Adsorption of Soy Protein Isolate in Oil‐in‐Water Emulsions: Difference Between Native and Spray Dried Isolate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in the emulsifying properties of isolated soy protein prepared in the pilot plant (heated and spray dried) or in the laboratory (unheated and freeze‐dried), from the same soy flakes. When the thermal transitions were measured by micro‐calorimetry, the protein isolated in the pilot plant showed a very broad thermal transition, while the native isolate showed two distinct transition peaks, attributed to β‐conglycinin and glycinin denaturation. Electrophoretic analysis and protein assay of the soluble protein in the fractions revealed a significantly smaller amount of protein recovered in the centrifugal supernatant for the isolated soy protein prepared in the pilot plant than for the native protein. A larger amount of ions was recovered in the pilot plant isolate. However, the thermal treatment of the solutions increased the recovery of the pilot plant isolate proteins in the centrifugal supernatant, with an opposite effect for the native soy protein. A significantly larger amount of pilot plant isolated protein was needed to prepare emulsions with the same characteristics of those prepared with native soy protein. The emulsions prepared with pilot plant isolates showed much lower susceptibility to heating than those prepared with native protein.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".