Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T02:16:17.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fractal Dimensions of Soy Protein Nanoparticle Aggregates determined by Dynamic Mechanical Method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Lei Jong*
Affiliation:
lei.jong@ncaur.usda.gov, United States Department of Agriculture, National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research, 1815 North University Street, Peoria, IL, 61615, United States, 309-681-6240, 309-681-6685
Get access

Abstract

The fractal dimension of soy protein aggregates can be estimated by dynamic mechanical methods when the particle aggregates are imbedded in a polymer matrix. Composites were formed by mixing hydrolyzed soy protein isolate (HSPI) nanoparticle aggregates with styrene-butadiene (SB) latex, followed by freeze-drying and compression molding methods. The dynamic shear moduli of the elastomeric composites containing different particle fractions were measured. A logarithmic plot of shear modulus vs. particle fraction in rubber plateau region at 140 oC can be fitted with a linear line. From the slope of the fitted line, the fractal dimension of the particle aggregates was estimated using the Cluster-Cluster Aggregation (CCA) model developed by Kluppel and Heinrich. The CCA model can also be used to extract fractal dimension from dynamic strain sweep experiments. The reversible strain sweep data was then fitted with a CCA model expression developed by Huber and Vilgis to yield the fractal dimension of the particle aggregates. The results show that the fractal dimensions extracted from both linear and non-linear viscoelastic data have a good agreement with each other. The model fitting indicates HSPI has a greater fractal dimension and therefore a more compact structure than the un-hydrolyzed soy protein aggregates.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Carter, C. M., Cravens, W. W., Horan, F. E., Lewis, C. J., Mattil, K. F., and Williams, L. D., “Oilseed proteins”, in Protein Resources and Technology, edited by Milnre, M., Scrimshaw, N. S., and Wang, D. I. C. (AVI Publishing, 1978) pp.282284.Google Scholar
2 Jong, L., J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 98 (1), 353 (2005).Google Scholar
3 Badley, R. A., Atkinson, D., Hauser, H., Oldani, D., Green, J. P., Stubbs, J. M., Biochim. Biophys. Acta 412, 214 (1975).Google Scholar
4 Wolf, W. J., “Legumes: seed composition and structure, processing into protein products and protein properties”, in Food Proteins, edited by Whitaker, J. R. and Tannenbaum, S. R. (AVI Publishing, 1977) pp.291314.Google Scholar
5 Kilara, A. and Harwalker, V. R., “Denaturation”, in Food Proteins: Properties and Characterization, edited by Nakai, S. and Modler, H. W. (Wiley-VCH, Inc., 1996) pp.99105.Google Scholar
6 Kraus, G., J. Appl. Polym. Sci., Appl. Polym. Symp. 39, 75 (1984).Google Scholar
7 Heinrich, G. and Kluppel, M., Adv. Polym. Sci. 160, 1 (2002).Google Scholar
8 Ulmer, J. D., Rubber Chem. Technol. 69, 15 (1995).Google Scholar
9 Huber, G. and Vilgis, T. A., Kautsch Gummi Kunstst 52, 102 (1999).Google Scholar
10 Jong, L., Polym. Int. 54 (11), 1572 (2005).Google Scholar
11 Jong, L., Composites: Part A. 37, 438 (2006).Google Scholar
12 Shih, W., Shih, W. Y., Kim, S., Liu, J., and Aksay, I. A., Phys. Rev. A. 42, 4772 (1990).Google Scholar