4.7 Article

Structural and physicochemical properties of native starches and non-digestible starch residues from Korean rice cultivars with different amylose contents

期刊

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
卷 102, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.105544

关键词

Rice cultivars; High amylose; Resistant starch; Starch property

资金

  1. Korean Rural Development Administration [PJ011253022019]
  2. Rural Development Administration (RDA), Republic of Korea [PJ011253022019] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, rice starches from four cultivars: Baegokchal (BOC), Ilmi (IM), Mimyeon (MM), and Dodamssal (DDS), were studied in terms of their physicochemical and structural features. Native starches (NS) from MM and DDS showed high amylose content and low rapidly digestible starch, as well as high slowly digestible starch and resistant starch (RS) ratios. To elucidate the characteristics of RS in rice, non-digestible starches (NDS) were isolated from NS from each cultivar. The starch crystallinity of BOC, IM, and MM showed an A-type X-ray diffractometry pattern; however, DDS granules displayed a C-type crystallinity pattern with a predominant Btype. DDS starch granules had a convex spherical shape, whereas BOC, IM, and MM starch granules had a polygonal shape. All starches from IM and BOC were hydrolyzed, with no NDS residues remaining. The NDS from MM and DDS, which are high-amylose cultivars, showed a lower molecular weight, longer average amylopectin chain length, and lower viscosity than NS. DDS had the lowest digestibility, highest RS content, and showed potential for use as a source of starch for weight loss and hypoglycemic effects owing to its low glycemic index. The low viscosity of DDS can potentially be exploited for its use as a daily dietary component through the development of suitable processing methods for products such as rice noodles.

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