Chitin variability with species and method of preparation

Brine, Charles J.; Austin, Paul R.

doi:10.1016/0305-0491(81)90242-x

Cited by 72 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Lower solubility values suggest incomplete removal of protein and acetyl group (Brine and Austin 1981;Islam et al 1981) since solubility of chitosan depends on the removal of acetyl group from chitin. Therefore, the lower DD value and the presence of protein contaminants in the sample during the process of analysis could adversely interfere with the results (Nessa et al 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of the most suitable crustacean exoskeleton waste from fish processing industry to isolate chitosan

Sanuja

Kalutharage

Cumaranatunga

2017

Sri Lanka J. Aquat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shell waste produced by the sea food industry is one of the most significant problems contributing for environmental and health hazards. The most frequent method employed for disposal of these waste is burning which is environmentally costly due to low burning capacity of shells. In such a scenario, conversion of shrimp shell waste to chitosan, a commercially valuable product with a myriad of uses, could serve as an effective mode of shell remediation. Chitosan was obtained from shellfish waste by deproteination, demineralization, discoloration and deacetylation processes. It was characterized using Fourier Transformed Infra-Red (FT-IR) spectroscopy. The physico-chemical parameters such as moisture content, ash content, solubility, N-content, water binding capacity (WBC), fat binding capacity (FBC) and degree of deacetylation (DD) were analysed to compare the extracted six chitosan samples from Penaeus monodon, Portunus pelagicus, Portunus sanguinolentus, Scylla serrata, Panulirus homarus and Panulirus versicolor. The ranges for percentage yield, moisture content, ash content, N-content, percentage solubility, and WBC were 14.53±0.47%-34.13±3.72%, 3.16±1.77%-7.52±1.11%, 0.65±0.23%-53.52±5.65%, 2.02±0.03% -6.16±0.10%, 15.28±0.62% -47.91±5.15%, and 262.94±20.88% -600.61±58.11% respectively. FBC varied approximately from 250% to 650% in coconut oil, sunflower oil and soybean oil. Among the six chitosan samples, P. monodon was the most suitable crustacean exoskeleton waste from fish processing industry to isolate chitosan due to the fact that in the processing of shrimps for human consumption, 40 -50 % of the total mass is discarded as waste and high quality of chitosan extracted. Therefore, there is a high possibility of extracting good quality chitosan using exoskeleton waste of Penaeus monodon.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selection of the most suitable crustacean exoskeleton waste from fish processing industry to isolate chitosan

Sanuja

Kalutharage

Cumaranatunga

2017

Sri Lanka J. Aquat.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shrimp shell chitosan samples treated with 50% and 60% NaOH were found to have excellent solubility ranging from 96.01% to 97.2% with no significant difference (Table 3). Brine and Austin (1981) noted that lower solubility values suggested incomplete removal of protein and acetyl group. Since solubility of chitosan depends on the removal of acetyl group from chitin, therefore the lower DD value could adversely interfere with the results.…”

Section: Solubilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Production and characterization of chitosan from shrimp waste

Hossain

Iqbal

2014

J Bangladesh Agric Univ

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chitosan has been produced from shrimp waste by chemical method involving demineralization, deproteinization and deacetylation. The quality of chitosan depends on the conditions of the chemical extraction process. The results showed that 3% HCI and 4% NaOH were suitable concentration for demineralization and deproteinization, respectively at ambient temperature (28±2 o C). Chitosan with a high degree of deacetylation (81.24%) and high solubility (97.65%) was obtained by deacetylation with 60% NaOH for 24 hours at 60°C. Purified chitosan was characterized for intrinsic viscosity (13.2dl/g), molecular weight (1.05×10 6 Dalton), FBC (427.98%), WBC (537.29%) as well as yield (15.4%).

show abstract

“…These crystalline structures of chitin are evidenced by x-ray diffraction studies which (1989) Brezski (1982) Shahidi and Synowiecki (1991) Synowiecki et al (1981) Brezski (1982) No et al (1989) Brezski (1982) Mirna et al (1983) Shahidi and Synowiecki (1991) Synowiecki et al (1981) No et al (1989) Brine and Austin (1981) No et al (1989) Brezski (1982) Kurita et al (1993) No et al (1989) Brine and Austin (1981) Brine and Austin (1981) No et al (1989) Mirna et al (1983) Kurita et al (1993) Brezski (1989) No et al (1989) Shahidi and Synowiecki (1991) Brine and Austin (1981) show three polymorphic forms of a-chitin, ~-chitin, y-chitin (Roberts, 1992;Shimojoh, 1998). The chitin of insect and crustacean cuticle occurs in the form of microfibrills typically 10-25 nm in diameter and 2-3 µm in length.…”

Section: Conversion Of Chitin To Chitosan Is Achieved By Treatment Wimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is depolymerized by strong mineral acids, but is partially soluble in mixtures of dimethylacetamide (DMAC) and LiCl (No and Meyers, 1995). Brine and Austin (1981) reported variations in the solubility (28-99%) of chitin from different species using a number of preparation methods. These workers noted that lower solubility resulted from incomplete removal of protein, and that molecular weight and acetyl content were not the controlling factors for solubility of chitin in 5% LiCl-DMAC solvent.…”

Section: Solubilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The maximum degree of depolymerization occurred when HCl was used for decalcification, followed by CH3COOH and H 2 S0 3 with minimal degradation occurring during EDTA decalcification process (Rutherford and Austin, 1978;Brine and Austin, 1981). There are many methods to determine the molecular weight of chitin and chitosan, such as viscometry (Roberts (Muzzarelli et al, 1987), and gel permeation chromatography (Wu and Bough, 1976).…”

Section: Molecular Weight Of Chitin and Chitosanmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation