Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Experimental table of three factors and three levels.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Design of experiment matrix for pH, proportion of particle liquid and particle concentration.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 1.

Relationship between menthol concentration and embedding rate, different letters (a-e) indicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

(a) (b) (c) were graphs of pH, particle liquid ratio and oil/water ratio (%) versus embedding rate, different letters (a-d) indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) among the different groups and the error bars represent the SD.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 3.

Particle size and potential of emulsion of the blank and the menthol Pickering emulsions.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

ANOVA by RSM for the pH, particle liquid ratio, and particle concentrations and rut depth for the menthol Pickering emulsion.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Regression analysis values for the responses.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 3.

(a) were normal plot of residuals, (b) were predicred vs. actual.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

2-D and 3-D RSM surface showing the stimulatory influence of pH, Particle liquid ratio and Particle concentration on Composite score, (a) and (b) were the stimulatory influence of pH and Particle concentration on Composite score; (c) and (d) were the stimulatory influence of pH and Particle liquid ratio on Composite score; (e) and (f) were the stimulatory influence of Particle liquid ratio and Particle concentration on Composite score.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Changes in emulsification values of Pickering emulsions at different storage times, A was the blank emulsion, B was the menthol Pickering emulsion.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy and laser confocal microscopy diagrams of Pickering emulsion, (a) was the optical microscopy images of the menthol Pickering emulsion during storage at a scale of 20 μm,(b) and (c) were the SEM images of the menthol Pickering emulsion and the blank Pickering emulsion, and the magnification of (b) and (c) were 1000 times, (d) to (i) were the CLSM images of the menthol Pickering emulsion and the blank Pickering emulsion.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Fig 7.

Rheological properties of Pickering emulsion, η: Apparent viscosity, Gʹ: Storage moduli, Gʹʹ: Loss moduli.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Fig 8.

Effect of temperature change on the rheological properties of the blank and menthol Pickering emulsions, (a) and (b) were temperature rise plots of the menthol Pickering emulsion and the blank Pickering emulsion, (c) and (d) were temperature drop plots of the menthol Pickering emulsion and the blank Pickering emulsion.

More »

Fig 8 Expand

Fig 9.

The variation trend of MDA content in the blank Pickering emulsion,the mentol Pickering emulsion and Soubean oil with storage time.

More »

Fig 9 Expand

Fig 10.

Release rate of FFA from Pickering emulsion in an in vitro simulated digestion model.

More »

Fig 10 Expand

Fig 11.

Plate colony diagrams of different samples.

More »

Fig 11 Expand