| Literature DB >> 32405385 |
Fen Xu1, Wei Liu1, Qiannan Liu1, Chunjiang Zhang1, Honghai Hu1, Hong Zhang2.
Abstract
This research investigated the viscosity, thermal, thermomechanical, and microstructural properties of potato starch-wheat gluten composite systems with different starch/gluten ratios under mechanical shear and heating conditions. Results showed that the peak, trough, and final viscosities increased with the increase in potato starch fraction. The breakdown and setback values of samples decreased with increasing gluten content, and the endothermic enthalpy showed a similar variation trend. The gelatinization temperature of the samples increased significantly as the gluten proportion increased. Morphological observation showed that the gluten protein was wrapped around potato starch granules and the starch granules have a diluting effect on gluten network. Moreover, gluten formed a water diffusion barrier out of the starch granules, this barrier effect and the competitive hydration between starch and gluten could primarily explain the delayed gelatinization temperatures.Entities:
Keywords: dough properties; gelatinization; microstructure; potato starch; rheology; wheat gluten
Year: 2020 PMID: 32405385 PMCID: PMC7215220 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1506
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
Figure 1The RVA curves for potato starch (PS, a), wheat gluten (WG), and PS–WG composites (b) with different starch fractions
RVA parameters of potato starch (PS), wheat gluten (WG), and PS–WG composites with different starch fractions
| Samples | Peak (cP) | Trough (cP) | Breakdown (cP) | Final viscosity (cP) | Setback (cP) | Peak time (min) | Pasting temperature (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100%WG | 209.50 ± 150.61c | 9.50 ± 0.71d | 200.00 ± 151.32b | 12.50 ± 4.95f | 3.00 ± 5.66e | 1.07 ± 0.00c | N.D |
| 80%WG + 20%PS | 52.50 ± 9.19c | 45.00 ± 7.07d | 7.50 ± 2.12c | 76.50 ± 10.61f | 31.50 ± 3.54de | 6.97 ± 0.05a | N.D |
| 70%WG + 30%PS | 120.50 ± 7.78c | 99.00 ± 8.49d | 21.50 ± 0.71bc | 176.50 ± 4.95e | 77.50 ± 3.54cde | 7.00 ± 0.00a | N.D |
| 60%WG + 40%PS | 227.00 ± 12.73c | 198.50 ± 12.02cd | 28.50 ± 0.71bc | 304.50 ± 17.68d | 106.00 ± 5.66cd | 7.00 ± 0.00a | N.D |
| 50%WG + 50%PS | 373.00 ± 2.83b | 331.50 ± 9.19c | 41.50 ± 6.36bc | 494.00 ± 1.41c | 162.50 ± 7.78c | 7.00 ± 0.00a | N.D |
| 40%WG + 60%PS | 592.00 ± 7.07b | 538.50 ± 7.78b | 53.50 ± 0.71bc | 839.50 ± 6.36b | 301.00 ± 1.41b | 7.00 ± 0.00a | 87.65 ± 0.07a |
| 100%PS | 5,168.00 ± 335.17a | 3,578.50 ± 208.60a | 1589.50 ± 126.57a | 4,057.50 ± 102.53a | 479.00 ± 106.07a | 5.60 ± 0.00b | 66.75 ± 0.07b |
Different superscript letters in each column indicate significant differences (p < .05).
N.D, Not detected.
Figure 2The DSC thermograms of potato starch (PS), wheat gluten (WG), and PS–WG composites with different starch fractions
DSC parameters of potato starch (PS), wheat gluten (WG), and PS–WG composites with different starch fractions
| Samples | T0 (°C) | TP (°C) | △H (J/g) | △T (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100% WG | — | — | — | — |
| 80%WG + 20%PS | 54.82 ± 1.21ab | 59.20 ± 0.34b | 2.50 ± 0.36cd | 7.28 ± 0.49a |
| 70%WG + 30%PS | 54.40 ± 0.01ab | 59.11 ± 0.04b | 2.63 ± 0.26cd | 6.22 ± 0.49a |
| 60%WG + 40%PS | 54.06 ± 0.04b | 58.88 ± 0.02b | 3.92 ± 0.01bc | 6.43 ± 0.17a |
| 50%WG + 50%PS | 53.63 ± 0.00b | 58.43 ± 0.06bc | 4.58 ± 0.08bc | 6.23 ± 0.05a |
| 40%WG + 60%PS | 53.41 ± 0.14b | 58.07 ± 0.11c | 6.01 ± 0.62b | 6.05 ± 0.18a |
| 100% PS | 51.64 ± 0.74c | 56.51 ± 0.06d | 12.10 ± 2.67a | 6.88 ± 0.04a |
Different superscript letters in each column indicate significant differences (p < .05).
Figure 3Thermomechanical curves obtained by Mixolab for potato starch (PS), wheat gluten (WG), and PS–WG composites with different starch fractions
Mixolab parameters on potato starch (PS), wheat gluten (WG), and PS–WG composites with different starch fractions
| Mixolab parameters | 100% WG | 20% PS | 30% PS | 40% PS | 50% PS | 60% PS | 100% PS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Water absorption (%) | 109.10 | 93.20 | 86.30 | 80.10 | 74.20 | 70.00 | 65.00 |
| Maximum torque (C1, Nm) | 1.14 | 1.10 | 1.13 | 1.11 | 1.11 | 1.09 | 0.16 |
| Minimum torque (C2, Nm) | 0.55 | 0.74 | 0.75 | 0.73 | 0.72 | 0.68 | 0 |
| Peak viscosity (C3, Nm) | 0.60 | 1.14 | 1.43 | 1.76 | 2.14 | 2.57 | 4.12 |
| Holding viscosity (C4, Nm) | 0.17 | 0.45 | 0.57 | 0.81 | 1.03 | 1.23 | 2.72 |
| Final viscosity (C5, Nm) | 0.39 | 0.80 | 0.99 | 1.19 | 1.48 | 1.82 | 5.22 |
| Protein weakening (C1–C2, Nm) | 0.59 | 0.36 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.39 | 0.41 | 0.16 |
| Breakdown (C3–C4, Nm) | 0.43 | 0.69 | 0.86 | 0.95 | 1.11 | 1.34 | 1.40 |
| Setback (C5–C4, Nm) | 0.22 | 0.35 | 0.42 | 0.38 | 0.45 | 0.59 | 2.50 |
| Gelatinization temperature (°C) | 58.80 | 54.60 | 55.10 | 53.40 | 52.40 | 51.60 | 51.60 |
Figure 4Scanning electron micrographs of native potato starch granules (a), wheat gluten (b), and PS–WG composite dough samples with different starch fractions (c: 0%, d: 20%, e: 30%, f: 40%, g: 50%, and h: 60%)