Next Article in Journal
Research on the Construction Method of an Assembly Knowledge Graph for a Biomass Heating System
Next Article in Special Issue
Simulation and Local Parametric Sensitivity Analysis of a Computational Model of Fructose Metabolism
Previous Article in Journal
A Comparative Evaluation of the Antioxidant Ability of Polygonum cuspidatum Extracts with That of Resveratrol Itself
Previous Article in Special Issue
Towards Wine Waste Reduction: Up-Cycling Wine Pomace into Functional Fruit Bars
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Processes
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/pr13010010
processes-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Enhanced Bioaccessibility of Carotenoids, Antioxidants, and Minerals from Red Lobster By-Products Through High-Hydrostatic Pressure and Ultrasound Extraction

by
Vilbett Briones-Labarca
1,* and
Claudia Giovagnoli-Vicuña
2,*
1
Departamento de Ingeniería en Alimentos, Facultad de Ingeniería, Universidad de La Serena, Av. Raúl Bitrán Nachary 1305, La Serena 1700000, Chile
2
Departamento de Química Inorgánica, Facultad de Química, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Avenida Vicuña Mackenna 4860, Macul, Santiago 7820436, Chile
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Processes 2025, 13(1), 10; https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13010010
Submission received: 2 November 2024 / Revised: 19 November 2024 / Accepted: 21 November 2024 / Published: 24 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Papers in the "Food Process Engineering" Section)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Efficient extraction of bioactive compounds from red lobster by-products is crucial for maximizing their nutritional and economic value. This study compared high-hydrostatic pressure extraction (HHPE), ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE), and conventional extraction (CE), assessing the yield and bioaccessibility of carotenoids (astaxanthin, β-carotene, lycopene), antioxidants (DPPH, FRAP assays), and minerals (sodium, magnesium, potassium, calcium). HHPE and UAE significantly enhanced carotenoid extraction (p < 0.05), with UAE yielding the highest astaxanthin (3.61 mg/100 g FW) and HHPE producing the most β-carotene (0.64 mg/100 g FW). HHPE also significantly increased antioxidant capacity (38.04% increase over CE, p < 0.05). Despite reduced bioaccessibility after in vitro digestion, HHPE and UAE represent sustainable methods for recovering valuable bioactive compounds, improving the nutritional profile of red lobster by-products.

1. Introduction

Sustainable food production and efficient resource utilization are critical for ensuring long-term food security and minimizing environmental impact [1]. The seafood industry, despite generating substantial by-products with potential value, often discards these resources [2]. Valorizing these by-products by efficiently recovering bioactive compounds presents an opportunity to transform waste into valuable resources, creating economic benefits and new revenue streams for the seafood sector [3]. Additionally, this approach reduces dependency on conventional agricultural practices, contributing to more sustainable food systems.
Crustacean by-products are particularly rich in bioactive compounds, such as carotenoids and essential minerals, which have documented health benefits, including antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties [4,5]. Carotenoids, natural pigments with structural diversity and important biological functions, are widely distributed in nature [6]. Of the over 750 known carotenoids, only about 40 are bioavailable and detectable in human blood and tissues due to limitations in absorption, metabolism, and specific structural properties [7].
Recent studies highlight the health benefits of consuming carotenoid-rich foods, primarily linked to their antioxidant potential [8]. Carotenoids play a role in preventing or mitigating serious diseases, including cardiovascular disease, age-related macular degeneration, cataracts, and various cancers. These benefits are attributed to mechanisms such as modulation of gap junctions, tumor suppression, immunomodulation, and protection against DNA peroxidation [9,10,11].
Conventional organic solvent extraction methods for carotenoids are often hindered by the compounds’ sensitivity to light, oxygen, and heat, which can lead to degradation and oxidative stress during prolonged processing [12]. Traditional techniques, such as Soxhlet extraction, heat reflux, boiling, and distillation, although widely used, frequently result in lower yields and are not always environmentally sustainable. To overcome these limitations, advanced methods like ultrasonic extraction, microwave-assisted extraction, and supercritical fluid extraction—commonly categorized as high-pressure extraction (HPE)—have been developed [13]. Among these, HPE stands out for its ability to operate at pressures between 100 and 1000 MPa, enabling rapid extraction, high-purity products with minimal impurities, and improved energy efficiency and safety [14].
Ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) has also emerged as a promising alternative to conventional methods due to its high efficiency, reduced energy and water requirements, and environmentally friendly nature [15]. This technique uses ultrasound to generate cavitation bubbles that collapse, disrupting cell walls, reducing particle size, and enhancing the mass transfer of target compounds to the solvent. These mechanisms allow the UAE to significantly accelerate extraction while minimizing the use of harmful chemical agents and reducing the risk of chemical degradation.
The food matrix plays a play role in determining the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of nutrients, which are more relevant than mere nutrient concentration when evaluating a food’s nutritional value [16]. Bioaccessibility refers to the fraction of a nutrient released from the food matrix and available for intestinal absorption, a parameter typically assessed through in vitro methods [17]. For carotenoids, bioaccessibility can be evaluated by measuring the amount transferred to the micelle fraction during simulated in vitro digestion, where ultracentrifugation isolates the micelle fraction from digested sample [18]. This approach is widely used for routine screening of foods and provides critical insights into the potential bioavailability of carotenoids.
Extensive research has explored the influence of various processing techniques on the nutrient and bioactive compound content of diverse food matrices, encompassing fruit juices [19,20,21], whole fruit [22,23,24], Turmeric [13], Prosopis chilensis [25]. Despite this progress, a significant knowledge gap persists regarding the impact of specific extraction methods, such as high-hydrostatic pressure and ultrasound-assisted extraction, on the bioaccessibility of carotenoids and antioxidants in red lobster by-products. This lack of information necessitates further research to fully understand the potential of these innovative extraction techniques for enhancing the nutritional value of red lobster by-products.
Our study focuses on red lobster by-products to address both sustainability concerns (reducing waste) and economic opportunities (valorizing a currently underutilized resource). The economic and environmental benefits of this approach are substantial. We aim to develop efficient extraction methods to recover valuable bioactive compounds with known and potential public health benefits, such as carotenoids and essential minerals. This research, therefore, aims to determine the effects of high-hydrostatic pressure and ultrasound extraction on the yield and bioaccessibility of carotenoids (lycopene, β-carotene, and astaxanthin; Figure 1), antioxidants (measured using DPPH and FRAP assays), and mineral elements (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) in red lobster by-products. It is important to note that while food may contain abundant nutrients and phytochemicals, its bioaccessibility and subsequent physiological functionality after digestion are not always guaranteed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Reagents and Standards

The following reagents were used: ethanol (99.9% purity, Tedia, Fairfield, OH, USA); 2,4,6-tripyridyl-S-triazine (TPTZ); 6-hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid (Trolox); 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryhydrazyl radical (DPPH); standard β-carotene; standard lycopene; enzymes (Sigma P7000, P1750); and porcine bile extract (B8631), all purchased from Sigma–Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). HPLC-grade solvents, including hexane, acetonitrile, methanol, and ethyl acetate, as well as triethylamine (TEA), were obtained from Merck (Darmstadt and Hohenbrunn, Germany). Ultra-pure water was prepared using a PW-Ultra Water System (Heal Force, Shanghai Canrex Analytic Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai, China).

2.2. Raw Material and Sample Preparation

The red lobster (Pleuroncodes monodon) by-products were sourced from a local industry in Coquimbo, Chile. Initially, the by-products were selected and washed to remove sand residues and undesirable materials. After washing, they underwent air drying by placing them on a rack to drain excess water, followed by drying at 50 °C for 4 h. Subsequently, the dried samples were ground using an IKA® A-11 grinder (Wilmington, DE, USA) to obtain a homogeneous powder, which was stored in darkness in a desiccator.

2.3. Extraction Methods

2.3.1. Conventional Extraction (CE)

Ten grams of the sample were placed into an Erlenmeyer flask containing 20 mL of vegetable oil (sunflower oil), maintaining a solid/liquid ratio of 1:2 (w/v). The extraction was conducted using a magnetic shaker at 70 °C for 120 min (NB-302, N-Biotec, Seoul, Gyeong Gi-Do, Republic of Korea). The mixture was then centrifuged (5804 R, Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) at 5000 rpm for 10 min at 4 °C, and the supernatant was collected. All extractions were performed in triplicate.

2.3.2. High Hydrostatic Pressure Extraction (HHPE)

Ten grams of samples were pretreated in a magnetic shaker at 70 °C for 15 min. The samples were then individually packed in high-density polyethylene bags and subjected to pressure (Avure Technologies Incorporated, Kent, WA, USA) at 500 MPa for 15 min at room temperature. The samples were subsequently centrifuged and prepared as described for CE.

2.3.3. Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction (UAE)

Ten grams of samples were similarly pretreated in a magnetic shaker at 70 °C for 15 min. The extraction was performed using a sonication ultrasound bath (Branson 2510 E-MT, 42 kHz, 130 W; Danbury, CT, USA) for 30 min at 40 °C. The samples were then centrifuged and prepared as described for CE.

2.4. Extraction Yield

The extraction yield was calculated based on previous studies [26] with modifications. The volume of the obtained supernatant (mL) was measured, and the mass was calculated using the density of the vegetable oil (0.9 mg/mL). The extraction yield was then determined based on the initial weight of the red lobster by-product (10 g).

2.5. Determination of Carotenoids

2.5.1. β-Carotene and Lycopene Content

β-Carotene and lycopene were identified and quantified using an Agilent 1200 series HPLC system (Singapore City, Singapore), including a G1311A quaternary pump, a G1329B autosampler, a G1316A column oven, and a G1315D photodiode array detector (DAD). A Kromasil 100-5C18 column (250 × 4.6 mm) connected with a Kromasil guard column was used, and the column temperature was maintained at 30 °C during HPLC runs. Data processing was conducted using Agilent ChemStation software (B.04.03). The chromatographic parameters were described by Laur and Tian [27]. The absorbance was measured at 450 nm for β-carotene and 510 nm for lycopene. Calibration curves were established for β-carotene (2–50 µg/mL) and lycopene (2–50 µg/mL) in ethyl acetate. The identification of carotenoids was performed by comparing retention times with spectral standards. The amounts of β-carotene and lycopene in the samples were expressed as mg/100 g.

2.5.2. Astaxanthin

Astaxanthin was quantified by measuring absorbance at 470 nm and using the following equation from Kaur et al. [28] with slight modifications:
A S T μ g g = A × D × 10 6 100 × G × d × ξ 1   c m 1 %
where AST is astaxanthin concentration in μg/g, A is absorbance, D is the volume of extract in oil, 106 is the dilution multiple, G is the weight of the sample in g, d is the cuvette width (1 cm), and ξ is the extinction coefficient (2155).

2.6. Determination of Antioxidant Capacity: DPPH and FRAP Assay

An aliquot of 1 mL of the initial sample extract was dissolved in a final volume of 10 mL using a solvent mix of petroleum ether/ethanol at a 1:1 (v/v) ratio. Both assays were performed in triplicate at room temperature. For the DPPH assay, 100 μL of the diluted extract was mixed with 3.9 mL of DPPH solution (0.06 mM in methanol) and incubated in the dark for 30 min. The absorbance was measured at 515 nm using a spectrophotometer. For the FRAP assay, 100 μL of the extract was mixed with 3 mL of freshly prepared FRAP reagent, incubated at 37 °C for 4 min, and the absorbance was read at 593 nm. The results were compared to a standard Trolox curve. The antioxidant capacity was measured using the DPPH [29] and ferric reduction antioxidant power (FRAP) [30] assays. The antioxidant values for the DPPH and FRAP assays were expressed as micromolar Trolox equivalent per gram (μM TE/g FW).

2.7. Determination of Mineral Elements

Mineral elements (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) were measured using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (PinAAcle 900F FL HSN, Perkin Elmer Inc., Waltham, MA, USA, with WinLab32 software 5.1), as described previously [31]. Calibration measurements were performed using commercial standards. Reproducibility values were within 2.0% for all minerals.

2.8. In Vitro Digestion and Relative Bioaccessibility

In vitro digestion was conducted as previously described by INFOGEST protocol [32]. One mL of each sample was incubated with simulated digestion fluids and the corresponding enzyme while continuously mixing for 2 min at 37 °C. Subsequent gastric and intestinal phase simulations used 1 mL from the preceding oral phase. Each phase was then incubated for 2 h at 37 °C with continuous mixing, using the simulated digestion fluids and corresponding enzyme. In addition to the sample, a blank (containing all the enzymes and reagents but without the sample) and a control (containing all the reagents and samples but without the enzymes) were evaluated. All measurements were performed in triplicate.
Relative bioaccessibility (RB) was calculated using the following equation:
R B % = F C I C × 100
where FC is the final concentration of the component after in vitro digestion, and IC is the initial concentration of the component before digestion.

2.9. Statistical Evaluation

The data were analyzed using Statgraphics Plus® 5.1 software. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized to evaluate the impact of treatments on the dependent variables (e.g., extraction time on TPC). Tukey’s test was applied to identify significant differences between multiple means.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Effects of Different Extraction Methods on Extraction Yield

This section compares the extraction yields of carotenoids and antioxidant compounds obtained from red lobster by-products using high hydrostatic pressure extraction (HHPE), ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE), and conventional extraction (CE).
HHPE achieved the highest extraction yield (83.9%), which was significantly higher than those obtained with UAE (69.7%) and CE (68.8%). The higher yield obtained with HHPE can be attributed to its ability to enhance solvent penetration by increasing cell membrane permeability and disrupting cellular structures [33]. This mechanism promotes efficient mass transfer, facilitating the release of carotenoids and bioactive compounds into the solvent [34].
UAE, while employing cavitation to improve mass transfer, showed lower yields compared to HHPE. This may be due to the structural complexity of red lobster by-products, which can limit the penetration of ultrasound waves or impede the release of target compounds [3]. CE, relying on heat and agitation, produced the lowest yield among the methods, underscoring the limitations of thermal processes for extracting carotenoids from this specific matrix [35].
The efficiency of HHPE aligns with prior studies on similar applications, such as carotenoids from mango [36], polyphenols from Artemisia argyi leaves [37], and tomato by-products [38,39]. However, it is important to note that the optimal extraction method may vary depending on the target compounds and matrix properties [15].

3.2. Carotenoid Content and Bioaccesibility

Crustaceans are known to contain various carotenoids that are responsible for their characteristic colors and are recognized as significant sources of natural carotenoids [40]. Carotenoids are associated with numerous health benefits, and epidemiological studies have demonstrated an inverse relationship between their presence and the incidence of various cancers and cardiovascular diseases [41,42]. All photosynthetic organisms synthesize carotenoids from geranylgeranyl diphosphate through a biosynthetic pathway in which lycopene is converted to β-carotene, which can be further metabolized into astaxanthin. Although photosynthetic organisms can synthesize both lycopene and β-carotene, astaxanthin is classified as a non-plant carotenoid. Crustaceans cannot biosynthesize carotenoids de novo; however, they are capable of converting β-carotene and canthaxanthin from their feed into astaxanthin, which is then deposited in their tissues [5].
The carotenoid profiles obtained from the red lobster by-products revealed significant differences depending on the extraction method (Table 1). A significantly higher astaxanthin concentration was achieved with UAE (3.61 mg/100 g FW) compared to HHPE (2.93 mg/100 g FW) and CE (3.38 mg/100 g FW) is noteworthy. This result suggests that the cavitation effects of UAE may be particularly efficient in releasing astaxanthin from the complex matrix [43] because UAE uses ultrasound waves to create cavitation bubbles, which implode and disrupt cell walls, increasing the release of compounds. The specific location of astaxanthin within the lobster tissue and its interaction with the surrounding matrix likely play a role in determining its extractability using different methods [44]. Previous studies have reported that the extraction efficiency of astaxanthin is influenced by multiple factors, including extraction methods, solvents, oil stripping, particle size, and the ratio of sample-to-oil used for extraction from seafood processing [45,46]. The increased concentration of astaxanthin in the red lobster by-products following UAE may be attributed to the mechanical effects exerted on the sample, which facilitate greater solvent penetration into the tissue and enhance the contact surface area between the solid and liquid phases. Consequently, this promotes rapid diffusion of the solute from the solid phase to the solvent, thereby increasing pigment extraction [43]. When comparing astaxanthin concentrations to those reported in other sources, such as algae, salmon, prawns, and shrimp in the literature, the astaxanthin content obtained in this study was found to be lower, similar, or higher depending on the source [43,47,48,49,50,51]. Comparable findings regarding astaxanthin extraction were reported by Zou et al. [52], who investigated astaxanthin extraction from Haematococcus pluvialis following ultrasound extraction.
In contrast, HHPE demonstrated a significantly higher yield of β-carotene (0.64 mg/100 g FW) than UAE (0.59 mg/100 g FW) and CE (0.63 mg/100 g FW). The enhanced β-carotene extraction with HHPE can be attributed to its effectiveness in disrupting the cellular structure and increasing membrane permeability, leading to better release of this carotenoid [53]. The observed differences in the relative yields of astaxanthin and β-carotene could be related to differences in their chemical structures, their localization within the lobster tissue, and their interactions with cellular components [54]. Similarly, lycopene levels also increased significantly (p < 0.05) with extraction methods, showing values of 14% and 7% for conventional extraction and HHPE, respectively, when compared to UAE. This observation aligns with the carotenoid biosynthetic pathway, wherein lycopene must be converted to β-carotene prior to its ketolation into astaxanthin, the principal carotenoid present in red lobster [55].
The bioaccessibility of carotenoids, assessed after in vitro digestion, decreased for all extraction methods and carotenoids (Table 1). However, the extent of the decrease varied depending on the extraction method and specific carotenoid. This variation can be attributed to the influence of the extraction method on the chemical form and stability of carotenoids, as well as their release from the food matrix and interactions with digestive enzymes during the in vitro process [56]. Further investigation is needed to confirm these in vitro findings and determine the actual bioavailability of these carotenoids.
The lower bioaccessibility of carotenoids obtained with HHPE compared with CE might be linked to the higher initial concentration of carotenoids extracted with HHPE. Higher initial carotenoid concentrations might have resulted in a greater degree of degradation during digestion [57]. Alternatively, differences in the particle size and structural characteristics of the extracted carotenoids following different extraction methods could also affect their bioaccessibility.
In conclusion, this study highlights the importance of considering the extraction method when aiming to maximize both the yield and bioaccessibility of carotenoids from red lobster by-products. Future research should investigate the effect of the matrix on the bioaccessibility of carotenoids and focus on optimizing the extraction conditions to improve the bioaccessibility of these compounds.
To better understand the potential health benefits of carotenoids, such as food or dietary supplements, it is essential to study the bioaccessibility of different carotenoids in humans. This observation suggests that the UAE may have varying effects on the bioaccessibility of carotenoids under certain conditions. The relative bioaccessibility percentages of carotenoids (astaxanthin, β-carotene, and lycopene) were calculated by comparing the initial mean levels of each carotenoid from the red lobster with their levels after in vitro digestion. The results, presented in Table 1, indicate that the bioaccessibility of carotenoids in UAE and HHPE samples was significantly equal to or lower (p < 0.05) than that of conventional extraction.

3.3. Antioxidant Capacity and Bioaccessibility

Red lobster by-products were selected for their high content of antioxidant compounds, particularly carotenoids, which are known for their health-promoting properties, such as antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects [5]. The extraction of these compounds is governed by a mass transport process, influenced by factors such as heat, concentration gradients, and advanced technologies like UAE and HHPE, which enhance extraction efficiency [15].
The antioxidant capacity of the red lobster byproduct extracts, assessed using both DPPH and FRAP assays (Table 2), revealed significant differences depending on the extraction method. HHPE consistently exhibited the highest antioxidant capacity before digestion, as indicated by both assays. This superior performance of HHPE can be attributed to its ability to effectively extract a wider range of antioxidant compounds from the complex lobster matrix, particularly those more resistant to conventional extraction techniques. High-pressure treatment enhances extraction by altering the matrix structure and improving mass transfer, facilitating a more comprehensive recovery of the antioxidant pool [53].
The comparatively lower antioxidant capacity observed with UAE and CE might be attributed to several factors, including the lesser extraction efficiency of certain antioxidant compounds and possibly the degradation of some heat-labile antioxidants during conventional extraction [58]. The FRAP assay relies on ferric ion reduction, which may not fully capture the antioxidant activity of all compounds, explaining differences between FRAP and DPPH results.
Interestingly, UAE, which demonstrated higher antioxidant capacity than CE before digestion, exhibited lower bioaccessibility than HHPE. This suggests that the extraction method not only affects the yield of antioxidants but also influences their stability and absorption during digestion.
Importantly, the antioxidant capacity, particularly as assessed via the DPPH assay, demonstrates significant retention even after simulated in vitro digestion (Table 2); antioxidant content significantly (p < 0.05) decreased after digestion across all extraction methods. However, HHPE samples retained 96.9% of their antioxidant capacity post-digestion, compared to 48.0% for UAE and 29.2% for CE in the DPPH assay. This observation suggests the presence of stable and bioaccessible antioxidant compounds. In contrast to the DPPH assay, no antioxidant activity was detected after digestion in the FRAP assay for any of the treatments, indicating a complete loss of antioxidant activity. This result suggests the degradation or transformation of antioxidant compounds during the in vitro digestion process and highlights the limitations of the FRAP method in assessing antioxidant capacity in complex food matrices. These factors likely explain the differences observed between FRAP and DPPH results.
Similar findings were reported by Pereira et al. [59] in extracts from crustacean residues analyzed using the ABTS assay. Shen et al. [60] observed a significant decrease in antioxidant capacity values for the FRAP assay following the simulated digestion of astaxanthin oil in a water emulsion. This reduction was attributed to the limited ability of astaxanthin to reduce ferrous ions, resulting in low FRAP values. Comparable trends were observed in the antioxidant capacity of edible brown seaweed, with a notable decrease following digestion [61]. In contrast, Pereira et al. [59] reported an increase in antioxidant capacity values for the FRAP assay after the digestion of extracts from crustacean residues, specifically white shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) and uçá crab (Ucides cordatus). These contrasting results highlight the role of the food matrix in determining the antioxidant activity of extracts, which depends on the composition and concentration of antioxidants present.
The bioaccessibility of lipophilic antioxidant compounds depends on their solubilization into mixed micelles, a process influenced by the food matrix and gastrointestinal conditions [62]. In summary, HHPE demonstrates a clear advantage in enhancing the extraction and preservation of antioxidant compounds in red lobster by-products, indicating its potential to deliver functional food ingredients with superior antioxidant bioactivity and bioaccessibility. Further research could investigate the specific antioxidant compounds responsible for this superior performance and explore the in vivo effects of these antioxidants to ascertain their true bioavailability.

3.4. Mineral Content and Bioaccessibility

Red lobster by-products represent a potential source of essential minerals. Crustacean shells are notably high in calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium, with calcium comprising over 60% of the mineral [63]. Given this composition, our study evaluated the impact of three extraction methods—conventional extraction (CE), ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE), and high hydrostatic pressure extraction (HHPE) on the initial mineral content (calcium, magnesium, sodium, and potassium) of red lobster by-products and assessed their bioaccessibility following simulated gastrointestinal (GI) digestion (Table 3).
Calcium: UAE yielded the highest initial calcium concentration (14.79 mg/100 g FW), significantly exceeding CE (6.40 mg/100 g FW, p < 0.05) and HHPE (7.15 mg/100 g FW, p < 0.05). However, post-digestion bioaccessibility was similar across methods (CE: 89.6%; UAE: 87.2%; HHPE: 82.1%), suggesting comparable calcium retention despite variations in initial extraction yields.
Magnesium: A similar trend was observed for magnesium, with UAE showing the highest initial concentration (1.93 mg/100 g FW, p < 0.05). Interestingly, CE exhibited superior magnesium bioaccessibility (90.9%, p < 0.05) compared to UAE (78.9%) and HHPE (64.1%) after digestion. This highlights the superior preservation of this mineral using the conventional method.
Sodium: The CE method yielded the highest initial sodium concentration (584.27 mg/100 g FW, p < 0.05), which may be attributed to its extraction efficiency in releasing mineral elements. However, sodium bioaccessibility remained low across all methods (CE: 2.1%; UAE: 6.2%; HHPE: 6.2%), indicating minimal absorption potential. This limited bioaccessibility suggests that sodium’s impact on dietary intake is likely negligible, aligning with findings in previous studies [64] that highlight the challenges in enhancing mineral bioaccessibility through extraction techniques.
Potassium: Similar to magnesium, UAE yielded the highest initial potassium concentration (1.93 mg/100 g FW, p < 0.05). CE demonstrated superior potassium bioaccessibility (90.9%, p < 0.05) compared to UAE (78.9%) and HHPE (64.1%) after digestion. This suggests that while UAE and HHPE may enhance potassium extraction, CE provides greater bioavailability after digestion.
Overall, these findings emphasize that although advanced extraction methods like UAE and HHPE may increase the initial mineral content, they do not consistently lead to improved bioaccessibility. CE, despite being a more straightforward method, often resulted in superior or comparable bioaccessibility for most minerals, particularly magnesium and potassium. This observation mirrors trends seen in the carotenoid and antioxidant analyses, where the extraction method significantly influenced both the yield and bioaccessibility of bioactive compounds.
The results underline the importance of considering both extraction efficiency and bioaccessibility when developing functional food products from red lobster by-products. Further research is warranted to elucidate the mechanisms influencing mineral stability and absorption during digestion, particularly in the context of functional food applications.

4. Conclusions

This study investigated the efficacy of high hydrostatic pressure extraction (HHPE) and ultrasound-assisted extraction (UAE) in recovering carotenoids, antioxidants, and minerals from red lobster by-products, comparing them to conventional extraction (CE). The results showed that HHPE yielded the highest overall extraction yield (83.9%), significantly outperforming UAE (69.7%) and CE (68.8%). While UAE exhibited the highest astaxanthin yield (3.61 mg/100 g FW), HHPE demonstrated superior extraction of β-carotene (0.64 mg/100 g FW). Furthermore, HHPE significantly enhanced antioxidant capacity (38.0% increase compared to CE). In vitro digestion studies revealed that the bioaccessibility of the extracted compounds varied depending on the method, with HHPE maintaining the highest bioaccessibility for antioxidants (96.9% retention in the DPPH assay). Mineral content was significant across all methods, but bioaccessibility varied, with CE generally showing better retention during digestion. These findings highlight the potential of HHPE and UAE as sustainable and efficient alternatives to CE for processing seafood by-products, offering practical applications in the food industry. By incorporating these extraction techniques, food manufacturers could enhance the nutritional profile of processed foods, particularly with bioactive compounds that contribute to health benefits such as antioxidant content and carotenoid bioaccessibility. Additionally, the valorization of seafood by-products aligns with sustainability goals, reducing food waste and promoting a circular economy. Future research should explore the broader applicability of these findings to other seafood by-products and incorporate in vivo studies to better reflect human digestion and health outcomes. A specific focus on the role of these bioactive compounds in preventing chronic diseases could further elucidate their impact on public health. Collaborative efforts between the food industry, nutritionists, and public health specialists are recommended to maximize the benefits of these compounds for both consumers and the environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.B.-L. and C.G.-V.; methodology, V.B.-L. and C.G.-V.; formal analysis, V.B.-L. and C.G.-V.; investigation, V.B.-L. and C.G.-V.; resources, V.B.-L.; data curation, V.B.-L. and C.G.-V.; writing—review and editing, V.B.-L. and C.G.-V.; funding acquisition, V.B.-L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by InEs Género INGE 220009 Project, Universidad de La Serena.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the findings of this study are included in the paper.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Food Engineering Department of Universidad de La Serena, Fondecyt Regular No. 1220845, Fondecyt Postdoctorado No. 3220661, and the SATREPS Project “Recovering High-Value Bioproducts for Sustainable Fisheries in Chile (ReBiS)” funded by JST/JICA (Grant Number JPMJSA2206).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wang, X. Managing Land Carrying Capacity: Key to Achieving Sustainable Production Systems for Food Security. Land 2022, 11, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Šimat, V. Valorization of Seafood Processing By-Products. In Valorization of Agri-Food Wastes and By-Products: Recent Trends, Innovations and Sustainability Challenges; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 515–536. ISBN 9780128240441. [Google Scholar]
  3. Xia, F.L.W.; Supri, S.; Djamaludin, H.; Nurdiani, R.; Seng, L.L.; Yin, K.W.; Rovina, K. Turning Waste into Value: Extraction and Effective Valorization Strategies of Seafood by-Products. Waste Manag. Bull. 2024, 2, 84–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Roy, V.C.; Islam, M.R.; Sadia, S.; Yeasmin, M.; Park, J.S.; Lee, H.J.; Chun, B.S. Trash to Treasure: An Up-to-Date Understanding of the Valorization of Seafood By-Products, Targeting the Major Bioactive Compounds. Mar. Drugs 2023, 21, 485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Šimat, V.; Rathod, N.B.; Čagalj, M.; Hamed, I.; Mekinić, I.G. Astaxanthin from Crustaceans and Their Byproducts: A Bioactive Metabolite Candidate for Therapeutic Application. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Maoka, T. Carotenoids as Natural Functional Pigments. J. Nat. Med. 2020, 74, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Castellano, J.M.; Espinosa, J.M.; Perona, J.S. Modulation of Lipid Transport and Adipose Tissue Deposition by Small Lipophilic Compounds. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2020, 8, 555359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Eggersdorfer, M.; Wyss, A. Carotenoids in Human Nutrition and Health. Arch. Biochem. Biophys. 2018, 652, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kiokias, S.; Proestos, C.; Oreopoulou, V. Effect of Natural Food Antioxidants against Ldl and Dna Oxidative Changes. Antioxidants 2018, 7, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xiao, Y.; Nie, M.; Zhao, H.; Li, D.; Gao, R.; Zhou, C.; Xu, Y.; Dai, Z.; Zhang, Z. Citrus Flavanones Enhance the Bioaccessibility of β-Carotene by Improving Lipid Lipolysis and Incorporation into Mixed Micelles. J. Funct. Foods 2021, 87, 104792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Metibemu, D.S.; Ogungbe, I.V. Carotenoids in Drug Discovery and Medicine: Pathways and Molecular Targets Implicated in Human Diseases. Molecules 2022, 27, 6005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Jurić, S.; Jurić, M.; Król-Kilińska, Ż.; Vlahoviček-Kahlina, K.; Vinceković, M.; Dragović-Uzelac, V.; Donsì, F. Sources, Stability, Encapsulation and Application of Natural Pigments in Foods. Food Rev. Int. 2020, 38, 1735–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Choi, Y.; Kim, W.; Lee, J.S.; Youn, S.J.; Lee, H.; Baik, M.Y. Enhanced Antioxidant Capacity of Puffed Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) by High Hydrostatic Pressure Extraction (HHPE) of Bioactive Compounds. Foods 2020, 9, 1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Alexandre, E.M.C.; Araújo, P.; Duarte, M.F.; de Freitas, V.; Pintado, M.; Saraiva, J.A. Experimental Design, Modeling, and Optimization of High-Pressure-Assisted Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Pomegranate Peel. Food Bioproc. Tech. 2017, 10, 886–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jha, A.K.; Sit, N. Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Plant Materials Using Combination of Various Novel Methods: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 119, 579–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Louis, A.C.F.; Venkatachalam, S. Energy Efficient Process for Valorization of Corn Cob as a Source for Nanocrystalline Cellulose and Hemicellulose Production. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2020, 163, 260–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fărcaș, A.C.; Socaci, S.A.; Chiș, M.S.; Martínez-Monzó, J.; García-Segovia, P.; Becze, A.; Török, A.I.; Cadar, O.; Coldea, T.E.; Igual, M. In Vitro Digestibility of Minerals and B Group Vitamins from Different Brewers’ Spent Grains. Nutrients 2022, 14, 3512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Liu, J.; Liu, D.; Bi, J.; Liu, X.; Lyu, Y.; Verkerk, R.; Dekker, M. Micelle Separation Conditions Based on Particle Size Strongly Affect Carotenoid Bioaccessibility Assessment from Juices after in Vitro Digestion. Food Res. Int. 2022, 151, 110891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Rios-Romero, E.A.; Ochoa-Martínez, L.A.; Bello-Pérez, L.A.; Morales-Castro, J.; Quintero-Ramos, A.; Gallegos-Infante, J.A. Effect of Ultrasound and Steam Treatments on Bioaccessibility of β-Carotene and Physicochemical Parameters in Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato Juice. Heliyon 2021, 7, e06632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sentandreu, E.; Stinco, C.M.; Vicario, I.M.; Mapelli-Brahm, P.; Navarro, J.L.; Meléndez-Martínez, A.J. High-Pressure Homogenization as Compared to Pasteurization as a Sustainable Approach to Obtain Mandarin Juices with Improved Bioaccessibility of Carotenoids and Flavonoids. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wellala, C.K.D.; Bi, J.; Liu, X.; Wu, X.; Lyu, J.; Liu, J.; Liu, D.; Guo, C. Effect of High Pressure Homogenization on Water-Soluble Pectin Characteristics and Bioaccessibility of Carotenoids in Mixed Juice. Food Chem. 2022, 371, 131073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Briones-Labarca, V.; Venegas-Cubillos, G.; Ortiz-Portilla, S.; Chacana-Ojeda, M.; Maureira, H. Effects of High Hydrostatic Pressure (HHP) on Bioaccessibility, as Well as Antioxidant Activity, Mineral and Starch Contents in Granny smith Apple. Food Chem. 2011, 128, 520–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Jamaludin, R.; Kim, D.S.; Md Salleh, L.; Lim, S. Bin Optimization of High Hydrostatic Pressure Extraction of Bioactive Compounds from Noni Fruits. J. Food Meas. Charact. 2020, 14, 2810–2818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lara-Abia, S.; Welti-Chanes, J.; Cano, M.P. Effect of High Hydrostatic Pressure on the Extractability and Bioaccessibility of Carotenoids and Their Esters from Papaya (Carica papaya L.) and Its Impact on Tissue Microstructure. Foods 2021, 10, 2435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Briones-Labarca, V.; Muñoz, C.; Maureira, H. Effect of High Hydrostatic Pressure on Antioxidant Capacity, Mineral and Starch Bioaccessibility of a Non Conventional Food: Prosopis chilensis Seed. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 875–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Perumal, N.; Nallappan, M.; Shohaimi, S.; Kassim, N.K.; Tee, T.T.; Cheah, Y.H. Synergistic Antidiabetic Activity of Taraxacum officinale (L.) Weber Ex F.H.Wigg and Momordica charantia L. Polyherbal Combination. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2022, 145, 112401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Laur, L.M.; Tian, L. Provitamin A and Vitamin C Contents in Selected California-Grown Cantaloupe and Honeydew Melons and Imported Melons. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2011, 24, 194–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kaur, A.; Donis-Gonzalez, I.R.; St. Clair, D.A. Evaluation of a Hand-Held Spectrophotometer as and in-Field Phenotyping Tool for Tomato and Pepper Fruit Quality. Plant Phenome J. 2020, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brand-Williams, W.; Cuvelier, M.E.; Berset, C. Use of a Free Radical Method to Evaluate Antioxidant Activity. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 1995, 28, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Benzie, I.F.F.; Strain, J.J. The Ferric Reducing Ability of Plasma (FRAP) as a Measure of ‘“Antioxidant Power”’: The FRAP Assay. Anal. Biochem. 1996, 76, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shokunbi, O.S.; Adepoju, O.T.; Ramaite, I.D.I.; Shokunbi, O.S.; Mojapelo, P.E.L.; Akinyele, I.O. Potassium, Sodium, Calcium and Magnesium Levels of Commonly Consumed Foods and Estimates of Dietary Intakes of Selected Nigerian Adults. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Minekus, M.; Alminger, M.; Alvito, P.; Ballance, S.; Bohn, T.; Bourlieu, C.; Carrì, F.; Boutrou, R.; Corredig, F.M.; Dupont, D.; et al. A Standardised Static in Vitro Digestion Method Suitable for Food—An International Consensus. Food Funct. 2014, 5, 1113–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pinheiro, A.C.D.A.S.; Martí-Quijal, F.J.; Barba, F.J.; Tappi, S.; Rocculi, P. Innovative Non-Thermal Technologies for Recovery and Valorization of Value-Added Products from Crustacean Processing by-Products—An Opportunity for a Circular Economy Approach. Foods 2021, 10, 2030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Valisakkagari, H.; Chaturvedi, C.; Rupasinghe, H.P.V. Green Extraction of Phytochemicals from Fresh Vegetable Waste and Their Potential Application as Cosmeceuticals for Skin Health. Processes 2024, 12, 742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Saini, R.K.; Keum, Y.S. Carotenoid Extraction Methods: A Review of Recent Developments. Food Chem. 2018, 240, 90–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Hu, K.; Peng, D.; Wang, L.; Liu, H.; Xie, B.; Sun, Z. Effect of Mild High Hydrostatic Pressure Treatments on Physiological and Physicochemical Characteristics and Carotenoid Biosynthesis in Postharvest Mango. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2021, 172, 111381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Wu, W.; Xiang, F.; He, F. Polyphenols from Artemisia argyi Leaves: Environmentally Friendly Extraction under High Hydrostatic Pressure and Biological Activities. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2021, 171, 113951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ninčević Grassino, A.; Ostojić, J.; Miletić, V.; Djaković, S.; Bosiljkov, T.; Zorić, Z.; Ježek, D.; Rimac Brnčić, S.; Brnčić, M. Application of High Hydrostatic Pressure and Ultrasound-Assisted Extractions as a Novel Approach for Pectin and Polyphenols Recovery from Tomato Peel Waste. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 64, 102424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Briones-Labarca, V.; Giovagnoli-Vicuña, C.; Cañas-Sarazúa, R. Optimization of Extraction Yield, Flavonoids and Lycopene from Tomato Pulp by High Hydrostatic Pressure-Assisted Extraction. Food Chem. 2019, 278, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shahidi, F.; Dissanayaka, C.S. Binding of Carotenoids to Proteins: A Review. J. Food Bioact. 2023, 24, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Saini, R.K.; Prasad, P.; Lokesh, V.; Shang, X.; Shin, J.; Keum, Y.S.; Lee, J.H. Carotenoids: Dietary Sources, Extraction, Encapsulation, Bioavailability, and Health Benefits—A Review of Recent Advancements. Antioxidants 2022, 11, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yao, Y.; Goh, H.M.; Kim, J.E. The Roles of Carotenoid Consumption and Bioavailability in Cardiovascular Health. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 1978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Panagiotakopoulos, I.; Karantonis, H.C.; Kartelias, I.G.; Nasopoulou, C. Ultrasonic-Assisted Extraction of Astaxanthin from Shrimp By-Products Using Vegetable Oils. Mar. Drugs 2023, 21, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zhang, Z.; Ma, Z.; Song, L.; Farag, M.A. Maximizing Crustaceans (Shrimp, Crab, and Lobster) by-Products Value for Optimum Valorization Practices: A Comparative Review of Their Active Ingredients, Extraction, Bioprocesses and Applications. J. Adv. Res. 2024, 57, 59–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Zhao, T.; Yan, X.; Sun, L.; Yang, T.; Hu, X.; He, Z.; Liu, F.; Liu, X. Research Progress on Extraction, Biological Activities and Delivery Systems of Natural Astaxanthin. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chronis, M.; Christopoulou, V.M.; Papadaki, S.; Stramarkou, M.; Krokida, M. Optimization of Mild Extraction Methods for the Efficient Recovery of Astaxanthin, a Strong Food Antioxidant Carotenoid from Microalgae. Chem. Eng. Trans. 2021, 87, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Nunes, A.N.; Roda, A.; Gouveia, L.F.; Fernández, N.; Bronze, M.R.; Matias, A.A. Astaxanthin Extraction from Marine Crustacean Waste Streams: An Integrate Approach between Microwaves and Supercritical Fluids. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 3050–3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hamdi, M.; Nasri, R.; Dridi, N.; Li, S.; Nasri, M. Development of Novel High-Selective Extraction Approach of Carotenoproteins from Blue Crab (Portunus segnis) Shells, Contribution to the Qualitative Analysis of Bioactive Compounds by HR-ESI-MS. Food Chem. 2020, 302, 125334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, Y.; Ye, Y.; Ding, W.; Mao, X.; Li, Y.; Gerken, H.; Liu, J. Astaxanthin Is Ketolated from Zeaxanthin Independent of Fatty Acid Synthesis in Chromochloris Zofingiensis. Plant Physiol. 2020, 183, 883–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Stoklosa, R.J.; Johnston, D.B.; Nghiem, N.P. Utilization of Sweet Sorghum Juice for the Production of Astaxanthin as a Biorefinery Co-Product by Phaffia rhodozyma. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 2018, 6, 3124–3134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Hu, J.; Lu, W.; Lv, M.; Wang, Y.; Ding, R.; Wang, L. Extraction and Purification of Astaxanthin from Shrimp Shells and the Effects of Different Treatments on Its Content. Rev. Bras. De Farmacogn. 2019, 29, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zou, T.B.; Jia, Q.; Li, H.W.; Wang, C.X.; Wu, H.F. Response Surface Methodology for Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Astaxanthin from Haematococcus pluvialis. Mar. Drugs 2013, 11, 1644–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Khan, S.A.; Aslam, R.; Makroo, H.A. High Pressure Extraction and Its Application in the Extraction of Bio-Active Compounds: A Review. J. Food Process Eng. 2019, 42, e12896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Martínez-Delgado, A.A.; Khandual, S.; Villanueva–Rodríguez, S.J. Chemical Stability of Astaxanthin Integrated into a Food Matrix: Effects of Food Processing and Methods for Preservation. Food Chem. 2017, 225, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Radzali, S.A.; Baharin, B.S.; Othman, R.; Markom, M.; Rahman, R.A. Co-Solvent Selection for Supercritical Fluid Extraction of Astaxanthin and Other Carotenoids from Penaeus Monodon Waste. J. Oleo Sci. 2014, 63, 769–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Priyadarshani, A.M.B. A Review on Factors Influencing Bioaccessibility and Bioefficacy of Carotenoids. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 1710–1717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Mutsokoti, L.; Panozzo, A.; Pallares Pallares, A.; Jaiswal, S.; Van Loey, A.; Grauwet, T.; Hendrickx, M. Carotenoid Bioaccessibility and the Relation to Lipid Digestion: A Kinetic Study. Food Chem. 2017, 232, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Oancea, A.M.; Turturică, M.; Bahrim, G.; Râpeanu, G.; Stănciuc, N. Phytochemicals and Antioxidant Activity Degradation Kinetics during Thermal Treatments of Sour Cherry Extract. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 82, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Pereira, U.C.; Chagas Barros, R.G.; Santana Andrade, J.K.; de Oliveira, C.S.; Gualberto, N.C.; Narain, N. Effect of in Vitro Gastrointestinal Digestion on Bioaccessibility of Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Capacity of Crustaceans Residues with Potential Antidiabetic Impact. LWT 2020, 133, 110004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Shen, S.; Liu, X.; Tang, D.; Yang, H.; Cheng, J. Digestive Characteristics of Astaxanthin Oil in Water Emulsion Stabilized by a Casein-Caffeic Acid–Glucose Ternary Conjugate. Food Chem. 2024, 438, 138054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Francisco, J.; Horta, A.; Pedrosa, R.; Afonso, C.; Cardoso, C.; Bandarra, N.M.; Gil, M.M. Bioaccessibility of Antioxidants and Fatty Acids from Fucus spiralis. Foods 2020, 9, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Nicolescu, A.; Babotă, M.; Barros, L.; Rocchetti, G.; Lucini, L.; Tanase, C.; Mocan, A.; Bunea, C.I.; Crișan, G. Bioaccessibility and Bioactive Potential of Different Phytochemical Classes from Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods. Front. Nutr. 2023, 10, 1184535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hossain, A.; Shahidi, F. Upcycling Shellfish Waste: Distribution of Amino Acids, Minerals, and Carotenoids in Body Parts of North Atlantic Crab and Shrimp. Foods 2024, 13, 2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Schulz, M.; Biluca, F.C.; Gonzaga, L.V.; Borges, G.d.S.C.; Vitali, L.; Micke, G.A.; de Gois, J.S.; de Almeida, T.S.; Borges, D.L.G.; Miller, P.R.M.; et al. Bioaccessibility of Bioactive Compounds and Antioxidant Potential of Juçara Fruits (Euterpe edulis Martius) Subjected to in Vitro Gastrointestinal Digestion. Food Chem. 2017, 228, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Processes 13 00010 g001
Figure 1. Chemical structures: (A) lycopene, (B) β-carotene, and (C) astaxanthin.
Figure 1. Chemical structures: (A) lycopene, (B) β-carotene, and (C) astaxanthin.
Processes 13 00010 g001
Table 1. Carotenoid content (mg/100 g FW) and bioaccessibility of red lobster by-products.
Table 1. Carotenoid content (mg/100 g FW) and bioaccessibility of red lobster by-products.
SampleExtraction
Method		Carotenoids (mg/100 g FW)
Astaxanthinβ-CaroteneLycopene
ExtractCE3.38 ± 0.12 a0.63 ± 0.02 a0.56 ± 0.02 a
UAE3.61 ± 0.20 b0.59 ± 0.00 a0.48 ± 0.01 b
HHPE2.93 ± 0.07 a0.64 ± 0.02 b0.52 ± 0.01 c
GITCE2.36 ± 0.02 a0.24 ± 0.02 a0.12 ± 0.01 a
UAE2.02 ± 0.01 b0.18 ± 0.03 a0.12 ± 0.01 a
HHPE2.41 ± 0.05 a0.16 ± 0.02 b0.10 ± 0.01 a
% BioaccessibilityCE69.837.821.8
UAE56.030.324.9
HHPE82.424.818.9
Notes: Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between extraction methods for the same carotenoid content. GIT: gastric and intestinal digestion; CE: conventional extraction; UAE: ultrasound-assisted extraction; HHPE: high hydrostatic pressure extraction.
Table 2. Antioxidant content (DPPH and FRAP) and bioaccessibility (%) of red lobster by-products extracted by different methods.
Table 2. Antioxidant content (DPPH and FRAP) and bioaccessibility (%) of red lobster by-products extracted by different methods.
SampleExtraction
Method		Antioxidant Assay (μM/g FW)
DPPHFRAP
ExtractCE11.12 ± 0.20 a158.33 ± 1.08 a
UAE14.09 ± 0.41 b311.94 ± 2.13 b
HHPE18.01 ± 0.58 c421.65 ± 1.40 c
GITCE3.24 ± 0.36 a-
UAE6.77 ± 0.71 b-
HHPE17.45 ± 0.18 c-
% BioaccessibilityCE29.2-
UAE48.0-
HHPE96.9-
Notes: Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between extraction methods for the same antioxidant assay. GIT: gastric and intestinal digestion; CE: conventional extraction; UAE: ultrasound-assisted extraction; HHPE: high hydrostatic pressure extraction.
Table 3. Mineral content (mg/100 g) and bioaccessibility (%) of red lobster by-products extracted by different methods.
Table 3. Mineral content (mg/100 g) and bioaccessibility (%) of red lobster by-products extracted by different methods.
SampleExtraction
Method		Mineral Content (mg/100 g)
CalciumMagnesiumSodiumPotassium
ExtractCE6.40 ± 0.10 a0.58 ± 0.01 a584.27 ± 2.19 a0.58 ± 0.01 a
UAE14.79 ± 0.46 b1.93 ± 0.01 b437.92 ± 5.32 b1.93 ± 0.01 b
HHPE7.15 ± 0.15 c0.77 ± 0.02 c371.56 ± 1.95 c0.77 ± 0.02 c
GITCE5.73 ± 0.03 a0.52 ± 0.03 a12.36 ± 0.39 a0.52 ± 0.03 a
UAE12.90 ± 0.40 b1.52 ± 0.01 b27.07 ± 0.33 b1.52 ± 0.01 b
HHPE5.87 ± 0.15 a0.49 ± 0.00 a23.05 ± 0.72 c0.49 ± 0.00
%
Bioaccessibility		CE89.690.92.190.9
UAE87.278.96.278.9
HHPE82.164.16.264.1
Notes: Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters (a, b, c) indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between extraction methods for the same mineral content. GIT: gastric and intestinal digestion; CE: conventional extraction; UAE: ultrasound-assisted extraction; HHPE: high hydrostatic pressure extraction.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Briones-Labarca, V.; Giovagnoli-Vicuña, C. Enhanced Bioaccessibility of Carotenoids, Antioxidants, and Minerals from Red Lobster By-Products Through High-Hydrostatic Pressure and Ultrasound Extraction. Processes 2025, 13, 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13010010

AMA Style

Briones-Labarca V, Giovagnoli-Vicuña C. Enhanced Bioaccessibility of Carotenoids, Antioxidants, and Minerals from Red Lobster By-Products Through High-Hydrostatic Pressure and Ultrasound Extraction. Processes. 2025; 13(1):10. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13010010

Chicago/Turabian Style

Briones-Labarca, Vilbett, and Claudia Giovagnoli-Vicuña. 2025. "Enhanced Bioaccessibility of Carotenoids, Antioxidants, and Minerals from Red Lobster By-Products Through High-Hydrostatic Pressure and Ultrasound Extraction" Processes 13, no. 1: 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13010010

APA Style

Briones-Labarca, V., & Giovagnoli-Vicuña, C. (2025). Enhanced Bioaccessibility of Carotenoids, Antioxidants, and Minerals from Red Lobster By-Products Through High-Hydrostatic Pressure and Ultrasound Extraction. Processes, 13(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr13010010

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop