Influence of processing on composition and antinutritional factors of chickpea protein concentrates produced by isoelectric precipitation and ultrafiltration
Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, ISSN: 1466-8564, Vol: 10, Issue: 3, Page: 342-347
2009
- 87Citations
- 160Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
The effect of chickpea processing (i.e. defatting, isoelectric precipitation vs ultrafiltration/diafiltration) on the composition, protein recovery and antinutritional factors of protein concentrates was studied for two varieties (Mylese and Xena). Defatting did not affect significantly the content of antinutritional factors in the flours. However, production of concentrates from defatted flours by isoelectric precipitation resulted in higher phosphorous and phenolic contents compared to the concentrates produced by the same process using the full fat flours as starting material, while trypsin inhibitor content was not affected. When processed by ultrafiltration/diafiltration, protein concentrates produced from defatted flour showed a slightly lower trypsin inhibitor content than the ones produced from full fat flours in most cases, while the inverse was true for the phosphorous content, and for the phenolic content; this effect was a function of chickpea variety. Overall, UF pH 9/DF pH 6 resulted in concentrates with the lowest phosphorous content, while isoelectric precipitation and UF pH 9/DF pH 9 resulted in concentrates with lower phenolic content compared to the ones produced by UF pH 9/DF pH 6; for both processes the trypsin inhibitor content of the concentrates remained high.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1466856409000083; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2009.01.007; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=67349287590&origin=inward; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1466856409000083; https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2009.01.007
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know