4.2 Article

Physicochemical Properties Comparative Analysis of Corn Starch and Cassava Starch, and Comparative Analysis as Adhesive

Journal

JOURNAL OF RENEWABLE MATERIALS
Volume 9, Issue 5, Pages 979-992

Publisher

TECH SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.32604/jrm.2021.014751

Keywords

Corn starch; cassava starch; comparative analysis; adhesive

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31670569]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2572019CG05]
  3. Chinese University Students, Innovation and Entrepreneurship Project [202010225071]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that there are differences in morphology and properties between corn starch and cassava starch. Cassava starch had a stronger and wider hydroxyl peak, slightly higher oxygen content and slightly lower carbon content, while corn starch granules were more irregular and sharper, while cassava starch granules were more uniform, regular, and round.
The morphology and properties of corn starch and cassava starch were compared by SEM, DSC and TGA. The effects of amylose and amylopectin content on starch properties were studied by FT-IR, XRD and XPS. The ply-wood was pressed with the prepared adhesive and the bonding strength of the plywood was tested to analyze the difference among the adhesives from different plant sources and the difference after blending PAPI prepolymer. FT-IR results showed that the hydroxyl peak of cassava starch was stronger and wider. TGA showed that the residue of cassava starch was lower, but the thermal stability of cassava starch was almost the same. XPS data showed that the oxygen content of cassava starch was slightly higher, but the carbon content was slightly lower. SEM analysis showed that corn starch granules were more irregular and sharper than cassava starch, and cassava starch granules were more uniform, regular and round.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available