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

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Standard

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.

In: Foods, Vol. 9, No. 3, 322, 2020.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

Harvard

Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, M, Petersen, IL, Joehnke, MS, Sørensen, JC, Bez, J, Detzel, A, Busch, M, Krueger, M, O’Mahony, JA, Arendt, EK & Zannini, E 2020, 'Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance', Foods, vol. 9, no. 3, 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9030322

APA

Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, M., Petersen, I. L., Joehnke, M. S., Sørensen, J. C., Bez, J., Detzel, A., Busch, M., Krueger, M., O’Mahony, J. A., Arendt, E. K., & Zannini, E. (2020). Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance. Foods, 9(3), [322]. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9030322

Vancouver

Vogelsang-O’Dwyer M, Petersen IL, Joehnke MS, Sørensen JC, Bez J, Detzel A et al. Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance. Foods. 2020;9(3). 322. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9030322

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. / Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation : Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance. In: Foods. 2020 ; Vol. 9, No. 3.

Bibtex

@article{d0fb7e27bf6a4f86983f0a1dc7a47910,
title = "Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation: Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance",
abstract = "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{\textquoteright}s milk protein, both FPR and FPI were shown to have considerably lower environmental impacts.",
keywords = "Antinutrients, Carbon footprint, Dry fractionation, Faba bean, FODMAPs, Functional properties, Isoelectric precipitation, Life cycle assessment, Nutrition, Protein",
author = "Martin Vogelsang-O{\textquoteright}Dwyer and Petersen, {Iben Lykke} and Joehnke, {Marcel Skejovic} and S{\o}rensen, {Jens Christian} and Juergen Bez and Andreas Detzel and Mirjam Busch and Martina Krueger and O{\textquoteright}Mahony, {James A.} and Arendt, {Elke K.} and Emanuele Zannini",
year = "2020",
doi = "10.3390/foods9030322",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
journal = "Foods",
issn = "2304-8158",
publisher = "MDPI AG",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Faba Bean Protein Ingredients Produced Using Dry Fractionation and Isoelectric Precipitation

T2 - Techno-Functional, Nutritional and Environmental Performance

AU - Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, Martin

AU - Petersen, Iben Lykke

AU - Joehnke, Marcel Skejovic

AU - Sørensen, Jens Christian

AU - Bez, Juergen

AU - Detzel, Andreas

AU - Busch, Mirjam

AU - Krueger, Martina

AU - O’Mahony, James A.

AU - Arendt, Elke K.

AU - Zannini, Emanuele

PY - 2020

Y1 - 2020

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Antinutrients

KW - Carbon footprint

KW - Dry fractionation

KW - Faba bean

KW - FODMAPs

KW - Functional properties

KW - Isoelectric precipitation

KW - Life cycle assessment

KW - Nutrition

KW - Protein

U2 - 10.3390/foods9030322

DO - 10.3390/foods9030322

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 32168773

AN - SCOPUS:85082024979

VL - 9

JO - Foods

JF - Foods

SN - 2304-8158

IS - 3

M1 - 322

ER -

ID: 240139515