physicochemical and functional properties of crawfish chitosan as ...

Reversing the sequence of steps such as demineralization (DM) and deproteinization
(DP) caused a pronounced effect on WBC of chitosan (745.4% vs. 694.4%). Deproteinization
(DP) of demineralized shell showed higher WBC compared to the process when
demineralization (DM) of the deproteinized shell was conducted (Table 7). Besides, the
decoloration (DC) step also led to decrease in WBC of chitosan when it was done after
deacetylation.
4.12 Fat Binding Capacity (FBC)
Fat binding capacity (FBC) of five crawfish and two crab commercial chitosans was
measured using five types of oils including soybean, canola, corn, sunflower, and olive oil. The
results are shown in Table 8.
FBC differed among chitosan products, ranging from 370.2% to 665.4%. Vanson75 had
the highest FBC, regardless of the type of oil used. Among our crawfish chitosan samples,
DMPCA showed the highest FBC values: 533.4% with soybean oil, 526.3% with canola oil,
578.1% with corn oil, 573.3% with sunflower oil, and 574.9% with olive oil, although DMPCA
had low viscosity (131.76 cp). DCMPA and DMCPA showed no significant difference in FBC.
The sample DMPAC showed the lowest FBC (445.3% - 495.9%) as it had very low viscosity
(1.0 cP).
Moorjani (1975) advocated that changing the sequence of steps, when demineralization
(DM) is conducted prior to deproteinization (DP) and finally deacetylation (DA), results in an
increase in FBC than when deproteinization (DP) is conducted prior to demineralization (DM)
and finally deacetylation (DA). Thus, the decreased fat binding capacity of DPMCA as
evidenced in this study may be due to the reverse of DM and DP steps.
54