Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T00:39:55.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A method to measure the water-holding properties of dietary fibre using suction pressure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

J. A. Robertson  and
M. A. Eastwood
J. A. Robertson
Affiliation:
Wolfson Gastrointestinal Laboratories, Department of Medicine, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh EH4 2XU
M. A. Eastwood
Affiliation:
Wolfson Gastrointestinal Laboratories, Department of Medicine, Western General Hospital, Crewe Road South, Edinburgh EH4 2XU
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. Water-holding capacity (WHC) of dietary fibre is usually considered as the amount of water held but the manner in which water is held by the fibre matrix may be more relevant in understanding the role of fibre in nutrition.

2. A method used to determine WHC under physiological conditions has been adapted to determine how strongly water is held by fibre. Solutions of compounds, such as polyethylene glycol, of known osmotic potential are used to generate a suction pressure across a dialysis membrane containing a fibre sample. The WHC at each suction pressure can then be determined.

3. The method can be applied to water-soluble and water-insoluble sources of fibre. Fibre sources studied included potato fibre concentrate, bran and gum arabic.

4. Results are comparable to other similar systems of WHC measurement for gels and suggest that vegetable fibre has water-holding properties more akin to a true gel than bran. Bran has very poor water-holding properties.

5. Differences in WHC between fibre sources are more apparent if WHC is considered as fibre concentration (g fibre/g water).

6. Differences in the water-holding properties could be important in determining fibre activity in the gut.

Type
Papers of direct reference to Clinical and Human Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , September 1981 , pp. 247 - 255
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1981

References

Barrow, G. M. (1966). Physical Chemistry, 2nd ed. Kogakusha: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Blythe, R. H., Gulesich, J. J. & Tuthill, H. L. (1949). J. Am. Pharm. Ass. 38, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodribb, A. J. M. & Groves, C. (1978). Gut 19, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, J. H., Southgate, D. A. T., Branch, W., Houston, H., Jenkins, D. J. A. & James, W. P. T. (1978). Lancet i, 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dainty, J. (1969). In The Physiology of Plant Growth and Development [Wilkins, M. B., editor]. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Flory, P. J. (1953). Principles of Polymer Chemistry. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Labuza, T. P. & Lewicki, P. P. (1978). J. Fd Sci. 43, 1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewicki, P. P., Busk, G. C. & Labuza, T. P. (1979). J. Coll. Interface Sci. 64, 501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, A. A., Eastwood, M. A. & Mitchell, W. D. (1974). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 25, 1457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malawer, S. J. & Powell, D. W. (1967). Gastroenterology 53, 250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. A. & Eastwood, M. A. (1981). Br. J. Nutr. 45, 83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, J. A., Eastwood, M. A. & Yeoman, M. M. (1980). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 31, 633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, A. M. & Cummings, J. H. (1979). Gut 20, 722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stephen, A. M. & Cummings, J. H. (1980). Nature, Lond. 284, 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. (1963). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 46, 829.Google Scholar
Van Soest, P. J. & Vine, R. W. (1967). J. Ass. off. agric. Chem. 50, 50.Google Scholar