3.8 Article

Whey Protein Concentrate admixture of Turmeric Extract: The Effect Of Drying Method

期刊

REVISTA VIRTUAL DE QUIMICA
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA QUIMICA
DOI: 10.21577/1984-6835.20230013

关键词

Morphology; energetic balance; raman spectroscopy; antioxidant capacity; spray drying; foam mat drying

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to characterize whey protein concentrates (WPC) added to turmeric extracts obtained by spray and foam mat drying. Various measurements were carried out including drying parameters, morphology, particle size distribution, Raman spectroscopy, total phenolic compounds, curcumin quantification, and antioxidant capacity. The spray drying process exhibited a higher drying efficiency and faster speed. The spray-dried WPC showed lower losses of curcumin and total phenolics compared with foam mat-dried WPC, and an increase in antioxidant capacity was observed for both drying methods.
This study aimed to characterize whey protein concentrates (WPC) added to turmeric extracts obtained by spray and foam mat drying (approximately 3.6 mg of turmeric was added to 30 g of whey protein). Drying parameters, morphology, particle size distribution, Raman spectroscopy, total phenolic compounds, curcumin quantification, and antioxidant capacity measurements were carried out. The spray drying process exhibited a higher drying efficiency, and was faster. The drying method significantly influences the morphology of the powders. There was a significant statistical difference between samples in relation to size distribution (<1 mu m; d90). Raman spectroscopy data showed that lactose remains in an amorphous state after only spray drying. WPC spray drying showed lower losses of curcumin (24.13 %) and total phenolics (57.14 %) compared with WPC dried by foam mat drying (40.00 %; 71.43 %, respectively). An increase in antioxidant capacity was observed for both spray-dried (182 +/- 0 mmol trolox/100 g sample) and foam mat-dried (123 +/- 0 mmol Trolox/100 g sample).

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

3.8
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