4.3 Article

Enzymatic Interesterification of Coconut and High Oleic Sunflower Oils for Edible Film Application

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11746-017-2969-z

关键词

Enzymatic interesterification; Composite edible film; Coconut oil; High oleic sunflower oil

资金

  1. Food Science Research, University of Georgia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Blends [60:40, 70:30, and 80:20 (w/w)] of coconut oil (CO) and high oleic sunflower oil (HOSO) were interesterified using immobilized enzyme, Lipozyme(A (R)) TL IM (Novozymes North America Inc., Franklinton, NC, USA). The structured lipids (SLs), referred to as interesterified products (IPs) IP60:40, IP70:30, and IP80:20, were compared to CO and HOSO for application in edible films. IPs were compared based on fatty acid profile, TAG molecular species, melting profile, moisture vapor permeability, mechanical properties, film transparency, density, and thickness. Interesterification increased oleic acid content at the sn-2 position of IPs. CO had 5.50 +/- 1.67 mol% oleic acid at the sn-2 position, and when interesterified with HOSO (92.81 +/- 1.10 mol% oleic acid) the amount of oleic acid significantly increased (p < 0.05) at the sn-2 position for IP60:40, IP70:30, and IP80:20 (33.86 +/- 1.55, 27.34 +/- 1.20, 20.61 +/- 1.50 mol%), respectively. There was no significant difference between SLs, HOSO, and CO for water vapor permeability and density when applied to emulsion edible films. The HOSO film was significantly different (1.43 +/- 0.27 AUmm(-1)) from the rest of the SLs and CO for film transparency. IP60:40 (2.20 +/- 0.22 AUmm(-1)) decreased the opacity and was significantly different from HOSO and IP80:20 (2.88 +/- 0.08 AUmm(-1)). Tensile strength of IP60:40 was 0.39 +/- 0.17 MPa which was significantly different from IP70:30, IP80:20, and HOSO. The elongation at break was significantly different for HOSO and IP60:40. IP60:40 could be used to further investigate the use of SL in edible film for sports nutrition products.

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