## 3 Results and Discussions
### Microbiological Analysis
#### 3.2.1 Aerobic Plate Count (APC)  
In the raw sample (A0), the APC was 4.02 log CFU/g, approximately 10 times lower than the maximum limit allowed by the legislation in force in Romania (5 log CFU/g, corresponding to \(10^{5}\) CFU/g). [PERSON] et al. [63] compared the microbial load of five fish species and determined that the common carp and the grass carp had the highest values of APC (5.44 log CFU/g and 5.51 log CFU/g, respectively). Our analysis showed a lower APC, even if A0 contained fillets from two fish species and other ingredients. Their coliform counts were 1.66 log CFU and 1.93 log CFU/g, respectively, which is higher than our results. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Sample**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**APC (CFU/g \(\pm\) SD)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**TYMC**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Coliforms**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**_E. coli_**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Salmonella sp.**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**_Listeria_ sp.**} \\  & & **(CFU/g \(\pm\) SD)** & **(CFU/g \(\pm\) SD)** & **(CFU/g \(\pm\) SD)** & **(CFU/g \(\pm\) SD)** & **(CFU/25 g)** & **(CFU/25 g)** \\ \hline A0 & & \((1.037\pm 0.071)\times 10^{4}\) & \((2.69\pm 0.11)\times 10^{2.4}\) & \((2.6\pm 0.11)\times 10^{1.4}\) & \(7\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd \\ \hline A1 & & \((4.27\pm 0.10)\times 10^{3.1}\) & \((6.14\pm 0.04)\times 10^{10}\) & \((1.67\pm 0.09)\times 10^{1.1}\) & \(4.67\pm 0.94\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd \\ \hline A2 & & \((4\pm 0.01)\times 10^{3.1}\) & \((6.1\pm 0.32)\times 10^{1.1}\) & \((1.1\pm 0.11)\times 10^{1.1}\) & \(3\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd \\ \hline A3 & & \((9.83\pm 0.76)\times 10^{2.4}\) & \((4.7\pm 0.15)\times 10^{1.5}\) & \(3\pm 0.15\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline A4 & & \((5.83\pm 0.29)\times 10^{3.4}\) & \((6.2\pm 0.67)\times 10^{1.1}\) & \(4\pm 0.8\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A4-a (day 1) & \((5.67\pm 0.29)\times 10^{3.4}\) & \((7\pm 0.25)\times 10^{1.4}\) & \(2\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A4-b (day 2) & \((6.50\pm 0.5)\times 10^{3.4}\) & \((7\pm 0.38)\times 10^{1.4}\) & \(1\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A4-c (day 3) & \((6.67\pm 0.58)\times 10^{3.6}\) & \((8.2\pm 0.29)\times 10^{1.6}\) & \(1\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A4-d (day 4) & \((7\pm 0.5)\times 10^{3.1}\) & \((8.7\pm 0.58)\times 10^{1.6}\) & \(1\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A4-e (day 5) & \((6.83\pm 0.29)\times 10^{1.6}\) & \((1.07\pm 0.06)\times 10^{2.1}\) & \(1\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline A5 & & \((4.97\pm 0.15)\times 10^{3.1}\) & \((2.4\pm 0.2)\times 10^{1.8}\) & \(3\pm 1.15\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A5-a (day 10) & \((4.63\pm 0.12)\times 10^{3.1}\) & \((2.3\pm 0.16)\times 10^{1.8}\) & \(2\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A5-b (day 20) & \((4.5\pm 0.01)\times 10^{3.1}\) & \((2.1\pm 0.16)\times 10^{1.8}\) & \(3\pm 1.15\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A5-c (day 30) & \((4.17\pm 0.29)\times 10^{3.1}\) & \((2.1\pm 0.16)\times 10^{1.8}\) & \(2\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A5-d (day 40) & \((4.5\pm 0.01)\times 10^{3.1}\) & \((2.2\pm 0.2)\times 10^{1.8}\) & \(1\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline  & A5-c (day 50) & \((5.13\pm 0.23)\times 10^{3.4}\) & \((2.0\pm 0.2)\times 10^{1.8}\) & \(1\pm 0.58\) \({}^{\circ}\) & nd & nd & nd \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* The results are expressed as the mean value of the three replicates \(\pm\) the standard deviation (SD); different letters in superscript within the same column indicate significant differences (Tukey’s test, \(p\leq 0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 5: Microbiological quality of the fish dishes. In the sous vide cooked dish (A1), the APC decreased by 59%. Conventional thermal treatment, represented by cooking the fish dish in a convection oven, influenced the number of microorganisms in the products differently.