seasonal variations of nutritional components in cockles ... · seasonal variations of nutritional...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1 of 16
FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Seasonal variations of nutritional components in cockles (Tegillarca granosa) processed from the Southern Coast of KoreaThanh Tri Nguyen, Yong-Jun Choi, Zuliyati Rohmah, Seok-Bong Jeong, Doo-Jin Hwang, Yong-Gil Jung and Byeong-Dae Choi
Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY | RESEARCH ARTICLE
Seasonal variations of nutritional components in cockles (Tegillarca granosa) processed from the Southern Coast of KoreaThanh Tri Nguyen1,2, Yong-Jun Choi1, Zuliyati Rohmah3, Seok-Bong Jeong4, Doo-Jin Hwang5, Yong-Gil Jung6 and Byeong-Dae Choi1*
Abstract: Cockles (Tegillarca granosa) species that found throughout the Indo-Pacific region and this study was conducted in South Korea from late autumn (November 2015) through early spring (April 2016). The proximate composition, mineral content, free amino acid, and fatty acid (FA) profiles and the nutritional quality of the cockles were studied at different stages during the processing. The contents of protein (11.7–13.9/100 g), lipids (1.1–2.5/100 g) and ash (1.6–2.7/100 g) varied significantly (p < 0.05) based on seasonal variations and processing steps. Taurine, glutamic acid, lysine and arginine were the most abundant amino acids in the amino acid profiles. All samples contained limited concentrations of Cr, Pb, Cd, As, and Co. The FA profiles showed that n-3 polyunsaturated FA (PUFA) were the major fatty acids (28.7–37.0% of total FA, which was predominantly DHA and EPA (7.9–17.4%). Saturated FA (SFA) and monounsaturated FA (MUFA) levels were also observed throughout the experiment, as well as n − 3/n − 6 and PUFA/SFA ratios. The data obtained from this study may be useful to indicate the periods of the harvest season more suitable for consumption and the importance of processing chain on quality of cockle.
*Corresponding author: Byeong-Dae Choi, Departmentof Seafood Science, Technology, The Institute of Marine Industry, Gyeongsang National University, Tongyeong 53062, Republic of KoreaE-mail: [email protected]
Reviewing editor:Fatih Yildiz, Middle East Technical University, Turkey
Additional information is available at the end of the article
ABOUT THE AUTHORByeong-Dae Choi is a seafood chemist. He completed his MSc degree in seafood chemistry from Pukyung National University. Thanh-Tri Nguyen is a food chemist; he completed his MSc degree in food chemistry from Montpellier II University, Yong-Jun Choi is a seafood chemist from Gyeongsang National University, Zuluyati Rohmah is a fish biologist from Gadjah Mada University, Seok-Bong Jeong is a food engineer from Gyeongsang National University, Doo-Jin Hwang is a marine engineer from Hokkaido National University and Yong-Gil Jung is a mechanical engineer from Pukung National University. At present, they are preceding government project. They have carried out extensive research work on shellfish processing, food quality control and related mechanical engineering aspects.
PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENTThe cockle is marine bivalve molluscs, is widely distributed throughout the Indo-Pacific region. In South Korea, cockles are called “kkomak”, harvested from lately autumn to early spring along the western and southern shores of the peninsula, though the Yeoja bay, which is surrounded by Goheung and Yeosu peninsula due to its environmental conditions. Due to their taste and high nutritive value such as hemoglobin, iron and variety of nutrients, cockles have been used as food and traditional medicine and received attention for the treatment of anemia and inflammation. The aim of this work was to study the nutritional quality of cockles harvested in different periods and at different steps of the processing chain (harvest, washing, sorting, and marketing). The data obtained demonstrates that both seasonal variation as steps of processing may interfere with the quality of cockle, useful to indicate the periods of the harvest season more suitable for consumption.
Received: 24 April 2017Accepted: 24 July 2017First Published: 27 July 2017
© 2017 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Page 2 of 16
Page 3 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
Subjects: Seafood; Food Analysis; Lipids; Nutraceuticals & Functional Foods
Keywords: cockles; proximate composition; nutritional quality; fatty acids; atherogenicity
1. IntroductionCockles (Tegillarca granosa) are very popular edible shellfish found in Korea and available as fresh, frozen, or processed in the market. The reproductive cycle of T. granosa can be divided into five suc-cessive stages: early stage (March to May), late active stage (April to June), ripe stage (May to July), spent stage (July to August) and recovery and resting stage (September to March) (Kim, Moon, Shin, & Park, 2009) (Figure 1), so they are havested from late autumn in November to early spring in April along the western and southern shores of the peninsula. Besides their culinary value, the products of these marine bivalve molluscs are regarded to have nutraceutical value due to their proteins, lipids, carbohydrates and other components that are beneficial to human health (antioxidants, docosahe-saenoic acid (DHA), eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), etc.) (Grienke, Silke, & Tasdemir, 2014). Proteins are generally the most abundant component of the meat, followed by carbohydrates (Okumuş & Stirling, 1998). Although mussels and cockles have a rather low lipid content, they are known to contain a wide variety of structural fatty acids (FAs), including saturated fatty acids (SFAs), monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) (Martínez-Pita, Sánchez-Lazo, Ruíz-Jarabo, Herrera, & Mancera, 2012). The most well-known FAs to have high nutritional value are EPA (C20:5n-3) and DHA (C22:6n-3) these are considered as fatty acids that are known to benefit human health (Taylor & Savage, 2006). The yields and the biochemical composition of the cockle meat de-termine its organoleptic characteristics and hence its commercial value. The quality of seafood prod-ucts from cockles is not only influenced by parameters such as water temperature, food intake, and geography but also by the different processing steps from harvest to markets (Almonacid, Bustamante, Simpson, & Pinto, 2014; Irisarri, Fernández-Reiriz, & Labarta, 2015).
The nutritional value of cockles in Korea, it is a great relevance to identify their biochemical com-positions to determine the most favourable season for harvesting as well as their nutraceutical val-ue during each step of the processing chain. The aim of this work was to study the nutritional quality of cockles harvested in different seasons and at different steps of the processing chain (harvest, washing, sorting, and marketing). This study would also be useful to assess the prospects of cockles as a key ingredient for the development of functional foods or for pharmaceutical uses.
Figure 1. Diagram of the reproductive cycle (time) of cockle (T. granosa) in Yeosu—South Korea.
Page 4 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
2. Materials and methods
2.1. MaterialsCockles (T. granosa) were obtained from Yeosu, Korea (Figure 2). The samples (35–40 mm length, 25–30 mm width, and 25–30 mm height) were gathered at every step of the processing chain (har-vesting, washing and sorting, and marketing) (three each weighing about 800 g to 1.0 kg) on harvest season from late autumn to early spring in Korea (Figure 3); three periods were chosen: November 2015, January 2016, and April 2016. The cockle samples were recorded and labelled and then im-mediately transported to the Nutrition Chemistry laboratory, Gyeongsang National University. The cockles were manually shucked. The muscles were then divided into two portions, with one part of the samples (three each weighing about 100–200 g) ground for moisture, lipid, amino acid, mineral and ash analysis. The remaining muscle (three each weighing about 50–100 g) was then freeze-dried (Vacuum freeze drier, SFDSF06, Samwon Freezing Engineering Co., Seoul, Korea), milled and kept in moisture-free cabinets until further analysis.
2.2. Chemical and reagentsAll standards were purchased from Sigma–Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). In the case of the fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) standards, FAMEs from Menhaden fish oil (47116-analytical standard) was ob-tained from Supelco (Bellfonte, PA, USA). All solvents and reagents were of analytical or HPLC grade as required.
2.3. Proximate composition analysisMoisture, total lipid, total protein, and ash analysis were performed to determine the cockle proxi-mate compositions. The moisture content was determined using a halogen moisture analyser (WBA-110 M, DAIHAN Scientific Co., Ltd, Wonju, South Korea). The protein (N × 6.25) and ash contents of the cockles were determined according to AOAC methods No. 955.04 and 938.08 (Horwitz, 2000), respectively. The total lipid content was extracted by the Bligh and Dyer (1959) method. The total carbohydrate content was determined with modified phenol–sulphuric acid method (DuBois, Gilles, Hamilton, Rebers, & Smith, 1956).
Figure 2. Cockles harvested and processed in Yeosu—South Korea.
Page 5 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
2.3.1. Free amino acid analysisThe amino acid profiles were determined according to Ozols (1990) with some modifications. Briefly, cockle muscles were hydrolysed with 6 N HCl at 110°C for 24 h, and the hydrolysates were then fil-tered, concentrated at 40°C and filtered through a 0.4 μm membrane. The filtrate was then diluted with deionized water up to 10 mL. The amino acid composition was analysed with an amino acid analyser (Biochrom 20 Plus, Harvard Bioscience Co., Cambridge, UK).
2.3.2. Mineral and heavy metal composition analysisTo determine the cockle mineral and heavy metal compositions, AOAC method No. 968.08 (Horwitz, 2000) was employed. Cockle samples (0.5 ± 0.0 g) were added to 5 mL of concentrated HNO3. The mixture was heated at 120–130°C for 16 h, treated with H2O2 and then diluted with deionized water up to 50 mL. An aliquot of the sample was diluted 1:1 with deionized water. The analysis was done using an inductively coupled plasma spectrophotometer (Atomscan 25, Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, MA, USA).
2.4. Fatty acid analysis and atherogenic, thrombogenic, and hypocholesterolemic/hypercholesterolemic index calculationFatty acids analysis was done by converting fatty acids to fatty acid methyl esters (FAMEs), which were then separated by gas chromatography according to AOCS-Ce 1b-89 method (AOCS, 1998). In this study, analyses of FAMEs were performed by gas chromatography (Perkin-Elmer, Buckinghamshire, England) with the following temperature program: The initial oven temperature was set at 180°C and held there for 8 min. It was then raised to 230°C at a rate of 3°C/min and held for 15 min. Fatty acids were identified by comparing sample peak retention times to those of au-thentic standards. Relative quantities were expressed as weight percent of fatty acid to total fatty acids in each sample. The ratios of DHA/EPA, PUFA/SFA, and omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids were calculated.
The indices of atherogenicity (IA) and thrombogenicity (IT) are important values for estimating the risk of food contributing to coronary heart disease development. The indices were calculated based on the sample’s fatty acids content (Ulbricht & Southgate, 1991) as follows:
The hypocholesterolemic/hypercholesterolemic index of the sample was evaluated according to the Santos-Silva, Bessa, and Santos-Silva (2002):
IA =[
12:0 +(
4 × 14:0)
+ 16:0]/[
ΣMUFA + ΣPUFA (n − 6) + (n − 3)]
IT =(
14:0 + 16:0 + 18:0)/[(
0.5 × ΣMUFA)
+(
0.5 × ΣPUFA(
n − 6))
+(
3 × ΣPUFA(
n − 3))
+(
n − 3)]/(
n − 6)
.
Figure 3. Cockle samples, harvested (어획후), washed and sorted (세척후), marketed (판매).
Page 6 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Proximate compositionThe cockle proximate compositions resulted for various seasons and production steps are shown in Table 1. There were no differences in cockle moisture contents from different steps of production. On the other hand, seasonal variation influenced the moisture content significantly (p < 0.05). In this study, the protein content ranged from 11.7 to 13.9/100 g, with the highest content belonging to a sample collected in November (HC-11), whereas the lowest (11.7%) belonged to cockles marketed in January (MC-1). The total lipids varies among all the samples. The highest lipid content was found in a sample gathered in April (HC-4, 2.5 ± 0.1/100 g; MC-4, 2.3 ± 0.2/100 g). This was significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those from November (HC-11, WC-11, MC-11) and January (HC-1, WC-1, MC-1). Meanwhile, ash contents ranged from 1.6/100 g in MC-11 to 2.7/100 g in HC-1. The results of this study are in agreement with those reported by Karnjanapratum, Benjakul, Kishimura, and Tsai (2013), which stated that Asian hard clams (Meretrix lusoria) harvested from the coast of the Andaman Sea had moisture 76.23–84.22%, protein 9.09–12.75%, carbohydrate 0.32–7.89%, fat 1.58–6.58% and ash 1.23–2.58%. The results are also shown that protein and lipid content of cockle samples are higher than the striped venus clam (Chamelea gallina) from the Adriatic Sea which con-tent protein 8.55–10.75/100 g, total lipid 0.73–1.59/100 g (Orban et al., 2006) and mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk.) which had protein, lipid content ranged from 6.5–10.0/100 g, 1.4–2.1/100 g respectively (Fuentes, Fernández-Segovia, Escriche, & Serra, 2009).
The results show that cockles could be a rich source of nutrients, such as proteins, fats and carbo-hydrates. Moisture, protein, lipid and ash contents will vary depending on the season, the phase of energy accumulation and utilisation cycle, and interactions between food availability and environ-mental conditions (Fernández et al., 2015). Moreover, phytoplankton growth parameters such as the quantitative sunlight or temperature of the sea surface would change the rate of biomass produc-tion as the seasons changed, in turn affecting the diet of cockles and mussels (O’Boyle & Silke, 2010). In addition, Yurimoto, Kassim, and Man (2014) suggested that seasonal variations food availability are one of the major factors defining the spawning time of blood cockles in the Matang mangrove estuary. They further added that highest spawning period of this cockle is from November to February, which parallels the peak season of phytoplankton availability in that water. Marine bi-valves store their carbohydrate in the form of glycogen. The highest glycogen content in the muscle would be in line with the spawning and phytoplankton boom periods (Fernández et al., 2015). The
h∕H =(
18:1n − 9 + 18:2n − 6 + 20:4n − 6 + 18:3n − 3 + 20:5n − 3 + 22:5n − 3 + 22:6n − 3)/(
14:0 + 16:0)
.
Table 1. Proximate composition of seasonal variation in cockles (T. granosa) treated (g/100 g wet weight)
Notes: HC = Harvested (before washing) cockle; WC = Washed and sorted cockle; MC = Marketed cockle; 11, 1 and 4 = Sampled time on November, January and April, respectively. Values are shown as mean ± standard deviation of triplicates. Data in the same column no sharing the same superscript are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Sample (n=3) Moisture Crude protein Carbohydrates Lipids AshHC-11 75.6 ± 0.0c 13.9 ± 0.0ac 6.5 ± 0.3a 1.6 ± 0.3bc 1.9 ± 0.0bc
WC-11 76.8 ± 0.6c 13.5 ± 0.0a 5.9 ± 0.4a 1.5±0.1bc 2.1 ± 0.2ab
MC-11 76.3 ± 1.8c 12.6 ± 0.1bc 6.3 ± 0.4a 1.8 ± 0.1bc 1.6 ± 0.2 cc
HC-1 79.4 ± 0.5ab 12.8 ± 0.0b 3.6 ± 0.7bcc 1.1 ± 0.1dc 2.7 ± 0.5ac
WC-1 80.4 ± 0.9a 12.5 ± 0.0bc 3.1 ± 0.6c 1.4 ± 0.1 cc 2.4 ± 0.3ab
MC-1 80.9 ± 0.5a 11.7 ± 0.0 cc 3.5 ± 0.4bccd 1.5 ± 0.1bc 2.1 ± 0.0ab
HC-4 78.1 ± 0.1b 12.0 ± 0.0 cc 4.5 ± 0.6bc 2.5 ± 0.1ac 2.5 ± 0.2a
WC-4 79.4 ± 0.1ab 12.5 ± 0.1bc 4.1 ± 0.5bc 1.6 ± 0.2bc 2.2 ± 0.1ab
MC-4 79.3 ± 0.9ab 12.5 ± 0.0bc 3.5 ± 0.8bcc 2.3 ± 0.2ac 2.2 ± 0.1ab
Page 7 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
influences of the season on the carbohydrate and lipid content were also observed by Lin, Jiang, Xue, Zhang, and Xu (2003) on mussels collected on the coast of Qingdao. They recorded that the highest lipid levels were prior to spawning time and the lowest values were right after that process. The protein content decreased during the spring spawning season. Meanwhile, the lipid content de-creased after spawning and increased again as the gametes matured. This trend was also observed in M. galloprovincialis as reported by Çelik, Karayücel, Karayücel, Öztürk, and Eyüboğlu (2012).
3.2. Free amino acid compositionsThe free amino acid (FAAs) compositions of cockles collected during different seasons and produc-tion steps were observed and are presented in Table 2. Taurine, glutamic acid, lysine and arginine were the dominant amino acids of the profiles. The profiles showed comparable concentrations of amino acids regardless of the seasonal variation, except for proline, glycine and leucine, which in-creased steadily from November and reached their highest concentrations in April. The average concentration of proline was 246.2 mg/100 g, 278.7 mg/100 g, and 301.1 mg/100 g for HC-11, HC-1, and HC-4 respectively. Meanwhile, the average concentrations of glycine were 462.2 mg/100 g, 517.1 mg/100 g, and 540.6 mg/100 g and those of leucine were 364.1 mg/100 g, 357.8 mg/100 g, 484.9 mg/100 g for HC-11, HC-1, and HC-4 respectively. On the other hand, serine decreased from 309.7 mg/100 g to 293.7 mg/100 g from HC-11 through HC-1 to HC-4. Sokolowski, Wolowicz, and Hummel (2003) had reported that glycine fluctuated significantly with the reproductive cycle in the Baltic clam (Macoma balthica). However, the processing steps also the concentration of FAAs, as shown in Table 3. Amino acids are known to serve as energy sources during reproduction, growth, and hypoxic conditions. Their concentrations in aquatic bivalves depend not exclusively on environ-mental conditions but will also be influenced by the developmental and physiological conditions of the animals (Rosa, Calado, Andrade, Narciso, & Nunes, 2005). The variation of amino acid composi-tions of various bivalves is associated with seasonal shifting as suggested by Kube, Sokolowski, Jansen, and Schiedek (2007), who also worked on Baltic clams. The amino acid concentrations in Baltic clams, especially glycine and taurine, varied based on the season, with high concentrations recorded in winter and low concentrations in spring and summer; moreover, southern Atlantic and Mediterranean mussels showed a decrease in glycine and taurine in winter, demonstrating that the observed seasonal patterns of alanine, glycine and taurine values related to environmental factors (salinity, temperature) and physiological parameters (glycogen content, gonadal index) (Kube et al., 2007).
3.3. Mineral contentsCockles (T. granosa), similar to other bivalve seafood products, contain nutritionally important min-erals. The mineral contents of cockles collected during different seasons and production steps were observed and are presented in Table 3. Concentrations of potassium, calcium, zinc and phosphorus fluctuated from 284.5, 141.2, 3.4 and 151.8 mg/100 g when harvested to 190.7, 85.1, 2.2 and 132.7 mg/100 g in marketed samples, respectively, but the content of iron, copper and manganese did not significantly differ between seasons and processing steps. Furthermore, the results showed that the magnesium and sodium concentrations of cockles were significantly higher in November than in January and April (p < 0.05), with the highest values at 84.1 mg/100 g and 298.7 mg/100 g, respectively. Cobalt and heavy metals were obtained and showed seasonal fluctuation in cockles (T. granosa), but were treated as a trace. This result is in accordance with those obtained by Oliveira et al. (2011), who reported the mineral composition of commercial geoduck clams (Panopea abrupta) harvested in Southeast Alaska, in which sulphur, potassium, and phosphorus were the most abun-dant of the macro minerals. Karnjanapratum et al. (2013) also reported that sodium (107.3–259.7 mg/100 g) and potassium (155.6–198.0 mg/100 g) were the most abundant macro minerals in all the Asian hard clam (M. lusoria) portions, followed by calcium (39.8–149.2 mg/100 g) and mag-nesium (36.4–57.9 mg/100 g). Furthermore, the results of this research showed higher concentra-tions of calcium, magnesium, iron and copper than in hard clams (M. meretrix) harvested from the coast of China, which had concentrations of 17.5, 2.9, 0.175 and 0.069 mg/100 g, respectively (Xie et al., 2012).
Page 8 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102Ta
ble
2. F
ree
amin
o ac
id c
ompo
sitio
ns o
f sea
sona
l var
iatio
n in
coc
kles
(T. g
rano
sa) t
reat
edAm
ino
Acid
Conc
entr
atio
n (m
g/10
0 g)
(n =
3)
HC-1
1W
C-11
MC-
11HC
-1W
C-1
MC-
1HC
-4W
C-4
MC-
4O
-Pho
spho
-L-s
erin
e60
.5 ±
3.1
61.3
± 2
.854
.7 ±
3.6
65.1
± 3
.265
.0 ±
3.1
62.3
± 2
.667
.1 ±
3.7
65.5
± 1
.865
.4 ±
2.4
Taur
ine
489.
9 ±
29.1
552.
2 ±
30.1
486
± 29
.748
5.1
± 23
.247
4.9
± 21
.446
6.8
± 26
.449
2.5
± 21
.245
4.4
± 19
.843
7.5
± 20
.4
Urea
351.
2 ±
17.3
336.
4 ±
18.2
308.
2 ±
16.1
359.
4 ±
14.6
355.
8 ±
16.8
345.
2 ±
15.7
344.
4 ±
14.2
340.
9 ±
16.1
295.
1 ±
14.2
L-As
part
icac
id
288.
5 ±
9.2
334.
9 ±
12.1
303.
8 ±
10.5
348.
6 ±
14.0
328.
2 ±
11.2
324.
5 ±
12.4
357.
8 ±
13.1
347.
0 ±
14.1
332.
5 ±
10.6
L-Th
reon
in22
9.3
± 6.
827
1.1
± 5.
226
4.7
± 14
.118
4.3
± 11
.217
9.7
± 9.
517
9.7
± 7.
427
8.0
± 6.
829
0.1
± 11
.028
4.2
± 6.
9
L-Se
rine
309.
7 ±
12.1
309.
3 ±
15.0
314.
6 ±
10.8
318.
6 ±
16.2
316.
9 ±
11.4
299.
2 ±
8.9
293.
7 ±
9.1
287.
8 ±
7.6
290.
1 ±
11.5
L-Gl
utam
ic a
cid
812.
5 ±
24.5
830.
6 ±
28.9
792.
7 ±
32.1
834.
3 ±
38.1
829.
3 ±
36.4
826.
9 ±
37.4
860.
1 ±
40.2
859.
1 ±
28.7
823.
7 ±
31.9
L-Sa
rcos
ine
122.
9 ±
4.9
126.
6 ±
5.8
145.
4 ±
6.9
135.
3 ±
6.3
134.
4 ±
6.9
128.
3 ±
5.7
126.
2 ±
5.1
126.
4 ±
6.7
115.
7 ±
5.9
L-α-
Amin
o ap
idic
aci
d24
.2 ±
1.6
24.6
± 2
.424
.5 ±
2.1
25.2
± 1
.925
.2 ±
1.4
21.3
± 1
.127
.5 ±
1.3
26.1
± 1
.423
.0 ±
1.6
L-Pr
olin
e24
6.2
± 12
.523
8.2
± 11
.615
7.2
± 8.
127
8.7
± 14
.126
4.5
± 11
.225
9.4
± 12
.330
1.1
± 16
.829
7.2
± 9.
623
6.2
± 8.
4
Glyc
ine
462.
2 ±
18.2
524.
7 ±
21.4
477.
3 ±
20.3
517.
1 ±
12.6
518.
5 ±
20.6
492.
4 ±
25.1
540.
6 ±
22.7
511.
5 ±
27.0
425.
1 ±
18.2
L-Al
anin
e35
7.6
± 12
.334
4.6
± 11
.132
0.5
± 9.
434
8.5
± 7.
134
8.6
± 9.
434
1.6
± 11
.337
8.3
± 16
.938
5.3
± 12
.734
4.7
± 9.
1
L-Ci
trul
line
265.
1 ±
10.1
237.
3 ±
9.7
257.
1 ±
7.6
281.
0 ±
11.2
262.
7 ±
9.7
258.
1 ±
11.2
254.
8 ±
11.6
243.
4 ±
10.3
236.
1 ±
11.8
L-α-
Amin
o iso
-n-b
utyr
ic a
cid
24.1
± 0
.923
.7 ±
1.4
23.3
± 2
.124
.6 ±
1.1
24.3
± 0
.922
.4 ±
0.8
29.5
± 2
.227
.3 ±
1.8
24.6
± 1
.4
L-Va
line
157.
9 ±
5.2
154.
0 ±
6.7
154.
1 ±
5.1
176.
2 ±
6.2
169.
6 ±
7.1
165.
3 ±
8.3
164.
3 ±
5.1
169.
4 ±
5.3
137.
5 ±
6.4
L-Cy
stin
e52
.3 ±
2.0
46.9
± 1
.644
.3 ±
1.5
54.9
± 2
.853
.5 ±
2.3
50.6
± 2
.155
.1 ±
1.9
52.7
± 1
.753
.1 ±
2.0
L-M
ethi
onin
e14
3.6
± 5.
114
3.2
± 5.
013
7.5
± 4.
314
7.7
± 6.
714
6.1
± 5.
113
6.2
± 6.
012
4.8
± 5.
412
4.0
± 6.
282
.2 ±
2.5
Cyst
athi
onin
e19
.2 ±
0.6
17.3
± 0
.817
.1 ±
0.9
21.5
± 1
.022
.3 ±
1.1
18.3
± 1
.225
.2 ±
0.8
16.3
± 0
.621
.6 ±
1.2
L-Is
oleu
cine
130.
2 ±
4.6
130.
2 ±
5.1
125.
8 ±
6.2
132.
1 ±
5.8
135.
9 ±
4.9
127.
9 ±
5.4
125.
7 ±
5.1
125.
6 ±
6.0
126.
7 ±
4.9
L-Le
ucin
e36
4.1
± 10
.736
1.3
± 15
.235
6.4
± 11
.435
7.8
± 16
.234
6.1
± 12
.932
3.1
± 11
.048
4.9
± 22
.846
8.7
± 24
.144
8.3
± 20
.8
L-Ty
rosin
e19
6.8
± 9.
712
8.8
± 5.
188
.8 ±
2.9
143.
9 ±
7.0
140.
6 ±
6.4
145.
1 ±
5.3
158.
4 ±
6.1
147.
9 ±
6.3
128.
6 ±
4.5
β-Al
anin
e11
5.3
± 3.
811
6.3
± 3.
610
6.0
± 2.
912
7.3
± 5.
7 11
9.5
± 4.
011
7.6
± 3.
812
3.9
± 3.
611
6.5
± 5.
095
.4 ±
4.6
L-Ph
enyl
alan
ine
172.
6 ±
6.9
174.
5 ±
6.2
161.
1 ±
7.3
160.
8 ±
7.4
154.
7 ±
6.7
127.
2 ±
4.5
154.
1 ±
3.6
126.
8 ±
3.1
119.
7 ±
4.2
D,L-
β-Am
ino
iso-b
utyr
ic a
cid
115.
6 ±
3.0
112.
8 ±
3.6
113.
0 ±
2.9
126.
9 ±
4.6
118.
7 ±
5.1
112.
2 ±
5.3
132.
7 ±
6.9
127.
6 ±
4.8
119.
4 ±
3.9
L-Ho
moc
ystin
e8.
6 ±
0.6
8.2
± 0.
45.
3 ±
0.2
7.3
± 0.
46.
5 ±
0.3
4.5
± 0.
17.
9 ±
0.5
5.8
± 0.
34.
1 ±
0.1
γ-Am
ino-
n-bu
tyric
aci
d12
.7 ±
0.4
12.1
± 0
.711
.3 ±
0.5
13.7
± 0
.613
.5 ±
0.6
12.1
± 0
.412
.0 ±
0.8
12.7
± 0
.511
.2 ±
0.3
Etha
noam
ine
21.9
± 0
.920
.9 ±
0.8
20.3
± 0
.520
.6 ±
1.2
18.4
± 1
.119
.9 ±
1.0
24.8
± 1
.314
.4 ±
0.6
13.0
± 0
.5
Amm
oniu
m C
hlor
ide
433.
6 ±
15.4
432.
3 ±
16.8
421.
9 ±
18.7
452.
3 ±
20.1
391.
3 ±
16.3
346.
0 ±
11.6
407.
9 ±
19.4
390.
9 ±
13.7
390.
8 ±
16.4
δ-Hy
drox
ylys
ine
21.1
± 0
.519
.9 ±
0.7
20.8
± 1
.018
.2 ±
0.5
19.2
± 0
.715
.9 ±
0.6
18.9
± 0
.918
.7 ±
0.8
16.2
± 0
.7
L-O
rnith
ine
22.3
± 0
.821
.1 ±
1.0
18.1
± 0
.528
.3 ±
1.3
25.1
± 1
.125
.1 ±
1.2
31.6
± 1
.427
.5 ±
0.9
27.5
± 0
.7
(Con
tinue
d)
Page 9 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
Amin
o Ac
idCo
ncen
trat
ion
(mg/
100
g) (n
= 3
)HC
-11
WC-
11M
C-11
HC-1
WC-
1M
C-1
HC-4
WC-
4M
C-4
L-Ly
sine
450.
8 ±
20.4
448.
2 ±
19.7
440.
2 ±
15.6
432.
5 ±
17.2
436.
7 ±
19.4
409.
0 ±
16.3
438.
1 ±
18.6
435.
2 ±
17.9
426.
1 ±
15.3
1-M
ethy
l-L-h
istid
ine
116.
4 ±
3.1
112.
3 ±
4.2
107.
4 ±
4.1
113.
5 ±
3.6
102.
1 ±
4.6
95.6
± 2
.911
5.2
± 5.
110
9.1
± 4.
811
2.4
± 3.
6
L-Hi
stid
ine
110.
2 ±
5.1
109.
8 ±
4.6
101.
7 ±
4.1
108.
9 ±
3.9
107.
7 ±
5.2
104.
1 ±
4.1
113.
9 ±
4.7
116.
3 ±
4.8
110.
1 ±
4.2
3-M
ethy
l- L-
hist
idin
e21
.1 ±
0.6
19.4
± 1
.115
.2 ±
0.5
23.2
± 1
.125
.8 ±
1.2
22.0
± 0
.921
.4 ±
0.7
19.2
± 0
.517
.2 ±
0.8
L-Ar
gini
ne43
5.7
± 21
.141
5.9
± 19
.540
6.1
± 20
.345
7.4
± 19
.642
2.7
± 18
.443
1.0
± 15
.446
0.4
± 18
.243
6.3
± 16
.743
8.9
± 19
.4
Tota
l7,
165.
87,
220.
76,
802.
47,
330.
77,
103.
86,
835.
97,
552.
47,
323.
56,
833.
8
Tabl
e 2.
(Con
tinue
d)
Not
es: H
C =
Harv
este
d (b
efor
e w
ashi
ng) c
ockl
e; W
C =
Was
hed
and
sort
ed c
ockl
e; M
C =
Mar
kete
d co
ckle
; 11,
1 a
nd 4
= S
ampl
ed ti
me
on N
ovem
ber,
Janu
ary
and
April
, res
pect
ivel
y.Va
lues
are
sho
wn
as m
ean
± st
anda
rd d
evia
tion
of tr
iplic
ates
.
Page 10 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
Tabl
e 3.
Min
eral
con
tent
s of
sea
sona
l var
iatio
n in
coc
kles
(T. g
rano
sa) t
reat
ed
Not
es: H
C =
Harv
este
d (b
efor
e w
ashi
ng) c
ockl
e; W
C =
Was
hed
and
sort
ed c
ockl
e; M
C =
Mar
kete
d co
ckle
; 11,
1 a
nd 4
= S
ampl
ed ti
me
on N
ovem
ber,
Janu
ary
and
April
, res
pect
ivel
y.Va
lues
are
sho
wn
as m
ean
± st
anda
rd d
evia
tion
of tr
iplic
ates
.
Min
eral
Conc
entr
atio
n (m
g/10
0 g)
(n =
3)
HC-1
1W
C-11
MC-
11HC
-1W
C-1
MC-
1HC
-4W
C-4
MC-
4K
228.
0 ±
1.5
238.
3 ±
4.6
252.
2 ±
1.4
284.
5 ±
1.1
279.
0 ±
3.9
237.
8 ±
3.2
241.
0 ±
2.7
223.
9 ±
1.6
190.
7 ±
2.3
Ca14
1.2
± 0.
414
2.2
± 1.
013
4.0
± 1.
511
3.9
± 0.
711
2.3
± 4.
385
.1 ±
1.3
126.
4 ±
0.6
123.
8 ±
0.6
103.
9 ±
0.8
Mg
81.5
± 0
.484
.1 ±
0.9
82.2
± 0
.283
.5 ±
0.2
84.0
± 1
.079
.4 ±
0.9
80.6
± 0
.879
.0 ±
0.4
80.6
± 0
.9
Na28
4.6
± 1.
528
8.6
± 6.
529
8.7
± 2.
125
4.6
± 1.
525
3.2
± 7.
924
3.8
± 4.
325
6.7
± 3.
226
3.6
± 2.
228
4.5
± 3.
2
Cu0.
1 ±
0.0
0.1
± 0.
00.
2 ±
0.0
0.1
± 0.
00.
2 ±
0.0
0.2
± 0.
00.
1 ±
0.0
0.1
± 0.
00.
1 ±
0.0
Zn3.
1 ±
0.0
3.4
± 0.
02.
2 ±
0.1
3.4
± 0.
12.
7 ±
0.0
2.4
± 0.
03.
2 ±
0.0
3.4
± 0.
03.
1 ±
0.0
Mn
1.2
± 0.
00.
9 ±
0.0
0.9
± 0.
01.
0 ±
0.0
1.1
± 0.
01.
2 ±
0.0
1.1
± 0.
00.
9 ±
0.0
0.9
± 0.
0
Fe8.
5 ±
0.1
8.4
± 0.
18.
3 ±
0.0
8.9
± 0.
48.
6 ±
0.5
7.3
± 0.
08.
6 ±
0.1
8.6
± 0.
28.
0 ±
0.0
P15
1.8
± 2.
714
8.6
± 2.
514
1.4
± 2.
614
3.6
± 4.
914
2.1
± 0.
814
0.3
± 2.
114
9.6
± 2.
214
7.0
± 2.
813
2.7
± 0.
4
CoTr
ace
Trac
eTr
ace
Trac
eTr
ace
Trac
eTr
ace
Trac
eTr
ace
Heav
y m
etal
(mg/
100
g)
Pb0.
019
± 0.
002
0.01
9 ±
0.00
10.
016
± 0.
004
0.01
8 ±
0.00
10.
017
± 0.
002
0.01
7 ±
0.00
20.
016
± 0.
001
0.01
7 ±
0.00
10.
015
± 0.
001
Cd0.
034
± 0.
001
0.02
6 ±
0.00
00.
041
± 0.
001
0.03
6 ±
0.00
10.
036
± 0.
001
0.03
1 ±
0.00
10.
032
± 0.
001
0.02
9 ±
0.00
10.
031
± 0.
000
Cr0.
018
± 0.
001
0.01
8 ±
0.00
00.
017
± 0.
001
0.01
7 ±
0.00
10.
018
± 0.
001
0.01
6 ±
0.00
00.
019
± 0.
000
0.01
8 ±
0.00
00.
013
± 0.
001
As0.
193
± 0.
004
0.20
0 ±
0.00
70.
194
± 0.
006
0.11
8 ±
0.00
20.
197
± 0.
004
0.13
2 ±
0.00
40.
111
± 0.
003
0.10
7 ±
0.00
30.
148
± 0.
004
Page 11 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
Tabl
e 4.
Fat
ty a
cid
profi
les
of s
easo
nal v
aria
tion
in c
ockl
es (T
. gra
nosa
) tre
ated
(% o
f tot
al fa
tty
acid
s)Fa
tty
acid
sHC
-11
WC-
11M
C-11
HC-1
WC-
1M
C-1
HC-4
WC-
4M
C-4
SFA
C14:
03.
6 ±
0.2
3.9
± 0.
13.
8 ±
0.1
3.6
± 0.
13.
4 ±
0.1
3.5
± 0.
13.
8 ±
0.0
3.6
± 0.
03.
7 ±
0.1
C15:
00.
9 ±
0.0
0.8
± 0.
00.
8 ±
0.0
0.5
± 0.
00.
4 ±
0.0
0.4
± 0.
00.
7 ±
0.0
0.7
± 0.
00.
6 ±
0.1
Iso
16:0
1.8
± 0.
11.
7 ±
0.1
1.7
± 0.
11.
4 ±
0.1
1.5
± 0.
01.
2 ±
0.0
0.8
± 0.
00.
8 ±
0.0
0.8
± 0.
1
Prist
anat
e2.
1 ±
0.2
1.8
± 0.
11.
6 ±
0.2
1.6
± 0.
11.
5 ±
0.1
1.4
± 0.
11.
4 ±
0.0
1.6
± 0.
01.
5 ±
0.0
C16:
012
.4 ±
0.3
11.9
± 0
.112
.6 ±
0.1
11.4
± 0
.211
.1 ±
0.1
11.3
± 0
.216
.0 ±
0.1
15.5
± 0
.115
.3 ±
0.2
C17:
01.
0 ±
0.0
1.0
± 0.
00.
9 ±
0.0
1.1
± 0.
01.
1 ±
0.0
1.0
± 0.
00.
8 ±
0.0
0.8
± 0.
00.
8 ±
0.0
C18:
05.
9 ±
0.1
5.2
± 0.
05.
4 ±
0.0
4.9
± 0.
04.
6 ±
0.0
4.5
± 0.
04.
6 ±
0.0
5.0
± 0.
04.
5 ±
0.0
∑SFA
27.7
± 0
.926
.3 ±
0.4
26.8
± 0
.524
.5 ±
0.5
23.6
± 0
.323
.3 ±
0.4
28.1
± 0
.128
.0 ±
0.1
27.2
± 0
.5
MUF
A
C16:
1n-7
3.9
± 0.
14.
7 ±
0.1
4.6
± 0.
06.
3 ±
0.1
5.7
± 0.
06.
0 ±
0.1
9.6
± 0.
09.
2 ±
0.0
9.3
± 0.
1
C16:
1n-5
1.2
± 0.
11.
1 ±
0.1
0.9
± 0.
11.
2 ±
0.1
1.0
± 0.
11.
0 ±
0.0
1.2
± 0.
01.
7 ±
0.0
1.8
± 0.
1
C18:
1n-9
2.7
± 0.
02.
9 ±
0.0
3.3
± 0.
03.
4 ±
0.0
3.5
± 0.
03.
4 ±
0.0
3.7
± 0.
03.
3 ±
± 0.
03.
5 ±
0.1
C18:
1n-7
2.3
± 0.
02.
4 ±
0.0
2.4
± 0.
02.
0 ±
0.0
2.2
± 0.
02.
2 ±
0.0
2.8
± 0.
02.
8 ±
0.1
3.0
± 0.
4
C20:
1n-9
3.0
± 0.
02.
8 ±
0.0
2.8
± 0.
02.
8 ±
0.0
1.9
± 0.
01.
6 ±
0.0
1.5
± 0.
01.
6 ±
0.0
1.5
± 0.
1
C20:
1n-7
2.5
± 0.
02.
5 ±
0.0
2.3
± 0.
01.
7 ±
0.0
1.9
± 0.
01.
8 ±
0.0
1.8
± 0.
02.
3 ±
0.2
2.2
± 0.
1
C22:
1n-9
2.
8 ±
0.1
2.9
± 0.
02.
6 ±
0.0
3.8
± 0.
02.
8 ±
0.0
2.2
± 0.
01.
5 ±
0.0
1.7
± 0.
11.
5 ±
0.0
C22:
1n-6
7.
0 ±
0.1
6.5
± 0.
05.
8 ±
0.0
5.8
± 0.
05.
1 ±
0.0
4.1
± 0.
02.
4 ±
0.0
3.2
± 0.
02.
9 ±
0.2
∑MUF
A25
.4 ±
0.4
25.8
± 0
.224
.7 ±
0.1
27.0
± 0
.224
.1 ±
0.1
22.3
± 0
.124
.5 ±
0.0
25.8
± 0
.425
.7 ±
0.8
PUFA
C16:
2n-9
0.8
± 0.
00.
7 ±
0.0
0.7
± 0.
11.
5 ±
0.0
1.4
± 0.
11.
3 ±
0.1
0.7
± 0.
00.
6 ±
0.1
0.6
± 0.
1
C16:
2n-4
1.3
± 0.
11.
4 ±
0.0
1.5
± 0.
00.
9 ±
0.1
1.1
± 0.
01.
2 ±
0.0
1.6
± 0.
01.
4 ±
0.0
1.5
± 0.
1
C16:
3n-4
1.2
± 0.
01.
5 ±
0.0
1.4
± 0.
01.
5 ±
0.0
1.7
± 0.
02.
1 ±
0.0
1.8
± 0.
01.
7 ±
0.0
1.7
± 0.
1
C16:
3n-1
0.8
± 0.
10.
8 ±
0.0
0.9
± 0.
10.
8 ±
0.1
0.8
± 0.
20.
8 ±
0.1
0.9
± 0.
10.
9 ±
0.0
0.9
± 0.
1
C16:
4n-1
4.1
± 0.
33.
4 ±
0.2
3.8
± 0.
41.
6 ±
0.0
2.3
± 0.
02.
8 ±
0.0
2.5
± 0.
02.
2 ±
0.1
2.1
± 0.
1
C18:
2n-6
1.2
± 0.
01.
3 ±
0.0
1.6
± 0.
02.
3 ±
0.0
2.3
± 0.
02.
3 ±
0.0
2.5
± 0.
02.
7 ±
0.1
2.7
± 0.
1
C18:
3n-3
3.8
± 0.
03.
8 ±
0.0
4.0
± 0.
04.
1 ±
0.0
4.3
± 0.
04.
4 ±
0.0
4.7
± 0.
04.
4 ±
0.1
4.6
± 0.
0
C18:
4n-3
1.3
± 0.
01.
5 ±
0.0
1.9
± 0.
02.
9 ±
0.0
3.6
± 0.
04.
4 ±
0.0
0.9
± 0.
00.
9 ±
0.1
0.9
± 0.
1
C20:
4n-6
4.2
± 0.
04.
3 ±
0.1
3.7
± 0.
14.
1 ±
0.0
3.8
± 0.
13.
4 ±
0.0
1.5
± 0.
01.
7 ±
0.1
1.6
± 0.
0
C20:
5n-3
(EPA
)11
.3 ±
0.0
12.6
± 0
.012
.2 ±
0.0
10.5
± 0
.113
.3 ±
0.0
14.9
± 0
.117
.4 ±
0.1
16.8
± 0
.017
.3 ±
0.1
C21:
5n-3
1.0
± 0.
10.
9 ±
0.0
1.0
± 0.
00.
8 ±
0.0
1.1
± 0.
01.
2 ±
0.0
1.1
± 0.
01.
1 ±
0.1
1.1
± 0.
1
C22:
4n-6
1.3
± 0.
01.
4 ±
0.0
1.3
± 0.
01.
5 ±
0.0
1.8
± 0.
02.
1 ±
0.0
0.7
± 0.
00.
7 ±
0.1
0.8
± 0.
1
(Con
tinue
d)
Page 12 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
Not
es: H
C =
Harv
este
d (b
efor
e w
ashi
ng) c
ockl
e; W
C =
Was
hed
and
sort
ed c
ockl
e; M
C =
Mar
kete
d co
ckle
; 11,
1 a
nd 4
= S
ampl
ed ti
me
on N
ovem
ber,
Janu
ary
and
April
, res
pect
ivel
y.Va
lues
are
sho
wn
as m
ean
± st
anda
rd d
evia
tion
of tr
iplic
ates
. SFA
= s
atur
ated
fatt
y ac
id; M
UFA
, mon
ouns
atur
ated
fatt
y ac
id; P
UFA
, pol
yuns
atur
ated
fatt
y ac
id; E
PA, e
icos
apen
taen
oic
acid
; DHA
, do
cosa
hexa
enoi
c ac
id; I
A, in
dex
of a
ther
ogen
icity
; TI,
inde
x of
thro
mbo
geni
city
; h/H
, ind
ex o
f hyp
ocho
lest
erol
emic
/hyp
erch
oles
tero
lem
ic.
Fatt
y ac
ids
HC-1
1W
C-11
MC-
11HC
-1W
C-1
MC-
1HC
-4W
C-4
MC-
4C2
2:5n
-31.
1 ±
0.0
1.2
± 0.
01.
1 ±
0.0
1.4
± 0.
01.
2 ±
0.0
0.8
± 0.
00.
9 ±
0.0
1.0
± 0.
01.
0 ±
0.1
C22:
5n-6
1.4
± 0.
01.
5 ±
0.0
1.4
± 0.
01.
3 ±
0.0
1.1
± 0.
01.
0 ±
0.0
1.2
± 0.
01.
3 ±
0.1
1.4
± 0.
1
C22:
6n-3
(DHA
)10
.2 ±
0.1
10.5
± 0
.111
.3 ±
0.1
11.6
± 0
.111
.3 ±
0.1
11.3
± 0
.17.
9 ±
0.1
7.9
± 0.
08.
0 ±
0.1
∑PUF
A45
.0 ±
0.7
46.8
± 0
.447
.8 ±
0.8
46.8
± 0
.451
.1 ±
0.5
54.0
± 0
.446
.3 ±
0.3
45.3
± 0
.946
.2 ±
1.3
∑PUF
An −
328
.7 ±
0.2
30.5
± 0
.131
.5 ±
0.1
31.3
± 0
.234
.8 ±
0.1
37.0
± 0
.232
.9 ±
0.2
32.1
± 0
.332
.9 ±
0.5
∑PUF
An −
68.
1 ±
0.0
8.5
± 0.
18.
0 ±
0.1
9.2
± 0.
09.
0 ±
0.1
8.8v
0.0
5.9
± 0.
06.
4 ±
0.4
6.5
± 0.
3
∑n −
3/∑
n −
63.
5 ±
0.2
3.6
± 0.
13.
9 ±
0.1
3.4
± 0.
23.
9 ±
0.1
4.2
± 0.
25.
6 ±
0.2
5.0
± 0.
35.
1 ±
0.5
∑n −
6/∑
n −
30.
3 ±
0.0
0.3
± 0.
10.
3 ±
0.1
0.3
± 0.
00.
3 ±
0.1
0.2
± 0.
00.
2 ±
0.0
0.2
± 0.
10.
2 ±
0.1
DHA/
EPA
0.9
± 0.
10.
8 ±
0.1
0.9
± 0.
11.
1 ±
0.1
0.8
± 0.
10.
8 ±
0.1
0.5
± 0.
10.
5 ±
0.0
0.5
± 0.
1
PUFA
/SFA
1.6
± 0.
71.
8 ±
0.4
1.8
± 0.
81.
9 ±
0.4
2.2
± 0.
52.
3 ±
0.4
1.6
± 0.
31.
6 ±
0.6
1.7
± 0.
6
IA0.
4 ±
0.0
0.4
± 0.
10.
4 ±
0.1
0.4
± 0.
00.
4 ±
0.1
0.4
± 0.
00.
5 ±
0.0
0.5
± 0.
40.
5 ±
0.3
IT0.
2 ±
0.1
0.2
± 0.
10.
2 ±
0.1
0.2
± 0.
10.
2 ±
0.1
0.2
± 0.
10.
2 ±
0.1
0.2
± 0.
00.
2 ±
0.1
h/H
2.2
± 0.
22.
3 ±
0.1
2.3
± 0.
12.
5 ±
0.2
2.7
± 0.
12.
7 ±
0.2
1.9
± 0.
22.
0 ±
0.3
2.0
± 0.
5
Tabl
e 4.
(Con
tinue
d)
Page 13 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
3.4. Fatty acid profilesThe FAMEs as a percentage of the total fatty acids mixture of cockles collected during different sea-sons and production steps were observed and are shown in Table 4. The total percentage of identified SFAs of cockles changed from 23.3 ± 0.4% of those marketed in January (MC-1) to 28.1 ± 0.1% with those harvested in April (HC-4), and from 22.3 ± 0.1% to 27.0 ± 0.2% during January for the MUFAs. For PUFAs, the cockles harvested in November (HC-11) showed 45.0 ± 0.7% of PUFAs, and the highest levels of PUFAs were the 54.0 ± 0.4% of those marketed in January (MC-1); the DHA (C22:6n-3) con-centration slightly increased from November to January (10.2 ± 0.1% (HC-11) and 11.6 ± 0.1% (HC-1)) and sharply declined thereafter in April (HC-4) (7.9 ± 0.1%). EPA (C20:5n-3) content, was statistically significantly (p < 0.05) different between samples, with those harvested in April (HC-4) having the highest level of the major polyunsaturated fatty acid, peaking at 17.4 ± 0.1% of total fatty acids. Of the individual fatty acids, palmitic acid (C16:0), a saturated fatty acid, was the highest in the April samples (HC-4) (16.0 ± 0.1%), while stearic acid (C18:0) had the highest concentration in cockles harvested in November (HC-11) (5.9 ± 0.1%). These results are similar to those reported by Lin et al. (2003), where C16:0, EPA and DHA were the major fatty acids of the phospholipids in mussels (Mytilus edulis Linne) and where C16:0 was the main saturated fatty acid, ranging from 10.78 to 26.22%; EPA and DHA were also abundant, ranging from 5.25 to 23.10% and from 6.05 to 20.42%, respectively. Delaporte et al. (2005) reported that diet quality affects FA content in bivalves, as they are may affect by filtration rates and seasonal changes in food sources. Hendriks, van Duren, and Herman (2003) also showed that EPA and DHA are key nutritional constituents, which might come from the diet of algae consumed by bivalves. Pernet et al. (2012) reported that bivalve species consume nutrients from many material particles, such as resuspended benthic microalgae, and that phytoplankton is their primary food source, which propagates considerably during spring in accord with the high amounts of EPA and DHA during this period. Moreover, the temperature is also an important factor in the growth regulation of marine invertebrates including mollusc bivalves and affects fatty acid pro-files; high levels of EPA and DHA are considered to contribute to the maintenance of membrane fluid-ity during periods of low temperature (Ezgeta-Balić, Najdek, Peharda, & Blažina, 2012).
To assess the nutritional value of fat, the results of the n − 3/n − 6 PUFA (3.4 ± 0.2 to 5.6 ± 0.2%), DHA/EPA (0.5 ± 0.1 to 1.1 ± 0.1%), PUFA/SFA (1.6 ± 0.7 to 2.3 ± 0.4%) ratios and the atherogenic (IA) (0.4 ± 0.0 to 0.5 ± 0.4%), thrombogenic (IT) (0.2 ± 0.1%) and hypocholesterolaemic/hypercholester-olaemic FA (h/H) (1.9 ± 0.2 to 2.7 ± 0.2%) indices of cockles collected during different season and production steps were recorded and are shown in Table 4. These are similar to results from a native clam (Ruditapes decussatus) and an invasive clam (Ruditapes philippinarum) species reported by Anacleto et al. (2014), which had n − 3/n − 6 ratios in the range of the recommended values, as well as a PUFA/SFA ratio well above 0.45, as recommended by the U.K. Department of Health (HMSO, 1994). As reviewed by Simopoulos (2008b), the beneficial health effects of omega-3 fatty acids, EPA and DHA, were related with a high seafood diet that has a higher ratio of n − 3/n − 6 PUFA and also have the most potent anti-inflammatory effects. Inflammation is at the base of many chronic dis-eases, including coronary heart disease, diabetes, arthritis, cancer, osteoporosis, mental health, dry eye disease and age-related macular degeneration. Simopoulos (2008a) also suggested that dietary intake of omega-3 fatty acids may prevent the development of diseases and that a lower n − 6/n − 3 ratio as part of a Mediterranean diet decreases vascular endothelial growth factor. The IA indicates the relationship between the sum of the main saturated fatty acids and that of the main classes of unsaturated acids, the former being considered pro-atherogenic and the latter anti-atherogenic (in-hibiting the aggregation of plaque and diminishing the levels of esterified fatty acids, cholesterol, and phospholipids, thereby preventing the appearance of micro- and macro-coronary diseases). The IT relates the tendency to form clots in the blood vessels. This is defined as the relationship between the pro-thrombogenetic (saturated) and the anti-thrombogenetic fatty acids. In our research, both these indices were lower than in other seafood products from previous studies, as raw roe of blue fin tuna (T. thynnus) and tuna botargo (T. thynnus) (Garaffo, 2011), orange fin pony fish (Leiognathusbindus) and sulphur goatfishes (Upeneussulphureus) (Ghaeni, Ghahfarokhi, & Zaheri, 2013) and Mediterranean sea bass (D. labrax) (Smichi et al., 2017), which is mostly due to the low saturated fatty acid contents in these samples regardless of seasonal variation and freshness; suggest that these cockles can be
Page 14 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
used in a cardio-protective and antithrombogenic diet (Ulbricht & Southgate, 1991). The low values of the h/H index obtained from this research ranged between 1.9 in April and 2.7 in January sam-pling. This is similar to nutritional reports of lamb fatty acids by Santos-Silva et al. (2002), indicating that the regular consumption of these cockles causes a hypocholesterolemic effect.
4. ConclusionsThe results showed that the proximate composition, amino acids and mineral content had high value and varied significantly with seasonal variation and production step. All research samples ex-hibited limited concentrations of heavy metal such as Cr, Pb, Cd, and As, as well as Co. The results also showed that cockle samples had high contents of PUFAs, especially EPA (C20:5n-3), which peaked in April, and DHA (C22:6n-3), which slightly increased from November to January, both of which are key nutritional constituents which may derive from the diet of algae consumed by bi-valves. Moreover, from the standpoint of the nutritional quality of fats, the atherogenic (IA), throm-bogenic (IT) and hypocholesterolemic/ hypercholesterolemic (h/H) indices remained low at all times studied, even through different processing conditions, suggesting that these food items can be used in a cardio-protective and hypocholesterolemic diet.
FundingThis research was supported by a [grant number 20150482] from the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Republic of Korea.
Competing InterestsThe authors declare no competing interest.
Author detailsThanh Tri Nguyen1,2
E-mail: [email protected] ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8873-517XYong-Jun Choi1
E-mail: [email protected] Rohmah3
E-mail: [email protected] ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8251-8986Seok-Bong Jeong4
E-mail: [email protected] Hwang5
E-mail: [email protected] Jung6
E-mail: [email protected] Choi1
E-mail: [email protected] ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9023-15011 Department of Seafood Science and Technology, The
Institute of Marine Industry, Gyeongsang National University, Tongyeong, Republic of Korea.
2 Department of Aquatic Nutrition and Products Processing, Can Tho University, Can Tho, Viet Nam.
3 Faculty of Biology, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
4 CHAMCO Chungha Co. Ltd., Busan, Republic of Korea.5 Division of Marine Technology, Chonnam National University,
Yeosu, Republic of Korea.6 Department of Mechanical and Energy Engineering,
Gyeongsang National University, Tongyeong, Republic of Korea.
Citation informationCite this article as: Seasonal variations of nutritional components in cockles (Tegillarca granosa) processed from the Southern Coast of Korea, Thanh Tri Nguyen, Yong-Jun Choi, Zuliyati Rohmah, Seok-Bong Jeong, Doo-Jin Hwang, Yong-Gil Jung & Byeong-Dae Choi, Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102.
Cover imageSource: Authors.
ReferencesAlmonacid, S., Bustamante, J., Simpson, R., & Pinto, M. (2014).
Shellfish (Mussel) processing and components. In V. Preedy (Ed.), Processing and impact on active components in food (1st ed., pp. 447–454). London: Elsevier.
Anacleto, P., Maulvault, A. L., Bandarra, N. M., Repolho, T., Nunes, M. L., Rosa, R., & Marques, A. (2014). Effect of warming on protein, glycogen and fatty acid content of native and invasive clams. Food Research International, 64, 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.07.023
AOCS. (1998). AOCS Official Method Ce 1b-89. In Fatty Acid Composition by GLC, Marine Oils. Champaign, IL: Author. Open Access Library. Retrieved from https://www.oalib.com/references/8496404
Bligh, E. G., & Dyer, W. J. (1959). A rapid method of total lipid extraction and purification. Canadian Journal of Biochemistry and Physiology, 37, 911–917. doi:10.1139/o59-099
Çelik, M. Y., Karayücel, S., Karayücel, I., Öztürk, R., & Eyüboğlu, B. (2012). Meat yield, condition index, and biochemical composition of mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis Lamarck, 1819) in Sinop, South of the Black Sea. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology, 21, 198–205. doi:10.1080/10498850.2011.589099
Delaporte, M., Soudant, P., Moal, J., Kraffe, E., Marty, Y., & Samain, J. F. (2005). Incorporation and modification of dietary fatty acids in gill polar lipids by two bivalve species Crassostrea gigas and Ruditapes philippinarum. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 140, 460–470. doi:10.1016/j.cbpb.2005.02.009
DuBois, M., Gilles, K. A., Hamilton, J. K., Rebers, P. A., & Smith, F. (1956). Colorimetric method for determination of sugars and related substances. Analytical Chemistry, 28, 350–356. doi:10.1021/ac60111a017
Ezgeta-Balić, D., Najdek, M., Peharda, M., & Blažina, M. (2012). Seasonal fatty acid profile analysis to trace origin of food sources of four commercially important bivalves. Aquaculture, 334–337, 89–100. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2011.12.041
Fernández, A., Grienke, U., Soler-Vila, A., Guihéneuf, F., Stengel, D. B., & Tasdemir, D. (2015). Seasonal and geographical variations in the biochemical composition of the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis L.) from Ireland. Food Chemistry, 177, 43–52. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.12.062
Page 15 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
Fuentes, A., Fernández-Segovia, I., Escriche, I., & Serra, J. A. (2009). Comparison of physico-chemical parameters and composition of mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk.) from different Spanish origins. Food Chemistry, 112, 295–302. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.05.064
Garaffo, M. A. (2011). Fatty acids profile, atherogenic (IA) and thrombogenic (IT) health lipid indices, of raw roe of blue fin tuna (Thunnus thynnus L.) and their salted product “Bottarga.” Food and Nutrition Sciences, 2, 736–743. doi:10.4236/fns.2011.27101
Ghaeni, M., Ghahfarokhi, K. N., & Zaheri, L. (2013). Fatty acids profile, atherogenic (IA) and thrombogenic (IT) health lipid indices in Leiognathusbindus and Upeneussulphureus. Marine Science Reserach & Development, 3, 3–5. doi:10.4172/2155-9910.1000138
Grienke, U., Silke, J., & Tasdemir, D. (2014). Bioactive compounds from marine mussels and their effects on human health. Food Chemistry, 142, 48–60. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.07.027
Hendriks, I. E., van Duren, L. A., & Herman, P. M. J. (2003). Effect of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids on reproductive output and larval growth of bivalves. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 296, 199–213. doi:10.1016/S0022-0981(03)00323-X
HMSO. (1994). Nutritional aspects of cardiovascular disease. Report of the cardiovascular review group committee on medical aspects of food policy. In HMSO (Ed.), Reports on health and social subjects (1st ed., Vol. 46, p. 186). London: Stationery Office Books. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7863112
Horwitz, D. W. (Ed.). (2000). Official methods of analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL (17th ed.). Gaithersburg: AOAC INTERNATIONAL.
Irisarri, J., Fernández-Reiriz, M.-J., & Labarta, U. (2015). Temporal and spatial variations in proximate composition and condition index of mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis cultured in suspension in a shellfish farm. Aquaculture, 435, 207–216. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2014.09.041
Karnjanapratum, S., Benjakul, S., Kishimura, H., & Tsai, Y.-H. (2013). Chemical compositions and nutritional value of Asian hard clam (Meretrix lusoria) from the coast of Andaman Sea. Food Chemistry, 141, 4138–4145. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.07.001
Kim, S. Y., Moon, T. S., Shin, Y. K., & Park, M. S. (2009). Gonadal development and reproductive cycle of the granular ark Tegillarca granosa (Bivalvia: Arcidae). Journal of Aquaculture-The Korean Society of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 22, 34–41.
Kube, S., Sokolowski, A., Jansen, J. M., & Schiedek, D. (2007). Seasonal variability of free amino acids in two marine bivalves, Macoma balthica and Mytilus spp., in relation to environmental and physiological factors. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A: Molecular & Integrative Physiology, 147, 1015–1027. doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.03.012
Lin, H., Jiang, J., Xue, C., Zhang, B., & Xu, J. (2003). Seasonal changes in phospholipids of mussel (Mytilus edulis Linne). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 83, 133–135. doi:10.1002/jsfa.1281
Martínez-Pita, I., Sánchez-Lazo, C., Ruíz-Jarabo, I., Herrera, M., & Mancera, J. M. (2012). Biochemical composition, lipid classes, fatty acids and sexual hormones in the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis from cultivated populations in south Spain. Aquaculture, 358–359, 274–283. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2012.06.003
O’Boyle, S., & Silke, J. (2010). A review of phytoplankton ecology in estuarine and coastal waters around Ireland.
Journal of Plankton Research, 32, 99–118. doi:10.1093/plankt/fbp097
Okumuş, İ., & Stirling, H. P. (1998). Seasonal variations in the meat weight, condition index and biochemical composition of mussels (Mytilus edulis L.) in suspended culture in two Scottish sea lochs. Aquaculture, 159, 249–261. doi:10.1016/S0044-8486(97)00206-8
Oliveira, A. A. C. M., Bechtel, P. J., Nguyen, D. X., Gurer, L., Crapo, C. A., Fong, Q., & Ralonde, R. (2011). Chemical composition and texture of commercial geoduck clams (Panopea abrupta) harvested in Southeast Alaska. Journal of Shellfish Research, 30, 761–769. doi:10.2983/035.030.0316
Orban, E., Di Lena, G., Nevigato, T., Casini, I., Caproni, R., Santaroni, G., & Giulini, G. (2006). Nutritional and commercial quality of the striped venus clam, Chamelea gallina, from the Adriatic sea. Food Chemistry, 101, 1063–1070. doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.03.005
Ozols, J. (1990). Amino acid analysis. Methods in Enzymology, 182, 587–601. doi:10.1016/0076-6879(90)82046-5
Pernet, F., Malet, N., Pastoureaud, A., Vaquer, A., Quéré, C., & Dubroca, L. (2012). Marine diatoms sustain growth of bivalves in a Mediterranean lagoon. Journal of Sea Research, 68, 20–32. doi:10.1016/j.seares.2011.11.004
Rosa, R., Calado, R., Andrade, A. M., Narciso, L., & Nunes, M. L. (2005). Changes in amino acids and lipids during embryogenesis of European lobster, Homarus gammarus (Crustacea : Decapoda). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part B: Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 140, 241–249. doi:10.1016/j.cbpc.2004.10.009
Santos-Silva, J., Bessa, R. J. B., & Santos-Silva, F. (2002). Effect of genotype, feeding system and slaughter weight on the quality of light lambs. Livestock Production Science, 77, 187–194. doi:10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00059-3
Simopoulos, A. P. (2008a). The importance of the omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio in cardiovascular disease and other chronic diseases. Experimental Biology and Medicine, 233, 674–688. doi:10.3181/0711-MR-311
Simopoulos, A. P. (2008b). The omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio, genetic variation, and cardiovascular disease. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 17, 131–134.
Smichi, N., Abdelmalek, B. E., Kharrat, N., Sila, A., bougatef, A., Gargouri, Y., & Fendri, A. (2017). The effects of storage on quality and nutritional aspects of farmed and wild sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) muscle: In vitro oils digestibility evaluation. Fisheries Research, 188, 74–83. doi:10.1016/j.fishres.2016.12.003
Sokolowski, A., Wolowicz, M., & Hummel, H. (2003). Free amino acids in the clam Macoma balthica L. (Bivalvia, Mollusca) from brackish waters of the southern Baltic Sea. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology - A Molecular and Integrative Physiology, 134, 579–592. doi:10.1016/S1095-6433(02)00360-4
Taylor, A. G., & Savage, C. (2006). Fatty acid composition of New Zealand green-lipped mussels, Perna canaliculus: Implications for harvesting for n-3 extracts. Aquaculture, 261, 430–439. doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2006.08.024
Ulbricht, T. L. V., & Southgate, D. A. T. (1991). Coronary heart disease: Seven dietary factors. The Lancet, 338, 985–992. doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)91846-M
Xie, W., Chen, C., Liu, X., Wang, B., Sun, Y., Yan, M., & Zhang, X. (2012). Meretrix meretrix: Active components and their bioactivities. Life Science Journal, 9, 756–762.
Yurimoto, T., Kassim, F. M., & Man, A. (2014). Sexual maturation of the blood cockle, Anadara granosa, in Matang mangrove estuary, peninsular Malaysia. International Journal of Aquatic Biology, 2, 115–123. Retrieved from https://npajournals.com/ijab/index.php/ijab/article/view/205
Page 16 of 16
Nguyen et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2017), 3: 1360102https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2017.1360102
© 2017 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.You are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Cogent Food & Agriculture (ISSN: 2331-1932) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group. Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:• Immediate, universal access to your article on publication• High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online• Download and citation statistics for your article• Rapid online publication• Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards• Retention of full copyright of your article• Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article• Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regionsSubmit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com