| Literature DB >> 30726246 |
Hisfazilah Saari1, Marie Wahlgren1, Marilyn Rayner1, Malin Sjöö1, María Matos2.
Abstract
This work investigates the stability of emulsions prepared by using octenyl succinic anhydride (OSA)-modified waxy maize starch in the form of granules, dissolved starch, and non-solvent precipitated starch as Pickering emulsion stabilisers. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different forms of starches on the stability of emulsion using light microscopy, light scattering, and static multiple light scattering. All starch samples were hydrophobically modified with 3% (w/w) n-octenyl succinyl anhydride (OSA). Starch polymer solutions were prepared by dissolving OSA- modified starch in water in an autoclave at 140°C. Non-solvent precipitates were obtained through ethanol precipitation of dissolved waxy maize. The stability of the oil/water emulsions were different for the three forms of starches used. The granule-based emulsions were unstable, with only a small proportion of the granules adsorbed onto oil droplets, as viewed under a light microscope. The emulsions were observed to cream after 2 hours. The dissolved starch and non-solvent precipitate-based emulsions were stable towards creaming for months, and they had almost 100% emulsifying index (EI = 1) by visual observation and EI ~ 0.9 by multiple light scattering measurements. The results from light microscopy and multiple light scattering measurements indicated the occurrence of coalescence for all three types of emulsions. The coalescence was fastest within days for the granule stabilised system while it was slower both for the dissolved starch and non-solvent precipitate-based emulsions. The latter demonstrated the least degree of coalescence over time. Thus, it was concluded that differences in starch particle size and molecular structure influenced the emulsion droplet size and stability. A decreased particle size correlates to a decrease in droplet size, thus increasing stabilisation against creaming. However, stability towards coalescence was low for the large granules but was best for the non-solvent precipitate starch indicating that there is a window of optimal particle size for stability. Thus, best emulsifying properties were obtained with the non-solvent precipitates (~ 120 nm particle size) where the emulsions remained stable after one year of storage. In conclusion, this study illustrated the potentiality of non-solvent precipitated starch as emulsion stabilizers.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30726246 PMCID: PMC6364883 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210690
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Emulsion, droplet size and macroscopic.
Microscope images at 20x magnification, bar scale: 50 μm appearances of the emulsions on day 1 (A) SGE, (B) DSE, and (C) NPSE.
Emulsion properties; size measured by static light scattering in terms of mean volume diameter (n = 3), median value of size distribution dv, 0.5 (n = 3), changes of backscattering over time, ΔBS (%), emulsifying index (EI n = 2, EI of 0.1 can also be expressed as 10% as stated in discussion), and Turbiscan stability index (TSI n = 2).
| Emulsions | Days | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 45.8 ± 7.9** | 26.0 ± 4.1 | 11.0 | 0.47±0.00 | - | |
| 1 | 74.0 ± 10* | 56.4 ± 20.0 | 13.6 | 0.27±0.02 | 30.0±3.2 | |
| 0 | 18.9 ± 5.3** | 15.2 ± 0.9 | 27.0 | 0.88±0.02 | - | |
| 1 | 20.2 ± 3.1** | 16.4 ± 1.0** | 45.4 | 0.85±0.04** | 7.5±7.0 | |
| 7 | 22.9 ± 6.0 | 17.2 ± 0.7 | 45.4 | 0.70±0.01* | 14.2±2.5 | |
| 14 | 27.2 ± 6.0 | 17.7 ± 1.1 | 49.3 | 0.63±0.01* | 16.2±0.6 | |
| 21 | 32.6 ± 4.2* | 18.3 ± 0.9 | 50.2 | 0.58±0.00* | 17.8±0.8 | |
| 28 | 42.8 ± 7.0* | 24.8 ± 6.1 | 49.8 | 0.51±0.04* | 18.8±1.5 | |
| 35 | 51.0 ± 4.0* | 37.2 ± 4.0* | 49.9 | 0.45±0.01* | 19.5±1.6 | |
| 42 | 86.4 ± 0.6* | 83.1 ± 1.0* | 51.0 | 0.42±0.01* | 19.8±1.3 | |
| 365 | 55.6 ± 10.2* | 42.0 ± 19.0* | 59.9 | 0.35±0.10 | – | |
| 0 | 10.6 ± 0.6** | 9.3 ± 0.7** | 39.4 | 0.92±0.01 | - | |
| 1 | 10.4 ± 0.8** | 9.0 ± 0.9** | 47.4 | 0.88±0.02* | 5.7±7.0 | |
| 7 | 16.3 ± 4.2* | 9.2 ± 1.0 | 49.6 | 0.76±0.01* | 8.4±3.4 | |
| 14 | 19.1 ± 2.4 | 7.9 ± 1.5 | 53.0 | 0.75±0.01 | 12.5±0.6 | |
| 21 | 21.2 ± 5.0 | 7.3 ± 1.5 | 52.0 | 0.70±0.00* | 14.9±0.4 | |
| 28 | 23.2 ± 9.6 | 6.7 ± 1.6 | 52.3 | 0.67±0.01* | 15.8±0.4 | |
| 35 | 27.8 ± 8.0 | 5.7 ± 2.1 | 54.5 | 0.63±0.01* | 16.5±0.6 | |
| 42 | 39.8 ± 10.3* | 8.3 ± 3.5 | 53.4 | 0.63±0.01 | 17.0±1.0 | |
| 365 | 48.9 ± 10.7* | 36.1 ± 16* | 44.6* | 0.47±0.00* | – | |
| 0 | 123.8 ± 15.4 | 117.2 ± 14.5 | – | – | – |
The values marked with * represent student’s t-test that are significantly different compared to time point with a 90% confidence interval.
Meanwhile the values marked with ** represent student t-test that are significantly different compared to the drop size of the other emulsions investigated at zero and 24 hours.
To further assure that there is difference between the samples, an Anova test was conducted to confirm the difference between the averages in the sample series. All Anova analyses verified that there are significantly different over time (NPSE and DSE emulsions) and between 3 groups of emulsions at zero and 24 hours with p-value<0.05. The statistical analysis is included in S1 Table.
Fig 2Size distribution of emulsions.
Graph representing emulsions stabilised by (A) granules, SGE (day 0 to day 1), (B) dissolved starch, DSE (day 0 to day 365), and (C) precipitated starch, NPSE (day 0 to day 365).
Fig 3Turbiscan profiles of emulsions.
Multiple light scattering profiles for starches in buffer: (A) MCT oil profile as reference (B) OSA–modified granules, (C) dissolved starch at day 0, (D) dissolved starched (DS) after 1 year, and (E) Non-solvent precipitated starch (NPS); (F) SGE, (G) DSE, (H) NPSE.
Fig 4Turbiscan profiles of emulsions.
Profiles representing starch-stabilised emulsions: (A) SGE after 1 day, (B) DSE, and (C) NPSE from 0 to 6 weeks.