Food and Bioprocess Technology

, Volume 11, Issue 11, pp 2032–2043 | Cite as

Feed-Forward Prediction of Product Qualities in Enzymatic Protein Hydrolysis of Poultry By-products: a Spectroscopic Approach

  • Sileshi Gizachew WubshetEmail author
  • Jens Petter Wold
  • Nils Kristian Afseth
  • Ulrike Böcker
  • Diana Lindberg
  • Felicia Nkem Ihunegbo
  • Ingrid Måge
Original Paper


Enzymatic protein hydrolysis (EPH) is one of the industrial bioprocesses used to recover valuable constituents from food processing by-products. Extensive heterogeneity of by-products from, for example, meat processing is a major challenge in production of protein hydrolysates with stable and desirable quality attributes. Therefore, there is a need for process control tools for production of hydrolysates with defined qualities from such heterogeneous raw materials. In the present study, we are reporting a new feed-forward process control strategy for enzymatic protein hydrolysis of poultry by-products. Four different spectroscopic techniques, i.e., NIR imaging scanner, a miniature NIR (microNIR) instrument, fluorescence and Raman, were evaluated as tools for characterization of the raw material composition. Partial least squares (PLS) models for ash, protein, and fat content were developed based on Raman, fluorescence, and microNIR measurements, respectively. In an effort to establish feed-forward process control tools, we developed statistical models that enabled prediction of end-product characteristics, i.e., protein yield and average molecular weight of peptides (Mw), as a function of raw material quality and hydrolysis time. A multiblock sequential orthogonalised-PLS (SO-PLS) model, where spectra from one or more techniques and hydrolysis time were used as predictor variables, was fitted for the feed-forward prediction of product qualities. The best model was obtained for protein yield based on combined use of microNIR and fluorescence (R2 = 0.88 and RMSE = 4.8). A Raman-based model gave a relatively moderate prediction model for Mw (R2 = 0.56 and RMSE = 150). Such statistical models based on spectroscopic measurements of the raw material can be vital process control tools for EPH. To our knowledge, the present work is the first example of a spectroscopic feed-forward process control for an industrially relevant bioprocess.


Enzymatic protein hydrolysis Feed-forward process control Sequential orthogonalised-partial least squares (SO-PLS) Spectroscopy Poultry by-products 



Bjørg Narum and Marte Ryen Dalsnes are acknowledged for the excellent technical assistance. Nortura and Norilia are acknowledged for providing the raw materials used in this study and for the partnership related to enzymatic hydrolysis.

Funding Information

This study received financial support from the Norwegian Research Council through the CYCLE project (225349/E40) and the Chickenlysis project (235839), and the Norwegian Agricultural Food Research Foundation through the project FoodSMaCK—Spectroscopy, Modelling and Consumer Knowledge (262308/F40).


  1. Aspevik, T., Oterhals, A., Ronning, S. B., Altintzoglou, T., Wubshet, S. G., et al. (2017). Valorization of proteins from co- and by-products from the fish and meat industry. Topics in Current Chemistry (Cham), 375(3), 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernd, H., Ralph, H., Andreas, N., Daryoush, S., Jens, T., & Jarka, G. (2015). Process analytical technologies in food industry – challenges and benefits: a status report and recommendations. Biotechnology Journal, 10(8), 1095–1100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bocker, U., Wubshet, S. G., Lindberg, D., & Afseth, N. K. (2017). Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy for characterization of protein chain reductions in enzymatic reactions. The Analyst, 142(15), 2812–2818.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Burns, D. A., & Ciurczak, E. W. (2008). Handbook of near-infrared analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fountoulakis, M., & Lahm, H.-W. (1998). Hydrolysis and amino acid composition analysis of proteins. Journal of Chromatography A, 826(2), 109–134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Gilmartin, L., & Jervis, L. (2002). Production of cod (Gadus morhua) muscle hydrolysates. Influence of combinations of commercial enzyme preparations on hydrolysate peptide size range. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50(19), 5417–5423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hinz, D. C. (2006). Process analytical technologies in the pharmaceutical industry: the FDA’s PAT initiative. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 384(5), 1036–1042.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Jørgensen, K., & Næs, T. (2004). A design and analysis strategy for situations with uncontrolled raw material variation. Journal of Chemometrics, 18(2), 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kummu, M., de Moel, H., Porkka, M., Siebert, S., Varis, O., & Ward, P. J. (2012). Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Science of The Total Environment, 438, 477–489.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Li-jun, L., Chuan-he, Z., & Zheng, Z. (2008). Analyzing molecular weight distribution of whey protein hydrolysates. Food and Bioproducts Processing., 86(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Liland, K. H., Kohler, A., & Afseth, N. K. (2016). Model-based pre-processing in Raman spectroscopy of biological samples. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 47(6), 643–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mandair, G. S. & Morris, M. D. (2015). Contributions of Raman spectroscopy to the understanding of bone strength. BoneKEy Report, 4.Google Scholar
  13. Martens, H., & Næs, T. (1989). Multivariate calibration. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  14. Morris, M. D., & Mandair, G. S. (2011). Raman assessment of bone quality. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 469(8), 2160–2169.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Muteki, K., Swaminathan, V., Sekulic, S. S., & Reid, G. L. (2012). Feed-forward process control strategy for pharmaceutical tablet manufacture using latent variable modeling and optimization technologies. IFAC Proceedings, 45(15), 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Næs, T., Tomic, O., Mevik, B. H., & Martens, H. (2011). Path modelling by sequential PLS regression. Journal of Chemometrics, 25(1), 28–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Næs, T., Tomic, O., Afseth, N. K., Segtnan, V., & Måge, I. (2013). Multi-block regression based on combinations of orthogonalisation, PLS-regression and canonical correlation analysis. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 124, 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Nasirpour, A., Scher, J., & Desobry, S. (2006). Baby foods: Formulations and interactions (a review). Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 46(8), 665–681.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. NMKL (1989). Fat, determination according to SBR (Schmid-Bondzynski-Ratslaff) in meat and meat products. NMKL method no 131, Nordic committee on food analysis, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  20. NMKL (2003). Nitrogen, Determination in foods and feeds according to Kjeldahl. NMKL method no 6, 4th Ed. Nordic Committee on Food Analysis, Oslo.Google Scholar
  21. NMKL (2005). Ash, Gravimetric determination in foods. NMKL method no 173, 2nd Ed. Nordic Committee on Food Analysis, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  22. Parfitt, J., Barthel, M., & Macnaughton, S. (2010). Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 3065–3081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pesti, G., & Bakalli, R. (1997). Estimation of the composition of broiler carcasses from their specific gravity. Poultry Science, 76(7), 948–951.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Poulsen, N. A., Eskildsen, C. E., Akkerman, M., Johansen, L. B., Hansen, M. S., Hansen, P. W., Skov, T., & Larsen, L. B. (2016). Predicting hydrolysis of whey protein by mid-infrared spectroscopy. International Dairy Journal, 61, 44–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pu, Y., Wang, W., & Alfano, R. R. (2013). Optical detection of meat spoilage using fluorescence spectroscopy with selective excitation wavelength. Applied Spectroscopy, 67(2), 210–213.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rutherfurd, S. M. (2010). Methodology for determining degree of hydrolysis of proteins in hydrolysates: a review. Journal of AOAC International, 93(5), 1515–1522.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Sahni, N., Isaksson, T., & Næs, T. (2004). In-line near infrared spectroscopy for use in product and process monitoring in the food industry. Journal of Near Infrared Spectroscopy, 12(2), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Šližytė, R., Daukšas, E., Falch, E., Storrø, I., & Rustad, T. (2005). Characteristics of protein fractions generated from hydrolysed cod (Gadus morhua) by-products. Process Biochemistry, 40(6), 2021–2033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tajammal, M. M., Yu, W., Young, B. R., & Wilson, D. I. (2015). The current status of process analytical technologies in the dairy industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 43(2), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tang, J. E., Moore, D. R., Kujbida, G. W., Tarnopolsky, M. A., & Phillips, S. M. (2009). Ingestion of whey hydrolysate, casein, or soy protein isolate: effects on mixed muscle protein synthesis at rest and following resistance exercise in young men. Journal of Applied Physiology, 107(3), 987–992.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Tavano, O. L. (2013). Protein hydrolysis using proteases: an important tool for food biotechnology. Journal of Molecular Catalysis B: Enzymatic, 90, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van den Berg, F., Lyndgaard, C. B., Sørensen, K. M., & Engelsen, S. B. (2013). Process analytical technology in the food industry. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 31(1), 27–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wold, J. P., Bjerke, F., & Mage, I. (2016). Automatic control of fat content in multiple batches of meat trimmings by process analytical technology. Fleischwirtschaft, 96(11), 100–106.Google Scholar
  34. Wold, J. P., Veiseth-Kent, E., Host, V., & Lovland, A. (2017). Rapid on-line detection and grading of wooden breast myopathy in chicken fillets by near-infrared spectroscopy. PLoS One, 12(3), e0173384.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Wubshet, S. G., Mage, I., Bocker, U., Lindberg, D., Knutsen, S. H., et al. (2017). FTIR as a rapid tool for monitoring molecular weight distribution during enzymatic protein hydrolysis of food processing by-products. Analytical Methods, 9(29), 4247–4254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nofima AS - Norwegian Institute of Food Fisheries and Aquaculture ResearchÅsNorway

Personalised recommendations