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

Self Cite

Grain legumes, such as faba beans, have been investigated as promising ingredients to enhance the nutritional value of wheat bread. However, a detrimental effect on technological bread quality was often reported. Furthermore, considerable amounts of antinutritional compounds present in faba beans are a subject of concern. Sourdough-like fermentation can positively affect baking performance and nutritional attributes of faba bean flours. The multifunctional lactic acid bacteria strain Leuconostoc citreum TR116 was employed to ferment two faba bean flours with different protein contents (dehulled flour (DF); high-protein flour (PR)). The strain’s fermentation profile (growth, acidification, carbohydrate metabolism and antifungal phenolic acids) was monitored in both substrates. The fermentates were applied in regular wheat bread by replacing 15% of wheat flour. Water absorption, gluten aggregation behaviour, bread quality characteristics and in vitro starch digestibility were compared to formulations containing unfermented DF and PR and to a control wheat bread. Similar microbial growth, carbohydrate consumption as well as production of lactic and acetic acid were observed in both faba bean ingredients. A less pronounced pH drop as well as a slightly higher amount of antifungal phenolic acids were measured in the PR fermentate. Fermentation caused a striking improvement of the ingredients’ baking performance. GlutoPeak measurements allowed for an association of this observation with an improved gluten aggregation. Given its higher potential to improve protein quality in cereal products, the PR fermentate seemed generally more promising as functional ingredient due to its positive impact on bread quality and only moderately increased starch digestibility in bread.

Section: Water Absorption and Gluten Aggregationsupporting

confidence: 52%

Leuconostoc citreum TR116 as a Microbial Cell Factory to Functionalise High-Protein Faba Bean Ingredients for Bakery Applications

Hoehnel

Bez

Sahin

et al. 2020

Self Cite

“…To mimic the skim and whole milk Greek yogurt compositions, the plant protein powders of mung bean (MB), chickpea (CP), pea (PP), lentil (LP), and faba bean (FB) were added to water, without and with sunflower oil (SO). A 12% (w/w) protein concentration was fixed for all formulations as it was around the minimum gelation concentration for the plant proteins and enabled comparison between samples [11][12][13][14], while the fat content was approximately 5% (w/w) for samples with sunflower oil. The composition information and labels for all ten formulations and the reference yogurts are shown in Table 1.…”

Section: Materials and Sample Preparationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Novel Approach to Structure Plant-Based Yogurts Using High Pressure Processing

Sim

Hua

Henry

2020

Current plant-based yogurts are made by the fermentation of plant-based milks. Although this imparts fermented flavors and probiotic cultures, the process is relatively longer and often leads to textural issues. The protein content of these plant-based yogurts is also lower than their dairy counterparts. To overcome these challenges, this paper explores the high pressure processing (HPP) of plant protein ingredients as an alternative structuring strategy for plant-based yogurts. Using mung bean (MB), chickpea (CP), pea (PP), lentil (LP), and faba bean (FB) proteins as examples, this work compared the viscosity and viscoelastic properties of high pressure-structured (600 MPa, 5 min, 5 °C) 12% (w/w) plant protein gels without, and with 5% (w/w) sunflower oil (SO) to commercial plain skim and whole milk Greek yogurts and discussed the feasibility of using HPP to develop plant-based yogurts. HPP formed viscoelastic gels (G’ > G’’) for all plant protein samples with comparable gel strength (G’~102–103 Pa; tan δ~0.2–0.3) to commercial dairy yogurts. The plant protein gel strength decreased in the order: CP~CPSO~LP~LPSO > MBSO~PPSO~FB~FBSO > PP >> MB. Modest addition of sunflower oil led to little change in viscoelastic properties for all plant protein samples except for MB and PP, where gel strength increased with incorporated oil. The emulsion gels were also more viscous than the hydrogels. Nonetheless, the viscosity of the plant protein gels was similar to the dairy yogurts. Finally, a process involving separate biotransformation for optimized flavor production and high pressure processing for consistent texture generation was proposed. This could lead to high protein plant-based yogurt products with desirable texture, flavor, and nutrition.

“…Dry fractionation, such as air classification, can be used to create fractions from faba bean that are enriched in protein or starch, as opposed to soy, in which protein is concentrated through a wet process. Dry fractionation is less energy intensive since no water is added, and therefore does not need to be removed, making this process more sustainable and economical [ 8 , 24 ]. Therefore, the protein-rich ingredients are not heated during purification, allowing them to maintain their native state and functionality [ 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Therefore, the protein-rich ingredients are not heated during purification, allowing them to maintain their native state and functionality [ 8 ]. Dry processed faba bean proteins have a high solubility in water [ 24 ], a low water-holding capacity [ 25 ], and the doughs prepared from faba bean proteins are sticky [ 9 ], making them difficult to handle [ 26 ]. Consequently, the heating step is identified as a potential solution to the low applicability of faba bean protein in meat replacers and possibly other structured food products caused by the less suitable properties for structuring after dry fractionation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Consequently, the heating step is identified as a potential solution to the low applicability of faba bean protein in meat replacers and possibly other structured food products caused by the less suitable properties for structuring after dry fractionation. Previous studies on dry or mild fractionation processes for faba beans and other legumes often focus on other applications such as emulsions and foams, where high solubility, high emulsification capacity, and high foam stability are required [ 24 , 27 ]. A dry-heat treatment has already been applied by Petitot et al [ 10 ] to change the properties of pasta that contained faba bean protein.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Modifying Faba Bean Protein Concentrate Using Dry Heat to Increase Water Holding Capacity

Buhler

Dekkers

Bruins

et al. 2020

We investigated the effect of dry-heat treatment on the properties of faba bean protein concentrate using soy protein concentrate as a benchmark. While soy protein—widely used as an ingredient in meat replacers—is recovered through a wet fractionation, protein recovery from starch bearing pulses like faba bean can be done via dry fractionation. This process does not require drying or heating steps and therefore, keeps the original protein functionality intact. This results in differences in properties such as water binding capacity of the protein fraction. Faba bean protein concentrate was dry-heated at temperatures from 75–175 °C, which resulted in higher water-holding capacity and less soluble protein, approaching values of soy protein concentrate. These changes were due to partial denaturation of protein, changing the structure of the protein, and exposing hydrophobic sites. This led to protein aggregation, as observed by light microscopy. Only noncovalent bonds caused the decrease of solubility of dry-heated faba bean protein concentrate. We conclude that dry-heating of dry fractionated faba bean protein can change the functional properties of the protein fraction to desired properties for certain applications. The effect is similar to that on soy, but the underlying mechanisms differ.