Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:45:10.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of milks processed by the direct and indirect methods of ultra-high-temperature sterilization: V. Denaturation of the whey proteins

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 2009

R. L. J. Lyster ,
T. C. Wyeth ,
A. G. Perkin  and
H. Burton
R. L. J. Lyster
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
T. C. Wyeth
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
A. G. Perkin
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
H. Burton
Affiliation:
National Institute for Research in Dairying, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The distribution of protein nitrogen was determined in milk treated by an experimental ultra-high-temperature (UHT) plant, operating alternatively as an indirect or as a direct heating plant.

The extent of denaturation of β-lactoglobulin can be used to assess the relative severity of UHT heat treatments; this criterion was used to compare the indirect and direct arrangements of the plant with each other and with other published results.

The time-temperature profiles of the plant were used to calculate the expected extent of denaturation of β-lactoglobulin during treatment of the milk. The results of the calculations are in fair agreement with the analytical results.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , October 1971 , pp. 403 - 408
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aschaffenburg, R. & Drewry, J. (1959). 15th Int. Dairy Congr., London 3, 1631.Google Scholar
Burton, H. (1958). J. Dairy Res. 25, 324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, H. (1969). Dairy Sci. Abstr. 31, 287.Google Scholar
Burton, H. & Perkin, A. G. (1970). J. Dairy Res. 37, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corradini, C. & Bottazzi, V. (1966). Scienza Tec. latt.-casear. 17, 143.Google Scholar
Franklin, J. G., Underwood, H. M., Perkin, A. G. & Burton, H. (1970). J. Dairy Res. 37, 219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hostettler, H., Imhof, K. & Stein, J. (1965). Milchwissenschaft 20, 189.Google Scholar
Lembke, A., Frahm, H. & Wegener, K. H. (1968). Kieler milchw. Forsch Ber. 20, 331.Google Scholar
Lyster, R. L. J. (1970). J. Dairy Res. 37, 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadow, J. G. (1969). Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 24, 44.Google Scholar
Zhdanova, E. A. & Sergeeva, V. F. (1968). Moloch. Prom. 28 (8), 14Google Scholar
Dairy Sci. Abstr. 30, 615.Google Scholar