ESTIMATION OF FATTY ACID PROFILE AND PROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF MACULATA (BLOCH, 1786) (TETRADONTIFORMES, BALISTIDAE) COLLECTED FROM SOUTHERN COAST OF

1WILLIAMS S.S., 2MUNASINGHE D.H.N.

1,2Department of Zoology, University of Ruhuna,Sri Lanka. E-mail: [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract - Rough oceanic Canthidermis maculata (Bloch, 1786) belongs to family Balistidae and has year round availability as the main by-catch species in tuna fishery industry. Due to high availability and low market value, this species gain low demand in the local market. Further, the society believes that the taste of this fish species is similar to chicken and therefore chicken dishes are prepared with the substitution of C. maculata. Due to lack of knowledge gap of nutritional value of this species, the objective of current study was to estimate nutritional components of C. maculata in order to popularize it as a food source to fulfill nutritional requirement of the society. Fish samples were collected from fish landing sites of three regions (Mirissa, Dondra and Tangalle) in the southern coast of Sri Lanka. Samples from commercially demanded fish species Cephalopholis sonnerati (Tomato Hind) and chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) were analyzed in order to compare the proximate values of C. maculata. Samples were collected from three individuals of each species and each sample was analyzed in triplicates. Fatty acid profile of C. maculata was determined by Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) Test with gas chromatographic technique. Analyses revealed that flesh samples of C. maculata contained important fatty acids such as Eicosapentaenoic acid and Docosahexaenoic acid in high amounts with other essential fatty acids. Moisture, ash, crude protein, crude lipid, and carbohydrate contents and energetic values were estimated according to standard protocols and results were compared with C. sonnerati and chicken. Except Lipid, Moisture and Carbohydrate contents there were no significant differences were observed for other proximate components between chicken and C. maculata. Significant differences were observed for ash and carbohydrate contents between C. maculata and C. sonnerati (p < 0.05). It can be concluded that information gathered on consumptive values of C. maculata considering high protein, low fat, healthy fatty acid are strong enough to change the public perception on this species and increase the demand in the local market.

Keywords - Triggerfish, Canthidermis maculate, Proximate composition, Fatty acid profile, Sri Lanka

I. INTRODUCTION supports to prepare a low cost, delicious ‘chicken dish’. Therefore, there is a trend to popularize this Rough oceanic triggerfish or spotted oceanic trigger underestimated fish species, C. maculata, but the fish, Canthidermis maculata is a pelagic species nutritional values of this species are not studied well. native to tropical and subtropical oceans worldwide. The objectives of this study were to determine the In Sri Lanka three species of the genus Canthidermis fatty acid profile of C. maculata and estimate and has been recorded; C. maculata, C. macrolephis and compare the proximate composition with chicken C. sufflamen (Sahayak et al., 2014). In local markets (Gallus gallus domesticus) and highly demanded both of C. maculata and C. macrolephis are more coral reef fish species, Cephalopholis sonnerati. abundant than C. sufflamen. Triggerfish C. maculata is commonly available in Sri II. MATERIALS AND METHODS Lankan markets throughout the year as a result of by- catch of tuna purse–seine fishery industry. It is Samples were collected from fish landing sites of available in local markets as both raw and dried fish three regions (Mirissa, Dondra and Tangalle) in the which latter one is more popular than the former. southern coast of Sri Lanka. To compare proximate Generally, the cost ranges from Rs.120.00 to components of C. maculata, highly demanded coral Rs.150.00 per Kg for raw fish and it is Rs. 400.00 to reef fish species, Cephalopholis sonnerati and 500.00 per Kg for dried fish of this species. However, chicken muscle samples were used. Three individuals the popularity and demand for this fish species is low from each species were selected to test each compared to other species available in the local parameter and each individual was tested in markets. Therefore, there is a trend among fishermen triplicates.All parameters were determined using to make dried fish whenever they caught this fish as a standard techniques outlined by American by- catch while they are in their boats or throw it organization for analytical chemistry (AOAC) (1990). away even before come to fish landing sites. Fatty acid profile of C. maculata was determined by The public believes the taste and the texture of C. Fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) test with gas maculata is similar to chicken and therefore, when chromatographic technique. The moisture contents of preparing chicken dishes, especially the dried fish of the fishes were determined before freeze-drying the this species is used as a substitute for chicken. This samples. This was done using a forced air oven at

Proceedings of 126th ISERD International Conference, Singapore, 2nd -3rd August 2018 22 Estimation of Fatty Acid Profile and Proximate Composition of Canthidermis Maculata (Bloch, 1786) (Tetradontiformes , Balistidae ) Collected From Southern Coast of Sri Lanka. 105oC first for five hours and then repeated for 30 proteins (Winberg, 1971), and expressed in kJ g-1 wet minutes interval until a constant weight was obtained. mass as described by Eder and Lewis (2005). Data Total lipid content was estimated by the Soxtec were subjected to one-way analysis of variance extraction technique using Soxtec system HT tecator (ANOVA). Tukey's Post hoc multiple comparison machine. The protein content of each fish sample was tests were used and means were separated at P<0.05 assayed using micro-Kjeldahl method and the gram using the Statistical Package of Minitab (Version 17). of nitrogen obtained was multiplied by the factor of 6.25 to obtain the protein content of each fish sample. III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The ash content of respective sample was determined by drying the samples at 550oC for 24h. Carbohydrate Results revealed that there were fatty acids that are content was estimated according to the equation important for a healthy life were included in the described by Nurandia et al., (2011) (Carbohydrate = muscle samples of C. maculata. Therefore, analysis of 100% - (%moisture+%ash+%Crude Protein + Fat). detailed lipid profile is important to promote fish Results were reported on dry weight basis except for species and fish products. The fatty acid profile of C. the total energetic value which was determined maculata is given in the Table 1. indirectly using Rubner’s coefficients for aquatic organisms: 9.5 kcal g-1 for lipids, 5.65 kcal g-1 for

Table 1. Results of fatty acid profiles for three samples of C .maculata resulted from FAME (Fatty acid Methyl Ester) test and gas chromatographic technique.

Type of Fatty Acid (%, from oil) Fatty acid Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 1 Myristic acid 14:00 1.55 0.79 1.26 2 Pentadecanoic acid 15:00 0.87 2.16 1.93 3 Palmitic acid 16:00 21.21 20.21 24.84 4 Palmitoleic acid 16:01 1.17 1.20 1.28 5 Stearic acid 18:00 12.74 8.54 10.15 6 Oleic acid 18:1 (n-9) 16.43 16.04 12.58 7 Vaccenic acid 18:1 (n-7) 1.87 2.72 2.35 8 Linoleic acid 18:2 (n-6) 1.26 0.76 0.74 9 Linolenic acid 18:3 (n-3) ND ND ND 10 Octadecatetraenoic acid 18:4 (n-4) ND ND ND 11 11-eicosenoic acid 20:1 (n-9) 0.44 0.40 0.46 12 Arachidonic acid 20:4 (n-6) ND ND ND 13 Eicosapentaenoic acid 20:5 (n-3) 14.27 10.80 10.07 14 Erucic acid 22:1 (n-9) 0.27 0.37 0.32 15 Docosatetraenoic acid 22:4 (n-6) 1.53 0.96 1.28 16 Docosapentaenoic acid 22:5 (n-6) 2.71 2.15 2.05 17 Docosahexaenoic acid 22:6 (n-3) 14.47 25.75 24.30 18 Unknown 9.22 7.14 6.39

It has been recommended to consume 1g of levels are (ranged from 0.1%-1.4% to 0.3%-4.8%) Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and Docosahexaenoic lower than that of the levels recorded for C. maculata acid (DHA) per day to reduce coronary heart diseases in the current study. However, previous studies (American Heart Association, 2002) and especially to indicated that the amount of n-3 Family fatty acids in improve the mental and cardiovascular health and chicken is lower than that of marine fish species cancer prevention (Tawfic, 2009). According to the (Gunstone, 1996).Proximate composition and results of the current study, Docosahexanoic acid and energetic value Demand for a fish species is depend palmitic acid are highly available in samples of C. on its taste, texture and the nutritional value. maculata and oleic, stearic and Eicosapentaenoic Quantification of proximate composition helps to acids contain in considerable amounts. The DHA and ensure the requirements of food regulations and also EPA levels for different coral reef fish species have for commercial purposes (Waterman, 2000). Results been estimated (Arai et al., 2015) and the published of the proximate composition derived for analyzed three types of samples are given in the Table 2.

Proceedings of 126th ISERD International Conference, Singapore, 2nd -3rd August 2018 23 Estimation of Fatty Acid Profile and Proximate Composition of Canthidermis Maculata (Bloch, 1786) (Tetradontiformes , Balistidae ) Collected From Southern Coast of Sri Lanka. Table 2. Mean percentage values and their range distribution for analyses of proximate composition.

An estimated energetic value for C. maculata was higher than that of C. sonnerati and it was lower compared with chicken. Results are given in the Table 3.

Table 3. Estimated energetic values for C. maculata, C. sonnerati and G. g. domesticus.

Comparison of proximate results and energetic value Results of the comparison of proximate compositions and energetic values among three species are given in the Tables 4 - 6.

Table 4. Results of the comparison of ash (above diagonal) and moisture (below diagonal) contents among C. maculata, C. sonnerati and G. g. domesticus.

ns = not sig. different at 95% confidence level, ** = Highly sig. different at 95% confidence level

Table 5. Results of the comparison of lipid (above diagonal) and crude protein contents (below diagonal) among C. maculata, C. sonnerati and G. g. domesticus.

ns = not sig. different at 95% confidence level, ** = Highly sig. different at 95% confidence level Table 6. Results of the comparison of carbohydrate content (above diagonal) and energetic value (below diagonal) among C. maculata, C. sonnerati and G. g. domesticus.

ns = not sig. different at 95% confidence level, ** = Highly sig. different at 95% confidence level

Proceedings of 126th ISERD International Conference, Singapore, 2nd -3rd August 2018 24 Estimation of Fatty Acid Profile and Proximate Composition of Canthidermis Maculata (Bloch, 1786) (Tetradontiformes , Balistidae ) Collected From Southern Coast of Sri Lanka. Except Lipid, Moisture and Carbohydrate contents on the results, it can be concluded that C .maculata is there were no significant differences were observed a healthy source of protein which can be used as a for other proximate components between chicken and substitute array for chicken. The awareness of the C. maculata. Significant differences were observed public is important to consume this undervalued fish for ash and carbohydrate contents between C. species for fulfillment of the protein requirement of maculata and C. sonnerati (p < 0.05). the society. Ash is a measure of the mineral content (inorganic components) of food item. When the fish have high REFERENCE content of minerals, this value should be around 1.0% - 2.0% (http://www.fao.org/). As obtained result for [1] R.G. Ackman, “Seafood Lipids and Fatty Acids'. ash content of C. maculata (1.11% - 1.03%), it International food review”. , Vol. 6, no 4 617-646, 1990. [2] Anonymous. American Heart Association “Fish Oil and indicated that C. maculata have a high content of Omega-3 Fatty Acids”, 2000. Available from the World minerals and it was approximately same to the Wide Web: http://www.americanheart.org.com (accessed chicken. Moisture content of fish is a good indication 11th November 2017) of its relative energy content as well as amount of [3] Anonymous. American organization for analytical chemistry ' Official Methods of Analysis of the Association protein and lipid. According to Love, (1970) moisture of Official Analytical Chemists (15th edition), 1990. composition of fish is ranged from 66% - 81%. [4] Anonymous. Food and agriculture organization “The State Determined values of moisture content in this study of World Fisheries and Aquaculture. Contributing to food for C. maculata (79.30% - 78.30%) approximately security and nutrition for all”. Available from the World Wide Web http://www.fao.org/. (Accessed 15th November close to this range. 2017). As reported by Louka et al., (2004) estimation of [5] J.A. Anthony, D.D. Roby, and K.R. Turco, “Lipid content protein is indication of amino acid composition and and energy density of forage fishes from the Northern Gulf degree of digestibility. According to records, the of Alaska”. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology Vol.248, pp 53-78, 2000. main component of fish is 15- 21% protein (Love, [6] T. Arai, R. Amalina, and Z. Bachok, “Variation in fatty acid 1970) but occasionally it can be varied within 10%- composition of the big eye snapper Lutjanus lutjanus 28% in some species (http://www.fao.org/). The collected in coral reef habitats of the Malaysian South China results of the current study indicated that the protein Sea”. Journal of Biological Research. Vol. 22,no 1, pp 5, 2015. content of C. maculata, C. sonnerati and chicken fall [7] B.B. Eder, and M.N. Lewis, “Proximate composition and within the range of the standard values as above energetic values of demersal and pelagic prey species from (16.67%- 16.27%, 15.85% - 15.51%, 17.64% - the SW ”, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 17.23% respectively). According to Love, (1970), in Vol 291, pp 43-52, 200). [8] F. Gunstone, "Typical Fatty–Acid Compositions of Some general, lipid composition of fish is approximately, Common Fats". Fatty acids and lipid chemistry Vol. 3, pp 0.2-5% and Ackman (1990) has pointed out that the 2–3, 1996. fish species can be classified based on their lipid [9] N. F. Louka, V. Juhel, and P. Loonis, "A novel colorimetry content (Lean fish (Cod, yellow purch):< 2 % Fat, analysis used to compare different drying fish processes" Food Control, Vol.15 pp 327-334, 2004. Low fat fish (Flounder, Halibut): 2-4 % Fat, Medium [10] R.M. Love, “The Chemical Biology of Fishes: With a key to fat fish (Salmon): 4-8 % Fat, High fat fish the Chemical Literature” Academic Press., London, U.K., (Mackeral): > 2 % Fat). According to the results, pp 547, 1970. mean lipid content of C. maculata was ranged from [11] R. Kumaran, V. Ravi, B. Gunalan, S. Murugan, and A. Sundramanickam, “Estimation of proximate, amino acids, 0.64% - 0.62% and falls in to the category of lean fish fatty acids and mineral composition of mullet (Mulgi as the lipid values are much lower than 2%. cephalus) of parangipettai, Southeast Coast of ”, Carbohydrate content in fish is generally very low Advance journal of Applied Science Research, Vol. 3, no 4, and practically considered as zero (Anthony, 2000). pp 2015-2019, 2012. [12] A.A. Nurnadia, A. Azrina, and I. Amin, “Proximate There was no significant difference for carbohydrate composition and energetic value of selected marine fish and values between C. maculata and chicken but were shellfish from the West coast of Peninsular Malaysia”, Vol. between C. maculata and C. sonnerati. Energetic 148, pp. 137–148, 2011. value of fish means the amount of calories which can [13] S. Sahayak, K.K. Joshi, and V. Sriramachandramurty, " of the Ocean triggerfish, Canthidermis maculata be gained by consumption of one gram of wet or dry (Tetradontiformes , Balistidae ) from the Indian coast", Vol. mass of fish muscles. Estimated energetic value for 56, pp. 56–61, 2014. C. maculata was 4.14kJg-1 by wet mass. It was [14] M.S. Tawfic, "Proximate composition and fatty acids slightly higher than energetic value of coral reef fish profiles in most common available fish species in Saudi -1 Market", Asian Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol.1 no. 1, pp C. sonnerati (3.88kJg ) and lower than the chicken 50-57, 2009. -1 (8.12kJg ). Results indicate that the consumption of [15] J.J. Watermann, “Composition and quality of fish” Torry C. maculata helps to gain more energy than Research Station, Edinburgh Vol. 3, pp. 46-65, 2000. consumption of highly priced selected reef fish [16] G.C. Winberg, “Methods for estimation of production of aquatic ” New York: Academic Press, pp. 279-285. species. Highest energetic value recorded for chicken (1971). may be due to composition of high fat content. Based 

Proceedings of 126th ISERD International Conference, Singapore, 2nd -3rd August 2018 25