+ All documents
Home > Documents > Physicochemical, functional and microbial properties of crude and processed gum arabic (Acacia...

Physicochemical, functional and microbial properties of crude and processed gum arabic (Acacia...

Date post: 26-Nov-2023
Category:
Upload: independent
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
88
Physicochemical, functional and microbial properties of crude and processed gum arabic (Acacia senegal) By Mahasin Elamin Mohammed Kheir B.Sc (Science) 1982 Faculty of Science, University of Khartoum A thesis submitted to the University of Khartoum in partial fulfillment for the requirements of the degree of Master of Science (Agriculture) Supervisor: Dr. Khogali Elnour Ahmed Department of Food Science and Technology Faculty of Agriculture University of Khartoum July 2005
Transcript

Physicochemical, functional and microbial properties of crude and processed gum

arabic (Acacia senegal)

By

Mahasin Elamin Mohammed Kheir B.Sc (Science) 1982

Faculty of Science, University of Khartoum

A thesis submitted to the University of Khartoum in partial fulfillment for the requirements of the degree

of Master of Science (Agriculture)

Supervisor:

Dr. Khogali Elnour Ahmed

Department of Food Science and Technology Faculty of Agriculture

University of Khartoum July 2005

DEDICATION

To my parents soles

HAJ : ELAMIN

HAJA : HAWAA

CONTENTS

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………........... i ABSTRACT…………………………………………………….......... ii ARABIC ABSTRACT……………………………………………….. iv CONTENTS…………………………………………………….......... vi LIST OF TABLES…………………………………………………………

ix

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………..........

x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 1.0 Introduction……………………………………………………….

1

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 3 2.1 Distribution of Acacia senegal…………………………………...

3

2.2 Gum exudation……………………………………………………

3

2.3 Acacia senegal gum………………………………………………

4

2.3.1 Description……………………………………………………

4

2.3.2 Grades and processing:………………………………………..

4

2.3.3 Main uses……………………………………………………..

5

2.3.3.1 Food industry……………………………………………...

5

2.3.3.1.1 Confectionary…………………………………………

6

2.3.3.1.2 Beverages and emulsion………………………………

6

2.3.3.1.3 Flavor encapsulation………………………………….

6

2.3.3.1.4 Bakery………………………………………………. 6

2.3.3.2 Pharmaceutical industry…………...……………………...

6

2.3.3.2.1 Medicine………………………………………………

7

2.3.3.2.2 Cosmetics.....................................................................

7

2.3.4 Physicochemical properties of Acacia senegal gum.................

7

2.3.4.1 7

Moisture............................................................................... 2.3.4.2 Ash.....................................................................................

7

2.3.4.3 Nitrogen and protein content...............................................

8

2.3.4.4 Acidity and pH....................................................................

10

2.3.4.5 Specific optical rotation.......................................................

10

2.3.4.5 Solubility.............................................................................

11

2.3.4.6 Equivalent weight and Uronic Acid.....................................

11

2.3.4.7 Viscosity.............................................................................

11

2.3.4.8 Intrinsic viscosity.................................................................

12

2.3.4.9 Molecular weight.................................................................

12

2.3.4.10 Reducing sugars................................................................

13

2.3.5 Functional properties................................................................

13

2.3.5.1 Emulsifying stability...........................................................

13

2.3.5.2 Water holding capacity (WHC)...........................................

13

2.3.5.3 Encapsulating agent............................................................

14

2.3.6 Gum arabic microbiology........................................................

14

CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS 17 3.1 Materials........................................................................................

17

3.1.1 Gum arabic formulations.........................................................

17

3.1.1.1 Raw gum arabic.................................................................

17

3.1.1.2 Kibbled gum arabic............................................................

17

3.1.1.3 Spray-dried gum................................................................

17

3.1.2 Growth media..........................................................................

17

3.1.3 Preparation of 18

formulations...................................................... 3.2 Analytical methods.........................................................................

18

3.2.1 Physicochemical analysis........................................................

18

3.2.1.1 Solubility............................................................................

18

3.2.1.2 Moisture content.................................................................

19

3.2.1.3 Nitrogen and protein contents.............................................

19

3.2.1.4 Total ash content................................................................

20

3.2.1.5 Specific optical rotation......................................................

21

3.2.1.6 pH value............................................................................ 21

3.2.1.7 Molecular weight................................................................

22

3.2.1.8 Tannin content....................................................................

22

3.2.1.9 Acid insoluble ash...............................................................

22

3.2.1.10 Viscosity measurement......................................................

22

3.2.1.11 Intrinsic viscosity (η)........................................................

23

2.2.1.12 Uronic Acid......................................................................

23

3.2.1.13 Reducing Sugars................................................................

24

3.2.1.14 Apparent Equivalent Weight.............................................

24

3.2.2 Functional Properties Analysis...............................................

26

3.2.2.1 Water Holding Capacity (WHC)........................................

26

3.2.2.2 Emulsifying Stability..........................................................

26

3.2.3 Microbial Load......................................................................

27

3.2.3.1 Determination of total bacterial cont pours plate count.......

27

3.2.3.2 Determination of moulds and yeasts....................................

29

3.2.3.3 Determination of Salmonella...............................................

29

3.3 Statistical analysis...........................................................................

32

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS 33 4.1 Physical properties shape, color and mesh of gum arabic

(Acacia senegal) formulations.......................................................................

33

4.2 Solubility and moisture content of gum arabic formulations........

33

4.3 Specific optical rotation, viscosity, acid insoluble ash and pH......

44

4.3.1 Specific optical rotation............................................................

44

4.3.2 Relative and intrinsic viscosity.................................................

44

4.3.3 Acid insoluble ash and pH.......................................................

44

4.4 Chemical constituents of the different gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.......................................................................

44

4.4.1 Ash (%)...................................................................................

44

4.4.2 Nitrogen and Protein.................................................................

48

4.4.3 Reducing Sugar and Uronic Acid.............................................

48

4.4.4 Apparent Equivalent Weight....................................................

48

4.5 Functional Properties.....................................................................

48

4.5.1 Water Holding Capacity (WHC) (%).......................................

48

4.5.2 Emulsifying Stability................................................................

48

4.6 The Microbial Load.......................................................................

50

4.6.1 Bacterial Counts (CFU/gm)......................................................

50

4.6.2 Moulds, Yeasts and Salmonella...............................................

53

4.7 Comparison of the Levels of Different Parameters in the Gum arabic Formulations (GAF) with some Standards.........................

53

4.7.1 Hand Picked Selected 53

Formulation........................................... 4.7.2 Cleaned Gum arabic Formulation.............................................

55

4.7.3 Kibbled Gum arabic Formulation.............................................

55

4.7.4 Spray dried Gum arabic Formulation....................................

55

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEDATION

60

5.1 Discussion........................................................................................

60

5.2 Conclusion.....................................................................................

63

5.3 Recommendations............................................................................

64

REFERENCES 65

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Evaluation of the shape, color and mesh of the eight gum

arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

35

2 Solubility of the different Gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations in different solvents.

36

3 Comparative physicochemical properties of eight Gum arabic (Acacia senegal ) formulations.

45

4 Some chemical constituents of eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

46

5 Functional properties for eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

51

6 Microbial loads of Bacterial, Moulds, Yeasts and Salmonella for eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

54

7 Comparison of the levels of different parameters in the hand picked selected formulations with some standards.

56

8 Comparison of the levels of different parameters in the Cleaned formulation with the some standards.

57

9 Comparison of the levels of different parameters in the Kibbled formulation with the some standards.

58

10 Comparison of the levels of different parameters in the Spray dried formulation with the some standards.

59

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page1 The Wattle–Blossom model for acacia senegal gum as

proposed by Fincher et al., (1983).

9

2 Standard Curve for Reading Sugar Concentrations (as arabinose% at 420nm)

25

3 Scheme for the steps of determination of bacterial plate count in gum arabic formulations

28

4 Scheme for the steps of determination of moulds and yeasts in gum arabic formulations

30

5 Scheme for the steps of determination of Salmonella in gum arabic formulations

31

6 The solubility of the hand picked selected formulation in different solvents.

37

7 The solubility of the cleaned formulation in different solvents.

38

8 The solubility of the sifting formulation in different solvents.

39

9 The solubility of the kibbled formulation in different solvents.

40

10 The solubility of the kibbled 107 formulation in different solvents.

41

11 The solubility of the kibbled 119 formulation in different solvents.

42

12 The solubility of the spray dried formulation in different solvents.

43

13 The relative and intrinsic viscosity of the eight gum arabic (Acacia Senegal) formulations

47

14 The Nitrogen and protein of the eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations

49

15 The water holding capacity and emulsifying stability of the eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

52

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise to God for his care and generous help. I would like to express

my sincere thanks and appreciation to my supervisor Dr. Khogali

Elnour, for his guidance and assistance during the course of this study.

In addition, it’s my obligation to convey a voice of thanks to the

family of the late Professor Karamalla Ahmed Karamalla, who

initiated this project and constructed a concrete base for the progress

of this work.

Sincere thanks are due to Dr. Tag Elsir M. Laoata; associate

Professor (university of Sinnar) and Dr. Mohammed Tag Eldin

(University of Sudan Science and Technology), for their help in

statistical analysis of the data. I am greatly indebted to Dr.

Mohammed Almubarak (Gum Arabic Company) Dr. Ibrahim M.

Ahmed. Dr. Yassin Aldosougi and Dr. Abd Algadir M. Abd Algadir,

(General Manager of Sudanese Standards and Metrology Organization

(SSMO) for their encouragement.

I deeply appreciate the friendliness and support by my colleagues of

SSMO Khartoum Air port branch (especially Hadya Nasr Eldin and

Huyam Bakri), Gum Arabic and microbiology laboratories,

(especially, Enas Siddig El Faki) for their continuous encouragement

and help during this work.

Finally, I am especially grateful to my family, my husband

Agricultural Engineer Adil Sharief and my Children Alamin, Abazer,

Ahmed and Maab for their unlimited continuous encouragement and

care to make the completion of this work possible.

ABSTRACT

Eight gum arabic formulations, namely; hand picked selected,

cleaned, sifting, kibbled 105, kibbled 107, kibbled 119, kibbled 121

and spray dried were subjected for physicochemical, functional and

microbial analysis in an attempt to set standard specifications for each.

The formulations considered varied between raw and processed gum

arabic of Acacia senegal to find out the influence of processing on

properties of gum arabic.

The analysis included certain parameters like; shape, color,

mesh, solubility, moisture content, specific optical rotation, relative

viscosity, intrinsic viscosity, acid insoluble ash, pH, ash, nitrogen,

protein, reducing sugars, tannin, uronic acid, apparent equivalent

weight, molecular weight, water holding capacity, emulsifying

stability, bacterial count, yeasts count, moulds count and salmonella

count.

Water solubility showed some variations among the different

gum formulations, with the highest for the spray dried (98.80%) and

the lowest for the sifting formulation (97.40%). However the

solubility in organic solvents (ethanol, acetone and chloroform) was

generally very low yet with variations among the different

formulations. The moisture content ranged between 9.90% for the hand

picked selected and 8.32% for the spray dried.

The specific optical rotation for the spray dried gum was -

31.63°, whereas the raw hand picked selected gave -31.28° and the

sifting -24.50°.

The relative viscosity was almost similar for the eight formulations as

1.44 ml/gm for the spray dried, whereas the intrinsic viscosity showed

differences among the eight gum arabic formulations(GAF), with the

highest for the kibbled 105 (18.85) and the lowest for the kibbled 119

(11.49).

The acid insoluble ash was lowest in spray dried (0.07%) and highest

in sifting formulation (0.37%), for the pH the overall average was

4.22.

The ash content ranged between 3.91% for the kibbled 121 and

3.05 for the spray dried. The nitrogen ranged between 0.42% for the

hand picked selected and 0.37% for the spray dried. However, for

reducing sugars, uronic acid and apparent equivalent weight, no

significant differences were recorded between GAF and the values

were 1.07%, 13.53%, and 1439.25 as an average respectively.

The maximum water holding capacity was recorded for the spray

dried (69.51%) and the least was in kibbled 105 formulations

(66.43%).

The maximum level in emulsifying stability was recorded for

kibbled 107 and spray dried formulations as 1.03.

Bacterial counts in cfu/gm (microbial load), ranged between 1.73×104

for hand picked selected and 1.33×102 for kibbled 119, no bacterial

count was detected in the spray dried formulation. Less than 10

cfu/gm counts were detected for Moulds in all formulations. Further

more the spray dried was found to be free of mould. No yeast and

salmonella were detected in all formulations.

The comparative studies indicated that, about 96% of the values

of the parameters and factors studied in the GAF were consistent with

the prescribed standards and specifications for gum arabic.

ملخص األطروحة

ثمانية من مستحضرات الصمغ العربي وهى النقاوة، المنظف، القصة، مجروش

والمجفف بالرذاذ، أخضعت 121، حبيبات 119، حبيبات 107، حبيبات 105حبيبات

للتحليل الفيزيوكيميائى، الوظيفي والميكروبي في محاولة الستنباط مواصفات قياسية لكل

.مستحضر على حدة

لحجم، الذوبانية، المحتوى الشكل، اللون، ا: شملت الدراسة بعض الصفات مثل

ذائب الغير الرماد ، الدوران الضوئي، اللزوجة النسبية، اللزوجة الضمنية، نسبةالرطوبي

في الحمض، األس الهيدروجيني، النيتروجين، الرماد، البروتين، السكريات المختزلة،

ن المكافئ، الوزن الجزيئي، مقدرة حفظ الماء، ثبات التانين، حامض اليرونيك، الوز

.االستحالب، العد البكتيري، عد الخميرة والفطريات وعد السالمونيال

الذوبانية في الماء أظهرت بعض االختالفات وسط مستحضرات الصمغ العربي

قلها وا% 98.80 في الصمغ العربي المجفف بالرذاذ األعلىالقيمة المختلفة، وكانت

يثانول، اإل: ( ة في المذيبات العضوية مثل بينما الذوباني%97.40مستحضر القصة

.عامة كانت قليلة لكن مع اختالفات بين المستحضرات المختلفة) األستون، الكلوروفورم

للمستحضر المجفف % 8.32وللنقاوة % 9.90 المحتوى الرطوبي تراوح مابين

ذي يدل على نقاء الصمغ اظهر بعض االختالفات بين الدوران الضوئي وال.بالرذاذ

درجة للمستحضر المجفف رذاذي 31.63- المستحضرات المختلفة والتي تتراوح مابين

.درجة لمستحضر القصة24.50 - درجة للنقاوة بينما وجد 31.28- و

فة، اللزوجة النسبية لم تظهر اختالفات معنوية بين المستحضرات الثمانية المختل

بينما اللزوجة الضمنية أظهرت اختالفات معنوية وكانت أعالها في مجروش حبيبات

أما بالنسبة . cm-3g-1)11.49 (119واقلها في مجروش حبيبات ) 18.85 (105

للمستحضر المجفف رذاذي % 0.09 الغير ذائب في الحمض تراوح مابين لمحتوى الرماد

.4022كان المتوسط لألس الهيدروجيني . للقُصة% 0.37و

% 3.05 و 121للمجروش حبيبات % 3.91تراوحت نسبة الرماد مابين

وة و للمستحضر النقا%0.42يتروجين فتراوحت نسبته بين أما الن. للمجفف بالرذاذ

بينما السكريات المختزلة، حامض اليرونيك والوزن المكافئ . للمجفف رذاذي0.37%

، %1.07وكانت قيمتها . تسجل اختالفات معنوية بين المستحضرات المختلفةوالجزيئي لم

. كمتوسط على التوالي1439.25و% 13.53

توجد اختالفات معنوية بين المستحضرات الثمانية المختلفة في المقدرة على حفظ

واألقل في %) 69.51( األعلى سجلت في المجفف رذاذي – كخاصية وظيفية–الماء

).%66.43 (105حضر مجروش حبيبات مست

. للقصة1.00 للمجفف رذاذي و 1.03بين الثبات االستحالبي تراوح

أظهرت الدراسة فروقات معنوية عالية بين المستحضرات الثمانية في العد

cfu/102×1.33 للمستحضر النقاوة و104cfu /gm×1.73البكتيري تراوحت مابين gm تم رصد .ضر المجفف رذاذي لم يسجل أي عد بكتيريالمستحبينما . 119للحبيبات

لمجفف الرذاذي، إضافة لخلو ا cfu/gm 10>الفطر في كل المستحضرات وقد كان

والسالمونيال في أي من المستحضرات اكل من الخميرة لم تظهر الدراسة وجود . منه

. الثمانيةلمختلفة من القيم المتحصل عليها للصفات والخصائص ا% 96كذلك وجد أن

.متناسقة مع المواصفات المطلوبة للصمغ العربي

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

The oldest and best known of all natural gums is gum arabic obtained

from Acacia senegal, var. senegal. It is known as an important article

of commerce for about 4000 years ago. As time and technology

advanced, gum arabic is making a bigger and better place for itself

due to its relatively low prices and quality control assurance provided

by growing technology, so no artificial substituents match it for

quality or cost of production (Gabb, 1997).

The Sudan has been and is still the single largest producer of gum

arabic, the country supplies about 75% of the world needs of gum

arabic, (Gabb, 1997). Karamalla, et al, (1998).

Gum arabic is dried exudates obtained from the stems and branches of

Acacia senegal trees (Gabb, 1997). Chemically gum arabic was

defined as arabinoglactan-protein complex, proteoglycan acidic salt

(mainly Ca, K, Mg and Na) of high molecular weight (Gabb, 1997).

Polysaccharide mainly is composed of D-galactose, L-arabinose, L-

rhamnose, D-glucuronic acid and its 4-o methyl-ether together with a

proteinoceous component. The protein is an integral part of the

molecular structure of the gum arabic (Anderson et al., 1983), (Gabb,

1997).

Gum arabic is unique among the natural hydrocolloids because of its

extremely high solubility in water, forms viscous solutions up to 60%.

Quality means identity and purity of a certain product. Therefore, for

each product there are certain qualifying indices or parameters that

should be assured before the use or application.

The aim of this work could be summarized as follows:

Determination of the physicochemical and functional properties as

well as microbial load for raw and processed gum arabic produced in

the Sudan in an attempt to standardize specification and insure high

quality of the gum of Acacia senegal.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Distribution of Acacia senegal

About 500 species of Acacia are distributed over tropical and sub

tropical area of Africa, India, Australia and America but only a

comparatively few are commercially important. The important

producing areas are the Sudan, followed by Senegal, Mauritania, Mali

and Nigeria (Whistler and Bemiller, 1973).

The Sudanese gum belt extends from latitude 10° to 18°N where the

habitat Acacia senegal are sandy soils - arid zones from latitude 13°N

up words (Gum Arabic Company,G.A.C., 1993).

Gum arabic production in the Sudan is a traditional skill that has

evolved over many generations; always an important part of life in the

Sudanese gum belt, but to day has ever more economic and social

prominence (Gabb, 1997).

Gum production is evolving from tapping in the wild to a scientific

agro foresting operation providing higher and more reliable yields as

well as better quality of production (Gabb, 1997). Major markets for

gum arabic are the United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Germany,

Japan, France, Belgium and the Netherlands.

2.2 Gum exudation

There have been many theories concerning the phenomenon of

gummosis, but none of them is authenticated. (Whistler and Bemiller,

1973). Many authorities believe that the formation of gum exudates is

a pathological condition resulting from a microbial (fungal or

bacterial) infection of the injured tree. Edmonds (1965) and Anderson

and Herbich (1963), suggested that exudates come from natural

factors that tend to lessen the viability of the trees, such as poor soil,

hot weather and lack of moisture, which improve gum yields.

Anderson and Stoddart (1966) and Anderson and Dea (1971),

maintained the idea that the trees produce gum to seal the wounds and

prevent loss of water. They suggested that the gum produced by

Acacia is chemically and structurally related to the pheumococcus

polysaccharides, which encapsulate and protect the organism. Local

producers believe that a certain insect named locally Garraha is a

predisposing agent of gum production.

However, recent provisional data indicate that gum formation is not

related to this insect (Karamalla et al., 1998).

2.3 Acacia senegal gum

2.3.1 Description

Gum arabic is a pale white to orange–brown solid, which breaks with

a glassy fracture. The best grades are in the form of spheroid tears of

varying size with a matt surface texture, when ground, the pieces are

paler and have a glassy appearance. (JECFA, 1999).

Gum arabic is also available commercially in the form of white to

yellowish white flakes, granules powder; roller dried or spray dried

material. JECFA (1999).

2.3.2 Grades and processing:

The cleaned, hand picked selected grades (bigger tears, lighter color)

remain the qualities of choice for food, beverage and pharmaceutical

applicative (Joseleu and Ullmann, 1990), by kibbling, granulating,

powdering and spray drying.

2.3.3 Main uses:

The use of gum arabic to obtain superior quality in many products has

became so accepted in certain foods .It is an essential element in many

industries pharmaceutical, medicine, cosmetics, in local medicinal and

other industries.

2.3.3.1 Food industry

Gum arabic's emulsifying and film forming properties, low viscosity,

high solubility and stability in acidic media render it useful in many

applications within the food and flavor industry. (Glicksman, 1979-

Elizalde et al., 1988).

The important functional properties of gum arabic determine the range

of applications of such product into foods, is related to its interaction

with water, its ability to hydrate, swell and solublize, in addition

studies on water and oil absorption gum might explain its

effectiveness in emulsion stability.(Elizalde et al., 1988).

In addition, gum arabic is acceptable dietary intake (ADI) (JECFA

and EEC, 1999); non-toxic, odorless, colorless, tasteless, so it does not

affect the flavor, color or odor of the food to which it is added. In food

products gum arabic is used as a functional ingredient, which means

that the typical function of gum arabic, are emulsifier, flavoring

stabilizer and retards sugar crystallization.

The food applications of gum arabic have been developed from its

unequal combination of properties, emulsification, acid stability, low

viscosity at high concentration; adhesive and binding properties and

good mouth feel characteristics have been used in four main food area

worlds wide in descending order of importance. (Glicksmann, 1973).

2.3.3.1.1 Confectionary

Gum arabic is used to retard crystallization of sugar and to act as

emulsifier and as stabilizer in frozen dairy products, such as ice cream

and ices because of its water absorbing properties (Karamalla, 1999).

2.3.3.1.2 Beverages and emulsion

Gum arabic acts as oil and water emulsion stabilizer; it is a film

forming agent preventing coalescence of the oil globules.

2.3.3.1.3 Flavor encapsulation

Gum arabic is an ideal carrier in flavor encapsulation because of its

natural emulsifying and surface-active properties, good retention of

volatile flavor.

2.3.3.1.4 Bakery

Gum Arabic is used in bakery due to its viscosity, adhesive and

comparatively water absorption properties.

Gum arabic acts as foam stabilizer and colloidal agent in beer and

other beverages and as film forming on oily surfaces in chocolate and

snacks. Its low level of destabilization, high fiber content is useful in

diabetic and dietetic products (Whistler and Bemiller., 1973).

2.3.3.2 Pharmaceutical industry

Probably no more than 5% of the gum arabic is used for

pharmaceutical purposes. Its inherent emulsifying and stabilizing

properties, in addition to its demulcent and emollient characteristics

have led to a number of applications, ranging from the stabilizations

of emulsions to the preparation of tablets (Alain,.and McMullen,

1985). Its applications are further extended because it retains its

viscosity and stabilizing properties over a wide pH range.

Gum arabic is listed in British Pharmacopoeia (1993), as an effective

suspending acid and has been employed to suspend insoluble drugs

and to prevent the precipitation of heavy metals from solution through

the formation of colloidal suspensions (Whistler and Bemiller, 1973).

2.3.3.2.1 Medicine

Human dietary intake studies have indicated a reduction in blood

cholesterol levels when above average amounts of gum arabic

(25grams/day) are ingested in solution. The addition of a 7% gum

arabic solution reduces the dissipation rate of the sodium chloride

solution (Whistler and Bemiller, 1973).

2.3.3.2.2 Cosmetics

In lotions and protective creams, gum arabic stabilizes emulsions

increases the viscosity, adds smooth feel to the skin and forms a

protective coating used as an adhesive and constricting for facial

masks and face powder (Alain,.and McMullen, 1985).

2.3.4 Physicochemical properties of Acacia senegal gum:

2.3.4.1 Moisture

Loss on drying of good quality gum does not exceed 15% for granular

and 10% for spray-dried material (FAO, 1999), so moisture content

determines the hardness of the gum.

In a recent study reported by Karamalla et al., (1998) over 1500

authentic and commercial Acacia senegal var senegal, the results of

that study indicate the mean value of the moisture content as 10.75%.

Siddig (1996) reported that the range of moisture content for Acacia

senegal was 8.1-14.7%.

2.3.4.2 Ash

In a study of 800 authentic formulations of gum from Acacia senegal

var senegal collected from 32 different localities of the gum producing

belt of the Sudan, showed that the type of the soil had no significant

effect on the ash content of the gum (Karamalla et al., 1998).

Anderson et al., (1983) found that the value of ash content of

commercial gum arabic to be 4.4%.

Later, Anderson et al (1991) reported 3.6% Ash content for Sudanese

formulations. FAO (1999) reported that the ash content of gum arabic

did not exceed more than 4%.

2.3.4.3 Nitrogen and protein content

Gum arabic is a polymer with about 3% protein (Anderson et al.,

1991). The protein fraction is responsible for the emulsification

properties of the gum. The role of nitrogen and nitrogenous

component in the structure, physicochemical properties and

functionality of gum arabic was recently subjected to intensive

investigation. Structurally the "Wattle blossom" model (Fincher et al.,

1983) depends on the nitrogenous component (Fig.1).

An adsorbed layer of protein at oil /water interface provides the

primary stabilizing structure in many food colloids (Dickinson, 1994).

According to Dickinson et al., (1988), the variability in the

emulsifying properties of gums from different Acacia species is

dependent not only on the total protein (on polypeptide content) but

also on the distribution of the protein-peptide between the low and

high molecular weight fractions and on the molecular accessibility of

the protein peptide for absorption according to Randall et al., (1989).

The United States pharmacopoeia and European Union specification

defined the minimum standards of the protein content for good quality

gum arabic as 3%.

Anderson (1986) found that the average nitrogen content for

commercial Acacia senegal gum formulations to be 0.37%.

Arabinogalactan substituent

Polypeptide backbone

Protein – polysaccharide Linkage region

Figure (1) The Wattle – Blossom model for Acacia senegal gum as proposed by Fincher et al.,(1983 ) .

Investigations of protein in Acacia senegal gum have been carried out

by (Akiyama et al., 1984), they reported that gum arabic contained

2.0% protein and they established that amino acid of gum arabic is

rich in hydroxyproline and serine while alanine content is low.

Anderson et al., (1985) described gum arabic as a proteinaceous

polysaccharide with a protein content ranging from 1.5 to 3.0%. And

concluded that the variation was mainly due to different localities.

They reported the value of 0.23-0.58% nitrogen for commercial

formulations. Osman (1998) reported 0.33- 0.36% nitrogen (2.14-

2.16% protein for Acacia senegal gum) and Jurasak et al., (1993) in a

chemo metric study for different Acacia species reported 0.27-038%

nitrogen for commercial samples of Gum arabic from Sudan. Awad

Elkarium (1994) reported that the average nitrogen contents of

different commercial grades are around 0.28%. Karamalla et al.,

(1998) reported that the average nitrogen content of different

commercial grades is around 0.33%.

2.3.4.4 Acidity and pH

Comparative studies Show that gum from Acacia senegal has higher

content of rhamnose (12-14%) and lower arabinose content (24-29%)

compared to rhamnose and arabinose of other Acacias (Karamalla et

al., 1998).

The main content of gum arabic is arabian (acid substance), and when

it was decomposed it gave arabinose (Mantell, 1965). Thus gum

arabic is called arabic acid therefore, the gum solution is slightly

acidic with pH 4.66, as reported by Karamalla et al., 1998.

2.3.4.5 Specific optical rotation

Acacia senegal gum is the highest quality compared to other gums

species. The problem is that differentiating between the species, once

the gum is processed is difficult. The specific optical rotation is

considered as the most important criterion of purity and identity of

gum arabic, so it is used to differentiate between Acacia senegal gum

and other botanically related Acacia gums.

FAO (1990) considered that the specific optical rotation of Acacia

senegal gum to be ranging between -26° to -34°. Recently Karamalla

et al., (1998) showed that the mean value of specific rotation of the

commercial Acacia senegal gum was -31°.

2.3.4.5 Solubility

Gum arabic is unique among the natural hydrocolloids because of its

extremely high solubility in water and can yield solutions of up to

60% concentration and it is truly soluble in cold water, other gums

are either insoluble in cold water or form colloidal suspensions “not

true solutions” (G.A.C, 1993).

2.3.4.6 Equivalent weight and Uronic Acid

Titrable acidity represents the acid equivalent weight of the gum, from

which the uronic acid content could be determined (Karamalla, 1965,

Anderson et al., 1983).

Karamalla et al., (1998), assessed the potentials of new parameters

such as equivalent weight and total uronic acid content as additional

qualifying indices. They found that the mean values for gum of Acacia

senegal for the equivalent weight was 1436 and for uronic acid was

13.71%.

2.3.4.7 Viscosity

(Most gum other than gum arabic form highly viscous solutions at low

concentrations of 1.5%). Gum arabic unique in that it is extremely

soluble in water and is not very viscous at high concentrations. High

viscosities are not obtained with gum arabic until concentrations of

about 40-50% are obtained, (Sharma, 1979b). This ability to form

highly concentrated solutions is responsible for the excellent

stabilizing and emulsifying properties of gum arabic when

incorporated with large amounts of insoluble maters. (The viscosity of

gum solutions will depend upon the type and variety used). At

concentrations up to 40% gum arabic exhibit typical Newtonian

behavior. At about 40%, solutions took up pseudo plastic

characteristics as denoted by decrease in viscosity with increasing

shearing stress (Sharma, 1979a).

Studies of flow of gum solution play an important role in

identification and characterization of their molecular structure.

Kaufman and Falcetta (1977) showed that viscosity could be

presented in many terms such as relative viscosity, specific viscosity,

reduced viscosity and intrinsic viscosity.

2.3.4.8 Intrinsic viscosity

It can be used to determine the molecular weight of Acacia senegal

gum (Anderson and Dea, 1971).

Karamalla, (1999) showed that wide variations in values for intrinsic

viscosity and viscosity average were obtained indicating that such

parameters cannot be used as qualifying Indices.

2.3.4.9 Molecular weight

Gum from Acacia senegal was reported to have high molecular weight

average 4×105 Mv. (Anderson et al., 1983). The most common

method used to determine the molecular weight was the intrinsic

viscosity measurements (Anderson et al., 1983 and Phillips and

Williams., 1988).

Application of Mark-Houwink equation indicated that the average

molecular weight of Acacia senegal gum was 4.6×105 (Alamin and

Norbest., 1985). However, Eric et al., (1991) reported an average of

2.2×105 to 3.1×105 for molecular weight of degraded products of gum

arabic. Moreover, Karamalla et al., (1998).Found the molecular

weight of Acacia senegal to be 4×105 Mv.

2.3.4.10 Reducing sugars

The presence of reducing sugars would give evidence to the reducing

power (free reducing groups) of the gum (Somogi, 1945). It is usually

calculated as arabinose.

Anderson and Karamalla. (1966) reported 0.16-0.44% as the range

value of reducing sugar for Acacia senegal gum.

2.3.5 Functional properties:

2.3.5.1 Emulsifying stability

Gum arabic is a very effective emulsifying agent because of its

protective colloid functionality and has found wide use in the

preparation of varied oil-in water food emulsions with most oils over a

wide PH range and in the presence of electrolytes without the need for

a secondary stabilizing agent .( Phillips and Williams., 1988).

Emulsifiers are classified as a group of surface-active agents that can

stabilize a dispersion of two liquids such as water and oil, which are

essential for emulsion formation and stabilization to occur (Kinsella,

1979).

2.3.5.2 Water holding capacity (W.H.C)

Is the ability of the material to hold water against gravity (Hansen,

1978).

The range value of water holding capacity reported by Omer (2001)

for Acacia senegal gum was 65.40-65.80.

2.3.5.3 Encapsulating agent

Microencapsulating is a process where droplets of liquids, solids, or

gases (core) are coated by thin film (coatings) e.g. gum arabic, which

protects the core until it is needed (Joseleau and Ullmann1990). The

coating on a core is semi-permeable and protects the core from severe

conditions and controls substances flavoring into the core.

The major use for encapsulation in food industry is for liquid flavors.

Encapsulation has been able to mask bitter tastes of compounds,

reduce volatility and flammability of liquids, control release of

materials, provide protection to compounds, reduce toxicity, separate

reactive materials and to make liquids behave like solid.

Micro encapsulation by spray drying is the most economical and

flexible way for the food ingredient to retain the needed properties in

the final food products.

This technique also has been used in pharmaceutical industries e.g.,

vitamins and minerals (Joseleau and Ullmann1990). Yet is not widely

used in the food industry.

2.3.6 Gum arabic microbiology

Gum arabic has been subjected to extensive research on its chemical,

physical, and functional properties aiming at setting definite criteria

for quality control. However, little attention has been given to the

microbiological aspects of this very important commodity.

Studies of about fifty-two formulations of authenticated and

commercial Acacia senegal gum (raw and processing gum arabic)

were tested for the count of total bacteria, mould, yeasts and coli

forms. The maximum microbial loads of these formulations were

about 3×105cfu/gm bacteria, and 1.6×104cfu/gm of moulds. The

microbial load of processed gum formulations were much lower than

the loads of raw gum one, and ranged between Nil to a maximum of

<10 cfu/gm. Salmonella and yeasts were not detected in any of the

formulations tested (Karamalla., 1999).

A comparative microbiological study on authenticated and

commercial Acacia senegal gum formulations obtained from various

locations in the Sudan showed that gum arabic harbored considerable

numbers of bacteria and fungi (Osman, 1998). However, no

microbiological examination of gum arabic has hitherto showed the

presence of pathogenic microorganisms. Analytical data provided by

Vollard (1972) on different formulations of gum arabic (both nodules

and in powdered form) showed that gum arabic was in general, of

acceptable microbiological examination of industrially processed.

Sudanese Acacia senegal gum confirmed the freeness of raw or

processed gum arabic from pathogenic bacteria (Khalid et al., 1988).

Idris (1986) and Osman (1998) obtained similar conclusions.

Accordingly, gum arabic is officially classified by the joint

FAO/WHO expert committee on food additives (JECFA, 1999) as a

“safe and acceptable dietary intake” (ADI).

The dominant bacteria contaminating gum arabic formulations were

gram (+ve) rod shaped, spore-forming ones. Gram (+ve) non-spore

forming rods and gram (+ve) cocci types of bacteria were also

detected, but insignificant amounts. (Karamalla et al., 1998).

An experiment carried out to simulate the effect of sunlight and UV

light on microbial load of formulations resulted in a remarkable

decrease in the bacteria and mould counts.

Although the microbial counts were well within the acceptable limits,

efforts have been made to develop a simple technique to reduce such

counts (Karamalla et al., 1998). The proposed application of

UV/radiation may lead to the possibility of alterations in the

carbohydrate composition of the gum. The possibility of changes in

some of the physical characteristics (gummosis) due to elimination of

some of the natural micro flora cannot be ignored (Karamalla et al.,

1998). Studies clearly indicated that processing reduces microbial

counts of the gum arabic; therefore reducing the moisture content of

the natural gum can be readily used as a tenable method of reducing

the microbial count (Karamalla et al., 1998).

CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Materials:

3.1.1 Gum arabic formulations:

Eight formulations of crude and processed gum arabic were collected

for analysis, they were:

A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8.

They can be classified as follows:

3.1.1.1 Raw gum arabic, which included:

A1: Hand picked selected.

A2: Cleaned.

A3: Sifting.

These were supplied by gum arabic company (GAC).

3.1.1.2 Kibbled gum arabic, which included:

A4: kibbled 107 of mesh <6mm.

A5: kibbled 121 of mesh<210micro.

A6: kibbled 119 of mesh<1mm.

A7: kibbled dust

These were obtained from gum arabic processing company (GAPC)

3.1.1.3 Spray-dried gum:

It is sample A8. Obtained from Gaby Haddad Company.

3.1.2 Growth media

1. Malt extract agar was used for the isolation, counting and

cultivation of moulds and yeasts.

2. Rappaport-Vassiliadis medium was used as enrichment for

salmonella.

3. Xylose, lactose, deoxycholate agar (XLD). Solid selective agar

for salmonella.

4. Buffered peptone water was used as resuscitation for salmonella

and moulds and yeasts.

5. Tetracyanate media.

6. Plate count agar for total bacterial count.

7. Bismuth sulphite. Solid selective agar for salmonella.

3.1.3 Preparation of formulations

The gum arabic formulations used in this study were supplied by

exporting companies from the products prepared for exportation.

Then the formulations of hand picked selected (HPS), kibbled,

cleaned and sifting were ground using mortar and pestle 1100 until the

standard finest powder of mesh size No. 10 was obtained.

3.2 Analytical methods

Some physicochemical, functional and microbial loads for

formulations were determined to evaluate existing quality parameters.

The following analytical methods were adopted for the study.

3.2.1 Physicochemical analysis

3.2.1.1 Solubility

Solubility was obtained by dissolving 1g of formulation (W) in 100ml

of each of the following solvents, distilled water, ethanol, chloroform

and acetone in 250ml conical flask, then stirred for 30 minutes by

magnetic stirrer and the solution filtered through filter paper No. 41,

which was weighed before filtration (W1). The filter paper and

contents were then dried at 105°C for 30 minutes, cooled and weighed

(W2).

The solubility was calculated as percent according to the following

equation:

S% = W – (W2 – W1) W Where:

S = Solubility

W = Weight of formulation

W1 =Weight of empty filter paper

W2 = Weight of filter paper + insoluble formulation

3.2.1.2 Moisture content

According to FAO (1990), the determination was conducted on

accurately weighed, 2g of previously well-mixed gum powder.

An empty crucible was dried in Herateus oven at 105°C for 30

minutes, cooled in a desicator and weighed (W1), about two grams of

the formulation were placed in the crucible and weighed accurately

(W2) and heated for 5 hours at 105°C, cooled in a desicator and

weighed again (W3). The loss on drying was calculated as follows:

(W2-W3) × 100

(W2-W1)

Where:

W1 = Weight of the empty crucible

W2 = Weight of the crucible + formulation

W3 = Weight of the crucible + formulation after drying.

3.2.1.3 Nitrogen and protein contents

Nitrogen and crude protein were determined using a semi-micro

Kjeldal digestion and distillation method according to AOAC (1984).

1g of the formulation was weighed into 100ml Kejeldal flask, 2 tablets

of catalyst mixture (potassium sulfate + copper sulfate) and 12.5ml

concentrated sulfuric acid were added. The flask containing all these

mixtures was heated on an electric heater for digestion for two hours,

then was cooled and placed in the distillation unit. The ammonia

evolved was received in 25ml of boric acid solution containing 3

drops of mixed indicator (bromocresol, green and methyl red).

The trapped ammonia was titrated against 0.1N HCL, hence the

protein percentage was determined according to Anderson (1986), by

multiplying nitrogen percentage N% by the factor 6.6.

N% = V × N × 14 × 100 S Where:

V = Volume of HCL

14 = Atomic mass of nitrogen

N = Normality of HCL (mol / dm3)

S = Weight of sample.

Protein % = N% × 6.6

Where:

6.6 = the nitrogen factor for gum arabic as proposed by Anderson

(1986).

3.2.1.4 Total ash content

The ash percentage was determined according to FAO (1990), a

crucible was heated at 105°c for 30 minutes, cooled in a desicator and

weighed (W1), about 2g of formulation were accurately weighed in a

crucible (W2), and ignited in Heraeus electronic muffle furnace at

550°C until free from carbon, cooled in a desicator and weighed (W3),

then the total ash percentage was calculated as follows.

W2 – W3 ×100

W2 – W1

Where:

W1 = Weight of the empty crucible

W2 = Weight of the crucible + the formulation

W3 = Weight of the crucible + ash

3.2.1.5 Specific optical rotation

The specific optical rotation was determined for 1.0 % aqueous

solution on dry weight basis using an optical activity Bellingham and

Stanley ltd.AD 220 polar meter fitted with sodium lamp and with a

cell path length of 20 decimeter at room temperature (25°c) after

filtration of the gum solution through filter paper No. 42.

Readings were taken three times and averaged. The specific optical

rotation was calculated according to (Moflit and Young, 1956) using

the following equation:

[α]td = Z × 100

C × L

Where:

α = Specific optical rotation

Z = observed optical rotation

C = concentration of solution

L = Length of polar meter cell in decimeter

D = Sodium lamp λ = 589 nano meter (nm.)

3.2.1.6 pH value

pH was determined in 10% aqueous solution using Ion Meter 3205

JENWAY.

Two standard buffer solutions of pH 4.00 and 7.00 were used for the

calibration of the pH meter. The temperature was kept at 25°C and the

pH was let to stabilize for one minute and then the pH of gum

formulations were read directly. The readings were repeated three

times for each formulation.

3.2.1.7 Molecular weight

The molecular weight was calculated using Mark-Houwink equation

(Mark, 1938., Houwink, 1940).

(η) = K × Mwa

Where:

Mw = Molecular weight

(η) = Intrinsic viscosity

K and a = Mark -Houwink constant

Based on (Anderson and Rahman, 1967), the values of K and a, were

determined for Acacia senegal gum as follows:

K = 1.3 × 10-2

a = 0.54

3.2.1.8 Tannin content

0.1 ml Ferric chloride was added to 10 ml 1% aqueous gum solution.

Presence of blackish coloration or precipitate indicates the presence of

tannin (FAO, 1999).

3.2.1.9 Acid insoluble ash

The ash was boiled with 25ml dilute hydrochloric acid TS for 5

minutes. The insoluble matter was collected on a suitable ash less

filter paper, then washed with hot water and ignited at 800°C ± 25°,

cooled and weighed, the percentage of acid insoluble ash was then

calculated from the weight of the formulation taken.

3.2.1.10 Viscosity measurement

Viscosity was measured using U-tube viscometer (type BS/ IP/ U,

Serial No. 2948) with the flow time for 1% aqueous solution of

formulation at room temperature (25°C). The relative viscosity (ηr)

was then calculated using the following equation:

ηr = T - To To Where:

T = flow time of formulation solution expressed in seconds.

To = flow time of solvent distilled water (DW) expressed in

seconds.

The reduced viscosity (ηrd) was determined for different

concentrations of gum solution 5, 10, 15 and 20% and was then

calculated from the following equation:

ηrd = ηr / C

Where:

ηrd = reduced viscosity

ηr = relative viscosity

C = concentration of formulation solution

3.2.1.11 Intrinsic viscosity (η)

The intrinsic viscosity was obtained by extrapolation of reduced

viscosity against concentrations back to zero concentration. The

interception on Y – axis gives (η).

2.2.1.12 Uronic Acid

Uronic acid percentage was determined according to Anderson et al

(1983) by multiplying the molecular weight of the uronic 194 by 100

and dividing by the apparent equivalent weight of the formulations as

follows:

Uronic acid % = 194 × 100 Equivalent weight

3.2.1.13 Reducing Sugars

Reducing sugars were determined according to Robyt and White

(1987), using alkaline Ferricyanide method. The procedure uses a

single reagent composed of 0.34g of potassium ferricyanide 5g of

potassium cyanide and 20g of sodium carbonate dissolved in 1 liter of

distilled water. 1.0ml of gum solution was added to 4.0ml of reagent,

then heated in a boiling water bath for 10 minutes and cooled. The

absorbance was measured at 420nm.

Standard curve was prepared from different arabinose concentrations

plotted against absorbance in order to calculate the reducing sugars

concentrations as arabinose (Fig.2).

3.2.1.14 Apparent Equivalent Weight

According to the method reported in the Encyclopedia of Chemical

Technology (1966) with some modifications. The aqueous gum

solution 3% was treated with Amberlite Resin (120) (H+) (2 grams per

10mls solution) then shaken for an hour and titrated against 0.02N

sodium hydroxide solution using phenolphthalein as indicator. The

equivalent weight was calculated as follows:

Eq. Wt = 50.000 ×0.3

M

Where:

Eq. Wt = Equivalent weight.

M = No. of mls of 0.02N sodium hydroxide neutralizing 10ml

of 3% formulation solution.

0.3 = No. of grams of gum per 10 ml of the 3%

solution

Standard Curve for Reducing Sugar Concentration (as arabinose % at 240 nm)

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0.14

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75

Concentration %

Abs

orpt

ion

at 4

20 n

m

Figure (2) Standard Curve for Redusing Sugar Concentrations (as arabinose% at 420nm)

3.2.2 Functional Properties Analysis

Functionality analysis of Acacia senegal gum of different forms

(Hand picked selected, kibbled and spray dried) were carried out as

follows:

3.2.2.1 Water Holding Capacity (WHC)

It was determined according to Hansen, (1978). 1g of gum was

accurately weighed in a Petri-dish, then it was placed in desiccator

half-filled with distilled water and incubated for certain lengths of

time: 24, 48, 96, 120, and 144 hours. The Petri-dish with formulation

was then weighed (g/g) and finally expressed as percentage as

follows:

WHC% = Weight of water × 100

Weight of formulation

Where:

WHC = Water holding capacity.

3.2.2.2 Emulsifying Stability

It was determined according to Kinsella, (1979). Gum arabic solution

(20% concentration) was mixed with oil (sunflower oil) at a ratio of

80: 20 W/W, respectively. They were mixed using a blender for one

minute. The mixture was then diluted to a ratio of 1: 1000 and it was

read at λ max. 520nm.

The second reading was taken after one hour. The readings

represented emulsifying index.

Emulsifying stability (E.S.) was calculated as follows:

(E.S.) = First reading

Reading after 1 hour

3.2.3 Microbial Load

3.2.3.1 Determination of total bacterial count( pour plate count).

Figure (3) shows the steps followed for the determination of bacterial

count in gum arabic formulations according to testing methods in food

microbiology and manual of food quality control microbiological

analysis (Andrews, 1992).

10 g of gum arabic were suspended in 90ml sterile distilled water and

were shaken till completely dissolved to release any microorganisms

trapped inside and the suspension was left to equilibrate. From this

suspension 1/10, 1/100, and 1/1000 strength dilutions were prepared.

1.0ml of each of dilutions which prepared from the stock suspension

was pipetted into sterilized labeled Petri dish (the label should indicate

the formulation and degree of dilution), beginning with the highest

dilution.

About 15ml of melted medium (plate count agar) were poured into

each Petri-dish. The raised lid of the Petri dish is lowered again and

the suspension is cautiously mixed with the medium by a combination

of to and fro and circular movements over the horizontal surface of

bench. The plates were incubated at 37 ºC for 48 hours.

The count of bacteria was expressed as colony-forming units (cfu)

using a Scientific Colony Counter (Scientific and Cook Electronic

Ltd., England). Then multiplying the number of colonies by the

reciprocal of the dilution, expresses aerobic plate count as number of

organisms per gram of food.

Figure (3) Scheme for the steps of determination of bacterial plate

count in gum arabic formulations

450 ml of pepton water + 50 gm of formulation

10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6

3. Pipette 1ml volume into sterile plates

10-1

4. Pour 20 ml of plate count Agar.

5. Incubate at 37ºC for 48hours.

6. Calculation of the colonies.

1. Blend Preparation of homogenous formulation of the ratio 1: 9

2. Dilution

Preparation of different dilutions

3.2.3.2 Determination of moulds and yeasts

Figure (4) shows the steps followed for the determination of moulds

and yeasts in gum arabic formulations according to Harrigan, (1998).

25g of gum arabic were suspended in 225ml peptone water and were

shaken until completely dissolved to release any microorganisms

trapped inside, and the suspension was left to equilibrate. That

suspension was used to prepare the following dilutions:

1/10, 1/100 and 1/1000 strength. Then 0.1ml of each dilution was

surface-plated on a malt extract agar Petri dishes, which contained

chloramphenicol as an antibiotic. The Petri-dishes were then

incubated at 25ºC ±1º for five days. The last step was calculating the

number of colonies by multiplying the number of colonies by the

reciprocal of the dilution.

3.2.3.3 Determination of Salmonella

Figure (5) shows the steps followed for the determination of

Salmonella in gum arabic formulations according to Harrigan, (1998).

25g of gum arabic were suspended into 225ml of buffered pepton

water at PH 7.2 ± 0.2 and incubated at 37°Cfor 24 hours. 10 ml of the

suspension were mixed with 90ml of Rappaport broth and was

incubated at 37°C for 24 hours. 10ml of that mixture were mixed with

90ml of tetracyanate and were then incubated at 37°C for 24hours.

The culture was done by using a loop, from this mixture in the two

solid selective agar XLD and Bismuth sulphite separately, then

incubated at37°C for 24 hours.

Figure (4) Scheme for the steps of determination of moulds and

yeasts in gum arabic formulations

10-2 10-3 10-4 10-5 10-6

2. Preparation of Different dilutions in the ratio of 1:10

3. Pippete 0.1ml of the formulation into sterile dish

4. Pour 15ml of mould extract Agar with antibiotic

5. Incubation at 25ºC ± 1 for 30 hours

6. Calculation of the colonies.

225 ml pepton water +25 gm formulation

10-1

3. Incubation at 37°C for 24 hours

Figure (5) Scheme for the steps of determination of Salmonella in

gum arabic formulations

225 ml of pepton water 25 gm of the formulation

1. Preparation of homogenous formulation Incubation at 37°C for 24 hours

2. Incubation at 37°C for 24 hours

90 ml of rappaport broth 10 ml of formulation

90 ml of tetrathionate broth + 10 ml of formulation

Bismuth sulphite XLD

4. Incubation at 37°C for 24 hours

5. Calculation of the colonies

3.3 Statistical analysis The data on various parameters in the different gum arabic

formulations (GAF) were subjected to statistical analysis using SPSS

(Sincich, 1982) program Analysis of variance (ANOVA) were carried

out for that data based on the completely randomized design (CRD).

The confidence interval (at 95%) technique was adopted for

comparing the standards and specifications with the values of the

parameters under study.

To simplify the comparative studies the ranges of the specifications

and standards were averaged. Scoring system (Laoata, personal

communication) was advocated to come out with a conclusion

regarding the proportion of values of the parameters studied in GAF

that match with the standards.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

4.1 Physical properties shape, color and mesh of gum arabic

(Acacia senegal) formulations:

Table (1) illustrates the evaluation of the shape, color and mesh of the

eight gum arabic formulations. The formulations can be categorized

according to the shape into: spheroidal tears and/or angular fragments;

and powder. However these forms were different in size of the

particles or mesh, (Table 1). The hand picked selected and cleaned

gum formulations were in the natural form, color and size of the

particles. On the other hand, the kibbled and spray dried formulations

were passed through some processing steps; hence, their shape, color

and mesh were changed.

4.2 Solubility and moisture content of gum arabic formulations:

The solubility of the gum arabic formulations in water and some other

chemical solvents are shown in table 2 and figs. 6-12.

Highly significant differences were existed between the Gum Arabic

Formulations (GAF) in water solubility. The highest solubility was for

the spray dried (98.80±1.71%); and the lowest for the sifting

formulation (97.40±1.71%).

As for the other chemical solvents, the findings concerning GAF were

given in table 2. Highly significant differences between GAF in the

level of solubility in ethanol and chloroform were found. The

differences between the ethanol solubility of the formulation and in

acetone were also significant (at 5%). Very low solubility in ethanol,

acetone and chloroform could be inferred from table 2.

The moisture contents were significantly different between the eight

GAF and ranged between 9.90% in the hand picked selected and

8.32% in spray dried (Table 2).

Table (1) Evaluation of the shape, color and mesh of the eight gum

arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

Gum Arabic

Formulation Shape Color Mesh Hand picked Spheroidal tears Pale white to varying mesh selected orange –brown Cleaned Spheroidal tears White to varying mesh Yellowish-white Flakes Sifting Small particles orange-brown small particles with different sizes

Kibbled 107 Spheroidal tears. White to <6 mm or in angular Yellowish-white

Fragments Flakes Kibbled 121 Spheroidal tears. White to <210 micron or in angular Yellowish-white Fragments

Kibbled 119 Spheroidal tears. White to <1 mm or in angular Yellowish-white Fragments Kibbled 105 Spheroidal tears White to <8 mm or in angular Yellowish-white Fragments Spray-dried Powder White to <0.3mm Cream powder

Table (2) Solubility of the different Gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations in different solvents

Solubility in different solvents (%) Gum arabic

formulation Water Ethanol Acetone Chloroform

Moisture

content (%)

Hand picked

selected 97.59 5.00 9.00 13.00 9.90

Cleaned 97.54 3.50 7.20 10.40 9.44

Sifting 97.40 9.50 6.20 13.60 9.14

Kibbled 105 98.73 10.50 11.30 15.40 8.38

Kibbled 107 97.50 2.50 3.60 5.30 8.86

Kibbled 119 98.72 2.90 5.30 4.90 8.53

Kibbled 121 98.72 3.60 4.10 5.20 8.37

Spray- dried 98.80 1.50 1.20 1.40 8.32

Mean 98.01 5.00 5.98 8.65 8.87

SE (±) 1.71** 0.08** 2.23* 0.77** 1.06**

C.V. (%) 3.02 1.17 64.27 8.84 20.72

* = Significant differences at 5% level

** = Significant differences at 1% level

Figure (6) The solubility of the hand picked selected formulation in different solvents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Water Ethanol Acetone Chloroform

Figure (7) The solubility of the cleaned formulation in different solvents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Water Ethanol Acetone Chloroform

Figure (8) The solubility of the sifting formulation in different solvents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Water Ethanol Acetone Chloroform

Figure (9) The solubility of the kibbled formulation in different solvents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Water Ethanol Acetone Chloroform

Figure (10) The solubility of the kibbled 107 formulation in different solvents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Water Ethanol Acetone Chloroform

Figure (11) The solubility of the kibbled 119 formulation in different solvents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Water Ethanol Acetone Chloroform

Figure (12) The solubility of the spray dried formulation in different solvents.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Water Ethanol Acetone Chloroform

4.3 Specific optical rotation, viscosity, acid insoluble ash and pH

4.3.1 Specific optical rotation

Table 3 shows the specific optical rotations for the gum arabic

formulations. The highest value was recorded in the spray dried

formulation (-31.63±0.31 degrees), whereas the lowest in sifting

formulation (24.50±0.31 degrees).

4.3.2 Relative and intrinsic viscosity:

The relative and intrinsic viscosities of the eight GAF were shown in

table 3 and fig.13. Highly significant differences were noticed

between the formulations for the intrinsic viscosity; however, no

significant differences were noticed between GAF in the relative

viscosity.

4.3.3 Acid insoluble ash and pH:

Highly significant differences were found in the value of acid

insoluble ash between the different GAF (Table 3).

The lowest level of acid insoluble ash was in the spray dried whereas

the highest in sifting formulation (0.09 and 0.38; respectively).

The formulations showed significant variation in pH with an overall

average of 4.22 (acidic) table 3.

4.4 Chemical constituents of the different gum arabic (Acacia

senegal) formulations:

4.4.1 Ash (%)

Highly significant differences in the level of ash were detected

between the different formulations (Table 4) the overall mean of the

level of ash was 3.64.

The highest level of ash was in kibbled 121 (3.91 % ± 1.56) whereas

the lowest in spray dried (3.0 5± 1.56).

Table (3) Comparative physicochemical properties of eight Gum arabic (Acacia senegal ) formulations

Gum arabic formulation

Specific optical

rotation (degree)

Relative viscosity

(η)

Intrinsic viscosity (η)ml/g

Acid insoluble ash (%)

pH

Hand picked selected

-31.28

1.47

18.48

0.19

4.32

Cleaned

-31.10 1.45 14.48 0.27 4.26

Sifting -24.50 1.44 13.59 0.37 4.28

Kibbled 105 -29.40 1.45 18.85 0.24 4.17

Kibbled 107 -28.57 1.42 15.70 0.18 4.08

Kibbled 119 -29.67 1.43 11.49 0.15 4.21

Kibbled 121 -28.70 1.42 16.66 0.22 4.14

Spray- dried Mean SE(±) C.V.(%)

-31.63 -29.35 0.31**

1.86

1.44 1.44 1.69NS 203.38

18.36 15.92 1.34**

14.59

0.09

0.22

1.68**

1349.39

4.25

4.22

1.37*

56.23

* = Significant differences at 5% level

** = Significant differences at 1% level

NS = Not significant

Table (4) Some chemical constituents of eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

** = Significant differences at 1% level

NS = Not significant

A.E.W = Apparent equivalent weight

Gum arabic formulation

Ash (%)

Nitrogen

(%)

Protein (%)

Reducing sugars

(%)

Tannin

Uronic acid (%)

A. E.W M.W.×105

Hand picked selected

3.8

0.42

2.72

1.07

-ve

13.75

1412.00

1.42

Cleaned

3.72 0.38 2.48 1.06 -ve 13.69 1418.67 1.11

Sifting 4.15 0.39 2.59 1.06 -ve 13.59 1462.00 1.05

Kibbled 105 3.46 0.38 2.43 1.06 -ve 13.36 1451.67 1.43

Kibbled 107 3.79 0.37 2.43 1.07 -ve 13.36 1452.00 1.21

Kibbled 119 3.71 0.38 2.53 1.07 -ve 13.60 1426.33 0.88

Kibbled 121 3.91 0.39 2.59 1.07 -ve 13.46 1442.00 1.28

Spray-dried 3.05 0.37 2.45 1.07 -ve 13.41 1443.33 1.41

Mean 3.64 0.38 2.54 1.07 -ve 13.53 1439.25 1.07

SE(±)

1.56**

1.26**

0.82**

0.65ND

-ve

0.24ND

22.84ND

1.03**

C.V.(%) 74.18 569.77 56.08 104.78 -ve 3.10 2.75 167.62

Figure (13) The relative and intrinsic viscosity of the eight gum arabic (Acacia Senegal) formulations

02468

101214161820

Hand pickedselected

Cleaned Sifting Kibbled 105 Kibbled 107 Kibbled 119 Kibbled 121 Spray- dried

R. V. = Relative viscosity

= Intrinsic viscosity I. V

4.4.2 Nitrogen and Protein

Both nitrogen and protein levels in the different GAF manifested

highly significant variation between them (Table 4 and fig.14). Protein

content of the eight GAF ranged between 2.72 % in the hand picked

selected and 2.45 in the spray dried formulation (Table 4).

4.4.3 Reducing Sugar and Uronic Acid:

No significant differences were noticed between the eight GAF in the

level of reducing sugar and uronic acid. (Table 4).

4.4.4 Apparent Equivalent Weight:

The differences between the eight GAF in the apparent equivalent

weight were not significant (Table 4). However, for the molecular

weight the differences between GAF in this respect were highly

significant (Table 4).

4.5 Functional Properties:

4.5.1 Water Holding Capacity (WHC) (%):

The water holding capacity expressed as percentages, were highly

significantly different between the GAF (Table 5 and fig. 15).

The maximum water holding capacity was recorded in the kibbled 107

(69.7%) and spray dried (69.5%) formulation. The least water holding

capacity was recorded in kibbled 105 forms.

4.5.2 Emulsifying Stability

The differences between various GAF in the character of emulsifying

stability were highly significant (Table 5 and fig.15).The maximum

emulsifying stability was found in kibbled 107 (1.03) and spray dried

(1.03); and minimum was in hand picked (0.99).

Figure (14) The Nitrogen and protein of the eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Hand pickedselected

Cleaned Sifting Kibbled 105 Kibbled 107 Kibbled 119 Kibbled 121 Spray-dried

Nitrogen (%)

Protein (%)

4.6 The Microbial Load:

4.6.1 Bacterial Counts (CFU/g):

The bacterial counts in CFU/g for the different GAF were

insignificantly different between them (Table 6). The highest bacterial

count was registered in hand picked selected (1.73×104 CFU/g) and

lowest in kibbled 105 and cleaned. No count was detected in spray-

dried formulation.

Table (5) Functional properties for eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

Gum arabic

formulation

Water holding

capacity (WHC)% Emulsifying stability

Hand picked selected 66.57 1.00

Cleaned 66.97 1.01

Sifting 67.27 1.00

Kibbled 105 66.43 1.02

Kibbled 107 69.70 1.03

Kibbled 119 67.80 1.02

Kibbled 121 66.77 1.02

Spray-dried 69.51 1.03

Mean 67.63 1.02

SE(±) 0.64** 0.90**

C.V.(%) 1.65 152.70

** = Significant differences at 1% level

Figure (15) The water holding capacity and emulsifying stability of the eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Handpicked

selected

Cleaned Sifting Kibbled 105Kibbled 107Kibbled 119Kibbled 121Spray-dried

Water holding capacity(WHC)%Emulsifying stability

4.6.2 Moulds, Yeasts and Salmonella

Moulds were detected in all formulations and was found to be <10

cfu/g , for seven formulations and not detected in the spray dried

(Table 6).No yeast and salmonella were detected in the eight

formulations. (Table 6).

4.7 Comparison of the Levels of Different Parameters in the Gum

arabic Formulations (GAF) with some Standards:

For the sake of comparisons between average levels of different

physical, chemical, functional and microbial parameters in GAF with

the standards (Local / international), confidence intervals were

adopted.

Table 7, 8, 9, and 10; and appendices A, B, C, and D showed the

comparisons of the levels of the different parameters in the GAF with

the standards.

4.7.1 Hand Picked Selected Formulation

The average moisture content (%) of the hand picked selected GAF

(9.90 %) was significantly lower than the standard (Not more than

15%) (Table 7).

Also the levels of the chemical properties (Ash, acid insoluble ash and

protein) in this formulation significantly

less than the standard (Table 7). However for nitrogen the finding was

consistent with the standard. For the PH, the standard (4.50) was

significantly higher than that of the hand picked selected formulation

(4.32). For the specific optical rotation, the figure for this formulation

(-31.28°) was Comparable with the standard range (-22 to -34°) as

shown in table 7.

Table (6) Microbial loads of Bacterial, Moulds, Yeasts and Salmonella for eight gum arabic (Acacia senegal) formulations.

Gum arabic

formulation

Bacterial count

(cfu/g)

Yeasts count

(cfu/g)

Moulds count

(cfu/g)

Salmonella

count

Hand picked selected

1.73 × 104 -ve < 10 -ve

Cleaned 1.30 × 102 -ve < 10 -ve

Sifting 1.37 × 102 -ve < 10 -ve

Kibbled 105 1.30 × 102 -ve < 10 -ve

Kibbled 107 1.43 × 102 -ve < 10 -ve

Kibbled 119 1.33 × 102 -ve < 10 -ve

Kibbled 121 1.37 × 102 -ve < 10 -ve

Spray-dried -ve -ve -ve -ve

Mean 1.23 × 102 - - -

SE(±) 1.54** - - -

C.V.(%) 216.55 - - -

** = Significant differences at 1% level

4.7.2 Cleaned Gum arabic Formulation:

In this formulation, the levels of moisture, ash and protein were

significantly lower than those of the standards (Table 8). On the other

hand, the levels of nitrogen and the reading of the specific optical

rotation were comparable with the standards (Table 8). The pH of the

standard was significantly higher than that of cleaned GAF (Table 8).

4.7.3 Kibbled Gum arabic Formulation

The results of the comparisons of levels of the above properties in the

kibbled GAF with the standards were consistent with those reported

for hand picked selected and cleaned formulations (Table 9).

4.7.4 Spray dried Gum arabic Formulation:

Table 10 shows the averages of some parameters in the spray dried

gum arabic formulation and the standards. The moisture level of the

spray dried GAF (8.32%) was significantly lower than the

international standard (10%). Also the level of the ash in the spray

dried (3.03%) was significantly lower than the standard (4.00%) table

10. For the nitrogen and protein levels of the spray dried (0.30% and

2.45%; respectively), they were within the range of the standard

averages (Table 10). The PH of the spray dried GAF (4.25), was

significantly less than the standard (4.50). The specific optical rotation

of the spray dried GAF was in consistence with the standard figures

(Table 10).

Table (7) Comparison of the levels of different parameters in the

hand picked selected formulations with some standards

Confidence intervals at 95% International standards Upper

bound Lower bound

SE± Mean (X¯ ) Characters

Not more than 15 10.13 9.76 0.12 9.90 Moisture (%) Not more than 4 3.99 3.67 0.82 3.83 Ash (%)

Not more than 0.4 0.22 0.16 0.02 0.19 Acid insoluble ash (%)

0.24 – 0.41 0.42 0.40 0.00 0.41 Nitrogen (%) Not more than 3 2.76 2.68 0.02 2.72 Protein (%)

4.2 – 4.8 4.36 4.28 0.02 4.32 PH

-22 to -34 -32.18 -30.38 0.46 -31.28 Specific optical rotation

Table (8) Comparison of the levels of different parameters in the Cleaned formulation with some standards

Confidence

intervals at 95%

Standards Upper bound

Lower bound

SE±

Mean (X¯ )

Characters

Not more than 15 9.68 9.20 0.12 9.44 Moisture (%) Not more than 4 3.88 3.56 0.08 3.72 Ash (%)

Acid insoluble ash (%)

0.24 – 0.41 0.39 0.37 0.00 0.38 Nitrogen (%) 1.58 – 2.70 2.52 2.44 0.02 2.48 Protein (%)

PH

-22 to -34 -31.99 -30.21 0.46 -31.10 Specific optical rotation

Table (9) Comparison of the levels of different parameters in the Kibbled formulation with some standards

Confidence

intervals at 95%

Standards Upper bound

Lower bound

SE±

Mean (X¯ )

Characters

Not more than 15 9.09 8.63 0.12 8.86 Moisture (%) Not more than 4 5.40 2.18 0.08 3.79 Ash (%)

Acid insoluble ash (%)

0.24 – 0.41 0.38 0.36 0.00 0.37 Nitrogen (%) 1.58 – 2.70 2.47 2.41 0.02 2.43 Protein (%)

PH

-22 to -34 -29.45 -27.68 0.46 -28.57 Specific optical rotation

Table (10) Comparison of the levels of different parameters in the Spray dried formulation with some standards

Confidence intervals at 95%

Standards

Upper bound

Lower bound

SE±

Mean (X¯ )

Characters

Not more than 10 8.55 8.09 0.12 8.32 Moisture (%) Not more than 4 3.21 2.89 0.08 3.05 Ash (%)

Acid insoluble ash (%) 0.38 0.36 0.00 0.37 Nitrogen (%) 2.49 2.41 0.02 2.45 Protein (%) 32.52 -30.74 0.46 -31.63 Specific optical

rotation

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEDATIONS

5.1 DISCUSSION

The present study, clearly and specifically, able to distinguish between

the eight gum Arabic formulations in shape, color, and mesh. It is

obvious that the pale white to yellowish color, which is considered as

distinguished property of the gum Arabic over the one produced from

Acacia seyal (brown), was averaging the different formulations. This

pale white color allows the manufactures to freely add constituents of

varying range of colors (Glicksman, 1979 and Elizalde, et al., 1988).

The high solubility of gum arabic in water compared to other organic

solvents, as indicated in findings, is a very useful characteristic from

industry standpoint. This is of use in emulsifying power and

encapsulating property of gum arabic (Elizalde, et al., 1988).

The significant differences between the eight gum arabic formulations

are indication of their different states with regards to shape, mesh, and

purity.

The solubility of gum arabic in the other organic solvents is relatively

low compared to water. The significant differences between the

various GAF in the three organic solvents (acetone- chloroform-

ethanol) can be attributed to certain physical and chemical properties

associated with them. It is quite reasonable to link between the

significant variation in moisture content of the GAF and the

differences of their mesh. The lowest moisture content of the spray

dried formulation (8.32%) compared to hand picked selected and

cleaned formulations (9.90 and 9.44%) is justifiable since the former

formulation is already processed. So these formulations were

subjected to water loss during processing, transference and storage

(Karamalla, et al, 1998).

The significant differences between the eight GAF in the specific

optical rotation is most attributed to the differences in their purities.

The support of this statement comes from the fact that, the spray dried,

which is most purified formulation, registered the highest value

concerning property (-31.63°). Whereas the sifting formulation which

is characterized by its impurities, registered the least specific optical

rotation (-24.25°). The lack of existence of any significant differences

between the GAF in relative viscosity is in consistent with the fact

that, they (formalities) have the same

chemical structure (Omer, 2001). On the other hand the presence of

significant differences between these formulations in intrinsic

viscosity is advocated since the procedure of finding this type of

viscosity, is based on visual rather than empirical methods. The

significant differences between the GAF in acid insoluble ash (%) can

be interpreted similarly as those recorded for specific optical rotation,

so, the dependence on the differences in purity of various formulations

in this interpretation can be supported by the apparent association

between the values of both parameters.

In this respects, the present study suggests the development of a model

following the regression technique or any other statistical methods, for

predicting the specific optical rotation “dependent variable Y” by just

knowing acid insoluble ash level “ independent variable X” (Miller

and Miller, 1993).

Despite the lack of existence of any significant differences between

GAF in uronic acid, the variation between them in level of acidity was

significant.

The presence of significant variation in protein (Nitrogen) content

between the different GAF is doubtedly an indication for a wide

genetic differences among the sources of the sample of the GAF and

was mainly due to different localities. This explanation can be

supported by the fact that, many sub species of Acacia senegal are

existing (Anderson, et al., 1985).

The procedure of determining apparent equivalent weight is quite

different of that followed for obtaining molecular weight. The former

procedure was analytical and the later computational. Hence, the

significant differences recorded among GAF in molecular weight were

an expected result since their calculations depend to a large extends on

the intrinsic viscosity.

The presence of textural differences among the GAF is the reason

behind getting significant differences in their water holding capacity.

Elizalde et al., (1988) indicated that to the important of protein

physicochemical and functional property in emulsifying stability of

gum arabic. The current investigation supports the later argument of

Elizalde et al., (1988); since significant differences was recorded

between GAF in their protein content.

The highly significant differences among the different GAF in the

bacterial count can be attributed to the huge variations in the size of

their particles. It is very clear that the spray dried, with its smaller

particles, and in turn with very low moisture content (drying

desiccation) recorded the lowest bacterial counts. This result is in

conformity with the finding of Karamalla (1998).

All the specifications and standards used for assuring quality of

products are in the form of ranges. This will add some difficulties to

the statistical scheme adopted for comparing these standards with the

resulted values.

The technique used for doing so based on the concept of confidential

intervals or limits. Fortunately enough, these difficulties can be

overcomed by taking averages of the ranges and in turn directly

conducting the comparative studies which as follows:-

1/ About 96% of the values of the parameters and factors studied in

the GAF are inconsistency with the standards and specifications.

2/ About 4% of the values are not consistent with the specifications.

5.2 Conclusion The chemical, functional and microbial analysis of eight gum arabic

formulations showed that:

- Water solubility ranged between 98.80 – 97.40% for processed and

raw gum arabic which is encouraging for industrial application.

- The specific optical rotation was consistent with accepted value as

-31.63° except for the sifting formulation as -24.50° indicating

impurity.

- Acid insoluble ash was lowest in the spray-dried formulation

(0.09%) and highest in the sifting gum (0.37%), which is an index of

insoluble contaminants like sand.

- Gum arabic was wildly acidic of pH 4.22.

- The water holding capacity and emulsification stability as required

functional properties were best for the spray-dried formulation as

69.51% and 1.03 values respectively.

- All gum arabic formulations were sound and safe as far as microbial

contaminations are concerned. The bacterial count ranged between

1.33×102 and 1.73×104, moulds count was found less than 10 cfu/gm

and no yeast or salmonella were detected. Furthermore, the spray-

dried gum was also free of bacterial counts.

5.3 Recommendations

- For industrial application gum arabic is recommended to be used

preferably as spray-dried form.

- Sifting formulation is not recommended for medical application.

- Further work on other functional properties for gum arabic is needed

to see the possible more areas of application.

REFERENCES

Alamin, M. and Norbest, J. N. (1985). Molecular weight of Acacia.

International Symposium of Pharmaceutics, 23: 265-275.

Alain, M. and McMullen, J. N. (1985). Int. J. Pharmaceut., 23,265-

285.

Akiyama, Y., Eda, S. and Kota, K. (1984). Gum Arabic is a kind of

arabinogalactan protein. Agric. Biol. 48(1): 235-247.

Anderson, D. M. W., (1986). Nitrogen conversion factors for the

proteinaceous content of gums permitted as food additives. Food

Additives and contaminants, 3, 231-234.

Anderson, D. M. W., and Karamalla, K. A . (1966). J. Chem. Soc.,

(c), 762-764.

Anderson, D. M. W., and Herbich, M. A.,(1963). I. Studies on uronic

acid materials. Part V1. The variation in composition and

properties of gum nodules from Acacia seyal. Journal of the

chemical society, 1, 1-6.

Anderson, D. M. W., and Dea, I. C. M. (1971). Recent advances in

the chemistry of acacia gums. Carbohydr. Res. Cosmetic

chemists of Great Britain. 10: 161-164.

Anderson, D. M. W. and Stoddard, J. F. (1966). The use of Molecular

Sieve Chromatography in studies of A. Senegal gum (Gum

arabic). Carbohydr. Res. 2: 104-114.

Anderson, D. M. W., Contant, G. H. and Mc Nab, C. G. A. (1976).

Studies on Uronic acid materials. The gum exudates from A.

seiberana correction to previous analytical data. Carbohydr.

Res. 20, 99-104.

Anderson, D. M. W.; Bridgeman, M. M. E.; Farquhar, T.G.K.. and

Mc Nab, C.G.A.. (1983). The chemical characterization of the

test article used in toxicological studies of gum arabic Acacia

Senegal(L.) Willd. The International Tree Crop, 2: 245-254.

Anderson, D. M. W. and Hebdrie,M .A.(1973) Carbohydr. Res., J.

Chem. Soc.1. 26: 105-115.

Anderson, D. M. W.; Millar, J. R. A. and Weiping, W. (1991). Gum

Arabic (Acacia senegal) from Nigeria composition with other

sources and potential agrofrestry development. Biochem. Sys.

Ecol., 19 (6): 447-452.

Anderson, D. M. W., Howlett, J. F., and McNab, C. G. A.., (1985).

The amino acid composition of the proteinaceous component

of gum arabic (Acacia senegal): Food Additives and

contaminants, 2, 159-164.

Anderson, D. M. W. and Rahman, S. (1967b). The viscosity-

molecular weight relationship from Acacia gum Carbohydr.

Res., 4: 298-304.

Andrews, W. (1992). Manual of food quality control microbiological

analysis. Food and drug administration, Washington,. food

and agriculture organization of the united nation, P 12.

A. O. A. C. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists (1984).

Official methods of analysis, 14 ed. Washington, D. C.

Awad Alkarim, M. (1994). Analytical Studies on some Crude and

Processed Gum Arabic Samples with Regard to Quality

Aspects. M.Sc. Thesis, U. of Khartoum.

British Pharmacopoea, (1993). London: HMSO. Volume 1, p. 19.

Dickinson, E.; Murray, B. S.; Stainsly, G. and Anderson, P. M. W.

(1988). Food Hydrocolloids, 2 (6): 477-490.

Dickinson, E. (1994). Protein-stabilized emulsions. Journal of Food

Engineering, 22, 59-74.

Edmonds, M. (1965). The Market for Gum Arabic. I.P.I. Report No.

G.16.

EEC, (1999). Endangered Ecologyical Committee.

Elizalde, B. E., De Kanterewicz, R. J., Pilosof, A. M. R. & Bartholoami,

G. B. (1988). Physicochemical properties of food proteins

related to their ability to stabilize oil in water emulsions. Journal

of Food Science, 53, 845-848.

Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology (1966). Executive and Editor

Anthony Stander, Inter. Science Publishers John Wiley and

Sons. Inc. London.

Eric, D.; Galaz, V.B. and Anderson, D.M.W. (1991). Emulsifying

behavior of Gum Arabic. The effect of the gum molecular

weight on emulsion droplet. Size distribution. Carbohydrate

Polymers, 14: 385-392.

FAO (1990). Specification for identity and purity of certain food

additives.Food and Nutrition paper No. 49 ( Rome: FAO), pp.

23-25..

FAO (1999). Specification for identity and purity of certain food

Specification for identity and purity of certain food

additives.Food and Nutrition paper No. 52, Addendum 3 (Rome:

FAO),pp. 83-85.

Fincher, G. B., Stone, B. A., and Clarke, A. E. (1983).

Arabinogalactan-proteins: structure, biosynthesis and

function. Annnual Review of plant physiology, 34, 47-70.

Gabb, S. (1997). Gum Production in Sudan: A Brief Introduction.

The Sudan Foundation, London.

G.A.C. Gum Arabic Company (1993). Gum Arabic: A product of

Nature. The Gum Arabic Company Ltd. Khartoum.

Glicksman, M., (1979), Natural plant exudates. Gum Technology in the

Food Industry, edited by G. F. Stewart, L. N. Amyon, C. O.

Chichester, G.B.Gulliver, A. I. Morgan, E. M. Mrah, J.K. Scott

and E. von Sydow (New York: Academic Prees, Inc.), pp. 94-

129.

Glicksman, M. and Sand, R. (1973). Gum Arabic.PP. 197-263. In:

Industrial Gum Polysaccharides and their Derivatives (Whistler,

R.L., editor), Academic Press, New York.

Hansen, J. R. (1978). Agric. Food, Chem. J., 26: 301-304.

Harrigan, W. F. (1998). Laboratory methods in food microbiology (3rd

edition). San Diego, London, Boston, New York, Sydney,

Tokyo and Toronto, 137-138.

Harrigan, W. F. (1998). Laboratory methods in food microbiology (3rd

edition). San Diego, London, Boston, New York, Sydney,

Tokyo and Toronto, 180-181.

Houwink, R. (1940). Relation between the polymerization degree

determined by osmotic and viscometric methods. J. Prakt.

Chem., 157: 15-18.

Idris, O. H. (1986). Physicochemical and Microbiology characterization

of Acacia senegal (L.)willd. Gum arabic M.Sc., Thesis univ. of

Khartoum.

JECFA, (1999). Compendium of Food Additive Specifications. Joint

expert Committee on Food Additives. FAO Food and Nutrition

Paper52, Addendum 7. FAO, Rome.

Joseleau, J. P., and Ullmann, G., (1990). Biochemical evidence for the

site of formation of gum arabic in Acacia senegal.

Phytochemistry, 29, 3401-3405.

Jurasek, P., Kosik, M. and Phillips, G. O. (1993). Chemometric study

of the Acacia Senegal (Gum arabic) and related natural gums.

Food Hydrocolloids. 7(1): 73-85.

Karamalla, K. A. (1999). Gum Arabic: Production, Chemistry and

Application, Manager Research and Development

Department. Gandil Agricultural Company Ltd., Sudan.

Karamalla, K. A; Siddig, N. E. and Osman, M. E. (1998). Analytical

data for Acacia senegal var. senegal gum samples collected

between 1993 and 1995 from Sudan. Food Hydrocolloids, 12:

373-378.

Karamalla, K. A. (1965). Analytical and Structural Studies in the

Polysaccharide Group. Ph.D. Thesis, Edinburgh University,

UK.

Kaufman, H. S. and Falcetta, J. J. (1977). Introduction to Polymer

Science and Technology Textbook. P. 425.

Khalid, A. S., Mohamed, O. H., Mahgob, S. O. and Kahlid, S. A.

(1988). The micro flora of gum and significance to gummosis.

Gum and Stabilizer for Food Industry. 4: 435-411.

Kiss, I. (1984). Testing methods in food microbiology. Central food

research institute, Budapest, Hungary, Amsterdam, Oxford,

New York and Tokyo, P 164.

Kinsella, J. E. (1979). Functional properties of soy proteins. J. Amer.

Oil Chem. Soc., 56: 242-246.

Mantell, C. L. (1965). The water Soluble gums. Hofner Publishing

Corp., New York and London.

Mark, H. (1938). Die chemikalis wegbereiterin fortschnitter vortrage

Leipzig: Holdertemp. Sky. 19 pp. M. 1-30. Der Feste Korper

Huzil, Leipzip. P. 103.

Miller, J. C. and Miller, J. N. (1993). Statistics for Analytical

Chemistry. 3rd edition. ELLIS Horwood PTR Prentice Hall.

New York. 233 PP.

Moflit, W. and Young, J. T. (1956). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA),

42, 596.

Omer, R. M. (2001). Effect of different radiations on some

physicochemical properties of gum arabic ( Acacia senegal

(L.) Wild). M.Sc. thesis, U of Khartoum.

Osman, E. M. (1998). Microbiological and Physicochemical Studies

on Gum Arabic: Quality and Safety. M. Sc. Thesis, U of

Khartoum.

Phillips, G. O. and Williams, P. A. (1988). Structural and chemical

Properties of Gum Arabic. Their Practical Impact. Gum

Arabic Symposium. Solingen-West Germany.

Randall, R C.; Phillips, G O. and Williams, P.A. (1989).

Fractionation and characterization of gum from Acacia

Senegal. Food Hydrocolloids, 3: 65.

Randall, R C.; Phillips, G O. and Williams, P.A. (1988). The role of

the proteinaceous component on the emulsifying properties of

gum arabic. Food Hydrocolloids, 2, 131-140.

Robyt, J. F. and White, B. J. (1987). Biochemical Techniques and

Practices. Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Sharma, S. C. (1979a). Rheology of hydrocolloids. Presented at Soc.

Of rheology Golden Jubilee Meeting, Boston, Mass. Oct. 29.

Nov. 2.

Sharma, S. C. (1979b). Mathematical modeling of the visco elastic

characteristics of gum arabic. . Presented at Soc. Of rheology

Golden Jubilee Meeting, Boston, Mass. Oct. 29. Nov. 2.

Siddig, E. (1996). Nitrogen and Specific Rotation as Qualifying

Indices for Gum Arabic Derived from Acaci senegal (L.)

Willd.

Sincich, T. (1982). Computer Supplement for Statistics by Example.

Dellen Publishing Company. California, USA. 97pp.

Somogyi, M. (1945). J. Biol. Chem., 160: 69.

USP. (2003). United State Pharmacopoeia (NF 21). The Official

Compendia of Standards. P 14.

Vollard, (1972). Microbiological studies on gums and hydrosoluble

natural vegetable colloids. 3rd Eropean Symposium Marsilles,

France.

Whistler, R. L. and Bemiller, J. N. (1973). Industrial gums

polysaccharides and their derivatives. Academic Press. Inc.

2nd edition. New York. San Francisco. London,194-254.

WHO, 1995, Evaluation of certain food additives and contaminants.

(Forty-fourth report of the joint FAO/WHO Expert

Committee on Food Additives). Technical Report Series, No.

857 (Geneva: WHO). P. 39.


Recommended