## 3 Results and Discussion
### Analysis of MRI  
MRI provides visual information on the spatial, internal morphological organization, and molecular distribution of in food matrix and has drawn great attention because of its rapid, direct, and accurate imaging characteristics in comparison with LF-NMR [26]. It is well-known that a red color represents high proton density while a blue color represents low proton density in the pseudo-color images. The T\({}_{2}\) proton density weighted images of samples with different treatments during refrigeration are shown in Figure 3. No significant difference was detected in images brightness of samples treated with edible coating combined with MAP at the beginning stage, while obvious changes occurred in the control group, especially CK1. From the 15 th day, the color of CK1 was bluer and darker than that of other samples, as demonstrated by [PERSON] et al. [16], which indicated the degradation of the myofibrils and destruction of the microstructure in CK1. Those results were consistent with the changes of transverse relaxation of LF-NMR. Above all, MRI is also a complementary technology for understanding water migration of HTS fillets during storage. On the other hand, results also confirmed that water distribution was correlated with the quality properties of HTS fillets.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Storage Time (Day)** & **T\({}_{21}\) (ms)** & **T\({}_{22}\) (ms)** & **T\({}_{23}\) (ms)** & **pT\({}_{21}\)** & **pT\({}_{22}\)** & **pT\({}_{23}\)** \\ \hline
0d & \(0.079\pm 0.002\) & 75.65 \(\pm\) 2.79 & 1232.84 \(\pm\) 5.4 & 1.96 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 87.63 \(\pm\) 3.26 & 10.41 \(\pm\) 0.56 \\ \hline
12d & & & & & & \\ \hline CK1 & \(0.15\pm 0.02\) & 79.38 \(\pm\) 1.84 & 932.60 \(\pm\) 3.82 & 1.78 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 77.83 \(\pm\) 2.18 & 20.39 \(\pm\) 0.93 \\ CK2 & \(0.064\pm 0.003\) & 65.79 \(\pm\) 3.27 & 717.13 \(\pm\) 4.92 & 1.74 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 79.19 \(\pm\) 2.84 & 19.12 \(\pm\) 1.13 \\ C1 & \(0.166\pm 0.046\) & 75.83 \(\pm\) 2.64 & 705.48 \(\pm\) 4.04 & 1.84 \(\pm\) 0.34 & 81.23 \(\pm\) 3.16 & 16.93 \(\pm\) 0.92 \\ C2 & \(0.194\pm 0.032\) & 69.79 \(\pm\) 2.18 & 533.67 \(\pm\) 1.84 & 1.83 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 84.98 \(\pm\) 2.21 & 13.19 \(\pm\) 1.26 \\ C3 & \(0.141\pm 0.027\) & 73.93 \(\pm\) 2.35 & 642.84 \(\pm\) 3.15 & 1.74 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 85.13 \(\pm\) 2.19 & 13.11 \(\pm\) 1.17 \\ \hline
24d & & & & & & \\ \hline CK1 & \(0.15\pm 0.026\) & 65.79 \(\pm\) 4.19 & 1072.27 \(\pm\) 4.2 & 1.84 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 69.29 \(\pm\) 3.17 & 28.87 \(\pm\) 1.04 \\ CK2 & \(0.132\pm 0.025\) & 73.19 \(\pm\) 2.83 & 1232.85 \(\pm\) 6.8 & 1.86 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 70.54 \(\pm\) 2.56 & 27.6 \(\pm\) 1.22 \\ C1 & \(0.116\pm 0.011\) & 86.97 \(\pm\) 3.62 & 1417.48 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 1.79 \(\pm\) 0.36 & 73.19 \(\pm\) 3.9 & 25.02 \(\pm\) 1.47 \\ C2 & \(0.102\pm 0.027\) & 68.59 \(\pm\) 2.91 & 1069.57 \(\pm\) 5.6 & 1.85 \(\pm\) 0.32 & 79.92 \(\pm\) 2.89 & 18.23 \(\pm\) 1.02 \\ C3 & \(0.107\pm 0.034\) & 74.27 \(\pm\) 3.15 & 1243.38 \(\pm\) 3.9 & 1.92 \(\pm\) 0.24 & 80.18 \(\pm\) 3.04 & 17.9 \(\pm\) 0.93 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Changes of transverse relaxation time and relative content of three water component in HTS fillets with different treatments during the refrigerated period.