Effect of pH adjustment on the composition and rennet-gelation properties of milk concentrates made from ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work was to investigate the effect of pH adjustment (initial pH vs. pH 6.50) on the rennet-gelation properties of concentrates made by ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO). Rennet-gelation kinetics were followed by dynamic rheology and κ-casein hydrolysis by reverse-phase HPLC. At initial pH, RO concentrates had better rennet-coagulation behavior than UF concentrates and skim milk, whereas adjusting the pH to 6.50 produced the opposite results. The kinetics of κ-casein hydrolysis were similar in skim milk, and both concentrates and were not affected by pH adjustment. Differences in rennet coagulation were then related to the extent of hydrolysis required to trigger casein micelle aggregation. Small pH adjustments (<0.2 pH unit) enabled the use of RO concentrate with similar rennet-gelation behavior to UF concentrate, despite major compositional differences. This study shows that pH adjustment of RO concentrates can be a simple approach to improve their coagulation properties; however, the mechanisms behind these improvements remain to be elucidated.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".