Journal of Food Science and Technology

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 2298–2309 | Cite as

Optimization of processing time, amplitude and concentration for ultrasound-assisted modification of whey protein using response surface methodology

  • Anju Boora Khatkar
  • Amarjeet Kaur
  • Sunil Kumar Khatkar
  • Nitin Mehta
Original Article


Response surface methodology was used to optimize processing variable for ultrasound-assisted modification of whey protein. The process was optimized employing Box–Behnken Design with three independent variables i.e. amplitude (20–40%), time (10–20 min) and concentration (10–15%). A second order model was employed to generate response surfaces. Experimental results revealed that analyzed model solutions exhibited the significant influence on various responses signified that the applied statistical model fitted well. The optimized independent variables were found to be 19.77 min time, 20.02% amplitude and 12.78% concentration of feed. The modified whey protein had the solubility, 78.52%; heat stability, 1076.19 s; water solubility index, 92.30%; water holding capacity, 0.469; oil absorption capacity, 1.709; foaming capacity 92.27; foam stability, 27.71 and firmness, 1692.09 g. Analytical response revealed that solubility of modified whey protein exhibited significant positive correlation with water solubility index, emulsion stability index and firmness.


Ultrasound Whey protein Modification Solubility Response surface methodology 



Authors are highly thankful to Department of Food Science and Technology, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana for providing research oriented environment and great opportunity for successful completion of this work.


  1. Arzeni C, Martinez K, Zema P, Arias A, Pérez OE, Pilosof AMR (2012) Comparative study of high intensity ultrasound effects on food proteins functionality. J Food Eng 108:463–472. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beuchat LR (1977) Functional and electrophoretic characteristics of succinylated peanut flour protein. J Agric Food Chem 25:258–261. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouaouina H, Desrumaux A, Loisel C, Legrand J (2006) Functional properties of whey proteins as affected by dynamic high-pressure treatment. Int Dairy J 16:275–284. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coffmann CW, Garcia VV (1977) Functional properties and amino acid content of a protein isolate from mung bean flour. J Food Technol 12:473–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gani A, Baba WN, Ahmad M, Shah U, Khan AA, Wani IA, Masoodi FA, Gani A (2016) Effect of ultrasound treatment on physico-chemical, nutraceutical and microbial quality of strawberry. LWT - Food Sci Technol 66:496–502. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Haque ZU, Mozaffar Z (1992) Casein hydrolysate. II. Functional properties of peptides. Food Hydrocoll 5:559–571. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hu H, Wu J, Li-Chan ECY, Zhu L, Zhang F, Xu X, Fan G, Wang L, Huang X, Pan S (2013) Effects of ultrasound on structural and physical properties of soy protein isolate (SPI) dispersions. Food Hydrocoll 30:647–655. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jambrak AR, Mason TJ, Lelas V, Herceg Z, Herceg IL (2008) Effect of ultrasound treatment on solubility and foaming properties of whey protein suspensions. J Food Eng 86(2):281–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Jambrak AR, Lelas V, Mason TJ, Krešić G, Badanjak M (2009) Physical properties of ultrasound treated soy proteins. J Food Eng 93:386–393. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jambrak AR, Mason TJ, Lelas V, Krešić G (2010) Ultrasonic effect on physicochemical and functional properties of α-lactalbumin. LWT - Food Sci Technol 43:254–262. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jambrak AR, Mason TJ, Lelas V, Paniwnyk L, Herceg Z (2014) Effect of ultrasound treatment on particle size and molecular weight of whey proteins. J Food Eng 121:15–23. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kentish S, Ashokkumar M (2011) The physical and chemical effects of ultrasound BT—ultrasound technologies for food and bioprocessing. In: Feng H, Barbosa-Canovas G, Weiss J (eds) Ultrasound technologies for food and bioprocessing. Springer, New York, p 1–12Google Scholar
  13. Khatkar SK, Gupta VK, Khatkar AB (2014) Studies on preparation of medium fat liquid dairy whitener from buffalo milk employing ultrafiltration process. J Food Sci Technol 51(9):1956–1964. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kinsella JE, Rector DJ, Phillips LG (1994) Physicochemical properties of proteins: texturization via gelation, glass and film formation BT—protein structure-function relationships in foods. In: Yada RY, Jackman RL, Smith JL (eds) Protein structure–functional relationships in foods. Springer, Boston, p 1–21Google Scholar
  15. Liu Z, Guo B, Su M, Wang Y (2012) Effect of ultrasonic treatment on the functional properties of whey protein isolates. Adv Mat Res 443–444:660–665. Google Scholar
  16. O’Donnell CP, Tiwari BK, Bourke P, Cullen PJ (2010) Effect of ultrasonic processing on food enzymes of industrial importance. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:358–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. O’Sullivan J, Arellano M, Pichot R, Norton I (2014) The effect of ultrasound treatment on the structural, physical and emulsifying properties of dairy proteins. Food Hydrocoll 42:386–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Onwulata C, Tomasula P (2004) Whey texturization: a way forward. Food Technol 58:50–54Google Scholar
  19. Pihlanto A, Korhonen H (2003) Bioactive peptides and proteins. Adv Food Nutr Res 47:175–276. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Pires FCS, da Silva Pena R (2017) Optimization of spray drying process parameters for tucupi powder using the response surface methodology. J Food Sci Technol. Google Scholar
  21. Ren C, Park EY, Kim JY, Lim ST (2016) Enhancing dispersion stability of alpha-tocopherol in aqueous media using maize starch and ultrasonication. LWT - Food Sci Technol 68:589–594. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Riener J, Noci F, Cronin DA, Morgan DJ, Lyng JG (2009) The effect of thermosonication of milk on selected physicochemical and microstructural properties of yoghurt gels during fermentation. Food Chem 114:905–911. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt RH, Packard VS, Morris H (1984) Effect of processing on whey protein functionality. J Dairy Sci 67:2723–2733. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Shirzad H, Niknam V, Taheri M, Ebrahimzadeh H (2017) Ultrasound-assisted extraction process of phenolic antioxidants from olive leaves: a nutraceutical study using RSM and LC–ESI–DAD–MS. J Food Sci Technol 54:2361–2371. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Singh B, Singh N, Thakur S, Kaur A (2017) Ultrasound assisted extraction of polyphenols and their distribution in whole mung bean, hull and cotyledon. J Food Sci Technol 54(4):921–932. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Soria AC, Villamiel M (2010) Effect of ultrasound on the technological properties and bioactivity of food: a review. Trends Food Sci Technol 21:323–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tang C, Yang X-Q, Chen Z, Wu H, Peng ZY (2005) Physicochemical and structural characteristics of sodium caseinate biopolymers induced by microbial transglutaminase. J Food Biochem 29:402–421. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tang CH, Wang XY, Yang XQ, Li L (2009) Formation of soluble aggregates from insoluble commercial soy protein isolate by means of ultrasonic treatment and their gelling properties. J Food Eng 92:432–437. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tavares T, Ramos OL, Malcata FX (2017) β-Lactoglobulin microparticles obtained by high intensity ultrasound as a potential delivery system for bioactive peptide concentrate. J Food Sci Technol 54(13):4387–4396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thakur R, Saberi B, Pristijono P, Stathopoulos CE, Golding JB, Scarlett CJ, Bowyer M, Vuong QV (2017) Use of response surface methodology (RSM) to optimize pea starch–chitosan novel edible film formulation. J Food Sci Technol 54:2270–2278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Turgeon SL, Gauthier SF, Paquin P (1992) Emulsifying property of whey peptide fractions as a function of pH and ionic strength. J Food Sci 57:601–604. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wagh RV, Chatli MK (2017) Response surface optimization of extraction protocols to obtain phenolic rich antioxidant from sea buckthorn and their potential application into model meat system. J Food Sci Technol 54:1565–1576. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zayas JF (1997a) Emulsifying properties of proteins BT—functionality of proteins in food. In: Zayas JF (ed) Functionality of protein in food. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 134–227Google Scholar
  34. Zayas JF (1997b) Solubility of proteins BT—functionality of proteins in food. In: Zayas JF (ed) Functionality of protein in food. Springer, Berlin, p 6–75Google Scholar
  35. Zisu B, Lee J, Chandrapala J, Bhaskaracharya R, Palmer M, Kentish S, Ashokkumar M (2011) Effect of ultrasound on the physical and functional properties of reconstituted whey protein powders. J Dairy Res 78:226–232. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zou Y, Wang L, Cai P, Li P, Zhang M, Sun Z, Sun C, Xu W, Wang D (2017) Effect of ultrasound assisted extraction on the physicochemical and functional properties of collagen from soft-shelled turtle calipash. Int J Biol Macromol. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Food Scientists & Technologists (India) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Food Science & TechnologyPunjab Agricultural UniversityLudhianaIndia
  2. 2.Department of Dairy Technology, College of Dairy Science and TechnologyGuru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences UniversityLudhianaIndia
  3. 3.Department of Livestock Products Technology, College of Veterinary SciencesGuru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences UniversityLudhianaIndia

Personalised recommendations