Production of Soy Protein Concentrates Using a Combination of Electroacidification and Ultrafiltration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soy protein concentrates produced by combining electroacidification and dead-end ultrafiltration with a membrane of 100 kDa (pH 7 and 6) were compared with concentrates produced by ultrafiltration (pH 9) and a traditional acid precipitation procedure at pH 4.5. Mineral removal during ultrafiltration (mainly potassium, phosphorus, and calcium) was enhanced for the pH 6 electroacidified extract, compared to the extract at pH 9. This yielded a concentrate with improved solubility characteristics. The solubility for the concentrate prepared at pH 6 was enhanced by as high as 45% when compared to the concentrate at pH 9. The concentrate produced according to the traditional acid precipitation process showed mineral contents and solubility profile similar to those of the pH 6 concentrate, but required twice as much water during the process. The effect of electroacidification treatments on ultrafiltration permeate flux was quantified through the measurement of the different hydraulic resistances. Cake resistance was the main resistance to the permeate flux, and it was minimum at pH 9, maximum at pH 7, and intermediate at pH 6.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".