## 3 Results and Discussion
### Sensory Attributes  
Table 5 shows the sensory analysis provided by the 30 panelists of the shrimps heated via boiling water, MAIH at 130 \({}^{\circ}\)C, and MAIH at 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Regarding color and odor, although the mean scores of the MAIH samples were higher than those of the boiling water samples, no statistical differences (\(p>0.05\)) were observed between the three samples. In \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Temperatures** & **Heating Time** & **Hardness** & **Cohesiveness** & **Springiness** & **Chewiness** \\  & **(s)** & **(g)** & & **(mm)** & **(m)** \\ \hline Peeled raw shrimp & & 101.2 \(\pm\) 2.60 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 5.08 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.90 \(\pm\) 0.61 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\
130 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 80 & 250.7 \(\pm\) 20.2 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.54 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 5.00 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.01 \(\pm\) 0.83 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\  & 90 & 275.6 \(\pm\) 23.8 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 0.58 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.02 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.80 \(\pm\) 0.93 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\  & 100 & 271.5 \(\pm\) 11.7 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 0.63 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.01 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 9.79 \(\pm\) 0.95 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\  & 110 & 289.4 \(\pm\) 20.5 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.65 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 5.23 \(\pm\) 0.29 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.21 \(\pm\) 0.88 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & 120 & 295.9 \(\pm\) 15.9 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.20 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 11.05 \(\pm\) 0.90 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
90 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 110 & 210.9 \(\pm\) 17.6 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 0.38 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.95 \(\pm\) 0.21 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.06 \(\pm\) 1.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\  & 120 & 249.3 \(\pm\) 19.1 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.56 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 5.01 \(\pm\) 0.25 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 9.76 \(\pm\) 0.69 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\  & 130 & 260.6 \(\pm\) 25.1 \({}^{\text{bc}}\) & 0.60 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.02 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.01 \(\pm\) 1.00 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\  & 140 & 274.6 \(\pm\) 21.6 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 5.10 \(\pm\) 0.17 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 10.95 \(\pm\) 0.78 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\  & 150 & 299.6 \(\pm\) 30.7 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.69 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.15 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 11.50 \(\pm\) 0.99 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Each value represents the average \(\pm\) standard deviation of three replicates; different lowercase letters indicate significant differences in the same column (\(p<0.05\)).  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Values of texture properties in peeled white shrimp using the scaled-up MAIH system set at 130 \({}^{\circ}\)C and 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C for various heating times. general, there were no significant differences (\(p>0.05\)) in flavor, taste, and texture among the samples, with samples receiving scores ranging from 6.58 to 6.84, 6.78 to 6.94, and 6.93 to 6.96, respectively. Similarly, no significant difference (\(p>0.05\)) was found among the three samples in overall acceptance. Therefore, sensory analysis showed that the shrimp samples heated by a scaled-up MAIH machine set at 130 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 100 s or 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 130 s had a organoleptic property similar to that of the sample heated by conventional boiling water. As shown in the results described above, the better heating time for white shrimp after MAIH is one that produces the completely red color and no microbial count, and results in few changes in cooking loss and surface shrinkage. Therefore, the shrimp samples after heating in the scaled-up MAIH at 130 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 100 s, or at 90 \({}^{\circ}\)C for 130 s achieved a better appearance, and had a better microbiological quality; in addition, the lower cooking loss and surface shrinkage were observed in these samples.