4.1 Article

QUALITY INDICES AS POTENTIAL MARKERS INDICATING THE ORIGIN OF CULTURED SCALLOP (ARGOPECTEN IRRADIANS) IN THE NORTH CHINA SEA

Journal

JOURNAL OF SHELLFISH RESEARCH
Volume 34, Issue 3, Pages 743-750

Publisher

NATL SHELLFISHERIES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2983/035.034.0303

Keywords

regional quality characteristic; Argopecten irradians; fatty acid biomarker; geographical origin

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)-Shandong Joint Fund for Marine Science Research Centers [U1406403]
  2. National Marine Public Welfare Research Project [201205023]
  3. Strategic Priority Research Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [XDA11020704]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The authentication of seafood origin is essential to establish a reliable product traceability system. In principle, appropriate markers can confirm the product origin without additional information. Scallop is an important shellfish product around the world. Its nutritional quality can be closely related to several environmental factors and varies between different habitats, yet it is not known if quality variation can be a reliable marker indicating product origin. In this study, the regional quality characteristics of scallop (Argopecten irradians) harvested from 18 farms in the North China Sea was investigated. Seven nutritional indices (moisture, ash content, sugar, crude protein, omega 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, condition index, amino acid chemical score) show considerable geographic differences. Based on quality composition data, cluster analysis demonstrates three different scallop product origins: those from the North Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea, Middle Yellow Sea, and Laizhou Bay. Fatty acid biomarkers reveal that quality variations are caused by regional differences in pelagic food sources. Results suggest that nutritional quality indices could be a potential marker to indicate geographic sources of cultured scallop.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available