4.5 Article

LipidSearch-based manual comparative analysis of long-chain free fatty acids in thermal processed tilapia muscles: workflow, thermal processing effect and comparative lipid analysis

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/ijfs.15498

关键词

LipidSearch workflow; long-chain free fatty acids; thermal processing; tilapia muscle; UHPLC-Q-Extractive Orbitrap mass spectrometry

资金

  1. National Key R & D Program of China [2019YFD0902003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study established a manual comparative analysis method based on liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-LipidSearch to analyze the effect of thermal processing methods on long-chain free fatty acid species in tilapia muscles. It was found that about 66 fatty acid species were present in raw and thermally processed tilapia muscles, with only five fatty acid species showing higher sensitivity in positive ionisation mode of mass spectrometry.
LipidSearch is a useful tool to analyse lipid profiles in tissues. In this work, a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry-LipidSearch-based manual comparative analysis method was built to analyse the effects of thermal processing methods (steaming, boiling and roasting) on long-chain free fatty acid species in tilapia muscles. Then, the fatty acid profiles of raw and thermal processed tilapia muscles were analysed. About 66 fatty acid species were present in the raw, steamed, boiled and roasted tilapia muscles, and only five fatty acid species had higher sensitivity in positive ionisation mode than negative ionisation mode of mass spectrometry. Thermal processing mainly had no obvious effects on the amounts of about 60% free fatty acid species. Two, two, five and twelve fatty acid species could be the best potential biomarkers for differentiation of raw, steamed, boiled and roasted, respectively, tilapia muscles in our experiments. This work could provide a workflow of LipidSearch analysis and basic information on the effect of thermal processing on the long-chain free fatty acid profile of foods.

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