A comprehensive review on pulse protein fractionation and extraction: processes, functionality, and food applications

Abstract

The increasing world population requires the production of nutrient-rich foods. Protein is an essential macronutrient for healthy individuals. Interest in using plant proteins in foods has increased in recent years due to their sustainability and nutritional benefits. Dry and wet protein fractionation methods have been developed to increase protein yield, purity, and functional and nutritional qualities. This review explores the recent developments in pretreatments and fractionation processes used for producing pulse protein concentrates and isolates. Functionality differences between pulse proteins obtained from different fractionation methods and the use of fractionated pulse proteins in different food applications are also critically reviewed. Pretreatment methods improve the de-hulling efficiency of seeds prior to fractionation. Research on wet fractionation methods focuses on improving sustainability and functionality of proteins while studies on dry methods focus on increasing protein yield and purity. Hybrid methods produced fractionated proteins with higher yield and purity while also improving protein functionality and process sustainability. Dry and hybrid fractionated proteins have comparable or superior functionalities relative to wet fractionated proteins. Pulse protein ingredients are successfully incorporated into various food formulations with notable changes in their sensory properties. Future studies could focus on optimizing the fractionation process, improving protein concentrate palatability, and optimizing formulations using pulse proteins.

Keywords:

• Dry fractionation
• meat analogs
• plant proteins
• protein extraction
• protein functionality
• pulse proteins

Acknowledgements

This is contribution No. 23-004-J from the Kansas Agricultural Experimental Station. This research was supported in part by the USDA Pulse Crop Health Initiative grants (Grant Accession No. 0439205 and No. 0439200) and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project (Grant Accession No. 7003330).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This is contribution No. 23-004-J from the Kansas Agricultural Experimental Station. This research was supported in part by the USDA Pulse Crop Health Initiative grants (Grant Accession No. 0439205 and No. 0439200) and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch project (Grant Accession No. 7003330).