4.7 Article

Surface characterization of ginger powder examined by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy

Journal

COLLOIDS AND SURFACES B-BIOINTERFACES
Volume 79, Issue 2, Pages 494-500

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfb.2010.05.019

Keywords

Ginger; Superfine grinding; XPS; SEM; Physical and chemical characterization

Funding

  1. Fund of Post-doctor Science [20080440388]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [40701173]
  3. Project of Agriculture Scientific and Technological Achievement Transfer of China [2009GB2C600198]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The surface composition of five types of ginger powders with the particle sizes of 300, 149, 74,37 and 8.34 mu m was investigated by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and various types of physical-chemical characteristics regarding material particle size distributions, discoloration and chemical composition. The results show that the color differences are greater for superfine ground ginger than for conventional comminuted ones; the values of crude fibre, neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and acid detergent fiber (ADF) decrease with decreasing ginger particle size. However, no relationship with the surface fat, crude protein, ash and total solids exists. With superfine grinding the XPS O/C ratios of the five ginger powders were similar since the surfaces were not oxidized. Correlations were observed between the XPS N/C ratios and the high resolution XPS N is spectra. SEM observations revealed that the surface of ginger powder with a particle size of 300 mu m is rougher, while superfine ground powders with particle sizes of 149, 74, 37 and 8.34 mu m are similar to each other. This roughness difference between these surfaces correlates with the differences in their O/C ratios and the surface morphology of five ginger powders. (C) 2010 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