| Literature DB >> 36039162 |
G Nishanthan1, P A D A Kumara2, S B Navarathne3, D C T Dissanayake1.
Abstract
Bêche-de-mer (dried sea cucumbers) is considered as one of the most luxurious seafood in the world. The market demand for bêche-de-mer mainly depends on species and product quality. This study is aimed at assessing the effect of different processing methods on the product quality and nutritional composition of bêche-de-mer. Three sea cucumber species, Stichopus naso, Holothuria spinifera, and Bohadschia vitiensis, dominant in the commercial catches of Sri Lanka, were processed by following widely practiced local processing methods where 24, 48, and 24 different processing combinations were tested for each species, respectively. Bêche-de-mer satisfying the export quality were selected by considering their appearance and overall ranking made by exporters (9 individuals per each combination). The proximate composition of these products was assessed using standard methods. According to the exporters' prioritization, very few processing methods used in this study resulted in the export-quality bêche-de-mer. Both product quality and proximate composition showed considerable variations with respect to the processing methods. It is proved that even a very small change in one processing step could lead to produce poor-quality products. Processing methods are species specific, and it is important to select the most appropriate method for each species to produce high-quality bêche-de-mer.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36039162 PMCID: PMC9420059 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7877050
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Food Sci ISSN: 2314-5765
Figure 1Map showing the sampling sites on the North and Northwest coast of Sri Lanka.
Experiment design used to process three different sea cucumber species H. spinifera, B. vitenensis, and S. naso.
| Steps | Species | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |
| Grading and cleaning | Grading and cleaning ( | Grading and cleaning ( | Grading and cleaning ( |
| Evisceration | Evisceration—making a small slit in the ventral body region ( | Evisceration—pressing the abdomen ( | Evisceration—carrying out after first boiling making a small slit in the anus ( |
| First boiling | First boiling (95°C) with two different boiling mediums (S—seawater and F—freshwater with added salt) and 3 different boiling times (T1—10 min, T2—15 min, and T3—20 min), respectively | First boiling (95°C) with two different boiling mediums (S—seawater and F—freshwater with added salt) and 3 different boiling times (T1—10 min, T2—15 min, and T3—20 min), respectively | First boiling (95°C) with two different boiling mediums (S—seawater and F—freshwater with added salt) and 3 different boiling times (T1—3 min, T2—6 min, and T3—9 min), respectively |
| Removal of chalky materials | Removal of chalky materials using two different methods (D—soaking in freshwater and P—mixed with papaya powder) | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Salting | Salting with two different forms (S—solid salt and L—aqueous salt medium, respectively) | Salting with two different forms (S—solid salt and L—aqueous salt medium, respectively) | Salting with two different forms (S—solid salt and L—aqueous salt medium, respectively) |
| Second boiling | Second boiling for 10 minutes | Second boiling for 10 minutes | Second boiling for 5 minutes |
| Drying | Drying using two different methods (F—sun drying and T—use of electric dryer, respectively) | Drying using two different methods (F—sun drying and T—use of electric dryer, respectively) | Drying using two different methods (F—sun drying and T—use of electric dryer, respectively) |
Figure 2Experimental design used to process three sea cucumber species H. spinifera, B. vitiensis, and S. naso into bêche-de-mer.
Initial weight, processed weight, percentage weight loss, parameters used to assess the quality of the processed products (percentages of damaged, % deformed, % visible patches, and % oversalted), and exporters' ranking for the high-quality bêche-de-mer of H. spinifera, B. vitiensis, and S. naso.
| # | Species | Sample code | Sample size ( | Initial weight (mean ± SD, g) | Processed weight (mean ± SD, g) | % Weight loss | % Damaged | % Deformed | % Visible patches | % Oversalted | Exporters' ranking |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| F20PST | 15 | 268.30 ± 46.37 | 25.3 ± 1.66 | 90.57 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 2 |
| F15DLT | 15 | 253.06 ± 38.37 | 24.48 ± 2.36 | 90.33 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 56.33 | 5 | ||
| F10DLT | 15 | 251.74 ± 55.68 | 23.78 ± 3.11 | 90.55 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 60.00 | 8 | ||
| F10DST | 15 | 218.16 ± 47.88 | 30.78 ± 2.54 | 85.89 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 40.00 | 7 | ||
| F20PLF | 15 | 245.50 ± 25.45 | 21.86 ± 3.59 | 91.10 | 0.00 | 16.67 | 16.67 | 33.33 | 3 | ||
| F10PLF | 15 | 221.86 ± 13.59 | 21.16 ± 0.47 | 90.46 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 60.00 | 6 | ||
| S15DSF | 15 | 226.84 ± 42.08 | 23.76 ± 4.07 | 89.53 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 40.00 | 4 | ||
| F20DSF | 15 | 254.12 ± 45.52 | 23.4 ± 1.94 | 90.79 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 1 | ||
| 2 |
| F10ST | 15 | 272.56 ± 63.7 | 22.4 ± 3.67 | 91.78 | 0.00 | 16.67 | 0.00 | 50.00 | 2 |
| F15ST | 15 | 299.2 ± 36.83 | 20.18 ± 0.48 | 93.26 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 40.00 | 1 | ||
| S15LT | 15 | 288.6 ± 53.07 | 21.94 ± 4.43 | 92.40 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 5 | ||
| S10ST | 15 | 255.2 ± 35.86 | 22.74 ± 5.68 | 91.09 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 3 | ||
| F10LT | 15 | 257.4 ± 52.24 | 27.16 ± 8.23 | 89.45 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 40.00 | 40.00 | 6 | ||
| S20LF | 15 | 223.8 ± 61.7 | 23.52 ± 3.35 | 89.49 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 3 | ||
| S15LF | 15 | 288.6 ± 53.07 | 21.94 ± 4.43 | 92.40 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 20.00 | 40.00 | 4 | ||
| F20LF | 15 | 275.4 ± 56.29 | 19.54 ± 2.66 | 92.90 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 40.00 | 20.00 | 7 | ||
| 3 |
| S6LF | 15 | 48.6 ± 10.11 | 3.68 ± 0.98 | 92.43 | 0.00 | 20.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 6 |
| F6LT | 15 | 47.0 ± 6.20 | 5.3 ± 1.36 | 88.72 | 0.00 | 16.67 | 16.67 | 0.00 | 5 | ||
| F3SF | 15 | 49.0 ± 9.7 | 3.18 ± 0.43 | 93.51 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 2 | ||
| S6SF | 15 | 46.8 ± 11.61 | 4.56 ± 1.17 | 90.26 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 14.29 | 14.29 | 3 | ||
| S3LF | 15 | 47.2 ± 5.81 | 3.56 ± 0.96 | 92.46 | 0.00 | 16.67 | 16.67 | 33.33 | 7 | ||
| F6SF | 15 | 47.6 ± 12.28 | 3.28 ± 0.44 | 93.11 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4 | ||
| F9LF | 15 | 49.4 ± 9.24 | 4.68 ± 0.79 | 90.53 | 0.00 | 16.67 | 16.67 | 0.00 | 4 | ||
| S3SF | 15 | 47.4 ± 3.51 | 6.38 ± 0.83 | 86.54 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1 |
Average weights are given in mean weight in grams ± standard deviation; the highest quality bêche-de-mer was given rank 1 in the exporters' ranking.
Proximate composition of the differently processed export-quality bêche-de-mer of H. spinifera, B. vitiensis, and S. naso.
| # | Species | Exporters' ranking | Sample code | % Moisture | % Protein (DM) | % Ash (DM) | % Fat (DM) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 1 | F20DCF | 18.92 ± 0.25d | 55.55 ± 0.13cd | 35.14 ± 0.5ab | 1.4 ± 0.0a |
| 2 | F20PST | 19.94 ± 0.04c | 58.68 ± 0.67a | 33.04 ± 0.26bc | 1.47 ± 0.02a | ||
| 3 | F20PLF | 20.46 ± 0.13c | 56.78 ± 0.17b | 32.52 ± 1.54cd | 1.46 ± 0.02a | ||
| 4 | S15DSF | 17.9 ± 0.13e | 58.47 ± 0.08a | 31.23 ± 0.16cd | 1.32 ± 0.04b | ||
| 5 | F15DLT | 18.32 ± 0.29de | 55.82 ± 0.01bcd | 35.91 ± 0.52a | 1.26 ± 0.0b | ||
| 6 | F10PLF | 21.2 ± 0.13b | 55.4 ± 0.2d | 30.05 ± 0.38d | 1.46 ± 0.01a | ||
| 7 | F10DST | 22.81 ± 0.26a | 59.21 ± 0.07a | 33.5 ± 0.14abc | 1.3 ± 0.02b | ||
| 8 | F10DLT | 22.51 ± 0.05a | 56.64 ± 0.33bc | 31.58 ± 0.4cd | 1.41 ± 0.0a | ||
| 2 |
| 1 | F15ST | 19.78 ± 0.16ab | 51.56 ± 0.21a | 42.27 ± 0.7a | 1.85 ± 0.01cd |
| 2 | F10ST | 20.14 ± 0.82ab | 50.94 ± 0.42a | 39.85 ± 0.03b | 1.76 ± 0.05d | ||
| 3 | S10ST | 20.68 ± 0.1a | 52.18 ± 0.7a | 42.45 ± 0.42a | 1.94 ± 0.02bc | ||
| 3 | S20LF | 19.08 ± 0.01b | 52.45 ± 0.29a | 41.27 ± 0.7ab | 1.91 ± 0.01c | ||
| 4 | S15LF | 19.97 ± 0.06ab | 49.97 ± 1.98a | 42.77 ± 0.09a | 1.78 ± 0.03d | ||
| 5 | S15LT | 19.66 ± 0.21ab | 52.56 ± 1a | 41.83 ± 0.18a | 2.03 ± 0.01ab | ||
| 6 | F10LT | 21.06 ± 0.49a | 52.33 ± 0.67a | 41.68 ± 0.06a | 1.87 ± 0.01c | ||
| 7 | F20LF | 19.26 ± 0.06b | 50.16 ± 0.23a | 41.99 ± 0.01a | 2.04 ± 0.02a | ||
| 3 |
| 1 | S3SF | 14.67 ± 0.62b | 51.90 ± 0.44a | 44.22 ± 0.49ab | 2.65 ± 0.15a |
| 2 | F3SF | 17.89 ± 1.01a | 48.93 ± 0.1de | 42.26 ± 0.76c | 2.29 ± 0.02c | ||
| 3 | S6SF | 16.36 ± 0.23ab | 50.71 ± 0.22bc | 42.22 ± 0.11c | 2.59 ± 0.01ab | ||
| 4 | F6SF | 17.41 ± 0.25ab | 48.1 ± 0.07e | 42.14 ± 0.09c | 2.61 ± 0.08ab | ||
| 4 | F9LF | 16.57 ± 0.51ab | 50.1 ± 0.44cd | 44.62 ± 0.44a | 2.37 ± 0.06bc | ||
| 5 | F6LT | 16.56 ± 0.68ab | 48.89 ± 0.26de | 43.21 ± 0.67abc | 2.46 ± 0.02abc | ||
| 6 | S6LF | 15.17 ± 0.81ab | 51.84 ± 0.47ab | 42.46 ± 0.06c | 2.38 ± 0.02bc | ||
| 7 | S3LF | 15.02 ± 0.99b | 48.95 ± 0.14de | 42.72 ± 0.01bc | 2.38 ± 0.02bc |
∗∗Values in the same column for each species bearing different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05). The proximate results are expressed in % (m) dry weight basis.