142 ISSN 1120-1770 online, DOI 10.15586/ijfs.v33i2.2055 P U B L I C A T I O N S CODON Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2): 142–155 P U B L I C A T I O N S CODON Comparison of some functional properties and protein profiles of different protein sources with egg components Mine Köstekli Büyükcan, Sibel Karakaya* Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, Bornova 35100, İzmir, Turkey *Corresponding Author: Sibel Karakaya, Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ege University, Bornova, 35100 İzmir, Turkey. E-mail: sibel.karakaya@ege.edu.tr Received: 17 April 2021; Accepted: 7 July 2021; Published: 31 July 2021 © 2021 Codon Publications OPEN ACCESS PAPER Abstract Emulsifying and foaming properties of plant and animal-sourced proteins; wheat protein hydrolysates (WP1, WP2, and WP3), potato protein isolates (PP1, PP2), pea proteins isolates (PeP1, PeP2), whey protein concentrate (WPC), and buttermilk powder (BMP) were compared with the egg white powder (EWP) and egg yolk powder (EYP). Foaming capacity, stability, emulsion activity, stability, heat stability, morphology, and electrophoretic pro- tein profiles were determined. The proteins representing competitive emulsifying functions were PeP1, WPC, and BMP. Heat treatment for 30 min at 80°C remarkably reduced the emulsion activity (EA) of EYP. Our findings demonstrated that patatin-rich potato protein (PP1), an allergen-free and vegan option, has great potential to replace the foaming function of the egg white. The relationship between the protein profiles of the samples and their functional properties was further discussed in detail. Keywords: dairy protein; egg replacement; emulsifying; foaming; plant protein; protein profile Introduction Proteins have critical functional properties for the food industry, such as emulsification, thickening, gelation, foaming, and water binding. Although dietary proteins are available in both plant and animal sources, in recent years, there has been increasing attention toward utiliz- ing novel plant proteins to support human nutrition at a low cost (Ogunwolu et al., 2009; Shah et al., 2019). In addition, maintaining sustainability by balancing food production against increasing food demand and nutri- tional requirements is one of the most important top- ics, especially in developing countries (Butt and Batool, 2010). For this purpose, several studies have focused on replacements of the ingredients in formulated foods. The egg is one of the major constituents in the food indus- try, especially in the bakery. It brings about various techno-functional properties such as foaming, emulsify- ing, binding, leavening, tenderization, volume, texture, stabilization, coagulation, flavor, color, and nutritional value to the food products (Abdul Hussain and Al-Oulabi, 2009; Geera et al., 2011). However, consumers’ needs and expectations have led the food industry to focus on egg alternatives. Those needs and expectations include ethical values, allergen-free/-reduced food products, affordable prices, extended shelf life, no refrigeration requirement, and lesser microbiological concerns (Kohrs et al., 2010). Furthermore, fluctuating egg prices, con- sumer concerns about clean labeling, animal welfare, environment, and sustainability reveal a great need to investigate an alternative ingredient to replace egg used in food formulations (Abdul Hussain and Al-Oulabi, 2009; Jarpa-Parra, 2018; Lin et al., 2017). Physicochemical interactions between protein and other food system components such as oil, water, air, and other proteins contribute to the functional properties of the pro- teins. Those functions are related to several intrinsic and extrinsic factors, namely, shape, size, amino acid content mailto:sibel.karakaya@ege.edu.tr Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) 143 Comparison of some functional properties and protein profiles Therefore, as performed in this present study, examining different samples regarding their techno-functional prop- erties by comparing egg white powder (EWP) and egg yolk powder (EYP) with a standard method in the same condi- tions becomes crucial. In this study, the investigation of plant and animal- sourced proteins’ main functions was aimed at. Besides, another aim was to compare them with the egg and to present the relationship among the function and protein profiles individually. Materials and Methods Materials Dr Oetker Gıda Sanayi Tic. AŞ., Turkey, kindly pro- vided the commercial samples (WP1, WP2, WP3, PP1, PP2, PeP1, PeP2, whey protein concentrate [WPC], but- termilk powder [BMP], EWP, and EYP) and whole egg powder (WEP). The sunflower oil and the fresh eggs were supplied from a local market. All chemical reagents were analytical grade and supplied from Merck KGaA. Distilled water was used in all analyses, except for the SDS-PAGE analysis in which ultrapure water was used. Technical data provided by individual producers on a wet basis (wb) are given in Table 1. Determination of protein and moisture content According to the instrument’s instruction, moisture con- tent was determined with a halogen moisture analyzer (Mettler Toledo, HE73) in triplicates. Protein content was and sequence, distribution of net charges, hydrophobic- ity and hydrophilicity ratio, structure, solubility; interac- tion with other substances represent the former while pH, temperature, moisture, additives, enzymes, salt concen- tration, ionic strength, and extraction method is included in the latter (Butt and Batool, 2010; Ivanova et  al., 2014; Shah et al., 2019). Moreover, protein concentration, oil phase volume, and processing conditions have a crucial effect on functional properties (Barać et al., 2015). The replacement of an ingredient can be achieved by identifying the target ingredient’s functions in food matrices. Some egg replacers composed of whey pro- tein isolates, soy compounds, wheat gluten, and several thickening agents are commercially available. They used to claim a 100% egg replacement. However, due to the unique structure of the egg and its function, such claims remain unrealistic (Geera et al., 2011). There is an increasing demand for value-added food products with low-cost protein sources (Chandi and Sogi, 2006). Attention to sustainable and cost-optimized egg alternatives for industrial application is increasing. Current literature provides valuable data for the func- tions of the various proteins. However, applied methods and conditions (concentration, pH, equipment, oil phase, oil type) are diverse in the current literature. Therefore, the determination of different protein sources’ functional properties should contribute to challenging egg replace- ment studies. Unfortunately, different methodologies lead to limitations in comparing the results for industrial pur- poses. The opposite results for the same protein sample can be explained by the sample purity, isolation methods, parameters used for analyses, genotypes of the protein source, and environmental conditions (Barać et al., 2015). Table 1. Technical data of the samples. Sample Maximum % General description Protein Moisture WP1 79 4.5 Enzymatic partly hydrolyzed wheat protein WP2 79 4.5 Enzymatic partly hydrolyzed wheat protein WP3 85 7 Wet extracted and enzymatically hydrolyzed wheat protein PP1 90.5 9 Potato protein isolate PP2 93.2 9 Potato protein isolate PeP1 79 7 Pea protein isolate from yellow pea (Pisum sativum) PeP2 81.7 5 Pea protein isolate WPC 79 5 Whey protein concentrate BMP 36 5 Sweet buttermilk powder, evaporated and spray dried EYP 30 5 Egg yolk powder, pasteurized and spray dried EWP 82 8 Egg albumen powder, pasteurized and spray dried from partially de-lysozymed liquid egg white BMP: buttermilk powder, EWP: egg white powder, EYP: egg yolk powder, WPC: whey protein concentrate. 144 Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) Büyükcan MK and Karakaya S Determination of emulsifying properties The emulsion activity was determined as described by Ivanova et al. (2014) with slight modifications. Protein solutions (2g/100 mL) were prepared in distilled water and were homogenized (Heidolph, Diax 900, 900W) for 30 seconds (sec) at 8000 rpm. Sunflower oil (100 mL) was colored with Sudan Blue II (0.15%) and added to the protein solution. Homogenization for 30 sec was applied. Immediately after homogenization, the emul- sion was centrifuged (Hettich Zentrifugen Rotofix 32 A) at 1200  rpm for 5 min. Emulsion activity (%) was deter- mined using the below formula. Height of emulsified layer (cm) EA (%) 100 Height of total liquid (cm) = × (3) The method proposed by Shen and Tang (2012) with slight modifications was used to determine ES (%). In brief, oil in water emulsion (40:60 v/v) was used. Protein solution (3%) was prepared in distilled water, and 120 g protein solution was combined with 80 g sun- flower oil colored with Sudan Blue II. The mixture was homogenized (Heidolph, Diax 900, 900W) for 2 min at 11,600 rpm. Then, the emulsion was transferred into the tubes (50 mL) without taking up the foam phase. The volume of the emulsion was recorded after 1 h and 24 h. Emulsion stability (%) was calculated using the below formula. 0 1;24 0 ES (%) (Emulsion volume t Liquid volume separated t ) 100 Emulsion volume t − = × (4) where Emulsion volume t0: the volume of the emulsion at the beginning (50 mL) Liquid volume separated t1: the volume of the emulsion after 1 h; t24: the volume of the emulsion after 24 h. Emulsion heat stability (EHS) was determined by the method proposed by Ivanova et al. (2014). Samples were prepared as described in the EA method (2.5.1). Before centrifugation, emulsions were heated in a water bath at 80°C, for 30 min. Then, the tubes were cooled to room temperature under tap water. Then the tube’s content was centrifuged at 1200 rpm for 5 min. The emulsion heat stability (%) also represented EA determined after heat treatment and was calculated as follows: EHS 80 C (%) Height of remaining emulsified layer (cm) 100 Height of total liquid cm) ° ( = × (5) determined by Dumas combustion method with FP 528 Nitrogen/Protein Determinator (LECO). Samples were weighed individually to tin foil cups and analyzed in parallel. Conversion factors were 6.38 for BMP, 6.15 for WPC, 5.7 for WP1, WP2, WP3, and 6.25 for the rest of the samples. Determination of protein profiles The samples’ protein profiles were determined with SDS- PAGE electrophoresis (Laemmli, 1970) with Bio-Rad MiniProtean electrophoresis system and Mini Protean® TGXTM 12% separation gel. Samples were first diluted with ultrapure water to a final protein concentration of 3 mg/mL and then with a sample buffer (1:2 v/v). Diluted samples were incubated at 95°C for 5 min at 200 rpm in an Eppendorf ThermoMixer C. The gel was run at 50 V and was stained. The gel was washed with the destain- ing solution after staining to remove excess dye. The pro- tein bands’ molecular weight (MW) was calculated with ImageJ (1.52a, National Institutes of Health, USA). Determination of foaming properties The foaming capacity was determined with the method described by Ivanova et al. (2014) with slight modifica- tions. In brief, 100 mL protein solution (3%, w/v) was prepared in distilled water by stirring continuously with a magnetic stirrer (2mag, Magnetic emotion) and poured in a 250 mL measuring cylinder. For foam for- mation, a foaming apparatus (MateStar, MAT-101W) was located at the center of the measuring cylinder above a constant height and operated for 3 min. The volume after foaming (V1) was directly recorded at once. Foaming capacity (%) was calculated using the below formula. 1 0 0 V V FC (%) 100 V − = × (1) The foam stability was defined as the foam’s ratio that remained after a certain period to the initial foam vol- ume at room temperature. Total volume after 1 hour (h) (V2:1) and after 24 h (V2:24) at room temperature was recorded. Foam stability (%) was calculated using the below formula: 2 0 1 0 V V FS (%) 100 V V − = × − (2) where V0 = total volume before whipping, V1 = total volume after whipping, V2:1 = total volume after 1 h, V2:1 = total volume after 24 h, Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) 145 Comparison of some functional properties and protein profiles Protein profiles Protein profiles of the samples were represented in Figures 1 and 2. MW of protein bands obtained for WPC (Lane 2) were compared with the existing liter- ature (Jiménez et al., 2012) and referred to as lactofer- rin (LF, 80  kDa), bovine serum albumin (BSA, 66 kDa), β- lactoglobulin (β-LG, 18 kDa), and α-lactalbumin (α-LA, 14 kDa). In terms of functional properties, major WPC proteins, namely, β-LG and α-LA, were described as the most basic fractions to use in food applications (Svanborg et  al., 2015). β-Lactoglobulin and α-LA are both small globular proteins, and β-LG contains two disulfide bridges and a free thiol group while α-LA con- tains four disulfide bridges (Soltani et al., 2017). The sul- fur content and surface hydrophobicity of main whey proteins are essential for their functional properties (Abd El-Salam et al., 2009). The bands with high MW obtained for BMP (Figure 1, Lane 3) represented the milk fat glob- ule membrane proteins (MFGMP), namely, xanthine oxidase (XDH, 145 kDa) and CD36 (74 kDa). The β-LG band was observed in the protein profile of BMP. The main protein fraction of BMP was casein (24–34 kDa). The protein profile of BMP in this present research was in accordance with the existing literature (Que Phan et al., 2014; Sodini et al., 2006). Pea protein isolates from two different producers exhibited identical protein pro- files (Lanes  4–5). The bands having MW between 93 kDa–19 kDa seen in PeP1 and PeP2 were mainly com- posed of legumin and vicilin fractions. These fractions were lipoxygenase (LOX, 93 kDa), major vicilin (V) frac- tions (76  kDa and 50 kDa), legumin acidic subunit (Lα, 41  kDa), and legumin basic subunit (Lβ, 25 kDa). The bands having MWs below 35 kDa could be V fractions and disassociated minor V fractions. Similar protein pro- files for pea protein were reported in the literature (Shah et  al., 2019; Shand et  al., 2007). SDS-PAGE analysis of Microscopic observations of the emulsions The microstructure was imaged with a microscope (Olympus CH20BIMF200, Olympus Optical Co., Ltd., Japan) according to Kawano et al. (2015). The emulsion preparation procedure was the same as applied in EA determination. The emulsion droplet (6 µL) was placed on a concave glass slide immediately after emulsion preparation. The droplet was diluted with sunflower oil (60 µL) colored with Sudan Blue II dye to improve the image quality. The concave glass provided the integrity of the emulsion’s natural structure. The software Image J (1.52a, National Institutes of Health, USA) was used to perform the emul- sion microstructure evaluation and diameter measure- ment after proper scaling settings. The emulsion droplet diameter was determined by the average of 50 different droplets from each image as triplicates. Statistical analyses All analyses were done in triplicates and parallels except protein content and SDS-PAGE. Protein analyses were carried out in duplicate. Experimental data were ana- lyzed using ANOVA (SPSS for Windows Version 24.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and comparisons among the means were performed using Tukey’s test. Differences between the means were considered significant at P < 0.05. The relationship between the protein sources and the functional properties was analyzed using the Cluster Analysis and Principal Component Analysis (PCA) (trial version of XLSTAT 2020, Addinsoft). Result and Discussion Moisture and protein content The protein sources used in this study were hydrolyzed proteins (WP1, WP2, WP3), protein isolates (PP1, PP2, PeP1, PeP2), protein concentrate (WPC), and spray-dried powders (BMP, EYP, EWP). The highest protein content was found in PP2, 91.70% (P < 0.05), which was followed by PP1 (89.52%) (Table 2). EYP exhibited the lowest pro- tein content (32.47%). In general, protein and moisture content agreed with the technical product specification values. The moisture content of WP1, WP2, and PeP2 was slightly higher than the values reported in the tech- nical product specification. The moisture absorption during storage can be the reason for this. Total protein content, protein solubility, and moisture content of the proteins have critical importance on the functional prop- erties by affecting the amount of protein adsorbed at the interface. Table 2. Protein and moisture contents of samples. Sample Protein (%) Moisture (%) PP1 89.52 ± 0.43b 7.37 ± 0.30c PP2 91.70 ± 0.13a 8.17 ± 0.22b WP1 76.09 ± 0.12f 7.28 ± 0.50c WP2 76.79 ± 0.06e,f 6.96 ± 0.17c WP3 77.38 ± 0.25e 5.49 ± 0.07d PeP1 78.69 ± 0.04d 8.04 ± 0.23b PeP2 80.39 ± 0.18c 8.76 ± 0.24a WPC 81.38 ± 0.19c 5.74 ± 0.01d BMP 36.27 ± 0.00g 3.93 ± 0.21e Values were given as mean ± standard deviation (n = 6). a–h Different letters in the same column represent statistical significance (P < 0.05) BMP: buttermilk powder, WPC: whey protein concentrate. 146 Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) Büyükcan MK and Karakaya S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MW (kDa) 250 150 100 75 50 37 25 15 20 10 a-LA La Lb b-LG Casein CD36 XDH BSA LF LOX V V V V PI PATT PATT AGG Figure 1. SDS–PAGE profile of proteins from different sources. Lane 1. Standard MW (kDa); Lane 2. WPC; Lane 3. BMP; Lane 4. PeP1; Lane 5. PeP2; Lane 6. PP1; Lane 7. PP2; Lane 8. WP1; Lane 9. WP2; Lane 10. WP3. LF: Lactoferrin, BSA: Bovine serum albumin, β-LG: β-lactoglobulin, α-LA: α-lactalbumin, XDH: Xanthine oxidase, CD36, LOX: Lipoxygenase, V: Vicilin, Lα: Legumin acidic subunit, Lβ: Legumin basic subunit; PATT: Patatin; PATT AGG: Patatin aggregates, PI: Protease inhibitors, WPC: whey protein concentrate, BMP: buttermilk powder. 1 2 3 4 5 6MW (kDa) 250 150 100 75 50 37 25 15 20 10 apo LDL apo LDL OTf apo LDL & Ly Ly Ly OVA g-livetin & g-livetin & apo LDL b-livetin apo LDL apo HDL apo HDL apo HDL apo LDL apo LDL phosvitin Figure 2. SDS–PAGE gel of egg components. Lane 1. MW standard in kDa; Lane 2. WEP (Whole egg powder); Lane 3. FEW (Fresh egg white); Lane 4. EWP (Egg white powder); Lane 5. EYP (Egg yolk powder); Lane 6. FEY (Fresh egg yolk). OTf: Ovotransferrin, OVA: Ovalbumin, Ly: Lysozyme, apo LDL: Low-density lipoprotein apoprotein, apo HDL: High-density lipopro- tein apoprotein. PP1 (Figure 1, lane 6) showed that the predominant pro- tein fraction was patatin (PATT) (39–43 kDa). The bands having MWs above 75 kDa could be patatin aggregates (PATT AGG), which were easily unfolded even at low temperatures (approximately 60°C) as reported in the literature (Schmidt et al., 2018). Formation of monomer, dimer, and trimetric aggregates of patatin with MW of 43, 82, and 108 kDa after heat treatment was reported (Pots et al., 1999). These aggregates could have occurred (1)  due to spray drying used during the production and (2) due to the heating step (95°C, 5 min) during SDS- PAGE analysis. The other potato protein (PP2) con- tained the protein fractions with MW lower than 25 kDa (Figure  1, Lane  7). The bands having MWs of 4.3 Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) 147 Comparison of some functional properties and protein profiles kDa-20.6 kDa were identified as protease inhibitors (PI). The weak intensity bands obtained for the SDS-PAGE profiles of the wheat proteins (Figure 1, Lane 8–9–10) and the intensification of the bands below 50 kDa for WP1 and WP3, below 25 kDa for WP2 were consistent with the structure of the wheat proteins showing that they were hydrolyzed enzymatically (Table 1). In a pre- vious study, Wang et al. (2006) fractionated proteolytic hydrolysis of wheat gluten and found similar bands in gel electrophoresis. These bands could be occurred due to the enzymatic hydrolysis of the wheat proteins as reported for hydrolyzed wheat, rice (Yang et al., 2018), and rapeseed proteins (Tessier et al., 2005). Figure 2 represents the protein profiles of egg com- ponents. WEP (Lane 2), as a widely used ingredient in the food industry, was included to compare its protein profile with EWP and EYP fractions separately. The protein bands observed for WEP were low-density lipo- protein  apoprotein (apo-LDL, 200 kDa), low-density lipoprotein apoprotein (apo-LDL, 116 kDa), ovotrans- ferrin (OTf, 75 kDa), ovalbumin (OVA, 35–40 kDa), high-density lipoprotein apoprotein (apo-HDL, 30 kDa), and lysozyme (Ly, 14 kDa). Ovotransferrin, OVA, and Ly are the egg white proteins, while the others belong to egg yolk (Netting et al., 2015). Similar protein profiles of fresh and powder forms of EW (Figure 2) indicated that spray drying did not influence its protein profile. Egg white protein profiles were in accordance with the literature (Opazo–Navarrete et al., 2018). However, fresh egg yolk (FEY) and EYP exhibited different protein profiles. The protein profile of EYP did not include the two protein bands, while the SDS-PAGE profile of FEY contained 59 kDa, phosvitin, and 47 kDa, apo HDL (Figure 2, Lane 5). The missing bands in the spray-dried EYP protein profile were from the EY granule fraction. The granule fraction accounts for only 19%–25% of the EY based on dry mat- ter (Denmat et al., 2000). As expected, WEP did not con- tain some of the EYP’s fractions (62 kDa, 59 kDa, 47 kDa, 36 kDa, and 31 kDa) (Lane 2). However, plasma proteins of egg yolk were visible in the protein profile of WEP. Foaming properties The foam was defined as a two-phase system that con- sists of air cells separated by a thin continuous liquid layer named a lamellar phase. Foam systems are rela- tively unstable. There is a need for stabilizer surfactant molecules to orient at the air/water interface (Makri et  al., 2005). During foam formation, protein molecules tend to unfold their hydrophobic side chain in the air and remaining hydrophilic chains in the water phase. The hydrophilic chain portion of protein holds the water in the aqueous phase. Thus, the foam system is pre- vented from water drainage, coalesces of air bubbles, Table 3. Foaming properties of the samples. Protein source Samples FC (%) FS (%) Wheat WP1 108.47 ± 1.92c 85.10 ± 2.04b WP2 128.84 ± 3.08b 16.61 ± 2.95e WP3 106.35 ± 2.46c 26.88 ± 0.61d Pea PeP1 64.29 ± 2.61e 85.16 ± 0.60b PeP2 81.75 ± 4.68d 81.50 ± 2.64b Potato PP1 129.36 ± 3.58b 96.32 ± 0.10a PP2 126.98 ± 2.46b 7.5 ± 0.15f Milk WPC 89.68 ± 1.94d 25.68 ± 2.34d BMP 39.68 ± 2.46f 0.00 ± 0.00g Egg EYP 19.05 ± 4.26g 67.22 ± 6.72c EWP 174.76 ± 17.39a 91.67 ± 4.44a Values were given as mean ± standard deviation (n = 6). (a–g) Different letters in the same column represent significant differences (P < 0.05). BMP: buttermilk powder, EWP: egg white powder, EYP: egg yolk powder, WPC: whey protein concentrate. and obviously, destabilization (Rybak, 2013). Table 3 represents the foaming properties of the samples. As expected, EWP showed the highest FC (174.76%) due to its ovalbumin content, which is a well-known foaming agent (P < 0.05). It was followed by PP2, PP1, WP2, WP1, WP3, WPC, PeP2, PeP1, BMP, and EYP (Table 3). Potato and wheat proteins exhibited the highest FC among the plant proteins. However, pea proteins displayed weak FC. The foaming properties are closely related to the protein’s quickly unfolding structure and its adsorption rate in the interface (Alleoni, 2006). Furthermore, as applied in wheat protein hydroly- sates, hydrolytic treatments to native proteins result in reduced MW, facilitated diffusion, and adsorption at the interface (Wouters et al., 2016). The mentioned effects of hydrolytic treatment on the protein profile can be linked to the improved FC of wheat protein hydrolysates (WP1, WP2, and WP3) due to the low MW proteins they contain, as shown in the SDS-PAGE profile (Figure 1). Wheat gluten hydrolysates provided lower MW sub- units with higher solubility, and better FC was reported elsewhere (Wang et al., 2006). However, different mech- anisms can affect FS, such as the relationship between the decrease in MW and lower FS, and hydrophobic interactions and higher FS (Wouters et al., 2016). The foaming stability of wheat protein hydrolysates, WP2 and WP3, were lower when compared to the proteins with high FS, such as pea proteins, PP1, and EWP. The loss in protein structure by extensive hydrolysis can lead to impaired film formation (Wouters et al., 2016), which is attributed to the obtained lower FS values for wheat protein hydrolysates. 148 Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) Büyükcan MK and Karakaya S between air and liquid phases, which leads to an increase in viscosity and elasticity of the liquid phase (Pęksa et al., 2008). As we detected in this study, the foam volume obtained with protein isolates tends to decrease as a func- tion of time (Butt and Batool, 2010). The lower FC values can be due to inadequate electrostatic repulsions, lesser solubility, and excessive protein-protein interactions. Emulsion properties The stability of an emulsion is related to its resistance to creaming. The emulsion stability is crucial, especially during the shelflife of emulsified food products such as mayonnaise, ready-to-bake cake batter, and sauces. Table  4 represents the EA, ES, and EHS (%) of samples. There was no difference between the EA of EYP and PeP1 (P > 0.05). Also, the ES of EYP and PeP1 was sim- ilar. These results showed that PeP1 could be a replacer for the EA of EYP effectively at the same concentration and conditions. In contrast to our findings, Barac et al. (2010) reported low emulsion activity index for commer- cial pea protein isolate at pH 7.0 and pH 8.0 compared to in-house isolated proteins. The researchers followed the spectrophotometric method for emulsion functions with lower protein concentration (1 g/kg) and different protein solution: oil ratio (1:3) than our study. The procedure, sample concentration, equipment used, and homogeniza- tion duration can be the reason for diverse results. Among the protein sources, the wheat protein (WP1) dis- played the lowest EA (P < 0.05). Animal protein sources, WPC and BMP, showed relatively high EA, and their ES values after 1 h were higher when compared to wheat protein WP2, pea protein PeP2, and potato protein PP1. The emulsion stability of all proteins decreased after 24 h. The composition and processing conditions of emulsions affect the emulsion stability (Hu et al., 2017). EYP formed the most stable emulsions EYP (68.08%, ES), and WPC (58.58%), PeP1 (57.75%), and BMP (57.50%) followed it, respectively. Among the protein sources, ES of WP1 was the lowest (P < 0.05). However, the ES of wheat proteins at the end of 24 h was not statistically different from each other (P > 0.05). Therefore, wheat proteins cannot be an alternative for mimicking EA and ES of egg proteins. Various heat treatments are applied during food produc- tion. Therefore, the effect of heat treatment on emulsi- fying properties was also in our interest. Researchers reported the impairing effect of heat treatment on proteins’ emulsifying characteristics due to irrevers- ible protein denaturation (Dissanayake & Vasiljevic, 2009). However, the partial unfolding of protein may increase proteins’ surface hydrophobicity, leading to enhanced potential protein adsorption at the interface with improved emulsifying properties (Dissanayake & Although pea proteins (PeP1 and PeP2) have similar pro- tein profiles, the FC of PeP2 was significantly higher than that of PeP1 (P < 0.05). However, the FS of pea proteins was not different (P > 0.05). The varying agricultural lines of field pea proteins can explain the significantly different FC results (Shevkani et al., 2015). Barac et al. (2010) reported different foaming capacity and low foam stability independently from pH for six different pea genotypes. The previous study reported that pea protein isolate demonstrated better FC than a broad bean and lupine protein isolates (Makri et al., 2005). In the present study, pea proteins displayed lower FC than other plant- based proteins (Table 3). The foaming stability is as crucial as FC in a food sys- tem. Potato protein isolates displayed high and similar FC, but their FS was different (P < 0.05). Protein pro- files were the main difference between potato protein isolates (Figure  1). Higher FS of PP1 could be related to the high MW protein fraction, PATT. A similar relation- ship between the high stability of foams and the glob- ular proteins with high MW was reported elsewhere (Pęksa et al., 2008). The criteria for better foaming were reported as (1) rapid adsorption at the air/water interface during bubbling, (2) ability for a conformational change, rearrangement at the interface, and (3) ability to form a cohesive viscoelastic film via intermolecular interactions (Makri et al., 2005). Furthermore, a higher charge on the proteins has a weak- ening effect on the hydrophobic reaction, which leads to increased solubility and flexibility. Proteins with higher solubility and flexibility can move quickly to the air-water interface (Shevkani et al., 2015) and support improved foaming. Therefore, better foaming abilities obtained for PP1 may be related to those attributes mentioned above. The foaming capacity of WPC (89.68%) was significantly higher than the FC of BMP (39.68%) (P < 0.05). However, both milk proteins did not form stable foams. A previous study reported comparable FC of both spray-dried WPC obtained from acid and sweet whey with the FC of EW (Slack et al., 1986). The well-described factors that affect foaming properties are the existence of lipids, ash, pro- tease peptone, degree of denaturation (El-Shibiny et al., 2007), denaturation of β-LG, the origin of α-LA (sweet or acid whey), and drying methods of WPC (spray drying or freeze-drying) (Slack et al., 1986). In our study, the fat content of BMP could be the reason for unstable foam formed by BMP. A study that reported similar results linked lower FC of BMP to the competition between the fat and protein in buttermilk at the interface (Sodini et al., 2006). Particularly, foam-forming proteins can create a firm film around the air bubble by lowering the interfacial tension Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) 149 Comparison of some functional properties and protein profiles Table 4. Emulsifying properties of the protein sources. Protein source Proteins EA (%) ES (%) EHS (%) 80°C–30 min 1 h 24 h Wheat WP1 11.60 ± 0.99d 79.33 ± 2.80c,d 50.50 ± 1.22e 3.93 ± 0.03g WP2 40.87 ± 1.77c 68.50 ± 2.00e 57.00 ± 3.52b,c,d,e 7.45 ± 0.65f WP3 44.08 ± 0.75b 78.73 ± 2.98c,d 51.70 ± 3.39c.d,e 7.19 ± 0.73f Pea PeP1 47.15 ± 0.80a 92.67 ± 1.63a 57.75 ± 2.04b,c 44.08 ± 0.74a,b PeP2 43.48 ± 0.59b 74.33 ± 2.34d,e 50.83 ± 5.95d,e 40.71 ± 1.19c Potato PP1 44.17 ± 0.55b 73.50 ± 4.85d,e 55.33 ± 6.41b,c,d,e 45.30 ± 1.35a PP2 41.24 ± 0.62c 78.67 ± 1.97c,d 56.33 ± 1.63b,c,d,e 35.26 ± 1.21d Milk WPC 44.03 ± 1.42b 84.17 ± 4.92b,c 58.58 ± 1.24b 43.05 ± 1.76b BMP 43.57 ± 1.15b 82.67 ± 4.32c 54.70 ± 2.19b,c,d 42.27 ± 1.15b,c Egg EYP 49.11 ± 1.18a 90.00 ± 1.41a,b 68.08 ± 3.26a 14.03 ± 0.90e Values were given as mean ± standard deviation (n = 6). (a–f) Different letters in the same column represent significant differences (P < 0.05). BMP: buttermilk powder, EYP: egg yolk powder, WPC: whey protein concentrate. Vasiljevic, 2009; Li et al., 2011; Peng et al., 2016). Our findings indicate that the most heat-resistant emulsions were obtained from PP1 and PeP1 (Table 4). Besides, emulsions prepared with WPC and BMP resisted the heat treatment. The decrease in EA (%) after heat treat- ment was 2.23% and 2.98% for WPC and BMP, respec- tively. Moreover, whey protein is the frequently used component in food formulations to stabilize foams or emulsions via forming films and producing stable gels (Konrad et al., 2005). The improved emulsion stability of heat-treated whey protein was linked to the generation of stable nanoparticles and/or aggregates, which can sta- bilize the emulsion by increasing the continuous phase’s viscosity and participating in layer formation on the oil droplets (Dybowska, 2011). Surface hydrophobicity influences the emulsion properties of protein and pep- tides, and β-LG exhibited higher surface hydrophobicity than α-LA, indicating that β-LG is the main contributor to whey protein’s functional properties (Schröder et al., 2017). However, a previous study showed that the emul- sion stabilities of whey protein (spray dried) and its major fraction β-LG’s (freeze dried) were different. For example, spray drying can lead to partial denaturation in WPC pro- teins and the formation of strong intramolecular bonds. It was found that WPC mimics composed of freeze-dried proteins (57% β-LG, %37 α-LA, %6 BSA) exhibited simi- lar emulsion properties as freeze-dried β-LG (Tcholakova et al., 2006). Therefore, it is evident that the protein frac- tion and the production method influence the functional properties. Corredig and Dalgleish (1998) reported that among the protein fractions, the adsorbed casein ratio was 50% at the interface of the oil in water emulsion pre- pared with BMP. In addition, caseins and whey proteins covered the fat globule surface area, but caseins reduced the surface tension faster than whey proteins (Cano-Ruiz and Richter, 1997). Therefore, the good emulsifying activ- ity obtained from this study can be linked to the casein fraction of BMP. Similar to EA and ES values, the decrease in heat resis- tance of wheat proteins’ emulsions were 66%, 81.77%, and 83.69% for WP1, WP2, and WP3, respectively (Table 4). Wang et al. (2006) reported a decrease in solu- bility with the increase in temperature above 50°C for the wheat protein hydrolysate fractions. The heat treatment applied in this study (80°C, 30 min) can explain the rea- son for lower EHS values for wheat protein hydrolysates. The heat resistance of the emulsion prepared with EYP was low as the results were obtained from wheat protein emulsions. The low EHS of the emulsion of EYP may be due to the heat-induced denaturation of apo-LDL and lipovitellins (above 65°C), egg yolk proteins, and the ten- dency of denatured EYP to form gel network as reported in the literature (Campell et al., 2005). Besides, heat treatment might cause the disruption of the adsorbed hydrolyzed wheat protein and EYP at the interface. The plasma proteins of the egg yolk are the major contribu- tors to the emulsion formation, especially a lipoprotein apo-LDL (17 kDa) (Denmat et al., 2000). In our study, the protein bands mentioned above were available for the EY protein profile (Figure 2). In contrast, a slight increase was detected for EHS of the emulsion of PP1 attributable to the improved interfacial properties due to enhanced protein-oil reaction by heat-induced changes and expo- sure to hydrophobic groups (Chao and Aluko, 2018). Similar to our results, the positive effect of heat treat- ment (80°C, 30 min) on the patatin fraction’s emulsion resistance was linked to the formation of aggregates or gels and enhancement of the interfacial layer resistance (Ralet and Guéguen, 2000). 150 Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) Büyükcan MK and Karakaya S protein isolate at varying concentrations (10–15 mg/mL) at pH 5.0 and 7.0 (Aluko et al., 2009). Our results also indicated that PeP1 is a good plant-based candidate for replacing the emulsifying properties of EYP (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the EA of PeP1 was not influenced by the heat treatment (Table 4), made it an alternative to replace EYP. Emulsion morphology Figure 3 indicates that samples’ emulsion morphol- ogy exhibited better emulsifying properties (EYP, PeP1, WPC). In general, EYP formed independent and larger emulsion droplets with an average diameter of 170.04 µm, while the emulsion droplets formed by WPC and PeP1 were closely distributed, intense, intact, and smaller in size. Table 5 lists the average droplet diameters of the emulsions. The average diameters of the droplet size of the emulsions of WPC and PeP1 were 56.11 and 44.15 µm, respectively. These values were approximately 3 to 4 times lower than the droplet size of the EYP emul- sion (P  < 0.05). Homogenously distributed, relatively small-sized emulsion droplets represent the nonfloccu- lated situation positively affecting the ES. The resistance Although protein profiles of PeP1 and PeP2 were iden- tical, their foaming and emulsifying activities were dif- ferent. The production process applied different surface hydrophobicity, solubility, and ability to adhere to the air–water and water–oil interfaces and their agricultural varieties (Dissanayake & Vasiljevic, 2009; Shevkani et al., 2015; Li et al., 2011; Peng et al., 2016) can explain the difference. Among the legume proteins, the pure vicilin fraction exhibited better functional properties than the pure legumin fraction due to different protein structures of 7 S and 11 S proteins (Barać et al., 2015). Therefore, the pea genotypes with a higher vicilin/legumin ratio can be more suitable for their functional properties. In contrast, Barac et al. (2010) reported that the pea gen- otype with the lowest vicilin/legumin ratio showed the highest emulsion stability. The authors explained this with higher adsorption of legumin at the interface due to its higher surface hydrophobicity than vicilin. Therefore, legumin fraction may be responsible for the higher EA values obtained for PeP1. In addition, the compact structure of the legumin fraction can resist thermal-un- folding, thus forming heat-stable emulsions as obtained for PeP1 and PeP2 (Ladjal-Ettoumi et al., 2016). A pre- vious study reported that emulsifying capability of the pea protein isolate was significantly higher than the soy 250 µm 250 µm 250 µm 250 µm 250 µm 250 µm 250 µm 250 µm 250 µm (A) (B) (C) Figure 3. Digital photographs of emulsions under light microscope (10×) (A) EYP (B) PeP1 (C) WPC. Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) 151 Comparison of some functional properties and protein profiles Table 5. Average emulsion droplet diameter (µm). Morphology evaluation EYP (a) PeP1 (b) WPC (c) 1. 153.36 ± 39.88b,A 43.91 ± 14.89a,C 65.62 ± 19.92a,B 2. 184.18 ± 55.98a, A 45.56 ± 16.46a,B 48.47 ± 14.83b,B 3. 184.59 ± 51.38a,A 42.99 ± 16.31a,B 54.25 ± 21.46b,B Average 174.04 ± 51.35A 44.15 ± 15.83C 56.12 ± 20.14B Values were given as mean ± standard deviation (n = 150). 1, 2, 3 represent the number of repeats. (a–c) Different letters in the same column represent significant differences (P < 0.05). (A–C) Different letters in the same line represent significant differences (P < 0.05). EYP: egg yolk powder, WPC: whey protein concentrate. to creaming is related to factors such as smaller droplet size, the lower difference between the densities of con- tinuous and dispersed phases, and the higher viscosity of the continuous phase (Hu et al., 2017). The emulsion droplet size distribution of EYP was in a wide range (Figure 4). However, the droplet size distribu- tion of the emulsions of PeP1 and WPC was apparently in a narrow range. In close agreement with the size dis- tribution results, the emulsions of WPC and PeP1 were relatively resistant to creaming than the emulsion of EYP. Although the emulsion droplet average diameter of EYP was large and their distribution was in a wide range, the high emulsion stability of EYP (Table 4) can be explained by the different conditions (sample concentration, dura- tion of homogenization, energy input, and water:oil ratio) applied during emulsion formation in ES analysis and the morphology evaluation. The continuous phase’s viscosity supports ES by limiting the emulsion droplets’ mobility, leading to the prevention of creaming or coalescence (Motta-Romero et al., 2017). Besides, forming smaller oil droplets in a continuous aqueous phase, which has suffi- ciently high viscosity to prevent oil droplets from coales- cence, is crucial in increasing ES (Rybak, 2013). Functionality per dry weight We evaluated the results as functionality (%) per gram of dry weight (dw) of the sample rather than protein amount because of the possible contribution of nonprotein com- ponents (phospholipids), namely, BMP, WPC, and EYP to the functional properties (Figure 5). Results showed that PP1, PeP1, PeP2, WPC, and BMP could replace egg frac- tions’ various functions. Depending on the importance of the required function for a specific food product (mayon- naise, cake batter, sauces), the proteins mentioned above may be utilized alone or in combination. Although BMP has relatively lower protein content, functionality (%) per dw was better in all aspects, except for the FS. BMP provided 87% of EA formed by EYP alone (Figure  5). Therefore, further isolation and purification of BMP fractions and phospholipids can have great potential for 60 40 20 F re q u e n cy E Y P S a m p le s P e P 1 W P C 0 60 40 20 0 60 40 20 0 0.00 100.00 200.00 Emulsion droplet diameter (µm) 300.00 400.00 Figure 4. The distribution of the emulsion droplet size for EYP, PeP1, and WPC. techno-functionality in the food industry. For instance, the good emulsifying capacity of MFGMP found in BMP was reported previously (Abdul Hussain and Al-Oulabi, 2009). Our results based on the functionality (%)/g dw showed that BMP and WPC could replace EY’s emulsify- ing function. Pea proteins (PeP1 and PeP2) supplied good functionalities for all functions when evaluated based on dw. However, PeP1 had more significant potential in emulsion formation and stability than PeP2. Therefore, PeP1 may be an option for egg replacement studies. Regarding potato proteins’ functionality, the FC deter- mined for PP1 was higher than PP2, most probably due to the PATT and PATT AGG fractions. Moreover, lower FS obtained for the PI fraction (PP2) brought the PATT fraction (PP1) to the fore to be used as an allergen-free alternative to the foaming properties of EWP. Similar to our findings, higher foam overrun was determined for PATT fraction at pH 3.0 and pH 5.0 than PI (Schmidt et al., 2018). However, similar FS for PATT and PI frac- tions were reported in the same study. Contrary results should be explained with the diversity of the methods 152 Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) Büyükcan MK and Karakaya S Also, following the functional properties (%), there was a close correlation between PeP1 and EYP for ES. Also, the EA of BMP and WPC were closer. In the case of foaming properties, PP1 displayed the closest similarity with EWP. Conclusion This study examined the different proteins from animal and plant sources for their foaming and emulsifying properties separately and their protein profiles. All sam- ples’ protein profiles agreed with the existing literature, indicating the commercial samples’ original characteris- tics. Although spray drying caused EY’s protein profile changes, it did not influence EW’s protein profile. Two different branded pea protein isolates demonstrated dif- ferent functional properties, although their protein pro- files were identical. Among the samples, EWP showed the highest FC and FS as expected. Our results showed that plant proteins used in this study revealed higher foaming properties than ani- mal proteins. The foaming capacity of potato protein iso- lates arose from the protein fractions PATT and PI they contain, and the stability of foam arises from the PATT fraction. Our results demonstrated the great potential of PP1 providing the foaming function of EWP due to its higher FC and FS. Therefore, PP1 should be considered a good candidate and as a nonallergenic and vegan option for foaming properties to replace EWP. The emulsifying properties of samples revealed the PeP1 as the best EYP alternative (P < 0.05). However, WPC and BMP also displayed suitable emulsion activities. The stabilities of all emulsions decreased within time at room temperature. However, EYP exhibited the highest and samples’ purity. All wheat proteins exhibited high foaming capacities, but the EHS values were the low- est. Therefore, WP1 may be an alternative for the food formulations requiring high volume and stable foam instead of EW. Similar to our findings, Wang et al. (2006) reported higher FC for enzymatically hydrolyzed wheat proteins due to increased surface activity by the polypep- tides produced. These results showed that combining dif- ferent protein sources might be a good strategy to replace eggs’ functions in different food matrices. Cluster and Principal Component Analysis Cluster Analysis and PCA show the differences among samples and the relationship between variables in func- tional properties (EA, ES, FC, and FS). Factor analy- sis showed that four principal components explained the total variation. There were very strong correlations between ES and F1 component (−0.899) and FC and F1 component (0.931). In FS, a strong relationship was found for the F2 component (0.780). A moderate relation- ship between EA and F2 component was also detected (−0.576). These two components explained 74.17% of the total variance. Therefore, F1 and F2 were used for PCA, and a biplot diagram was obtained. Figure 6 shows the cluster and biplot diagrams of PCA analysis. Three main clusters explained the variability and similarity among the samples’ functional properties. One of them included EYP and PeP1, and the other was composed of WPC and BMP in line with the results we found for emulsion func- tions. Wheat protein, WP1, formed the second cluster alone. The third cluster involved EWP, PeP2, PP1, PP2, WP2, and WP3. Besides, PP1 with better foaming func- tions formed a segment with EWP in the third cluster. F1 is linked to ES and FC, while F2 is linked to EA and FS. 60 70 40 20 30 50 10 0 PP1 PeP1 PeP2 WPC BMP EYP EWPPP2 WP1 WP2 EA (%) ES (%) EHS (%) FC (%) FS (%) WP3 Functionlity per g sample (dw) Figure 5. Functionality per gram sample (dw). Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) 153 Comparison of some functional properties and protein profiles E Y P P eP 1 W P C B M P W P 1 W P 2 W P 3 P P 2 E W P P eP 2 P P 1 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 D is si m ila rit y Dendrogram (B)(A) EA ES FC FS EWP EYP WP1 WP2 WP3 PeP1 PeP2 PP1 PP2 WPC BMP –2 –1.5 –1 –0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3 F 2 (2 6, 63 % ) F1 (47,54 %) Biplot (axes F1 and F2: 74,17 %) Active variables Active observations Figure 6. Cluster diagram (A) and PCA Biplot diagram (B). ES after 24 h. The average emulsion droplet size of PeP1 was the smallest among the samples, and WPC and EYP followed it (P < 0.05). The egg is the key ingredient responsible for foaming and emulsifying properties in various food applications such as cake batter preparation. Providing similar functional and sensory properties with alternative plant and ani- mal-based proteins should bring about a new perspective to product development studies. Furthermore, obtained successful results should be confirmed by sensory evalu- ation. This research can be further supported in complex food matrices where interactions between sugar, flour, proteins, and fats occur. In conclusion, PP1 has a high potential to replace EWP’s foaming function, whereas PeP1, WPC, and BMP should be considered as alternatives to EYP’s emulsifying func- tion. In addition, PP1 and PeP1 should be highlighted as allergen-free, vegan alternatives for the functions men- tioned above. Furthermore, samples evaluated in this study should be used alone or in combination to provide functional properties required for certain food products. Acknowledgements Karakaya and Köstekli thank Dr. Oetker Gıda Sanayi Tic. A.Ş. for providing materials. This article includes data from some parts of the Ph.D. thesis conducted by Mine Köstekli Büyükcan. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from fund- ing agencies in public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of inter- est. Büyükcan holds the Research and Development Manager position at Dr Oetker Gıda Sanayi Tic. A.Ş., İzmir, Turkey. Availability of data and material (data transparency): Available Authors’ Contributions Mine Köstekli Büyükcan and Sibel Karakaya were involved with conceptualization and methodology; Mine Köstekli Büyükcan was concerned with investigation, formal analysis, resources, writing original draft, review- ing, and editing; Sibel Karakaya did the writing, review- ing, editing, and supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript. References Abd El-Salam, M.H., El-Shibiny, S. and Aida, S., 2009. Factors affecting the functional properties of whey protein products: a review. Food Reviews International 25(3): 251–270. https://doi. org/10.1080/87559120902956224 Abdul Hussain, S.S. and Al-Oulabi, R.A., 2009. Studying the pos- sibility of preparing an egg-free or eggless cake. International Journal of Engineering and Technology 1(4): 324–329. https:// doi.org/10.7763/IJET.2009.V1.65 Alleoni, A.C.C., 2006. Albumen protein and functional properties of gelation and foaming. Scientia Agricola 63(3): 291–298. https:// doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162006000300013 Aluko, R.E., Mofolasayo, O.A., Watts, B. M., 2009. Emulsifying and foaming properties of commercial yellow pea (Pisum sativum L.) https://doi.org/10.1080/87559120902956224� https://doi.org/10.1080/87559120902956224� https://doi.org/10.7763/IJET.2009.V1.65� https://doi.org/10.7763/IJET.2009.V1.65� https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162006000300013� https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-90162006000300013� 154 Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) Büyükcan MK and Karakaya S Hu, Y.T., Ting, Y., Hu, J.Y. and Hsieh, S.C.J., 2017. Techniques and methods to study functional characteristics of emulsion sys- tems. Journal of Food and Drug Analysis 25(1): 16–26. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2016.10.021 Ivanova, P., Chalova, V. and Koleva, L., 2014. Functional properties of proteins isolated from industrially produced sunflower meal. International Journal of Food Studies 3: 203–212. https://doi. org/10.7455/ijfs/3.2.2014.a6 Jarpa-Parra, M., 2018. Lentil protein: a review of functional proper- ties and food application. An overview of lentil protein function- ality. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 53: 892–903. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13685 Jiménez, X.T., Cuenca, A.A., Jurado, A.T., Corona, A.A. and Urista, C.R.M., 2012. Traditional methods for whey protein iso- lation and concentration: effects on nutritional properties and biological activity. Journal of the Mexican Chemical Society 56(4): 369–377. https://doi.org/10.29356/jmcs.v56i4.246 Kawano, S., Kida, T., Akashi, M., Sato, H., Shizuma, M. and Ono,  D., 2015. Preparation of pickering emulsions through interfacial adsorption by soft cyclodextrin nanogels. Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry 11: 2355–2364. https://doi. org/10.3762%2Fbjoc.11.257 Kohrs, D., Herald, T.J., Aramouni, F.M. and Abughoush, M., 2010. Evaluation of egg replacers in a yellow cake system. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 22(5): 340–352. https://doi. org/10.9755/ejfa.v22i5.4822 Konrad, G., Kleinschmidt, T., Rohenkohl, H. and Reimerdes, E.H., 2005. Peptic partial hydrolysis of whey protein concentrates for modify- ing the surface properties of whey protein. II. Effects on the emul- sifying and foaming properties. Milchwissenschaft 60(2): 195–198. Ladjal-Ettoumi, Y., Boudries, H. and Chibane, M., 2016. Pea, chick- pea and lentil protein isolates: physicochemical characterization and emulsifying properties. Food Biophysics 11: 43–51. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11483-015-9411-6 Laemmli, U.K., 1970. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227: 680–685. https://doi.org/10.1038/227680a0 Li, F., Kong, X., Zhang, C. and Hua, Y., 2011. Effect of heat treat- ment on the properties of soy protein-stabilized emulsions. International Journal of Food Science & Technology 46(8): 1554–1560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02647.x Lin, M., Tay, S.H., Yang, H., Yang, B. and Li, H., 2017. Replacement of eggs with soybean protein isolates and polysaccharides to pre- pare yellow cakes suitable for vegetarians. Food Chemistry 229: 663–673. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.02.132 Makri, E., Papalamprou, E. and Doxastakis, G., 2005. Study of functional properties of seed storage proteins from indigenous European legume crops (lupin, peas, broad bean) in a mixture with polysaccharides. Food Hydrocolloids 19(3): 583–594. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.10.028 Motta-Romero, H., Zhang, Z., Nguyen, A.T., Schlegel, V. and Zhang, Y., 2017. Isolation of egg yolk granules as low-cholesterol emulsifying agent in mayonnaise. Journal of Food Science 82(7): 1588–1593. https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13747 Netting, M., Donato, A., Makrides, M., Gold, M., Quinn, P. and Penttila, I., 2015. Allergenicity of pasteurized whole raw Hen’s seed flours. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 57(20): 9793–9800. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf902199x Barac, M., Cabrilo, S., Pesic, M., Stanojevic, S., Zilic, S., Macej, O. and Ristic, N., 2010. Profile and functional properties of seed proteins from six pea (Pisum sativum) genotypes. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 11: 4973–4990. https://doi. org/10.3390/ijms11124973 Barać, M.B., Pešić, M.B., Stanojević, S.P., Kostić, A. and Čabrilo, S.B., 2015. Techno-functional properties of pea (Pisum sativum) pro- tein isolates – a review. Acta Perodica Technologica 46: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.2298/APT1546001B Butt, M.S. and Batool, R., 2010. Nutritional and functional prop- erties of some promising legume protein isolates. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition 9(4): 373–379. https://doi.org/10.3923/ pjn.2010.373.379 Campell, L., Raikos, V. and Euston, S.R., 2005. Heat stability and emulsifying ability of whole egg and egg yolk as related to heat treatment. Food Hydrocolloids 19(3): 533–539. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.10.031 Cano-Ruiz, M.E. and Richter, R.L., 1997. Effect of homogenization pressure on the milk fat globule membrane proteins. Journal of Dairy Science 80: 2732–2739. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds. S0022-0302(97)76235-0 Chandi, G.K. and Sogi, D.S., 2006. Functional properties of rice bran protein concentrate. Journal of Food Engineering 79(2): 592– 597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.02.018 Chao, D. and Aluko, R.E., 2018. Modification of the structural, emulsifying, and foaming properties of an isolated pea protein by thermal pretreatment. CyTA—Journal of Food 16(1): 357– 366. https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2017.1406536 Corredig, M. and Dalgleish, D.G., 1998. Buttermilk properties in emulsion with soybean oil as affected by fat globule membrane derived proteins. Journal of Food Science 6(3): 476–480. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1998.tb15767.x Denmat, M.L., Anton, M. and Beumal, V., 2000. Characterization of emulsion properties and of interface composition in O/W emulsions prepared with hen egg yolk, plasma and granules. Food Hydrocolloids. 14: 539–549. http://doi.org/10.1016/ s0268-005x(00)00034-5 Dissanayake, M. and Vasiljevic, T., 2009. Functional properties of whey proteins affected by heat treatment and hydrodynamic high-pressure shearing. Journal of Dairy Science 92(4): 1387– 1397. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-179 Dybowska, B.E., 2011. Whey protein-stabilized emulsion prop- erties in relation to thermal modification of the continuous phase. Journal of Food Engineering 104: 81–88. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.11.030 El-Shibiny, S., Farrag, A.F., El-Garawany, G. and Assem, F.M., 2007. Rheological and functional properties of whey protein con- centrate and β-lactoglobulin and α-lactalbumin rich fractions. International Journal of Dairy Science 2(3): 196–206. https:// doi.org/10.3923/ijds.2007.196.206 Geera, B., Reiling, J.A, Hutchison, M.A., Rybak, D., Santha, B. and Ratnayake, W.S., 2011. A comprehensive evaluation of egg and egg replacers on the product quality of muffins. Journal of Food Quality 34: 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.2011.00400.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2016.10.021� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfda.2016.10.021� https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/3.2.2014.a6� https://doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/3.2.2014.a6� https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.13685� https://doi.org/10.29356/jmcs.v56i4.246� https://doi.org/10.3762%2Fbjoc.11.257� https://doi.org/10.3762%2Fbjoc.11.257� https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v22i5.4822� https://doi.org/10.9755/ejfa.v22i5.4822� https://doi.org/10.1007/s11483-015-9411-6� https://doi.org/10.1007/s11483-015-9411-6� https://doi.org/10.1038/227680a0� https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2011.02647.x� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.02.132� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.10.028� https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.13747� https://doi.org/10.1021/jf902199x� https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11124973� https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms11124973� https://doi.org/10.2298/APT1546001B� https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2010.373.379� https://doi.org/10.3923/pjn.2010.373.379� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.10.031� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2004.10.031� https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76235-0� https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(97)76235-0� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.02.018� https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2017.1406536� https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1998.tb15767.x� https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1998.tb15767.x� http://doi.org/10.1016/s0268-005x(00)00034-5� http://doi.org/10.1016/s0268-005x(00)00034-5� https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2008-179� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.11.030� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.11.030� https://doi.org/10.3923/ijds.2007.196.206� https://doi.org/10.3923/ijds.2007.196.206� https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.2011.00400.x� Italian Journal of Food Science, 2021; 33 (2) 155 Comparison of some functional properties and protein profiles Shevkani, K., Singh, N., Kaur, A. and Rana, J.C., 2015. Structural and functional characterization of kidney bean and field pea protein isolates: a comparative study. Food Hydrocolloids 43: 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.foodhyd.2014.07.024 Schröder, A., Berton-Carabin, C., Venema, P. and Cornacchia, L., 2017. Interfacial properties of whey protein and whey protein hydrolysates and their influence on O/W emulsion stability. Food Hydrocolloids 73: 129–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodhyd.2017.06.001 Slack, A.W., Amundson, C.H. and Hill, C.G., 1986. Foaming and emulsifying characteristics of fractionated whey protein. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation 10(2): 81–88. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1745-4549.1986.tb00008.x Sodini, I., Morin, P., Olabi, A. and Jiménez-Flores, R., 2006. Compositional and functional properties of buttermilk: a com- parison. American Dairy Science Association 89: 525–536. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72115-4 Soltani, M., Say, D. and Güzeler, N., 2017. Functional properties and nutritional quality of whey proteins. Journal of International Environmental Application & Science 12(4): 334–338. Svanborg, S., Johansen, A.G., Abrahamsen, R.K. and Skeie, S.B., 2015. The composition and functional properties of whey pro- tein concentrates produced from buttermilk are compara- ble with those of whey protein concentrates produced from skimmed milk. Journal of Dairy Science 98(9): 5829–5840. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9039 Tcholakova, S., Denkov, N.D., Ivanov, I.B. and Campbell, B., 2006. Coalescence stability of emulsions containing globular milk pro- teins. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science 123–126: 259– 293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2006.05.021 Tessier, B., Schweizer, M., Fournier, F., Framboisier, X., Chevalot, I., Vanderesse, R., et al. 2005. Prediction of the amino acid com- position of small peptides contained in a plant protein hydroly- sate by LC–MS and CE–MS. Food Research International 38(5): 577–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2004.11.011 Wang, J., Zhao, M., Yang, X. and Jiang, Y., 2006. Improvement on functional properties of wheat gluten by enzymatic hydrolysis and ultrafiltration. Journal of Cereal Science 44: 93–100. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2006.04.002 Wouters, A.G.B., Rombouts, I., Fierens, E., Brijs, K. and Delcour, J.A., 2016. Relevance of the functional properties of enzymatic plant protein hydrolysates in food systems. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 15: 786–800. https://doi. org/10.1111/1541-4337.12209 Yang, J., Zheng, N., Soyeurt, H., Yang, Y. and Wang, J., 2018. Detection of plant protein in adulterated milk using nontar- geted nano-high-performance liquid chromatography-tan- dem mass spectroscopy combined with principal component analysis. Food Science and Nutrition 7(1): 56–64. https://doi. org/10.1002/fsn3.791 egg compared with fresh whole raw Hen’s egg. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology 26(3): 234–238. https://doi.org/10.1111/ pai.12365 Ogunwolu, S.O., Henshaw, F.O., Mock, H.P., Santros, A. and Awonorin, S.O., 2009. Functional properties of protein concen- trates and isolates produced from cashew (Anacardium occi- dentale L.) nut. Food Chemistry 115(3): 852–858. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.01.011 Opazo–Navarrete, M., Altenburg, M.D., Boom, R.M. and Janssen, A.E.M., 2018. The effect of gel microstructure on simulated gastric digestion of protein gels. Food Biophysics 13: 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11483-018-9518-7 Pęksa, A., Rytel, E., Kita, A., Lisińska, G. and Tajner-Czopk, A., 2008. The properties of potato protein. In N. Yee and W.T. Bussell (eds.), Food III (Special Issue 1), pp. 79–87. Global Science Books, Ikenobe, Kagawa. Peng, W., Kong, X., Chen, Y., Zhang, C., Yang, Y. and Hua, Y., 2016. Effects of heat treatment on the emulsifying properties of pea proteins. Food Hydrocolloids 52: 301–310. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.06.025 Pots, A.M., Grotenhuis, E.T., Gruppen, H., Voragen, A.G.J. and de Kruif, K.G., 1999. Thermal aggregation of patatin studied in situ. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 47: 4600–4605. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf9901901 Que Phan, T.T., Moens, L., Le, T.T., Van der Maaren, P. and Dewettinck, K., 2014. Potential of milk fat globule membrane enriched materials to improve the whipping properties of recombined cream. International Dairy Journal 39(1): 16–23. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8030 Ralet, M.C. and Guéguen, J., 2000. Fractionation of potato pro- teins: Solubility, thermal coagulation and emulsifying proper- ties. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und -Technologie 33: 380–387. https://doi:10.1006/fstl.2000.0672 Rybak, O., 2013. Some aspects of the formation of emulsions and foams in food industry. Ukrainian Journal of Food Science 1: 41–49. Schmidt, J.M., Damgaard, H., Greve-Poulsen, M., Larsen, L.B. and Hammershøj, M., 2018. Foam and emulsion properties of potato protein isolate and purified fractions. Food Hydrocolloids 74: 367–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.07.032 Shah, N.N., Umesh, K.V. and Singhal, R.S., 2019. Hydrophobically modified pea proteins: synthesis, characterization and evalua- tion as emulsifiers in eggless cake. Journal of Food Engineering 255: 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.03.005 Shand, P.J., Ya, H., Pietrasik, Z. and Wanasundara, P.K.J.P.D., 2007. Physicochemical and textural properties of heat-induced pea protein isolate gels. Food Chemistry 102(4): 1119–1130. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.06.060 Shen, L. and Tang, C.H., 2012. Microfluidization as a potential tech- nique to modify surface properties of soy protein isolate. Food Research International 48: 108–118. http://doi.org/10.1016/j. foodres.2012.03.006 https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.foodhyd.2014.07.024� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.06.001� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.06.001� https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4549.1986.tb00008.x� https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4549.1986.tb00008.x� https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(06)72115-4� https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-9039� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2006.05.021� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2004.11.011� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2006.04.002� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2006.04.002� https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12209� https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12209� https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.791� https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.791� https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.12365� https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.12365� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.01.011� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2009.01.011� https://doi.org/10.1007/s11483-018-9518-7� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.06.025� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2015.06.025� https://doi.org/10.1021/jf9901901� https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2014-8030� https://doi:10.1006/fstl.2000.0672� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.07.032� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.03.005� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.06.060� https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.06.060� http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.03.006� http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2012.03.006� _Hlk68553278 _Hlk49098133 _Hlk68553567 _Hlk68553701 _Hlk68554254 _Hlk77675650 _Hlk68556052 _GoBack _Hlk48683844 _Hlk68556337 _Hlk27320816 _Hlk12400894 _Hlk75692871 _Hlk75694596 _Hlk77674720 _Hlk77667524 _Hlk77667552 _Hlk69133888 _Hlk69133476 _Hlk69134985