2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.106064
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fabrication of emulsions prepared by rice bran protein hydrolysate and ferulic acid covalent conjugate: Focus on ultrasonic emulsification

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

2
11
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 51 publications
2
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…6 , the EAI of PPI–Ara conjugates increased significantly from 15.1 to 19.7 and 19.3 m 2 /g with increasing ultrasonic power (longer treatment time). The hydrophobicity of the protein surface decreases when the degree of glycosylation is induced by ultrasound, and the hydrophilic and hydrophobic ratios on the molecular surface reach equilibrium, promoting the rapid adsorption of proteins at the oil–water interface, reducing the interfacial tension [49] .
Fig.
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…6 , the EAI of PPI–Ara conjugates increased significantly from 15.1 to 19.7 and 19.3 m 2 /g with increasing ultrasonic power (longer treatment time). The hydrophobicity of the protein surface decreases when the degree of glycosylation is induced by ultrasound, and the hydrophilic and hydrophobic ratios on the molecular surface reach equilibrium, promoting the rapid adsorption of proteins at the oil–water interface, reducing the interfacial tension [49] .
Fig.
…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Better emulsifying performance of the double emulsion was observed at 125 W ultrasonic power, with the corresponding EAI and ESI values being 1.61 ± 0.38 m 2 /g and 98.37 ± 0.21 %, respectively. The cavitation effect and physical shear stress of ultrasound treatment effectively reduce the large sized nutrient particles (proteins, polysaccharides, and other edible components) in the outer aqueous phase, improving their dispersibility and solubility; in addition, the powerful micro-jet generated by ultrasound treatment renders greater uniformity to the emulsion system with better emulsifying properties [33] , [34] . Interestingly, the emulsifying properties of the double emulsion did not improve further after ultrasonic treatment at 150 W. This may be because a high ultrasonic power may disrupt the spatial structure of the protein to thus form aggregates, leading to a decrease in the emulsifying properties of the emulsion system, consistent with that reported earlier [35] .…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Heat sterilization is a common processing method in the food industry, as it can effectively inhibit the growth and reproduction of microorganisms [33] . Therefore, it was necessary to study the effect of temperature on the stability of LOPs double emulsion under 125 W ultrasonic treatment.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As shown in Table 2 , the free sulfhydryl content of group A presented significantly higher than that of group B ( p < 0.05), and the disulfide bond content showed an opposite trend, indicating the unfolded structure content of group A was higher. This might be due to the fact that the optimal ultrasonic intensity can break disulfide bonds, thus exposing more sulfhydryl groups [ 14 ], while in group B, the mild ultrasonic intensity could not effectively unfold the protein structure, and the excessive ultrasonic intensity induced protein aggregation, thus promoting the formation of disulfide bonds [ 22 , 24 ]. In addition, the content of free sulfhydryl in IAP was higher than that in INP in the two groups, indicating that IAP was more flexible than INP.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The MDD of IAP and INP in group A was significantly lower than that in group B ( p < 0.05), and the λ max of IAP and INP in group A was larger than that in group B, indicating that IAP and INP aggregated in group B. This phenomenon might be attributed to the optimal ultrasonic intensity-unfolded protein structure, but the excessive ultrasonic intensity led to protein aggregates, while mild ultrasonic intensity could not effectively unfold the protein structure [ 20 , 24 ]. In addition, the MDD of INP in the two groups was greater than that of IAP, and the λ max had an opposite trend, which might be due to the fact that highly unfolded protein is prone to arranging on the oil–aqueous interface during RBPE formation, forming a viscoelastic membrane [ 5 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%