4.6 Article

Macro and trace elements in two populations of brown crab Cancer pagurus: Ecological and human health implications

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD COMPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 65-71

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfca.2008.07.010

关键词

Crustaceans; Cancer pagurus; Muscle; Hepatopancreas; Gonads; Food Composition; Minerals; FAAS; EDXRF; English Channel crustaceans; Scottish Coast crustaceans; Environment; Food safety

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) [SFRH/BD/24234/2005, SFRH/BPD/33090/2006]
  2. European Commission [COLL-CT-2006-030421]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/24234/2005] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer pagurus is a widely appreciated crustacean in Southern European countries, where they hive different market prices depending oil the catching area and animal sex. Yet, the mineral composition of this species is still poorly understood. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify the content of essential elements in edible tissues of specimens from the Scottish Coast and English Channel and to compare Such values with the Dietary Reference Intakes. Crabs caught off Scottish Coast had higher Na, Cl, K, Cu, Zn and Se content, while specimens harvested of the English Channel showed higher Mn concentrations. Females were better Sources of Cu, Zn and Se, whereas males had higher concentrations of Na, Cl, K, Ca and Mn. Hepatopancreas showed higher contents of most elements, except Mn, Zn and Se than muscle and gonads. These results are certainly related to the crabs' physiological needs and the bioavailability of the elements in water and diet. In general, C. pagurus is all excellent source of macro (Na, Cl and Ca) and trace elements (Fe, Cu, Zn and Se) for consumption. The present study highlights the importance to take into consideration all edible tissues of crustaceans to evaluate their nutritional quality given consumers' habits. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc., All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据