FH|华中农业大学:海藻酸钠 - 蛋壳粉协同稳定无糖戚风蛋糕中的蛋清蛋白泡沫:界面流变学、多尺度结构与应用性能

Graphical abstract

Fig. 1. FC (A), FS (B), pH (C), soluble Ca2+ concentration (D), and representative macroscopic images (E) of EWP dispersions prepared with different SA (0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5%, w/v) and EP (0, 1, and 2%, w/v) concentrations. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

Fig. 2. Turbidity (A), representative macroscopic images of dispersions (B) and zeta potential (C) of EWP dispersions prepared with different SA (0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5%, w/v) and EP (0, 1, and 2%, w/v) concentrations. Particle size distributions of EWP dispersions prepared with different sodium alginate concentrations (0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% w/v) at 0% EP (D), 1% EP (E), and 2% EP (F). Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

Fig. 3. UV-Vis spectra of EWP dispersions prepared with different sodium alginate (SA) and eggshell powder (EP) concentrations: 0% EP with 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% SA (A); 1% EP with 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% SA (B); and 2% EP with 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% SA (C). Second-derivative UV spectra of the corresponding samples: 0% EP (D), 1% EP (E), and 2% EP (F). Heatmap of the characteristic ratio r values calculated from the second-derivative spectra for all groups (G).

Fig. 4. Intrinsic fluorescence spectra of EWP dispersions prepared with different SA and EP concentrations: 0% EP with 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% SA (A); 1% EP with 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% SA (B); and 2% EP with 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% SA (C). Heatmap summarizing the fluorescence intensity of all groups (D).

Fig. 5. EEM spectra of EWP dispersions prepared with different SA and EP concentrations: 0% EP with 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% SA (A-E); 1% EP with 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% SA (F-J); and 2% EP with 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% SA (K-O). Heatmaps of Peak I intensity (P) and Peak II intensity (Q) extracted from the EEM spectra.

Fig. 6. FTIR spectra of SA, EWP, and EP as single components (A), and FTIR spectra of EWP dispersions prepared with different SA concentrations (0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5%) in the presence of 0% EP (B), 1% EP (C), and 2% EP (D).

Fig. 7. Multiple light scattering profiles and TSI of foams prepared with different SA and EP concentrations. (A) Time-dependent transmittance (T%) and backscattering (BS%) profiles along sample height for foams prepared with different SA and EP concentrations. (B-D) TSI evolution of foams prepared with SA concentrations of 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% at EP concentrations of 0% (B), 1% (C), and 2% (D).

Fig. 8. Rheological properties of dispersions and foams prepared with different sodium alginate (SA) and eggshell powder (EP) concentrations. (A-C) Apparent viscosity of the dispersions prepared with SA concentrations of 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% at EP concentrations of 0% (A), 1% (B), and 2% (C). (D-F) Apparent viscosity of the corresponding foams prepared with SA concentrations of 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% at EP concentrations of 0% (D), 1% (E), and 2% (F). (G-I) Storage modulus (G′) and loss modulus (G″) of the dispersions prepared with SA concentrations of 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% at EP concentrations of 0% (G), 1% (H), and 2% (I). (J-L) Storage modulus (G′) and loss modulus (G″) of the corresponding foams prepared with SA concentrations of 0, 0.3, 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5% at EP concentrations of 0% (J), 1% (K), and 2% (L).

Fig. 9. Representative optical micrographs of freshly prepared foams (0 min) produced with different SA and EP concentrations (A), and the corresponding segmented images obtained by the deep learning-based Cellpose algorithm for bubble identification and size analysis (B).

Fig. 10. Bubble number and diameter distributions of freshly prepared foams (0 min) formulated with different SA and EP concentrations, quantified from optical micrographs using ImageJ after bubble identification/segmentation. Histograms show bubble counts as a function of diameter, and the cumulative frequency curves indicate the corresponding size distribution.

Fig. 11. Representative optical micrographs of foams after 30 min standing prepared with different SA and EP concentrations (A), and the corresponding segmented images processed by the deep learning-based Cellpose algorithm for bubble identification and size analysis (B).

Fig. 12. CLSM images of foams prepared with different SA and EP formulations (2% EP, 0% SA-0% EP, 1.5% SA-0% EP, 1.5% SA-2% EP, 0% SA-2% EP, and 0.5% SA-2% EP). The first row shows the fluorescent whitening agent channel, the second row shows the FITC channel, the third row shows the Rhodamine B channel, and the fourth row shows the merged images. Scale bar = 50 μm.

Fig. 13. Interfacial adsorption kinetics and interfacial dilatational rheology of selected EWP foams prepared with different SA-EP formulations. Interfacial pressure (π) as a function of time (A) and t1/2 (B), where the initial linear region was used to obtain the diffusion rate constant (Kdiff). (C) Ward-Tordai analysis of ln[(πf−πt)/(πf−π0)] versus time for estimating the penetration (KP) and rearrangement (KR) rate constants. Time evolution of the interfacial complex dilatational modulus (E) (D), interfacial elastic modulus (Ed) (E), and interfacial viscous modulus (Ev) (F) during adsorption.

Fig. 14. Application of optimized EWP-SA-EP foams in sugar-free chiffon cakes. Representative macroscopic appearance of freshly prepared foams at 0 and 30 min for selected formulations (A). Top-view images, cross-sectional crumb morphology, and corresponding pore-structure maps of sugar-free chiffon cakes prepared with different foams (B). Texture profile analysis parameters, including hardness (C), springiness (D), gumminess (E), and resilience (F), of the resulting cakes. Different letters indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).