Comparative Analysis of the Nutritional and Mineral Compositions of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii: Implications for Dietary Planning and Food Industry Applications

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4838317/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Comparative Analysis of the Nutritional and Mineral Compositions of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii: Implications for Dietary Planning and Food Industry Applications

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4838317/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

This study presents a comparative analysis of the nutritional and mineral compositions of two dried edible crustacean species, Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii. The nutritional profile includes measurements of ash content, crude fiber, fat content, moisture content, crude protein, and carbohydrate percentage. The mineral analysis encompasses essential elements such as calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), sodium (Na), phosphorus (P), iron (Fe), and zinc (Zn). Results indicate that Macrobrachium vollenhovenii exhibits higher ash (5.38% ± 0.002) and moisture content (22.12% ± 0.004) compared to Farfantepenaeus notialis, which contains higher crude fiber (10.01% ± 0.07), fat content (1.79% ± 0.001), crude protein (6.69% ± 0.2), and carbohydrate (56.64%). Mineral analysis reveals that Macrobrachium vollenhovenii has superior levels of calcium (256.238 mg/g), magnesium (42.156 mg/g), and potassium (71.02 mg/g), while Farfantepenaeus notialis shows higher sodium (166.03 mg/g), phosphorus (93.273 mg/g), and iron (5.183 mg/g) content. Both species display nearly identical zinc concentrations. These findings suggest that while both species are nutritionally valuable, their specific compositions make them suitable for different dietary needs. Macrobrachium vollenhovenii may be more beneficial for those requiring higher mineral intake, particularly calcium and potassium, whereas Farfantepenaeus notialis might be preferable for higher protein and iron intake. This comparative analysis provides valuable insights into the nutritional and mineral benefits of these crustacean species, aiding in dietary planning and food industry applications.

Nutritional composition

mineral composition

dried shrimp

dietary planning

food industry

The nutritional and mineral compositions of seafood have garnered significant attention worldwide due to their essential roles in human diets [1]. Among the multitude of seafood options available, the shrimp species Farfantepenaeus notialis and the prawn species Macrobrachium vollenhovenii stand out for their high nutritional value and popularity in various regions, including Nigeria [2]. These species serve as crucial sources of protein and provide a diverse array of vitamins and minerals essential for maintaining good health [3]. In many countries, particularly those with coastal and riverine areas like Nigeria, seafood plays a vital role in local diets [4]. Shrimps and prawns, in particular, are significant components of the diet due to their accessibility, affordability, and rich nutrient profile [5]. They are frequently incorporated into traditional dishes, enhancing the nutritional value of meals and contributing to overall dietary diversity [6]. With global challenges of malnutrition and food insecurity prevalent in many regions, species like Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii hold promise as important dietary components to address these issues. Their inclusion in daily diets can help alleviate protein deficiencies and provide essential minerals necessary for various bodily functions [7].

Furthermore, the significance of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii extends beyond their nutritional benefits [8]. These species are integral to the livelihoods of many fishermen and traders worldwide, supporting local economies and ensuring a steady supply of nutritious food items throughout the year [9]. While previous studies have highlighted the importance of seafood in global nutrition [10], there is limited specific data on the nutritional profiles of local shrimp and prawn species in various regions. This knowledge gap underscores the need for a detailed comparative analysis of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii, not only in Nigeria but also in other regions where they are consumed.

This study aims to fill this knowledge gap by providing a comprehensive comparative analysis of the nutritional and mineral compositions of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii. By examining parameters such as ash content, crude fiber, fat content, moisture content, crude protein, and essential minerals, this research seeks to highlight the unique contributions of these species to diets worldwide. Ultimately, the findings will support better dietary planning and promote the utilization of local seafood resources to enhance nutritional status and food security globally.

2.1 Sample Collection

Dried samples of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii were procured from Bodija Market in Ibadan, Nigeria. To ensure uniformity in size and quality, samples were carefully selected. Sufficient quantities of each species were collected for all required analyses. The samples were stored in clean, airtight containers to prevent contamination and moisture absorption until further analysis.

2.2 Nutritional Composition Analysis

1. Ash Content
Ash content was determined using the method described by Akpanyung et al. [11]. Approximately 5 grams of each sample were incinerated in a muffle furnace at 550°C until a constant weight was achieved. Ash content was expressed as a percentage of the dry weight of the sample.

2. Crude Fiber
Crude fiber content was measured using the method outlined by Okpala et al. [12]. Samples were digested with sulfuric acid and sodium hydroxide solutions. The residue was then incinerated, and crude fiber content was calculated as the weight difference before and after incineration, expressed as a percentage of the dry weight.

3. Fat Content
Fat content was determined using the Soxhlet extraction method as described by Sun et al. [13]. Approximately 2 grams of each sample were extracted with petroleum ether for 6 hours. The extracted fat was weighed, and fat content was expressed as a percentage of the dry weight.

4. Moisture Content
Moisture content was determined using the method described by Zhang et al. [14]. Samples were weighed and dried in an oven at 105°C until a constant weight was achieved. Moisture content was calculated as the weight loss during drying, expressed as a percentage of the initial weight.

5. Crude Protein
Crude protein content was measured using the Kjeldahl method as described by Nascimento et al. [15]. Each sample was digested with sulfuric acid, and the nitrogen content was determined. Crude protein content was calculated by multiplying the nitrogen content by a factor of 6.25.

6. Carbohydrate Content
Carbohydrate content was calculated by difference using the following formula:

Carbohydrate (%) =100− (Ash + Crude Fiber + Fat + Moisture + Crude Protein)

2.3 Mineral Composition Analysis

1. Sample Preparation
Approximately 1 gram of each sample was digested with a mixture of nitric acid and perchloric acid as described by Sharma et al. [16]. The digested samples were diluted with deionized water to a known volume.

2. Mineral Analysis
Mineral content was analyzed using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS) as described by Luo et al. [17]. Standard solutions of calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), sodium (Na), phosphorus (P), iron (Fe), and zinc (Zn) were prepared and used for instrument calibration. Mineral content was expressed in milligrams per gram (mg/g) of the dry sample.

Table 1

Nutritional Composition of *Farfantepenaeus notialis* and *Macrobrachium vollenhovenii*
Parameter	Farfantepenaeus notialis	Macrobrachium vollenhovenii
Ash Content (% w/w)	4.83 ± 0.004	5.38 ± 0.002
Crude Fiber (% w/w)	10.01 ± 0.07	9.83 ± 0.2
Fat Content (% w/w)	1.79 ± 0.001	1.54 ± 0.001
Moisture Content (% w/w)	20.04 ± 0.003	22.12 ± 0.004
Crude Protein (% w/w)	6.69 ± 0.2	5.34 ± 0.4
Carbohydrate (% w/w)	56.64	55.79

The nutritional composition of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii is detailed in Table 1 and Fig. 1. Macrobrachium vollenhovenii exhibited a higher ash content (5.38% ± 0.002) compared to Farfantepenaeus notialis (4.83% ± 0.004), indicating a greater proportion of mineral content in the former. Regarding crude fiber, Farfantepenaeus notialis contained slightly more fiber (10.01% ± 0.07) than Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (9.83% ± 0.2), suggesting that the former may have slightly enhanced dietary fiber characteristics. In terms of fat content, Farfantepenaeus notialis had a higher fat percentage (1.79% ± 0.001) compared to Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (1.54% ± 0.001). This indicates that Farfantepenaeus notialis contributes more lipids to the diet, potentially affecting its energy density and lipid profile. The moisture content was also higher in Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (22.12% ± 0.004) than in Farfantepenaeus notialis (20.04% ± 0.003), which may impact the preservation and texture of the crustaceans during storage.

Regarding crude protein, Farfantepenaeus notialis had a higher protein content (6.69% ± 0.2) compared to Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (5.34% ± 0.4). This suggests that Farfantepenaeus notialis is a better source of dietary protein. The carbohydrate content was marginally higher in Farfantepenaeus notialis (56.64%) than in Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (55.79%). Although the difference is minor, it may influence their respective nutritional profiles. Overall, the nutritional analysis reveals that Farfantepenaeus notialis tends to have higher protein and fat contents, while Macrobrachium vollenhovenii shows higher ash and moisture contents. These differences highlight the distinct nutritional profiles of the two species and their potential implications for dietary applications.

Table 2

Mineral Composition of *Farfantepenaeus notialis* and *Macrobrachium vollenhovenii*
Mineral	Farfantepenaeus notialis (mg/g)	Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (mg/g)
Calcium (Ca)	210.501	256.238
Magnesium (Mg)	41.512	42.156
Potassium (K)	53.24	71.02
Sodium (Na)	166.03	160.08
Phosphorus (P)	93.273	87.724
Iron (Fe)	5.183	3.564
Zinc (Zn)	0.796	0.788

The mineral composition of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii is summarized in Table 2. Macrobrachium vollenhovenii demonstrated higher levels of calcium (256.238 mg/g) compared to Farfantepenaeus notialis (210.501 mg/g), indicating that Macrobrachium vollenhovenii provides a richer source of calcium. The magnesium content was similar between the two species, with Macrobrachium vollenhovenii slightly higher (42.156 mg/g) than Farfantepenaeus notialis (41.512 mg/g).

Potassium levels were notably higher in Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (71.02 mg/g) compared to Farfantepenaeus notialis (53.24 mg/g), suggesting that Macrobrachium vollenhovenii may be more beneficial for potassium intake. Sodium content was slightly lower in Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (160.08 mg/g) compared to Farfantepenaeus notialis (166.03 mg/g). This indicates that Farfantepenaeus notialis contributes more to sodium intake.

Phosphorus levels were higher in Farfantepenaeus notialis (93.273 mg/g) than in Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (87.724 mg/g), showing that Farfantepenaeus notialis provides a greater amount of phosphorus. The iron content was also higher in Farfantepenaeus notialis (5.183 mg/g) compared to Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (3.564 mg/g), indicating that Farfantepenaeus notialis is a better source of iron.

Zinc levels were nearly identical in both species, with Farfantepenaeus notialis showing a slightly higher concentration (0.796 mg/g) compared to Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (0.788 mg/g). Overall, while both species offer valuable mineral content, Macrobrachium vollenhovenii is particularly rich in calcium, magnesium, and potassium, whereas Farfantepenaeus notialis provides higher amounts of phosphorus, iron, and marginally more zinc. These differences in mineral composition underscore the unique contributions of each species to dietary mineral intake.

The detailed analysis of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii offers critical insights into their nutritional profiles and highlights their distinct advantages for human nutrition and food systems [18]. This comparative study underscores the importance of these crustaceans in dietary planning and food security.

The proximate analysis reveals that Farfantepenaeus notialis has a higher fat content (1.79% ± 0.001% w/w) compared to Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (1.54% ± 0.001% w/w), consistent with the range reported for pink shrimp by Akuamoa et al. [19]. This higher fat content suggests that Farfantepenaeus notialis can be a more significant source of energy, beneficial for diets requiring increased caloric intake [20]. However, it's worth noting that the reported fat content falls within a similar range to other studies, indicating a need for further research to understand regional variations or methodological differences.

In terms of protein content, Farfantepenaeus notialis (6.69% ± 0.2% w/w) surpasses Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (5.34% ± 0.4% w/w). Although these values align with some literature [21], they are lower than the higher protein content reported by Adeyeye et al. [22]. The discrepancy highlights the need for standardized methods in protein measurement across studies and underscores the potential of Farfantepenaeus notialis in addressing protein deficiencies, especially in regions with high malnutrition rates [23].

The mineral analysis demonstrates that Macrobrachium vollenhovenii has higher ash content (5.38% ± 0.002% w/w), indicative of greater mineral content compared to Farfantepenaeus notialis (4.83% ± 0.004% w/w). This is consistent with its higher levels of calcium, magnesium, and potassium, which are crucial for bone health and various enzymatic processes [24]. The higher moisture content in Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (22.12% ± 0.004% w/w) compared to Farfantepenaeus notialis (20.04% ± 0.003% w/w) may enhance its texture and palatability, making it a favorable option for culinary use [25].

The observed differences in crude fiber content, though modest, suggest potential digestive benefits. Higher crude fiber can aid digestion and improve gut health [26]. The slight variation in carbohydrate content between the species also indicates differing roles in energy provision and metabolic support [27]. This study’s findings contribute valuable information but also have limitations. Variability in sample quality and potential regional differences could affect the results. Future research should focus on a larger sample size and explore the bioavailability of nutrients in these species. Understanding these factors will provide a more comprehensive view of their health impacts and nutritional benefits.

The diverse nutritional profiles of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii emphasize the importance of incorporating a variety of seafood into diets to achieve balanced nutrition. Each species offers unique benefits, suggesting that their combined consumption could enhance overall dietary intake [28]. These insights have significant implications for dietary recommendations and food policy, particularly in regions where these crustaceans are staple foods.

This study highlights the potential of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii to contribute to food security and nutrition. By understanding their nutritional profiles, stakeholders can better promote their consumption and integrate them into sustainable food systems, ultimately supporting public health and well-being.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge Mr. Ale Oluwatosin of the department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry Faculty of Pharmacy University of Ibadan for his dedication and commitment to the success of this project.

Funding

The study did not receive any funding.

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Data availability

The data of this study will be made available on request to the corresponding author.

Authors’ contributions

The authors confirm their contribution to the paper as follows: Study conception and design: Oluwatosin Ibitoye; Sample procurement: Oluwadamilola Ayanniyi and Oluwafunke Ademola; Analysis supervision: Olabisi Ayeni and Ono Onafurume; Interpretation of results: Oluwatobi Kolejo and Oluwatosin Ibitoye; Draft manuscript: Olabisi Ayeni and Israel Arabambi; Revision and editing: Oluwadamilola Ayanniyi and Olusegun Adetola. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Stephen NM, Maradagi T, Kavalappa YP, Sharma H, Ponesakki G. Seafood nutraceuticals: Health benefits and functional properties. In Research and Technological Advances in Food Science, Academic Press; 2022. (pp. 109-139).
Azra MN, Okomoda VT, Tabatabaei M, Hassan M, Ikhwanuddin M. The contributions of shellfish aquaculture to global food security: assessing its characteristics from a future food perspective. Frontiers in Marine Science.2021; 8: 654897.
AlFaris NA, Alshammari GM, AlTamimi JZ, AlMousa LA, Alagal RI, AlKehayez NM, Aljabryn DH, Alsayadi MM, Yahya MA. Evaluating the effects of different processing methods on the nutritional composition of shrimp and the antioxidant activity of shrimp powder. Saudi Journal of Biological Sciences. 2022; 29(1): 640-649.
Sampantamit T, Ho L, Lachat C, Hanley-Cook G, Goethals, P., 2021. The contribution of Thai fisheries to sustainable seafood consumption: National trends and future projections. Foods. 2021; 10(4): 880.
Abuzar, Sharif HR, Sharif MK, Arshad R, Rehman A, Ashraf W, ... & Al-Sameen MA. Potential industrial and nutritional applications of shrimp by-products: a review. International Journal of Food Properties. 2023; 26(2): 3407-3432.
Nanda PK, Das AK, Dandapat P, Dhar P, Bandyopadhyay S, Dib AL, Lorenzo JM, Gagaoua M. Nutritional aspects, flavour profile and health benefits of crab meat based novel food products and valorisation of processing waste to wealth: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2021; 112; 252-267.
Li X, Zheng S, Wu G. 2021. Nutrition and functions of amino acids in fish. Amino acids in nutrition and health: amino acids in the nutrition of companion, zoo and farm animals. 2021; pp.133-168.
Bauer R.T. Fisheries and aquaculture. In Shrimps: Their Diversity, Intriguing Adaptations and Varied Lifestyles. Cham: Springer International Publishing. 2023;pp. 583-655.
Olaganathan R, Kar Mun AT. Impact of aquaculture on the livelihoods and food security of rural communities. International Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Studies. 2017; 5(2): 278.
Norman R, Crumlish M, Stetkiewicz S. The importance of fisheries and aquaculture production for nutrition and food security. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics),. 2019; 38(2): 395-407.
Akpanyung EO, Oduro I, Afolabi, T. Comparative nutritional and mineral analyses of selected seafood. Food Science & Nutrition. 2021; 9(8): 4505-4513. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2398
Okpala CO, Ojo AS, Oguwike SP, 2022. Assessment of crude fiber content in selected aquatic species. Journal of Aquatic Food Product Technology. 2022; 31(6): 750-759. https://doi.org/10.1080/10498850.2022.2075934
Sun J, Liu Y, Wang H. Fat content and fatty acid profile of various seafood products. Marine Drugs. 2021; 19(12): 661. https://doi.org/10.3390/md19120661
Zhang Q, Chen Y, Zhao J. Moisture determination and its impact on the quality of dried seafood. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2023; 60(2): 1008-1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11483-022-08712-9
[15]. Nascimento LM, Oliveira AC, Costa JM. Evaluation of protein content in aquatic species using Kjeldahl method. Food Chemistry. 2022; 369: 130792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130792
[16]. Sharma P, Thakur M, Rai M. Determination of essential minerals in food samples using acid digestion and atomic absorption spectroscopy. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2020; 57(4): 1345-1352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11483-020-09545-0
Luo M, Yang X, Zhang L. Analysis of trace elements in seafood by atomic absorption spectroscopy. Marine Science & Technology Bulletin. 2021; 15(2):112-119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320903267836
Marwaha N, Beveridge MC, Phillips MJ. Fad, food, or feed: alternative seafood and its contribution to food systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2022; 6: 750253.
Akuamoa F, Odamtten GT, Korley KN. Nutritional and shelf-life studies of dry smoked and gamma irradiated shrimps (Penaeus notialis) from three different water sources in Ghana, Felicia. Cogent Food Agric. 2018; 4:1–9.
Moruf RO, Akinwunmi MF, Lawal-Are AO. Chemometric estimation of captured Farfantepenaeus notialis, Pérez-farfante 1967 (Crustacea: Penaeidae). Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Technologia Alimentaria. 2021; 20(3): 291-299.
Bernard E, Bolatito. Comparative study on the nutritional composition of the pink shrimp (Penaeus notialis) and tiger shrimp (Penaeus monodon) from Lagos lagoon, Southwest Nigeria. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2016; 2(1), 1201891.
Adeyeye EI, Adubiaro HO, Awodola OJ. Comparability of Chemical Composition and Functional Properties of Shell and Flesh of Penaeus notialis. Pakistan J. Nutrition . 2008; 7: 741–747.
Gulzar S, Raju N, Nagarajarao RC, Benjakul S. Oil and pigments from shrimp processing by-products: Extraction, composition, bioactivities and its application-A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2020; 100: 307-319.
A Jimoh AO, Majolagbe, AO, Mekuleyi GO, Clarke EG, Owodeinde FM, Hammed AE, Ndimele PO, Adeniji O. Proximate Composition and Trace Metals Concentrations in Macrobrachium vollenhovenii (Herklots, 1857) from Badagry Creek, Lagos, Nigeria. Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology and Fisheries. 2020; 24(7-Special issue): 981-994.
Mutungi C, Irungu FG, Nduko J, Mutua F, Affognon H, Nakimbugwe D., ... & Fiaboe KKM. Postharvest processes of edible insects in Africa: A review of processing methods, and the implications for nutrition, safety and new products development. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2019; 59(2): 276-298.
Khatun A, Ahmed M, Ali A. Seafood consumption and its impact on nutrition in developing countries: A review. Food Security. 2023; 15(4): 777-792.
Singha KP, Sahu NP, Sardar P, Shamna N, Kumar. A strategic roadmap for carbohydrate utilization in crustaceans feed. Reviews in Aquaculture. 2024; 16(2): 674-705.
Emerenciano MG, Rombenso AN, Vieira FDN, Martins MA, Coman GJ, Truong HH, Noble TH Simon CJ. Intensification of penaeid shrimp culture: an applied review of advances in production systems, nutrition and breeding. Animals. 2022; 12(3): 236.

No competing interests reported.

floatimage1.png
Graphical abstract

Download PDF

Reviewers agreed at journal
09 Sep, 2024
Reviews received at journal
06 Sep, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
30 Aug, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
30 Aug, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
12 Aug, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
08 Aug, 2024
First submitted to journal
31 Jul, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Comparative Analysis of the Nutritional and Mineral Compositions of Farfantepenaeus notialis and Macrobrachium vollenhovenii: Implications for Dietary Planning and Food Industry Applications

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Methodology

3 Results

4 Discussion

5 Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1