4.6 Article

Production of Okara and Soy Protein Concentrates Using Membrane Technology

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 E158-E164

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01917.x

关键词

functional properties; microfiltration; okara protein concentrate; soy protein concentrate; ultrafiltration

资金

  1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microfiltration (MF) membranes with pore sizes of 200 and 450 nm and ultrafiltration (UF) membranes with molecular weight cut off of 50, 100, and 500 kDa were assessed for their ability to eliminate nonprotein substances from okara protein extract in a laboratory cross-flow membrane system. Both MF and UF improved the protein content of okara extract to a similar extent from approximately 68% to approximately 81% owing to the presence of protein in the feed leading to the formation of dynamic layer controlling the performance rather than the actual pore size of membranes. Although normalized flux in MF-450 (117 LMH/MPa) was close to UF-500 (118 LMH/MPa), the latter was selected based on higher average flux (47 LMH) offering the advantage of reduced processing time. Membrane processing of soy extract improved the protein content from 62% to 85% much closer to the target value. However, the final protein content in okara (approximately 80%) did not reach the target value (90%) owing to the greater presence of soluble fibers that were retained by the membrane. Solubility curve of membrane okara protein concentrate (MOPC) showed lower solubility than soy protein concentrate and a commercial isolate in the entire pH range. However, water absorption and fat-binding capacities of MOPC were either superior or comparable while emulsifying properties were in accordance with its solubility. The results of this study showed that okara protein concentrate (80%) could be produced using membrane technology without loss of any true proteins, thus offering value addition to okara, hitherto underutilized.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据