4.7 Article

Novel bigels constructed from oleogels and hydrogels with contrary thermal characteristics: Phase inversion and 3D printing applications

期刊

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2022.108063

关键词

Bigels; Beeswax oleogels; Hydroxypropyl methylcellulose hydrogels; Phase inversion; 3D printing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By mixing beeswax oleogels and HPMC hydrogels, bigels systems with semi-solid properties were prepared and found to exhibit significant differences in spectra and thermal properties. W/O bigels with 60% oleogel content showed the best printing integrity in 3D printing applications.
In this study, bigels systems with semi-solid properties were prepared by using the mixture of beeswax oleogels and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) hydrogels in different proportions. The observation by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) showed that bigels with varying oleogel contents presented different types of O/W (20%, 40%, and 50%), semi-bicontinuous (55%), and W/O bigels (60% and 80%), respectively. FTIR results indicated that the spectra of different types of bigels exhibited significant variations between 3600 and 3300 cm-1 (O-H stretching) and 1250-1000 cm-1 (characteristic absorption peaks of HPMC) ranges, which could be used for further determination of the type of bigels. Rheological experimental results showed that W/O bigels and O/W bigels exhibited diametrically opposed thermal properties. In terms of 3D printing capability, W/O bigels with 60% oleogel content exhibited the best printing integrity, while semi-bicontinuous bigels showed the worst extrusion capability due to the inhomogeneity of the system. By printing under different models, it was found that W/O bigels seemed to be more suitable for flat stacked models, while O/W bigels had better per-formance in models with small-area monolayer structures. These results guided the development of bigels sys-tems that could be applied for food 3D printing.

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