RESEARCH ARTICLE

www.starch-journal.com

Morphological and Physicochemical Properties of Pine Seed

Starch Nanoparticles
Gabriel Coelho Leandro, Karina Cesca, Alcilene Rodrigues Monteiro,
and Germán Ayala Valencia*

formulations are constantly searching for

This study aims to characterize pine starch (PS) and pine starch nanoparticles new sources of natural starches, as well as
(PSNPs) produced by anti-solvent precipitation (ASP). PS and PSNPs are new technologies that may lead to products
characterized by particle size, surface charge, morphology, crystalline with better stability under their shelf life. In
structure, chemical bonds, thermal properties, moisture content (MC), water this way, new starches isolated from uncon-
ventional sources as well as new technolo-
activity, solubility in water (SW), swelling factor (SF), water and oil absorption,
gies used to modified starch properties have
and stability in water. PS shows typical starch particle size distribution, while been investigated in recent years.[2,9]
PSNPs display a size distribution varying between 230 and 1300 nm. The The Araucaria angustifolia conifer is a
crystalline structure is modified from A-type structure (native starch) to V6h pine tree widely distributed in the native
structure (PSNPs) after ASP. PSNPs SW at 25 and 90 °C, as well as oil and forests in the southern and southeastern
Brazil.[10,11] Pine seeds are harvested from
water absorption capacities are greatly improved when compared with PS.
April to August, and they are considered a
Furthermore, PSNPs have high stability in water at 25 °C, forming rich source of starch which is isolated from
homogeneous dispersions. This research provides information about the the endosperm of this seed (Figure 1). In
valorization of pine seed as a possible starch source to produce nanoparticles this way, some research studies have been
carried out to isolate and characterize the
physicochemical properties of pine starch
(PS), being concluded that PS has compara-
1. Introduction ble thermal and rheological properties that
those informed in conventional starches,
Starch is a natural carbohydrate considered one of the most as well as low tendency to retrogradation when used in food
abundant in the nature, this macromolecule is most common in formulations.[10–14] Furthermore, the valorization of pine seeds
tubers, roots, and grains.[1,2] Starches are frequently used in food has been considered an alternative to add value to this uncon-
formulations as thickener and bulking ingredients, as well as ventional starch source and reduce its deforestation.[11]
gelling agents, since starches can generate viscous dispersions, In recent years, the production of starch nanomaterials has
solutions, or gels, depending on their botanical origin, concen- been explored due to the different physicochemical proper-
tration, and temperature conditions.[3] The food industry mainly ties of these nanostructures when compared with their native
has focused on the application of starches isolated from corn, counterparts.[15–18] In this way, starch nanoparticles produced
cassava, potato, wheat, and rice due to their physicochemical by anti-solvent precipitation (ASP) have unique physicochemical
properties such as low temperature gelatinization, high peak properties, since these nanomaterials have amorphous structure,
viscosity, and excellent gelling properties.[4–8] no thermal transition associated with starch gelatinization, and
Although starches are broadly used in the food industry, this high water solubility and stability at 25 °C.[15,19] To date, no study
macromolecule is not soluble in water at room temperature. In has produce PS nanoparticles by ASP, the use of PS to produce
addition, many starches produce weak-bodied and undesirable starch nanoparticles by ASP could be an alternative to add value
gels when cooked which are impacted negatively by temperature, to this seed, as well as to increase the food applications of this
relative humidity (RH), and storage time as a consequence of unconventional starch. Hence, this research aims to produce and
the retrogradation process.[9] Industries that use starch in food characterize pine starch nanoparticles (PSNPs) obtained by ASP.

G. C. Leandro, K. Cesca, A. R. Monteiro, G. A. Valencia

2. Results and Discussions
Department of Chemical and Food Engineering 2.1. Nanoparticle Production Yield (NPY)
Federal University of Santa Catarina
Florianópolis, SC Brazil
E-mail: g.ayala.valencia@ufsc.br NPY was 84.44% ± 2.12%, value comparable to those informed
in nanoparticles produced with cassava (90.35% ± 3.93%)
The ORCID identification number(s) for the author(s) of this article and potato (83.96% ± 3.81%) starches.[16] Based on the NPY
can be found under https://doi.org/10.1002/star.202200225 value, it is possible to suggest PS as a starch source to produce
DOI: 10.1002/star.202200225 nanomaterials by ASP. However, the reduced harvest season

Starch - Stärke 2024, 76, 2200225 2200225 (1 of 7) © 2023 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com www.starch-journal.com

Figure 1. Illustration of pine seed.

Figure 2. Scanning electron micrographs of pine starch (PS) and pine starch nanoparticles (PSNPs).

(between April and August) is the main factor limiting its food
application.[10,11]

2.2. Morphology, Particle Size Distribution, and Surface Charge

Scanning electron micrographs (SEM) of PS revealed the pres-

ence of starch granules with rounded and oval shapes (Figure 2a).
These PS granules have smooth surfaces without fractures and
irregularities which could be a consequence of the use of mild
physical operations such as slicing, grinding, drying, and siev-
ing, not capable of causing changes on the starch granule during
the production process.[28] The same morphology was informed
in the literature for PS.[10,29] In contrast, PSNPs showed aggre-
gates at the microscale with particle shape and size not defined at
5000× magnification (Figure 2b). Aggregates of starch nanopar-
ticles with similar morphology were observed in SEM images by Figure 3. Particle size distribution of pine starch (PS) and pine starch
Chacon et al.[19] nanoparticles (PSNPs).
PS displayed monomodal distribution with particle sizes os-
cillating between 8 and 27 μm (Figure 3). According to the liter-
ature, the average particle size of PS oscillates between 11 and
17 μm.[10,14] After ASP, the obtained materials also showed a
monomodal distribution with particle sizes varying between 230
and 1300 nm (Figure 3), confirming the nanometric scale of the Finally, the surface charge of PS and PSNPs was analyzed aim-
materials obtained by ASP. In the literature, starch nanoparticles ing to understand the stability of these materials when dispersed
obtained by ASP have a similar particle size, however, bimodal in water at pH 6. PS has a negative charge (−33.73 ± 2.78 mV) typ-
particle size distributions have been informed.[15,16,30] Discrep- ical of native starches.[30] A reduction in the surface charge was
ancies in the particle size distribution could be credited to the constated in PSNPs (−9.25 ± 0.83 mV) due to the remotion of
constant velocity of the antisolvent used in the current research negative charges in PS during ASP.[16,30] Therefore, dispersions
(see Section 2.1), allowing to obtain PSNPs with monomodal dis- of PS and PSNPs, both at pH 6, can be classified as moderately
tribution. and low stables in water at pH 6, respectively.

Starch - Stärke 2024, 76, 2200225 2200225 (2 of 7) © 2023 Wiley-VCH GmbH

www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 4. X-ray diffractograms a) and Fourier-transform infrared spectra b) of pine starch (PS) and pine starch nanoparticles (PSNPs).
2.3. Moisture Content and Water Activity
PS had a moisture content (MC) of 21.33% ± 1.32% when con-
ditioned under 58% RH, this value is in agreement with MC val-
ues informed for the same starch stored in similar RH.[31] A re-
duction in the MC (15.29% ± 1.48%) was observed in PSNPs
and could be correlated with the amorphization of PS during
ASP.[30]
PS and PSNPs conditioned at 58% RH had intermediate aw
values, oscillating between 0.61 and 0.62 in both samples, which
are typical of biological stable materials.[32] Starch nanoparticles
with lower aw (0.16–0.39) values have been informed in the
literature, however, these nanomaterials have been conditioned
in RH < 10%.[15] Based on MC and aw results, PS and PSNPs
can be classified as products which are not susceptible to
microorganism growth when stored at 58% RH.[32]
2.4. Crystalline Structure and Chemical Bonds
Diffraction peaks centered at 15° (d = 0.59 nm), 17° (d =
0.52 nm), 18° (d = 0.49 nm), and 23° (d = 0.39 nm) were ob-
served in the XRD diffractogram of PS (Figure 4a), and correlated
with the presence of A-type crystalline structure in the starch
granules. Furthermore, PS has amylose–lipid complex since a
small peak centered at 20° (d = 0.44 nm) was observed in the
same diffractogram (Figure 4a).[28] The relative crystallinity (RC)
value of PS was 9.2% ± 0.2%, suggesting that this starch has
low crystallinity. XRD results for PS are in accordance with the
literature.[10,14]
After ASP, the obtained nanomaterials displayed V6h -type crys-
talline structure with a small diffraction peak at 13° (d = 0.68 nm)
and a halo centered at 20° (d = 0.44 nm) (Figure 4a). The V6h -type
crystalline structure is composed of six glucose units per helical
turn and it has been observed in starch nanoparticles produced
by ASP.[15,16,30] Furthermore, the RC in PSNPs was 1.6% ± 0.2%,
being lower when compared with starch nanoparticles produced
from cassava (RC ≥ 5.7%) and potato (RC ≥ 4.8%) starches. These
Starch - Stärke 2024, 76, 2200225 2200225 (3 of 7)
www.starch-journal.com
differences could be correlated with the RC values in the native
starches, hence, the RC values of cassava (22%) and potato (15%)
starches were higher when compared with PS (9.2% ± 0.2%).[16]
From a technological viewpoint, amorphous starch nanoparti-
cles are desired since these materials can be dispersed in water
at room temperature and they are applied in food formulations
sensitive to heat.[19] In this way, native PS could be considered
as a potential source to produce starch nanomaterials since this
starch has a low RC value.
Images from polarized light confirmed the crystalline struc-
ture of PS since the Maltese cross located at the center of each
granule (image inserted in Figure 4a) was observed. PSNPs did
not have a maltase-cross confirming the amorphous structure of
these materials (results not shown).
Seven peaks typical of amylaceous materials were observed
in Fourier transform infrared spectra (FTIR) of PS and PSNPs
(Figure 4b). Vibration of –OH and C–H groups were detected at
3440 and 2921 cm−1 , respectively. The vibration of –OH groups
associated to absorbed water molecules on the materials was ob-
served at 1649 cm−1 . Other bands centered at 1158, 1082, 1000,
and 928 cm−1 were correlated with the CO bonds stretching of
carbohydrates, stretching of C=O groups, intramolecular hydro-
gen bonding of the hydroxyl groups at C-6, and symmetric elon-
gation of C–O–C groups, respectively (Figure 4b).[16] FTIR of
PSNPs showed a decrease in the peak centered at 1649 cm−1 , sug-
gesting that this material has less water molecules hydrating its
structure when compared to PS. FTIR results confirmed no for-
mation of new chemical bonds during the production of PSNPs
by ASP.
2.5. Thermal Properties
Thermal properties were investigated in the temperature range of
−30 and 95 °C. PS suspensions in water exhibited an endother-
mic peak associated with the starch gelatinization, this thermal
transition had onset, peak, and conclusion temperatures of 56.68
± 0.76, 60.40 ± 0.15, and 64.34 ± 1.24 °C, respectively, as well as
© 2023 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Table 1. Solubility in water (SW), swelling factor (SF), oil absorption capacity (OAC), and water absorption capacity (WAC) of pine starch (PS) and pine
starch nanoparticles (PSNPs).
Sample 25 °C
SW [%] SF
PS 4.00 ± 3.61Aa 2.62 ± 0.12Aa
PSNPs 51.67 ± 4.04Ba 5.21 ± 1.35Aa
Means within the same column followed by different capital letters are significantly different (p < 0.05) for the same property (SW or SF) and temperature. Means within the
same row followed by different lowercase are significantly different (p < 0.05) for the same material (PS or PSNPs) and same property (SW or SF) at different temperatures.
Figure 5. Differential scanning calorimetry thermograms (between 30 and
70 °C) of hydrated pine starch (PS) and hydrated pine starch nanoparticles
(PSNPs).
an enthalpy of gelatinization (ΔHgel ) oscillating between 5.17 and
9.96 J g−1 of dry PS (Figure 5). No thermal event associated to the
starch phase transition were observed in the temperature range
of −30 and 30 °C, as well as between 80 and 95 °C (not shown).
In the current research, all values correlated with the starch gela-
tinization are in concordance with those informed in the liter-
ature for PS.[10,33] Comparing with conventional starches, corn,
cassava, and potato starches have thermal transition oscillating
between 52 and 80 °C, and ΔHgel values varying between 11 and
18 J g−1 .[34–36] Low ΔHgel values suggest that less energy is neces-
sary to gelatinized starch granules during heating. Hence, pine
seeds can be considered a promissory starch source to produce
nanomaterials.
PSNPs suspensions did not have any thermal transition con-
firming the amorphous structure of this nanomaterial.[16] The ab-
sence of thermal transition associated to the starch gelatinization
in PSNPs indicates that this material does not need to be heated
to solubilize in water.
2.6. Solubility in Water (SW) and Swelling Factor (SF)
PS had low SW and SF values at 25 °C indicating that this ma-
terial is not water soluble at this temperature. The insolubility of
native PS granules in cold water has been previously reported.[33]
SW and SF values of PS increased with heating at 90 °C due to
the breaking of intermolecular hydrogen bonds in amorphous ar-
eas (Table 1), thus permitting irreversible and progressive water
Starch - Stärke 2024, 76, 2200225
www.starch-journal.com
OAC [g g−1 ] WAC [g g−1 ]
SW [%] SF
35.50 ± 6.37Ab 39.85 ± 3.11Ab 1.10 ± 0.08A 1.62 ± 0.12A
83.33 ± 1.53Bb 12.37 ± 1.40Bb 1.82 ± 0.13B 4.21 ± 1.35B
absorption.[22] Based on SW values, PS can be classified as insol-
uble at 30 °C and slightly soluble at 90 °C.[33] In the literature,
few studies have informed SW and SF of PS. Low SW is a factor
limiting the application of PS in food formulations.
In contrast, PSNPs showed intermediate and high SW at 25
and 90 °C, respectively (Table 1). However, the same nanomate-
rial had low SF due to the chain modification during ASP. In this
way, PSNPs did not swell because these samples had high SW.
SW and SF of PSNPs are in concordance with those informed by
Alves et al.[16] and Chacon et al.[19] SW and SF are important pa-
rameters aiming the starch food applications. Therefore, PSNPs
can be considered a promissory ingredient in food formulations
since this nanomaterial has better SW than PS.
2.7. Oil (OAC) and Water Absorption (WAC) Capacities
OAC and WAC were investigated at 25 °C due to the acceptable
SW values of PSNPs at the same temperature. OAC and WAC
represent the ability of PS and PSNPs to associate with oil and
water under limited availability of these fluids. In general, PS had
low retention of oil and water molecules at 25 °C due to the in-
termolecular hydrogen bonds between amylose and amylopectin
in the starch granule (Table 1).[37] However, OAC and WAC in-
creased in 259% and 165% in PSNPs when compared with PS
due to the amorphization of the starch granules during ASP. To
date, no study has informed OAC and WAC values for PS and
starch nanomaterials.
2.8. Stability in Water
Dispersions of PS displayed clear precipitation in the first 30 min
of analysis (Figure 6), with some particles remaining suspended
in the supernatant. All the dispersed PS was decanted after 5 h
(300 min) to the bottom of the test tube. This behavior is due
to the starch retrogradation which takes place when starches are
stored below its gelatinization temperature. Starch retrograda-
tion is a serious problem in the food industry because it is asso-
ciated which phase separation and syneresis in food products.[19]
No precipitation was observed during 5 h at room temperature
for PSNPs, with dispersions remaining homogenous when com-
pared to PS dispersions (Figure 6). A similar result was observed
by Chacon et al.[19] in starch nanoparticles produced with potato
starch by ASP. The high stability in water of PSNPs can be due
to the small particle size and the high proportion of hydroxyl
groups in PSNPs which allow its solubility and stability in water
at 25 °C. Based on stability in water values, PSNPs could be
2200225 (4 of 7) © 2023 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
Figure 6. Stability in water of pine starch (PS) and pine starch nanoparticles (PSNPs) as a function of time.
applied as an ingredient in food formulations which are prepared
at room temperature (e.g., soups and sauces) in the food industry.
3. Conclusions
In this research, PS was used to produce nanomaterials by ASP.
The transformation of PS to PSNPs had a high production yield
(84.44% ± 2.12%). PSNPs displayed monomodal particle size dis-
tribution with particle sizes oscillating between 230 and 1300 nm,
surface charge of −9.25 ± 0.83 mV, and amorphous structure.
Furthermore, PSNPs showed a higher SW at 25 and 90 °C, as
well as higher oil and water absorption capacities at 25 °C when
compared with PS. Although PSNPs had low surface charge,
this nanomaterial had a high stability when dispersed in water
(30% w/v) at 25 °C. Thus, PSNPs could be used as an additive in
food formulations and as an adsorbent for both hydrophilic and
hydrophobic molecules.
4. Experimental Section
Production of Starch Nanoparticles and Nanoparticle Production Yield:
Starch was isolated from pine seeds following Costa et al.[20] methodology
with slight modifications. Seeds were cut longitudinally and transversally
in order to remove the exterior peel and then mixed with distilled water in
a 1:2 (w/w, peeled seed to H2 O) proportion using a blender. The formed
slurry was filtered using a cloth filter followed and afterwards mixed with
distilled water in a 1:1 (w/w slurry to H2 O) proportion before being filtered
again. The permeate of both filtrations was kept in a refrigerator at 4 °C
for 24 h in order to precipitate the starch. The decanted material was later
separated from the supernatant and washed with distilled water once be-
fore being one more time decanted, separated, and dried in a convective
oven at 30 °C. The dried starch was then milled and stored in desiccators
until analysis.
PSNPs were produced by ASP as described by Alves et al.[15] with slight
modifications. Firstly, 2.5 g of PS were dispersed in 50 mL of distilled wa-
ter and hydrated for 30 min before being agitated with a mechanical ag-
itator (300 rpm) at 90 °C for 30 min to achieve the starch gelatinization.
Afterwards, the evaporated water was added to the slurry to guarantee the
starch concentration and then cooled to room temperature using the same
Starch - Stärke 2024, 76, 2200225 2200225 (5 of 7)
www.starch-journal.com
mechanical agitator (300 rpm). In sequence, acidified ethanol (100:1 v/v,
ethanol to HCl) was added dropwise to the gelatinized starch at a rate of
0.77 mL min−1 while being kept under agitation at 300 rpm.
The resulting mixture was kept under agitation by means of a mag-
netic stirrer for 12 h before being centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 15 min.
Then, PSNPs were kept at 30 °C for 24 h in order to evaporate the ethanol
and afterwards freeze dried (Liotop L101, Brazil) for 24 h. The result-
ing PSNPs were macerated and stored in desiccators with silica gel until
analysis (RH ≤ 0%). The NPY (%) was calculated using Equation (1):
mf
NPY = 100 × (1)
mi
where mf is the final mass obtained after freeze drying (g) and mi is the
mass of starch at the beginning of the process (g).
Starch extraction from pine seeds and the production of PSNPs were
carried out in triplicate.
Morphology, Particle Size Distribution, and Surface Charge: The mor-
phology of PS and PSNPs was analyzed using scanning electron mi-
croscopy (SEM, JSM-6390LV, JEOL, Japan) at accelerating voltage of 10 kV.
Powders were fixed on aluminum stubs by carbon tape and then coated
with a thin gold layer before SEM analyses. Five micrographs were taken
at random sample spots with 1000× and 5000× magnification.[19]
Particle size distribution and mean particle size of PS was calculated
by dispersing samples in glycerol 50% (w/w, glycerol to H2 O) over mi-
croscope slides and covering with coverslips. The diameter of 145 starch
granules were measured using a light microscope (L-2000a , Bioval, Brazil)
with the aid of the software Image J, v1.53k (National Institute Health,
Bethesda, MD, USA).[21]
PSNPs size distribution was carried out using a LUMiSizer (LUM
GmbH, Germany). PSNPs (0.01 g) were dispersed in 10 mL of ethanol
and sonicated for 5 min prior to analysis.[22]
Surface charge of samples was analyzed using a Zetasizer Nano ZS
(Malvern, England). PS and PSNPs were dispersed in deionized water
(0.01% w/v) and then their pH were adjusted to 6 and sonicated for 30 min
prior to analysis.[23]
Moisture Content and Water Activity: PS and PSNPs were kept in desic-
cators with RH of 58% during 7 days prior to analysis. MC (g of water g−1
of sample) was measured by heating samples to 120 °C using a moisture
analyzer (MOC63u, Shimadzu, Japan). Water activity (aw , dimensionless)
was analyzed using a water activity analyzer (AquaLab 4TE, METER Group,
USA).[19]
Crystalline Structure and Chemical Bonds: The crystalline structure of
PS and PSNPs was analyzed using an X-ray diffractometer (XRD, Rigaku
© 2023 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
MiniFlex600, Japan), operating at 40 kV and 15 mA (CuK𝛼 1 𝜆 = 1.54056 Å
radiation). The diffractograms were recorded at 20 °C, between 2𝜃 = 5°
and 50°, at 1° min−1 with a step size of 0.02°.[24] The interplanar distance d
(nm) was calculated from the diffraction angle at the maximum intensity of
the peak found in the XRD diffractograms and using Equation (2) (Brag’s
law):
N𝜆 = 2dsin (𝜃)
where 𝜆 is the wavelength (nm), and N is the reflection order (N = 1,
dimensionless).
The RC (%) of PS and PSNPs was calculated by measuring the crys-
talline and total area of the X-ray diffractograms obtained for samples by
means of Equation (3)[25] :
Ac
RC = 100 ×
At
where Ac is the peak area, or crystalline area, and At is the total area.
The crystallinity of the samples was also analyzed under polarized light.
Samples of PS and PSNPs were dispersed in glycerol 50% (w/w, glycerol
to H2 O) over microscope slides and covered with a coverslip. Samples
were photographed using a polarizing light microscope (ML-9400, Meiji,
Japan) with 100× and 200× magnification.[21]
The chemical bonds of PS and PSNPs were analyzed by means of
Fourier-Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR, Cary 660, Agilent, USA).
Analyses were performed in the infrared region between 4000 and
400 cm−1 using 4 cm−1 resolution with 20 scans and KBr pellets.[26]
Thermal Properties: Thermal properties of the samples were analyzed
by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC, Jade, Perkin Elmer, USA). Ap-
proximately 3 mg (d.w.) of the samples were dispersed in distilled in a
1:2 (w/w, sample to H2 O) proportion in aluminum pans, sealed with alu-
minum caps and kept hydrating in for 1 h.[16] Afterwards, hydrated sam-
ples were heated from −30 to 95 °C at 10°C min−1 in two-cycle mode.
Nitrogen (N2 ) was used as flushing gas at 45 mL min−1 and an empty
aluminum pan was used as reference.
Solubility in Water and Swelling Factor: For solubility (SW, %) and SF
(dimensionless), samples of PS and PSNPs (W) were dispersed in distilled
water (1% w/v, sample to H2 O, d.b.), heated at 25 and 90 °C for 30 min and
mixed for 10 s in a vortex every 10 min. Samples were cooled down to room
temperature and centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 15 min. The supernatant was
separated and dried at 105 °C in order to obtain the dry mass (Wr ). The
slurry that remained in the tubes was weighted (Wt ) and then SP and S
were calculated using Equations (4) and (5), respectively.[22]
Wt
SF =
W − Wr
Wr
S = 100 ×
W
Oil and Water Absorption Capacities: OAC (g of oil g−1 of sample, d.b.)
essays were performed by dispersing samples in soybean oil (1% w/v, sam-
ple to oil, d.b.) followed by heating at 25 °C for 30 min. The samples were
mixed for 10 s in a vortex every 10 min. Samples were cooled down to
room temperature and centrifuged at 4000 rpm for 15 min. The super-
natant was separated and samples were left draining for 25 min and then
weighted (Sd , g).[27] The OAC was calculated using Equation (6):
Sd − S i
OAC =
Si
where Si is the initial sample mass (g, d.w.).
Starch - Stärke 2024, 76, 2200225 2200225 (6 of 7)
www.starch-journal.com
WAC (g of water g−1 of sample, d.b.) was performed similarly to OAC,
with water being used in place of oil.[27] However, the WAC was calculated
using Equation (7):
Sd − (Si − Sr )
WAC = (7)
S i − Sr
where Sr is the mass of sample that was solubilized (g).
(2)
Stability in Water: The stability of PS and PSNPs in water was studied
by dispersing samples in distilled water (30% w/v) at 25 ± 1 °C. Disper-
sions were mixed in a vortex for 5 min, and then the sedimentation process
was studied during 5 h at the same temperature.[19]
Statistical Analyses: All the tests were performed at least in triplicate
for each sample, and the results were expressed as means ± standard de-
viation (n ≥ 3). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey test of multiple
comparisons were accomplished at 5% significance level using the soft-
ware OriginPro 2018® .
(3)
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e In-
ovação do Estado de Santa Catarina (FAPESC) for the MsC fellowship
(48/2021) of the first author. G. A. V. would like to thank the FAPESC
(grants 2021TR000418 and 2021TR001887) and National Council for Sci-
entific and Technological Development (CNPq) (grant 302434/2022-4) for
financial support. Furthermore, the authors gratefully acknowledge the
Federal University of Santa Catarina for its support, as well as to the Central
Laboratory of Electronic Microscopy (LCME) and Interdisciplinary Labora-
tory for Nanostructures Development (LINDEN) for the analyses.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the cor-
responding author upon reasonable request.
Keywords
alternative starch sources, anti-solvent precipitation method, carbohy-
drate nanoparticles, physicochemical properties
(4)
Received: October 13, 2022
Revised: January 30, 2023
Published online: April 29, 2023
(5)
[1] W. D. C. Chacon, G. A. Valencia, G. M. A. Rojas, A. C. A. Henao,
Starch/Stärke 2019, 1800081.
[2] H. A. Makroo, S. Naqash, J. Saxena, S. Sharma, D. Majid, B. N. Dar,
Appl. Food Res. 2021, 1, 100001.
[3] C. G. Luciano, G. A. Valencia, O. H. Campanella, P. J. D.oA. Sobral, I.
C. F. Moraes, Food Biophys. 2018, 13, 155.
[4] J. Chen, Y. Chen, H. Ge, C. Wu, J. Pang, S. Miao, Food Hydrocoll. 2019,
89, 885.
(6) [5] A. K. Siroha, S. Punia, M. Kaur, K. S. Sandhu, Int. J. Biol. Macromol.
2020, 143, 984.
[6] S. A. Mir, S. J. D. Bosco, M. Bashir, M. A. Shah, M. M. Mir, Int. J. Food
Prop. 2017, 20, 821.
© 2023 Wiley-VCH GmbH
www.advancedsciencenews.com
[7] S. Li, H. Liu, Q. Zheng, N. Hu, M. Zheng, J. Liu, Starch/Stärke 2022,
74, 2100254.
[8] C. E. Chinma, C. C. Ariahu, J. O. Abu, J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 50,
1179.
[9] M. J. D. S. Alves, W. D. C. Chacon, T. R. Gagliardi, A. C. Agudelo
Henao, A. R. Monteiro, G. Ayala Valencia, Starch/Stärke 2021, 73,
2100046.
[10] P. S. Hornung, S. Rosa Da Silveira Lazzarotto, M. B. Bellettini, M.
Lazzarotto, T. Beta, R. H. Ribani, E. Schnitzler, Starch/Stärke 2019,
71, 1800140.
[11] V. Z. Pinto, N. L. Vanier, B. Klein, E. d. R. Zavareze, M. C. Elias, L. C.
Gutkoski, E. Helbig, A. R. G. Dias, Starch–Stärke 2012, 64, 855.
[12] L. Costa De Conto, M. S. V. Plata-Oviedo, C. Joy Steel, Y. K. Chang,
Starch–Stärke 2011, 63, 198.
[13] M. E. B. Zortéa-Guidolin, I. M. Demiate, R. C. B. de Godoy, A. d. P.
Scheer, D. Grewell, J. L. Jane, S. Food Hydrocoll. 2017, 63, 19.
[14] C. Beninca, R. A. Barboza, C. S. De Oliveira, C. D. Bet, R. Z. B.
Bisinella, E. Schnitzler, Starch/Stärke 2019, 71, 1800290.
[15] M. Jaízia dos Santos Alves, A. Rodrigues Monteiro, G. Ayala Valencia,
Starch/Stärke 2022, 2100289.
[16] M. J. Dos Santos Alves, P. M. Calvo Torres De Freitas, A. R. Monteiro,
G. Ayala Valencia, Starch–Stärke 2021, 73, 2100034.
[17] Q. Sun, Starch Nanoparticles, Elsevier Ltd. Netherlands 2018.
[18] M. Ahmad, A. Gani, I. Hassan, Q. Huang, H. Shabbir, Sci. Rep. 2020,
10, 3533.
[19] W. D. C. Chacon, K. T. Dos Santos Lima, G. A. Valencia, A. C. A.
Henao, Starch–Stärke 2021, 73, 2000086.
[20] F. J. O. G. Costa, J. M. C. Couto, N. Waszczynskyj, R. C. B. Godoy, C.
W. P. Carvalho, E. H. M. Walter, Comun Técnico, Embrapa 2014, 4p.
[21] D. Perez-Rea, C. Rojas, S. Carballo, W. Aguilar, B. Bergenståhl, L. Nils-
son, Starch–Stärke 2013, 65, 151.
Starch - Stärke 2024, 76, 2200225 2200225 (7 of 7)
www.starch-journal.com
[22] G. Ayala Valencia, I. C. Freitas Moraes, R. Vinicius Lourenço, A. M. Q.
Barbosa Bittante, P. J. Do Amaral Sobral, Int. J. Food Prop. 2015, 18,
1990.
[23] M. Ahmad, P. Mudgil, A. Gani, F. Hamed, F. A. Masoodi, S. Maqsood,
Food Chem. 2019, 270, 95.
[24] L. Do Prado Cordoba, L. S. Ribeiro, L. S. Rosa, L. G. Lacerda, E. Schnit-
zler, Thermochim. Acta 2016, 642, 45.
[25] S. Nara, T. Komiya, Starch/Stärke 1983, 35, 407.
[26] G. Coelho Leandro, C. Capello, B. Luiza Koop, J. Garcez, A. R. Mon-
teiro, G. A. Valencia, Food Res. Int. 2021, 109903, 109903.
[27] M. J. Y. Lin, E. S. Humbert, F. W. Sosulski, J. Food Sci. 1974, 39,
368.
[28] G. A. Valencia, I. C. F. Moraes, R. V. Lourenço, A. M. Q. B. Bittante, P.
J. d. A. Sobral, Starch/Stärke 2015, 67, 163.
[29] P. M. Gonçalves, C. P. Z. Noreña, N. P. Da Silveira, A. Brandelli, LWT
– Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 58, 21.
[30] K. T. Dos Santos Lima, J. Garcez, M. J. Dos Santos Alves, A. R. Mon-
teiro, G. A. Valencia, M. Jaízia dos Santos Alves, Starch–Stärke 2021,
2000221. https://doi.org/10.1002/star.202000221
[31] R. C. S. Thys, C. P. Z. Noreña, L. D. F. Marczak, A. G. Aires, F. Cladera-
Olivera, J. Food Eng. 2010, 100, 468.
[32] A. H. Al-Muhtaseb, W. A. M. McMinn, T. R. A. Magee, Food Bioprod.
Process 2002, 80.
[33] R. M. Daudt, I. C. Külkamp-Guerreiro, F. Cladera-Olivera, R. C. S.
Thys, L. D. F. Marczak, Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 52, 420.
[34] K. Alvani, X. Qi, R. F. Tester, C. E. Snape, Food Chem. 2011, 125, 958.
[35] C. Chatpapamon, Y. Wandee, D. Uttapap, C. Puttanlek, V.
Rungsardthong, Carbohydr. Polym. 2019, 215, 338.
[36] G. Ayala Valencia, M. Djabourov, P. J. Do Amaral Sobral, Carbohydr.
Polym. 2016, 147, 533.
[37] S. Baraheng, T. Karrila, Food Biosci. 2019, 30, 100412.
© 2023 Wiley-VCH GmbH