Comparison of low‐temperature processes for oil and coenzyme Q10 extraction from mackerel and herring

Abstract

Among the fat fish species available from Eastern Quebec (Canada), whole Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) and herring (Clupea harengus) represent abundant fishery resources which are currently underutilized. They have relatively high contents of oil and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) in their tissues, which could be valuable for nutraceutical applications. Therefore, two low-temperature extraction processes were compared for the recovery of oil and CoQ10 from these resources, such as enzymatic hydrolysis using Protamex ™ and supercritical CO 2 (SCO 2 ) using fish lyophilizates. The results revealed that highest yields of oil and CoQ10 were obtained using the enzymatic hydrolysis process with mackerel. Whatever the process used, CoQ10 concentrations were higher in herring oil, due mainly to a more selective extraction of CoQ10 over that of the oil. The highest CoQ10 recovery rates (extraction efficiencies) were obtained using the enzymatic hydrolysis process with both types of fish, but also the SCO 2 process with herring under some conditions. For mackerel, the lower CoQ10 recovery rates obtained from the SCO 2 process were explained by its more important matrix effect. An economic assessment of both processes revealed that the enzymatic hydrolysis extraction process would be the most promising for up-scaling the recovery of oil and CoQ10 from these resources.

Microencapsulation of ubiquinone-10 in carbohydrate matrices for improved stability

“…Microcapsules prepared using blend of GA67 + MS17 + MD17 showed CoQ10 retention of 13.10 mg/g (%CoQ10 retention 63.33) under the same conditions. The decrease in the content of CoQ10 is attributed to poor stability of CoQ10 to oxidation and temperature (Laplante, Souchet, & Bryl, 2009).…”

Modeling of Process Parameters for Enhanced Production of Coenzyme Q10 FromRhodotorula glutinis

“…[12,13] A number of microorganisms, including bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas sp. [14] ), Agrobacterium sp., [10,15,16] Paracoccus sp., [11] genetically engineered Escherichia coli, [17,18] molds (e.g., Neurospora sp., Aspergillus sp. ), [19] and yeasts (e.g., Candida sp., Rhodotorula sp., Saitoella sp.…”

“…[4] The superior bioavailability of CoQ10 via oral ingestion [7] has made it a popular dietary supplement. Synthesis of CoQ10 through chemical [8] or semi-chemical methods, [9] physicochemical extraction from tissue samples, [10] and fermentation strategies [11] are widely applied for CoQ10 production. Cost factors and production of biologically potent compounds have made microbial fermentation the best strategy for CoQ10 production compared to others.…”

Influence of Substrate Feeding and Process Parameters on Production of Coenzyme Q<sub>10</sub> Using <i>Paracoccus denitrificans</i> ATCC 19367 Mutant Strain P-87

“…The production medium PM-A contained 25 g of sucrose, 10 g of (NH 4 2. The production flasks were incubated at 30˚C with shaking at 220 rpm for 120 h. The best production medium was dosed intermittently with different concentrations of parahydroxy benzoic acid (pHBA) (5,10,20,25,40 and 50 mg/L) at 24 h [28] and with different concentration of sucrose (5%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 50%) at 48 h, 72 h solely [17].…”

“…Recently it has received great attention for its application as therapeutic agent as well as in related fields such as a potential antioxidant [2]. CoQ 10 can be produced by chemical synthesis [3], semi-chemical synthesis [4], extraction from animal tissues [5] and microbial fermentation [6] including bacteria (e.g. Agrobacterium, Paracoccus, Cryptococcusi, Rhodobacter, Tricosporon), molds (e.g.…”