Mimic Pork Rinds from Plant-Based Gel: The Influence of Sweet Potato Starch and Konjac Glucomannan

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of sweet potato starch (SPS) and konjac glucomannan (KGM) on the textural, color, sensory, rheological properties, and microstructures of plant-based pork rinds. Plant-based gels were prepared using mixtures of soy protein isolate (SPI), soy oil, and NaHCO3 supplemented with different SPS and KGM concentrations. The texture profile analysis (TPA) results indicated that the hardness, cohesiveness, and chewiness of the samples improved significantly after appropriate SPS and KGM addition. The results obtained via a colorimeter showed no significant differences were found in lightness (L*) between the samples and natural pork rinds after adjusting the SPS and KGM concentrations. Furthermore, the rheological results showed that adding SPS and KGM increased both the storage modulus (G’) and loss modulus (G’’), indicating a firmer gel structure. The images obtained via scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed that the SPS and KGM contributed to the formation of a more compact gel structure. A mathematical model allowed for a more objective sensory evaluation, with the 40% SPS samples and the 0.4% KGM samples being considered the most similar to natural pork rinds, which provided a comparable texture, appearance, and mouthfeel. This study proposed a possible schematic model for the gelling mechanism of plant-based pork rinds: the three-dimensional network structures of the samples may result from the interaction between SPS, SPI, and soybean oil, while the addition of KGM and NaHCO3 enabled a more stable gel structure.

Preparation of Whole-Cut Plant-Based Pork Meat and Its Quality Evaluation with Animal Meat

“…After frying, there were still differences in the texture of the five PBPs, with hardness ranging from 3751.96 g to 9077.24 g, viscosity ranging from 3.89 g to 6.45 g, springiness ranging from 0.80% to 0.86%, and chewiness ranging from 3162.44 g to 9303.22 g. However, the hardness, viscosity, and springiness of PBP3, C-PBP1, and C-PBP1 were similar to APM. This may be related to protein deformation, polysaccharide breakdown, and disruption of the gel system [ 19 , 20 ]. Giang [ 13 , 18 ] et al found that both plant-based beef burgers and animal beef burgers had similar textural changes after being fried, while plant-based beef was softer than animal beef, which was consistent with the results of this study.…”

“…A loose protein spatial network structure and low ionic strength led to higher WHC [ 14 ]. Zhang et al [ 19 ] studied the preparation of plant-based pork skin and found that soy protein concentrate, soy isolate, and soy oil would line up into a three-dimensional network structure to retain water. Cornet et al [ 24 ] found that increased ionic strength resulted in lower WHC in meat substitutes.…”

“…The OHC of the five PBPs (131.34–202.97%) was significantly different from that of APM (205.06%). It was more influenced by surface hydrophobic groups and spatial structure, with the more exposed hydrophobic groups improving oil retention properties [ 15 , 19 ]. The addition of high-moisture TVP significantly improved WHC from 150.25% (PBP1) to 161.01% (PBP3) but decreased OHC from 166.34% (PBP1) to 164.79% (PBP3), which should be further improved to the level found in C-PBP2 (202.97%).…”

Modeling the rheological properties of plant‐based foods: Soft matter physics principles

“…The researchers found that the addition of the dietary fiber increased the firmness, hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, resilience, and chewiness of the plant‐based sausages, which altered their sensory attributes. In another study, TPA was used to characterize the effects of sweet potato starch and konjac glucomannan on the textural attributes of plant‐based pork rinds formulated from emulsion gels composed of soy protein and soy oil (Zhang, Huang, et al, 2022). The hardness, cohesiveness, and chewiness of the pork rind analogs could be optimized by controlling the amounts of starch and glucomannan added.…”

Ingredients and Process Affect the Structural Quality of Recombinant Plant-Based Meat Alternatives and Their Components

“…Compared with the structure of single-tissue protein, the structure of recombinant plant-based meat alternatives is more complete and more suitable for cooking, successfully simulating the appearance, texture and flavor of animal meat products, and has, consequently, become a hot spot for development in the food industry. At present, recombinant plant-based meat alternative products include relatively simple mincemeat products, such as plant-based burger patties, plant-based sausages and plant-based meatballs, while complete meat blocks, such as pork pancetta and snowy beef, are neither widely simulated nor studied due to the complexity of their compositional structure [ 11 ]. Similar products did appear at the early stage of recombinant plant protein development, due to the demand for such meat products from vegetarian; however, these were mostly distorted and poorly simulated.…”