Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVogelsang-O'Dwyer, Martin
dc.contributor.authorPetersen, Iben Lykke
dc.contributor.authorJoehnke, Marcel Skejovic
dc.contributor.authorSørensen, Jens Christian
dc.contributor.authorBez, Juergen
dc.contributor.authorDetzel, Andreas
dc.contributor.authorBusch, Mirjam
dc.contributor.authorKrueger, Martina
dc.contributor.authorO'Mahony, James A
dc.contributor.authorArendt, Elke K
dc.contributor.authorZannini, Emanuele
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-14T14:46:43Z
dc.date.available2021-09-14T14:46:43Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-11
dc.identifier.issn2304-8158
dc.identifier.pmid32168773
dc.identifier.doi10.3390/foods9030322
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/630396
dc.descriptionDry 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.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectFODMAPsen_US
dc.subjectantinutrientsen_US
dc.subjectcarbon footprinten_US
dc.subjectdry fractionationen_US
dc.subjectfaba beanen_US
dc.subjectfunctional propertiesen_US
dc.subjectisoelectric precipitationen_US
dc.subjectlife cycle assessmenten_US
dc.subjectNUTRITIONen_US
dc.subjectproteinen_US
dc.titleComparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.journalFoods (Basel, Switzerland)en_US
dc.source.journaltitleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)
dc.source.volume9
dc.source.issue3
refterms.dateFOA2021-09-14T14:46:44Z
dc.source.countrySwitzerland


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
foods-09-00322-v2.pdf
Size:
5.123Mb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record