Loading [Contrib]/a11y/accessibility-menu.js
Research article

Effects of phenotype and wet milling procedures on the starch isolation from sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) grains

  • The current study tends to introduce the effects of three wet milling procedures and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) phenotype on starch recovery and some physico-chemical properties of starch isolated from grains. It explores the sorghum grains from landraces, cultivated in the Sahara of Algeria, which in fact has a high percentage of total starch with a little percentage of tannin compared to many regions of the world. This study attempts to unveil that the starch recovery, of fifteen starch isolates, ranged between 58.06% and 83.11%, and their total starch and protein contents ranged from 92.01% to 98.75% and 0.35% to 2.34% respectively. The extents kinetic curves of hydrolysis indicates that starch isolates have high susceptibilities for hydrolysis to glucose by glucoamylase from Aspergillus niger, and the degree of hydrolysis ranges from 50.85% to 81.45%. The results demonstrate that the wet milling procedures affect the starch recovery, and protein content and swelling power at 85 ℃ of starch isolates. The effect of grain phenotype appears in moisture content and swelling power at 95 ℃.

    Citation: Badreddine Belhadi, Rachid Souilah, Redha Ould-Kiar, Mohamed Yousfi, Djaafar Djabali, Boubekeur Nadjemi. Effects of phenotype and wet milling procedures on the starch isolation from sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) grains[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2021, 6(2): 448-461. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2021026

    Related Papers:

    [1] Sudip Bhattacharya . Artificial intelligence, human intelligence, and the future of public health. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(4): 644-650. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022045
    [2] Gabrielle L. Jenkin, Amber L. Pearson, Graham Bentham, Peter Day, Simon Kingham . Neighbourhood Influences on Children’s Weight-related Behaviours and Body Mass Index. AIMS Public Health, 2015, 2(3): 501-515. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2015.3.501
    [3] Otobo I. Ujah, Chukwuemeka E Ogbu, Russell S. Kirby . “Is a game really a reason for people to die?” Sentiment and thematic analysis of Twitter-based discourse on Indonesia soccer stampede. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(4): 739-754. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023050
    [4] Ali S. Abed Al Sailawi, Mohammad Reza Kangavari . Utilizing AI for extracting insights on post WHO's COVID-19 vaccination declaration from X (Twitter) social network. AIMS Public Health, 2024, 11(2): 349-378. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2024018
    [5] Onyekachi Juliet Okpasuo, Ifeanyi Oscar Aguzie, Anunobi Toochukwu Joy, Fabian C Okafor . Risk assessment of waterborne infections in Enugu State, Nigeria: Implications of household water choices, knowledge, and practices. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 634-649. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020050
    [6] Oluwafolajimi Adetoye Adesanya, Hilda Amauche Igwe . Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) and gram-negative bacterial infections in south-west Nigeria: a retrospective epidemiological surveillance study. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(4): 804-815. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020062
    [7] Ali Moussaoui, El Hadi Zerga . Transmission dynamics of COVID-19 in Algeria: The impact of physical distancing and face masks. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(4): 816-827. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020063
    [8] PauleMiquelon, AlainLesage, RichardBoyer, StéphaneGuay, PierreBleau, MoniqueSéguin . Mental Health Service Utilization among Students and Staff in 18 Months Following Dawson College Shooting. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(2): 84-99. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2014.2.84
    [9] Panayota Sourtzi, Petros Galanis, Olympia Konstantakopoulou, Olga Siskou, Daphne Kaitelidou . Factors that influence the health status of immigrants living in Greece. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(2): 287-300. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020024
    [10] Talal Alharazi, Omar AA Bamaga, Nazeh Al-Abd, Jerold C Alcantara . Intestinal parasitic infection: prevalence, knowledge, attitude, and practices among schoolchildren in an urban area of Taiz city, Yemen. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(4): 769-777. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020059
  • The current study tends to introduce the effects of three wet milling procedures and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) phenotype on starch recovery and some physico-chemical properties of starch isolated from grains. It explores the sorghum grains from landraces, cultivated in the Sahara of Algeria, which in fact has a high percentage of total starch with a little percentage of tannin compared to many regions of the world. This study attempts to unveil that the starch recovery, of fifteen starch isolates, ranged between 58.06% and 83.11%, and their total starch and protein contents ranged from 92.01% to 98.75% and 0.35% to 2.34% respectively. The extents kinetic curves of hydrolysis indicates that starch isolates have high susceptibilities for hydrolysis to glucose by glucoamylase from Aspergillus niger, and the degree of hydrolysis ranges from 50.85% to 81.45%. The results demonstrate that the wet milling procedures affect the starch recovery, and protein content and swelling power at 85 ℃ of starch isolates. The effect of grain phenotype appears in moisture content and swelling power at 95 ℃.



    Social media platforms such as Twitter using posts called tweets have altered the way people disseminate information [1]. Sharing of information is made possible by the interactions a tweet generates among users. As compared to a regular user, tweets from a small proportion of users called influencers tend to generate the most interactions. These influencers typically have a large online following and may or may not be experts in the issue of discourse [2],[3]. With the help of these influencers, health information may be communicated to a large audience promptly in situations where it is necessary to do so.

    Studies have reported health-related benefits from the use of social media platforms such as Twitter as well as a concern. It has been reported as an excellent place to discover current topics of discourse about vaccines and also to promote vaccination [4]. By using semantic analysis to identify influencers on Twitter, vaccine-hesitant communities can be identified and targeted for inventions. Perhaps as a platform for information dissemination about health, interactions on Twitter can positively influence users by improving their health-seeking behaviors. They can then become aware of the right source of information and seek the right remedy for their health conditions [5],[6].

    However, sometimes, it is unclear which individuals are influencing these interactions. Given the potential that exists for the dissemination of inaccurate health information [7], there is a need to have experts at the forefront of information dissemination on this platform. Cardiovascular health is an area in which interactions that can lead to a positive health-seeking behavior is needed. This need is made obvious by the growing burden of cardiovascular diseases despite the traditional efforts from various stakeholders [8]. As experts, cardiologists can increase awareness, build partnerships and act as advocates of cardiovascular health in their roles as Twitter influencers [9],[10].

    Traditionally cardiologists are considered experts by their years of experience and their research output. This research output can be measured by different matrixes, one of which is the h-index [Hirsch index—productivity in terms of number of publications and impact (number of citations) of the publication] [11]. One would expect that the most influential cardiologists on Twitter also have the highest research output, but this may not be the case. It will also be interesting to see if the most influential Twitter users in the field of cardiology experts are indeed, in this case physicians. The goal of this study therefore, is to assess the top influencers in the field of cardiology who are actively influencing information dissemination on Twitter and to assess if there is any correlation between the Twitter influence and academic influence of the practicing cardiologists.

    On May 01, 2020, similar to the method used in other studies [12],[13], the Right Relevance Application Programming Interface (API) (www.rightrelevance.com, San Francisco, CA, United States) was queried using the search word “cardiology”. The API generated a Twitter topic score for “cardiology”. This score is a measure of how much interactions from other users an influencer earns from a tweet about a topic in the field of cardiology. Subsequently, a rank list of the top 100 cardiology Twitter influencers with their Twitter handles, Twitter names, Twitter profiles, and the number of followers was generated. We excluded handles belonging to organizations as the study's focus was on individual users. Individuals were characterized by sex, duration in years post fellowship training, occupation, area/field of focus for those who were cardiologist physicians, practice setting (academic hospital practice, academic & private hospital practice, non-academic hospital practice, private hospital practice, and both hospital practice & entrepreneurship), and location. These characteristics were identified on their Twitter profiles and web sources such as Doximity (San Francisco, CA, United States), LinkedIn (Sunnyvale, CA, United States), ResearchGate (Berlin, Germany), and practice and institutional websites. The h-index scores of the top cardiologist influencers were obtained using Scopus (Reed Elsevier, London, United Kingdom) on May 07, 2020, and added to the database to represent their academic influence. The median h-index of the influencers that were cardiologists was calculated and a Pearson correlation was performed between the h-indices of the cardiologists and their Twitter topic score to evaluate the relationship. Statistics and graphical representation were performed in Microsoft Excel (Seattle, WA, United States).

    The top 100 most influential individuals in cardiology on Twitter were evaluated (Table 1). Males made up 70 (70%) of the influencers while 30 (30%) were females. Eighty-eight (88%) of the top influencers were cardiologists; 5 (5%) were journalists; 2 (2%) were surgeons (bariatric and cardiothoracic surgeons); 2 (2%) were other physicians (Family medicine physician and a Lipidologist); 2 (2%) consisted of a physician assistant and a senior hospital scientist, and 1 (1%) was a representative for cardiology patients (Figure 1). Eighty-eight (88%) of influencers worked in the United States and 12 (12%) worked outside the United States. In the US, the most common locations in which they worked include Massachusetts 12/88 (13%) and California 11 (13%). Outside the United States, the most common locations included the United Kingdom 4/12 (33%) and Canada 3/12 (25%) (Table 2).

    Table 1.  API generated ranking of the top 100 influential individuals in cardiology on Twitter.
    Rank Twitter handle Twitter name Post-fellowship duration (years) Occupation
    1. cmichaelgibson Michael C. Gibson 27 Interventional cardiologist
    2. erictopol Eric Topol 35 Cardiologist-scientist
    3. drpascalmeier Pascal Meier 20 General cardiologist
    4. drmarthagulati Martha Gulati 19 Preventive cardiologist
    5. drjohnm John Mandrola 25 General cardiologist
    6. heartotxheartmd John P Erwin III 22 General cardiologist
    7. heartbobh Robert Harrington 27 Interventional cardiologist
    8. drsethdb Seth Bilazarian 27 Interventional cardiologist
    9. hmkyale Harlan Krumholz 28 General cardiologist
    10. drsheilasahni Sheila Sahni 3 Interventional cardiologist
    11. cardiobrief Larry Husten N/A Medical journalist
    12. dlbhattmd Deepak L. Bhatt 20 Interventional cardiologist
    13. gina_lundberg Gina Lundberg 26 Preventive cardiologist
    14. mwaltonshirley Melissa Walton-Shirley 29 General cardiologist
    15. erinmichos Erin D. Michos 13 Preventive cardiologist
    16. ajaykirtane Ajay Kirtane 14 Interventional cardiologist
    17. shelleywood2 Shelley Wood N/A Medical journalist
    18. greggwstone Gregg W. Stone 31 Interventional cardiologist
    19. rwyeh Robert W. Yeh 10 General cardiologist
    20. svraomd Sunil V. Rao 16 Interventional cardiologist
    21. drtoniyasingh Toniya Singh 17 General cardiologist
    22. docsavagetju Michael Savage 35 Interventional cardiologist
    23. drlaxmimehta Laxmi Mehta 14 Preventive cardiologist
    24. keaglemd Kim Eagle 34 General cardiologist
    25. minnowwalsh Minnow Walsh 21 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    26. drkevincampbell Kevin Campbell 17 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    27. heartdocsharon Sharon Mulvagh 31 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    28. drroxmehran Roxana Mehran 25 Interventional cardiologist
    29. nmhheartdoc Clyde Yancy 31 General cardiologist
    30. willsuh76 William Suh 10 Interventional cardiologist
    31. drjmieres Jennifer Mieres 28 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    32. chadialraies Chadi Alraies 4 Interventional cardiologist
    33. samrrazamd Sam Raza 2 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    34. venkmurthy Venk Murthy 8 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    35. arh_cardio Andrew R. Houghton 14 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    36. sharonnehayes Sharonne Hayes 30 Preventive cardiologist
    37. pamelasdouglas Pamela S Douglas 36 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    38. cpcannon Christopher Cannon 20 General cardiologist
    39. drlindamd Linda Girgis N/A Family medicine physician
    40. ejsmd Edward J Schloss 23 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    41. fischman_david David L. Fischman 29 Interventional cardiologist
    42. ankurkalramd Ankur Kalra 3 Interventional cardiologist
    43. doctorwes Westby Fisher 22 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    44. califf001 Robert M Califf 38 General cardiologist
    45. vietheartpa Viet Le 16 Cardiology-physician assistant
    46. tctmd_yael Yael L. Maxwell N/A Medical journalist
    47. drdave01 David E. Albert 39 Cardiologist-entrepreneur
    48. pooh_velagapudi Poonam Velagapudi 2 Interventional cardiologist
    49. anastasiasmihai Anastasia S Mihailidou N/A Senior hospital scientist
    50. cpgale3 Chris P Gale 6 General cardiologist
    51. majazayeri Ali Jazayeri 0 Cardiology fellow
    52. nihdirector Francis S. Collins 36 General cardiologist-scientist
    53. sethjbaummd Seth J. Baum 30 Interventional cardiologist
    54. drraviele Raviele Antonio 46 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    55. leftbundle Mintu Turakhia 12 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    56. lipiddoc James Underberg N/A Lipidologist
    57. richardbogle Richard Bogle 13 Interventional cardiologist
    58. michaeltctmd Michael O'Riordan N/A Medical journalist
    59. jgrapsa Julia Grapsa 7 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    60. ethanjweiss Ethan Weiss 17 Preventive cardiologist
    61. neilflochmd Neil Floch N/A Bariatric surgery
    62. davidmaymd David May 32 Interventional cardiologist
    63. herbaronowmd Herb Aronow 17 Interventional cardiologist
    64. drryanpdaly Ryan P. Daly 10 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    65. skathire Sek Kathiresan 12 Preventive cardiologist/entrepreneur
    66. cardiacconsult Jordan Safirstein 12 Interventional cardiologist
    67. pnatarajanmd Pradeep Natarajan 5 Preventive cardiologist
    68. debbemccall Debbe McCall N/A Patient research/representative
    69. davidlbrownmd Clinically Conservative Cardiologist 27 Interventional cardiologist
    70. jjheart_doc James Januzzi 20 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    71. onco_cardiology Juan Lopez-Mattei 7 Cardio-oncologist
    72. drjohndaymd John Day 20 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    73. aalahmadmd Amin Al-Ahmad 17 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    74. toddneale Todd Neale N/A Medical journalist
    75. josejgdnews Jose Juan Gomez 25 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    76. jonhsumd Jonathan Hsu 7 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    77. mkittlesonmd Michelle Kittleson 15 Heart transplant cardiologist
    78. lisarosenbaum17 Lisa Rosenbaum 8 Interventional cardiologist
    79. toaster_pastry Wayne Whitwam 14 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    80. avolgman Annabelle Volgman 30 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    81. rblument1 Roger Blumenthal 28 Preventive cardiologist
    82. achoiheart Andrew D. Choi 10 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    83. mgkatz036 Michael Katz 5 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    84. prashsanders Prashanthan Sanders 17 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    85. bcostellomd Briana Costello 0 Interventional cardiologist
    86. popmajeffrey Jeffrey Popma 30 Interventional cardiologist
    87. adribaran Adrian Baranchuk 23 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    88. sandylewis Sandra Lewis 37 General cardiologist
    89. yadersandoval Yader Sandoval 3 Interventional cardiologist
    90. drquinncapers4 Quinn Capers 21 Interventional cardiologist
    91. dramirkaki Amir Kaki 11 Interventional cardiologist
    92. jamesbeckerman James Beckerman 14 Genera cardiologist
    93. eirangorodeski Eiran Gorodeski 11 General cardiologist
    94. docstrom Jordan Strom 3 Cardiologist non-invasive imaging
    95. dbelardomd Danielle Belardo 0 Cardiology Fellow
    96. sergiopinski Sergio Pinski 27 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    97. arieblitzmd Arie Blitz N/A Cardiothoracic surgeon
    98. ash71us Ashish Aneja 8 General cardiologist
    99. tjaredbunch Thomas Jared Bunch 12 Cardiologist-electrophysiology
    100. rfredberg Rita Redberg 32 General cardiologist

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 1.  Percent distribution of the top influencers in the field of cardiology.
    Table 2.  Practice location of the top 100 most influential individuals.
    United States Percentage International Percentage
    Massachusetts 13.64% United Kingdom 33.33%
    California 12.50% Canada 25.00%
    Texas 7.95% Switzerland 8.33%
    New York 7.95% South wales 8.33%
    Ohio 6.82% Italy 8.33%
    New Jersey 4.55% Spain 8.33%
    Connecticut 3.41% Australia 8.33%
    Baltimore 3.41%
    North Carolina 3.41%
    Pennsylvania 3.41%
    Michigan 3.41%
    Illinois 3.41%
    Utah 3.41%
    Kentucky 2.27%
    Missouri 2.27%
    Indiana 2.27%
    Minnesota 2.27%
    Kansas 2.27%
    Florida 2.27%
    Oregon 2.27%
    Arizona 1.14%
    Georgia 1.14%
    Nebraska 1.14%
    Rhode Island 1.14%
    Washington 1.14%
    Wisconsin 1.14%

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Approximately 63/88 (72%) of the top influencers that were cardiologists were males and 25/88 (28%) were females. Of the 88 cardiologists, 87 were actively practicing. Of the practicing cardiologists, about 50/87 (57%) of them worked primarily in an academic hospital setting, 33/87 (38%) in non-academic hospitals, 2/87 (2%) in both academic & private facilities, 1/87 (1%) in private hospitals alone, and 1/87 (1%) worked both in a non-academic hospital and as an entrepreneur. As shown in Figure 2, Twenty-seven (31%) of cardiologist influencers were focused in interventional cardiology, 20/88 (23%) in general cardiology, 15/88 (17%) in electrophysiology, 13/88 (15%) in cardiac non-invasive imaging and 9/88 (10%) in preventive cardiology.

    Figure 2.  Distribution of cardiologist by specialty.

    The median and mean h-index of the top influencers who were cardiologists was 22 (interquartile range = 32.5) and 41.84 ± 9.89 (mean ± 95% CI) respectively. There was a moderately positive correlation between their Twitter topic score and h-index, r = +0.32 (p-value 0.002).

    The study aimed to assess the top individuals driving the discussions in cardiology on Twitter and to analyze if they were as influential in academia as they were on Twitter. We found out that the top 100 Twitter influencers were male cardiologists in the United States with 30% women, they work in academic hospitals and interventional cardiologists represent the largest proportion of cardiologists among the influencers. In addition, there was a moderately positive correlation between their academic and Twitter influence.

    Most of the top 100 cardiology Twitter influencers were US cardiologists. This made up about 85% of the total population studied. They also practice mostly in academic institutions. These individuals are currently influencing the engagements in the field of cardiology on Twitter, and it is consistent with findings from other studies. These other studies evaluated the top influencers in other medical fields on Twitter and found them to be experts in these fields [12],[13]. This is important given that people are more likely to engage a post on Twitter when experts lead the discussion [14]. However, this may not be enough to prevent the dissemination of false information which leads to public mistrust [14],[15], as among the top 100, 12% were non-cardiologists and may be considered as non-experts.

    We also found out that among the influencers that were cardiologists, 2 out of 3 were males. This mostly can be attributed to the small percentage of women who are currently cardiologists [16]. A recent study reported that despite the high percentage of female internal medicine residents, only about 13% of cardiologists are women [17]. Although it is not surprising that females are a minority, with 1 in 3 cardiology influencers being females, it however shows a larger representation of female cardiologists on Twitter which doubles the current trend in the US. There also seems to be a flattening of the hierarchy with a mix of early career (e.g., Briana Costello, Sam Raza), mid-career (e.g., William Suh, Andrew R. Houghton) and advanced stage career (e.g., Michael Gibson, Martha Gulati) professionals being among the top influencers. A positive finding given the criticism the historical hierarchy in medicine has received in recent years [18].

    With regards to their location, only a few cardiologists outside the US were part of the top 100 cardiology influencers. This may be attributed to reports of anti-social media policies in some European countries [19] and the resultant low adoption rates of social media platforms [20],[21]. This may account for why fewer cardiologists outside the US are currently in the top 100 influencers on Twitter. Nevertheless, findings of the massive use of Twitter during European conferences to share impressions have been reported [22],[23]. In addition, Twitter has been reported as a source of data in the research of noncommunicable diseases in European studies [24]. These reports are inconsistent with the reported anti-social media policies outside the US and there may be other reasons behind these findings.

    In addition, we found out that most of the top cardiologist influencers practice in academic hospitals. Studies have shown a high research output from cardiologists who practice in this setting as compared to those who practice in non-academic settings [25]. This is due to the heavy emphasis on research in academic hospitals as compared to non-academic hospitals. These cardiologists have also been found to be more likely to tweet about conferences, research activities, and meetings they attend [26] as compared to those in non-academic settings.

    With regards to the overall academic influence, the median h-index of the top cardiologist influencers (median h-index, 22) found in our study was higher than that of the orthopedic (median h-index, 7) and plastic surgeons (median h-index, 5) in studies done in 2018 and 2019 respectively [12],[13]. In a comparison of the median h-index and their Twitter influence, there was a moderately positive correlation between the two. The moderate positive relationship implies that not only are these top influential cardiologists more active in research as compared to other specialties, they are also almost as influential on Twitter as they are in academia. The most active influential cardiologists may be tweeting more about breakthroughs in cardiovascular research [27]. This is relevant as social media has become a tool to reach millions of people and gather data, and as such, physicians need to be conversant and active in its use. Twitter is a tool to promote and direct attention to specific research topics [28] and was found to be an effective way to increase citations of a publication, influencing the h-index of an author [29].

    This study has a few strengths. First, the large sample size of this study allowed for adequate characterization of the influencers. Second, we used the Right Relevance API which has successfully been used to mine data from Twitter for other studies. Third, the academic influence was computed using the h-index, a scoring system that shows a high correlation with other variants [30]. Despite the strengths of this study, it has some limitations worthy of note. First, the data was made of incomplete Twitter profiles that had to be completed using sources such as Doximity and LinkedIn. Second, a different API using another algorithm may generate a data set entirely different from this data set. Third, there are other social media platforms apart from Twitter where other cardiologists may be more active such as Facebook and Instagram. Lastly, the h-index pays attention only to h-core papers, ignores most papers with a low citation frequency, and lacks sensitivity to highly cited papers.

    In conclusion, our study showed that when examining the influential voices in cardiology on Twitter, there is a broad range of sub-specialties represented, with interventional cardiologists being the most prominent. There was a geographical diversity as well as a flattening of the hierarch, with a mix of early career (e.g., Briana Costello, Sam Raza), mid-career (e.g., William Suh, Andrew R. Houghton) and advanced stage career (e.g., Michael Gibson, Martha Gulati) professionals. Thirty percent were women, which more than doubles the number of women estimated to be practicing cardiovascular medicine. This reflects the challenges that remains in closing the gender gap between men and women as influencers in cardiovascular medicine. These influencers were as influential in the academia as they are on Twitter. Future studies should exam the contents of the posts made by these influencers and also consider other indexes of academic influence like g-index, AR-index, p-index, and integrated impact indicator or academic trace as they relate to social media influence.



    [1] Beta T, Obilana AB, Corke H (2001) Genetic diversity in properties of starch from Zimbabwean sorghum landraces. Cereal Chem 78: 583-589. doi: 10.1094/CCHEM.2001.78.5.583
    [2] Ratnavathi CV, Komala VV (2016) Sorghum grain quality, In: Ratnavathi CV, Patil JV, Chavan UD. (Eds), Sorghum Biochemistry: An Industrial Perspective, London: Academic Press, 1-61.
    [3] Haros CM, Wronkowska M (2017) Pseudocereal dry and wet milling: processes, products and applications, In: Haros CM, Schoenlechner R. (Eds), Pseudocereals: Chemistry and Technology, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 140-162.
    [4] Nghiem NP, Montanti J, Johnston DB (2016) Sorghum as a renewable feedstock for production of fuels and industrial chemicals. AIMS Bioengineering 3: 75-91. doi: 10.3934/bioeng.2016.1.75
    [5] FAO (1995) Le sorgho et le mil dans la nutrition humaine, Alimentation et nutrition, n27, Collection FAO, Rome.
    [6] Munck L, (1995) New milling technologies and products: whole plant utilization by milling and separation of the botanical and chemical components, In: Dendy AV, Sorghum and Millets: Chemistry and Technology, St. Paul: American Association of Cereal Chemists, 223-281.
    [7] Satin M, (2002) Functional properties of starches. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available from: http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/agsi/starchh41.htm. consulted 22.10.08.
    [8] Estrada-León RJ, Moo-Huchin VM, Ríos-Soberanis CR, et al. (2016) The effect of isolation method on properties of parota (Enterolobium cyclocarpum) starch. Food Hydrocolloids 57: 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.01.008
    [9] Souilah R, Boudries N, Djabali D, et al. (2013) Kinetic study of enzymatic hydrolysis of starch isolated from sorghum grain cultivars by various methods. J Food Sci Technol 52: 451-457. doi: 10.1007/s13197-013-0977-z
    [10] Belhadi B, Djabali D, Souilah R, et al. (2013) Three small-scale laboratory steeping and wet-milling procedures for isolation of starch from sorghum grains cultivated in Sahara of Algeria. Food Bioprod Process 91: 225-232. doi: 10.1016/j.fbp.2012.09.008
    [11] Boudries N, Belhaneche N, Nadjemi B, et al. (2009) Physicochemical and functional properties of starches from sorghum cultivated in the Sahara of Algeria. Carbohyd Polym 78: 475-480. doi: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2009.05.010
    [12] Driessen P, Deckers J, Spaargaren O, et al. (2001) Lecture notes on the major soils of the world, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO, Rome: World Soil Resources Reports, 94,191.
    [13] IBPGR et ICRISAT (1993) Descripteurs du mil penicillaire[Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.], Conseil international des ressources phytogenetiques, Rome, Italie; Institut international de recherche sur les cultures des zones tropicales semi-arides, Patancheru, Inde.
    [14] Jain RK, Bal S (1997) Properties of pearl millet. J Agric Eng Res 66: 85-91. doi: 10.1006/jaer.1996.0119
    [15] Waniska RD, Hugo LF, Rooney LW (1992) Practical methods to determine presence of tannins in sorghum. J Appl Poultry Res 1: 122-128. doi: 10.1093/japr/1.1.122
    [16] Taylor JRN, Taylor J (2008) Five simple methods for the determination of sorghum grain end-use quality (with adaptations for those without laboratory facilities), INTSORMIL Scientific Publications, 17.
    [17] AACC (2000) Approved methods of the American association of cereal chemists, 10th edition, Method 44-15A, St Paul (MN), AACC, USA.
    [18] Goñi I, Garcia-Alonso A, Saura-Calixto F (1997) A starch hydrolysis procedure to estimate glycemic index. Nutr Res 17: 427-437. doi: 10.1016/S0271-5317(97)00010-9
    [19] Waterman PG, Mole S (1994) Extraction and chemical quantification, Analysis of phenolic plant metabolites, London: Blackwell scientific publications, 66-103.
    [20] Price ML, Van Scoyoc S, Butler LG, et al. (1978) A critical evaluation of the vanillin reaction as an assay for tannin in sorghum grain. J Agric Food Chem 26: 1214-1218. doi: 10.1021/jf60219a031
    [21] Pérez OE, Haros M, Suarez C, et al. (2001) Corn steeping: influence of time and lactic acid on isolation and thermal properties of starch. J Food Eng 48: 251-256. doi: 10.1016/S0260-8774(00)00165-5
    [22] Yang P, Seib PA, et al. (1996) Wet milling of grain sorghum using a short steeping period. Cereal Chem 73: 751-755.
    [23] Pérez-Sira EE, Amaiz ML (2004) A laboratory scale method for isolation of starch from pigmented sorghum. J Food Eng 64: 515-519. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2003.11.019
    [24] Li JY, Yeh AI, et al. (2001) Relationships between thermal, rheological characteristics and swelling power for various starches. J Food Eng 50: 141-148. doi: 10.1016/S0260-8774(00)00236-3
    [25] Murty DS, Kumar KA (1995) Traditional uses of sorghum and millets, In: Dendy DAV. (Eds), Sorghum and Millets: Chemistry and Technology, St. Paul: American Association of Cereal Chemists, 185-221.
    [26] Gomez MI, Obilana AB, Martin DF, et al. (1997) Manual of laboratory procedures for quality evaluation of sorghum and pearl millet, International crops research institute for the semi-arid tropics, Technical Manual no2, Andhra Pradesh, India 116.
    [27] Serna-Saldivar S, Rooney LW (1995) Structure and chemistry of sorghum and millets, In: Dendy DAV. (Eds), Sorghum and Millets: Chemistry and Technology, St. Paul: American Association of Cereal Chemists, 69-111.
    [28] Mwithiga G, Sifuna MM (2006) Effect of moisture content on the physical properties of three varieties of sorghum seeds. J Food Eng 75: 480-486. doi: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.04.053
    [29] Buffo RA, Weller CL, Parkhurst AM (1998) Wet-milling factors of sorghum and relationship to grain quality. J Cereal Sci 27: 327-334. doi: 10.1006/jcrs.1997.0171
    [30] ICC (2008) Estimation of sorghum grain endosperm texture, International association for cereal science and technology, ICC Standard 176, Vienna.
    [31] Awika JM, Rooney LW (2004) Sorghum phytochemicals and their potential impact on human health. Phytochemistry 65: 1199-1221. doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2004.04.001
    [32] Dykes L, Rooney LW (2006) Sorghum and millet phenols and antioxidants. J Cereal Sci 44: 236-251. doi: 10.1016/j.jcs.2006.06.007
    [33] Rooney LW, Miller FR (1982) Variation in the structure and kernel characteristics of sorghum, In: Rooney LW, Murty DS, Mertin JV. (Eds), Proceedings of the international symposium on sorghum grain quality. Patancheru, A.P., India.
    [34] Souilah R, Djabali D, Belhadi B, et al. (2014) In vitro starch digestion in sorghum flour from Algerian cultivars. Food Sci Nutr 2: 251-259. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.104
    [35] Xie JX, Sieb PA (2002) Laboratory wet-milling of grain sorghum with abbreviated steeping to give two products. Starch 54: 169-178. doi: 10.1002/1521-379X(200205)54:5<169::AID-STAR169>3.0.CO;2-7
    [36] Wang FC, Chung DS, Seib PA, et al. (2000) Optimum steeping process for wet milling of sorghum. Cereal Chem 77: 478-483. doi: 10.1094/CCHEM.2000.77.4.478
    [37] Higiro J, Flores RA, Seib PA (2003) Starch production from sorghum grits. J Cereal Sci 37: 101-109. doi: 10.1006/jcrs.2002.0480
    [38] Wang L, Seib PA (1996) Australian salt noodle flours and their starches compared to U.S. wheat flours and their starches. Cereal Chem 73: 167-175.
    [39] Shandera DL, Jackson DS (1996) Effect of corn wet-milling conditions (sulfur dioxide, lactic acid, and steeping temperature) on starch functionality. Cereal Chem 73: 632-637.
    [40] Brandemarte EA, Franco CML, Lopes-Filho JF (2004) Physicochemical properties of maize starch obtained from intermittent milling and dynamic steeping (IMDS) under various steeping conditions. Cereal Chem 81: 369-376. doi: 10.1094/CCHEM.2004.81.3.369
    [41] Bello AB, Waniska RD, Gomez MH, et al. (1995) Starch solubilization and retrogradation during preparation of Tô (a food gel) from different sorghums. Cereal Chem 72: 80-84.
    [42] Ring SM, Gee MJ, William M, et al. (1988) Resistant starch: Its chemical form in foodstuffs and effect on digestibility in vitro. Food Chem 28: 97-109. doi: 10.1016/0308-8146(88)90139-2
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Jonathan D. Windram, Ashley Neal, Colin J. McMahon, Evolution in Congenital Cardiology Education: The Rise of Digital-Learning Tools, 2022, 27728129, 10.1016/j.cjcpc.2022.12.005
    2. Sean Martin, Brittany Rocque, Juliet Emamaullee, Social Media in Transplantation: An Opportunity for Outreach, Research Promotion, and Enhancing Workforce Diversity, 2022, 106, 0041-1337, 2108, 10.1097/TP.0000000000004143
    3. Maiar Elhariry, Kashish Malhotra, Michelle Solomon, Kashish Goyal, Punith Kempegowda, Top 100 #PCOS influencers: Understanding who, why and how online content for PCOS is influenced, 2022, 13, 1664-2392, 10.3389/fendo.2022.1084047
    4. Maarten Albersen, Eduard Roussel, Re: Nicholas Corsi, David-Dan Nguyen, Mohit Butaney, et al. Top 100 Urology Influencers on Twitter: Is Social Media Influence Associated with Academic Impact? Eur Urol Focus. In press. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2022.09.009, 2022, 24054569, 10.1016/j.euf.2022.10.007
    5. Marcela Araujo de Oliveira Santana, Saira Butt, The Top 100 Twitter Influencers in Infectious Diseases, 2023, 5, 2641-5917, 36, 10.1097/IM9.0000000000000111
    6. Jaroslava Kaňková, Alice Binder, Jörg Matthes, Health-Related Communication of Social Media Influencers: A Scoping Review, 2024, 1041-0236, 1, 10.1080/10410236.2024.2397268
    7. Ayushi Garg, Aalam Sohal, Shivam Kalra, Carol Singh, Ishandeep Singh, Jasneet Grewal, Rohin Kansal, Kashish Malhotra, Ramit Mahajan, Vandana Midha, Arshdeep Singh, Ajit Sood, Ashvind Bawa, Inflammatory Bowel Disease and X (Formerly Twitter) Influencers: Who Are They and What Do They Say?, 2023, 2168-8184, 10.7759/cureus.47536
    8. Krestina L. Amon, Melissa Brunner, Andrew J. Campbell, The Reel Health Care Professionals of Instagram: A Systematic Review, 2024, 27, 2152-2715, 172, 10.1089/cyber.2023.0311
    9. Alexis Miller, Ankita Patro, Madelyn N. Stevens, David Scott Fortune, Alexander Gelbard, David S. Haynes, Michael C. Topf, #OtoTwitter: The Top 75 Twitter Influencers in Otolaryngology and Association With Academic Impact, 2024, 170, 0194-5998, 1676, 10.1002/ohn.721
    10. Conner Howard, Ryan McIntire, J. Michael Anderson, Carter Stewart, Haddon McIntosh, James Cornwell, Kim Barron, The top sports medicine influencers on X (formerly Twitter), 2023, 0264-0414, 1, 10.1080/02640414.2023.2259723
    11. Mikołaj Kamiński, Agata Fogel, Adrianna Dylik, Matylda Kręgielska-Narożna, Paweł Bogdański, Whose tweets about obesity and weight loss gain the most attention: celebrities, political, or medical authorities?, 2024, 0307-0565, 10.1038/s41366-024-01689-y
    12. Jaroslava Kaňková, Alice Binder, Jörg Matthes, Helpful or harmful? Navigating the impact of social media influencers’ health advice: insights from health expert content creators, 2024, 24, 1471-2458, 10.1186/s12889-024-21095-3
    13. Boyu Ma, Jamie Rose, Edwin M. Rojas, Jaime Castro-Núñez, Is oral and maxillofacial surgery lagging behind other specialties on X?, 2025, 29, 1865-1569, 10.1007/s10006-025-01359-x
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(3554) PDF downloads(357) Cited by(3)

Figures and Tables

Figures(4)  /  Tables(3)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog