Next Article in Journal
Discovery of Novel Pyridazine-Based Cyclooxygenase-2 Inhibitors with a Promising Gastric Safety Profile
Next Article in Special Issue
Microencapsulated Pomegranate Modifies the Composition and Function of High-Density Lipoproteins (HDL) in New Zealand Rabbits
Previous Article in Journal
Synthetic Kavalactone Analogues with Increased Potency and Selective Anthelmintic Activity against Larvae of Haemonchus contortus In Vitro
Previous Article in Special Issue
An Overview of Effects Induced by Pasteurization and High-Power Ultrasound Treatment on the Quality of Red Grape Juice
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies

1
The Food BioSciences Department, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Ireland
2
School of Biological and Health Sciences, Technological University Dublin (TU Dublin)–City Campus, Kevin Street, Dublin 2, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2020, 25(8), 2005; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25082005
Submission received: 19 March 2020 / Revised: 18 April 2020 / Accepted: 20 April 2020 / Published: 24 April 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Bioactives and Functional Ingredients in Foods and Beverages)

Abstract

Seaweeds are a rich source of protein and can contain up to 47% on the dry weight basis. It is challenging to extract proteins from the raw biomass of seaweed due to resilient cell-wall complexes. Four species of macroalgae were used in this study-two brown, Fucus vesiculosus and Alaria esculenta, and two red, Palmaria palmata and Chondrus crispus. Three treatments were applied individually to the macroalgal species: (I) high-pressure processing (HPP); (II) laboratory autoclave processing and (III) a classical sonication and salting out method. The protein, ash and lipid contents of the resulting extracts were estimated. Yields of protein recovered ranged from 3.2% for Fucus vesiculosus pre-treated with high pressure processing to 28.9% protein recovered for Chondrus crispus treated with the classical method. The yields of protein recovered using the classical, HPP and autoclave pre-treatments applied to Fucus vesiculosus were 35.1, 23.7% and 24.3%, respectively; yields from Alaria esculenta were 18.2%, 15.0% and 17.1% respectively; yields from Palmaria palmata were 12.5%, 14.9% and 21.5% respectively, and finally, yields from Chondrus crispus were 35.2%, 16.1% and 21.9%, respectively. These results demonstrate that while macroalgal proteins may be extracted using either physical or enzymatic methods, the specific extraction procedure should be tailored to individual species.
Keywords: seaweeds; proteins; autoclave; high pressure processing; traditional protein extraction; total and free amino acids; solubility seaweeds; proteins; autoclave; high pressure processing; traditional protein extraction; total and free amino acids; solubility

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

O’ Connor, J.; Meaney, S.; Williams, G.A.; Hayes, M. Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies. Molecules 2020, 25, 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25082005

AMA Style

O’ Connor J, Meaney S, Williams GA, Hayes M. Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies. Molecules. 2020; 25(8):2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25082005

Chicago/Turabian Style

O’ Connor, Jack, Steve Meaney, Gwilym A. Williams, and Maria Hayes. 2020. "Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies" Molecules 25, no. 8: 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25082005

APA Style

O’ Connor, J., Meaney, S., Williams, G. A., & Hayes, M. (2020). Extraction of Protein from Four Different Seaweeds Using Three Different Physical Pre-Treatment Strategies. Molecules, 25(8), 2005. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules25082005

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop