Physicochemical and Sensorial Evaluation of Meat Analogues Produced from Dry-Fractionated Pea and Oat Proteins
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
2.2. Extrusion Process
2.3. Proximate Composition of Protein Powders and Meat Analogues
2.4. Texture Profile Analysis
2.5. Physicochemical and Functional Properties
2.6. Sensory Analysis
2.7. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Characteristics of the Ingredients
3.2. Process Conditions and Extruder Responses
3.3. Chemical Composition of Meat Analogues
3.4. TPA, Physicochemical and Functional Properties
3.5. Sensory Analysis
4. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- United Nations—Department of Economic and Social Affairs–Population Division 2019. World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights (ST/ESA/SER.A/423); United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 37–38. Available online: https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2020).
- Godfray, H.C.J.; Aveyard, P.; Garnett, T.; Hall, J.W.; Key, T.J.; Lorimer, J.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Scarborough, P.; Springmann, M.; Jebb, S.A. Meat consumption, health, and the environment. Science 2018, 361, eaam5324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kyriakopoulou, K.; Dekkers, B.; van der Goot, A.J. Plant-based meat analogues. In Sustainable Meat Production and Processing; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2019; pp. 103–126. [Google Scholar]
- Dekkers, B.L.; Boom, R.M.; van der Goot, A.J. Structuring processes for meat analogues. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 81, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Caporgno, M.P.; Böcker, L.; Müssner, C.; Stirnemann, E.; Haberkorn, I.; Adelmann, H.; Handschin, S.; Windhab, E.J.; Mathys, A. Extruded meat analogues based on yellow, heterotrophically cultivated Auxenochlorella protothecoides microalgae. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2020, 59, 102275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Liu, L.; Liu, H.; Yoon, A.; Rizvi, S.S.H.; Wang, Q. Changes in conformation and quality of vegetable protein during texturization process by extrusion. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 3267–3280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osen, R.; Toelstede, S.; Wild, F.; Eisner, P.; Schweiggert-Weisz, U. High moisture extrusion cooking of pea protein isolates: Raw material characteristics, extruder responses, and texture properties. J. Food Eng. 2014, 127, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sha, L.; Xiong, Y.L. Plant protein-based alternatives of reconstructed meat: Science, technology, and challenges. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 102, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bohrer, B.M. An investigation of the formulation and nutritional composition of modern meat analogue products. Food Sci. Hum. Wellness 2019, 8, 320–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tehrani, M.M.; Ehtiati, A.; Sharifi Azghandi, S. Application of genetic algorithm to optimize extrusion condition for soy-based meat analogue texturization. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 1119–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Palanisamy, M.; Franke, K.; Berger, R.G.; Heinz, V.; Töpfl, S. High moisture extrusion of lupin protein: Influence of extrusion parameters on extruder responses and product properties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 2175–2185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahari, I.; Ferawati, F.; Helstad, A.; Ahlström, C.; Östbring, K.; Rayner, M.; Purhagen, J.K. Development of high-moisture meat analogues with hemp and soy protein using extrusion cooking. Foods 2020, 9, 772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samard, S.; Ryu, G.H. Physicochemical and functional characteristics of plant protein-based meat analogs. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kaleda, A.; Talvistu, K.; Tamm, M.; Viirma, M.; Rosend, J.; Tanilas, K.; Kriisa, M.; Part, N.; Tammik, M.-L. Impact of fermentation and phytase treatment of pea-oat protein blend on physicochemical, sensory, and nutritional properties of extruded meat analogs. Foods 2020, 9, 1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pasqualone, A.; Costantini, M.; Coldea, T.E.; Summo, C. Use of legumes in extrusion cooking: A review. Foods 2020, 9, 958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Samtiya, M.; Aluko, R.E.; Dhewa, T. Plant food anti-nutritional factors and their reduction strategies: An overview. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2020, 2, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schutyser, M.A.I.; Pelgrom, P.J.M.; van der Goot, A.J.; Boom, R.M. Dry fractionation for sustainable production of functional legume protein concentrates. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 45, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Der Goot, A.J.; Pelgrom, P.J.M.; Berghout, J.A.M.; Geerts, M.E.J.; Jankowiak, L.; Hardt, N.A.; Keijer, J.; Schutyser, M.A.I.; Nikiforidis, C.V.; Boom, R.M. Concepts for further sustainable production of foods. J. Food Eng. 2016, 168, 42–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Assatory, A.; Vitelli, M.; Rajabzadeh, A.R.; Legge, R.L. Dry fractionation methods for plant protein, starch and fiber enrichment: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 340–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabtabaei, S.; Konakbayeva, D.; Rajabzadeh, A.R.; Legge, R.L. Functional properties of navy bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) protein concentrates obtained by pneumatic tribo-electrostatic separation. Food Chem. 2019, 283, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vogelsang-O’Dwyer, M.; Petersen, I.L.; Joehnke, M.S.; Sørensen, J.C.; Bez, J.; Detzel, A.; Busch, M.; Krueger, M.; O’Mahony, J.A.; Arendt, E.K.; et al. Comparison of Faba bean protein ingredients produced using dry fractionation and isoelectric precipitation: Techno-functional, nutritional and environmental performance. Foods 2020, 9, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Monteiro, C.A.; Cannon, G.; Moubarac, J.C.; Levy, R.B.; Louzada, M.L.C.; Jaime, P.C. The UN decade of nutrition, the NOVA food classification and the trouble with ultra-processing. Public Health Nutr. 2018, 21, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bühler, J.M.; Dekkers, B.L.; Bruins, M.E.; Van Der Goot, A.J. Modifying faba bean protein concentrate using dry heat to increase water holding capacity. Foods 2020, 9, 1077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fang, Y.; Zhang, B.; Wei, Y. Effects of the specific mechanical energy on the physicochemical properties of texturized soy protein during high-moisture extrusion cooking. J. Food Eng. 2014, 121, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AOAC International. Official Methods of Analysis, Association of Analytical Communities, 17th ed.; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Summo, C.; De Angelis, D.; Ricciardi, L.; Caponio, F.; Lotti, C.; Pavan, S.; Pasqualone, A. Data on the chemical composition, bioactive compounds, fatty acid composition, physico-chemical and functional properties of a global chickpea collection. Data Brief. 2019, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- AACC International. Approved Methods of Analysis, American Association of Cereal Chemists, 10th ed.; AACC International: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Rempel, C.; Geng, X.; Zhang, Y. Industrial scale preparation of pea flour fractions with enhanced nutritive composition by dry fractionation. Food Chem. 2019, 276, 119–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, F.L.; Wei, Y.M.; Zhang, B.; Ojokoh, A.O. System parameters and product properties response of soybean protein extruded at wide moisture range. J. Food Eng. 2010, 96, 208–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, A.C.Y.; Can Karaca, A.; Tyler, R.T.; Nickerson, M.T. Pea protein isolates: Structure, extraction, and functionality. Food Rev. Int. 2018, 34, 126–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Summo, C.; De Angelis, D.; Ricciardi, L.; Caponio, F.; Lotti, C.; Pavan, S.; Pasqualone, A. Nutritional, physico-chemical and functional characterization of a global chickpea collection. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2019, 84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saldanha do Carmo, C.; Silventoinen, P.; Nordgård, C.T.; Poudroux, C.; Dessev, T.; Zobel, H.; Holtekjølen, A.K.; Draget, K.I.; Holopainen-Mantila, U.; Knutsen, S.H.; et al. Is dehulling of peas and faba beans necessary prior to dry fractionation for the production of protein- and starch-rich fractions? Impact on physical properties, chemical composition and techno-functional properties. J. Food Eng. 2020, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, J.H.; Loveday, S.M.; Hardacre, A.K.; Parker, M.E. Effects of soy protein to wheat gluten ratio on the physicochemical properties of extruded meat analogues. Food Struct. 2019, 19, 100102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beck, S.M.; Knoerzer, K.; Foerster, M.; Mayo, S.; Philipp, C.; Arcot, J. Low moisture extrusion of pea protein and pea fibre fortified rice starch blends. J. Food Eng. 2018, 231, 61–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Samard, S.; Gu, B.Y.; Ryu, G.H. Effects of extrusion types, screw speed and addition of wheat gluten on physicochemical characteristics and cooking stability of meat analogues. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 4922–4931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- de Mesa, N.J.E.; Alavi, S.; Singh, N.; Shi, Y.C.; Dogan, H.; Sang, Y. Soy protein-fortified expanded extrudates: Baseline study using normal corn starch. J. Food Eng. 2009, 90, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wi, G.; Bae, J.; Kim, H.; Cho, Y.; Choi, M.J. Evaluation of the physicochemical and structural properties and the sensory characteristics of meat analogues prepared with various non-animal based liquid additives. Foods 2020, 9, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Du, S.K.; Jiang, H.; Yu, X.; Jane, J.L. Physicochemical and functional properties of whole legume flour. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 55, 308–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roland, W.S.U.; Pouvreau, L.; Curran, J.; Van De Velde, F.; De Kok, P.M.T. Flavor aspects of pulse ingredients. Cereal Chem. 2017, 94, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Günther-Jordanland, K.; Dawid, C.; Dietz, M.; Hofmann, T. Key phytochemicals contributing to the bitter off-taste of oat (Avena sativa L.). J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, 64, 9639–9652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cliceri, D.; Spinelli, S.; Dinnella, C.; Prescott, J.; Monteleone, E. The influence of psychological traits, beliefs and taste responsiveness on implicit attitudes toward plant- and animal-based dishes among vegetarians, flexitarians and omnivores. Food Qual. Prefer. 2018, 68, 276–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elzerman, J.E.; van Boekel, M.A.J.S.; Luning, P.A. Exploring meat substitutes: Consumer experiences and contextual factors. Br. Food J. 2013, 115, 700–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sample | Screw Speed (rpm) | T1 (°C) | T2 (°C) | T3 (°C) | T4 (°C) | T5 (°C) | T6 (°C) | Moisture (g 100 g−1) | Protein Content (g 100 g−1) § | Lipid Content (g 100 g−1) § | P * (bar) | Torque * (Nm) | Mass Flow Rate ** (g min−1) | SME * (kJ kg−1) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PDF_OP (70:30) | 800 | 40 | 70 | 130 | 150 | 140 | 140 | 20 | 54.7 | 8.2 | 38.05 ± 2.50 a | 24.09 ± 2.57 a | 94.15 ± 5.28 a | 1286.01 ± 114.22 a |
PIs_OP (70:30) | 600 | 40 | 70 | 130 | 150 | 140 | 140 | 30 | 77.5 | 7.1 | 16.28 ± 0.52 c | 14.55 ± 1.15 c | 71.00 ± 0.55 c | 772.60 ± 60.90 c |
PIs_PDF_OP (35:35:30) | 800 | 40 | 70 | 130 | 150 | 140 | 140 | 25 | 66.1 | 7.7 | 18.48 ± 3.72 b | 17.30 ± 2.13 b | 81.86 ± 6.88 b | 1075.77 ± 145.43 b |
SIs_OP (70:30) | 225 | 40 | 70 | 125 | 135 | 125 | 125 | 35 | 76.9 | 5.3 | 18.14 ± 2.33 b | 12.84 ± 1.42 d | 71.50 ± 8.72 c | 226.94 ± 25.12 d |
Attribute | Definition | Scale Anchors | |
---|---|---|---|
Appearance | Color | Perceived color tone | 0—brown; 3.5—yellow; 6.5—green; 10—grey |
Fibrousness | Number of fibers perceived in the sample | 0—not fibrous; 10—very fibrous | |
Odor | Overall intensity * | Overall odor intensity of the sample | 0—not perceived odor; 3—boiled chicken meat (overall); 7—boiled pork meat (overall); 10—very intense odor |
Meat-like ** | Perceived similarities with meat | 0— not resembling meat; 10—very similar to meat (boiled pork/chicken) | |
Cereals | Association with cereals | 0—none; 2—very mild; 4—mild; 6—moderate; 8—intense; 10—very intense | |
Legumes | Association with legumes | ||
Sweetness | Association with caramel/sugar | ||
Off-odor intensity | Non-characteristic odors (chemical, rancid, metallic, etc.) | ||
Taste | Overall intensity * | Overall taste intensity of the sample | 0—not perceived taste; 10—very intense taste (5—boiled pork/chicken) |
Cereals | Association with cereals | 0—none; 2—very mild; 4—mild; 6—moderate; 8—intense; 10—very intense | |
Legumes | Association with legumes | ||
Saltiness | Association with sodium chloride | ||
Sweetness | Association with sucrose | ||
Umami | Association with glutamate | ||
Bitterness | Association with caffeine | ||
Astringent | Puckering sensation in mouth/tongue | ||
Off-taste intensity | Non-characteristic tastes (chemical, rancid, metallic, etc.) | ||
Aftertaste intensity | Intensity 5 s after swallowing the sample | ||
Texture | Springiness | Rate to which the sample recovers to its initial condition after pressing it with fingers | 0—not recovering; 3—recovers slightly (boiled pork); 10—recovers completely (gummy candy) |
Hardness | The force required to compress the sample using teeth | 0—easily compressible; 8—hardly compressible (boiled pork); 10—not compressible | |
Cohesiveness | The amount of sample that holds together during chewing rather than rupturing | 0—sample completely ruptured (halva §); 9—very cohesive (boiled pork); 10—sample holds together completely | |
Chewiness | Effort required to chew the sample until it can be swallowed | 0—no chews needed for masticating food (liquid-like); 8—moderately hard to chew (boiled pork); 10—requires lot of chews to masticate food | |
Moisture | Amount of water in the sample released during 5 chews | 0—completely dry; 1—very dry (halva §); 10—very moist | |
Graininess | Amount of particles released during 5 chews | 0—no particles perceived; 5—moderately grainy (halva §) 10—very grainy, gritty mouthfeel |
PIs | SIs | OP | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Protein | 55.65 ± 0.17 c | 88.21 ± 0.43 a | 87.27 ± 0.04 b | 52.56 ± 0.33 d |
Lipids | 4.54 ± 0.37 b | 2.93 ± 0.17 c | 0.38 ± 0.01 d | 16.85 ± 0.15 a |
Carbohydrates | 34.92 ± 0.45 a | 5.00 ± 0.64 d | 7.58 ± 0.07 c | 28.00 ± 0.44 b |
Ash | 4.88 ± 0.25 a | 3.86 ± 0.04 b | 4.77 ± 0.04 a | 2.60 ± 0.04 c |
WAC (g water g−1) | 0.93 ± 0.04 c | 2.82 ± 0.05 b | 6.46 ± 0.05 a | 2.41 ± 0.39 b |
OAC (g oil g−1) | 1.32 ± 0.06 b | 1.11 ± 0.06 bc | 1.66 ± 0.08 a | 1.02 ± 0.12 c |
BD (g mL−1) | 0.74 ± 0.00 b | 0.76 ± 0.00 a | 0.44 ± 0.01 d | 0.60 ± 0.01 c |
PDF_OP | PIs_OP | PIs_PDF_OP | SIs_OP | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Protein | 55.59 ± 0.93 d | 75.66 ± 0.30 a | 63.33 ± 0.35 c | 75.63 ± 0.68 a |
Lipids | 8.93 ± 0.82 a | 6.55 ± 0.31 b | 7.52 ± 1.25 ab | 4.26 ± 0.02 c |
Carbohydrates | 31.40 ± 0.46 a | 14.58 ± 0.26 c | 25.70 ± 0.68 b | 15.56 ± 0.73 c |
Ash | 4.07 ± 0.16 a | 3.21 ± 0.21 b | 3.45 ± 0.22 b | 4.25 ± 0.14 a |
PDF_OP | PIs_OP | PIs_PDF_OP | SIs_OP | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Hardness (N) * | 13.55 ± 2.60 c | 27.90 ± 4.76 a | 18.33 ± 4.25 b | 27.33 ± 5.30 a |
Cohesiveness * | 0.54 ± 0.04 b | 0.59 ± 0.02 a | 0.54 ± 0.02 b | 0.62 ± 0.03 a |
Springiness * | 0.72 ± 0.08 b | 0.81 ± 0.07 a | 0.74 ± 0.05 b | 0.87 ± 0.07 a |
Chewiness (N) * | 5.25 ± 1.16 b | 13.46 ± 2.72 a | 7.27 ± 1.59 b | 14.77 ± 3.95 a |
Specific Volume (mL g−1) ** | 4.06 ± 0.19 a | 3.76 ± 1.05 ab | 2.60 ± 0.30 bc | 2.05 ± 0.25 c |
BD (g mL−1) ** | 0.43 ± 0.02 d | 0.55 ± 0.01 c | 0.57 ± 0.00 b | 0.70 ± 0.01 a |
WAC (g water g−1) ** | 2.19 ± 0.07 c | 2.45 ± 0.11 b | 2.15 ± 0.09 c | 3.42 ± 0.10 a |
RR (%) ** | 223.31 ± 11.44 b | 210.96 ± 11.13 b | 205.13 ± 11.11 b | 257.74 ± 8.53 a |
OAC (g oil g−1) ** | 1.85 ± 0.29 a | 1.57 ± 0.19 a | 1.45 ± 0.17 ab | 1.06 ± 0.10 b |
Attribute | PDF_OP | PIs_OP | PIs_PDF_OP | SIs_OP | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Appearance | Color | 1.29 ± 0.91 d | 8.00 ± 0.96 b | 6.00 ± 0.78 c | 9.14 ± 0.77 a |
Fibrousness | 5.79 ± 0.97 a | 5.86 ± 0.95 a | 6.64 ± 0.93 a | 3.79 ± 0.97 b | |
Odor | Overall intensity * | 8.07 ± 0.83 a | 5.64 ± 0.93 b | 5.29 ± 0.91 b | 4.29 ± 0.47 c |
Meat-like ** | 3.50 ± 0.85 a | 1.29 ± 0.91 b | 1.07 ± 0.92 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 c | |
Cereals | 6.64 ± 0.84 a | 5.21 ± 0.97 b | 5.14 ± 0.77 bc | 4.29 ± 0.99 c | |
Legumes | 1.36 ± 1.74 a | 0.43 ± 0.76 ab | 0.64 ± 0.84 ab | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | |
Sweetness | 4.71 ± 0.91 a | 2.79 ± 0.97 b | 2.79 ± 0.80 b | 2.71 ± 0.99 b | |
Off-odor intensity | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | |
Taste | Overall intensity * | 5.71 ± 0.83 a | 3.64 ± 0.93 bc | 3.86 ± 0.95 b | 2.86 ± 0.86 c |
Cereals | 4.86 ± 0.95 a | 3.29 ± 0.91 b | 3.21 ± 0.80 b | 2.86 ± 1.03 b | |
Legumes | 1.57 ± 1.50 a | 1.00 ± 1.18 ab | 1.07 ± 1.14 ab | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | |
Saltiness | 1.71 ± 0.83 a | 1.29 ± 0.73 a | 1.43 ± 0.76 a | 1.14 ± 0.86 a | |
Sweetness | 1.64 ± 0.84 a | 1.14 ± 0.36 a | 1.50 ± 0.94 a | 0.93 ± 0.73 a | |
Umami | 1.14 ± 0.86 a | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | |
Bitterness | 2.64 ± 0.84 a | 1.79 ± 0.80 b | 1.71 ± 0.47 b | 1.29 ± 0.47 b | |
Astringent | 1.36 ± 0.63 a | 1.14 ± 0.86 a | 1.00 ± 0.78 a | 1.21 ± 0.43 a | |
Off-taste intensity | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | 0.00 ± 0.00 b | 1.57 ± 0.76 a | |
Aftertaste intensity | 3.93 ± 0.73 a | 2.43 ± 1.02 b | 2.43 ± 0.94 b | 2.64 ± 0.93 b | |
Texture | Springiness | 4.64 ± 1.01 b | 5.93 ± 0.92 a | 3.86 ± 0.95 b | 6.29 ± 0.99 a |
Hardness | 4.93 ± 0.92 b | 7.93 ± 1.00 a | 5.71 ± 0.91 b | 8.00 ± 0.88 a | |
Cohesiveness | 6.64 ± 0.84 a | 7.07 ± 0.92 a | 6.64 ± 0.93 a | 7.00 ± 1.04 a | |
Chewiness | 4.71 ± 0.99 c | 8.29 ± 0.91 a | 6.21 ± 0.89 b | 8.00 ± 0.88 a | |
Moisture | 8.79 ± 0.80 a | 6.21 ± 0.80 b | 7.93 ± 0.92 a | 6.57 ± 0.94 b | |
Graininess | 0.00 ± 0.00 a | 0.71 ± 0.91 a | 0.43 ± 0.76 a | 0.64 ± 1.01 a |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
De Angelis, D.; Kaleda, A.; Pasqualone, A.; Vaikma, H.; Tamm, M.; Tammik, M.-L.; Squeo, G.; Summo, C. Physicochemical and Sensorial Evaluation of Meat Analogues Produced from Dry-Fractionated Pea and Oat Proteins. Foods 2020, 9, 1754. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121754
De Angelis D, Kaleda A, Pasqualone A, Vaikma H, Tamm M, Tammik M-L, Squeo G, Summo C. Physicochemical and Sensorial Evaluation of Meat Analogues Produced from Dry-Fractionated Pea and Oat Proteins. Foods. 2020; 9(12):1754. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121754
Chicago/Turabian StyleDe Angelis, Davide, Aleksei Kaleda, Antonella Pasqualone, Helen Vaikma, Martti Tamm, Mari-Liis Tammik, Giacomo Squeo, and Carmine Summo. 2020. "Physicochemical and Sensorial Evaluation of Meat Analogues Produced from Dry-Fractionated Pea and Oat Proteins" Foods 9, no. 12: 1754. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9121754