Assessment of Color and Sensory Evaluation of Frozen Fillets from Pangasius Catfish and Nile Tilapia Imported to European Countries

Figures & data

TABLE 1 Samples and the ingredients list

Name of samples	Code	Ingredients of the samples
Pangasius imported to Germany	PG	Fish fillets and water
Tilapia imported to Germany	TG	Fish fillets and water
Pangasius imported to Ukraine	PU	Fish fillets, water and polyphosphates (E452)
Pangasius imported to Poland	PP	Fish fillets, water and polyphosphates (E452)
Tilapia imported to Poland	TP	Fish fillets, water and sodium triphosphate (E451)

TABLE 2 Labeling of the fish samples for the sensory analysis

Trial 1
Code shown to respondents	Type of fish
A	Pangasius catfish imported to Germany
B	Pangasius catfish imported to Poland
C	Pangasius catfish imported to Ukraine
D	Nile tilapia imported to Germany
E	Nile tilapia imported to Poland
Trial 2
Name shown to the respondents	Price shown to the respondents [EUR/kg]	Real name of the evaluated fish
Pangasius	2–3	Pangasius imported to Poland
Tilapia	4–5	Tilapia imported to Poland
Sole	7–8	Tilapia imported to Poland
Turbot	10–12	Pangasius imported to Poland

TABLE 3 The color parameters of frozen fillets from pangasius catfish and Nile tilapia

Fish	L*	a*	b*
PP	60.44^a ± 2.28	–1.42^a,b ± 0.41	4.88^a,b ± 1.51
PU	68.95^c ± 4.71	–0.21^c ± 0.10	9.55^d ± 0.61
PG	61.31^a,b ± 3.18	–1.32^b ± 0.17	6.63^b,c ± 0.37
TP	62.84^a,b ± 2.82	–0.94^b,c ± 0.42	8.21^c,d ± 1.79
TG	64.90^b,c ± 2.53	–2.61^a ± 0.20	4.49^a ± 1.28

^a,b,c,dSignificance of difference for α < 0.05.

TABLE 4 Results from blind trial (Trial 1) of sensory evaluation

Name	PP	PG	PU	TP	TG
Color	3.6^a,b	3.8^b	3.1^a	3.8^a,b	4.0^b
Odor	2.9^b	3.6^a,b	2.8^b	4.0^a	3.9^a
Texture	3.3^a,b	3.9^b	2.8^a	4.1^b	4.0^b
Taste	3.2^a,b	3.5^a,b	2.8^b	3.9^a	3.7^a,b
Overall acceptability	3.3^a,b	3.6^a	2.7^b	3.9^a	4.1^a
The best [% of respondents]	9.5%	11.9%	4.8%	40.5%	33.3%

Results expressed as average of all the scores;

^a,bsignificance of differences (α < 0.05).

TABLE 5 Differences in grades depending on the knowledge of fish name [% of respondents]

Color	Difference in grades
	–3	–2	–1	0	1	2	3
B-P	0	7	33	50	10	0	0
E-T	0	7	17	60	13	3	0
Tu-Pa	0	0	13	47	30	7	3
So-Ti	0	0	7	67	20	7	0
Odor	Difference in grades
	–3	–2	–1	0	1	2	3
B-P	0	10	20	40	13	17	3
E-T	0	7	13	57	13	7	3
Tu-Pa	0	0	13	30	27	13	17
So-Ti	0	3	17	43	27	7	3
Texture	Difference in grades
	–3	–2	–1	0	1	2	3
B-P	3	0	20	47	23	3	3
E-T	0	7	17	50	20	3	3
Tu-Pa	0	3	10	27	43	13	0
So-Ti	3	10	13	40	27	7	0
Taste	Difference in grades
	–3	–2	–1	0	1	2	3
B-P	3	0	13	33	33	13	3
E-T	0	10	20	50	20	0	0
Tu-Pa	0	3	10	33	20	27	7
So-Ti	3	0	33	43	20	0	0
Overall acceptability	Difference in grades
	–3	–2	–1	0	1	2	3
B-P	0	10	7	37	40	7	0
E-T	0	7	30	43	13	7	0
Tu-Pa	0	3	3	43	27	20	3
So-Ti	0	0	33	40	20	3	3
Price/quality ratio	Difference in grades
	–3	–2	–1	0	1	2	3
Tu-Pa	20	13	27	10	23	7	0
So-Ti	0	3	47	30	20	0	0

B-Pa: Score given to sample “B” from Trial 1 minus the score given to “Pangasius” in Trial 2; E-Ti: Score given to sample “E” from Trial 1 minus the score given to “Tilapia” in Trial 2; Tu-Pa: Score given to sample “Turbot” from Trial 2 minus the score given to “Pangasius” in Trial 2; So-Pa: Score given to sample “Sole” from Trial 2 minus the score given to “Tilapia” in Trial 2; Differences in grades between <–1,1> were treated as no or small differences; Differences in grades between <2,3> and <–3,–2> were treated as significant differences.