{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022741629816803537, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0018951358180669614, 'mean_word_length': 5.439024390243903, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Methodological biases in estimates of macroalgal macromolecular composition

Interest surrounding the use of macroalgae macromolecules for food products, biofuels, or other industrial applications is growing. As researchers search for macroalgae with especially high protein, lipid, carbohydrate or fibre content, the demand for a suite of standardized and unbiased methods for quantifying macroalgae macromolecules increases. Using data from available scientific literature, we evaluated the biases of the major methods used to determine macroalgal macromolecular content, as well as the sample drying methods employed. We found that drying at room temperature prior to analysis resulted in the highest estimates of protein and carbohydrate, and that freeze‐drying provided the highest estimates of lipid. Using nitrogen content and the standard conversion factor to calculate protein in macroalgae (N × 6.25 method) overestimates protein content compared to protein assays such as the Bradford ( ) or Lowry ( ) assays. The Bligh and Dyer ( ) lipid extraction method was found to have a yield nearly two‐fold higher than other standard methods. For carbohydrates, the By Difference and Prosky et al. ( ) methods provide estimates up to five‐fold higher than other common methods used to determine carbohydrate and fibre. Based on these results we recommend using protein assays as opposed to nitrogen content assays to determine protein content, the Bligh and Dyer lipid extraction method for lipids, and the By Difference and Prosky method for carbohydrate and fibre, respectively.