Effects of Microwaves, Ultrasonication, and Thermosonication on the Secondary Structure and Digestibility of Bovine Milk Protein
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cow's milk is considered an excellent protein source. However, the digestibility of milk proteins needs to be improved. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the functional properties of milk proteins and their structure upon microwave, ultrasound, and thermosonication treatments. The protein content, digestibility, and secondary-structure changes of milk proteins were determined. The results demonstrated that almost 35% of the proteins in the untreated samples had a α-helix structure and approximately 29% a β-sheet and turns structure. Regarding the untreated samples, the three treatments increased the α-helices and correspondingly decreased the β-sheets and turns. Moreover, the highest milk protein digestibility was observed for the ultrasound-treated samples (90.20-94.41%), followed by the microwave-treated samples (72.56-93.4%), whereas thermosonication resulted in a lower digestibility (68.76-78.81%). The milk protein content was reduced as the microwave processing time and the temperature increased. The final milk protein available in the sample was lower when microwave processing was conducted at 75 °C and 90 °C compared to 60 °C, whereas the ultrasound treatment significantly improved the protein content, and no particular trend was observed for the thermosonicated samples. Thus, ultrasound processing shows a potential application in improving the protein quality of cow's milk.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".