Cargando…

Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance

Dry fractionated faba bean protein-rich flour (FPR) produced by milling/air classification, and faba bean protein isolate (FPI) produced by acid extraction/isoelectric precipitation were compared in terms of composition, techno-functional properties, nutritional properties and environmental impacts....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, Martin, Petersen, Iben Lykke, Joehnke, Marcel Skejovic, Sørensen, Jens Christian, Bez, Juergen, Detzel, Andreas, Busch, Mirjam, Krueger, Martina, O’Mahony, James A., Arendt, Elke K., Zannini, Emanuele
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32168773
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9030322
_version_ 1783519552375619584
author Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, Martin
Petersen, Iben Lykke
Joehnke, Marcel Skejovic
Sørensen, Jens Christian
Bez, Juergen
Detzel, Andreas
Busch, Mirjam
Krueger, Martina
O’Mahony, James A.
Arendt, Elke K.
Zannini, Emanuele
author_facet Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, Martin
Petersen, Iben Lykke
Joehnke, Marcel Skejovic
Sørensen, Jens Christian
Bez, Juergen
Detzel, Andreas
Busch, Mirjam
Krueger, Martina
O’Mahony, James A.
Arendt, Elke K.
Zannini, Emanuele
author_sort Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, Martin
collection PubMed
description Dry fractionated faba bean protein-rich flour (FPR) produced by milling/air classification, and faba bean protein isolate (FPI) produced by acid extraction/isoelectric precipitation were compared in terms of composition, techno-functional properties, nutritional properties and environmental impacts. FPR had a lower protein content (64.1%, dry matter (DM)) compared to FPI (90.1%, DM), due to the inherent limitations of air classification. Of the two ingredients, FPR demonstrated superior functionality, including higher protein solubility (85%), compared to FPI (32%) at pH 7. Foaming capacity was higher for FPR, although foam stability was similar for both ingredients. FPR had greater gelling ability compared to FPI. The higher carbohydrate content of FPR may have contributed to this difference. An amino acid (AA) analysis revealed that both ingredients were low in sulfur-containing AAs, with FPR having a slightly higher level than FPI. The potential nutritional benefits of the aqueous process compared to the dry process used in this study were apparent in the higher in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD) and lower trypsin inhibitor activity (TIA) in FPI compared to FPR. Additionally, vicine/convicine were detected in FPR, but not in FPI. Furthermore, much lower levels of fermentable oligo-, di- and monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) were found in FPI compared to FPR. The life cycle assessment (LCA) revealed a lower environmental impact for FPR, partly due to the extra water and energy required for aqueous processing. However, in a comparison with cow’s milk protein, both FPR and FPI were shown to have considerably lower environmental impacts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7143175
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71431752020-04-14 Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, Martin Petersen, Iben Lykke Joehnke, Marcel Skejovic Sørensen, Jens Christian Bez, Juergen Detzel, Andreas Busch, Mirjam Krueger, Martina O’Mahony, James A. Arendt, Elke K. Zannini, Emanuele Foods Article Dry fractionated faba bean protein-rich flour (FPR) produced by milling/air classification, and faba bean protein isolate (FPI) produced by acid extraction/isoelectric precipitation were compared in terms of composition, techno-functional properties, nutritional properties and environmental impacts. FPR had a lower protein content (64.1%, dry matter (DM)) compared to FPI (90.1%, DM), due to the inherent limitations of air classification. Of the two ingredients, FPR demonstrated superior functionality, including higher protein solubility (85%), compared to FPI (32%) at pH 7. Foaming capacity was higher for FPR, although foam stability was similar for both ingredients. FPR had greater gelling ability compared to FPI. The higher carbohydrate content of FPR may have contributed to this difference. An amino acid (AA) analysis revealed that both ingredients were low in sulfur-containing AAs, with FPR having a slightly higher level than FPI. The potential nutritional benefits of the aqueous process compared to the dry process used in this study were apparent in the higher in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD) and lower trypsin inhibitor activity (TIA) in FPI compared to FPR. Additionally, vicine/convicine were detected in FPR, but not in FPI. Furthermore, much lower levels of fermentable oligo-, di- and monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) were found in FPI compared to FPR. The life cycle assessment (LCA) revealed a lower environmental impact for FPR, partly due to the extra water and energy required for aqueous processing. However, in a comparison with cow’s milk protein, both FPR and FPI were shown to have considerably lower environmental impacts. MDPI 2020-03-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7143175/ /pubmed/32168773 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9030322 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, Martin
Petersen, Iben Lykke
Joehnke, Marcel Skejovic
Sørensen, Jens Christian
Bez, Juergen
Detzel, Andreas
Busch, Mirjam
Krueger, Martina
O’Mahony, James A.
Arendt, Elke K.
Zannini, Emanuele
Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance
title Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance
title_full Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance
title_fullStr Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance
title_short Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance
title_sort comparison of faba bean protein ingredients produced using dry fractionation and isoelectric precipitation: techno-functional, nutritional and environmental performance
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7143175/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32168773
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods9030322
work_keys_str_mv AT vogelsangodwyermartin comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT petersenibenlykke comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT joehnkemarcelskejovic comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT sørensenjenschristian comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT bezjuergen comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT detzelandreas comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT buschmirjam comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT kruegermartina comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT omahonyjamesa comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT arendtelkek comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance
AT zanniniemanuele comparisonoffababeanproteiningredientsproducedusingdryfractionationandisoelectricprecipitationtechnofunctionalnutritionalandenvironmentalperformance