See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257691720

Texture and Microstructure of Gelatin/Corn Starch-Based Gummy

Confections

Article  in  Food Biophysics · September 2012

DOI: 10.1007/s11483-012-9262-3

CITATIONS READS

34 2,293

3 authors, including:

Ana Carolina Borella Marfil Anhê Vania Regina Nicoletti

Universidade Federal do Triangulo Mineiro (UFTM) São Paulo State University
18 PUBLICATIONS   98 CITATIONS    127 PUBLICATIONS   2,213 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Saúde Pública View project

Mass transfer and release kinetic of oregano essential oil encapsulated by ionic gelation and complex coacervation methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ana Carolina Borella Marfil Anhê on 17 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Food Biophysics (2012) 7:236–243
DOI 10.1007/s11483-012-9262-3
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Texture and Microstructure of Gelatin/Corn Starch-Based
Gummy Confections
Paulo H. M. Marfil & Ana C. B. M. Anhê &
Vania R. N. Telis
Received: 27 July 2011 / Accepted: 28 May 2012 / Published online: 12 June 2012
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract Texture of gummy gels prepared with gelatin and
acid modified corn starch (AMCS) was quantified by instru-
mental techniques and the gel microstructure was examined
by confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scan-
ning electron microscopy (SEM). Gelatin:AMCS gummy
gels were divided in two groups: Group 1, containing dif-
ferent gelatin (0–10 wt%) and AMCS (0–10 wt%) concen-
trations, totalizing 10 wt% solids; and Group 2, which was
prepared with a fixed gelatin concentration (8 wt%) and
varied AMCS concentrations (0–5 wt%). All gummy gels
were formulated with maltitol syrup and xylitol, shaped in
cylindrical molds and submitted to instrumental texture
profile analysis (TPA) tests and colorimetric analysis. Group
1 pure starch gels (10 % AMCS) presented the highest
stringiness and adhesiveness. In samples of Group 2 the
introduction of AMCS dramatically changed the structure
of the gelatin gels. Thermodynamic incompatibility was
evident even at the lowest AMCS concentration. Moreover,
increasing AMCS concentrations lead to an increase in the
Financial support CAPES (scholarship) and FAPESP (Process 2006/
56015-2).
P. H. M. Marfil : V. R. N. Telis
Department of Food Engineering and Technology,
São Paulo State University (UNESP),
15054-000 São José do Rio Preto, São Paulo, Brazil
P. H. M. Marfil (*)
Department of Food Engineering,
Federal University of Triângulo Mineiro (UFTM),
38064-200 Uberaba, Minas Gerais, Brazil
e-mail: paulomarfil@alimentos.uftm.edu.br
A. C. B. M. Anhê
Laboratory of Medical Entomology,
René Rachou Research Institute (CPqRR - FIOCRUZ),
30190-002 Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil
number of hollow zones including starch granules inside
them. In addition, introduction of AMCS in the samples of
Group 2 caused an increase in hardness and opacity and a
decrease in stringiness and adhesiveness. On the other hand,
results from TPA tests showed that the addition of AMCS to
gelatin gels in suitable proportions can be a feasible alter-
native in the formulation of gummy confections.
Keywords Acid modified corn starch . Gelatin . TPA .
Scanning electron microscopy . Confocal laser scanning
microscopy . Gels
Introduction
Proteins are often used in the formulation of products such as
coatings, capsules in pharmaceutical and food industries,
adhesives, surfactants and plastic items. Nevertheless, the
higher price of proteins and proteinaceous materials when
compared with other biopolymers, especially starch and cel-
lulose, has limited research on their technical applications.1
Gelatin is the biopolymer obtained by hydrolytic degra-
dation of the most abundant mammalian protein, collagen. It
has wide-ranging industrial applications, especially in the
food industry.2 Native conformation of collagen is a triple
helix held together by interchain hydrogen bonding. In
dilute aqueous solutions above 37 °C, gelatin molecules
exist as separate disordered chains (coils). On cooling,
regions of the molecules start to revert to an ordered helical
collagen-like conformation (“frustrated renaturation”).
When a solution containing around 1 wt% gelatin is cooled
to room temperature, the gelatin molecules form an infinite
network cross-linked by hydrogen bonding, i.e., a thermor-
eversible gel. The role of the coil-helix transition in this
mechanism has been thoroughly investigated.3–5 Gelatin gel
Food Biophysics (2012) 7:236–243
strength is dependent on gelatin concentration, with little
effect of ionic strength and pH.6,7
The behavior of mixtures of gelatin with various polysac-
charides such as alginate, pectin and starch has been widely
studied.8–12 Knowledge about protein-polysaccharide interac-
tions is important in food formulations since these mixtures
generally lead to phase separation. Phase separation occurs
due to thermodynamic incompatibility or complex coacerva-
tion, depending on the affinity between the different biopol-
ymers and the solvent.13
In addition to its role in plant physiology, starch is the
most important carbohydrate source in human nutrition.14 It
is also widely used, alone or with other gelling agents, to
provide a wide range of jelly and gum products. Native and
modified starches are important ingredients in many formu-
lated foods.15
The role of starch in gummy confections is to provide
their base structure and many of their textural character-
istics. Acid modified starches are formed by adding a small
amount of acid to a starch suspension and heating to a
temperature below the starch gelatinization temperature,
producing hydrolyzed starch.16 When the desired degree of
hydrolysis is achieved, the mix is neutralized and the starch
is filtered, washed and dried. The acid hydrolyses some
bonds within the starch granule, leading to a less linked
structure and a reduction in molecular weight of some
chains. This causes the starch granules to be readily soluble
in boiling water and disintegrate when cooked to give a
lower hot paste viscosity and higher gel viscosity than
native starches.17–19
In many food products, such as processed meats, cheese,
yogurt and confectionary products, texture is primarily de-
pendent upon formation of a gel network, which can be
strongly affected by the nature of biopolymers present in
the formulation. Gelatin is commonly used in gummy con-
fection because the final product shows suitable hardness
and transparency, two characteristics that are desirable by
consumers.
A gummy confection consists of high proportions of
sucrose and glucose syrup, combined with gelling compo-
nents such as starch, gelatin, or pectin, along with food acid,
flavourings and colourings. Common confectionery gel
products form a portion of the lucrative confectionery mar-
ket and there are continual consumer demands for more
interesting and innovative products that have new and ex-
citing textures, flavors and appearances. Improving or mod-
ifying confectionery gel textures can meet these demands,
but first an understanding of how the behavior and structure
of the gel is developed must be achieved.20 In addition, an
increase in the demand for low-sugar products has been seen
in recent years, in such a way that a gummy confection free
of sucrose and glucose syrup could be a new and attractive
alternative for consumers.
237
The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence
of acid modified corn starch (AMCS) addition in gelatin
based gummy confections. Mechanical and optical proper-
ties (assessed by instrumental texture profile analysis [TPA]
tests and colorimetric analysis) and microstructure (evaluat-
ed by scanning electron microscopy [SEM] and confocal
laser scanning microscopy [CLSM]) were analyzed in order
to better understand the interaction between these two bio-
polymers (AMCS and gelatin).
Material and Methods
Material
The gummy gels were formulated using gelatin, AMCS,
maltitol syrup, xylitol and distillated water. Food-grade,
type B, bloom number 240 gelatin, extracted from bovine
hides by alkaline treatment was supplied from Gelita
(Mococa, Brazil). Commercial food-grade acid modified
corn starch, Candymil® (moisture content 12.2 wt%, ash
content<2 wt%, pH 5.4) was provided by Corn Products
(Mogi Guaçu, Brazil). Maltitol syrup (Lycasin®) and xylitol
were supplied, respectively, by Roquette (Lestrem, France)
and Tovani Benzaquen (São Paulo, Brazil). These materials
were used without any chemical treatment.
Preparation of Gelatin/Corn Starch Gels
The gelatin/corn starch gels were prepared in order to give two
sample groups. In the first one (Group 1), samples contained
different proportions of gelatin:AMCS, always totalizing
10 wt% gelling agents in the final formulation. The mass ratios
of gelatin and AMCS were 10:0; 9:1; 8:2; 7:3; 0:10 gelatin:
AMCS. In the second group (Group 2), samples contained a
fixed amount of gelatin (8 wt% of the final formulation) and
different proportions of AMCS, varying from 0 to 5 wt%.
In order to keep a constant proportion between the addi-
tional formulation ingredients, the following procedure was
adopted: the amount of gelling agents was subtracted from a
total of 100 wt% and the remaining amount was divided into
nine portions, which were composed by six portions of
maltitol syrup, one portion of xylitol and two portions of
distilled water, according to Table 1.
The aqueous gelatin solution was prepared by dissolving
gelatin granules in distilled water (80–90 °C). In order to fully
dissolve all granules, the gelatin solution was kept for 30 min
in a water bath at 60 °C, with regular manual stirring. A
similar procedure was used to prepare the starch solution,
but in this case the water bath was kept at 90 °C, with manual
stirring for 9 min (until starch suspension became transparent).
Maltitol syrup and xylitol were mixed and heated over a
metal sheet at 125 °C and cooled to 90 °C. This syrup and
238 Food Biophysics (2012) 7:236–243

Table 1 Formulations of gelatin and AMCS gels of groups 1 and 2. Group 1 containing different gelatin (0–10 wt%) and AMCS (0–10 wt%)
concentrations, totalizing 10 wt% solids. Group 2 containing a fixed gelatin concentration (8 wt%) and varied AMCS concentrations (0–5 wt%)

Sample Gelatin (wt%) AMCS (wt%) Maltitol syrup (wt%) Xylitol (wt%) Water (wt%)

Group 1 7G3S 7.00 3.00 60.00 10.00 20.00

8G2S 8.00 2.00 60.00 10.00 20.00
9G1S 9.00 1.00 60.00 10.00 20.00
10G0S 10.00 − 60.00 10.00 20.00
0G10S − 10.00 60.00 10.00 20.00
Group 2 8G0S 8.00 0.00 61.34 10.22 20.44
8G1S 8.00 1.00 60.67 10.11 20.22
8G2S 8.00 2.00 60.0 10.00 20.00
8G3S 8.00 3.00 59.33 9.89 19.78
8G4S 8.00 4.00 58.67 9.78 19.55
8G5S 8.00 5.00 58.00 9.67 19.33

the gelatin solution were then added to the starch solution,
under manual stirring for 1 min in a water bath at 90 °C
(Figure 1). The final formulation was subjected to pH mea-
surement, which varied between 5.9 and 6.2. A portion of
the final formulation was placed into cylindrical silicon
molds for texture and color analysis, whereas the remaining
material was processed for microstructure analysis.
Mechanical Properties
Mechanical properties of the gels were determined by com-
pression using a TA-XT2i Texture Analyzer (Stable Micro-
systems Ltd., Godalming, UK) with an acrylic cylindrical
plate probe (49.2 mm of diameter) lubricated with canola oil.
The cylindrical-shaped gels (20 mm length and 31 mm
diameter) were kept at ambient temperature (25 °C) for 24 h
and then were subjected to instrumental texture profile anal-
ysis (TPA) tests. Samples were compressed twice at 1 mm/s
to 40 % of their original height and measurements were
performed in triplicate. The textural parameters recorded
during the analysis were: hardness (force at maximum com-
pression during first bite), fracturability (force at the first
major drop in force curve), stringiness (distance to which
food extends before it breaks away from the compression
plates), adhesiveness (area under the zero force line that
represents the work caused from a tensile force, needed to
pull food apart and separate it from the compression plates)
and springiness (distance or length of compression cycle
during the second bite), defined according to Steffe21 and
calculated by the Texture Expert software (Stable Micro-
systems Ltd., Godalming, UK).

Opacity

Opacity (Y) was measured in a colorimeter (Hunterlab/Col-

orflex, Reston, USA). The Y value was calculated by the
Universal software 3.2 (Hunter Lab Associates Laboratory,
Reston, USA, 1997), according to Eq. (1).
Y ¼ ðYB =YW Þ  100 ð1Þ
where YB and Yw are the opacity under black and white
standard, respectively. Opacity values were expressed using
an arbitrary scale (0 to 100 %).

Scanning Electronic Microscopy (SEM)

For scanning electron microscopy (SEM), samples were fixed in

a 2.5 % glutaraldehyde solution overnight, dehydrated in a
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram showing processing steps used to prepare graded ethanol solution series and dried by the critical point
gelatin and AMCS gel samples method using liquid CO2 and acetone. The gels were fractured,
Food Biophysics (2012) 7:236–243
mounted on stubs using double-sided stick tape and coated with
gold. Samples were analyzed in a JEOL 560 SEM (Scanning
Electron Microscope JEOL JSM 560, Tokyo, Japan).
Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM)
For confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), the fluores-
cent marker Rhodamine B was used for non-covalent labeling.
Two drops of an aqueous 0.05 % Rhodamine B solution was
added to 100 g of sample at 70 °C. At this temperature, and
taking into account that all sites in the samples were in liquid
state, they could be considered to be accessible to Rhodamine
at a fast diffusion rate. Samples were mounted on microscope
slides, covered with glass cover slips and sealed with nail polish
to prevent evaporation. Slides were analyzed in a LSM-510
(Zeiss Laser Scanning Microscope 510, Carl Zeiss, Konig-
sallee, Gottingen, Germany) using a 543 nm wavelength. The
key feature of CLSM is the ability to image a single focal plane
in the sample. This enables visualization of cross-sections of the
blended systems. Cross-sections were taken at 2 μm intervals.
Results and Discussion
Mechanical Properties
TPA analysis showed that gelatin plays an important role in all
textural parameters studied. Considering the samples of Group
1, 10G0S and 9G1S gels did not show significant difference
(p>0.05) in hardness and fracturability (Table 2). On the other
hand, these parameters, mainly hardness, decreased with an
increase in AMCS proportion (8G2S, 7G3S, 0G10S). DeMars
and Ziegler9 studied gelatin/pectin-based gummy confections
and observed that hardness decreased with increasing pectin
concentration. Gelatin also showed a great influence in string-
iness and adhesiveness, since a decrease in gelatin concentra-
tion resulted in stringy and adhesive gels, as can be observed
in Figure 2. In this figure, the negative area that appears in the
detailed area corresponds to adhesiveness, while the horizon-
tal and vertical arrows represent, respectively, stringiness and
Table 2 Hardness, fracturability, stringiness, adhesiveness, springiness and opacity values of gelatin and AMCS gels (Group 1)
Gelatin (wt%) AMCS (wt%) Hardness (N) Fracturability (N)
10.0 − 40.08±2.10a 0.200±0.001a
9.0 1.0 42.69±1.19a 0.200±0.001a
8.0 2.0 33.89±1.71b 0.177±0.005b
7.0 3.0 18.26±0.07c 0.180±0.005b
− 10.0 1.10±0.08d 0.134±0.004c
abc
Means ± standard error, values with different letters in same column are significantly different, P<0.05.
*The low consistence of sample 10A0G did not permit the use of the colorimeter.
239
adhesive force (maximum negative force). There were no
significant differences in springiness between samples of
Group 1, although a trend of maximum springiness was
observed for sample 7G3S.
Gels containing only AMCS as gelling agent (0G10S) did
not result in a self-supporting structure - i.e., a protein network
strong enough to be able to support its own weight and to
maintain its shape without flowing when removed from the
mold - even in the presence of maltitol syrup, which behaves as
a body agent, and xylitol, which is an edulcorant. Nevertheless,
the replacement of only a small fraction of gelatin by starch
(9G1S) did not result in a statistically significant difference
when compared with pure gelatin gel (10G0S).
In order to study the influence of AMCS on the texture of
gelatin gels, some experiments were carried out on samples
of Group 2 (Table 1). Results of TPA tests applied in these
samples are presented in Table 3.
The highest hardness values were observed in samples
8G4S (51.67 N) and 8G5S (53.63 N), which were higher than
those that would be obtained by summation of hardness values
of samples prepared with the individual biopolymers as, for
instance, in samples 10G0S (40.08 N) and 0G10S (1.10 N). It
should be pointed out that the total gelling agents’ concentra-
tion in samples 8G4S and 8G5S were higher than in samples
10G0S and 0G10S. Taking into account sample 8G2S, which
was prepared with a total of 10 wt% gelling agents, the
resulting hardness (35.06 N) was lower than for the sample
containing only gelatin. The lower hardness of 8G2S com-
pared to 10G0S can be regarded as an antagonistic effect.
Contrary to what had been observed for samples of Group
1, samples of Group 2 showed a trend of less stringy and
adhesive gels being obtained with increasing starch concen-
tration (Table 3 and Figure 3). Nevertheless, this result could
be reflecting the increase in the total content of gelling agents.
Opacity
In general, the transparency of gelatin gels decreased with
the increase in gelatin concentration, as can be concluded by
comparing samples 10G0S (Table 2) and 8G0S (Table 3).
Stringiness (−) Adhesiveness Springiness (%) Opacity (%)
(N.s)
0.86±0.14a −0.35±0.13a 95.5±0.3a 90.03±0.34a
0.96±0.11a −0.55±0.05a 94.6±4.2a 96.24±0.44b
1.12±0.15a −0.68±0.18a 96.5±3.0a 97.76±0.29c
1.98±0.25b −1.10±0.14b 97.5±2.5a 98.02±0.21c
3.82±0.21c −2.08±0.19c 95.4±0.9a *
240 Food Biophysics (2012) 7:236–243

Fig. 2 Texture profile analysis of gelatin:AMCS gels (10 wt% solids) in different proportions, respectively: 10:0 (closed squares); 9:1 (open triangles);
8:2 (closed circles); 7:3 (open stars); 0:10 (cross)

Table 2 shows that addition of a small concentration of
AMCS (1 wt%) reduced transparency, but resulted in a gel
with mechanical proprieties similar to pure gelatin gels. In
Table 3, the influence of AMCS on gel opacity can be
clearly observed, since in these samples gelatin concentra-
tion was kept constant (8 wt%): increasing AMCS caused a
decrease in transparency. For instance, the initial opacity
value of 81.33 % (8G0S) increased to 97.28 % (8G2S) with
the addition of only 2 wt% starch.
Microscopy Structure
In order to evaluate the mechanical properties and mi-
crostructure of gels, samples were subjected to analysis
by SEM (Figure 4) and CLSM (Figures 5 and 6). SEM
(Figure 4) permitted visualization of the gel three-
dimensional structure. In CLSM (Figures 5 and 6), a
single focal plane of the gel was analyzed at each time,
permitting visualization of cross-sections of the sample.
This enabled observation of the gel inside, without
destroying its original shape.
For CLSM, rhodamine B was used. It is a fluorescent
probe for non-covalent labeling, known for its capacity to
interact with protein phases in mixed biopolymer systems.12
In addition, Van de Velde et al.22 showed that, in the absence
or at low protein concentration, the fluorescent probe binds
to starch granules. This situation was observed in this work,
where rhodamine B stained the starch granules as well as the
gelatin network. The fluorescence appeared at the periphery
of the swollen starch granules, suggesting that the fluores-
cent probe was adsorbed onto these zones, as previously
observed by Van de Velde et al..22
SEM and CLSM showed that, in the absence of AMCS,
gelatin exhibited a thin spongy and regular aspect
(Figures 4a and 5a). Addition of 1 wt% of AMCS dramat-
ically changed the gel morphology, since gelatin formed a

Table 3 Hardness, fracturability, stringiness, adhesiveness, springiness and opacity values of gelatin and AMCS gels containing 8 wt% gelatin and 0–
5 wt% AMCS (Group 2)

Corn Starch (wt%) Hardness (N) Fracturability (N) Stringiness (mm) Adhesiveness (N.s) Springiness (%) Opacity (%)

− 31.94±1.23a 0.195±0.001a 2.10±0.03a −2.97±0.52a 92.3±3.3a 81.33±0.59a

1.00 33.30±0.23a 0.195±0.005a 1.36±0.22b −0.70±0.41b 96.5±0.4b 89.93±0.54b
2.00 35.06±3.11a 0.178±0.004b 1.48±0.01b −1.24±0.20b 90.0±0.9a 97.28±0.68c
3.00 35.87±2.77a 0.178±0.004b 1.22±0.02b −0.56±0.25b 90.6±3.3a 97.57±0.20c
4.00 51.67±1.62b 0.188±0.010ab 0.91±0.25bc −0.47±0.46b 90.5±1.5a 97.64±0.23c
5.00 53.63±0.50b 0.186±0.009ab 1.05±0.01c −0.58±0.10b 92.8±2.1a 96.04±0.37d
abcd
Means ± standard error, values with different letters in same column are significantly different, p<0.05.
Food Biophysics (2012) 7:236–243 241

Fig. 3 Texture profile analysis of gelatin:AMCS gels containing 8 wt% gelatin and different AMCS contents: 0 % (closed squares); 1 % (open
triangles); 2 % (closed circles); 3 % (open stars); 4 % (cross); 5 % (plus signs)

fibrillar framework containing some swollen AMCS
(Figures 4b and 5b). These fibers were randomly distributed
and connected to one another and the swollen AMCS gran-
ules appear as if embedded by the gelatin network. Heating
of AMCS suspensions leads to swelling and finally disrup-
tion of starch granules, the so-called gelatinization process.
Therefore, it could be concluded that the presence of gelati-
nized starch would significantly affects the morphology of
gelatin network. In many applications and in almost all food
applications, starch granules are heated before use.
The addition of 2 to 5 wt% AMCS (Figures 4c–d and 5c–f)
resulted in a polygonal network of gelatin with many hollow
zones where starch granules were localized, but contrary to
what have been observed in Figure 4b, swollen AMCS gran-
ules were disconnected from the network. Higher AMCS
concentration in the mixed systems resulted in a more com-
pact appearance, which was related to the higher hardness
found in TPA tests. The network was predominantly com-
posed by gelatin, which explained the self-supporting struc-
ture of the systems.

Fig. 4 SEM images of blended

systems containing 8 wt%
gelatin and zero (a), 1 wt% (b),
3 wt% (c) and 5 wt% (d)
AMCS. Figures C and D show
the starch granules inside the
hollow zone in the gelatin
network
242 Food Biophysics (2012) 7:236–243

Fig. 5 CSLM images of

blended systems containing
zero (a), 1 wt% (b), 2 wt% (c),
3 wt% (d), 4 wt% (e) and 5 wt%
(f) AMCS. Grayish (or reddish)
networks are rich in gelatin.
Starch granules are embedded
by the gelatin network

In addition, increased AMCS concentration also
resulted in a higher number of hollow zones and starch
granules disconnected from the network, showing the
incompatibility of these biopolymers. Depending on the
nature of the biopolymer and the solvent conditions, protein
and polysaccharide interactions can be attractive or repulsive,
leading to complexation or thermodynamic incompatibility,
respectively.23 Thermodynamic incompatibility is a widely
observed phenomenon in protein and polysaccharide mixtures
and occurs mainly due to the low entropy of mixing.24
When two biopolymers (proteins and/or polysacchar-
ides) are mixed together, it is possible to observe a
Fig. 6 CSLM images of cross-
sections of 8G1S (a, b, c) and
8G5S (d, e, f) samples showing
some AMCS embedded by the
gelatin network (distance be-
tween cross-sections: 2 μm)
single phase or a phase separation (associative or
segregative).13,25–27 Single phase behavior occurs in
some rare cases or with low polymer concentrations,
when biopolymers are miscible and co-exist. This situ-
ation was not identified in the analyzed samples
(Figure 6b–d).
Increased AMCS concentration modified the struc-
ture of the gels, showing thermodynamic incompatibil-
ity. This behavior became evident from the hollow
zones that segregated starch granules from the gelatin
matrix. The network was more compact, whereas gela-
tin was repulsed by starch. Thermodynamic unstable
Food Biophysics (2012) 7:236–243
systems are more frequently observed and are mainly
due to excluded volume effects and repulsion between
the two biopolymers.13,28 This behavior can be ob-
served in Figure 6, which shows cross-sections of sam-
ples 8G1S (Figure 6a–c) and 8G5S (Figure 6d–f).
Studies on single biopolymer systems containing sug-
ar have shown that in polysaccharides, such as starch,
in which sugar concentrations approach levels found in
confectionery gels, chain-chain associations are reduced.
This leads to a less aggregated structure than in the case
of an aqueous system. Gelatin gels behave quite differ-
ently from starch gel systems, with chain association
being increased in the presence of sugar, rather than
being reduced.29
Conclusions
Results presented in this paper show that starch gels are more
stringy and adhesive than those of gelatin (at the same total
solids concentration – 10 %). When AMCS was introduced in
gelatin gels, their structure dramatically changed. Addition of
1 wt% AMCS resulted in a gel with mechanical properties
similar to pure gelatin gel. The increase of AMCS concentra-
tion modified the structure of gelatin network, showing ther-
modynamic incompatibility and a higher number of hollow
zones containing starch granules inside them. In addition, an
increase in hardness and opacity and a decrease in stringiness
and adhesiveness were observed. It could be concluded that
the presence of gelatinized starch would significantly affect
the morphology of gelatin network. Finally, the addition of
AMCS to gelatin gels resulted in more opaque gels. Based on
these considerations, the addition of AMCS to gelatin gels in
suitable proportions can be a feasible alternative to formula-
tion of gummy confections.
Acknowledgements The authors thank Dr. Paulo Filemon Paolucci
Pimenta and Fernanda Gambogi Oliveira, director and technician,
respectively, from the Medical Entomology Laboratory from CPqRR/
FIOCRUZ, for enabling microscopic analysis. The authors also thank
Gelita, Corn Products and Tovani Benzaquen, and Dra. Rosiane Lopes
da Cunha from FEA/UNICAMP, for providing sample materials. The
financial support of CAPES (scholarship) and FAPESP (Process 2006/
56015-2) are gratefully acknowledged.
View publication stats
243
References
1. E. Chiellini, P. Cinelli, E.G. Fernandes, E.R.S. Kenawy, A. Lazzeri,
Biomacromolecules 2, 806–811 (2001)
2. A.G. Ward, A. Courts, The Science and Technology of Gelatin
(Academic, London, 1977)
3. J.D. Ferry, J.E. Eldridge, J. Phys, Colloid Chem. 53, 184–196 (1949)
4. P.J. Flory, E.S. Weaver, J. Am, Chem. Soc. 82, 4518–4525 (1960)
5. L. Guo, R.H. Colby, C.P. Lusignan, T.H. Whitesides, Macromole-
cules 36, 9999–10008 (2003)
6. M. Papageorgiou, S. Kasapis, R.K. Richardson, Food Hydrocoll.
8, 97–112 (1994)
7. S. Hsu, A.M. Jamieson, Polymer 34, 2602–2608 (1993)
8. M. Panouillé, V. Larreta-Garde, Food Hydrocoll. 23, 1074–1080
(2009)
9. L.L. DeMars, G.R. Ziegler, Food Hydrocoll. 15, 643–653 (2001)
10. H. Firoozmand, B.S. Murray, E. Dickinson, Food Hydrocoll. 23,
1081–1088 (2009)
11. H. Firoozmand, B.S. Murray, E. Dickinson, Langmuir 23, 4646–
4650 (2007)
12. R.H. Tromp, F.V. Velde, J.V. Riel, M. Paques, Food Res. Int. 34,
931–938 (2001)
13. J.L. Doublier, C. Garnier, D. Renard, C. Sanchez, Curr. Opin.
Colloid Interface Sci. 5, 202–214 (2000)
14. V. Veiga, D.H. Ryan, E. Sourty, F. Llanes, R.H. Marchessault,
Carbohydr. Polym. 42, 353–357 (2000)
15. A. Abd Karim, M.H. Norziah, C.C. Seow, Food Chem. 71, 9–36
(2000)
16. R. Lees, Faults, Causes and Remedies: In Sweet and Chocolate
Manufacture (Specialized Publications, England, 1980)
17. H.D. Belitz, W. Grosch, Food Chemistry (Springer Verlag, New
York, 1999)
18. E.B. Jackson, Sugar Confectionery Manufacture (Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York, 1990)
19. A.M. Hermansson, K. Svegmark, Trends Food Sci. Technol. 7,
343–353 (1996)
20. P. Burey, B.R. Bhandari, R.P.G. Rutgers, P.J. Halley, P.J. Torley,
Int. J. Food Prop. 12, 176–210 (2009)
21. J.F. Steffe, Rheological Methods in Food Process Engineering
(Freeman, East Lansing, 1996)
22. F. van de Velde, J. van Riel, R.H. Tromp, J. Sci, Food Agric. 82,
1528–1536 (2002)
23. V.B. Tolstoguzov, Food Hydrocoll. 9, 317–332 (1995)
24. Grinberg VYa, V.B. Tolstoguzov, Food Hydrocoll 11, 145–158
(1997)
25. S.E. Harding, S.E. Hill, J.R. Mitchell, Biopolymer Mixtures (University
Press, Nottingham, 1995)
26. C.G. de Kruif, R. Tuinier, Food Hydrocoll. 15, 555–563 (2001)
27. S.L. Turgeon, M. Beaulieu, C. Schmitt, C. Sanchez, Curr. Opin.
Colloid Interface Sci. 8, 401–414 (2003)
28. G. Philips, P. Williams, D. Wedlock, Gums and Stabilisers in the
Food Industry (IRL Press, Oxford, 1992)
29. S. Kasapis, J. Mitchell, R. Abeysekera, W. MacNaughtan, Trends
Food Sci. Technol. 15, 293–304 (2004)