The combination of monoglycerides, wax and hardfat on oleogels structuration

Silva, Thais Lomonaco Teodoro da; Fernandes, Gabriel Deschamps; Arellano, Daniel Barrera

doi:10.1590/1981-6723.13721

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Brazilian Journal of Food Technology

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Braz. J. Food Technol. 25 • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-6723.13721 copy

The combination of monoglycerides, wax and hardfat on oleogels structuration

A combinação de monoglicerídeos, ceras e hardfat na estruturação de organogéis

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

This study aimed to develop multicomponent oleogels to achieve desirable technological properties, affordability, and enhanced sensory acceptance for future food applications. Two Central Composite Rotatable Designs (CCRD) were performed with three independent variables, monoacylglycerols (MG), candelilla wax (CLX), and hardfat (HF). One design used soybean oil oleogels (SB) and the other used high oleic sunflower oil oleogels (SF). The variable responses evaluated were hardness (N), oil loss (%), thermal stability, and visual strength. For SB oleogels, CLX was related to the variable that was superior concerning all technological properties as >2 N in hardness, no oil loss, and higher stability to thermal treatment. For SF oleogels, the MG and the interactions of MG, CLX, and HF showed significant technological properties, indicating that the three oleogelators can co-crystallize better together in this oil, thus obtaining the same results as CLX alone in higher amounts.

Keywords:
Oleogels; Multicomponent system; Physical properties; Structuration; Low sat; Zero trans

HIGHLIGHTS

• Highlights Monoglycerides (MG), candelilla wax (CLW), and crambe hardfat (HF) oleogels were evaluated as a fat replacer.

• Two different oils- soybean (SB) and high oleic sunflower (SF)- were evaluated as lipid matrix.

• CLW was the oleogelator that primarily influenced hardness and stability for SB.

• In SF oleogels, the MG and HF were also significant about physical properties.

Run	Independent variables			Soybean oleogels					High Oleic Sunflower Oleogel
	MG	CLX	HF	H	OL	TS	VS	SFA	H	OL	TS	VS	SFA
	(%)	(%)	(%)	(N)	(%)	TS	VS	(%)	(N)	(%)	TS	VS	(%)
1	-1 (0.81)	-1 (0.61)	-1 (1.21)	0.29	0.82	1	2	18.27	0.5	14.73	2	2	10.18
2	-1 (0.81)	1 (2.39)	1 (4.79)	1.29	0	4	5	22.59	1.22	2.59	4	5	10.4
3	1 (3.19)	-1 (0.61)	1 (4.79)	0.71	0.01	3	3	23.02	1.67	3.6	4	5	11.03
4	1 (3.19)	1 (2.39)	-1 (1.21)	0.78	0.05	5	5	21.69	0.77	0	4	5	12.81
5	-1 (0.81)	-1 (0.61)	1 (4.79)	0.17	12.97	2	3	21.09	0.25	13.15	3	3	8.75
6	-1 (0.81)	1 (2.39)	-1 (1.21)	3.56	0	5	5	19.76	3	0	5	5	10.67
7	1 (3.19)	-1 (0.61)	-1 (1.21)	0.3	6.56	1	4	20.19	0.81	3.51	2	3	11.15
8	1 (3.19)	1 (2.39)	1 (4.79)	0.72	0.02	4	5	24.51	1.31	0	4	5	12.51
9	-1.68 (0)	0 (1.5)	0 (3)	0.25	16.64	1	1	19.77	0.18	10.28	1	1	8.99
10	1.68 (4)	0 (1.5)	0 (3)	0.65	0.23	4	5	23.01	1.31	0	3	5	12.56
11	0 (2)	-1.68 (0)	0 (3)	0.37	5.26	3	3	20.13	1.26	0.03	3	4	9.39
12	0 (2)	1.68 (3)	0 (3)	2.28	0	5	5	22.65	2.56	0	5	5	12.15
13	0 (2)	0 (1.5)	-1.68 (0)	0.16	12.72	1	2	19.02	0.14	10.64	0	1	11
14	0 (2)	0 (1.5)	1.68 (6)	0.57	0.24	4	5	23.76	0.61	4.51	4	5	10.53
15-17	0 (2)	0 (1.5)	0 (3)	0.26 ± 0.03	4.31 ± 1.81	2.00 ± 0.01	3.00 ± 0.01	21.39 ± 0.01	0.33 ± 0.05	10.31 ± 1.57	2.00 ± 0.01	3.00 ± 0.01	10.77 ± 0.01

Samples	Fatty Acids (%)							MP (°C) b
Samples	C16:0^a	C18:0 ^a	C18:1 a	C18:2 ^a	C18:3 ^a	C20:0 ^a	C22:0 ^a	MP (°C) b
SB	11.10 ± 0.24	4.47 ± 0.41	27.28 ± 0.34	50.14 ± 0.76	6.44 ± 0.07	0.15 ± 0.61	0.43 ± 0.61	-12.75 ± 0.05
SF	3.87 ± 0.05	2.84 ± 0.05	82.17 ± 0.25	9.59 ± 0.07	0.05 ± 0.07	0.88 ± 0.09	0.88 ± 0.09	4.10 ± 0.05
HF	6.89 ± 0.17	45.74 ± 1.11	3.41 ± 0.87	1.31± 0.29	0.8 ± 0.12	4.22± 0.09	36.75 ± 0.57	61.10 ± 0.18
MG	5.11 ± 0.50	48.05 ± 2.21	1.78 ± 1.16	1.15 ± 1.63	0.12 ± 0.17	4.91 ± 0.28	38.65 ± 2.13	76.0 ± 0.17

Model Term			Mean	MG (L)	MG (Q)	CLX (L)	CLX (Q)	HF (L)	HF (Q)	MG*CLX	MG*HF	CLX*HF
Hardness (N)	SB	Coefficient	0.14	-0.16	0.15	0.59	0.46	-0.10	0.12	-0.49	0.34	-0.33
	SB	p-value	0.64	0.29	0.33	<0.01	0.02	0.49	0.43	0.03	0.10	0.11
	SF	Coefficient	0.32	0.11	0.18	0.38	0.59	0.01	0.05	-0.48	0.43	-0.23
	SF	p-value	0.17	0.30	0.14	0.01	<0.01	0.91	0.67	0.01	0.01	0.11
Oil Loss (%)	SB	Coefficient	4.35	-2.54	0.77	-2.13	-1.29	-1.13	0.08	0.91	-2.34	-0.70
	SB	p-value	0.21	0.13	0.65	0.19	0.45	0.47	0.96	0.65	0.26	0.72
	SF	Coefficient	8.88	-2.98	-1.18	-2.38	-2.99	-0.67	-0.32	2.27	-0.11	0.51
	SF	p-value	0.00	0.02	0.32	0.05	0.03	0.52	0.78	0.12	0.93	0.71
Thermal Stability	SB	Coefficient	2.00	0.44	0.19	1.05	0.72	0.44	0.19	-0.12	0.13	-0.62
	SB	p-value	0.01	0.12	0.51	<0.01	0.04	0.12	0.51	0.72	0.72	0.10
	SF	Coefficient	0.95	0.25	0.52	0.69	1.22	0.64	0.52	-0.25	0.25	-0.50
	SF	p-value	0.11	0.35	0.10	0.03	<0.01	0.04	0.10	0.47	0.47	0.17
Visual Stability	SB	Coefficient	2.97	0.64	0.10	0.83	0.46	0.37	0.28	-0.25	-0.25	0.00
	SB	p-value	<0.01	0.05	0.74	0.02	0.18	0.22	0.39	0.51	0.51	1.00
	SF	Coefficient	1.97	0.71	0.47	0.64	1.00	0.71	0.47	-0.37	0.13	-0.37
	SF	p-value	0.01	0.03	0.15	0.05	0.01	0.03	0.15	0.31	0.73	0.31

Source of variation	Sum of squares				Degrees of freedom				Means Squares				F-values
SB	H	OL	TS	VS	H	OL	TS	VS	H	OL	TS	VS	H	OL	TS	VS
Model	8.8	-	20.3	15.0	3.0	-	2.0	2.0	2.9	-	10.2	7.5	8.7	-	9.2	8.2
Residual	4.4	-	15.4	12.9	13.0	-	14.0	14.0	0.3	-	1.1	0.9	27.6	-	0.0	0.0
Total	13.1	-	35.8	27.9	16.0	-	16.0	16.0
SF	H	OL	TS	VS	H	OL	TS	VS	H	OL	TS	VS	H	OL	TS	VS
Model	9.2	289.4	24.7	27.4	4.0	3.0	3.0	4.0	2.3	96.5	8.2	6.9	14.7	7.8	7.5	6.4
Residual	1.9	159.9	14.3	12.8	12.0	13.0	13.0	12.0	0.2	12.3	1.1	1.1	36.5	1.0	0.0	0.0
Total	11.0	449.7	39.1	40.2	16.0	16.0	16.0	16.0

Responses	Oil	Equations	Validation
Responses	Oil	Equations	Y_PRED	Y_EXP	RD (%)
Hardness (N)	SB	Y₁ = 0.42 + 0.59 x₂ + 0.40 x₂² - 0.49 x₁ x₂	2.54	2.28	12.00
Hardness (N)	SF	Y₁ = 0.54 + 0.38 x₂ + 0.54 x₂² - 0.48 x₁ x₂ + 0.43 x₁ x₃	2.70	2.56	5.40
Oil Loss (%)	SB	Y₂=0	-	-	-
Oil Loss (%)	SF	Y₂ = 7.41 - 2.98 x₁ - 2.38 x₂ - 2.65 x₂²	0.00	0.00	0.00
Thermal Stability	SB	Y₃ = 2.37 + 1.05 x₂ + 0.63 x₂²	5.91	5.00	18.2
Thermal Stability	SF	Y₃ = 1.97 + 0.69 x₂ + 0.99 x₂² + 0.64 x₃	5.92	5.00	18.4
Visual Stability	SB	Y₄ = 3.65 + 0.64 x₁ + 0.83 x₂	5.04	5.00	0.80
Visual Stability	SF	Y₄ = 2.90 + 0.71 x₁ + 0.64 x₂ + 0.79 x₂² + 0.71 x₃	6.20	5.00	24.00

Instituto de Tecnologia de Alimentos - ITAL Av. Brasil, 2880, 13070-178 Campinas - SP / Brasil, Tel 55 19 3743-1762 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: bjftsec@ital.sp.gov.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding Author: Thais Lomonaco Teodoro da Silva, Liege University, Science des Aliments et Formulation. Av. de la Faculté d’Agronomie 2B, Bât. 140 Gembloux, Gembloux, Namur 5030 – Belgium, e-mail: thais_lts@yahoo.com.br