Manteca de tucuma
Nombre INCI: Astrocaryum Vulgare Seed Butter.
Valores publicados
| Índice de saponificación | 181.9–182.9 mg KOH/g (typ. 182.42) |
| Usado por la calculadora | 182.4 mg KOH/g (típico) |
| SAP para NaOH | 0.1300 g/g |
| Índice de yodo | 2.78–2.78 g I₂/100 g |
| INS (SAP − índice de yodo) | 180 |
| Punto de fusión | 30–32 °C (typ. 31) |
| Materia insaponificable | — |
Una pastilla hecha 100 % de manteca de tucuma
Cualidades convencionales sumadas a partir de los grupos de ácidos grasos; una pastilla de un solo aceite es una referencia, no una receta.
La calculadora usa el valor publicado, porque es lo que dice la fuente. Si está montando una receta con mucho de este ingrediente, sopese el riesgo: con un 26 % desplazaría su álcali más o menos otro tanto en la parte del lote que ocupa. Un certificado de análisis de su propio lote lo zanja. Las notas de abajo registran qué documentos se consultaron.
Perfil de ácidos grasos
| Ácido graso | Rango publicado, % | Usado | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ácido cáprico | C10:0 · saturados | 1.46–1.46 | 1.5 |
| Ácido láurico | C12:0 · saturados | 44–55 | 49.5 |
| Ácido mirístico | C14:0 · saturados | 22–30 | 26.0 |
| Ácido palmítico | C16:0 · saturados | 6.94–6.94 | 6.9 |
| Ácido linoleico | C18:2 | 1.48–1.48 | 1.5 |
De dónde salen estos números
Las notas con fuente que aparecen debajo, y los títulos de los documentos que citan, se mantienen en su idioma original. Una cita traducida no se puede consultar, y un resumen técnico traducido ya no es el resumen que se contrastó con el documento.
Table 2 (SAP, calculated iodine) and Table 3 (GC-MS fatty acids) for tucuma butter, plus discussion text (p.5) quoting the raw-material supplier's own spec range for lauric/myristic. Open-access PDF read in full.
Producer page confirms CAS 98143-57-8 and 'Awara' as a regional synonym; describes the butter as similar to palm kernel butter with a higher melting point but gives no numeric SAP/iodine/fatty-acid/melting-point values.
Source is Feitosa et al. 2021 (Rev Cienc Farm Basica Apl, open access, read in full as a PDF) throughout, for a commercial tucuma (Astrocaryum vulgare Mart.) butter lot from Belem, Brazil. SAP (182.42 +/- 0.48 mg KOH/g, Table 2, direct titration) and iodine (2.78 g I2/100g) were both directly attributed to this study, BUT note the paper's methodology section states that for tucuma and ucuuba specifically (unlike murumuru/bacuri), iodine index was CALCULATED from the GC-MS fatty-acid profile via a standard formula (Instituto Adolfo Lutz method, using palmitoleic/oleic/linoleic/linolenic/gadoleic/erucic percentages), not measured by direct Wijs titration - flagging this per the clean-room rule on calculated-vs-measured values. Fatty acid composition is a hybrid: lauric (44-55%) and myristic (22-30%) are NOT this paper's own GC-MS result for their specific lot - they are the range from 'the supplier report' that Feitosa et al. quote in their discussion (p.5) as the comparison spec their tested lot failed to match. This supplier-quoted range was preferred as more representative because it aligns with other literature the paper cites (Pardauil et al., cited in Feitosa's ref 28: lauric 48%, myristic 25%, oleic 13.5% for tucuma kernel oil - NOT independently opened by me, known only via Feitosa's citation of it) and with general secondary literature indicating tucuma is lauric-dominant. Feitosa et al.'s OWN directly-measured GC-MS result for their specific lot was myristic-dominant and inverted: myristic 53.26%, lauric 19.63%, palmitic 6.94%, capric 1.46%, linoleic 1.48%, plus 5.80% 'elidic acid' (C18:1 trans-9, i.e. elaidic acid - a trans fat, excluded here as it has no matching schema key) and 4.05% labeled 'myristic acid derivate' (unclear identity, also excluded - no matching schema key). Palmitic/capric/linoleic values above ARE this paper's own direct GC-MS measurement (Table 3), since the supplier-quoted range did not cover those acids. A human merging this record should decide whether the supplier-range or Feitosa's own directly-measured (myristic-dominant) figures better represent the ingredient for this database - both are printed in the one document I opened. Unsaponifiable matter: not reported in Feitosa et al. 2021; a separate, unopened source (Pereira et al. 2019, Food Chem, cited as ref 11 in Feitosa et al. but not independently fetched by me) is mentioned in general web search summaries as reporting ~0.47% for tucuma kernel fat, but I could not verify this figure myself against the primary document, so it is left null rather than transcribed secondhand.
Esta ficha forma parte de la base de datos abierta de ingredientes (ODbL). ¿Ha encontrado un error o una fuente primaria mejor? El conjunto de datos está en GitHub; las correcciones con un enlace al documento son bienvenidas.