Comparative assessment of nutritional, thermal, rheological and functional properties of nine Australian lupin cultivars
Abstract Lupin holds an important place among the legumes and the utilization of lupin as a dietary protein source is an excellent environmentally friendly alternative to animal-based products for human nutrition. In the present study, nutritional, thermal, rheological and functional properties of n...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Nature Portfolio
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/d0eefdcd90984796b2eb49e0eb8c30eb |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Lupin holds an important place among the legumes and the utilization of lupin as a dietary protein source is an excellent environmentally friendly alternative to animal-based products for human nutrition. In the present study, nutritional, thermal, rheological and functional properties of nine Australian lupin cultivars have been assayed in order to find the most valuable one, both nutritiously and industrially. The set comprised six Lupinus angustifolius L. viz., Barlock, Gunyadi, Jenabillup, Jindalee, Jurien, Mandelup and three Lupinus albus L. viz., Luxor, Rosetta, WK388 cultivars. The tests included analysis of color, macronutrient and micronutrient composition, pasting, textural and thermal properties, electrophoretic profile of protein isolates, swelling power, water and oil absorption capacity, emulsifying capacity, emulsion stability, creaming stability, foaming capacity and stability of the cultivars’ dehulled seed flours. The results indicated substantial variation in macro and micro-nutritional value as well as satisfactory swelling ability, solubility, surface hydrophobicity, foaming ability, emulsifying capacity and gelation property of lupin flours. Superior nutritional, thermal, rheological and functional potential was demonstrated by the L. albus cultivars compared to the L. angustifolius cultivars with the exception of Mandelup. |
|---|