Effect of drying process on functional properties of chicken breast powder and application in high protein pancake

Abstract

Drying is one of food preservative methods. However, several drying methods are applied using different drying conditions and techniques that could affect the quality and functional properties of dried products. Chicken breast powder is an upcoming alternative high protein source to replace the consumption of whey protein powder, especially Asian people who are lactose intolerant. Therefore, this presentation aimed to prepare and compare three types of dried chicken breast powder produced from different drying methods. Physical properties of low lactose and protein rich pancakes using chicken breast powder were then determined. There are three drying methods all operated at 65 °C to prepare chicken breast powder including conventional hot air drying, vacuum drying and low pressure superheated steam drying. For the result, in terms of drying time, the vacuum drying method required the shortest drying time (4 hours) compared to others, whereas, low-pressure superheated steam drying took longer drying time (7 hours) since the superheated steam continuously supplied during drying, so there is condensation on surface of product and caused moisture reuptake. In addition, low pressure superheated steam dried chicken breast powder (CBL) showed significantly higher moisture content (5.58±0.01) and higher water activity (0.427±0.002) than conventional hot air dried (CBH) and vacuum dried chicken breast powders (CBV) due to the steam involved in drying process, which also affect protein content. Furthermore, for functional properties, all CB samples have significantly higher water absorption capacity and oil absorption capacity than whey powder due to porous structure and larger particle size. Hence, all CB samples exhibited lower water solubility index, lower hygroscopicity, and definitely lower protein solubility than whey. However, for foaming capacity, all CB samples exhibited significantly very low foaming capacity, whereas whey powder showed highest foaming capacity and stability at neutral pH. Likewise, for emulsification capacity and stability, all CB samples showed significantly very low compared to whey powder. The higher the pH, the higher emulsifying capacity. For pancake formulation and preparation, CBV was chosen to replace whey powder 10 % to 20 % of pancake mix. The viscosity is highest at 20 % CB substitution due to its high water absorption capacity and oil absorption capacity. Texture profile analysis of the pancakes demonstrated that cohesiveness of the pancake is maintained even with the substitution of CB at 20%. Nevertheless, they showed significantly higher value of hardness than the control which contains only wheat flour with no substitution of any protein powder, but exhibited significantly lower value of springiness than both control and protein pancake formulation 1 (PP-1) that contains only addition of whey powder. As a result, the data obtained from this study could be crucial for further development of the chicken breast powder and application in potential food products.