Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2006.05.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Foaming behavior of mixed bovine serum albumin–protamine systems

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
22
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 37 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
22
0
Order By: Relevance
“…That is, foaming barns typically had higher surface tension than their non-foaming counterparts. This would seem to indicate that, in this manure system, lowering of the surface tension by surface-active agents, as others have hypothesized for wastewater foaming (Glaser et al, 2007;Davenport et al, 2008;Ganidi et al 2009), may not be the responsible mechanism. In our field study results, foaming manures had foaming capacities of 150, while non-foaming manures had capacities of around 100.…”
Section: Foaming Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 62%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…That is, foaming barns typically had higher surface tension than their non-foaming counterparts. This would seem to indicate that, in this manure system, lowering of the surface tension by surface-active agents, as others have hypothesized for wastewater foaming (Glaser et al, 2007;Davenport et al, 2008;Ganidi et al 2009), may not be the responsible mechanism. In our field study results, foaming manures had foaming capacities of 150, while non-foaming manures had capacities of around 100.…”
Section: Foaming Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 62%
“…Research has shown that deep-pit foam consists of 60% to 70% methane, but other gases, such as carbon dioxide, ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide, may contribute (Moody et al, 2009). When appropriate concentrations of surface-active agents are present in the liquid layer, they facilitate foam production by lowering the surface tension of the solution with respect to water (Glaser et al, 2007;Davenport et al, 2008). Finally, hydrophobic solids are thought to stabilize the foam by pre-venting or reducing liquid drainage from the foam and holding the bubbles in a stabilized structure (Bindal et al, 2002;Horozov, 2008;Heard et al, 2009).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In order to able to form foams, proteins should be water soluble (Chove et al. 2007) and should readily adsorb at the air–water interface (Glaser et al. 2007).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As with the formation of complexes between proteins and polysaccharides, the problem is separating out the effects of complex formation in the bulk from those at the interface. In a study that is analogous to the general protein + polysaccharide case, Glaser et al [81] examined the effect of a highly (positively) charged and therefore non surface active protein, protamine, on the surface dilatational rheology and foaming behaviour of oppositely charged bovine serum albumin (BSA). Interestingly, foam stability increased while surface rheology was hardly affected, which was interpreted as due to the formation of a BSA-protamine bilayer.…”
Section: Mixtures Of Proteins and Other High Molecular Weight Surfacementioning
confidence: 99%