Skip to content
2000
Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN: 2666-9390
  • E-ISSN: 2666-9404

Abstract

Pulses have redeemed the interest in terms of a sustainable and healthy diet due to their high protein content. Furthermore, the vitamins, minerals, and phytochemicals they contain also make them more valuable nutritionally. A sustainable diet should improve public health and food security and has a low environmental footprint. Pulses have been considered one of the emerging plant food proteins. Although they have beneficial components such as vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, and antioxidants, many drawbacks limit their use to consumers and the food industry. One of the drawbacks is their incomplete proteins due to the lack of sulfur-containing amino acids in their protein profile. Furthermore, the protein digestibility of pulses is low due to the antinutritional compounds they contain. The other drawback of pulses is their beany flavor and bitter taste that limits the acceptability of consumers. From the consumer's point of view, the other disadvantage is the laborious and time-consuming preparation period.

This article provides a concise overview of the current state of knowledge on pulses as sustainable protein sources, underlining the gaps that limit their extensive application in the food industry. Based on the available scientific facts on pulses, finding an efficient method for removing beany flavor and overall sensorial acceptability and antinutritional factors, thus increasing protein digestibility is crucial. The most promising option to increase pulse protein digestibility seems to combine conventional and novel technologies that can modulate digestibility by different mechanisms, such as the removal of antinutritional factors, protein denaturation, and the design of the food matrix.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/lff/10.2174/2666939001666221006121517
2022-10-27
2024-11-22
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. FasolinL.H. PereiraR.N. PinheiroA.C. Emergent food proteins – Towards sustainability, health and innovation.Food Res. Int.201912510858610.1016/j.foodres.2019.108586 31554037
    [Google Scholar]
  2. SchweiggertW.U. EisnerP. BaderM.S. OsenR. Food proteins from plants and fungi.Curr. Opin. Food Sci.20203215616210.1016/j.cofs.2020.08.003
    [Google Scholar]
  3. LonnieM. JohnstoneA.M. The public health rationale for promoting plant protein as an important part of a sustainable and healthy diet.Nutr. Bull.202045328129310.1111/nbu.12453
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BrescianiA. MartiA. Using pulses in baked products: Lights, shadows, and potential solutions.Foods201981045110.3390/foods8100451 31581614
    [Google Scholar]
  5. SozerN. HolopainenM.U. PoutanenK. Traditional and new food uses of pulses.Cereal Chem.2017941667310.1094/CCHEM‑04‑16‑0082‑FI
    [Google Scholar]
  6. De PasqualeI. PontonioE. GobbettiM. RizzelloC.G. Nutritional and functional effects of the lactic acid bacteria fermentation on gelatinized legume flours.Int. J. Food Microbiol.202031610842610.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2019.108426 31722270
    [Google Scholar]
  7. RomanoA. GalloV. FerrantiP. MasiP. Lentil flour: nutritional and technological properties, in vitro digestibility and perspectives for use in the food industry.Curr. Opin. Food Sci.20214015716710.1016/j.cofs.2021.04.003
    [Google Scholar]
  8. SzczebyłoA. HalickaE. JackowskaM. RejmanK. Analysis of the global pulses market and programs encouraging consumption of this food.Probl World Agric2019193859610.22630/PRS.2019.19.3.49
    [Google Scholar]
  9. HuebbeP. RimbachG. Historical reflection of food processing and the role of legumes as part of a healthy balance diet.Foods202098105610.3390/foods9081056 32759873
    [Google Scholar]
  10. About the international year of pulses, nutritious seeds for a sustainable future.Rome, Italy, FAO.Available from: http://www.fao.org/pulses-2016/about/en/
    [Google Scholar]
  11. BessadaS.M.F. BarreiraJ.C.M. OliveiraM.B.P.P. Pulses and food security: Dietary protein, digestibility, bioactive and functional properties.Trends Food Sci. Technol.201993536810.1016/j.tifs.2019.08.022
    [Google Scholar]
  12. SinghB. SinghJ.P. ShevkaniK. SinghN. KaurA. Bioactive constituents in pulses and their health benefits.J. Food Sci. Technol.201754485887010.1007/s13197‑016‑2391‑9 28303037
    [Google Scholar]
  13. ShevkaniK. SinghN. ChenY. KaurA. YuL. Pulse proteins: secondary structure, functionality and applications.J. Food Sci. Technol.20195662787279810.1007/s13197‑019‑03723‑8 31205335
    [Google Scholar]
  14. TorcelloG.A. DupontD. JardinJ. Human gastrointestinal conditions affect in vitro digestibility of peanut and bread proteins.Food Funct.20201186921693210.1039/D0FO01451F 32691795
    [Google Scholar]
  15. CarbonaroM. MaselliP. NucaraA. Structural aspects of legume proteins and nutraceutical properties.Food Res. Int.201576193010.1016/j.foodres.2014.11.007
    [Google Scholar]
  16. BassettA. HooperS. CichyK. Genetic variability of cooking time in dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) related to seed coat thickness and the cotyledon cell wall.Food Res. Int.202114110988610.1016/j.foodres.2020.109886 33641942
    [Google Scholar]
  17. JunejoS.A. DingL. FuX. XiongW. ZhangB. HuangQ. Pea cell wall integrity controls the starch and protein digestion properties in the infogest in vitro simulation.Int. J. Biol. Macromol.20211821200120710.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.05.014 33984387
    [Google Scholar]
  18. BhattaraiR.R. DhitalS. WuP. ChenX.D. GidleyM.J. Digestion of isolated legume cells in a stomach-duodenum model: Three mechanisms limit starch and protein hydrolysis.Food Funct.2017872573258210.1039/C7FO00086C 28682366
    [Google Scholar]
  19. ShigaT.M. CordenunsiB.R. LajoloF.M. Effect of cooking on non-starch polysaccharides of hard-to-cook beans.Carbohydr. Polym.200976110010910.1016/j.carbpol.2008.09.035
    [Google Scholar]
  20. RovalinoC.A.M. FoglianoV. CapuanoE. The effect of cell wall encapsulation on macronutrients digestion: A case study in kidney beans.Food Chem.201928655756610.1016/j.foodchem.2019.02.057 30827647
    [Google Scholar]
  21. RovalinoC.A.M. Plant tissue matrix: In-vitro studies to understand its role in starch digestion and fermentation. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.2020
    [Google Scholar]
  22. AkilliogluH.G. KarakayaS. Changes in total phenols, total flavonoids, and antioxidant activities of common beans and pinto beans after soaking, cooking, and in vitro digestion process.Food Sci. Biotechnol.201019363363910.1007/s10068‑010‑0089‑8
    [Google Scholar]
  23. SáA.G.A. MorenoY.M.F. CarciofiB.A.M. Food processing for the improvement of plant proteins digestibility.Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.202060203367338610.1080/10408398.2019.1688249 31760758
    [Google Scholar]
  24. LiY. HeD. LiB. Engineering polyphenols with biological functions via polyphenol-protein interactions as additives for functional foods.Trends Food Sci. Technol.202111047048210.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.009
    [Google Scholar]
  25. JöbstlE. O’ConnellJ. FaircloughJ.P.A. WilliamsonM.P. Molecular model for astringency produced by polyphenol/protein interactions.Biomacromolecules20045394294910.1021/bm0345110 15132685
    [Google Scholar]
  26. NicolásG.M. JiménezM.C. PeruciniA.M. CamachoD.B.H. JiménezA.A.R. DávilaO.G. Phenolic Compounds in Legumes: Composition.In: Processing and Gut Health.LondonIntechOpen202110.5772/intechopen.98202
    [Google Scholar]
  27. ShiL. ArntfieldS.D. NickersonM. Changes in levels of phytic acid, lectins and oxalates during soaking and cooking of Canadian pulses.Food Res. Int.201810766066810.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.056 29580532
    [Google Scholar]
  28. ByanjuB. HojillaE.M.P. LamsalB.P. Fermentation performance and nutritional assessment of physically processed lentil and green pea flour.J. Sci. Food Agric.2021101145792580610.1002/jsfa.11229 33792043
    [Google Scholar]
  29. KhrisanapantP. LeongS.Y. KebedeB. OeyI. Effects of hydrothermal processing duration on the texture starch and protein in vitro digestibility of cpwpeas chickpeas and kidney beans.Foods2021106141510.3390/foods10061415 34207291
    [Google Scholar]
  30. ByarsJ.A. SinghM. KenarJ.A. FelkerF.C. WinklerM.J.K. Effect of particle size and processing method on starch and protein digestibility of navy bean flour.Cereal Chem.202198482983910.1002/cche.10422
    [Google Scholar]
  31. UppalV. BainsK. Effect of germination periods and hydrothermal treatments on in vitro protein and starch digestibility of germinated legumes.J. Food Sci. Technol.201249218419110.1007/s13197‑011‑0273‑8 23572840
    [Google Scholar]
  32. HabibaR.A. Changes in anti-nutrients, protein solubility, digestibility, and HCl-extractability of ash and phosphorus in vegetable peas as affected by cooking methods.Food Chem.200277218719210.1016/S0308‑8146(01)00335‑1
    [Google Scholar]
  33. RathodR.P. AnnapureU.S. Effect of extrusion process on antinutritional factors and protein and starch digestibility of lentil splits.Lebensm. Wiss. Technol.20166611412310.1016/j.lwt.2015.10.028
    [Google Scholar]
  34. SánchezV.O.A. RibéreauS. MondorM. CuevasR.E.O. ArcandY. HernándezÁ.A.J. Impact of processing on the in vitro protein quality, bioactive compounds, and antioxidant potential of 10 selected pulses.Legume Sci.20213223367455610.1002/leg3.88
    [Google Scholar]
  35. HanI.H. SwansonB.G. BaikB.K. Protein digestibility of selected legumes treated with ultrasound and high hydrostatic pressure during soaking.Cereal Chem.200784551852110.1094/CCHEM‑84‑5‑0518
    [Google Scholar]
  36. YinS.W. TangC.H. WenQ.B. YangX.Q. LiL. Functional properties and in vitro trypsin digestibility of red kidney bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) protein isolate: Effect of high-pressure treatment.Food Chem.2008110493894510.1016/j.foodchem.2008.02.090 26047283
    [Google Scholar]
  37. LeeH. HaM.J. ShahbazH.M. KimJ.U. JangH. ParkJ. High hydrostatic pressure treatment for manufacturing of red bean powder: A comparison with the thermal treatment.J. Food Eng.201823814114710.1016/j.jfoodeng.2018.06.016
    [Google Scholar]
  38. GharibzahediS.M.T. SmithB. Effects of high hydrostatic pressure on the quality and functionality of protein isolates, concentrates, and hydrolysates derived from pulse legumes: A review.Trends Food Sci. Technol.202110746647910.1016/j.tifs.2020.11.016
    [Google Scholar]
  39. ZhaF. RaoJ. ChenB. Modification of pulse proteins for improved functionality and flavor profile: A comprehensive review.Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.20212033036306010.1111/1541‑4337.12736 33798275
    [Google Scholar]
  40. RolandW.S.U. PouvreauL. CurranJ. van de VeldeF. de KokP.M.T. Flavor aspects of pulse ingredients.Cereal Chem.2017941586510.1094/CCHEM‑06‑16‑0161‑FI
    [Google Scholar]
  41. MohammedI. AhmedA.R. SengeB. Dough rheology and bread quality of wheat–chickpea flour blends.Ind. Crops Prod.201236119620210.1016/j.indcrop.2011.09.006
    [Google Scholar]
  42. AiderM. Sirois-GosselinM. BoyeJ.I. Pea, lentil, and chickpea protein application in bread making.J. Food Res.20121416017310.5539/jfr.v1n4p160
    [Google Scholar]
  43. AsifM. RooneyL.W. AliR. RiazM.N. Application and opportunities of pulses in food system: A review.Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.201353111168117910.1080/10408398.2011.574804 24007421
    [Google Scholar]
  44. ThongramS. TanwarB. ChauhanA. KumarV. Physicochemical and organoleptic properties of cookies incorporated with legume flours.Cogent Food Agric.201621117238910.1080/23311932.2016.1172389
    [Google Scholar]
  45. GómezM. OlieteB. RosellC.M. PandoV. FernándezE. Studies on cake quality made of wheat–chickpea flour blends.Lebensm. Wiss. Technol.20084191701170910.1016/j.lwt.2007.11.024
    [Google Scholar]
  46. LamA.C.Y. Can KaracaA. TylerR.T. NickersonM.T. Pea protein isolates: Structure, extraction, and functionality.Food Rev. Int.201834212614710.1080/87559129.2016.1242135
    [Google Scholar]
  47. LovedayS.M. Food proteins: Technological nutritional and sustainability attributes of traditional and emerging proteins.Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol.201910311339
    [Google Scholar]
  48. AlekseevaE. KolchinaV. Amino acid composition of beef obtained fromthe specialized meat cattle.IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci.2019341101213610.1088/1755‑1315/341/1/012136
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/lff/10.2174/2666939001666221006121517
Loading
/content/journals/lff/10.2174/2666939001666221006121517
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
Please enter a valid_number test