Amino acid composition, foaming, emulsifying properties and surface hydrophobicity of mustard protein isolate as affected by pH and NaCl
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Amino acid composition, protein hydrophobicity, foaming and emulsifying properties of mustard protein isolate at pH 3, 5, 7 and in 0.05 and 0.1 m NaCl were studied. Glutamic (19.18 ± 0.30%) and aspartic (7.49 ± 0.11%) acids were the dominants. Foaming ability was enhanced by NaCl. Time to reach 75 mL foam was 23% higher in water than in NaCl. Drained volume after 10 min was concentration dependent and was the lowest in 0.05 and 0.1 m NaCl at protein concentration of 2.5% and 5%. The emulsifying properties were pH and concentration dependent, and the best results were obtained at pH 3, corresponding to the highest positive charge density of the protein surface. The highest emulsion stability (90.22 ± 3.52%) was obtained in 0.05 m NaCl and 5% protein concentration, whereas the lowest (63.00 ± 1.06%) was in water at all protein concentrations. Protein hydrophobicity was low and depended of pH but not of NaCl.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".