Exergetic comparison of three different processing routes for yellow pea (Pisum sativum): Functionality as a driver in sustainable process design

Geerts, Marlies E.J.; Veghel, Amber van; Zisopoulos, Filippos K.; Padt, A. van der; Goot, Atze Jan van der

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.158

Cited by 30 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As illustrated in Figure 1B, dry fractionation of peas involves two key steps, milling (size reduction) and air classification (size separation) (Geerts et al, 2018;Saldanha do Carmo et al, 2020;Schutyser et al, 2015). Milling pea seeds can be conducted using different methods (roller, stone, hammer, and pin milling), where the roller miller is the most standard method used.…”

Section: Dry Fractionation: Size Reduction and Air Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dry method is more sustainable (no water needed), where their yields (dry, 77 g/ 100g; mild, 55-65 g/ 100g) depended on the number of passages (milling-air classification)] still preserving its native form (Kornet et al, 2020;Pelgrom et al, 2015b). On the contrary, wet processing reduces the amount of non-protein materials and provides a more purified protein isolate (80-90% protein) and yield 80 g/100 g, but reduces native functionality and requires high quantities of water, chemicals and energy (Geerts et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2020).…”

Section: Mild Fractionationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pea protein ingredients: A mainstream ingredient to (re)formulate innovative foods and beverages.

Boukid

Rosell

Castellari

2021

Trends in Food Science & Technology

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Pea (Pisum sativum) proteins are emerging as a popular alternative to those conventional (deriving from animal and soy) due to their high protein content with interesting functionality, sustainability, availability, affordability and hypo-allergenicity. This popularity has been parallel to an intensive research from protein isolation to their applications. Pea protein ingredients can be obtained through wet extraction, dry fractionation or more recently mild fractionation. As such, commercial pea proteins ingredients include flour (20-25% protein), concentrate (50-75% protein), and isolate (>80% protein). Beside protein content, these ingredients differ in their chemical composition, thereby affecting their functionality. Scope and Approach:In this perspective, this review offers the lastest update on essential knowledge for developing innovative food and beverages using pea proteins through emphasizing the production and the characteristics of pea proteins, addressing the efficiency of pea proteins as functional ingredients in foodstuffs making, and discussing the challenges encountered for pea protein popularization. Key Findings and Conclusions:Current research indicates the importance of developing extraction and drying technologies to reach target techno-functional and organoleptic attributes of pea proteins. A better modulation of processing steps can enable designing high-quality pea protein rich food and beverage.

show abstract

Section: Dry Fractionation: Size Reduction and Air Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mild Fractionationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pea protein ingredients: A mainstream ingredient to (re)formulate innovative foods and beverages.

Boukid

Rosell

Castellari

2021

Trends in Food Science & Technology

195

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this review, we focus on dry milling that results in ground flour from grain legumes, a process that overall is substantially more energy-efficient than any wet milling process (M.E.J. Geerts, van Veghel, Zisopoulos, van der Padt, & van der Goot, 2018). Wet milling is used in wheat processing to separate starch and gluten (van Der Borght, Goesaert, Veraverbeke, & Delcour, 2005), just as wet milling is employed to obtain protein isolates and starch from grain legumes (with fiber-enriched streams obtained from both commodities).…”

Section: Pulse Millingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The wet milling method is more exhaustive and encompasses several steps including soaking, homogenization, filtration, oven drying, pulverization, and sieving to produce the highly purified starch fraction compared to the dry milling method (M.E.J. Geerts et al., ; Hoover et al., ). We focus on separation of the aforementioned components as a result of changes in dry milling conditions.…”

Section: Pulse Millingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pulse Flour Characteristics from a Wheat Flour Miller's Perspective: A Comprehensive Review

Thakur

Scanlon

Tyler

et al. 2019

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pulses (grain legumes) are increasingly of interest to the food industry as product formulators and consumers seek to exploit their fiber‐rich and protein‐rich reputation in the development of nutritionally attractive new products, particularly in the bakery, gluten‐free, snack, pasta, and noodle categories. The processing of pulses into consistent high‐quality ingredients starts with a well‐defined and controlled milling process. However, in contrast to the extensive body of knowledge on wheat flour milling, the peer‐reviewed literature on pulse flour milling is not as well defined, except for the dehulling process. This review synthesizes information on milling of leguminous commodities such as chickpea (kabuli and desi), lentil (green and red), pea, and bean (adzuki, black, cowpea, kidney, navy, pinto, and mung) from the perspective of a wheat miller to explore the extent to which pulse milling studies have addressed the objectives of wheat flour milling. These objectives are to reduce particle size (so as to facilitate ingredient miscibility), to separate components (so as to improve value and/or functionality), and to effect mechanochemical transformations (for example, to cause starch damage). Current international standards on pulse quality are examined from the perspective of their relationship to the millability of pulses (that is, grain legume properties at mill receival). The effect of pulse flour on the quality of the products they are incorporated in is examined solely from the perspective of flour quality not quantity. Finally, we identify research gaps where critical questions should be answered if pulse milling science and technology are to be established on par with their wheat flour milling counterparts.

show abstract

“…The LGC of the MBPI was 12%, reported to be slightly lower than that of the SPI (14%). The results from different studies differed possibly due to the differences in cultivator type, methods or treatments during protein extraction (temperature, ionic strength, and pH), and physical, chemical, or biological modifications (Batista et al., 2012; Boye et al., 2010; Butt & Batool, 2010; Geerts et al., 2018a; Ghribi et al., 2015; Johansson et al., 2013; Moreno et al., 2020). PPI was reported to have a WHC and an FAC of 5.4 g water/g protein and 1.6 g oil/g protein, respectively, but displayed relatively inferior gelling properties (17%) compared with SPI (12%) (Moreno et al., 2020; Osen et al., 2014; Stone et al., 2015).…”

Section: Tmp Of Concentrated Protein Systems For Meat Analog Formationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Meat analogs: Protein restructuring during thermomechanical processing

Beniwal

Singh

Kaur

et al. 2021

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasing awareness of inefficient meat production and its future impact on global food security has led the food industry to look for a sustainable approach. Meat products have superior sensorial perception, because of their molecular composition and fibrous structure. Current understanding in the science of food structuring has enabled the utilization of alternative or nonmeat protein ingredients to create novel structured matrices that could resemble the textural functionality of real meat. The physicochemical and structural changes that occur in concentrated protein systems during thermomechanical processing lead to the creation of a fibrous or layered meat‐like texture. Phase transitions in concentrated protein systems during protein‒protein, protein‒polysaccharide, protein‒lipid, and protein‒water interactions significantly influence the texture and the overall sensory quality of meat analogs. This review summarizes the roles of raw materials (moisture, protein type and concentration, lipids, polysaccharides, and air) and processing parameters (temperature, pH, and shear) in modulating the behavior of the protein phase during the restructuring process (structure‒function‒process relationship). The big challenge for the food industry is to manufacture concept‐based (such as beef‐like, chicken‐like, etc.) meat analogs with controlled structural attributes. This information will be useful in developing superior meat analogs that fulfill consumer expectations when replacing meat in their diet.

show abstract

Exergetic comparison of three different processing routes for yellow pea (Pisum sativum): Functionality as a driver in sustainable process design

Cited by 30 publications

References 27 publications

Pea protein ingredients: A mainstream ingredient to (re)formulate innovative foods and beverages.

Pea protein ingredients: A mainstream ingredient to (re)formulate innovative foods and beverages.

Pulse Flour Characteristics from a Wheat Flour Miller's Perspective: A Comprehensive Review

Meat analogs: Protein restructuring during thermomechanical processing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About