## 4 Conclusions  
Sous vide cooking is gaining more and more attention from catering, restaurants, ready-to-eat industries, and homes recently mainly due to the improvement in eating quality characteristics, extended shelf lives, and reduced risk of post-cooking contamination compared to other cooking methods. Temperature and time are two critical parameters in sous vide cooking that directly affect eating quality and safety. The finding of this study showed that cooking temperature played a major role in the moisture content, cooking loss, shear force, TBARS, a*, and pH value. Increasing cooking time from 60 min to 150 min caused a reduction in moisture content and a* value while cooking loss increased. Chicken breast fillets cooked at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C revealed less cooking loss, lipid oxidation, shear force, and a more intense red color compared to those cooked at 70 and 80 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Total mesophilic aerobic bacteria, _Psychrotrophic_ bacteria, and _Enterobacteriaceae_ were not detected during storage at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 21 days, ensuring microbiological safety for consumers. Overall, the optimum condition obtained in this study for chicken breast fillets was cooking at 60 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 60 min. Future studies need to be carried out to assess the sensory quality parameters and palatability of sons vide chicken breast fillets during the storage time to determine shelf life and consumer acceptability. Besides, it is necessary to perform inoculum studies targeting specific pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms to assess the effectiveness of selected temperature and time combinations on microbiological quality.  
Conceptualization, H.H., and A.M.B.; methodology, H.H., and A.M.B.; software, H.H., A.M.B., and F.M.; validation, H.H., and A.M.B.; formal analysis, H.H., and A.M.B.; investigation, H.H., and A.M.B.; resources, D.P.L.F., and A.P.; data curation, H.H., and A.M.B.; writing--original draft preparation, H.H., and A.M.B.; writing--review and editing, H.H; and A.M.B.; visualization, H.H., and A.M.B.; supervision, D.P.L.F., G.M., and A.P.; project administration, H.H., funding acquisition, A.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This research was funded \"FAR\" INTERDISCIPLINARI-LS 2018 PROT.161714 Titolo: \"DEL TRATTAMENTO TERMICO SOUS-VIDE: QUALITA REALE E PERCEPITA.  
Not applicable.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Table**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Treatment**} & **Total Mesophilic** & _Enterobacteriaceae_ & _Psychrotrophic_ \\  & & **Aerobic Log (CFU/g)** & **Log (CFU/g)** & **Aerobic Log (CFU/g)** \\ \hline
0 & Raw meat & 2.8 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 2.3 \(\pm\) 0.4 & \textless{}1 \\
0 & Sous vide & n.d & n.d & n.d \\
5 & Sous vide & n.d & n.d & n.d \\
10 & Sous vide & n.d & n.d & n.d \\
15 & Sous vide & n.d & n.d & n.d \\
21 & Sous vide & n.d & n.d & n.d \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Values are presented as means \(\pm\) standard deviations (n = 3). n.d: not detected.  
\end{table}
Table 4: Microbiological Counts of the Raw Chicken Breast Fillet 24 h Post-Mortem (Day 0) and Sous Vide Chicken Breast Fillets (Cooked at All Different Combinations of Temperature and Time) during 21 Days of Storage at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C.  
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.