4.6 Article

Thermal Gelation of Proteins from Cajanus cajan Influenced by pH and Ionic Strength

期刊

PLANT FOODS FOR HUMAN NUTRITION
卷 78, 期 3, 页码 574-583

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11130-023-01086-2

关键词

Pigeon pea; Legumes; Protein isolate; Gels; pH; Ionic strength

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of pH and ionic strength on the thermal stability and thermal gelation of PP protein isolates (PPI) obtained by alkaline extraction and isoelectric precipitation. The results showed that the thermal stability of PPI changed with pH variation at low ionic strength, while this dependence decreased with the increase of ionic strength. At low ionic strength, gelation capacity of PPI was lower at pH 2.1 and pH 3.9, while at pH 6.3 and pH 8.3, gels showed better water holding capacity.
Cajanus cajan [pigeon pea (PP)] is an important legume crop for subsistence agriculture and its seeds are an alternative plant-based protein source. PP protein isolates (PPI) are able to form heat-induced gels that could be used for food applications. The aim of this work was to study the influence of pH (2.1, 3.9, 6.3, and 8.3) and ionic strength (& mu;) (0.10 and 0.54) on thermal stability and thermal gelation of PPI obtained by alkaline extraction (pH 8.0) and isoelectric precipitation. Thermal stability of PPI changed with pH variation at low ionic strength (& mu; = 0.10), decreasing this dependence with the increase of ionic strength (& mu; = 0.54). At & mu; = 0.10, gelation capacity of PPI was lower at pH 2.1 and pH 3.9. These gels presented a coarse network, which entails low WHC. At pH 6.3 and pH 8.3, gels showed a solid-like character with a compact and homogeneous matrix, with better WHC. At & mu; = 0.54, gel formation was favoured at pH 2.1 and pH 3.9. G & PRIME;(20)/G & PRIME;(95) ratio values and differential solubility results suggest that hydrogen bonds and electrostatic interactions could play an important role in gel formation at pH 6.3 and pH 8.3.

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

4.6
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