| Literature DB >> 34225214 |
Nairah Noor1, Adil Gani2, Faiza Jhan1, J L H Jenno1, Mohd Arif Dar3.
Abstract
Resistant starch type 2 (RS) was isolated from lotus stem using enzymatic digestion method. The isolated RS was subjected to ultrasonication (US) at different sonication power (100-400 W). The US treated and untreated RS samples were characterized using dynamic light scattering (DLS), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), light microscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR). DLS revealed that particle size of RS decreased from 12.80 µm to 413.19 nm and zeta potential increased from -12.34 mV to -26.09 mV with the increase in sonication power. SEM revealed smaller, disintegrated and irregular shaped RS particles after ultrasonication. FT-IR showed the decreased the band intensity at 995 cm-1 and 1047 cm-1 signifying that US treatment decreased the crystallinity of RS and increased its amorphous character. The bile acid binding, anti-oxidant and pancreatic lipase inhibition activity of samples also increased significantly (p < 0.05) with the increase in sonication power. Increase in US power however increased the values of hydrolysis from 23.11 ± 1.09 to 36.06 ± 0.13% and gylcemic index from 52.39 ± 0.38 to 59.50 ± 0.11. Overall, the non-thermal process of ultrasonic treatment can be used to change the structural, morphological and nutraceutical profile of lotus stem resistant starch which can have great food and pharamaceutical applications.Entities:
Keywords: Anti-oxidant; Glycemic index; Resistant starch; Ultrasonication
Year: 2021 PMID: 34225214 PMCID: PMC8259399 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2021.105655
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultrason Sonochem ISSN: 1350-4177 Impact factor: 7.491
Particle size, polydispersity index and zeta potential of untreated and US- treated resistant starch from lotus stem.
| Sample | Power (W) | Hydrodynamic diameter | Polydispersity index (PI) | Zetapotential (mV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RS | 12.8 ± 0.09 µm | 0.543 ± 0.34 | −12.34 ± 0.38 | |
| URS1 | 100 W | 765.11 ± 0.78 nm | 0.413 ± 0.01 | −14.09 ± 0.42 |
| URS2 | 200 W | 544.32 ± 1.23 nm | 0.400 ± 0.05 | −18.67 ± 0.01 |
| URS3 | 300 W | 413.19 ± 0.03 nm | 0.342 ± 0.01 | −20.18 ± 0.32 |
| URS4 | 400 W | 385.69 ± 0.15 nm | 0.310 ± 0.32 | −26.09 ± 0.99 |
Where PI = Polydispersity index; RS is the resistant starch from lotus stem; US is ultrasonication; URS1, URS2, URS3 and URS4 represent the resistant starch ultrasonicated at 100, 200, 300 and 400 W.
Fig. 1FTIR spectra of untreated and ultrasonication treated resistant starch from lotus stem. Where URS-1, URS-2, URS-3 and URS-4 are the samples of resistant starch (RS) ultrasonicated at 100, 200, 300 and 400 W, respectively.
Fig. 2(A-E). Representative scanning electron microscopy of RS (A), RS ultrasonicated at 100 W (B), RS ultrasonicated at 200 W (C), RS ultrasonicated at 300 W (D) and RS ultrasonicated at 400 W (E). RS is the resistant starch isolated from lotus stem.
Fig. 3(A-E). Representative light microscopy images (magnification, 40x) of RS (A), RS ultrasonicated at 100 W (B), RS ultrasonicated at 200 W (C), RS ultrasonicated at 300 W (D) and RS ultrasonicated at 400 W (E). RS is the resistant starch isolated from lotus stem.
ACC (%) and TRC (%) of untreated and US-treated resistant starch from lotus stem.
| Sample | ACC (%) | TRC (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RS | 41.87 ± 1.23a | 88.24 ± 0.09a | |
| URS1 | 100 W | 43.09 ± 0.43b | 91.54 ± 2.10b |
| URS2 | 200 W | 45.23 ± 1.09c | 93.20 ± 0.87c |
| URS3 | 300 W | 48.09 ± 0.56d | 93.11 ± 0.32c |
| URS4 | 400 W | 49.10 ± 0.43d | 96.23 ± 1.11d |
Where ACC is apparent amylose content; TRC is total resistant starch content; US is ultrasonication; URS1, URS2, URS3 and URS4 represent the resistant starch ultrasonicated at 100, 200, 300 and 400 W. The results are the means of three replications ± standard deviations. Means in the column with different superscript differ significantly (p > 0.05).
Functional properties of untreated and US-treated resistant starch from lotus stem.
| Sample | RS | URS1 | URS2 | URS3 | URS4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| US power | – | 100 W | 200 W | 300 W | 400 W |
| WAC (g/g) | 0.50 ± 0.76a | 1.23 ± 0.98b | 2.11 ± 1.89c | 2.87 ± 0.43c | 3.53 ± 1.12d |
| OAC (g/g) | 0.22 ± 0.76a | 1.09 ± 0.23b | 1.79 ± 1.29b | 2.87 ± 0.55c | 2.93 ± 0.24c |
| Freeze thaw stability (%) | |||||
| 0 thaw | 3.18 ± 0.12c | 2.87 ± 0.87b | 1.98 ± 0.86a | 1.26 ± 1.34a | 1.09 ± 0.45a |
| 1 thaw | 4.12 ± 1.98c | 2.99 ± 0.12b | 2.50 ± 0.28b | 1.76 ± 0.54a | 1.34 ± 0.78a |
| 2 thaw | 10.76 ± 1.07c | 5.16 ± 1.90b | 4.07 ± 0.57a | 5.21 ± 0.89b | 4.54 ± 1.09a |
| 3 thaw | 13.09 ± 0.54c | 10.78 ± 0.23a | 11.76 ± 0.19b | 12.35 ± 0.92b | 10.65 ± 0.65a |
| 4 thaw | 19.10 ± 0.32d | 17.89 ± 0.35c | 15.49 ± 1.23b | 13.07 ± 1.23a | 13.75 ± 1.23a |
| 5 thaw | 23.10 ± 1.10d | 20.76 ± 1.29c | 19.23 ± 1.11b | 17.22 ± 0.24a | 16.43 ± 0.85a |
Where WAC is the water absorption capacity; OAC is the oil absorption capacity; US is ultrasonication; URS1, URS2, URS3 and URS4 represent the resistant starch ultrasonicated at 100, 200, 300 and 400 W. The results are the means of three replications ± standard deviations. Means in the row with different superscript differ significantly (p > 0.05).
Fig. 4Antioxidant potential of untreated and ultrasonication treated resistant starch from lotus stem A) DPPH Scavenging activity, B) Metal chelating activity.
In vitro bile acid binding and pancreatic lipase inhibiting activity of untreated and US-treated resistant starch from lotus stem.
| Sample | Power (W) | Bile acid binding capacity (%) | Lipase inhibition (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| RS | – | 8.45 ± 0.09a | 34.09 ± 0.10a |
| URS1 | 100 | 10.11 ± 0.45b | 39.10 ± 0.34b |
| URS2 | 200 | 11.45 ± 0.16c | 46.23 ± 0.43c |
| URS3 | 300 | 12.09 ± 1.29d | 52.09 ± 1.20d |
| URS4 | 400 | 16.14 ± 0.96e | 56.11 ± 0.98e |
Where US represent ultrasonication; URS1, URS2, URS3 and URS4 represent resistant starch ultrasonicated at 100, 200, 300 and 400 W. The results are the means of three replications ± standard deviations. Means in the column with different superscript differ significantly (p > 0.05).
Calculated hydrolysis index (HI) and predicted glycemic index (GI) for untreated and US treated resistant starch from lotus stem.
| Sample | Power | HI (%) | GI (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| White bread | – | 50.07 ± 1.33f | 67.19 ± 0.96e |
| RS | – | 23.11 ± 1.09a | 52.39 ± 0.38a |
| URS1 | 100 | 26.34 ± 0.36b | 54.17 ± 1.08b |
| URS2 | 200 | 29.63 ± 1.21c | 55.97 ± 0.23b |
| URS3 | 300 | 32.09 ± 1.43d | 57.32 ± 1.26c |
| URS4 | 400 | 36.06 ± 0.13e | 59.50 ± 0.11d |
Where US represent ultrasonication; URS1, URS2, URS3 and URS4 represent resistant starch ultrasonicated at 100, 200, 300 and 400 W; HI is hydrolysis index; and GI is glycemic index. The results are the means of three replications ± standard deviations. Means in the column with different superscript differ significantly (p > 0.05).