Structural modification of waxy, regular, and high‐amylose maize and hulless barley starches on partial acid hydrolysis and their impact on physicochemical properties and chemical modification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Waxy (WX), regular (RA), and high‐amylose (HA) maize and hulless barley (HB) starches were subjected to partial acid hydrolysis with 1.0 and 2.2 N HCl for 30–240 min. In both starches, the extent of hydrolysis with 1.0 N HCl followed the order: HA>WX>RA, whereas with 2.2 N HCl, the order was: HA>WX>RA (maize) and WX>HA>RA (HB), respectively. The relative crystallinity increased (HA>WX>RA) and the X‐ray pattern remained unchanged, whereas the swelling factor decreased (WX>RA>HA in maize and WX>HA>RA in HB) at both acid concentrations. Starches hydrolyzed with 1.0 N HCl exhibited increased gelatinization temperatures (WX>RA>HA in maize, WX>HA ∼ RA in HB), a narrower gelatinization temperature range (WX>RA>HA in maize, WX>RA ∼ HA in HB) and a decreased gelatinization enthalpy (WX>HA>RA in maize and HB). Acid hydrolysis increased the accessibility of the phosphorylating reagent into the amorphous regions. The extent of phosphorylation was more pronounced (maize>HB) in starches hydrolyzed with 1.0 N HCl for 60–90 min. The bound phosphorus content (BPC) followed the order: HA>WX>RA in maize and HB starches hydrolyzed with 1.0 N HCl for 240 min. In both starches, the extent of cationization was not influenced either by acid concentration or hydrolysis time. In general, acid hydrolysis significantly affected the reactivity of starch towards phosphorylation, where the optimum hydrolysis condition differed with starch source. The results would benefit the starch industry, since the amount of the phosphorylating reagent required for increasing thermal stability and/or freeze‐thaw stability could be decreased substantially, if starches are subjected to partial acid hydrolysis prior to derivatization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".