Performance Comparison Between a Natural and a Commercial Antioxidant on Smoked Pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus)

  •  Luzilene A. Cassol    
  •  Edivaldo S. de Almeida Filho    
  •  Anderson C. S. de Oliveira    


Fish consumption has grown in Brazil, but the lack of diversification in the offer of processed products restricts this eating habit. Moreover, the fact that industrialized products contain chemical additives threatens the image of fish as a healthy protein. Thus, the present study proposes not only to develop a product with antioxidant action, but also to apply it and compare it with a commercial antioxidant added to smoked pacu (Piaractus mesopotamicus) ribs. For this purpose, a meal was produced from the pulp of ‘jatobá’ (Hymenaea courbaril) fruit and its total phenolic content and antioxidant potential were tested. After its antioxidant power was proven, an experiment with 90 samples was carried out to test six storage times and five meal concentrations as a completely randomized design (CRD) with a factorial arrangement. Phase 2 was conducted with the most indicated concentration of the product, which was applied to 360 samples in a CRD with a factorial arrangement in which the factors corresponded to six storage times and two types of antioxidant (natural: jatobá meal; and commercial: butylated hydroxytoluene [BHT]) plus a control treatment. Microbiological, physicochemical, and sensory analyses were used for the evaluation. Results showed that the jatobá meal was effective as an antioxidant at the concentration of 4.5% to ensure a shelf life of 5 days under refrigerated storage, whereas BHT (100 mg/g) provided a shelf life of 10 days to the product and the treatment without antioxidant resulted in a shelf life of one day.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
  • Issn(Print): 1916-9752
  • Issn(Onlne): 1916-9760
  • Started: 2009
  • Frequency: monthly

Journal Metrics

(The data was calculated based on Google Scholar Citations)

  • Google-based Impact Factor (2016): 2.28
  • h-index (December 2017): 31
  • i10-index (December 2017): 304
  • h5-index (December 2017): 22
  • h5-median (December 2017): 27