## 3 Results and Discussion  
### Surface Characteristics  
The surface charges (\(\zeta\)-potential) of all protein mixtures at pH 7.00 are presented in Table 2. In all cases, the proteins carried a negative charge at a neutral pH. The measured surface charge values were comparable to those reported in the literature for pea protein: \(-20\) to \(-30\) mV [35], \(-20\) to \(-22\) mV [13], and \(-25\) mV [36]; lentil protein: \(-25\) to \(-30\) mV [37], \(-30\) mV [38], and \(-30\) mV [39]; and fava bean protein: \(-22\) mV [40], \(-20\) mV [41], and \(-28.3\) mV [42]. The surface charge values determined in this work are in agreement with the literature for legume proteins [35; 39; 43]. The T9 (\(-32.15\)\(\pm\) 1.27 mV) had higher surface charge values than the samples of the individual proteins found in this work and also in the literature. In this study, it was observed that the association between the proteins changed the surface charge of the mixtures, as the mixed proteins had higher negative charges than the protein alone. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Treatment** & **Coalescence** & **Flocculation** & **Flocculation** & **HCT** & **KE (\%)** & **Zeta Potential** \\  & **Stability (\%)** & **Stability (\%)** & **Index (\%)** & **(Minutes)** & **KE (mV)** \\ \hline T1 & \(22.18\pm 0.03\)\({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(4.13\pm 0.014\)\({}^{\text{j}}\) & 5.7 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 18.34 \(\pm\) 3.99 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 24.46 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & \(-30.28\)\(\pm\) 2.62 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ T2 & \(6.92\pm 0.016\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & 4.77 \(\pm\) 0.014 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 3.93 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & 13.53 \(\pm\) 2.11 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 65.58 \(\pm\) 3.84 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & \(-22.77\)\(\pm\) 2.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ T3 & \(49.41\pm 0.23\)\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 27.18 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 25.80 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 20.3 \(\pm\) 1.80 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 3.45 \(\pm\) 2.05 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & \(-26.25\)\(\pm\) 2.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ T4 & \(78.39\pm 0.38\)\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 26.69 \(\pm\) 0.13 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 26.02 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 19.7 \(\pm\) 0.83 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 40.53 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & \(-26.75\)\(\pm\) 2.34 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ T5 & \(5.25\pm 0.02\)\({}^{\text{f}}\) & 15.15 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{d}}\) & 13.13 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 18.4 \(\pm\) 4.14 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 10.91 \(\pm\) 2.65 \({}^{\text{f}}\) & \(-26.15\)\(\pm\) 2.19 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ T6 & \(11.58\pm 0.04\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & 4.49 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{h}}\) & 12.79 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 18.96 \(\pm\) 0.56 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 16.11 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(-28.05\)\(\pm\) 1.20 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ T7 & \(4.93\pm 0.07\)\({}^{\text{f}}\) & 1.31 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{k}}\) & 3.21 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 25.78 \(\pm\) 0.67 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 16.39 \(\pm\) 0.09 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(-28.10\)\(\pm\) 2.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ T8 & \(11.67\pm 0.02\)\({}^{\text{d}}\) & 18.56 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{c}}\) & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{i}}\) & 16.85 \(\pm\) 0.50 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & 74.01 \(\pm\) 0.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & \(-29.90\)\(\pm\) 2.69 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ T9 & \(7.07\pm 0.01\)\({}^{\text{e}}\) & 4.24 \(\pm\) 0.01 \({}^{\text{j}}\) & 5.76 \(\pm\) 0.06 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & 25.00 \(\pm\) 0.79 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 17.41 \(\pm\) 0.49 \({}^{\text{e}}\) & \(-32.15\)\(\pm\) 1.27 \({}^{\text{c}}\) \\ T10 & \(5.19\pm 0.01\)\({}^{\text{f}}\) & 6.82 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 3.38 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & 21.63 \(\pm\) 0.60 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 6.87 \(\pm\) 0.02 \({}^{\text{g}}\) & \(-30.40\)\(\pm\) 1.27 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
\({}^{\text{Different letters in the same column indicate significant differences at $p<0.05$}}\).  
\end{table}