Kinetic study of solid phase demineralization by weak acids in one-step enzymatic bio-refinery of shrimp cuticles

We describe a one-step bio-refinery process for shrimp composites by-products. Its originality lies in a simple rapid (6 h) biotechnological cuticle fragmentation process that recovers all major compounds (chitins, peptides and minerals in particular calcium). The process consists of a controlled exogenous enzymatic proteolysis in a food-grade acidic medium allowing chitin purification (solid phase), and recovery of peptides and minerals (liquid phase). At a pH of between 3.5 and 4, protease activity is effective, and peptides are preserved. Solid phase demineralization kinetics were followed for phosphoric, hydrochloric, acetic, formic and citric acids with pKa ranging from 2.1 to 4.76. Formic acid met the initial aim of (i) 99 % of demineralization yield and (ii) 95 % deproteinization yield at a pH close to 3.5 and a molar ratio of 1.5. The proposed one-step process is proven to be efficient. To formalize the necessary elements for the future optimization of the process, two models to predict shell demineralization kinetics were studied, one based on simplified physical considerations and a second empirical one. The first model did not accurately describe the kinetics for times exceeding 30 minutes, the empirical one performed adequately.

Description of the Argo GDAC File Checks: Data Format and Consistency Checks

Every Argo data file submitted by a DAC for distribution on the GDAC has its format and data consistency checked by the Argo FileChecker. Two types of checks are applied: 1. Format checks. Ensures the file formats match the Argo standards precisely. 2. Data consistency checks. Additional data consistency checks are performed on a file after it passes the format checks. These checks do not duplicate any of the quality control checks performed elsewhere. These checks can be thought of as “sanity checks” to ensure that the data are consistent with each other. The data consistency checks enforce data standards and ensure that certain data values are reasonable and/or consistent with other information in the files. Examples of the “data standard” checks are the “mandatory parameters” defined for meta-data files and the technical parameter names in technical data files. Files with format or consistency errors are rejected by the GDAC and are not distributed. Less serious problems will generate warnings and the file will still be distributed on the GDAC. Reference Tables and Data Standards: Many of the consistency checks involve comparing the data to the published reference tables and data standards. These tables are documented in the User’s Manual. (The FileChecker implements “text versions” of these tables.)