9 b
5.7 b
6.2 b
7.8 a
General Shrimp Aroma
6.8 a
7.6 a
7.1 a
7.8 a
Salty


0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S


0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S

0/1.5/L
1.5/1.5/L
3/1.5/S
4/1.5/S


Umami


Flavor


Aftertaste
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.5
Hardness/Firmness
6.6
4.8
6.0
3.8
Chewiness
6.0
4.7
5.3
3.3
Moistness


Note: Samples with the same letter ranking are not significantly different. Those with different
letter rankings were statically different.
Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCI, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4%
STP, 2.5% NaC1, Short term exposure (one hour).


Sweet




Sour











Table 4-5. Averaged responses based on ratings by trained panel for the shrimp samples exposed
to treatments with 2.5% NaCl concentration. Significant differences were determined
by ANOVA.
Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank
Color Bitter


4.3 a
3.5 a
3.0 a
3.2 a
Translucency
2.6 c
4.8 b
5.3 b
6.9 a
Plumpness
3.3 c
6.2 ab
6.0 b
7.6 a
General Shrimp Aroma
6.0 b
7.6 a
6.5 ab
6.8 ab
Salty


0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S


0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S

0/2.5/L
1.5/2.5/L
3/2.5/S
4/2.5/S


Umami


Flavor


Aftertaste
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.7
Hardness/Firmness
7.4
5.6
5.6
4.0
Chewiness
7.0
5.6
4.6
3.1
Moistness


Note: Samples with the same letter ranking are significantly similar. Those with different letter
rankings were statically different.
Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCI, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4%
STP, 2.5% NaC1, Short term exposure (one hour.)


Sweet




Sour










Table 4-6. Significant differences in consumer panel between the different samples in the zero
salt concentration as determined by ANOVA test.
Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank


Overall Appearance
5.0
5.1
5.6
5.3
Aroma
4.1
4.0
4.3
4.4
Flavor
4.8
4.9
5.0
4.6
Saltiness


0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S


Firmness
3.32 + 0.82
3.02 + 0.56
2.92 + 0.58
2.65 + 0.83
Moistness


0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S

0/0/L
1.5/0/L
3/0/S
4/0/S


0/0/L 2.1 a 0/0/L 4.6 a
1.5/0/L 2.1 a 1.5/0/L 4.7 a
3/0/S 2.2 a 3/0/S 5.0 a
4/0/S 2.1 a 4/0/S 4.6 a
Note: (5% significance level Tukey's HSD=0.582)
Example coding: O/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCI, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4%
STP, 2.5% NaC1, Short term exposure (one hour).


Aftertaste
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.5
Overall Liking











Table 4-7. Significant differences in consumer panel between the different samples in the 1.5%
salt concentration as determined by ANOVA test.
Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank
Overall Appearance Firmness
0/1.5/L 5.4 a 0/1.5/L 3.2 a
1.5/1.5/L 5.5 a 1.5/1.5/L 2.9 bc
3.0/1.5/S 5.4 a 3.0/1.5/S 3.0 ab
4.0/1.5/S 5.7 a 4.0/1.5/S 2.7 c
Aroma Moistness
0/1.5/L 4.5 a 0/1.5/L 2.8 b
1.5/1.5/L 4.5 a 1.5/1.5/L 2.9 b
3.0/1.5/S 4.3 a 3.0/1.5/S 2.9 b
4.0/1.5/S 4.6 a 4.0/1.5/S 3.2 a
Flavor Aftertaste
0/1.5/L 5.4 a 0/1.5/L 1.4 a
1.5/1.5/L 5.3 b 1.5/1.5/L 1.5 a
3.0/1.5/S 5.4 b 3.0/1.5/S 1.5 a
4.0/1.5/S 6.0 a 4.0/1.5/S 1.5 a
Saltiness Overall Liking
0/1.5/L 2.3 b 0/1.5/L 5.4 b
1.5/1.5/L 2.2 b 1.5/1.5/L 5.5 ab
3.0/1.5/S 2.3 b 3.0/1.5/S 5.4 b
4.0/1.5/S 2.9 a 4.0/1.5/S 5.9 a
Note: (5% significance level Tukey's HSD=0.582)
Example coding: O/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCI, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4%
STP, 2.5% NaC1, Short term exposure (one hour).










Table 4-8. Significant differences in consumer panel between the different samples in the 2.5%
salt concentration as determined by ANOVA test.
Sample Mean Rank Sample Mean Rank
Overall Appearance Firmness
0/2.5/L 5.2 b 0/2.5/L 3.3 a
1.5/2.5/L 5.7 a 1.5/2.5/L 3.0 b
3/2.5/S 5.5 ab 3/2.5/S 2.9 b
4/2.5/S 5.9 a 4/2.5/S 2.6 c
Aroma Moistness
0/2.5/L 4.4 a 0/2.5/L 2.5 c
1.5/2.5/L 4.5 a 1.5/2.5/L 2.8 b
3/2.5/S 4.5 a 3/2.5/S 3.0 ab
4/2.5/S 4.5 a 4/2.5/S 3.2 a
Flavor Aftertaste
0/2.5/L 4.9 b 0/2.5/L 1.5 a
1.5/2.5/L 5.7 a 1.5/2.5/L 1.5 a
3/2.5/S 5.4 ab 3/2.5/S 1.6 a
4/2.5/S 5.6 a 4/2.5/S 1.4 a
Saltiness Overall Liking
0/2.5/L 2.0 c 0/2.5/L 4.9 b
1.5/2.5/L 2.4 b 1.5/2.5/L 5.7 a
3/2.5/S 2.4 b 3/2.5/S 5.4 a
4/2.5/S 3.0 a 4/2.5/S 5.5 a


-4%


Note: (5% significance level Tukey's HSD=0.582)
Example coding: O/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCI, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S
STP, 2.5% NaC1, Short term exposure (one hour).























-T--


____SI;-


0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0%

0% STP 1.5% STP
--------------------T -- --------------- --


1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5%


2.5% NaCI


3.0% STP 4.0% STP
----------------------- ------S- --------


Figure 4-1. Total phosphorus change from raw to cooked shrimp samples previously exposed to
different phosphate treatments. Samples are grouped by STP concentrations,
increasing NaCl combinations (0, 1.5, and 2.5%), and exposure time (long=four
hours, short=one hour.)


I















84 -


83





S 81 _-
82





80


79


78
0% 1.5% .5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% NaCI

0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP
---------- ----L-- ----- ----------------- S-----------------



Figure 4-2. Moisture content change from raw to cooked shrimp samples previously exposed to
different phosphate treatments. Samples are grouped by STP concentrations,
increasing NaCl combinations (0, 1.5, and 2.5%), and exposure time (long=four
hours, short=one hour.).











0.00%


-5.00% m


-10.00%



-15.00%


a.
-20.00%



-25.00%



-30.00%
Sample Treatment Code

Figure 4-3. Influence of cooking on weight of samples treated with different combinations of
STP and NaCl after cooking. Note: Percent change calculated from measurements
taken at raw and cooked state. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaCI, Long
term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaCI, Short term exposure (one
hour).





800 -


/uu
w, i On


Raw Shrimp


500
S400
S 300
200
100
nL


0/0/L 0/1 5/L 0/2 5/L 15/0/L 15/15/L 15/25/L 3/0/S 3/1 5/S 3/1 5/S 4/0/S 4/1 5/S 4/25/S
Samples


Figure 4-4. Ratio of percent moisture content to total phosphorus in raw shrimp samples
exposed to different concentrations of STP and NaCl. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0%
STP, 0% NaCl, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaC1,
Short term exposure (one hour).


V


1111


lin


n


r


m


111


m
















6UU00

SCooked ShIlml
g 500



o 400



S300



R 200



100




/O/L 0/1 5/L 0/2 5/L 1 5/0/L 1 5/1 5/L 1 5/2 5/L 3/0/S 3/1 5/S 3/1 5/S 4/0/S 4/1 5/S 4/2 5/S
Samples

Figure 4-5. Ratio of percent moisture content to total phosphorus in cooked shrimp samples
exposed to different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Example coding: O/O/L = 0%
STP, 0% NaC1, Long term exposure (four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaC1,
Short term exposure (one hour).
















0 7 ,-


0.6


0.5


0.4









0.1


0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% Na(

0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0%STP
---------- -----L------------------------ ------------------S---------------------


Figure 4-6. Total salt content change from raw to cooked shrimp exposed to different
combinations of STP and NaC1. Samples are grouped by STP concentrations,
increasing NaCl combinations (0, 1.5, and 2.5%), and exposure time (Long=four
hours, s=one hour.)









































0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5% 0% 1.5% 2.5%NaCl


0% STP 1.5% STP
------------------------------L--------- -------------


3.0% STP 4.0% STP
---------------------------- ------ -----


Figure 4-7. Sodium content change from raw to cooked shrimp exposed to different
combinations of STP and NaC1. Samples are grouped by STP concentrations,
increasing NaCl combinations (0, 1.5, and 2.5%), and exposure time (long=four
hours, short=one hour.)


450












10
Dark


Average


Light


0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP


Figure 4-8. Average responses by trained panel regarding Color for samples treated with
different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding to ratings are
included on the vertical axis.














Very 10
Translucent
9 *- 0% NaCl

8 1.5%NaCl

7 2.5 % NaC1
Translucent 6

5

4.



2
Opaque


0
0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP

Figure 4-9. Average responses by trained panel regarding Translucency for samples treated with
different concentrations of STP and NaCl. Word anchors corresponding to ratings are
included on the vertical axis.














10
Very
Plump 9 -- 0% NaCI
1.5% NaCl
8 --2.5% NaCI

7 -


Plump 5

4

3

2
Shriveled 1

0
0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0%STP 4.0% STP

Figure 4-10. Average responses by trained panel regarding Plumpness for samples treated with
different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding to ratings are
included on the vertical axis.












Very Moist
9 --- 0% NaCI
1.5%NaCI
8




Average
-25%N~



4

3

2
Very Dry
1

0
0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP

Figure 4-11. Average responses by trained panel regarding Moistness for samples treated with
different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding to ratings are
included on the vertical axis.













1U


9





7


6


-5


4


3


2






0
20 2052 172 18 39 1551 1504 1535 15 36 1492 1651 1443 15 6
Compressive Load (N)



Figure 4-12. Texture ratings for trained panel corresponding to maximum compressive load (N)
as measured by the Instron machine for shrimp samples of different STP and NaCl
concentrations. Example coding: 0/0/L = 0% STP, 0% NaC1, Long term exposure
(four hours). 4/2.5/S = 4% STP, 2.5% NaC1, Short term exposure (one hour).











10
Extremely Firm
9 0% NaCI
1.5% NaCI
--2.5 % NaCI


6 -
Average





3

Extremely 2
Mushy
1

0
0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP

Figure 4-13. Average responses by trained panel regarding Hardness/Firmness for samples
treated with different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding
to ratings are included on the vertical axis.













Extremely
Chewy


Average


3.

Not Chewy 2

1

0
0% STP 1.5% STP 3% STPP 4.0% STP

Figure 4-14. Average responses by trained panel regarding Chewiness for samples treated with
different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding to ratings are
included on the vertical axis.













Very Salty 10


9 -- 0% NaC1
8 1.5%NaCl
-2.5 % NaCl
7

6
Average
5

4 /

3
Not Very Salty 2 -




0
0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP

Figure 4-15. Average responses by trained panel regarding Saltiness for samples treated with
different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding to ratings are
included on the vertical axis.











10
Extremely Like


Average


4-*

3

Extremely Dislike 2

1

0
0% STP 1.5 % STP 3% STP 4.0% STP

Figure 4-16. Average responses by trained panel regarding Flavor for samples treated with
different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding to ratings are
included on the vertical axis.

















Overall Appearance


25 *(0)1 5%P
S(0) 3% P
-0 (0) 4 % P
[ (0) Control
20 *(1 5) 15% P
SI (1 5)3% P
16 M(15)4% P
15 03(1 5) Control
E (25) 1 5% P
z (25) 3% P
o (2 5)4 % P
10 0 (2 5) Control


5




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Panelist Rankng

Figure 4-17. Histogram of overall appearance as rated by consumer panel for shrimp treated

with different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Ratings ranged from extremely

dislike (1) to extremely like (9).













Like Extremely 9


Like Very
Much

Like
Moderately

Like Slightly


Neither Like nor 5
Dislike

Dislike Slightly 4


Dislike
Moderately 3

Dislike Very
Much 2

Dislike 1
Extremely



0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP


Figure 4-18. Average responses by consumer panel regarding Overall Appearance for samples
treated with different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding
to ratings are included on the vertical axis.












Like Extremely 9


Like Very Much

Like Moderately


Like Slightly 6

Neither Like nor 5
Dislike
Dislike Slightly 4


Dislike Moderately


Dislike Very Much

Dislike Extremely
0-

0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP



Figure 4-19. Average responses by consumer panel regarding Flavor for samples treated with
different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding to ratings are
included on the vertical axis.

























(0) 1 5 % P
(0) 3% P
50 [ 0(0) 4% P
a0 (0) Control
M(15)15%P
0 *(1 5) 3% P
40
40 (15)4%P
0= (1 5) Control
z
30 (2 5) 1 5% P
M (2 5) 3% P
O (2 5) 4% P
20 0 (2 5) Control



10




1 2 3 4 5
Panelist Rankng


Figure 4-20. Histogram of saltiness as rated by consumer panel for shrimp treated with different

concentrations of STP and NaCl. Ratings ranged from not salty enough (1) to much

too salty (5).












Much too Salty 5


Somewhat too 4- 1.5%NaCl
Salty
--2.5 %NaCl


About right 3 -



Not quite Salty 2
Enough 2



Not at all Salty 1
Enough



0
0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP


Figure 4-21. Average responses by consumer panel responses regarding Saltiness for samples
treated with different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding
to ratings are included on the vertical axis.




























ou (0) 1 5 % P
0 *(0) 3% P
0 0(0)4% P
W50 0 (0) Control
B m(15)15%P
40 M(1 5) 3% P
E m(15) 4% P
z 0 (1 5) Control
30 M(2 5) 1 5 % P
M (2 5) 3% P
O (2 5)4 % P
20 03 (2 5) Control


10



1 2 3 4 5
Panelist Rankng

Figure 4-22. Histogram of firmness as rated by consumer panel for shrimp treated with different
concentrations of STP and NaCI. Ratings ranged from not at all firm enough (1) to
much too firm (5).












Much too moist 5



Somewhat too 4
Moist



About right 3



Not quite Moist
Enough 2


Not at all Moist
Enough


0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP


Figure 4-23. Average responses by consumer panel regarding Moistness for samples treated
with different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding to
ratings are included on the vertical axis.


























(0)1 5 % P
(0) 3% P
60 -0 (0) 4% P
a 0 (0) Control
0 50 (1 5) 15%P
S(1 5) 3% P
M (1 5)4%P
40 0 (15) Control
z
0 (25) 1 5% P
30 (25) 3% P
O (25) 4% P
O (2 5) Control
20


10



1 2 3 4 5
Panelist Rankng


Figure 4-24. Histogram of moistness as rated by consumer panel for shrimp treated with

different concentrations of STP and NaCI. Ratings ranged from not at all moist

enough (1) to much too moist (5).














Like Extremely

Like Very Much 8

Like Moderately

Like Slightly 6

Neither Like nor 5
Dislike

Dislike Slightly 4

3
Dislike Moderately
2
Dislike Very Much

1
Dislike Extremely


0% STP 1.5% STP 3.0% STP 4.0% STP


Figure 4-25. Average responses by consumer panel regarding Overall Liking for samples treated
with different concentrations of STP and NaC1. Word anchors corresponding to rating
are included on the vertical axis.










APPENDIX A
FORM PRESENTED TO TRAINED PANEL FOR SHRIMP CHARACTERIZATION

Shrimp Product Characterization Form
Form includes standards used in scales and corresponding ratings.

Panelist:

Date:

Sample Number:


APPEARANCE OF SHRIMP


Color:
Light
0


Dark
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Opacity/Translucency:
Opaque


Translucent


Very Translucent


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Plumpness:
Shriveled Plump
0 1 2 3 4 5


Very Plump
6 7 8 9 10


AROMA
General:
Extremely Dislike
0 1 2


BASIC TASTES
Salty:
Very Bland


0 1
100
0.1


Extremely Like
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


2 3
200
0.2


Std5
4 5
300
0.3


Sweet:
Not Very Sweet
0 1 2 3 4
Ritz


6 7
400
0.4


Very Salty
StdlO
8 9 10
500 Mg of Na
0.5 0.55 % NaCl


Very Sweet
5 6 7 8 9 10










Sour:
Not Very Sour
Std5
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.38g

Bitter:
Not Very Bitter
Std5
0 1 2 3 4 5
0.38g
Umami:
Not-Umami like
Std5
0 1 2 3 4 5
1/4tsp
FLAVOR & MOUTH FEEL


Moisture:
Very Dry
0 1


2 3
78%


4 5
80%


Very Sour
StdlO
6 7 8 9 10
0.75g



Very Bitter
StdlO
6 7 8 9 10
0.71g

Very Umami
StdlO
6 7 8 9 10
1/2tsp


6 7
82%


Very Moist
8 9 10
84%


Flavor:
Extremely Dislike
0 1 2

Aftertaste:
None
0 1 2


Extremely like
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10



Extreme
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Aftertaste detected:

TEXTURE
Hardness/Firmness:
Extremely Mushy


Extremely Firm


0 1
13 14
Chewiness:
Not Chewy
0 1


Instron


Extremely Chewy
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Cheese
DEFINITIONS
Moistness: The perceived degree of oil and/or water in the sample during chewing.
Hardness/Firmness: perceived force required to compress a substance between molar teeth.
Chewiness: Number of chews required to masticate a sample at one chew per second and
constant rate of force application to reduce to a consistence suitable for swallowing.










APPENDIX B
FORM PRESENTED TO CONSUMER PANEL TO JUDGE ACCEPTABILITY OF SHRIMP

Question 1.
Please indicate your gender:
Male
Female

Question 2.
Which of the following ranges includes your age?
Under 18
18-20
21-24
25-29
30-34
35-39
40-44
45-49
50-54
55-59
60-65
Over 65

Question 3.
Which of the following represents your race?
Caucasian
African American
Native American
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
Other
Decline to answer

Question 4.
Which of the following categories describes your household annual income before taxes?
Under 20,000
$20-35,000
$36-50,000
$51-75,000
$76-100,000
Over $100,000
Decline to answer

Question 5.
How often do you eat shrimp (either at home or ordered out)?
More than once a day
Once a day
2-3 times a week
Once a week
2-3 times a month
Once a month
Once a year
Question 6.










Please look at sample # (sample number here) but do not taste yet. Answer the following
question about the APPEARANCE.
Please disregard the presence of the vein and indicate how much you like the OVERALL
APPEARANCE.
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like very Like
extremely very moderately slightly like nor slightly moderately much extremely
much dislike
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Question 7.
Please look at sample # (sample number here) but do not taste yet. Answer the following
question about the AROMA.
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like very Like
extremely very moderately slightly like nor slightly moderately much extremely
much dislike
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Question 8.
Please take a bite of cracker and a sip of water to rinse your mouth. The following questions deal
with the TASTE, FLAVOR, MOISTURE and TEXTURE of the shrimp. Please taste just enough
to be able to answer each question.
Please indicate how much you like the FLAVOR.
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like very Like
extremely very moderately slightly like nor slightly moderately much extremely
much dislike
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Question 9.
Would you say that the SALTINESS of the product is....?
Not at all salty Not quite salty About right Somewhat too Much too Salty
enough enough Salty
1 2 3 4 5


Question 10.











Question 11.
Would you say that the MOISTNESS of the product is....?
Not at all moist Not quite moist About right
enough enough


Somewhat too Much
moist too
moist


j


1 2 3 4 5

Question 12.
Does this product have an aftertaste?
Yes
No
Question 13.
How would you describe the AFTERTASTE of this product?
Mild aftertaste Moderate aftertaste Strong aftertaste
1 2 3

Question 14.
Please indicate how much you like the sample OVERALL.
Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Neither Like Like Like very Like
extremely very moderately slightly like nor slightly moderately much extremely
much dislike
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9







APPENDIX C
PICTURE SCALES USED FOR COLOR, PLUMPNESS, AND OPACITY
Trained panel characterization scales.


Opacity/Translucency


9 )9


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


Plumpness


Wa


0 5 10
Shriveled Plump Very Plump


Opacity


10 5 0
Translucent Opaque


d









LIST OF REFERENCES


Banks, W.T., Wang, C., and Brewer, M.S. 1998. Sodium lactate/sodium tripolyphosphate
combination effects on aerobic plate counts, pH and color of fresh pork longissimus
muscle. Meat Science 50 (4): 499-504.

Bender, F.G., Everson, C.W., and Swartz, W.E., inventors. 1985 Feb. 19. Increasing the
organoleptic acceptability of shank meat. U.S. patent 4,500,559.

Civille, G.V. and Lyon, B.G. 1996. Aroma and flavor lexicon for sensory evaluation: terms,
definitions, references and examples. ASTM Data Series Publications DS 66m West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

Crawford, D. L. 1980. Meat yield and shell removal functions of shrimp processing. Oregon
State University Extension Marine Advisory Program. Land Grant/Sea Grant Cooperative
Special Report 597. 6p.

Crawford, D.L. 1981. Composition for treating fish fillet to increase yield and shelf life U.S.
patent 4,293,578.

Ekkehard, L.K., and McFee, E.P. 1949 Dec 10. Process of canning fish and shellfish and
resultant product. U.S. patent 2,555,236.

Ellinger, R.H. 1972. The functions and applications of phosphates in food systems. In
Phosphates as Food Ingredients. Boca Raton, Fl: CRC Press. p 31.

Erdogdu, F., Balaban, M.O., Otwell, W.S., Garrido, L.R. 2003. Cook-related yield loss for
pacific white (Penaeus vannamei) shrimp previously treated with phosphates: effects of
shrimp size and internal temperature distribution. J Food Engineering. 64(3): 297-300.

Falci, K. J, and Scott, R.N. 1977 Aug. 1. Water and color retention treatment for frozen
processed shrimp. U.S. patent 4, 221, 819.

Fisher, R.A. 1993. Overview of phosphate use in sea scallop processing. Proceedings Third Joint
Conference Atlantic Fisheries Technology Society and Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries
Technology Society, Williamsburg, Virginia. Sea Grant Publication-in press. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science, College of William and Mary. Gloucester Point, VA.
Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu

Froning, G. W., and Sackett, B. 1985. Effect of salt and phosphates during tumbling of turkey
breast muscle on meat characteristics. J Poultry Science. 64:1328.

Garnatz, G., Volle, N.H., and Deatherage, F.E. 1946 Feb. 6. Processing of shrimp. U.S. patent
2,488,184.









Garrido, L. R., Applewhite, L. D., and Otwell, W. S. 1992. Initial studies to measure consumer
perception of water added to shrimp with phosphate treatments. Proceeding Seventeenth
Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technological Conference of the Americas,
Meridia, Yucatan, Mexico. Florida Sea Grant Publication 113, p. 86-88. Retrieved April
10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu

Garrido, L.R., Applewhite, L.D., and Otwell, W.S. 1993. Consumer perceptions for phosphate
treated shrimp and scallops. Proceedings Third Joint Conference Atlantic Fisheries
Technology Society and Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technology Society,
Williamsburg, Virginia. Sea Grant Publication-in press. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from
http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu

Garrido, L.R., Applewhite, L.D., and Otwell, W.S. 1993. Consumer evaluations of phosphated
shrimp and scallops. FL department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of
Seafood and Agriculture, University of Florida. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from
http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu

Gibson, D. M. and Murray, C. K. 1973. Polyphosphates and fish. Chemical studies, J. Food
Technology. 8 (197)

Heitkemper, D., Kaine, L., Jackson, D. and Wolnik, K. 1993. Determination of tripolyphosphate
and related hydrolysis products in processed shrimp. Proceedings from the Annual
Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technological Conference of the Americas,
Williamsburg, Va. 1993. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu

Lall, S. P. 1995. Macro and trace elements in fish and shellfish. In: A. Ruiter, editor. Fish and
fishery products. CAB International.

Lampila, Lucina E. 1992. Functions and uses of phosphates in the seafood industry. J Aquatic
Food Product Tech. 1 (3/4).

Lawless, H.T. and Heymann, H. 1998. Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices.
New York: Chapman and Hall.

Lewis, D.F., Groves, K.H.M., and Holgate, JH. 1986. Action of polyphosphates in meat
products. Food Microstructure. 5:53.

Love, R. M., and Abel, G. 1966. The effect of phosphate solution on the denaturation of frozen
cod muscle. J Food Technol. 1:323-333.

Lute, J. B., Borresen, T., and Oehlenschlater, J. 1997. Seafood from producer to consumer,
integrated approach to quality. Netherlands: Elsevier Publishing Company.

Mahon, J.H., and Township, S. 1960 Jul. 11. Preservation of fish. U.S. patent 3,036,923.

McAuley, B.J. 1984. Improvement in and relating to the processing of meat, UK Patent
Application GB2, 126,865 A.









Meilgaard, M.C., Civille, G., and Carr, B.T. 1999. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, Third
Edition. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Meyer, A. 1952 May 19. Process for the improvement of taste, digestibility, and stability of fish
meat. U.S. patent 2,735,777.

Molins, Ricardo A. 1991. Phosphates in Food. Boca Raton: CRC press.

Otwell, Steven W. 1993. Use of phosphates with southern penaeid shrimp. Proceedings from the
Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technological Conference of the Americas,
Williamsburg, Va. 1993. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu

Regenstein, J., Lu, x., Eilmeier, D. 1993. Functionality of polyphosphates. Proceedings from the
Annual Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technological Conference of the Americas,
Williamsburg, Va. 1993. Retrieved April 10, 2007 from http://sst.ifas.ufl.edu

Sturno, M.M. 1987. Development of a rapid high performance liquid chromatography technique
for detecting phosphate treatment in shrimp. University of Florida master's thesis.

Stone, E. W. 1981. Method of treating fresh shrimp to reduce moisture and nutrient loss. U.S.
patent 4,293,578,

Swartz, L.E. 1969 Jan. 29. Bonito processing. U.S. patent 3,620,767.

Tenhet, V., Finne, G. Nickelson, R. and Toloday, D. 1981. Phosphorous levels in peeled and
deveined shrimp treated with sodium tripolyphosphate. J Food Sci. 46(2):344-349.

Vyncke, W. 1978. Influence of sodium tripolyphosphate and citric acid on the shelf life of
thornback ray (Raja clavata L.). Z Lebensm Unters Forsch.166(5):284-6.

Webb, N.B., Howell, A.J., Barbour, B.C., Monroe, R.J., and Hamana, D.D. 1975. Effect of
additives, processing techniques and frozen storage on the texture of shrimp. J Food Sci
40(1975): 322-326.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Danielle Bogan was born in Winter Park, Florida and graduated from Lake Howell High

School in 2001. She earned her bachelor's degree in food science and human nutrition from the

University of Florida in 2005. She then earned her master's degree in food science and human

nutrition from the same department from the University of Florida in 2007.