Air Interface Influenced by

Subscriber access provided by McMaster University Library

Article

Adsorption of Proteins at the Solution/Air Interface Influenced by Added Non-Ionic Surfactants at Very Low Concentrations for Both Components. 3. Dilational Surface Rheology Valentin B. Fainerman, Eugene V Aksenenko, Svetlana V. Lylyk, Marzieh Lotfi, and Reinhard Miller J. Phys. Chem. B, Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpcb.5b00136 • Publication Date (Web): 28 Jan 2015 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on February 18, 2015

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

The Journal of Physical Chemistry B is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

The Journal of Physical Chemistry

Adsorption of Proteins at the Solution/Air Interface Influenced by Added Non-Ionic Surfactants at Very Low Concentrations for Both Components. 3. Dilational Surface Rheology V.B. Fainerman1, E.V. Aksenenko2, S.V. Lylyk1, M. Lotfi3,4 and R. Miller4* 1 2

Medical University Donetsk, Donetsk, Ukraine

Institute of Colloid Chemistry and Chemistry of Water, Kyiv (Kiev), Ukraine 3

MPI Colloids and Interfaces, Potsdam, Germany

4

Sharif University of Technology, Teheran, Iran

Abstract The influence of the addition of the non-ionic surfactant C12DMPO, C14DMPO, С10ОН and С10ЕО5 at concentrations between 10−5 and 10−1 mmol/L to solutions of β-casein (BCS) and β-lactoglobulin (BLG) at a fixed concentration of 10−5 mmol/L on the dilational surface rheology is studied. A maximum in the visco-elasticity modulus |E| occurs at very low surfactant concentrations (10−4 to 10−3 mmol/L) for mixtures of BCS with С12DMPO and С14DMPO, and for mixtures of BLG with С10ЕO5, while for mixture of BCS with С10ЕO5 the value of |E| only slightly increased. The |E| values calculated with a recently developed model, which assumes changes in the interfacial molar area of the protein molecules due to the interaction with the surfactants, are in a satisfactory agreement with experimental data. A linear dependence exists between the ratio of the maximum modulus for the mixture to the modulus of the single protein solution, and the coefficient reflecting the influence of the surfactants on the adsorption activity of the protein.

Keywords: Adsorption of whey proteins BLG and BCS, dilational surface rheology, addition of non-ionic surfactants, bubble profile analysis tensiometry PAT, thermodynamic model, surface activity of protein, visco-elasticity modulus.

* corresponding author: MPI Colloids and Interfaces, 14424 Potsdam, Germany; [email protected]; tel. +49-331-5679252

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 2 of 23

2 1. Introduction The interest in dilational surface rheology of protein solutions and their mixtures with surfactants is due mainly to the fact that these systems are frequently used as foam and emulsion stabilizers, where the stabilization mechanism is governed mainly by the rheological characteristics1-4. Moreover, the dilational surface rheology turns out to be more sensitive to the conformation of macromolecules at the liquid interface than the interfacial tension. Tensiometry allows following the formation of adsorption layers over a certain time interval, while dilational rheology provides information on the response of the interfacial layer to small perturbations. These results make it possible to estimate the surface layer composition using the rheological data. In mixed protein-surfactant adsorption layers, the nature of the surfactant importantly influences the dilational behaviour of the mixture. Moreover, the method of formation of mixed interfacial laayers (sequential or competitive adsorption) essentially affects the dilational properties of the mixed interface, as it follows from

5-8

. Regarding the effect of non-ionic surfactants, the

monotonous decrease of the dilational modulus with increasing surfactant concentration is found for globular proteins. These results indicate the transition from a protein-dominated interface, to a surfactant-dominated interface via competitive adsorption, but also the possibility of an orogenic displacement mechanism

9-12

. For mixtures of non-ionic surfactants with more flexible

proteins like β-casein (BCS) there is a sharp maximum in the dilational elasticity. Experimental results on the dilational rheology of protein/non-ionic surfactant mixtures were reported in

13-17

;

some of these results and the relevant theoretical models of the corresponding surface layers were discussed previously

18, 19

. The influence of the addition of the non-ionic surfactants

C12DMPO, C14DMPO, С10ОН and С10ЕО5 at concentrations from 10−5 to 10−1 mmol/L to BCS and BLG solutions, respectively, at a fixed concentration of 10−5 mmol/L on the surface tension were studied in

19

. It was shown that a significant change (3 mN/m to 7 mN/m) of the surface

tension at the water/air interface occurs at very low surfactant concentration (10−5 to 10−3 mmol/L). All measurements were performed with the buoyant bubble profile method, where the bubbles are formed in a large volume of the studied solution. The application of theoretical models to mixed systems is still limited due to the extreme complexity of the equations. To achieve agreement between theory and experiment, a supposition was made about the influence of the concentration of non-ionic surfactant on the adsorption activity of the protein. The surface tension values calculated using the proposed modified model agree well with all experimental data. The model provides correction coefficients for the protein adsorption equilibrium constant. The largest correction of this constant was found for the BCS+C14DMPO mixtures.


Page 3 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


3 The solutions of proteins and surfactants studied here were the same as in

19

. The dilational

rheology of individual solutions and their mixtures after equilibration of the system was studied using the buoyant bubble profile method at surface area oscillation frequencies in the range of 0.005 to 0.5 Hz. It is shown that, depending on the surfactant concentration, the dilational viscoelasticity modulus increases, and in some cases exhibits a maximum. The maximum value of this modulus is higher than that observed for the pure protein solution. The ratio between the maximum modulus for the mixture and its value for pure protein solution correlates with a coefficient proposed in 19 which describes the increase of the adsorption activity of protein in its mixture with surfactants. Also, the conditions are determined at which the results of theoretical calculations agree satisfactorily with the experimental visco-elasticity modulus. 2. Materials and methods The materials and methods used in this study were described in 18,19. All solutions were prepared in phosphate buffer (10 mmol/L of Na2HPO4 and NaH2PO4, pH 7.0) using Milli-Q water. The proteins BLG and BCS were purchased from SIGMA. The non-ionic surfactants dodecyl dimethyl phosphine oxide (C12DMPO) and tetradecyl dimethyl phosphine oxide (C14DMPO) were synthesized at the MPI. The oxyethylated alcohols С10ЕО5 and С12ЕО5 and decyl alcohol (C10OH) were also purchased from SIGMA. The experiments were performed with the drop/bubble profile analysis tensiometer PAT-1 (SINTERFACE Technologies, Germany). A buoyant bubble was formed at the bottom tip of a vertical Teflon capillary of 3 mm outer diameter, and kept in the solution until its equilibration (30.000 s for the most diluted solutions and not less than 15.000 s for the highest concentrations). Rapid equilibrium is established by using the method of buoyant bubble and the possible resulting convective mass transfer

19

. After equilibration, harmonic oscillations with an

amplitude of ±7% and frequency in the range between 0.005 and 0.5 Hz were imposed on the bubble surface. At high oscillation frequencies, the PAT-1 tensiometer performed ten surface tension measurements per second. The surface dilational visco-elasticity is defined as the surface tension γ increase in response to a certain relative surface area increase A: E=dγ/dlnA. The visco-elasticity is a complex quantity E = Er + i·Ei, where Er and Ei are the real (elasticity) and imaginary (viscosity) constituents of the visco-elasticity, respectively, and the phase angle φ between stress (dγ) and strain (dA) is defined as φ = arctg(Ei/Er). The visco-elasticity modulus and its constituents were calculated via a Fourier transformation of the experimental quantities. The measurements and calculation procedure were explained in more detail in

20

. Reference

experiments with pure solvent (Milli-Q water or phosphate buffer in Milli-Q water) have shown that within this oscillation frequency range, the visco-elasticity modulus values are about zero ACS Paragon Plus Environment


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 4 of 23

4 and do not exceed 0.6 mN/m. The highest modulus values were observed at high frequencies. These maximum modulus values correspond to the average surface tension deviations of Δγ = ±0.04 mN/m during the oscillations. These observed effect could possibly be ascribed to distortions of the bubble shape caused by variations of the bubble volume: as the maximum positive Δγ value corresponds to the maximum ΔA, it could be supposed that the liquid inertia during the air inflow into the suppressed bubble elongates it, making the bubble more spherical. 3. Theory The adsorption isotherm for a protein in its mixture with a non-ionic surfactant as derived in

19

differs from that proposed in 21. This modified adsorption isotherm assumes a linear dependence of the protein adsorption equilibrium constant on the concentration of the added non-ionic surfactant. In physical terms this is due to the fact that the polar groups of the non-ionic surfactant molecules can bind to the amino acid groups in the protein molecule by van der Waals interactions, which changes the conformation and hence the hydrophobicity of the protein molecules. The adsorption isotherm for the mixture of a protein with a non-ionic surfactant, assuming the influence of the surfactant on the adsorption activity of the protein, reads:

BP,1cP =

ωPΓP,1 ωP ,1 / ωP

(1 − θP − θS )

⎡ ⎛ ω ⎞⎤ exp⎢− 2⎜⎜ a P P,1 θP + a PSθS ⎟⎟⎥ ⎠⎦ ⎣ ⎝ ωP

(1)

Here BP,1 is the protein adsorption equilibrium constant, cP is the protein concentration, ωS is the molar area of the non-ionic surfactant, aP and aPS are the intermolecular protein-protein and protein-surfactant interaction parameters, and the subscripts S and P refer to the surfactant and protein, respectively. The total adsorption of proteins in all n states (1 ≤ i ≤ n) is given by n

ΓP = ∑i=1 ΓP ,i , where ωP is the average molar area of the adsorbed protein, ωPi = ωP1 + (i − 1)ω0 is the molar area in state i, ωP1 = ωmin and ωmax = ωP1 + (n − 1)ω0, ω0 is the molar area of the solvent or the area occupied by one segment of the protein molecule (area increment). The n

parameter θP = ωP ΓP = ∑i=1 ωP,i ΓP,i represents the partial surface coverage by protein molecules, and θS = ωS⋅ΓS refers to the surface coverage by surfactant molecules (ΓS is the adsorption of surfactant molecules). The parameter aPS describes the mutual interaction between protein and surfactant molecules. The parameter BP,1 in the left hand side of Eq. (1) is determined by the expressions:

BP ,1 = bP ,1

at cS < c0

(2а)

BP ,1 = b P ,1 [1 + a X (cS − c 0 )]

at c0 < cS < cm

(2b)


Page 5 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


5

BP ,1 = b P ,1 [1 + a X (c m − c 0 )]

at cS >cm

(2c)

where aх is an adjustable parameter which accounts for the influence of the surfactant concentration cS on the activity of the polymer. Therefore, at low surfactant concentrations corresponding to condition (2a) the parameter BP,1 is equal to the adsorption equilibrium constant of the individual protein bP,1. The condition (2b) corresponds to the variation of this constant with the increase in surfactant concentration, and the condition (2с) implies the fixed value of the protein adsorption activity at surfactant concentrations above a certain critical value cm. All other equations used in this study to describe the protein/non-ionic surfactant mixtures are those presented in 19,21. An expression for the diffusion controlled exchange of surfactants or proteins caused by harmonic oscillations of the surface area of the bubble or drop surface was derived by Joos 22. In particular, for the adsorption from solution at the surface of a bubble the following expression for the complex visco-elasticity was obtained: −1

D dc ⎧ (1 + κr )⎫⎬ E (ω) = E 0 ⎨1 − i ω r dΓ ⎩ ⎭ ,

(3)

where E 0 = dΠ d ln Γ is the limiting elasticity, Π = γ0 − γ is the surface pressure, γ and γ0 are the surface tension of the solution and pure solvent, respectively, D is the diffusion coefficient of the protein or surfactant in the solution, ω = 2πf is the angular frequency of the surface area oscillations at frequency f given in Hz, κ2 = iω/D, and r is the radius of curvature of the interface. For a planar interface (r → ∞) Eq. (3) transform into the expression derived in 23, 24. The surface elasticity of mixed surface layers was discussed in 5, where a procedure was developed to calculate the rheological characteristics of mixed adsorbed layers. To perform these calculations, it is sufficient to know the dependencies of surface pressure Π and adsorptions of the system ΓP and ΓS as functions of the bulk concentrations cP and cS. These dependencies can be obtained from the equation of state of the surface layer, and the adsorption isotherms for the protein and surfactant. The complex visco-elasticity is determined by the expressions:

E(ω) =

⎤ 1 ⎛ ∂Π ⎞ ⎡ iω iω Γ ω ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎢ (a SSa PP − a PSa SP )⎥ + a SS + a SP P − B ⎝ ∂ ln ΓS ⎠Γ ⎣⎢ DS DP ΓS DS D P ⎦⎥ P

⎤ , 1 ⎛ ∂Π ⎞ ⎡ iω ΓS iω ω ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎢ (a SSa PP − a PSa SP )⎥ a PS + a PP − B ⎝ ∂ ln ΓP ⎠Γ ⎣⎢ DS ΓP DP DS D P ⎦⎥ S


(4)


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 6 of 23

6 where

E = Er + i·Ei,

a SS = (∂ΓS / ∂cS ) cP ,

a PP = (∂ΓP / ∂c P ) cS , and B = 1 +

a SP = (∂ΓS / ∂c P ) cS ,

a PS = (∂ΓP / ∂cS ) cP ,

iω iω ω (a SSa PP − a PSa SP ). The corresponding a SS + a PP − DS DP DS D P

expression for the visco-elasticity modulus E was obtained in 5. The partial derivatives in Eq. (4) are determined from the adsorption characteristics of the protein and surfactant using the expressions presented in

19

and the values listed in Tables 1-3

therein. It was shown by the calculations that the visco-elasticity modulus increases with the increase of ωmin, aP, aPS, bP,1, aS and bS values, while the increase of ω0, ωmax and ωS leads to a decrease of the visco-elasticity modulus. It should be noted that the addition of surfactant can affect the model adsorption parameters of protein. With the increased surfactant concentration, the visco-elasticity modulus of the mixture usually exhibits a maximum, which is accompanied by the increase of its imaginary part Ei. 4. Results and Discussion The dependencies of the visco-elasticity modulus on the surfactants concentrations at the oscillation frequencies 0.1 and 0.01 Hz for mixtures with BLG (at a fixed concentration of 10−5 mmol/L) with С12DMPO, C10OH and C10EO5 are illustrated by Figs. 1-3, respectively. Also shown in this Figures are the dependencies for the individual solutions of these surfactants. The visco-elasticity modulus for pure BLG coincides (to within the measurement error of ±2 mN/m) with those measured for mixtures with surfactants added at concentration below 10−5 mmol/L, and are equal to 33 and 37.6 mN/m, respectively. The results thus obtained for pure BLG and surfactants agree with those published in literature. The data for C10EO5 solutions are close to those reported in 20. In 25 BLG solutions at a fixed concentration of 10−5 mmol/L were investiated with the emerging bubble method. At a frequency of 0.1 Hz the following values for the viscoelasticity modulus at different surface age were obtained: at 10.000 s – 21 mN/m, at 30.000 s – 43 mN/m and at 80.000 s – 52 mN/m. The slightly higher values obtained here at longer adsorption times can be explained by differences in shape and size of the bubble. It is seen that the addition of surfactants leads to an increase of the visco-elasticity modulus, which attains its maximum at concentrations between 10−4 and 10−3 mmol/L, and then decreases. The most significant increase of the modulus was observed for the BLG mixtures with C10EO5. The value of the phase angle φ for the mixtures of BLG with surfactants in the studied frequency range are: (4÷7)º, (5÷10)º and (10÷15)º for the surfactants concentration of 0.1, 1 and 10 mmol/L, respectively. Lower values of the phase angle refer to higher frequencies. Note, no influence of the surfactant type on the φ values was observed.


Page 7 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


7

Fig. 1. Dependence of the visco-elasticity modulus for mixtures of 10−5 mmol/L BLG solution with C12DMPO and for individual C12DMPO solutions at two oscillation frequencies. Experimental points: (■,□), mixture; (®,¯), individual C12DMPO solution; filled symbols, f = 0.1 Hz; open symbols, f = 0.01 Hz. Calculation results: solid curves (1,3), f = 0.1 Hz; dashed curves (2,4), f = 0.01 Hz; red curves (1,2), mixture; black curves (3,4), individual C12DMPO; green curve (5), calculations using the reorientation model with parameters listed in Table 1; blue curve (6), calculations with increased bS value. For details see text.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 8 of 23

8

Fig. 2. Dependence of the visco-elasticity modulus for mixtures of 10−5 mmol/L BLG solution with C10OH and for individual C10OH solutions at two oscillation frequencies. Experimental points: (■,□), mixture; (®,¯), individual C10OH solution; filled symbols, f = 0.1 Hz; open symbols, f = 0.01 Hz. Calculation results: solid curves (1,3), f = 0.1 Hz; dashed curves (2,4), f = 0.01 Hz; red curves (1,2), mixture; black curves (3,4), individual C10OH. For details see text.


Page 9 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


9

Fig. 3. Dependence of the visco-elasticity modulus for mixtures of 10−5 mmol/L BLG solution with C10EO5 and for individual C10EO5 solutions at two oscillation frequencies. Experimental points: (■,□), mixture; (®,¯), individual C10EO5 solution; filled symbols, f = 0.1 Hz; open symbols, f = 0.01 Hz. Calculation results: solid curves (1,3), f = 0.1 Hz; dashed curves (2,4), f = 0.01 Hz; red curves (1,2), mixture; black curves (3,4), individual C12DMPO; green curve (5), calculations using the reorientation model with parameters listed in Table 1; blue curve (6), calculations with increased ωmin and bS values. For details see text. Shown in Figs. 1-3 are also the calculated values of the visco-elasticity modulus for individual surfactants and their mixtures with BLG. For the surface of an individual surfactant solution, assuming a purely diffusion controlled adsorption mechanism (without an adsorption barrier) the surface visco-elasticity takes the form 23, 24:

E(iω) = E 0

1 + ζ + iζ 1 + 2ζ + 2ζ 2 ,

(5)

where the high frequency elasticity limit E0, the characteristic frequency ωD and the parameter ζ are given by:



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 10 of 23

10

dγ E0 = − d ln Γ ,

2

ωD =

D ⎛ dc ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎝ dΓ ⎠ ,

⎛ ω ⎞ ζ = ⎜ D ⎟ ⎝ ω ⎠

1/ 2

(6)

The calculations according to Eq. (5) were performed using the equations of state and adsorption isotherm derived for Frumkin’s model assuming an intrinsic compressibility of molecules in the surface layer. The parameters of these equations are listed in Table 2 of

19

. The value of the

diffusion coefficient was estimated from a best fit between the calculated results and experimental data; the optimum values were found to be in a quite realistic range of 10−10 to 10−9 m2/s. It is seen that Frumkin’s model provides a satisfactory description for the dependence of the visco-elasticity modulus on the concentration for individual surfactants. It should be noted that for the C12DMPO and C10EO5 solutions at low concentrations the reorientation model yields better agreement with experimental data. These dependencies for the frequency of 0.1 Hz calculated with the equations of state and adsorption isotherm for the reorientation model were already presented in

20,21

with the relevant values of parameters listed in Table 1, and are also

shown in Figs. 1 and 3. Table 1. Adsorption characteristics of the individual surfactants according to the reorientation model. Parameter

C10EO5

C12DMPO

C14DMPO

ωmin [105 m2/mol]

3.5

2.5

3.0

ωmax [105 m2/mol]

7.5

4.8

6.0

α

2.8

1.3

1.5

ε [10-3m/mN]

3.0

3.0

3.0

b [103 m3/mol]

388

175

4360

The calculations for the protein-surfactant mixtures were performed using the Frumkin adsorption model. The visco-elastic characteristics were calculated from Eq. (4) for the parameter values listed in Tables 1-3 of Table 3 of

19

19

; the characteristic parameters of Eq. (2) are listed in

, the diffusion coefficient was taken to be 10−11 m2/s. This diffusion coefficient

value for BLG, obtained for mixtures at all surfactant concentrations, is very realistic. Since convective mass transfer at the investigated oscillation frequencies has virtually no effect on the rate of adsorption and desorption, it justifies the use of diffusion as relaxation mechanism. Note, in

25

a smaller diffusion coefficient had to be used to obtain agreement between theory and

experiment. The inflexion points on the calculated curves correspond to the critical concentration cm in Eq. (2c). The theoretically calculated values of the visco-elasticity modulus for the


Page 11 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


11 mixtures with C12DMPO and C10OH are in a satisfactory agreement with the experimental data; however for the BLG mixtures with C10EO5 the maximum on the theoretical curve is significantly shifted towards higher concentrations. This shift is probably ascribable to the fact that for the surfactant the Frumkin model is used rather than the more rigorous reorientation model. It is possible to shift the isotherm towards lower concentration by increasing the value of the surfactant adsorption equilibrium constant bS. This is illustrated in Fig. 1 for the BLG mixtures with C12DMPO where the corrected curve was calculated for the frequency 0.1 Hz with a bS value increased by a factor of 3 as compared to its value listed in Table 2 of 19. It is seen that the maximum becomes in fact shifted towards lower concentrations. However, for the BLG mixtures with C10EO5 this shift was found to be insignificant: a similar increase of the bS value results in a shift of the visco-elasticity maximum from 2.5×10−2 mmol/L to 10−2 mmol/L, while the experimentally observed maximum for 0.1 Hz is located at 2×10−4 mmol/L. This difference in the behaviour between C12DMPO and C10EO5 could possibly be related to changes in the protein molecule structure caused by the addition of C10EO5. The penetration of the surfactant molecule into the BLG globule leads to an increase of its size, and hence, the area of the protein molecule. This effect becomes apparent for the state of the protein molecule at a minimum area ωmin.

The

red

solid

curve

(1)

in

Fig. 3

was

calculated

for

f = 0.1 Hz

with

ωmin = 4.5×106 m2/mol 19. The calculations with an increased value ωmin = 6×106 m2/mol yield the blue curve (6), which is seen to be in a much better agreement with the experimental data. It should be noted that this increase of ωmin (also some other parameters were slightly changed to obtain the best fit of the calculated values to all experimental data) does not virtually affect the dependence of the surface tension of the BLG mixture with С10ЕO5 on the surfactant concentration. This is illustrated by Fig. 4, where the experimental data and calculated results reproduced from Fig. 6 of

19

are shown along with the curve calculated with the corrected ωmin

value.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 12 of 23

12

Fig. 4. Dependencies of equilibrium surface tension isotherms for BLG mixtures with C10EO5 (■) and for BCS mixtures with C12DMPO (□) at a fixed protein bulk concentration of 10−5 mmol/L on the surfactants concentration. The experimental points and dashed calculated curves are reproduced from

19

; solid curves are calculated with corrected ωmin values for the

proteins. The experimental results for the 10−5 mmol/L BCS solutions with additions of non-ionic surfactants are shown in Figs. 5-7. Similarly to the BLG solutions, the visco-elasticity modulus for the individual 10−5 mmol/L BCS solution coincides (to within the experimental error) with those values measured for mixtures with the surfactants at concentrations below 10−5 mmol/L. These modules are equal to 29 and 31 mN/m at frequencies 0.01 and 0.1 Hz, respectively, which is quite close to the values 25-30 mN/m measured for the same BCS concentration at pH 7 using the oscillating bubble method in 26. The experimental values of the visco-elasticity modulus for both mixtures exhibit maxima at surfactant concentrations of about 10−3 mmol/L. The magnitudes of these maxima are essentially larger (especially for the BCS mixture with C14DMPO) than those for the mixtures with BLG. For the mixture with C10EO5 the modulus does not exhibit any pronounced maximum and decreases monotonously with increasing surfactant concentration, while the same addition to BLG results in an increase of the viscoACS Paragon Plus Environment

Page 13 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


13 elasticity modulus and the existence of an appreciable maximum. The phase angle values for the surfactant mixtures with BCS are approximately the same as those for the mixtures with BLG except for the BSC/С14DMPO mixture, where at a concentration of 5×10-3 mmol/L the phase angle was found to be as large as (10÷20)º.

Fig. 5. Dependence of the visco-elasticity modulus for mixtures of a 10−5 mmol/L BCS solution with C14DMPO and for individual C14DMPO solutions for two oscillation frequencies. Experimental points: (■,□), mixture; (®,¯), individual C14DMPO solution; filled symbols, f = 0.1 Hz; open symbols, f = 0.01 Hz. Calculation results: solid curves (1,3), f = 0.1 Hz; dashed curves (2,4), f = 0.01 Hz; red curves (1,2), mixture; black curves (3,4), individual C14DMPO; green curve (5), calculations using the reorientation model with parameters listed in Table 1; blue curve (6), calculations with increased ωmin and bS values. For details see text.



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 14 of 23

14

Fig. 6. Dependence of the visco-elasticity modulus for mixtures of a 10−5 mmol/L BCS solution with C12DMPO and for individual C12DMPO solutions for two oscillation frequencies. Experimental points: (■,□), mixture; (®,¯), individual C12DMPO solution; filled symbols, f = 0.1 Hz; open symbols, f = 0.01 Hz. Calculation results: solid curves (1,3), f = 0.1 Hz; dashed curves (2,4), f = 0.01 Hz; red curves (1,2), mixtures; black curves (3,4), individual C12DMPO; green curve (5), calculations using the reorientation model with parameters listed in Table 1; blue curve (6), calculations with increased ωmin and bS values. For details see text.


Page 15 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


15

Fig. 7. Dependence of the visco-elasticity modulus for mixtures of a 10−5 mmol/L BCS solution with C10EO5 and for individual C10EO5 solutions for two oscillation frequencies. Experimental points: (■,□), mixture; (®,¯), individual C10EO5 solution; filled symbols, f = 0.1 Hz; open symbols, f = 0.01 Hz. Calculation results: solid curves (1,3), f = 0.1 Hz; dashed curves (2,4), f = 0.01 Hz; red curves (1,2) for mixtures calculated with increased ωmin values; black curves (3,4), individual C12DMPO; green curve (5), calculations using the reorientation model with parameters listed in Table 1. For details see text. Fig. 8 illustrates the equilibrium surface tension isotherms for BCS+C10EO5 mixtures at a fixed BCS bulk concentration of 10−5 mmol/L; also shown are data for pure С10EO5 solutions measured by the buoyant bubble method. As compared with the calculations which disregard the increase of the BCS adsorption activity caused by the presence of the surfactant (curve 2), the values obtained assuming this dependence are only by 1.3÷1.5 mN/m lower (curve 3), while for the BLG+C10EO5 system this decrease is two times larger, see 19. For the dependence shown in Fig. 8 by curve (3) which was obtained using the model equations (1), (2) and others derived in 19, the values of aX = 103 l/mmol, cm = 2×10−4 mmol/L and c0 = 0 were found; this yields the coefficient describing the protein activity increase k = [1 + a X (cm − c0 )] = 1.2 , which is much



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 16 of 23

16 lower than for other systems studied in

19

. It is known that the influence of co-adsorbed

surfactants on the structure of adsorbed protein depends on the kind and chemical structure of the surfactant

27-30

. In this regard, the very weak influence caused by C10EO5 could be explained by

the fact that the polar group of this molecule is quite large. To verify this supposition, we have studied mixed solutions of BCS and C12EO5. It appears that the presence of this surfactant does not result in any additional decrease in surface tension: the observed differences were within the experimental error range, i.e. aX = 0. Also, the dependence of the visco-elasticity modulus on the C12EO5 concentration is different from those obtained for all other mixtures: this dependence does not exhibit any extrema and the modulus remains constant and equal to its value for individual BCS (ca. 30 mN/m at 0.1 Hz) up to a C12EO5 concentration of 10−3 mmol/L. For higher C12EO5 concentrations the visco-elasticity modulus becomes lower which is caused by the competitive adsorption of the surfactant. For the individual solutions the maximum of the modulus is attained at a concentration of 2×10−3 mmol/L; for the frequency of 0.1 Hz the modulus value is 24 mN/m.


Page 17 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


17

Fig. 8. Equilibrium surface tension isotherms for a fixed BCS concentration of 10-5 mmol/L BCS mixed with C10EO5 (■) and for individual C10EO5 solutions (□,¯). The experimental points and theoretical dependence for individual C10EO5 solutions (thin line 1) are reproduced from 19; the bold black line (2) is the dependence for mixtures calculated using the parameters listed in Tables 1 and 2 in 19; the bold blue line (3), is the dependence for mixtures calculated using the same parameters and Eqs. (1), (2) with the values of the parameters involved in Eq. (2) listed in the text. The horizontal dotted line corresponds to the surface tension value for 10−5 mmol/L individual BCS solution. The experimental and theoretical dependencies for the individual С12DMPO and C10EO5 solutions shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are reproduced from Figs. 1 and 3, respectively. The dependence for the individual С14DMPO solutions shown in Fig. 5 exhibits good fitting by the reorientation model with parameters listed in Table 1, and differs significantly from that obtained using Frumkin’s model. The theoretical curves for mixtures in Figs. 5-7 were calculated with the parameters listed in Tables 1-3 of

19

. However, the minimum adsorption area for the BCS

molecule ωmin in mixtures with С12DMPO and С14DMPO was increased to 6×106 m2/mol (instead of 4.4×106 m2/mol). For mixtures with C10EO5 this increase was much less significant,



1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 18 of 23

18 i.e. up to 5×106 m2/mol only, because of a very weak influence of C10EO5 molecules on the BCS activity. Similarly, for BLG solutions, the interaction of surfactant molecules with BCS molecules can result in an increase of its volume and adsorption area ωmin in the state with minimal area. Therefore, in the calculations all other parameters were either taken to be equal to their values determined in the previous publications, or slightly varied (bP,1, ωmax, ω0) to keep other dependencies unchanged. This is illustrated by Fig. 4, where the experimental results and calculated dependence of surface tension for BCS mixtures with С12DMPO are reproduced from Fig. 3 in

19

. Also shown in Fig. 4 is the calculated curve for the corrected value

ωmin = 6×106 m2/mol (solid curve), which is almost identical with the curve obtained for the noncorrected value (dashed curve). The increase of ωmin for the BCS molecules by approximately 106 m2/mol is quite probable: as the C12DMPO molar area is 2.5×105 m2/mol 19, the aggregation of the protein molecule with 4 or 5 C12DMPO molecules would be sufficient. The theoretical calculations for BCS mixtures with C14DMPO were performed with two sets of parameters. The red curves (1) and (2) in Fig. 5 were obtained with the corrected ωmin value, while to calculate the blue curve (6) for 0.1 Hz the bS value was also increased by a factor of 3. The curve obtained with this second set (i.e. with both ωmin and bS values increased) is closer to the experimental dependence. Similar calculations were made for BCS mixtures with C12DMPO; these are illustrated by Fig. 6. It is seen that the blue curve (6) obtained with both ωmin and bS values increased also exhibits better agreement with the experimental data. For BCS mixtures with С10ЕO5 (see Fig. 7) the calculations were made with the increase of ωmin only to 5×106 m2/mol and bS unchanged; this was sufficient to obtain good agreement with the experimental data. There is a certain relation between the change of the visco-elasticity modulus and the increase of the adsorption activity of proteins due to the influence caused by the presence of surfactants in the mixture. Fig. 9 illustrates the ratio of the maximum values of the visco-elasticity modulus for the mixture to that of the individual protein solution as a function of the coefficient

k = [1 + a X (c m − c 0 )] and on the maximum difference Δγ between the surface tension calculated disregarding the influence of the surfactant on the protein adsorption activity and its original value. In Fig. 8 this is the difference between the values of the bold black line (2) and the bold blue line (3) at the surfactant concentration of 4×10−4 mmol/L; for other systems these values could be calculated from the corresponding plots presented in

19

. It is seen that both these

dependencies for two oscillation frequencies are approximately straight lines. The maximum value of the modulus (approximately twice as large as that for the individual BCS solution) was found for the BCS mixture with С14DMPO: for this case k = 2.7 and Δγ = 6 mN/m.


Page 19 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


19

Fig. 9. Dependencies of the ratio of maximum value of the visco-elasticity modulus for the mixture of protein with surfactant Emax to that of the individual protein solution E0 on the difference Δγ between the surface tension calculated disregarding the influence of the surfactant on the protein adsorption activity and its original value (¢,£, curve 1), and also as a function of the coefficient k (®,¯, curve 2); filled and open symbols correspond to the frequencies 0.1 and 0.01 Hz, respectively. Conclusions The influence of the addition of the non-ionic surfactants C12DMPO, C14DMPO, С10ОН and С10ЕО5 at concentrations between 10−5 and 10−1 mmol/L to BCS and BLG solutions, respectively, at a fixed concentration of 10−5 mmol/L on the dilational surface rheology is ACS Paragon Plus Environment


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 20 of 23

20 studied. It is shown that a significant change of the visco-elasticity modulus occur, and a maximum at very low surfactant concentration (10−4 to 10−3 mmol/L) appears for BCS mixtures with С12DMPO and С14DMPO, while for all other studied mixtures the increase of the modulus is not so pronounced. For BCS mixtures with С10ЕO5 only a slight increase of the modulus with increasing concentration was observed, while for BLG mixtures with С10ЕO5 this increase is essentially higher. As can be seen, the rheological behavior of mixtures of proteins with surfactants is affected by the protein structure and the type of the polar group of surfactants. BLG is a typical globular protein, and BCS flexible protein. To understand the mechanism of the surfactants' effect more research is required on the structure of the complexes. The viscoelasticity modulus was calculated using the theoretical model developed in

19

, which takes into

account the surfactant influence on the adsorption activity of proteins. The model assumes that the increase of the equilibrium adsorption activity of a protein is proportional to the surfactant concentration in the solution. The values of the visco-elasticity modulus calculated using this model, with additional assumption that the presence of surfactant affects the minimum molar area of adsorbed protein molecules, are in a satisfactory agreement with the experimental data for all systems studied. It is shown that a linear dependence exists between the ratio of the maximum |E| value for the mixture to that of the individual protein solution, and the value of the coefficient k which expresses the impact of surfactant molecules on the adsorption activity of proteins. A linear dependence exists also between this ratio and the difference between the surface tension calculated disregarding the influence of the surfactant on the protein adsorption activity and its original value. A maximum value of the modulus (twice as large as that for the individual protein solution) was found for BCS mixtures with С14DMPO, for which k = 2.7, while the surface tension decrease amounts to 6 mN/m. Acknowledgements The work was financially supported by projects of the DFG SPP 1506 (Mi418/18-2), the DLR (50WM1129), and the COST actions CM1101 and MP1106. References 1.

Graham, D. E.; Phillips, M. C. Proteins at Liquid Interfaces IV. Dilational Properties, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1980, 76, 227-239.

2.

Benjamins, J.; Lyklema, J.; Lucassen-Reynders, E. H. Compression/Expansion Rheology of Oil/Water Interfaces with Adsorbed Proteins. Comparison with the Air/Water Surface, Langmuir, 2006, 22, 6181-6188.

3.

Dickinson, E. Colloid Science of Mixed Ingredients. Soft Matter, 2006, 2, 642-652.


Page 21 of 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


21 4.

Maldonado-Valderrama, J.; Martin-Molina, A.; Martin-Rodriguez, A.; CabrerizoVilchez, M.A.; Galvez-Ruiz, M.J.; Langevin, D. Surface Properties and Foam Stability of Protein/Surfactant Mixtures: Theory and Experiment. J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 27152723.

5.

Aksenenko, E. V.; Kovalchuk, V. I.; Fainerman, V. B.; Miller, R. Surface Dilational Rheology of Mixed Surfactant Layers at Liquid Interfaces. J. Phys. Chem. C 2007, 111, 14713-14719.

6.

Kotsmar, Cs.; Pradines, V.; Alahverdjieva, V. S.; Aksenenko, E. V.; Fainerman, V. B.; Kovalchuk, V. I.; Krägel, J.; Leser, M.E.; Miller, R. Thermodynamics, Adsorption Kinetics and Rheology of Mixed Protein-Surfactant Interfacial Layers. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2009, 150, 41–54.

7.

Goddard, E. D. Polymer/Surfactant Interaction: Interfacial Aspects. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2002, 256, 228–235.

8.

Maldonado-Valderrama, J.; Patino, J. M. R. Interfacial Rheology of Protein-Surfactant Mixtures. Current Opinion in Colloid and Interface Science 2010, 15, 271-282.

9.

Mackie, A. R.; Gunning, A, P.; Wilde, P. J.; Morris, V. J. Orogenic Displacement of Protein from the Air/Water Interface by Competitive Adsorption. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1999, 210, 157-166.

10.

Mackie, A. R.; Gunning, A, P.; Ridout, M. J.; Wilde, P. J.; Morris, V. J. Orogenic Displacement in Mixed β-lactoglobulin/β-casein Films at the Air/Water Interface. Langmuir 2001, 17, 6593-6598.

11.

Mackie, A.R.; Gunning, A.P.; Ridout, M.J.; Wilde, P.J.; Patino, J.R. In Situ Measurement of the Displacement of Protein Films from the Air/Water Interface by Surfactant. Biomacromolecules 2001, 2, 1001-1006.

12.

Green, R. J.; Su, T. J.; Lu, J. R.; Webster, J.; Penfold, J. Competitive Adsorption of Lysozyme and C12E5 at the Air/Liquid Interface. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2000, 2, 52225229.

13.

Bos, M. A.; Vliet, T. Interfacial Rheological Properties of Adsorbed Protein Layers and Surfactants: a Review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2001, 91, 437-471.

14.

Murray, B. S. Interfacial Rheology of Food Emulsifiers and Proteins. Current Opinion in Colloid Interface Sci. 2002, 7, 426-431.

15.

Lissi, E.; Abuin, E.; Lanio, M. E.; Alvarez, C. A New and Simple Procedure for the Evaluation of the Association of Surfactants to Protein. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 2002, 50, 261–268.

16.

Bhattacharyya, A.; Monroy, F.; Langevin, D.; Argillier, J.-F. Surface Rheology and Foam Stability of Mixed Surfactant-Polyelectrolyte Solutions. Langmuir 2000, 16, 8727-8732.

17.

Asnacios, A.; Klitzing, R.; Langevin, D. Mixed Monolayers of Polyelectrolytes and Surfactants at the Air-Water Interface. Colloids Surfaces A 2000, 167, 189-197.

18.

Lotfi, M.; Javadi, A.; Lylyk, S. V.; Bastani, D.; Fainerman, V. B.; Miller, R. Adsorption of Proteins at the Solution/Air Interface Influenced by Added Non-Ionic Surfactants at Very Low Concentrations for Both Components. 1. Dodecyl Dimethyl Phosphine Oxide. Colloids Surfaces A, doi:10.1016/j.colsurfa.2014.12.065.

19.

Fainerman, V. B.; Lotfi, M.; Javadi, A.; Aksenenko, E. V.; Tarasevich, Yu. I.; Bastani D.; Miller, R. Adsorption of Proteins at the Solution/Air Interface Influenced by Added NonIonic Surfactants at Very Low Concentrations for Both Components. 2. Effect of Different Surfactants and Theoretical Model. Langmuir 2014, 30, 12812−12818. ACS Paragon Plus Environment


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Page 22 of 23

22 20.

Fainerman, V. B.; Aksenenko, E. V.; Petkov, J. T.; Miller, R. Adsorption Layer Characteristics of Multicomponent Surfactants Solutions, Soft Matter 2010, 6, 4694-4700.

21.

Fainerman, V. B.; Miller, R. Adsorption Isotherms at Liquid Interfaces, in: P. Somasundaran, A. Hubbard (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Surface and Colloid Science, Taylor and Francis, 2nd Edition, 2009, pp. 1–15.

22.

Joos, P. Dynamic Surface Phenomena; VSP: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999.

23.

Lucassen, J.; van den Tempel, M. Dynamic Measurements of Dilational Properties of a Liquid Interface. Chem. Eng. Sci. 1972, 27, 1283-1291.

24.

Lucassen, J.; Hansen, R. S. Damping of Waves on Monolayer-Covered Surfaces: II. Influence of Bulk-to-Surface Diffusional Interchange on Ripple Characteristics. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 1967, 23, 319-328.

25.

G. Gochev, I. Retzlaff, E.V. Aksenenko, V.B. Fainerman and R. Miller, Adsorption Isotherms and Equation of State for Adsorbed β-Lactoglobulin Layers at the Air/Water Surface, Colloids Surfaces A 2013, 422, 33-38.

26. Wüstneck, R.; Fainerman, V. B.; Aksenenko, E. V.; Kotsmar, Cs.; Pradines, V.; Krägel, J.; Miller, R. Surface Dilatational Behavior of β-casein at the Solution/Air Interface at Different pH Values. Colloids Surfaces A 2012, 404, 17–24. 27.

Mackie, A. R. Structure of Adsorbed Layers of Mixtures of Proteins and Surfactants. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 2004, 9, 357–361.

28.

Langevin, D. Polyelectrolyte and Surfactant Mixed Solutions. Behavior at Surfaces and in Thin Films. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 2001, 89-90, 467-484.

29.

Rodriguez Patino, J. M.; Rodriguez Nino, M. R.; Sanchez, C. C. Protein-Emulsifier Interactions at the Air-Water Interface. Current Opinion in Coll. Interf. Sci. 2004, 8, 387395.

30.

Ganzevles, R. A.; Cohen Stuart, M. A.; van Vliet, T.; de Jongh, H. H. J. Use of Polysaccharides to Control Protein Adsorption to the Air-Water Interface. Food Hydrocolloids 2006, 20, 872-878.


Page 23 of 23

Adsorption of proteins at the solution/air interface influenced by added non-ionic surfactants at very low concentrations for both components. 3. Dilational surface rheology V.B. Fainerman, E.V. Aksenenko, S.V. Lylyk, M. Lotfi and R. Miller

40

Visco-Elastisity Modulus (mN/m)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60


30

BCS + C10EO5

20

C10EO5

10

0 1E-05

1E-04

1E-03

1E-02

C10EO5 Concentration(mmol/L)


1E-01

Air Interface Influenced by

Recommend Documents