2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.01.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Digital image analyses as an alternative tool for chicken quality assessment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
40
0
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 58 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
40
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Colour lightness ( L *), redness ( a *) and yellowness ( b *) values ranged from 59.39 to 60.94, 6.10 to 7.37 and 10.61 to 12.63, respectively. Although statistical analysis showed some significant differences in colour of frankfurter formulations, the calculated total colour difference values (Δ E , data no shown) of all possible sample pairs were <2.3; therefore, these statistical differences may not be practically important as the colour difference may not be discernable by human vision (Barbin et al , ). As reported by previous studies, NaCl replacement by only KCl in meat products did not significantly alter L *, a * and b * values (Campagnol et al , ; Santos et al , ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Colour lightness ( L *), redness ( a *) and yellowness ( b *) values ranged from 59.39 to 60.94, 6.10 to 7.37 and 10.61 to 12.63, respectively. Although statistical analysis showed some significant differences in colour of frankfurter formulations, the calculated total colour difference values (Δ E , data no shown) of all possible sample pairs were <2.3; therefore, these statistical differences may not be practically important as the colour difference may not be discernable by human vision (Barbin et al , ). As reported by previous studies, NaCl replacement by only KCl in meat products did not significantly alter L *, a * and b * values (Campagnol et al , ; Santos et al , ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Color properties ( L * , a * , b * , chroma, and Hue angle) were significantly different among samples (Table ). The Δ E ranged from 6.0 to 15.6, and considering that Δ E ≤ 2.3 are not discernable by human vision (Barbin et al., ), the eight samples would be likely discernable visually by their colors. The Un samples were more reddish (44.1 to 50.3 for hue angle; 26.1 to 34.5 for a * ), whereas Ro samples were more less reddish/more yellowish (53.2 to 63.6 for Hue angle; 18.2 to 22.0 for a * ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This situation is observed in biscuit which has the dark and light tones of the yellow colour and sudjuk which contains fat having white tones. Barbin et al (2016) e ∆ values ranged from 1.7 to 4.6. In our work, * ab e ∆ value for the fresh meat was found to be 3.25 while the * ab e ∆ value for the processed meat (salami) was 3.10.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%