4.7 Article

Liquefaction concentration impacts the fine structure of maltodextrin

期刊

INDUSTRIAL CROPS AND PRODUCTS
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 687-697

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2018.07.042

关键词

Normal corn starch; High-concentration liquefaction; Maltodextrin structure; alpha-amylase; Attack action pattern

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31722040, 31371787]
  2. National Key R&D Program of China [2017YFD0400402]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [JUSRP51617B]
  4. National First-class Discipline Program of Food Science and Technology [JUFSTR20180204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Designing a high-concentration (45%, w/w) corn starch liquefaction process is a challenge, as more than just the rate of enzymatic hydrolysis must be considered. Maltodextrins with the same dextrose equivalent value were produced in an industrial liquefaction process using normal corn starch suspensions at low (10%, w/w), normal (30%), and high (45%) concentration. The starch concentration noticeably influenced the fine structure of the starch hydrolysate. Increasing the starch concentration from 10% to 45% limited the cleavage of long chains and enhanced the generation of linear maltooligosaccharides and the survival of large molecules. These effects contributed to a bimodal molecular size distribution and high iodine binding by the product maltodextrin. We propose that high starch concentration may induce a higher level of multiple enzyme attack, in which alpha-amylase attack of external chains is enhanced. As a result of its structural heterogeneity, maltodextrin derived from 45% starch exhibited higher viscosity and was a poorer substrate for amyloglucosidase. This led to lower saccharification efficiency even though this maltodextrin was diluted to conventional concentration (30%, w/w). Thus, further work is needed to produce maltodextrins suitable for saccharification through the liquefaction of corn starch at high concentration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据