| Literature DB >> 35893941 |
Agnieszka Makowska1, Krzysztof Dwiecki2, Piotr Kubiak3, Hanna Maria Baranowska4, Grażyna Lewandowicz3.
Abstract
Starch paste is a very complex dispersion that cannot be clearly classified as a solution, colloid or suspension and many factors affects its properties. As these ambiguities constitute a barrier to technological development, the aim of this study was to investigate the interaction of starch macromolecules with water by analysing the results of rheological properties, low field nuclear magnetic resonance (LF NMR), dynamic light scattering (DLS) and ζ potential analyses. Starch pastes with a concentration of 1%, prepared with distilled water and buffered to pH values of 2.5, 7.0 and 9.5 were analysed. It was proved that the pH buffering substantially decreased the values of consistency index but the pH value itself was not significant. LF NMR studies indicated that the dissolution of starch in water resulted in a reduction in spin-lattice as well as spin-spin relaxation times. Moreover, changes in relaxation times followed the patterns observed in rheological studies. Electrokinetic and DLS analyses showed that potential values are primarily influenced by the properties of the starches themselves and, to a lesser extent, by the environmental conditions. The conducted research also showed complementarity and, to some extent, substitutability of the applied research methods as well as exclusion chromatography (a method not used in this work).Entities:
Keywords: consistency index; flow behaviour index; hydrodynamic diameter; mean correlation time; spin-lattice relaxation time; spin-spin relaxation time; starch; ζ potential
Year: 2022 PMID: 35893941 PMCID: PMC9331432 DOI: 10.3390/polym14152977
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Parameters of Ostwald-de Waele rheological equation for the analysed starch samples.
| Native Starch | Acetylated Starch | Cationic Starch | OSA Starch | Distarch Phosphate | Oxidised Starch | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No pH regulation | K | 0.092 ± 0.002 | 0.007 ± 0.000 | 0.015 ± 0.000 | 0.080 ± 0.003 | 0.302 ± 0.007 | 0.001 ± 0.000 |
| n | 0.661 ± 0.004 | 0.906 ± 0.003 | 0.819 ± 0.000 | 0.711 ± 0.006 | 0.477 ± 0.000 | 1.102 ± 0.001 | |
| r | 0.9998 | 1 | 1 | 0.9995 | 0.9999 | 0.9988 | |
| pH = 2.5 | K | 0.013 ± 0.000 | 0.004 ± 0.000 | 0.009 ± 0.000 | 0.022 ± 0.000 | 0.025 ± 0.001 | 0.001 ± 0.000 |
| n | 0.824 ± 0.001 | 0.941 ± 0.003 | 0.869 ± 0.000 | 0.793 ± 0.009 | 0.777 ± 0.002 | 1.130 ± 0.007 | |
| r | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.9998 | 1 | 0.9985 | |
| pH = 7.0 | K | 0.013 ± 0.000 | 0.004 ± 0.000 | 0.009 ± 0.000 | 0.024 ± 0.001 | 0.025 ± 0.000 | 0.001 ± 0.000 |
| n | 0.827 ± 0.002 | 0.945 ± 0.001 | 0.869 ± 0.001 | 0.791 ± 0.003 | 0.774 ± 0.000 | 1.310 ± 0.003 | |
| r | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.9998 | 0.9999 | 0.9984 | |
| pH = 9.5 | K | 0.014 ± 0.000 | 0.004 ± 0.000 | 0.009 ± 0.000 | 0.026 ± 0.001 | 0.035 ± 0.001 | 0.001 ± 0.000 |
| n | 0.821 ± 0.001 | 0.945 ± 0.003 | 0.866 ± 0.003 | 0.797 ± 0.005 | 0.719 ± 0.001 | 1.133 ± 0.007 | |
| r | 1 | 1 | 0.9997 | 0.9998 | 0.9984 |
Spin-lattice relaxation time T1 values [s] for the analysed starch samples.
| Solvent | Native Starch | Acetylated Starch | Cationic Starch | OSA Starch | Distarch Phosphate | Oxidised Starch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No pH regulation | 2.44 | 2.32 | 2.30 | 2.29 | 2.18 | 2.28 | 2.38 |
| pH = 2.5 | 2.39 | 2.25 | 2.15 | 2.27 | 2.29 | 2.23 | 2.19 |
| pH = 7.0 | 2.40 | 2.30 | 2.19 | 2.27 | 2.23 | 2.25 | 2.17 |
| pH = 9.5 | 2.36 | 2.32 | 2.14 | 2.27 | 2.32 | 2.25 | 2.13 |
Spin-spin relaxation time T2 values [s] for the analysed starch samples.
| Solvent | Native Starch | Acetylated Starch | Cationic Starch | OSA Starch | Distarch Phosphate | Oxidised Starch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No pH regulation | 1.95 | 1.14 | 1.64 | 1.49 | 1.63 | 1.57 | 1.61 |
| pH = 2.5 | 2.05 | 1.06 | 1.84 | 1.83 | 1.52 | 1.72 | 1.99 |
| pH = 7.0 | 1.80 | 1.03 | 1.46 | 1.43 | 1.38 | 1.42 | 1.57 |
| pH = 9.5 | 1.99 | 1.32 | 1.56 | 1.76 | 1.59 | 1.69 | 1.97 |
Mean correlation time values τ [10−8 s] for the analysed starch samples.
| Native Starch | Acetylated Starch | Cationic Starch | OSA Starch | Distarch Phosphate | Oxidised Starch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No pH regulation | 33.5 | 27.7 | 28.9 | 26.3 | 28.0 | 28.9 |
| pH = 2.5 | 33.7 | 24.4 | 25.8 | 28.6 | 26.2 | 23.9 |
| pH = 7.0 | 34.9 | 27.9 | 29.2 | 29.2 | 29.1 | 26.5 |
| pH = 9.5 | 31.1 | 26.4 | 26.3 | 28.3 | 26.6 | 23.4 |
ζ potential of analyzed starch samples [mV] for the analysed starch samples.
| Native Starch | Acetylated Starch | Cationic Starch | OSA Starch | Distarch Phosphate | Oxidised Starch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No pH regulation | −10.02 ± 1.02 | −2.88 ± 0.32 | −1.44 ± 0.62 | −8.81 ± 1.76 | 2.86 ± 1.20 | −6.39 ± 1.42 |
| pH = 2.5 | −1.50 ± 0.19 | −0.78 ± 0.06 | −1.24 ± 0.13 | −2.08 ± 0.37 | −1.62 ± 0.15 | −3.99 ± 0.89 |
| pH = 7.0 | −2.05 ± 0.23 | −1.65 ± 0.52 | −2.05 ± 0.46 | −4.63 ± 1.01 | −3.06 ± 0.44 | −6.56 ± 0.71 |
| pH = 9.5 | −2.99 ± 0.40 | −3.05 ± 0.62 | −3.32 ± 0.18 | −4.52 ± 0.93 | −4.54 ± 0.98 | −8.17 ± 1.34 |
Intensity weighted mean hydrodynamic diameter (z-average) recorded in the analysed starch samples [nm].
| Native Starch | Acetylated Starch | Cationic Starch | OSA Starch | Distarch Phosphate | Oxidised Starch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No pH regulation | 594.8 ± 98.1 | 233.2 ± 11.5 | 256.3 ± 7.9 | 340.6 ± 21.7 | 258.0 ± 100.3 | 31.1 ± 10.4 |
| pH = 2.5 | 334.6 ± 47.8 | 245.6 ± 5.2 | 301.2 ± 34.7 | 351.9 ± 38.9 | 579.6 ± 35.0 | 38.1 ± 0.3 |
| pH = 7.0 | 322.7 ± 33.2 | 308.4 ± 28.0 | 293.6 ± 2.3 | 307.1 ± 27.3 | 480.1 ± 69.0 | 33.5 ± 0.5 |
| pH = 9.5 | 307.6 ± 1.0 | 238.8 ± 1.2 | 295.0 ± 28.9 | 319.0 ± 17.3 | 609.5 ± 48.1 | 508.7 ± 10.2 |
Mean polydispersity index (PdI) recorded in the analysed starch samples.
| Native Starch | Acetylated Starch | Cationic Starch | OSA Starch | Distarch Phosphate | Oxidised Starch | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No pH regulation | 0.949 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.772 | 0.605 |
| pH = 2.5 | 0.840 | 0.600 | 0.834 | 0.798 | 0.947 | 0.457 |
| pH = 7.0 | 0.884 | 0.735 | 0.660 | 0.959 | 0.848 | 0.379 |
| pH = 9.5 | 1.000 | 0.560 | 0.812 | 0.965 | 0.993 | 1.000 |
Figure 1Principal Components Analysis of the data presented in the study; Explanatory notes: K2.5; K7; K9.5; KN–consistency indexes at pH 2.5; 7.0; 9.5 and without pH regulation, respectively; n2.5; n7; n9.5; nN flow behaviour indexes at pH 2.5; 7.0; 9.5 and without pH regulation, respectively; T12.5; T17; T19.5; T1N–spin-lattice relaxation times at pH 2.5; 7.0; 9.5 and without pH regulation, respectively; T22.5; T27; T29.5; T2N–spin-spin relaxation times at pH 2.5; 7.0; 9.5 and without pH regulation, respectively; t2.5; t7; t9.5; tN–mean correlation times at pH 2.5; 7.0; 9.5 and without pH regulation, respectively; Z2.5; Z7; Z9.5–ζ potential values at pH 2.5; 7.0; and 9.5, respectively; In2.5; In7; In9.5; InN–intensity weighted mean hydrodynamic diameter at pH 2.5; 7.0; 9.5 and without pH regulation, respectively.
Figure 2Principal Components Analysis of the data presented in Table 6 and Table 7, as well as derived from [76]; Explanatory notes: Z2.5; Z7; Z9.5—ζ potential values at pH 2.5; 7.0; and 9.5, respectively; In2.5; In7; In9.5; InN—intensity weighted mean hydrodynamic diameter at pH 2.5; 7.0; 9.5 and without pH regulation, respectively; Mn—number average molecular mass; Mw—weight average molecular mass; Mz—z-average molecular mass; Mw/Mn—polydispersity; IV—intrinsic viscosity; Rg—radius of gyration; Rh—hydrodynamic radius.