Development of a method for determining oil absorption capacity in pulse flours and protein materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives The conventional method for determining oil absorption capacity (OAC) in pulse ingredients involves mixing a sample with excess oil, centrifuging the dispersion, and then calculating the amount of oil absorbed. However, there are issues associated with the conventional method such as loss of the less dense materials through oil decanting process and reabsorption of oil by samples after centrifugation. Therefore, the objective of this work was to develop a method that could eliminate those concerns for determining OAC. Findings A method for measuring OAC of flours or protein concentrates/isolates derived from pulses and soybeans was developed. The new method involved mixing 0.5 g sample with 1.5 ml canola oil intermittently for 20 min, centrifuging the inverted sample tubes at 600 ×g for 25 min, and measuring the amount of oil absorbed per gram of dry sample. Comparing to the conventional method, the new method used a lower sample to oil ratio (1:3 g/ml), and each test tubes were centrifuged upside down in an apparatus at a lower centrifugal force (600 ×g). A syringe barrel was used in the apparatus to hold a filter paper in place to prevent sample materials from draining out with the excess oil during centrifugation. Test efficiency increased due to combining steps of centrifugation and oil draining in the new method. Differences in OAC values determined by the new method were exhibited from various pulse and soybean materials. Conclusions Amounts of oil absorbed by flours and protein concentrates/isolates from pulses and soybeans could be measured by the new method without accounting for the extra free oil trapped in the samples. The new procedure showed good within‐laboratory reproducibility. More samples could be tested with the new method due to its simplified procedure. Flours and protein concentrates/isolates from pulses and soybeans with different OAC values could be separated from each other using the new method. Significance and novelty The method developed was simple and reliable and could be applied to a variety of pulse and soybean ingredients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".