Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365

www.elsevier.com/locate/foodres

Comparative study of the functional properties of bambarra

groundnut (Voandzeia subterranean), jack bean (Canavalia ensiformis)
and mucuna bean (Mucuna pruriens) flours
a,* b
K.O. Adebowale , O.S. Lawal
a
Department of Chemistry, University of Ibadan – Nigeria, Ibadan, Nigeria
b
Department of Chemical Sciences, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria
Received 14 August 2003; accepted 12 January 2004

Abstract

Functional properties of bambarra groundnut flour (BGF), jack bean flour (JBF) and mucuna bean (MBF) were determined. pH
dependent protein solubility profile revealed that highest solubility in all flours was at pH 10, while minimum solubility was obtained
at pH 4, which correspond to the isoelectric point. Gelation capacity was minimal at pH 4 for all of the flours. Increase in ionic
strength of the medium at low salt concentration ( 6 0.4 M) improved the gelation properties of the flours. Maltose, lactose, sucrose
and starch when added to the flours enhanced the gelation capacity of all flours. Oil absorption capacity of JBF, MBF and BGF
were 1.7, 1.6 and 1.3 ml g
1 , respectively. Water absorption capacity of flours increased between ionic strength ranges of 0–0.2 M but
reduced with further increase in ionic strength. Emulsifying activity (EA) decreased as the concentration of flour in solution in-
creased. Maximum EA and emulsion stability (ES) were obtained at pH 10, while minimum values were read at isoelectric pH. EA
and ES of flours increased in the ionic strength range 0–0.4 M but reduced afterwards with further increase in NaCl concentration.
Foam stability (FS) of the flours increased as the concentration of flour solution increased and maximum values of 80.5%, 74.7%
and 77.0% were observed for JBF, BGF and MBF at 10% flour concentration. MBF had highest foam capacity (FC) of 68% at pH
2, while JBF and BGF recorded highest value of 50% and 61%, respectively, at pH 10. Foam stability was maximal at pH 4 for all
the fours. Low ionic strength (l 6 0:2 M) improved both foam capacity and stability of JBF while increases were recorded in FS and
FC of BGF and MBF up to l ¼ 0:4 M, after which further increase in ionic strength reduced the foaming properties of the flours.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Bambarra groundnut; Jack bean; Mucuna bean; Flours; Functional properties

1. Introduction & Davila-Ortiz, 2002) mucuna bean (Johnson & Brekke,

In Africa, malnutrition is prevalent due to lack of
sufficient animal protein, hence the search for alternative
sources of protein from lesser-known legumes in lieu of
expensive and scarce animal protein. In view of this,
effort is geared at identifying and evaluating under-uti-
lised protein sources. This development has stimulated
research on the utilisation of some under-utilised le-
gumes such as mung bean (Dzudie & Hardy, 1996), lima
beans (Chel-Guerrero, Perez-Flores, Bentacur-Ancona,
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: adebowal@ictp.trieste.it, kay99esu@skannet.
com (K.O. Adebowale).
1983; Machuka, 2002) lupin seed (Lqari, Vioque, Pedr-
oche, & Millan, 2002), Pea (Johnson & Brekke, 1983),
winged bean (Narayana & Narasinga Rao, 1984; Okezie
& Bello, 1988), faba bean (Krause, Mothes, &
Schwenke, 1996; Muschiolik, 1989; Muschiolik, Dick-
inson, Murray, & Stainsby, 1987), chickpea (Liu &
Hung, 1998) and Gila bean (Siddhuraju, Becker, &
Makkar, 2001).
The efforts geared towards legumes are predicated on
the fact that legumes have been established to be cheap
but abundant sources of protein (Aykroyd & Doughty,
1994). Seeds of mucuna beans (Mucuna pruriens),
Bambarra groundnut (Voandzeia subterranean) and jack
beans (Canavalia ensiformis) are potential sources of

0963-9969/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2004.01.009
356 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365
abundant plant protein for many developing nations
because of their rich protein content (bambarra
groundnut 26.2%; jack beans 29.0% and mucuna beans
35.0%) (Duke, 1981).
For efficient utilisation and consumer acceptance of
legume seed flours, it is desirable to study their func-
tional properties. The functional properties, which affect
the sensory characteristics of foods, play important roles
in the physical behaviour of food or its ingredient during
preparation, processing and storage. These properties
include foaming, emulsification, texture, gelation, water
and oil absorption capacity and viscosity. Various food
industries intensify on the desirable functional proper-
ties with a view to improving them to meet their
requirements.
Our research effort has been directed at a systematic
study of the chemical and physical modification of
tropical underutilised legume starches and protein con-
centrates (Adebowale & Lawal, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). In
continuation of our studies, we have chosen to consider
the functional characteristics of flours derived from jack
bean, mucuna bean and bambarra groundnut, with a
view to providing useful information towards effective
utilisation of these legumes in various food applications.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
Mucuna bean seeds were obtained from International
Institute for Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Jack bean
seeds were obtained from seed unit, Department of
Agronomy, University of Ibadan, while bambarra seeds
were obtained from a local market in Ibadan, Nigeria
and identified at the Genetic Resources Unit of the
IITA, Ibadan. All chemicals used were of analytical
(Analar) grade.
2.2. Preparation of flours
Cleaned seeds of legumes species were soaked in
distilled water at 30  2 °C for 10 h after which they
were manually dehulled. The cotyledons were dried in
air for 72 h at room temperature 30  2 °C. Two kilo-
grams of seeds from each legume species was then milled
in household flourmill (Braun multimix Deluxe, Ger-
many). They were ground to pass through a BS60 mesh
screen, after which they were kept in a refrigerator at
about 4 °C prior use.
2.3. Protein solubility
pH dependent protein solubility was studied using the
method of Were, Hettiarachchy, and Kalapathy (1997).
One hundred and twenty-five milligrams of each flour
was mixed with 25-ml distilled water and the solution
pH was adjusted to between 2 and 10, using 0.5 M
NaOH and 0.5 M HCl. The slurries obtained were
mixed for 1 h at 24 °C using a magnetic stirrer, after
which they were centrifuged at 12,000g for 20 min at
4 °C. The supernatant was filtered through glass wool to
obtain a clear solution. The nitrogen content in the su-
pernatant was determined by kjeldahl method (AOAC,
1990). Triplicate determinations were carried out and
solubility profile was determined by plotting averages of
protein solubility (%) against pH. The percentage solu-
ble protein (Nitrogen solubility  6.25) was calculated as
follows:
Amount of nitrogen in the supernatant
Solubility ð%Þ ¼ :
Amount of nitrogen in the flour
2.4. Water and oil absorption capacity
The method of Beuchat (1977) was employed for the
water and oil absorption capacity determination. One
gram of sample was mixed with 10 ml distilled water or
oil (Executive Chef oil, Unilever Nig. PLC) for 30 s. The
samples were then allowed to stand at room temperature
(30  2 °C) for 30 min after which they were centrifuged
at 5000g for 30 min. The volume of supernatant was
noted in a 10-ml graduated cylinder. Studies were con-
ducted to investigate the influence of ionic strength on
water absorption capacity by varying the ionic strength
of the medium using 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 and 1.0 M
NaCl solutions. Studies were conducted in triplicates.
2.5. Gelation properties
Gelation properties were studied by employing the
method of Coffman and Garcia (1977). Sample suspen-
sions of 2–20% were prepared in distilled water. Ten
millilitres of each of the prepared dispersions was
transferred into a test tube. The test tube was heated in a
boiling water bath for 1 h, after which they were cooled
in a bath of cold water. The test tubes were further
cooled at 4 °C for 2 h. The least gelation concentration
was taken as the concentration when the sample from
inverted test tube did not fall or slip.
Studies on the effect of pH on gelation were con-
ducted by preparing sample solution at various con-
centrations after which the pHs were adjusted from 2.0
to 10.0 before heating. Least gelation concentration was
determined as described earlier.
Effect of ionic strength was investigated by preparing
sample suspensions (2–20% w/v) at various concentra-
tions in NaCl solution of varying ionic strength ranging
from 0.1 to1.0 M. Effect of carbohydrates was also
studied by adding maltose, sucrose, lactose and potato
starch at 0.25 g g
1 of the flour. The LGC was deter-
mined as described earlier.
 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365
2.6. Emulsifying properties
Emulsifying activity and stability were determined
using the method of Neto, Narain, Silvia, and Bora
(2001). Five millilitres portion of flour dispersion in
water (10 mg ml
1 ) was homogenised with 5 ml oil
(Executive chef Unilever PLC) for 1 min. The emulsions
were centrifuged at 1100g for 5 min. The height of
emulsified layer and that of the total contents in the tube
was measured. The emulsifying activity was calculated
as
Height of emulsified layer in the tube
EA ð%Þ ¼
Height of the total content in the tube
 100:
Emulsion stability was determined by heating the
emulsion at 80 °C for 30 min before centrifuging at
1100g for 5 min
Height of emulsified layer after heating
ES ð%Þ ¼ :
Height of emulsified layer before heating
Effect of concentration on emulsifying activity and sta-
bility of flours was studied by preparing 2–10% w/v
solution before conducting experiments as described
above. Influence of ionic strength was studied by pre-
paring flour dispersions in water at 10 mg ml
1 of water
in solution of various ionic strength of 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6,
0.8 and 1.0 M NaCl solutions.
Influence of pH was studied by preparing flour dis-
persions in water at 10 mgml
1 of water in solution of
various pH (2–10). Experiments were conducted in
triplicates.
2.7. Foaming properties
The method of Coffman and Garcia (1977) was used
for the determination of the foaming capacity and sta-
bility of legume flours. A weighed amount of flour was
dispersed in 100-ml distilled water, after which the sus-
pension was whipped vigorously for 2 min using a
Phillips kitchen blender set at speed 2. Volumes were
recorded before and after whipping. The percentage
volume increase was calculated according to the fol-
lowing equation:
%Volume increase ¼ ðV2
V1 Þ=V1  100;
where V2 is the volume of protein solution after whip-
ping and V1 is the original volume of protein solution.
Foam stability (FS) was determined as the volume of
foam that remained after 8 h expressed as a percentage
of the initial foam volume.
Studies were conducted to study the effect of con-
centration on the foaming properties by whipping 2, 4,
6, 8 and 10% w/v of the dispersion as described above.
Influence of ionic strength was studied by dispersing
2 g of flour in 100 ml NaCl solutions of various ionic
357
strength. Studies were conducted in solution of ionic
strength of 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 M before
whipping vigorously. The effect of pH on foaming
properties was studied by preparing flour dispersions at
various pH 2–10, using 0.5 M NaOH and 0.5 M HCl,
followed by vigorous whipping as earlier described.
Triplicate determination of each experiment was carried
out.
2.8. Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis of the results was done with sta-
tistics for windows 5.0 (1995) and the t test was used to
determine significance of differences between means.
Trends were considered significant when means of
compared sets differed at P < 0:05.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Protein solubility
Protein solubility of flours is presented in Fig. 1. The
result indicates that minimum solubility for all the flours
was at pH 4, while in all cases, the maximum solubility
was observed at pH 10. Generally, solubility reduced as
the pH increased until it reached minimum at pH 4,
followed by progressive increase in solubility as the pH
increased. At pH 7, which is the neutral pH, maximum
solubility of 49.7% was observed in MBF while BGF
had the least value of 43.6%. Earlier, similar results have
been reported for flours of different phaseolus species
such as blackgram (Sathe & Salunkhe, 1981) and mung
bean (Thompson, 1977). In addition, such pattern has
also been reported for peas and faba bean (Sosulski &
Mc Curdy, 1987) and winged bean (Okezie & Bello,
70
60
Protein solubility (%)
50
40
30
MBF
JBF
20 BGF
10
2 4 6 8 10
pH
Fig. 1. Protein solubility profile of flours. BGF – bambarra groundnut
flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF – jack bean flour. Error bars:
Standard deviations. Results are means of triplicate determinations.
358 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365
1988). Also, Narayana and Narasinga Rao (1982) had
reported minimum nitrogen solubility of 23% at pH 4.5
for winged bean while cowpea powder had a minimum
nitrogen solubility of 19.36% at pH 4.0 (Okaka &
Potter, 1979). At high acidic pH, the protein molecules
got net positively charged while they became net nega-
tively charged at alkaline pH. These developments fa-
cilitated repulsion among the molecules and increased
the solubility of the protein molecules. Variations ob-
served in the solubility profile of different legume flours
are possibly due to physiological composition differ-
ences. Similar reason has been advanced earlier (Chau &
Cheung, 1998).
3.2. Oil and water absorption capacity
Oil absorption capacity of flours is presented in
Fig. 2. Maximum lipophilic tendency of 1.7 ml g
1 was
observed in JBF, followed by 1.67 ml g
1 as observed in
MBF while the least value of 1.37 ml g
1 was recorded in
BGF. The values are consistent with those previously
reported for flours of P. angularis (1.47 ml g
1 ),
P. calcaratus (1.287 ml g
1 ), D. Labalab (1.197 ml g
1 ),
soybean (1.937 ml g
1 ) (Chau & Cheung, 1998), lupin
seed bean (1.67 g g
1 ) (Sathe, Deshpande, & Salunkhe,
1982), great Northern bean (3.29 g g
1 ) (Sathe &
Salunkhe, 1981) and P. lunatus flour (1.83 g g
1 ) (Chel-
Guerrero et al., 2002). Variations in the presence of non-
polar side chains, which might bind the hydrocarbon
side chains of oil among the flours, possibly explain
differences in the oil binding capacity of the flours.
However, the flours are potentially useful in structural
interaction in food especially in flavour retention, im-
provement of palatability and extension of shelf life
particularly in bakery or meat products where fat ab-
sorption is desired.
Effect of ionic strength on water absorption capacity
of flours is presented in Fig. 3. Water absorption ca-
1.8
1.6
Oil absorption capacity (ml.g -1)
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
MBF BGF
Fig. 2. Oil absorption capacity of flours. BGF – bambarra groundnut
flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF – jack bean flour. Error bars:
Standard deviations. Results are means of triplicate determinations.
BGF
6.0
MBF
5.5
Water absorption capacity (Ml.g -1)
JBF
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Ionic strength (M)
Fig. 3. Effect of ionic strength on water absorption capacity of flours.
BGF – bambarra groundnut flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF –
jack bean flour. Error bars: Standard deviations. Results are means of
triplicate determinations.
pacity of flours increased with increase in ionic strength
of solution up to 0.2 M. Further increase in ionic
strength from 0.4 to 1.0 M reduced the WAC of the
flours progressively. In the control solution, highest
hydrophilic tendency of 5.06 ml g
1 was observed in
JBF. MBF had WAC of 2.3 ml g
1 while the least WAC
was recorded in BGF. In previous reports, 2.65 and
3.80 g g
1 WAC had been reported for P. lunatus flour
and C. ensiformis flours, respectively (Chel-Guerrero
et al., 2002). 3.9 g g
1 for Tepary bean flour (Idouraine
et al., 1991), 1.67 g g
1 for great Northern bean flour
(Sathe & Salunkhe, 1981) and winged bean flour,
2.75 g g
1 (Okezie & Bello, 1988). Different protein
structure and the presence of different hydrophilic car-
bohydrates might be responsible for variations in the
WAC of the flours. It is suggested that initial increase in
ionic strength enhanced protein unfolding and this
caused exposure of buried functional groups, which en-
hanced water absorption capacity. At higher salt con-
centrations, much of the water was bound to the salt ions
and this led to dehydration of flours, with subsequent
reduction in water absorption capacity. Imbibition of
water is an important functional trait in foods, such as
sausages, custards and doughs. In these foods, proteins
imbibe water, but do not dissolve because of insufficient
water. Consequently, they swell and impart characteris-
tics, such as body thickening and viscosity. The results
suggest that MBF, JBF and BGF could be used as in-
gredients in the preparation of comminuted products
such as sausages, since these properties enable bakers to
add more water to doughs so as to improve handling
characteristics and maintain freshness in the bread.
JBF
3.3. Gelation properties
Effect of concentration and pH on gelation capacity
of legume flours is presented in Table 1. Using the least
 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365
Table 1
Effect of concentration and pH on gelation capacity of floursa
Sample pH 2 pH 4 pH 7 pH 8
JBF 16 12 14 16
BGF 16 14 16 16
MBF 18 14 16 16
a
Values are least gelation concentration expressed as % w/v.
gelation concentration as the index of gelation capacity,
low LGC means better gelation property. The lowest
LGC for all legume flours were obtained at pH 4, while
highest LGC values were obtained at pH 2 and 10. At
pH 7, among the flours, minimum LGC was recorded in
JBF, while MBF and BGF had the same value. Similar
pH dependent gelation capacity had been reported for
mucuna protein concentrate (Adebowale & Lawal,
2003a, 2003b, 2003c), Pigeon pea and cowpea (Mwa-
saru, Muhammad, Bakar, & Cheman, 1999). The least
gelation capacity of MBF, BGF and JBF were compa-
rable to those of phaseolus vulgaris L. flour (Deshpande,
Sathe, Cornforth, & Salunkhe, 1982) and black gram
flour (Sathe, Deshpande, & Salunkhe, 1983). Variations
in gelling properties are due to the ratio of different
constituents such as proteins, lipids and carbohydrates
in different legume flours.
Protein gelation is vital in the preparation and ac-
ceptability of many foods, including vegetable and other
products. Gelation mechanism and gel appearance are
fundamentally controlled by the balance between at-
tractive hydrophobic interactions and repulsive electro-
static interactions (Egelandsal, 1980). The repulsive
forces are due to surface charges and the attractive
forces are due to various functional groups exposed by
the thermal unfolding of the protein (Kojima & Na-
kamura, 1985). The pH of protein dispersions has pro-
found effect on gelation reactions by influencing the
balance of polar and non-polar residues. At pH values
in the region of isoelectric pH, protein–protein interac-
tions are generally favoured because the net surface
charge is close to zero, which significantly reduces the
repulsive interactions between protein molecules (Wal-
stra & Jenness, 1984), while at pH far removed from
Isoelectric points, the surface charge on the protein is
large and significant repulsive forces prevent protein–
protein interaction (Elofsson, Dejmek, Paulson, &
Burling, 1997).
Effect of ionic strength and concentration on gelation
capacity of flours is presented in Table 2. Increase in
ionic strength of the protein solution generally reduced
the LGC of MBF compared with the control. LGC re-
duced with increasing ionic strength until it reached
0.4 M after which further increase in ionic strength in-
creased the LGC. However, even at 1.0 M, LGC (12%
w/v) was still lower than 16% w/v in the control MBF
solution. In a similar pattern, increase in ionic strength
of solution reduced the LGC of BGF up to 0.4 M while
359
Table 2
Effect of ionic strength and concentration on gelation capacity of
floura
pH 10
Sample Control Ionic strength (M)
16
16 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
18
JBF 14 8 8 8 12 14 16
BGF 16 12 10 10 16 16 16
MBF 16 10 8 8 10 12 12
a
Values are least gelation concentration expressed as % w/v.
further increase in ionic strength up to 0.6 M raised the
LGC again to the same level as the control (16% w/v).
However, as the ionic strength increased further, a
constant value of 16% w/v was maintained. Increase in
ionic strength of solution also reduced the LGC of JBF.
Although no changes were observed in LGC (8% w/v)
from 0.1 to 0.4 M, increase in ionic strength up to 0.6 M
raised the LGC again and it increased progressively
until it reached the highest value of 16% w/v at 1.0 M.
However, it is noteworthy that the LGC value of JBF in
the control solution (14% w/v) is lower than 16% w/v
obtained in 1.0 M. Akintayo et al. had earlier reported
ionic strength dependent gelation properties for Cajanus
cajan protein. In their report, the gelation capacity of
flour improved at low ionic strength (0.5 M), while it
reduced at high ionic strength solution (1.0 M). They
attributed improvement in gelation capacity at low ionic
strength to enhanced protein solubilisation to the salt
solution, which created an effective overlapping of the
functional groups between adjacent protein molecules, a
condition necessary for a network of gel formation.
Ziegler and Foegeding (1990) posited that increase in
ionic strength tends to reduce electrostatic repulsion
between proteins due to the shielding of ionisable groups
by mobile ions. Van Camp, Messens, Clement, and
Huyghebaert, 1997 also postulated that addition of so-
dium chloride to whey protein solution provided a
shielding effect that strongly reduces the repulsive forces
acting among proteins. However, increase in LGC par-
ticularly at 0.6 M may be a result of reverse in protein
unfolding with increasing ionic strength. Decrease in
protein unfolding limited access to reactive side groups
within the protein molecules, a condition necessary for
the formation of a three-dimensional network structure
as seen in protein gels. Similar observation had been
reported earlier (Boye, Alli, Ismail, Gibbs, & Konishi,
1995).
Effect of concentration and carbohydrates on gela-
tion capacity of flours is presented in Table 3. Generally,
addition of carbohydrates improved the gelation ca-
pacity of legume flours. Least gelation capacity was
reduced following the addition of maltose, lactose, su-
crose and starch. Previously, we have reported reduction
in least gelation capacity of mucuna bean protein con-
centrate, following the addition of carbohydrates
(Adebowale & Lawal, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). Turgeon
360 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365

Table 3
MBF
Effect of concentration and carbohydrates on gelation capacity of
BGF
floursa
90
JBF
Sample Control Maltose Lactose Sucrose Starch
80
JBF 14 6 8 10 8
BGF 16 8 10 14 8 70

Emulsifying activity (%)

MBF 16 6 10 10 6
a
60
Values are least gelation concentration expressed as % w/v.
50

and Beaulieu (2001) have also reported improvement on 40

protein gel texture using carbohydrates. It has also been 30

reported that sucrose increased the gelation rate of
20
protein solutions (Bryant & Mc Clements, 2000). Im-
provement in gelation capacity following the addition of 10

carbohydrates is because of decrease in thermodynamic 0

affinity of proteins for the aqueous solution, which in- 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Ionic Strength (M)
creased the interaction between proteins.
Fig. 4. Effect of ionic strength on emulsifying activity of flours. BGF –
bambarra groundnut flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF – jack
3.4. Emulsifying properties bean flour. Error bars: Standard deviations. Results are means of
triplicate determinations.

Emulsifying activity and stability of the flours were

concentration dependent as shown in Figs. 10 and 11.
Generally, emulsifying activity decreased as the con- MBF
JBF
centration of flour in solution increased. At all concen-
BGF
tration studied (2–10% w/v), BGF exhibited highest EA, 80
followed by MBF while least EA was observed in JBF.
Emulsifying stability of BGF increased progressively
as concentration increased until it began to decline with 60
Emulsion stability (%)

increasing flour concentration from 6% w/v upward.

Emulsion stability of MBF and JBF reduced as the
concentration of flour in the solution increased. Such
concentration dependent emulsifying properties have
been reported by Sathe et al. (1982). In their report,
emulsion capacity of winged bean protein reduced as the
concentration of protein in solution increased. The re-
sult is also in agreement with those of Lin, Humbert,
and Sosulski (1974) on emulsifying properties of sun-
flower and soybean flours and protein concentrates.
Concentration dependent emulsifying activity has been
explained based on adsorption kinetics (Phillips, 1981).
When protein concentration is low, the rate of adsorp-
tion is diffusion controlled, but at high protein concen-
tration, there is an activation barrier to adsorption.
Under the later conditions, the ability of the protein
molecule to create space in the existing film and to
penetrate and rearrange on the surface is rate deter-
mining. Initial increase in emulsion stability of BGF
with increasing concentration up to 6% w/v could be
explained based on increase in rigidity of interfacial la-
mella (Halling, 1981). Effect of ionic strength on emul-
sifying activity and emulsion stability is presented in
Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Emulsifying activity of all
flours increased progressively as the ionic strength of the
media increased until it reached the highest values in
0.4 M NaCl solutions, following which a progressive
40
20
0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Ionic Strength (M)
Fig. 5. Effect of Ionic strength on emulsion stability of flours. BGF –
bambarra groundnut flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF – jack
bean flour. Error bars: Standard deviations. Results are means of
triplicate determinations.
decline in EA was observed. Minimum values of 45.5%,
73.9% and 42.0% were observed for MBF, BGF and
JBF, respectively, in 1.0 M NaCl solutions. In the con-
trol solution, highest value of 79.8% was observed in
BGF solution, while MBF and JBF had 48.5% and
47.8%, respectively. In a similar way, emulsion stability
improved with initial increase in ionic strength of the
solution and increases were observed up to 0.4 M.
Following a similar pattern with EA, emulsion stability
declined with further increase in ionic strength and
minimum values in all flours were recorded in 1.0 M
 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365
NaCl solutions. Influence of ionic strength on emulsi-
fying properties of cowpea protein had earlier been re-
ported by Aluko and Yada (1995). Chavan, Mc Kenzie,
and Shhidi (2001) also reported ionic strength depen-
dent emulsifying properties for beach pea. Wagner and
Gueguen (1995) attributed higher emulsion stability of
soy protein at low ionic strength to dissociation of
Oligomeric structure of 11S-glycinin and subsequent
improvement of surface behaviour. Emulsifying prop-
erties of proteins depend basically on two effects: (i) A
substantial decrease in interfacial energy due to the ad-
sorption of the protein at the oil–water interface and (ii)
the electrostatic, structural and mechanical energy bar-
rier caused by the interfacial layer that opposes desta-
bilisation processes (Wagner & Gueguen, 1999). Initial
increase in ionic strength of the solutions up to 0.4 M
enhanced the formation of charged layers around the fat
globules and this resulted in mutual repulsion among
them. Also at low ionic strength, formation of hydrated
layer around the interfacial material resulted in lower
interfacial energy and retarded droplet coalescence. At
higher ionic strength (6.0–1.0 M), protein unfolding was
decreased. This development probably limited adsorp-
tion of the protein at the oil–water interface.
Both emulsifying activity (Fig. 6) and stability (Fig. 7)
were pH dependent. Generally, maximum EA was ob-
served at pH 10, while the minimum value of 21.9%,
51.6% and 20.6% were recorded for MBF, BGF and
JBF, respectively, at pH 4. Among the samples at pH 7,
the highest value of 80.0% was observed in bambarra
groundnut flour while JBF had the lowest value of
47.8%. Similarly, emulsion stability followed the same
pattern with E.A. Higher ES were recorded at pH 10 in
MBF
BGF
JBF
90
80
Emulsifying activity (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2 4 6 7 8 10
pH
Fig. 6. Effect of pH on emulsifying activity of flours. BGF – bambarra
groundnut flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF – jack bean flour.
Error bars: Standard deviations. Results are means of triplicate
determinations.
361
JBF
BGF
MBF
80
Emulsion stability (%)
60
40
20
0
2 4 6 7 8 10
pH
Fig. 7. Effect of pH on emulsion stability of flours. BGF – bambarra
groundnut flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF – jack bean flour.
Error bars: Standard deviations. Results are means of triplicate
determinations.
all the samples while the lowest values were observed at
pH 4, which corresponds to the isoelectric pH. After pH
4, both EA and ES increased as the pH of the solution
increased. In previous studies, such pH dependent
emulsifying activity and emulsion stability has been re-
ported for proteins of Cajanus cajan and Vigna unguic-
ulata (Mwasaru et al., 1999), Phaseolus lunatus and
Canavalia ensiformis (Chel-Guerrero et al., 2002) and
flours of P. angularis, P. calcaratus, D. lablab and Soy-
bean (Chau & Cheung, 1998). The pH dependent
emulsifying activity follows the same pattern with the
pH dependent solubility of the flours; hence it is rea-
sonable that protein solubility influenced the EA of the
flours. The net charge at the hydrophilic–lipophilic in-
terface is dependent on pH of the solution and it may
impede or facilitate emulsifying activity of the proteins.
Variation in EA of the flours across the pH scale is
possibly as a result of interactions of other components
of the flours that influence their properties. Our obser-
vations agree with the general correlation between EA
and protein solubility as reported in previous works
(Abbey & Ibeh, 1988; Shanmujasundaram & Venka-
taraman, 1989). Although contrarily, Kamat, Graham,
and Davis (1978) reported improved emulsion stability
at region of isoelectric pH, the result obtained in this
work agrees with the observations of Sathe et al. (1982)
and Chau and Cheung (1998). Franzen and Kinsella
(1976) had earlier concluded that ES was near minimum
in isoelectric pH range due to aggregation and desta-
bilisation of the interfacial membrane. The relatively
high ES as observed at pH 10 and 2 may be as a result of
higher levels of solubilised proteins, which may influence
ES through film encapsulation and a balance of the at-
tractive van der Waals and repulsive electrostatic forces.
362 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365

Good emulsifying properties of the flours under inves-
tigation make them potentially useful in food products
like milk-like beverages and meat analogs.
3.5. Foaming properties
Effect of concentration on foam capacity is presented
in Table 4. Foam capacity of JBF increased from 52% in
2% w/v solution to 58% in 4% w/v solution, after which
foam capacity reduced progressively as the concentra-
tion of flour in solution increased and minimum value of
50.3% was recorded in 10% w/v solution. Contrarily, a
progressive increase in foam capacity was observed in
BGF and MBF as the concentration of flour in solution
increased. It is noteworthy however that BGF recorded
FC value of 70% at 8% w/v and also at 10% w/v. Foam
stability of all flours increased with concentration of
flour in solution (Table 5) and highest FS in all the
samples were recorded in 10% w/v. Increase in foam
Both foam capacity (Fig. 8) and stability (Fig. 9) were
pH dependent. MBF had highest foam capacity of 6% in
acidic medium (pH 2) while JBF and BGF recorded peak
values of 50% and 61% at pH 10. In all the samples,
minimum FC was observed at pH 4. Generally, FC in-
creased with increasing pH after the isoelectric point.
Also foam stability was highest at pH4 for all flours. JBF
had minimum ES value of 70% at pH 2, while BGF and
MBF had minimum values of 62.11% and 61.0%, re-
spectively, at pH 10. In a previous report, Chel-Guerrero
JBF
BGF
MBF
70
60

Foam Capacity (%)

capacity and stability of mucuna protein with increase in 50
protein concentration had been reported earlier (Adeb- 40
owale & Lawal, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). Also, improved
foaming properties with increasing concentration of 30
flour have been reported for glandless cottonseed flour
20
(Cherry & Mc Watters, 1981). Increase in protein con-
centration facilitated enhanced protein–protein interac- 10
tion at the air–water interface and this promoted
0
formation of a highly viscoelastic multiplayer film that 2 4 6 7 8 10
offers resistance to coalescence of bubbles. This devel- pH
opment enhanced foam stability. Foamability generally
Fig. 8. Effect of pH on foam capacity of flours. BGF – bambarra
reaches a maximum value at a point as the concentra- groundnut flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF – jack bean flour.
tion of protein increases. This might be responsible for Error bars: Standard deviations. Results are means of triplicate
reduction in foam capacity of JBF from 6% to 10% w/v. determinations.

Table 4
Effect of concentration on foam capacity of floursA;B
Sample Concentration (% w/v)
2 4 6 8 10
a a a a
JBF 52.0  2.4 60.0  4.2 55.0  5.5 54.6  3.0 50.3  4.2a
BGF 57.0  1.0a 58.0  1.2a 64.0  7.1b 70.0  2.9b 70.0  5.8b
MBF 41.0  2.5b 44.0  2.0b 48.0  1.6c 52.0  3.4a 61.0  2.0b
A
Each value represents the mean of three determinations  SD.
B
Samples followed by the same letter are not significantly different ðp < 0:05Þ.

Table 5
Effect of concentration on foam stabilityA;B
Sample Concentration (% w/v)
2 4 6 8 10
JBF 67.0  1.4a 68.8  2.3a 74.8  4.6a 77.6  3.0a 80.5  4.5a
BGF 70.1  5.8a 72.7  5.5a 73.2  3.2a 73.5  6.8a 74.7  2.0a
MBF 70.9  2.0a 71.5  1.4a 72.3  1.5a 76.9  2.0a 77.0  1.5a
A
Each value represents the mean of three determinations  SD.
B
Samples followed by the same letter are not significantly different ðp < 0:05Þ.
 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365 363

JBF JBF
BGF BGF
100
MBF MBF
100
90
80
80

Emulsion stability(%)
Foam stability (%)

70
60
60
50
40
40
30
20 20
10
0 0
2 4 6 7 8 10 2 4 6 8 10
pH Concentration (%)

Fig. 9. Effect of pH on foam stability of flours. BGF – bambarra Fig. 11. Effect of concentration on emulsion stability of flours. BGF –
groundnut flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF – jack bean flour. bambarra groundnut flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour; JBF – jack
Error bars: Standard deviations. Results are means of triplicate de- bean flour. Error bars: Standard deviations. Results are means of
terminations. triplicate determinations.

and Yada, 1995). Previous studies have indicated that

JBF protein stabilised foams are more stable in the neigh-
BGF bourhood of the isoelectric pH of the protein than at any
MBF
other pH (Buckingham, 1970; Sathe et al. (1982)). High
60 foam stability at pH 4 is due to formation of stable mo-
lecular layers in the air–water interface of the foams. In
50
Emulsifying activity (%)

addition, the protein has low net charge near isoelectric

40
30
20
10
0
2 4 6 8
Concentration (%w/v)
Fig. 10. Effect of concentration of sample on emulsifying activity of
flours. BGF – bambarra groundnut flour; MBF – mucuna bean flour;
JBF – jack bean flour. Error bars: Standard deviations. Results are
means of triplicate determinations.
et al. (2002) reported a pH dependent foam properties for
Phaseouls lunatus and Canavalia ensiformis flours. Our
observations on minimum FC at pH 4 agree with the
findings of Chau and Cheung (1998), in which minimum
foam capacity of 80.8%, 64.4%, 76.4% and 110% were
recorded for P. angularis, P. calcaratus and D. lablab and
soybean flours, respectively, at isoelectric point. The
higher FC at the two extreme pHs has been attributed to
the increased flexibility of the proteins in the flours, which
diffused more rapidly to the air–water interface to en-
capsulate air particles and then enhance foaming (Aluko
pH; this might have contributed to the formation of
stable molecular layers in the air–water interface, which
imparted stability to the foam.
Effect of ionic strength on foam capacity is presented
in Table 6. Initial increase in ionic strength from 0.0 to
0.2 M improved the FC of JBF from 52% to 62%.
However, further increase in ionic strength from 0.4–1.0
M put the foam capacity of the flour on a decline and
10
minimum value of 39% was recorded in 1.0 M NaCl
solutions. Foam capacity of BGF over ionic strength
range of 0.0–1.0 M ranged from 57% to 80% and foam
capacity of the flour increased as the ionic strength in-
creased. FC of MBF increased from 41% in control
solution to maximal value of 54% in 0.4 M NaCl solu-
tions. Further increase in ionic strength of the solution
reduced the foaming capacity progressively and minimal
value of 36% was observed in 1.0 M NaCl solutions.
Effect of ionic strength on foam stability is presented
in Table 7. Increase in ionic strength improved the foam
stability of JBF up to 0.2 M. Progressive reduction in ES
was however observed with further increase in ionic
strength and minimal value of 31.9% was observed
in 1.0 M NaCl solutions. Also increases were observed in
FS of BGF as the ionic strength of the protein solution
increased and maximal value of 79.44% was observed in
1.0 M NaCl solutions. FS of MBF reached peak value
of80.3% at 0.4 M solutions, followed by progressive
364 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365

Table 6
Effect of ionic strength on foam capacity of flours (%)A;B
Sample Control Ionic strength (M)
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
a a a a a a
JBF 52.0  1.0 58.0  2.0 62.0  2.2 50.2  2.1 48.0  3.2 47.0  3.2 39.0  4.0a
BGF 57.1  1.5a 58.0  3.4a 62.0  2.9a 71.1  3.0b 73.4  2.4b 74.0  2.0b 80.5  2.0b
MBF 41.0  2.4a 43.0  2.0b 52.0  3.5b 54.0  2.3a 39.0  3.7a 37.8  2.5b 36.4  2.5a
A
Each value represents the mean of three determinations  SD.
B
Samples followed by the same letter are not significantly different ðp < 0:05Þ.

Table 7
Effect of ionic strength on foam stability of flours (%)A;B
Sample Control Ionic strength (M)
0.1 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
JBF 67.1  3.1a 72.8  4.0a 72.8  2.3a 66.6  3.6a 57.56  2.0a 48.0  3.5a 31.9  2.5a
BGF 70.1  2.0a 70.8  2.5a 71.0  1.0a 72.1  1.0ab 72.8  2.6b 73.5  2.5b 79.6  2.0b
MBF 70.9  3.0a 76.9  3.6a 78.9  1.7a 80.5  1.2b 77.6  4.0b 76.2  3.0b 75.0  2.8b
A
Each value represents the mean of three determinations  SD.
B
Samples followed by the same letter are not significantly different ðp < 0:05Þ.

decrease as the ionic strength increased. In a previous References

report, Akintayo, Oshodi, and Esuoso (1999) gave an
account of the influence of ionic strength on foaming
properties of pigeon pea protein concentrates. In their
report, increase in ionic strength of medium from 0
(water) to 0.5 M improved the foam capacity from 80%
to 100%, while further increase in ionic strength to
1.0 M reduced FC to 50%. Variations observed in the
response of the flours to various ionic strength might be
due to physiological differences in the protein composi-
tion and the presence of other components like lipids
and carbohydrates in different proportions. Increase in
foam stability of JBF and MBF up to 0.4 M and BGF
up to 1.0 M might be attributed to increased protein
solubility through partial denaturation (Sosulski, 1977).
In BGF, increase in foam stability up to 1.0 M suggests
that increasing salt concentration increases the propen-
sity for adhesion between the protein molecules and
results in formation of interfacial proteins with stronger
rheological properties to maintain foam integrity,
whereas in JBF and MBF higher NaCl concentration
reduced the surface denaturation of protein necessary to
impart the required rheological properties for foam
stability. A similar observation has been reported for
cowpea flour (Giami, 1993).
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the authorities of the
Department of Chemistry, University of Ibadan, Nige-
ria and the Department of Chemical Sciences of the
Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, Nigeria for
provision of facilities.
Abbey, B. W., & Ibeh, G. O. (1988). Functional properties of raw and
heat processed cowpea (Vigna unguiculata), walp0 flour. Journal of
Food Science, 53, 1775–1777.
Adebowale, K. O., & Lawal, O. S. (2003a). Foaming, gelation and
electrophoretic characteristics of mucuna bean (Mucuna pruriens)
protein concentrates. Food Chemistry, 83, 237–246.
Adebowale, K. O., & Lawal, O. S. (2003b). Microstructure, physico-
chemical properties and retrogradation behaviour of mucuna bean
(Mucuna pruriens) starch on heat moisture treatment. Food
Hydrocolloids, 17, 265–272.
Adebowale, K. O., & Lawal, O. S. (2003c). Functional properties and
retrogradation behavior of native and chemically modified starch
of mucuna bean (Mucuna pruriens). Journal of the Science of Food
and Agriculture, 83, 1541–1546.
Akintayo, E. T., Oshodi, A. A., & Esuoso, K. O. (1999). Effect of ionic
strength and pH on the foaming and gelation of pigeon pea
(Cajanus cajan) protein concentrates. Food Chemistry, 66, 51–56.
Aluko, R. E., & Yada, R. Y. (1995). Structure, function relationships
of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) globulin isolate: Influence of pH and
NaCl concentration on physicochemical and functional properties.
Food Chemistry, 53, 259–265.
AOAC (1990). Official methods of analysis (15th ed.). Washington, DC:
Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
Aykroyd, W. R., & Doughty, J. (1994). Legume in human nutrition.
FAO Nutition studies No 19, Food and Agricultural Organisation
of United Nations, Rome.
Beuchat, L. R. (1977). Functional and electrophoretic characteristics
of succinylated peanut flour protein. Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 25, 258–261.
Boye, J. T., Alli, I., Ismail, A. A., Gibbs, B. F., & Konishi, Y. (1995).
Factors affecting molecular characteristics of whey protein gela-
tion. International Dairy Journal, 5, 337–353.
Bryant, C. M., & Mc Clements, D. J. (2000). Influence of sucrose on
NaCl induced gelation of heat denatured whey protein solutions.
Food Research International, 33, 649–653.
Buckingham, J. W. (1970). Effects of pH, concentration and temper-
ature on the strength of cytoplasmic protein foams. Journal of the
Science of Food and Agriculture, 21, 441–445.
 K.O. Adebowale, O.S. Lawal / Food Research International 37 (2004) 355–365
Chau, C. F., & Cheung, P. C. K. (1998). Functional properties of
flours prepared from three Chinese indigenous legume seeds. Food
Chemistry, 61, 429–433.
Chavan, U. D., Mc Kenzie, D. B., & Shhidi, F. (2001). Functional
properties of protein isolates from beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus
L.). Food Chemistry, 74, 177–187.
Chel-Guerrero, L., Perez-Flores, V., Bentacur-Ancona, D., & Davila-
Ortiz, G. (2002). Functional properties of flours and protein
isolates from Phaseolus lunatus and Canavalia ensiformis seeds.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50, 584–591.
Cherry, J. P., & Mc Watters, K. H. (1981). Whippability and aeration
in ‘‘protein functionality in foods’’. In J. P. Cherry (Ed.), ACS
Symposium Series (Vol. 147, p. 149). Washington, DC: American
Chemical Society.
Coffman, C. W., & Garcia, V. V. (1977). Functional properties and
amino acid content of protein isolate from mung bean flour.
Journal of Food Technology, 12, 473–484.
Deshpande, S. S., Sathe, S. K., Cornforth, D., & Salunkhe, D. K.
(1982). Effect of dehulling on functional properties of dry bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) flours. Cereal Chemistry, 59, 396–401.
Duke, J. A. (1981). Hand book of legumes of world economic importance
(pp. 307–310). New York: Plenum Press.
Dzudie, T., & Hardy, J. (1996). Physicochemical and functional
properties of flours prepared from common beans and Green Mung
beans. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 44, 3029–3032.
Egelandsal, B. (1980). Heat induced gelling in solutions of ovalbumin.
Journal of Food Science, 45, 570–573.
Elofsson, C., Dejmek, P., Paulson, M., & Burling, H. (1997).
Characterization of a cold gelling whey protein concentrate.
International Dairy Journal, 7, 601–608.
Frazen, K. L., & Kinsella, J. E. (1976). Functional properties of
succinylated and acvetylated soy protein. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry, 24, 788–795.
Giami, S. Y. (1993). Effects of processing on the proximate compo-
sition and functional properties of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata)
flour. Food Chemistry, 47, 153–158.
Halling, P. J. (1981). Protein stabilised foams and emulsions. CRC
Critical Review. Food Science Nutrition, 15, 155–203.
Idouraine, A., Yensen, S. B., & Weber, C. W. (1991). Tepary bean
flour and globulin fractions, functional properties compared with
soy isolates. Journal of Food Science, 56, 1316–1318.
Johnson, E. A., & Brekke, C. J. (1983). Functional properties of acylated
pea protein isolates. Journal of Food Science, 48, 722–725.
Kamat, V. B., Graham, G. E., & Davis, M. A. F. (1978). Vegetable
protein–lipid interactions. Cereal Chemistry, 55, 295.
Kojima, E., & Nakamura, R. (1985). Heat gelling properties of hen’s
egg yolk low density lipoprotein (LDL) in the presence of other
proteins. Journal of Food Science, 50, 63–66.
Krause, J. P., Mothes, R., & Schwenke, K. D. (1996). Some
physicochemical and interfacial properties of native and acetylated
legumin from faba bean (Vicia faba L.). Journal of Agricultural and
Food Chemistry, 44, 429–437.
Lin, M. J. Y., Humbert, E. S., & Sosulski, F. (1974). Certain functional
properties of sunflower meal products. Journal of Food Science, 39, 368.
Liu, L. H., & Hung, T. V. (1998). Functional properties of acetylated
chickpea proteins. Journal of Food Science, 63, 331–337.
Lqari, H., Vioque, J., Pedroche, J., & Millan, F. (2002). Lupinus
angustifolius protein isolates: Chemical composition, functional
properties and protein characterisation. Food Chemistry, 76, 349–356.
Machuka, J. (2002). Characterisation of the seed proteins of velvet bean
(Mucuna pruriens) from Nigeria. Food Chemistry, 68, 421–427.
Muschiolik, G. (1989). Faba bean protein as a functional component
in food emulsions. Association of Food Science and Technologist of
India, 22, 234–241.
Muschiolik, G., Dickinson, E., Murray, E., & Stainsby, R. (1987).
Interfacial and emulsifying behaviour of acetylated field bean
protein isolate. Food Hydrocolloids, 1, 191–208.
365
Mwasaru, M. A, Muhammad, K., Bakar, J., & Cheman, Y. B. (1999).
Effect of isolation technique and conditions on the extractability,
physicochemical and functional properties of pigeon pea (Cajanus
cajan) and cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) protein isolates II. Func-
tional properties. Food Chemistry, 67, 445–452.
Narayana, K., & Narasinga Rao, M. S. (1982). Functional properties
of raw and processed winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus)
flour. Journal of Food Science, 47, 1534–1538.
Narayana, K., & Narasinga Rao, M. S. (1984). Effect of acetylation and
succinylation on the functional properties of winged bean (Psoph-
ocarpus tetragonolobus) flour. Journal of Food science, 49, 547–550.
Neto, V. Q., Narain, N., Silvia, J. B., & Bora, P. S. (2001). Functional
properties of raw and heat-processed cashew nut (Anarcardium
occidentale L.) kernel protein isolate. Nahrung, 45, 258–262.
Okaka, J. C., & Potter, N. N. (1979). Physico-chemical and functional
properties of cowpea powders processed ton reduce beany flavor.
Journal of Food Science, 44, 1235–1240.
Okezie, B. O., & Bello, A. B. (1988). Physicochemical and functional
properties of winged bean flour and isolate compared with soy
isolate. Journal of Food Science, 53, 450–454.
Phillips, M. C. (1981). Protein conformation at liquid interfaces and its
role in stabilising emulsions and foams. Food Technology, 35, 50.
Sathe, S. K., & Salunkhe, D. K. (1981). Functional properties of the great
northern bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L). Proteins, emulsions, foaming,
viscosity and gelation properties. Journal of Food Science, 46, 71.
Sathe, S. K., Deshpande, S. S., & Salunkhe, D. K. (1982). Functional
properties of winged bean (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus L.) pro-
teins. Journal of Food Science, 47, 503.
Sathe, S. K., Deshpande, S. S., & Salunkhe, D. K. (1983). Functinal
properties of black gram (Phaseolus mango L.) proteins. Leben-
smittel Wissenschaft & Technologie, 16, 69–74.
Shanmujasundaram, T., & Venkataraman, L. V. (1989). Functional
properties of defatted and detoxified madhunca (Madhuca butyr-
aceae) seed flour. Journal of Food Science, 54, 351–353.
Siddhuraju, P., Becker, K., & Makkar, H. P. S. (2001). Chemical
composition, protein fraction, essential amnio acid potential and
antimetabolic constituents of an unconventional legume, Gila bean
(Entada phaseoloides Merrill) seed kernel. Journal of the Science of
Food and Agriculture, 82, 192–202.
Sosulski, F. W., & Mc Curdy, A. R. (1987). Functionality of flours,
protein fractions and isolates from field pea and faba beans.
Journal of Food Science, 52, 1010.
Sosulski, F. W. (1977). Concentrated seed proteins. In H. D. Graham
(Ed.), Food Colloids (p. 152). West CT: The Avi Publishing.
Thompson, L. U. (1977). Preparation and evaluation of mung bean
protein isolates. Journal of Food Science, 42, 202.
Turgeon, S. L., & Beaulieu, M. (2001). Improvement and modification
of whey protein gel texture, using polysaccharides. Food Hydro-
colloids, 15, 583–591.
Van Camp, J., Messens, W., Clement, J., & Huyghebaert (1997). Influence
of pH and sodium chloride on the high pressure-induced gel formation
of a whey protein concentrate. Food Chemistry, 60, 417–424.
Wagner, J. R., & Gueguen, J. (1995). Effect of dissociation, deami-
nation and reducing treatment on structural and surface active
properties of soy glycinin. Journal of Agricultural and Food
Chemistry, 43, 1993–2000.
Wagner, J. R., & Gueguen, J. (1999). Surface functional properties of
native, acid treated and reduced soy glycinin. 2. Emulsifying
properties. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 47, 2181–
2187.
Walstra, p., & Jenness, R. (1984). Dairy chemistry and physics. New
York: Wiley.
Were, L., Hettiarachchy, L., & Kalapathy, U. (1997). Modified soy
proteins with improved foaming and water hydratatation proteins.
Journal of Food Science, 62, 821–824.
Ziegler, G. R., & Foegeding, E. A. (1990). The gelation of proteins.
Advances in Food Nutrition Research, 34, 204–286.