4.1 Article

Effect of ultrasound-assisted extraction on the extractability and physicochemical properties of acid and pepsin soluble collagen derived from Sharpnose stingray (Dasyatis zugei) skin

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bcab.2021.102218

关键词

Fish collagen; Sharpnose stingray; Ultrasound-assisted extraction; Yield; Physicochemical properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effect of ultrasound-assisted extraction on the extractability and physico-chemical properties of acid and pepsin soluble collagens from Sharpnose stingray skin. The results showed higher yield of pepsin soluble collagen compared to acid soluble collagen, with similar chemical compositions and thermal properties between the two types of collagen.
This study aims to investigate the effect of ultrasound-assisted extraction on the extractability and physico-chemical properties of acid (UASC) and pepsin (UPSC) soluble collagen derived from Sharpnose stingray (Dasyatis zugei) skin. Pre-treated skins were extracted using 0.5M acetic acid under ultrasonication for UASC, and 0.5M acetic acid with 1.5% (w/w) pepsin under ultrasonication for UPSC. The yield of UPSC (61.50 +/- 0.79%) was higher than UASC (42.34 +/- 0.62%) while, no significant different in chemical compositions except for protein content between UASC and UPSC. The enzymatic hydrolysis results in the molecular weight of alpha-2 chain for UPSC. Freeze dried UASC and UPSC had similar morphological structures, with loose, irregular dense sheet-like film and irregular pore size. The extracted UASC and UPSC were thermally stable, with high thermal denaturation (T-d), and had no significant differences in their maximum temperature (T-max). UASC and UPSC also showed highly solubilized at acidic pH range and had the lowest solubility at pH 8. In conclusion, ultrasound-assisted extraction showed a potential technique to improve the yields of collagen extracted without affecting other properties of Sharpnose stingray collagen.

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

4.1
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