## 3 Results
### Effect of the CFS on Sensory Quality of Pacific White Shrimp  
The sensory score of Pacific white shrimp (Figure 3) from 0 to 9 days with various cold chain logistics including transportation, retailing, and domestic storage decreased significantly during the storage time (\(p<0.05\)). Sensorial qualities of shrimp include color, odor and firmness. In the experiment, fresh shrimp got a sensory score of 9 with the fresh sea-weedy odor and firm texture. As shown in Table 2, during storage of 0 to 4 days, there were no difference in sensory quality for all attributes among all the shrimp samples of refrigerated storage (\(p>0.05\)). After 6 days of storage, group CK3 exposure to temperature fluctuation exhibited slight ammonia odor and slightly soft texture with a sensory score of 6.1, while the score of group CK2 is 7.1 and the sensory score of group CK3 was significantly lower than that of group CK1, CK2 and SA3 (Table 2). On the 8 days, compared to control samples, the shrimps treated by CFS from _A. sobria_ retained its original color and firm texture. It was worth notice that soft texture, slime and sour off-flavors of group SA3 were better than group CK3 at the end of the storage.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Time (days)**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Microbiology Analysis**} \\ \cline{2-6}  & **CK1** & **SA1** & **CK2** & **SA2** & **CK3** & **SA3** \\ \hline
0 & 4.29 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.02 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.29 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.02 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.29 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.02 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
2 & 4.68 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.53 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.07 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.90 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.48 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.35 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\
4 & 5.23 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 5.18 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 6.11 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.89 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 6.29 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.10 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\
6 & 6.24 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 5.51 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 6.83 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.96 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 7.37 \(\pm\) 0.10 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.71 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\
7 & 6.50 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 5.57 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 7.02 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.79 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 7.90 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 6.83 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\
8 & 7.01 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.25 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 7.17 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 6.90 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 8.08 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 7.23 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\
9 & 7.35 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 6.03 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 7.59 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 7.23 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 8.08 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 7.66 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: 1. Different letters (a–d) at each column denote significant differences (\(p<0.05\)) between means according to [PERSON]’s multiple range test.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Effect of CFS from _A. sobria_ on the growth of _S.putrefaciens_ in Pacific white shrimp (_L. vanmanen_) during different cold chain logistics by F test.  
Figure 2: Effect of cell-free supernatant (CFS) from _Aeromonas sobria_ on the growth of _Shewanella putrefaciens_ in Pacific white shrimp (_Litopenaeus vammanei_) during different cold chain logistics.