4.6 Article

The effect of dairy proteins on the oral burn of capsaicin

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 88, Issue -, Pages 147-157

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.16400

Keywords

binding; capsaicin; oral burn; protein

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the impact of capsaicin binding to milk proteins on oral burn. The findings revealed that the concentration of free capsaicin decreased with increasing protein concentration, with casein having a greater effect than whey protein. The intensity of the capsaicin burn was also lower in samples containing casein compared to those containing whey protein isolate. Furthermore, the maximum burn intensity was directly related to the concentration of free capsaicin. Rinsing with a 5% (w/w) micellar casein solution was found to be significantly more effective in reducing oral burn compared to rinsing with water.
This study focused on the effect of binding of capsaicin by milk proteins on oral burn. The concentration of free, unbound capsaicin in 5 ppm capsaicin solution containing 0-5% (w/w) micellar casein or whey protein isolate was measured by extraction into hexadecane. The concentration of free capsaicin decreased linearly with protein concentration and the decrease was greater for casein than for whey protein. The intensity of the capsaicin burn in similar solutions was assessed by a large cohort (n = 89) of untrained participants in a time-intensity study. The maximum burn intensity decreased with protein concentration and was lower for samples containing casein than for samples containing whey protein isolate. The maximum burn was linearly related to the free, unbound capsaicin concentration. When protein solutions (1-5% w/w) were used as rinses following exposure to a 5 ppm aqueous capsaicin solution, only the 5% (w/w) micellar casein solution was significantly more effective than the water rinse in reducing oral burn.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available