4.7 Article

Multi-elemental composition of white and dark muscles in swordfish

Journal

FOOD CHEMISTRY
Volume 343, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128438

Keywords

Swordfish; Multi-elemental composition; Food safety; Dark and white muscle

Funding

  1. National Funds through the FCT [SFRH/BD/108535/2015]
  2. FSE
  3. Programa Operacional Capital Humano (POCH) e da Uniao Europeia
  4. CESAM [UID/AMB/50017/2019]
  5. CIIMAR [UID/Multi/04423/2019]
  6. FCT/MCTES
  7. FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement
  8. Compete 2020
  9. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/108535/2015] Funding Source: FCT

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Concentrations of 16 elements were determined in dorsal white and dark muscle of swordfish, showing dark muscle's enrichment in iron and copper, moderate enhancement in selenium, manganese, zinc, and cadmium, and similar distribution of potentially toxic elements between dark and white muscle, indicating no additional risk in consuming dark muscle.
Concentrations of 16 elements (K, Na, Mg, Ca, Fe, Zn, Hg, Se, As, Cu, Cd, Mn, Ni, Cr, Pb and Co) were determined in dorsal white and dark muscle of Xiphias gladius, sampled at various positions of a single swordfish and at the same position of eight specimens. Hg was quantified by thermal decomposition atomic absorption spectrometry (LECO AMA-254) and the rest of the elements by inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP OES) or mass spectrometry (ICP MS). Element partitioning differed in dark and white muscle. Dark muscle was particularly enriched in Fe (median 13 times) and Cu (9) and moderately enhanced in Se, Mn, Zn and Cd (2.8-4.0). Dark:white ratios of the potentially toxic elements (As, Cr, Hg, Ni and Pb) varied from 0.9 to 1.4, pointing to a similar distribution between the two muscles types and indicating no additional risk in the consumption of dark muscle.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available