Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Journal of Food Science and Technology logoLink to Journal of Food Science and Technology
. 2013 Sep 11;52(3):1586–1593. doi: 10.1007/s13197-013-1166-9

Microbiological evolution of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) in Canary Islands during ice storage

Conrado Carrascosa 1, Rafael Millán 1, Pedro Saavedra 2, José Raduán Jaber 3, António Raposo 4,✉, Esteban Pérez 1, Tania Montenegro 1, Esther Sanjuán 1
PMCID: PMC4348296  PMID: 25745228

Abstract

This study analyses the microbiological changes with traditional methods for total mesophilic aerobic, psychrotrophic, Aeromonas sp., Pseudomonas sp., Shewanella putrefaciens, Enterobacteriaceae, sulfide-reducing Clostridium and Photobacterium phosphoreum in muscle, skin and gills of whole ungutted gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) stored in ice during 18 days. The muscle tissue showed the minor grade of contamination, followed by the skin and the gills, with statistic significance (p < 0.001). The most prominent microorganisms in the different tissues and at the end of the storage were Pseudomonas sp. (7.76, 10.11 and 10.40 log CFU/g), Aeromonas sp. (7.49, 8.24 and 9.02 log CFU/g) and S. putrefaciens (8.05, 7.49 and 8.05 log CFU/g) in sea bream harvested in the temperate water of the Canary Islands. The results obtained from this study can contribute to the improvement of microbiological knowledge of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) by determining the evolution of microorganisms responsible for spoilage and their counts in different tissues such as muscle, skin, and gills during iced storage.

Keywords: Gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata), Ice storage, Microbiological evolution, Tissues

Introduction

The demand in the European market for high-quality fresh fish stored in ice has increased in the last years, but the wide competition among producing countries in the Mediterranean area (Spain, Greece, Italy and Turkey) and consequent lowering of market prices are demanding the differentiation and characterisation of fish produced in aquaculture (Cakli et al. 2007).

In Spain, farming gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) has grown with an overall output rising from 127 t in 1985 to 16,360 t in 2011. The Canary Islands are the third region of Spain in production of gilthead sea bream (3,250 t in 2011) (APROMAR 2012), mainly due to their ideal oceanic conditions such as the nature of funds, salinity, nutrients, currents, and morphology, as well as the temperature (Pérez-Sánchez and Moreno-Batet 1991). The superficial temperature of water in these islands oscillates between 18 °C in winter and 23 °C in summer, an aspect that is important to consider when studying the microbiology of farmed fish.

The increasing of production of these fish has raised the importance of keeping them in good conditions. The quality of the fish degrades due to a complex process in which physical, chemical, and microbiological forms of deterioration are implicated. Enzymatic and chemical reactions are usually responsible for the initial loss of freshness, whereas microbial activity is responsible for the obvious spoilage and its shelf life (Guillén-Velasco et al. 2004; De Koning 2004). There are many factors that can influence on the rate of microbial spoilage of fish such as the bacterial flora present, the storage conditions, handling and temperature (Ward and Baj 1988). Some bacterial groups are particularly associated with this spoilage. Thus, the fish caught in cold marine waters and stored in ice under aerobic conditions show a spoilage that is usually dominated by S. putrefaciens, Pseudomonas sp., (Gram and Huss 1996) and in less degree by the family Vibrionaceae, as well as Enterobacteriaceae, lactic acid bacteria and yeasts (Koutsoumanis and Nychas 2000).

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microbiology during storage in ice of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) harvested, carrying out the analysis of eight different microorganisms in three tissues, muscle, skin and gills. In the present work is included the count of the microbiota SSB (specific spoilage bacterial: Pseudomonas sp., S. putrefaciens, as H2S-producing bacteria, and Aeromonas sp.) against other spoilage microorganisms. Encompassing this study a greater number of tissues and organisms, that hitherto published, thus contributing to a better understanding of microbial evolution in gilthead sea bream of aquaculture in temperate waters and allowing the development of a mathematical model which predicts the growth of eight different bacteria in future.

Materials and methods

Fish samples and storage conditions

Gilthead sea bream, with an initial average weight of 490.8 g (420 g–580 g), were obtained from an aquaculture farm located in Gran Canaria (Canary Islands, Spain). The fish were cultivated in two different floating cages and harvested in April. In this month four samplings were carried out consisted of 14 fish per cage, thus resulting in a total of 56 sea bream, which were sacrificed by immersion in ice water (hypothermia). The samples were delivered to the laboratory within 2 h of harvesting and packaged in polystyrene boxes with ice. On the initial day of the slaughter (day 0 of the study), two whole ungutted fish were analysed, whereas the rest of the samples were kept in polystyrene boxes with ice and holes to drain. The ice was produced under hygienic conditions in the ice machine (ITV model IQ 135), and replenished when necessary. At the laboratory, the fish were kept in boxes with ice and placed in a cold store refrigerator at 2.0 ± 1 °C. Further microbiological analyses were performed during days 2, 4, 7, 10, 14 and 18. Randomly, other two fish were examined on each analysis. Each sample was analysed in duplicate, being the results the mean from both determinations.

The seawater samples were collected the days 1, 15 and 30 of April in two floating cages from an aquaculture unit located in the South of Gran Canaria. In both cages, temperature, pH, salinity, total dissolved solids and BOD5 (APHA 1992) were recorded using the Horiba U 22XD (Kyoto, Japan), which was placed in a depth of 1 m and in a distance of 8 m away from the cages to avoid the direct influence of the fish discharges and the food residues. Moreover, seawater samples were taken and analysed for ammonia nitrogen and total phosphorus using the Agilent G1369A Spectrophotometer (Waldbronn, Germany).

Sample preparation and microbiological analysis

Sea bream skin and flesh (25 g of each sample) were obtained from the dorsal anterior region of the right side from each fish following the technique used by (Slattery 1988). The samples were transferred to a Stomacher bag (Seward Medical, London, UK) containing 225 ml of 0.1 % peptone water (Cultimed 413795) with salt (NaCl 0.85 % w/v) as done by Drosinos and Nychas (1996), and homogenised for 60 s using a Lab Blender 400, Stomacher at high speed (Stomacher, IUL Instrument, Spain). The gills were also analysed and weighed (10 g/fish) and from this dilutions, other decimal dilutions were prepared.

Total viable counts (TVCs) mesophilic and psychrotrophic bacteria were determined using Plate Count Agar (PCA Cultimed, 413799), and incubated at 31 °C for 72 h and 5 °C for 7–10 days, respectively, as described by other authors (Pascual and Calderón 2002; Broekaert et al. 2011). Pseudomonas sp. was enumerated on Pseudomonas F agar (Cultimed, 413796), incubated at 31 °C for 2 days and cream, fluorescent or greenish colonies were counted. Aeromonas sp. was determined on BD Yersinia Aeromonas agar (BD, PA-25405605), after incubation at 31 °C for 48 h and pale colonies with a rose to red centre and positive oxidase were counted.

The counts of Shewanella putrefaciens (H2S producing bacteria) were determined on Iron Agar Lyngby (according indications and ingredients provided by OXOID). Iron agar plates were incubated at 20 °C for 48–72 h to enumerate the black colonies formed by production of H2S, following the technique used by Dalgaard (1995).

Enterobacteriaceae were determined using Violet Red Bile Glucose Agar (VRBG), (Cultimed, 413745). From each dilution, 1 ml was inoculated into 10 ml of molten (45 °C). After setting, 10 ml overlay of molten medium was pour-plated. Incubation was done at 37 °C for 24 h and the bacteria were represented as large colonies with purple haloes as described by other authors (Pascual and Calderón 2002).

Photobacterium phosphoreum were enumerated on Iron Agar Lyngb and the dilution (0.1 ml) was spread on dry surface and incubated at 5 °C for 14 days. These colonies appeared in the plates as transparent drops of dew (Dalgaard 1995).

Sulfite-reducing Clostridium (clostridia), spores and vegetative cells, were determined on S.P.S. (Cultimed, 414125), one ml of the dilutions was inoculated into tubes (15 ml) with molten (45 °C) and incubated at 46 °C for 24–48 h. The black colonies observed in the tubes were multiplied by a dilution factor as done by Pascual and Calderón (2002), to obtain the number of CFU/g.

Counts were performed in duplicate and examined for typical colony. The morphological characteristics were associated with each growth medium and the data were reported as colony forming units (log CFU/g). The conventional biochemical tests were carried out to ensure the final identification and the strains were identified according to Barrow and Feltham (1993) (Table 1) and Svanevik and Lunestad (2011).

Table 1.

Provisional identification of strains isolated from sea bream (Sparus aurata) stored in ice

Gram reactions Morphology Motility 15 °C Oxidase Catalase H&L TMAO H2S
Pseudomonas sp. − r + + + Ox − −
S. putrefaciens − r + + + −/Ox + +
Aeromonas sp. − r + + + F ± ±
P. phosphoreum − Cb* ± − + F ± −
Open in a new tab

Morphology: (cb) coccobacilli, (r) rods, (*) large round cells

H&L: Oxidative or fermentative metabolism of glucose was performed in the medium of Hugh and Leifson (Hugh and Leifson 1953)

TMAO: trimethylamine oxide (TMAO) reduction

Statistical analysis

For each tissue and bacteria (mesophilic aerobic, psychrotrophic, Aeromonas sp., Pseudomonas sp., S. putrefaciens and Enterobacteriaceae) were obtained the means and standard deviations of the log-count of CFU/g for each day of observation. The log-counts were fitted against to the observation days using a model of linear regression. The linear trends were tested by means of the F-test for the linear regression. The counts of CFU/g of clostridia and P. phosphoreum showed a great number of zeros (39.3 % for clostridia and P. phosphoreum). Therefore, for each observation day, these counts were resumed as medians and interquartile ranges (IQR), and fitted against to the observation day using a zero-inflated Poisson model. Statistical significance was set at p-value less than 0.001.

Results and discussion

Physicochemical data

Physicochemical data indicated a good chemical quality of the aquaculture’s rearing seawater (Table 2), and moreover, they showed a great homogeneity in all samples taken. Although, April temperatures range from 18.7° to 19.5 °C.

Table 2.

Mean values of physicochemical parameters of seawater

Parameters January April June November
Temperature (°C) 18 19.30 22 21.30
pH 7.8 7.7 8.1 7.4
Salinity (g/l) 33 35.6 32.2 33.6
BOD5 (mg/l) <5 5.1 <5 <5
Total dissolved solids (TDS) (mg/l) 2.4 4.1 <2.0 3.4
Ammonia nitrogen (mg/l) <0.1 0.9 <0.1 1.1
Total phosphorus (mg/l) <1 <1 <1 <1
Open in a new tab

Descriptive microbiological analysis

The changes of the microflora of aquacultured ungutted sea bream during their storage in ice at 2.0° ± 1 °C are shown in Tables 3 and 4. Our results were expressed as an average (log CFU/g) or medians (log CFU/g) of each count on the fish analysed by daily control. The total viable counts (TVCs) showed a gradual increase throughout the stored period from day 0, except for clostridia and P. phosphoreum that showed growth in muscle since days 4 and 7, respectively.

Table 3.

Changes in the bacterial count (log CFU/g) according to tissue and observation day (mean ± SD) in sea bream stored in ice

Tissue 0 2 4 7 10 14 18 P
Mesophilic Muscle 0.37 ± 0.74 2.62 ± 0.32 3.88 ± 0.33 5.02 ± 0.24 6.22 ± 0.27 7.50 ± 0.41 8.73 ± 0.39 <0.001
Skin 4.10 ± 0.47 4.92 ± 0.67 5.96 ± 0.81 7.17 ± 0.81 8.78 ± 0.40 9.59 ± 0.55 10.91 ± 0.34 <0.001
Gills 4.64 ± 0.46 5.54 ± 0.74 6.87 ± 0.64 7.93 ± 0.55 9.34 ± 0.31 10.38 ± 4.64 11.44 ± 0.57 <0.001
Psychrotrophic Muscle <1 2.01 ± 0.23 3.07 ± 0.34 4.04 ± 0.32 5.05 ± 0.54 6.05 ± 0.3 7.01 ± 0.42 <0.001
Skin 1.99 ± 0.30 2.83 ± 0.51 3.67 ± 0.57 4.69 ± 0.60 5.80 ± 0.48 6.80 ± 0.40 7.84 ± 0.46 <0.001
Gills 3.50 ± 0.40 4.57 ± 0.43 5.81 ± 0.51 6.78 ± 0.42 7.81 ± 0.90 8.91 ± 0.69 9.92 ± 0.67 <0.001
Enterobacteriaceae Muscle <1 2.22 ± 0.14 2.85 ± 0.18 3.30 ± 0.22 3.98 ± 0.27 4.67 ± 0.39 5.19 ± 0.38 <0.001
Skin 1.99 ± 0.08 2.72 ± 0.22 3.34 ± 0.21 3.95 ± 0.12 4.50 ± 0.24 5.03 ± 0.09 5.75 ± 0.28 <0.001
Gills 2.47 ± 0.25 3.17 ± 0.27 3.59 ± 0.69 4.34 ± 0.16 5.04 ± 0.26 5.75 ± 0.28 6.35 ± 0.34 <0.001
Pseudomonas sp. Muscle <1 2.53 ± 0.29 3.49 ± 0.49 4.63 ± 0.64 5.73 ± 0.61 6.81 ± 0.36 7.76 ± 0.49 <0.001
Skin 3.51 ± 0.47 0.50 ± 0.42 5.48 ± 0.72 6.55 ± 0.80 7.81 ± 0.76 9.05 ± 0.84 10.11 ± 0.62 <0.001
Gills 4.14 ± 0.39 5.17 ± 0.50 6.19 ± 0.59 7.06 ± 0.67 8.15 ± 0.62 9.30 ± 0.55 10.40 ± 0.50 <0.001
Aeromonas sp. Muscle <1 2.23 ± 0.33 3.04 ± 0.19 4.23 ± 0.51 5.28 ± 0.52 6.42 ± 0.32 7.49 ± 0.43 <0.001
Skin 3.0 ± 0.11 3.99 ± 0.35 4.94 ± 0.58 5.70 ± 0.56 6.71 ± 0.57 7.52 ± 0.59 8.24 ± 0.71 <0.001
Gills 3.64 ± 0.57 4.37 ± 0.56 5.39 ± 0.61 6.39 ± 0.55 7.32 ± 0.66 8.10 ± 0.53 9.02 ± 0.57 <0.001
S. putrefaciens Muscle <1 2.28 ± 0.25 3.40 ± 0.23 4.57 ± 0.47 5.82 ± 0.67 7.03 ± 0.47 8.05 ± 0.44 <0.001
Skin 1.10 ± 0.74 2.83 ± 0.51 3.72 ± 0.33 4.60 ± 0.54 5.56 ± 0.27 6.68 ± 0.39 7.49 ± 1.99 <0.001
Gills 2.31 ± 0.14 3.53 ± 0.40 4.45 ± 0.52 5.34 ± 0.74 6.32 ± 0.56 7.28 ± 0.37 8.05 ± 0.49 <0.001
Open in a new tab

All p-values correspond to multiple linear comparisons

Table 4.

Changes in Clostridia and P. phosphoreum counts (CFU/g) according to tissue and observation day (medians and interquartile ranges), in sea bream stored in ice

Tissue 0 2 4 7 10 14 18 P
Clostridia Muscle <1 <1 <1 <1
(0; 5)		 54.50
(30; 113.5)		 140
(74.5; 1640)		 1245
(686; 2877)		 <0.001
Skin <1 <1 <1 10
(5; 15)		 70
(30; 110)		 223
(139; 306)		 993
(600; 2632)		 <0.001
Gills <1 <1 <1
(0; 20)		 30
(20; 70)		 84
(75; 173)		 176
(160; 336)		 710
(306; 1192)		 <0.001
P. Phosphoreum Muscle <1 <1 <1 <1 174
(74.5; 244)		 1256.5
(519.5;1983)		 6923
(2537;12810)		 <0.001
Skin <1 <1 <1 60.5
(25; 80)		 210
(186.5; 229)		 437
(383;504)		 1456
(1148.5; 1758)		 <0.001
Gills <1 <1 5.0
(0;15)		 403
(259; 465)		 1454
(1001; 2050)		 4816
(3048; 6238)		 18420
(12002; 24045)		 <0.001
Open in a new tab

P < 0.001; all p-values correspond to multiple linear comparison

The TVCs for mesophilic and psychrotrophic at the initial day (day 0) were 0.37 and no-detected in muscle; 4.10 and 1.99 log CFU/g in skin, and 4.64 and 3.50 log CFU/g in gills, respectively. Similar results were determined in muscle at day 0 and 3 (Grigorakis et al. 2003) or in skin at day 1 (Drosinos and Nychas 1996) of ungutted sea bream stored in ice. However, other authors have reported higher results in the initial values of TVCs in muscle of ungutted sea bream (Tejada and Huidobro 2002; Lougovois et al. 2003; Kilinc et al. 2007; Özden et al. 2007), sea bream fillets (Erkan and Uretener 2010) and in ungutted sea bass (Papadopoulos et al. 2003) or in skin of whole sea bream (Cakli et al. 2007; Erkan 2007). These differences observed on TVCs could be due to the microbiological conditions of the fish muscle in ungutted sea bream, which are directly related to fishing ground, sanitary conditions of the slaughterhouse and environmental factors (Ward and Baj 1988).

In reference to the mesophilic counts, they reached the value of 7 log CFU/g, on days 14 in muscle; 7 in skin, and 7 in gills, respectively. This value is considered as the maximum level for acceptability limit for freshwater and marine species as defined by the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF 1986). In addition, the psychrotrophic counts raised to 6 log CFU/g, on days 14 in muscle; 14 in skin and 7 in gills. This estimation of the psychrotrophic microorganisms gives better results to the shelf-life estimation of chilled fish than mesophilic bacteria and 6 log cfu/g could be accepted as the acceptability limit (Mol et al. 2007).

Other studies determined mesophilic and psychrotrophic values in muscle of the sea bream with 7.81 and 7.11 log CFU/g, after 21 days of the storage period (Álvarez et al. 2008) and 6.7 and 7 log CFU/g, after 16 and 13 days, (Erkan and Uretener 2010) and 7 log CFU/g after 11 and 14 days, respectively, using different culture conditions (López-Caballero et al. 2002). Similar results were determined in skin, with mesophilic and psychrotrophic counts of 7.20 and 7.35 log CFU/g after 15 days; and 6.6 and 6.8 log CFU/cm2 after 13 days of storage, respectively (Cakli et al. 2007; Erkan 2007). These results are similar to the mesophilic counts observed in our fish at 18 days, although they reached higher values than psychrotrophic (8.73 and 7.01 log CFU/g in muscle; 10.91 and 7.84 log CFU/g in skin and 11.44 and 9.92 log CFU/g in gills, respectively).

Initial counts of SSB were below the detection threshold (<1 log CFU/g) in muscle; 3.51, 1.10 and 3 log CFU/g in skin; and 4.14, 2.31 and 3.65 log CFU/g in gills, respectively. Low counts of Pseudomonas sp. for ungutted European hake stored in ice were also found by Baixas-Nogueras et al. (2009). Other authors reported higher initial counts of Pseudomonas sp. in muscle, with 3.9 log CFU/g for sea bream (Özden et al. 2007), 3.0 log CFU/g for sea bass (Papadopoulos et al. 2003; Paleologos et al. 2004), as well as 3.3 log CFU/g in samples of gutted sardine (Erkan and Özden 2008) and 2.88 log CFU/g in horse mackerel (Tzikas et al. 2007). The initial S. putrefaciens counts constitute a large proportion of the microflora in muscle of several species such as sea bream, with values of 4.4 log CFU/g (Özden et al. 2007); sea bass with values of 2.2 log CFU/g (Paleologos et al. 2004) and in sardines with 3.3 CFU/g (Erkan and Özden 2008), as well as in sea bream skin where Erkan (2007) reported 3.3 log CFU/g. However, these values were different to those reported in our study, which are in agreement with those observed by López-Caballero et al. (2002), Lougovois et al. (2003) and Baixas-Nogueras et al. (2009).

In general, Pseudomonas sp. was the dominant population on day 18 of storage, followed by Aeromonas sp. and S. putrefaciens, with values in muscle of 7.76, 7.49 and 8.05 log CFU/g; in skin of 10.11, 8.24 and 7.49 log CFU/g, and in gills of 10.40, 9.02 and 8.05 log CFU/g, respectively. Other authors have reported similar results for Pseudomonas sp. and S. putrefaciens counts in muscle of sea bream, ranging from 6 to 7.8 log CFU/g (López-Caballero et al. 2002; Lougovois et al. 2003; Özden et al. 2007); sea bass with 7–7.2 log CFU/g (Pseudomonas sp.) and 6.6 and 7 log CFU/g (S. putrefaciens) (Papadopoulos et al. 2003; Paleologos et al. 2004); as well as in sardines after 9 days of ice storage reached 4 and 4.9 log CFU/g, respectively (Erkan and Özden 2008), horse mackerel, with 6.42 and 5.12 log CFU/g after 12 days of ice storage (Tzikas et al. 2007) and in sea bream skin, where was reported 6.7 log CFU/g after 13 days of ice storage for H2S-producing bacteria counts (Erkan 2007).

Similar counts for Pseudomonas sp. and S. putrefaciens have been reported as the SSB, regardless of the origin of the fish in temperate and tropical waters (Gillespie 1981; Lima Dos Santos et al. 1981; Gram and Huss 1996), and in fresh Mediterranean fish stored aerobically under refrigeration (Koutsoumanis and Nychas 1999) or ice storage (Gennari and Tomaselli 1988; Gennari et al. 1999; Sant’Ana et al. 2011). The values of S. putrefaciens showed in our study were lower than those observed for Pseudomonas sp. at the end of the storage period, that could be due to Pseudomonas sp. and S. putrefaciens have specific iron chelating systems (siderophores), and when these bacteria grown in co-culture on fish samples siderophore, Pseudomonas sp. inhibits the growth of S. putrefaciens (Gram and Dalgaard 2002; Olafsdóttir et al. 2006).

In our study, Enterobacteriaceae counts were lower to SSB on the final storage, which is in agreement with the results reported in different fresh Mediterranean fish at the end of the product’s shelf life (Gennari et al. 1999; Koutsoumanis and Nychas 1999; Tejada and Huidobro 2002). Therefore, the initial Enterobacteriaceae count was of <1 log CFU/g in muscle; 1.99 log CFU/g in skin and 2.48 log CFU/g in gills, increasing to 5.19, 5.75, and 6.35 log CFU/g, respectively, after 18 days of iced storage. The initial count in fresh fish muscle was similar to that reported for ungutted European hake (Baixas-Nogueras et al. 2009). Other authors have reported similar values in different species (initial and final counts), such as sea bass with counts of 2 and 4.2 log CFU/g (Papadopoulos et al. 2003), sea bream with 3.9 and 5.6 log CFU/g (Özden et al. 2007) and sardines with 3.5 and 5.08 log CFU/g (Erkan and Özden 2008). The contribution of Enterobacteriaceae to the microflora of fish and its potential spoilage must be taken into consideration especially in the case of polluted water or delay in chilling after catch (Chouliara et al. 2004), as well as in the filleting process (Moini et al. 2009). Although this group of bacteria can grow at low temperatures, their abundance decreases during ice storage, possibly because their growth rate is lower than in others Gram-negative psychrotrophic spoilers (Bahmani et al. 2011).

Clostridia and P. phosphoreum initial counts were no detected in all the tissues analysed. However, they increased after 18 days of iced storage to reach values of 1,245 and 6,923 CFU/g in muscle, 993 and 1,456 CFU/g in skin, 710 and 18,420 CFU/g, in gills, respectively. The counts and the trend growth of these bacteria were different to others examined in the present study. Similar results were found in boque fish stored aerobically, where the contribution of P. phosphoreum was extremely small and rather unimportant (Koutsoumanis and Nychas 1999).

Statistical analysis

In Tables 3 and 4, the linear trend of bacterial counts (log CFU/g and CFU/g) in relation to the observation days and tissue was showed. This growth presented statistical significances (p < 0.001) between the different days sampled for all the studied bacteria. Thus, the Figs. 1 and 2 showed the linear trend of both bacterial groups. The first group analysed had a real positive progression in all the tissues studied (Table 3), whereas in the second group (Clostridium and P. phosphoreum) there were an exponential progression since day 7 (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Log-CFU/g plotted against to observation day and its linear fitted; ▲——Muscle; ◆------ Gills; ○······ Skin

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

The cfu/g plotted against to the observation day and its fitted by means of a zero-inflated Poisson model. ▲——Muscle; ◆------ Gills; ○······ Skin

Conclusions

The results obtained from this study showed that the SSB were dominant in sea bream harvested in the temperate water of the Canary Islands, these were similar to those obtained in fish from temperate and tropical waters regarding to other studies. The statistical analysis revealed differences in the evolution of contamination (microbial growth) between the sampled tissues (muscle, skin and gills). Therefore, a thorough understanding of the spoilage process and knowledge of the specific spoilage organisms would be necessary to design a predictive mathematical model of the sea bream shelf life.

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to our families for the support and their constructive comments.

References

  1. Álvarez A, García B, Garrido MD, Hernández MD. The influence of starvation time prior to slaughter on the quality of commercial-sized gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) during ice storage. Aquaculture. 2008;284:106–114. doi: 10.1016/j.aquaculture.2008.07.025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. APHA . Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater. 18. Washington: American Public Health Association; 1992. [Google Scholar]
  3. APROMAR (2012) La Acuicultura Marina de Peces en España. APROMAR. http://www.apromar.es/Informes/informe%202012/Informe-APROMAR-2012.pdf
  4. Bahmani ZA, Rezai M, Hosseini SV, Regenstein JM, Böhme K, Alishahi A, Yadollahi F. Chilled storage of golden gray mullet (Liza aurata) LWT Food Sci Technol. 2011;4:1894–1900. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2011.01.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Baixas-Nogueras S, Bover-Cid S, Veciana-Nogué MT, Vidal-Carou MC. Effect of gutting on microbial loads, sensory properties, and volatile and biogenic amine contents of European Hake (Merluccius merluccius var. mediterraneus) stored in ice. J Food Prot. 2009;72:1671–1676. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-72.8.1671. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Barrow GI, Feltham RK. Cowan and Steel’s manual for the identification of medical bacteria. Cambridge: Cambridge University; 1993. [Google Scholar]
  7. Broekaert K, Heyndrickx M, Herman L, Devlieghere L, Vlaemynck G. Seafood quality analysis: molecular identification of dominant microbiota after ice storage on several general growth media. Food Microbiol. 2011;28:1162–1169. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2011.03.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cakli S, Kilinc B, Cadun A, Dincer T, Tolasa S. Quality differences of whole ungutted sea bream (Sparus aurata) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) while stored in ice. Food Control. 2007;18:391–397. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2005.11.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chouliara I, Sawaidis LN, Riganakos K, Kontaminas MG. Preservation of salted, vacuum-packaged, refrigerated sea bream (Sparus aurata) fillets by irradiation: microbiological, chemical and sensory attributes. Food Microbiol. 2004;21:351–359. doi: 10.1016/S0740-0020(03)00065-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dalgaard P. Qualitative and quantitative characterisation of spoilage bacteria from packed fish. Int J Food Microbiol. 1995;26:319–334. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(94)00137-U. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. De Koning AJ. Rates of cholesterol ester formation during storage of Anchovy (Engraulis capensis) at various temperatures. Int J Food Prop. 2004;7:321–327. doi: 10.1081/JFP-120030040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Drosinos EH, Nychas GJE. Brochothrix thermosphacta, a dominant microorganism in Mediterranean fresh fish (Sparus aurata) stored under modified atmosphere. Ital J Food Sci. 1996;8:323–329. [Google Scholar]
  13. Erkan N. Sensory, chemical, and microbiological attributes of sea bream (Sparus aurata): effect of washing and ice storage. Int J Food Prop. 2007;10:421–434. doi: 10.1080/10942910600848915. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Erkan N, Özden O (2008) Quality assessment of whole and gutted sardines (Sardina pilchardus) stored in ice. Int J Food Sci Technol 43:1549–1559
  15. Erkan N, Uretener G. The effect of high hydrostatic pressure on the microbiological, chemical and sensory quality of fresh gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) Eur Food Res Technol. 2010;230:533–542. doi: 10.1007/s00217-009-1193-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gennari M, Tomaselli S. Changes in aerobic microflora of skin and gills of Mediterranean sardines (Sardina Pilchardus) during storage in ice. Int J Food Microbiol. 1988;6:341–347. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(88)90028-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gennari M, Tomasselli S, Cotrona V. The microflora of fresh and spoiled sardines (Sardina pilchardus) caught in Adriatic (Mediterranean) sea and stored in ice. Food Microbiol. 1999;16:15–28. doi: 10.1006/fmic.1998.0210. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gillespie NC (1981) A numerical taxonomic study of pseudomonas-like bacteria isolated from fish in Southeastern Queensland and their association with spoilage. J Appl Microbiol 29–44
  19. Gram L, Dalgaard P. Fish spoilage bacteria–problems and solutions. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2002;13:262–266. doi: 10.1016/S0958-1669(02)00309-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gram L, Huss H. Microbiological spoilage of fish and fish products. Int J Food Microbiol. 1996;33:589–595. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(96)01134-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Grigorakis K, Taylor KDA, Alexis MN. Seasonal pattern of spoilage of ice stored cultured gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) Food Chem. 2003;81:263–268. doi: 10.1016/S0308-8146(02)00421-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Guillén-Velasco S, Ponce-Alquicira E, Saraiva AF, Guerrero-Legarreta I. Histamine production by two enterobacteriaceae strains isolated from tuna (Thunnus thynnus) and Jack Mackerel (Trachurus murphyii) Int J Food Prop. 2004;7:91–103. doi: 10.1081/JFP-120022984. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hugh R, Leifson E. The taxonomic significance of fermentative versus oxidative Gram-negative bacteria. J Bacteriol. 1953;66:24–26. doi: 10.1128/jb.66.1.24-26.1953. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods) Sampling plans for fish and shellfish in microorganisms in foods. Sampling for microbiological analysis: principles and scientific applications, vol 2. 2. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1986. pp. 181–196. [Google Scholar]
  25. Kilinc B, Cakli S, Cadun A, Dincer T, Tolasa S. Comparison of effects of slurry ice and flake ice pretreatments on the quality of aquacultured sea bream (Sparus aurata) and sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) stored at 4 °C. Food Chem. 2007;104:1611–1617. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.03.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Koutsoumanis K, Nychas GJE. Chemical and sensory changes associated with microbial flora of Mediterranean boque (Boops boops) stored aerobically at 0, 3, 7 and 10°C. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999;65:698–706. doi: 10.1128/aem.65.2.698-706.1999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Koutsoumanis K, Nychas GJ. Application of a systematic procedure to develop a microbial model for rapid fish shelf life predictions. Int J Food Microbiol. 2000;60:171–184. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(00)00309-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Lima Dos Santos C, James D, Teutscher F (1981) Guidelines for chilled fish storage experiments. FAO Fish Tech Pap 210 p
  29. López-Caballero MA, Huidobro A, Pastor A, Tejada M (2002) Microflora of gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) stored in ice. Effect of washing. Eur Food Res Technol 215:396–400
  30. Lougovois VP, Kyranas ER, Kyrana VR. Comparison of selected methods of assessing freshness quality and remaining storage life of iced gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) Food Res Int. 2003;36:551–560. doi: 10.1016/S0963-9969(02)00220-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Moini S, Tahergorabi R, Hosseini SV, Rabbani M, Tahergorabi Z, Feàs X, Aflaki F. Effect of gamma radiation on the quality and shelf life of refrigerated rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fillets. J Food Prot. 2009;72:1419–1426. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-72.7.1419. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Mol S, Erkan N, Üçok D, Tosun ŞY. Effect of psychrophilic bacteria to estimate fish quality. J Muscle Foods. 2007;18:120–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-4573.2007.00071.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Olafsdóttir G, Lauzon HL, Martinsdóttir E, Kristbergsson K. Influence of storage temperature on microbial spoilage characteristics of haddock fillets (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) evaluated by multivariate quality prediction. Int J Food Microbiol. 2006;111:112–125. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2006.04.045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Özden O, Inugur M, Erkan N. Preservation of iced refrigerated sea bream (Sparus aurata) by irradiation: microbiological, chemical and sensory attributes. Eur Food Res Technol. 2007;225:797–805. doi: 10.1007/s00217-006-0484-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Paleologos EK, Savvaidis IN, Kontominas MG. Biogenic amines formation and its relation to microbiological and sensory attributes in ice-stored whole, gutted and filleted Mediterranean sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) Food Microbiol. 2004;21:549–557. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2003.11.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Papadopoulos V, Chouliara I, Badeka A, Savvaidis I, Kontominas M. Effect of gutting on microbiological, chemical, and sensory properties of aquacultured sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) stored in ice. Food Microbiol. 2003;20:411–420. doi: 10.1016/S0740-0020(02)00148-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pascual MR, Calderón V (2002) Microbiología alimentaria: metodología analítica para alimentos y bebidas. 2° Edición. Edt. Díaz de Santos. Madrid. Spain
  38. Pérez-Sánchez JM, Moreno-Batet E. In: Invertebrados marinos de Canarias. Ediciones del Cabildo Insular de Gran Canaria, editor. Spain: Las Palmas de Gran Canaria; 1991. p. 335. [Google Scholar]
  39. Sant’Ana LS, Soares S, Vaz-Pires P (2011) Development of a quality index method (QIM) sensory scheme and study of shelf-life of ice-stored blackspot sea bream (Pagellus bogaraveo). LWT Food Sci Technol 44:2253–2259
  40. Slattery SL. Shelf-life of Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus commerson) from northern Australian waters. J Aquat Food Prod Technol. 1988;7:63–79. doi: 10.1300/J030v07n04_07. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Svanevik CS, Lunestad BT. Characterisation of the microbiota of Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Int J Food Microbiol. 2011;151:164–170. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.08.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Tejada M, Huidobro A. Quality of farmed gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) during ice storage related to the slaughter method and gutting. Eur Food Res Technol. 2002;215:1–7. doi: 10.1007/s00217-002-0494-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  43. Tzikas Z, Ambrosiadis I, Soultos N, Georgakis SP. Quality assessment of Mediterranean horse mackerel (Trachurus mediterraneus) and blue jack mackerel (Trachurus picturatus) during storage in ice. Food Control. 2007;18:1172–1179. doi: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2006.07.014. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ward DR, Baj NJ. Factors affecting microbiological quality of seafood. Food Technol. 1988;42:85–89. [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Food Science and Technology are provided here courtesy of Springer

RESOURCES