↓ Skip to main content

Frontiers

Odorants in Fish Feeds: A Potential Source of Malodors in Aquaculture

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Chemistry, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
Title
Odorants in Fish Feeds: A Potential Source of Malodors in Aquaculture
Published in
Frontiers in Chemistry, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fchem.2018.00241
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohamed A. A. Mahmoud, Thorsten Tybussek, Helene M. Loos, Maria Wagenstaller, Andrea Buettner

Abstract

Although the microbiota is considered to be the primary source of off-flavors in farmed fish, there is a lack of information about the possible contribution of feeds to fish malodor. For this reason, the current study was designed to perform comprehensive sensory and chemo-analytical characterization of fish feed constituents that can impact the quality of farmed fish, and to determine whether feeds cause malodor accumulation in fish. To this aim, odorants in four commercial fish feeds were extracted using solvent assisted flavor evaporation (SAFE) and characterized by comparative aroma extract dilution analysis (cAEDA) and multi-dimensional gas chromatography-mass spectrometry/olfactometry (MD-GC-MS/O). The odorants in the fish feed samples were correlated with their respective sensory and fatty acid profiles. The cAEDA studies revealed the presence of 81 odorants of which 55 compounds were common to all the samples. Most of these odorants are identified here for the first time in fish feeds, and include skatole, indole, (E,Z,Z)-2,4,7-tridecatrienal, 4-ethyloctanoic acid, and cresols. Additionally, geosmin and 3-isopropyl-2-methoxypyrazine, known for their contribution to fish taint, and other cyanobacterial by-products, dimethyldisulfide and dimethyltrisulfide, were identified in feed samples. The results suggest that fish feed may contribute to fish malodor. Most of these off-flavors were linked to lipid source (fish oil or plant/lard alternatives), unsaturated fatty acids contents, and protein type (plant-based or fishmeal-based sources) in the feed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 24 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 33%
Chemistry 3 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Environmental Science 2 3%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 26 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 July 2018.
All research outputs
#17,981,442
of 23,092,602 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Chemistry
#1,751
of 6,038 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,881
of 328,981 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Chemistry
#54
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,092,602 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,038 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,981 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.