↓ Skip to main content

Nutritional Value of Commercial Protein-Rich Plant Products

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
Title
Nutritional Value of Commercial Protein-Rich Plant Products
Published in
Plant Foods for Human Nutrition, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11130-018-0660-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pirjo Mattila, Sari Mäkinen, Merja Eurola, Taina Jalava, Juha-Matti Pihlava, Jarkko Hellström, Anne Pihlanto

Abstract

The goal of this work was to analyze nutritional value of various minimally processed commercial products of plant protein sources such as faba bean (Vicia faba), lupin (Lupinus angustifolius), rapeseed press cake (Brassica rapa/napus subsp. Oleifera), flaxseed (Linum usitatissimum), oil hemp seed (Cannabis sativa), buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum), and quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). Basic composition and various nutritional components like amino acids, sugars, minerals, and dietary fiber were determined. Nearly all the samples studied could be considered as good sources of essential amino acids, minerals and dietary fiber. The highest content of crude protein (over 30 g/100 g DW) was found in faba bean, blue lupin and rapeseed press cake. The total amount of essential amino acids (EAA) ranged from 25.8 g/16 g N in oil hemp hulls to 41.5 g/16 g N in pearled quinoa. All the samples studied have a nutritionally favorable composition with significant health benefit potential. Processing (dehulling or pearling) affected greatly to the contents of analyzed nutrients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 56 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 21%
Researcher 12 21%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Unspecified 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Other 12 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 18 32%
Unspecified 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 9%
Chemistry 3 5%
Other 12 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 August 2019.
All research outputs
#1,349,401
of 13,472,087 outputs
Outputs from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#75
of 498 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,023
of 270,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Foods for Human Nutrition
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,472,087 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 498 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,462 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.