Preparation and characterisation of chicken skin gelatin as an alternative to mammalian gelatin

256Citations
Citations of this article
385Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

The aims of this study were to report for the first time, the extraction and physico-chemical properties of chicken skin gelatin compared to bovine gelatin. Extracted chicken skin gelatin 6.67% (w/v) had a higher bloom value (355 ± 1.48 g) than bovine gelatin (259 ± 0.71 g). The dynamic viscoelastic profile of chicken gelatin exhibited higher viscous and elastic modulus values compared to bovine gelatin for a range of concentrations and frequencies. Thermal properties studied by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) showed that the melting temperature of 6.67%, chicken skin gelatin was significantly greater (p < 0.05) than that of bovine gelatin, indicating lower stability of bovine gelatin compared to chicken skin gelatin. Results obtained in this study showed that Gly (33.70%), Pro (13.42%), H.Pro (12.13%) and Ala (10.08%) were the most dominant amino acids in chicken skin gelatin which contributed to the higher gel strength and stability. Raman spectra of chicken skin and bovine gelatin were similar and displayed typical protein spectra. Chicken gelatin showed strong hydrogen bonding compared to bovine gelatin as the tyrosine doublet ratio (I855/I830) of chicken gelatin was significantly lower than that of bovine gelatin. Significantly, the alpha helix and β-sheet type structures were higher for chicken skin gelatin compared with bovine gelatin. The average molecular weight of chicken gelatin was 285,000 Da. These findings, obtained for the first time for chicken skin gelatin, show that it has high potential for application as an alternative to commercial gelatin. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mhd Sarbon, N., Badii, F., & Howell, N. K. (2013). Preparation and characterisation of chicken skin gelatin as an alternative to mammalian gelatin. Food Hydrocolloids, 30(1), 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2012.05.009

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free