4.7 Review

Microstructural design of aerated food systems by soft-solid materials

期刊

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 110-119

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.06.032

关键词

-

资金

  1. EPSRC
  2. Centre of Innovative Manufacturing in Food
  3. EPSRC [EP/K030957/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/K030957/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanism of adsorbing particles in creating super stable bubbles has been underlined and described but designing particles with these characteristics based of food grade materials is still a challenge. Moreover, food systems are rarely pure and the presence of more than one functional ingredients at a given formulation is usually the norm. This highlights the importance of mixed systems where particles and surface active ingredients are present. It has been demonstrated that particles made from food based materials although often not able to stabilised foams on their own, mostly due to limitations in size and hydrophobicity, they can aid significantly in the stability of foams without their ability to adsorb on the interface being a limiting factor. Evidence is presented where particles made from protein (whey) and hydrocolloid (k-carageenan) sources can significantly extend the life of foams by affecting the rheological properties of these systems in both a macro and micro level. The technology of creating fluid gels poses an advantage in the production of these particles in a scalable manner that can provide solutions for industrial applications that demand liquid and powder formulations. The importance of surfactants (high or low molecular weight) that are either intrinsically present or added in the systems is also being underlined. Finally, a universal mechanism is proposed which allows the design of particulate systems from soft-solid materials that can produce edible liquid foams with enhanced stability. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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

4.7
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