Milk Protein Ingredients: micellar casein and serum protein concentrations produced with microfiltration microfiltration.

D.M. Barbano, J. ulewska, M N M. Newbold, b ld J. J Evans, E A F A. Foegeding, di and d M.A. Drake

North Carolina State University

Outline

Background Production technologies and performance. Fl Flavor and d Functionality F ti lit Applications

Milk Serum Proteins

Promising alternative to whey based protein products for improved ingredient f functionality ti lit Milk serum proteins are removed directly from milk by microfiltration rather than from whey Resulting g product p (serum ( protein p concentrate - SPC) has been exposed to less processing and potentially has a cleaner flavor

Milk Serum Proteins

Milk SPC does not contain residuals from rennet rennet, color color, culture culture, or glycomacropeptide from kappa casein, while WPC does. There may be differences in sensory and functional properties of WPC and SPC.

Micellar Casein Concentrate

The microfiltration retentate product remaining after serum proteins and lactose has been removed. The casein micelle structure remains intact and the heat labile component of milk (i.e., (i e serum proteins and lactose) have been removed.

Product Forms

Milk serum protein concentrates and micellar casein concentrates can be used as fresh f h liquid li id concentrates t t or can be b dried. The liquid concentrates can be blended to achieve a full range of ratios of casein to serum proteins or can be used separately in a wide range of food ingredient applications.

Milk Protein Product F t Sheet Fact Sh t

Available by e-mail at barbano1@aol com barbano1@aol.com

Outline

Background Production technologies and performance.

Production Technologies

Microfiltration

UTP uniform transmembrane pressure ceramic MF systems. GP - graded or gradient permeability ceramic MF systems. SW PVDF polymeric spiral wound membranes MF systems.

Uniform Transmembrane Pressure

RP

Graded Permeability

Polymeric Spiral Wound

Nominal pore size (m) Total surface area (m2) Membrane configuration Diameter of spiral (mm) Spacer Membrane length g Membrane material Membrane supplier/origin 0.3 20.5 Spiral Wound 198 1.09 96.5 cm PVDF Polyvinylidene Fluoride Parker Hannifin

Membrane description
Ceramic UTP Ceramic GP Polymeric SW

Membrane type Nominal pore size (m) Total surface area (m2) Membrane configuration Number of channels/ tubes Channel diameter (mm) in the module Membrane length Membrane material Membrane supplier/origin

0.1
1.7 Tubular 19/7 4 102 cm

0.1
1.7 Tubular 19/7 4 102 cm

0.3
20.5 Spiral Wound Diameter of spiral = 198 mm Spacer = 1 1.09 09 96.5 cm
Polyvinylidene Fluoride

Alumina Alumina
Pall Corp. Pall Corp.

PVDF

Parker Hannifin

Membrane comparison
Ceramic UTP Up to 80oC (176oF) Shorter Easier Longer Higher Higher Ceramic GP Up to 80oC (176oF) Shorter Easier Longer Higher High Polymeric SW 50oC (122oF) Longer Harder Shorter Lower Lower

Characteristic Cleaning temperature Cleaning time Ease of flushing cleaners out of the system t Membrane life Membrane cost per m2 Energy cost

Mean (n = 3) flux of ceramic UTP, ceramic GP and polymeric SW membranes during processing of skim milk at 50C.
80 70

Flux (kg/m2/h)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 50 100 150

G d d Permeability Graded P bilit 71.8 71 8a Uniform Transmembrane Pressure 54.1b

Spiral Wound 16.2c

200 250 300 350 400

Processing time (min)

Retentate pressure (kPa) Inlet GP UTP SW 428.0 416.3 130.3 Outlet 230.0 230.3 57.7

Composition p of the Permeates Component (%) Fat True Protein

(Total Nitrogen NonProtein Nitrogen)*6.38

Membrane type UTP GP SW 0.0023 0.57a 0.0010 0.56a 0.0015 0.38b

Means in the same row not sharing a common superscript are different (P < 0.05)
a,b

Serum Protein Removal Theoretical removal single stage 3X bleed and feed no diafiltration Membrane type UTP GP SW SP removal (%) ( ) 68.6 68.6 68.6

Serum Protein Removal Actual removal 3X single stage bleed and feed Membrane type UTP GP SW SP removal (%)
a,b

64.4a

61.0a

38.6b

Means in the same row not sharing a common superscript are different (P < 0.05)

Outline

Background Production technologies and performance. Fl Flavor and d Functionality F ti lit

Production of serum, whey protein, and micellar casein concentrates

1 lot of raw milk (1200 kg). Split: half made into White Cheddar and half separated to skim milk WPC and SPC ( (34 and 80%) ) produced Replicated p 3 times starting g with a different lot of milk for each replicate All product processing done at Cornell University Barbano

Proximate Analysis (Dry Solids Basis)

Product Powder

Component (%) Fat* 0.53b 8.12 8 12a TN* 77.90a 72.17 72 17b NPN* 2.34b 7.22 7 22a TP* GMP*
4

SPC WPC
* Dry y solid basis
a,b 4

75.56a 0.00b 64.95 64 95b 4 4.88 88a

Means in the same column not sharing a common superscript are different (P < 0.05)

GMP = Glycomacropeptide, calculated as NPN of WPC minus NPN of SPC.

Proximate Analysis (Nonfat Solids Basis)

Product Powder

Component (%) TN* NPN* 2.36b 7.87a TP* 75.97a 70.79b

SPC WPC
a,b

78.32 78.66

* Non fat dry solid basis Means in the same column not sharing a common superscript are different (P < 0.05)

Proximate Analysis
Source Commercial WPC 1 Commercial WPC 2 Commercial WPC 3 Commercial WPC 4 Commercial WPC 5 Experimental SPC Experimental WPC
* Dry solid basis

Fat 5.31b 8.02a 4.51b 5.19b 7.02ab 0.53c 8.12a

TN 81.38a 80.65a 79.91ab 80.97a 78.77ab 77.90b 72.17c

Results
- fresh liquid 80% WPC was cloudy and opaque; - fresh liquid 80% SPC was clear.
80% WPC 80% SPC

Hunter L color value

52.46a

8.50b

Functionality spray dried powders (A. Foegeding)

SPC was significantly higher in clarity between pH 3 and 7

Serum protein formed a foam while WPC did not Protein solubility was not significantly different between pH 3 and 7 for both WPC and SPC When heated at pH 6 and 7, SPC was less turbid at pH 7

Highest turbidity pH 4 in SPC and WPC

Sensory Results

Primary difference between rehydrated experimental 80% SPC and WPC was higher flavor intensities in WPC (P <0.05) Flavor of both 80% SPC and WPC eed different e e (P < 0 0.05) 05) from o were commercial products (both pilot plant products p p more bland than commercial WPC)

Sensory profiles of rehydrated spray dried 80% WPC and SPC (pilot plant)
Fl Flavor intensity i i
5 4 3 2 1 0 cooked diacetyl aroma intensity cereal crdbrd

WPC80

SPC80

Sensory y Profiles of Commercial 80% WPCs (1 to 5) and Experimental WPC and SPC

Pilot plant p products

Volatile Compound Results

Experimental WPC had higher concentrations of many y lipid p oxidation compounds p than experimental p SPC (P < 0.05) Commercial Cheddar WPC had higher concentrations of lipid oxidation products than experimental WPC (P < 0.05) Lower fat content of SPC expected to provide better flavor stability during dried product storage

Instrumental volatile profiles of commercial 80% WPCs (1 to 5) and experimental WPC and SPC

Experimental 80% SPC

Experimental 80% WPC

Mozzarella M ll 80% WPC

Outline

Background Production technologies and performance. Fl Flavor and d Functionality F ti lit Applications

Skim Milk

Casein Concentrate

Serum Protein Concentrate

Casein Concentrate

Protein Fortified Juices Protein Fortified Sports Beverages Protein P t i Fortified F tifi d Water W t

Application
Adult Nutritional Beverages Protein and Calcium Fortified Milk Shelf Stable Energy Drinks Nutritional Beverage for Diabetics Cheese Manufacture

Serum Protein Concentrate

There is a need to integrate healthy healthy, well wellbalanced products for improving strength and increasing endurance Facts

Milk Serum S P t i Proteins have a very high nutritional quality

Serum proteins are an excellent source of essential amino acids

The W.H.O. recommends that a 150 lb person should consume a minimum of 31 grams of protein per day

Total Non Dairy Beverage Consumption Segments

Carbonated Soft Drinks Bottled Water Fruit Beverages Sport Drinks RTD Tea Energy Drinks
Source: BEVERAGE MARKETING CORPORATION

Milions of Gallons in 2007

14,707.4 8,822.4 3,899.5 1,355.1 875.1 302.6

What if we added 5 grams of milk serum protein per 240 g serving i to t 3% of f th the total non-milk beverages?

D DESIR RE fo or PROT P TEINS S

Segments

Milions of gallons of protein fortified beverages

441.2 264 7 264.7 117.0 40 7 40.7 26.3 91 9.1

Millions of pounds of milk serum proteins needed

76.6 45 9 45.9 20.3 71 7.1 4.6 16 1.6

Carbonated Soft Drinks B ttl d Water Bottled W t Fruit Beverages Sport Drinks RTD Tea Energy Drinks

TOTAL 3% of each beverage type

898.9

156.0

5 grams of milk serum proteins per serving

156 millions of pounds of milk serum proteins NEEDED

If we FORTIFY only 3% of annual nonnon dairy beverage production with milk serum proteins IF We can INCREASE milk protein consumption p by y 156 million pounds
THEN

If we ADD only 5g of milk serum se u p proteins ote s per serving

We can INCREASE milk protein p in consumption beverages by 9%

Further Development of the Milk SPC Production Process

A system for further processing MF permeate to make Milk Serum Protein I l t (MSPI) has Isolate h been b tested t t d and d steps t have been added to the process to eliminate undesirable flavors and aromas. Currently, MPSI products are being evaluated for protein fortification of shelfstable clear protein fortified fruit flavored beverages at the 5 and 10 grams protein per 240 mL serving serving.

Further Development of the Milk SPC Production Process

The functionality of the by-product (which is a 95% serum protein reduced micellar casein i concentrate) t t )i is being b i evaluated l t d in i retorted shelf-stable nutritional beverage formulations. The SP removal efficiency of the MF process is being improved and our recent work has sustained MF flux of 80 to 90 L/m2/h of GP ceramic membranes for 13 h.

Acknowledgements

Dairy Management, Inc. New York State Milk Promotion Board Cornell: Maureen Chapman, Jessica M ll i Sean Mallozzi, S Schell, S h ll Karen K Wojciechowski, NCSU: Evan Miracle, Adam Croissant, Page Luck