کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
224996 | 464470 | 2009 | 9 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
The effect of competitive surface migration of proteins and low molecular weight surfactants (LMS) on the powder recovery in spray drying of highly sticky sugar-rich food has been studied. Sucrose was chosen as a model sugar-rich food because it cannot be easily converted into a pure amorphous powder through spray drying. Sodium caseinate (Na–C) and hydrolyzed whey protein isolate (WPI) were used as model proteins. Polysorbate 80 (Tween-80) and sodium dodecyl sulfate (Na-DS) were used as model non-ionic and ionic LMS.A sucrose solution was spray dried without any additives to establish a base case. Following this, spray drying trials of sucrose–protein solutions were conducted. The sucrose: protein ratio was maintained at 99.5:0.5 and 99.0:1.0. Finally, 0.05% of Tween-80 and Na-DS, on a nominal feed basis, were individually added to the solutions and spray dried. The solid concentration of all of the feed solutions was set at 25% and the inlet and outlet temperatures were maintained at 170 °C and 70 °C, respectively. Powder recovery was determined using a standard procedure and taken as an indicator of the surface stickiness. Coverage of the particle surface by the proteins was determined through elemental surface analysis and a nitrogen balance. It was found that in the absence of LMS, the proteins covered up to 55% of the particle surface and increased the powder recovery to between 84% and 85%. Formation of a glassy protein-rich film acts to reduce the surface stickiness of sucrose droplets. However, when LMS was added to the sucrose–protein solutions, the recovery dropped to zero in the case of Tween-80. In the case of Na-DS the recoveries ranged to 39% and 68%. At these recoveries 83% and 59% of the protein, respectively, was displaced from the surface. This drastic effect of surfactant types on the powder recovery is explained using the Orogenic Displacement model.
Journal: Journal of Food Engineering - Volume 94, Issue 2, September 2009, Pages 135–143