Food Biophysics

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 49–57 | Cite as

Mechanical Properties of Thermo-moulded Biofilms in Relation to Proteins/Starch Interactions

  • Ming ZengEmail author
  • Yiwan Huang
  • Liyuan Lu
  • Liren Fan
  • Cécile Mangavel
  • Denis Lourdin


The effects of hydrophilic and hydrophobic characteristics of proteins on the interactions with corn starch were investigated in this study. The model system included corn starch and proteins, i.e. zein, gliadin, gluten, soy protein and rapeseed protein. The blend films were prepared by thermo-moulding in gentle conditions at 70 °C in order to avoid starch gelatinization, with respect to water content, and avoid protein denaturation. The effects of different kinds of proteins on structure and mechanical behaviour of blend biomaterials were characterised by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and tensile test, respectively. The effects of different kinds of proteins on intermolecular interactions between proteins and starch were investigated by dynamical mechanical thermal analysis. Based on the solubility measurement results, almost all protein films showed the similar solubility to the natural protein powders, resulting from the weak influence of mild thermo-moulding treatment on protein inner structure. Different morphologies were observed for different proteins and corresponding blends, which are relatively loose protein architecture that appeared for hydrophobic protein and blend films, and uniform and densely packed architecture for hydrophilic ones. Moreover, different mechanical behaviours were obtained for different proteins and corresponding blends. No significantly increased strength for hydrophilic protein blends with starch added can be explained that there is weak intermolecular interaction between both components based on SEM observation. However, the addition of corn starch granules in hydrophobic protein networks was assumed that starch destroyed or weakened the protein network, resulting in the decrease of mechanical strength.


Protein Corn starch Intermolecular interaction Solubility Zein 



M. Zeng is grateful to Pays de la Loire Regional Council and China Scholarship Council (CSC) for post-doctoral fellowship, and acknowledges the SRF for ROCS, State Education Ministry, P. R. China, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, China University of Geosciences (Wuhan) (contract grant number CUGL090223), and the major grant of the State Key Laboratory of Geological Process and Mineral Resources (contract grant number GPMR200918).


  1. 1.
    L. Zhang, M. Zeng, in Monomers, Polymers and Composites from Renewable Resources, ed. by M.N. Belgacem, A. Gandini, vol. 23 (Elsevier, UK, 2008), pp. 479–493Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Fukushima, Advance of Science and Technology (Korin, Tokyo, 1988)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J.W. Lawton, Cereal Chem. 79(1), 1–18 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    P. Hernandez-munoz, A. Kanavouras, J. Agric. Food Chem. 51(26), 7647–7654 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    X. Zhang, I. Burgar, M.D. Do, E. Lourbakos, Biomacromolecules 6(3), 1661–1671 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Friedman, D.L. Brandon, J. Agric. Food Chem. 49(3), 1069–1086 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Chen, L. Zhang, Macromol. Biosci. 5, 237–245 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S.N. Swain, S.M. Biswal, J. Polym. Environ. 12(1), 35–42 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    I. Schmidt, D. Renard, D. Rondeau, P. Richomme, Y. Popineau, M.A.V. Axelos, J. Agric. Food Chem. 52(19), 5995–6001 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    H. Chanvrier, P. Colonna, G. Della Valle, D. Lourdin, Carbohydr. Polym. 59(1), 109–119 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    H. Chanvrier, G. Della Valle, D. Lourdin, Carbohydr. Polym. 65(3), 346–356 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Bérot, S. Gautier, M. Nicolas, B. Godon, Y. Popineau, Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 29(5), 489–502 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Subirade, I. Kelly, J. Gueguen et al., Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 23(4), 241–249 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Bizot, P. Le Bail, B. Leroux, J. Davy, P. Roger, A. Buleon, Carbohydr. Polym. 32(1), 33–50 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Madeka, J.L. Kokini, Cereal Chem. 73, 433–438 (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    J.L. Kokini, A.M. Cocero, H. Madeka, Food Technol. 49, 74–82 (1995)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G.W. Selling, D.J. Sessa, D.E. Palmquist, Polymer 45(12), 4249–4255 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Bernard, B. Freddy, R. Andreas, L.P. Valerie, J. Agric. Food Chem. 48(7), 2954–2959 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D.L. Woerdeman, W.S. Veraverbeke, R.S. Parnas, D. Johnson, J.A. Delcour, I. Verpoest, C.J.G. Plummer, Biomacromolecules 5(4), 1262–1269 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    C. Mangavel, N. Rossignol, A. Perronnet, J. Barbot, Y. Popineau, J. Gueguen, Biomacromolecules 5(4), 1596–1601 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    H. Ishida, D.J. Allen, Polymer 39(20), 4487–4495 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ming Zeng
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Yiwan Huang
    • 1
  • Liyuan Lu
    • 1
  • Liren Fan
    • 1
  • Cécile Mangavel
    • 3
  • Denis Lourdin
    • 3
  1. 1.Engineering Research Center of Nano-Geomaterials of Ministry of EducationChina University of GeosciencesWuhanPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Geological Process and Mineral ResourcesChina University of GeosciencesWuhanPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), UR1268 Biopolymeres, Interactions, AssemblagesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations