Porosity and pore size distribution of starch materials
Abstract
Bulk, porosity and pore size distribution were measured for granular, heat-gelatinized and extruded starch materials, using helium stereo-pycnometry and mercury porosimetry. Most of the pores of granular materials had a radius of 1-3 micrometer and bulk porosity about 0.6. About 20% of the total porosity is due to the 6-8-micrometer voids between starch agglomerates, about 60% is due to the voids around starch granules (1-3.5 micrometer) and 10% is due to the very small pores. The remaining 10% of the total porosity might be due to pores larger than 150 micrometer. Gelatinized starches had average pore sizes of 0.8-1.5 micrometer and bulk porosity lower than 0.1. Extruded starches had pores varying from 1 to 120 micrometer and bulk porosity 0.1-0.95, depending on the experimental extrusion conditions. High porosity and large pores resulted when starch was extruded at high temperatures and/or low moisture contents. Mechanical compression reduced the bulk porosity and the size of the pores. The porosity and the mean pore size of starches increased during the drying process. Porosity and pore size distribution are important parameters in the transport (diffusion) of water in starch materials and starch-based foods.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Possible causes of the remaining 10% of the overall porosity are pores larger than 150 μm.
“Possible causes of the remaining 10% of the overall porosity are pores larger than 150 μm [74].”
From Resorbable Biomaterials Used for 3D Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering: A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [74]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Resorbable Biomaterials Used for 3D Scaffolds in Tissue Engineering: A Review
Vach Agocsova, S., Culenova, M., Birova, I., Omanikova, L., Moncmanova, B., Danisovic, L., Ziaran, S., Bakos, D., & Alexy, P. (2023) · Materials · doi:10.3390/ma16124267 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Effect of Catalyst and Substrate on the Moisture Diffusivity of Silica-Aerogel-Coated Metal Foams
Nawaz, K., Schmidt, S. J., & Jacobi, A. M. (2014) · International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer · doi:10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2014.02.048 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
- Authors
- Karathanos, V. T., & Saravacos, G. D.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Food Engineering
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1993-01
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 259-280
- ISSN
- 0260-8774 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970869992
- Cited by
- 133
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 1.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Food Engineering (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Food composition and properties
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Drying and Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Computational Mechanics › Heat and Mass Transfer in Porous Media
- Keywords
- starch, porosity, pore size distribution, bulk porosity, gelatinized starch, extruded starch, starch granules, mechanical compression, drying, water diffusion, starchy foods
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review