4.2 Article

Optimum steeping process for wet milling of sorghum

Journal

CEREAL CHEMISTRY
Volume 77, Issue 4, Pages 478-483

Publisher

AMER ASSOC CEREAL CHEMISTS
DOI: 10.1094/CCHEM.2000.77.4.478

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pioneer 8500, a red bud sorghum hybrid, was steeped batchwise using three steeping solutions at 50 degrees C: SO2 solution; SO2 solution containing 1.25% (w/w) of a commercial multiple-enzyme preparation (Novo SP249); and SO2 solution with the addition of 0.5% (w/w) lactic acid. Novo SP249 contained pectolytic, cellulolytic, hemicellulolytic, and proteolytic activities and small, amounts of saccharolytic activities. Three SO2 concentrations (0.1, 0.2, and 0.3% w/v) prepared by dissolving sodium bisulfite in distilled water and three steeping times (24, 36, and 48 hr) were used. Incorporation of multiple enzymes into the SO2 resulted in an increase in starch yield with reduced protein content compared with the SO2 solution alone. The best wet-milling performance for sorghum resulted from the SO2 solution containing 0.5% lactic acid; it produced the whitest starch with the highest yield and the lowest protein content. Both higher SO2 concentration of the steeping solution and longer steeping time led to higher starch yield, lower protein content in starch, and whiter starch. However, no significant differences in starch yield. protein content in starch. and starch color occurred between SO2 concentrations of 0.2 and 0.3% for all three steeping solutions. The optimum steeping process for wet milling of sorghum was using a 0.2% SO2 solution with 0.5% lactic acid for 36 hr at 50 degrees C. Under these conditions. the starch yield, protein content in starch, and L value of starch color were 60.2% (db), 0.49% (db), and 92.7, respectively, which were not significantly different from the best values from the 48-hr steeping using the solution with 0.3% SO2 and 0.5% lactic acid.

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