) have been employed to evaluate and recognize FAMEs in samples. Information have been
) were employed to evaluate and determine FAMEs in samples. Information were represented utilizing g/100 g of total fatty acids identified. two.five. Determination of Minerals The mineral and heavy metal had been determined in accordance with the Lorenzo et al. [16] process using an inductively coupled plasma emission spectrometer (ICAP7400; Thermo Electron, Massachusetts, MA, USA). About 4 g of sample was placed inside a PTFE tube, and 12 mL of concentrated nitric acid (68 ) (DNQX disodium salt custom synthesis Beijing Chemical Functions, Beijing, China) was added. The digestion was carried out until the remedy was colorless. Following cooling, the answer was transferred to a 50 mL volumetric flask and was diluted to a fixed volume with double-deionized water, although a blank experiment was performed. two.6. Determination of Astaxanthin Based on the strategy of Roy et al. [17], extraction of astaxanthin was performed. An quantity of 200 mg of sample was placed inside a 50 mL centrifuge tube. Then, 5 mL solvent of dichloromethane: methanol (1:three, v/v) (Beijing Chemical Functions, Beijing, China) was added. The mixture was treated in an oscillator (SHY-2, Putian Technologies, Changzhou, Suzhou, China) for three h then PF-06873600 Description centrifuged at 5000 r/min for 15 min at four C. A collection from the supernatant, and five mL solvent of dichloromethane: methanol (1:3, v/v) was added to the precipitate once more. The above process was repeated three occasions. The extracts were collected and an equal amount of petroleum ether (Beijing Chemical Operates, Beijing, China) was added (boiling point 400 C). Just after shaking, the separated petroleum ether layer was purged with an MGS-2200H nitrogen purging instrument (EYELLA company, Tokyo, Japan) for 30 min to get rid of the organic solvent and obtain pure astaxanthin. The dried astaxanthin was dissolved in five mL of n-hexane, and then the remedy was filtered working with a 0.45 membrane filter to eliminate particulate residues. The extracts with astaxanthin had been determined utilizing HPLC (e2695, Waters, Milford, MA, USA) fitted having a C18 column (four.6 mm 250 mm five , Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The mobile phase was methanol and ultrapure water using a flow rate of 1 mL/min. The column temperature was kept at 35 C. The detection wavelength was 480 nm. The injection volume was ten . 2.7. Statistical Evaluation All experiments had been repeated 3 instances and experimental data had been represented utilizing the imply standard deviation. One-way evaluation of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD various comparisons were performed making use of JMP10.0 software (SAS, Cary, NC, USA) to analyze important variations (p 0.05). three. Final results three.1. Yield The meat yield of shrimp may be the principal technical and economic index of shrimp processing enterprises. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the mass of 5 species varied fromFoods 2021, 10,five of16.00 1.46 to 40.81 three.09 g along with the meat yield of 5 species of shrimp was 37.475.94 . The meat yields of L.v, F.c and P.j were substantially higher than these of P.m and M.r (p 0.05). On the other hand, the mass of P.m was the highest. The meat yield of M.r was the lowest. The meat yield variations may perhaps be connected to biological traits as distinctive shrimp species, even L.v, F.c, P.j, and M.r, showed a similar size or mass [18].Table two. Yield of shrimp meat and byproducts. Species L.v M.r P.m F.c P.j Yield (g/100 g) Meat 55.94 two.46 a 37.47 1.22 d 47.92 1.68 c 55.92 0.87 a 52.14 two.03 b Head 33.63 1.65 d 53.09 1.42 a 41.92 2.45 b 34.26 0.94 d 37.91 two.04 c Shell 7.61 0.89 a 7.71 0.86 a 7.44 0.62 a 7.57 0.50 a 7.74 0.25 a Tail 2.
