ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Optimization of Non-Enzymatic Ultrasound-Assisted Extraction of Yellowfin Tuna Head Oil and Comparison with Enzyme-Assisted Extraction Oils.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Yellowfin tuna heads (YFTH), a major by-product of tuna processing, are rich in lipids and long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids. This study developed and optimized an ultrasound-assisted extraction process without exogenous protease addition, termed non-enzymatic ultrasound-assisted extraction (NE-UAE), for recovering yellowfin tuna head oil (YFTO). The term NE-UAE distinguishes this process from the enzyme-assisted comparators and does not denote a different ultrasonic mechanism. A four-factor, three-level Box-Behnken design was used to optimize nominal ultrasonic power, heat-treatment temperature, liquid-to-solid ratio, and ultrasonic treatment time. The predicted local-optimum conditions were 58.3% of the 1000 W rated power (nominal setting, 583 W), 64.0 °C, 3.0 mL/g, and 31 min, respectively, yielding a validated oil recovery of 63.92 ± 0.24%. The NE-UAE oil (NETO) was compared at the process-chain level with oils obtained by papain-, trypsin-, and Alcalase-assisted aqueous extraction. Under the tested conditions, NETO had lower acid value, initial peroxide value, and p-anisidine value, a lighter color, and lower relative abundances of putative oxidation-related electronic-nose marker signals. Polyunsaturated fatty acids comprised 38.39% of total fatty acids in NETO, including 7.43% EPA and 27.13% DHA. During accelerated storage at 60 °C for 14 d, NETO showed lower absolute peroxide values and smaller baseline-corrected increases than the comparator oils. Overall, NE-UAE provided a feasible process option for recovering YFTO with acceptable oil recovery and favorable quality-related characteristics under the specific process conditions and comparator process chains examined in this study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.