4.7 Article

Comparison of Conventional and Microwave Treatment on Soymilk for Inactivation of Trypsin Inhibitors and In Vitro Protein Digestibility

Journal

FOODS
Volume 7, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods7010006

Keywords

soymilk; microwave processing; thermal processing; trypsin inhibitors; response surface methodology

Funding

  1. NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada)
  2. MAPAQ (Ministere de l'Agriculture, des Pecheries et de l'Alimentation du Quebec)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soymilk is lower in calories compared to cow's milk, since it is derived from a plant source (no cholesterol) and is an excellent source of protein. Despite the beneficial factors, soymilk is considered as one of the most controversial foods in the world. It contains serine protease inhibitors which lower its nutritional value and digestibility. Processing techniques for the elimination of trypsin inhibitors and lipoxygenase, which have shorter processing time and lower production costs are required for the large-scale manufacturing of soymilk. In this study, the suitable conditions of time and temperature are optimized during microwave processing to obtain soymilk with maximum digestibility with inactivation of trypsin inhibitors, in comparison to the conventional thermal treatment. The microwave processing conditions at a frequency of 2.45 GHz and temperatures of 70 degrees C, 85 degrees C and 100 degrees C for 2, 5 and 8 min were investigated and were compared to conventional thermal treatments at the same temperature for 10, 20 and 30 min. Response surface methodology is used to design and optimize the experimental conditions. Thermal processing was able to increase digestibility by 7% (microwave) and 11% (conventional) compared to control, while trypsin inhibitor activity reduced to 1% in microwave processing and 3% in conventional thermal treatment when compared to 10% in raw soybean.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available