ReviewJournal of food science and technology2024
Chickpea aquafaba: a systematic review of the different processes for obtaining and their nutritional and technological characteristics.
Review in Journal of food science and technology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ohmic heating dominates and ultrasound modulates aquafaba structure: A combined approach to design stable plant-based emulsions.Journal of the science of food and agriculture · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Plant-Based Egg Substitutes in Vegan Muffins: Functional, Structural, and Nutritional Characterization.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Whipped chickpea aquafaba as a fat replacer in ice cream: Effect on sensory and physicochemical properties.Journal of food science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aquafaba is the residual water from cooking chickpea in water. It has a high gelling ability, allowing it to create stable gels. However, those functional properties depend on the legume composition, genotype, cooking time, pressure, and temperature. This study aimed to evaluate the different processes for obtaining aquafaba and compare their nutritional composition and technological characteristics using a systematic review. The authors performed the systematic review by performing specific search strategies for Scopus, Web of Science, Pubmed, Lilacs, Google Scholar, and ProQuest. A total of 17 studies were analyzed. Of them, 17.64% (n = 3) used the wastewater from canned chickpeas, 17.64% (n = 3) compared the wastewater of canned chickpeas and dry grains, and 58.82% (n = 10) used dry chickpeas. Studies used different methods to analyze the protein content. The most used (n = 5) was the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC). The aquafaba presented carbohydrates at 2.03-2.59 g/100ml; protein at 0.0.8-2.8 g/100ml; and fat at 0.07-0.1 g/100ml. In general, preparing aquafaba followed: soaking (8-10 h at 4 °C-1 chickpea: 4 water), pressure cooking (30 min-2 chickpea: 3 water), and refrigerating (24h/4 °C). In general, the results showed the following steps to prepare aquafaba: soaking for 8-10 h at 4 °C at the proportion of 1:4 (chickpea:water), pressure cooking for 30 min in the proportion of 2:3 (chickpea: water), and refrigerating 24 h/4 °C. These procedures in a homemade aquafaba presented the best results, considering foam development and higher stability. The aquafaba from canned chickpeas has a higher foam-ability and lower emulsion properties than homemade cooking aquafaba. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13197-023-05920-y.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.