Cited by 23Bee Products Chemical AnalysisMeat and Animal Product QualityEssential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Study of Chemical Composition and Efficacy of Different Extracts of Iranian Propolis on the Microbiological and Sensory Parameters of Minced Cyprinus carpio Meat at 4°C Storage

Payandan, Elham, Sayyed-Alangi, S. Zahra, Shamloofar, Mahshid, Koohsari, Hadi·2017·Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology

Abstract

This study has evaluated the effects of different concentrations of the water and ethanolic extracts of Iranian propolis (WEP and EEP) on the microbiological and sensory parameters of minced common carp meat that was stored at 4°C for 9 days. The chemical compounds of the extracts were identified by gas chromatography–mass spectroscopy (GC-MS) analysis. The results revealed that WEP and EEP extracts were efficient against the spoilage microorganisms, including total plate counts (TPCs), psychrotrophic populations (PTCs), lactic acid bacteria (LAB), and even Staphylococcus aureus. There was a significant difference in the bacteria growth between samples treated with WEP or EEP and the control sample during storage. Inhibitory effects were, respectively, 7% EEP > 5% EEP > 3% EEP > 7% WEP > 5% WEP > 3% WEP. In all treatments, PTC counts were higher than 7 log CFU/g after 6 days as well as TPC, LAB, and S. aureus populations after 9 days. Overall, the results show that EEP and WEP have good antimicrobial activity due to high phenolic and flavonoid compounds, including caffeic acid, tectochrysin, aceacetin, chrysin, pinostrobin, pinobanksin-3-acetate, galangin-3-methyl ester, and pinocembrin chalcone. Sensory evaluation shows very slight improvement in sensory properties (color, odor, texture, and overall acceptability) of the treated samples with the different extracts of Iranian propolis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10498850.2016.1240281

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. AOAC, 2010, Official Methods of Analysis
  2. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.08.027 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.lwt.2006.07.007 · DOI
  4. 10.1046/j.1365-2672.2000.00785.x · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.03.022 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1590/S1517-83822008000400030 · DOI
  7. Choobkar N., 2010, Iran. J. Fish. Sci., 9, 352
  8. 10.1016/S0740-0020(03)00059-5 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.07.055 · DOI
  10. 10.1016/0168-1605(93)90020-H · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.019 · DOI
  12. 10.5455/vetworld.2012.155-159 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.05.019 · DOI
  14. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.09.045 · DOI
  15. 10.21897/rmvz.84 · DOI
  16. ICMSF International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods, 1986, 2-Sampling for Microbiological Analysis: Principles and Specific Applications
  17. Irkin R., 2011, Bulg. J. Agric. Sci., 17, 655
  18. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.02.060 · DOI
  19. Kilic A., 2005, Ann. Microbiol., 55, 113
  20. Jafarzadeh Kashi T. S., 2011, Iran J. Pharm. Res., 10, 363
  21. 10.1007/s0028400101170 · DOI
  22. Kosalec I., 2003, Acta Pharmaceutica-zagreb, 53, 275
  23. Mahfouz A. B., 2013, Chemical and sensory propereties of kubba: Prepared chilled meal. Ann. Univ. Dunarea de Jos of Galati Fascicle VI-Food Tech., 37, 82
  24. 10.1051/apido:19950202 · DOI
  25. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.08.037 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.fm.2009.04.002 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.10.006 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1016/S0963-9969(00)00100-9 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.jep.2007.05.012 · DOI
  30. Shirazinejad A., 2010, World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol., 65, 163
  31. 10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.02.003 · DOI
  32. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2005.07.044 · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.01.011 · DOI
  34. 10.1590/S1517-83822010000400030 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.comptc.2015.05.003 · DOI
  36. Yaghoubi M., 2007, DARU J. Pharm. Sci., 15, 45
  37. Yar Ahmadi S., 2008, J. Agri. Sci. (Persian), 18, 195

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Payandan, E., Sayyed-Alangi, S. Z., Shamloofar, M., & Koohsari, H.
Affiliations
Islamic Azad University, Azadshahr Branch (IR)
Corresponding author
Sayyed-Alangi, S. Zahra
Venue
Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology
Published
2017-05-01
Volume
26
Issue
5
Pages
593-603
ISSN
  • 1049-8850 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-0636
OpenAlex
W2533172012
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1
FWCI
1.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Azadshahr Branch, Islamic Azad University (-)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Bee Products Chemical Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Essential Oils and Antimicrobial Activity
Keywords
propolis extract, aqueous extract, ethanol extract, Cyprinus carpio, minced fish, antimicrobial activity, spoilage microorganisms, lactic acid bacteria, Staphylococcus aureus, psychrotrophic bacteria, phenolic compounds, flavonoids, chalcones, chemical composition, sensory evaluation, cold storage, fish preservation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review