Charge Compensation, Phase Diagram, and Protein Aggregation in Soy Protein–Gum Arabic Complex Formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mixtures of soy protein (SP) and gum arabic (GA) formed an electrostatic complex in a relatively narrow pH range at very low ionic strength. The conditions under which the complexes could be formed were determined using turbidimetric measurements first. In salt-free condition and 1:1 SP/GA mixture, critical pH values with the formation of soluble (pH c = 4.40), insoluble (pH φ1 = 3.55), and maximum (pH opt = 3.15) complexes were observed. As SP/GA ratios increased from 1:4 to 8:1, critical pH values shifted toward higher pH. Charge densities (ZN) for SP and GA were calculated from electrophoretic mobility using soft particle analysis theory. Results showed that a 1:1 charge ratio at pH φ1 was found at any SP/GA ratio, indicating that charge compensation was fulfilled for SP/GA insoluble complex formation. A SP–GA–water ternary phase diagram was built at pH 4.0. The influence of the total biopolymer concentration (0–10% w/w) and SP/GA ratio was represented in the phase diagram. At a total concentration of 0.10%, results were consistent with the turbidity measurement; that is, no phase separation occurred at an SP/GA ratio lower than 1:2 at pH 4.0. Salt effect (NaCl, 0–500 mmol/L) on SP/GA complexes was discussed. Results indicated that SP/GA complexing, which led to the formation of turbidity peaks at pH 3.2, was suppressed when NaCl concentrations were ≥50 mmol/L, whereas the remarkable increase in turbidity around pH 5.0 was caused by the aggregation of soy protein molecules on which gum arabic could be adsorbed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".