J. Env. Bio-Sci., 2015: Vol.

29 (2):301-304
(301) ISSN 0973-6913 (Print), ISSN 0976-3384 (On Line)

PROXIMATE COMPOSITION AND FATTY ACID PROFILE OF COMMERCIALLY

IMPORTANT SIN CROAKER FISH
Naresh Kumar Mehta, Snehal Shitole and B. B. Nayak*
Department of Post-Harvest Technology, Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Versova, Mumbai- 400061
[Corresponding author E-mail*: nayakbb@gmail.com]

Received: 21-05-2015 Accepted: 14-07-2015

Sin croaker fish is commercially important for being one of the species taken for surimi industry. However, being relatively
cheap, it forms the main source of animal protein for economically backward masses in the coastal region. Some consumers
prefer this soft textured-white meat fish. In order to evaluate its nutritional contribution to the diet, the proximate composition
and fatty acid profile of fresh meat of this fish was evaluated. The moisture, protein, fat and ash contents were 81.42%, 15.38%,
1.28, and 1.01 % respectively. The fatty acid profile of the sin croaker revealed polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) content of the
fish was 19.71% of the total fatty acid. The monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) was 10.23 % and the total saturated fatty acid was
found very high (70.07 %). N-3/n-6 ratio was determined to be 3.11. Sin croaker was found to contain good amount of protein and
high quality fat, though in small quantity.

Fish is the most relished food item along the coastal states
of India. It is also considered as a health food due to its high
protein contents, essential amino acid and unsaturated fatty
acid. The essential amino acids content and significant amount
of polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) like n-3 PUFA has raised
the importance of marine fish as it can prevent human
cardiovascular disease, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic
effects, reduction of blood cholesterol level and prevention of
cancer1-2. The Biochemical composition of flesh is a good
indicator of the fish as a quality food. In recent years, the
urban educated people are aware of health and nutritional
issues associated with food items which they buy for their
consumption. Popularity of fish as health food in urban areas
is a reflection of this trend and is manifested by price
appreciation of few already popular fish. These few fishes have
been thoroughly studied for their nutritional qualities and health
benefits. On the other hand, a large variety of fish are
consumed among the rural population, are key source of animal
protein in their diet. The coastal population of India is
predominantly rice eaters and these fishes supply the key
amino acid lysine, that is known to be deficient in rice.Sin
croaker fish is one the major fishery along the Mumbai coast
of Maharashtra and belong to commercially important family
sciaenids. The landing of sciaenids in Maharashtra is 8.45 %
to the total marine fish catch of the state with an estimated
value of 2215 crores7. It has a wide range of distribution in the
Indian ocean, usually extending from Pakistan to the Andaman
Islands8. The total catch of sciaenids from India was about
1,52,914 t for the period 2001-2011 which is about 21.87% of
the demersal catch and 5.34% of the total fish catch9. The
main objective of this study was to determine key nutritional
composition including the fatty acids of the sin croaker
because of its economical availability to coastal rural masses
along the Maharashtra coast.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Fish sample: Sin croaker fish (Johnius dussumieri) was used
in the present study. The sin croaker was purchased from the
boat owners who go for single day fishing soon after they
arrived at Versova landing Centre in the North West part of
Mumbai city. The fishes were transported to the laboratory in
iced condition in poly- urethane boxes. The average range of
length and weight of sin croaker used in this study was
between 16-28 cm and 132-223 g. The meat was separated
manually from fins, skin and bones and the separated meat
was macerated well using pestle and mortar in ice bath and
used for further analyses.
Proximate composition analysis: The proximate
composition analysis (moisture, crude protein, fat and ash
content) of fresh meat was carried out following standard
methods10. The moisture content of meat was estimated by

NAAS Rating (2016)-4.20

 PROXIMATE COMPOSITION AND FATTY ACID PROFILE
hot air oven with mechanical convection at 100 ºC ± 2 ºC for
12 hours. The crude protein content of the meat was
determined by estimating total nitrogen content by Kjeldahl
method. Crude protein of meat samples was calculated by
multiplying the nitrogen value obtained by a factor of 6.25.
The protein content was expressed as percentage of meat.
The crude fat content of meat was estimated by Soxhlet
extraction method. Petroleum ether (BP ~40º-60ºC grade)
was used as solvent. Ash content was determined by
incinerating the meat sample in a muffle furnace (Rotek, Kerala,
India) at 55ºC ±10 ºC for 6 hours.
Fatty acid analysis: Total lipids were extracted from muscle
according to Standard methods11. Fatty acid content and fatty
acid composition determined simultaneously in the extracted
fish oil samples. Fatty acid analysis was performed in triplicate
consisted two consecutive steps, preparation of fatty acid
methyl ester (FAME) and chromatographic analysis. The
AOAC method was followed to esterify the lipid extract. Gas
chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC-MS) was performed
on Shimadzu Qp2010 quadrupole Gas Chromatography Mass
Spectrometer (GC-MS) instrument equipped with a carbowax
(30 m × 0.25 mm ID; 0.25ìm film thickness) capillary column
(Cromlab S.A). Individual components were identified using
mass spectral data and by comparing retention time data
with those obtained for authentic and laboratory standards.
Peak area was quantified and expressed as percentage of
total fatty acids.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The proximate composition of meat derived from sin croaker
fish shown in Table-1. The protein content was more than 15
%. Therefore, experimental fish species can be regarded as
good source of cheap protein. The moisture content was 81.42
%. Usually moisture content remains inversely proportional
to the fat indicating that lean fishes have more moisture content
than fatty fishes. In case of sin croaker, the high moisture
content (81.42%) and low fat content (1.28%) categorises
the fish as lean fish. This fish, therefore, is an ideal candidate
for surimi preparation like any other croaker. The ash content
was 1.01 % which was expectedly low as meat was devoid of
fins and bones. The proximate composition of present
(302)
investigation was almost similar to a research study of 23
marine fish which revealed the average moisture, protein, fat
and ash content was ranged from 67.23 to 80.48%, 15 to
20% (Majority of fishes), 0.24 to 14.72 and < 2% (87% of
fishes) respectively12. The yield study also carried out for the
experimental fish as yield study is the key information a
consumer should possess before buying the fish. Therefore,
the yield percentage was obtained in three different style as
per use of fish by different consumers. The yields of
mincemeat, edible portion without head and edible portion
with head were 37.41 %, 57.99 % and 75.49 % respectively
of the total weight of the fish (Table-1). However, obtained
values were lower than the reported for the moon fish and
Tiger Tooth Croaker13-14.
The fatty acid profile of the sin croaker fish is given in Table-2.
The nutritionally important PUFA was almost 20 % of the
total fatty acid. In which, n-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA) were
found in the noticeable quantity (14.91% of the total fatty
acids). The DHA was the dominated fatty acid in the n-3 fatty
acids (11.36% of the total fatty acids). The fatty acid
composition of puffer fish was observed and mentioned PUFA
like n-3 were 31.17 %, 31.19 and n-6 7.26 %, 7.29 % in
puffer fish L. lunaris and L. inermis, respectively 15 .
Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and DHA display several
properties which are advantageous for human health. In addition
to reducing the risk of some cardiovascular diseases and
cancers16-17. They also can improve various functions in the
human organs18. It is suggested that the dietary intake of
food with a high ratio of n-3/n-6 would be beneficial. FAO has
recommended that the ratio of n-3/n-6 in the diet should be
higher than 0.2 and higher than 0.25, which is recommended
by the UK Department of Health19-20. In the present study, this
ration stands at 3.11 which is above the recommended level
by these responsible bodies. The ratio found for the sin croaker
fish is more than the reported for many fresh water fishes like
rohu (1.04) pangas (0.74) magur (0.70), while less than catla
(6.54)21. Hence, it can be concluded that sin croaker is an
excellent source of benefitial fatty acids, though in small
quantity.
In the present study, the major portion of the fatty acids of sin
croaker fish constituted with saturated fatty acids (70.07 %
of total fatty acids) which is much higher than the several
(303) MEHTA, SHITOLE AND
Table-1. Proximate composition and yield of sin croaker fish
Table-2. Fatty acid profiles (% of total fatty acids) of the
sin croaker fish
SFA=saturated fatty acid, MUFA=monounsaturated fatty acid,
PUFA=polyunsaturated fatty acid, AA = arachidonic acid, EPA =
eicosapentaenoic acid,DHA = docasahexaenoic acid
commercially important fish species from the Sinop region of
the Black Sea22. Among SFA, Palmitic acid (C16; 49.09% of
total fatty acids) was the major saturated fatty acid while the
oleic acids (C18:1; 10.23 % of total fatty acids) was the main
monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) in the present
experimental fish. While the MUFA compositions were less
(10.23%) in the sin croaker than the fish species from Black
Sea 22.
NAYAK
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The senior research fellowship received by the first author
from Indian council of agricultural research (ICAR) is gratefully
acknowledged. Authors also thank to Director, Central Institute
of Fisheries Education, for providing necessary facilities.
REFERENCES
1. Chen, D., Zhang, M., and Shrestha, S. (2007). Food Chem.,
103:1343.
2. Din, J.N., Harding, S.A., Valerio, C.J., Sarma, J., Lyall, K.,
Riermersma, R.A., Newby, D.E., and Flapan, A.D. (2008).
Artherosclerosis, 197:290.
3. Hernandez, M.D., Martinez, F.J. and Garcia, B. (2001). Aquacult.
Int., 9:519.
4. Aberoumad, A., and Pourshafi, K. (2010). World J. Fish Mar.
Sci., 2:237.
5. Shamsan, E.F., and Ansari, Z.A. (2010). Indian J. fish., 57:61.
6. Ravichandran, S., Kumaravel, K. and Florence, E.P. (2011). Int.
J. Zool. Res., 7:241.
7. CMFRI Annual Report (2006-2007). In: Annual reports of Central
Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin.
8. Froese, R. and Pauly, D. (Eds) (2012). Fish Base, Worldwide
Web electronic publication www.fishbase.org.
9. CMFRI, (2001-2011). CMFRI Annual Report 2001-2011. In: Central
Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi.
10. AOAC, (2010). In: Official method of analysis of AOAC
International, Vol II, 18th ed. Association of Official and Analytical
Chemists International, Virginia.
11. Folch, J., Lees, M. and Sloane-Stanley, G.H. (1957). J. Biol.
Chem., 226: 497.
12. Palani Kumar, M., Ruba Annathai A., Jeya Shakila, R. and
Shanmugam, S.A. (2014). J. Nutr. Food Sci., 4:259.
 PROXIMATE COMPOSITION AND FATTY ACID PROFILE (304)

13. Kolade, O.Y, Adejonwo, O.A, Oramadike, C.E, and Ibrahim, 19. FAO/WHO, (2003). Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic
O.A. (2010). World Rural Observations 2(2):61-64]; ISSN: 1944- Disease (Technical Report Series 916). Geneva, Switzerland:
6543 (Print); ISSN: 1944-6551 (Online). http:// WHO.
www.sciencepub.net/rural. 20. HMSO (Her Majesty’s Stationery Office) (1994). In: Report of
14. Sahar, J., Navid, Z., and Foad, P. (2014). Int. J. Ecosystem, the cardiovascular review group of the committee of medical
4(3):119. aspects of food policy number 46. London, United Kingdom:
15. Eswar, A., Kathirvel, K., Anbarasu, R., Ramamoorthy, K., Sankar, HMSO.
G., Suvitha, S., and Manikandarajan, T. (2014). ILNS; 12(1):21. 21. Jakhar J. K., Pal, A.K., Devivaraprasad A. R., Sahu, N.P.,
16. Ness, A. R., Hughes, J., Elwood, P. C., Whitley, E., Smith, G. D., Venkateshwarlu, G. and Vardia, H.K. (2012). African J. Basic
and Burr, M. L. (2002). Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 56: 512. and Appl. Sci., 4 (5): 155.
17. Norat, T., Bingham, S., Ferrari, P., Slimani, N., Jena, M. and 22. Kocatepe, D. and Turan, H. (2012). Lipids, 47, (6): 635.
Mazur, M. (2005). J. Natl. Cancer I. 97: 906.
18. Berbert, A. A., Kondo, C. R., Almendra, C. L., Matsuo, T. and
Dichi, I. (2005). Nutrition 21: 131.