Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2026 Jul 28;91(7):e71323. doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.71323

Enhancing the Quality of Fish Maw Chicken Soup Through Direct Steam Injection: A Comparative Study of Processing Conditions and Product Characteristics

Junli Dong 1,2, Peng Deng 1,2, Haonan Zhu 1,2, Ebeydulla Rahman 1,2,3, Zhaojun Wang 1,2, Zhiyong He 1,2, Qiuming Chen 1,2, Jie Chen 1,2, Maomao Zeng 1,2,✉
PMCID: PMC13413618  PMID: 42521408

ABSTRACT

The multiphase and highly viscous nature of fish maw chicken soup (FMCS) results in nonuniform heat and mass transfer, thereby compromising product quality. This study investigated the effects of direct steam injection (DSI) under temperatures of 100°C–130°C for 5–30 min on the sensory, compositional, flavor, microstructural, and stability properties of FMCS. Compared to conventional retorting, optimal DSI conditions (110°C–120°C for 10–15 min) maintained product quality effectively, retaining over 90% sensory acceptability, 98% solids, 96% protein, and 94% fat, with minimal color deviation. These results closely matched fresh‐simulated control. Flavor profiles under these conditions preserved desirable oily, roasted, and meaty attributes. However, processing above 120°C or beyond 20 min induced Maillard browning, protein denaturation, and emulsion breakdown, leading to increased bitterness, sedimentation, and overall quality deterioration. Overall, DSI at 110°C–120°C for 10–15 min was identified as the optimal processing condition, significantly preserving comprehensive product quality. This study demonstrates that DSI is a promising alternative to conventional retort processing for industrial‐scale production of high‐quality FMCS.

Practical Applications

The findings offered valuable contributions to the field of prepared dish manufacturing, particularly in the context of advanced processing strategies that influence product stability, sensory quality, and nutritional integrity.

Keywords: direct steam injection, fish maw chicken soup, flavor profiles, nutritional composition, prepared dishes, sensory properties

1. Introduction

Prepared dishes, integral to modern fast‐paced lifestyles due to their convenience, have experienced rapid growth driven by socioeconomic forces, including accelerated urbanization, evolving family structures, and pandemic‐driven consumption shifts (Gao et al. 2025). The global convenience food market reached $542.01 billion in 2024 and is projected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.13% from 2025 to 2033, reaching $925.87 billion by 2033 (Statista 2024). China, as the world's largest market for prepared dishes, generated $154 billion in revenue in 2024, with over 70,000 enterprises operating in the sector (FMI 2023; Wang et al. 2024). However, China's market penetration rate remains at only 10%–15%, significantly lower than that of the United States and Japan (both > 60%), indicating substantial untapped potential. The market size in China is projected to exceed 1 trillion RMB by 2026 (H. Lin et al. 2025; Yu et al. 2022). A critical paradox emerges as industry expansion coexists with persistent quality defects, particularly an insufficient supply of high‐quality products (Jia et al. 2024; Q. Liang et al. 2025). Recent studies highlight that while the demand for prepared dishes continues to rise, challenges such as uneven heat and mass transfer, nutrient loss, and sensory deterioration remain unresolved, compromising product quality and consumer satisfaction (Q. Liang et al. 2025; Jia et al. 2024). These issues are further exacerbated by outdated technology, a lack of standardized protocols, and substantial safety hazards, which pose significant barriers to the wholesome advancement of the prepared dish industry (Jia et al. 2024).

Current prepared dishes typically follow a sequence of cooking, freezing, transportation, and consumer reheating (Y. Xu et al. 2025). Reheating is widely recognized as a critical step that induces significant deterioration in both nutritional value and flavor, often resulting in reduced sensory appeal, lipid oxidation, overcooked taste, and inconsistent quality (Chen et al. 2024; Kim et al. 2016). Unlike homogeneous foods, the industrial‐scale production of prepared dishes faces inherent heterogeneity challenges. As multicomponent composite systems comprising diverse ingredients and seasonings, these dishes exhibit pronounced susceptibility to spatial segregation during processing—particularly during mixing and thermal treatment stages (Jia et al. 2024). This phase separation phenomenon compromises visual homogeneity and induces flavor concentration gradients, ultimately diminishing sensory consistency and consumer acceptance (Gao et al. 2025). Low process fidelity, especially for complex regionally distinctive dishes, poses a critical barrier. Their multiphase high‐viscosity systems are prone to #x0201C;inconsistent doneness across batches#x0201D; due to uneven heat transfer, directly constraining product quality and production efficiency.

Fish maw chicken soup (FMCS), a traditional Cantonese dish renowned for its collagen‐rich fish maw and high‐quality chicken protein, is celebrated for its health benefits, including enhanced tissue repair and antioxidant capacity (Meng et al. 2022; Wu et al. 2025). Its cultural significance and nutraceutical value have elevated its prominence in both domestic and commercial settings. However, as a multiphase, high‐viscosity system, FMCS presents significant challenges for conventional heating methods. The high viscosity and poor fluidity of the soup impede uniform heat transfer, leading to differential heating rates (external > internal) due to inadequate steam penetration (Cao et al. 2025). This results in energy inefficiency, as excessive steam parameters fail to ensure effective steam‐material contact, and causes fluctuations in dish quality—particularly in texture, color, and nutrient retention—when thermal control is imprecise or overly aggressive (Akhtar et al. 2025). Consequently, developing efficient mass‐heat transfer methods to achieve both thermal efficiency and sensory‐nutritional synchronization is critical for ensuring the commercial viability of FMCS.

Direct steam injection (DSI) technology, an emerging heat and mass transfer method, involves the direct injection of steam into food materials, significantly enhancing heat transfer efficiency (Dong et al. 2024; Kilic 2022). When coupled with material agitation, DSI facilitates simultaneous conductive and convective heat transfer, thereby optimizing heating uniformity and minimizing temperature gradients (De Bonis and Ruocco 2010). This approach effectively reduces the risks of under‐ or overheating, preserves volatile flavor components and heat‐sensitive nutrients, and holds significant promise for multiphase, high‐viscosity food systems (Yuan et al. 2025). Previous studies have mainly focused on dairy products (Mi et al. 2023), beverages (Liu et al. 2025), and simple food systems (Voudouris et al. 2025). However, the application of DSI to complex multiphase soup systems such as FMCS remains largely unexplored, providing both scientific and industrial significance.

This study aims to investigate the effects of DSI processing at temperatures ranging from 100°C to 130°C and durations of 5–30 min on the sensory properties (color, flavor, texture, taste, acceptability), nutritional composition (protein, lipid, free amino acids), flavor profiles, and stability of FMCS. By constructing quantitative correlations among DSI parameters, material component structure, and product quality, this study addresses the pervasive industry bottleneck of #x0201C;inconsistent cooking and flavor within batches#x0201D;—a challenge rooted in nonuniform heat‐mass transfer. The findings are expected to advance efficient heat‐mass transfer and quality‐preservation technologies for multiphase, high‐viscosity food systems, providing a theoretical foundation for optimizing processing strategies in the prepared dishes industry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Fish maw, chicken, Coix lacryma‐jobi L., abalone, Lentinula edodes, and Pleurotus eryngii were purchased from a local supermarket (Wuxi, China). All fresh raw materials were stored at 4°C immediately after purchase and processed within 24 h to ensure freshness and minimize quality variation. Trichloroacetic acid (TCA), sodium nitrate, sulfuric acid, sulfate pentahydrate, potassium sulfate, sodium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, and petroleum ether were purchased from Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China).

2.2. Sample Treatment

Fish maw (200 g) and C. lacryma‐jobi L. (500 g) were soaked in cold water for 12 h for rehydration. The rehydrated ingredients were then combined with chicken (2000 g), abalone (50 g), drinking water (5000 g), and seasonings, and stewed for 15 min. L. edodes and P. eryngii were added during the final cooking stage. Each 560 g portion of FMCS was evenly distributed into 900 mL lidded aluminum foil containers. The samples were subjected to various treatment conditions, including two simulated controls and a DSI‐processed group (Table 1). The commercial‐simulated sample (SCK‐1) underwent retort sterilization (RS) using a ZY‐100S back‐pressure high‐temperature cooking pot (Zhengjiang Xinfeng Medical Apparatus Co., Ltd., Shaoxing, China) at 121°C for 20 min, whereas the fresh‐simulated sample (SCK‐2) served as an unheated control (0°C, 0 min). For DSI processing, samples were treated using a fully automatic electric steam generator (Yano Boiler, Shanghai, China) and divided into two subgroups. The first subgroup maintained a fixed duration of 10 min, while the temperature varied at 100°C, 110°C, 120°C, and 130°C, corresponding to samples S10‐100, S10‐110, S10‐120, and S10‐130, respectively. The second subgroup was processed at a constant temperature of 120°C, while the processing time varied from 5 to 30 min at 5‐min intervals, generating samples S120‐5, S120‐10, S120‐15, S120‐20, S120‐25, and S120‐30 (where S10‐120 was equivalent to S120‐10). The selected temperature range and processing time were determined based on preliminary experiments and industrial practice in central kitchen processing of prepared dishes. All samples were rapidly frozen and stored at −18°C. Before quality assessment, samples were thawed and reheated. Specifically, due to the multiphase nature of FMCS, all samples were homogenized using a T18 Basic ULTRA‐TURRAX high‐speed homogenizer at 9500 rpm for 1 min prior to analysis.

TABLE 1.

The name of prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions.

Sample Temperature (°C) Time (min)
Commercial‐simulated SCK‐1 121 20
Fresh‐simulated SCK‐2 0 0
S10‐100 100 10
S10‐110 110 10
S10‐120 120 10
S10‐130 130 10
Direct‐steam‐injection‐processed S120‐5 120 5
S120‐10 120 10
S120‐15 120 15
S120‐20 120 20
S120‐25 120 25
S120‐30 120 30
Open in a new tab

2.3. Color Measurement

Color was determined by a WB‐2000 IXA colorimeter (Beijing Kangguang Optical Instruments Co., Ltd., Beijing, China) (Tian et al. 2025). Data were collected from six randomly selected locations and averaged to represent the final result. Equation (1) was employed to determine the color difference (ΔE) (Kelleher et al. 2019).

ΔE=L∗−L0∗2+a∗−a0∗2+b∗−b0∗2 (1)

where L* represents lightness, a* represents redness‐greenness, and b* represents yellowness‐blueness.

2.4. Sensory Evaluation

The sensory evaluation of 12 FMCS samples, each coded with random numbers, was conducted with 80 participants aged 18–30 years in the standard sensory laboratory at Jiangnan University (Wuxi, China), following established methodology (Sant'Ana et al. 2026). Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the evaluation. The sensory attributes of the FMCS, including color, flavor, taste, texture, and overall acceptability, were assessed using structured scales (0–5 points). A balanced presentation order was used, and the samples were presented in random order, with each sample coded with a three‐digit random number to ensure blinding. Participants were required to rinse their mouths before testing each sample to prevent carryover effects and ensure unbiased evaluations. The participants were recruited from a student population at Jiangnan University, with ages ranging from 18 to 30 years, and included both male and female participants. All participants were regular consumers of prepared food products, ensuring familiarity with the product category. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Jiangnan University Medical Ethics Committee (approval number: JNU202412RB003).

2.5. Solid, Protein, and Fat Content

The solid content (SC), protein content (PC), and fat content (FC) of FMCS were measured using a DHG‐9140A oven (Shanghai Yiheng Scientific Instruments Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China), a K9840 Kjeldahl nitrogen analyzer (Hanon Scientific Instruments Co., Ltd., Jinan, China), and an SZF‐06A fat analyzer (Shanghai Xinrui Scientific Instruments Co., Ltd., Jinan, China), respectively. All analyses were conducted in accordance with China National Standards GB 5009.3‐2016 (SC), GB 5009.5‐2016 (PC), and GB 5009.6‐2016 (FC).

2.6. Free Amino Acid Content

Free amino acid content was determined by combining equal volumes of FMCS and 10% (w/v) TCA and incubating the mixture for 0.5 h. After centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 10 min using a 5804R centrifuge (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany), 400 µL supernatant was transferred to an HPLC vial. The analysis was performed using an Agilent 1260 HPLC system (Santa Clara, CA, USA), following the methodology described by Su et al. (2025).

2.7. Flavor Analysis

Volatile flavor compounds (VFCs) of FMCS were analyzed using HS‐SPME‐GC‐MS on a GC‐MS‐QP2020 NX system (Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan), following the methodology described by J. Xu et al. (2024). For analysis, 10 g of FMCS was spiked with 10 µL of 2‐methyl‐3‐heptanone (internal standard, 118.2 ppm) in a 20 mL headspace vial, sealed with a PTFE septum, and subjected to adsorption at 50°C for 31 min using a preconditioned fiber. Thermal desorption occurred in the GC injector (250°C, splitless mode, 7 min) with separation on an SH‐Wax column (30 m × 0.25 mm, 0.25 µm) under helium carrier gas (0.8 mL/min). The temperature program followed the conditions outlined by Su et al. (2025). MS parameters were set as follows: 70 eV electron ionization, a scan range of 33–400 m/z, ion source temperature of 200°C, interface temperature of 250°C, and a 3 min solvent delay. The concentration of VFCs was calculated using Equation (2).

Concentration(μg/kg)=Thepeakareaofeachcomponent×InternalstandardconcentrationSamplemass×Peakareaoftheinternalstandard (2)

2.8. Odor Activity Values Calculation

The contribution of VFCs to the overall flavor profile of FMCS depends on both their concentration and odor threshold. The threshold values were obtained from previous studies (Sohail et al. 2022). Key VFCs contribution to the overall flavor profile was evaluated using odor activity values (OAVs), calculated as follows (Geng et al. 2024):

OAV=Concentrationofthevolatilecompoundinthesample(μg/kg)Odorthresholdofthecompoundinwater(μg/kg) (3)

2.9. Microstructure

The microstructure of FMCS was observed using an inverted microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan) immediately after depositing the samples on glass slides.

2.10. Stability

The stability of FMCS was assessed by an LUMiSizer (LUM GmbH, Berlin, Germany), following the methodology described by X. Li et al. (2024). Samples underwent centrifugation at 3000 rpm with continuous scanning to obtain 150 data points at 10 s intervals. Absorbance at 865 nm was monitored at 50°C for 25 min.

2.11. Statistical Analysis

Results were presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). They were analyzed using SPSS 19.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) for one‐way ANOVA, while graphical representations were generated in Origin 2025 (OriginLab Corporation, Northampton, MA, USA).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Appearance and Color

The appearance of FMCS plays a critical role in influencing consumer acceptance and purchasing decisions. Figure 1 illustrates visual variations in soup color, clarity, ingredient integrity, and suspension stability across commercial‐simulated (SCK‐1), fresh‐simulated (SCK‐2), and DSI‐processed samples. The SCK‐2 sample exhibited an orange‐yellow soup with intact suspended ingredients, including fish maw, chicken, abalone, L. edodes, P. eryngii, and C. lacryma‐jobi L. Based on preliminary visual observation, SCK‐1 exhibited the most pronounced alterations. Increasing steam temperature from 100°C to 130°C at 10 min progressively darkened the soup, intensified redness‐yellowness hues, slightly increased turbidity, and markedly reduced suspension stability at 130°C. Extending DSI processing time from 5 to 30 min at 120°C induced sustained browning, reduced clarity, and lowered viscosity. Concurrently, fish maw fragmented, chicken/abalone textures deteriorated, mushrooms softened and sedimented, while C. lacryma‐jobi L. split.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Visual appearance of prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions.

These alterations might be correlated with Maillard reactions (MR), collagen hydrolysis, protein aggregation, and fat emulsification dynamics. Darkening and browning primarily resulted from accelerated MR between reducing sugars and amino acids, generating melanoidins and potentially bitter compounds that compromised color, taste, and flavor scores. Prolonged high‐temperature DSI processing denatured the fish maw's collagen structure, triggering disordered peptide aggregation and loss of chewiness. Shrinkage and toughening of chicken and abalone were attributed to myofibrillar protein denaturation and reduced water‐holding capacity. The release of initial soluble solid, combined with protein‐fat emulsification, decreased light transmittance, elevated turbidity, and temporarily enhanced stability. However, excessive macromolecular aggregation combined with thermal overprocessing ultimately induced emulsion breakdown, resulting in system destabilization, phase separation, and ingredient sedimentation. Such deterioration may adversely affect sensory, microstructural, and stability properties of FMCS.

Color serves as a key indicator of chemical alterations in FMCS following thermal processing. To quantitatively characterize the visually observed chromatic shifts, Figure 2 presents color parameters (L, a, b*). As shown in Figure 2A, fresh‐simulated sample (SCK‐2) demonstrated peak luminosity with an L* value of 53.4, representing the lightest appearance. All heat treatments, including both RS and DSI, significantly reduced L* values relative to SCK‐2 (p < 0.05), confirming progressive soup darkening. Under consistent 10 min processing, elevating DSI temperatures from 100°C to 130°C produced markedly intensified L* reduction from 53.5 to 49.3, identifying 120°C as the critical darkening threshold. At fixed 120°C, extended processing durations drove substantial L* decline from 53.4 to 47.2, exhibiting a three‐phase pattern: moderate reduction during the initial 5–10 min, accelerated decrease between 10 and 20 min, and gradual attenuation thereafter. Notably, luminosity differences between SCK‐2 and samples processed for 20–30 min at 120°C (S120‐20 to S120‐30) showed no significant differences (p > 0.05). This darkening principally originated from (MR) derivatives, caramelization products, and lipid oxidation compounds, including melanoidins, with thermal intensity and duration directly accelerating their formation.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Color parameters (A: L*; B: a*; C: b*) and color difference (D: ∆E) of prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions.

Conversely, all thermal interventions elevated a* values, enhancing redness tonal dominance (Figure 2B). Commercial‐simulated samples (SCK‐1) exhibited minimal redness, while SCK‐2 exhibited relatively high a* values compared with some thermally processed samples. Increasing temperatures progressively raised a* values from 3.2 to 3.9 under 10 min exposure. Extending processing duration at 120°C substantially intensified redness, with a value increasing from 3.2 to 4.6, culminating in a statistically significant elevation for S120‐30 (p < 0.05). These shifts primarily stemmed from intermediate‐to‐late stage MR products, particularly reddish‐brown melanoidins, whose generation was exponentially promoted by thermal severity and temporal extension.

All processed samples exhibited elevated b* values, intensifying yellowness pigmentation in FMCS (Figure 2C). SCK‐2 maintained minimal yellowness, while thermally treated specimens reached b* values up to 1.8‐fold higher than those observed in S120‐30. Increasing the temperature from 100°C to 130°C over a 10 min period progressively elevated b values from 14.3 to 17.7. Extending the processing duration at 120°C dramatically amplified this effect, increasing b values from 14.3 to 22.3. This intensification of yellowness was primarily attributed to early MR intermediates, such as reductones, which contributed distinct yellow hues. Additionally, limited carotenoid release from chicken fat during heating supplemented this effect, with both mechanisms being thermally and temporally potentiated.

Total color difference quantification via ΔE reinforced these trends (Figure 2D). All treatments significantly enlarged ΔE relative to SCK‐2, with SCK‐1 exhibiting maximal divergence at 26.7. Temperature elevation during 10 min treatments increased ΔE from baseline to 5.3, demonstrating such pronounced thermal influence that S10‐130 showed comparable or higher ΔE values than some prolonged 120°C treatments, such as S120‐20. Duration extension at 120°C progressively amplified ΔE from 0 to 10.1. This integrated metric captured the combined impact of luminosity decline, redness intensification, and yellowness augmentation, collectively driving ΔE elevation proportional to treatment severity.

Consequently, thermal processing irreversibly diminished luminosity while augmenting redness, yellowness, and total color divergence from fresh benchmarks. Although escalating DSI parameters intensified chromatic alterations, these changes remained substantially mitigated compared to SCK‐1, demonstrating superior color preservation through DSI. Precise control of processing parameters is therefore essential to maintain the traditional golden broth appearance, which critically influences consumer sensory perception and acceptance.

3.2. Sensory Analysis

Sensory evaluation of FMCS focused on color, flavor, taste, texture, and overall acceptability—critical quality indicators that determine consumer acceptance and purchasing decisions (Figure 3). SCK‐2 consistently demonstrated superior sensory attributes, achieving peak scores in color (4.8), flavor (3.9), taste (4.2), texture (4.3), and acceptability (4.3), thereby establishing the definitive sensory benchmark. In contrast, SCK‐1 exhibited severe quality deterioration, particularly in acceptability (1.5) and texture (2.5), confirming irreversible thermal damage from conventional retort processing, consistent with findings by L. Liang et al. (2022). DSI treatments revealed pronounced parameter‐dependent effects. As shown in Figure 3A, increasing temperature from 100°C to 130°C (10 min duration) led to sensory deterioration at 110°C, marked by a 17.1% decrease in color scores (from 4.1 to 3.4) and a decline in acceptability (from 3.9 to 3.6). This deterioration culminated in a 23.1% loss in acceptability at 130°C, where sensory quality declined markedly. As indicated in Figure 3B, extending processing time at 120°C resulted in rapid deterioration between 15 and 20 min, with color scores (3.1) and acceptability (3.1) for S120‐15 and S120‐20 reaching the lowest values in the series. Beyond 20 min, accelerated decline continued: color scores decreased cumulatively by 34.9% (from 4.3 to 2.8), while acceptability dropped by 28.2% (from 3.9 to 2.8). Notably, flavor scores for S120‐30 were comparable to SCK‐2 (3.9) possibly due to the release of lipid‐derived flavor compounds during heating. The decline in sensory scores was consistent with the observed deterioration in appearance (Figure 1), primarily driven by MR‐induced browning, protein denaturation leading to texture deterioration, and lipid oxidation–induced flavor degradation (Zhan et al. 2020). Specifically, excessive heating accelerated melanoidin formation from reducing sugars and amino acids, darkening soup color (Figure 2) and potentially introducing bitterness. Concurrently, structural alterations occurred in collagen (fish maw) and myofibrillar proteins (chicken). While prolonged heating released lipid‐soluble flavor compounds, it also accelerated the accumulation of off‐flavor volatiles, masking FMCS's characteristic flavor and ultimately reducing flavor scores. These sensory deteriorations were mechanistically linked to thermal degradation of proteins, lipids, and soluble solids, directly impacting textural integrity, flavor profile, and visual quality.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Sensory score of prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions (A: Temperature; B: Time).

3.3. Solid, Protein, and Fat Content

The nutritional profile of FMCS represents a paramount quality parameter for discerning consumers. To mechanistically elucidate the abovementioned sensory deterioration, quantitative determinations of SC, PC, and FC were conducted as presented in Figure 4. SC directly reflected FMCS viscosity and suspension stability. SCK‐1 exhibited substantially elevated SC at 9.5 g/100 g relative to its counterparts, representing a 26.7% increase over SCK‐2 (7.5%), attributed to the dissolution of soluble components induced by high‐temperature processing. As shown in Figure 4A, DSI processing under 10 min thermal gradients achieves maximal SC retention (8.0 g/100 g) at 120°C. Figure 4B reveals that S120‐5 peaked at 8.2 g/100 g, while S120‐30 exhibited a pronounced decline to 7.1 g/100 g, attributed to collagen hydrolysis and MR progression. Notably, SC values in S10‐120 and S120‐5 significantly surpassed other DSI treatments (p < 0.05).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

Solid, protein, and fat content of prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions (A: Temperature; B: Time).

PC governed essential attributes, including nutritional value, emulsifying capacity, and textural integrity. SCK‐2 maintained superior levels at 1.16 g/100 g, while RS processing reduced PC in SCK‐1 by 36.2% to 0.74 g/100 g through thermal denaturation. Under DSI thermal gradients, PC progressively diminished from 1.07 g/100 g at 100°C to 0.97 g/100 g at 130°C, with a significant degradation threshold emerging between 110°C and 120°C (p < 0.05). Temporal gradients demonstrated that 5 min of DSI processing retained 93.1% of protein (1.08 g/100 g), but accelerated deterioration occurred beyond 15 min, culminating in a 24.1% depletion at 30 min (0.88 g/100 g). Notably, PC showed a strong correlation with textural attributes (Figure 3).

FC critically contributes to mouthfeel richness and serves as the principal carrier for lipid‐soluble flavor constituents, profoundly influencing sensory perception. SCK‐2 exhibited the highest FC of 8.50 g/100 g, whereas RS processing induced 21.5% depletion in SCK‐1 to 6.67 g/100 g. Under DSI thermal gradients, FC remained stable within 8.24–8.14 g/100 g at temperatures ≤ 120°C, but a significant reduction (22.9%) occurred at 130°C (6.51 g/100 g). Temporal analysis confirmed 93.8%–98.9% FC retention within processing durations ≤ 15 min, whereas extended processing (> 20 min) substantially diminished FC to 7.51 g/100 g. This reduction led to loss of lipid‐derived flavor compounds and decreased palatal lubrication, consistent with flavor score trends (Figure 3). Consequently, the 110°C–120°C/10–15 min DSI protocol was recommended, as it achieved synergistic quality optimization through 93.5% fat preservation, 96.1% protein retention, and 97.5% solid conservation.

3.4. Free Amino Acid Content

FAAs governed the taste profile of FMCS, encompassing umami, saltiness, sweetness, sourness, and bitterness. Simultaneously, FAAs function as precursors to VFCs, modulate overall flavor development, and contribute substantially to nutritional value and functional properties. The concentration ratios, distinct flavor characteristics, detection thresholds, and relative abundance of these taste‐active amino acids collectively constituted the primary sensory determinants of FMCS's organoleptic profile, including color, taste, and flavor. As shown in Table 2, the total FAA content in FMCS ranged from 2.60 to 3.25 mg/mL. The SCK‐2 demonstrated a total FAA content of 3.00 mg/mL, significantly higher than SCK‐1 (2.60 mg/mL) and S120‐30 (2.75 mg/mL), yet below the peak value of 3.25 mg/mL observed in S10‐100. Glutamate (Glu) emerged as the dominant umami amino acid, constituting over 85% of total FAA content, with concentrations ranging from 2.22 to 2.75 mg/mL. Variations in Glu content were primarily responsible for differences in total FAA content and influenced the sensory perception of FMCS. The highest Glu concentration was observed in S10‐100, while the lowest values occurred in SCK‐1 and S120‐30. Other FAAs generally maintained lower, stable concentrations; for example, alanine (Ala) ranged from 0.08 to 0.11 mg/mL, and lysine (Lys) varied between 0.03 and 0.06 mg/mL. Most trace FAAs consistently registered below 0.03 mg/mL, with cystine (Cys‐s) remaining invariant at 0.01 mg/mL across all samples. Samples processed under different DSI temperatures generally showed higher FAA contents. Conversely, within the temporal treatment group, S120‐30—subjected to the longest processing duration—displayed the lowest total FAA and Glu concentrations, coinciding with a marked decline in threonine (Thr) content to 0.01 mg/mL. This suggests that extended processing may lead to partial FAA degradation. In conclusion, Glu content represents the definitive indicator governing the flavor characteristics imparted by FAAs in FMCS.

TABLE 2.

Free amino acid content (mg/ mL) of prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions.

Category Control Temperature Time
SCK‐1 SCK‐2 S10‐100 S10‐110 S10‐120 S10‐130 S120‐5 S120‐10 S120‐15 S120‐20 S120‐25 S120‐30
Asp 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00
Glu 2.22 ± 0.03 2.56 ± 0.04 2.75 ± 0.00 2.51 ± 0.06 2.54 ± 0.01 2.56 ± 0.06 2.49 ± 0.04 2.54 ± 0.01 2.57 ± 0.01 2.65 ± 0.03 2.64 ± 0.04 2.35 ± 0.00
Ser 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00
His 0.01 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00
Gly 0.05 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.06 ± 0.00 0.06 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.01 0.05 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.06 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00
Thr 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.00
Arg 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.07 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00
Ala 0.08 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.09 ± 0.00 0.11 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00 0.09 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.10 ± 0.00 0.08 ± 0.00
Tyr 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00
Cys‐s 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.01 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00
Val 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00
Met 0.01 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00
Phe 0.02 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00
Ile 0.01 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00
Leu 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00
Lys 0.04 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.06 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.05 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00 0.04 ± 0.00
Pro 0.01 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.03 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.02 ± 0.00 0.01 ± 0.00
Total 2.60 ± 0.04e 3.00 ± 0.04bc 3.25 ± 0.00a 3.03 ± 0.05bc 3.07 ± 0.01abc 2.99 ± 0.07bc 2.96 ± 0.02cd 3.07 ± 0.01abc 3.03 ± 0.04bc 3.14 ± 0.03ab 3.04 ± 0.04bc 2.75 ± 0.00d
Open in a new tab

Note: Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05).

3.5. Flavor Analysis

Flavor is a core indicator for evaluating FMCS quality and a critical factor influencing consumer acceptance. As shown in Table S1 and Figure 5B, a total of 150 VFCs were detected in the FMCS from commercial‐simulated, fresh‐simulated, and DSI processed samples. These included 42 hydrocarbons, 35 alcohols, 27 aldehydes, 12 heterocycles and sulfides, nine ketones, nine esters, six phenols, five acids, and four ethers. As illustrated in Figure 5A, the total VFC content in FMCS increased with both DSI temperature and processing time. Hydrocarbons, heterocycles and sulfides, alcohols, and aldehydes were the most abundant components among the detected VFCs.

FIGURE 5.

FIGURE 5

Open in a new tab

Stacked bar plot of volatile compound content (A), heatmap of total volatile compound content, and heatmap of characteristic volatile compounds (OAV > 1) of prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions.

The OAV was used to assess the impact of flavor compounds on FMCS aroma, with compounds having OAV ≥ 1 considered key contributors to flavor (Guo et al. 2021). Table 3 and Figure 5C show 14 VFCs in FMCS with OAV ≥ 1. Aldehydes—contributing oily, grassy, and citrus notes—were the most abundant among these compounds (Lee et al. 2025). Their levels generally increased with temperature due to lipid oxidation, peaking at 130°C, but varied considerably with time at 120°C. For example, the OAV of (E,E)‐2,4‐decadienal increased from 206.30 in SCK‐1 to 916.00 in S10‐130, enhancing oily notes. This aligns with its concentration increase from 6.19 µg/kg (SCK‐1) to 27.48 µg/kg (S10‐130). Among ketones, which contribute floral and fruity notes, 2‐heptanone was not detected in control groups but appeared after processing. Its concentration peaked at 32.68 µg/kg in S10‐130, potentially adding citrus or herbal nuances. Alcohols, responsible for mushroom and grassy notes, showed decreased OAV after high‐temperature processing (> 120°C), possibly reducing fresh/grassy aromas. However, extended processing at 120°C partially restored these notes. The OAV of 1‐octen‐3‐ol ranged from 7.98 to 12.41 in controls, remained stable in temperature‐treated samples (7.16–10.13), and peaked at 11.17 after 25 min in time‐treated samples, enhancing mushroom‐like aroma. For heterocycles and sulfides, contributing meaty, roasted, and sulfurous notes, the OAV of dimethyl trisulfide increased to 130.20 at 120°C but decreased to 24.10 at 130°C. In time‐treated samples, it peaked at 10 min (130.20) before declining, altering onion/meaty characteristics. The OAV of 2‐pentylfuran was 1.71–7.15 in the control group; it peaked at 4.15 at 110°C in the temperature treatment group and was lowest (1.02) at 120°C; in the time treatment group, it increased to 4.13 at 30 min, enhancing nutty/roasted notes over time. In terms of temperature effects, processing at 130°C for 10 min maximized aldehyde and ketone OAVs, enriching oily and roasted notes but reducing alcohols and phenols, making it ideal for robust flavors. Regarding time effects, processing at 120°C for 10–15 min balanced OAV increases (elevating sulfur‐containing compounds), while exceeding 20 min raised furan levels but risked overprocessing and compound loss.

TABLE 3.

Volatile flavor substances and thresholds for OAV ≥ 1 in prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions.

Compounds Thresholds (µg/kg) Control Temperature Time
SCK‐1 SCK‐2 S10‐100 S10‐110 S10‐120 S10‐130 S120‐5 S120‐10 S120‐15 S120‐20 S120‐25 S120‐30
Aldehydes
(E, E)‐2,4‐Decadienal 0.03 206.30 202.00 351.00 492.33 419.33 916.00 439.33 419.33 592.67 338.33 608.33 536.67
2‐Undecenal 0.78 6.04 4.00 4.60 5.24 3.88 8.44 4.67 3.88 6.27 3.78 5.51 5.54
(E)‐2‐Octenal 3.00 0.54 0.65 1.24 1.63 1.14 2.58 0.95 1.14 1.85 0.91 1.55 1.09
Benzaldehyde 3.50 ND ND 1.14 1.24 1.18 1.70 ND 1.18 ND ND ND ND
(E)‐2‐Nonenal 0.19 15.29 7.47 16.00 21.63 13.89 32.68 13.37 13.89 19.26 13.00 24.11 22.74
Hexanal 5.00 ND 0.73 2.53 2.57 3.96 5.68 ND 3.96 1.04 1.99 2.08 1.94
Undecanal 0.12 ND ND ND ND 8.42 15.08 ND 8.42 ND ND ND ND
n‐Octanal 1.40 0.82 1.19 2.66 4.71 3.19 6.76 2.01 3.19 2.92 ND 3.69 3.11
Ketones
Methylheptenone 1.00 ND ND 1.82 2.19 1.64 2.57 ND 1.64 1.80 ND 2.09 1.49
Alcohols
1‐Octen‐3‐ol 1.00 12.41 7.98 8.22 10.13 7.16 10.64 6.86 7.16 9.68 8.69 11.17 7.80
1‐Heptanol 5.40 1.45 1.00 0.89 1.08 ND ND 0.67 ND 0.99 1.02 ND ND
Heterocycles and Sulfides
Dimethyl trisulfide 0.10 28.83 31.00 12.00 24.80 130.20 24.10 14.30 130.20 19.80 10.50 25.30 20.30
2‐Pentylfuran 5.80 7.15 1.71 2.83 4.15 1.02 3.69 1.12 1.02 3.28 3.49 4.03 4.13
Phenols
2‐Methoxy‐4‐vinylphenol 0.02 ND 53.68 6.32 11.05 ND ND 7.37 ND ND ND 10.53 8.95
Open in a new tab

Abbreviation: ND, not detected.

To more intuitively compare and analyze the VFCs in FMCS under different treatments, two heatmaps were generated from GC‐MS data. Figure 5B shows the relative concentrations of 150 VFCs (A1–A150), while Figure 5C presents the OAV distributions of key VFCs. Color coding—ranging from red (high intensity) to blue (low intensity)—indicate relative abundance. Both VFC concentrations and OAV values exhibited significant changes across treatments. Aromatics breakdown and VFCs release were key outcomes under high‐temperature conditions (Han et al. 2022).

3.6. Microstructure

Thermal processing induces emulsification of exogenous fats or intrinsic oils, producing micro‐to‐nanoscale fat droplets, as documented in prior studies (L. Lin et al. 2020; Qi et al. 2023). Figure 6A‐L illustrates progressive morphological deterioration of fat globules under both RS and DSI treatments, aligning with findings by X. Li et al. (2024). The SCK‐1 exhibited polydisperse near‐spherical droplets, with larger vesicles encapsulating smaller ones (Figure 6A). In contrast, the SCK‐2 exhibited heteromorphic droplets with diverse, irregular configurations (Figure 6B). Under DSI at a fixed 10 min duration, increasing temperature from 100°C to 130°C initially reduced globule size and promoted homogeneous dispersion in S10‐100 (Figure 6C). Further temperature elevation caused localized aggregation in S10‐110 and S10‐120, culminating in complete structural collapse and oil‐film formation in S10‐130 (Figure 6F). At a constant 120°C, extending processing time from 5 to 30 min preserved globule integrity during early stages (Figure 6G–I), followed by progressive size reduction in S120‐5 through S120‐15 (Figure 6J,K). Beyond 20 min, irreversible deformation emerged in S120‐20, characterized by elliptical and dumbbell‐shaped globules with partial adhesion, ultimately resulting in extensive oil layers and cavities in S120‐30 (Figure 6L), mirroring the disintegration observed at 130°C. The initial globular refinement observed between 100°C–120°C and 5–15 min stemmed from convective boiling‐induced shear forces fragmenting larger globules into finer particulates. However, temperatures exceeding 120°C or durations surpassing 20 min disrupted the protein‐lipid emulsification interface, triggering globule coalescence and morphological distortion. These alterations directly compromised soup smoothness and colloidal stability, establishing DSI control parameters at or below 120°C and 15 min as imperative for structural preservation. The observed microstructural evolution explains the appearance variations of FMCS shown in Figure 1.

FIGURE 6.

FIGURE 6

Open in a new tab

Optical micrographs of prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions (C–F: Temperature; G–L: Time).

3.7. Stability

Emulsion stability in FMCS was evaluated by monitoring transmittance profiles along the sample cell under centrifugal force (Figure 7A‐L). Variations in the transmittance profiles were associated with phase separation, sedimentation, and fat globule aggregation. In sample tubes (130 mm in height, with 130 mm at the bottom and 105 mm at the top), distinct phase separation behaviors were observed: denser impurities and precipitated proteins accumulated at the base (130 mm), reducing transmittance; the aqueous phase localized in intermediate sections, increasing transmittance; and buoyant opaque oil phases migrated upward, forming a consolidated cream layer at the top. This behavior aligns with prior research (X. Li et al. 2024). SCK‐2 demonstrated a characteristically smooth transmittance profile (Figure 7B). During 10 min DSI treatments, incremental temperature increases from 100°C to 110°C maintained stable transmittance curves with negligible positional displacement, indicating uniform fat globule dispersion. At 120°C, however, curves bifurcated with intense fluctuations, signaling incipient globule aggregation and microstructural coarsening. The 130°C condition precipitated catastrophic emulsion failure, evidenced by transmittance undergoing precipitous decline amid erratic curve patterns. Under isothermal conditions at 120°C with progressive duration extension through 5–15 min, curves exhibited subtle downward displacement. In contrast, S120‐20, S120‐25, S120‐30, and SCK‐1 showed irregular stability behavior (Figure 7A,J–L), potentially due to sampling heterogeneity or progressive sedimentation and degradation of solids, consistent with Figure 4. Fundamentally, temperature and processing duration regulate fat globule dimensions by modulating hydrodynamic shear forces, thereby influencing emulsion stability. Optimal DSI parameters maximize emulsification efficiency and suppress phase separation. Conversely, excessive thermal input or prolonged processing disrupted the protein‐lipid interfacial architecture, inducing globule coalescence and gravitational sedimentation. This instability was associated with a decline in sensory quality (Figure 2).

FIGURE 7.

FIGURE 7

Open in a new tab

Lumi results of prepared fish maw chicken soup under different treatment conditions (C–F: Temperature; G–L: Time).

4. Conclusion

This study established that DSI processing significantly modulated FMCS quality through precise temperature‐ and time‐dependent control. Under thermal conditions (100°C–130°C, 10 min), lightness (L*) decreased by 7.6% while redness (a*) and yellowness (b*) increased by 22.0% and 23.0%, respectively, driven primarily by MR‐derived melanoidin formation. Sensory deterioration initiated at 110°C and accelerated beyond 120°C, with acceptability scores declining 23.1% at 130°C. Temporal gradients (120°C, 5–30 min) identified 15 min as the stability threshold, beyond which protein aggregation and lipid oxidation degraded textural smoothness and flavor richness. Nutritionally, S10‐120 exhibited the highest SC (8.0 g/100 g, 5.0% higher than SCK‐2) and maintained high protein retention (1.07 g/100 g) while preserving 93.5% of FC, significantly higher than that of SCK‐1. Microstructural analysis revealed temperatures > 120°C or durations > 20 min disrupted protein‐lipid interfaces, inducing fat globule coalescence into oil‐film structures and reducing colloidal stability. Optimal DSI parameters (110°C–120°C, ≤ 15 min) synergistically preserved umami amino acids (2.75 mg/mL Glu), minimized solid/protein degradation, maintained emulsion integrity, and minimized undesirable flavor loss. From an industrial perspective, the optimized DSI conditions are compatible with existing central kitchen production systems and continuous steam‐based thermal processing systems, enabling scale‐up without requiring major equipment modifications. Compared with conventional RS, DSI offers reduced processing time, improved batch‐to‐batch consistency, and enhanced retention of sensory and nutritional quality, making it suitable for standardized production of multiphase soup products. Future work should focus on continuous‐flow integration, energy efficiency optimization, and large‐scale validation to support industrial commercialization.

Author Contributions

Junli Dong: methodology, conceptualization, data curation, investigation, formal analysis, writing – original draft. Peng Deng: data curation, formal analysis. Haonan Zhu: data curation, formal analysis. Ebeydulla Rahman: writing – review and editing. Zhaojun Wang: formal analysis. Zhiyong He: data curation. Qiuming Chen: data curation. Jie Chen: supervision, project administration. Maomao Zeng: writing – review and editing, funding acquisition, project administration.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Supplementary Material: jfds71323‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx

JFDS-91-0-s001.docx (117.1KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

This work was financially supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2023YFD210070202) and the Scientific Research Foundation of the Education Department of Anhui Province of China (No. 2022AH051447).

References

  1. Akhtar, K. H. , Gao Z., Zhang Z., et al. 2025. “Optimizing Protein Profile, Flavor, Digestibility, and Microstructure: The Impact of Preheating and Reheating in Stir‐Fried Chicken.” Foods 14, no. 4: 14040643. 10.3390/foods14040643. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Cao, Q. , Chen J., Zhang Q., et al. 2025. “Effects of Reheat Treatment on Warmed‐Over Flavor and Lipid Oxidation in Bowl‐Steamed Tan Lamb.” Food Chemistry 479: 143833. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.143833. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, J. X. , Zhang Y. X., Ren Y., et al. 2024. “The Formation Mechanism and Control Strategies of Warmed‐Over Flavor in Prepared Dishes: A Comprehensive Review and Future Perspectives.” Trends in Food Science & Technology 153: 104746. ARTN10474610.1016/j.tifs.2024.104746. [Google Scholar]
  4. De Bonis, M. V. , and Ruocco G.. 2010. “Heat and Mass Transfer Modeling During Continuous Flow Processing of Fluid Food by Direct Steam Injection.” International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 37, no. 3: 239–244. 10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2009.09.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Dong, M. , Liang F., Cui S., et al. 2024. “Insights Into the Effects of Steaming on Organoleptic Quality of Salmon (Salmo salar) Integrating Multi‐Omics Analysis and Electronic Sensory System.” Food Chemistry 434: 137372. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. FMI . 2023. "Convenience Food Market: Global Industry Analysis and Opportunity Assessment, 2036." https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/global‐convenience‐foods‐market.
  7. Gao, P. , Li W., Hashim S. B. H., et al. 2025. “Distributional Uniformity Quantification in Heterogeneous Prepared Dishes Combined the Hyperspectral Imaging Technology With Moran's I: A Case Study of Pizza.” Food Chemistry 466: 141511. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141511. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Geng, Q. , Qin F., Zeng M., et al. 2024. “Effects of Heat Treatment on the Profile of Volatile Flavor Components in Bamboo Shoots.” Food Bioscience 58: 103817. 10.1016/j.fbio.2024.103817. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Guo, X. , Ho C. T., Wan X., et al. 2021. “Changes of Volatile Compounds and Odor Profiles in Wuyi Rock Tea During Processing.” Food Chemistry 341: 128230. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Han, M. , Bu Y., He W., et al. 2022. “Effects of Different Thermoultrasonic Time on Quality Characteristics of Fishbone Broth and Correlation Analysis on Taste Substances.” Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 46, no. 12: e17259. 10.1111/jfpp.17259. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Jia, Y. , Hu L., Liu R., et al. 2024. “Innovations and Challenges in the Production of Prepared Dishes Based on Central Kitchen Engineering: A Review and Future Perspectives.” Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 91: 103521. 10.1016/j.ifset.2023.103521. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Kelleher, C. M. , Tobin J. T., O'Mahony J. A., et al. 2019. “A Comparison of Pilot‐Scale Supersonic Direct Steam Injection to Conventional Steam Infusion and Tubular Heating Systems for the Heat Treatment of Protein‐Enriched Skim Milk‐Based Beverages.” Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies 52: 282–290. 10.1016/j.ifset.2019.01.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Kilic, A. 2022. “Experimental Identification of Thermal Steam Pressure Sensitivity of ω‐3 Fatty Acids in Fish.” Journal of Culinary Science & Technology 22, no. 3: 386–401. 10.1080/15428052.2022.2051661. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Kim, S. Y. , Li J., Lim N. R., et al. 2016. “Prediction of Warmed‐Over Flavour Development in Cooked Chicken by Colorimetric Sensor Array.” Food Chemistry 211: 440–447. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.05.084. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Lee, S. , Jo K., Park M. K., et al. 2025. “Role of Lipids in Beef Flavor Development: A Review of Research From the Past 20 Years.” Food Chemistry 475: 143310. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.143310. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Li, X. , Wu Y., Duan W., et al. 2024. “Emulsification Properties of Ovalbumin‐fucoidan (OVA‐FUC) Binary Complexes.” Food Chemistry: X 22: 101457. 10.1016/j.fochx.2024.101457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Liang, L. , Duan W., Zhang J., et al. 2022. “Characterization and Molecular Docking Study of Taste Peptides From Chicken Soup by Sensory Analysis Combined With Nano‐LC‐Q‐TOF‐MS/MS.” Food Chemistry 383: 132455. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.132455. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Liang, Q. , Pan Z., Ai Z., et al. 2025. “Impact of Freezing Methods on the Quality and Flavor Characteristics of Preprepared Dishes.” Food Chemistry: X 29: 102783. 10.1016/j.fochx.2025.102783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lin, H. , Cui L., Tian M., et al. 2025. “Water‐Oil Displacement in Prefried Potatoes During Freezing‐Thawing and Reheating: A Simulation of the Industrial Prepared Dishes Supply Chain.” Food Chemistry 490: 145111. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.145111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lin, L. , Tao N., Su H., et al. 2020. “Migration of Nutrients and Formation of Micro/Nano‐Sized Particles in Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) and Bighead Carp (Aristichthys nobilis) Head Soups.” Food Bioscience 36: 100646. 10.1016/j.fbio.2020.100646. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Liu, Y. , Sunkesula V., Barbano D. M., et al. 2025. “Comparison of Vanilla‐Flavored Milk Protein Beverages Thermally Processed by Direct Steam Injection, Retort, and Autoclave.” Journal of Dairy Science 108, no. 8: 7996–8011. 10.3168/jds.2025-26660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Meng, Q. , Zhou J., Gao D., et al. 2022. “Desorption of Nutrients and Flavor Compounds Formation During the Cooking of Bone Soup.” Food Control 132: 108408. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108408. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mi, L. , Liang Q., Zhang W., et al. 2023. “Sterilization of Yak Milk by Direct Steam Injection (DSI) and Effects on Milk Quality.” LWT—Food Science and Technology 189: 115450. 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115450. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Qi, J. , Jia C., Zhang W., et al. 2023. “Ultrasonic‐Assisted Stewing Enhances the Aroma Intensity of Chicken Broth: A Perspective of the Aroma‐Binding Behavior of Fat.” Food Chemistry 398: 133913. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133913. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Sant'Ana, R. R. A. , Ferreira A. L. A., Silveira R. D., et al. 2026. “ Butia catarinensis as a Sustainable Ingredient in Brazilian Mead: Chemical Properties, Volatile Composition, Sensory Profile and Consumer Acceptance.” Journal of Food Science 91: e71007. 10.1111/1750-3841.71007. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Sohail, A. , Al‐Dalali S., Wang J., et al. 2022. “Aroma Compounds Identified in Cooked Meat: A Review.” Food Research International 157: 111385. 10.1016/j.foodres.2022.111385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Statista . 2024. Convenience Food. https://www.statista.com/outlook/cmo/food/convenience‐food/worldwide.
  28. Su, Y. , Dong J., Zhang L., et al. 2025. “Controlled Atmosphere Modulates the Components, Flavor, and Stability of Pork Bone Broth.” Food Chemistry 494: 146227. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.146227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Tian, H. , Nie C., Huang X., et al. 2025. “Comparative Multi‐Omics Analyses Uncover the Distinct Quality Characteristics of Different Fish Soup Varieties.” Food Chemistry 465: 141994. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2024.141994. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Voudouris, P. , Mocking‐Bode H. C. M., Sagis L. M. C., et al. 2025. “Effect of Membrane Filtration and Direct Steam Injection on Mildly Refined Rapeseed Protein Solubility, Air‐Water Interfacial and Foaming Properties.” Food Hydrocolloids 160: 110754. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2024.110754. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Wang, X. , Jing P., Chen C., et al. 2024. “Research Progress on Microbial Control Techniques of Prepared Dishes.” Food Physics 1: 100015. 10.1016/j.foodp.2024.100015. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wu, S. , Lu Q., Xu L., et al. 2025. “High‐Temperature Pressure Cooking on the Quality of Basa (Pangasius bocourti) Fish Maw: Gelling, In Vitro Digestion and Proteomic Analysis.” Food Chemistry 479: 143826. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.143826. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Xu, J. , Chen Q., Zeng M., et al. 2024. “Effect of Heat Treatment on the Release of Off‐Flavor Compounds in Soy Protein Isolate.” Food Chemistry 437: 137924. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Xu, Y. , Wang X., Mao Q., et al. 2025. “Characterization of Prepared Soft‐Shelled Turtle Dishes of Different Pretreatment Combined With Irradiation Based on Flavor Profiles Using E‐nose, E‐tongue and HS‐SPME‐GC–MS.” Food Chemistry: X 27: 102352. 10.1016/j.fochx.2025.102352. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Yu, Q. , Zhang M., Ju R., et al. 2022. “Advances in Prepared Dish Processing Using Efficient Physical Fields: A Review.” Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 64, no. 13: 4031–4045. 10.1080/10408398.2022.2138260. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Yuan, F. , Guo Y., Mao N., et al. 2025. “Steam Explosion Treatment for Improving the Quality of Xuehua Pear Soup: Components Profile, Antioxidant and Anti‐Inflammatory Activity In Vitro, Its Flavor and Metabolomics Study.” Food Chemistry 471: 142863. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2025.142863. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Zhan, H. , Hayat K., Cui H., et al. 2020. “Characterization of Flavor Active Non‐Volatile Compounds in Chicken Broth and Correlated Contributing Constituent Compounds in Muscle Through Sensory Evaluation and Partial Least Square Regression Analysis.” LWT—Food Science and Technology 118: 108786. 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108786. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material: jfds71323‐sup‐0001‐SuppMat.docx

JFDS-91-0-s001.docx (117.1KB, docx)

Articles from Journal of Food Science are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES