| Literature DB >> 35512585 |
Na Li1, Tong Wang1, Xinrun Yang1, Jiayao Qu1, Ning Wang1, Liqi Wang2, Dianyu Yu3, Cuiping Han4.
Abstract
In this study, hemp seed oil (HSO) emulsions stabilized with hemp seed protein (HPI) were prepared and treated with high intensity ultrasonic (HIU). The effects of different treatment powers (0, 150, 300, 450, 600 W) on the properties, microstructure and stability of emulsions were investigated. HIU-treated emulsions showed improved emulsifying activity index and emulsifying stability index, reduced particle size, and increased absolute values of ζ-potential, with the extreme points of these indices occurring at a treatment power of 450 W. Here, the emulsion showed the best dispersion and the smallest particle size in fluorescence microscopy observation, with the highest adsorbed protein content (30.12%), and the highest tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) retention rate (87.64%). The best thermal and oxidative stability of the emulsions were obtained under HIU treatment with a power of 450 W. The D43 and the peroxide values (POV) values after 30 d storage were the smallest at 985.74 ± 64.89 nm and 4.6 μmol/L, respectively. Therefore, 450 W was optimal HIU power to effectively improve the properties of HPI-stabilized HSO emulsion and promote the application of HSO and its derivatives in food processing production.Entities:
Keywords: Emulsion; Hemp seed oil (HSO); Hemp seed protein (HPI); High-intensity ultrasonic (HIU); Oxidative stability
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35512585 PMCID: PMC9077534 DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2022.106021
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ultrason Sonochem ISSN: 1350-4177 Impact factor: 9.336
Fig. 1Emulsifying activity index (EAI) and emulsifying stability index (ESI) of emulsions at different ultrasonic powers. Different letters represent significant differences at p < 0.05.
Particle size, PDI and ζ-potential of emulsions at different ultrasonic powers.
| Ultrasound power (W) | D43 (nm) | PDI | ζ-potential (mV) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1593.85 ± 6.45a | 0.832 ± 0.088a | −7.42 ± 0.36a |
| 150 | 1296.78 ± 5.16b | 0.478 ± 0.036b | −11.56 ± 0.27b |
| 300 | 496.66 ± 3.28d | 0.325 ± 0.057c | −14.87 ± 0.43c |
| 450 | 497.66 ± 3.05d | 0.297 ± 0.042c | −17.69 ± 0.16d |
| 600 | 584.52 ± 6.04c | 0.421 ± 0.073bc | −15.23 ± 0.25c |
Note: The different superscript letters in the same column indicate significant differences between the data (p < 0.05).
Fig. 2Fluorescence microscopy of emulsions at different ultrasonic powers.
Fig. 3Non-adsorbed and adsorbed proteins of emulsions at different ultrasonic powers. Different letters represent significant differences at p < 0.05.
Fig. 4Thermal stability analysis under different ultrasound powers.
Fig. 5The THC retention rate of emulsions at different ultrasonic powers during storage. Different letters represent significant differences at p < 0.05.
Fig. 6The oxidation stability of emulsions at different ultrasonic powers during storage. Different letters represent significant differences at p < 0.05.