ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of navy bean starch nanoparticles prepared via ultrasound, enzymatic debranching, and their synergistic application.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Biocomposite Films Reinforced With Nano Navy Bean Starch: Application and Characterization.Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Navy bean starch (NS) nanoparticles were prepared using ultrasonication, enzymatic debranching, and their combined application. Ultrasonication was conducted at power levels ranging from 100 to 600 W for durations up to 25 min, while enzymatic debranching was carried out for up to 360 min. In the combined treatment, starch was subjected to ultrasound (300-600 W) in conjunction with enzymatic action for up to 30 min.The samples were selected based on the best particle size, amylose content, and reducing sugar values. The ultrasonicated starch sample (US) was chosen at 600 watts for 3 min, the enzymatically debranched sample (ES) at 15 min, and the combined sample (E-US) at 450 watts for 15 min. The particle sizes of the NS, US, ES, and E-US samples were 7480, 231.08, 230.4, and 25 nm, respectively. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed surface fissures in NS and US samples, grooves in ES, and irregularity in E-US. The swelling index rose in NS and US while debranching improved solubility in ES and E-US. In vitro digestibility indicated good resistant starch in ES and E-US from retrogradation, confirmed by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) analyses. Fourier-transform infrared analysis (FTIR) showed samples were organized in crystalline structures, and X-ray diffraction (XRD) indicated E-US had the highest crystallinity.Finally, The E-US sample, treated with 450W ultrasound for 15 min, showed the smallest particle size and highest modification efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.