4.7 Article

Comparison of Pasting and Gel Stabilities of Waxy and Normal Starches from Potato, Maize, and Rice with Those of a Novel Waxy Cassava Starch under Thermal, Chemical, and Mechanical Stress

期刊

JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 58, 期 8, 页码 5093-5099

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/jf1001606

关键词

Syneresis; gel stability; functional properties; waxy cassava starch; storage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Functional properties of normal and waxy starches from maize, rice, potato, and cassava as well as the modified waxy maize starch COLFLO 67 were compared. The main objective of this study is to position the recently discovered spontaneous mutation for amylose-free cassava starch in relation to the other starches with well-known characteristics. Paste clarity, wavelength of maximum absorption (lambda(max)), pasting properties, swelling power, solubility, and dispersed volume fraction measurements and gel stability (acid and alkaline resistance, shear, refrigeration, and freeze/thaw stability) were evaluated in the different types and sources of starch included in this study. lambda(max) in the waxy cassava starch was reduced considerably in comparison with that of normal cassava starch (535 vs 592 nm). RVA peak viscosity of waxy cassava starch was larger than in normal cassava starch (1119 vs 937 cP) and assumed a position intermediate between the waxy potato and maize starches. Acid, alkaline, and shear stability of waxy cassava starch were similar to normal cassava except for alkaline pH, at which it showed a low effect. Gels from normal root and tuber starches after refrigeration and freeze/thaw had lower syneresis than cereal starches. Gels from waxy starches (except for potato) did not present any syneresis after 5 weeks of storage at 4 degrees C. Waxy cassava starch was the only one not showing any syneresis after 5 weeks of storage at -20 degrees C. Natural waxy cassava starch is, therefore, a promising ingredient to formulate refrigerated or frozen food.

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