Texture, sensory properties and functionality of extruded snacks from pulses and pseudocereal proteins

Abstract

BACKGROUND The protein‐rich fractions of pulses and pseudocereals exhibit a well‐balanced amino acid profile, particularly when combined in different portions, and are therefore high‐value ingredients for the production of extruded snacks. However, the impact of a combination of pulses and pseudocereals on the physical and sensory qualities of extruded snacks has not been investigated up to now. Native or preconditioned protein isolates and concentrates from pulses – as single ingredients or in combination with protein‐rich flours of pseudocereals – were analyzed regarding their thermal and functional properties in relation to extrusion characteristics. Low moisture extrusion cooking was used to investigate the impact of protein source (lentil, lupin, faba bean), pseudocereal source (quinoa, amaranth, buckwheat) and protein content (30%, 50%, 70%) on sectional expansion, specific hardness, density and sensory properties of the snacks. RESULTS With increasing protein content from 30% to 50%, the sectional expansion decreased and the density and specific hardness of the extrudates increased, which could be counteracted by preconditioning of the protein‐rich ingredients. Lupin protein‐based extrudates exhibited satisfactory texture and sensory properties. Extruded mixtures of pulses and pseudocereals (70% protein) exhibited a smaller sectional expansion compared to pulses as single ingredients (30%, 50%), regardless of pseudocereal type. However, the texture and sensory properties of the extruded blends were satisfactory. CONCLUSIONS We show for the first time that protein‐rich fractions of pulses and pseudocereals can be processed into expanded snacks with favorable texture and nutritional properties such as increased protein contents (70%) and balanced amino acid profiles. © 2020 The Authors. Journal of The Science of Food and Agriculture published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Sensory descriptors for pulses and pulse‐derived ingredients: Toward a standardized lexicon and sensory wheel

“…Although there is generally lack of differentiation in use of the terms aroma, taste, and flavor, a few researchers have been more specific with their sensory terms. Mkanda et al (2007) considered aroma as smell and flavor as in-mouth perception independent of basic tastes while Martin et al (2020) assessed both aroma and taste through in-mouth perception. In this current review, the terms for sensory assessment of pulses are consolidated under a few categories, namely terms denoting notes perceived from basic tastes, olfaction, and trigeminal cues.…”

“…(2007) considered aroma as smell and flavor as in‐mouth perception independent of basic tastes while Martin et al. (2020) assessed both aroma and taste through in‐mouth perception. In this current review, the terms for sensory assessment of pulses are consolidated under a few categories, namely terms denoting notes perceived from basic tastes, olfaction, and trigeminal cues.…”

“…At the industrial level, pulses and pulse‐derived products such as whole flours as well as protein‐ or starch‐rich flours are incorporated into formulations for enrichment, fortification, or to completely or partially replace conventional ingredients rich in starch and/or proteins. Examples are baked (Boukid et al., 2019; Bourré, Frohlich et al., 2019; Bresciani & Marti, 2019), extruded (Giuberti et al., 2015; Laleg et al., 2016; Martin et al., 2020; Tazrart et al., 2016), meat (Pietrasik et al., 2020; Pietrasik & Soladoye, 2021; Pintado & Delgado‐Pando, 2020; Sanjeewa et al., 2010; Wei, 2019), and dairy (Lopes et al., 2020; Nawaz et al., 2020; Ould Saadi et al., 2020; Sidhu et al., 2020; Silva et al., 2020) products. Being free of gluten protein, pulses play a significant and prominent role in specialty food categories such as gluten‐free pasta and bakery products (Foschia et al., 2017; Melini et al., 2017; Simons & Hall, 2018; Ziena et al., 2019).…”

Physical and Paste Properties Comparison of Four Snacks Produced by High Protein Quinoa Flour Extrusion Cooking

“…As this pseudo-cereal has valuable nutritional and physiological properties, which could help promote consuming these products, compared to the other cereals the total protein content of quinoa [16.3% on a dry basis (bs)] is higher than barley (11% bs) rice (7.5% bs) or corn (13.4% bs), and is comparable to that of wheat (15.4% bs), although compared to cereal grains, quinoa proteins are high in lysine, the limiting amino acid in most cereal grains, its essential amino acid balance is excellent because of a wider range of amino acids than cereals and legumes, with higher lysine (5.1-6.4%) and methionine (0.4-1%) (Abugoch, 2009). Martin et al (2020) found a high potential in producing snacks employing mixtures of legume protein isolates/concentrates, in particular lupin protein isolates and pseudo-cereal flours such as quinoa to increase the nutritional value of protein-rich extrudates, and reduce the toughness of snacks at protein concentrations of 70%. Furthermore, Zapana et al (2020) obtained puffed quinoa snacks by combining a Gun and extrusion puffing process, which resulted in a satisfactory quality, avoiding the loss of nutritional properties with an adequate bioavailability of organic matter and proteins compared to microwave puffed quinoa.…”

Application of emerging technologies to obtain legume protein isolates with improved techno‐functional properties and health effects

“…Depending on the moisture content, we can differentiate between high-moisture (50%−80%) extrusion, in which texturized proteins present a fibrous texture that is more similar to meat, and low-moisture (<30%) extrusion, which generally forms texturized proteins with a sponge-like structure and hard texture that are moisturized afterward (Akharume et al, 2021;Dekkers et al, 2018). In the latter case, protein-rich fractions of legumes can be used to make extrudates with decreased sectional expansion, increased density, and specific hardness with increasing protein content (from 30% to 50%), which could be counteracted by preconditioning of the protein-rich ingredients (Martin et al, 2020). Jebalia et al (2019) found that rupture stress and strain of pea flour and pea starch-protein composites obtained by low-moisture (25%−35%) extrusion were negatively correlated with their interface index.…”