| Literature DB >> 30065830 |
Temitope Omolayo Fasuan1, Charles Taiwo Akanbi1, Eriola Betiku2.
Abstract
The optimum reaction conditions for the derivation of acetylated (esterified) starch using response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) were studied. All the independent variables (starch solids, acetic anhydride concentration, and reaction time) were of significant (p < .05) importance in achieving esterified starch of Amaranthus viridis. Optimum conditions of 152.46 g of starch, 11 ml of acetic anhydride and time of 2.92 min with corresponding acetyl content and degree of substitution (DS) of 1.74% and 0.06, respectively, were established for ANN. The RSM gave optimum conditions of 149.57 g (starch), 10.38 ml (acetic anhydride) and 3 min (time) with corresponding acetyl content and DS of 1.61% and 0.06, respectively. The order of priority of the process variables was established as acetic anhydride (42.59%), starch solids (33.90%), and reaction time (23.51%). The results provided useful information on development of economic and efficient acetylation process for modification of A. viridis starch.Entities:
Keywords: Amaranthus viridis; acetic anhydride; acetylated starch; artificial neural network; response surface methodology
Year: 2018 PMID: 30065830 PMCID: PMC6060891 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.677
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Figure 1Flow chart for extraction and acetylation of Amaranthus viridis starch
Acetyl content and degree of substitution of acetylated starch
| Expt. No. | Run order | Starch solid (g) | Acetic anhydride (ml) | Time (min) | %Acetyl | Degree of substitution |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | −1 (50) | −1 (5) | −1 (3) | 0.34 ± 0.01 | 0.01 ± 0.00 |
| 2 | 6 | 1 (150) | −1 (5) | −1 (3) | 1.15 ± 0.41 | 0.05 ± 0.01 |
| 3 | 2 | −1 (50) | 1 (15) | −1 (3) | 2.64 ± 0.37 | 0.10 ± 0.01 |
| 4 | 15 | 1 (150) | 1 (15) | −1 (3) | 1.53 ± 0.11 | 0.06 ± 0.00 |
| 5 | 1 | −1 (50) | −1 (5) | 1 (13) | 0.97 ± 0.02 | 0.04 ± 0.00 |
| 6 | 9 | 1 (150) | −1 (5) | 1 (13) | 1.43 ± 0.02 | 0.05 ± 0.01 |
| 7 | 13 | −1 (50) | 1 (15) | 1 (13) | 2.09 ± 0.07 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| 8 | 20 | 1 (150) | 1 (15) | 1 (13) | 0.57 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.00 |
| 9 | 5 | −1.68 (15.9) | 0 (10) | 0 (8) | 1.52 ± 0.01 | 0.06 ± 0.01 |
| 10 | 10 | 1.68 (184.1) | 0 (10) | 0 (8) | 0.96 ± 0.02 | 0.04 ± 0.00 |
| 11 | 8 | 0 (100) | −1.68 (1.59) | 0 (8) | 0.68 ± 0.02 | 0.03 ± 0.00 |
| 12 | 16 | 0 (100) | 1.68 (18.41) | 0 (8) | 1.99 ± 0.11 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| 13 | 11 | 0 (100) | 0 (10) | −1.68 (0.41) | 2.05 ± 0.14 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| 14 | 18 | 0 (100) | 0 (10) | 1.68 (16.41) | 1.73 ± 0.09 | 0.07 ± 0.01 |
| 15 | 4 | 0 (100) | 0 (10) | 0 (8) | 2.12 ± 0.04 | 0.09 ± 0.02 |
| 16 | 17 | 0 (100) | 0 (10) | 0 (8) | 2.12 ± 0.12 | 0.09 ± 0.02 |
| 17 | 19 | 0 (100) | 0 (10) | 0 (8) | 2.20 ± 0.08 | 0.09 ± 0.01 |
| 18 | 7 | 0 (100) | 0 (10) | 0 (8) | 2.00 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.01 |
| 19 | 14 | 0 (100) | 0 (10) | 0 (8) | 2.10 ± 0.01 | 0.08 ± 0.01 |
| 20 | 12 | 0 (100) | 0 (10) | 0 (8) | 2.20 ± 0.02 | 0.09 ± 0.01 |
Values reported are means ± SD of triplicate determinations.
Regression analysis of acetylated starch
| Model terms | % Acetyl | Degree of substitution | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| Regression coefficient |
|
| Regression coefficient | |
| Model | 125.27 | <.0001 | – | 25.72 | <.0001 | – |
| Constant βo | – | – | 2.13 | – | – | 0.084 |
| x1 | 56.32 | <.0001 | −0.17 | 17.81 | .0018 | −7.98 × 10−3 |
| x2 | 279.20 | <.0001 | 0.38 | 48.90 | <.0001 | 0.01 |
| x3 | 13.46 | .0043 | −0.08 | 2.37 × 10−3 | .9621 | 9.20 × 10−5 |
| x1x2 | 272.03 | <.0001 | −0.49 | 66.93 | <.0001 | −0.02 |
| x1x3 | 10.34 | .0093 | −0.10 | 0.38 | .5497 | 1.53 × 10−3 |
| x2x3 | 105.54 | <.0001 | −0.30 | 8.14 | .0171 | −7.05 × 10−3 |
|
| 234.11 | <.0001 | −0.34 | 51.94 | <.0001 | −0.01 |
|
| 189.57 | <.0001 | −0.30 | 41.69 | <.0001 | −0.01 |
|
| 23.20 | .0007 | −0.11 | 10.47 | .0089 | −5.95 × 10−3 |
| Lack of fit | 1.52 | .3296 | – | 2.91 | .1331 | – |
|
| .9912 | .9586 | ||||
| Adj. | .9833 | .9213 | ||||
| Pred. | .9549 | .7298 | ||||
| CV | 5.14 | 9.60 | ||||
| Ad. pred. | 39.56 | 16.39 | ||||
| Mean | 1.62 | 0.06 | ||||
|
| 0.08 | 0.01 | ||||
x1, Starch solid; x2, Acetic anhydride; x3, Time; R 2, Coefficient of determination; Adj. R 2, Adjusted coefficient of determination; Pre. R 2, Predicted coefficient of determination; CV, Coefficient of variation; Ad. Pre., Adequate prediction.
Significant factors (p < .05).
Figure 2Contour plots and pareto charts for optimization of acetylation of Amaranthus viridis starch
Optimization of acetylation process (a) optimal conditions (b) evaluation of transfer functions
| (a) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSM | ANN | |||||||||
| Actual value | Predicted value | Residual error | AAD | E | Actual value | Predicted value | Residual error | AAD (%) | E (%) | |
| Independent | ||||||||||
| Starch solids (g), X1 | – | 149.57 | – | – | – | – | 152.46 | – | – | – |
| Acetic anhydride (ml), X2 | – | 10.83 | – | – | – | – | 11.00 | – | – | – |
| Reaction time (min), X3 | – | 3.00 | – | – | – | – | 2.92 | – | – | – |
| Dependent | ||||||||||
| Acetyl (%) | 1.68 ± 0.01 | 1.61 | 0.07 | 4.17 | 0.17 | 1.69 | 1.74 | 0.05 | 2.87 | 0.09 |
| Degree of substitution | 0.06 ± 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Response surface methodology.
Artificial neural network.
Absolute average deviation.
Mean relative percent deviation modulus.
Coefficient of determination.
Root mean square deviation.
Incremental back propagation.
Multilayer normal feed forward.
Figure 3Optimum number of hidden neurons in acetyl content and degree of substitution, topology of multilayer feed forward neural network, and overall evalution of process variables in acetylation of Amaranthus viridis starch