4.7 Article

Impact of pectin or chitosan on bulk, interfacial and antioxidant properties of (+)-catechin and β-lactoglobulin ternary mixtures

期刊

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
卷 55, 期 -, 页码 119-127

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.11.007

关键词

(+)-catechin; Chitosan; beta-Lactoglobulin; Pectin; Interactions

资金

  1. Quadro de Referencia Estrategico Nacional (QREN Portugal) [QREN-ADI 3436]
  2. National Funds from FCT - Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [PEst-OE/EQB/LA0016/2013]
  3. Agencia de Inovacao, Portugal
  4. [SFRH/BD/75041/2010]
  5. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/75041/2010] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interactions effect between (+)-catechin, beta-lactoglobulin and two types of polysaccharides (pectin and chitosan) were studied at pH 4. Dynamic light scattering (DLS) revealed that pectin formed smaller complexes in the presence of (+)-catechin and beta-lg, while chitosan presented a reduced number of populations with higher particle size. Dynamic interfacial data (obtained by a drop tensiometer) revealed that the complexes formed between pectin (+)-catechin and beta-lg slowed down the beta-lg migration to the oil/water interface; contrarily to the chitosan mixtures where protein migrated faster. The surface dilatational modulus of beta-lg was similar to 45 mN/m and increased to similar to 60 mN/m when mixing with pectin and (+)-catechin, while the values of the surface dilatational modulus for the chitosan mixed interfacial films decreased to similar to 35 mN/m. The free (+)-catechin content decreased 12% and 10% when interacting with pectin and chitosan, respectively, as compared to pure (+)-catechin. However, the (+)-catechin antioxidant activity were not affected by the interactions. Complexes formed between polyphenols, proteins and polysaccharides could be used as a good alternative to understand and consequently improve the phytochemicals stability in food matrices. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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