Sous vide sook-chill System과 Conventional cook-chill System으로 생산된 일부 음식의 품질평가

Abstract

본 연구에서는 Sous vide Cook-Chill System과 Cook-Chill System으로 음식을 생산함으로써 이에 따른 생산방법과 저장온도에 따라 각각의 음식의 품질을 비교 평가함으로서 보다 안전한 Cook-Chill System의 운영을 위한 기초자료를 제공하고자 한다. 이를 위해 단체급식소에서 제공되는 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜을 실험재료로 선정하여 Sous vide Cook-Chill System과 Cook-Chill System으로 생산 및 저장하면서 각각의 품질을 다음과 같이 평가하였다. 첫째, Sous vide Cook-Chill System(이하 SVCC)과 Cook-Chill System(이하 CC)으로 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜을 생산하여 생산단계별로 소요시간 및 온도상태를 측정하고 이화학적(pH, Aw, 수분함량), 미생물학적(표준평판균수, 대장균군수) 품질 특성을 평가하였다. 둘째, 각 각의 생산방법(SVCC와 CC)과 저장온도(3℃와 10℃)에 따라 10일 동안 저장 및 재가열 후 이에 따른 이화학적(pH, Aw, 수분함량), 미생물적(표준평판균수, 대장균군수, 저온성균수, 혐기성균수)품질을 비교 평가함으로써 음식의 품질 안정성을 분석하였다. 셋째, 각 각의 생산방법(SVCC와 CC)과 저장온도(3℃와 10℃)에 따른 이화학적(pH, Aw, 수분함량), 미생물적(표준평판균수, 대장균군수, 저온성균수, 혐기성균수)변화에 영향을 미치는 변인과 상호관련성을 분석함으로써 적절한 생산방법과 저장온도를 설정하였다. 이상에서 얻은 연구 결과는 다음과 같다. 1) 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜의 음식의 생산단계별 소요시간 및 온도를 측정한 결과, 닭고기장조림의 경우 원재료 입고시 생강, 다시마를 제외한 나머지 시료들은 냉장상태로 7℃를 유지하였으며, SVCC와 CC로 조리직 후 평균 내부온도도 각 각 78.8℃, 94℃로 조리온도 기준을 만족시키는 범위로 조리되었다. 또한 냉각에 소요된 시간은 SVCC와 CC가 각 각 55분, 42분으로 90분이내 음식 내부 온도가 3℃로 냉각됨으로써 냉각조건을 만족하였다. 단호박찜의 경우에는 SVCC와 CC로 조리직 후 평균 내부온도가 76.7℃, 88.7℃로 조리온도기준에 만족하였고, 냉각에 소요된 시간도 각 각 49분, 39분으로 역시 만족할 만한 냉각조건이였다. 2) 생산 단계에서 따른 이화학적 품질 측정결과는 pH의 경우 SVCC로 생산된 닭고기 장조림은 포장직 후 pH 6.06, 조리직 후 6.03 , 냉각직 후 6.07이었으며 CC로 생산된 경우에는 조리직 후 6.14, 냉각직 후 6.09, 포장직 후 6.15로 SVCC보다 다소 높게 측정되었다. 단호박찜은 SVCC의 경우 포장직 후 pH 6.93, 조리직 후 6.67, 냉각직 후 6.61이였으며 CC의 경우 조리직 후 6.63, 냉각직후 6.68, 포장직 후 6.66으로 나타났다. Aw의 경우 SVCC로 생산된 닭고기 장조림은 포장직 후 0.93, 조리직 후 0.90 , 냉각직 후 0.92였으며 CC의 경우 조리직 후 0.95, 냉각직 후 0.93, 포장직 후 0.96으로 SVCC보다 CC에서 다소 높게 측정되었다. 단호박찜은 SVCC의 경우 포장직 후 0.91, 조리직 후 0.93, 냉각직 후 0.95이였으며, CC의 경우 조리직 후 0.93, 냉각직 후 0.96, 포장직 후 0.97로 나타나 SVCC보다 CC가 다소 높았다. 수분함량의 경우 닭고기장조림은 SVCC의 경우 수분함량이 포장직 후 74.67%, 조리직 후 74.98%, 냉각직 후 70.45%였으며 CC의 경우 조리직 후 65.35%, 냉각직 후 62.10%, 포장직 후 61.43으로 SVCC에 비해 낮은 수분함량을 보여주었다. 단호박찜은 SVCC의 경우 수분함량이 포장직 후 72.75%, 조리직 후 75.35%, 냉각직 후 74.55였으며 CC의 경우 조리직 후 58.70%, 냉각직 후 60.41%, 포장직후 64.39%로 닭고기장조림에서와 같이 SVCC에 비해 낮은 수분함량을 보여주었다. 3) 생산단계에 따른 미생물 검사 결과, 닭고기장조림은 원재료인 닭가슴살의 경우 표준평판균수가 5.78(Log CFU/g, 이하 단위생략), 대장균군수가 4.69이었으며 SVCC로 생산한 경우 포장직 후 표준 평판균수와 대장균군수는 각 각 5.20, 3.26이였고 조리직 후 2.78 , 1.00이며 냉각직 후 2.66 , 1.00으로 나타나 조리직 후와 차이가 거의 없었다. CC의 경우 표준 평판균수와 대장균군수는 조리직 후 3.10 , 1.04였고 냉각직 후 3.98, 2.48이며 포장직 후 4.05, 2.78으로 조리직 후보다 다소 높았으나 SVCC와 CC 모두 기준치에 만족하는 결과를 볼 수 있었다. 단호박찜의 경우 원재료의 표준 평판균수와 대장균군수가 5.92, 3.30이였으며SVCC로 생산한 경우 포장직 후 표준 평판균수와 대장균군수는 각 각 3.52, 2.00, 조리직 후에는 표준 평판균수는 1.82였으며 대장균군은 전혀 검출되지 않았고, 냉각직 후에는 표준 평판균수가 1.43, 대장균군은 조리직 후와 마찬가지로 검출되지 않았다. CC의 경우는 조리직 후 표준 평판균수와 대장균군수가 각 각 조리직후 2.52, 1.10이었으며, 냉각직 후 3.00, 2.00이며 포장직후 3.36, 2.00으로 나타나 SVCC와 CC 모두 미생물적 기준치를 만족하였다. 4) 생산방법 및 저장온도에 따른 이화학적 품질 측정결과는 pH의 경우 닭고기장조림은 SVCC와 CC의 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째 각 각 6.10과 5.89 , 6.39와 6.40이었다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC와 CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 각 각 6.40과 6.39, 6.64와 6.61로 재가열전 보다 높은 증가율을 보였다. 단호박찜은 SVCC와 CC의 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 6.63과 6.33, 6.86과 6.87로 측정되었다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC와 CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 각 각 6.70과 6.71, 6.76과 6.78로 측정되었다. Aw의 경우 닭고기장조림은 SVCC와 CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 각 각 0.94와 0.95, 0.94와 0.98이였다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 모두 0.94, CC에서는 각 각 0.95, 0.98이었다. 단호박찜은 SVCC와 CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 각 각 0.94, 0.95였으며 CC의 경우는 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 모두 0.97로 측정되었다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC와 CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 각 각 0.94와 0.95, 0.95와 0.96으로 측정되었다. 수분함량의 경우 닭고기장조림은 SVCC와 CC의 경우 급격한 증가와 감소를 보이다가 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 각 각 71.15%와 74.12%, 61.30%와 60.16%였다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC와 CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 각 각 67.38%와 70.28%, 56.46%와 51.78%로 SVCC의 경우저장 10일에서 약간의 수분함량의 손실이 보였으나 CC에서 수분함량의 손실이 다소 크게 일어났음을 알 수 있었다. 단호박찜은 SVCC와 CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 각 각 71.82%와 79.55%, 82.42%와 85.64%로 측정되었다. 재가열 후 SVCC와 CC의 수분함량은 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에서 각 각 74.56%와 74.26%, 77.69%와 85.41%로 측정되었다. 단호박찜의 경우 생산방법과 저장온도에 따른 수분함량의 손실은 없었으나 CC로 생산된 시료의 매우 높은 수분함량은 미생물 위험을 가진다고 할 수 있다. 5) 생산방법 및 저장온도에 따른 미생물학적 품질검사 결과는 다음과 같다. 먼저 표준평판균수의 측정 결과, 닭고기장조림은 SVCC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째 각 각 3.20, 4.19로 조리된 식품의 기준(10^(5) CFU/g)을 만족시키는 수준이였나 CC의 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째 각 각5.27, 6.01으로 10℃로 저장된 경우 기준치를 초과하였다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC와 CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째 각 각 1.20과 3.52, 4.16과 5.46이 검출되었다. 단호박찜은 표준 평판균수가 SVCC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에는 각 각 4.87과 5.91로 검출되었다. CC의 경우에는 3℃ 저장 10일 6.01로 기준치를 초과하였으며 10℃ 저장 5일째부터 6.05으로 기준치를 초과하였다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC의 경우 3℃저장 10일째 2.26으로 감소되었고 10℃저장 10일 째 4.30으로 검출되었으나 재가열 전 보다는 감소를 보였으며 기준치에 안전한 수준이였다. CC의 경우는 재가열 후에 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에 4.87, 5.88로 검출되었다. 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜 모두 CC로 생산된 경우 SVCC에 비해 저장기간이 지날수록 표준 평판균이 더욱 높게 검출되었으며 3℃와 10℃로 저장하였을때 SVCC로 생산된 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장에서는 극히 적은 수의 균이 검출되어 음식의 품질을 그대로 유지 할 수 있었으나 CC에서는 10℃저장은 미생물적 위험을 지닌다고 할 수 있다. 대장균군수의 측정결과, 닭고기장조림은 SVCC의 경우 3℃저장 10일째에는 2.42로 조리된 식품의 기준(10² CFU/g)을 만족시키는 수준이었고, 10℃저장 10일째에는 3.52로 기준치를 초과하였다. CC에서는 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째 각 각 3.77, 4.20으로 모두 기준치를 초과하였다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC의 경우 3℃ 저장에서 10일까지 대장균군이 검출되지 않았으며, 10℃ 저장 10일째 1.26으로 감소하였다. CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃저장 10일째에 각 각 2.16, 3.43으로 10℃저장에서는 기준치를 초과하였다. 단호박찜은 SVCC의 경우, 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째에는 2.80과 3.80으로 10℃저장에서는 7일 후 기준치를 초과하였다. CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃저장 10일째에는 4.31과 4.59로 기준치를 초과하였다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC의 경우 3℃ 저장에서는 대장균군이 전혀 검출되지 않았으며 10℃에서는 저장 10일째 2.73으로 나타났다. CC의 경우 3℃ 저장 10일째에서 2.87로 감소하여 검출되었으며, 10℃저장 10일째 3.16으로 재가열 전보다는 감소되어 검출되었으나 기준치를 초과하였다. 이에 대장균군수도 표준 평판균수와 마찬가지로 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜은 SVCC로 생산하여 3℃와 10℃ 저장하였을때 미생물적 품질이 안전하였으며 CC로 생산한 경우 10℃저장 7일까지를 저장하는 것이 바람직하다고 할 수 있다. 생산방법 및 저장온도에 따른 저온성균수에서 실험결과는 닭고기장조림의 경우 SVCC에서 3℃ 저장 10일까지 1.73으로 큰 변화가 없었으며 10℃저장 10일 후 2.90으로의 수준을 보였다. CC의 경우 3℃저장 5일 후부터 저온성균이 증가하여 10일 후 3.57이었으며, 10℃저장에서는 10일 후 3.92로 검출되었다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일까지의 저온성균이 모두 사멸하여 검출되지 않았으며, CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃저장 10일 후에는 2.52와 2.75가 검출되었다 . 단호박찜은 SVCC의 경우 3℃ 저장 10일째 2.36이었으며, 10℃저장 10일째 3.93이 검출되었다. CC에서는 전체적으로 SVCC보다 높은 균 증식으로 3℃ 저장 10일째 3.73이었으며, 10℃ 저장 10일째 4.07이 검출되었다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC에서 3℃의 저장에서 저온성균이 모두 사멸되었으며, 10℃에서는 저장 10일 후 2.35로 재가열 전보다 저온성균이 감소되었다. CC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일째 각 각 2.36, 2.74로 재가열 전 보다 감소된 저온성균이 검출되었다. 혐기성균수의 측정결과, 닭고기장조림은 SVCC의 경우 3℃ 저장에서는 전혀 검출되지 않았으며 10℃저장 10일째부터 1.10으로 검출되었다. CC의 경우 SVCC와 마찬가지로 3℃ 저장 10일까지 혐기성균이 전혀 검출되지 않았고, 10℃ 저장 10일 후 2.42로 검출되었다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC의 경우 10℃ 저장 10일째 1.00, CC의 경우 10℃저장 10일 후에는 2.10으로 혐기성균의 큰 감소없이 재가열 전과 비슷한 수준으로 검출되었다. 단호박찜의 경우, SVCC의 3℃ 저장 10일 후 2.20, 10℃저장에서는 3일부터 혐기성균이 서서히 증가하다가 10일 후에는 4.37이 검출되었다. CC의 경우 3℃에서는 혐기성균이 전혀 검출되지 않았으며, 10℃ 저장 10일 후 4.26이 검출되었다. 재가열 후에는 SVCC의 경우 3℃와 10℃ 저장 10일 후 각 각 1.20, 3.00으로 재가열 전보다 감소된 것으로 나타났다. CC의 경우 10℃저장 10일째에 3.69로 재가열 후임에도 불구하고 재가열 전과 큰 차이가 없었다. 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜에서 검출된 혐기성균은 표준 평판균, 대장균군, 저온성균에 비하여 적게 검출되었으나 재가열을 거쳤음에도 불구하고 재가열 전과 큰 변화가 없는 것으로 보아 잠재적인 미생물적 위험을 지니고 있었다. 6) 생산방법 및 저장온도에 따른 이화학적, 미생물학적 품질 변화에 영향을 주는 변인을 분석한 결과, pH의 경우 닭고기장조림은 재가열전 · 후 모두 생산방법과 저장온도, 그리고 생산방법과 저장온도에 따른 상호작용에 따라서 유의한 차이가 있었으며(P<.05), 단호박찜의 경우는 재가열 전에서 생산방법과 저장온도에 따른 상호작용과 저장온도에서 유의하였으나(P<.05), 생산방법에 따라서는 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았다(P>.05). 재가열 후에는 생산방법과 저장온도, 그리고 상호작용 모두에서 유의하지 않았다(P>.05). Aw의 경우, 닭고기장조림은 재가열전 · 후의 생산방법, 저장온도에 유의한 차이가 있었으나(P<.05), 생산방법과 저장온도의 상호작용에는 유의하지 않았다(P>.05). 단호박찜은 생산방법과 저장온도의 상호작용, 저장온도에 따른 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았으나(P>.05), 생산방법에 따라서는 Aw의 변화가 유의하게 나타났다(P<.05). 재가열 후에는 단호박찜의 생산방법과 저장온도에 따른 상호작용, 저장온도, 생산방법 모두 유의하지 않았다(P>.05). 수분함량의 경우, 닭고기장조림은 생산방법에 의해서만 수분함량이 유의한 차이가 있었다. 재가열 후에는 생산방법과 저장온도에 따른 상호작용효과, 생산방법, 저장온도에 따라서도 유의한 차이가 있었다(P<.05). 단호박찜은 재가열전 · 후의 수분함량이 생산방법과 저장온도에 따른 상호작용효과가 유의하였을 뿐만 아니라 생산방법, 저장온도에 따라서도 유의한 차이가 있었다(P<.05). 표준 평판균수의 경우, 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜의 재가열전 · 후 생산방법, 저장온도에 따라서 유의한 차이가 있었다(P<.05). 그러나 닭고기장조림의 경우 생산방법과 저장온도의 상호작용효과에 따른 유의차는 없었으나, 단호박찜은 생산방법과 저장온도에 따른 상호작용이 유의하였다(P<.05). 대장균군수의 경우, 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜 모두 생산방법, 저장온도, 생산방법과 저장온도의 상호작용에 따라 유의한 차이가 나타났으며(P<.05), 재가열 후 생산방법, 저장온도에 따라서 역시 유의한 차이가 존재하였다(P<.05). 그러나 두 음식 모두 생산방법과 저장온도의 상호작용에 따라서는 유의하지 않았다(P>.05). 저온성균의 경우, 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜의 재가열전 · 후 생산방법과 저장온도, 그리고 생산방법과 저장온도의 상호작용에 따라서 유의한 차이를 보였다(P<.05). 마지막으로 혐기성균의 경우, 재가열 전 닭고기장조림은 저장온도에 따라서만 유의한 차이가 있는 것으로 나타났고(P<.05), 생산방법, 생산방법과 저장온도와의 상호작용은 없는 것으로 나타났다(P>.05). 또한 단호박찜은 재가열 전 생산방법, 저장온도에만 유의적이었으며(P<.05), 재가열 후 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜은 생산방법, 저장온도, 생산방법과 저장온도의 상호작용에 따라서 혐기성균 수의 변화에 유의한 차이가 있었다(P<.05). 이상의 생산방법 및 저장온도가 이화학적, 미생물학적 품질에 미치는 영향을 분석한 결과 첫째, SVCC로 생산된 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜의 pH와 Aw, 수분함량의 손실 및 변화는 CC에 비하여 적게 나타남으로써 음식의 미생물적, 질적 품질을 우수하게 유지할 수 있는 것으로 사료되었다. 둘째, 본 실험에서의 저장기간이 10일로 장기간이 아니므로 SVCC와 CC에서 3℃와 10℃의 저장온도간의 품질 저하는 뚜렷하지 않았지만 10℃에서 그리고 CC에서 이화학적, 미생물적 품질이 비교적 낮아 전체적으로 품질 안전성은 SVCC가 바람직했다. 이는 SVCC로 생산된 경우 진공포장으로 인하여 산소가 없기 때문에 미생물의 증식을 막을수 있고 특히 절대 혐기성균의 증식이 억제되며 산패가 억제되기 때문으로 사료되었다. 셋째, 3℃와 10℃의 저장온도에서는 3℃저장의 경우가 음식이 질적으로 우수하였다. 넷째, 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜은 SVCC로 생산되어 3℃와 10℃로 저장 시 10일까지 질적으로 우수하였고, CC로 생산되어 3℃로 저장한 경우에는 10일까지 재가열 후 품질이 비교적 안전하였으나 10℃의 저장에서는 재가열 후, 10일 후에도 균이 검출됨으로써 7일까지를 바람직하다고 하겠다. 이에 따라 질적으로 안전한 음식 생산을 위해서는 SVCC로 생산된 닭고기장조림과 단호박찜을 3℃와 10℃에서 저장하도록 제시할수 있겠으며 10일까지도 미생물적 위험으로 부터 안전하게 저장 할 수 있을 것으로 사료된다.|This study was done to provide basic data for the operation of a safer cook-chill system by comparing and evaluating the quality of foods, which were prepared using the sous vide cook-chill system and cook-chill system, according to the preparation methods and storage temperature. The foods examined were simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam supplied for mass feeding. These foods were prepared using the sous vide cook-chill system and cook-chill system and their quality was evaluated at the time of preparation and storage. Firstly, foods were prepared using the sous vide cook-chill (SVCC) system and cook-chill (CC) system and the time needed and temperature during each preparation stage were measured and physicochemical (pH, Aw, and moisture content) and microbial (standard plate count and coliform count) qualities were evaluated. Secondly, in order to evaluate the quality and safety, the physicochemical (pH, Aw, and moisture content) and microbial (standard plate count, coliform count, psychrotrophic bacteria count, and anaerobic bacteria count) qualities were evaluated according to the preparation methods and temperatures after the foods were stored at 3℃ and 10℃ for 10 days and reheated. Thirdly, in order to determine the appropriate method of preparation and storage temperature, the data were analyzed to evaluate the factors affecting physicochemical (pH, Aw, and moisture content) and microbial (standard plate count, coliform count, psychrotrophic bacteria count and anaerobic bacteria count) changes according to each preparation method and storage temperature. The following results were obtained. 1) The time and temperature needed during each stage were measured at the time of preparing simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam. In the case of chicken simmered in soy sauce, the ingredients other than ginger and dashima (konbu: kelp used to make dashi (broth)) were kept cold at 7℃, and average internal temperatures immediately after cooking with SVCC and CC were 78.8℃ and 94℃, respectively. Both of the temperatures satisfied the standards. The time and needed during each cool using SVCC and CC was cooled satisfying the standards, being cooled to 3℃ within 90 min of preparation, with 55 and 42 min, respectively. The average internal temperature was 76.7℃ and 88.7℃ immediately after cooking using SVCC and CC, respectively, satisfying the standards and the time and needed during each cool using SVCC and CC was cooled satisfying the standards, being cooled to 3℃ within 90 min of preparation, with 49 and 39 min, respectively. 2) The results of measuring physicochemical qualities were evaluated during the preparation stage. pH of simmered chicken in soy sauce prepared using SVCC was 6.07 immediately after cooling, 6.03 immediately after cooking and 6.06 immediately after packing. It was somewhat higher when it was prepared with CC in which it was 6.15 immediately after packing, 6.09 immediately after cooling and 6.14 immediately after cooking. pH of danhopark tzeam prepared using SVCC was 6.61 immediately after cooling, 6.67 immediately after cooking and 6.93 immediately after packing. With CC, it was 6.66 immediately after packing, 6.68 immediately after cooling and 6.63 immediately after cooking. Aw of simmered chicken in soy sauce prepared with SVCC was 0.92 immediately after cooling, 0.90 immediately after cooking and 0.93 immediately after packing. It was somewhat higher with CC in which it was 0.96 immediately after packing, 0.93 immediately after cooling and 0.95 immediately after cooking. In the case of danhopark tzeam prepared with SVCC, it was 0.95 immediately after cooling, 0.93 immediately after cooking and 0.91 immediately after packing. It was somewhat higher with CC in which it was 0.97 immediately after packing, 0.96 immediately after cooling and 0.93 immediately after cooking. Moisture content in simmered chicken in soy sauce prepared with SVCC was 70.45% immediately after cooling, 74.98% immediately after cooking and 74.67% immediately after packing. It was somewhat lower with CC in which it was 61.43% immediately after packing, 62.10% immediately after cooling and 65.35% immediately after cooking. In the case of danhopark tzeam prepared with SVCC, moisture content was74.55 immediately after cooling, 75.35% immediately after cooking and 72.75% immediately after packing. It was somewhat lower with CC in which it was 64.39% immediately after packing, 60.41% immediately after cooling and 58.70% immediately after cooking. 3) Microbial tests according to each preparation stage showed the following results. In the main ingredient, ie., chicken breast, used for the preparation of simmered chicken in soy sauce, the standard plate count was 5.78(Log CFU/g, under unit omit) and coliform count 4.69. With SVCC, the standard plate count and coliform count were 2.66 and 1.00, respectively, immediately after cooling; and 5.20 and 3.26, respectively, immediately after cooking; 2.78 and 1.00, respectively, immediately after packing. Thus, no significant difference was present in standard plate count and coliform count immediately after cooking. With CC, the standard plate count and coliform count were 4.05 and 2.78, respectively, immediately after packing; and 3.98 and 2.48, respectively, immediately after cooling; 3.10 and 1.04, respectively, immediately after cooking. Thus, these values were somewhat higher after immediately packing compared with immediately after cooking. However, all of these values satisfied the standards. In danhopark, which was the main ingredient used for the preparation of danhopark tzeam , the standard plate count and coliform count were 5.92 and 3.30, respectively. With SVCC, they were 3.52 and 2.00, respectively, immediately after packing. Immediately after cooking, the standard plate count was 1.82 and no coliform count was detected. Immediately after cooling, the standard plate count was 1.43 and no coliform count was detected as in the case of immediately after cooking. With CC, the standard plate count and coliform count were 2.52 and 1.10, respectively, immediately after cooking; 3.00 and 2.00, respectively, immediately after cooling; and 3.36 and 2.00, respectively, immediately after packing. Thus, the results of microbial tests showed that the foods were safe prepared with either SVCC or CC. 4) The results of measuring physicochemical qualities according to the preparation methods and storage temperature are as follows. In the case of simmered chicken in soy sauce, pH with SVCC and CC were 6.10 and 5.89, respectively, by 10 days after stored at 3℃; and 6.39 and 6.40, respectively, by 10 days after stored at 10℃. After reheating, pH was 6.40 and 6.39, respectively, by 10 days after being stored at 3℃ and 10℃, respectively, with SVCC. Thus, it was somewhat higher after reheating than before reheating. With CC, pH was increased after storage compared with before reheating in which it was 6.64 and 6.61 by 10 days after being stored at 3℃ and 10℃. pH danhopark tzeam of was higher by 10 days of storage than before reheating in which it was 6.63 and 6.33, respectively, at 3℃ and 6.86 and 6.87, respectively, at 10℃. With SVCC, pH after reheating were 6.70 and 6.71, respectively, by 10 days of storage. With CC, it was increased continually in which it was 6.76 and 6.78 at 3℃and 10℃, respectively, by 10 days of storage. Aw in simmered chicken in soy sauce with SVCC was by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, it was 0.94 and 0.95, respectively. With CC was by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, it was 0.94 and 0.98, respectively. After reheating by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, it was 0.94 in both temperatures with SVCC, and 0.95 and 0.98, respectively, with CC. Aw in danhopark tzeam with SVCC was by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, it was 0.94 and 0.95, respectively, with SVCC. With CC, it was 0.97 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃. In the case of SVCC after reheating, it was 0.94 and 0.95, respectively, by 3 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, respectively. In the case of CC, it was 0.95 and 0.96 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, respectively. Moisture content in simmered chicken in soy sauce immediately after cooking was 70.61% and 62.23% with SVCC and CC, respectively. It was increased and then decreased significantly. By 10 days of storage at 3℃, it was 71.15% and 74.12% with SVCC and CC, respectively. By 10 days of storage at 10℃, it was 61.30% and 60.16% with SVCC and CC, respectively. With CC after reheating, moisture content was 67.38% and 70.28% by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, respectively. It was 56.46% and 51.78% by 3 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, respectively. With SVCC, it was 67.38% by 10 days of storage at 3℃, showing a slight decrease in moisture content. However, a significant loss was seen in moisture content with CC. Moisture content in danhopark tzeam with SVCC and CC was by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, it was 71.82% and 79.55%, respectively, and 82.42% and 85.64%, respectively. No moisture loss was seen when the preparation methods and storage temperatures were compared. After reheating by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, moisture content was 74.56% and 74.26%, respectively, and 77.69% and 85.41%, respectively, with SVCC and CC. 5) Food quality was evaluated using microbial tests according to the preparation methods and storage temperature. With SVCC, Standard plate count in simmered chicken in soy sauce was 3.20 and 4.19 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, respectively, satisfying the standards applied in processed food, ie., 10^(5) CFU/g. With CC however, the number of bacteria was more than standards at 5.27 and 6.01 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃,respectively. After reheating was 1.20 and 3.52, 4.16 and 5.46 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃,respectively ,with SVCC and CC. Standard plate count in danhopark tzeam with SVCC, it was 4.87 and 5.91 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃,respectively. With CC, it was 6.01 by 10 days of storage at 3℃, surpassing the standard range. It was surpassing the normal range to 6.05 by 5 days of storage at 10℃. With SVCC, it was decreased to 2.26 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ after reheating. It was 4.30 by 10 days of storage at 10℃, showing a decrease compared with the storage stage and being the normal safe range. With CC, it was 4.87 and 5.88 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃,respectively. The standard plate count and danhopark tzeam prepared with CC , the number of bacteria increased more with time when the food was prepared with CC compared with SVCC. Especially with SVCC, it was significantly low at 3℃ and 10℃; thus, food quality could be maintained. With CC however, the standard plate count was posing microbial risk by storage at 10℃. In simmered chicken in soy sauce with SVCC was 2.42 by 10 days of storage at 3℃, satisfying the standaeds applied in processed food., 10^(5) CFU/g. It was exceeded the standaed rang at 3.52 by 10 days of storage at 10℃ . With CC, it exceeded the standaed rang at 3.77 and 4.20 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, respectively. After reheating, no coliform count was seen until 10 days of storage at 3℃ with SVCC. It was decreased to 1.26 after reheating by 10 days of storage at 10℃, being the safe range. With CC, it was by 10 days of storage, it was 2.16 and 3.43 at 3℃ and 10℃, respectively, but was more than the safe range at 10℃. With SVCC, no coliform count was detected in danhopark tzeam by 1 day of storage at 3℃ but was 1.36 by 1 day of storage at 10℃. It was 2.80 and 3.80 by 10 days of storage at 3℃ and 10℃, respectively. But it exceeded the standaed rang by 7 days of storage at 10℃. With CC, itexceeded the standaed rang at 4.31 and 4.59 by 10 days storage at 3℃ and 10℃. After reheating, no coliform count was detected at 3℃ storage after reheating. At 10℃, it was 2.73 after reheating by 10 days of storage, respectively. With CC, it was decreased to 2.87 by 10 days of storage at 3℃. At 10℃, it was 3.16 by 10 days of storage. However, it was higher than the normal range by 10 days of storage. Coliform count was safer than microbial quality higher when storaged at 3℃ and 10℃ prepared with SVCC in simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam as in the case of the standard plate count. In the case of with CC, was desirable 7 days of storage at 10℃. The results of the psychrotrophic bacterial count according to the preparation methods and storage temperature are as follows. With SVCC, in simmered chicken in soy sauce was not significantly different of 1.73 until 10 days of storage at 3℃. At 10℃, it was 2.90 by 10 days. With CC, it was 3.57 by 10 days of storage at 3℃. At 10℃, it was 3.92 by 10 days. With SVCC after reheating, it was not detected until 10 days of storage at both 3℃ and 10℃. With CC at 3℃ and 10℃, it was 2.52 and 2.75 by 7 and 10 days storage ,respectively. With SVCC, the psychrotrophic bacterial count in danhopark tzeam was 2.36 by 10 days of storage at 3℃. it was 3.93 by 10 days of storage at 10℃. With CC, it was 3.73 by 10 days of storage at 3℃. At 10℃ it was more than the normal range at 4.07 by 10 days of storage. After reheating no psychrotrophic bacteria count was detected at 3℃ with SVCC. At 10℃, it was decreased to 2.35 by 10 days of storage at 3℃, respectively. With CC, it was 1.88 and 2.36 by 7 and 10 days of storage, respectively. It was decreased to 2.74 by 10 days of storage at 10℃. With SVCC the anaerobic bacterial count in simmered chicken in soy sauce was not detected at 3℃. At 10℃, it was 0.67 by 7 days of storage and 1.10 by 10 days. With CC as in the case of SVCC at 3℃, it was not detected until 10 days of storage. At 10℃, it was 2.42 by 10 days. With SVCC, it was 1.00 by 10 days of storage after reheating. Thus, anaerobic bacteria count was similar after reheating compared with the storage stage, showing no significant difference. With CC, it was 2.10 by 10 days of storage at 10℃. With SVCC, the anaerobic bacterial count in danhopark tzeam was increased to 2.20 by 10 days of storage at 3℃. And it was high at 4.37 by 10 days of storage at 10℃. With CC, no anaerobic bacterial count was detected at 3℃ and It was increased significantly to 4.26 by 10 days of storage at 10℃. After reheating, it was decreased to 1.20 by 10 days of storage with SVCC and it was decreased to 3.00 by 10 days at 10℃. In the case of CC at 10℃, it was not significantly different at 3.69 by 10 days storage after reheating. The anaerobic bacterial count detected in simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam was lower compared with psychrotrophic bacterial count, coliform count, standard plate count, but nevertheless after reheating, it was not significantly different and posing microbial risk. 6) When the factors affecting physicochemical and microbial qualities were analyzed according to the preparation methods and storage temperatures, pH was significantly changed according to the preparation methods, storage temperatures, the preparation methods and storage temperatures interacting of storage and after reheating in the case of simmered chicken in soy sauce(P<.05). This significant interaction was also seen in danhopark tzeam before reheating (P<.05). Storage temperatures were significant but not the preparation methods (P>.05). After reheating, danhopark tzeam was not significant according to the preparation methods, storage temperatures, the preparation methods and storage temperatures interacting. Aw was changed significantly in simmered chicken in soy sauce according to the preparation methods, storage temperatures before reheating and after reheating (P<.05). However, it was not significant the preparation methods and storage temperatures interacting. When changes in Aw were analyzed according to the preparation methods and storage temperatures in danhopark tzeam, the results showed no interaction and no significant difference according to the storage temperatures (P>.05). However, Aw changed significantly according to the preparation methods. When changes in Aw were analyzed after reheating in danhopark tzeam according to the preparation methods and storage temperatures, no interaction was seen and no significant difference was present according to the preparation methods and storage temperatures (P>.05). Moisture content in simmered chicken in soy sauce showed significant differences according to the preparation methods. An interaction was seen according to the preparation methods and storage temperatures after reheating. Furthermore, significant differences were seen according to according to the preparation methods and storage temperatures (P<.05) Moisture content in danhopark tzeam showed a significant interaction according to the preparation methods, storage temperatures and the preparation methods and storage temperatures before reheating and after reheating (P<.05). The standard plate count in simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam was significantly different during the storage stage according to the preparation methods, storage temperatures (P<.05). In the case of chicken simmered in soy sauce however, it was not significant according to the interaction of the preparation methods and storage temperatures (P>.05). The interaction was also significant in danhopark tzeam according to the preparation methods and storage temperatures (P<.05). After reheating, it was significantly different in simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam according to the preparation methods, storage temperatures (P<.05). However, it was not significantly according to the interaction of the preparation methods and storage temperatures in chicken simmered in soy sauce (P>.05). The coliform count in simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam was significantly different according to the preparation methods, storage temperatures, interaction of the preparation methods and storage temperatures(P<.05). After reheating, the coliform count was significantly different in simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam according to the preparation methods and storage temperatures (P<.05). However, it was not significant according to the interaction of the preparation methods and storage temperatures in both foods (P>.05). In psychrotrophic bacteria count, it was different according to the preparation methods, storage temperatures and interaction of storage temperatures and preparation methods before reheating and after reheating. The anaerobic bacteria count in simmered chicken in soy sauce was significantly different only according to the storage temperatures (P<.05). However, it was not significantly different according to the interaction of the preparation methods, interaction of storage temperatures and preparation methods storage temperatures, suggesting no interaction (P>.05). The anaerobic bacteria count in danhopark tzeam was significantly different only according to the storage temperatures, preparation methods (P<.05). After reheating, the anaerobic bacteria count was significantly different in simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam according to the preparation methods , storage temperatures, the interaction of the preparation methods and storage temperatures (P<.05). When the effects of preparation methods and storage temperatures on physicochemical and microbial qualities were analyzed, the following results were obtained. Firstly, the microbial risk was less and quality of the foods was excellent when simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam were prepared with SVCC compared with CC in which changes in pH and Aw and moisture loss were less with SVCC. Secondly, the longest storage period tested in this study was only 10 days, which was not long; thus, no significant difference was seen at 3℃ and 10℃ in the degradation of food quality when SVCC and CC were compared. However, overall quality and safety were relatively low of physicochemical and microbial qualities at 10℃ and with CC, suggesting that SVCC is a more effective method probably because vacuum packing would eliminate oxygen in the food, inhibiting bacterial growth. Especially, rancidity would be inhibited by inhibiting absolute anaerobic bacteria count. Thirdly, the quality of the foods was better at 3℃ compared with 10℃. Fourthly, the quality was excellent in chicken simmered in soy sauce prepared with SVCC and stored at 3℃ and 10℃. When this food was prepared with CC and stored at 3℃, the quality was desirable after reheating until 10 days storage. However, the quality of the foods was reliable only up to 7 days of storage at 10℃ when bacteria were detected even after reheated. According to, in order to quality safety can exhibit storage at 3℃ and 10℃ of simmered chicken in soy sauce and danhopark tzeam prepared with SVCC. Also in the case of prepared with SVCC will store safely microbial risk until 10 days.