4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

The relationship between rheological parameters and whey separation in milk gels

期刊

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
卷 15, 期 4-6, 页码 603-608

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0268-005X(01)00043-1

关键词

rheology; syneresis; whey separation; fracture strain; loss tangent; yogurt; acid gels

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The relation between whey separation of rennet-induced gels and rheological properties of those gels is reasonably well understood. A low fracture stress and a high value for the loss tangent at low frequencies have been correlated with a tendency to exhibit syneresis in rennet gels. In contrast, little is known about the relationship between mechanical properties of gels and whey separation in acid-induced milk gels, such as yoghurt, although this continues to be a major defect. In recent work, it has been found that conditions such as high milk heat treatment, fast rates of acidification and high incubation temperatures all gave high levels of whey separation compared with gels made from unheated milk that were incubated at low temperatures and where the rate of acidification was slow (i.e. when bacterial cultures were used instead of the acidogen, glucono-B-lactone). The tendency to exhibit whey separation in acid gels made from heated milk was related to a low fracture strain and an increase in the loss tangent (observed even at high frequencies) during the gelation process (a high value indicates conditions favouring relaxation of bonds). Excessive rearrangements of particles in the gel network before and during gelation were implicated as being responsible for whey separation and rheological conditions that appeared to indicate this defect are described. It was also concluded that techniques that measure the spontaneous formation of surface whey should be distinguished from those that measure the expression of whey from networks under pressure as the latter tests only measure gel rigidity. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

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