4.7 Article

Mineral Bioaccessibility and Antioxidant Capacity of Protein Hydrolysates from Salmon (Salmo salar) and Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Backbones and Heads

期刊

MARINE DRUGS
卷 21, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/md21050294

关键词

fish protein hydrolysates; minerals; bioaccessibility; antioxidant capacity; heavy metals; Salmo salar; Mackerel scombrus

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The bioaccessibility of minerals in protein hydrolysates from salmon and mackerel was evaluated. The highest bioaccessibility was found for iron in salmon and mackerel head hydrolysates. The antioxidant capacity of the hydrolysates increased after in vitro digestion.
Information on the bioaccessibility of minerals is essential to consider a food ingredient as a potential mineral fortifier. In this study, the mineral bioaccessibility of protein hydrolysates from salmon (Salmo salar) and mackerel (Scomber scombrus) backbones and heads was evaluated. For this purpose, the hydrolysates were submitted to simulated gastrointestinal digestion (INFOGEST method), and the mineral content was analyzed before and after the digestive process. Ca, Mg, P, Fe, Zn, and Se were then determined using an inductively coupled plasma spectrometer mass detector (ICP-MS). The highest bioaccessibility of minerals was found in salmon and mackerel head hydrolysates for Fe (=100%), followed by Se in salmon backbone hydrolysates (95%). The antioxidant capacity of all protein hydrolysate samples, which was measured by Trolox Equivalent Antioxidant Capacity (TEAC), increased (10-46%) after in vitro digestion. The heavy metals As, Hg, Cd, and Pb were determined (ICP-MS) in the raw hydrolysates to confirm the harmlessness of these products. Except for Cd in mackerel hydrolysates, all toxic elements were below the legislation levels for fish commodities. These results suggest the possibility of using protein hydrolysates from salmon and mackerel backbones and heads for food mineral fortification, as well as the need to verify their safety.

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

4.7
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