| Literature DB >> 26904639 |
Ritika Puri1, Balmeet Singh Gill1, Yogesh Khetra2.
Abstract
Consumer preferences in east Asian part of the world pave the way for consumption of lotus stem starch (LSS) in preparations such as breakfast meals, fast foods, and traditional confectioneries. The present study envisaged the investigation and optimization of additives, that is, acacia gum, sodium chloride (NaCl), and sucrose, on water absorption (WA), water absorption index (WAI), and water solubility index (WSI) of LSS employing response surface methodology (RSM). Acacia gum resulted in increased water uptake and swelling of starch; however, NaCl reduced the swelling power of starch by making water unavailable to starch and also due to starch-ion electrostatic interaction. Sucrose restricted the water absorption by binding free water and decreased amylose leaching by building bridges with starch chains and thus forming rigid structure.Entities:
Year: 2014 PMID: 26904639 PMCID: PMC4745554 DOI: 10.1155/2014/564564
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Food Sci ISSN: 2314-5765
Experimental ranges and levels of independent variables used in RSM in terms of actual and coded factors.
| Variables | −1 | 0 | 1 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acacia gum (%, w/w) | A | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
| Sucrose (%, w/w) | B | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| Salt (%, w/w) | C | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 |
Experimental design depicting levels of additives and their responses in lotus stem starch.
| Run |
Factor 1 |
Factor 2 |
Factor 3 | Responses | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WA | WAI | WSI | ||||
| 1 | 1.00 | 20.00 | 1.00 | 62.00 | 10.10 | 15.00 |
| 2 | 1.00 | 20.00 | 1.00 | 57.50 | 11.05 | 12.00 |
| 3 | 1.84 | 20.00 | 1.00 | 73.00 | 13.35 | 13.00 |
| 4 | 1.50 | 10.00 | 0.50 | 72.50 | 15.20 | 17.00 |
| 5 | 1.50 | 30.00 | 0.50 | 65.00 | 14.52 | 04.30 |
| 6 | 1.50 | 10.00 | 1.50 | 66.00 | 09.30 | 16.00 |
| 7 | 0.50 | 10.00 | 0.50 | 42.00 | 10.30 | 18.00 |
| 8 | 0.50 | 30.00 | 0.50 | 44.00 | 08.30 | 05.20 |
| 9 | 0.50 | 10.00 | 1.50 | 46.00 | 08.70 | 03.00 |
| 10 | 1.00 | 36.82 | 1.00 | 54.00 | 11.78 | 00.20 |
| 11 | 1.00 | 03.18 | 1.00 | 55.00 | 12.76 | 19.00 |
| 12 | 1.00 | 20.00 | 1.00 | 53.00 | 12.95 | 11.00 |
| 13 | 1.00 | 20.00 | 1.84 | 53.00 | 09.92 | 11.00 |
| 14 | 1.00 | 20.00 | 1.00 | 53.00 | 11.25 | 09.00 |
| 15 | 1.50 | 30.00 | 1.50 | 60.00 | 10.95 | 00.60 |
| 16 | 1.00 | 20.00 | 1.00 | 53.50 | 11.20 | 09.00 |
| 17 | 1.00 | 20.00 | 0.16 | 56.00 | 13.45 | 10.00 |
| 18 | 0.16 | 20.00 | 1.00 | 41.00 | 09.88 | 08.00 |
| 19 | 1.00 | 20.00 | 1.00 | 54.00 | 11.82 | 09.50 |
| 20 | 0.50 | 30.00 | 1.50 | 47.50 | 08.79 | 00.50 |
ANOVA and model statistics of lotus stem starch.
| S. number | Term | Response | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water absorption (WA) | Water absorption index (WAI) | Water solubility index (WSI) | ||
| 1 | Model | 2FI | 2FI | 2FI |
| 2 |
| 39.97 | 11.80 | 9.82 |
| 3 |
| <0.0001 | 0.0001 | 0.0003 |
| 4 | Mean | 55.40 | 11.28 | 9.57 |
| 5 | Standard deviation (SD) | 2.49 | 0.93 | 3.01 |
| 6 | CV% | 4.50 | 8.24 | 31.47 |
| 7 |
| 0.9486 | 0.8449 | 0.8192 |
| 8 | Adjusted | 0.9232 | 0.7733 | 0.7358 |
| 9 | Predicted | 0.9232 | 0.5097 | 0.2046 |
| 10 | Adequate precision | 23.033 | 11.839 | 10.391 |
Figure 13D plots depicting effect of (a) sucrose (B) and acacia gum (A) on water absorption of lotus stem starch; (b) NaCl (C) and acacia gum (A) on water absorption of lotus stem starch; (c) NaCl (C) and acacia gum (A) on water absorption index; and (d) sucrose (B) and acacia gum (A) on water solubility index of lotus stem starch.
Figure 2Graphical representation of optimized levels of independent variables of lotus stem starch.
Predicted response versus actual response.
| Values | Response | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| WA | WAI | WSI | |
| Predicted | 65.42 | 14.59 | 2.75 |
| Actual | 64.66 | 14.46 | 2.68 |