82 11 C/2, 10 mm, 4-5] CIE L *,, a * b *, L *,,, 0 100, 0, 100 a *,,, 80, 100 b * 19 -,, 80, ] 6] 7], 3, 3 8] 9] 10] 11] 12] L * a * b *, E E =

11 1 2 0 1 5 2 South China Fisheries Science Vol. 11, No. 1 Feb., 2015 doi: 10. 3969/ j. issn. 2095-0780. 2015. 01. 012 1, 2 1 1 1,,,, 1 1, ( 1.,,, 510300; 2.,, 201306) :,,,,, : 30, 30%, 1. 5 m s - 1 2. 68, 88. 7, 0. 135 mgkg - 1, : ; ; ; : TS 254. 4. 2 : A : 2095-0780 - ( 2015) 01-0081 - 08 Optimization of heat pump drying technical parameters of salted dry fish REN Zhongyang 1, 2, WU Yanyan 1, LI Laihao 1, YANG Xianqing 1, QI Bo 1, CEN Jianwei 1 ( 1. Key Lab. of Aquatic Product Processing of Ministry of Agriculture; South China Sea Fisheries Research Institute, Chinese Academy of Fishery Sciences, Guangzhou 510300, China; 2. College of Food Science and Technology, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai 201306, China) Abstract: To improve the traditional drying technology of salted dry fish, we investigated the dry curve and dry process parameters of salted fish under different heat pump drying conditions. Taking chromatism and sensory evaluation as indices, temperature, we studied the drying humidity and wind speed which affect drying process of salted dry fish, so as to determine the best process parameters in heat pump dry process through orthogonal experiment. The optimal parameters were as follows: heat pump temperature 30, relative humidity 30% and wind speed 1. 5 m s - 1. The chromatism value of salted dry fish was 2. 68 and the sensory score was 88. 7 under these conditions. Salted dry fish after heat pump drying had smaller chromatism, better quality and less fat oxidation with peroxide value of 0. 135 mg kg - 1 compared with fresh fish. The quality of salted dry fish was improved. Key words: salted dry fish; heat pump drying; processing; optimization ( ),, 1],, 2],, 3], : 2014-05-09; : 2014-06 -05 : ( 31371800) ; ( 2014C05XK01 ) ; ( A201201I04, A201301C01) : ( 1987 - ),,, E-mail: renzhongyang. 0515 @ 163. com : ( 1969 - ),,, E-mail: wuyygd@ 163. com

82 11 C/2, 10 mm, 4-5] CIE L *,, a * b *, L *,,, 0 100, 0, 100 a *,,, 80, 100 b * 19 -,, 80, 100 20] 6] 7], 3, 3 8] 9] 10] 11] 12] L * a * b *, E E = : 13] 14] 15] ( L * ) 2 + ( a * ) 2 + ( b * ) 2 ] 1 / 2 ( Pseudosciaena polyactis) 16] 1. 2. 3 10 ( Pandalus borealis) 17] ( Hypophthalmichthys molitrix) 18],,,, 10,,,,, 21],, 1 1 1. 1 ( Otolithes ruber) 24 h 2 h, ( ) ; ( GB204, Mettler ) ; 1. 2. 5 ( HG53, Mettler ) ; 25, 1. 5 m s - 1 ( DC-P3, ),, 1. 2. 4 30%, 1. 5 ms - 1, 20 30 40 50 20% 30%40% 50%, 1. 2 30%, 2 h 1. 2. 1,,,, 1. 2. 6, 25, 30%, 20% 25% 2 d, 1. 0 m s - 1 1. 5 m s - 1 2. 0 m s - 1,,, 30%, 2 h 30%, 1. 2. 2 DC-P3 1 Tab. 1 Sensory evaluation standards for salted fish type / score for evaluation 18 25 11 17 3 10 0 3 appearence odour chewness,,,,,,,, aftertaste

1 : 83 1. 2. 7,,, 3 3 L 9 3 4, 3 2 Tab. 2 2 Orthogonal design of factors and levels level / temperature ( A) / % relativity humility ( B) / m s - 1 wind speed ( C) 1 35 40 2. 0 2 30 30 1. 5 3 25 20 1. 0 1. 2. 8 1. 00 g, GBT 5538-2005 3 1. 2. 9 3 10 g, 105 3 h, G G g ( 2 0. 01 g), M, M( % ) = 100 ( G - G g ) / G g 1. 2. 10 SPSS 19. 0 Origin 8. 0 2 2. 1 2. 1. 1 30% 1. 5 m s - 1, 1 ( 1 - a) 20 30 40 50 Fig. 1 Effect different temperatures, relative humidies and 30% wind speeds on moisture content in salted dry fish 1. 5 m s - 1,, 0. 82 gg - 1 0. 86 gg - 1 ( d. b., ),,, 30% 1. 5 m s - 1, 1. 00 gg - 1 40 50 30 40 20, 2. 1. 2 30 1. 5 m s - 1,, ( 1 - b), 50, 20% 30%40%50%, 40,,,,, 20 30 40 50 11, h 1. 01 gg - 1 0. 92 gg - 1 40% 30%

84 11, SPSS 19. 0 t, ( 3) t, 95%, 1. 0 m s - 1 1. 5 ms - 1 1. 5 ms - 1 2. 0 m s - 1, 30% 30, 2. 0 m s - 1 2. 2 2. 2. 1 1. 5 m s - 1 30%, 50 E 20 30 40 E( P < 0. 05) ( 2 - a) E 30 20, 40 30,,,, 30 2. 2. 2 1. 5 m s - 1 30, E, 50% E 20% 30% 40% ( P < 0. 05) E ( 2 - b), 30%,, 2, 30% Fig. 2 Effect of different drying temperatures, relative humidities 2. 2. 3 E, and wind speeds on chromatic aberration of salted dry fish 30 30%, 50% E 1. 5 ms - 1 50%, 30% E ( P < 0. 05) ( 2 - c) 1. 5 m s - 1 1. 5 m s - 1, 30%,, 2. 1. 3,,,,, ( 1 - c ),,, 22], 10, h, 1. 5 ms - 1, 10 h 2. 3,, 2. 3. 1, 1. 5 m s - 1 1. 0 ( 3 - a) m s - 1, 30,,,,,, 30,

1 : 85 Tab. 3 3 t T test of moisture content in salted dry fish at different wind speeds paired difference gro up test object mean 95 % 95% confidence interval standard deviation standard error mean of difference t df ( ) Sig. ( 2 -tailed ) lower upper 1 1. 0 ms - 1 1. 5 m s - 1 0. 075 09 0. 028 13 0. 007 26 0. 059 52 0. 090 67 10. 339 14 0 2 1. 0 ms - 1 2. 0 m s - 1 0. 058 40 0. 045 52 0. 011 75 0. 033 20 0. 083 61 4. 969 14 0 3 1. 5 ms - 1 2. 0 m s - 1-0. 016 69 0. 029 04 0. 007 50-0. 032 77-0. 000 61-2. 226 14 0. 043 : P <0. 05 ; P < 0. 01 Note: P < 0. 05 indicates significant difference; P < 0. 01 indicates very significant difference. 30 2. 3. 2 ( 3 - b), 30%, 50%,,,,, 30% 2. 3. 3 ( 3 - c), 1. 5 ms - 1,,,, 1. 5 m s - 1 2. 4, L 9 3 4 ( 4) 5 2. 94, 84. 0 1 11. 69, 66. 0, 3 > 3 > A 2 C 3 B 2, A 2 C 2 B 2 Fig. 3 Effect of different drying temperatures, relative,, humidities and wind speeds on sensory A 2 C 2 B 2, 30, 30%, 1. 5 m s - 1 quality of salted dry fish,

86 11 ( 5 6),, 2. 5,,,,,,,,, L 9 3 4,, 7 4 Tab. 4 Results of orthogonal experiment of salted dry fish / drying temperature No. ( A) / % drying humidity ( B) / m drying wind speed ( C) s - 1 blank chromatism sensory score 1 1 1 1 1 11. 67 66. 0 2 1 2 2 2 11. 58 73. 1 3 1 3 3 3 10. 90 66. 3 4 2 1 2 3 6. 99 84. 8 5 2 2 3 1 2. 94 84. 0 6 2 3 1 2 7. 25 83. 4 7 3 1 3 2 9. 05 77. 3 8 3 2 1 3 8. 61 75. 8 9 3 3 2 1 10. 37 77. 4 chromatism K1 /3 11. 38 9. 24 9. 18 K2 /3 5. 73 7. 71 9. 65 K3 /3 9. 34 9. 50 7. 63 R1 5. 66 1. 80 2. 02 sensory score M1/3 68. 47 76. 03 75. 07 M2/3 84. 07 77. 63 78. 43 M3/3 76. 83 75. 70 75. 87 R2 15. 60 1. 60 3. 37 5 Tab. 5 Result of variance analysis of sensory quality of salted dry fish source SS df MS F significance temperature 365. 682 2 182. 841 37. 054 * humidity 6. 409 2 3. 204 0. 649 wind speed 18. 562 2 9. 281 1. 881 error 9. 869 2 4. 934 total 400. 522 8 : F 0. 05( 2, 2) = 19. 00, F 0. 01( 2, 2) = 99. 00, Note: F 0. 05( 2, 2) = 19. 00, F 0. 01( 2, 2) =99. 00. The same case in the following table.

1 : 87 6 Tab. 6 Result of variance analysis of chromatic aberration of salted dry fish source SS df MS F significance temperature 49. 240 2 24. 620 35. 102 * humidity 5. 632 2 2. 816 4. 015 wind speed 6. 680 2 3. 340 4. 762 error 1. 403 2 0. 701 total variance 62. 954 8 7 Tab. 7 Comparison of salted dry fish dried by traditional method and heat pump drying sample of salted dry fish chromatism sensory score / mgkg - 1 peroxide value traditional dry 7. 63 0. 07 79. 6 1. 51 0. 178 0. 00 3 heat pump dry 2. 68 0. 32 88. 7 1. 16 0. 135 0. 00 1 7. 63, 79. 6, 2. 68, 88. 7, 2] BOERI C, SILVA F N, FERREIRA J, et al. Predicting the drying kinetics of salted codfish ( Gadus morhua ) :, semi-empirical, diffusive and neural network models J].,,, 46( 3) : 509-515., Int J Food Sci Technol, 2011, 3 ],,,., J]., 2012, 33 ( 24) : 430-433., 4 ],,,. 3 20 30 40 50 11 h 1. 01 gg - 1 0. 92g g - 1 0. 82 g g - 1 0. 86 g - 1 ( d. b. ) 40% solar assisted heat pump system J]. 30% 50% 2013, 72( 8 ) : 171-178. 1. 0 m s - 1 1. 5 m s - 1 1. 5 m s - 1 2. 0 m s - 1 sublimation and evaporation on the heat pump fluid bed drying of bovine intestines J]. Drying Technol, 2012, L 9 3 4 1591., : 30 30 ( 14 ) : 1583-8] YANG Z,, 30%, 1. 5 m ZHU E, ZHU Z, et al. A comparative study on intermittent s - 1, heat pump drying process of Chinese cabbage ( Brassica campes-, tris L. ssp) seeds J]. Food Bioprod Process, 2013, 91( 4) : 381,, - 388. 2. 68, 88. 7 9 ],,,. J].,,, 2013, 34( 11) : 259-262.,, 0. 135 mgkg - 1 10],,,., : 1] U Y Y, REN Z Y. Mathematical modeling of drying kinetics of salted otolithes ruber at the different temperature J]. Res, 2013, 781 / 782 /783 / 784: 1347-1352. J]., 2011, 7( 6 ) : 1-6. Adv Mater 5 ],,,. GC-MS N- J]., 2012, 8( 4) : 16-22. 6 ] SEVIK S, AKTAS M, DOGAN H, et al. Mushroom drying with Energ Convers Manage, 7 ] WIJITHA S, ODILIO A F, TRYGVE E. Influence of atmospheric J]., 2013, 11( 6) : 36-41. 11],,,. J]., 2013, 34( 4) : 228-231. 12]. - J].

88 11, 2013( 6) : 716-717. 13],,,. ( 23 ) : 227-232. J]., 2014, 35 ( 4) : 1. 14],,,. changes of shrimp during boiling in salt solution J]. J]., 2013, 34( 11) : 104-108. 15],,,. 20]. J]., 2010 J]., 2013, 34( 12) : 115-121. 16],,. - 21],. J]. J]., 2013, 44( 5) : 1257-1262. 17],. J]., 22],,,. 2013, 32 ( 6) : 343-347. 18],,,. 50. J]., 2013, 29 19] NIAMNUY C, DEVAHASTIN S, SOPONRONNARIT S. Quality 2007, 72 ( 5) : 289-297. ( 7) : 49-51., 2008( 4) : 71-74. J Food Sci, J]., 2014, 40 ( 2 ) : 47 -