Effect of Heat Treatment on Yellow Field Pea (Pisum sativum) Protein Concentrate Coupled with Membrane Ultrafiltration on Emulsification Properties of the Isolated >50 kDa Proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper was to determine the emulsification properties of protein aggregates obtained from heat pretreated yellow field pea protein concentrate (PPC). PPC dispersions were prepared in distilled water (adjusted to pH 3.0, 5.0, 7.0, or 9.0), heated in a water bath (100 °C) for 30 min, centrifuged and the supernatant passed first through a 30 kDa membrane and, then, the first retentate (>30 kDa) through a 50 kDa membrane. The 50 kDa membrane separation yielded a second retentate (>50 kDa proteins), which was isolated for emulsification studies. The near UV circular dichroic spectra of the protein samples showed more unfolded structures at pH 3.0 and 5.0 than at pH 7.0 and 9.0. The presence of small and spherical oil droplets of emulsions stabilized by the >50 kDa proteins at pH 3.0, 7.0, and 9.0 was confirmed by confocal laser scanning microscopy images. Emulsions stabilized at pH 7.0 and 9.0 had a narrower size distribution range than at pH 3.0 and 5.0. A narrow oil droplet size distribution range and lower interfacial protein concentrations of the emulsions stabilized by the >50 kDa proteins were observed at the corresponding pH of the heat treatment when compared to other pH values. Emulsions stabilized by the >50 kDa proteins exhibited a relatively low flocculation and coalescence index, which infers relative stability. The results from this work suggest that heat pretreatment of the PPC led to the formation of new protein aggregates, especially FT9 with enhanced emulsification properties, at some of the test conditions when compared to the unheated PPC.
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".