The market trend towards plant‐based protein has seen a significant increase in the last decade. This trend has been projected to continue in the coming years because of the strong factors of sustainability and less environmental impact associated with the production of plant‐based protein compared to animal, aside from other beneficial health claims and changes in consumers' dietary lifestyles. In order to meet market demand, there is a need to have plant‐based protein ingredients that rival or have improved quality and functionality compared to the traditional animal protein ingredients they may replace. In this review article, we present a detailed and concise summary of the functionality challenges of some plant protein ingredients with associated physical, chemical, and biological processing techniques (traditional and emerging technologies) that have been attempted to enhance them. We cataloged the differences between several studies that seek to address the functionality challenges of selected plant‐based protein ingredients without overtly commenting on a general technique that addresses the functionality of all plant‐based protein ingredients. Additionally, we elucidated the chemistry behind some of these processing techniques and how they modify the protein structure for improved functionality. Although, many food industries are shifting away from chemical modification of proteins because of the demand for clean label product and the challenge of toxicity associated with scale‐up of this technique, so physical and biological techniques are widely being adopted to produce a functional ingredient such as texturized vegetable proteins, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, clean label protein concentrates, de‐flavored protein isolates, protein flour, and grits.

The population of Americans suffering from celiac, gluten intolerance, and wheat allergy is 1 in every 14 people. Also, many are choosing gluten-free (GF) diets nowadays because of the perception that it is a healthier option for them. Therefore, in the last decade, the GF market in the US and all over the world has seen significant growth. Globally, GF product sales reached 4.63 billion USD in 2017, and are expected to reach 6.47 billion USD by 2023, a projected compound annual growth rate of 7.6%. Several grains like millet, corn, sorghum, and pseudocereals like amaranth, quinoa, and teff are the main ingredients for a gluten diet. Though most of them have a comparable nutrient profile as common grains, the main challenge to their acceptability is the quality departure from gluten-containing counterparts and imbalance nutrients that ensue when food processing aids like starch, gums, and enzymes are used. In this review, we profiled some of the common grains, their characteristics, functionality and the various food types they are used for. We also reviewed the impact of some of the current food processing aids like starch, hydrocolloids used for improving functionality, and processing techniques like extrusion suitable for making remarkable GF foods.

Meat is one of the most consumed agro‐products because it contains proteins, minerals, and essential vitamins, all of which play critical roles in the human diet and health. Meat is a perishable food product because of its high moisture content, and as such there are concerns about its quality, stability, and safety. There are two widely used methods for monitoring meat quality attributes: subjective sensory evaluation and chemical/instrumentation tests. However, these methods are labor‐intensive, time‐consuming, and destructive. To overcome the shortfalls of these conventional approaches, several researchers have developed fast and nondestructive techniques. Recently, electronic nose (e‐nose), computer vision (CV), spectroscopy, hyperspectral imaging (HSI), and multispectral imaging (MSI) technologies have been explored as nondestructive methods in meat quality and safety evaluation. However, most of the studies on the application of these novel technologies are still in the preliminary stages and are carried out in isolation, often without comprehensive information on the most suitable approach. This lack of cohesive information on the strength and shortcomings of each technique could impact their application and commercialization for the detection of important meat attributes such as pH, marbling, or microbial spoilage. Here, we provide a comprehensive review of recent nondestructive technologies (e‐nose, CV, spectroscopy, HSI, and MSI), as well as their applications and limitations in the detection and evaluation of meat quality and safety issues, such as contamination, adulteration, and quality classification. A discussion is also included on the challenges and future outlooks of the respective technologies and their various applications.

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of different pretreatment methods (blanching, microwave, and pulsed electric field [PEF]) on drying and rehydration behavior of okra. Drying rates were significantly (P < 0.05) influenced by the different pretreatments. The control samples had the lowest coefficient of diffusivity while samples pretreated with PEF at maximum energy input (4 kV/cm, 500 nF) had the highest coefficient. A simple exponential model used for describing the drying behavior of okra gave moisture diffusivity values ranging between 4.56 × 10⁻¹⁰ and 8.05 × 10⁻¹⁰ m²/s and the coefficient of determination values were between 0.94 and 0.98. Rehydration capacities of the control and pretreated samples were significantly different.