ISSN:  1579-­4377  

WAXING AS A METHOD OF PRESERVATION OF PLANTAIN (Musa

paradisiaca Linn): EFFECT ON THE STARCH YIELD,
PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND AMYLOSE CONTENT OF
PLANTAIN STARCH.

Adetuyi F.O* and Ajala Lola

Food Science and Technology department, Rufus Giwa Polytechnic P.M.B 1019, Owo, Ondo State, Nigeria.
foluadetuyi@yahoo.co.uk
 

ABSTRACT

The starch yield, physicochemical and amylose content of plantain starch as affected by
waxing method of preservation of plantain (Musa paradisiaca Linn) were investigated. The
percentage yield of plantain starch was 16.7%; it has a low foaming capacity of 4.1%. The
water absorption and oil absorption capacities of plantain starch were 145% g/g and 138.5%
g/g. It has a low bulk density of 0.417g/ml and amylose content of 14.22%. The starch yield,
physicochemical and amylose content of waxed plantain (WSB and WPW) were
significantly (P>0.05) higher than the unwaxed plantain (UW) at the end of the storage
period except the Least gelation concentration. It was also observed that there was no
significant (P>0.05) difference in the starch yield and the physicochemical properties of the
waxed samples. Ripening was found to have caused the reduction in the starch yield and the
physicochemical properties with the exception of bulk density because the unwaxed samples
ripened in storage earlier than the waxed samples. Ripening of plantain should be prevented
in order to maximize the plantain starch yield and its physicochemical properties.

KEYWORDS

Plantain, Starch, Physicochemical properties, Amylose, Storage

 Adetuyi F.O et al. EJEAFChe, 9 (4), 2010. [820-828]

INTRODUCTION

Plantain (Musa paradisiaca Linn) with world production index of 63million tonnes per year
is a very important fruits of the tropics and sub tropics where both ripe and unripe fruits are
eaten [1, 2 & 3]. It has been revealed that Nigeria produced 2.1 million metric tons in 2004
[4]. They are high in carbohydrates, containing about 35% carbohydrate, 0.2-0.3% fat, 1.2%
protein, 6.0-7.0% fibre and 0.8% Ash. They are also a good source of potassium,
magnesium, phosphorus, calcium and iron as well as vitamins A and C [5]. From the
nutritional point of view, these fruits are among the green vegetables with the richest iron
and other nutrients contents [6]. However they are highly perishable and subjected to fast
deterioration as their moisture content and high metabolic activities persist after harvest []7.
Together, plantain and banana constitute the forth most important global food commodity
after rice, wheat and maize in terms of gross values of production [1 & 2].
Plantains (Musa paradisiaca Linn) are major starch staple crops of considerable
importance in the developing world. They are consumed as an energy yielding food and as a
dessert. It has been estimated that plantain and other bananas provide nearly 60 million
people in Africa with more than 200 calories (food energy) a day. Nearly 90% of the total
banana and plantain produced worldwide are consumed locally in producing countries
leaving only 10% for export [1, 2 & 8]. The colour of plantain probably contributes more to
the assessment of quality by the consumer than any other single factor. Therefore, peel and
pulp colours of plantains are important post harvest selection criteria. The market quality and
consumer acceptability of plantain are significantly influenced by the colour of fruit. In some
countries e.g. Ghana, Nigeria e.t.c. consumers have developed distinct correlations between
colour and the overall quality of plantain [9].
Starch exists as a major carbohydrate storage product in all plant containing
chlorophyll. Starch is a carbohydrate polymer made by linking of glucose units end – to –
end into very long chains similar to the stringing together of pearls in the making of a pearl
necklace [10]. Starch is the major dietary component in all human populations. The recent
consensus on healthy eating habits favours an increase in the proportion of polymeric plant
carbohydrates (including starch) in our daily diet [11]. However, the main purpose of starch
utilization in foods remains functional than nutritional. Starch contributes greatly to the
textural properties of various foods and has many industrial applications as a thickener,
colloidal, stabilizer, gelling agent bulking agent, water retention agent and adhesive. It is
also used as fillers, binders and disintergrants in tablets formulations [11, 12 & 13]. It has
been revealed that plantain starch could be useful as an alternative binding agent to corn
starch especially where faster disintegration is required and the problems of lamination and
capping are particular concern in tablets formulation [13]. The Objective of this work was,
therefore to evaluate the effect of waxing of plantain as a storage method on the yield, the
physicochemical properties, and Amylose content of plantain starch. This will be useful for
assessing the waxing method that could be used to store plantain and still maximize the
starch yield and its properties if plantain starch is going to be exploited in Nigeria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The plantain (Musa paradisiaca Linn) used for this work were freshly harvested matured
green plantain bought from ‘Emure’ market in Owo Local Government of Ondo State. They
were divided into three parts. One part was waxed with melted shea butter (SBW) another

  821  
 Adetuyi F.O et al. EJEAFChe, 9 (4), 2010. [820-828]

one was waxed with petroleum wax (PW) while the last one was left un waxed (UW). They
were all stored at room temperature (30oC±1oC) Sampling and starch isolation were done on
alternate days until the unwaxed becomes ripen.

Starch Isolation

Plantain starch isolation was carried out according to the method of [11]. The Fruits were
peeled and cut into 5 – 6 cm cubes (200g total weight) and immediately rinsed in sodium
sulphite (1.22g/l) and then homogenated at low speed in a warring blender with 500ml of
water for 2min. The homogenate was sieved using 200mm Endicott sieve until the washing
water was clean. The starch was allowed to settle at the button of the container and the water
on top was decanted. The resultant starch sediments were dried in an oven at 40oC for
48hours, ground to pass through a 60mesh sieve and stored in a flamed sealed cellophane
bag at room temperature (30oC±1oC) until further use. The starch yield, the
physicochemical properties and the amylose content of the starch isolates were determined.
All determinations were done in triplicates.
The starch yield was calculated as the percentage of starch gotten from the pulp using
the formula gram of starch obtain/gram of the pulp x 100. The packed bulk density and the
loose density of the starch samples were determined according to the method described by
[14] and were calculated as mass of starch per unit volume (g/ml). The water and oil
absorption capacity (WAC) and (OAC) of the starch were determined using method
described by [15]. The weight of water or oil absorbed by the starch was calculated as WAC
or OAC. The method of [16] was used for the determination of Least gelation concentration
(LGC). Increasing starch concentrations were suspended in 10ml of water in test tubes and
heated in a boiling water bath for 1 hour. The tubes were rapidly cooled to 4oC. The least
gelation concentration (%) was taken as the minimum concentration when the sample in an
inverted tube did not slip or fall down. The method of [17] was used for the determination of
foaming capacity. The method of [18] was used to determine the swelling capacity. Swelling
capacity was determined by dispersing 0.5 g of starch samples in 20 mL of distilled water in
a pre-weighed centrifuge tubes. The slurry was heated in a thermostatically controlled water
bath at 60oC for 30 min with shaking every 5 min to keep the starch granules suspended.
The heated slurry was then cooled to room temperature and centrifuged at 12,100 x g for 10
min to separate gel and supernatant. The supernatant was decanted carefully. Weight of
swollen starch was determined and swelling capacity was determined as the ratio of the
weight of the swollen starch to the weight of the starch sample. The viscosity was
determined using [16] method with slight modification. 10g of the starch was dispersed in
150ml of water using a magnetic stirrer at 1000rpm and heated to 100oC in a water bath for
30mins. The slurry obtained was stirred constantly and cooled at 20oC. The viscosity was
measured using a viscometer (MLV model). The method of [19] was used in the
determination of amylase. 1g of sample was weighed into a 100ml volumetric flask, 1ml of
95%Ethanol and 10ml of 0.5MKOH was added. The mixture was diluted to 100ml with
distilled water. 5ml aliquot of the diluted solution was taken into 100ml volumetric flask and
three drops of 0.1% phenolphthalein solution was added. The resulting solution was
neutralized using 1M HCL drop wise until neutral pH was achieved 2ml of 0.2% iodine
solution in 2% KI was added to the neutralized solution and made to volume with distilled
water. Standard solutions of amylose of range 0-10ppm were prepared from 100ppm stock
amylose. The absorbance of sample and standard solutions were taken after 30mins of

  822  
 Adetuyi F.O et al. EJEAFChe, 9 (4), 2010. [820-828]

addition of 0.2% iodine solution on a Spectronic 21D Spectrophotometer at a wavelength of

630nm.

Statistical análisis

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the results for each quality variable to
determine the significance of the storage method used. Mean were compared by the least
significance difference LSD test significance was accepted at P>0.05.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The percentage yield of starch from the plantain as presented in Figure 1. It showed that the
percentage of starch isolated from the plantain was 16.67%. This was a little higher than the
value reported for plantain starch 10 – 12% [20] and soy bean starch 11.7% [21]. This value
however was low when compared with starch yield of cassava 24.4% [22]. The starch yield
reduced significantly (P>0.05) as the days of storage increases. This agreed with the
observation of Osunsanmi et al [22] that the starch yield of cassava reduced with storage. In
the case of plantain, it tends to ripened in storage, the starch / carbohydrate is converted to
sugar. It is noteworthy that there was no significant (P>0.05) difference in the starch
obtained from the waxed samples as the days of storage increase.

Figure 1: Percentage starch yield from plantain

Value represent mean of triplicate. Values with the same letter along the same column are not significantly
different (P>0.05). UW – Unwaxed, WSB – Waxed with sheabutter, WPW – Waxed with petroleum wax.

  823  
 Adetuyi F.O et al. EJEAFChe, 9 (4), 2010. [820-828]

The foaming capacity, water and oil absorption capacity are presented in Table 1.
Table 1: WAC, OAC and FC of plantain starch.
WAC in OAC in FC in
% g/g % g/g %
Day UW WSB WPW UW WSB WPW UW WSB WPW
s
0 145.0±0. 145.0±0. 145.0±0. 138.5±0. 138.5±0. 138.5±0. 4.12±0. 4.12±0. 4.12±0.
1a 1a 1a 3a 3ª 3a 1a 1a 1a
2 121.5±0. 141.5±0. 140.0±0. 115.8±0. 135.5±0. 136.0±0. 4.36±0. 4.40±0. 4.56±0.
0c 1b 3b 1c 1b 1b 3b 1b 1b
4 120.0±0. 140.0±0. 137.0±0. 112.5±0. 130.0±0. 133.0±0. 4.16±0. 4.02±0. 4.00±0.
1c 2b 1b 2c 3b 2b 2b 3b 2b
6 113.0±0. 131.5±0. 133.0±0. 110.0±0. 128.0±0. 130.5±0. 3.00±0. 3.96±0. 3.97±0.
3d 1b 1b 2d 1b 1b 2c 1b 1b
Value represent mean of triplicate. Values with the same letter along the same column are not significantly
different (P>0.05). UW – Unwaxed, WSB – Waxed with sheabutter, WPW – Waxed with petroleum wax.

The foaming capacity of the starch was 4.1%. This was low when compared with the
foaming capacity if cocoyam starch 11.64% [23]. The low level of the foaming capacity
could be attributed to the low protein content of the starch which is a good foaming agent
[24]. The foaming capacity of the plantain starch increased significant (P>0.05) in the first
days of storage and then decreased significantly (P>0.05). At the end of the storage period
there was no significant difference between WSB (3.96%) and WPW (3.97%). The low
foaming capacity of plantain starch will not make it useful aerating foods [16].
Imbibition of water is an important functional trait in food such as sausages, custards
and dough. Since high water absorption capacity (WAC) may assure product cohesiveness
[25 & 26]. The water absorption capacity (WAC) of the starch was found to be 145%.
Plantain starch has a high WAC when compared to the starch from Sipiera (98%) and
Telefou (96%) cultivars of Irish potato [27] but lower to the values reported for Bambara
groundnut starch 167% [28]. The WAC reduced significantly (P>0.05) as the storage period
increased in the UW and not significant (P>0.05) in the WSB and WPW. The reduction in
the WAC is probably due to the reduction in the hydrophilic bonds which is as a result of the
reduction in protein content of the plantain starch and the conversion of the carbohydrate to
glucose during ripening. At the end of the storage period there was no significant (P>0.05)
difference in WSB and WPW.
Oil absorption capacity (OAC) is useful in structure interaction in food especially in
flavour retention improvement of palatability and extension of shelf life particularly in
bakery or meat products [25]. The OAC of plantain starch was 138.5%. This value was high
in comparison to the OAC of Bambara groundnut starch 101%, Sipiere (60%) and Telefou
(60%) cultivars of Irish potatoes [28 &27]. The OAC of plantain starch behave in the same
way as WAC during storage. The reduction in OAC of plantain starch could be related to the
reduction of the hydroxyl groups to form hydrogen and covalent bonds between starch
chains as the starch were been converted to glucose during the process of ripening.
The swelling capacity (SWC), Least Gelation capacity (LGC) and viscosity of
plantain starch are presented in Table 2. The swelling capacity (SWC) of starch depends on
the capacity of starch molecules to hold water through hydrogen bonding. After
gelatinization these hydrogen bonds between starch molecules are broken and replaced by

  824  
 Adetuyi F.O et al. EJEAFChe, 9 (4), 2010. [820-828]

hydrogen bonds with water [18]. The swelling capacity and solubility can be used to assess
the extent of interaction between starch chains, within the amorphous and crystalline
domains of the starch granule [29]. The swelling capacity SWC of plantain starch was found
to be 8.2%. This value was low when compared with the SWC of starches from different
corn varieties 13.7% - 20.7% [30] and native cassava starch 28.7% [31]. The swelling
capacity has been shown to be influenced by the amylose/ amylopectin ratio and by the
characteristics of amylose and amylopectin in terms of molecular weight distribution, degree
of branching, length of branches and conformation of the molecules [29]. The SWC of the
plantain starch reduced significantly (P>0.05) during storage, the value observed for UW
was significantly (P>0.05) higher than the WSB and WPW in the first four days of storage.
Table 2: SWC, LGC and VIS of plantain starch.
SWC in LGC in VIS in
% % CP
Day UW WSB WPW UW WSB WPW UW WSB WPW
s
0 8.2±0.09a 8.2±0.09 8.2±0.09 4.0±0.1 4.0±0.1 4.0±0.1 44±0.09a 44±0.09 44±0.09
a a b b b a a
2 6.8±0.04 5.3±0.09 5.7±0.11 5.0±0.2a 5.0±0.1a 4.0±0.4 42±0.09a 43±0.09 43±0.09
b c c b a a
4 6.6±0.02 5.0±0.07 5.4±0.07 5.0±0.1a 4.0±0.4 5.0±0.3a 36±0.09 42±0.09 41±0.09
b c c b b a a
6 4.1±0.07 5.0±0.03 5.0±0.10 4.0±0.1 4.0±0.1 4.0±0.3 30±0.09 39±0.09 40±0.09
d c c b b b b a a

Value represent mean of triplicate. Values with the same letter along the same column are not significantly
different (P>0.05). UW – Unwaxed, WSB – Waxed with sheabutter, WPW – Waxed with petroleum wax.

The Least gelation concentration (LGC) of the plantain starch was 4.0%. This starch
could be used in food production because gels enhance the body and texture of a product by
solidifying the free water in the food [23]. It was observed that there was no significant
(P>0.05) difference in the LGC of plantain starch of both the waxed and unwaxed plantain in
storage. This means that ripening has no effect on the LGC of starch isolated from plantain.
The viscosity of a liquid system is its resistance to flow due to internal friction. The
so called viscosity of a starch solution is the combined effects of a number of inherent
properties. The effect results from the residual granular particles of new colloidal groupings
that take place during the starch cooking process [32]. The viscosity of the plantain starch
was found to be 44cps at 100oC. The viscosity reduced significantly (P>0.05) as the days of
storage of plantain increased in UW. It is to be noted that the value reported for the UW
(30cp) at the end of the storage period was significantly (P>0.05) lower to the WSB and
WPW; this could be attributed to ripening process.
The bulk density of plantain starch as shown in Figure 2 to be 0.417g/ml. This value
was low when compared to the bulk densities of starch from native cocoyam varieties
0.67g/ml and 0.62g/ml [23]. The low bulk density of plantain starch will be an added
advantage in the preparation of supplementary food and this is desired where packaging is a
serious problem [33&34]. The bulk density however increased significantly (P>0.05) as the
storage period of the plantain increased. At the end of the storage period the bulk density
recorded were 0.488g/ml (UW), 0.565g/ml (WSB) and 0.544g/ml (WPW). This observation
showed that ripening causes increase in bulk density, this agreed with the observation of

  825  
 Adetuyi F.O et al. EJEAFChe, 9 (4), 2010. [820-828]

Fagbemi [16] that ripening increased the bulk density of plantain flour. However ripening
causes the reduction of starch to sugar (glucose) which supposes to reduce the bulk density
as observed by Bahattacharya and Prakash [35] that bulk density of food increases with
increase in starch content.

Figure 2: Bulk density of plantain starch

Value represent mean of triplicate. Values with the same letter along the same column are not significantly
different (P>0.05). UW – Unwaxed, WSB – Waxed with sheabutter, WPW – Waxed with petroleum wax.

The amylose content of plantain starch is presented in Figure 3. The amylase content
was found to be 14.22%. This value was within the range reported for plantain starch 9.11 –
17.16% [36], native cassava starch 16.71% and cocoyam starch 16.27% [31&18] but lower
to the value reported for Sipiera (32.14%), Telefou (38.40%) cultivars of Irish potato and
Bambara groundnut starch 21.67% [27&28]. Starches with a high percentage of amylose are
difficult to gelatinize because of the extra energy needed to hydrate and disintegrate the
firmly- bonded crystalline aggregates of amylose [10]. The amylose content of the plantain
starch reduced significantly (P>0.05) in WSB and WPW, this probably implies that ripening
causes reduction in the amylose content of the plantain starch.

  826  
 Adetuyi F.O et al. EJEAFChe, 9 (4), 2010. [820-828]

Figure 3: Amylose content of plantain starch

Value represent mean of triplicate. Values with the same letter along the same column are not significantly
different (P>0.05). UW – Unwaxed, WSB – Waxed with sheabutter, WPW – Waxed with petroleum wax.
 
CONCLUSION
 
It is concluded that ripening of plantain should be prevented in order to maximize the
plantain starch yield and its physicochemical properties. Waxing of plantain with shea butter
or petroleum wax has extended the ripening time of plantain because the unwaxed plantain
were already ripened before the end of the experiment. The properties of starch from the
waxed samples were not significantly (P>0.05) different; waxing could be used to preserve
plantain in order to maximize these desired properties of plantain starch. It is suggested that
the effect of other post harvest storage method of plantain on the properties of plantain starch
should be explored.

REFERENCES

1. CGIAR. CGIAR Technical Advisory Committee. TAC Secretariat FAO, Rome, Italy. (1992)
2. CGIAR. CGIAR Secretariat, World Bank, Washington, D.C., USA. (1993)
3. Macdonald, I and Low, J. Evans publishers London. Pg 137. (1990)
4. Aborisade, A. T and Akomolafe, O. M. Asian J. Plt. Sci. 6, [3] 523- 527. (2007)
5. Marriott, J. and Lancaster, P. A. In Handbook of Tropical Foods (H. T. Chan Jr, ed.) Marcel Dekker
Inc., New York and Basel. Pp. 85-143 (1983)
6. Aremu, C. Y and Udoessien, E. I. Food chem. 37, 229- 240. (1990)
7. Damirel, D and Turhan, M. J. Fd. Engr. 59, 1- 11. (2003)
8. Stover, R. H. and Simmonds, N. W. Banana (3rd edition). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. 468p.
(1987)

  827  
 Adetuyi F.O et al. EJEAFChe, 9 (4), 2010. [820-828]

9. Dadzie, B. K and Orchard, J. E. Inibap Technical Guidelines. Available at www.ipgri.cgiar.org.

(1997)
10. Corn Refiners Assosiation. Corn starch 11th edition pg 11. Available at www.corn.org (2006)
11. Bello-Perez L. A., Meza-Leon, K., Contreras-Ramos, S and Paredes-Lopez, O. Food Technology Acta
Científica Venezolana. 52, 62–67. (2001)
12. Singh, N., Singh, J., Kaur, L., Sodhi, N. S., Gill, B. S. Food Chem. 81: 219-231. (2003)
13. Akin-Ajani, O. D., Itiola, O. A and Odeku O. A. PharmSciTech 6 [3] Articl 57 E458 – E463. (2005)
14. Okezie, B.O and Bello A. B. J. Food Sci. 53, 450 - 454. (1988)
15. Beuchat LR. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 25, 258-261. (1977)
16. Fagbemi T. N. Plt. Fd. Human Nut 54, 261 – 269. (1999)
17. Coffman, C. W, and Garcia, V.V. J. Food Technnol. 12, 473 - 484. (1977)
18. Mweta, D. E., Labuschagne, M. T., Koen, E., Benesi, I. R. M and Saka, J. D. K. African J. Fd. Sci. 2,
102-111. (2008)
19. Sowbhagya, C. M. and Bhattacharya, K. R. Starch. 31:159-163. (1979)
20. Pérez-Sira E. Starch 49, [2] 45 – 49. (2006)
21. 21. Stevenson D. G., Russell K. Doorenbos, R. S., Jay-lin Jane and George E. Ingletta, G. E.
Starch/Stärke 58, 509–519. (2006)
22. Osunsami A. T., Akingbala J. O and Oguntimein G. B. Starch 41, [2] 54 – 57. (2006)
23. Ojinnaka M. C., Akobundu E. N. T. and Iwe, M.O. Pakistan J. Nutr. 8 [5] 558-567. (2009)
24. Ayele, T and Nip W. K. Int. J.Food Sci. Techno. 29: 457- 462. (1994)
25. Adebowale, K. O. and Lawal, O. S. Nahrung/Food. 46: 311-316. (2004)
26. Houssou, P and Ayernor, G. S. Afr. J. Sci. Technnol. 3, [1]:126 - 131. (2002)
27. Mbougueng, P. D., Tenin, D., Scher, J and Tchiegang, C. J. Fd. Tech. 6, [3] 139 – 146. (2008)
28. Sirivongpaisal P. Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 30 [Suppl.1], 51-56. (2008)
29. Ratnayake, W. S., Hoover, R., and Warkentin, T. Starch/Starke, 54, 217– 234. (2002)
30. Sandhu, K. S and Singh N. Food Chemistry 101, 1499–1507. (2007)
31. Numfor, F. A., Walter Jr W. M and Schwartz, J. Starch 47, [3] 86 – 91. (1995)
32. Delahaye, E. P., Maldonaldo, R., Perz, E and Schroeder, M. Intersciencia 33, [004] 290- 296. (2008)
33. Akubor, P. I, and Obiegbuna, J. E. J. Food. Sci. Technnol. 36, 241 - 243. (1999)
34. Ikujenlola, A. V. J. Eng. App. Sci. 39, [6] 471 – 475. (2008)
35. Bhattacharya, S. M. and Prakash, A. J. Food Eng. 21: 315-330. (1994)
36. Eggleston G, Swennen R and, Akoni S. Starch 44, (4) 121 – 128. (2006)

  828