Feed-Forward Prediction of Product Qualities in Enzymatic Protein Hydrolysis of Poultry By-products: a Spectroscopic Approach
- 185 Downloads
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.
KeywordsEnzymatic 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.
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).
- Burns, D. A., & Ciurczak, E. W. (2008). Handbook of near-infrared analysis. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
- Mandair, G. S. & Morris, M. D. (2015). Contributions of Raman spectroscopy to the understanding of bone strength. BoneKEy Report, 4.Google Scholar
- Martens, H., & Næs, T. (1989). Multivariate calibration. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- NMKL (2005). Ash, Gravimetric determination in foods. NMKL method no 173, 2nd Ed. Nordic Committee on Food Analysis, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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