Collection state and post-harvest drying may influence both the structural matrix of macroalgal biomass and the compounds recovered by solvent extraction. We combined whole-biomass ATR-FTIR with UV–visible absorption, fluorescence excitation and emission spectroscopy, and excitation–emission matrices (EEMs) of ethanolic extracts to characterise invasive Rugulopteryx okamurae collected as submerged, intertidal and naturally beach-exposed biomass and, separately, to compare freeze-drying with drying at 45 °C. Each collection state was represented by one source biomass portion with three separately processed subsamples, which were used to describe within-source variability. Collection-state comparisons were therefore descriptive and specific to the material examined. The submerged and intertidal source portions showed closely similar FTIR and optical profiles, whereas the beach-exposed source portion retained a prominent carbohydrate-associated FTIR region but showed a dominant maximum near 1020 cm−1, an additional contribution near 1081 cm−1, approximately 72–73% lower absorbance at 430 nm and approximately 78% lower red fluorescence. Within the separate drying series, biomass dried at 45 °C produced stronger extract absorption and fluorescence than freeze-dried biomass without materially shifting the principal spectral features. These complementary measurements support preliminary characterisation of macroalgal biomass, while broader biological inference requires independent spatial and temporal replication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pinto et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: