. . k, .. p I}! 93 g ‘ . , ‘4 .. . O “ 5 1L 2"; ' I ~4“,I;:":-.. ' EFFECTS OF THREE COOKING METHODS 0N PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN CHINOOK AND com SALMON: Thesis for the Degree of M. 8., MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY WALDINA E. SMITH 1972 ........ u IIIIIIIIZIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILI1 I. ”m1“; W? I ' E" ' 43 “Q- 6 material 1' I , MM R0 .-.~, I I. ”II;- H «“18 ‘ ‘ DEC 0 5 V399 .- ”SE a; ‘ir 3A1}? 5.752%3 %% ' w' ““ r'I-I ’ - wa Rafim‘w' 300 A307 ”flaw .MJ we 09 v" 32 O M ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF THREE COOKING.METHODS ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN CHINOOK AND COHO SALMON BY Waldina E. Smith The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of baking, poaching and baking in nylon cooking bags on PCBs and pesticide residue levels in chinook and coho salmon. Cooking loSses, tenderness and juiciness were also determined on a limited number of samples. Flesh and skin samples, raw and cooked, as well as drip from cooking were analyzed by electron—capture gas chromatography following hexane—acetone extraction and Florisil-Celite column clean— up to determine PCBs and pesticide residues which were calculated on a parts per million fat basis. Percent fat was also determined. Raw flesh of chinook and coho salmon averaged 2.65 and 3.59% fat, respectively. Raw chinook flesh differed (P<<0.05) in fat content among individual fish and position from which the samples were taken with samples from the anterior halves containing more fat. Cooked chinook flesh differed in fat content (P*<0.0l) due to cooking method, individual fish and position from Waldina E. Smith which samples were taken. Poached flesh contained less (P<:0.05) fat than baked flesh while samples taken from the anterior halves contained highest percentages of fat. Drip from baked samples contained more (P<:0.01) fat than baked—in- bag drip which contained more (P<:0.01) fat than poached drip. Skin and drip samples also showed higher amounts of fat in the anterior halves than the posterior halves. .Residues of Aroclors 1248 and 1254, p,p'-DDE, p,p'-DDD and p,p'-DDT were found in chinook and coho salmon flesh, skin and drip samples. ArocIors 1248 and 1254 levels in raw chinook salmon averaged 18.17 and 273.03 ppm, respectively, while coho salmon averaged 14.35 and 155.41 ppm, respectively. DDT compounds in raw chinook flesh averaged 40.20 ppm of p,p'-DDE, 4.24 ppm of p,p'-DDD and 23.94 ppm of p,p'-DDT. .Flesh samples of coho averaged 27.74, 3.25 and 14.57 ppm of p,p'-DDE, p,p'—DDD and p,p'—DDT, respectively. Cooked flesh samples of chinook salmon showed no signifi- cant differences due to Cooking method and cooking with and without skin; however, the samples differed (P<:0.01) among individual fish. Flesh samples cooked by baking-in-bags ‘reduced PCBS and pesticide residue levels the most while the least reduction occurred in poached samples. Cooked flesh samples of coho did not show the same pattern of pesticide reduction due to cooking method; however, the number of fish was small and only the anterior halves were studied. Waldina E. Smith Cooked skin and drip samples of chinook and coho showed no consistent pattern fbr changes in all PCBs and pesticide residues due to cooking methods, individual fish or position from which the samples were taken. The presence of PCBs and DDT compounds in the drip indicated that cooking did reduce residue levels in chinook and coho salmon. The reduction, however, was small. Objective measurements of quality characteristics showed chinook cooked by poaching required less cooking time, had lower total cooking losses and were more tender and juicy than samples cooked by baking or baking-in-bags. Baked samples were the least tender and juicy and required the longest cooking time. Coho salmon steaks rated higher in all the quality characteristics measured than did chinook steaks. EFFECTS OF THREE COOKING METHODS ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES IN CHINOCK AND COHO SADMON BY N .C Waldina E!“ Smith A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition 1972 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express sincere appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Kaye Funk, for her patient guidance and to my committee members, Dr. Rachael Schemmel, Dr. Mary Zabik and Dr. Howard Johnson for constructive criticisms of the manuscript. Special thanks also to Mrs. Carol Weaver, Margaret Wayman and Lanice Ridolfi for technical assistance and to Dr. Matthew Zabik for advice and for making available the use of the Pesticide Research Center gas chromatograph. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . .'. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Residues in Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Removing Residues by Cooking . . . . . . . . . . 9 Cooking and Quality Characteristics of Fish. . . 10 Preparation for cooking . . . . . . . . . . 10 Cooking methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Cooking losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll Tenderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Juiciness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Cooking Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Baking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Poaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l6 Baking- in—bags. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Analyses for PCBs, Pesticides and Fat. . . . . . 17 Preparation for analyses. . . . . . . . . l7 Extraction and Clean-up . . . . . . . . . . 18 Fat analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 Gas chromatographic analyses. . . . . . . . 19 Objective Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Cooking losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Juiciness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Tenderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Analyses of the Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Percent Fat. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Raw samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Cooked samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 PCB and DDT Compofinds. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 PHM (fat basis) of PCBs in chinook. . . . . 31 Raw samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Cooked samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 PPM (fat basis) of DDT compounds in chinook 36 Raw samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Cooked samples . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued Page PPM (fat basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in coho. . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 PHM (wet basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in raw flesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Micrograms of PCB and DDT compounds in chinook flesh. . . . . . . . . . 41 Summary of data from PCB and DDT compound analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Quality Characteristics of Cooked Salmon . . . . 45 Cooking times . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Cooking losses. . . . . . J . . . . . . . . 48 Total cooking losses . . . . . . . . . 48 Volatile cooking losses. . . . . . . . 49 Drip cooking losses. . . . . . . . . . 49 Tenderness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Juiciness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 LITERATURE CITED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. Analyses of variance for fat content in raw flesh and skin and flesh, skin and drip samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Averages and standard deviations for percent fat in raw flesh and skin and flesh, skin and drip samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinoOk salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin. . . . . . . . . . Averages and standard deviations for percent fat in cooked flesh, skin and drip samples taken from the anterior halves of two coho salmon. . . Analyses of variance for pesticide residues in raw flesh and skin Samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon. . . Analyses of variance for pesticide residues in flesh, skin and drip samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin. . Averages and standard deviations for parts per million (fat basis) of PCBs in raw flesh and . skin samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon. . . . . . . , . . Averages and standard deviations for parts per million (fat basis) of PCBs in flesh, skin and drip samples taken.from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin. . . . . . . . . . Averages and standard deviations for parts per million.(fat basis) of DDT compounds in raw. flesh and skin samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon. . . . Page 25 26 3O 32 33 34 35 37 LIST OF TABLES-—Continued TABLE 9. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Averages and standard deviations for parts per million (fat basis) of DDT compounds in flesh, skin and drip samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin. . . . . . Averages and standard deviations for parts per million (fat basis) of PCB and pesticide residues Page 38 in raw flesh and skin and flesh, skin and drip of”. samples from the anterior halves to two coho sal- mon cooked by three methods . . . . . . . . . . . Averages for parts per million (wet basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in raw flesh samples from five chinook and two coho salmon. . . . . . . . . Total micrograms of PCBs and DDT compounds in the flesh of five chinook salmon, raw and cooked by three methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent fat and parts per million (fat basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in anterior and posterior halves of raw chinOOk salmon flesh and percentage difference. . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent fat and parts per million (fat basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in chinook salmon flesh cooked with and without skin and percentage dif- ference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analyses of variance for cooking times and losses, shear press and press fluid of samples from five chinook salmon cooked by three methods. Cooking times and losses, shear press and press fluid averages, standard deviations and statis- tical analyses of samples from five chinook sal— mon cooked by three methods . . . . . . . . . . . Percent fat and parts per million (fat basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in raw flesh and skin (samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook and two coho salmon . . . . . . . vi 4O 41 42 43 44 46 47/ 63 LIST OF TABLES—-Continued TABLE 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Percent fat and parts per million (fat basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in flesh samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook and two coho salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin. . . . . . . . . . Percent fat and parts per million (fat basis) of PCB and'DDT compounds in skin samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook and two coho salmon cooked by three methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent fat and parts per million (fat basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in drip samples taken from anterior and posteridr halves of five chinook and two coho salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .‘. Shear press and press fluid measurements of samples from five chinook and two coho salmon cooked by three methods. . . . . . . . . . . . Cooking times and losses of samples from five chinook and two coho salmon cooked by three methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Page 64 67 69 72 M 73*” LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Illustration of the rotation pattern used to designate slices of five chinook and two coho salmon steaks for the appropriate analyses. . . l4 viii INTRODUCTION Samples from selected markets in the United States have shown chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide residues in virtually all types of food (Duggan £3 21,, 1966; Corneliussen, 1970). More specifically, DDT and its metabolites as well as poly— chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were found in all of the 147 samples of‘fish obtained from 50 nation-wide stations by the U. S. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in 1967 and 1969. Levels of the DDT compounds ranged from 0.03 to 57.8 ppm (whole fish, wet weight) while PCBs ranged from 0.10 to 14.8 ppm (Henderson gt al., 1971). Trout and salmon taken from Lake Michigan have exhibited pesticide residues in excess of 5.0 ppm (Poff gt 11., 1970). However, raw products do not necessarily reflect the amount of residues in cooked foods and unless the foods are analyzed in the form customarily eaten, the health hazards to humans can not be accurately assessed (Duggan gt al., 1966). In general, pesticide residues are highest in large fish with high percentages of body fat such as salmon (Buhler §E_§l., 1969; Holden, 1962; Reinert, 1970; Hamelink gt al., 1971). It was the purpose of this study, therefore, to compare the effect of selected methods of cooking on the levels of PCB and DDT compounds in chinook salmon. These 1 results were compared with similar data obtained from a limited sample of coho salmon. Because hatchery salmonids have higher body lipid levels than those from the natural environment (Wood gt_al., 1957) and pesticide residues are generally associated with the fat content, Lake Michigan salmon were selected for the study. Also, long-time ex- posures to low levels of pesticides, as occurs in the ‘ natural environment, give a different pattern of pesticide distribution within the body than occurs when fish are exposed to high levels of pesticides in a short—term experi- mental feeding situation (Johnson, 1968). Half steaks were cooked by baking, poaching in salt water and baking in nylon bags. Baking was selected as a basic standard method whereas the other two procedures were new but currently being used by homemakers for cooking chinook and coho salmon.‘ Half of the samples were cooked with the skin and adhering fat layer removed. Flesh and skin samples, raw and cooked, as well as drip were analyzed for residues of PCBs and DDT compounds. A secondary purpose of this study was to assess the quality characteristics of the two species of fish. Samples, cooked by each of the three methods mentioned above, were subjected to objective measurements to determine tenderness and-juiciness. All data were statistically analyzed for differences attributable to individual fish, anatomical position from which the sample was taken, cooking with or without skin, species and/or cooking methods. The findings were evalu- ated for possible recommendations to be used in preparation of salmon steaks to minimize PCBs and pesticides in the cooked fish. REVIEW OF L ITERATURE All forms of life are accumulating small amounts of those chemicals used to improve life and food (Paul, 1965). The low solubility of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in water and their high solubility in fat indicates these products have a tendency to accumulate in fatty tissue where the opportunity for enzymatic breakdown is absent (O'Brien, 1967). A recent study of 217 human bodies in Alberta, Canada showed accumulations of pesticides in all tissues with adipose tissue having an average of 4.34 ppm of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticide residues. However, PCBs were not detected in the tissues despite their extensive use in that area (Kadis t al., 1970). Biros gt a1. (1970), on the other hand, found PCBs (Aroclors 1254, 1260) in two samples of human tissue in the United States. Market basket surveys have shown that 13 chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides were present in foods in 29 of the 30 areas studied (Corneliussen, 1970). Residues in Fish For a fish monitoring program carried out by the Bureau of Sport Fishery & Wildlife in 1967-69, 147 composite fish samples were collected at 50 nationwide stations. DDT and its metabolites were found in all samples (Henderson 23.21-: 1971). Fish may acquire residues either from eating con— taminated food or directly from the water via their gills. Fromm §£_gl. (1969) suggested, after a study with isolated perfused gills of rainbow trout, that dieldrin and related insecticides diffuse through the gills of fish and are dissolved in the lipid portion of plasma lipoproteins. .In this form they are transported to and become dissolved primarily in the lipid portion of various tissues. In fish, the whole body residue concentration increases as body fat increases. Individual fish size, food habits, fat content and fish movement are all factors influencing residue levels (Hamelink §t_§l., 1971; Macek gt al., 1970; Henderson §t_al., 1969). In salmonids, lipids are distributed throughout the muscle rather than in large fat deposits (Holden, 1966). In 1966, coho salmon (Oncorhychus kisutch) and in.l967, chinook salmon (Oncorhychus tshawytscha) were introduced into Lake.Michigan. About the same time, large concentrations of pesticides were discovered in Lake Michigan. Hickey §t_§l, (1966) studied the residue concentrations of DDT in a Lake Michigan ecosystem and fbund that the levels increased greatly in higher tr0phic levels from the bottom sediment (0.014 ppm), invertebrates (0.54 PPm). white fish and salmon (5.6 PPm) to gulls (98.8 ppm). Reinert (1970) reported the pesticide ' residue concentration in Lake Michigan fish was 2 to 4 times higher than in the other Great Lakes because of the large drainage basin which is subject to contamination from agricultural and urban areas. In 1967, the progeny of mature coho salmon in Lake Michigan was lost at the rate of 11%. A study of the eggs showed concentrations of DDT compounds 60 times higher than similar uncontaminated Oregon samples. The DDT was found in the glyceride fats remaining in the yolk of the fry and when these lipids were metabolized, DDT was absorbed across the gut in high concentrations (Johnson 33 al., 1969). Later, 3000 coho salmon eggs suffered an excessive mortality rate of 30%“ The eggs were checked for chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides and it was found they contained 3.4 ppm DDT and related compounds as well as 0.07 ppm dieldrin. The fish which survived excreted very little pesticide and apparently diluted initial residues with growth (Willford gt al., 1969). Analysis of fish indicates that often they contain DDT and its metabolites DDE and DDD. Dehydrochlorination of DDT to DDE can occur within 9 hr and the latter product tends to accumulate in tissues. DDD is eliminated if the DDT is absorbed in small doses (Greer g§_al., 1968). Dechlorination of DDT is aided by microorganisms and enzymes (Menzie, 1969). In salmon, intestinal microflora play a major role in this detoxification. Because the presence of microflora in salmon depends upon the recent intake of food, the rate of detoxification depends on the available food supply (Wedemeyer, 1968). Fish-of low fat content are most susceptible to DDT because lean fish can store less and are therefore exposed to levels in the blood stream that affect the brain, gills, kidneys and liver (Holden, 1962; Buhler gt al., 1969; Cope, 1961). Fish can develOp resistance to possible toxic effects of pesticides and hence, may accumulate levels dangerous as food to man (Ferguson gt a1., 1964). DDT and dieldrin con— centrations in lake trout and walleye increase with the size of the fish (Reinert, 1970). According to Macek §t_gl, (1970), rainbow trout showed increased lipogenesis during a period of DDT and dieldrin intake. The presence of dieldrin increased the rate of accumulation of DDT but the presence of DDT decreased the rate of accumulation of dieldrin. The half-life of DDT was significantly lengthened by the presence of dieldrin according to the report. Though PCBs are widely distributed throughout the world and fairly persistent, attention has only recently been drawn to their presence after the realization that they interfer in gas chromatographic readings of DDT and its analogs (Schechter, 1971). PCBs were also unnoticed because they are only accidentally admitted into the environment and their acute toxicity to rodents and fish is relatively low (Gustafson, 1970). Kelly (1970), in a report to Monsanto Chemical Co., stated that in general, Aroclors 1242, 1254 and 1260 did not affect rats and beagles except that liver and kidney weights were elevated.when the animals had been fed levels of 100 ppm of 1254 and 1260. It has been shown, however, that there is some chronic effects to chickens and wild fowl as evidenced by enlarged liver and kidneys as well as thin egg shells. In kestrels fed levels of 0.5 and 5 ppm of Aroclors 1254 and 1262, there was increased hepatic enzyme activity, a physiological reaction similar to that caused by DDT and its metabolites (Lincer §t_al., 1970). In general, PCBs are found in higher levels in aquatic raptorials and in the presence of high levels of organo- chlorine pesticides (Reynolds, 1971). Duke gt_§l. (1970) found Aroclor 1254 in the sediment of Escambia Bay, Florida, 6 mi from the point of initial pollution, in a concentration of 486 ppm. Speckled trout from the same area contained 20 ppm of PCBs. Holden (1970) examined the waters in an estuary in Scotland and found no PCBs; however, zooplankton and fish in the area contained 0.03 to 2.6 ppm of these residues. He suggested that industrial sludge, containing 1 to 14 ppm of PCBs, which was dumped into the estuary was the major source of contamination. PCBs were also found in 200 pike from different areas of Sweden (Jensen, 1966). Koeman 25 31. (1969) found PCBs in fish, mussels and birds from the River Rhine and the Netherlands coastal area. He also reported that in a laboratory experiment on quail, some compounds, particularly the lower chlorinated PCBs, were metabblized and therefore perhaps less persistent in the environment. Removing Residues by Cooking In an early study, Carter gt 21. (1948) used five cook— ing methods, roasting, broiling, pressure cooking, braising and frying, to cook cuts of beef taken from animals fed DDT- contaminated rations. After analyses of the cooked portion and drippings together, the authors concluded that there was no reduction of the DDT level due to cooking. Ritchey §£_§l, (1969), reporting on chickens, found the greatest losses of DDT occurred when cooking procedures leached the fat from the poultry. Another study on the effect of cooking on chlorinated pesticide residues in chicken tissue indicated that heptachlor, DDT and dieldrin were removed from white meat faster than from the abdominal fat. Dieldrin was re- moved from dark meat slower than from the abdominal fat, therefore indicating a difference in the retention of chlorinated pesticides (Liska 33 31., 1967). Maul §£_al. (1971), Yadrick gt a1. (1971) and Funk gt a1. (1971) reported studies on pork loins, bacon and sausage, respectively, showing that cooking reduced the pesticide residues in these products. However, no significant differ- ences attributable to cooking methods of roasting, broiling, microwaves and braising were found. Recently, Wanderstock gt 31. (1971) examined the effect of several cooking methods on DDT residues in lake trout and coho salmon. According to the report, DDT residue levels from raw to cooked appeared to increase or remain fairly 10 constant due to evaporation losses during cooking. Reinert 33 31. (1971) also found that due to water loss, DDT resi— dues in smoked chubs did not vary significantly from those of raw or brined fish even though fat content was reduced 36% during smoking. Subsequent cooking methods had no effect on loss of DDT according to the study. In perch, DDT was removed in the offal and was not influenced by cooking method (Reinert gt a1., 1971). On the other hand, a report from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources stated that deep-fat frying fish reduced DDT 55%; broiling, 36%; pan frying, 25% and baking, 1L% (Anonymous, 1969). Maul g§_gl. (1971) reported that, in general, cooked pork samples showed lower dieldrin levels than uncooked samples after taking evaporative and drip losses into account. Cooking and Quality Characteristics of Fish Research studies concerned with cooking and the subse- quent quality of fish are few. Cooking methods and selected quality characteristics will be reviewed. Preparation for cooking According to the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U. S. Department of Interior (1964), fresh fish are best kept in crushed ice until refrigeration is available. Stansby (1956) stated it was possible to freeze whole fish and then slice and repackage in aluminum foil at a later time without 11 deterioration of the product. Thawing samples before cooking yielded 5% less drip loss due to partial reabsorption of the drip and/or fixing of water by cellular proteins (Sumerwell, 1955). Cookingfmethods Chinook salmon steaks baked to an internal temperature of 75°C in a 149°C oven produced a moist and palatable product (Kerr, 1959; Charley, 1952). However, similar steaks baked to an internal temperature of 85°C were judged higher in flavor, lower in moistness and no difference in palatability. Charley (1952) reported that using four different oven temperatures made no difference in palatability scores. In a study by McKay (1965), defrosted trout were cooked by broiling and deep-fat frying in various fats. According to the report, no difference was found in the moisture content of the fish cooked by the two methods. Cooking,losses Salmon steaks were baked at oven temperatures of 177, 204, 232 and 260°C to a constant internal temperature of 75°C and to internal temperatures of 70, 75, 80 and 85°C at a constant oven temperature of 204°C (Charley, 1952). She reported that increasing the oven temperatures to 260°C caused higher drip losses when fish were cooked to a constant internal temperature than occurred at the three other oven temperatures. Total cooking losses did not differ significantly 12 due to oven temperature but did vary from fish to fish. When steaks were baked to different internal temperatures, total cooking losses differed significantly; those cooked to the lowest temperature having the smallest loss. Armstrong gt gt. (1960) reported increased moisture in samples of codfish cooked uncovered as compared to covered samples. Tenderness Szczeniak gt_gt, (1965) reviewed objective methods of measuring meat tenderness, including the use of a Kramer shear press. Dassaw (1962) developed an instrument similar in concept to the Kramer shear press, but portable, to evaluate fish tenderness. The validity of the instrument was not tested. Juiciness The amount of expressable fluid in meat objectively determines juiciness. The Carver Press has been used ex— tensively for extracting fluid by the use of pressures up to 24,000 psi. Some researchers have reported significant correlations between press fluid and juiciness scores of meat (Boyle gt gt., 1970; Tanner gt gt., 1943). A study on chinook salmon steaks by Charley (1952) pointed out that an increased end cooking temperature decreased the amount of press fluid. EX PER IMENTAL PROCEDURE To compare the effects of cooking method on PCBs and pesticide residues in chinook and coho salmon as well as selected quality characteristics, steaks were cooked by baking, poaching and baking in nylon cooking bags. Sample Mature salmon were collected at the Manistee River weir, above Manistee, Michigan, on September 27, 1971 as the fish were passing upstream to spawn. The five chinook were males and the two coho were a male and a female. All were imme- diately surrounded with ice and, within 4 hr, were wrapped whole in aluminum foil and plastic-coated freezer paper be— fore freezing at -200C. Approximately 2 wk later, the Whole frozen fish were sliced with a power meat saw into 1-in steaks, rewrapped as described above, coded and quickly returned to the freezer. The fish were not eviserated at capture because the whole frozen body permitted more uniform slicing. Steaks were used from 1 in behind the gills to the end of the body cavity. Following a randomized schedule as illustrated in Figure l, steaks were selected so that all areas of the body 13 14 A... Slice Type of Cooking Position Number Analyses1 Method State3 Anterior l R B W half 2 R and Raw B W/O 3 O B W 4 R P W 5 R P W/O 6 O P W 7 R BB W 8 R BB W/O 9 0 BB W Posterior 10 R B W half 11 R and Raw B W/O 12 O B 13 R P W 14 R P W/O 15 O P W 16 R BB 17 R and Raw BB W/O 18 0 BB W l R designates samples cooked for analysis of pesticide residue content. 0 designates samples cooked for objective measurements. 2 Cooking methods are designated as B, baked; P, poached; BB, baked—in-bag. 3 W designates samples cooked with skin. W/O designates samples cooked without skin. Figure 1. Illustration of the rotation pattern used to designate slices of five chinook and two coho salmon steaks for the appropriate analyses. 15 of the fish were analyzed raw and cooked by baking, poach- ing in a 5% NaC1 solution and baking in nylon bags. .Half slices, designated as anterior for samples taken before the dorsal fin and posterior for samples after the dorsal fin, were used for each cooking method. Two of the four half- slices from each fish that were cooked by each cooking method were done with skin and two without skin to determine if removal of skin and adhering fat layer would affect the amount of fat soluble residues in the edible flesh. Three ‘half-slices from the anterior and posterior halves of each fish were selected for residue analyses of uncooked salmon. The pattern (Figure l) was rotated for each fish so that half-slices from different positions were cooked by each method or analyzed in the raw state. Right and left sides of the fish were not considered. Cooking Procedures Approximately 2 hr prior to cooking, steaks were removed from the freezer. .They were allowed to partially thaw for approximately 1 hr before the body cavity contents were re- moved. The Steaks were halved and the samples designated for raw analyses were rewrapped as described above and re- turned to the freezer. The skin and adhering fat layer were removed from the apprOpriate samples. Each slice was rinsed with distilled water and the skin, if present, was scrubbed. After blotting excess water from the surfaces, the samples 16 were allowed to completely thaw at room temperature. For samples cooked without skin, one in was cut from the ventral end of the half—steak to eliminate that fatty area; therefore only flesh tissue was cooked. Based on the studies of Charley (1952) all samples were '_‘ cooked to an internal temperature of 75 0C using a Brown N. «4‘» ‘Electronic Potentiometer High Speed Mult1ple Recorder equipped with iron constantan thermocouples to record the end cooking ‘v—nfiii__w - temperature and time. A heavy duty Hotpoint oven, Model HJ225 wi‘r‘ . ~._Nm¢ 4" equipped with a Versatronic controller set at £219C,¥-2? and the grids set on medium with the damper half closed, was used for all baking. Baking Samples were positioned on a rack in a 9x11x3/4 in aluminum pan. The 4-in immersion length potentiometer leads were inserted horizontaIly to the center of the dorsal muscle and clamped to the pan. Upon removal from the oven, each steak was allowed to stand undisturbed for 10 to 15 min be— fore the potentiometer lead was removed and the sample pre- pared for residue analyses. Poaching Steaks, containing a potentiometerlead and positioned in a deep-fat frying basket, were placed in rapidly boiling water (125 g NaCl/2200 g distilled water) in a 4—qt stainless steel saucepan. They were cooked to an internal temperature of 75°C and_subsequently cooled as outlined above. l7 Baking-in-bags Samples were placed in nylon "Cooking Magic" bags. Following the recommendations of the manufacturer,1 five 1/16-in holes were punched in each bag. After a potentiom— eter lead had been positioned through one of the holes and into the fish as outlined above, samples were cooked and cooled as detailed for baked steaks. Analyses for PCBs, Pesticides and Fat Skin and flesh were physically separated for all raw and cooked samples before each was analyzed for PCBs, pesticides and fat. Drip from samples baked with and with- out bags and cooking liquid from the poached samples were also analyzed. Duplicate determinations were made for flesh and cooking liquid sampIes while single samples of skin and drip were analyzed. Preparation tgr analyses To prevent possible contamination, all glassware and equipment used for the analyses were thoroughly washed in tap water before rinsing in tap water, distilled water and finally in acetone. Pans and utensils used for cooking were cleaned in the same manner. A mixture of hexanes was used in all extraction and clean—up procedures and for rinsing lCookingMagic Bags. Distributed by the Drackett Products Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, 45232. 18 all containers to insure inclusion of all samples being transferred for the next step of the procedure. Skin samples were cut into small pieces with scissors and blended with dry ice to facilitate extraction (Bennville gt gt., 1970). Flesh samples were blended for 15 sec in an Oster blender to obtain a homogenous mixture immediately after cooking and subsequent cooling. All drip was scraped from the pans, racks and bags used in baking before rinsing with hexanes. After evaporation of the hexanes, the samples were frozen for later analyses as were all skin and flesh samples. Using a Mettler balance, Model H15, approximately 10 g samples of thawed flesh were weighed to the nearest 0.001 9. Thirty ml aliquots of the poaching liquid, which had been blended in a Waring 6-qt blender, were used and all of the skin and drip samples from each steak. Extraction and clean-up Extraction and clean-up procedures were as outlined by Yadrick gt gt. (1971) except that skin samples were mixed with an equal amount of Na2SO4 before extraction with a 1:1 mixture of hexane and acetone (Earnest gt gt,. 1971). Fat analygtg The-lO—ml aliquot, removed during the extraction pro- cess (Yadrick gt gt., 1971) was transferred to a dried and :taredlErlenmeyer flask before it was dried in a vacuum Oven at 75°C for 2-1/2 hr. After cooling for 30 min in a dessicator, 19 the sample was weighed and the percentage of fat was calcu- lated using the following formula. m1 extract obtained 10 ml aliquot size Sample size (9) x Dried sample wt x 100 % fat = gggtphromatographic analyses PCB and pesticide analyses were carried out using a Beckman GC-4 gas chromatograph equipped with a discharge electron capture detector. It was fitted with a 6-ft (1.83 m ) by 1/8—in (3.5 mm) stainless steel column packed with 4% DC-ll on Gas Chrom Q (60/80 mesh) and was Operated at column, inlet and detector temperatures of 175, 230 and 255°C, respectively. Helium flow rates were 40 ml/min for the column and 120 ml/min for the discharge side of the detector. Using the technique of placing one microliter samples be- tween two air blocks of one microliter each, samples were injected. Standards of Aroclors 1248 and 1254,1 p,p'-DDT,2 p,p'—DDE3 and p,p'—DDD were prepared using nanograde hexane. The substances contaminating the fish were determined after consultation with personnel at the Pesticide-Research Center, Michigan State University; the presence of DDT 1Monsanto Chemical Co., St. Louis, Mo. 2City Chemical Corp., New York; 99+% ESA pesticide reference standard. 3Pesticide Research Laboratory, Perrine, Florida, 98¥% Analytical Standard. 20 compounds was also confirmed through thin layer chromatog- raphy. Aluminum Oxide G impregnated with silver nitrate was used to coat the plates. After using the solvent system of 5%.benzene in hexane, the plates were develOped for 1 hr under ultra violet light. It was concluded that in addi— tion to p,p'-DDT and its analogs, p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDD, the Aroclors 1248 and 1254 were also present. Because Aroclor 1254 interferred with gas chromatographic readings of DDT and its analogs with like retention times, a method of separating the substances was necessary. Therefore, standard curves of 1254 were run and from the retention times, portions of the curves of DDE, DDD and DDT attributed to 1254 were determined. Ratios were calculated of the heights of the peaks of 1254 (at like retention times to DDE, DDD and DDT) to the height of the only independently occurring 1254 peak in the sample. These values were 1.25, 0.81 and 0.44 for DDE, DDD and DDT, respectively. Amounts of interference were deter- mined by multiplying the height (mm) of the independent 1254 peak by the appropriate ratio. This value was then sub- tracted from the corresponding height occurring in the sample ... i.e., if the peak height at DDE was 100 mm and the independent 1254 peak, 40 mm; then 100 - (40xl.25) = "true" height of DDE. The limitations of this approach were recognized; however, the same techniques were applied to raw and cooked samples. Relative changes would therefore still be evident. 21 After the corrections were made for the peak heights, the parts per million of each substance, 1248, 1254, DDE, DDD and DDT based on percentage fat were calculated using the following formula. Ml extract obtained 0 x Correction term1 Graph reading! corrected (ppm) X Sample size (ml) Sample weight (g) X Percent fat Objective.Measurements Half steaks used for objective measurements were taken from each fish so that all areas of the body were exposed to each cooking method. Following cooking as detailed above, samples were loosely covered with aluminum foil and held for 1 hr before juiciness and tenderness were determined. Skin was not removed from these samples. Cooking losses Total, drip and volatile losses were calculated for samples baked with and without bags and converted to per— centages based on the raw weight of the sample (Funk gt gt., 1966). Only total losses were calculated for poached samples. Weights were obtained using a Mettler balance, Model P-1000. 1Correction to account for sample removed for fat analysis. 22 Juiciness A Carver Laboratory Press was used to determine the juiciness of the samples. Two samples, weighing approxi— mately 5 g each, were cut from the small muscle in the ventral half of the steak and placed on two gauze squares. After weighing to the nearest 0.1 9 using a Mettler balance, Model P-1000, a pressure of 15,000 psi was applied for 10 min to the two gauze wrapped samples placed between canvas and felt pads. The samples were then removed from the pads and reweighed. After conversion to percentages of press fluid, the two values for each steak were averaged. Tenderness An Alla-Kramer shear press, Model SP12, was used to measure the tenderness of the fish. The whole dorsal muscle of each half-steak was weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. The sample was placed in the center of the standard shear com- pression cell and sheared using a 30 sec downstroke, 20% range, 250 lb pressure and a 3000 lb proving ring. The pounds of force required to shear the sample were recorded on a time force curve-by a Varian electronic indicator, Model EZEZ. The maximum pounds force per gram was calculated as Maximum peak reading (%) X Range (%) X Ring Sample weight (g) 23 Analyses of the Data Duplicate determinations of residue analyses were aver— aged before means and standard deviations were calculated. Data were analyzed for variance due to cooking method, fish, position from which the sample was taken and cooking with and without skin. ‘Duncan's multiple range test (Duncan, 1957) was used to pinpoint apprOpriate sources of signifi— cant differences. A Z test statistic (Dixon gt gt., 1957) was used to compare species differences as well as cooked and raw sample differences. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of three cooking methods on PCB and DDT compounds and se- lected quality characteristics in chinook and coho salmon. Fish containing unknown amounts of PCBs and pesticides were acquired from natural waters and analyzed for fat and residue content in both the raw and cooked state. Cooking losses, defined as total, drip and volatile, were also determined for all cooking methods in addition to shear press and Carver press measurements for a limited number of samples. Data were analyzed for variance due to cooking method, fish, position in the fish from which the sample was taken and species. Percent Fat The results of duplicate determinations for fat content of raw and cooked chinoOk salmon samples of skin and flesh as well as drip from cooked samples were averaged and ana- -lyzed for variance (Table 1). Grand averages were calcu— 1ated for raw flesh and skin“by position and for cooked flesh, skin and drip.by poSition, cooking method and whether cooked with or without skin (Table 2). .Data upon which 24 25 .muflawnmnoum mo H0>0H.Xm .huwaflnmnoum mo Hm>oH.XH .NN HOHHm .H COHaflmom .6 gnaw .N vogum£_.mm HMHOB OHM 0\z..s_.a coaunmom .a sane .~ corpus .mm sauce mum .v nouns .H conuamom .a swan .m Hmuoe.mum on» on ucmoamacmaw k. on» an ucmoamacmam «s sepmmum mo mmmumonn .Hm Houum .H.swxm sopooum mo moonmona EOpoon mo mooumona no.0m mm.~ h¢.o on.m ma. HOHHN sm.ka. . . . ¢H.o . . . . . caxm ox: .3 *«mH.HmH ¥«OO.N® ssmm.ha mm.m¢ som.H, GOHuMmom 55.0m «seo.ma aamo.mm oo.aa «mm.H swam seem.¢om swam.h¢ smn.a . . . . . ponuoz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hopes Nouns ”caxm ~nmmam caxm gmmam mocmaua> immxooo wamm mo oummmw cmoz ounaom .caxm usonua3 pom nuw3 mpozvos owns» an poxoou cosamn xooswsu o>flm mo oo>amn Hoauoumom pom Hofluoucm sown coxmu monEmm damp pom cfixn .nmodm pom :«xm pom goody Boa cw ucouooo now How oosmwum> mo momhamc< ya wanna 26 Table 2. Averages and standard deviations for percent fat in raw flesh and skin and flesh, skin and drip samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin. Position, Cooking Component Method and W or W/O skin Flesh Skin Drip RAW Anterior 3.04:1.41 8.51:3.70 . . . Posterior 2.35:0.87 4.26:1.58 . . . Average 2.65:1.00 6.39:3.54 . . COOKED Baked 4.00:1.61 7.93:3.50 7.18:8.46 Poached 3.43:1.50 4.84:2.50 0.03:0.01 Baked—in-Bag 3.61:1.45 3.74:1.90 0.89:1.02 Anterior 4.22:1.61 6.94:3.18 4.29:7.77 Posterior 3.14:1.21 4.06:2.55 1.11:1.74 W skin 3.73:1.54 . . 3.24:7.29 W/O skin 3.63:1.51 . . . 2.15:3.86 27 these averages are based appear in the Appendix (Tables 17, 18, 19 and 20). Raw samples The fat content of raw chinook and coho flesh averaged 2.65 and 3.59%, respectively. The values for chinook flesh are considerably lower than those reported in the literature (Stansby, 1967; Buhler gt gt., 1969). The salmon used in this study, however, were on a spawning run and according to reports, spawning fish live entirely on stored body fat. Fat content may therefore vary from 1 to 16% in salmon flesh (Castell gt gt., 1963; Lovern, 1934; Mannan gt_gt., 1961 and Stansby, 1967). Values determined for coho were lower than those reported by Reinert gt_gt. (1971) for fish taken from Lake Michigan; however, the fish in his study were not spawn- ing. Raw flesh samples of chinook differed in percent fat among fish (P110.05) and in position (P<:0.05) from which the sample was taken. samples from the anterior halves con- tained an average of 3.04% fat while samples taken from posterior halves averaged 2.35% in fat content. In agreement, Thurston (1958) reported Alaskan pink salmon steaks varied in fat content from 4.8% at the nape to 2.6% at the caudal end. Differences among fish due to sex, stage of maturity, season and place of capture have been noted (Mannan gt gt., 1961; Thurston, 1958). 28 The data indicated coho flesh contained more fat than chinook flesh. However, these differences were not signifi— cant according to a comparison of means using a Z test statistic. Skin samples from the anterior halves of chinook samples contained more fat than samples from the posterior halves (Table 2); however, the differences were not significant. The fat in the skin of chinook and coho averaged 6.39 and 6.29%, respectively. These values did not differ significantly. Cooked samples Chinook flesh samples cooked by baking, poaching and baking—in-bags yielded averages of 4.00, 3.43 and 3.61% fat, respectively. These values differed (P<:0.05) due to cooking method with poached samples containing less fat than baked samples. Total cooking losses averaging 30.0, 14.2 and 16.9% for baking, poaching and baking-in-bags, respectively, indi- cate that perhaps fat was concentrated in the flesh as total cooking losses increased. The inverse relationship between fat and moisture content has been noted by Murphy gt gt. (1961). There was no significant difference in the fat content between flesh samples cooked with and without skin. According to Lowe (1955), the fat molecule is too large to migrate from the surface into flesh tissues. Also, the position of the fatty skin on the side of the steak would cause fat to drip down the sides of the samples into the pan rather than move laterally into the flesh. 'Differences (P<30.01) did occur, however, among the fat contents of the flesh of indi- vidual fish and in samples from different positions. The anterior half showed an average fat level of 4.22% while samples from the posterior half averaged 3.14% fat. Skin samples yielded 7.93, 4.84 and 3.74% fat when cooked by baking, poaching and baking-in—bags, respectively. Baked-in-bag skin samples contained less fat than poached CP<0.05) and baked (P<50.01) skin. The fat content of skins diffbred (P<:0.01) among individual fish and position from which the samples were taken with anterior halves averaging 6.94% and posterior halves averaging 4.06%. Drip from fish cooked by baking, poaching and baking-in- bags contained 7.18, 0.03 and 0.89% fat, respectively. Poached drip contained less (P;<0.01) fat than drip from baked—in—bag samples which in turn were less (P‘<0.01) than drip from baked samples. It should be noted that the total amount of drip from the three cooking methods varied greatly. f/During baking, any moisture losses occurring as drip evap- . orated from the hot surface of the pan; hence, drip losses‘ were small. For poached samples, values are based on the cooking liquid which greatly diluted the drip which occurred during cooking. Moisture evaporation was partially prevented when samples were baked in bags; thus, the amount of fat was diluted by the presence of moisture in the drip. Drip from samples from the anterior halves contained less (P<:0.01) fat than drip from the posterior halves with averages of 4.29 30 and 1.11%, respectively. However, no significant differences due to individual fish or cooking with or without skin were noted. Averages for percent fat in cooked coho flesh, skin and drip are listed in Table 3. Although the values for coho are higher than those for chinook, the differences are not significant. Table 3. Averages and standard deviations for percent fat in cooked flesh, skin and drip samples taken from the anterior halves of two coho salmon. Cooking Component Method Flesh Skin Drip Baked 4.53:1.37 11.13i6.64 16.17:20.33 Poached 4.08:1.52 7.49:6.49 0.02:00.00 Baked-in-bag 3.96:1.14 5.96:4.72 6.28:10.48 PCB and DDT Compounds Analyses of residues extracted from raw and cooked samples of flesh and skin as well as drip from cooked samples revealed the presence of the PCBs identified as Aroclors 1248 and 1254 and the pesticide residues of p,p'—DDE, p,p'-DDD and p,p'—DDT. In agreement, Henderson §£.§l- (1971) found these same substances in fish from Lake Michigan. Reinert gt gt, (1971), Wanderstock gt gt. (1971) and Poff gt gt. (1970) 31 listed totals for only DDT and its metabolites in Lake Michigan coho. The results of duplicate determinations for PCB and DDT compounds in various components of raw and cooked salmon (calculated in parts per million, ppm, based on fat) were averaged and analyzed for variance (Tables 4 and 5). Grand averages of the data for raw samples are in Tables 6 and 8 while the averages for cooked samples are found in Tables 7 and 9. Data on which the analyses and averages are based appear in the Appendix (Tables 17, 18, 19 and 20). PHM (fat basis) of PCBs in chinook Raw samples. No significant differences in the PCB con— tent occurred due to position or individual fish from which raw flesh and skin samples were taken. However, high standard deviations were evident (Table 6). One of the five chinook had fat and pesticide values which were at extreme variance with the others. Its flesh contained 1.10% fat whereas the average of the four other fish was 3.04% with a range of 2.37 to 3.79%. Aroclor 1254 showed an average of 489.73 ppm in its flesh in comparison to an average of 196.75 ppm, ranging from 154.97 to 236.05 ppm for the other fish. Similar disparities were present in other PCB and pesticide data. 32 .3333on mo 3%: a... 33 a... ucmuamacmam k. m>.mm 0¢.H m0.mm 0H.¢m00 mmomm e Houum Hm.mm 00.0 00.0 Nw.mmmm mm.mmm H cowufimom m¢.HHm *Nm.HH gm.amm 00.¢mmma mm.HOH e swam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m Hopes ZHMm mm.mHm h~.m mm.¢am_ 0¢.m0m0m mn.m0 v Houum 00.NHH 00.0 00.50H m0.¢0>m 05.mm H cowuwmom gh.mmm n¢.ma m¢.mmm hm.0¢0mm mm.ham w gnaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m Hmuoe Emmam soon.o.m noou_m.m moou.m.o amma mama mo mucmaum> mpdsoQEoo BOO mmom mo mmumsqm cmwz. muusom .GOEamn xoocwno o>wm mo mo>amn Howuoumom 0cm Howuoucm scum coxmu moamsmm owxo pom anoam 3mm cw nospwmou opwuwumom How oucmwuo> mo oom%HMG¢ .e manna 33 .muaaanmnoua no Hm>ma am an» an ucmoamacmam a. .muaaanmnoum no Ho>ma an an» um ucmoamacmum .4. .4. o~.amm¢m oo.mHmma wa.mamm~ Ho.mmmmsao me.mo~oaa. Hm nouns 0N.mmNhN mm.HHmN HH.mem o¢.hmmhmomH ¢h.¢ommh H Caxm O\3 .3 Hm.mhomo Nh.hOH mm.ooowm Om.H¢HthmH smhoma¢mmb H COflvflmom N¢.¢H®mm mmomwmm M®.HmNHm ON.oOONH¢mH «mm.H¢¢Ohm ¢ Amam Nb.Hmvmm MN.©ON©H hm.Hmmmm¥¥¢m.mNmmHommssm¢.mMOBomH N UO£UOZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm Hmuoe .- imHMD HB.OON mm.flm HM.HON NN.mmmHN Oh.mmH. NN HOHHH mH.H mo.mH Oh.oom. mo.®omm O¢.Hm¢ H GOfluHmOm sho.mN¢H ssmm.¢ma mo.®¢ma «smm.mmmmoa 00.00N ¢ nmwm MN.mmm mH.hm hm.omh mm.mbH hhehdm N wonumz . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . mm Houoa ZHMm.. am.maa mH.HH Hm.mma 6H.Hmmma oo.mo Hm nouns Hm.Ohm mh.mH mm.¢mH mh.HhNOH H®.hm H Gfixm O\3 .3 mfiumom N¢.ma smm.N¢¢ mh.mhom stmmommm H COHpfimom samm.mmmv ssmh.omm sham.hm¢¢ «som.mmm>am *«mo.m¢m ¢ flmflh mm.h© vBJ¢ OM.H© mm.NmmmH hN.OHH N Uogpmz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm Hmuoe Emma—Hm BQQ|.m.m Qanl.m.m mQQ|.m.m emma mema mm madmaum> mpcsoaeou Ban mMUm mo mmnmngm coo: mousom moamsmn mflnp pom saga .caxm pecans: new nus: moonums mourn an pmxoou cosHmm Mooaflnu o>wm mo mo>amn Howuoumom pom Hoauovcm Scum coxmu .nmoam ca nospwmou opauaumom How mucmwnm> mo nonmdmsd .m wanna 34 Table 6. Averages and standard deviations for parts per million (fat basis) of PCBs in raw flesh and skin samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon. Position Aroclor 1248 1254 FLESH Anterior 15.28:7.47 243.53:50.79 Posterior 21.06:18.04 302.53:276.99 Average 18.17:l3.37 273.03:l90.30 SKIN Anterior ll.22:6.41 242.46:120.59 Posterior 20.72:12.40 204.52:61.25 Average 15.97110.57 ‘ 223.49:92.34 Cooked samples. Aroclor 1248 was more concentrated (P«:0.01) in flesh samples taken from the posterior halves with an average of 18.82 ppm than in samples from the anterior halves with an average of 12.89 pgn(Table 7). The amounts of Aroclor 1254 did not differ significantly due to position from which the sample was taken. No significant differences in amounts of Aroclors 1248 and 1254 due to cooking method or cooking with or without skin were noted. However, flesh samples differed (P'<0.01) among individual fish in levels of 1248 and 1254. Aroclor 1254 concentration varied (P<:0.01) in skin samples among individual fish although 1248 did not. No other significant differences occurred due to position or cooking method for skin samples (Table 7). Table 7. million (fat basis) 35 Averages and standard deviations for parts per of PCBs in flesh, skin and drip samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin. Position, Cooking Method and W or Aroclor W/O skin 1248 1254 FLESH Anterior 12.89:11.11 249.46:200.76 Posterior 18.82:19.42 26l.23:l33.90 Baked 15.40i12.l8 274.34:212.13 Poached 18.40113.16 268.15:155.l9 Baked—in—Bag 13.77: 9.72 223.55:l35.26 With skin l4.65i10.48 242.26:128.80 Without skin 17.06:12.93 268.43:203.38 SKIN Anterior 12.91:10.27 278.47:225.73 Posterior 20.49:l9.14 250.26:122.07 Baked 9.42: 7.76 235.58:131.46 Poached 15.64tl4.99 255.16:155.43 Baked-in-Bag 25.04:l8.97 302.35:242.99 DRIP Anterior 323.08:393.23 2038.20:6437.12 Posterior 552.34i499.60 (3168.9513043.90 Baked 319.68:389.71 1968.62:1859.74 Poached 751.49r407.62 4095.17:2641.15 Baked-in—Bag 241.97:426.37 1746.9313375.10 With skin 473.20:265.85 3161.65t3487.01 Without skin 402.23:423.79 2045.49:1955.68 36 Drip samples from baked-in-bag samples contained less (P<<0.01) Aroclors 1248 and 1254 with averages of 241.97 and 1746.93 ppm, respectively, than poached samples with averages of 715.49 and 4095.17 ppm 1248 and 1254, respectively. The PCBs in drip from baked samples with intermediate values did not differ significantly from those in baked-in—bag or poached samples (Table 7). These data show that drip from poached samples with the lowest percent fat showed the high- est residue levels. Aroclor 1248 also differed (P<70.05) in concentration among individual fish and due to position with drip samples from the anterior halves averaging 323.08 ppm while that from the posterior halves averaged 552.34 ppm. These values show the same relationship as those for percent fat which were also higher in the anterior halves. PH! (fat basig) of DDT compounds in chinook Raw samples. No significant differences in p,p'-DDE and p,p'-DDT occurred due to the position or among individual fish from which the samples of flesh or skin were taken (Table 8). Levels of p,p'-DDD in the skin varied (P<:0.05) among individual fish although flesh did net. Neither flesh nor skin differed significantly in amounts of p,p'-DDD due to the position from which the samples were taken. Cooked samples. p,p'—DDE concentrations was less (P¢<0.05) in the flesh of samples taken from the anterior halves with an average of 31.38 ppm than in flesh from the posterior halves with an average of 36.81 ppm (Table 9). 37 Table 8. Averages and standard deviations for parts per million (fat basis) of DDT compounds in raw flesh and skin.samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon. DDT Compounds Position p,p'—DDE p,p'-DDD p,p'-DDT FLESH"—~ Anterior 36.87:12.39 3.92:2.99 20.59:9.60 Posterior 45.54:33.06 4.55:3.72 27.30:26.69 Average 40.20:23.98 4.24:3.19 23.94:19.33 SKIN Anterior 27.44:15.81 3.94:3.11 21.8l:l7.39 Posterior 27.60:12.65 3.79:1.80 17.87: 9.73 Average 27.52:13.50 3.87:2.40 19.84:13.44 .1...- No significant differences due to position were noted for p,p'-DDD and p,p'—DDT. Also, there were no significant dif- ferences in any of the residues of the DDT compounds due to cooking method. Amounts of p,p"-DDD appeared to increase during cooking. In agreement, Ritchey ££.§l~ (1969) stated that DDT is converted to DDD during cooking. Flesh samples cooked with skin contained less of each of the DDT compounds; however, the differences were not significant (Table 9). All cooked flesh samples differed (P<:0.01) in residue levels among individual fish. Skin from samples cooked by baking contained less (P<<0.05) p,p'—DDE with an average of 28.50 ppm than skin samples cooked by baking-in-bags which averaged 45.69 ppm. Table 9. Averages and standard deviations for parts per million (fat basis) of DDT compounds in flesh, skin and drip samples taken from anterior and posterior halves of five chinook salmon cooked by three methods with and without skin. ....— Position, Cooking Method and W or DDT Compounds W/O skin p, p,’ -DDE p, p,‘ -DDD p, p' -DDT FLESH Anterior 31.38:22.06' 5.70:5.59 25.35:25.76 Posterior 36.81:20.19 4.65:4.44 21.17:l7.03 Baked 34.32:23.l3 5.69:5.74 25.37:26.29 Poached 35.72:22.05 4.72:4.23 22.34:18.88 Baked-in-Bag 32.24:18.98 5.11:5.23 22.06:20.36 With skin 32.49:l7.92 4.61:3.89 20.77:l7.29 Withdut skin 35.70:24.l4 5.73:5.98 25.74:25.52 SKIN Anterior 32.77:16.23 4.48:6.02 27.15:15.07 Posterior 39.70:23.37 6.19:7.63 26.75:23.92 Baked 28.50:16.46 4.44:4.47 22.42:l7.86 Poached 34.52:15.72 3.79:3.55 23.02:13.13 Baked-in—Bag 45.69:24.76 8.22:9.93 35.42:25.l6 DRIP Anterior Posterior Baked Poached Baked-in-Bag With skin Without skin 105.63:136.62 148.84:200.34 185.93:211.53 103.62:126.9O 92.16:l47.68 137.21:l76.10 117.26:168.96 37.03:140.89 34.35: 76.55 28.15: 67.45 67.17:180.07 11.75: 23.79 42.16:l49.30 29.22: 57.74 79.18:130.70 143.51:224.79 76.32:194.23 156.27:l61.11 101.43:198.15 90.01:151.22 132.67:214.35 39 Poached skin samples with an intermediate value of 34.52 ppm p,p'—DDE were not significantly different from either baked or baked-in-bag skin samples. Differences in amounts of p,p'-DDD (P<:0.01) and p,p'—DDT (P<§0.05) among individual fish were also observed. Values for the DDT compounds present in drip were in- consistent. The data showed no significant differences due to cooking method, individual fish, position from which samples were taken or cooking with or without skin (Table 9). PHM4(fat basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in coho Because the coho sample consisted of only the anterior halves of two fish, general tendencies only can be noted. The coho contained less PCB and DDT compounds in raw flesh than the chinook and therefore, less in cooked samples (Table 10).) A comparison of means using a Z test statistic indicated the baked coho flesh contained less p,p'-DDD (Pm pwnumom H¢.¢0Hm0.0m 00.0H00.0 Hm.hNHOm.mm N0.thHm¢.mom wh.m0HHHN.00N pmxmm mHmQ m¢.NHHnm.mm 0H.mnmm.h mo.amHmn.¢¢ 00.noafimm.¢0m mm.¢auhn.m~ mmmlcalpoxmm 0m.nHOH.ma ma.mflmm.m hm.mHH50.0m m0.mmHmm.m¢H mb.HHHm0.¢H ponumom eo.mfimm.0a 00.0Hnn.m 0>.HHm0.NN em.mMHmm.¢NH mm.NHOm.h poxmm zHMw nmxooo me.mHHm.mH -. Hm.0HHm.m 00.0HHmm.hm No.00HHmn.0bH mH.0HH¢H.¢N ZHMm 3mm 00.nHmm.vH hm.0HHH.ma mm.NHmme¢N mm.m¢Hb>.mWH 0m.HHm¢.ma mmmlcfllpoxmm mm.NHHmH.mH mN.HHHO.N mm.manom.hm 50.0HHHO¢.05H 0v.0H00.mH pmnomom m¢.MHON.0H ¢N.HHOH.H 0m.mHnm.0N «H.00Hmo.0ha Ha.0flmm.ma poxmm mmmqm QMMOOU em.0fimm.¢a «0.NHmm.m mm.mH¢b.nm SN.HOHHv.mmH m0.nHmm.vH mmmqm 3mm Ban-.m.a ana-.a.m manu.m.a amma mama scrum: mpcsomeoo Baa mHOHuond mcwxooo .mpoguos manna kn poxooo COEHmw 0300 03» cu mo>amn HOMHouqm any Bonn monEmm mo.mflnp mam cfixn .amoaw pom cflxm pom smoam 3mm ca_thanoH_opfloflunmm 0cm mom mo Amwmmn “may GOMHHAE Hod muumm How mcoaumw>op pumpcmum pom mommum>< .0H manna 41 the flesh of raw chinook and coho salmon (Table 11). Total PCBs in chinook and coho averaged 7.99 and 5.94 ppm, respectively, while total DDT compounds averaged 1.90 and 1.59 ppm for chinook and coho, respectively. These values are within the ranges reported by Henderson gt gt. (1971); however, their data showed values for whole fish. The data showed higher levels of all residues in the chinook than were present in the coho. Table 11. Averages for parts per million (wet basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in raw flesh samples from five chinook and two coho salmon. Species 1248 1254 p,p'-DDE p,p'-DDD p,p'-DDT Chinook 0.50 7.49 1.11 0.12 0.67 Coho 0.50 5.44 0.97 0.11 0.51 Microgramg of PCB and DDT compounds in chinook flesh ' The micrograms of PCB and DDT compounds in raw and cooked chinook flesh were calculated from averages (Table 12). The data show small reductions in the micrograms of PCB and DDT compounds when samples were cooked by baking and baking- In-bags. Small reductions also occurred in the total DDT compounds present in poached samples. However, increased micrograms of PCBs are shown for samples cooked by poaching. These data probably reflect sampling errors and/or the fact 42 Table 12. Total micrograms of PCBs and DDT compounds in the flesh of five chinook salmon, raw and cooked by three methods. Cooking PCBs DDT Compounds Method 1248 1254 p,p'—DDE p,p'-DDD p,p'-DDT RAW 62.2 932.2 138.1 14.9 83.4 COOKED Baked 51.2 911.7 114.1 18.9 84.3 Poached 68.1 991.7 132.1 17.4 82.7 Baked—in—Bag 48.7 791.0 114.0 18.1 78.0 that calculations were based on averages. According to these data, baking-in-bags is the most effective cooking method in reducing total contamination in chinook salmon; however, it should be noted that reductions were small. Summary 0; data from PCB and DDT compound analyses The data of this study confirm that reported by Henderson 2E.§l- (1971) in that chinook and coho salmon from Lake Michigan are contaminated with PCBs and DDT compounds. It has been suggested that this contamination of fish could be reduced and/or removed by cutting out fatty areas while preparing the fish for cooking and then cooking by methods which leach fat from the tissues (Dice, 1969). The studies of Ritchey gt gt. (1969) and Reinert gt gt. (1971) support this conclusion. In contradiction, the results of this study show no definite relation between lipid content and residue 43 levels in fish. Henderson gt gt, (1971) reported the same conclusion. Although the fat content decreased approximately 22.6% from the anterior to the posterior positions in raw chinook flesh, the residue concentration in the posterior halves showed higher levels than in the anterior halves (Table 13). If there were a correlation between the two, highest residue levels would be present in the anterior halves along with the increased fat content. Cooked samples showed similar trends. Table 13. Percent fat and parts per million (fat basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in anterior and posterior halves of raw chinook salmon flesh and percentage difference. Fat (%) or Residue (ppm) Anterior Posterior Difference (%) Fat 3.04 2.35 -22.6 ‘Aroclor 1248 15.28 21.06 .37.8 Aroclor 1254 243.53 302.53 24.2 p,p'-DDE 36.87 45.54 23.5 p,p'-DDD 3.92 4.55 16.0 p,p'-DDT 20.59 27.30 32.5 Also in support of this conclusion, samples of flesh cooked with skin were compared with those cooked without skin. Although the amount of fat was 2.7% more in.samples cooked with skin, the levels of PCB and DDT compounds were 44 lower. Percents of difference were calculated and the re- sults are shown in Table 14. Table 14. Percent fat and parts per million (fat basis) of PCB and DDT compounds in chinook salmon flesh cooked with and without skin and percentage dif- ference. Fat (%) or Cooking State Difference Residue (ppm.) With Skin Without Skin (%) Fat 3.73 3.63 -2.7 Aroclor 1248 14.65 17.06 14.2 Aroclor 1254 242.26 268.43 9.7 p,p'—DDE 32.49 35.70 9.0 p,p'-DDD 4.61 5.73 19.5 p,p'-DDT 20.77 25.74 19.3 Cooking does reduce levels of PCB and DDT compounds in chinook and coho salmon as evidenced by the presence of these residues in the drip. The reduction is small, however. The data do not statistically point to any one of the three cooking methods as being superior for reducing all residue levels. Thus, the results of this study show no statistically significant pattern for effectively reducing all levels of PCB and DDT compounds in chinook and coho salmon. Small reductions do occur during cooking and because residues are present in the drip, totaI consumption of these compounds can be reduced by discarding the cooking drip. 45 Quality Characteristics of Cooked Salmon To assess the quality characteristics of the fish, two half-steaks, one from the anterior and one from the posterior half, from each of five chinook salmon and one half—steak from the anterior half of each of two coho salmon were cooked by each of the three methods. No skin was removed from the samples. Cooking times, total, volatile and/or drip losses, tenderness and juiciness were determined for each sample Tables 21 and 22, Appendix). All data were analyzed for variance (Table 15) while Duncan's multiple range test was used to pinpoint sources of significant differences. Using a Z test statistic (Dixon gt gt., 1957), appropriate means of the two species of fish were compared. Cooking times Baked chinook salmon steaks required an average of 45.6 min to cook to an end temperature of 75°C, longer (P<(0.01) than was needed to cook either bake-in-bag or poached samples to the same temperature. The average of 14.5 min cooking time for bake-in-bag samples was longer (P<:0.05) than the average of 7.0 min required to poach samples (Table 16). Cooking times did not differ significantly due to position or among fish. Cooking times for the limited number of coho salmon steaks were 35.5, 6.2 and 10.9 min for baked, poached and bake-in-bag samples, respectively. These values did not differ significantly from those of the chinook salmon. 46 .Muaaanmoouo no Hm>oa am map on ucmonmaamam .Muaaanmnouo no Ho>oa as may um unmoamacmam k. t. .1 ma Honum .H coaufimom .¢ nmflm .anoauoz .0H Hmooa ohm sepmoum mo mooumon H 00.0 00.0 0m.a 0m.0a 00.> 00.00 mm Honum mm.m 00.0 *Nm.0 0m.0 a¢.0a 00.00 H coapwmom 0¢.> *v0ga m0.a . 00.0w smo.0~ 00.00 g swam s«mm.mma ..as00.¢ 44m¢.¢00 *400.hnom *tmw.000 ««m0.m0a¢ N poauoe 0GMMOOU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 00 dance panam mmoum amHHQ qmaaumao> Hmnoa oEMB mm mocmaum> mmoum Hmoam mommoq moaxoou moaxoou mo (WM5Hm> oHMDUm Gmmz mousom .mpoguvfi mossy MA poxooo cosamm Meaghan o>wm Beam ovamsmm mo pend“ moose pom mmoum Hmmnm .moanH pom mosey moaxoou How oocmaum> mo mmmhamcd .ma manna 47 onoummoao maucmoamacmam .Ahmma .GMUGDDQ poo mum mafia 08mm on» an pououmnopcs mosam>H m_mmuvm Ho.~uao.om mm.HHo>.om mm.HHmo.¢v lav chasm mmoum mm.muvm on.ouha.m mk.onoo.s km.onmm.m Am\oouom nae mmocumpcoe manym a.aum.ma . . . m.o no.0 Ase mama muvmm m.auo.a . . . m.m Hm.mm lav oaaumao> muvmm_m m.anm.oa m.HHN.¢H N.m Ho.om lav Hobos mommoa moaxoou mmuvm muvmm.m o.mam.aa .m.HHo.n o.mano.mo Acaev oefiu mafixooo mm m m mo.ouvm Ho.o.vm mmmICMJoxmm oonomom ooxmm noosousmmoz Hoocmoaoncmam Hmonumaumum oorooz monsoon pumpcmum .mommuo>m pwsam mmoum 0cm momma Hmosm .mponume mounu 0Q pmxoou coedmm Moocwnu o>wm Eonm monEmm mo mommHmcm Hmoaumflumum.tcm mcowpmw>op .mommOH pom mosau moaxoou .ma magma 48 Cooking times are dependent on the speed with which heat is conducted in the cooking medium_(Lowe, 1955). .Moist heat, as used in poaching and to a lesser extent in bakeuin-bag cooking decreased cooking times. These findings are in agree— ment with those reported by meat cooking researchers, Cover (1941) and Clark EE.§1° (1949). Cookingglosses Total cooking losses were calculated for samples cooked by three methods. Volatile and drip losses were determined only for samples cooked by baking and baking—in-bags. Total cooking losses. These losses averaged 30.0, 14.2 and 16.9% for baked, poached and baked-in—bag chinook salmon samples (Table 16). The losses for baked steaks were sig— nificantly (P.oa Nb.a mm.m¢ m>.mmm mm.m om.m. m < m nm.oa mm.m mm.mm mm.mmH mo.mH om.m m Hm.ma oo.m mo.m~ ¢O.¢ma mN.NH 7mm.m m m h¢.> mm.o m¢.ba. ¢w.HmH mo.m mo.m m gm.m~ mm.¢ mo.mm ma.mm~ H¢.vH mm.m. m < g mn.¢ hh.m mm.¢a Hm.mmm mh.mm. Nw.m m ¢M.ma oo.o hm.om Ho.m~H NN.HH «H.m m m mm.mH hm.o m¢.HH mm.HmH mm.m Hm.w m mo.mm No.m mm.o~ mm.mom N¢.HH MH.¢ m d m mmufim mM.o mm.m¢ ¢¢.omm mo.HM mm.a m gm.¢n mb.m NH.moa m¢.Nmn Hm.mm ¢O.H. m m mm.om NH. Ho.~¢ mm.mm¢ Ho.Hm ma.m m hc.Hm Hh.n o¢.Hm om.mmm Ha.mm NN.H m d N mm.ma om.m mo.am No.aha Hm.m hm.m m Ha.m hm.m mo.>m. mm.omm mH.MH hmum m rm mm.m om.m «m.ma m¢.NmH m¢.OH mh.m -.m mm.m 00.0 o¢.mm gm.mom 5v.MH mo.m ..1m ..:1.4 H MOOZ H30 soou.m.m amou.m.m moon_d.m emma meme yum yum soap swam mUGDOQEOU BQQ mmum loom Iflmom I800 .COEHmm 0:00 03» com xooowno m>Hm mo mo>dmn Hofluoumom cam Moanmucm Eoum coxmu moamEmm sax» pom numHMV3mu Ga moodomfioo 999 com mom «0 Amflmmn ummv GORHHwE Hon muumm pom umm ucmuumm .ba magma 64 'F‘A-r \ UGDGHHCOU . 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 0\3 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.6 3 6 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.6 6\3 66.66 66.66 06.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 3 4 666-66-6666 66.66 66.66. 66.66 66.66 66.66 0\3 66666 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 3 6 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 0\3 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.66. 66.66 3 6 6660606 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 0\3 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 3 6 66.6 66.66 6666 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 0\3 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 3 6 66666 6666 6066066 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 0\3 66.6 66.6. 66.6 66.6 66.6 3 6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 0\3 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 3 6 666-66-6666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6. 0\3 66.6. 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 3 6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 0\3 66.6 66.6 66.m 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 3 6 6666606 666m 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 0\3 66.6 66.6 66.6. 66.6 66.6 3 6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 0\3 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 3 6 66666 666 6366666 6 6 6 6 m 6 6 66666 :06» 606662 0:00 xooc6£0 mcwxoou IHmom bawxooo .cfixm #503663 can ##63 muonuwe mougy Mn vmxooo GOEamm onoo 03» @cm xooc6nu m>6m mo um>am£ Hoflumumom cam 606Hmucm 506m cmxmu mmdmewm nmoam G6 mvcsomsoo Baa 6cm mom mo Amwmmn ummv GOHHHME 60m muumm com umm ucmonmm .ma wanna 65 if?" ' UoSGHHcou 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66. 6\3 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 3 6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66666 66.66 66.66. 6\3 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 3 6 666-66:6666 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 -6\3 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 3 6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66. 66.66 6\3 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66. 3 6 66666 .M66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 6\3 - 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 3 6 66.66 66.66 . 66.66 66.66 66.6- 66.666 66.66 6\3 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66. 66.6. 66.66 66.66 3 6 6666 666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 6\3 1 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 3 6 66.66 66.666 66.666 66.66 66.666 66.666 66.666 6\3 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.66 66.666 66.666 66.666 3 6 666-66-6666 .66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 6\3 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 3 6 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.66 66.666 66.666 6\3 66.666 66.66 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 3 6 66666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 6\3 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 3 6 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.6666 66.666 6\3 66.666 66.66 66.666 66.666 66.666 66.666. 66.666 3 6 6666 6666 6666666 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66666 6666 666662 0:00 Moocwno 1 mcflxooo Iwmom mcflxooo cmscflucoollma manna 66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.6 6\3 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.6 3 6 66.66_ 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 6\3 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.6 A 3 6 666-66n6666 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 6\3 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 3 6 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 6\3 66.66 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 3 6 66666 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66. 66.66 6\3 66.66 66.66 66.6 66.66 66.66 3 6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.66 66.666 66.66 6\3 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 66.66 3 6 6666 BOD 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 6\3 66.6 66.6 66. 66.6- 66.6. 3 6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 6\3 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 3 6 66616616666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 6\3 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 3 6 66.6 66.6 666H 66.6 6626 66.6 66.6 6\3 66.6 66. 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 3 6 66666 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 6\3 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 3 6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 6\3 66.6 66.6 66»6 66.6 66.6 66.66 66.6 3 6 6666 666 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 66666 6666 666662 0:00 xooc6£o mcwxooo 16606 mowxoou 666666666nu66 6666a 67 A: [Iran-Ir, 606666600 mm.m66 hm.mm6 mm.omm 6¢.h¢m mm.hmm m 6m.omm MH.mm6 «66666 mm.m¢6 m6.6>6 om.6mm oo.O6N 6 mmmlc6l60xmm mm.6¢6 66.6M6 mm.m¢6 mo.mm¢ om.mhm m no.N>6 ~¢.¢m66 mm.hm6 m6.666 mm.mm mo.m6m mm.mmH 6 6060606 66.066 mm.om6 66.666 mm.6m~ 6m.m~H m mo.om6 om.mm 6M.th. 66.606 No.66m 66.60m 06.666 d 60x6m ¢m~6 6N.~6 mo.mm 6m.m mm.o¢ mm.m m mo.om mv.m6 66.6 m¢.6m_ 6m.m m>.om 66.66 6 mmml66l60xmm 60.6 m6.¢m 66.6 66.66 «6.0m m mm.mm om.6 mH.m 6~.6 66.66 66.o~ o¢.m < 6060606 bhlm 6m.¢ 66.66 mm.N6 mm.m m mm.m m~.m wmnb. mm.6 om.66 mm.¢m mmom m 60x6m mvma mwwH mm.6 ma.6 m6.6 060m 6 6696 66.6 66,6 6606 6606 66.6 66.6 6 666:66u66666 66.m_ mm.m_ oo.m mm.6 no.m. m om.m mo.m6 6606 6m.6 60.6 m6.m meow 6 6060606 N6.m 66.6 mm.m m¢.m om.oa 6 m6.@ mm.m6 mm°N6 N>.66 m¢.m 66.6 mm.06 4 60x6m 84m BZmUmmm N 6 m, 6 m N 6 60666606 606602 0600 6006660 666x000 .6606605 0066» an 60x000 608666 0:00 036 666 #006660 0>6m 60 60>666 606606606 666 60660666 8066 60666 6066866 66:6 66 666606500 Bag 666 mom 60 66666n.ummv 6066668 606 66666 666 666 6600606 .66 06n69 .3 68 na.¢m o~.mm oo.aa mm.~m mm.mm m no.mm. o¢.va mm.nm mm.¢a m~.ma «m.mm Hm.m~ m mmmucfluwmxmm no.ma no.~H ¢m.ma m¢.ma om.¢m, m mm.ma om.» mmuma mm.m~ om.mm ¢m.mm mm.oa 4 omnomom mm.¢a mm.m mm.om om.mm «m.a m mm.ma mo.m ma.mm mmqm ma.mm om.v¢ mm.¢a m omxmm . Baa o.o no.ma mm.m nn.nm 0000 m No.m ma.m mm.H oooo oo.o Hmona mnooa < mmmucflucmxmm 00.0 00.0 mm.m m~.oH omom m 50.0 oo.a wwwa om.m mm.a mo.o omen 4 cmgomom om.~ mm.m o.o na.ma Hmom m maom a¢.m nmoo 0.0 0.0 mn.m mm.m m wmxmm can mm.o¢ m¢.mm ~¢.¢m no.aaa ma.m¢ m ma.om ¢¢.am mm.mw on.mm om.o~ om.n¢ mm.am « mmmucflnwwxmm no.a~ .ao.nm mm.ma Hm.m¢ mm.¢¢ m mm.m¢ mp.na mo.ma m¢.¢~ oh.m~ H¢.¢m mo.mm m wmnomom mm.om o¢.mm mm.am no.m¢ oa.~m m m¢.am mm.mm mm.omw mm.m ¢u.va nm.~o an.oa m umxmm man a a m ¢ m m a cofluflmom wonpmz 0:00 . xoocflno mcwxooo UmSGHHGOUIImH manna 69 vmscwucou 44.44 44.44 44.4444 00.444 44.44 0\3 44.444 44.44 44.404 00.4444 44.44 3 4 00.444 44.44 44.44 44.404 40.04 44.04 44.4 0\3 40.44 44.44 44.04 04.444 44.04 00.044 04.44 3 4 444-44-44444 00.0444 00.0444 44.444 00.444 44.444 0\3 00.404 04.444 44.444 04.444 00.044 3 4 00.044 04.444 04.444 00.444 44.444 00.444 44.444 0\3 00.404 00.444 00.044 00.0444 44.444 04.4444 00.4404 3 4 4440404 44.404 44.404 40.444 44.444 44.444 0\3 44.444 44.444 44.444 44.4444 44.44 3 4 44.444 40.404 44.44 44.44 44.44 44.444 44.04. 0\3 44.444 44.44 44.44 44.444 44.04 44.444 44.04 3 4 44444 4444 04.0 44.0 44.0 40.0 44.0 0\3 . 44.0 44.0 44.0 40.0 44.0 3 4 04.0 44.4 44.0 44.0 04.4 44.0 44.4 - 0\3 44.0 44.44 44.0 44.4 44.4 04.0 40.4 3 4 444-44-40444 40.0 00.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 0\3 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 3 4 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 0\3 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 3 4 4444404 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.0 44.4 0\3 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.0 44.4 3 4 44.4 44.44 44.4 44.4 44.44 44.4 44.4 0\3 44.4 44.44 44.44 44.4 44.44 44.0 44.44 3 4 44444 444 4240444 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44444 4044 404442 0300 Moocflsu mCHMooo Iflmom mcfixooo .cflxm usonufis 6cm Saw? muonume mungu an Umxooo defiamm 0300 034 dam Moccasu m>wm mo mm>amg Hoaumumom 6cm Hoaumucm Scum coxmu mmamEmm @440 C4 mvcsomeoo Ban cam mum mo Amflmmn ummv c044445 40m muumm cam 44% usmoumm .ON @4949 7O Umscflucoo 40.44 44.44 44.04 00.04 44.44 0\3 04.444 44.44 44.44 0.0 44.44 3 4 44.444 44.44 44.44. 44.44 44.04 44.44 44.44 0\3 40.44 44.44 44.04 44.44 44.44 00.444 44.444 3 4 444-44n44444 00.0 00.04 00.04 00.0 00.0 0\3 00.044 00.0 44.444 04.444 00.04 3 4 00.0 00.04 44.444 00.444 00.0 00.0 44.44 0\3 00.0 00.44 00.444 00.04 00.04 00.0 00.044 3 4 4444404 44.444 44.444 44.444 44.044 44.44.- 0\3 44.044- 04.444 0.0 44.444 44.44 3 4 44.44 44.44 44.404 44.44 44.44 44.444 44.04 0\3 44.44 44.4 44.44 44.44 44.44 44.444 04.04 3 4 44444 man 44.444 44.444 40.4444 00.4444 44.444 0\3 00.0444 44.444 44.444 00.44444 44.444 3 4 44.444 44.444 44.444 44.4444 44.444 44.444 44.44 0\3 44.044 44.444 44.444 04.444 44.444 00.444 44.444 3 4 444144-44444 00.4044 00.0444 00.0404 00.0444 00.4404. 0\3 00.4444 00.4444 00.4444 04.4444 00.4444 3 4 00.4404 44.0444 44.4404 44.4044 44.4444 00.4444 44.4444 0\3 00.4444 00.0444 00.4444 0004404444444 04.4444 00.4444 3 4 4440404 04.0444 44.4444 04.4404 44.4444 44.4444 0\3 44.444 40.4444 44.4444 44.4444 44.44 3 4 40.4444 04.444 44.444 44.444 44.444 44.4444 44.444 0\3 04.4444 04.444 40.444 44.4444 44.444 44.4444 04.444 3 4 44444 4444 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 44444 4044 404442 0500 xooc4£o mamxooo Iwmom 044x000 4444444001u04 44444 71 44.444 00.0 04.404 00.0 04.44 0\3 44.444 00.0 44.44 00.0 40.44 3 4 44.44 04.44 44.44 00.0 44.4 00.0 44.4 0\3 44.44 00.0 44.444 00.0 40.04. 00.44! 44.44 3 4 444-44-40444 00.044 00.044 00.04 00.0 00.0 0\3 00.04 00.44 44.404 00.044 00.044 3 4 00.0 00.0 04.444 44.444 00.0 00.0 00.444 0\3 00.44 04.444 00.044 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.044, 3 4 4440404 44.44 00.0 00.0 40.444 00.0 0\3 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 04.4 3 4 00.0 44.44 44.44 44.44 00.0 40.444 44.44 0\3 44.444 44.4 44.44 00.0 00.0 44.44 44.44 3 4 44444 444 44.44 00.0 44.04 00.0 00.0 0\4 44.44 00.0 44.44 00.0 00.0 3 4 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 44.4. 0\3 00.0 00.0 40.4 00.0 00.0 00.0 44.4 3. 4 444144-44444 00.0 00.04 00.0 00.0 00.0 0\3 00.0 00.0 00.044 00.0 00.0 3 4 00.0 00.0 44.44 04.44 00.0 00.0 44.44 0\3 00.0 00.044 00.0 00.0 00.04 00.0 00.044 3 4 4440404 44.44 00.0 44.44 40.444 44.44 0\3 44.4 44.44 00.0 00.0 00.0 3 4 00.0 00.0 00«0 00.0 00.0 04.44 44.4 0\3 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 44.0 3 4 44444 DOD . 4 4 4 4 4. 4 4 44444 4044 404442 0400 - xoocwno mc4xooo Iwmom mc4xoou 440444400II04 4444a 72 .0204u004840u00 0u4044m50 m0 0mmu0>m cm 44 0544> £00m4 . . . . 44.44 40.44 44.44 44.44 44.44 m 44.04 44.04 44.04 04.44 44.44 44.44 44.44 a mmm|44lw0xmm . . . . 4~.Mm 44.04 44.44 40.44 44.44 m 44.44 44.44 44444 44.44 44.44 44.44 44.44 4 0040400 . . . . 44444 44.44 44.44 44.44 04.44 m 04.44 44.04 44.44 44.44 44.44 44.04 44.44 4 00Mmm 4444 44444 44444 . . . . 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 m 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 04.4 44.4 4 444-44-44444 . . . . 4444 04.4 44.4 44.4 04.4 m 44.4 44.4 44.4 40.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 4 0040404 . . . . mn.m 44.4 00.44 44.4 44.4 m 44.4 44.4 40.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 4 00444 4.4 444 00404 .444 44444 44444 N m 4 m N a 0040440m 00£u02 0400 4004440 0044000 .0004008 00H£u.mn 004000.:08400 0400 03» 004 4000440 0>4m 804m 0040800 m0 040080430408 UHSHM mmonm 000 00040 400£m .44 04909 . . . . 4.04 0.04 0.0 4.44 0.44 4 .04 0.0 0.04 0.04 4.44 4.04 0.04 0 000-04-00400 . . . . 4.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 . 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 00x00 440 444404 0244000 4440 . . . . Hhh. -000 0.0 4.0 0.0 .4 4.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4 400-04u00x00 . . . . . . 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.40 4.00 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00. 0.04 0.40 0.00 0 00x00 440 444404 0244000 4449440> . . . . 0.04 0.04 4.04 0.04 0.04 4 0.04 0.44 0.04 4.04 4.04 0.04 0.04 0 000-04-00400 . . . . 4.04 4.04 0.04 4.04, 0.04 4 .04 4.0 0.04. 0.04 0.04 4.04 0.04 4 0040004 . . . . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 4.40 4 0.00 4.04 4.00 0.40 4.40 0.40 0.00 4 00x00 .440 444404 0244000 44004 . . . . 0.4 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 4 0.04 0.0 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.44 0.04 0 400-04-00400 . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0 0040004 . . . . . . 0.40 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.40 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00400 40480 4244 0244000 4 0 0 0 N 4 00404004 004002 0400 4000440 0044000 .4004408 00440 >4 004000 008404 0400 030 000 4000440 0>44 8044 4040804 40 404404,000 40844 0044000 .NN 0440B "‘TIEWilli!@Efiwfllflwfllflfufiifif