Interfacial properties of camel milk and their influence on microfoam stability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interfacial performance of camel milk at the air-water interface and their influence on microfoam rheology were investigated. Interfacial properties were quantified using dilatational rheology coupled with modelling, and foam characteristics were probed using a dynamic foam analyser combined with rheological analysis. Lissajous curve and intracycle moduli analyses were employed to examine the viscoelastic properties of films. Microfoam characteristics were assessed in samples prepared by steam injection. Ward-Tordai and Graham-Phillips models revealed that camel milk proteins diffuse (0.399 mN/m s -0.5 ) and adsorb (0.0026 s -1 ) faster than those from bovine milk. Additionally, strain hardening behaviour at expansion supported a lower bubble growth rate (∼4.24 μm 2 /s) and higher foam viscosity (∼4000 Pa.s) in camel milk than in bovine milk. Camel milk microfoams exhibited lower viscosity (142 mPa.s) than those made with bovine milk (186 mPa.s) beyond the critical stress. No milk proteins exhibited selective adsorption at the interface; instead, the mechanical properties of the films controlled bubble stability and foam rheology. Overall, camel milk microfoams exhibited superior interfacial stability, indicating that camel milk is a viable alternative to bovine milk in foaming applications. • Camel milk (CM) presents desirable mechanical properties for microfoams • CM exhibits faster diffusion and adsorption kinetics at the air-water interface • CM presents a remarkable non-linear response at the air-water interface • Milk proteins do not show selective adsorption at the air-water interface • β -Lg may form weaker films than α -La at the air-water interface
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".