4.2 Article

Preparation and Characterization of a Novel Polysaccharide-Iron(III) Complex in Auricularia auricula Potentially Used as an Iron Supplement

期刊

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 2019, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2019/6416941

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Support Program of China [2013BAD16B08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Iron deficiency anemia has been a widespread disease. As an effective and stable iron supplement, the physiochemical properties of the polysaccharide iron complex have been widely studied. In this study, we characterized a novel polysaccharide-iron(III) complex extracted in an edible fungal species Auricularia auricular (AAPS-iron(III)). The highest iron content (28.40%) in the AAPS-iron(III) complex was obtained under the optimized preparation conditions including an AAPS to FeCl(3.)6H(2)O ratio of 2:3 (w/w), a pH value of 8.0 in solution, a reaction temperature of 50 degrees C, and a reaction time of 3 h. The physical and chemical properties of the AAPS-iron(III) complex were characterized by qualitative and quantitative analyses using scanning electron microscope, particle size distribution, thermogravimetric analyzer, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, circular dichroism, and H-1 nuclear magnetic resonance. Result showed that, although the iron was bound to the polysaccharide, it was released under artificial gastrointestinal conditions. The AAPS-iron(III) complex exhibited high stability (under 50-256 degrees C) and water solubility. The AAPS-iron(III) complex also showed high antioxidant activity in vitro, demonstrating an additional health benefit over other typical nonantioxidant iron nutritional supplements. Furthermore, the AAPS-iron(III) complex showed high efficiency on the treatment of the iron deficiency anemia in the model rats. Therefore, the AAPS-iron(III) complex can be used as a nutritional fortifier to supply iron in industrial processing and to assist the treatment of iron deficiency anemia.

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

4.2
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