4.1 Article

Common Carp (Cyprinus caprio) and European Catfish (Sillurus glanis) from the Danube River as Sources of Fat Soluble Vitamins and Fatty Acids

Journal

CZECH JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCES
Volume 32, Issue 1, Pages 16-24

Publisher

CZECH ACADEMY AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES
DOI: 10.17221/31/2013-CJFS

Keywords

RDI; atherogenicity index (IA); thrombogenicity index (IT); HPLC; GC-MS; human health

Funding

  1. National Science Fund, Ministry of Education and Science of Bulgaria [DVU 440/2008]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The total content of fat soluble vitamins and their percentages in the recommended daily intake for humans per 100 g portion, fatty acids composition, the atherogenic (IA) and thrombogenicity (IT) indices in two freshwater fish species Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) and European catfish (Sillurus glanis) were investigated. Retinol contents in fresh edible tissues of the Common carp and European catfish were found to be 30.8 +/- 3.4 mu g/100 g wet weight (ww) for the Common carp 30.8 +/- 3.4 mu g/100 g ww and 1.9 +/- 0.1 mu g/100 g ww for the European catfish, cholecalciferol contents 14.8 +/- 1.0 and 3.1 +/- 0.1 mu g/100 g ww, and a-tocopherol contents 2764.5 +/- 44.0 and 2182.5 contents 14.8 +/- 1.0 and 3.1 +/- 0.1 mu g/100 g ww, and a-tocopherol contents 2764.5 +/- 44.0 and 2182.5 31.5 mu g/100 contents 14.8 +/- 1.0 and 3.1 +/- 0.1 mu g/100 g ww, and a-tocopherol contents 2764.5 +/- 44.0 and 2182.5 +/- 31.5 mu g/100 +/- 31.5 mu g/100 g ww, respectively. The sum of monounsaturated FA accounted for 50.02% (catfish) and 23.15% (carp). Polyunsaturated FA (PUPA) showed a higher level in the carp (36.75%) and a lower one in the catfish (21.64%). Both fishes are good sources of cholecalciferol in terms of the recommended daily intake of vitamins established in Bulgaria. Three fat soluble vitamins, n-3 PUFAs content, and IA value were higher in carp. IT values were similar for both species.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available