4.7 Article

Preparation of crystalline starch nanoparticles using cold acid hydrolysis and ultrasonication

期刊

CARBOHYDRATE POLYMERS
卷 98, 期 1, 页码 295-301

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2013.05.085

关键词

Starch; Nanoparticles; Nanocrystals; Acid hydrolysis; Ultrasonication

资金

  1. Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF)
  2. Ministry of Education, Science and Technology [2012-0008278]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Waxy maize starch in an aqueous sulfuric acid solution (3.16 M, 14.7% solids) was hydrolyzed for 2-6 days, either isothermally at 40 degrees C or 4 degrees C, or at cycled temperatures of 4 and 40 degrees C (1 day each). The starch hydrolyzates were recovered as precipitates after centrifuging the dispersion (10,000 rpm, 10 min). The yield of starch hydrolyzates depended on the hydrolysis temperature and time, which varied from 6.8% to 78%. The starch hydrolyzed at 40 degrees C or 4/40 degrees C exhibited increased crystallinity determined by X-ray diffraction analysis, but melted in broader temperature range (from 60 degrees C to 110 degrees C). However, the starch hydrolyzed at 4 degrees C displayed the crystallinity and melting endotherm similar to those of native starch. The starch hydrolyzates recovered by centrifugation were re-dispersed in water (15% solids), and the dispersion was treated by an ultrasonic treatment (60% amplitude, 3 min). The ultrasonication effectively fragmented the starch hydrolyzates to nanoparticles. The hydrolyzates obtained after 6 days of hydrolysis were more resistant to the ultrasonication than those after 2 or 4 days, regardless of hydrolysis temperatures. The starch nanoparticles could be prepared with high yield (78%) and crystallinity by 4 degrees C hydrolysis for 6 days followed by ultrasonication. Scanning electron microscopy revealed that the starch nanoparticles had globular shapes with diameters ranging from 50 to 90 nm. (C) 2013 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