




































Highlights in BioScience
ISSN:2682-4043
DOI:10.36462/H.BioSci.202502

Research Article

Open Access

1 Meat and Fish Technology Research Department,

Food Technology Research Institute, Agriculture

Research Center, Ministry of Agriculture, Giza,

Egypt.
2 Food Technology Department, Faculty of

Agriculture, Suez Canal University, Ismailia

41522, Egypt.

# Deceased

* To whom correspondence should be
addressed: ahmed_rayan@agr.suez.edu.eg

Editor: Jean Legeay, University Mohammed VI
Polytechnic, BenGuerir, Morocco.

Reviewer(s):
Mokhtar Said Rizk, Department of Genetic
Resources, Desert Research Center (DRC), Cairo,
Egypt.

Muhammad Adeel, Arthritis and Clinical
Immunology Research Program, Oklahoma Medical
Research Foundation, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.

Received: February 21, 2025

Accepted: May 22, 2025

Published: June 15, 2025

Citation: Omar IAS, Farag MAM, Taha AR,
GabAlla AA, Rayan MA. Shrimp waste utilization:
Exploring composition, bioactive potential, and
safety treatments. 2025 June 15;8:bs202502

Copyright: © 2025 Omar et al.. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the Cre-
ative Commons Attribution License, which permits
unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in
any medium, provided the original author and source
are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and supplementary materials.
Funding: The authors have no support or funding to
report.
Competing interests: The authors declare that they
have no competing interests.

Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition, bioactive potential,
and safety treatments

Shereen I. A. Omar1,2
>< �, Manar M. A. Farag1

>< �, Rafat A. Taha2#
><�, Amal A.

GabAlla2
><�, Ahmed M. Rayan*2

><�

Abstract

The global focus on waste management and recycling is increasing, driven by the
need to protect the environment from the harmful effects of waste accumulation. This
study evaluated the chemical composition, bioactive potential, and microbial quality
of shrimp waste, revealing significant variations across treatments and locations.
Ghalyoun shrimp heads exhibited the highest protein (41.6%) and fat (16.9%) contents,
while shells and tails from Port Said and head from Ghalyoun shrimp were rich in
calcium (76.55 mg/g, 75.9 mg/g), respectively. Phenolic content was highest in Jumbo
Suez heads (77.06 mg GAE/g DM), exhibiting maximum antioxidant activity of 65.8%
(DPPH assay) in the same sample. Furthermore, HPLC analysis showed pyrogallol
dominance in Ghalyoun shells (32,974 ppm) and Ismalawy heads (32,907 ppm), while
Jumbo Suez heads had the highest gallic acid (4,508 ppm) and catechol (8,514 ppm).
Ellagic acid peaked in Jumbo Suez (10,643 ppm), confirming strong bioactive potential.
Heavy metals, including Pb and Ni, were highest in heads (1.3 mg/g and 1.34 mg/g,
respectively), but effective chelation treatments, particularly T6 (acetic acid 12.5% +
citric acid 5% + Sodium chloride 5%), significantly reduced these levels and microbial
contamination, lowering total microbial counts to 3.57 log CFU/g. The findings suggest
shrimp waste, particularly heads, as a valuable resource for antioxidants, proteins, and
minerals, with appropriate treatments ensuring safety for industrial applications.

Keywords: Shrimp waste valorization, bioactive compounds, protein and mineral recovery,

heavy metal and microbial reduction, antioxidant activity

Introduction
Shrimps are highly valued crustaceans enjoyed worldwide as a premium food source and an

integral component of a balanced diet. The global shrimp market has experienced significant growth

over the years, highlighting their importance as a rich nutritional source for human populations [1].

Shrimps are an excellent source of high-quality protein, vitamins, and astaxanthin, along with vital

minerals such as phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), selenium (Se), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and iodine

(I2) [2]. In 2023, global shrimp production totaled 5.6 million tons and it is expected to increase to

7.28 million tons by 2025, growing at an Annual Growth Rate of 6.1% between 2020 and 2025 [3; 4].

Consequently, shrimp waste production is estimated at around 3.8 million tons annually, constituting

50-60% of the total catch volume [5]. According to the FAO, a steady upward trend in shrimp

consumption has been observed worldwide, indicating its growing dietary relevance and consumer

demand [6]. Shrimp processing industries generate substantial amounts of waste, including shrimp

heads, shells, and tails, which account for approximately 50% of the raw material. The increasing

disposal of shrimp waste into the environment significantly contributes to pollution and poses serious

health risks. As a result, effectively processing and utilizing shrimp shell waste is crucial for reducing

environmental harm and advancing sustainability efforts [7; 8].

This waste is not merely a byproduct; it is a resource rich in valuable bioactive compounds,

including polysaccharides, proteins, carotenoids, and fatty acids. These compounds have demon-

strated diverse bioactivities, such as antioxidant, antimicrobial, anti-inflammatory, and antitumor

effects, making them highly promising for applications in the pharmaceutical, nutraceutical, and

cosmeceutical industries [9]. Harnessing these bioactive components aligns with sustainable

Highlights in BioScience Page 1 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

https://doi.org/10.36462/H.BioSci.202502
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
mailto:shreen_abbas@agr.suez.edu.eg
mailto:dr.manar69@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8104-2100
mailto:rafat_amin@agr.suez.edu.eg
mailto:amal_gab@agr.suez.edu.eg
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0837-7606
mailto:ahmed_rayan@agr.suez.edu.eg
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3544-4675
http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

resource management and circular economy principles, em-
phasizing waste valorization to minimize environmental impact
and maximize economic value. We would like to emphasize
that one of the innovative aspects of this study is its focus on
the utilization of Egyptian shrimp waste, a locally abundant raw
material that has not been sufficiently exploited previously. Ad-
ditionally, the study takes into account the specific physical and
chemical characteristics of marine waste in the Egyptian envi-
ronment, which may differ from those in other regions due to
climatic and environmental variations. This study hypothesizes
that shrimp waste, when processed and treated effectively, can
serve as a valuable resource for high-value compounds while mit-
igating environmental hazards. Therefore, the main aim of this
study is to investigate the chemical composition of shrimp waste
from various locations, assess its protein content and bioactive
potential, and evaluate methods to reduce heavy metals and mi-
crobial contamination. Ultimately, this research seeks to provide
insights into sustainable utilization strategies for shrimp waste,
offering a blueprint for industries, researchers, and policymakers
to adopt more environmentally friendly and economically viable
waste management practices.

Materials and Methods
Raw shrimp wastes (head, shell, and tail) were collected

from local markets located in Ismailia, Port Said, Suez City, and
Kafr El-Sheikh cities. Shrimp wastes were transported to the
laboratory in an icebox. The ingredients, including salt, spices,
garlic, and starch, were sourced from local markets in Ismailia
Governorate, Egypt. All chemicals utilized in this study were
of analytical grade. The shrimp wastes were separated into two
groups: the first one was left unwashed, while the second one
was thoroughly washed multiple times with tap water. Each
group was further separated into two categories: one comprising
shrimp heads and the other consisting of shell waste, including
tails. All samples were analyzed to determine their chemical
composition, microbiological load, mineral and heavy metal
content, antioxidant activity (DPPH assay), and total phenolic
content. It is noteworthy to mention that the untreated samples
were analyzed in parallel across all tests to accurately assess the
treatment effects.

Treatment of shrimp waste
The following treatments were carried out to reduce the heavy

metals content and microbiological load: acetic acid 25% for 30
min (Treatment 1), citric acid 10% for 30 min (Treatment 2),
sodium chloride 10% for 30 min (Treatment 3), combination of
12.5% acetic acid + 5% citric acid (Treatment 4), combination
of 12.5% acetic acid + 5% sodium chloride (Treatment 5), and
combination of 12.5% acetic acid + 5% citric acid + 5% sodium
chloride (Treatment 6) [10].

Shrimp shell powder (SSP) preparation
Shrimp shell waste, including heads, shells, and tails, was

separated and dried in a hot air oven at 60°C for 24 h. The dried

Figure 1. The treated and processed shrimp wastes from the different locations.

A1: Heads only (Jumbo Suez shrimp), A2: Shrimp shell and tail (Jumbo Suez

shrimp), B1: Heads only (Port Said shrimp), B2: Shrimp shell and tail (Port

Said shrimp), C1: Heads only (Ismalawy shrimp), C2: Shrimp shell and tail

(Ismalawy shrimp), D1: Heads only (Ghlayoun farmed shrimp), D2: Shrimp

shell and tail (Ghlayoun farmed shrimp).

shrimp wastes were finely ground using a blender, with each
batch processed three times for 2–3 minutes. The ground shrimp
wastes were then sieved to obtain a fine SSP. The powder was
carefully packed in airtight glass bottles to preserve its quality
and stored in a refrigerator at 4°C until it was required for further
use [11]. Figure 1 explains the treated and processed shrimp
wastes from the different locations.

Determination of chemical composition
The shrimp waste samples were analyzed for ash, protein, and

fat content using the Official Methods of Analysis. The samples
were digested with a nitric acid and perchloric acid mixture (4:1,
v/v), heated to 70-90°C for 10 minutes, cooled, and analyzed for
cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co), and zinc (Zn)
using an atomic absorption spectrophotometer (Thermo Electron
Corp., S series, China) [12].

Antioxidants determination
Shrimp shells were dehydrated at 41°C for 48 h and ground

into fine particles. For preliminary extraction, 5 g of shrimp shell
was mixed with 50 mL of absolute methanol and stirred for 2 h
at room temperature [1]. The mixture was filtered using filter
paper, and the filtrate was evaporated at 40°C under vacuum con-
ditions using a rotary evaporator. Light exposure was minimized
throughout the process to protect the extract from degradation.

The antioxidant capacity was evaluated using the DPPH
assay, following the procedure outlined by [13]. The extract
(500 µg/mL) was diluted to concentrations of 50, 100, 150, and

Highlights in BioScience Page 2 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

200 µg/mL. One milliliter of each sample was combined with
1 mL of 0.4 mM DPPH solution and 2 mL of methanol in a
sealed glass container. After 30 min of reaction at 37°C, the
mixture was transferred to a disposable polystyrene cuvette, and
the UV-visible spectrum was recorded. A blank sample, prepared
with 2 mL of methanol and 1 mL of DPPH solution, was used as
a control. The inhibition percentage, representing the decrease
in absorbance of the sample compared to the initial absorbance
of the blank, was measured at 515 nm using a spectrophotome-
ter. Each sample was prepared and analyzed in triplicate, with
all samples protected from light to prevent DPPH degradation.
The inhibition of the DPPH radical was estimated through the
following equation:

%Inhibition =
(

ACO − AAT
ACO

)
× 100% (1)

Where ACO represents the absorbance of the control at time
t = 0, and AAT represents the absorbance of the samples at time
t = 30 minutes.

Total polyphenol content (TPC)
To determine the TPC, 10 mg of methanolic extracts were

dissolved in distilled water to give a concentration of 10 mg/mL
[14]. This stock solution was then diluted to prepare concentra-
tions of 0.5, 1, and 2 mg/mL. The TPC was estimated using the
Folin-Ciocalteu reagent method, as described by [15], with gallic
acid serving as the standard. Briefly, 0.5 mL of the extract was
added to test tubes, followed by 2.5 mL of 10% Folin-Ciocalteu
reagent and 2 mL of 7.5% sodium carbonate (Na2CO3). The
mixture was thoroughly mixed using a shaker and allowed to
stand for 30 minutes. Absorbance was measured at 765 nm, and
the results were expressed as mg gallic acid equivalent per gram
dry matter as mg GAE/g DM.

HPLC analysis of phenolic compounds
Extraction, separation, and quantification were carried out

following the procedure [16]. Methanol was added to 5 grams
of each sample, and the mixture was centrifuged for 10 minutes
at 10,000 rpm. After filtering the supernatant through a 0.2 µm
Millipore membrane, 1-3 mL was collected in a vial for injection
into an HPLC (Hewlett-Packard, series 1200) equipped with a
quaternary HP pump (series 1100), solvent degasser, UV detector
set at 280 nm, and auto-sampling injector. The temperature of
the C18 reverse-phase column was maintained at 35oC. Methanol
and acetonitrile were used as the mobile phase at a flow rate of
1.0 mL/min with gradient separation. After dissolving Sigma Co.
phenolic standards in the mobile phase, they were injected into
the HPLC. Using Hewlett-Packard software for data analysis, the
concentration of phenolic compounds was determined based on
retention time and peak area.

Total aerobic plate count (TAPC)
Samples of fresh and treated shrimp’s shell and head were

bacteriologically analyzed for total aerobic bacterial counts and

Figure 2. Minerals concentration (mg/g) in shrimp wastes samples. A1: Heads

only (Jumbo Suez shrimp), A2: Shrimp shell and tail (Jumbo Suez shrimp), B1:

Heads only (Port Said shrimp), B2: Shrimp shell and tail (Port Said shrimp), C1:

Heads only (Ismalawy shrimp), C2: Shrimp shell and tail (Ismalawy shrimp),

D1: Heads only (Ghlayoun farmed shrimp), D2: Shrimp shell and tail (Ghlayoun

farmed shrimp).

total coliforms at 37 °C, following the method described below:
The agar plate method was used to determine total aerobic bac-
terial counts on nutrient agar, according to [17]. A 10 g sample
was blended in a high-speed blender under sterile conditions for
3 minutes in 90 mL of buffered peptone water. Decimal dilutions
were prepared for the determination of various bacterial groups.
The plates were incubated at 37 ± 2 ◦C for 48 hours.

Coliform group counts
Violet red bile (VRB) agar was used as the medium. Plates

were incubated at 35oC for 18-24 hours, and purple, round
colonies were counted. For fecal coliform and E. coli, purple
colonies were confirmed on eosin methylene blue (EMB) agar,
with blue-black, metallic-sheen colonies streaked onto slant agar.
Results were reported as log CFU/g [18].

Statistical analysis
The data were evaluated using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

test, conducted with SPSS software (version 16.0 for Windows,
SPSS Inc., Chicago). Duncan’s multiple range tests were em-
ployed to determine significant differences among treatment
means at P < 0.05.

Results and Discussions
Proximate composition

The chemical composition of shrimp waste samples revealed
significant variations across treatments and locations. Moisture
content was highest in heads from Ismalawy and Jumbo Suez
shrimp (C1: 30.5%, A1: 29.4%) and lowest in shells and tails
from Jumbo Suez shrimp (A2: 25.9%). Protein content was
notably highest in Ghalyoun farmed shrimp (D1: 41.6%, D2:
40.8%), reflecting their superior nutritional value, while Port

Highlights in BioScience Page 3 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

Said shrimp exhibited the lowest protein levels (B2: 35.9%, B1:
36.3%). Ash content was highest in shells and tails, particu-
larly in Ismalawy and Jumbo Suez shrimp (C2: 31.39%, A2:
29.50%), likely due to the mineral-rich exoskeleton, while Gha-
lyoun shrimp heads had the lowest ash levels (D1: 13.2%). Fat
content was highest in Ghalyoun shrimp heads (D1: 16.9%),
indicating their lipid-rich potential, and lowest in Ismalawy and
Jumbo Suez shells and tails (C2: 5.11%, A2: 5.95%) Table 1.

Table 1. Chemical composition of shrimp waste samples

Treatments Chemical composition (%) on dry weight basis

Moisture Protein Ash Fat

A1 29.41±1.04a 39.8±0.98ab 15.9±0.57 f 14.9±0.98b

A2 25.9±0.87c 38.7±1.30b 29.5±0.87b 5.95±0.87 f

B1 27.05±0.75b 36.3±1.70c 23.75±1.03c 12.9±0.76c

B2 26.7±0.54bc 35.6±0.66c 18.3±1.06b 8.97±0.55e

C1 30.5±0.63a 38.4±0.58b 20.03±0.98d 11.07±1.2d

C2 26.9±0.86bc 36.0±0.93c 31.39±0.88a 5.11±0.64 f

D1 28.3±0.32a 41.6±1.20a 13.2±0.79g 16.9±1.40a

D2 26.8±0.55bc 38.1±1.20a 17.8±0.56e 14.6±1.50b

Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation of triplicate determinations. A1 refers

to heads only (Jumbo Suez shrimp), A2 to shrimp shell and tail (Jumbo Suez shrimp), B1 to

heads only (Port Said shrimp), B2 to shrimp shell and tail (Port Said shrimp), C1 to heads

only (Ismalawy shrimp), C2 to shrimp shell and tail (Ismalawy shrimp), D1 to heads only

(Ghlayoun farmed shrimp), and D2 to shrimp shell and tail (Ghlayoun farmed shrimp).

Superscript letters a-f in the same columns indicate significant differences within the same

strain (P < 0.05).

These results suggest that heads are nutritionally denser, with
Ghalyoun farmed shrimp standing out as the most valuable re-
source for protein and fat extraction, while shells and tails are
ideal for mineral recovery. It was found that no significant differ-
ence existed in crude protein content among shrimp shells, tails,
and heads of the different five species of shrimp byproducts [19].
However, crude fat varied significantly across species and parts,
with heads having the highest content (2.17-6.88%). Ash con-
tent (8.18-13.45%) was highest in shells/tails, reflecting mineral
richness, while crude fiber (mainly chitin) peaked in shells/tails
(7.86-10.78%) and exhibited antimicrobial potential. These dif-
ferences might be attributed to species, age, and environmental
factors.

Overall, the data underscore the potential of shrimp waste for
sustainable valorization, with location and waste type playing
key roles in determining their suitability for specific applica-
tions. Several studies have reported variable protein levels in
shrimp waste, ranging from 39–70% [20; 21]. The protein con-
tent of shrimp waste from Penaeus merguensis was reported to
be 24.03% [22]. It was found that raw shrimp head waste of
Penaeus semisulcatus contained 65.76% protein [23]. Shrimp
wastes were also observed to contain 35–40% protein [24], while
the protein content of shrimp biowaste was reported to be 28.3%
[25]. The variations in protein content of raw shrimp waste may
be attributed to differences in shrimp species and the sources of

raw materials. Confirming its potential, shrimp waste powder
was found to nutritionally enrich food products while preserving
their sensory qualities and safety, establishing a practical pathway
for sustainable seafood byproduct utilization [26].

Minerals concentration in shrimp waste
The trace mineral analysis of shrimp waste samples revealed

notable differences across treatments and locations, highlight-
ing the nutrient diversity in shrimp heads and shells Figure 2.
Magnesium (Mg) content was highest in heads from Port Said
(B1: 88.4 mg/g) and Ismalawy (C1: 87.9 mg/g), indicating their
potential as rich Mg sources, while the lowest levels were found
in shells and tails from Port Said (B2: 69.4 mg/g). Sodium (Na)
content peaked in heads from Port Said and Ghalyoun shrimp (B1
and D1: 23.06 mg/g), whereas shells and tails from Ghalyoun
(D2: 9.19 mg/g) had the lowest levels. Iron (Fe) concentrations
were generally low across all samples, with the highest values
in Port Said heads (B1: 0.18 mg/g) and the lowest in Ismalawy
and Ghalyoun shells and tails (C2, D2: 0.05 mg/g), suggesting
limited Fe availability. Fe is predominantly stored as ferritin
in the liver, spleen, and bone marrow, while in human blood, it
binds to hemoglobinan iron-containing protein responsible for
oxygen binding and transport [19].

Phosphorus (P) content ranged from 9.46 mg/g (C2) to 13.4
mg/g (D1), with Ghalyoun heads containing the highest levels,
reflecting their potential as a phosphorus source. Calcium (Ca)
was notably high in shells and tails, particularly from Port Said
(B2: 76.55 mg/g) and Ghalyoun (D1: 75.9 mg/g), underscor-
ing the mineral richness of exoskeleton-based waste. Selenium
(Se) levels varied, with the highest in Ismalawy shells and tails
(C2: 0.67 mg/g), indicating a promising source of this essential
trace element. Potassium (K) content was highest in Ghalyoun
heads (D1: 4.78 mg/g), followed by shells and tails from Jumbo
Suez (A2: 4.14 mg/g), showcasing their potential for potassium
recovery. These results are in agreement with those obtained
by [27], who observed that calcium (155 ± 4.00 mg/g), iron
(42.11 ± 2.00 mg/g), copper (40 ± 2.00 mg/g), and manganese
(12.6 ± 2.2 mg/g) were prevalent in shrimp waste. It was re-
ported that calcium was abundantly present in prawn shells, with
a concentration 17 times higher than that of magnesium [28].
Furthermore, it was found that the concentrations of minerals
such as Na, K, P, Ca, Mg, Fe, and Mn in shrimp waste powder
from Penaeus spp. were 53.2, 47.5, 21.8, 89.1, 27.1, 39.4, and
17.4 mg/g, respectively [29].

Overall, the findings from this study demonstrate that shrimp
heads typically contain higher concentrations of essential miner-
als such as magnesium, sodium, and potassium when compared
to other shrimp by-products. In contrast, the shells and tails
of shrimp were found to be particularly rich in calcium and se-
lenium. These distinct mineral distribution patterns highlight
the unique nutritional composition associated with each type
of shrimp waste. Moreover, the variation in mineral content
based on both waste type and collection location presents valu-

Highlights in BioScience Page 4 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

Figure 3. Heavy metals elements (mg/g) of shrimp wastes. A1: Heads only

(Jumbo Suez shrimp), A2: Shrimp shell and tail (Jumbo Suez shrimp), B1:

Heads only (Port Said shrimp), B2: Shrimp shell and tail (Port Said shrimp), C1:

Heads only (Ismalawy shrimp), C2: Shrimp shell and tail (Ismalawy shrimp),

D1: Heads only (Ghlayoun farmed shrimp), D2: Shrimp shell and tail (Ghlayoun

farmed shrimp).

able opportunities for selective resource recovery. Such targeted
extraction and utilization strategies can contribute significantly
to sustainable practices in various sectors, including agriculture,
pharmaceutical development, and the production of dietary sup-
plements, thereby promoting environmental sustainability and
economic efficiency.

Heavy metals in shrimp waste samples
Shrimp heads are prone to heavy metal accumulation, lead-

ing to diminished nutritional quality. This phenomenon occurs
because aquatic organisms can bioaccumulate heavy metals from
various environmental sources, such as sediments, atmospheric
deposition, and wastewater discharge [30]. The hepatopancreas,
a key detoxification and metal storage organ in crustaceans, plays
a significant role in this process. Additionally, the gills, due to
their direct exposure to water, further facilitate the rapid uptake of
heavy metals [31]. The analysis of heavy metal concentrations in
shrimp waste samples revealed significant variations depending
on the sample type (heads vs. shells and tails) and location Fig-
ure 3. Lead (Pb) levels were highest in Jumbo Suez heads (A1:
1.3 mg/g), while the lowest levels were observed in Ghalyoun
shells and tails (D2: 0.29 mg/g). Mercury (Hg) concentrations
were relatively low across all samples, with A1 (0.17 mg/g) show-
ing the highest level and D2 (0.032 mg/g) the lowest. Arsenic
(As) content peaked in Ismalawy heads (C1: 0.11 mg/g) but was
minimal in most other samples, with A2 and D2 both at 0.005
and 0.006 mg/g, respectively.

Manganese (Mn) levels were highest in A1 (0.73 mg/g) and
lowest in C2 and D2 (0.13 mg/g), reflecting the nutritional rich-
ness of heads compared to shells and tails. Copper (Cu) was most
abundant in A1 (1.09 mg/g) and lowest in D2 (0.26 mg/g). Cad-
mium (Cd) concentrations were generally low, with the highest

Figure 4. Total phenolic content of shrimp waste samples: A1 (heads only,

Jumbo Suez shrimp), A2 (shrimp shell and tail, Jumbo Suez shrimp), B1 (heads

only, Port Said shrimp), B2 (shrimp shell and tail, Port Said shrimp), C1 (heads

only, Ismalawy shrimp), C2 (shrimp shell and tail, Ismalawy shrimp), D1 (heads

only, Ghlayoun farmed shrimp), and D2 (shrimp shell and tail, Ghlayoun farmed

shrimp). Error bars indicate ± standard deviation. Values with different letters

are significantly different (P < 0.05).

levels detected in A1 and C2 (0.118 mg/g each), while several
samples, such as B2, D1, and D2, showed no detectable Cd.
Nickel (Ni) was highest in A1 (1.34 mg/g) and lowest in D2
(0.41 mg/g). Zinc (Zn), an essential trace metal, showed the
highest levels in Ghalyoun heads (D1: 60.6 mg/g) and the low-
est in Ismalawy shells and tails (C2: 21.7 mg/g). In general,
these results are in agreement with those obtained by [32]. The
FAO/WHO established maximum permissible limits of 0.50 µg/g
for Pb, Cd, As, and Hg. Accordingly, the contents of Pb, Cd, As,
and Hg in the different investigated samples are higher than the
limited values [31].

Overall, shrimp heads consistently exhibited higher concen-
trations of heavy metals compared to shells and tails, with Jumbo
Suez and Ghalyoun shrimp showing the most notable levels.
While heads are nutrient-rich, the elevated heavy metal concentra-
tions necessitate appropriate treatment and monitoring to ensure
safe and sustainable utilization of shrimp waste.

Bioactive compounds of shrimp waste
Total phenols content of shrimp waste samples (TP)

The total phenolic content of shrimp waste samples demon-
strated significant variability across treatments and locations
(P < 0.05) Figure 4. The highest total phenol content was
observed in the heads from Jumbo Suez shrimp (A1: 77.06 mg
GAE/g DM), indicating their superior potential as a source of
antioxidant compounds. This was followed by the shell and tail
from Jumbo Suez shrimp (A2: 45.45 mg GAE/g DM), heads
from Ghalyoun farmed shrimp (D1: 44.74 mg GAE/g DM),
and Ismalawy shrimp (C1: 43.64 mg GAE/g DM). Shells and
tails generally exhibited lower phenol content, with Jumbo Suez

Highlights in BioScience Page 5 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

Table 2. HPLC analyses of phenolic compounds (ppm) in shrimp waste samples

Phenolic compound A1 A2 B1 B2 C1 C2 D1 D2

Pyrogallol 29677.6 16574.9 20061.1 25282.1 32906.8 23698.2 24694.7 32974.3

Gallic 4507.5 2521.6 1669.64 908.5 1078.3 2374.4 1218.1 0

3-OH Tyrosol 3560.2 1764.9 2203.06 655.1 2589.5 509.3 3679.2 209.6

Catechol 8514.0 5500.8 1786.36 172.5 406.8 111.1 3512.0 459.0

4-Amino benzoic 480.4 258.2 43.25 20.1 149.8 211.8 211.8 27.42

Catechein 5109.7 4577.9 2441.58 700.2 872.5 303.5 1084.5 490.5

Chlorogenic 2686.1 1672.4 702.04 91.9 1441.9 267.4 1537.7 221.4

P-OH-benzoic 1389.2 647.8 161.35 180.6 163.4 114.9 564.9 181.9

Benzoic 1832.6 896.7 1091.2 242.5 1320.4 153.4 758.8 54.2

Caffeic 2059.3 1341.5 257.02 65.1 679.4 154.9 613.4 112.5

Vanillic 1605.3 405.1 377.6 269.9 305.6 164.7 805.2 182.7

Caffeine 1721.5 558.2 1177.96 223.6 1058.3 186.2 508.6 0

Oleuropein 3142.6 337.7 3304.3 283.1 913.5 515.5 524.1 822.8

Ferulic 928.5 394.8 745.98 224.1 832.5 179.6 951.6 74.6

Ellagic 10643.3 7854.7 1950.2 1689.2 1622.8 1260.2 578.6 967.2

Coumarin 582.6 180.4 41.29 29.3 44.4 37.20 75.16 38.82

A1 refers to heads only (Jumbo Suez shrimp), A2 to shrimp shell and tail (Jumbo Suez shrimp), B1 to heads only (Port Said shrimp), B2 to shrimp shell and tail (Port Said shrimp), C1 to

heads only (Ismalawy shrimp), C2 to shrimp shell and tail (Ismalawy shrimp), D1 to heads only (Ghlayoun farmed shrimp), and D2 to shrimp shell and tail (Ghlayoun farmed shrimp).

shrimp shells (A2: 45.45 mg GAE/g DM) being an exception,
showcasing relatively high phenol levels compared to other shell
samples. The lowest phenol content was recorded in shells and
tails from Ismalawy shrimp (C2: 29.06 mg GAE/g DM) and Port
Said shrimp (B2: 30.23 mg GAE/g DM), as well as heads from
Port Said shrimp (B1: 31.78 mg GAE/g DM). It was reported that
the total phenolic content in shrimp shell waste from Palaemon
serratus and Palaemon varians, collected along the Portuguese
coast, ranged from 4.7 to 10.4 mg GAE/g DM [1]. The differ-
ences may be attributed to variations in species, environmental
conditions, and processing methods, which influence the phenolic
compound levels in shrimp waste [33].

Overall, shrimp heads consistently exhibited higher total phe-
nolic content compared to shells and tails, with Jumbo Suez
shrimp heads being the richest source. These findings suggest
that shrimp heads, particularly from Jumbo Suez and Ghaly-
oun shrimp, could be prioritized for antioxidant extraction in
nutraceutical and pharmaceutical applications, supporting sus-
tainable valorization strategies.

HPLC analyses of phenolic compounds
The HPLC analysis revealed variability in the phenolic com-

pound profiles of shrimp waste samples across different treat-
ments and locations Table 2. Pyrogallol was the dominant pheno-
lic compound, with the highest levels observed in Ghalyoun shells
(D2: 32,974.3 ppm) and Ismalawy heads (C1: 32,906.8 ppm),
while gallic acid and catechol were most abundant in Jumbo Suez

heads (A1: 4,507.5 ppm and 8,514.0 ppm, respectively). Ellagic
acid was prominent in Jumbo Suez samples (A1: 10,643.3 ppm;
A2: 7,854.7 ppm), underscoring their strong bioactive potential.
Heads consistently exhibited higher phenolic concentrations than
shells and tails, particularly in samples from Jumbo Suez and
Ghalyoun, which demonstrated superior phenolic diversity and
content. In contrast, Port Said samples showed the lowest pheno-
lic levels, with shells and tails generally being less phenol-rich
than heads.

These findings highlight the significant bioactive potential
of shrimp heads, particularly from Jumbo Suez and Ghalyoun,
for use in nutraceutical, pharmaceutical, and functional food in-
dustries, supporting the sustainable valorization of shrimp waste.
The results also suggest that treatment conditions play a crucial
role in the preservation or degradation of phenolic compounds
in shrimp waste, with significant differences across the groups.
The variability in phenolic content aligns with previous studies
highlighting the sensitivity of phenolic compounds to environ-
mental factors and processing conditions, which can significantly
influence their bioavailability and antioxidant properties [34; 35].

Antioxidant activity (DPPH %) of shrimp waste samples
The antioxidant activity was assessed using DPPH (2,2-

diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl), a stable free radical compound with
maximum absorbance at 517 nm. When DPPH radicals interact
with proton-donating substances, such as antioxidants, the rad-
icals are neutralized, leading to a reduction in absorbance [36].

Highlights in BioScience Page 6 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

Figure 5. Antioxidant activity (DPPH %) of shrimp waste samples: A1 (heads

only, Jumbo Suez shrimp), A2 (shrimp shell and tail, Jumbo Suez shrimp), B1

(heads only, Port Said shrimp), B2 (shrimp shell and tail, Port Said shrimp), C1

(heads only, Ismalawy shrimp), C2 (shrimp shell and tail, Ismalawy shrimp), D1

(heads only, Ghlayoun farmed shrimp), and D2 (shrimp shell and tail, Ghlayoun

farmed shrimp). Error bars indicate ± standard deviation. Values with different

letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).

Figure 5 illustrates the DPPH radical-scavenging activity of vari-
ous shrimp waste samples at a concentration of 1 mg/mL. The
antioxidant activity (DPPH %) of shrimp waste samples showed
significant variation across treatments and locations (P < 0.05).
The highest antioxidant activity was observed in heads from
Jumbo Suez shrimp (A1: 65.793%), indicating their superior free
radical scavenging capacity. Ghalyoun heads (D1: 44.337%) and
Ismalawy heads (C1: 40.18%) also exhibited notable antioxi-
dant activity, underscoring the potential of shrimp heads as rich
sources of antioxidants.

In contrast, shells and tails consistently showed lower activity,
with the lowest values recorded in Port Said shells and tails (B2:
6.382%) and Ghalyoun shells and tails (D2: 8.864%). Among
shell and tail samples, Jumbo Suez (A2: 9.083%) and Ismalawy
(C2: 10.965%) demonstrated slightly higher activity. These
results highlight that shrimp heads, particularly from Jumbo Suez
and Ghalyoun shrimp, are a valuable source of antioxidants,
while shells and tails exhibit significantly lower activity, making
heads the primary target for antioxidant recovery in valorization
strategies. The results indicate that the samples likely contained
peptides or chitooligosaccharides, which act as electron donors.
These compounds can react with free radicals, stabilizing them
and terminating the radical chain reaction [37; 38; 39].

Microbial quality of shrimp's waste samples
Bacterial growth is a primary factor in the spoilage of fish and

fish products. Therefore, bacterial count is recommended as a
key indicator for assessing the quality of food products [40]. The
microbial analysis of shrimp waste samples revealed significant
differences in total microbial count, Vibrio cholerae, and coliform
group levels across treatments (P < 0.05) Figure 6. The highest

Figure 6. Microbial analysis of shrimp waste samples. A1: Heads only (Jumbo

Suez shrimp), A2: Shrimp shell and tail (Jumbo Suez shrimp), B1: Heads only

(Port Said shrimp), B2: Shrimp shell and tail (Port Said shrimp), C1: Heads only

(Ismalawy shrimp), C2: Shrimp shell and tail (Ismalawy shrimp), D1: Heads

only (Ghlayoun farmed shrimp), D2: Shrimp shell and tail (Ghlayoun farmed

shrimp).

total microbial count was observed in Port Said shrimp, with both
heads (B1: 7.52 log CFU/g) and shells/tails (B2: 7.54 log CFU/g)
showing significantly higher values compared to samples from
other locations. Jumbo Suez shrimp heads (A1: 6.58 log CFU/g)
and Ismalawy heads (C1: 6.62 log CFU/g) exhibited moderate
microbial loads, while Ghalyoun shrimp (D1: 5.62 log CFU/g,
D2: 5.58 log CFU/g) had the lowest counts, suggesting better
microbial quality.

For Vibrio cholerae, Jumbo Suez shrimp (A1: 7.26 log
CFU/g, A2: 7.37 log CFU/g) showed the highest contamina-
tion, highlighting a potential safety concern. Port Said samples
(B1: 7.25 log CFU/g, B2: 7.19 log CFU/g) and Ismalawy sam-
ples (C1: 7.22 log CFU/g, C2: 7.21 log CFU/g) followed closely,
while Vibrio cholerae was not detected in Ghalyoun shrimp (D1
and D2). Coliform group levels were highest in Jumbo Suez
shells and tails (A2: 6.11 log CFU/g) and moderate in Port Said
samples (B2: 5.77 log CFU/g). Ghalyoun shrimp (D1: 4.33
log CFU/g, D2: 4.64 log CFU/g) consistently showed the low-
est coliform levels, further emphasizing their microbial safety.
Ismalawy shrimp (C1: 4.49 log CFU/g) also had low coliform
counts in the heads, aligning with better overall microbial quality.

In summary, shrimp samples collected from Port Said exhib-
ited the highest levels of microbial contamination, with particu-
larly elevated values observed in the total microbial count. On
the other hand, shrimp waste originating from Ghalyoun farms
consistently demonstrated the lowest microbial loads across all
evaluated parameters. These results underscore the significant
influence of geographic location and specific waste type on the
microbial safety of shrimp by-products. The notably lower con-
tamination levels found in Ghalyoun shrimp suggest that this

Highlights in BioScience Page 7 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

source possesses superior microbial quality, making it a more
suitable candidate for various potential applications, including
those in agriculture, food processing, and biotechnological indus-
tries where microbial safety is a critical consideration.

Table 3. Effect of some treatments on reducing microbial count of shrimp

wastes.

Treatments Microbial count (Log CFU/g)

Total count Vibrio cholerae Coliform group

C 5.32a ND 4.75a

T1 4.65c ND 4.15b

T2 5.12b ND 3.24c

T3 4.36c ND 4.13b

T4 4.46c ND 3.19c

T5 4.59c ND 4.13b

T6 3.57d ND 2.23d

C: Control, T1: Acetic acid 25% /30 min, T2: Citric acid 10% /30 min, T3: Sodium

chloride 10% /30 min, T4: Acetic acid 12.5% + Citric acid 5% /30 min, T5: Acetic

acid 12.5% + Sodium chloride 5% /30 min, T6: Acetic acid 12.5% + Citric acid 5% +

Sodium chloride 5% /30 min. a–d values in the same columns with different superscript

letters within a same strain are significantly different (P<0.05). ND: Not detected.

Treatments to reduce heavy metals in shrimp waste
The chelation method was identified as a promising technique

for effectively removing heavy metals from shrimp waste samples.
The formulations included: T1 (10% acetic acid), T2 (10% citric
acid), T3 (10% sodium chloride), T4 (12.5% acetic acid + 5%
citric acid), T5 (12.5% acetic acid + 5% sodium chloride), and
T6 (12.5% acetic acid + 5% citric acid + 5% sodium chloride),
each applied for 30 minutes. Interestingly, these treatments were
able to chelate the heavy metals present in the shrimp waste. The
concentrations of acid and salt were selected based on previous
studies that demonstrated their effectiveness under similar condi-
tions [10]. Regarding the use of 25% acetic acid in treatment T1
compared to 12.5% in treatments T4–T6, this was intentionally
designed to evaluate the impact of high versus low concentrations
on product quality and microbial inhibition. It is worth noting
that the lower concentration (12.5%) was combined with other
substances to enhance its efficacy, whereas the higher concentra-
tion (25%) was applied alone without additional components, to
assess its standalone effectiveness.

T6 (12.5% acetic acid + 5% citric acid + 5% sodium chloride
for 30 minutes) resulted in the lowest levels of heavy metals
(Pb, Hg, As, Mn, Cu, Cd, Ni, and Zn) in shrimp waste Figure 7.
It was demonstrated that acetic acid effectively chelated heavy
metals in green mussels [10]. Chelating organic acids can remove
exchangeable, carbonate, and reducible fractions of heavy metals
through washing processes [41; 42]. Sodium acetate has also
been shown to chelate heavy metals such as arsenic (As), lead

Figure 7. Effect of some treatment on reduce the heavy metals of shrimp wastes.

All treatments were applied for 30 minutes. The specific treatments were: C:

Control, T1: Acetic acid 10 %, T2: Citric acid 10 %, T3: Sodium chloride 10

%, T4: Acetic acid 12.5 % + Citric acid 5 %, T5: Acetic acid 12.5 % + Sodium

chloride 5 %, T6: Acetic acid 12.5 % + Citric acid 5 % + Sodium chloride 5 %.

All treatments were applied for 30 minutes.

(Pb), cadmium (Cd), and nickel (Ni) in green mussels, reducing
their levels to those deemed safe for human consumption [32].

Effect of some treatments on reducing microbial content in shrimp
waste

The results demonstrate that various treatments effectively re-
duced the microbial content of shrimp wastes, with all treatments
successfully eliminating Vibrio cholerae Table 3. The control
sample (C) had the highest microbial counts, emphasizing the
need for intervention. Among the treatments, T6 (12.5% acetic
acid + 5% citric acid + 5% sodium chloride) was the most effec-
tive, achieving the lowest total microbial count (3.57 log CFU/g)
and coliform count (2.23 log CFU/g), highlighting the synergistic
effect of combining acids and salt. Single-agent treatments, such
as T1 (25% acetic acid) and T2 (10% citric acid), were less ef-
fective, with higher microbial counts compared to the combined
treatments. This study underscores the superior antimicrobial
efficacy of combination treatments like T6, making them highly
suitable for enhancing the microbial safety and quality of shrimp
wastes.

Economic feasibility
Repurposing shrimp waste safeguards the environment and

promotes the circular economy through sustainable resource uti-
lization. The proposed treatments are amenable to scale-up, as
they utilize locally available and low-cost chemicals such as
acetic acid, sodium chloride, and citric acid. The procedures
for preparing shrimp shell powder are straightforward and do

Highlights in BioScience Page 8 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

not require complex industrial techniques, thereby facilitating
large-scale application. Moreover, the resulting shell powder
exhibits promising properties that qualify it for direct use in the
food industry as an ingredient in nutraceutical products.

Conclusion
This study highlights the significant potential of shrimp waste

as a resource for sustainable valorization, with variations in chem-
ical composition, mineral content, heavy metals, bioactive com-
pounds, and microbial quality across different treatments and
locations. Shrimp heads, particularly from Ghalyoun and Jumbo
Suez regions, emerged as the most nutritionally dense compo-
nents, with high protein, fat, and phenolic compound levels,
making them ideal for antioxidant extraction and functional food
applications. Shells and tails, on the other hand, were rich in
calcium and selenium, suitable for mineral recovery. Heavy
metal analysis showed that heads generally had higher concentra-
tions, necessitating effective treatments like chelation to ensure
safety. The combined treatment of acetic acid, citric acid, and
sodium chloride (T6) proved to be the most effective in reducing
heavy metal levels and microbial contamination, including Vibrio
cholerae, showcasing its efficacy as a decontamination strategy.
Antioxidant activity further confirmed the bioactive potential of
shrimp heads, with Jumbo Suez samples demonstrating superior
free radical scavenging capacity.

Overall, our work uniquely targets Egyptian shrimp waste,
leveraging its distinct regional traits to fill a research gap and
advance localized circular economy strategies. By emphasizing
location-specific treatments, this study maximizes waste valoriza-
tion while ensuring safety, enabling applications in agriculture,
pharmaceuticals, and nutraceuticals to uphold circular economy
principles.

Reference
1. Maia ML, Grosso C, Barroso MF, Silva A, Delerue-Matos

C, Domingues VF. Bioactive compounds of shrimp shell
waste from Palaemon serratus and Palaemon varians from
Portuguese coast. Antioxidants. 2023;12(2):435.

2. Dayal JS, Ponniah A, Khan HI, Babu EM, Ambasankar K,
Vasagam KK. Shrimps–a nutritional perspective. Current
science. 2013:1487-91.

3. Rossi N, Grosso C, Delerue-Matos C. Shrimp waste up-
cycling: unveiling the potential of polysaccharides, pro-
teins, carotenoids, and fatty acids with emphasis on extrac-
tion techniques and bioactive properties. Marine Drugs.
2024;22(4):153.

4. IMARC. Shrimp Market: Global Industry Trends, Share,
Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2020–2025. Sydney:
International Mining and Resources Conference; 2025.

5. Nirmal NP, Santivarangkna C, Rajput MS, Benjakul S.
Trends in shrimp processing waste utilization: An indus-

trial prospective. Trends in Food Science & Technology.
2020;103:20-35.

6. FAO. Food supply—Livestock and fish primary equivalent;
2021. FAOSTAT. http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/
#data/CL.

7. Abidin Z. Total carotenoids, antioxidant and anticancer effect
of Penaeus monodon shells extract. Biointerface Research
in Applied Chemistry. 2021;11(4):11293-302.

8. Muniyappan J, Varadharajan V, Namadevan P. Biochemical
screening and determination of bioactive components of com-
mercially cultured pacific white shrimp Penaeus vannamei.
Pharmacognosy Research. 2019;11(2).

9. Rossi N, Grosso C, Delerue-Matos C. Shrimp waste up-
cycling: unveiling the potential of polysaccharides, pro-
teins, carotenoids, and fatty acids with emphasis on extrac-
tion techniques and bioactive properties. Marine Drugs.
2024;22(4):153.

10. Suprapti NH, Syarani L, Anggoro S. The chromium (Cr)
content in water and in the tissue of mud crab Scylla serrata
(Forskal.) in the brackishwater ponds around Babon River
Estuary of Semarang coastal areas in Central Java, Indonesia.
Journal of Coastal Development. 2012;16(1):62-7.

11. Ray S, Mondal P, Paul AK, Iqbal S, Atique U, Islam MS, et al.
Role of shrimp farming in socio-economic elevation and
professional satisfaction in coastal communities of Southern
Bangladesh. Aquaculture Reports. 2021;20(100708):1-10.

12. Official Method of Analysis. 18th ed. Washington, DC:
Association of Official Analytical Chemists; 2005. Method
935.14 and 992.24.

13. Liu D, Shi J, Ibarra AC, Kakuda Y, Xue SJ. The scavenging
capacity and synergistic effects of lycopene, vitamin E, vi-
tamin C, and β-carotene mixtures on the DPPH free radical.
LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2008;41(7):1344-9.

14. Wong-Paz JE, Contreras-Esquivel JC, Rodríguez-Herrera R,
Carrillo-Inungaray ML, López LI, Nevárez-Moorillón GV,
et al. Total phenolic content, in vitro antioxidant activity
and chemical composition of plant extracts from semiarid
Mexican region. Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Medicine.
2015;8(2):104-11.

15. Dibacto REK, Tchuente BRT, Nguedjo MW, Tientcheu YMT,
Nyobe EC, Edoun FLE, et al. Total polyphenol and flavonoid
content and antioxidant capacity of some varieties of Persea
americana peels consumed in Cameroon. The Scientific
World Journal. 2021;2021(1):8882594.

16. Goupy P, Hugues M, Boivin P, Amiot MJ. Antioxidant
composition and activity of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and

Highlights in BioScience Page 9 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/CL
http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/CL
http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

malt extracts and of isolated phenolic compounds. Journal of
the Science of Food and Agriculture. 1999;79(12):1625-34.

17. Hassan A, Mahmoud AWM, Turky G. Rice husk derived
nano zeolite (AM 2) as fertilizer, hydrophilic and novel
organophilic material. American Journal of Nanomaterials.
2017;5(1):11-23.

18. Greenwood M. Practical Food Microbiology. Blackwell
Pub.; 2003.

19. Liu Z, Liu Q, Zhang D, Wei S, Sun Q, Xia Q, et al. Compar-
ison of the proximate composition and nutritional profile of
byproducts and edible parts of five species of shrimp. Foods.
2021;10(11):2603.

20. Fanimo A, Mudama E, Umukoro T, Oduguwa O. Substitu-
tion of shrimp waste meal for fish meal in broiler chicken
rations. 1996.

21. Okoye F, Ojewola G, Njoku-Onu K. Evaluation of
shrimp waste meal as a probable animal protein source for
broiler chicken. International Journal of Poultry Science.
2005;4(5):458-61.

22. Mahata M. Repairing shrimp waste nutrient quality as poul-
try feed through chitinases and chitinase hydrolysis from
Serratia marcescens bacterium. Dissertation Univ Andalas
Padang. 2007.

23. Mizani AM, Aminlari BM. A new process for deproteiniza-
tion of chitin from shrimp head waste. In: Proceedings
of European Congress of Chemical Engineering (ECCE-6).
September Copenhagen; 2007. p. 16-20.

24. Sachindra NM, Bhaskar N. In vitro antioxidant activity
of liquor from fermented shrimp biowaste. Bioresource
Technology. 2008;99(18):9013-6.

25. Prameela K, Murali M, Hemalatha K. Extraction of phar-
maceutically important chitin and carotenoids from shrimp
biowaste by microbial fermentation method. Journal of
Pharmaceutical Research. 2010;3(10):2393-5.

26. Omar S, Farag M, Taha R, GabAlla A, Rayan A. Utilization
of shrimp waste powder as a functional ingredient in fortify-
ing ready-to-eat foods. Journal of Chemistry and Nutritional
Biochemistry. 2025;6(1):47-67.

27. Jeyasanta I, Allwin SJ, Patterson J. Development of nutri-
tious better utilization to reduce. Development. 2017;5(3):1-
8.

28. Beaney P, Lizardi-Mendoza J, Healy M. Comparison of
chitins produced by chemical and bioprocessing methods.
Journal of Chemical Technology & Biotechnology: Interna-
tional Research in Process, Environmental & Clean Technol-
ogy. 2005;80(2):145-50.

29. Singh S, Siddhnath BR, Aziz A, Verma N, Chriwatkar
B. Shrimp waste powder–Potential as protein supple-
ment. International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience.
2018;6(6):401-6.

30. Prato E, Biandolino F, Parlapiano I, Giandomenico S, Denti
G, Calò M, et al. Proximate, fatty acids and metals in edible
marine bivalves from Italian market: Beneficial and risk
for consumers health. Science of the Total Environment.
2019;648:153-63.

31. on Food Additives Meeting JFEC. Evaluation of Certain
Food Additives and Contaminants: Eightieth Report of
the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives.
vol. 80. World Health Organization; 2016.

32. Azelee IW, Ismail R, Ali R, Bakar W. Chelation technique
for the removal of heavy metals (As, Pb, Cd and Ni) from
green mussel, Perna viridis. NISCAIR-CSIR Bulletin. 2014.

33. Shiekh HM, Gumgumjee NM, Danial EN. Antifungal and
antioxidant activities of methanol extract of chitin, chitosan
and shrimp shell waste. International Journal of Pharmaceu-
tical and Phytopharmacological Research. 2018;8(2):25-30.

34. Shahidi F, Ambigaipalan P. Phenolics and polyphenolics in
foods, beverages and spices: Antioxidant activity and health
effects–A review. Journal of Functional Foods. 2015;18:820-
97.

35. Nunes R, Pasko P, Tyszka-Czochara M, Szewczyk A, Szlosar-
czyk M, Carvalho IS. Antibacterial, antioxidant and anti-
proliferative properties and zinc content of five South Portu-
gal herbs. Pharmaceutical Biology. 2017;55(1):114-23.

36. Bersuder P, Hole M, Smith G. Antioxidants from a heated
histidine-glucose model system. I: Investigation of the an-
tioxidant role of histidine and isolation of antioxidants by
high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of the
American Oil Chemists’ Society. 1998;75(2):181-7.

37. Binsan W, Benjakul S, Visessanguan W, Roytrakul S, Tanaka
M, Kishimura H. Antioxidative activity of Mungoong, an ex-
tract paste, from the cephalothorax of white shrimp (Litope-
naeus vannamei). Food Chemistry. 2008;106(1):185-93.

38. Manni L, Ghorbel-Bellaaj O, Jellouli K, Younes I, Nasri
M. Extraction and characterization of chitin, chitosan, and
protein hydrolysates prepared from shrimp waste by treat-
ment with crude protease from Bacillus cereus SV1. Applied
Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 2010;162:345-57.

39. Wang SL, Li JY, Liang TW, Hsieh JL, Tseng WN. Conver-
sion of shrimp shell by using Serratia sp. TKU017 fermenta-
tion for the production of enzymes and antioxidants. Journal
of Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2010;20(1):117-26.

Highlights in BioScience Page 10 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/


Omar et al., 2025 Shrimp waste utilization: Exploring composition

40. Suvanich V, Marshall D, Jahncke M. Microbiological and
color quality changes of channel catfish frame mince dur-
ing chilled and frozen storage. Journal of Food Science.
2000;65(1):151-4.

41. Amir RM, Randhawa MA, Sajid MW, Nadeem M, Ahmad
A, Wattoo FM. Evaluation of various soaking agents as a
novel tool for heavy metal residues mitigation from spinach.
Food Science and Technology. 2018;39:176-80.

42. Labanowski J, Monna F, Bermond A, Cambier P, Fernandez
C, Lamy I, et al. Kinetic extractions to assess mobilization
of Zn, Pb, Cu, and Cd in a metal-contaminated soil: EDTA
vs. citrate. Environmental Pollution. 2008;152(3):693-701.

Highlights in BioScience Page 11 of 11 June 2025|Volume 8

http://bioscience.highlightsin.org/

	Abstract
	Introduction
	Materials and Methods
	Treatment of shrimp waste
	Shrimp shell powder (SSP) preparation
	Determination of chemical composition
	Antioxidants determination
	Total polyphenol content (TPC)
	HPLC analysis of phenolic compounds
	Total aerobic plate count (TAPC)
	Coliform group counts
	Statistical analysis

	Results and Discussions
	Proximate composition
	Minerals concentration in shrimp waste
	Heavy metals in shrimp waste samples
	Bioactive compounds of shrimp waste
	HPLC analyses of phenolic compounds
	Antioxidant activity (DPPH %) of shrimp waste samples
	Microbial quality of shrimp's waste samples
	Treatments to reduce heavy metals in shrimp waste
	Effect of some treatments on reducing microbial content in shrimp waste
	Economic feasibility

	Conclusion

