Functionality and Bioactivity of Probiotic Semi-hard Cheese Made from Milk Treated by Pulsed Electric Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to assess the functional and bioactive properties of probiotic cheeses made from milk treated by pulsed electric field. Four semi-hard cheeses were made with four different treatments on milk: a control (untreated), pasteurized (65 °C, 30 min), and treated by pulsed electric fields at two different electric field strengths: 15 kV/cm and 25 kV/cm. The commercial probiotic, Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BB-12 was added during cheese-making in all conditions. Microbial enumeration including probiotic survival, proteolysis, antioxidant properties (DPPH, FRAP), and antidiabetic properties (α-amylase, α-glucosidase) were assessed on cheeses. After cheese maturation (60 days, 8 °C), an i n vitro digestion assay was performed. Pulsed electric field treatment had no effect on probiotic survival during cheese maturation. A significant increase in proteolysis values by 12–23% was observed in cheeses made from both milks treated by pulsed electric fields as compared to control. The susceptibility of milk protein to proteolysis tends to enhance with higher electric field strength. The α-amylase inhibition significantly increased in milk treated by both milks treated by pulsed electric fields with a tendency of inhibition enhancement at higher field strength. DPPH values tend also to be higher in both milks treated my pulsed electric fields although not significant. This work showed that PEF treatment under the parameters studied had limited effect on raw milk and cheese properties. This study showed that pulsed electric field treatment had the potential to enhance the health benefits of cheese especially on antidiabetic and antioxidant properties.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".