ArticleBiomedicines2022
A Comparative Evaluation of the Structural and Biomechanical Properties of Food-Grade Biopolymers as Potential Hydrogel Building Blocks.
Article in Biomedicines, 2022. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Sequential Induction Combining Thermal Treatment with Ultrasound or High Hydrostatic Pressure on the Physicochemical and Mechanical Properties of Pea Protein-Psyllium Hydrogels as Elderberry Extract Carriers.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Binary Pea Protein-Psyllium Hydrogel: Insights into the Influence of pH and Ionic Strength on the Physical Stability and Mechanical Characteristics.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative assessment of the structural and biomechanical properties of eight selected food-grade biopolymers (pea protein, wheat protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, inulin, maltodextrin, psyllium, and tara gum) as potential hydrogel building blocks. The prepared samples were investigated in terms of the volumetric gelling index, microrheological parameters, physical stability, and color parameters. Pea protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, and psyllium samples had high VGI values (100%), low solid−liquid balance (SLB < 0.5), and high macroscopic viscosity index (MVI) values (53.50, 59.98, 81.58, and 45.62 nm−2, respectively) in comparison with the samples prepared using wheat protein, maltodextrin, and tara gum (SLB > 0.5, MVI: 13.58, 0.04, and 0.25 nm−2, respectively). Inulin had the highest elasticity index value (31.05 nm−2) and MVI value (590.17 nm−2). The instability index was the lowest in the case of pea protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, and inulin (below 0.02). The color parameters and whiteness index (WI) of each biopolymer differed significantly from one another. Based on the obtained results, pea protein, gellan gum, konjac gum, and psyllium hydrogels had similar structural and biomechanical properties, while inulin hydrogel had the most diverse properties. Wheat protein, maltodextrin, and tara gum did not form a gel structure.
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.