Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance.
FODMAPs
antinutrients
carbon footprint
dry fractionation
faba bean
functional properties
isoelectric precipitation
life cycle assessment
nutrition
protein
Journal
Foods (Basel, Switzerland)
ISSN: 2304-8158
Titre abrégé: Foods
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101670569
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Mar 2020
11 Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
02
02
2020
revised:
02
03
2020
accepted:
05
03
2020
entrez:
15
3
2020
pubmed:
15
3
2020
medline:
15
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32168773
pii: foods9030322
doi: 10.3390/foods9030322
pmc: PMC7143175
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Horizon 2020
ID : 635727
Références
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Jul;34(7):1134-1142
pubmed: 30945376
Nahrung. 2001 Oct;45(6):377-81
pubmed: 11712234
Food Res Int. 2019 Sep;123:346-354
pubmed: 31284985
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005 Jun 15;21(12):1399-409
pubmed: 15948806
Food Sci Biotechnol. 2016 Dec 31;25(6):1513-1522
pubmed: 30263439
Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 1997;51(4):331-42
pubmed: 9650726
Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2019 Aug;270:147-164
pubmed: 31229885
Int J Biol Macromol. 2005 Aug;36(3):135-43
pubmed: 15996729
Eur J Nutr. 2016 Apr;55(3):897-906
pubmed: 25982757
J Food Sci Technol. 2015 Jul;52(7):4135-45
pubmed: 26139878
Science. 2018 Jun 1;360(6392):987-992
pubmed: 29853680
Int J Food Microbiol. 2015 Jan 16;193:34-42
pubmed: 25462921
Food Chem. 2017 Sep 15;231:87-95
pubmed: 28450027
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Mar;32 Suppl 1:53-61
pubmed: 28244665
J Anim Sci. 2010 Feb;88(2):660-70
pubmed: 19820045
J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Mar 13;50(6):1569-73
pubmed: 11879038
Food Chem. 2016 Oct 15;209:203-10
pubmed: 27173553
J Agric Food Chem. 2004 Aug 11;52(16):5071-8
pubmed: 15291477
J Agric Food Chem. 2018 Jan 24;66(3):711-719
pubmed: 29264921
Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Aug;70(5):551-561
pubmed: 30614326
Food Chem. 2012 May 1;132(1):67-72
pubmed: 26434264
J Sci Food Agric. 2011 Apr;91(6):1022-31
pubmed: 21328351
Gels. 2016 Aug 16;2(3):
pubmed: 30674153
J Agric Food Chem. 2019 Apr 17;67(15):4384-4392
pubmed: 30915837