4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Comparative effect of thermal treatment on the physicochemical properties of whey and egg white protein foams

期刊

FOOD HYDROCOLLOIDS
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 797-808

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2010.09.020

关键词

Thermal treatment; Whey proteins; Egg white proteins; Protein foam; Foam stability

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The optimization of the functionalities of commercial protein ingredients still constitutes a key objective of the food industry. Our aim was therefore to compare the effect of thermal treatments applied in typical industrial conditions on the foaming properties of whey protein isolate (WPI) and egg white proteins (EWP): EWP was pasteurized in dry state from 1 to 5 days and from 60 degrees C to 80 degrees C, while WPI was heat-treated between 80 degrees C and 100 degrees C under dynamic conditions using a tubular heat exchanger. Typical protein concentrations of the food industry were also used, 2% (w/v) WPI and 10% (w/v) EWP at pH 7, which provided solutions of similar viscosity. Consequently, WPI exhibited a higher foamability than EWP. For WPI, heat treatment induced a slight decrease of overrun when temperature was above 90 degrees C, i.e. when aggregation reduced too considerably the amount of monomers that played the key role on foam formation; conversely, it increased foamability for EWP due to the lower aggregation degree resulting from dry heating compared to heat-treated WPI solutions. As expected, thermal treatments improved significantly the stability of WPI and EWP foams, but stability always passed through a maximum as a function of the intensity of heat treatment. In both cases, optimum conditions for foam stability that did not impair foamability corresponded to about 20% soluble protein aggregates. A key discrepancy was finally that the dry heat treatment of EWP provided softer foams, despite more rigid than the WPI-based foams, whereas dynamically heat-treated WPI gave firmer foams than native proteins. (c) 2010 Elsevier 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