4.7 Article

Textural properties, microstructure and digestibility of mungbean starch-flaxseed protein composite gels

期刊

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
卷 126, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2022.107482

关键词

Mungbean starch; Flaxseed protein; Composite gel; Texture; Microstructure; In vitro digestibility

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31772012]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, mungbean starch (MBS) - flaxseed protein (FP) composite gels were developed. The gels exhibited smooth and soft texture. The addition of FP decreased the hardness of the gels. Microstructure analysis showed that FP granules were embedded in the MBS network. The composite gels also had higher digestibility compared to the MBS-alone gel. This study demonstrates the potential of MBS-FP composite gels as novel, gelled food products with soft texture.
Mungbean starch (MBS)-flaxseed protein (FP) composite gels were prepared to explore the feasibility of developing soft gel food products. The mixtures of 8% MBS with 1%-4% FP formed smooth and soft-textured gels. Elasticity modulus and hardness of gels decreased with the increase of FP content, e.g., the hardness value reduced from 2.39 N for MBS alone gel to 1.00 N for composite gel (8% MBS+4% FP). The MBS-FP composite gels exhibited a microstructure in which FP granules were imbedded within the continuous MBS network, and the cross section showed a rough and irregular structure. Furthermore, the composite gel of 8% MBS+4% FP had a higher digestibility (53.3%, 2 h) than the MBS-alone gel (30.5%, 2 h). Mechanistically, amylose was released from MBS when heated and formed a three-dimensional network when cooled. Meanwhile, partially unfolded FP molecules were encapsulated in starch network to form semi-interpenetrating gel network. Therefore, MBS-FP composite gels can be prepared as novel, gelled food with a range of soft texture to meet the demand of different consumers, especially for those with swallowing challenges.

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