The effect of heat treatment and high‐pressure homogenization on the dispersibility and interfacial behavior of faba bean protein isolate and concentrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of hydrothermal treatments, high‐pressure homogenization (HPH) and their combined effects on faba bean protein isolate (FBI) and concentrate (FBC) dispersions was investigated. With HPH, a significant reduction in particle size was observed for FBI but not for FBC. For FBI, dispersion stability under accelerated gravitation was significantly improved by both hydrothermal and HPH. For FBC, hydrothermal treatment had a negative effect on dispersion stability unless it was combined with HPH. The protein dispersibility of FBI increased, and FBC decreased with increasing temperature. Upon HPH, the protein dispersibility of FBI dramatically improved, making it almost completely soluble. All FBI dispersions had a higher surface charge compared to FBC. SDS PAGE profile showed strong protein crosslinking in the original FBI, leading to a loss of legumin and vicilin bands, which were visible in a more native state of FBC. Physical modifications did not significantly affect the viscosities except for a significant increase in FBC heated at 75°C due to starch gelatinization. The equilibrium interfacial tension of the modified FBI was significantly lower than the FBC. Analysis of dynamic interfacial adsorption showed that FBI had a much faster initial diffusion (beyond detection limit) towards the interface than FBC. Physical modifications improved the surface hydrophobicity of the proteins, leading to faster interfacial adsorption. Overall, FBI dispersions had improved functional properties compared to FBC, and HPH had a more significant effect than hydrothermal treatments. Physically modified FBI could be a promising emulsifier in various food applications.
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 | 0.001 | 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".