Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 281

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 189 of the 189 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Flavor challenges in extruded plant‐based meat alternatives: A review

Open access
Wang, Yaqin, Tuccillo, Fabio, Lampi, Anna‐Maija, Knaapila, Antti, Pulkkinen, Marjo, Kariluoto, Susanna, Coda, Rossana, Edelmann, Minnamari, Jouppila, Kirsi, Sandell, Mari, Piironen, Vieno, Katina, Kati·2022·Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety

Abstract

Demand for plant‐based meat alternatives has increased in recent years due to concerns about health, ethics, the environment, and animal welfare. Nevertheless, the market share of plant‐based meat alternatives must increase significantly if they are to support sustainable food production and consumption. Flavor is an important limiting factor of the acceptability and marketability of plant‐based meat alternatives. Undesirable chemosensory perceptions, such as a beany flavor, bitter taste, and astringency, are often associated with plant proteins and products that use them. This study reviewed 276 articles to answer the following five research questions: (1) What are the volatile and nonvolatile compounds responsible for off‐flavors? (2) What are the mechanisms by which these flavor compounds are generated? (3) What is the influence of thermal extrusion cooking (the primary structuring technique to transform plant proteins into fibrous products that resemble meat in texture) on the flavor characteristics of plant proteins? (4) What techniques are used in measuring the flavor properties of plant‐based proteins and products? (5) What strategies can be used to reduce off‐flavors and improve the sensory appeal of plant‐based meat alternatives? This article comprehensively discusses, for the first time, the flavor issues of plant‐based meat alternatives and the technologies available to improve flavor and, ultimately, acceptability.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1541-4337.12964

Cites

189 of 189 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 189 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Wang, Y., Tuccillo, F., Lampi, A., Knaapila, A., Pulkkinen, M., Kariluoto, S., Coda, R., Edelmann, M., Jouppila, K., Sandell, M., Piironen, V., & Katina, K.
Venue
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2022-04-26
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
2898-2929
ISSN
1541-4337 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4224944552
Cited by
281
References
189
FWCI
29.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Flavor challenges in extruded plant‐based meat alternatives: A review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1541-4337.12964
The paper
Wang, Y., Tuccillo, F., Lampi, A., Knaapila, A., Pulkkinen, M., Kariluoto, S., Coda, R., Edelmann, M., Jouppila, K., Sandell, M., Piironen, V., & Katina, K. (2022). Flavor challenges in extruded plant‐based meat alternatives: A review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12964

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.