ArticleAnimal bioscience2026
Evaluation of drying method and various level of chickpea powder on the quality characteristics of emulsified model sausages.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the effects of chickpea powder (CPP) drying method (freeze-drying [FD] and oven-drying [OD]), and concentration (1.0% and 1.5%) on the quality characteristics of CPP-containing emulsified model sausages (EMSs), using a conventional emulsion-type meat system. CPP was assessed as a plant-based alternative to soy protein isolate (SPI), which is commonly used in meat formulations.
methodsCPPs were prepared by FD or OD at 60°C and incorporated into EMSs at 1.0% and 1.5%. A control without added protein (CTL) and an SPI-containing reference (REF) were included. Product pH, color, cooking loss (CL), expressible moisture (EM), proximate composition, texture profile parameters, protein solubility, surface hydrophobicity, and sulfhydryl group levels were analyzed. In addition, sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis and scanning electron microscopy were performed.
resultsCPP addition affected the pH, water-holding capacity, texture, and color of EMSs. Among the treatments, 1.5% oven-dried CPP showed the highest pH, lowest CL and EM, and the most improved textural properties. Redness decreased, whereas yellowness increased with CPP concentration, particularly in oven-dried CPP treatments. Fat content was unchanged, and protein content showed only minor differences. At 1.5%, CPP improved protein functionality by increasing protein solubility and reducing surface hydrophobicity and sulfhydryl groups, suggesting enhanced protein dispersion and cross-linking. Microstructural analysis confirmed a denser protein matrix with smaller pores and embedded starch granules. Overall, CPP-treated EMSs showed comparable or superior performance to SPI-treated reference EMSs.
conclusionBoth the drying method and concentration of CPP markedly affect EMS quality. Oven-dried CPP at 1.5% was especially effective in enhancing water retention and textural integrity, which was associated with improved protein functionality and microstructural stabilization, implying its usability as a functional plant-based protein ingredient in conventional emulsified meat products, expanding its applicability beyond reduced-fat systems.
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.