4.5 Article

Technological properties of protein hydrolysate from the cutting byproduct of serra spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus brasiliensis)

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-MYSORE
卷 58, 期 8, 页码 2952-2962

出版社

SPRINGER INDIA
DOI: 10.1007/s13197-020-04797-5

关键词

Degree of hydrolysis; Optimization; Band saw; Waste; Fish industry

资金

  1. CNPQ

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study optimized the process of obtaining protein hydrolysates from cutting byproducts of Serra Spanish Mackerel (SSM) and evaluated the final product for its technological properties. The protein hydrolysate showed potential for use in emulsified products due to its superior technological performance and antioxidant capacity.
High fish production is essential to meet the demand, but inappropriate destination of large volumes of byproduct cause environmental pollution. The cutting step for frozen eviscerated fish using band saw machines produces a type of fish powder byproduct with high protein content. The objective of this study was to optimize the process of obtaining protein hydrolysates from the cutting byproducts of Serra Spanish Mackerel (SSM) and to evaluate the final product regarding its technological properties. The optimal conditions for obtaining the protein hydrolysate from the cutting byproducts of SSM using a band saw machine were an enzyme:substrate ratio (w/w) of 5.0% and 240 min of enzymatic hydrolysis. Both treatments (+ DH and - DH) yielded volatile compounds with a characteristic fish aroma, and both can be used for flavoring. The - DH hydrolysate showed better technological performance by stabilizing emulsions and retaining oil, and they could be added to emulsified products, improving their technological and sensory aspects. For the antioxidant capacity, the + DH hydrolysate showed higher efficiency, and it was indicated for use in food products, with the aim of extending the shelf life by stabilizing food lipids and proteins, ensuring the quality of the product during storage.

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

4.5
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