Received: 2 July 2018 | Revised: 13 July 2018
DOI: 10.1111/jfpp.13763
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Use of pea and rice protein isolates as source of meat
extenders in the development of chicken nuggets
Aqsa Shoaib1 | Amna Sahar1,2
1
Faculty of Food, Nutrition and Home
Sciences (FFNHS), National Institute
of Food, Science and Technology
(NIFSAT), University of Agriculture
Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan
2
Faculty of Agricultural Engineering
& Technology, Department of Food
Engineering, University of Agriculture
Faisalabad, Faisalabad, Pakistan
3
Department of Biosciences, COMSATS
University, Islamabad, Pakistan
Correspondence
Amna Sahar, Faculty of Food, Nutrition
and Home Sciences (FFNHS), National
Institute of Food Science and Technology
(NIFSAT), University of Agriculture
Faisalabad, Pakistan; Faculty of Agricultural
Engineering & Technology, Department of
Food Engineering, University of Agriculture
Faisalabad, Pakistan.
Email: amnasahar@gmail.com
1 | I NTRO D U C TI O N
Meat is an important food in human diet and has been consumed
since long due to rich protein source. Meat consumption is in‐
creasing with growing population especially in developing coun‐
tries. Availability of healthy, nutritious, and wholesome food for
J Food Process Preserv. 2018;42:e13763.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13763
| Accepted: 21 July 2018
| Aysha Sameen1 | Asima Saleem1 | Ayesha T. Tahir3
Abstract
Pea protein isolates (PPI) and rice protein isolates (RPI) were used as meat extenders
at different concentration levels (3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%) for the development of
chicken nuggets and evaluation of their physicochemical and sensory properties.
Protein value of pea and rice protein‐enriched nuggets ranged between 32.84%–
39.31% and 39.23%–48.49%, respectively, which was high as compared to the con‐
trol (34.99%). Moisture level ranged between 53.72% and 59.02%. Addition of
proteins did not show any effect on pH and ash contents of nuggets. All the treat‐
ments displayed significant increase in water holding capacity and decrease in cook‐
ing loss compared to the control samples. Cooking loss in PPI and RPI extended
nuggets was found between 5.01%–11.12% and 3.85%–7.54%, respectively. There
was no significant difference in the textural characteristics of extended nuggets. All
treatments involving RPI gave high scores for “overall acceptability” of sensory score.
However, PPI showed substantial issue in flavor in nuggets.
Practical application
Food insecurity has become the biggest challenge of the developing countries as
about 60% of the world population is suffering from protein deficiency. The leading
factor responsible for the unavailability of meat to poor peoples is the high cost of
meat and meat products. Increasing population, uncertain crop yield, and high cost of
animal‐based products have prompted the food industry to identify non‐meat pro‐
tein sources to incorporate in traditional meat formulations. So, inclusion of vegeta‐
ble proteins like rice and pea proteins in meat formulations not only enhance the
nutritional value but also provide a vehicle to promote the use of plant proteins to
maintain target protein intake. There is a need to find economical sources of protein
having positive impact on sensory properties of meat. In this regard, pea and rice
protein isolates were used in order to prepare good quality and nutritious product
with acceptable sensory score.
undernourished population especially in developing countries has
become a major concern for food industry. The world population
have reached up to 7.6 billion in 2017. According to an estimate, it
will further increase to 11.2 billion by the year 2,100 (United Nation,
2016). According to Organization for Economic Corporation and
Development, the consumption of meat around the world is about
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jfpp © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1 of 7
2 of 7 | SHOAIB et al.
34 kg of meat per person per year (Lauren & Gould, 2015). Currently
per capita meat consumption has reached to 32 kg that is expected
to be reached at 47 kg by 2020 (FAO, 2013).
Demand of processed meat products has increased in recent
years in order to evade lengthy cooking process. There will be 72%
more meat demand by 2030 because of growing population, indus‐
trialization and changing behavior of people toward animal‐based
products (Fiala, 2008; Steinfeld et al., 2006).
The problem of food insecurity has become the biggest chal‐
lenge of the developing countries. About 60% of the world popula‐
tion is suffering from animal protein deficiency. The leading factor
responsible for the unavailability of meat to poor strata of the so‐
ciety is the high cost of meat and meat products (Khattak, Iqbal, &
Ghazanfar, 2017). This situation warrants studies to find non‐meat
protein sources that should be economical and good for health point
of view. Extenders are protein additives usually from plant origin
used to enhance the water binding and textural properties of meat.
Higher water binding ability stretches or bulk up the meat prod‐
uct which result in more volume or improved yield (Teye, Teye, &
Boamah, 2012). It is also a good approach to expand the consump‐
tion of vegetables and fruits by combining them in the form of pu‐
rees, pieces, and powders with frequently consumed foods. Many
people don’t have vegetarian life style and prefer meat products. So,
inclusion of vegetable proteins like PPI and RPI in meat formulations
not only enhance the nutritional value but also provides a vehicle to
promote the use of plant proteins to maintain target protein intake
(Baugreet, Kerry, Botinestean, Allen, & Hamil, 2016). Vegetable pro‐
teins have low price and can significantly reduce the cost of meat
products by increasing the yield of extended meat products. Several
vegetable or fungal‐derived proteins have been used as protein
source in meat formulations. Plant proteins like soy protein (Usmani,
Ahmed, Uddin, & Khan, 2014), sunflower protein (Strahm, 2006),
wheat, maize (Yadav, Ahlawat, Jairath, Rani, & Bishnoi, 2015) and
lentil flour, pea protein (Akweteya, Odurob, & Ellisb, 2014; Owusu‐
Ansah & McCurdy, 1991), rice bran protein (Baugreet et al., 2016),
milk powder, mushrooms, and other non‐animal proteins can be used
as binders, fillers, and extenders in meat industry. The use of these
protein sources can significantly enhance the protein contents and
reduce/replace the use of meat fat. Grain flakes and other fiber‐
enhancing materials like rice bran and plant proteins, such as soy
proteins are commonly used in meat products. Extenders are less
expensive and are used to bulk up or stretch the meat products and
reduce the overall cost of meat preparations (Pickarski, 2005).
Cereals and legumes, being an economical source of protein, are
commonly used in meat preparations and are important sources of
complex carbohydrates, dietary fiber, minerals, and vitamins. Safe
amount of these ingredients has positive effect on meat quality
and sensory properties. They also play significant role in functional
and textural properties of meat products. Cereal proteins albu‐
min, globulin, gliadins, and glutelin increase the amino acid profile
of meat (Guerrieri, 2004; Singh & MacRitchie, 2001). Rice, barley,
oats, and maize flours are being used in meat products as extenders.
Rice bran comprises of about 12%–15% protein that can be used in
meat preparations as an extender. It is an important source of ly‐
sine that is an essential amino acid (Wang, Hettiarchchy, Qi, Burks, &
Siebenmorgen, 1999). Gnanasambandam and Hettiarachchy (1995),
Bera and Mukherjee (1989), Souza, Sbardelotto, Ziegler, Marczak,
and Tessaro (2016) and Wang et al. (1999), prepared rice bran protein
isolates and promoted their use as a source of protein in food formu‐
lations because of their foaming and emulsifying properties. Dhond,
Devangare, and Chappalwar (2017) investigated the use of rice and
soy flour as extender in the formation of quail meatballs and their
economic benefits as extenders. Quail meatballs were prepared by
using minced quail meat, spices, condiments, and extenders (rice and
soy flour). Both extenders were useful in improving the composi‐
tional, quality, and sensory characteristics of the meatballs.
New sources of plant protein should have explored that signifi‐
cantly reduce the cost of meat products and increase its nutritional
and sensory properties. It is desirable to develop methods to ex‐
tract these vegetable proteins with minimum nutrient loss. It is also
important to investigate non‐meat protein alternatives that have
pleasing texture, bite, flavor, aroma, and consistent with a variety of
animal proteins (Pickarski, 2005).
We hypothesized that the incorporation of non‐meat proteins
mainly pea and rice in a meat product will enhance the nutritional
value with improved quality. In this regards, we have used different
levels (3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%) of PPI and RPI. Our study also focused
on the assessment of nutritional, compositional, and quality charac‐
teristics of extended chicken nuggets.
2 | M ATE R I A L S A N D M E TH O DS
2.1 | Preparation of samples
Broiler meat was purchased from local market of Faisalabad
(Pakistan). PPI was purchased from nowsports (Now Foods, USA)
and RPI from protein (Organic Soil Association, UK). Conventional
method used for nuggets is given in Table 1.
Raw meat was washed, cleaned, and minced using electric meat
mincer. After mincing, protein isolates were added in the meat sam‐
ples separately at 3%, 6%, 9%, and 12% concentration level and
homogenized by mixing for 5 min. After that, salt and pepper were
added in the meat‐protein mixture and thoroughly mixed. Nine meat
TA B L E 1 Recipe used for the preparation of chicken nuggets
Ingredients Quantity
Boneless chicken 100 g
Salt 2.5 g
Black pepper 2g
Oil As required
for frying
Egg 1
Plain flour 125 g
Bread crumbs 450 g
SHOAIB et al.
samples were prepared including control. Four samples were pre‐
pared using PPI and four samples containing RPI. One sample was
control (without protein isolate). Each sample mixture was than
shaped into discs of equal size 10 g/piece. After shaping, nuggets
were dipped in egg, plain flour, and bread crumbs separately. At the
end, frying was done in canola oil at 180°C till golden brown color
appeared.
2.2 | Compositional analysis of cooked nuggets
Compositional analysis of fresh cooked nuggets was carried out.
Moisture, crude protein, crude fat, and ash content of cooked
nuggets were determined by method described in AOAC (2002).
Moisture was determined using hot air oven. Crude protein was ana‐
lyzed by kjeldhal’s apparatus. Fat and ash contents were determined
by using Soxhlet apparatus and muffle furnace, respectively.
2.3 | pH Determination
pH meter was used for the determination of pH of meat samples
according to method described by Turienzo, Cobos, Caride, Vieites,
and Diaz (2011). For pH measurement, pH meter was calibrated to
pH 7 and pH 4 by using standard buffer. Ten grams of minced meat
sample was taken in a beaker having 100‐mL distilled water. The
mixture was than homogenized for 5 min. After calibration, elec‐
trode was inserted into the sample and pH was noted down.
2.4 | Water holding capacity
Water holding capacity of cooked nuggets was determined accord‐
ing to method described by Qiao, Fletcher, Smith, and Northcutt
(2001). Minced meat sample (15 g) was taken and mixed with
22.20 mL 0.6 M NaCl solution and placed the mixture in refrigera‐
tor for 15 min. It was then centrifuged at 10,000 rpm for 15 min in
centrifugation machine at 4°C. After centrifugation, the supernatant
was decanted and measured.
2.5 | Texture
Texture analyzer (TA‐XTplus, Stable Microsystem, Surrey, UK) was
used for the determination of texture of cooked product as de‐
scribed by Piga et al. (2005). Compression test was performed to
determine the texture of the sample.
2.6 | Cooking loss
Cooking loss of meat samples was determined according to the
method described by AOAC (2006) by placing 10 g meat sample in
polythene bags and putting them in water bath at 72°C. After cook‐
ing, cooked meat was cooled and weighed. Cooking loss was evalu‐
ated by calculating the difference between initial and final weight
of sample.
| 3 of 7
2.7 | Sensory evaluation
Sensory evaluation was performed based on firmness, color, fla‐
vor and overall acceptability of chicken nuggets using 9‐point he‐
donic scale according to the method described by Meilgaard, Civille,
and Carr (2007). Panelist were provided with sensory evaluation
performa. Panelists from National Institute of Food Science and
Technology were asked to express their opinion about the product
following hedonic scale.
2.8 | Statistical analysis
Data obtained from each parameter were subjected to statistical
analysis according to the method described by Steel, Torrie, and
Dickey (1997).
3 | R E S U LT S A N D D I S CU S S I O N
3.1 | Compositional analysis of chicken nuggets
extended with pea and rice protein isolates
Compositional analysis of chicken nuggets extended with PPI and
RPI at four concentration levels (3%, 6%, 9%, and 12%) are presented
in Table 2. The main objective of this study was to develop a quality
product with good nutritional value compared to traditional meat
formulations. Determination of moisture content is important while
defining the quality of meat products. Statistical results of moisture
are presented in the Table 2. The moisture content showed signifi‐
cant relationship with treatments as compared to control. The mois‐
ture content of nuggets extended with PPI and RPI range between
55.63%–59.49% and 53.72%–60.09%, respectively. PPI addition
decreased the moisture content as compared to control (59.02%) ex‐
cept PP3 (3% PPI) whose moisture content (59.49%) was little higher
than control (59.02%). The moisture content of PP12 (12% PPI) was
(55.63%). Baugreet et al. (2016) reported reduction in moisture con‐
tent as compared to control when they used RPI and PPI in beef pat‐
ties formulation. Odiase, Igene, Evivie, and Ebabhamiegbebho (2013)
also observed the same trend in moisture content of soy flour‐en‐
riched meat balls.
Addition of RPI displayed non‐significant moisture loss between
treatments. Moisture value first decreased in treatments RP6 (6%
RPI) and RP9 (9% RPI) than increased in treatment RP12 (12% RPI).
Moisture content of RP3 (3% RPI) was (60.09%) which reduced to
(54.74%) at level 6% RPI. RP9 (9% RPI) induced further loss of mois‐
ture in the product (53.72%) and then moisture content increase
to (55.08%) at 12% RPI. RPI having 3% rice protein showed high‐
est increase in moisture value among all treatments while lowest
value showed by RP9. It is concluded that inclusion of plant proteins
in meat formulations have a considerable impact on the moisture
content of the product. PPI and RPI inclusion at 3% level presented
higher moisture content than control while concentration more than
3% gave lower moisture value than control. However, this increase
4 of 7 | SHOAIB et al.

TA B L E 2 Compositional analysis (%) of chicken nuggets prepared with different concentrations of pea and rice protein isolates (means ±
standard error)

Treatments Moisture Protein Fat Ash

ab f g
Control 59.02 ± 0.11 34.99 ± 0.02 8.14 ± 0.05 2.06 ± 0.20a
ab c f
PP3 59.49 ± 0.60 39.31 ± 0.06 8.28 ± 0.03 2.16 ± 0.22a
PP6 58.51 ± 0.09b 38.24 ± 0.05d 9.04 ± 0.01d 2.12 ± 0.14a
c g bc
PP9 57.02 ± 0.33 32.84 ± 0.09 9.17 ± 0.02 2.05 ± 0.35a
PP12 55.63 ± 0.11d 37.15 ± 0.03e 9.24 ± 0.02b 1.09 ± 0.08b
a c h
RP3 60.09 ± 0.42 39.23 ± 0.22 7.93 ± 0.08 2.25 ± 0.10a
RP6 54.74 ± 0.57de 47.33 ± 0.58b 9.60 ± 0.01a 2.06 ± 0.08a
e a e
RP9 53.72 ± 0.15 48.16 ± 0.14 8.87 ± 0.02 1.88 ± 0.14a
RP12 55.08 ± 0.81d 48.49 ± 0.16a 9.13 ± 0.06cd 1.35 ± 0.10 b

Note. PPI, pea protein isolates; RPI, rice protein isolates.

PP3 = 3% PPI; PP6= 6% PPI; PP9= 9% PPI; PP12= 12% PPI; RP3= 3% RPI; RP6= 6% RPI; RP9= 9% RPI; RP12= 12% RPI.
Means in the same column that do not share a common superscript are significantly different (p < 0.05).

at 3% level was not significant. The loss in moisture may be due to
the fact that addition of protein isolate powder makes the product
dry as more water is required to hydrate the product. The extended
products can absorb 2–5 times of their original weight in water and
if little water will be used to hydrate the product the final product
will be dry (Riaz, 2004).
Statistical results of protein values are presented in the Table 2.
The mean values of protein showed significant relationship between
treatments and protein content. All the treatments treated with dif‐
ferent concentration of two different protein isolates (pea and rice)
displayed increase in protein value as compared to control. The pro‐
tein value of treatments lies between (32.84%–48.49%). Among all
treatments, RP12 (12% RPI) gave the highest protein value (48.49%)
while PP9 (9% PPI) exhibited the lowest value (32.84%).
PPI addition displayed non‐significant increase in protein
as compared to control. Nuggets with 3% (PP3), 6% (PP6), and
12% (PP12) concentration of PPI exhibited higher protein value
than control but at level 9% (PP9) the protein content was lower
than control. This might be due to ingredient loss during cooking.
Akwetey et al. (2014) also observed decrease in protein content
between treatments when used whole cowpea flour as extender.
On the other hand, addition of RPI presented increase in protein
content among treatments. In RPI‐extended nuggets, RP3 (3% RPI)
got the lowest value (39.23%) while RP12 (12% RPI) the highest
value (48.23%). It is clear from the results that addition of protein
isolates (pea and rice) enhanced the protein profile of the product.
High protein legumes mainly pea and beans also gave higher sati‐
ety as compared to meat. There was a 12% and 13% reduction on
energy intake with the use of high protein legumes as compared to
meat (Kristensen, Bendsen, Christensen, Astrup, & Raben, 2016).
Development of restructured meat and addition of protein iso‐
lates alter the composition of meat and ultimately affect the quality
of meat. Therefore, it is important to determine the fat content of
meat products. Statistical analysis of fat content of the product was
depicted in Table 2. The mean values of fat content displayed that
all the treatments had significant effect on the fat content of the
product. All the treatments presented increased in fat content as
compared to control (8.14%) except RP3 (3% RPI) with fat content
(7.93%) little less than control. The fat content of all treatments
range between (7.93% and 9.60%). The highest value was (9.60%)
for RP6 (6% RPI) and lowest value by RP3 (7.93%). PPI inclusion pre‐
sented higher fat content with increased inclusion level from 8.28%
to 9.24%. At concentrations 6%, 9%, and 12%, PPI gave little differ‐
ence in fat value but it’s always higher than the control. Baugreet
et al. (2016) also reported that there was not any significant dif‐
ference in fat content of raw beef patties enriched with PPI at 3%
and 7% inclusion level. RPI addition exhibited a little significant
results of fat content. Their fat content was higher than control
except 3% of RPI. Among all treatments, fat content first increased
from 7.93% (RP3) to 9.60% (RP6) than decrease in RP9 (8.87%) and
then again increased in RP12 (9.13%). RPI can effectively be used in
meat formulations as they showed strong antioxidant potential and
significantly reduced the meat lipid oxidation during storage (Zhou,
Canning, & Sun, 2013). There was not a significant difference in ash
content among treatments. The addition of PPI and RPI had little or
no influence on the ash content of the nuggets.
3.2 | pH
pH is an important criterion for determining the freshness, shelf
life, and stability of the meat products. The statistical results on
pH are presented in Table 3. The pH value ranged from 5.62 to
6.53. Addition of PPI gave significant change in pH. Their pH value
first increased then decreased at 12% level of PPI. The mean value
of pH of PPI‐enriched nuggets ranged from 5.74 to 6.22 that was
lower than control (6.53). Addition of RPI showed decrease in pH
as the concentration of protein increased. Their pH value fell from
5.62 to 6.34.
SHOAIB et al. | 5 of 7

TA B L E 3 Quality analysis results of chicken nuggets prepared with different concentrations of pea and rice protein isolates (means ±
standard error)

Treatments pH WHC Texture Cooking Loss

a g b
Control 6.53 ± 0.02 23.32 ± 0.01 5.50 ± 0.01 12.43 ± 0.40a
e g c
PP3 5.74 ± 0.04 23.34 ± 0.01 5.40 ± 0.01 11.12 ± 0.23b
PP6 5.95 ± 0.03d 36.61 ± 0.01f 5.40 ± 0.02c 6.67 ± 0.42d
c e b
PP9 6.22 ± 0.07 41.25 ± 0.05 5.50 ± 0.01 5.94 ± 0.34d
PP12 5.85 ± 0.02d 43.32 ± 0.01d 5.56 ± 0.05ab 5.01 ± 0.14e
b f a
RP3 6.34 ± 0.05 36.65 ± 0.01 5.60 ± 0.01 7.54 ± 0.45c
RP6 6.31 ± 0.03bc 56.59 ± 0.07c 5.60 ± 0.03a 6.00 ± 0.21d
bc b a
RP9 6.29 ± 0.01 70.10 ± 0.12 5.60 ± 0.01 6.05 ± 0.03d
RP12 5.62 ± 0.02c 76.71 ± 0.11a 5.56 ± 0.05ab 3.85 ± 0.05f

Note. PPI, pea protein isolates; RPI, rice protein isolates.

PP3 = 3% PPI; PP6= 6% PPI; PP9= 9% PPI; PP12= 12% PPI; RP3= 3% RPI; RP6= 6% RPI; RP9= 9% RPI; RP12= 12% RPI
Means in the same column that do not share a common superscript are significantly different (p < 0.05)

(3.50). PPI inclusion at level 3% and 6% generated softer texture

3.3 | Water holding capacity
Water holding capacity (WHC) of meat is an important quality at‐
tribute for meat processors as it relates to the yield. It also has great
influence on the quality of product as more water loss because of
the shrinkage of the product. Statistical analysis of products water
holding capacity is presented in the Table 3. Treatments had signifi‐
cant effect on the WHC of the product. Results revealed that all the
treatments caused increase in WHC as compared to the control. The
WHC of all treatments fell between 23.32% and 76.71%. Treatments
with RPI exhibited higher WHC values compared to PPI and control.
Addition of PPI gave WHC value range between 23.34% and 43.32%
with PP12 (12% PPI) got higher WHC (43.32%) and PP3 (3% PPI) the
lowest WHC value (23.34%). RPI also displayed ascending trend in
WHC (36.65%–76.71%). Twelve RPI exhibited highest value of WHC
(76.71%) among the treatments. Water binding of pea increased
with increasing protein content and appeared to absorb 1–3 times
their weight in water. Water binding ability of proteins improve gela‐
tion, swelling, and viscosity of food products like sausages (Sosulski
& McCurdy, 1987). The water binding ability of brown rice protein
and white rice protein was 1.96 and 1.78 mL/g, respectively, which
is lower as compared to rice bran protein (3.54 mL/g) (Xiaohong,
Huanbin, Cuijuan, & Zhenxin, 2009).
3.4 | Texture
Texture is an important characteristic of raw and cooked food prod‐
ucts owing to its desirability and palatability. For texture analysis,
puncture method was applied by using a pin of 2 mm diameter to
puncture the surface of meat. The final results with statistical analy‐
sis is presented in the Table 3. The texture value of all treatments
ranged between (5.40–5.60). There was not a significant difference
between texture of extended products and control. Among treat‐
ments treated with PPI, 3% PPI and 6% PPI both had texture value
5.40 while 9% PPI got texture value 3.50 that was equal to control
compared to control. Addition of RPI exhibited higher texture value
as compared to control. First three treatments enriched with RPI had
texture value 5.60 while that of 12% RPI was 5.56. This increased
in texture value may be due to the decrease in moisture content of
the product. The increased dryness of the product lead to harder
product (Baugreet et al., 2016). Youssef and Barbut (2011) also re‐
ported increased in hardness as compared to control when they used
whey proteins as meat batters. Another reason is the imbalance in
the emulsion process causing protein molecules to separate from fat
and water (Gines, Lopez, Barbera, & Alvarez, 2005).
3.5 | Cooking loss
Cooking conditions mainly cooking method, temperature, time, sam‐
ple dimension and endpoint of cooking all affect the cooking loss
value. Statistical analysis of cooking loss is depicted in the Table 3.
All the treatments significantly affect the cooking loss of the prod‐
uct. Addition of plant proteins showed significant effect on cooking
loss of extended meat products. There was significant reduction in
cooking loss of extended chicken nuggets. Nuggets with PPI showed
significant reduction in cooking loss from 11.12% (PP3) to 5.01%
(PP12). The control sample lost significantly higher weight (12.43%)
when compared with treatments treated with PPI. Treatments with
12% level of PPI gave higher reduction in cooking loss (5.01%).
Akweteya et al. (2014) observed similar results in cooking loss when
cowpea flour was used as extender for the preparation of meatloaf.
Owusu‐Ansah and McCurdy (1991) reported that pea proteins ab‐
sorb 1–3 times its weight in water and this property is useful in com‐
minuted meat products, as it causes swelling of the meat products.
All the ingredients caused an increase in moisture retention during
cooking process and it also impart beneficial impact on the textural
properties of the meat products.
Product extended with RPI also displayed the same trend in
cooking loss. There was reduction in cooking loss from 7.54% (RP3)
6 of 7 | SHOAIB et al.

TA B L E 4 Sensory evaluation of chicken nuggets formulated with different concentrations of protein isolates (pea and rice) (means ±
standard error)

Treatments Appearance Flavor Tenderness Taste Overall acceptability

a a ab a
Control 8.28 ± 0.48 8.00 ± 0.01 7.65 ± 0.30 8.20 ± 0.18 8.11 ± 0.10a
ab a a a
PP3 7.80 ± 0.34 8.00 ± 0.01 8.00 ± 0.01 8.00 ± 0.01 7.72 ± 0.24ab
PP6 7.58 ± 0.38ab 7.92 ± 0.12ab 7.95 ± 0.07ab 7.66 ± 0.29ab 7.65 ± 0.30ab
ab cd ab bc
PP9 7.40 ± 0.37 7.43 ± 0.07 7.73 ± 0.27 7.23 ± 0.20 7.35 ± 0.10 b
PP12 7.00 ± 0.01b 6.75 ± 0.25e 7.12 ± 0.20 c 6.02 ± 0.58d 6.52 ± 0.22c
a a a ab
RP3 8.00 ± 0.01 8.00 ± 0.01 8.00 ± 0.01 7.94 ± 0.10 7.76 ± 0.22ab
RP6 7.81 ± 0.31ab 7.95 ± 0.05a 7.95 ± 0.07ab 7.47 ± 0.20a 7.50 ± 0.12b
ab bc bc bc
RP9 7.36 ± 0.33 7.58 ± 0.11 7.48 ± 0.14 7.20 ± 0.18 7.38 ± 0.05b
RP12 7.36 ± 0.31ab 7.11 ± 0.19d 7.11 ± 0.20 c 6.91 ± 0.14c 6.68 ± 0.27c

Note. PPI, pea protein isolates; RPI, rice protein isolates.

PP3 = 3% PPI; PP6= 6% PPI; PP9= 9% PPI; PP12= 12% PPI; RP3= 3% RPI; RP6= 6% RPI; RP9= 9% RPI; RP12= 12% RPI.
Means in the same column that do not share a common superscript are significantly different (p < 0.05)

to 3.85% (RP12) as compared to control (12.44%). Product con‐
taining 12% level of RPI generate highest reduction in cooking loss
(3.8%). The results showing the same trend in cooking loss described
by Baugreet et al. (2016) in the development of beef patties using
RPI. The results stated that higher concentration of protein isolates
caused more reduction in cooking loss as more protein isolates in‐
crease the water and fat retention ability of the product.
3.6 | Sensory evaluation
Sensory scores are presented in Table 4. All the treatments had ac‐
ceptable sensory scores of appearance, flavor, tenderness, taste,
and overall acceptability. Control sample got the highest overall ac‐
ceptability score while nuggets with 12% level of PPI and RPI had
the lowest score but in an acceptable range. The most important
and first impression of our willingness to accept a product is its ap‐
pearance which have a symbolic and esthetic value for consumers.
Addition of PPI at 12% level gave more off flavor compared to RPI.
Sanjeewa, Wanasundara, Pietrasik, and Shand (2010) also reported
more foreign flavor in low fat emulsion type meat products when
extended with pea flour. The retention of volatile compounds by
proteins is much lower as compared to fat. Flavor perception of
hydrophilic flavor compounds and flavor release were significantly
affected by protein at the oil/water interface (Guichard, 2007).
Huang, Bowers, & Zayas, 1997; Motamedi, Vahdani, Baghaei, &
Borghei, 2015) in general also observed the similar results with the
use of meat extenders.
4 | CO N C LU S I O N
Addition of meat with plant proteins not only displayed enhanced
nutritional and sensory properties but also promote the use of tra‐
ditional meat products as a way to attain targeted protein intake.
The use of PPI and RPI in meat formulations gave an economical
and quality product without adversely affecting the physicochemi‐
cal properties of meat. Addition of these proteins also enhanced the
protein content of the product compared to control. Both PPI and
RPI inclusion generated a quality product with acceptable sensory
score. Further work needed in order to improve the flavor and tex‐
ture of the extended product.
ORCID
Amna Sahar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9299-4000
REFERENCES

Tenderness is the most important quality parameter of the meat.
Tenderness define how easy it is to cut or chewed, as tender meat
is easier to chew, soft, palatable and less hard. It is an important
factor to meet the consumer acceptance of any products. Results
of product tenderness are listed in the Table 4. Inclusion of PPI
and RPI improved the tenderness of the product. Nuggets with 3%
and 6% protein addition got tenderness score higher than control
but at higher concentration (12%) tenderness slightly decreased
compared to control. All the treatments were generally accepted
at all levels. The overall acceptability score of all the treatments
are in acceptable range. Many researchers (Akweteya et al., 2014;
Akweteya, W. Y., Odurob, I. N., & Ellisb, W. O. (2014). Whole cowpea
(Vigna unguiculata) flour (WCPF) as non‐conventional extender
in meatloaf. Food Bioscience, 5, 42–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fbio.2013.11.001
AOAC. (2002). Official methods of analysis (17th ed.). Washington, DC:
Author.
AOAC. (2006). Official methods of analysis of association of official ana‐
lytical chemists international (W. Horwitz, Ed., 18th ed.). Washington,
DC: AOAC Press.
Baugreet, S., Kerry, J. P., Botinestean, C., Allen, P., & Hamil, R. M. (2016).
Development of novel fortified beef patties with added functional
protein ingredients for the elderly. Meat Science, 122, 40–47. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.07.004
SHOAIB et al.
Bera, M. B., & Mukherjee, R. K. (1989). Solubility, emulsifying, and foaming
properties of rice bran protein concentrates. Journal of Food Science,
54(1), 142–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1989.tb08587.x
Dhond, U. V., Devangare, A. A., & Chappalwar, A. M. (2017). Effect of
addition of different levels of soya flour and rice flour as extenders
on quality of quail meatballs and economics. Journal of Meat Science.,
12(1), 11–16.
FAO. (2013). Current Worldwide annual meat consumption per capita, live‐
stock and fish primary equivalent. Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations.
Fiala, N. (2008). Meeting the demand: An estimation of potential future
greenhouse gas emissions from meat production. Ecological Economics,
67(3), 412–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.021
Gines, J. M. F., Lopez, J. F., Barbera, E. S., & Alvarez, J. A. P. (2005). Meat
products as functional foods: A review. Journal of Food Science, 70(2),
37–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb07110.x
Gnanasambandam, R., & Hettiarachchy, N. S. (1995). Protein concen‐
trates from unstabilized and stabilized rice bran: Preparation and
properties. Journal of Food Science, 60(5), 1066–1069. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1995.tb06293.x
Guerrieri, N. (2004). Proteins in food processing. Woodhead Publishing
Limited, 4, 176–196.
Guichard, E. (2007). Interactions between flavor compounds and food
ingredients and their influence on flavor perception. Food Reviews
International, 18(1), 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1081/FRI-120003417
Huang, J. C., Bowers, J. A., & Zayas, J. F. (1997). Functional properties
of sorghum flour as an extender in ground beef patties. Journal of
Food Quality, 22, 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.1999.
tb00926.x
Khattak, U. K., Iqbal, S. P., & Ghazanfar, H. (2017). The role of parents’
literacy in malnutrition of children under the age of five years in a
semi‐urban community of pakistan: A case‐control study. Cureus,
9(6), 1316. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.1316
Kristensen, M. D., Bendsen, N. T., Christensen, S. M., Astrup, A., & Raben,
A. (2016). Meals based on vegetable protein sources (beans and peas)
are more satiating than meals based on animal protein sources (veal
and pork)–a randomized cross‐over meal test study. Food & Nutrition
Research, 60(1), 32634.
Lauren, F. F., & Gould, S. (2015). Subject: The countries where people eat
the most meat. Retrieved September 26, 2015, from https://www.
Uk.businessinsider.com
Meilgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (2007). Sensory evaluation
techniques (4th ed.). New York, NY: CRC Press.
Motamedi, A., Vahdani, M., Baghaei, H., & Borghei, M. A. (2015).
Considering the physicochemical and sensorial properties of mom‐
taze hamburgers containing lentil and chickpea seed flour. Nutrition
and Food Science Research, 2(3), 55–62.
Odiase, O. M., Igene, J. O., Evivie, S. E., & Ebabhamiegbebho, P. A. (2013).
Determination and sensory evaluation of soy flour‐meat combina‐
tions in the production of meatballs. Journal of Applied and Natural
Science, 5(2), 482–487. https://doi.org/10.31018/jans.v5i2.357
Owusu‐Ansah, Y. J., & McCurdy, S. M. (1991). Pea proteins: A re‐
view of chemistry, technology of production, and utiliza‐
tion. Food Reviews International, 7(1), 103–134. https://doi.
org/10.1080/87559129109540903
Pickarski, R. (2005). Meat alternatives. Patents. US 20050112271.
Piga, A., Catzeddu, P., Farris, S., Roggio, T., Sanguinetti, A., & Scano,
E. (2005). Texture evolution of ‘Amaretti’ cookies during storage.
European Food Research and Technology, 221, 387–391. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00217-005-1185-5
Qiao, M., Fletcher, D. L., Smith, D. P., & Northcutt, J. K. (2001). The effect
of broiler meat color on pH, moisture, water‐holding capacity and
emulsification capacity. Poultry Science, 80, 676–680.
Riaz, M. N. (2004). Texturized soy protein as an ingredient. In R. Y. Yada
(Ed.), Proteins in food processing (pp. 517–557). England: Woodhead
Publishing Limited.
| 7 of 7
Sanjeewa, W. G. T., Wanasundara, J. P. D., Pietrasik, Z., & Shand, P. J.
(2010). Characterization of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) flours and ap‐
plication in low‐fat pork bologna as a model system. Food Research
International, 43(2), 617–626.
Singh, H., & MacRitchie, F. (2001). Application of polymer science to
properties of gluten. Journal of Cereal Science, 33(3), 231–243.
https://doi.org/10.1006/jcrs.2000.0360
Sosulski, F. W., & McCurdy, A. R. (1987). Functionality of flours, protein
fractions and isolates from field peas and faba bean. Journal of Food
Science, 52, 1010–1114. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.
tb14263.x
Souza, D. D., Sbardelotto, A. F., Ziegler, D. R., Marczak, L. D. F., & Tessaro,
I. C. (2016). Characterization of rice starch and protein obtained by a
fast‐alkaline extraction method. Food Chemistry, 191, 36–44. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2015.03.032
Steel, R. G. D., Torrie, J. H., & Dickey, D. (1997). Principals and procedures
of statistics: A biometrical approach (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw
Hill Book Co. Inco.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., & Haan,
D. C. (2006). Livestock’s long shadow: Environmental issues and options
(pp. 78–79). Rome, Italy: FAO.
Strahm, B. (2006). Meat alternatives. In M. N. Riaz (Ed.), Soy applications
in food (pp. 135–154). New York, NY: CRC Press.
Teye, G. A., Teye, M., & Boamah, G. (2012). The effect of cowpea (Vigna
unguiculata) flour as an extender on the physicochemical properties
of beef and ham burgers. African Scholarly Science Communication
Trust, 12(7), 7019–7034.
Turienzo, L. R., Cobos, A., Caride, A., Vieites, J. M., & Diaz, O. (2011).
Whey protein‐based coatings on frozen atlantic salmon (salmon
salar): Influence of the plasticizers and the moment of coating on
quality preservation. Food Chemistry, 128(1), 187–194.
United Nations. (2016). World population prospects‐population division‐
United Nations. Retrieved from https://www. esa.un.org
Usmani, M. A., Ahmed, I., Uddin, I., & Khan, I. (2014). Studies on effects
of meat extenders incorporation on quality and shelf life of buf‐
falo meat emulsion sausage. Journal of Nutritional Ecology and Food
Research, 2(4), 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1166/jnef.2014.1105
Wang, M., Hettiarchchy, N. S., Qi, M., Burks, W., & Siebenmorgen, T.
(1999). Preparation and functional properties of rice bran protein
isolate. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 47(2), 411–416.
https://doi.org/10.1021/jf9806964
Xiaohong, C., Huanbin, W., Cuijuan, L., & Zhenxin, G. (2009). Differences
in functional properties and biochemical characteristics of conge‐
netic rice proteins. Journal of Cereal Science, 50(2), 184–189. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcs.2009.04.009
Yadav, P., Ahlawat, S. S., Jairath, G., Rani, M., & Bishnoi, S. (2015). Studies
on physico‐chemical properties and shelf life of developed chicken
meat analogue rolls. Haryana Veterinarian, 54(1), 25–28.
Youssef, M. K., & Barbut, S. (2011). Effects of two types of soy protein
isolates, native and preheated whey protein isolates on emulsified
meat batters prepared at different protein levels. Meat Science, 87(1),
54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.09.002
Zhou, K., Canning, C., & Sun, S. (2013). Effects of rice protein hydro‐
lysates prepared by microbial proteases and ultrafiltration on free
radicals and meat lipid oxidation. LWT – Food Science and Technology,
50(1), 331–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2012.05.002
How to cite this article: Shoaib A, Sahar A, Sameen A,
Saleem A, Tahir AT. Use of pea and rice protein isolates as
source of meat extenders in the development of chicken
nuggets. J Food Process Preserv. 2018;42:e13763. https://doi.
org/10.1111/jfpp.13763