ArticleCurrent research in food science2025
Cultivar selection and processing methods are crucial tools for tailoring the physico-chemical properties and functionality of pea (
Article in Current research in food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commercial pea protein ingredients: a multiscale investigation of high-pressure homogenized emulsification and relation with physicochemical and interfacial properties.Food chemistry: X · 2026Article
- Impact of ultrasound-enzyme pretreatment sequence on recovery and functionality of proteins from an oat fiber-rich side stream.Food chemistry: X · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ten cultivars of pea (Akooma, Astronaute, Bagoo, Greenway, Ingrid, Kaplan, Karacter, Manager, Orchestra, and Skol) were grown to advance the understanding of the functional diversity, sensory quality, and applicability of pea proteins. The pea seeds were processed into two protein-rich ingredients: concentrates (mean protein content of 48.3 %) by dry-fractionation and isolates by wet extraction (mean protein content of 80 %). The isolates were characterized by denatured protein particles and high natural pH (6.7-8.2) compared to the concentrates containing native protein and lower natural pH (5.4-5.9), including other constituents such as saponins and fibers. The differences in compositional characteristics did not affect physico-chemical characteristics, but greatly impacted ingredients' techno-functional properties, and in turn their food applicability. Water and oil holding capacities were higher in the isolates, 7.54 g water/g powder and 3.54 g oil/g powder, compared to concentrates, 2.16 g water/g powder and 1.63 g oil/g powder, highlighting important differences in the ingredient interaction with water and oil. In contrast, the concentrates exhibited higher protein solubility, up to 65 % in neutral and up to 81 % in alkaline systems, outperforming the isolates with protein solubilities near 15 %. A higher foaming ability of concentrates (40-70 %) in comparison to isolates (30-60 %) was found at their natural pH. Smaller particle size enhanced foam forming ability of concentrates, while the aggregates in isolates may interfere with the foam formation mechanism. Concentrates were perceived as sweet, umami, bitter, and astringency tasting. The flavors, green pea, yellow pea, nutty, and bitter after taste, differed significantly between the different cultivars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.