To investigate differences among fiber sources, physical profiles of 12 fiber types were determined based on particle size, hydrated volume expansion, water‐holding capacity (with respect to ionic strength and pH) and temperature effects. Each fiber was characterized by distinctly different functional or physical properties. In most cases, dry density was found to be directly proportional to hydrated density. The responses to pH effects, varying ionic strength, and mono‐ and divalent cations proved to be highly individualized. Exposure of fiber types to increased temperatures resulted in enlarged, elongated particles and structural damage. Thus, individual fiber responses to possible processing conditions should be taken into consideration when selecting a fiber source. The variability here might also serve to explain the variability often noted when physiological effects of plant fibers are evaluated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
PARROTT et al. (1978) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: