| Literature DB >> 32420542 |
Chutima Aphibanthammakit1, Reine Barbar1, Michaël Nigen1, Christian Sanchez1, Pascale Chalier1.
Abstract
The impact of high molar mass protein-rich arabinogalactan-proteins (AGPs) on emulsifying properties of Acacia senegal gums were studied using reconstituted gums obtained with two distinct fractions: one containing these specific high molar mass AGPs and the other protein-poor low molar mass AGPs. To produce and stabilize limonene emulsions, the experimental design emphasized not only the role of high molar mass protein-rich AGPs, but also the importance of high total concentration. At low protein contents, reconstituted gums required a slightly higher content in high molar mass protein-rich AGPs than original A. senegal gum, that confirmed the role of low molar mass protein-rich AGPs in the adsorption at interfaces. The comparison of the creaming index between original and reconstituted gums as well as the monitoring of instability phenomena by turbiscan up to 30 days clearly demonstrated the prevalent impact of the bulk apparent viscosity in the long-term stability of emulsions.Entities:
Keywords: Acacia gum; Emulsifying stabilizing properties; Limonene; Viscosity; high molar mass protein-rich AGPs
Year: 2020 PMID: 32420542 PMCID: PMC7214827 DOI: 10.1016/j.fochx.2020.100090
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Chem X ISSN: 2590-1575
Matrix of the central composite design of two variables in units along with the experimental response and the validation experiments.
| Treatment run | IEC-F1 content (%) | Total concentration of gum fractions mixture (%) | Apparent viscosity (mPa.s) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 4 | 4.1 | ||||
| 5 | 17 | 48.2 | ||||
| 25 | 4 | 4.4 | ||||
| 25 | 17 | 81.2 | ||||
| 15 | 10.5 | 19.6 | ||||
| 15 | 10.5 | 22.5 | ||||
| 0.9 | 10.5 | 16.1 | ||||
| 29.1 | 10.5 | 28.1 | ||||
| 15 | 1.3 | 1.9 | ||||
| 15 | 19.7 | nd | ||||
| 15 | 10.5 | 19.2 | ||||
| 15 | 10.5 | 20.7 | ||||
| 13 exp | 15 | 4 | 4.6 | |||
| 14 exp | 5 | 10.5 | 14.3 | |||
| 15 exp | 0.858 | 17 | 26.9 | |||
| 16 exp | 0.858 | 4 | 3.6 | |||
C, center point; *, star point (axial). The values of D4,3 in bold were excluded from the worksheet during data treatment. nd: non determined. Exp: experimental values, Pred: Predicted values
Table of ANOVA for the experimental variables as a linear, quadratic and interaction terms of each response variable and corresponding coefficients for the predictive models.
| Source | D4,3 (µm) | Delay time (min) | CI (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coefficient | p-value | Coefficient | p-value | Coefficient | p-value | |
| Lack of fit | 0.114 | 0.514 | 0.427 | |||
| 0.997 | 0.995 | 0.932 | ||||
| Adj- | 0.994 | 0.990 | 0.874 | |||
| Linear | ||||||
| −0.160 | <0.0001* | 74.399 | <0.0001* | −0.227 | 0.2291 | |
| −0.237 | <0.0001* | 200.821 | <0.0001* | −1.340 | 0.0002* | |
| Quadratic | ||||||
| 0.088 | <0.0001* | 10.063 | 0.228 | −0.2665 | 0.2102 | |
| 0.123 | 0.00014* | 27.818 | 0.0099* | 0.64101 | 0.0149* | |
| Interaction | ||||||
| 0.137 | 0.00014* | 78 | 0.00017* | −0.309 | 0.24541 | |
: the estimated linear coefficient of the quadratic polynomial equations. : the estimated quadratic coefficient of the quadratic polynomial equations : the estimated interactive coefficient of the quadratic polynomial equations. (1): IEC-F1 content; (2): total concentration of gum. * stands for a significant value.
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4