<%BANNER%>

Investigating methods to reduce and control sodium levels in shrimp

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Investigating methods to reduce and control sodium levels in shrimp
Physical Description:
1 online resource (105 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Sims, Molly R
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Food Science and Human Nutrition
Committee Chair:
Otwell, Walter S
Committee Members:
Bobroff, Linda Benjamin
Percival, Susan S

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
preference -- shrimp -- sodium
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
As the majority of Americans consume well over the recommended 2,300 mg sodium per day, the seafood industry is facing the possibility that they will have to reduce sodium levels in seafood products. Shrimp in particular often has high levels of sodium due to the increasing use of processing ingredients to maintain favorable moisture and flavor. The challenge is to select moisture retention treatments that result in lower sodium levels while maintaining consumer acceptance. The basic approach used to assess preference was the use of untrained consumer panels to rate cooked shrimp, following prior exposure to a variety of different processing ingredients. Litopenaeus vannamei farmed in Ecuador were treated with a variety of sodium and moisture retaining agents. All treatments were compounds or blends currently available for commercial applications. Low sodium treatments utilized potassium functioning as a sodium replacement. Consumer panelists (n = 100) were presented five different shrimp and asked to rate overall likeability of the following characteristics on a 9-point hedonic scale: texture, saltiness, flavor, and color. Consumers were additionally asked to rate the saltiness, firmness, moistness, and purchase intent on a 5-point Just About Right scale.  The results were collected on CompusenseTM and analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test for significant differences. It was found shrimp with a 500-700 mg/100g range in sodium and moisture ranging from 80-82% were best liked. In one panel four low sodium shrimp ranging from 253-347 mg/100g sodium were compared to the standard STPP treated shrimp containing 631 mg/100g sodium. In this trial it was found that there was no significant difference in consumer preference between the shrimp that had 347 mg/100g sodium and 263 mg/100g sodium in comparison with higher sodium shrimp. The shrimp with 253 mg/100g sodium and 259 mg/100g sodium were given less preferential ratings.  The results indicate that although it will be a challenge for the shrimp industry to decrease sodium levels, it is possible to create lower sodium shrimp products that consumers will enjoy and purchase.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Molly R Sims.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Otwell, Walter S.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0045982:00001

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Investigating methods to reduce and control sodium levels in shrimp
Physical Description:
1 online resource (105 p.)
Language:
english
Creator:
Sims, Molly R
Publisher:
University of Florida
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date:

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Food Science and Human Nutrition
Committee Chair:
Otwell, Walter S
Committee Members:
Bobroff, Linda Benjamin
Percival, Susan S

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
preference -- shrimp -- sodium
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre:
Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract:
As the majority of Americans consume well over the recommended 2,300 mg sodium per day, the seafood industry is facing the possibility that they will have to reduce sodium levels in seafood products. Shrimp in particular often has high levels of sodium due to the increasing use of processing ingredients to maintain favorable moisture and flavor. The challenge is to select moisture retention treatments that result in lower sodium levels while maintaining consumer acceptance. The basic approach used to assess preference was the use of untrained consumer panels to rate cooked shrimp, following prior exposure to a variety of different processing ingredients. Litopenaeus vannamei farmed in Ecuador were treated with a variety of sodium and moisture retaining agents. All treatments were compounds or blends currently available for commercial applications. Low sodium treatments utilized potassium functioning as a sodium replacement. Consumer panelists (n = 100) were presented five different shrimp and asked to rate overall likeability of the following characteristics on a 9-point hedonic scale: texture, saltiness, flavor, and color. Consumers were additionally asked to rate the saltiness, firmness, moistness, and purchase intent on a 5-point Just About Right scale.  The results were collected on CompusenseTM and analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test for significant differences. It was found shrimp with a 500-700 mg/100g range in sodium and moisture ranging from 80-82% were best liked. In one panel four low sodium shrimp ranging from 253-347 mg/100g sodium were compared to the standard STPP treated shrimp containing 631 mg/100g sodium. In this trial it was found that there was no significant difference in consumer preference between the shrimp that had 347 mg/100g sodium and 263 mg/100g sodium in comparison with higher sodium shrimp. The shrimp with 253 mg/100g sodium and 259 mg/100g sodium were given less preferential ratings.  The results indicate that although it will be a challenge for the shrimp industry to decrease sodium levels, it is possible to create lower sodium shrimp products that consumers will enjoy and purchase.
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Molly R Sims.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local:
Adviser: Otwell, Walter S.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Applicable rights reserved.
Classification:
lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID:
UFE0045982:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 INVESTIGATING METHODS TO REDUCE AND CONTROL SODIUM LEVELS IN SHRIMP By MOLLY R. SIMS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MAST ER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 Molly Sims

PAGE 3

3 To my family, friends, and faculty that have given me constant support and assistance throughout this entire process

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I than k my parents for all of the love and support they have always given me, in this venture and in all ventures. I thank my professor, Dr. Steve Otwell, for all of the guidance and assistance he has given me. I thank my committee Dr. Susan Percival and Dr. Lin da Bobroff for their assistance. I thank Laura Garrido for all the guidance she provided. I thank my lab mates Chris Hanna, Philip Lynn, and Rick Swain, and Zina Williams for all of the daily help and company they provide. I thank all of my friends for co nstantly being there to lend a hand or an ear. Thank you to everyone who has aided me in this process, it would not be possible without every single one of you.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10 CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 12 Consumer Sodium Consumption ................................ ................................ ............ 15 Health Risks Associated with Sodium Over Consumption ................................ ...... 17 Moisture Retention Agents: Use in Shrimp ................................ ............................. 19 Sodium Levels in Shrimp ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 Regulations Regarding Excess Sodium ................................ ................................ .. 25 2 JUSTIFICATION AND APPROACH ................................ ................................ ........ 31 3 METHODS AND MATERIALS ................................ ................................ ................ 32 Sample Collection and Treatment ................................ ................................ ........... 33 Sample Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 36 Sample Selection and Preparation ................................ ................................ ......... 37 Consumer Sensory Panel ................................ ................................ ....................... 39 4 RES ULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 45 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ...... 91 APPENDIX A PHASE ONE AND TWO TASTE PANEL QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ 96 B PHASE THREE QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ........ 99 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 102 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 105

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 List of basic moisture treatments using salt brines based on sodium chloride alone as the only moisture retention agent. Brine temperature was 3 5C. ........ 41 3 2 List of shrimp moisture retention treatments (MRAs) involving various commercial phosphate blends accompanied with sodium chloride. ................... 42 3 3 List of shrimp moisture retention agent s ( MRA s ) treatment solutions involving phosphate free blends and sodium chloride.. ................................ ..................... 43 3 4 List of shrimp moisture retention agent s (MRA s ) treatment solutions involving combinations of phosphates, carrageenans, potassium chloride, and sodium chloride ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 44 4 1 Cooked shrimp composition based on prior exposure to a variety of treatments to influence the moisture, sodium and potassium conte nt ..... 56 4 2 Comparisons for preference ratings for shrimp exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture content but d ifferent sodium content (SMDNa) ....... 58 4 3 Comparisons for preference ratings for shrimp exposed to treatments to create different moisture contents while maintaining similar sodium content (DMSNa).. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 63 4 4 Comparisons for preference ratings for shrimp exposed to treatments that either contain phosphates or phosphate free ingredients to maintain a similar moisture and sodium contents (PvsPF).. ................................ ............................ 68 4 5 Comparisons for preference ratings for shrimp exposed to recommended MRA blends (RB) to reduce sodium content and maintain a similar moisture content .. ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 73 4 6 Comparisons for pre ference ratings for shrimp exposed to low sodium treatments (LNa) to maintain a similar moisture content while lowering sodium content .. ................................ ................................ ................................ 78 4 7 Uninformed comparisons preference ratings in re sponse to the effect of supplemental nutritional information on consumer preferences.. ........................ 83 4 8 Informed comparisons for preference ratings in response to the effect of supplemental nutritional information on consumer preferences.. ........................ 84

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1 1 Excerpt from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report "Sodi um 29 1 2 icting the sodium consumption trends.. ............ 30 4 1 Illustration of demographic information pertaining to panelist gender and age range for all taste panel sessions. ................................ ................................ ...... 55 4 2 exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture content (SMDNa).. .......... 59 4 3 exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture content ............................ 60 4 4 Illustrations for the descriptive preferenc exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture content (SMDNa).. .......... 61 4 5 shrimp exposed to treatments to main tain a similar moisture content (SMDNa).. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 62 4 6 exposed to treatments to cre ate different moisture content ( DMSNa). ............... 64 4 7 exposed to treatments to create different moisture content (DMSNa). .............. 65 4 8 exposed to treatments to create different moisture content (DMSNa). ............... 66 4 9 shrimp exposed to treatments to create different moisture content (DMSNa).. .. 67 4 10 exposed to treatments that either contained phosphates or phosphate free ingredients (PvsPF) ................................ ................................ ............................ 69 4 11 Illustr exposed to treatments that either contained phosphates or phosphate free ingredients (PvsPF) ................................ ................................ ............................ 70

PAGE 8

8 4 12 Illustrations for th exposed to treatments that either contained phosphates or phosphate free ingredients (PvsPF).. ................................ ................................ .......................... 71 4 13 Illustrations for the descrip shrimp exposed to treatments that either contained phosphates or phosphate free ingredients (PvsPF). ................................ ................................ 72 4 14 Illustrations for the descriptive exposed to recommended MRA blends(RB) .. ................................ ................... 74 4 15 exposed to recomm ended MRA blends (RB). ................................ .................... 75 4 16 exposed to recommended MRA blends (RB). ................................ .................... 76 4 17 Illustrations for the descriptive preference rati for shrimp exposed to recommended MRA blends (RB). ................................ ......... 77 4 18 Illustrations for the desc shrimp exposed to treatments to lower sodium content (LNa). ................................ ...... 79 4 19 exposed to treatments to lower sodium content (LNa). ................................ ...... 80 4 20 exposed to treatments to lower sodium content (LNa). ................................ ..... 81 4 2 1 shrimp exposed to treatments to lower sodium content (LNa).. .......................... 82 4 22 Illustrations for the uninformed descriptive preference ratings response to supplemental nutritional information on consumer preferences.. .... 85 4 2 3 response to supplemental nutritional information on consumer preferences. ..... 86 4 24 Illustrations for the uninf preferences. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 87 4 25 Illustrations for the informed descriptive prefe preferences. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 88

PAGE 9

9 4 26 rchase s upplemental nutritional information on consumer preferences. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 89 4 27 e to supplemental nutritional information on consumer preferences. ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 90

PAGE 10

10 Abstract Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Maste r of Science INVESTIGATING METHODS TO REDUCE AND CONTROL SODIUM LEVELS IN SHRIMP By Molly R. Sims August 2013 Chair: Steve Otwell Major: Food Science and Human Nutrition As the majority of Americans consume well over the recommended 2, 3 00 mg sodium p er day, the seafood industry is facing the possibility that they will have to reduce sodium levels in seafood products. Shrimp in particular often has high levels of sodium due to the increasing use of processing ingredients to maintain favorable moisture and flavor The challenge is to select moisture retention treatments that result in lower sodium levels while maintain ing consumer acceptance. The basic approach used to assess preference was the use of untrained consumer pane l s to r ate cooked shrimp foll owing prior exposure to a variety of different processing ingredients. Litopenaeus vanname i farmed in Ecuador were treated with a variety of sodium and moisture retaining agents All treatments were compounds or blends currently available for commercial ap plications Low sodium treatments utilized potassium functioning as a sodium replacement. Consumer panelists (n = 100) were presented five different shrimp and asked to rate overall likeability of the following characteristics on a 9 point hedonic scale: t exture, saltiness flavor and color Consumers were additionally asked to rate the saltiness, firmness, moistness, and purchase intent on a 5 point Just About Right

PAGE 11

11 scale. The results were collected on Compusense TM and analyzed using ANOVA and te st for significant differences It was found shrimp with a 500 700 mg/100g range in sodium and moisture ranging from 80 82% were best liked. In one panel four low sodium shrimp ranging from 253 347 mg/100g sodium were compared to the standard STPP treated shrimp containing 631 mg/100g sodium. In this trial it was found that there was no significant difference in consumer preference between the shrimp that had 347 mg/100g sodium and 263 mg/100g sodium in comparison with higher sodium shrimp. The shrimp with 253 mg/100g sodium and 259 mg/100g sodium were given less preferential ratings. The results indicate that although it will be a challenge for the shrimp industry to decrease sodium le vels, it is possible to create lower sodium shrimp product s that consum ers will enjoy and purchase.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW Introduction Since ancient times, sodium chloride, most commonly known as salt, has been a substance of much importance around the world. Not only has it been used as the preservative and flavor e nhancer of most popular choice, it has driven some of the Romans used the salt trade as a means for governmental and economic gains. Where salt was available, wealth could follo w. The trade of salted products, such as cod and other fish, made the Roman Empire and other civilizations more powerful and began the international trade of food products. As wars have even been fought over making gains in the salt industry, it should com e as no surprise that the consumption of salt has been favored for millennia. Salt was revered in many civilizations, showing not only monetary wealth but being considered a product of the gods in some cases. Salt was presented in ornate containers and off ered to guests as a special gift (Kurlansky 2002). The consumer preference for salty foods is one that is historically noted. Consumers have eaten high amounts of sodium in their diet, not only for flavor but as a preservative. The oldest way to preserve food was by the addition of salt to influence the moisture content in food. Fresh products could be dried and saved for many months without spoiling, increasing the shelf life and allowing consumers to have products even when not in season. As time has gon e on, salt has still been utilized as a preservative and is a component of most processed products. The use of salt in the food industry has increased over time, as salt has become more available and easier to obtain. It has become a household and industr y staple,

PAGE 13

13 leading to a variety of avenues in which sodium can be consumed. Sodium is present in most food products naturally, which accounts for approximately 12% of the sodium consumed in the diet. The remaining sodium in the diet is consumed from additio ns to foods. Figure 1 1 the Center s for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 77% of sodium consumed comes from processed foods, while only 6% comes from additions while eating, and 5% from home cooking recipes. According to Figure 1 2, it is eviden t that between 1970 and 2006 sodium consumption for the U.S. increased for children and adults, both male and female. Although the increase occurred over time, the level of sodium consumed has been relatively steady since 1988 (Institute of Medicine 2005). The amount of sodium recommended by the Institute of Medicine for healthy individuals is no more than 2,300 mg per day and is 1,500 mg per day for persons at risk for or already hav ing hypertension. O n average consumers in the United States consume an es timated 3,400 mg per day (USDA 2010). The amount of sodium consumed is concerning as it is well above the amount recommended, and thus there is the potential for negative health effects. Over consumption of sodium can increase the risk for hypertension and heart disease, among many other factors (USDA 2010). are consumed. Certain cases of hypertension are salt sensitive and lowering the amount of sodium consumed can affect blood pressure. While there is strong epidemiological evidence supporting this, there are other cases of hypertension that are not sensitive to sodium intake (Kawasakie and others 1978). According to th e Center s for Disease Control and Prevention (2011), 33% of the American population has hypertension, while another 33% of the population is

PAGE 14

14 thought to be pre hypertensive and thus have blood pressure above a healthy level As the diet is the leading sourc e of sodium for humans, it becomes necessary to decrease the amount of sodium consumed in order to lower blood pressure in the population. Seafood is commonly associated with salt due to the marine origin and expected taste. Worldwide, seafood is a major s ource of protein in the diet and it is well recognized as a healthful choice. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration (NOAA), in 2007 the per capita consumption of seafood in the U nited States was 16.3 pounds (2008), of that 4.1 po unds was reported to be shrimp, the most popular seafood product. Shrimp naturally contains between 250 300 mg sodium per 100 g edible product when harvested (Garrido and Otwell 2008). As in historical time, during the process of turning shrimp from an an imal into a food product, sodium salts are often added through various processing treatments that protect product moisture content and yield. Collectively these treatments are known as moisture retention agents (MRAs). The use of MRAs in shrimp as food add itives or processing aids are often responsible for noticeable increases in sodium content as sodium is in many of the MRA blends. The sodium in the MRA blends depends on the composition of the associated sodium salts, i.e. sodium tripolyphosphate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium citrate, etc. The shrimp can absorb on average 50 250 mg sodium per 100g of shrimp, although higher concentrations of added salt and prolonged exposure times can cause higher uptakes than those reported (Garrido and Otwell 2008). It is apparent that modifications and alternatives in MRA use in shrimp could be an effective means to lower sodium in the product.

PAGE 15

15 Consumer Sodium Consumption Sodium is an essential nutrient in the diet. It functions to regulate blood pressure, blood volume, and blood pH, along with balancing water as an electrolyte and aiding in nerve transmission and muscle contractions ( IOM 2005 ). The Institute of Medicine (IOM) has an Adequate Intake (AI) level for sodium specified at 1,500 mg/day. The AI is the amount of sodium that is considered adequate to maintain routine body functions. An AI is recommended when there is no recommended daily allowance. The IOM has set a Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) for sodium at 2,300 mg/day, which implies consuming 2,300 mg/day o r less will pose no health risk or adverse effects for normal, healthy individuals ( IOM 2005 ). These recommendations change for individuals in the following categories: persons aged 51 years or older, persons of any age who are African American, and person s with hypertension, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease. For these individuals the recommended intake is no more than 1,500 mg/day, due to considerations for greater health risks and higher sensitivity to dietary sodium levels (Dietary Guidelines for Amer icans 2010). Due to prevailing health concerns, s odium is one dietary factor under heavy scrutiny. Sodium is thought to increase the occurrence of hypertension, which in turn raises the risk for C oronary Heart Disease (CHD). The primary target of concern is usually table salt, NaCl due to the many uses in the food industry, including curing of meats, baking, flavoring, preserving, and retaining moisture (Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010). The recommended intake of sodium 2300 mg /day, translates to 5.8 g of salt. In 2005, the average daily consumption was 10.4 g salt for men and 7.3 g salt for women (Bibbins Domingo and others 2010). On average, American consumers

PAGE 16

16 consume 3,400 mg/day of sodium (Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2010), which is well o ver the recommended amount, thus there is a need to reduce sodium intake. With the high prevalence of salt in the average diet it could be very difficult to decrease sodium levels to acceptable amounts. In the typical American diet, 75 80% of the sodium i ntake comes from processed foods (Bibbins Domingo and others 2010). As an increasing percentage of the American diet includes processed foods, there arises some implied or expected responsibility of the producers of the food to reduce the amount of sodium in the products consumed by the public. It is challenging to create p rocessing options t o reduce sodium levels in foods. Salty flavor is one of the characteristics consumers prefer in a product, and as the final goal of processors is to create products th at the public desires decreasing this flavor ia difficult. When given the choice salty foods tend to be preferred over their less salty counterparts. A study carried out by Laurila and others (1996) concluded that in mashed potatoes the consumer sensory ratings for pleasantness the NaCl content was higher. A study carried out by Kahkonen and others (1996) in which a blind taste test of a reduced fat, low sodium table spread was compared against the regular table spread. The reduced fa t, low sodium spread was liked less in the blind taste test, but when the spreads were revealed and the nutrition information distributed to panelists the ratings for the reduced fat, low sodium spread increased. This shows that nutrition is taken into acc ount, even if people prefer a full flavor product. Consumers will consider nutrition information and potentially chose less desirable products on this merit alone.

PAGE 17

17 There are many avenues that can be followed to reduce the amount of sodium in the diet The simplest option is to reduce the amount of sodium added to foods ; unfortunately, sodium reduction is not as easy as simply removing salt from formulations or decreasing the amount added. As shown before, when sodium is decre ases (Tuorila 2000). There is the need to reduce the amount of sodium added, while maintaining a salty flavor, which can be accomplished by utilizing salt substitutes such as potassium chloride or magnesium chloride. One study in rural Northern China subst ituted sodium salt with a potassium based substitute. This particular area contains a lot of salt in the normal diet. The salt substitute was added to typical diets and the effect on blood pressure and consumer acceptability of saltiness, flavor, and overa ll quality was measured. At the end of the 12 month study blood pressure was reduced and the saltiness, flavor, and overall quality were all acceptable to the consumers (Li and others 2009). This study portrays that it is possible to substitute other subs tances without compromising quality. The study does a comprehensive evaluation of its results and states that there are factors that could have influenced the lack in difference. Factors include that potassium chloride, KCl imparts a similar saltiness as NaCl, that the reduction in saltiness in the food was only small to moderate, and that other flavor/odors were more important to the foods taste than saltiness (Li and others 2005). Sodium reduction through use of less NaCl and sodium free salt alternative s can be an acceptable option. Health Risks Associated with Sodium Over Consumption Bibbins Domingo and others (2010) reported that if sodium consumption could be reduced by 3 mg total per day the number of deaths related to CHD, stroke, and myocardial in farction could be reduced by 44,000 92,000. If the intake could be reduced

PAGE 18

18 by even 1 mg total per day a positive health effect could be seen. Blood pressure and hypertension could be lowered in situations where less sodium is ingested (Bibbins Domingo and others 2010). There has been much research done on the effects of sodium in the diet. As far back as 1960 it was known that lowering sodium was part of the treatment for cardiac diseases. Sodi Pallares and others (1960) recommended that a salt restricted diet would help treat cardiac diseases. In this diet all foods that are naturally high in sodium wer e prohibited, including shrimp, a recommendation still stand ing today. The more recent Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) diet also emphasize s a lower amount of sodium (USDA 2010) It recommends 5.8g salt, along with lower total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol. When the DASH diet was combined with even lower sodium than the recommended amount, the impact on blood pressure was greater (Sacks an d others 2001). This shows a positive correlation between reduction of sodium and hypertension. Other factors such as lower fat and cholesterol might make a difference in the lower occurrence of hypertension. When the other factors were held at the same l evel and sodium was reduced, hypertension decreased. This shows that the sodium is in fact one of the dietary factors that significantly affects blood pressure and hypertension Not all research supports the idea that sodium reduction will lead to a decre ase in blood pressure or hypertension. The National Health and Nutrition Exam Intake Survey (NHANES I) has results that disagree with the idea that sodium reduction will directly lower hypertension. In this survey taken from 1971 1975, sodium intake was r elated to all cause and CHD mortality. NHANES I conducted follow up testing until

PAGE 19

19 1992. From the results they made a point to say that the manipulated sodium intake would not inevitably yield lower mortality rates. They cannot conclude that the recommendat ion to decrease sodium is correct for all individuals (Alderman and others 1998). This survey takes many factors into account. Since this survey spanned a two decade period, there were many confounding factors involved. These results could portray that the reduction of sodium alone is not e nough to reduce mortality rates For any of these diets to be effective, a lifestyle change must be made and people must really commit to the dietary choices made. Moisture Retention Agents: Use in Shrimp As previous ly no ted, commercial use of MRA s during processing to influence product yield and quality can be a major source of sodium content in shrimp. Shrimp quality is important to both consumers and processors. Seafood is often consume d fresh or with minimal processing thus many different preservation methods exist for elongation of shelf life. Methods include freezing, chilling, canning, and cooking to name a few. These processing steps are conducted in a particular manner to maintain product quality and avoid relate d problems. Problems caused by freezing include dehydration, toughening, loss of juiciness, and drip loss (Bhobe and Pai 1984). One problem with impact on texture perception is drip loss. Drip loss is moisture that is lost in the thawing process. Not only is this moisture loss cause an economic loss, but it has the potential to create a dehydrated product (Henderson and others 1990). One common way to combat drip loss is through the use of moisture retention agents ( MRAs ). MRAs not only help with water bind ing but also improve flavor, texture, and product appearance (Bhobe and Pai 1984). Based on testing done by Bhobe and Pai (1984) it was determined that after 6 months of storage at

PAGE 20

20 odor of untreated shrimp were satisfactory when e valuated for sensory characteristics, while the texture received unsatisfactory ratings. The texture was characterized as tough, chewy, and rubbery; none of which are acceptable characteristics. Bhobe and Pai (1984) claim that texture can be dependent upon on the denaturation of proteins. In another study done by Tsironi and others (2009), fresh shrimp texture was characterized as firm and elastic. Tsironi and others (2009) reported that at shrimp became mushy and chewy; at lower storage temperatur es shrimp became dry and rigid. Mushy, chewy, dry, and rigid are all unacceptable characteristics, thus it is crucial that the proper storage conditions are met. The traditional and most commonly used MRAs contain sodium p olyphosphates, which have GRAS st atus as seafood treatment agents (CFR 2013 ). The polyphosphates influence: weight lost in frozen storage, drip loss, toughening of frozen product, and moisture lost upon cooking (Tenhet and others 1981a). Phosphates, as natural components of the muscle sys tem, can influence retention of moisture through ionic binding and covalent bonding. Phosphates utilize three basic chemical functions: controlling pH by buffering, sequestering metal ions, and increasing ionic strength as polyanions. Together, these three chemical functions increase the protein water interaction, causing water to be bound (Unal and others 2006). The most commonly used polyphosphate is s odium t ripolyphosphate (STP). The polyionic character of STP increases the number of sites where protein can bind water (Unal and others 2006). STP can also create a surface film that inhibits moisture loss by sealing in water (Tenhet and others 1981b). Shrimp are most often treated by submersion into a STP solution. The solutions contain a certain percentag e of

PAGE 21

21 phosphate blend based on weight of the shrimp. Shrimp are left in the solution to soak for anywhere from thirty minutes to two hours, and the phosphate molecules diffuse into the shrimp and form the surfac e layer (Unal and others 2006). Although STP i s incorporated into the MRA, it is typically not the only component. MRAs are blends of various compounds that have synergistic functions for the addition and retention of moisture. Each blend can be unique to a company or product line. MRA s have limits o f usage as excessive treatment can cause for shrimp t o un appealing. These over treated shrimp can have a translucent appearance and an overly soft texture. Over treated shrimp are not only detrimental to consumer preference but to the market as well, lead ing to implications for economic fraud on excessive moisture added and sold at the price of shrimp (Unal and others 2006, Kaufmann and others 2005). Controlled usage of phosphates has been complicated by difficulties in the ability to measure the exact amo unt of added phosphate as there are also natural phosphates present in muscle. This leads to an issue in determining the actual amount of phosphate and related moisture added to shrimp via selected treatment (Tenhet and others 1981a). Despite this issue th ere have been attempts to impose legal limits on the use of phosphates. Both the EU and Japan now have limits of 0.5% residual phosphates in seafood (Chantarasuwan and others 2011). It is common for treatments to contain NaCl in conjunction with phosphates A synergistic effect exists between compounds that lead to higher water retention. There is less thaw loss, reduced cooking loss, and better color when salt a hydrophilic compound, is used in addition to phosphate (Chantarasuw an 2011). Typically sodium chloride, NaCl is used but it can be replaced with potassium chloride, KCl. NaCl has a

PAGE 22

22 major effect on the ionic strength of the meat, causing the muscle proteins to repel each other, allowing for more water to be bound. NaCl also gives the characteristic salty flavor, which is found to be preferred by consumers in sensory analysis (Goncalves and Ribeiro 2009). KCl has the potential to exhibit a similar synergistic effect and it can therefore be an option to use as a sodium replacement in treatments. Othe r MRA treatments commonly known as phosphate free blends, can be used in place of polyphosphate. Two such substitutes are sodium bicarbonate and sodium carbonate. In a study by Chantarasuwan and others (2011), shrimp were treated with 2.5% NaCl and 2.0% s odium bicarbonate (NaHCO 3 ) or sodium carbonate (Na 2 CO 3 ) The pH, weight gain, cooking yields, cooking loss, and salt content were measured in this experiment. I t was found that as pH increased both weight gain and cooking yields increased. A pH below the isoelectric point will yield proteins with a negative charge and they will repel one another. The repulsion of the proteins lead s to greater water uptake. Over the measured pH range, the shrimp treated with sodium carbonate gained more water when compared to the shrimp treated with sodium bicarbonate. The sodium carbonate treatment was found to lead to higher sodium contents than sodium bicarbonate at treatment pH 8.5, 10, and 11.5. Overall, as the sodium content increased weight gain and moisture content i ncreased as well. Consumers rated sodium carbonate with lower color acceptability than the sodium bicarbonate treated shrimp. Both treatments received low acceptability scores for outer surface as they were slimy. Upon cooking the sodium carbonate received lower scores for texture. It was concluded that the 2.5% NaCl with 2.0% sodium bicarbonate at pH 8.5 gave the most effective treatment. This treatment successfully trapped water without negative sensory attributes

PAGE 23

23 (Chantarasuwan and others 2011). These fi ndings agree with those of Lapkulkiaert and others (2009), which successfully used sodium bicarbonate as a replacement for STP. Lapkulkiaert and others (2009) compared t he treatments with and without NaCl. It was found that NaCl helped to increase the wate r holding capacity of the shrimp when used in conjunction with the sodium bicarbonate, the most effective treatment. Industry use of MRAs is widespread, as consumers prefer the treated product over the untreated product. In one such study, c onsumers were presented with shrimp that had been treated using different combinations of phosphates and salt. The amount of each substance varied between 0 4.0% concentrations. Consumers rated the products in a sensory evaluation panel and answered questions relating to the salty flavor of the product. The study concluded that consumers rated shrimp containing 50 400 mg sodium as 500 mg sodium Garrido and Otwell 2008). The sodium level of the best like d shrimp in this study was nearly double the sodium content of the natural, raw product. The sodium content of 100g of shrimp which consumers liked best was approximately 2 0 % of the daily value of sodium. As this is a very high percentage of sodium, there is need to reduce the amount of added sodium while maintaining consumer approval Sodium Levels in Shrimp Shrimp naturally contain 250 300mg sodium/100 g when they are harvested although the level can fluctuate ( Garrido and Otwell 2008). After harvest, sh rimp are usually stored in ice or ice slush and the sodium can leach out into the cold water. Additional sodium content can be diluted due to water absorption before processing. The sodium that is lost can be replaced during processing steps involving salt or MRAs (Garrido and Otwell 2008). When sodium is added during processing treatments the

PAGE 24

24 sodium content can become substantially higher than the natural product. It has been found that shrimp properly treated in terms of consumer preferences with traditio nal phosphate MRAs can result in an added 50 250 mg sodium/100g shrimp. When the MRA treatment utilizes higher concentrations of chemicals or allows for longer exposure time of shrimp to treatment the amount of sodium added can be greater (Garrido and Otwe ll 2008). In a market survey of 152 raw shrimp samples it was found that the sodium content ranged from 170 to 1,130 mg/113g serving size. When these same samples were cooked sodium content ranged from 100 to 612 mg/85g serving (Garrido and Otwell 2008). T here are noticeable differences in treatment of shrimp and the amount of sodium that is added to the product. V ariability can lead to differences in the reported sodium values. Sodium information is obtainable through various sources. Sodium content can be gathered through testing of individual products, or by viewing published databases. Governmental agencies such as NOAA and the USDA publish nutrition databases in which the nutritional information for standard products can be obtained. The ease of these d these databases is that the presented values have the potential to be different from the Additionally, these databases often differ in the nutritional values they present. The USDA reference guide (2012) c ites mean values for untreated raw shrimp at 119 mg sodium/100g sample, while they c ite mean values for mixed species raw shrimp at 566 mg/100g sample. This is a very large difference in sodium content for the same product. The database attributed difference s to t he treatment process of the mixed species shrimp which was stated in the database

PAGE 25

25 Further complications may exist w hen companies reference various data bases. NOAA (2013) r eports nutrition facts for raw white shrimp at 148mg/100g sample, which does not take into account any treatments. Neither value reported by the USDA matches the value reported by NOAA The question arises which values are correct and which value should p rocessors use in preparing product labels? There are discrepancies that require adjustments in order to better label and report sodium in consumer products In addition to processing, the cooking method for shrimp has the potential to further increase sodi um. Cooking typically dehydrates the product; therefore salt is expected to increase per product weight. Cooking methods such as boiling shrimp in salty water, battering and f rying, marinating and grilling can contain salt in the recipe, which can then be incorporated into the shrimp matrix. For example, when shrimp are boiled in salt water they experience a higher moisture loss and the final product will have a higher concentration of sodium (Niamnuy and others 2007). Not only can the cooking process pote ntially raise sodium content but the condiments put on shrimp often contain sodium. Cocktail sauce, a very popular condiment for shrimp, contains 210mg per 2 tablespoon serving. If the amount of sodium in the product alone is overly high, cooking and condi ment styles can further compound the problem. Regulations Regarding Excess Sodium In the past decade, as health concerns have led to a recommendation for decreased amount of sodium consumed, there has been a movement to reduce the amount of sodium food pro ducts contain As early as 1969 at the White House Conference on Food Nutrition and Health, there has been attention to decreasing sodium content in food products. This conference recommended that food processors

PAGE 26

26 decrease the amount of salt added to produ ct formulations, and also recognized that the GRAS status of salt could be altered to affect the amount of salt added to products. By this conference the amount of processed foods had also increased and it was recommended that the FDA produce guidelines fo r manufacturers to specify minimum and maximum levels of nutrients, as the nutritional quality of foods was becoming out of the consumers hands (Appell and others 2012). Although many groups call for governmental reduction of sodium, currently there are on ly voluntary mandates on sodium reduction, no legislation has been passed. All levels of the government have begun to address the improvement of the nutrition available to consumers, and the concern over sodium intake has grown. The US Department of Healt h and Human Services and US Department of Agriculture jointly issue new dietary guidelines every five years, and since the 1980s they have been recommending a decrease in the amount of sodium consumed. Additionally the Centers for Disease and Control and P revention (CDC) launched the Sodium Reduction in Communities Program aimed to reduce sodium intake at the community level by creating healthier food environments (Appell and others 2012). In 2010 the IOM met to advise on strategies to reduce sodium intak es in the United States, per the request of congress in 2008. Their primary recommendation was for FDA to set mandatory national standards on the sodium content of all foods. These standards were not to ban the use of salt but to begin the long process of reducing the excess sodium in foods, allowing processing to create products with lower sodium levels. This could be done gradually, with small reductions instituted regularly over a set period of time. They advise d ference for salty

PAGE 27

27 products can be altered, as the gradual changes will slowly decrease the preferred sodium levels. Along with regular decreases in added sodium, the IOM recommended that the GRAS status of salt and various other sodium containing compounds be wise implementation of these recommendations should create products still palatable to the consumer but without negative health associations due to excess sodium (IOM 2010). No major legislation has been passed mandating the implementation of the IOM The USDA National Nutrient Database is compiled from market surveys are carried out to assess and average a range of a single product. This database is regularly updated. In a recent compari son, the National Fisheries Institute reported striking sodium when reported the (2010). There was a notable spike in reported sodium value when compared to the previous database, with sodium levels in shrimp increasing from 148 mg/100g to 566mg/100g Thi s led to industry concern, as the blame fell on the use of MRAs and elevated amounts of added sodium. A similar market survey carried out by Garrido and Otwell (2008) collected 152 raw shrimp samples and tested the sodium values both raw and cooked. The s odium content of the shrimp samples collected was then compared to the amount of sodium reported to be in the shrimp. The comparison found that only 31% of samples correctly labeled the sodium content. Of these samples, 53% underreported the amount of sodi um in the nutrition facts, while 15% over reported the amount of sodium present. There is a clear and present discrepancy by not only the amount of sodium being added to products but the amount reported. The reported values have noticeable variability

PAGE 28

28 and there is the need to not only reduce the amount of sodium being reported, but t o report the true values in all cases.

PAGE 29

29 Figure 1 1. Excerpt from the Center s f or Disease Control and Prevention report "Sodium odium consumed in the diet. http://www.cdc.gov/salt/food.htm accessed on May 9th, 2013

PAGE 30

30 Figure 1 3 0 year period. http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2010/Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States/Report Brief Strategies to Reduce Sodium Intake in the United States.aspx?page=2, accessed on May 9, 2013.

PAGE 31

31 CHAPTER 2 JUSTIFICATION AND APPROACH As t he consumption of sodium in the American diet is well above recommended levels, there is the need to reduce sodium content in commercial food products. Shrimp, being an aquatic food product, is naturally inclined to have high sodium content. In recent year s there has been a spike in the amount of sodium present in commercial shrimp products, causing industry concern regarding final products. In the processing of shrimp from an animal to a food, the level of sodium can be increased by the common use of moist ure retention agents ( MRAs ). MRAs usually contain sodium phosphate compounds, along with sodium chloride (salt). The sodium included in the MRA blend is with resulting hig her sodium concentrations. As MRA use is widespread in the industry there have been various low sodium MRA blends created, with the intent to reduce the amount of added sodium in final products. It is hypothesized that through the use of these low sodium M RAs shrimp can be produced with lower sodium content without compromising either shrimp quality or consumer acceptance.

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND MATERIALS The intent of this study was to monitor the sodium profile of shrimp as it was changed from anim al to food with the introduction of processing options to reduce the sodium levels in final products. The primary goal was production of more healthful (i.e. lower sodium) selections that maintain consumer preference. To achieve this, farm raised shrimp we re acquired and exposed to a variety of treatments selected to yield a change in product moisture and sodium content. The selection of treatments was consistent with current commercial practices attempting to protect moisture content and product yield thr ough exposure to various moisture retention agents ( MRAs ). The chemical changes in the product were monitored and sensory attributes were evaluated by consumers in untrained taste panels arranged to measure preferences. Throughout three phases, a complete sodium profile was compiled. The first phase focused on consumer sensory opinions for typical shrimp products. The initial phase was followed by similar assessments with shrimp that had been manipulated to lower sodium content. The final phase measured th e influence of supplemental information on consumer preference and their purchase intent for the lower sodium shrimp products. The supplemental information provided product knowledge pertaining to the sodium level and intent to produce a low sodium shrimp. The latter phases included farm raised shrimp ( Lit o penaeus vannamei ) The use of Florida shrimp was necessary as it was readily available for treatment. Additionally the untreated Florida shrimp was lower in sodium content than that of the Ecuadorian shrimp and could be manipulated more effectively using low sodium treatments.

PAGE 33

33 Sample Collection and Treatment Shrimp samples for the initial phase used approximatel y 1,000 pounds of white shrimp ( Litopen aeus vannamei ) sized as a 41 50 tail count per pound when harvested alive from an established aquaculture farm in Guayaquil, Ecuador. The decision to use farm raised shrimp was based on the ability to attain fresh live product that assured no prior exposur e to chemical treatments. Also farm raised shrimp currently exceeds 50% of the shrimp consumed in the United States. The harvest was transported to the local processing plant to be graded, peeled and deheaded using customary commercial procedures. The pro cess produced headless, peeled (shell removed) shrimp. Time from harvest to peeled product before exposure to various processing treatments was less than 24 hours. A variety of standard processing treatments were selected to influence both moisture and so dium content in the shrimp (Tables 3 1 to 3 4 ). These treatments are in common commercial use to protect moisture levels and yields during processing, frozen storage and eventual preparation. Collectively they are known as moisture retention agents ( MRAs ). The selected MRAs included 15 different commercially available blends. The treatments listed in Table 3 1 only involved exposure to salt brines with different molarities of NaCl Commercial production explains applications in terms of percent ingredients u sed (i.e % w/w percent of ingredients used based on weight of ingredient per weight of the solute, commonly using potable tap water). The salt levels used are possible for traditional shrimp processing and handling operations. The brine concentrations wer e selected in an effort to produce shrimp with a broad range of sodium contents. Table 3 2 presents the common phosphate blends that have been developed specifically for applications with seafood and other meat products. These

PAGE 34

34 blends were sourced through e stablished commercial outlets used by the shrimp industry. All of these commercially available blends contain various phosphate compounds, along with sodium chloride and other ingredients mixed in proprietary formulations to influence moisture retention in muscle protein products. For example, the manufacture r s claim the inclusion of NaCl provides a synergistic effect to increase ionic stability between the water soluble proteins and product moisture, while various buffering agents maintain a more basic (pH >8) transparent solution that favors moisture penetration and absorption. As is consistent with industry use, NaCl is added in addition to the MRA blend to increase efficacy of treatment. The non phosphate or so called phosphate free treatments are listed in Table 3 3 These treatments function as MRAs but they do not contain phosphate agents. These blends contain various compounds such as sodium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, sodium citrate and possibly other options. As in the case of phosphate blends, t he concentration of various compounds in the phosphate free blends vary from product to product and NaCl was added for the noted synergistic role. The final lists are low sodium blends intended for maintaining product moisture and yield but resulting in p roducts that are lower in sodium than many of the aforelisted traditional treatments (Table 3 4 ). Some of the low sodium blends contain phosphates, while others are phosphate free. These blends also introduce use of sodium alternatives like potassium salts Potassium functions as sodium does in the blend and imparts a salty flavor to the final product. In some cases, NaCl was added in small quantities per efficacy of the blend treatment.

PAGE 35

35 The various treatments were applied as static soaks with exposure time s between 60 150 minutes at a ratio of 2:1 (w/w) for treatment solution to shrimp. Shrimp were allowed to soak without agitation in the treatment solutions maintained at 3 5C for the desired exposure time, after which they were drained and weighed. A raw subsample of shrimp exposed to each treatment was bagged and i ndividually quick frozen (IQF) in the processing plant while the rest of the shrimp samples were cooked in a customary steam line produced by Laitram Machinery Shrimp passed through the 80C s team line in 4 minutes and 5 seconds to attain a necessary internal temperature of 72 73 C. The cooked shrimp were cooled in an ice slush to halt heat ing and lower the internal product temperature. Once cool ed the shrimp were frozen ( IQF ) packaged, and s hipped to the University of Florida where they were held in frozen storage ( 10C ) Additional shrimp for the following phases were farm raised Litopenaeus vannamei harvested from farming operations at F isheries located in Port St. Joe, Florida. The se shrimp were processed by customary commercial procedures to yield headless, shell off, raw frozen shrimp. They arrived at the University of Florida as frozen, raw 26 30 tail count per pound shrimp held at in storage, s am ples were thawed following the Association of Analytical Chemists Official (AOAC) method 967.13 for seafood and frozen shrimp involving exposure to a flow of fresh tap water ( 25C ) while held in a wire mesh basket When shrimp were pliable, samples were tr ansferred to a 12 inch No. 8 sieve placed at a 30 slope where they were allowed to drain without disruption for two minutes. As before with the Ecuadorian shrimp, the thawed shrimp were treated with five different commercial moisture retention agents ( MR As ) containing phosphate, sodium, and potassium

PAGE 36

36 chloride among other variables (Tables 3 2 & 3 4 ) These treatments were selected based on the initial phase of testing and on prior experimentation with the select blends, aimed at lowering the sodium conten t of the final product. The various treatments were applied as static soaks with 90 minutes of exposure times between 60 150 minutes at a ratio of 2:1 (w/w) for solution to shrimp. After exposure to the selected treatment s, the shrimp were drained and weig hed. This product was immediately cooked in boiling water to an internal temperature of 145F for 15 seconds based on required retail guidelines (FDA 2013). Shrimp were removed from water and immediately placed into an ice bath for two minutes to halt the cooking process. Shrimp were then placed into Ziploc bags and kept in a refrigerated temperature of 40F for less than 24 hours until service at taste panel. Sample Analysis In all phases of the study, t hawed samples were analyzed for both moisture and sod ium content Additionally, selected samples from latter phases when treatments involved sodium alternatives, were analyzed for potassium content All analysis samples were thawed and deglazed via the AOAC method 967.13 for seafood and frozen shrimp to ass ure uniform product handling Moisture analysis was performed following the AOAC method 950.46 for drying under a vacuum. Shrimp were first homogenized in a Kitchen Aid food processer and two grams of shrimp homogenate were placed into pre weighed aluminu m tins. Samples weights were recorded before and after drying in the oven. The homogenized shrimp samples were placed in the oven at 100C for five hours, in a vacuum state wi th less than 100 mg Hg. At the end of the five hour time span, dried shrimp sampl es were placed in a desiccator to cool, and then final weights were determined and recorded.

PAGE 37

37 The weight loss was attributed to moisture lost which c ould be calculated as percent moisture of the samples. The amount of sodium and potassium was determined by analysis performed following AOAC method 985.01, utilizing the inductively coupled plasma spectroscopic method. Methods were conducted with investigator oversight at the professional laboratory analysis company ABC Research in Gainesville, FL. Sample Sel ection and Preparation Moisture and saltiness perception were the leading attributes that were varied in the study. Moisture and chemical salinity could be manipulated by using the different processing treatments, presented in Tables 3 1 to 3 4 and expos ure times. In all treatments carried out 25 C tap water with pH of 6.0 and 10ppm chloride was used in formulation of treatment solutions. By manipulating these variables shrimp could be produced that spanned a range of the desired moisture and salinity c haracteristics. Based on preliminary analysis and sensory testing by experts, samples were selected from the range of treatments (Tables 3 1 to 3 4 ) for presentation to consumers in various taste panels. The samples were selected in order to assess particu lar attributes relative to product composition. All products were uniform in terms of appearance and condition, but they differed in the content of moisture and sodium. On the day for taste panel sessions the precooked, selected shrimp were thawed and stor ed at approximately 40F until served. In total there were six consumer sensory panels, each assessing a different variable. Panelists varied per setting but all panels represent typical untrained consumers. In all panels consume rs were screened to assure they had previously both eaten and enjoyed shrimp. The shrimp selected for each taste panel were combined to

PAGE 38

38 allow for a span of values of the desired attribute. No more than five samples were presented at each panel in order to avoid panelist exhaustion. The initial phase consisted of four different panels, each examining a specific attribute. These four panels combined shrimp samples as follows: products with a similar moisture content but different sodium levels (SMDNa), products with different moisture content but a similar sodium content (DMSNa), products with similar moisture and sodium content but comparing phosphate versus phosphate free treatments (PvsPF), and products with similar moisture content treated with low sodium MRA treatments (SMLNa). Th e final session of phase one, worked with recommended MRA blends to lower sodium content in the final product (RB). The final sodium content of these shrimp products was outside of an acceptable low sodium range, and would be further reduced in following t rials. The second phase of taste panels consisted of one taste panel that assessed the consumer response to the use of low sodium treatments, as compared to a traditionally preferred shrimp. A traditionally preferred shrimp is one that is treated with a p opular commercial phosphate MRA that includes additional sodium chloride in conjunction with the blend. For this study the MRA used to produce the traditional shrimp was a blend produced by Budenheim called Carnal 659s, in which the proprietary ingredient is Sodium tripolyphosphate. Shrimp presented in this panel contained similar moisture content and lower sodium content (LNa). The last phase assessed the influence of supplemental nutritional information on consumer preferences when presented with low sod ium and traditionally preferred shrimp. This phase consisted of one panel session in which two low sodium shrimp

PAGE 39

39 samples were compared against a traditionally preferred shrimp. Half of the participants were uninformed regarding shrimp sodium content and bl indly tasted the samples, while the other half were informed regarding shrimp sodium content prior to tasting samples. Both uninformed and informed panelists answered identical ballots. This final panel evaluated whether information regarding sodium conten t would alter consumer Consumer Sensory Panel Approximately 100 untrained panelists per session comprised the untrained preference consumer taste panel s Different consum ers participated in each pan el. Each set of unique consumers were pre screened to assure they were shrimp eaters. In total 587 panelists were randomly selected at the University of Florida to participate in the six taste panels Solicitation was based on signs posted outside of the t aste panel setting and email s sent to all faculty and staff to advertise the panel s Panelists were encouraged to walk in and participate with compensation in the form of coupon vouchers. For each taste panel, the panelists signed in and were assigned a p anelist and booth number. Panelists answered a series of demographic questions and upon completion of these questions p anelists received their shrimp samples. All shrimp samples were presented on one tray in random order. Panelists were asked to answer a s eries of questions pertaining to each product. Total samples presented per session were five or less. The number of presentations per panel session was limited in order to avoid panel exhaustion and assure appropriate responses. Panelists were instructed t o rate likeability for shrimp appearance, color, flavor, texture, and salt level plus a final overall impression Ratings were given on a nine (9) point hedonic scale, in which one

PAGE 40

40 cor and nine c Panelists were also asked to rate saltiness, firmness, moist ness and purchase intent on a five (5) a rating of three would correspond This hedonic preference test followed a randomized complete block design in which each random order of samples is presented an equal number of times to panelists. This ensures that there is no bias in presentation order and each sample can be judged appropriately. All results from the hedonic liking questions with the nine point scale were evaluated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed b significant differences at a 0.05% significance level. The questions corresponding to the used will not allow for sound ANOVA results. These r esults are presented as percentage of consume r response and function to give more information about tistical conclusions. Questionnaires used are available in Appendix A and B

PAGE 41

41 Table 3 1 List of basic moisture treatments using salt brines based on sodium chloride alone as the only moisture retention agent. Brine temperature was 3 5C. NaCl Br ine % w/w 2 Exposure Time Shrimp Origin 0.26 M 1 1.5 90min Ecuador 0.53 M 3.0 90min Ecuador 0.81 M 4.5 90min Ecuador 1.29 M 7.0 90min Ecuador 1.69 M 9.0 90min Ecuador 2.33 M 12.0 90min Ecuador 1 M stands for molarity, mol/L; 2 w/w= percent of ingredients used based on weight of ingredient per weight of the solute

PAGE 42

42 Table 3 2 List of shrimp moisture retention treatments ( MRAs ) involving various commercial phosphate blends accompanied with sodium chloride for various exposure times at 3 5C. Treatment Solution Phosphate Blends Phosphate Blend (w/w) 5 NaCl (w/w) 5 Exposure Time Shrimp Origin Carnal 659s 1 2.0% 0.0% 90min Ecuador Carnal 659s 3.0% 0.0% 90min Ecuado r Carnal 659s 3.0% 1.0% 90min Ecuador Carnal 659s 3.0% 2.0% 90min Ecuador Carnal 659s 3.0% 3.0% 90min Ecuador Carnal 659s 3.0% 2.0% 150min Ecuador Carnal 659s 2.0% 2.0% 150min Ecuador Pearl P04 2 2.0% 1.0% 90min Ecuador Pearl P04 2.5% 1.0% 90m in Ecuador Pearl P04 2.5% 1.5% 90min Ecuador Pearl P12 3 2.0% 1.5% 90min Ecuador Carnal 659s 4.0% 1.5% 120min Ecuador Carfosel B940 4 2.0% 2.0% 90min Ecuador Carfosel B940 2.0% 1.5% 90min Ecuador Carnal 659s 3.0% 3.0% 90 min Florida Carnal 659s 1.5% 1.5% 90 min Florida 1 Carnal 659s is a phosphate blend produced by Budenheim Altesa S.L., originating from Germany. The proprietary ingredients are s odium tripolyphosphate, s odium polyphosphate, and sodium diphosphate. 2 Pearl P04 is a phosphate blend produced by Aditya Birla Chemicals, originating from Thailand. The proprietary ingredients are s odium di polyphosphates. 3 Pearl P12 is a phosphate blend produced by Aditya Birla Chemicals, originating from Thailand. The proprietary ingredients are s odium polyphosphates. 4 Carfosel B940 is a phosphate blend produced by Prayon, originating from Belgium. The proprietary ingredients are s odium tripolyphosphates. 5 w/w= percent of ingredients used based on weight of ingredient per weight of the solute

PAGE 43

43 Table 3 3 List of shrimp moisture retention agent s (MRA s ) treatment solutions involving phosphate free blends and sodium chloride for various exposure times. All blends function as moisture retention agents but do not contain phosphates. Treatm ent Solution Phosphate Free Blend Phosphate Free Blend (w/w) 5 NaCl (w/w) 5 Exposure Time Shrimp Origin Pearl N12 1 2 .0 % 1.5% 90min Ecuador Pearl N12 3 .0 % 2.5% 90min Ecuador Pearl N06 2 2 .0 % 1.5% 90min Ecuador Pearl N06 3 .0 % 2.5% 90min Ecuador Altesa P S 3 2 .0 % 3 .0 % 90min Ecuador Altesa ABC 2d 4 2.5% 3 .0 % 90min Ecuador 1 Pearl N12 is a phosphate free blend produced by Aditya Birla Chemicals, originating from Thailand. The proprietary ingredients are s odium carbonates, c itric acid, and s odium citrates. 2 Pe arl N06 is a phosphate free blend produced by Aditya Birla Chemicals, originating from Thailand. The proprietary ingredients are s odium carbonates, c itric acid, and s odium citrates. 3 Altesa PS is a phosphate free blend produced by Budenheim Altesa S.L, ori ginating from Spain. The proprietary ingredients are t risodium citrate, s odium acid carbonate, and s odium carbonate 4 Altesa ABC 2d is a phosphate free blend produced by Budenheim Altesa S.L, originating from Spain. The proprietary ingredients are t risodiu m citrate, s odium a cid c arbonate, and s odium carbonate 5 w/w= percent of ingredients used based on weight of ingredient per weight of the solute

PAGE 44

44 Table 3 4 List of shrimp moisture retention agent s (MRA s ) t reatment solutions involving combin ations of phosphates, carrageenans, potassiu m chloride, and sodium chloride selected to reduce resulting sodium residuals in shrimp Treatment Solution Low Sodium Blend Low Sodium Blend (w/w) 7 NaCl (w/w) 7 Exposure Time Shrimp Origin Carnal 2000LS 1 5.0% 0.0% 90min Ecuador Carnal 2000LS 6.0% 0.0% 90min Ecuador E10 077 2 0.6% 2.0% 90min Ecuador E10 077 0.6% 4.5% 90min Ecuador Benatur CPS10 3 1 .0 % 3 .0 % 90min Ecuador Benatur CPS10 1 .0 % 4.5% 90min Ecuador Altesa 40LS 4 3.5% 0.0% 90min Ecuador Carnal 2000L S 4.5% 0.0% 90 min Florida BK750 5 4 .0 % 1.0% 90 min Florida Myosol 6 7 .0 % 2.0% 90 min Florida 1 Carnal 2000LS is a low sodium blend produced by Budenheim Altesa S.L, originating in Germany. The proprietary ingredients are s odium t ripolyphosphate, s odium d i phosphate, p otassium c hloride, and salt. 2 E10 077 is a carrageenan blend produced by Griffith Laboratories, originating in Costa Rica .The proprietary ingredients are c arrageenan and m altodextrin. 3 Benatur is a low sodium blend produced by Budenheim Altes a S.L, originating in Spain. The proprietary ingredients are m altodextrin and n atural flavorings. 4 Altesa 40LS is a low sodium blend produced by Budenheim Altesa S.L, originating in Spain. The proprietary ingredients are s odium c arbonate, p otassium acid c arbonate, p otassium c hloride, and salt. 5 BK750 is a low sodium blend produced by BK Giulini Corportation. The proprietary ingredients are potassium salts. 6 Myosol is a low sodium blend produced by World Technology Ingredients Inc., originating from the Uni ted States. The proprietary ingredient is t etrapotassium pyrophosphate. 7 w/w= percent of ingredients used based on weight of ingredient per weight of the solute

PAGE 45

45 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Combined demographics from all panel sessions are illustrated in Figure 4 1. Of the total panelists 59% were female while 41% were male. The predominate age range in all panels was 20 29 years old, as 50% of panelists fell into this range. The compositions of the test shrimp as prepared by a variety of selected treatments are ar ranged with designations for the intended sensory assessment ( Table 4 1 ). Across all treatments the moisture content ranged from 76.7 83.5% and the respective sodium content ranged from 253 1190 mg sodium/100 g of edible shrimp. These levels for moisture a nd sodium do occur in commercially available shrimp products currently available across the United States. In a selection of treatments, the potassium content ranged from 24.5 569 mg/100g of edible shrimp, which is a range that is possible for commercially available shrimp. For the initial series of panel sessions with similar moisture and different sodium content (SMDNa), the average moisture content was 80.2% while the sodium content ranged from 276 to 1190 mg/100g ( Table 4 1 ). In contrast, the samples fo r differing moisture content with similar sodium content (DMSNa) presented shrimp with an average sodium content of 493.4 mg/100g while moisture content ranged from 76.6% to 82.5% moisture ( Table 4 1 ). These combinations allowed for individual panel assess ment during the initial panel sessions to focus the influence on one variable, either moisture or sodium levels. The variation in sodium content did not influence the panel preference ratings (on the nine point hedonic scale) for shrimp appearance and the re was no distinct pattern in preference for product color (Table 4 2). This made it clear that the prior use of selected

PAGE 46

46 MRA treatments did not influence consumer preference for shrimp appearance or color. In contrast, the treatments did influence consume r ratings for product flavor, firmness, and saltiness. Panelists rated all of the MRA treated samples higher than the untreated sample s as it was significantly different from all the samples with prior exposure to MRA treatments. This same trend was visib le when referring to the flavor and saltiness. Overall, the untreated shrimp was significantly the least liked. The flavor and saltiness exhibit additional trends for preference between different MRA treated products, in which it appears that flavor and so dium content are related. Shrimp with 490 to 896 mg/100 g of sodium received the highest preferences in both flavor and saltiness categories, while the shrimp with 1190 mg /100 g sodium showed slightly less preference than the other MRA treated products. T he overall liking of each product was also assessed and there again appears to be a trend between the MRA treated products and the untreated product in which the products treated with MRAs exhibit higher preference. The trend between the different MRA trea ted products is also upheld, as the shrimp with 1190 mg/100 g sodium was slightly less preferred than the other MRA treated products. From this panel it appears that shrimp with 276 mg/100g were liked least, followed by shrimp with 1190 mg/100g. The shrimp in the range of 490 896 mg/100g were liked the best. In order to acquire additional information on why consumers preferred certain products more than others, a series of descriptive preference questions were posed to the panelists regarding the level of firmness, moistness, saltiness, and purchase intent. These questions were not statistically analyzed; scale used is not appropriate for such analysis. All figures are presented as the

PAGE 47

47 percentage of consumer response s per each descriptive preference category. Combined descriptive preference ratings favored moistness and firmness of the treated products whereby over 60% of the panelists rated the treated shrimp (Figures 4 2 & 4 3 ). Although the sa me sensory attributes for the untreated product consumers appeared to favor cooked shrimp with an average moisture content of 80.2% and the descriptive preference rat ings for firmness suggest s a preference was influenced by cooked product texture. Likewise the descriptive preference ratings for saltiness indicate preference was influenced by treatments that elevated sodium content (Figure 4 4 ). Of the consumers questio ned, 60% said that the shrimp with 673 mg/100g terms for saltiness was the untreated shrimp, with only 276 mg Na/100g cooked shrimp. clear that when the sodium content is extreme, consumers will not enjoy the product and overall liking can be altered. T he descriptive preference for more firmness and salty flavor also influenced the purchase intent (Figure 4 5 ). Often this can be a difficult question to pose as consumers are not in a typical purchase setting or frame of mind. In this particular panel the re are some trends noticeable. The more preferred shrimp with sodium levels of 673,

PAGE 48

48 purchas e intent. The less preferred shrimp with 276 or 1190 mg sodium/100 g shrimp sodium content is not optimum consumers may have a lower purchase intent. For the second session o f panels with different moisture content (76.7% to 82.7%) and similar sodium content (DMSNa) the variations in moisture resulted in mixed results across all treatments (Table 4 3). Variations in moisture content did not create many significant differences in consumer preferences and there was no clear pattern for preference based on product moisture content. The descriptive preference ratings provide some clarity for the influence of product composition. The treated products with higher moisture content we re favored verses the drier or firmer untreated shrimp (Figures 4 6 & 4 7 ). In contrast to the higher untreated shrimp with the criptive ratings that favored the texture of treated shrimp (Figures 4 2 & 4 3 ). Likewise, the influence of elevated moisture levels appeared to dominate the descriptive flavor preference s for saltiness with all products containing a similar sodium level (Figure 4 8 ). The majority of salty texture (firmness) dominate consumer preferences, but at similar sodium levels the

PAGE 49

49 purchase intent is somewhat similar across shrimp with different levels of moisture (F igure 4 9 ). Although the panelist s described a preference for certain moisture levels in treated shrimp, this preference did not seem to be distinguish purchase intent. In the third panel session, comparing various treatments with phosphates or phosphate free MRAs (PvsPF), shrimp were presented with an average moisture content of 81.3% and average sodium content of 548 mg/100g cooked shrimp (Table 4 1). It was found there were no significant differences in preference ratings for shrimp appearance, fir mness or saltiness (Table 4 4); thus there was no distinct effect of phosphate or phosphate free treatments. There were no differences found in the ove rall preference of the products regardless of MRA treatments. This suggests t hat in using either a phosphate containing or phosphate free treatment the end product could be similar. The descriptive preference ratings affirm these observations (Figures 4 10 to 4 13 exposed to al l MRAs (Figures 4 10 to 4 12 ) with a slight variation in descriptive ratings for saltiness for phosphate treated products (Figure 4 12 ) Approximately half of the consumers categorized the saltiness of shrimp treated with phosphate containing MRAs contrast to this, the consumers rated the saltiness of all shrimp treated with phosphate free MRAs free treatmen ts produced a slightly more desirable saltiness level. All MRA treated shrimp ranked similar for purchase intent reflecting interest to purchase MRA treated shrimp despite formulations with phosphate or phosphate free blends (Figure 4 13 ). Consumers respo thus purchase

PAGE 50

50 intent upholds the trend that both phosphate and phosphate free treatments create products that are equally desirable. The final session of phase one, recommended blends (RB), experimented with the efficacy of low sodium MRA treatment blends. It was found that although these treatment blends were classified as low sodium, the potential to produce a final shrimp product with higher than optimal sodium content existed, as evidence d in the sodium content of products presented to panelists (Table 4 1). The shrimp presented to panelists contained an average moisture content of 81.0% with sodium content ranging from 376 mg/100g to 549 mg/100g (Table 4 1). These blends produced shrimp w ith a higher amount of sodium than expected, and thus may not function as recommended. The RB t reatment s and sodium level did not have any effect on product appearance or color (Table 4 5). Trends did appear between sodium levels in the preference ratings for flavor, firmness, and saltiness. For all of these attributes, the shrimp with 376 mg sodium/100g was significantly the least preferred. Not surprisingly, this product had the lowest sodium content. The shrimp with higher sodium contents were all more preferred. The lowest sodium shrimp was also the shrimp that consumers preferred least overall, while there was no significant differences among the more preferred shrimp with higher levels of sodium This trend is important, as it illustrates the importa nce of sodium content on consumer preference. The descriptive preference questions illustrate that all of the products have 14 & 4 15 ), according to the majority of consumers. This upholds the tr ends reported earlier. The descriptive preference question regarding saltiness revealed the shrimp with higher sodium

PAGE 51

51 with the shrimp with 376 mg sodium/100g shrimp rated and by 40% and 30% of consumers respectively (Figure 4 16) Together, all this data supports that consumers prefer salty products But there are no clear trends in purchase intent, despite expressed preferences for the higher sodium level shrimp ( Figu re 4 17 ) The single ta ste panel session of phase two intended use of low sodium treatments ( LNa ) to effectively lower the sodium content while maintaining consumer preference in select products. The shrimp presented in this session had an average moistur e content of 82.7% with a sodium content ranging from 253 mg/100g shrimp to 631 mg/100 g shrimp to (Table 4 1). There were no significant differences in preference ratings for appearance or color across all the shrimp (Table 4 6). The sodium content and re spective treatments had no apparent effect on either of those attributes, but there were significant differences and trends found in preference ratings for shrimp flavor, firmness, and saltiness. In general the most preferred shrimp were the ones with the higher amount of sodium. The sodium content increased the likability for treated shrimp and the highest favored shrimp was the traditional product with the highest sodium content. The least preferred shrimp in all attributes was the shrimp containing the l owest amount of sodium (Table 4 6 and Figure 4 20 ). It appears that flavor and saltiness preference are correlated, as the higher preference for flavor was associated with a higher preference in saltiness as well. As evidenced in earlier sessions, the des criptive preference ratings for moisture and firmness found and texture (firmness) was acceptable to consumers despite significant variation in

PAGE 52

52 sodium levels (Figures 4 18 & 4 19 ). In con trast, t he descriptive preference ratings for the saltiness of shrimp found that the traditionally preferred shrimp with elevated levels of sodium ng to the majority of consumers, while most lower sodium shrimp were rated as (Figure 4 20 ). Consumer descriptive preference ratings for the reduced sodium shrimp containing 263 mg sodium/100 g was as scored by 43% of consumers (Figure 4 2 0 ). Although this sodium content was much lower th an the traditionally preferred product, the use of potassium salts in place of sodium chloride provided the salty flavor consumers expected. The potassium salts used in these blends include potassium chloride, tertrapotassium phosphate, and potassium acid carbonate Potassium can effectively be included in various forms in the blend to replace sodium and function as an alternative. The descriptive preferences for saltiness help to illustrate that it is feasible to produce an acceptable shrimp product contai ning lower levels of sodium. Despite sensory differences due to sodium content, the purchase intent was unclear in the data and there were no identified patterns or trends The final phase consisted of one taste panel session, focused on the effect of nutr itional information on consumer preference, with 60 uninformed panelists and 60 different informed panelists. Uninformed panelists tasted each shrimp sample blindly while informed panelists received nutritional information regarding the sodium content of s hrimp prior to tasting the product. There were no significant patterns found in the consumer preference of shrimp appearance, color, or texture in either uninformed or informed cases (Tables 4 7 & 4 8 ). This leads to the conclusion that neither sodium cont ent nor nutritional information has an effect on these attributes. In both uninformed

PAGE 53

53 and informed situations a trend existed for flavor preference. When consumers were uniformed about sodium content, the traditional shrimp was the most preferred for flavo r (Table 4 22 ). Conversely when informed consumers received nutritional information regarding sodium content, the preferences changed. Although the traditional shrimp remained most preferred product, consumers began to significantly distinguish flavor rela tive to salt taste as there was now a significant difference between the two low sodium shrimps Their evaluations created more significance between the flavor preferences of the three shrimp (Table 4 23 ). The increase in descriptive preference ratings fo r saltiness liking supports the claim that providing nutritional information regarding products sodium content has to ability to positively alter consumer opinion Comparing descriptive preferences in Figures 4 22 & 4 23 reveals a slight shift in ratings for the lower sodium shrimp when panelists were informed. When a descriptive preference question regarding purchase intent was posed to panelists, there appeared to be a difference in consumer response based on whether or not they received nutritional in formation. The majority of uninformed panelists the traditionally preferred product while 4 24 ). In contrast the purchase both the traditionally preferred shrimp and the shrimp with 263 mg sodium/100g as (Figure 4 25 intent portrays that nutritional willingness to purchase a product.

PAGE 54

54 Uninformed panelists said that they would be willing to pay about $5 per pound for any of the three different shrimp products while the i nformed panelists responded that they would be willing to pay $5 per pound for only the most preferred low sodium shrimp with 263 mg sodium/100g ( Figure 4 26 & 4 27 ). Informed panelists responded that they would only be willing to pay $4 per pound for the traditionally preferred shrimp a nd >$4 per pound for the alternative low sodium shrimp with 259 mg sodium /100 g. The negative shift in price per pound consumers are willing to pay is important to highlight as it portrays the importance consumers place on nutritional information and prod uct worth. Although purchase intent and purchase price are difficult to accurately gage in sensory panels, these results indicate a potential trend that providing sodium content information has the ability to for lower sodium shrimp

PAGE 55

55 Figure 4 1. Illustration of demographic information pertaining to panelist gender and age range for all taste panel sessions.

PAGE 56

56 Table 4 1 Cooked s hrimp composition based on prior exposure to a variety of treat ments selected to influence the moisture, sodium and potassium content. The Test Categories identify shrimp samples prepared by selected treatments for comparison in sensory panels. Exposure time was 90 minutes unless otherwise noted Treatments were kept at refrigera ted temperatures and applied as static solutions (no agitation) Taste Panel Phase Test Category 2 Selected Trea t ments % Moisture (M) Sodium mg/100g (Na) Potassium mg/100g (K) 1 SMDNa Untreated 1 80.5 276 n.a. 3.0% Carnal 659s & 2.0 % NaCl 81.7 49 0 n.a. 3.0% Carnal 659s & 3.0 % NaCl 80.7 673 n.a. 9.0 % NaCl 79.1 896 n.a. 12.0% NaCl 78.8 1190 n.a. 1 DMSNa Untreated 1 76.7 390 n.a 0.6% E10 077 & 4.5% NaCl 78.8 514 n.a. 3.0% NaCl 80.7 506 n.a. 2.0% Carnal 659s 81.5 522 n.a. 4.0% C arnal 659s & 1.5% NaCl 82.7 429 n.a. 1 PvsPF 3.0% Pearl N12 & 2.5% NaCl 81.5 502 n.a. 2.0% Altesa PS & 3.0% NaCl 81.6 508 n.a. 2.5% ABC 2d 3.0% NaCl 81.2 685 n.a. 3.0% Carnal 659s & 2.0% NaCl 3 81.2 543 n.a. 2% Pearl P12 & 1.5% NaCl 81.2 502 n. a. 1 RB 1.5% NaCl 80.6 376 n.a. 5.0% Carnal 2000LS 80.5 549 n.a. 0.6% E10 077 & 2.0% NaCl 81.5 511 n.a. 1.0% Benatur & 3.0% NaCl 81.8 635 n.a. 3.5% Altesa 40LS 80.5 549 n.a. 4.0% BK750 & 1.0% NaCl 5 83.5 253 377 7.0% Myosol & 2.0% NaCl 5 8 2.8 259 569 4.5% Carnal 2000LS 5 82.2 263 387

PAGE 57

57 Table 4 1. Continued Taste Panel Phase Test Category 2 Selected Treatments % Moisture (M) Sodium mg/100g (Na) Potassium mg/100g (K) 2 LNa 3.0% Carnal 659s & 3.0% NaCl 4 83.0 631 26.3 1.5% Carnal 659s & 1 .5% NaCl 82.1 347 24.5 4.5% Carnal 2000LS 5 82.2 263 387 4.0% BK750 & 1.0% NaCl 5 83.5 253 377 7.0% Myosol & 2.0% NaCl 5 82.8 259 569 3 Supplemental Nutritional Information 3.0% Carnal 659s & 3.0% NaCl 4 83.0 631 26.3 4.5% Carnal 2000LS 5 82.2 263 387 7.0% Myosol & 2.0% NaCl 5 82.8 259 569 n.a=not available 1 Untreated involved an untreated shrimp that was cooked to 145F for 30 seconds 2 Test Categories include shrimp treated to provide similar moisture content with different sodium content (SMDN a), shrimp with different moisture levels at similar sodium levels (DMSNa), shrimp treated with phosphate MRAs versus those that are phosphate free at similar moisture and sodium content (PvsPF), shrimp with similar moisture content treated with recommended blends to lower sodium ( RB ), shrimp with similar moisture content and lowered sodium content (LNa), and supplemental nutrition information effect on panelist preference and purchase intent (Supplemental Nutritional Information) 3 Shrimp was exposed to tre atment solution for 150 minutes 4 5 Blend contains the sodium alternative potassium added as potassium chloride and/or a potassium phosphate

PAGE 58

58 Table 4 2. Comparisons for cooked shrimp composition and prefere nce ratings for shrimp exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture content but different sodium content (SMDNa). The composition is the average content (n=3) for each cooked product treatment. The panel ratings are the average ratings (n=97) for o ne panel session during the initial phase of assessments. Significant differences between average ratings are on the nine (9) point hedonic scale, an d thus a higher ranking corresponds to greater preference. Product Composition Average Preference Ratings SMDNa Product Treatment s M 1 Na 2 Appear 3 Color Flavor Firm Salty Overall Untreated 80.5 276 6.19 a 6.35 b 4.86 c 5.61 b 4.52 c 5.15 c 3.0% Carnal 659s & 2 .0% NaCl 81.7 490 6.47 a 6.45 ab 6.23 ab 6.28 a 5.71 ab 6.39 ab 3.0% Carnal 659s & 3 .0 % NaCl 80.7 673 6.53 a 6.54 ab 6.48 ab 6.43 a 6.22 a 6.58 a 9.0% NaCl 79.1 896 6.55 a 6.86 a 6.11 ab 6.55 a 5.41 b 6.26 ab 12 .0 % NaCl 78.8 1190 6.48 a 6.57 ab 5.76 b 6.39 a 5.03 bc 5.85 b 1 M Moisture Content cooked shrimp (%) 2 Na Sodium content (mg/100 g cooked shrimp) 3 Appear appearance

PAGE 59

59 Figure 4 2 exposed to treatments to m aintain a similar moisture content but different sodium content (SMDNa). The sensory ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=97) who responded about moistness level using the five (5)

PAGE 60

60 Figure 4 3 Illustrations exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture content but different sodium content (SMDNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=97) who responded about firmness level u

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4 4 Illustrations for the descriptive preference rati exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moistu re content but different sodium content (SMDNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4 5 shrimp exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture content but different sodium content (SMDNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=97) who responded about purchase intent using the five (5)

PAGE 63

63 Table 4 3. Comparisons for cooked sh rimp composition and preference ratings for shrim p exposed to treatments to create different moisture contents while maintaining similar sodium content (DMSNa). The composition is the average content (n=3) for each cooked product treatment. The panel rati ngs are the average scores (n=93) for one panel session during the initial phase of assessments. Significant differences between average ratings are on the nine (9) point hedonic scale, and thus a higher ranking corresponds to greater preference. 1 M Moisture Content cooked shrimp (%) 2 Na Sodium content (mg/100 g cooked shrimp) 3 Appear appearance 4 Untreated product was cooked in boiling water to an internal temperature of 145 F for 30 seconds, instead of the typical 15 seconds. Product Composition Average Preference Ratings DMSNa Product Treatment s M 1 Na 2 Appear 3 Color Flavor Firm Salty Overall Untreated 4 76.7 390 5.39 c 6.2 b 5.6 8 bc 5.27 c 5.66 b 5.49 cd 0.6% E10 077 & 4.5% NaCl 78.9 514 6.89 a 7.17 a 6.69 a 6.47 a 6.32 a 6.7 a 3 .0 % NaCl 80.7 506 6.47 ab 6.45 b 6.19 ab 5.83 abc 6.04 ab 6.23 ab 2.0 % Carnal 659s 81.5 522 6.28 b 6.17 b 5.16 c 5.46 bc 5.04 c 5.41 d 4 .0 % Carnal 659s & 1.5% NaCl 82.7 535 6.57 ab 6.14 b 5.9 b 5.95 ab 5.84 ab 6.05 bc

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 6 exposed to treatments to create different moisture content while maintaining similar sodium content (DMSN a). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=93) who responded about moistness level using the five (5)

PAGE 65

65 Figure 4 7 exposed to treatments to create different moisture content while maintaining similar sodium content (DMSNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=93) who responded about firmness level using the five (5) point

PAGE 66

66 Figure 4 8 exposed to treatments to create different moisture content while maintaining similar sodium content (DMSNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=93) who respo nded about saltiness level using the five (5)

PAGE 67

67 Figure 4 9 shrimp exposed to treatments to create different moisture content while maintaini ng similar sodium content (DMSNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=93) who responded about purchase intent using the

PAGE 68

68 Table 4 4. Comparisons for cooked shrimp composition and preference ratings for shr imp exposed to treatments that either contain phosphates or phosphate free ingredients to maintain a similar moisture and sodium contents (PvsPF). The composition is the average content (n=3) for each cooked product treatment. Th e panel ratings are the average scores (n=100) for one panel session during the initial phase of assessments. Significant differences between average values are noted by different lowercase letters (p=0.05) b ased on ANOVA and The rating values are based on the nine (9) point hedonic scale, and thus a higher ranking corresponds to greater preference. Product Composition Average Preference Ratings PvsPF Product Treatment s M 1 Na 2 Appear 3 Color Flavor Firm Salty Overall 3.0% Pearl N12 & 2.5% NaCl, PF 4 81 .5 % 502 6 .66 a 6.67 ab 6.41 ab 6.5 0 a 6.13 a 6.54 a 2.0% Altesa and 3 .0 % NaCl, PF 4 81 .6 % 508 6.61 a 6.68 ab 6.52 ab 6.48 a 6.21 a 6.53 a 2.5% Altesa ABC 2d & 2 .0% NaCl, PF 4 81 .2 % 685 6.65 a 6.76 a 6.59 a 6.53 a 6.36 a 6.61 a 3.0% Carnal 659s & 2 .0 % NaCl, P 5 81 .2 % 543 6.36 a 6.36 b 6.1 0 b 6.2 0 a 5.87 a 6.16 a 2.0% Pearl P12 & 1.5% NaCl, P 5 81 .2 % 502 6.68 a 6.63 ab 6.06 b 6.31 a 5.93 a 6.27 a 1 M Moisture Content cooked shrimp (%) 2 Na Sodium content (mg/100 g cooked shrimp) 3 Appear appearance 4 PF = Phosphate Free 5 P = Phosphate Containing

PAGE 69

69 Figure 4 10 exposed to treatments that either contained phosphates or phosphate free ingredients, to maintain a similar moisture and sodium con tent (PvsPF).The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=100) who responded about

PAGE 70

70 Figure 4 11 exp osed to treatments that either contained phosphates or phosphate free ingredients, to maintain a similar moisture and sodium content (PvsPF).The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=100) who responded about moistness level using the five (5) po

PAGE 71

71 Figure 4 12 exposed to treatments that either contained phosphates or phosphate free ingredients, to maintain a similar moisture and sodiu m content (PvsPF).The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=100) who responded about

PAGE 72

72 Figure 4 13 f shrimp exposed to treatments that either contained phosphates or phosphate free ingredients, to maintain a similar moisture and sodium content (PvsPF).The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=100) who responded about moistness level using the

PAGE 73

73 Table 4 5. Comparisons for cooked shrimp composition and preference ratings for shrimp exposed to recommended MRA blends (RB) to reduce sodium content and maint ain a similar moisture content The composition is the a verage content (n=3) for each cooked product treatment. The panel ratings are the average scores (n=83) for one panel session during the initial phase of assessments. Significant differences between average values are noted by different lowercase letters ( t. The rating values are based on the nine (9) point hedonic scale, and thus a higher ranking corresponds to greater preference. Product Composition Average Panel Ratings SMLNaT Product Treatment s M 1 Na 2 Appear 3 Col or Flavor Fi r m Salty Overall 5.0% Carnal 2000 LS 80.5% 475 6.41 a 6 .49 a 6.16 a 6.45 a 6 .05 ab 6.2 3 a 3.5% Altesa 40LS 80.5% 549 6.42 a 6.58 a 6.37 a 6.36 ab 6 .13 a 6.4 0 a 0.6% E10 077 & 2 .0 % NaCl 81.5% 511 6.54 a 6.77 a 5.9 3 a 6.4 0 a 5 .45 b 6.06 a 1. 0% Benatur CPS10 & 3 .0% NaCl 81.8% 635 6.46 a 6.46 a 5.9 4 a 6 .02 ab 5.57 ab 6.05 a 1.5% NaCl 80.6% 376 6.48 a 6.48 a 5.2 3 b 5.8 3 b 4.77 c 5.3 0 b 1 M Moisture Content cooked shrimp (%) 2 Na Sodium content (mg/100 g cooked shrimp) 3 Appear appearance

PAGE 74

74 Fi gure 4 14 exposed to recommended MRA blends (RB) to reduce sodium content and maint ain a similar moisture content The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=83) wh o r esponded about moistness level using the five (5)

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4 15 exposed to recommended MRA blends (RB) to reduce content and maintain a s imilar moisture content The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=83) who r esponded about moistness level

PAGE 76

76 Figure 4 16 for shrimp exposed to recommended MRA blends (RB) to reduce sodium content and maintain a similar moisture content The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=83) who responded about moistness level using the five (5) cale.

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4 17 for shrimp exposed to recommended MRA blends (RB) to reduce sodium content and maintain a similar moisture content The ratings depicted are the perc ent of consumers (n=83) who responded about moistness level using the

PAGE 78

78 Table 4 6. Comparisons for cooked shrimp composition and preference ratings for shrimp exposed to low sodium treatments (LNa) to maintain a si milar moisture content while lowering sodium content The composition is the average content (n=3) for each cooked product treatment. The panel ratings are the average scores (n=94) for one panel session during the second phase of assessments. Significant differences between average values based on the nine (9) point hedonic scale, and thus a higher ranking corresponds to greater preference. Product C omposition Average Preference Ratings Low Sodium (LNa) Product Treatment s M 1 Na 2 K 3 Appear 4 Color Flavor Firm Salty Overall 3.0% Carnal 659s & 3.0% NaCl 5 83 .0 631 26.3 6.12 a 6.16 a 6.29 a 5.96 ab 5.9 a 6.29 a 1.5% Carnal 659s & 1.5% NaCl 82.1 347 24.5 6 .12 a 6.35 a 5.68 bc 6.01 a 5.15 bc 5.78 abc 4.5% Carnal 2000LS (K) 6 82.2 263 387 6.11 a 6.35 a 5.86 ab 5.78 ab 5.34 b 5.97 ab 4.0% BK750 & 1.0% NaCl (K) 6 83.5 253 377 6.43 a 6.59 a 5.09 d 5.54 ab 4.61 c 5.33 c 7.0% Myosol & 2.0% NaCl (K) 6 82.8 259 569 5.99 a 6.09 a 5.22 cd 5.45 b 4.87 bc 5.48 bc 1 M Moisture Content cooked shrimp (%) 2 Na Sodium content (mg/100 g cooked shrimp) 3 K Potassium content (mg/100 g cooked shrimp) 4 Appear appearance 5 6 K Blend co ntains the sodium alternative potassium (K) added as potassium chloride and/or a potassium phosphate

PAGE 79

79 Figure 4 18 exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture conten t while l owering sodium content (LNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=94) who responded about moistness level using the

PAGE 80

80 Figure 4 19 Illustrations for the descriptive preference ratings fo exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture content while lowering sodium content (LNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers scale.

PAGE 81

81 Figure 4 20 exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture content while lowering sodium content (LNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=

PAGE 82

82 Figure 4 21 shrimp exposed to treatments to maintain a similar moisture conten t while lowering sodium content (LNa). The ratings depicted are the percent of consumers (n=94) who responded about purchase intent using the five (5)

PAGE 83

83 Table 4 7. Uninformed comparisons for cooked shrimp composition and pre ference ratings in response to the effect of supplemental nutritional information on consumer preferences. The composition is the average content (n=3) for each cooked product treatment. The panel ratings are the average scores (n=60) for one panel session during the final phase of assessments in which uninformed consumers were not given nutritional information. Significant differences between average values are noted by different lowercase letters (p=0.05) based on are based on the nine (9) point hedonic scale, and thus a higher ranking corresponds to greater preference. UNINFORMED Product Composition Average Product Ratings Product Treatment s M 1 Na 2 Appear 3 Color Flavor Texture Overall 3.0% Carnal 659s & 3.0% NaCl 4 83 631 6.47 a 6.47 a 6.67 a 6.57 a 6.55 a 7.0% Myosol & 2.0% NaCl 83 259 6. 50 a 6.77 a 5.38 b 6.2 0 a 5. 4 5 b 4.5% Carnal 2000LS 82 263 6.45 a 6.43 a 5.83 b 6.3 3 a 5.88 b 1 M Moisture Content cooked shrimp (%) 2 Na Sodium content (mg/100 g cooked sh rimp) 3 Appear appearance 4

PAGE 84

84 Table 4 8 Informed comparisons for cooked shrimp composition and preference ratings in response to the effect of supplemental nutritional infor mation on consumer preferen ces. The composition is the average content (n=3) for each cooked product treatment. The panel ratings are the average scores (n=60) for one panel session during the final phase of assessments in which uninformed consumers were not given nutrition informat ion. Significant differences between average values are noted by different lowercase letters (p=0.05) based on ANOVA and corresponds to greater prefere nce. INFORMED Product Composition Average Panel Ratings Product Treatment s M 1 Na 2 Appear 3 Color Flavor Texture Overall 3.0% Carnal 659s & 3.0% NaCl 4 83 631 6.2 2 a 6.2 2 a 6.6 3 a 6.57 a 6.57 a 7.0% Myosol & 2.0% NaCl 83 259 6.45 a 6.5 2 a 5.15 c 5.7 0 b 5. 35 b 4.5% Carnal 2000LS 82 263 6.15 a 6.4 3 a 5.97 b 6.25 a 6.15 a 1 M Moisture Content cooked shrimp (%) 2 Na Sodium content (mg/100 g cooked shrimp) 3 Appear appearance 4

PAGE 85

85 Figure 4 22 Illustrations for the uninformed descriptive prefer in response to the effect of supplemental nutr itional information on consumer preferences (Suppleme ntal Nutritional Information). T he panel assessed the effect of nutritional information on con sumer preferences (Supplemental Nutritional Information). The ratings depicted are the percent of uninformed consumers (n=60) who responded about saltiness level using the five (5)

PAGE 86

86 Figure 4 23 Illustrations for the inf response to the effect of supplemental nutritional information on consumer preferences (Supplemental Nutritional Information). The panel assessed the effect of nutritional information on consumer pref erences (Supplemental Nutritional Information). The ratings depicted are the percent of uninformed consumers (n=60) who responded about saltiness level using the five (5)

PAGE 87

87 Figure 4 24 Illustrations for the uninformed descriptive pre consumer preferences (Supplemental Nutritional Information). The panel assessed the effect of nutritional information on consumer pre ferences (Supplemental Nutritional Information). The ratings depicted are the percent of uninformed consumers (n=60) who responded about saltiness level using

PAGE 88

88 Figure 4 25 Illustrations for the informed consumer preferences (Supplemental Nutritional Information). The panel assessed the effect of nutritional information on consumer pref erences (Supplemental Nutritional Information). The ratings depicted are the percent of uninformed consumers (n=60) who responded about saltiness level using

PAGE 89

89 Figure 4 26 Illustrations for the uninformed d escriptive pre itional information on consumer preferences (Supplemental Nutritional Information). T he panel assessed the effect of nutritional information on consumer prefer ences (Supplem ental Nutritional Information). The ratings depicted are the percent of uninformed consumers (n=60) who responded about saltiness level using

PAGE 90

90 Figure 4 27 Illustrations for the informed descr consumer preferences (Supplemental Nutritional Information). The panel assessed the effect of nutritional information on consumer preference s (Supplemental Nutritional Information). The ratings depicted are the percent of uninformed consumers (n=60) who responded about saltiness level using

PAGE 91

91 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The objective of this study was to monitor the sodium profile of shrimp as it was changed from animal to food with expectations to introduce processing options to reduce the sodium levels in final products. The primary goal was the production of more healthful selections t hat maintain consumer preference and liking Throughout the first phase of testing it was discovered that not only do consumers prefer a shrimp product treated with moisture retention agents ( MRAs ), but that they also exhibit a strong preference for salty flavor as consumers most preferred shrimp products with 500 mg sodium/100g shrimp or more In all cases, the products treated with MRAs were more preferred by consumers than the untreated products. Consumers most ideally preferred a cooked shrimp with moi sture content ranging from 79% to 81% with a sodium content ranging from 490 to 896 mg sodium/100g. From the results, it appears that flavor, along with texture, are the main drivers of consumer acceptance of a product. While texture preference is driven m ainly by moisture content, the flavor preference can be driven by various factors and attributes Throughou t this study, the predominant driver of flavor preference was saltiness. Consumers exhibited a preference for shrimp with higher sodium content, and thus shrimp with greater salty flavor. In most cases, the consumer preference ratings for saltiness and flavor were correlated, producing results that portray a higher preference for flavor when there was a high preference for saltiness. Although consumer s preferred a higher sodium level, they did exhibit a limit in acceptance of saltiness When the product decreased, indicating that saltiness can become an overpowering attribute.

PAGE 92

92 The first phase of consumer ratings additionally discovered that although there is a traditional industry use of phosphate containing MRA treatments, the use of containing ph the consumer preference for all products was similar. These results could influence both commercial and regulatory choices and allowances for applications of MRAs The final conclusion from the first phase focused on the efficacy of recommended MRA blends to reduce sodium content. Although these blends are specifically promoted to produce shrimp with lower sodium content, they can yield final shrimp products that are higher in sodium th an intended. The results indicate that some so 635 mg/100g. These sodium levels are comparable to the levels found in shrimp treated with typical MRAs Although these low sodium blends may contain reduced amounts of sodium, the usage of sodium chloride in conjunction with the blend, for synergistic effect can result in elevated levels of sodium in treated shrimp. The natural sodium level of the shrimp can also affect thes e values, as an untreated shrimp with higher sodium content will result in a final treated product with higher sodium content. The second phase of sensory panels did lower sodium content using specified low sodium MRA treatments to reduce shrimp sodium co ntent Adjustments in blend concentrations and additional NaCl used were made to prov ide applications with reduce d sodium content in the final product. Our results suggest that commercial practice needs to be aware of application adjustments necessary to ensure the production of a shrimp with lower sodium content. Commercial practice cannot solely

PAGE 93

93 n for usage or on previous data; sodium content must be monitored in the final product. Relative to the respective MRA treat ments, it could be concluded that it is possible to lower the sodium content in shrimp while uphold ing consumer acceptance of the product was the most preferred product. Although greatest preference was shown towards the higher sodium content of 631 mg/100g, consumers exhibited a similar preference for select shrimp products treated to lower sodium content. One of these shrimp was treated us ing the same MRA as the traditionally preferred product, but the concentration of both MRA and NaCl in the treatment solution was halved, to produce a shrimp with 347 mg sodium/100g shrimp. This treatment reduced the sodium content by 50%, without diminish ing consumer preference. The other low sodium shrimp which upheld consumer preference was treated using a low sodium MRA blend that contained potassium chloride as a sodium chloride replacement. Potassium chloride mimics both the functionality and flavor of NaCl, and thus is one of the most commonly used sodium alternatives in MRAs The potassium allows for the blend to contain less sodium, and thus i mpart s less sodium into the final product. The replacement of a portion of the sodium in the blend with pot assium allows for a product to be created that imparts the salty flavor preferred by consumers without increasing actual sodium content in the product. This shrimp, with this reduced sodium shrimp, according to sensory preference ratings. When descriptive

PAGE 94

94 preference questions were posed a portion of consumers even rated the saltiness lev el shrimp products, sodium content can be reduced without decreasing consumer acceptance. The last phase examined the influence of nutritional information on consume r preference and purchase intent. This data showed that consumer preferences have the potential to be altered when they r eceive nutritional information regarding the sodium content of the shrimp prior to consuming the shrimp When information was provided the consumer preference of one of the low er sodium products increased. It appeared that consumers were consciously looking for and scrutinizing certain attributes in the shrimp products upon gaining the knowledge that certain shrimp were lower in sodium co ntent. Uninformed consumers preferred the lower sodium shrimp less than the informed consumers, and it is apparent that consumers might be willing to sacrifice some preference in order to obtain a healthier product, when informed. If these expectations wer e met, consumers could place a greater worth on the preferred low sodium product. It appears that c onsumers both accept and may desire products that are more healthful. Overall conclusions from this work illustrate that consumers do prefer products with h igher sodium levels, and that salty flavor is a major driver of product acceptance. Through appropriate treatments with low sodium MRAs the sodium content can be decreased in shrimp products, producing a shrimp with significantly lower sodium content but u nchanged consumer preference. With the introduction of nutritional sodium content, consumers may exhibit a further increase in shrimp acceptance. Not only will

PAGE 95

95 education be beneficial to consumers overal l health and well being but it has the potential to i ncrease the market for reduced sodium seafood products.

PAGE 96

96 APPENDIX A PHASE ONE AND TWO TASTE PANEL QUESTIONNAIRE Question # 1. Please indicate your gender. Male Female Question # 2. Which of the following ranges includes your age ? Under 20 20 29 30 39 40 49 50 64 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. 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 # 5. How do you typically consume shrimp? Breaded (fried) Unbreaded (boiled steamed, or grilled) In a recipe (such as scampi or stir fry) Question # 6 Please look at the shrimp sample but do not taste yet. Answer the foll owing questions about APPEARANCE. How much do you like the overall appearance dislike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 97

97 How much do you like the color dislike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Questio n # 7 Please indicate how much you like shrimp sample OVERALL Overall Liking dislike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 8 Please indicate how much you like the FLAVOR of the shrimp sample dislike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much li ke extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 9 Please rate the following for the shrimp sample Saltiness liking dislike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderatel y like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Saltiness level not at all salty enough not quite salty enough just about right somewhat too salty much too salty 1 2 3 4 5 Question # 10 Please rate the TEXTURE of the shrimp sam ple Firmness liking dislike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Firmness level not at all firm en ough not quite firm enough just about right somewhat too firm much too firm 1 2 3 4 5 Question # 11

PAGE 98

98 Would you say the MOISTNESS of the shrimp sample is...? not at all moist enough not quite moist enough just about right somewhat too mo ist much too moist 1 2 3 4 5 Question # 12 Now that you have tried this brand, how likely would you be to buy it at the grocery store to make your favorite shrimp recipe? Definitely Would Not Probably Would Not Might or Might Not Prob ably Would Definitely Would [ REPEAT QUESTIONS #6 12 FOR SUBSEQUENT SAMPLES ]

PAGE 99

99 APPENDIX B PHASE THREE QUESTIONNAIRE Question # 1. Please indicate your gender. Male Female Question # 2. Which of the following ranges includes your age ? Unde r 20 20 29 30 39 40 49 50 64 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 How o ften 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 # 5. How do you typically consume shrimp? Breaded (fried) Unbreaded (boiled steamed, or grilled) In a recipe (such as scampi or stir fry) Question # 6 Please look at the shrimp sample but do not taste yet. Answer the following questions about APPEARANCE. How much do you like the overall a ppearance ? disl ike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

PAGE 100

100 How much do you like the c olor ? dislike extremeley dislike v ery much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 7 Please indicate how much you like the shrimp sample OVERALL Overall Liking dislike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 8 Please indicate how much you like the FLAVOR of the shrimp sample Flavor Liking dislike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Question # 9 Please rate the TEXTURE of the shrimp sample Texture liking dislike extremeley dislike very much dislike moderately dislike slightly neither like not dislike like slightly like moderately like very much like extremely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Que stion # 1 0 Please rate the following for the shrimp sample Saltiness level Not At All Salty Enough Not Quite Salty Enough Just About Right Somewhat Too Salty Much Too Salty 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 101

101 Question # 11 Now that you have tried this bran d, how likely would you be to buy it at the grocery store to make your favorite shrimp recipe? Definitely Would Not Probably Would Not Might or Might Not Probably Would Definitely Would Question # 12. How much would you be willing to pay per pound for this frozen shrimp, peeled and deveined? These shrimp can be cooked in any fashion or added to your favorite recipe. o <$4.00 o $ 4.00 o $ 4.50 o $5.00 o $ 5.50 o $ 6.00 o $6.50 o $7.00 o $7.50 o $8.00 [ REPEAT QUESTIONS # 6 1 2 FOR SAMPLES 2 3 ]

PAGE 102

102 LIST OF REFEREN CES Alderman MH, Cohen H Madhavan S. 1998. Dietary sodium intake and mortality: the national health and nutrition examination survey (NHANES I). Lancet 351(9105):781 785. Appel L.J., Angell, S.Y., Cobb, L.K., Limper, H.M., Nelson, D.E., Samet, J.M. Brown son, R.C. 2012. Population wide sodium reduction: the bum p y road from evidence to policy. Ann Epidemiol 22:417 425. Doi:10.1016/j.annepidem.2012.04.003 Association NO A A. 2008. Seafood Consumption declines slightly in 2007. NOAA Governmental Website: http: //www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080717_seafood.html. Accessed 2011 September 11. Bhobe AM Pai JS. 1986. S tudy of the p roperties of f rozen s hrimps J of Food Sci and Tech Mysore 23(3):143 148. Bibbins Domingo K, Chertow GM, Coxson PG, Mor an A, Light wood JM, Pletcher MJ, Goldman L. 2010. Projected e ffect of d ietary s alt r eductions on f uture c ardiovascular di sease. New Eng J of Med 362(7):590 599. CDC. Vital signs: prevalence, treatment, and control of hypertension United States, 1999 2002 and 2005 200 8. 2011. MMWR 60(4):103 8. Chantarasuwan C, Benjakul S ., Visessanguan W. 2011. Effects of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate o n yield and characteristics of p acific white shrimp ( Litopenaeus vannamei ). Food Sci and Tech Int 17(4):403 414. Cordain, L. Eaton, S.B., Sebastian, A., Mann, N., Lindeberg, S., Watkins, B.A., Miller, J. 2005. Origins and evolution of the western diet: health implications for the 21 st century. Am J Clin Nutr 81: 341 354. Garrido, L., Otwell, S. 2008. Salt, sodium, in shrimp. Global aquaculture advocate. Goncalves AA Ribeiro JLD. 2008. Optimization of the freezing process of red shrimp ( Pleoticus muelleri ) previously treated with phosphates. Int J Refrid 31(7):1134 1144. Goncalves AA Ribeiro JLD. 2009. Ef fects of phosphate treatment on quality of red shrimp (Pleoticus muelleri) processed with cryomechanical freezing. Food Sci and Tech 42(8):1435 1438. Henderson, N.R., Kaiser, A., Montville, T.J. 1990. Use of bicarbonate dip to improve water biding capacity in fresh shrimp. Tropical and Subtropical Fisheries Technologi cal Conference of the Americas: 163 168.

PAGE 103

103 Institute of Medicine. 2005. Dietary reference for intakes of water, potassium, sodium, chloride, and sulfate. Washington DC: The National Academic Press Institute of Medicine. 2010. Strategies to reduce sodium intake in the United States. Report of an IOM committee on strategies to reduce sodium intake meeting; Washington D.C, United States, 2010. Kahkonen, P., Tuorila, H. 1999. Consumer responses to re duced and regular fat content in different products: effect of gender, involvement, and health concern. Food Qual and Pref 10:83 91 Kaufmann A, Maden K, Leisser W, Matera M Gude T. 2005. Analysis of polyphosphates in fish and shrimps tissues by two differ ent ion chromatography methods:i Implications on false negative and po sitive findings. Food Add and Cont 22(11):1073 1082. Li N, Prescott J, Wu Y, Barzi F, Yu X, Zhao L, Neal B. 2009. The effects of a reduced sodium, high potassium salt substitute on food taste and acceptability in rural northern China. Bri t J of Nutr 101(7):1088 1093. Laurila, E., Lahteenmaki, L., Rita, H., and Tuorila, H. 1996. Pleasantness in relation to difference thresehold of NaCl in mashed potatoes. Food Qual and Pref 7: 225 228 Lopk ulkiaert W, Prapatsornwattana K Rungsardthong V. 2009. Effects of sodium bicarbonate containing traces of citric acid in combination with sodium chloride on yield and some properties of white shrimp ( Penaeus vannamei ) frozen by shelf freezing, air blast a nd cryogenic freezing. Food Sci and Tech 42(3):768 776. Mason Jenkins G. 1991. Consumer c oncerns a bout s eafood. J of Food Distr Res : 57 66. Morris, M.J., Na, E.S., Johnson, A.K. 2008. Salt cravings: the psychobiology of pathog enic sodium intake. Phys and b ehav 94: 709 721. National Fisheries Institute. 2010. Sodium in seafood status report. Niamnuy C, Devahastin S Soponronnarit S. 2007b. Quality changes of shrimp during boiling in salt solution. J Food Sci 72(5):S289 S297. Pennington JAT, Schoen SA, Sa lmon GD, Young B, Johnson RD, Marts RW. 1995. Composition of core foods of the U.S. food supply, 1982 1991: I. s odium, phosphorus, and potassium. J Food Comp and Anal y 8(2):91 128. Sacks FM, Svetkey LP, Vollmer WM, Appel LJ, Bray GA, Harsha D, Obarzanek E Conlin PR, Miller ER, Simons Morton DG, Karanja N, Lin PH. 2001. Effects on

PAGE 104

104 blood pressure of reduced dietary sodium and the dietary approaches to stop hypertension (DASH) diet. New Eng J Med 344(1):3 10. Sodi Pallares D, Fishleder BL, Cisneros F, Vizcai no M, Bisteni A, Medrano GA, Polansky BJ De Micheli A. 1960. A low sodium, high water, high potassium regimen in the successful management of some cardiovascular diseases. Preliminary clinical report. Canadian Med Assoc J 83:243 257. Tenhet V, Finne G, II Rn Toloday D. 1981. Phosphorous l evels in p eeled and d eveined s hrimp t reated with s odium t ripolyphosphate. J Food Sci : 350 356. Tenhet V, Finne G, Nickelson R Toloday D. 1981. Penetration of sodium tripolyphosphate into fresh and pre froze n peeled and d eveined shrimp. J Food Sci 46(2):344 349. Tsironi T, Dermesonlouoglou E, Giannakourou M Taoukis P. 2009. Shelf life modeling of frozen shrimp at variable temperature conditions. Food Sci and Tech 42(2):664 671. Tuorila H. 2000. Pressure to change and res istance against it: consumer perceptions and acceptance of nut ritionally modified foods. Agri and Food Sci in Finland 9(2):165 176. Unal SB, Erdogdu F Ekiz HI. 2006. Effect of temperature on phosphate diffusion in meats. J Food Eng in 76(2):119 127.

PAGE 105

105 BI OGRAPHICAL SKETCH Molly Sims was born in Gainesville, FL and graduated from F.W. Buchholz High in food science and human nutrition from the University of Florida in 2013.