Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T23:54:59.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution of polyethylene glycol in suspensions of food particles, especially sugar-beet pulp and dried grass pellets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. W. Czerkawski  and
Grace Breckenridge
J. W. Czerkawski
Affiliation:
Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
Grace Breckenridge
Affiliation:
Hannah Dairy Research Institute, Ayr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. It was shown that when polyethylene glycol (PEG) was added to suspensions of food particles in aqueous buffer solutions, its distribution in the total water of the food mass was not uniform. The marker was excluded from a large proportion of the water contained in the swollen food particles. This effect was independent of temperature, pH, and, within limits, the time of contact.

2. It was shown that the theoretical concentration (C0), assuming a uniform distribution of marker, could be calculated from the observed concentration (C), weight of food in suspension (W) and the total volume of water (V), using the equation C = C0(I + b[W/V]) where b is constant for any given food. The addition of PEG solution to dry food particles gave a smaller effect.

3. The distribution of PEG was usually, but not invariably, more uniform in a suspension of roughages than in a suspension of concentrates.

4. Possible implications of these findings with respect to marker experiments with PEG are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , August 1969 , pp. 559 - 565
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1969

References

Corbett, J. L., Greenhalgh, J. F. D. & Florence, E. (1959). Br. J. Nutr. 13, 337.Google Scholar
Czerkawski, J. W. & Paterson, D. R. (1968). Proc. Nutr. Soc. 27, 33 A.Google Scholar
Engelhardt, W. (1963). Natürwissenschaften 50, 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hydén, S. (1955). Lantbr Högsk. Annlr 22, 139.Google Scholar
Hydén, S. (1961). Lantbr Högsk. Annlr 27, 51.Google Scholar
Manners, M. J. & Kidder, D. E. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDougall, E. I. (1948). Biochem. J. 43, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, M. G., Reid, R. S. & Sutherland, T. M. (1962). J. Physiol., Lond. 164, 26 P.Google Scholar
Sperber, I., Hydén, S. & Ekman, J. (1953). LantbrHögsk. Annlr 20, 337.Google Scholar
Ulyatt, M. J., Blaxter, K. L. & McDonald, I. (1967). Anim. Prod. 9, 463.Google Scholar
Warner, A. C. I. & Stacy, B. D. (1968). Br. J. Nutr. 22, 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar