| 1. |
- Stuiver, M., et al.
(författare)
-
The Governance of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea for Energy Production and Aquaculture: Challenges for Policy Makers in European Seas
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Sustainability. - : MDPI AG. - 2071-1050. ; 8:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- European seas are encountering an upsurge in competing marine activities and infrastructures. Traditional exploitation such as fisheries, tourism, transportation, and oil production are accompanied by new sustainable economic activities such as offshore windfarms, aquaculture, and tidal and wave energy. One proposed solution to overcome possible competing claims at sea lies in combining these economic activities as part of Multi-Use Platforms at Sea (MUPS). MUPS can be understood as areas at sea, designated for a combination of activities, either completely integrated in a platform or in shared marine space. MUPS can potentially benefit from each other in terms of infrastructure, maintenance, etc. Developing MUPS in the marine environment demands adequate governance. In this article, we investigate four European sites to find out how governance arrangements may facilitate or complicate MUPs. In particular, we apply a framework specifying policy, economic, social, technical, environmental, and legal (PESTEL) factors to explore governance arrangements in four case study sites in different sea basins around Europe ( the Mediterranean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, the North Sea, and the Baltic Sea). The article concludes with policy recommendations on a governance regime for facilitating the development of MUPS in the future.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Juul, Louise, et al.
(författare)
-
Combining pressing and alkaline extraction to increase protein yield from Ulva fenestrata biomass
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Food and Bioproducts Processing: Transactions of the Institution of of Chemical Engineers, Part C. - : Elsevier BV. - 1744-3571 .- 0960-3085. ; 134, s. 80-85
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Many seaweed species have a high production potential and attract interest as future protein sources. A high fiber and ash content, however, demand extraction of the protein to improve its digestibility and protein utilization in food or feed. This study explores three different approaches for protein extraction from Ulva fenestrata in order to maximize the protein extraction yield. Soluble protein was recovered either by mechanical pressing or by homogenization and osmotic shock of the biomass followed by alkaline extraction. The soluble protein was then concentrated by isoelectric precipitation. A combined procedure was carried out by pressing the biomass and following subjecting the residual pulp fraction to homogenization, osmotic shock and alkaline extraction. The three methods were ranked as follows with respect to protein extraction yield (as % of biomass protein); the combined method (23.9 ± 0.3%)> the alkaline extraction (6.8 ± 0.2%)> mechanical pressing (5.0 ± 0.2%). The significant increase when combining the methods was ascribed to a high precipitation yield after alkaline extraction of the pulp, hypothesized to be due to a reduced conductivity of the alkali-soluble protein fraction when derived from pulp rather than whole biomass.
|
|
| 5. |
- Juul, L., et al.
(författare)
-
Ulva fenestrata protein - Comparison of three extraction methods with respect to protein yield and protein quality
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Algal Research-Biomass Biofuels and Bioproducts. - : Elsevier BV. - 2211-9264. ; 60
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Seaweed is gaining attention as a possible alternative and sustainable source of proteins. This study investigates three protein extraction methods and their effect on protein yield and quality when applied to Ulva fenestrata. Two of the methods included alkaline extractions (pH-shifts); one version solubilizing the proteins at pH 8.5 and one solubilizing them at pH 8.5 followed by pH 12 (pH 8.5 + 12). The third method was a mechanical pressing, using a double screw press. All extraction methods were followed by isoelectric precipitation to concentrate the proteins. Extraction at pH 8.5 gave the significantly highest total protein yield after the isoelectric precipitation, followed by extraction at pH 8.5 + 12 and lastly mechanical extraction gave the lowest yield. Proteins extracted with both alkaline methods had a significantly higher solubility at pH 7 and pH 9, compared to proteins from the mechanical pressing. There were no significant differences between the three methods in total D/L-amino acid ratio. Amino acid cross-links measured as lysinoalanine (LAL) and lanthionine (LAN) where found in significantly higher amounts in alkali-extracted proteins compared to mechanically extracted, however not to a degree that expect to compromise functional or nutritional quality. Further, no significant difference in protein in vitro digestibility was found between extraction methods. In conclusion, results indicated that protein extraction at pH 8.5 can be recommended, especially regarding total protein yield and solubility of the final protein extract.
|
|
