Patent Description:
Hence, the present invention concerns a process that consists essentially in cooking starch-water mixture and then sonication of the solution obtained in particular conditions.

Starch is undeniably the most important polysaccharide in the human diet. It is only second to cellulose in terms of abundance of organic compounds in the biosphere.

The attractiveness of starch usage in the food and non-food industries could be ascribed to its cheapness, abundance, biodegradability and non-toxic nature. Starches are easily obtained from various botanical sources, e.g., cereal, legume, root and tuber and green fruit.

The need for native starch modification is due to the inherent deficiencies in its properties.

Native starches are insoluble in water, easily retrograde with associated syneresis and most significantly gels and pastes produced by native starches are unstable at high temperature, pH and mechanical stress.

Due to these inherent native starch inadequacies, there is need for modification to better the functional and physicochemical properties for suitable industrial applications.

Modification of starches can be broadly divided into physical, chemical, biotechnological and enzymatic or their combinations properly called dual modification.

Amongst them, physical methods are more acceptable since they are general chemical-free and hence considered safer for human consumption.

Physical modification of starch is more connected to the emerging concept of "clean label", "green technology" or "sustainable technology" for environmentally friendly applications.

Indeed, consumers are demanding more transparency about the ingredients in their foods, driving increased interest in ingredients that meet "clean label" guidelines.

Clean labeling could be any one or more of the following:.

Physical modification of starch can improve water solubility and reduce particle size. The methods involve the treatment of starch granules under different temperature/moisture combinations, pressure, shear and irradiation.

Physical modification also includes mechanical attrition to change the particle size of starch granules.

Physical modification techniques are generally given preference as they do not involve any chemical treatment that can be harmful for human use.

The broad classification of starch physical modification into those that are thermal and others that is non-thermal.

In pre-gelatinization, the granular structure of starch is totally destroyed as a result of heating, there is de-polymerization and fragmentation and so the molecular integrity of the starch is not preserved.

Therefore, pre-gelatinized starches are starches that have undergo gelatinization and consequently are depolymerized, fragmented and the granular structure is entirely destroyed as a result of cooking. The pre-gelatinization process is achieved by drum drying, spray drying and extrusion cooking. The properties associated with pre-gelatinized starches permits instant dissolution in cold water without heating.

Due to the harsh treatment (gelatinization and severe drying) used to obtain pre-gelatinized starches, it is porous, possessed higher water absorption index and water solubility index than that of the native starches.

However, there are certain limitations associated with pre-gelatinized starches which have reduced its applications in certain foods.

These include grainy texture, inconsistent and weak gels. These demerits have been surmounted by the development of granular cold water swelling starch. The latter can exhibit cold water thickening despite keeping its granular integrity, it possesses higher viscosity, more homogeneous texture with higher clarity and has more processing tolerance than pre-gelatinized starches.

Unlike native starch, they can rapidly absorb water and increase their viscosity at ambient temperature. This useful functionality has made them applicable in a range of products synthesized at low temperature containing heat-labile components (e.g., vitamins and coloring agents) and instant food.

Undeniably, the functional and physicochemical properties of various modified starches determine their applications in the food industry.

Unlike pre-gelatinization, annealing and heat-moisture treatment involve heating starch in water at a temperature below the gelatinization temperature (GT) and above the glass transition temperature (Tg). Consequentially, the granular structure of starch is preserved.

The physical non-thermal processes involve methods dealing with the preservation of food as a result of their impact on microbial organisms that cause fermentation.

These are processes that use pressure, ultrasound (US), pulsed electric field (PEF) and radiation to manipulate the physicochemical and functional properties of starches.

Ultrasound food processing technology uses frequency in the range of <NUM> to <NUM>. Ultrasound is the sound that is above the threshold of the human ear (><NUM>). It is produced with either piezoelectric or magnetostrictive tranducers that generate high energy vibrations. These vibrations are amplified and transferred to a sonotrode or probe, which is in direct contact with the fluid.

Some merits as a consequent of ultrasound utilization in food processing are processing time reduction, energy efficiency and eco-friendly process. Other advantages of ultrasound are reduction of processing temperature, batch or continuous process can be utilized, increased heat transfer, deactivation of enzymes and possible modification of food structure and texture.

The ultrasound methods have been applied to several kinds of native starch (sweet potato, tapioca, potato and corn) and polysaccharides.

When native corn starch was subjected to High Power Ultrasound (HPU) treatment (<NUM>), the crystalline region of the modified corn starch granules was observed to be distorted.

The best way for molecular weight reduction of polysaccharides such as starch and chitosan is to treat their aqueous solution with <NUM> US. The degradation of starch by applied ultrasound has been ascribed to OH radical formation and mechanochemical effects.

High power ultrasound is very significant in the following fields of food processing; filtration, crystallization, homogenization, extrusion, de-foaming, viscosity alteration, separation, emulsification and extraction. These unit operations are very important in the separation of gross product into its various components. Other applications of ultrasound include inactivation of enzymes and bacteria by splitting their cell membranes due to the violence of cavitation and the production of free radicals.

Modification of starch is an ever evolving industry with numerous possibilities to generate novel starches which includes new functional and value added properties as demanded by the industry.

In the field of the present invention, the applicants were more particularly interested in the preparation and the use in food applications of maltodextrins.

Maltodextrins are polymers of saccharides that consist of glucose units, primarily linked by α-<NUM>,<NUM> glucosidic bounds. These starch derivatives are commonly prepared from corn, rice, potato starch or wheat. Even though they come from plants, they are highly processed.

Maltodextrins are indeed classically obtained from enzymatic hydrolysis with or without acid but to a lower extent than that required to produce starch syrups. Maltodextrins are available in different molecular weights as dextrose equivalent (DE) according to the production method and source. The DE is expressed as a percentage of glucosidic-bound hydrolysis, showing their reducing power.

Maltodextrins provide good oxidative stability to oil encapsulation but exhibit poor emulsifying capacity, emulsion stability and low oil retention. Maltodextrins with <NUM> to <NUM> DE fit in for use as coating materials and show the highest retention of flavor. Moreover, maltodextrins are a good compromise between cost and effectiveness, bland in flavor, have low viscosity at high solids ratio, and aqueous solubility, resulting in their interest, value for encapsulation. Therefore, maltodextrin is a versatile ingredient in food industrial and has large application in food industries including food and beverage, sauce and dressing, bakery, dairy, flavor encapsulation.

However, it is not consumer and Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) friendly for due to clean label concerns. Indeed, to increase the solubility, classical ways to hydrolyze starch needs acid and/or enzymes to chemically decompose the long chains of starch molecules. The problems associated with those technologies include:.

For that reason, a certain number of alternatives have been developed to produce starch derivatives having functionalities (as solubility) similar to maltodextrin that will have high market potential based on Customer feedback and Marketing strategy.

However, if various commercial products exist like cold-water soluble starch or pre-gelatinized starches, their solubility is often much lower than maltodextrin and therefore cannot substitute the use of maltodextrin.

Therefore, to respect the wishes of the consumers, there is a need in the corresponding field to offer a "clean label" solution.

The Applicant found that the solution goes through the to use physical means for starch hydrolysis, to eliminate the addition of chemical/enzyme, to generate clean label soluble starch, and to meet the customers' demands and market trend on green products.

However, it does not exist in the state of the art very efficient technical alternative way to produce maltodextrin-like products.

The most commonly applied thermal treatment is that used to make pregelatinized starches. As already discussed, these starches have been completely cooked, i.e., pasted, and dried under conditions that allow little or no molecular reassociation. They are described as being cold-water soluble, although many such products will develop additional viscosity upon heating aqueous dispersions of them. Nevertheless, even if the resulting pregelatinized starches are more soluble, this solubility is low, usually less than <NUM> %, far from that of maltodextrins.

Depolymerisation also occurs during the pregelatinisation processes. The molecular weights of starch amylose and amylopectine usually decrease by factors <NUM> and <NUM> respectively. However, this thermal process needs high temperature treatment (> <NUM> during <NUM> to <NUM> hours) and the heated starch solution obtained contains high concentration of compounds presenting a low degree of polymerization (DP) content (DP < <NUM>).

Physical non-thermal processes have been developed in that perspective: microwave, milling or sonication directly on native starch.

However, the heating of aqueous slurry of starch granules using microwaves is difficult to implement on an industrial scale.

The milling mechanically reduces particle sizes of starch granules to less than <NUM> micrometers, but it is very energy-intensive consumption. Furthermore, it is not possible to achieve the desired solubility.

Ultrasound treatment of native starch generates cavitation and radiations to decompose starch molecules. Ultrasonic depolymerization is a nonrandom process where chain scissions near the center of largest molecules are favored.

Ultrasonic degradation of a polymer leads to control of molecular weight, but needs long processing time and extra strong intensity, which limits the processing efficiency.

Moreover, this ultrasonic treatment has two main constraints, as presented by <NPL>:.

A proposed promising technology was to combine sonication and gelatinization of starch. However, the aim was, as described by <NPL>, to reduce viscosity of pre-gelatinized starch for spray drying. The gelatinization process is thus conducted at a temperature less than <NUM> following by ultrasonic irradiation applied for <NUM> minutes, and produce:.

Therefore, there is still a very strong interest in seeking new processing methods for producing alternatives to maltodextrin.

<CIT> relates to the use of a maltodextrin and/or a glucose syrup obtained by acid or enzymatic hydrolysis from a leguminous starch for the encapsulation of organic compounds.

The articles by Chung Koo Min et al. (<NUM>), and Zhu (<NUM>) relate to the properties of sonicated starches (<NPL>; Zhu, F. "Impact of Ultrasound on Structure, Physicochemical Properties, Modifications, and Applications of.

The article by Zia-ud-Din, et al. (<NUM>) is a review relative to the physical and chemical modifications of starches (<NPL>).

The present invention relates to a highly soluble leguminous starch having:.

The present invention is also relative to a method for preparing for preparing the highly soluble leguminous starch of the invention, said method comprising, more preferably consisting in the following steps:.

wherein the cooking of the gelatinized starch is carried out at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM>, at a pressure between <NUM> to <NUM> bar.

The invention concerns also its use as alternative to maltodextrin for bakery, sauce and dressing, dairy and beverage, more specifically for flavor encapsulation (as carrier for flavor encapsulation) but also for the preparation of fat free vinaigrette or the preparation of powder beverage formulation such as tropical punch mix or energy beverage.

The invention relates to a highly soluble leguminous starch having:.

According to the invention, said leguminous starch has an amylose content ranging between <NUM> and <NUM> percent by weight (dry/dry) and can be embodied as pea starch, especially pea starch having an amylose content of at least <NUM> percent but less than <NUM> percent by weight.

With such a profile (which, to the Applicant's knowledge, has never been described), the high soluble starch or highly soluble starch according to the invention has a profile equivalent to maltodextrin (in terms of DP content, solubility, viscosity), but a structure nearly identical to that of the native starch (in terms of α <NUM>,<NUM> / α <NUM>,<NUM> ratio), from which it is prepared.

This could notably also be proven by the fact that the highly soluble starch according to the invention is blue in the starch iodine-test whereas, as the man skilled in the art knowns, conventional maltodextrin is typically brown.

The measure of the content of oligosaccharides with a Degree of Polymerization (DP) of <NUM> and <NUM>; and of <NUM> to <NUM>; is typically determined by the industrial standard carbohydrates analysis method.

Thus, high pressure liquid chromatograph with ion-exchange resin in silver form, AMINEX HPX - 42A resin, was employed. Area at certain retention time corresponding to an individual DP value was recorded; the percentage of that particular DP was calculated as:<MAT>.

The high soluble pea starch has a content of oligosaccharides with a Degree of Polymerization (DP) of <NUM> and <NUM> of less than <NUM> % in weight, more preferably less than <NUM> %, and a content of oligosaccharides with a DP of <NUM> to <NUM> of more than <NUM> % in weight, more preferably more than <NUM> %.

By comparison, the maltodextrin GLUCIDEX® <NUM> commercialized by the Applicant has a content of oligosaccharides of DP1 and DP2 of about <NUM> % and a content of oligosaccharides with a DP of <NUM> to <NUM> of about <NUM> %.

The solubility has been determined by the method given in the Example <NUM>.

The high solubility pea starch presents a water solubility of more than <NUM> % in weight, more preferably more than <NUM> %.

By comparison, the maltodextrin GLUCIDEX® <NUM> presents a water solubility of more of about <NUM> %.

The viscosity has been measured by the method given in the Example <NUM>.

The high solubility pea starch presents a viscosity of less than <NUM> cP, more preferably of less than <NUM> cP.

By comparison, the maltodextrin GLUCIDEX® <NUM> presents a viscosity of less about <NUM> cP.

However, if the high soluble pea starch of the invention presents all these properties in common with maltodextrines, it is definitively not a maltodextrin.

Indeed, the high soluble pea starch of the invention has preserved natural form/structure of native pea starch, while conventional maltodextrin has different starch structure.

It can be illustrated by the α <NUM>,<NUM> / α <NUM>,<NUM> ratio of the macromolecule, determined by RMN <NUM>C.

The RMN <NUM>C methodology followed is based on the work of:.

So, the high soluble pea starch of the invention has an α-<NUM>,<NUM> / α-<NUM>,<NUM> ratio between <NUM> to <NUM> %, preferably between <NUM> to <NUM> %.

Such product can be advantageously used in food application such as for flavor encapsulation, as exemplified below.

The invention relates also to a method of preparation of the highly soluble leguminous starch of the invention that comprises or consists in:.

According to the present invention, the term "high soluble starch "means a water solubility of starch (water at around <NUM>) of more than <NUM> % in weight, more preferably more than <NUM> %.

Target: prepare a slurry containing starch at <NUM> to <NUM> % by weight with respect to the total weight of the slurry.

By "legume" for the purposes of the present invention, is understood to mean any plant belonging to the families, Mimosaceae or Papilionaceae of and in particular any plant belonging to the family of Papilionaceae, for example, the pea, haricot bean, broad bean, horse bean, lentil, alfalfa, clover or lupine.

This definition includes in particular all the plants described in any one of the Tables contained in the article by <NPL>).

Preferably the starch useful for the present invention is a native leguminous starch.

Preferably, the legume is selected from the group comprising pea, fava bean, haricot bean, broad bean and horse bean, more preferably pea or faba bean starch.

Advantageously, it is pea, the term "pea" being considered here in its broadest sense and including in particular:.

Said mutant varieties are especially those referred to as "r is mutants", "Rb mutants", "rug <NUM> mutants", "rug mutants <NUM>", "rug mutants <NUM>" and "LAM mutants" as described in the article by The C-liter <NPL>.

According to another advantageous variant, the legume is a plant, for example a variety of pea or of horse bean, giving seeds comprising at least <NUM>%, preferably at least <NUM>%, by weight of starch (dry/dry).

"Legume starch" by, is understood to mean any composition extracted and this, of case in whatever way, from a legume and in particular from a Papilionaceae, and whose starch content is greater than <NUM>%, preferably greater than <NUM>% and even more preferably greater than <NUM>%, these percentages being expressed as dry weight relative to the dry weight of said composition.

Advantageously, this starch content is greater than <NUM>% (dry/dry). It may in particular be greater than <NUM>%, including greater than <NUM>%.

Starch is then gelatinized and then cooked at higher temperature for multiple purpose:.

Gelatinized starches can be obtained by treatment of gelatinization of hydro-thermal native starches in particular by steam cooking, jet-cooker cooking, cooking on a drum, cooking in kneader/extruder systems followed by drying for example in an oven, by hot air on a fluidized bed, on rotating drum, by atomization, by extrusion or by lyophilization.

The slurries of starch are typically heated at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM>, for <NUM> to <NUM> minutes.

If pea starch is chosen as botanical source, the gelatinization is performed at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM>, for <NUM> to <NUM> minutes.

This cooking step or further heating treatment is carried out at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM>, at a pressure between <NUM> to <NUM> bar.

If pea starch is chosen as botanical source, the cooking is performed at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM> at a pressure between <NUM> to <NUM> bar. The resulting gelatinized and cooked starch is optionally passed through a shearing device such as homogenizer.

It is made at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM> bar with back pressure between <NUM> to <NUM> bar, at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM>.

If pea starch is chosen as botanical source, the homogenization is performed at a pressure between <NUM> to <NUM> bar with back pressure between <NUM> to <NUM> bar, at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM>.

Sonication further breaks down the bounds between the partially decomposed starch molecules.

It is made at a frequency between <NUM> to <NUM>, at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM>.

If pea starch is chosen as botanical source, the sonication is performed at a frequency of <NUM> to <NUM>, more preferably at <NUM>, at a temperature between <NUM> to <NUM>.

The resulted product is evaporated as syrup or can be dried into powder form using dryer such as drum dryer, flash dryer, spray dryer, freeze dryer.

For example, by spray drying, the inlet temperature is between <NUM> to <NUM>, more preferably between <NUM> to <NUM>; the outlet temperature is between <NUM> to <NUM>, more preferably between <NUM> to <NUM>.

This invention will be better understood in light of the following example which are given for illustrative purposes only and do not intend to limit the scope of the invention, which is defined by the attached claims.

The pilot process is schematically represented below.

Pea starch and water are mixed in the mixing tank and cooked in pressure reactor. After cooking, the solution was homogenized and sonicated, then spray dried to form soluble pea starch powder.

The steps of the piloting procedure and related operating conditions are listed below:.

Dextrin equivalent (DE) and carbohydrate profile (DP) are important information about the pilot product properties.

Labeled as soluble starch, the product must soluble in cold water (water at around <NUM>) and contains low DP1 and DP2 concentration as well. For the feasibility trials, the current requirement for the product is: DE ≈ <NUM>, and DP1+DP2 < <NUM>%.

Table <NUM> is the results of DE and DP measurements of the pilot products, with different batches. DE and DP results of commercial maltodextrin with DE12 (GLUCIDEX® <NUM> commercialized by the applicant) are also included on the table as comparison.

The results indicate that the pilot products have DE values around <NUM> with the range of <NUM> to <NUM>; and have DP1+DP2 concentration around <NUM>% (between <NUM> and <NUM>%).

For comparison, <FIG> is the DP distribution of the pilot product and the reference sample, plotted with the data from carbohydrate profile measurement. The DP distribution of the pilot product is similar to the reference sample.

Another important property parameter is solubility. The soluble starch should have high enough solubility in cold water in order to be used as an alternative of maltodextrin.

Drying method affect the solubility. Spray drying reduces the solubility of the soluble starch from <NUM>% before drying to <NUM>% after the drying.

By modifying the process condition through increasing cooking temperature and ultrasonic strength, the products cold water solubility is improved, always above <NUM>% even with high concentration, as shown on <FIG>.

Viscosity directly affects the product applicability and processing-ability; it also reflects the effects of processing conditions on the final products. Currently, viscosity of the commercial DE12 sample is used as reference. The <FIG> is the measurement results of the pilot product sample and the reference one. The result indicates two samples have very similar rheology behavior. <FIG> shows the sample of the pilot product before and after dissolution.

The data are presented in the following table:.

It is clear that the highly soluble pea starch of the invention is functionally a maltodextrin and structurally a starch.

The objective is here to compare soluble pea starch (Lot SPS-<NUM> of Example <NUM>) vs GLUCIDEX® <NUM> in the flavour encapsulation function.

For the standard formula with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> batch size was <NUM>.

Water was weighed at room temperature while mixing with a SILVERSTON benchtop high shear mixer at <NUM> rpm with a large hole dispersing head.

The mixture was then mixed into the water at an increasing higher mixer speed (<NUM> -> <NUM> -> <NUM> -> 9000rpm) for <NUM> minutes or until well dispersed with no visible lumps.

The mixer head was changed over to a medium slotted screen. Orange oil was added slowly and mixed at <NUM> rpm for <NUM> until a coarse emulsion formed.

The emulsion was homogenized in a two stage high-pressure homogenizer at <NUM> bar (<NUM> bar 1st stage, <NUM> bar 2nd stage) to form the fine emulsion.

The emulsion was heated to <NUM> and kept stirring while feeding to the spray dryer through a peristaltic pump.

The flow rate was automatically adjusted as the liquid was feeding into the spray dryer to maintain the inlet temperature constant.

Method: <NUM>% (w/w) slurries were made by using GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starch at room temperature and the viscosities of the slurries were measured at <NUM> at <NUM> rpm on the RVA for <NUM> minutes with <NUM> sample in container.

Method: density of the emulsion pre-spray drying and the reconstituted emulsion were measured using a <NUM> cc density cups.

Method: measured using Bellingham and Stanley RFM <NUM> benchtop refractometer.

Method: Particle size distribution of the homogenized liquid emulsions and the reconstituted slurries were analyzed using the MALVERN <NUM> laser particle size analyzer. SOPs adjusted based off measured refractive index and emulsion density. Results are an average of five measurements.

Method: Moisture content of the spray-dried powders was determined using CEM Smart-<NUM> moisture analyzer. Results are an average of three measurements.

Method: Powder was allowed to flow from a funnel three inches above a tared density cup. Once overfilled, density cup was leveled. Weight of powder was taken and density expressed as g/L. Results are an average of three measurements.

Method: Color was measured using Hunter Mini-scan colorimeter for L*a*b* values. Results are an average of five measurements.

Method: Fat content was measure using CEM fat analyzer.

Method: The feed rate was calculated by monitoring the weight loss of the liquid emulsion within <NUM>. The amount of dried powder was collected within the <NUM>. The calculation was done as follows: <MAT>.

Three samples were collected during <NUM> hr and the average yield was calculated. The amount of dried product left in the cyclone was accounted for in the calculation.

The viscosity of soluble pea starch was lower than that of GLUCIDEX®<NUM>. This shows that the average DE of the soluble pea starch could be higher than <NUM> DE and there could be higher number of smaller molecules in the product profile compared to GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

After 24hrs, both GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starch showed increased viscosity possibly due to retrogradation.

However, the viscosity increases in larger for soluble pea starch than GLUCIDEX® <NUM> (possibly due to higher amylose content in pea starch).

Densities of emulsions of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starch were comparable. However, the reconstituted flavor powders of soluble pea starch showed slightly lower density compared to that of GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

Emulsion of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> was more yellow compared to the emulsion of soluble pea starch. The lower b- value for soluble pea starch emulsion also shows the lower yellowness compared to the GLUCIDEX® <NUM> emulsion.

Refractive index of both ingredients in emulsions and in reconstituted slurries are comparable.

The particle size distribution showed that mean particle (D50) size of the emulsions are comparable and the particle size is ~ 1micron.

However, D90 showed that the particle size of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> is smaller than that of the soluble pea starch. (<NUM> vs. <NUM>).

Furthermore, the reconstituted slurries showed larger particle size for GLUCIDEX® <NUM> flavor powder compared to that of soluble pea starch for both mean particle size (D50) and the D90.

Moisture content of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> was slightly higher than soluble pea starch.

Bulk density of the spray dried flavor powders of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starch are comparable.

Spray dried flavor powder of soluble pea starch showed slightly less yellowness compare to that of GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

Results showed that the fat content of spray dried samples were comparable.

Both GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starch gave more than <NUM>% yield, which was the target for this application.

However, the yield of soluble pea starch was higher than that with GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

Based on the tests conducted, soluble pea starch showed lower viscosity and less yellow emulsion and spray dried powder compared to GLUCIDEX® <NUM>. However, spray dried powders showed comparable results for density and moisture contents.

Soluble pea starch performed well in spray drying and provided a higher yield compared to GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

Even if the molecular profile of soluble pea starch lot used in this study may not be exactly comparable to the properties of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> mainly because of its lower viscosity, this product may be used as comparable ingredient to GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

The objective is here to compare two batches of the highly soluble pea starch of the present invention (batches <NUM> & <NUM>) prepared as in Example <NUM>, compared to two batches of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> (Lots1 & <NUM>) in the flavour encapsulation function.

Water was weighed into a large pot at room temperature (-<NUM>) while mixing with a Silverson benchtop high shear mixer at 2000rpm with a large hole dispersing head.

GLUCIDEX® <NUM> (or the highly soluble pea starch) & gum arabic were pre-weighed and mixed together.

The mixture was then added into the water at an increasing higher mixer speed (<NUM> -> <NUM> -> <NUM> -> <NUM> rpm) for <NUM> minutes or until well dispersed with no visible lumps.

The mixer head was changed over to a medium slotted screen. Orange oil was added slowly and mixed at <NUM> rpm for <NUM>. until a coarse emulsion formed.

The emulsion was homogenized in a two-stage high-pressure homogenizer at <NUM> bar (<NUM> bar 1st stage, <NUM> bar 2nd stage) to form the fine emulsion.

Method: Viscosity of emulsions made according to the method described above for spray drying were measured at <NUM> at <NUM> rpm on the RVA for <NUM> minutes with <NUM> sample in container. Measurement taken at <NUM>.

Method: <NUM> % (w/w) slurries were made by using spray dried flavor powders made with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> or the highly soluble pea starch at room temperature and the viscosities of the slurries were measured at <NUM> at <NUM> rpm on the RVA for <NUM> minutes with <NUM> sample in container.

Measurement taken at <NUM>. Viscosity at D+<NUM> obtained after storing the emulsion at refrigerator for <NUM> day and bringing the temperature back to <NUM> before running in the RVA under the same conditions mentioned above.

Method: Particle size distribution of the homogenized liquid emulsions and the reconstituted slurries were analyzed using the Malvern <NUM> laser particle size analyzer. SOPs adjusted based off measured refractive index and emulsion density. Results are an average of five measurements.

Three samples were collected during 1hr and the average yield was calculated. The amount of dried product left in the cyclone was accounted for in the calculation.

Method: <NUM> of spray dried flavor powder (with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> or soluble pea starch) was placed in a large container with the lid closed to fill only <NUM>/<NUM> of the container, and stored at 45C for 7days, <NUM> days and 28days.

During the storage, sample were shaken <NUM> days per week to redistribute the powders inside the containers.

After the storage, the sample containers were immediately removed and cool down to room temperature (~<NUM>) and placed them in the freezer at -80C until they were used for the analysis of limonene oxide products (target compounds- cis-limonene oxide, trans-carveol, cis-carveol, carvone).

The viscosity of orange oil emulsion with soluble pea starch was higher than that of GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

The viscosity of reconstituted flavor powder with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> was higher than that of the highly soluble pea starch.

Upon storing for <NUM> day, both flavor powders showed increased in viscosity.

The extent of thickening (increase in viscosity) for both ingredients are comparable (<NUM> cPS vs <NUM> cPS for GLUCIDEX® <NUM> vs highly soluble pea starch).

Density of emulsions of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> was slightly higher than that of the highly soluble pea starch.

Densities of reconstituted powders are comparable.

Emulsion of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> with orange oil was more yellow and bright compared to the emulsion of the high soluble pea starch. The lower b- value for soluble pea starch emulsion also shows the lower yellowness compared to the GLUCIDEX® <NUM> emulsion.

Particle size distribution showed that particle size of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> emulsions for spray drying and reconstituted emulsion are smaller than those of high soluble pea starch are.

However, both GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and high soluble pea starch showed smaller particle sizes for the reconstituted emulsions compared to that of the emulsions for spray drying.

Average Moisture content of spray-dried powders of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> was comparable to that of the high soluble pea starch.

Average Bulk density of the spray dried flavor powders of GLUCIDEX®<NUM> is slightly higher than that of the high soluble pea starch.

Spray dried flavor powder of soluble pea starch showed slightly less whiteness compared to that of GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

Results showed that the fat content of spray-dried flavor with the high soluble pea starch is slightly higher than that of GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

As an average, Both GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and the high soluble pea starch gave more than <NUM>% yield, which was the target for this application.

However, when running high soluble pea starch Batch <NUM>, there were equipment issues with the spray dryer at the beginning.

The only presented yield is the yield of high soluble pea starch Batch <NUM>. With this, it showed that soluble pea starch gave higher yield compared to GLUCIDEX® <NUM> in spray drying orange oil.

The tables given above show the oxidized products formed during the storage of encapsulated orange oil by either GLUCIDEX® <NUM> or the high soluble pea starch.

Each ingredient has two lots and data was collected for each lot stored at <NUM> days, <NUM> days, <NUM> days and <NUM> days at <NUM>.

From the above tables it shows that orange oil encapsulated with either GLUCIDEX® <NUM> or the high soluble pea starch did not show oxidation in the first <NUM> days.

However, after <NUM> days it shows that orange oil encapsulated with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> oxidized at a higher rate than that of the high soluble pea starch.

At the end of <NUM> days. Orange oil encapsulated with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> created nearly twice as much of average total oxidation byproducts than that of high soluble pea starch.

Therefore, it shows that soluble pea starch provides better protection for flavor oxidation compared to GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

Based on the tests conducted, spray drying liquid preparation of the high soluble pea starch showed higher emulsion viscosities and less yellow color compared to that of GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

The D90 particle size (droplet size) of orange oil emulsions of the high soluble pea starch was twice as large as that of GLUCIDEX®.

However, the difference was smaller in reconstituted powders.

Once spray dried, both spray dried powders of GLUCIDEX®<NUM> and the high soluble pea starch showed comparable results for color, density and moisture contents.

The High soluble pea starch performed well in spray drying and provided a higher yield compared to GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

Results of the accelerated Storage stability study showed that orange oil encapsulated with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> oxidized at a higher rate compared to that of the high soluble pea starch and created higher amount of oxidation byproducts compared to the high soluble pea starch at the end of <NUM> days.

Overall, high soluble pea starch provides better protection for encapsulated flavor against oxidation compared to that of GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

The objective is here is to evaluate the use of the high soluble pea starch of the invention for sauces and dressing, more particularly in the formulation of fat free Balsamic vinaigrette, to evaluate its sensory evaluation and to characterize its color and its viscosity development over the time.

A comparison is done between two batches of highly soluble pea starch (Batch <NUM> and Batch <NUM>) of the present invention prepared as in Example <NUM>, and one lot of GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

To replace fat, solutions were made by adding <NUM> % of either high soluble pea starch of the invention or GLUCIDEX® <NUM>. These levels were selected after preparing several formulas to determine viscosity around <NUM>-<NUM> cps for a vinaigrette to give pourability but without short texture.

Higher levels of GLUCIDEX® <NUM> or soluble pea starch tend to give short texture, which is not desirable for a vinaigrette but desirable for salad dressing.

The inclusion level also represents the amount of maltodextrin in typical formulas to provide mouth-feel as well (<NUM> - <NUM> % solids).

Preparation of <NUM> soluble starch solution (<NUM> % solids):.

Method: Into RVA canister, <NUM> of vinaigrette was added, and viscosity was measured running at <NUM>, <NUM> rpm for <NUM>. Viscosity of the vinaigrette at <NUM> was reported.

The measurements were obtained at time intervals of day <NUM>, day <NUM> and day <NUM>.

All the measurements were done in duplicates.

Method: Color of the vinaigrettes were measured using Hunter colorimeter. All the measurements were done in <NUM> replicates.

Triangle test was conducted using <NUM> coded samples of vinaigrettes with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starch of the invention, in which two of the samples had the same vinaigrette and one was different.

Panelists were asked to find the sample that was different. For sensory evaluation, vinaigrette with soluble pea starch Batch <NUM> was used.

GLUCIDEX®<NUM> and soluble pea starches of the invention showed slight increase in viscosity of vinaigrettes from day <NUM> to day <NUM>.

There is no difference among the L and b values of vinaigrettes made with GLUCIDEX® or soluble pea starches.

Only <NUM> out of <NUM> panelists identified the different sample correctly.

<NUM> out of <NUM> panelists (<NUM>%) were not able to identify the different sample out of <NUM> samples provided to each panelist.

This showed that the vinaigrettes were very similar in color, texture and flavor.

Viscosity analysis showed that there was no difference in viscosity of the two vinaigrettes made with soluble pea starch Batch <NUM> & Batch <NUM> and they were similar to the vinaigrette made with GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

Over the <NUM> day storage at <NUM> (room temperature), vinaigrettes with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starches of the invention showed slight increase in viscosity (~<NUM> cps).

Color of the vinaigrettes were very similar and did not change over <NUM> day storage at <NUM>.

Sensory evaluation done by triangle test showed that the vinaigrettes with GLUCIDEX® and Soluble pea starch were very similar in color, texture and flavor.

The objective is here is to evaluate the use of the high soluble pea starch of the invention for beverage, more particularly in the formulation of tropical punch mix and energy recovery beverage mix, to evaluate its sensory evaluation and to characterize its color and its viscosity.

Punch beverage: Into RVA canister, <NUM> of prepared beverage were added and viscosity was measured running at <NUM>, <NUM> rpm for <NUM>.

Viscosity of the beverage at <NUM> was reported.

The measurements were obtained at time intervals of day <NUM> and day <NUM>.

Energy beverage: Into RVA canister, <NUM> of prepared beverage were added and viscosity was measured running at <NUM>, <NUM> rpm for <NUM>. Viscosity of the beverage at <NUM> was reported at day <NUM> only.

Method: Color of the prepared beverages with water were measured using Hunter colorimeter. All the measurements were done in <NUM> replicates.

Method: Absorbance (turbidity) was measured at <NUM> (visible wavelength) with Shimadzu spectrophotometer.

Prepared beverages with water were measured using a spectrophotometer.

Measurements were taken at day <NUM> and after <NUM> days stored in the refrigerator (<NUM>).

Punch beverage: Triangle test was conducted using <NUM> coded samples of prepared punch beverage with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and Soluble pea starch from the invention, in which two of the samples had the same beverage and one was different. Panelists were asked to find the sample that was different.

For sensory evaluation, beverages made with Batch <NUM> was used.

Sample order was randomized. Total number of panelists were <NUM>.

Energy recovery beverage: the same procedure was done with energy recovery beverage mixes made with Batch <NUM> or GLUCIDEX® <NUM> after adding water.

As soon as the punch beverages were made (day <NUM>), the viscosities of both Punch beverages with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and Soluble pea starch were similar.

Even though the beverages are instant beverages, the reconstituted beverages were stored at <NUM> for <NUM> days and viscosities were measured again.

Both punch beverages with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starch showed slight increase in viscosity from day <NUM> to day <NUM>.

The soluble pea starches from the invention are quite similar to maltodextrins.

Energy beverages with soluble pea starch from the invention and GLUCIDEX® <NUM> showed similar viscosities.

On day <NUM> - L, a, b - values of punch beverage with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> are lower than that of soluble pea starch punch beverage.

However, visually it was difficult to identify. Upon storing the punch beverages for <NUM> days, more cloudiness developed in punch beverage with soluble pea starch compared to the beverage with GLUCIDEX® <NUM>. This was mainly shown by the higher increase of L- values of punch beverages with soluble pea starch.

Beverages with Soluble pea starch showed higher absorbance (higher turbidity) at day <NUM> compared to that of GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

However, after <NUM> days the absorbance (turbidity) of beverages with soluble pea starch increased significantly compared to the beverages with GLUCIDEX <NUM>. This showed that soluble pea starch develops turbidity upon storage and may be used as a natural opacifying agent for Ready to Drink (RTD) beverages.

Only <NUM> out of <NUM> panelists identified the different sample correctly. This is the total of panelists who were able to identify the different samples correctly by with guessing (<NUM> panelists) or without guessing (<NUM> panelists).

This showed that the energy beverages made with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starch from the invention were similar in terms of appearance, flavor, color and mouthfeel. The panelists who identified the different sample correctly mentioned that the beverage with soluble peas starch is slightly more viscous and foamy compared to the beverage with GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

The number of panelists needed to be significantly different is <NUM> out of <NUM>.

Viscosity analysis showed that there was no difference in viscosity of the punch beverages or energy beverages made with soluble pea starch batch <NUM> and <NUM> and GLUCIDEX® <NUM>. Over the <NUM> days storage at <NUM>, punch beverages made with GLUCIDEX® <NUM> and soluble pea starch showed slight increase in viscosity (~<NUM> cps).

However, punch beverage with soluble pea starch showed more opacity development compared to the beverage with GLUCIDEX® <NUM>.

Claim 1:
A highly soluble leguminous starch having:
- A content of oligosaccharides with a Degree of Polymerization (DP) of <NUM> and <NUM> of less than <NUM> % in weight, more preferably less than <NUM> %,
- A content of oligosaccharides with a DP of <NUM> to <NUM> of more than <NUM> % in weight, more preferably more than <NUM> %,
- A water solubility at <NUM> of more than <NUM> % in weight, more preferably more than <NUM> %,
- A viscosity of less than <NUM> cP, more preferably of less than <NUM> cP, as determined by the following method:
• Dissolve the highly soluble leguminous starch in deionized (DI) water at room temperature to form solutions with different concentrations,
• Measure the viscosity of these solutions with a Brookfield II viscometer equipped with a #<NUM> spindle, the temperature being controlled with a circulating water bath;
And characterized by:
- An α <NUM>,<NUM> / α <NUM>,<NUM> ratio determined by <NUM>C NMR between <NUM> to <NUM> %, preferably between <NUM> to <NUM> %