Spray Drying of High‐sucrose Dairy Emulsions: Feasibility and Physicochemical Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The spray drying feasibility of ice cream mixes and the overall quality of ice creams made from the reconstituted powders were studied. The effect of multiple homogenization steps, protein type (micellar versus non‐micellar casein), and fat content (6% and 10%) were included in the design. Powdered ice cream mixes manufactured by dry blending were also assessed. Spray drying conditions were set at 160°C and 70°C for inlet and outlet temperatures, respectively. Product recovery was related to its inherent glass transition temperature (77°C ± 0.67°C). Yield increased from 40% to 60% as the percentage of sucrose decreased from 41.8% to 11.4%, respectively. Free fat content for all spray‐dried powders was below 2%, which indicated relatively high encapsulation efficiency. In contrast, dry blended mixes showed values of up to 11.8% free fat. Reconstitution of spray‐dried mixes rendered identical particle‐size distributions compared with their parent, liquid emulsions. Ice creams made from reconstituted powders showed a slightly lower degree of partial coalescence as demonstrated by lower values of fat agglomeration indices (FAI) and faster meltdown behaviors. Ice creams made with non‐micellar casein showed the lowest FAI and the fastest meltdown rates of all formulations.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".