4.1 Article

Response surface methodology (RSM) identifies the lowest amount of chicken plasma protein (CPP) in surimi-based products with optimum protein solubility, cohesiveness, and whiteness

期刊

CYTA-JOURNAL OF FOOD
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 646-655

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/19476337.2023.2272627

关键词

Chicken plasma protein; cohesiveness; cryoprotectant; gelling agent; optimization; protein solubility; RSM; sorbitol; surimi; whiteness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study determines the minimum amounts of chicken blood plasma and sorbitol that affect the protein solubility, cohesiveness, and whiteness of surimi. The optimal conditions for these properties were found to be a plasma protein concentration of 0.79% and a sorbitol concentration of 4.68%. The predicted values closely matched the experimental values, demonstrating the validity of the response surface methodology model. These findings are valuable for improving surimi production.
This research aimed to determine the minimum amounts of chicken blood plasma (X-1) and sorbitol (X-2) that affect the protein solubility (Y-1), cohesiveness (Y-2), and whiteness (Y-3) of surimi. Response surface methodology (RSM) generated 13 experimental designs ranging from 0.5% to 2.5% for chicken plasma protein (CPP) and 2% to 6% for sorbitol. The results show that optimal conditions for protein solubility, cohesiveness, and a whiteness of surimi were achieved with a CPP concentration of 0.79% and a sorbitol concentration of 4.68%. This resulted in a predicted protein solubility of approximately 49.09 mg/ml, cohesiveness of 0.654 and whiteness value of 75.55. Meanwhile, the optimal experimental values for protein solubility, cohesiveness, and whiteness were found to be 46.56 mg/ml, 0.65, and 75.55, respectively. The measured values and predicted values have no statistically significant difference (p > .05), indicating the validity of the RSM model. These findings are valuable for improving surimi production.

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

4.1
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