4.3 Article

Development of Starch Nanoparticle from Mango Kernel in Comparison with Cereal, Tuber, and Legume Starch Nanoparticles: Characterization and Cytotoxicity

期刊

STARCH-STARKE
卷 74, 期 3-4, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/star.202100252

关键词

biocompatibility; nanoparticles; particle size; starch; thermal properties

资金

  1. Ropar, India

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the properties of starch nanoparticles from different botanical sources, including particle size, crystallinity, and cytotoxicity. Starch nanoparticles synthesized from mango kernel were found to have the largest particle size. The relative crystallinity of starch nanoparticles was higher compared to native starches. Thermal analysis showed significant variations in the degradation temperature of starch nanoparticles from different sources. The study also revealed that mango kernel starch nanoparticles exhibited good biocompatibility with human HeLa cell lines.
Starch nanoparticles (SNPs) are developed from mango kernel starch and are compared with wheat, potato, mungbean, and water chestnut starch nanoparticles. The synthesized SNPs are investigated for their thermal properties, particle size, degree of relative crystallinity and cytotoxicity. The average particle size of SNPs from different botanical sources range from 100 to 514 nm. Mango kernel starch nanoparticles show the highest particle size. Starch nanoparticles from all botanical sources show X-ray diffraction (XRD) patterns similar to their native counterpart starches. SNPs from wheat, mango kernel, and water chestnut show A-type XRD patterns but the relative crystallinity of SNPs is observed to be higher as compared to native starches. From the thermogravimetric analysis, it is observed that degradation temperature for 10% loss weight vary significantly. The study reveals that mango kernel SNPs show good biocompatibility with human HeLa cell lines as compared to all other sources except water chestnut SNPs.

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

4.3
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