3.8 Article

Effects of ultrafiltration followed by heat or high-pressure treatment on camel and bovine milk cheeses

期刊

NFS JOURNAL
卷 31, 期 -, 页码 123-132

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.nfs.2023.04.004

关键词

Camel and bovine milk cheese; Ultrafiltration; Structure of cheese; High-pressure processing; Proteolysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of ultrafiltration (UF) combined with high-pressure processing (HPP) or heat treatment on the quality of soft cheese produced from camel milk (CM) or bovine milk (BM). The results showed that UF combined with HPP at 550 MPa can increase the total solid content and gel structure of soft cheese. Compared with heat treatment, camel milk cheese is more susceptible to protein hydrolysis and has more low molecular weight bands.
The aim of this study was to assess the effects of ultrafiltration (UF) combined with high-pressure processing (HPP) or heat treatment on the quality of soft cheese produced from camel milk (CM) or bovine milk (BM). Milk was concentrated by UF (0, 1, and 2-fold) before treatment with HPP at 350 MPa or 550 MPa for 5 min at 4 degrees C or by pasteurization at 65 degrees C for 30 min or at 75 degrees C for 30 s. Cheeses were produced using starter cultures and camel chymosin and pH, yield, proximate composition, texture profile, rheological properties, and protein profiles were determined. The highest yield of BM cheese (26%) was observed under the treatment with 2-fold UF combined with HPP at 550 MPa. CM cheese had the highest storage and loss moduli as well as the total solid and protein content under this treatment. According to SDS-PAGE electrophoresis, CM cheeses were more susceptible to proteolysis and had a higher number of low-molecular-weight bands, indicating the involvement of some active enzymes compared with BM cheeses. In conclusion, UF combined with HPP can enhance the cheese total solid content and gel structure in CM cheese products compared with heat treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据