Cargando…

A Comparative Evaluation of the Structural and Biomechanical Properties of Food-Grade Biopolymers as Potential Hydrogel Building Blocks

The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative assessment of the structural and biomechanical properties of eight selected food-grade biopolymers (pea protein, wheat protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, inulin, maltodextrin, psyllium, and tara gum) as potential hydrogel building blocks. The prepared...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hilal, Adonis, Florowska, Anna, Florowski, Tomasz, Wroniak, Małgorzata
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9495968/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36140206
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10092106
_version_ 1784794152900231168
author Hilal, Adonis
Florowska, Anna
Florowski, Tomasz
Wroniak, Małgorzata
author_facet Hilal, Adonis
Florowska, Anna
Florowski, Tomasz
Wroniak, Małgorzata
author_sort Hilal, Adonis
collection PubMed
description The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative assessment of the structural and biomechanical properties of eight selected food-grade biopolymers (pea protein, wheat protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, inulin, maltodextrin, psyllium, and tara gum) as potential hydrogel building blocks. The prepared samples were investigated in terms of the volumetric gelling index, microrheological parameters, physical stability, and color parameters. Pea protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, and psyllium samples had high VGI values (100%), low solid–liquid balance (SLB < 0.5), and high macroscopic viscosity index (MVI) values (53.50, 59.98, 81.58, and 45.62 nm(−2), respectively) in comparison with the samples prepared using wheat protein, maltodextrin, and tara gum (SLB > 0.5, MVI: 13.58, 0.04, and 0.25 nm(−2), respectively). Inulin had the highest elasticity index value (31.05 nm(−2)) and MVI value (590.17 nm(−2)). The instability index was the lowest in the case of pea protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, and inulin (below 0.02). The color parameters and whiteness index (WI) of each biopolymer differed significantly from one another. Based on the obtained results, pea protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, and psyllium hydrogels had similar structural and biomechanical properties, while inulin hydrogel had the most diverse properties. Wheat protein, maltodextrin, and tara gum did not form a gel structure.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9495968
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94959682022-09-23 A Comparative Evaluation of the Structural and Biomechanical Properties of Food-Grade Biopolymers as Potential Hydrogel Building Blocks Hilal, Adonis Florowska, Anna Florowski, Tomasz Wroniak, Małgorzata Biomedicines Article The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative assessment of the structural and biomechanical properties of eight selected food-grade biopolymers (pea protein, wheat protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, inulin, maltodextrin, psyllium, and tara gum) as potential hydrogel building blocks. The prepared samples were investigated in terms of the volumetric gelling index, microrheological parameters, physical stability, and color parameters. Pea protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, and psyllium samples had high VGI values (100%), low solid–liquid balance (SLB < 0.5), and high macroscopic viscosity index (MVI) values (53.50, 59.98, 81.58, and 45.62 nm(−2), respectively) in comparison with the samples prepared using wheat protein, maltodextrin, and tara gum (SLB > 0.5, MVI: 13.58, 0.04, and 0.25 nm(−2), respectively). Inulin had the highest elasticity index value (31.05 nm(−2)) and MVI value (590.17 nm(−2)). The instability index was the lowest in the case of pea protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, and inulin (below 0.02). The color parameters and whiteness index (WI) of each biopolymer differed significantly from one another. Based on the obtained results, pea protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, and psyllium hydrogels had similar structural and biomechanical properties, while inulin hydrogel had the most diverse properties. Wheat protein, maltodextrin, and tara gum did not form a gel structure. MDPI 2022-08-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9495968/ /pubmed/36140206 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10092106 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Hilal, Adonis
Florowska, Anna
Florowski, Tomasz
Wroniak, Małgorzata
A Comparative Evaluation of the Structural and Biomechanical Properties of Food-Grade Biopolymers as Potential Hydrogel Building Blocks
title A Comparative Evaluation of the Structural and Biomechanical Properties of Food-Grade Biopolymers as Potential Hydrogel Building Blocks
title_full A Comparative Evaluation of the Structural and Biomechanical Properties of Food-Grade Biopolymers as Potential Hydrogel Building Blocks
title_fullStr A Comparative Evaluation of the Structural and Biomechanical Properties of Food-Grade Biopolymers as Potential Hydrogel Building Blocks
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Evaluation of the Structural and Biomechanical Properties of Food-Grade Biopolymers as Potential Hydrogel Building Blocks
title_short A Comparative Evaluation of the Structural and Biomechanical Properties of Food-Grade Biopolymers as Potential Hydrogel Building Blocks
title_sort comparative evaluation of the structural and biomechanical properties of food-grade biopolymers as potential hydrogel building blocks
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9495968/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36140206
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines10092106
work_keys_str_mv AT hilaladonis acomparativeevaluationofthestructuralandbiomechanicalpropertiesoffoodgradebiopolymersaspotentialhydrogelbuildingblocks
AT florowskaanna acomparativeevaluationofthestructuralandbiomechanicalpropertiesoffoodgradebiopolymersaspotentialhydrogelbuildingblocks
AT florowskitomasz acomparativeevaluationofthestructuralandbiomechanicalpropertiesoffoodgradebiopolymersaspotentialhydrogelbuildingblocks
AT wroniakmałgorzata acomparativeevaluationofthestructuralandbiomechanicalpropertiesoffoodgradebiopolymersaspotentialhydrogelbuildingblocks
AT hilaladonis comparativeevaluationofthestructuralandbiomechanicalpropertiesoffoodgradebiopolymersaspotentialhydrogelbuildingblocks
AT florowskaanna comparativeevaluationofthestructuralandbiomechanicalpropertiesoffoodgradebiopolymersaspotentialhydrogelbuildingblocks
AT florowskitomasz comparativeevaluationofthestructuralandbiomechanicalpropertiesoffoodgradebiopolymersaspotentialhydrogelbuildingblocks
AT wroniakmałgorzata comparativeevaluationofthestructuralandbiomechanicalpropertiesoffoodgradebiopolymersaspotentialhydrogelbuildingblocks