2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.08.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of extraction method on functional properties of flaxseed protein concentrates

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
43
3

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 102 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
5
43
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Avramenko et al (2013) reported DH to have no significant effect on the zeta potential of a lentil protein isolate (~−35 mV) treated with trypsin up to 10% DH (~−38 mV). Compared with the literature, the surface charge of untreated PPEF was lower than that of pea protein isolate (~91% protein; −24 mV; Lam et al, 2017) but comparable to a pea protein concentrate (73% protein; −16 mV; Tirgar, Silcock, Carne, & Birch, 2017), indicating that the carbohydrates and minerals present in the sample may screen charges on the protein. It is hypothesized that the positively charged ash in the PPEF could shield the electrical double layer on the protein and the carbohydrate in the sample can give rise to starch-protein interactions when the PPEF is in solution, reducing the overall charge of the PPEF as compared to a much purer protein sample.…”
Section: Surface Characteristicscontrasting
confidence: 67%
“…Avramenko et al (2013) reported DH to have no significant effect on the zeta potential of a lentil protein isolate (~−35 mV) treated with trypsin up to 10% DH (~−38 mV). Compared with the literature, the surface charge of untreated PPEF was lower than that of pea protein isolate (~91% protein; −24 mV; Lam et al, 2017) but comparable to a pea protein concentrate (73% protein; −16 mV; Tirgar, Silcock, Carne, & Birch, 2017), indicating that the carbohydrates and minerals present in the sample may screen charges on the protein. It is hypothesized that the positively charged ash in the PPEF could shield the electrical double layer on the protein and the carbohydrate in the sample can give rise to starch-protein interactions when the PPEF is in solution, reducing the overall charge of the PPEF as compared to a much purer protein sample.…”
Section: Surface Characteristicscontrasting
confidence: 67%
“…The ESO was recorded to be 96.25% for WSP and 85.29% for SPO, respectively. The EAO of WSP and SPO was found to be 77.57 m 2 /g and 56.72 m 2 /g, respectively, which was higher than that of Torreya grandis seed protein (44.57 m 2 /g) (Yu et al, 2017) and rice bran protein (10.28 m 2 /g) (Phongthai et al, 2016), but lower than that of flaxseed protein (87.10 m 2 /g) (Tirgar et al, 2017) and Kiwi fruit seed protein (92.38.10 m 2 /g) (Deng et al, 2014). The reasons for the higher EAO and ESO in WSP compared to SPO were that the relatively more hydrophobic groups on WSP molecules improved the hydrophilic-lipophilic balance and formed the stable interfacial layer for better emulsification activity (Jain & Anal, 2016;Phongthai et al, 2016), which was confirmed by the higher DHC of WSP.…”
Section: Emulsifying Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…The emulsifying activity (EAI) and stability (ESI) of SCGs and SCGPI were estimated according to the methods of Tirgar, Silcock, Carne, and Birch () with slightly modification. Each sample was dissolved in distilled water at 0.2% (wt/vol), adjusted to pH 3.0–8.0 by using 1 mol/L HCl or 1 mol/L NaOH.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%