Abstract
The authors regret that the A–H samples in both Figs. 6 and S7 for the digestion stability analysis were not reported correctly. The incorrect text in the manuscript, “A–H were pH-shifting from 1.0, pH-shifting from 2.0, pH-shifting from 3.5, native (pH 7.2), pH-shifting from 1.0 and autoclaving, pH-shifting from 2.0 and autoclaving, pH-shifting from 3.5 and autoclaving, native (pH 7.2) and autoclaving, respectively”. should be replaced as: “A–H were native (pH 7.2), pH-shifting from 3.5, pH-shifting from 2.0, pH-shifting from 1.0, native (pH 7.2) and autoclaving, pH-shifting from 3.5 and autoclaving, pH-shifting from 2.0 and autoclaving, pH-shifting from 1.0 and autoclaving, respectively”. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Article number | 137937 |
| Journal | Food Chemistry |
| Volume | 438 |
| DOIs |
|
| State | Published - Apr 16 2024 |
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Analytical Chemistry
- Food Science
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Corrigendum to “Insight of pH-shifting as an effective pretreatment to reduce the antigenicity of lectin from red kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) combining with autoclaving treatments: The structure investigation” [Food Chem. 434 (2023) 137429](S0308814623020472)(10.1016/j.foodchem.2023.137429)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver