| Literature DB >> 23203099 |
Bahareh Tabatabaee Amid1, Hamed Mirhosseini.
Abstract
In recent years, the demand for a natural plant-based polymer with potential functions from plant sources has increased considerably. The main objective of the current study was to study the effect of chemical extraction conditions on the rheological and functional properties of the heteropolysaccharide/protein biopolymer from durian (Durio zibethinus) seed. The efficiency of different extraction conditions was determined by assessing the extraction yield, protein content, solubility, rheological properties and viscoelastic behavior of the natural polymer from durian seed. The present study revealed that the soaking process had a more significant (p < 0.05) effect than the decolorizing process on the rheological and functional properties of the natural polymer. The considerable changes in the rheological and functional properties of the natural polymer could be due to the significant (p < 0.05) effect of the chemical extraction variables on the protein fraction present in the molecular structure of the natural polymer from durian seed. The natural polymer from durian seed had a more elastic (or gel like) behavior compared to the viscous (liquid like) behavior at low frequency. The present study revealed that the natural heteropolysaccharide/protein polymer from durian seed had a relatively low solubility ranging from 9.1% to 36.0%. This might be due to the presence of impurities, insoluble matter and large particles present in the chemical structure of the natural polymer from durian seed.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23203099 PMCID: PMC3509615 DOI: 10.3390/ijms131114871
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Regression coefficients, R, p-value and lack of fit for the final models.
| Regression coefficient | Extraction Yield (%) | Viscosity (mPa.s) | Protein Content (%) | Elastic modulus | Viscous modulus | Solubility (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 45.021 | 15.800 | 1.0133 | 0.000190 | 0.45255 | 56.401 | |
| 0.318 | 0.165 | – | 0.000002 | – | −0.235 | |
| −1.623 | 3.493 | −0.8273 | 0.000034 | −0.02514 | 0.415 | |
| −2.527 | −1.704 | 0.5260 | – | −0.01420 | −1.487 | |
| −0.001 | −0.001 | – | – | – | 0.001 | |
| 0.515 | −0.216 | 0.0455 | – | – | – | |
| 0.041 | 0.024 | −0.0074 | – | 0.00010 | 0.018 | |
| −0.029 | – | – | −0.000000 | – | – | |
| 0.004 | – | – | – | – | 0.002 | |
| – | – | – | – | 0.00049 | – | |
| 0.988 | 0.879 | 0.952 | 0.763 | 0.882 | 0.975 | |
| 0.000 | 0.005 | 0.000 | 0.048 | 0.000 | 0.001 | |
| Lack of fit ( | 0.122 | 0.827 | 0.765 | 0.676 | 0.000 | 0.622 |
b1, b2 and b3: the estimated regression coefficients for the linear effects; b12, b22 and b32: the estimated regression coefficients for the quadratic effects; b12, b13 and b23: the estimated regression coefficients for the interaction effects; 1: decolorizing time; 2: soaking time; 3: soaking temperature;
: significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 1Response surface plots (a, b) to explain the variation of extraction yield as a function of the chemical extraction conditions.
Figure 2Single response optimizer plot for explaining the variation of viscosity as a function of the chemical extraction conditions.
Figure 3Single response optimizer plot to explain the variation of protein content as a function of chemical extraction conditions.
p-value and F-ratio of chemical extraction variables in final reduced models.
| Independent variable terms | Extraction Yield (%) | Viscosity (mPa.s) | Protein content (%) | Solubility (%) | Elastic modulus ( | Viscous modulus ( | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
| Main effects | 0.024 | 8.22 | 0.018 | 8.84 | – | – | 0.001 | 29.76 | 0.025 | 6.677 | – | – | |
| 0.301 | 1.24 | 0.003 | 17.58 | 0.000 | 48.34 | 0.010 | 11.41 | 0.011 | 9.302 | 0.000 | 40.602 | ||
| 0.057 | 5.16 | 0.001 | 27.95 | 0.000 | 35.10 | 0.000 | 42.38 | – | – | 0.000 | 35.784 | ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Quadratic effects | 0.028 | 7.64 | 0.019 | 8.532 | – | – | 0.001 | 22.33 | – | – | – | – | |
| 0.000 | 40.43 | 0.003 | 17.93 | 0.000 | 39.05 | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| 0.019 | 9.13 | 0.001 | 30.70 | 0.000 | 45.45 | 0.000 | 40.04 | – | – | 0.002 | 17.859 | ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Interaction effects | 0.001 | 31.99 | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.029 | 6.340 | – | – | |
| 0.027 | 7.70 | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | ||
| – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.049 | 5.39 | – | – | 0.000 | 29.246 | ||
Non-significant at p > 0.05;
p: p-value; x1, x2 and x3 represents the main or single effect of decolorizing time, soaking time and soaking temperature, respectively; x12, x22 and x32 represents the quadratic effect; x1x2, x1x3 and x2x3 represents the interaction effects of extraction variables, respectively.
Figure 4Response surface plot to explain the variation of solubility as a function of the chemical extraction conditions.
Figure 5Response surface plot (a, b) to explain the variation of elastic modulus (G′) and viscous modulus (G″) as a function of chemical extraction conditions.
Central composite design including independent and response variable.
| Variable | Independent variable levels | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Independent Variables | Low | Center | High | Axial (−α) | Axial (+α) |
| Decolorizing time ( | 60 | 120 | 180 | 22 | 218 |
| Soaking time ( | 4 | 8 | 12 | 1.5 | 14.5 |
| Soaking temperature ( | 25 | 40 | 55 | 15.5 | 64.5 |