It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The demand for vegetable proteins increases globally and seaweeds are considered novel and promising protein sources. However, the tough polysaccharide-rich cell walls and the abundance of polyphenols reduce the extractability and digestibility of seaweed proteins. Therefore, food grade, scalable, and environmentally friendly protein extraction techniques are required. To date, little work has been carried out on developing such methods taking into consideration the structural differences between seaweed species. In this work, three different protein extraction methods were applied to three Swedish seaweeds (Porphyra umbilicalis, Ulva lactuca, and Saccharina latissima). These methods included (I) a traditional method using sonication in water and subsequent ammonium sulfate-induced protein precipitation, (II) the pH-shift protein extraction method using alkaline protein solubilization followed by isoelectric precipitation, and (III) the accelerated solvent extraction (ASE®) method where proteins are extracted after pre-removal of lipids and phlorotannins. The highest protein yields were achieved using the pH-shift method applied to P. umbilicalis (22.6 ± 7.3%) and S. latissima (25.1 ± 0.9%). The traditional method resulted in the greatest protein yield when applied to U. lactuca (19.6 ± 0.8%). However, the protein concentration in the produced extracts was highest for all three species using the pH-shift method (71.0 ± 3.7%, 51.2 ± 2.1%, and 40.7 ± 0.5% for P. umbilicalis, U. lactuca, and S. latissima, respectively). In addition, the pH-shift method was found to concentrate the fatty acids in U. lactuca and S. latissima by 2.2 and 1.6 times, respectively. The pH-shift method can therefore be considered a promising strategy for producing seaweed protein ingredients for use in food and feed.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Department of Biology and Biological Engineering-Food and Nutrition Science, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
2 Food BioSciences Department, Teagasc Food Research Centre, Dublin 15, Ireland
3 Department of Marine Sciences – Tjärnö, University of Gothenburg, Strömstad, Sweden