OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
Foods (Basel, Switzerland)
Dec 01, 2020;9 (12):

In Vitro Protein Digestibility and Fatty Acid Profile of Commercial Plant-Based Milk Alternatives.

Eliana Martínez-Padilla, Kexin Li, Heidi Blok Frandsen, Marcel Skejovic Joehnke, Einar Vargas-Bello-Pérez, Iben Lykke Petersen
Author Information
  1. Eliana Martínez-Padilla: Department of Food Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
  2. Kexin Li: Department of Food Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
  3. Heidi Blok Frandsen: Department of Food Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
  4. Marcel Skejovic Joehnke: Department of Food Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark. ORCID
  5. Einar Vargas-Bello-Pérez: Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Grønnegårdsvej 3, DK-1870 Frederiksberg C, Denmark. ORCID
  6. Iben Lykke Petersen: Department of Food Science, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 26, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark. ORCID
PMID: 33271952 DOI: 10.3390/foods9121784

Abstract

Plant-based milk alternatives (PBMA) are a new popular food trend among consumers in Europe and North America. The forecast shows that PBMA will double their value by 2023. The objective of this study was to analyze the nutritional value of commercial products in terms of their fatty acid profile and protein digestibility from commercial PBMA. Eight commercially available PBMA were selected for fatty acid analysis, performed with gas chromatography of methylated fatty acids (GC-FAME), and, from these, four commercial products (almond drink, hemp drink, oat drink, and soy drink) were selected for a short-term in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD) analysis. The fatty acid analysis results showed that most of the products predominantly contained oleic acid (C18:1 ω-9) and linoleic acid (C18:2 ω-6). Hemp drink contained the highest omega-6/omega-3 (ω6/ω3) ratio among all tested products (3.43). Oat drink and almond drink were the PBMA with the highest short-term protein digestibility, non-significantly different from cow's milk, while soy drink showed the lowest value of protein digestibility. In conclusion, PBMA showed a significant variability depending on the plant source, both in terms of fatty acid composition and protein digestibility. These results provide more in-depth nutritional information, for future product development, and for consumer's choice.

Keywords

almond drink hemp drink milk substitutes non-dairy nutritional value oat drink soy drink

References

  1. J Food Sci Technol. 2018 Jan;55(1):10-20 [PMID: 29358791]
  2. Food Res Int. 2019 Sep;123:346-354 [PMID: 31284985]
  3. Nutrients. 2019 Dec 10;11(12): [PMID: 31835510]
  4. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 1999;53(4):297-304 [PMID: 10540981]
  5. Circulation. 1970 Nov;42(5):935-42 [PMID: 5477261]
  6. Foods. 2020 Mar 04;9(3): [PMID: 32143400]
  7. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2017 Feb;28(1):46-51 [PMID: 27906713]
  8. Nutrients. 2016 Mar 02;8(3):128 [PMID: 26950145]
  9. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jul 29;7(9):2932-2938 [PMID: 31572586]
  10. Nutrients. 2019 Aug 21;11(9): [PMID: 31438574]
  11. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017 May 24;57(8):1618-1630 [PMID: 26114306]
  12. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2017 May;64(5):799-805 [PMID: 27540708]
  13. Am J Clin Nutr. 2008 May;87(5):1576S-1581S [PMID: 18469291]
  14. Foods. 2020 Apr 03;9(4): [PMID: 32260282]
  15. Food Nutr Bull. 2016 Sep;37(3):303-316 [PMID: 27150300]
  16. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 2009 Feb-Mar;80(2-3):85-91 [PMID: 19269799]
  17. J Agric Food Chem. 2018 Jan 24;66(3):711-719 [PMID: 29264921]
  18. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016 Sep 9;56(12):1941-2 [PMID: 25764181]
  19. Nutrients. 2015 Sep 11;7(9):7749-63 [PMID: 26378576]
  20. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Aug 08;21(16): [PMID: 32784511]
  21. J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Jul 17;50(15):4333-41 [PMID: 12105967]
  22. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2012;52(7):629-39 [PMID: 22530714]
  23. Lancet. 1991 Oct 19;338(8773):985-92 [PMID: 1681350]
  24. Nutr J. 2015 Aug 21;14:83 [PMID: 26293684]
  25. FAO Food Nutr Pap. 2013;92:1-66 [PMID: 26369006]
  26. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017 Aug;106(2):597-602 [PMID: 28592600]
  27. J Agric Food Chem. 2002 Oct 23;50(22):6592-8 [PMID: 12381157]
  28. Int J Epidemiol. 1979 Jun;8(2):99-118 [PMID: 393644]
  29. J Nutr. 1963 Nov;81:235-40 [PMID: 14083238]
  30. Transl Psychiatry. 2017 Aug 29;7(8):e1220 [PMID: 28850110]
  31. Foods. 2018 Jan 08;7(1): [PMID: 29316679]
  32. Bioprocess Biosyst Eng. 2020 Feb;43(2):273-282 [PMID: 31595329]
  33. J Dairy Sci. 2017 Aug;100(8):6125-6138 [PMID: 28551193]
  34. Food Chem. 2014 Jul 1;154:108-16 [PMID: 24518322]
  35. Food Chem. 2015 Jan 15;167:78-83 [PMID: 25148962]
  36. Front Nutr. 2017 Jan 06;3:55 [PMID: 28111625]
  37. Plant Foods Hum Nutr. 2005 Sep;60(3):123-8 [PMID: 16187015]
  38. Curr Nutr Rep. 2014 Jun;3(2):139-148 [PMID: 24977108]
  39. Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Sep;78(3 Suppl):660S-663S [PMID: 12936963]
  40. Appetite. 2003 Apr;40(2):93-100 [PMID: 12781158]
  41. Pediatr Res. 2014 Nov;76(5):470-6 [PMID: 25119335]
  42. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2004 May;55(3):171-8 [PMID: 15223592]
  43. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2014 Jan;25(1):42-52 [PMID: 24140022]
  44. Nutr Cancer. 1992;18(1):1-29 [PMID: 1408943]
  45. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2008 Jun;233(6):674-88 [PMID: 18408140]
  46. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018 Jan;87:53-62 [PMID: 29040890]
  47. J Dairy Sci. 2017 Mar;100(3):1702-1711 [PMID: 28088417]
  48. J Food Sci Technol. 2016 Sep;53(9):3408-3423 [PMID: 27777447]
  49. Minn Med. 1969 Aug;52(8):1237-42 [PMID: 4896402]
  50. Prog Lipid Res. 2009 Nov;48(6):355-74 [PMID: 19619583]
  51. Isr Med Assoc J. 2012 Jan;14(1):40-2 [PMID: 22624441]
  52. J Dairy Sci. 2017 Jun;100(6):4253-4257 [PMID: 28434733]
  53. Appetite. 2014 Sep;80:16-22 [PMID: 24798761]
  54. Science. 2018 Jun 1;360(6392):987-992 [PMID: 29853680]
  55. Nutrients. 2018 Dec 01;10(12): [PMID: 30513704]
  56. J Sci Food Agric. 2018 Jan;98(1):410-414 [PMID: 28573795]
  57. Food Nutr Res. 2016 Nov 22;60:32527 [PMID: 27882862]
  58. Food Res Int. 2018 Aug;110:42-51 [PMID: 30029705]
  59. Molecules. 2015 Sep 18;20(9):17339-61 [PMID: 26393565]
  60. Food Nutr Bull. 2013 Jun;34(2):272-4 [PMID: 23964409]
  61. Environ Sci Technol. 2011 Jul 15;45(14):6117-23 [PMID: 21682287]
  62. Int J Mol Sci. 2015 Jun 05;16(6):12871-90 [PMID: 26057750]
  63. Prog Lipid Res. 2001 Jul;40(4):283-98 [PMID: 11412893]
  64. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2016;56(3):339-49 [PMID: 25575046]
Journal Article
Article has an altmetric score of 9

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0drinkPBMAacidfattyproteindigestibilityvalueproductsmilknutritionalcommercialanalysisalmondsoyshowedamongtermsselectedhempoatshort-termresultscontainedhighestPlant-basedalternativesnewpopularfoodtrendconsumersEuropeNorthAmericaforecastshowswilldouble2023objectivestudyanalyzeprofileEightcommerciallyavailableperformedgaschromatographymethylatedacidsGC-FAMEfourvitroIVPDpredominantlyoleicC18:1ω-9linoleicC18:2ω-6Hempomega-6/omega-3ω6/ω3ratiotested343Oatnon-significantlydifferentcow'slowestconclusionsignificantvariabilitydependingplantsourcecompositionprovidein-depthinformationfutureproductdevelopmentconsumer'schoiceVitroProteinDigestibilityFattyAcidProfileCommercialPlant-BasedMilkAlternativessubstitutesnon-dairy

Similar Articles

Cited By