4.7 Article

Study of rapeseed oil gelation induced by commercial monoglycerides using a chemometric approach

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 369, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.130870

关键词

Oleogel; Acylglycerides; Chemometrics; QSPR; Artificial neural network; GC; NMR; Rapeseed oil

资金

  1. Nouvelle-Aquitaine Regional Council [186182]
  2. Delegation Regionale a la Recherche et a la Technologie (DRRT Nouvelle Aquitaine) [186182]
  3. Agence Nationale pour la Recherche Technologique (ANRT) [186182]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Commercial oleogelators containing monoglycerides (MGs) are complex mixtures with gelling properties affected by the oil used and concentration. A chemometric approach was developed to identify key parameters in the gelling process. Results showed that specific isomers and unsaturated/saturated fatty acid ratios have different effects on G' at low and high oleogelator concentrations.
Commercial oleogelators rich in monoglycerides (MGs) are complex mixtures of acylglycerides with variable gelling properties, depending on the oil used and their concentration. In this study we developed a chemometric approach to identify the key parameters involved in gelling process. Analytical parameters have been defined, using GC and NMR analysis to identify fatty acids and acylglycerides composing the mixtures. Specific acylglyceride families and compound ratios were calculated to streamline the analytical results. To determine the key analytical parameters, artificial neural networks were used in a QSPR study related to the gelling properties measured by rheology through oscillatory experiments. At low oleogelator concentrations, the MGs especially rich in C16:0 and the ratio of specific isomers both have a positive influence on G'. For high oleogelator concentrations, C18:0-rich acylglycerides and unsaturated/saturated fatty acid ratios have a positive influence on G'. Conversely, at low concentrations, C18:0-rich acylglycerides show a lesser effect on G'

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