0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
S24
Andrés Giraldo-‐Toro
1*, Olivier Gibert
1,2, Julien Ricci
1, Dominique Dufour
1,3, Philippe Bohuon
41 CIRAD, UMR Qualisud, 34398 Montpellier, France
2 ICAPRD, Indonesian Center for Agricultural Postharvest Research and Development, Bogor 16114, Indonesia 3 CIAT, InternaQonal Center for Tropical Agriculture, AA6713, Cali, Colombia
4 Montpellier SupAgro, UMR QualiSud, Food Process Engineering Research Unit, 1101 Avenue Agropolis, CS 24501, 34093 Montpellier cedex 5, France.
The main component of plantain at green stage of maturity is starch containing a high propor4on of resistant starch. A cooking process is needed for the consump4on of plantain. This works aims to predict the in vitro diges4bility of cooked plantain as a func4on of thermo-‐ hydric condi4ons.
The combined effect of temperature (T) and water content (X1) on the degree of starch gela4niza4on (α) was evaluated by DSC and modelled as a func4on of T and X1, using the Weibull model. The rapidly diges4ble starch (RDS) and resistant starch (RS) frac4ons were predicted for different α values.
Material
Plantain flour/water samples were prepared by mixing flour from two Colombian plantain genotypes with deionized water to reach water contents in the 1.4 – 2.0 kg kg-‐1 db range and kept for
equilibrium under par4al vacuum condi4ons.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
CONCLUSION
Physicochemical analyses
Dry maPer (AOAC, 1990), total starch content and free glucose using Holm (1985) with slight modifica4ons, and starch diges4bility (RDS and RS) (Englyst et al., 1996). Starch degree of gela4niza4on by Differen4al Scanning Calorimetry, DSC 7 Perkin-‐Elmer, Norwalk, VA.
Pour Weibull model Pour 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 0 0.5 1.0 60 80 100 120 Températur e (°C) X (kg kg -1 bs) α
T
>
θ
θ
≤
T
⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ ⎟⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜⎜ ⎝ ⎛ − − − = β γ θ α 1 exp T 0 =α
Root Mean Square Error = 0.06
Chung, H.-‐J., Lim, H. S., & Lim, S.-‐T. (2006). Effect of par4al gela4niza4on and retrograda4on on the enzyma4c diges4on of waxy rice starch. Journal of Cereal Science, 43(3), 353‑359.
Englyst, H. N., Veenstra, J., & Hudson, G. J. (1996). Measurement of rapidly available glucose (RAG) in plant foods: a poten4al in vitro predictor of the glycaemic response. The Bri:sh Journal of Nutri:on, 75(3), 327-‐337.
Giraldo Toro, A., Gibert, O., Ricci, J., Dufour, D., Mestres, C., & Bohuon, P. (2015). Diges4bility predic4on of cooked plantain flour as a func4on of water content and temperature. Carbohydrate Polymers, 118, 257-‐265. doi:10.1016/j.carbpol. 2014.11.016
Miao, M., Zhang, T., Mu, W., & Jiang, B. (2010). Effect of controlled gela4niza4on in excess water on diges4bility of waxy maize starch. Food Chemistry, 119(1), 41‑48.
Zhang, P., & Hamaker, B. R. (2012). Banana starch structure and diges4bility. Carbohydrate Polymers, 87(2), 1552-‐1558. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2011.09.053
REFERENCES
In the water content range of plantain (raw to cooked), a had slightly influence of X1 was observed on α and diges4bility proper4es. T is the main factor for its control. Diges4bility starch frac4ons can be predicted by evalua4ng the extent of starch gela4niza4on. Some pre-‐ gela4nized starches, could be obtained at intermediate cooking temperatures, while providing a low glycaemic impact.
RESULTS
Figure 2. State diagram of plantain green banana flour-‐water mixtures for Dominico Harton and Harton
genotypes
INTRODUCTION
Plantain based-‐foods consumpQon
Water cooking « sancocho » and roasQng
Starch state diagrams
Temperature
(°C)
α
Fried and texturized products
« Coladas » and muffins products
1.4 1.6 1.8 2 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.01 0.99 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 Complètement gélatinisé Partiellement gélatinisé Natif line 1 line 2 Teneur en eau (kg.kg-1 bs) T e m p é r at u r e ( °C ) 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.01 0.99 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 Complètement gélatinisé Partiellement gélatinisé Natif line 1 line 2 Teneur en eau (kg.kg-1 bs) A B 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.01 0.99 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 Complètement gélatinisé Partiellement gélatinisé Natif line 1 line 2 Teneur en eau (kg.kg-1 bs) T e m p é r at u r e ( °C ) 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 0.01 0.99 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.9 Complètement gélatinisé Partiellement gélatinisé Natif line 1 line 2 Teneur en eau (kg.kg-1 bs)
A Dominico Harton B Harton
.0
Temperature
(°C)
Water content (kg kg-‐1 db) Water content (kg kg-‐1 db)
Temperature
(°C)
The extent of plantain starch gela4niza4on is dependent on temperature in such non-‐limi4ng water condi4ons
in vitro digesQbility as a funcQon of starch gelaQnizaQon
0 1 0
RDS RDS
RDS
RDS
RDS
∗=
−
−
Figure 3. Dimensionless rapidly starch diges4bility frac4on (A) and resistant starch frac4on (B) of
plantain flour as func4on of starch gela4niza4on degree.
Starch gela4niza4on explained 95 % of the varia4on of RDS*. A similar result was obtained for RS*.
Fully gela4nized state
Par4ally gela4nized state
Na4ve state
Fully gela4nized state
Na4ve state
Par4ally gela4nized state
A 3-‐parameter Weibull model was fiPed with DSC data for any water content (X1) 1 a X α
γ
=Figure 1. Modelling state diagram of green plantain flour-‐water mixtures (starch gela4niza4on vs.
treatment temperature and water content in db) as per Giraldo et al. 2015.
Upon water content, the degree of starch gela4niza4on was expressed as a func4on of
temperature T providing 3 parameters:
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 RS * 2.0 kg kg−1 db 1.4 kg kg−1 db RMSE 0.06 Starch gela4niza4on α 1 2.0 kg kg−1 db 1.4 kg kg−1 db RMSE 0.06 Starch gela4niza4on α RDS * 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Starch gela4niza4on α RDS * Plantain flour Rice starch Corn starch
Comparison with some other starchy products
The two empirical models were reliable to predict RDS and RS as a func4on of α, and
could be use for other starchy products
0 1 0
RS RS
RS
RS
RS
∗=
−
−
( ) ( )a exp 1 a exp 1 * RS − − − − = α RDS* = 1− exp −a( )α 1− exp −a( ) RS* = RS dimensionless RDS* = RDS dimensionlessY* = RDS* and RS* Same equaQon was proposed for both RDS and RS fracQons
Y* = 1− exp −a
( )
α1− exp −a
( )
A B
* Corresponding author: andresgtoro@hotmail.com
Figure 4. Comparison of the evolu4on of the RDS frac4on with rice (Chung et al. 2006), corn (Miao et al.
