28

CONTENTS

Shelf-Life Prediction of Frozen Foods

Brian McKenna
University College Dublin, Ireland

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Frozen Foods: Why it is Difcult to Predict Shelf-Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Unfrozen Water and Glass Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Deterioration Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Shelf-Life Determination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. Time Temperature Tolerance (TTT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Practical Storage Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. High-Quality Life (HQL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Accelerated Measurement and the Q10 Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Methods Used for Specic Foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

603 604 604 605 608 608 608 608 610 611 611 612 612

I. INTRODUCTION
It is difcult to produce a common method for the prediction of the shelf-life of frozen foods. Fresh or chilled foods normally have a single dominant deterioration mechanism (e.g., microbial spoilage). So, it is relatively easy to model the temperature changes in the product and to superimpose microbial growth and decay models on these temperatures, the integration of which over time will result in a good approximation of when the microbial load will exceed a safe limit and so dene the safe shelf-life [1]. Lest one thinks that the foregoing sentence solves the problem for fresh and chilled products, let me quickly add that a deciency in kinetic data on microbial growth and decay for spoilage organisms at the temperatures involved and their interactions with food composition make this a far from easy task. For frozen foods, such an approach becomes an impossible task because of the multitude of spoilage mechanisms involved. There is a presumption that freezing stops most deterioration mechanisms. Although this may have some validity in the solid glassy state (see later) reached at very low freezing temperatures, normal frozen food storage temperatures (2 18 to 2 208C) are signicantly higher than the glass transition temperature and will consequently contain some unfrozen water. Blond and Le Meste [2] present a table of typical glass transition temperatures for many foods. These range from 2 318C for some juices down to 2 858C for beef muscle. Many publications summarize the spoilage mechanisms prevalent in frozen foods. These include enzymatic deterioration, cell damage and protein and starch interactions, nonenzymatic browning, water migration (both during freezing and storage), water recrystallization and change in crystalline form, solute crystallization, oxidative deterioration (e.g., lipid oxidation in fatty meats and color changes in sh and meat), protein denaturation (which may alter water-binding
603
2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

604

Shelf-Life Prediction of Frozen Foods

capacity), and lastly, microbial changes. This last deterioration mechanism is not of major signicance because most frozen foods are stored at temperatures below the lower limits of microbial growth (approximately 2 108C). However, with temperature uctuations during storage and distribution, these may become signicant.

II. FROZEN FOODS: WHY IT IS DIFFICULT TO PREDICT SHELF-LIFE A. UNFROZEN WATER AND GLASS TRANSITION
The process by which food freezes is now well understood. As heat is removed from the food, ice crystals will start to form once the temperature falls a little below its nominal freezing point which is normally in the range of 2 1 to 2 28C (subcooling). The subsequent release of heat of crystallization will bring the temperature back to the nominal freezing point. However, unlike the freezing of a pure solvent, the effective concentrating effect of ice crystal formation on the liquid phase results in a progressive reduction in the nominal freezing temperature. As a result, temperature continues to decrease and the concentration of the remaining unfrozen liquid rises. Both effects contribute to a signicant increase in viscosity of the unfrozen liquid. Also, depending on the rate of freezing, water migration may occur due to osmotic effects. When the viscosity of the unfrozen liquid surrounding the ice crystals becomes very high (1011 to 1012 Pa s), solidication or vitrication may quickly occur and the remaining concentrated solution becomes a glass [2]. The temperature at which this occurs is known as the glass transition temperature. No further freezing of water occurs below this temperature. However, for many foods the glass transition temperature is considerably below the temperatures encountered in food freezing and storage, and results in small pockets of unfrozen water within the foods. So, deterioration of the food is not totally inhibited. It should be noted that for many foods the glass transition temperature is independent of the initial moisture content of the food. The reader is referred to Ref. [2] for a treatment on the methods of measuring the glass transition temperature using differential scanning calorimetry and for a discussion of the ambiguities that can arise in the interpretation of the results of such measurements. Storage temperatures can uctuate signicantly over the complete cold chain and many temperature surveys have been published. Typically, 2 238C has been the average for the manufacturers cold store with a maximum target of no more than 2 188C during uctuations. This may rise to 2 188C during distribution to either the wholesaler or the retailer. A further rise in the mean is quoted at retail level. Although 2 188C is the target, the norm is closer to 2 158C. These uctuations become greater still when the consumer enters the chain. Transport to the home can be at anything up to 408C for an hour in the back of a car in a hot climate and surface thawing may begin. The domestic freezer will probably be close to that in the retail outlet (but can have large variations) and will probably be accompanied by a less than ideal refreezing of the surface layer of a slightly thawed product. In addition, temperature changes during the defrost cycles at both retail and domestic levels can have a signicant impact. Although the above gures are means extracted from a wide range of publications over the years, it is admitted that uctuations of 3 58C may occur in any one part of the chain. This in itself is a serious quality determinant as there is signicant evidence that the shelf-life of frozen foods stored at uctuating temperatures can be much shorter than that of foods stored at the constant mean temperature of the uctuations. It must, of course, be noted that even at these low but uctuating temperatures, the product is considerably above its glass transition temperature and, consequently, is not inert and deterioration mechanisms can continue. In particular, it should be noted that vitrication of any supersaturated liquid phase has not taken place.

B. DETERIORATION MECHANISMS
Generally, microbial deterioration is not a problem with frozen foods. Unfortunately for the processor and consumer, this makes the prediction of shelf-life difcult for frozen foods because
2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Handbook of Frozen Food Processing and Packaging

605

most of the available model systems are based on microbial prediction of deterioration [1]. In nonfrozen foods, the widespread availability of kinetic data on pathogenic organisms and the relatively sparse kinetic data on nonpathogenic spoilage organisms are the main source of difculty when prediction spoilage rates in foods. In addition, the normal presence of a mixture of microorganisms may cause difculties as there is little data on the synergic inuences of the mixed ora on kinetic data. Although most bacteria do not grow below 2 108C, other deterioration mechanisms such as enzymatic spoilage may limit the storage life even at temperatures below this. Indeed, there are instances where the enzyme activity may be related to bacteria rather than the product itself and many of these (e.g., lipase and protease) may not be inactivated by the preparatory blanching process. However, the effective absence of microbial growth at frozen food storage temperatures does not mean that spoilage is absent in such products. Other forms of spoilage, not as well characterized kinetically, will limit the potential storage period. Many of these spoilage mechanisms are inuenced partially but not completely by the presence of the unfrozen water pockets within the food. A brief summary of these spoilage mechanisms is presented over the following paragraphs. Enzymatic spoilage becomes the dominant spoilage mechanisms for frozen foods without microbial spoilage. Unblanched food products will normally encounter spoilage problems. There is a general agreement that blanching before freezing will reduce the problem. These problems obviously vary between products but avor changes in fruit and vegetables are common. Some products such as meat and poultry may experience cell membrane damage during the blanching process. The freezing process may itself also cause cell damage that limits shelf-life and affects product quality. Drip loss and texture change are the major results. However, blanching to inactivate the enzymes is not universally successful. The thermal inactivation of some enzymes has been reported as reversible and the enzymes can recover their activity under certain conditions. It is reported that the reactivation of enzyme activity after inactivation by heat is one of the properties of lipoxygenase and peroxidase. Although there is evidence of such reactivation in model systems, there is insufcient research on reactivation in stored frozen foods to be denitive [3]. Lipid oxidation is another reaction that will severely limit the shelf-life of a frozen product. This is particularly true for meats (including poultry) and seafood. Even vacuum packaging will not eliminate this problem, as reaction with the molecular oxygen is often the major form of deterioration. Fatty meats and sh, in particular, suffer from this adverse reaction during longterm frozen storage. In addition, enzymatically promoted hydrolysis of the lipids can lead to fatty acid formation and rancidity with the consequent development of an unacceptable avor. Indeed, pork, having a greater proportion of more reactive unsaturated fatty acids in its fat, will experience a greater degree of such change. This may also occur to a much more limited extent in frozen vegetables. A less serious but nonetheless undesirable reaction is oxidative color change in a frozen product. The oxidation of myoglobin to meta-myoglobin, common is deterioration of fresh meat and some sh, can also be found after prolonged frozen storage. Although being more inhibitory than dangerous to the consumer, it will denitely lead to detectable change by consumer panels, a shelf-life determining factor outlined below. As a consequence, it is common for frozen products in the prepared consumer foods category to have antioxidants added to their formulation to inhibit these effects. Fruit products, in particular, can benet from the addition of ascorbic acid to their formulation because fruit blanching, if used at all, is generally to a much milder heat treatment level than that applied to vegetables so as to avoid thermal degradation. The frozen product may well have a higher level of this desirable vitamin that is present in the corresponding fresh product due to addition of a high level (as an antioxidant) during the frozen product preparation. Another of the less serious deterioration reactions is protein denaturation which can lead to loss of some properties such as water-binding capacity and protein solubility. The factors promoting such change can obviously vary between products but can sometimes be attributed to the development of high solute concentrations (with associated changes in pH) in the unfrozen phase due to a
2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

606

Shelf-Life Prediction of Frozen Foods

form of freeze concentration. Solute migration may also result, depending on the rate of freezing, before becoming inhibited due to solidication. Physical changes and damage to the product structure during freezing and storage is a eld large enough to merit a complete chapter in a book such as this. Water migration both within and from the product may occur. Drying may occur during freezing due to vapor pressure differences, whereas sublimation of the ice may occur during long-term frozen storage. In addition to weight and value loss, the color of some products (e.g., meats) may become unattractive to the consumer. This may be due either to desiccation of the meat surface with the consequent development of gray areas (attributed to light scattering effects without ice crystals) or to the darker color of myoglobin compared with oxy-myoglobin. The dehydration effect is commonly termed freezer burn in the frozen food industry a misnomer in an effect caused by evaporation and sublimation. Surface coating of semiprepared meat and sh products will reduce the effect of this quality loss and may even add value to the product. The freezing process itself may also cause considerable damage. The cell damage may come about from the physical rupture or crushing of cells by both the size and location of ice crystals. Ice crystal size will initially be determined by the rate of freezing. As a rule of thumb, slow freezing results in a low rate of nucleation and the production of a small number of large ice crystals, whereas rapid freezing will cause the reverse effect, namely a high rate of nucleation leading to the formation of a large number of very small ice crystals, both processes producing approximately the same ice mass but a different distribution. However, even a rapid freezing process with production of crystals of small size may be reversed during storage as crystals undergo size changes, largely driven by thermodynamic inuences. Small crystals have a much larger surface area per unit mass than have large crystals. So, the surface energy of small crystals is signicantly higher than that of their larger counterparts. Thermodynamically, the optimum crystal size is one that has the minimum surface energy per unit mass or volume. This driving force causes water migration during storage and the formation of larger ice crystals at the expense of smaller ones, and thus the overall ice crystal mass remaining the same. Ice crystals will also change their shape and crystalline form as they migrate toward the optimum size and shape (a sphere). Variation in temperature during storage and temperature cycling can also enhance the development of larger and larger crystals within the system. One might ask whether ice crystal size inuences the stable shelf-life of the product in any way. In theory it should have little or no effect, but the reality is markedly different. The rst obvious effect of ice crystal size is on texture of the product, in particular on the texture of a product that is consumed in the frozen state (e.g., ice cream). A coarse or gritty texture is the normal result. The consumer may often experience this without subjecting the product to long-term storage. Partial melting during transport from the retailer to the domestic freezer cabinet will be followed by a slow refreezing under domestic conditions with the immediate production of coarse large ice crystals instead of the smaller ones from the rapid industrial freezing process. The cell structure of fruits and vegetables (and even meats) may be damaged by the crystals. Large crystals in small cells can also cause damage to the cell walls. However, ice crystal location is also important. A slow freezing process can allow sufcient time for water migration due to osmotic forces from the inner region of a cell to the freeze-concentrated intercell region. This can result in cell desiccation, cell wall disruption, loss of turgor and, ultimately, crushing of the dried cell by the large intercell ice mass. Not only is texture affected but there may also be a signicant and sometimes unnoticed drip loss from the product during thawing and cooking before domestic use. Meat products, thawed in the kitchen or microwave oven before cooking, will show a visible water or drip loss. Vegetables, normally put into the cooking water in their frozen state, will have this effect masked. However, signicant loss of nutrients may occur through the unseen loss of liquid from the product. Yet another quality deterioration mechanism results from the crystallization of solutes in the unfrozen pockets within a nominally frozen product. Freeze-concentration effects will concentrate

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Handbook of Frozen Food Processing and Packaging

607

the solutes in these areas and in addition to promoting the solvent (normally water) migration mentioned earlier. These pockets of solution become supersaturated long before the glass transition temperature has been reached. So, solute crystals may be produced in addition to ice crystals. These may have different size, crystal morphology, rates of dissolution, and latent heat requirements to those of the ice crystals which are forming the bulk of the frozen phase. This can give rise to differences in sensory perception of the product (e.g., lactose formation in ice cream). Other effects may be to the product appearance due to ice crystals on the surface. Other more minor deterioration mechanisms are protein starch interactions and color changes due to nonenzymatic browning. Labuza and Fu [4] list a range of common deterioration mechanisms for specic foods (Table 28.1). The foregoing paragraphs illustrate that deterioration in product quality and safety is a complex combination of many changes, unlike in chilled foods where microbiological growth and the consequent effects are the normal product life determinants.

TABLE 28.1 Deterioration Mechanisms for Frozen Foods

Food Frozen meats, poultry, and seafood Deterioration Process Rancidity Toughening (protein denaturation) Discoloration Desiccation (freezer burn) Loss of nutrients (vitamins) Loss of texture (temperature abuse) Loss of avor (lipoxygenase, peroxidase) Loss of tissue moisture (forming package ice) Discoloration Loss of nutrients (vitamins) Loss of avor Loss of cloudiness Discoloration Yeast growth (upon temperature abuse) Iciness (recrystallization of ice crystals) Sandiness (lactose crystallization) Loss of avor Disruption of emulsion system Rancidity in meat portions Weeping and curdling of sauces Loss of avor Discoloration Package ice Burst can (upon temperature abuse) (dough) Loss of fermentation capability (dough) Staling (becoming leathery) Loss of fresh aroma

Frozen fruits and vegetables

Frozen concentrated juices

Frozen dairy products (ice cream, yogurt, etc.)

Frozen convenience foods

Frozen bakery product (raw dough, bread, croissants)

Source: TP Labuza, B Fu. In: YC Hong, Ed., Frozen Food Quality. Denver: CRC Press, 1997, pp. 377415.

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

608

Shelf-Life Prediction of Frozen Foods

The aforementioned deterioration mechanisms may combine to limit the shelf of specic food products. Sikorski [5] published on the deterioration in the organoleptic quality of meat, poultry, and sh products caused by changes in the proteins and fats in the product. Deterioration may be caused by changes in proteins that result in the product exhibiting a loss of extractability of the microbrillar fraction and loss of functional properties such as water-holding capacity, ease of emulsication of the fats, and the ability to form a gel. Long-term storage may also result in a hardening of the product due to crosslinking of the brillar proteins. Vulicevic et al. [6] have shown that long-term storage of some frozen par-baked bread may change increased rmness, moisture, and avor, all resulting in an overall product deterioration.

III. SHELF-LIFE DETERMINATION

Most food engineers and technologists like to model shelf-life based on the kinetics of deterioration. As most of the foregoing mechanisms follow either zero-order or rst-order kinetics, the mathematical task of shelf-life modeling should be a simple exercise. However, given the multiplicity of deterioration mechanisms present, it is not surprising that kinetic data limitations make the exercise not only difcult but also in many cases impossible. Even when reaction rate constants are available, they have frequently been determined at temperatures well removed from those of frozen food storage conditions. Additionally, many foods may undergo more than one deterioration reaction and the combined effects of these would need to be assessed. So, many laboratory-based procedures have been introduced in an attempt to rectify the situation.

A. TIME TEMPERATURE TOLERANCE (TTT)

The rst of these were time temperature tolerance (TTT) experiments, commonly introduced by the USDA laboratories in the 1960s [7]. The underlying rationale for TTT experiments is that for every food there is a relationship between the storage temperature and the time taken to undergo a certain amount of quality deterioration. Such changes during storage at different temperatures are cumulative and irreversible. Since quality changes are normally smaller at lower temperatures, storage temperature is obviously a dominant quality and shelf-life determinant. However, it is generally agreed that the most detrimental factor inuencing frozen food quality is uctuation in storage temperature because this will signicantly reduce the shelf-life of the product.

B. PRACTICAL STORAGE LIFE

A more commonly used descriptor was later introduced named the practical storage life (PSL). This is dened as the period of storage during which the frozen food retains its quality characteristics and is suitable for consumption [8]. Table 28.2 is reproduced from the IIR publication and demonstrates both the effect of temperature and food type. Such a table has obvious deciencies. First, the values have been determined for a restricted range of foods. Second, uctuating storage temperatures can cause problems.

C. HIGH-QUALITY LIFE (HQL)

One of the most common shelf-life determinants used in the food industry is the high-quality life parameter. In reality, this is a time temperature tolerance variable but differs from the others in that sensory quality is used in its determination. As deterioration during freezing is not usually based on a single set of reactions, it is normally dened as the time elapsed between freezing and the time when a statistically signicant difference (P , 0.1) can be detected by sensory evaluation. A simpler exercise may be the determination of the elapsed time at which 70% of a trained taste panel can identify a noticeable difference between the frozen food in question and a control when using a triangular test. The control would normally have been stored at 2 358C.

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Handbook of Frozen Food Processing and Packaging

609

TABLE 28.2 PSL in Months for Selected Food Products

Product Fruits Peaches, apricots, cherries Raspberries, strawberries (raw) Raspberries, strawberries (in sugar) Concentrated fruit juices Vegetables Asparagus Beans (green) Broccoli Brussels sprouts Carrots Cauliower Corn on the cob Mushrooms Peas Peppers (red and green) French fried potatoes Spinach Onions Leeks Meat and meat products Beef, ground/minced Beef steaks Veal steaks Lamb steaks Pork (steaks, cuts, chops) Bacon (sliced, vacuum packed) Chicken (whole or cuts) Turkey (whole) Seafood Fatty sh (lazed) Lean sh Shrimps (cooked/peeled) Eggs Whole egg Milk products Butter (lactic, unsalted, pH 4.7) Butter (lactic, salted, pH 4.7) Cream Ice cream Bakery and confectionery Cakes (cheese, sponge, chocolate, fruit) Breads Raw dough 128 C Storage Temperature 2 188 C 2 248 C

4 5 3 3 4 6 4 4 2 6 9 4 6 8 6 12 6 12 9 8 3 4 15 8 1

18 24 24 24 12 15 15 15 12 12 15 8 24 6 24 18 10 18 10 18 12 18 10 12 18 15 5 9 2 12 18 12 12 6 15 3 12

. 24 . 24 . 24 . 24 . 24 . 24 24 . 24 . 24 24 18 . 24 . 24 12 . 24 . 24 15 15 24 15 24 15 12 . 24 . 24 .9 . 12 5 . 24 20 14 15 24 24 18

Source: IIR. Recommendations for the Processing and Handling of Frozen Foods. International Institute of Refrigeration, Paris, 1986.

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

610

Shelf-Life Prediction of Frozen Foods

When different storage conditions are used during the life of the product (Table 2 from [9]), the HQL needs to be integrated over the different temperatures. For acceptable quality, it is essential that X tu  ,1 HQLu u (28:1)

where tu is the storage time at a temperature u and HQLu the high-quality life at the same temperature u. The values of HQLu can be read from the chart or, alternatively, the experimental curves from which the chart was derived can be expressed in the form HQLu HQLref e((uref u)=D) (28:2)

where D is analogous to the decimal reduction time in bacterial killing. It is found from two points on the semi-log plot of HQL versus u. In fact D can be calculated as D

uref u ln (HQL=HQLref )

(28:3)

where HQLref is the high-quality life at a reference temperature uref. A typical plot from which D is derived is shown in Figure 28.1 [10].

D. ACCELERATED MEASUREMENT AND

THE

Q10 APPROACH

The above type of plot can also be used for the so-called Q10 approach. This estimates the effect of temperature on the accelerated deterioration of shelf-life. In its simplest form, it can be expressed as the ratio of the rate of deterioration at a temperature of u 108C to that at a temperature of u. Alternatively, it can be expressed as Q10 Shelf-life at u Shelf-life at u 108 C (28:4)

An immediate advantage of a knowledge of Q10 is the ability to conduct accelerated experimental shelf-life trials at elevated temperatures and then extrapolate the results to normal storage
100

10 Days 1 1 30

20

10 Temperature C

FIGURE 28.1 Plot of shelf-life versus temperature for a typical food.

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

Handbook of Frozen Food Processing and Packaging

611

conditions. Such tests are widely used in the food industry. However, exact values of Q10 are difcult to nd for many foods and approximate values are frequently used. In addition, temperature cycling experiments are common in assessing the shelf-life. Either Q10 values or reaction rate constants are required to complete the calculation. The method has the advantage of being fast, a characteristic that often outweighs its reduced accuracy over conventional storage testing at normal storage temperatures.

IV. METHODS USED FOR SPECIFIC FOODS

Many researchers have conducted detailed experimental and simulation experiments to predict the shelf-life of various frozen vegetables. It is not intended to provide a comprehensive review of these methods but rather to highlight a few of the more recent methods. In particular, Martins et al. [11] have modeled the deterioration kinetics of green beans. Together with related work, this has allowed estimation of shelf-life even when the product is stored in the variable temperatures of domestic freezer cabinets. They have also shown that temperature uctuations, inside a refrigerator, inuence the accuracy of the kinetic estimates, and if the temperature spectrum is used to derive kinetic estimates, it is possible to apply accurately accelerated methodologies to frozen vegetables. Reid et al. [12] have developed a rapid assessment method for shelf-life at elevated temperatures. This can be combined with mobility temperature data to produce a plot of expected shelflife as a function of temperature. They have validated the method using both literature data and their own experimental data and have reduced the experimental period to as low as 60 days. Frozen breads and doughs are another area in which food-specic trials have been developed. The difculty here is in determining the shelf-life limiting factor. Often it is not organoleptic but a physical deterioration (through water migration and the location of ice crystals) that may cause such damage as crust aking and disintegration. In conclusion, one can state that very signicant research efforts have been applied to shelf-life determination but as yet, there is no single, universally accepted method available to the food industry. As is so often the case in calculations related to changes in foods, there are adequate mathematical procedures but all suffer from a deciency in data. Were rate constants for the common deterioration reactions available for a wide range of frozen foods, there is no doubt that kinetic equations (even as simple as rst- or second-order) would predominate the determination of shelf-life. However, sparse data coupled to the multiplicity of deterioration mechanisms make such modeling an aspiration for the future.

V. CONCLUSIONS
Although very signicant research efforts have been applied to shelf-life determination, there is as yet no single, universally accepted method available to the food industry. As is so often the case in calculations related to changes in foods, there are adequate mathematical procedures but all suffer from a deciency in data. Were rate constants for the common deterioration reactions available for a wide range of frozen foods, there is no doubt that kinetic equations (even as simple as rst- or second-order) would predominate the determination of shelf-life. This will probably become the preferred method of shelf-life prediction in the fullness of time. However, sparse data coupled to the multiplicity of deterioration mechanisms make such modeling an aspiration for the future. Until then, the food industry will have to rely on less than satisfactory methods such as PSL and HQL determination. These will continue to give good but somewhat inexact predictions. They do, however, have the advantage of being able to handle uctuating temperatures and will therefore continue to be used by frozen food manufacturers. Pending the accumulation of adequate kinetic data, manufacturers seeking more exact shelf-life predictions will have to rely on experimental methods. In particular, accelerated testing at uctuating temperatures will be used. In addition, as processors become more procient at handling complex mathematical relationships (or as

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

612

Shelf-Life Prediction of Frozen Foods

software becomes more adept at masking the complexities from the user), modeling using nite element and nite difference methods will become more common in predicting temperatures and changes of state. To this will slowly be added kinetic modeling. In summary, the future of prediction of shelf-life is bright but a lot remains to be done before achieving that goal.

NOMENCLATURE
D HQL PSL Q10 t u Subscripts analogue to decimal reduction time (temperature change required for a 10-fold change high-quality life practical storage life ratio of shelf-life at a temperature u to that at a temperature 108C higher storage time temperature

u ref

value at a temperature u value at the reference temperature

REFERENCES
voir la dure e de conservation des produits re frige re s a ` traitement minimum Revue 1. BM McKenna. Pre ne rale du Froid 11:36 41, 2000. Ge 2. G Blond, M Le Meste. Principles of frozen storage. In: YH Hui, P Cornillon, Eds., Handbook of Frozen Foods. Marcel Dekker, 2004. kmen, J Acar. Study of lipoxygenase and peroxidase as indicator enzymes 3. SK Bahc eci, A Serpen, V Go in green beans: change of enzyme activity, ascorbic acid and chlorophylls during frozen storage. Journal of Food Engineering 66 (2):187 192, 2004. 4. TP Labuza, B Fu. Shelf life of frozen foods. Shelf life testing: procedures and prediction methods. In: YC Hong, Ed., Frozen Food Quality. Denver: CRC Press, 1997, pp. 377 415. 5. ZE Sikorski. Protein changes in muscle foods due to freezing and frozen storage. International Journal of Refrigeration 1 (3):173 180, 1978. 6. IR Vulicevic, ESM Abdel-Aal, GS Mittal, X Lu. Quality and storage life of par-baked frozen breads. Lebensmicttel-Wissenshaft und-Technologie 37 (2):205 213, 2004. 7. WB Van Arsdel, MJ Kopley, RL Olsson. Quality and Stability of Frozen Foods Time Temperature Tolerance and its Signicance. New York: Wiley, 1971. 8. Anonymous. Recommendations for the Processing and Handling of Frozen Foods. Paris: International Institute of Refrigeration, 1986. 9. M Jul. The Quality of Frozen Foods. London: Academic Press, 1984. 10. TP Labuza. Open Shelf Life Dating of Foods. Westport, CT: Food and Nutrition Press, 1982. 11. RC Martins, IC Lopes, CLM Silva. Accelerated life testing of frozen green beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) quality loss kinetics: colour and starch. Journal of Food Engineering 67 (3):339 346, 2005. 12. DS Reid, K Kotte, P Kilmartin, M Young. A new method for accelerated shelf-life prediction for frozen foods. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 83 (10):1018 1021, 2003.

2006 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC