4.7 Article

Acetylation of banana (Musa paradisiaca L.) and corn (Zea mays L.) starches using a microwave heating procedure and iodine as catalyst: II. Rheological and structural studies

期刊

CARBOHYDRATE POLYMERS
卷 92, 期 2, 页码 1256-1261

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.10.040

关键词

Banana starch; Acetylation; Rheology; Structure; Chromatography

资金

  1. SIP-IPN
  2. COFAA-IPN
  3. EDI-IPN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The effect of iodine concentration on the acetylation of starches with low and moderate degree of substitution (DS<0.5) and its impact on the physicochemical feature and structural features was evaluated. The acetylated starches were prepared with 0.03 mol anhydroglucose unit, 0.12 mol of anhydride acetic, and 0.6, 0.9 or 1.4 mM of molecular iodine as catalyst in a sealed Teflon vessel using microwave heating (600 W/2 min). Pasting profile and rheological properties were obtained under steady flow; dynamic oscillatory test was used. Structural features were obtained by HPSEC-RI. In acetylated starches, DS and acetyl groups increased when the iodine concentration increased, corn starch showed higher values than banana starch. The viscosity of acetylated starches decreased relative to unmodified starches while, acetylated corn starch had lower value than acetylated banana starch. In the flow curves, a non-Newtonian pattern (shear-thinning) was shown in the pastes of native and modified starches. Storage modulus (G') and loss modulus (G '') showed low dependence on frequency (G' alpha omega(0.1); G ''alpha omega(0.2)) on frequency sweep test, which is characteristic of a viscoelastic gel. Debranched native banana and corn starches presented trimodal chain-length distribution. The pattern was maintained in the acetylated starches, but with different level of short and long chains. The structural differences in native and acetylated samples explain the theological characteristics in both starches. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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