4.7 Article

Bacterial Cellulose Production Using the Corinthian Currant Finishing Side-Stream and Cheese Whey: Process Optimization and Textural Characterization

期刊

FOODS
卷 8, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods8060193

关键词

bacterial cellulose; Corinthian currant finishing side-stream; cheese whey; Kappa omicron magataeibacter sucrofermentans; optimization; textural analysis; functional foods

资金

  1. Agricultural Cooperatives Union of Aeghion S. A. (Aeghion, Greece) [E420]
  2. Andreas Mentzelopoulos University of Patras Scholarships

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this work was to develop bioprocesses to produce a high-value microbial product, bacterial cellulose (BC), utilizing the industrial side-stream of Corinthian currants finishing (CFS), with/without the addition of N-sources and cheese whey, and at various process conditions (temperature, pH level, and sugar concentration). For the optimization of BC production, the response surface methodology based on the central composite design was applied. Among the possible retrieved combinations, the most ideal conditions for BC in CFS extracts supplemented with N-source were 28 degrees C, pH 6.42, and 46.24 g/L concentration of sugars. In a similar manner, the best conditions for BC production in CFS/whey mixtures were pH 6.36, 50.4% whey percentage in the mixture, and 1.7% yeast extract. The textural characteristics of the produced BC, at different times of production and using different drying methods, were studied by scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffractometry, porosimetry, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, and thermogravimetric/differential thermal analysis, revealing increased porosity of BC compared with delignified cellulosic materials of plant origin, and a level of crystallinity that depended on the BC production time. The proposed methodology can be used to produce foods with potential prebiotic properties, using the highly nutritious CFS and the abundant cheese whey effluent as raw materials.

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