Complex coacervation of pea albumin‐pectin and ovalbumin‐pectin assessed by isothermal titration calorimeter and turbidimetry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigates the complexation of a pea albumin-rich fraction and ovalbumin with pectin of different degrees of esterification (DE) and blockiness (DB) as a function of pH and biopolymer mixing ratio by turbidimetric titration and isothermal titration calorimetry (ITC). RESULTS: Turbidimetric analysis found maximum complexation occurred at a mixing ratio of 4:1 for pea albumin with high methoxy pectin, 8:1 for pea albumin with low methoxy pectin, and 8:1 for ovalbumin with low methoxy pectin. In the case of ovalbumin with high methoxy pectin, interactions were very weak. The pectin with high levels of esterification and blockiness displayed greater interactions with the pea albumin in both turbidimetry and ITC. However, low methoxy pectin imparted better interactions with ovalbumin and displayed higher optical density values than high methoxy pectin. CONCLUSIONS: The current study indicated that the different thermodynamic parameters of PA-pectin complexes can be tuned by controlling the structural characteristics (DB, DE, and d-galacturonic acid) of the pectin. © 2020 Society of Chemical Industry.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".