4.7 Article

Effect of different enzymatic extractions on molecular weight distribution, rheological and microstructural properties of barley bran β-glucan

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL MACROMOLECULES
Volume 126, Issue -, Pages 298-309

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.12.165

Keywords

Barley; Bran; beta-Glucan; Enzyme; Extraction; Fiber

Funding

  1. Tarbiat Modares University (Tehran, Iran)
  2. Department of Food Science at Purdue University (West Lafayette, IN)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different enzymatic extraction procedures on molecular weight distribution, rheological behavior, microstructural properties, compositional factors including ash (%), starch (%), pentosans (%), beta-glucan (%) and extraction yield (%) of the fiber samples obtained from barley bran. Different enzymes including alpha-amylase, protease, glucoamylase, pullulanase and two types of xylanase were used in special combinations to extract beta-glucan from barley bran. The three-step purification procedures with alpha-amylase, protease and xylanase have been proved to be efficient in increasing the beta-glucan content and in removing starch, protein and pentosans from the barley bran in 4 h. The procedures also have resulted in highest beta-glucan purity and lowest molecular weight of similar to 89% and 2 x 10(4) g.mol(-1), respectively. While the respective lowest beta-glucan purity and highest molecular weight of similar to 55% and 16 x 10(4) g.mol(-1) were obtained by only alpha-amylase treatment in 1.5 h. Regardless of different purity, extraction yield and composition, the results of this study showed that how enzymatic extractions affect molecular-rheological relationship of the beta-glucan-enriched fibers, which may help to understand their function in the digestive track and industrial processes. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available