![Sample our Physical Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110819/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Physical-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
The present work systematically reviewed the studies that examined the effects of protein drying aids on the quantity and quality of sugar-rich spray-dried powders. Following the literature search and screeching articles based on the inclusion criteria, 39 original research articles were included in the study and were grouped into model foods and real sugar-rich foods according to feedstock. Changes in product yield, water activity (aw), glass transition temperature (Tg), bulk density, hygroscopicity, and solubility were studied in the groups based on protein drying aids. The quantity of protein drying aid required for successful spray drying of sucrose-rich food samples was several times greater than that of pure sucrose, but not for fructose. When both protein and maltodextrin were used in one study, the amount of protein and maltodextrin needed for effective spray drying (at 50% product yield) was used to calculate the relative protein/maltodextrin (Pr/MD) mass ratio. For seven studies, the Pr/MD mass ratio was in the range of 0.03 to 0.80. When feed composition and processing variables required a high amount of protein carrier (>50% db), a rise in the hygroscopicity of powders was commonly observed among the studies. Many studies support the idea that interventions with different types of protein drying agents or an increase in protein concentration can reduce the bulk density of sugar-rich powders, which should be seen as a technical and economic concern. In conclusion, although the protein drying agents are yield-effective ingredients compared to commercial alternatives, their use as wall materials for spray drying sugar-rich foods is not always the best choice.
Disclosure statement
Authors declare no conflict of interest.