4.7 Article

Evaluation of the Nanostructure of Pectin, Hemicellulose and Cellulose in the Cell Walls of Pears of Different Texture and Firmness

期刊

FOOD AND BIOPROCESS TECHNOLOGY
卷 7, 期 12, 页码 3525-3535

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11947-014-1365-z

关键词

AFM; Pectin; Hemicellulose; Cellulose; Firmness; Fexture

资金

  1. National Science Centre, Poland [DEC-2011/01/B/NZ9/00787]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The nanostructure of polysaccharides is supposed to determine properties such as stiffness or diffusivity of cell walls and their functionality for various tailored properties of food. However, at present, a relation of these nano-properties with sensory texture and firmness remains to some degree unknown. In this work, water (WSP), calcium chelator (CSP) and sodium carbonate (DASP) soluble pectins, hemicellulose and cellulose, extracted from cell walls of two pear cultivars 'Xenia' and 'Conference' at their harvest times, were studied. An atomic force microscope and image analysis were used to evaluate diameter and branching of the molecules. Sensory texture of 'Xenia' was considered as better and its firmness (87 N) was higher than 'Conference' (76 N). WSP molecules were present as short molecules with a height of about 0.5 nm for both cultivars. A chain-like and branched CSP fraction had diameter of about 0.3-0.4 nm for both cultivars with a pronounced contribution of molecules with diameter of about 1 nm for 'Xenia', which had also higher branching index. DASP revealed similar regular structures for both cultivars however the network was much denser for 'Xenia'. A rod-like hemicellulose molecules had length of about 20-400 nm and diameter of 1 nm for 'Xenia' and 1-4 nm for 'Conference'. Cellulose diameter for both cultivars was about 23 nm. This study showed that less degraded, thicker and more branched pectin molecules were associated with higher firmness and more favourable texture. Hemicellulose provided a positive contribution to texture when they were thinner and more flexible.

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