ArticleBioengineered2020
Enhancement on enzymolysis of pigskin with ultrasonic assistance.
Article in Bioengineered, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preparation of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitory Peptides from Yellowfin Tuna Pancreas Using Moderate Ultrasound-Assisted Enzymatic Hydrolysis.Marine drugs · 2025Article
- Waste Valorization towards Industrial Products through Chemo- and Enzymatic- Hydrolysis.Bioengineered · 2023Review
- Insights into flavor and key influencing factors of Maillard reaction products: A recent update.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Retracted
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The fur is hard to decompose during the fermentation process of diseased swine carcasses. In order to enhance the enzymolysis of pigskin, the ultrasonic was proposed to use during the process of the enzymatic hydrolysis. The response surface optimization experiments were carried out with the DH (degree of hydrolysis) as the response value and the optimum conditions for enzymatic hydrolysis were determined. Based the optimum conditions, orthogonal experiments were carried out with ultrasonic frequency, power and time as variables, and optimal ultrasonic parameters were obtained. Without the assistance of ultrasonic, the descending order of influence factors on DH was, temperature>SC(Substrate concentration)>RES(The ratio of enzyme to substrate)>pH. Moreover, the DH value is of 10.42% under the following optimal conditions: RES is of 16,006 U/g, the temperature is of 48.92°C, the SC is of 59.76 g/L and pH is of 10.43. Frequency has the greatest effect on DH, followed by power, and finally time. The optimum hydrolysis time is of 5 h, and the DH is of 22.94% were obtained under the following optimum ultrasonic pretreatment conditions: frequency combination is of (20,40,40), power is of 600 W and time is of 25 min. Comparing with the group without ultrasonic pretreatment, the DH for the ultrasonic assistance increased by 4%, the hydrolysis time was shorten by 3 h, and the total amino acids increased by 15.98%.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.