4.6 Article

Biochemical Characterization and Storage Stability of Process Waters from Industrial Shrimp Production

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 6, 期 46, 页码 30960-30970

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c03304

关键词

-

资金

  1. Nordic Innovation [Mar 14322]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed the composition of shrimp boiling water (SBW) and shrimp peeling water (SPW) generated during shrimp processing over a 13 month period. SBW contained high levels of protein, total fatty acids, and astaxanthin esters, while SPW had lower levels of these components. Both waters were found to be stable for storage and could potentially be utilized in food or feed products, providing valuable nutritional elements.
Shrimp boiling water (SBW) and shrimp peeling water (SPW), generated during shrimp processing, were characterized in terms of crude composition, volatile compounds, as well as nutritional and potentially toxic elements over a 13 month sampling period. The storage stability of both waters was also evaluated. Results showed that SBW contained on median 14.8 g/L protein and 2.2 g/L total fatty acids with up to 50% comprising eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). Astaxanthin esters, which dominated the total astaxanthin, were 2.8 mg/L on median. SPW, on the other hand, contained on median 1.0 g/L of protein, 0.21 g/L of total fatty acids, and 1.2 mg/L astaxanthin esters. For both side-streams, essential amino acids were up to 50% of total amino acids. For SBW and SPW, the most abundant nutritional elements were Na, K, P, Ca, Cu, and Zn. The contents of all potentially toxic elements were below the detection limits, except for As. SBW was more stable at 4 degrees C compared to SPW as shown, e.g., by thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and relative changes in total volatile basic nitrogen. The extensive compositional mapping of SBW/SPW provides crucial knowledge necessary in the exploitation and value-adding of such side-streams into food or feed products.

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