Plant-Based Foods: Ingredients, Technology and Health Aspects 3031274423, 9783031274428

Table of contents :
Preface
Acknowledgment
Contents
About the Editor
Contributors
Chapter 1: An Overview of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs): Classification, Textural and Sensory Characteristics
1.1 Classification of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs)
1.2 Textural Properties of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs)
1.2.1 Textural Properties of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives (PBMAs)
1.2.2 Textural Properties of Plant-Based Dairy Alternatives (PBDAs)
1.3 Sensory Profiles of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs)
1.3.1 Sensory Profiles of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives (PBMAs)
1.3.2 Sensory Profiles of Plant-Based Dairy Alternatives (PBDAs)
1.4 Summary
References
Chapter 2: Production of Meat Analogs and Consumer Preferences
2.1 Extrusion Method
2.2 Ingredients
2.2.1 Protein
2.2.2 Lipids
2.2.3 Carbohydrate
2.2.4 Minerals, Vitamin, and Antinutrients
2.3 Consumer Preference
2.4 Summary
References
Chapter 3: Fortification of Plant-Based Food Analogs
3.1 Motivation of Consumers to Switch to a Plant-Based Diet
3.2 Pros and Cons of a Plant-Based Diet
3.3 Fortification of Plant-Based Substitutes
3.4 Plant-Based Dairy Analogs
3.5 Plant-Based Meat Analogs
3.6 Summary
References
Chapter 4: Role of Fermentation in Plant-Based Food Production and Non-dairy Fermented Foods
4.1 Plant-Based Milk
4.2 Fermentation and Plant-Based Products
4.3 Utilization of Fermentation for Improvement of Nutritional, Flavor and Textural Characteristics of Plant-Based Foods
4.3.1 Effects of Fermentation on Anti-Nutrient Compounds, Micronutrient Bioavailability and Bioactive Compounds
4.3.2 Effect of Fermentation on Plant-Based Proteins
4.3.3 Effect of Fermentation on Taste and Texture
4.4 Fermented Foods from Plant-Based Milk
4.5 Summary
References
Chapter 5: Plant-Based Food Printing at a Glance
5.1 Food Printing Technology
5.1.1 Extrusion
5.1.2 Laser Sintering
5.1.3 Inkjet
5.2 3D Printing Devices
5.2.1 3D Printing Technology
5.2.2 FDM Printers
5.2.2.1 Cartesian Printers
5.2.2.2 Delta Printers
5.2.2.3 Polar Printers
5.2.2.4 Robot Arm Printers
5.2.2.5 Essential Components of a 3D Printer
5.3 3D Printing Software
5.3.1 Marlin Firmware
5.3.2 Slicing Software
5.4 Food Printing Applications
5.4.1 Chocolate and Confectionary
5.4.2 Cereal Based Foods and Snacks
5.4.3 Meat Products and Meat Analog
5.4.4 Dairy Products and Dairy Analog
5.4.5 Low Calorie and Low Salt Food
5.4.6 Personalized and Special Food
5.5 4D, 5D and 6D Printing
5.6 Final Remarks and Future of Food Printing
5.7 Summary
References
Chapter 6: Bioaccesibility and Bioavailability of Vitamins, Minerals and Bioactive Compounds in Plant-Based Foods
6.1 Bioaccessibility and Bioavailability of Vitamins, Minerals and Bioactive Compounds
6.2 Plant-Based Milks
6.2.1 Soy Milk
6.2.2 Oat Milk
6.2.3 Almond Milk
6.2.4 Other Plant-Based Milks
6.3 Plant-Based Yoghurts, Cheeses, and Infant Formulas
6.4 Summary
References
Chapter 7: Health Effects of Plant-Based Foods and Their Components
7.1 Plant-Based Milk Substitutes
7.1.1 Components and Health Effects of Plant-Based Milk Substitutes
7.1.1.1 Oat Milk
7.1.1.2 Soy Milk
7.1.1.3 Almond Milk
7.1.1.4 Rice Milk
7.1.1.5 Cocoa Milk
7.1.1.6 Coconut Milk
7.1.1.7 Sesame Milk
7.1.1.8 Other Plant-Based Milk Substitutes
7.2 The Plant-Based Meat Substitutes
7.2.1 Plant Proteins
7.2.2 Lipid and Carbohydrate Ingredients
7.2.3 Flavors and Coloring Agents
7.2.4 Common Meat Substitutes
7.2.5 Health Aspects of Plant-Based Meat Substitutes
7.3 Summary
References
Index

Citation preview

Alev Yüksel Aydar   Editor

Plant-Based Foods: Ingredients, Technology and Health Aspects

Plant-Based Foods: Ingredients, Technology and Health Aspects

Alev Yüksel Aydar Editor

Plant-Based Foods: Ingredients, Technology and Health Aspects

Editor Alev Yüksel Aydar Department of Food Engineering Faculty of Engineering Manisa Celal Bayar University Manisa, Turkiye

ISBN 978-3-031-27442-8    ISBN 978-3-031-27443-5 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27443-5 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

To Zeynep Duru, Elif Nil and Orhun Kerem

Preface

According to projections made by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations in 2012, the amount of meat that would be demanded on a global scale will increase by 76% between the years 2005 and 2050, reaching 455 million metric tons. In a comparable manner, it is anticipated that the global demand for fish will reach 140 million metric tons by the year 2050. In a report from 2018, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that greenhouse gas emissions must be cut to 45% by 2030 to avoid the disasters that would happen if temperatures went up to 2.0 °C. Recent research has shown that, in general, carbon footprint levels in animal-­ based diets are significantly higher than in plant-based foods. Novel plant-based substitutes have the potential to lower the environmental footprint of diets by substituting animal products with less resource-intensive alternatives, as well as significantly reduce the number of animals raised for food. Reducing animal production and consumption may also lessen some negative public health hazards (for example, the risk of cardiovascular disease, the development of zoonoses, and the transmission of foodborne diseases). The production of food from non-animal sources is a feasible option, as evidenced by the availability of plant-based dairy and meat alternatives, which have become the most prevalent solutions. In recent years, there has also been an increase in interest in plant protein cultivation and fermentation (conventional, biomass, and precision fermentation) for the manufacture of PBMAs. Retail sales of plant-based foods in the United States as a whole increased to $7.4 billion in 2021, a three-fold increase over overall food sales. While sales of plant-based meat remained unchanged at $1.4 billion in 2021, sales of plant-based milk increased by 4% to $2.6 billion. The sales of plant-based eggs, the smallest but fastest-growing category, increased by 42% to $39 million. The first chapter of this book provides an explanation of the classification of plant-based food alternatives (PBFAs), as well as an examination of textural and sensory attributes, in addition to preferences held by consumers. In Chap. 2, a list of plant-based meat substitute ingredients and production methods, with a particular focus on plant-based protein sources, is compiled. An overview of the fortification of plant-based food analogs and a discussion of the connection between vii

viii

Preface

fermentation and plant-based foods could well be found in Chaps. 3 and 4, respectively. The methods behind 3D printing of plant-based foods are investigated in Chap. 5. Chapters 6 and 7 discuss not only how plant-based food alternatives affect health, but also how the vitamins, minerals, and bioactive compounds in plant-based foods can be utilized by the body in terms of bioavailability and bioaccessibility. Manisa, Turkiye

Alev Yüksel Aydar

Acknowledgment

I want to express my gratitude to the Springer staff, especially Sofia Valsendur and Daniel Falatko, for their assistance and support. Alev Yüksel Aydar

ix

Contents

1

An Overview of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs): Classification, Textural and Sensory Characteristics ��������������������������    1 Alev Yüksel Aydar

2

 Production of Meat Analogs and Consumer Preferences��������������������   19 Elif Feyza Aydar, Zehra Mertdinç, and Beraat Özçelik

3

 Fortification of Plant-Based Food Analogs��������������������������������������������   35 Zeynep Aksoylu Özbek, Bilge Taşkın, and Didem Sözeri Atik

4

Role of Fermentation in Plant-Based Food Production and Non-dairy Fermented Foods������������������������������������������������������������   73 Sümeyye Betül Bozatlı

5

 Plant-Based Food Printing at a Glance��������������������������������������������������   87 Tuncay Yılmaz and Nail Aslan

6

Bioaccesibility and Bioavailability of Vitamins, Minerals and Bioactive Compounds in Plant-Based Foods����������������������������������  119 Müzeyyen Berkel Kaşıkçı

7

 Health Effects of Plant-Based Foods and Their Components��������������  137 Tülay Öncü Öner

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  179

xi

About the Editor

Alev Yüksel Aydar  serves as an Associate Professor at the Department of Food Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkiye. She holds a Ph.D. in Food Engineering from Manisa Celal Bayar University, Turkiye (2017). Prior to receiving her Ph.D. in Food Technology, she earned her M.S. degree in Food Science with a minor in Statistics from North Carolina State University in 2012. She worked as a production engineer in the food industry for 3 years prior to beginning her academic career. During her post-doc career, she has been involved in several national and international projects and served as Principal Investigator (PI) of an international bilateral project between Turkiye and Tunisia, which is one of the highest funded projects in Turkiye. Professor Aydar has been working on the valorization of food waste and by-products in order to obtain value-added ingredients. This involves utilizing novel technologies in order to improve process efficiency, enhance food quality, and reduce energy consumption. In addition, she has been applying statistical and mathematical techniques in order to optimize process parameters and make the responses in a process more predictable. Her group is also engaged in evolving novel technologies for development and characterization of novel plantbased foods.

xiii

Contributors

Zeynep Aksoylu Özbek  Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkiye Nail  Aslan  Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkiye Alev  Yüksel  Aydar  Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkiye Elif  Feyza  Aydar  Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkiye Müzeyyen  Berkel  Kaşıkçı  Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkiye Sümeyye Betül Bozatlı  Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkiye Zehra  Mertdinç  Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkiye Tülay Öncü Öner  Department of Bioengineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkiye Beraat  Özçelik  Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Chemical and Metallurgical Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkiye Bioactive Research & Innovation Food Manufacturing Industry Trade Ltd., Istanbul, Turkiye Didem  Sözeri  Atik  Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Tekirdağ Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ, Turkiye Bilge  Taşkın  Centre DRIFT-FOOD, Faculty of Agrobiology, Food and Natural Resources, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Prague, Czech Republic Tuncay Yılmaz  Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkiye xv

Chapter 1

An Overview of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs): Classification, Textural and Sensory Characteristics Alev Yüksel Aydar

It is critical to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to fight global warming. 25% of global greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to the food system as a whole. The food system’s greenhouse gas emissions can be lowered by a combination of, among other things: (1) emerging production technologies; (2) less food waste; and (3) dietary adjustments. Decreased consumption of animal-based foods, especially meat, together with recommendations to consume more plant-based foods including vegetables, fruits, legumes, and nuts, is one of the most commonly suggested dietary adjustment approaches [1]. The consumption of meat has grown by 58% between 1998 and 2018. Due mostly to the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs), this growth puts a heavy burden on the environment. Meat and dairy products account for a disproportionate share of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions caused by agriculture and food systems worldwide (almost 24% of total GHG emissions) [2]. Proteins generated from non-animals sources like pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat are typically seen as being healthier and more environmentally friendly than animal-derived proteins [3]. Consumer demand has increased the availability of plant-based food alternatives (PBFAs) including plant-based milk, meat and eggs in the marketplace in recent years. Sustainable, healthy, and delicious plant-based alternative products have a good chance of becoming mainstream once they have undergone sufficient research and development. However, there is still a lack of data on how the sensory profile of plant-based meat, cheese, and milk is perceived by consumers [4]. All of these plant-based items have attempted to imitate animal based products. However, few sensory research on these items has been undertaken. The goal of this chapter is to

A. Y. Aydar (*) Department of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Manisa Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkiye e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 A. Y. Aydar (ed.), Plant-Based Foods: Ingredients, Technology and Health Aspects, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27443-5_1

1

2

A. Y. Aydar

classify the plant-based alternatives and evaluate the textural and sensory properties, acceptability, and how consumers feel about the different PBFAs.

1.1 Classification of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs) Plant-based dairy alternatives (PBDAs) and plant-based meat alternatives (PBMAs) are the two primary categories of plant-based food alternatives (PBAs) (Fig. 1.1). In addition to these two substitutes, honey and egg substitutes made from plants have become more popular recently [5]. In the 1960s, the Wenger laboratory developed the first extruded chunked products with a porous meat-like texture; they were sold dry as texturized vegetable protein (TVP). Extrusion cooking technology allowed for the creation of

PBPAs (Plant-based Poultry Alternaves) PBMAs

PBRMAs

(Plant-based Meat Alternaves)

(Plant-based Red Meat Alternaves)

PBEAs

(Plant -based Sea Food Alternaves)

PBSFAs

PBFAs

(Plant-based Egg Alternaves)

(Plant-based Food Alternaves) PBHAs (Plant- based Honey Alternaves)

PBChAs (Plant-based Cheese Alternaves)

PBDAs

PBMiAs

(Plant-based Dairy Alternaves)

(Plant -based Milk Alternaves) PBYAs (Plant -based Yoghurt Alternaves)

Fig. 1.1  Classification of plant-based food alternatives (PBFAs)

1  An Overview of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs): Classification, Textural…

3

high-moisture meat substitutes in the early 1990s [6]. Meat alternatives are categorized as plant-based, cell-based and fermentation-based meat that mimics the aesthetic, organoleptic and chemical properties of animal meat. There are currently products made from legumes/pulses (pea, lentil, lupine, chickpea, and others), fungus, and soy protein/gluten as the main protein sources in meat analogs. A ground-­ breaking innovation in the global food sector is cultured meat [7]. Despite the fact that cultured meat has been commercially produced since 2016, demand for products like cultured meats and seafood is rising continuously. Red meat substitutes, poultry alternatives, and seafood alternatives are all examples of meat substitutions, whereas cheese, yoghurt, and milk alternatives are the most common types of dairy substitutions. Ice cream and frozen novelty, butter, creamers, sauces, beverages, and spreads are just some of the other examples of plant-based products that are manufactured [5, 8]. The Good Food Institute, a nonprofit organization with its headquarters in Washington, D.C., recently reported that the most developed subcategory of plant-based foods is plant-based milk, which now has a market value of $2.6  billion (Fig.  1.2). Plant-based milk production accounts for 36% of the total plant-based food market. The top-selling items among plant-based milk substitutes (PBDAs) are, in order, creamers, ice cream and frozen novelties, yoghurt, cheese, and dairy spreads (Fig. 1.3.) [9]. Plant-based egg alternatives (PBEAs) offer an alternative to traditional eggs, which remain controversial among consumers for various reasons. Egg allergy and excessive cholesterol are growing. Another issue is global egg production’s inadequate animal welfare regulations, which still use cage-based systems with limited hen room. In terms of sustainability, egg production accounts for 9% of animal emissions [10]. Some plant-based substitutes for honey include agave nectar, a sweetener made commercially from a variety of agave plant species, coconut nectar, maple syrup,

Plant-based food market (U.S. retail)

Annual Sales ($Billion)

3.00 2.50

2.50 2.00

2.00

2.60

2018

2019

2020

2021

2.10

1.40

1.50 1.00

0.80

1.40

0.96

0.50 0.00

Plant Based Milks

Plant Based Meats

Fig. 1.2  Plant-based milk and plant-based meat sales during the years 2018–2021 [9]

4

A. Y. Aydar

Annual Sales ($Million)

Plant-based food market (U.S. retail) 600 500

2018

2019

2020

2021

516

458 377

400

291

300

214

202

200 100

39

65 Creamer

Ice cream and frozen novelty

Yogurt

Cheese

Buer

Ready to drink beverages

Dairy spreads, sour cream,dips and sauces

Egg

0

Fig. 1.3  Other plant-based products sales during the years 2018–2021 [9]

molasses, barley malt syrup, and brown rice syrup. Lab-grown honey is another option for animal-free honey. With this innovative technique, lab-grown honey may be created using artificial bees that are efficient enough to generate an adequate number of honey stomachs and can replicate natural honey in products for consumers. Even though lab-made honey is made at the molecular level, it may start to harm the world’s important pollinators [11].

1.2 Textural Properties of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs) Growth in plant-based protein sources and the creation of meat substitutes indicate a successful shift away from animal-based protein sources. Consumers’ awareness to meat alternatives remains low, however, largely because of their lackluster organoleptic qualities. In recent years, a substantial amount of research has been carried out in an effort to develop meat substitutes that are of a higher quality. The end goal is to have a similar texture, nutritional qualities, and flavor. Plant proteins can be generated using a variety of techniques, including extrusion (low moisture-high moisture), shear cell technology, freeze structuring, wet or electrospinning, and cell culture (Figs. 1.4 and 1.5) [5, 12]. In order to successfully imitate the animal food that is desired, the components that comprise plant-based foods need to have the appropriate configurations for particular functions that include binding, solubility, thickening, emulsification, elongation, and foaming [5].

1  An Overview of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs): Classification, Textural… Fig. 1.4 Structuring methods for PBFAs

5

Electrospinning

Wet spinning

Freeze Structuring

Structuring Methods for PBFAs

Shear Cell

Extrusion

Cell Culture

Fig. 1.5  Different plant protein texturization techniques. (a) Extrusion (Low Moisture), (b) Extrusion (High Moisture), (c) Shear Cell [19]

The extrusion processing that is currently in use is efficient with regard to the use of energy; it enables large-scale production for food retail; and it makes it possible to reconstruct plant-based proteins to have the texture and fiber structures that are similar to those of animal tissues [13, 14]. Protein texturization is generally the result of the formation of covalent bonds during the extrusion process. However, the stabilization of the three-dimensional network formed after soy protein extrusion is enhanced through the cooling-induced

6

A. Y. Aydar

non-covalent hydrogen bonds, electro-static interactions, and van der Waals interactions. This is due to the fact that the viscosity rises and the mass solidifies into a strand with a structure similar to that of meat during the extrusion process [15]. The textural properties of plant-based foods are generally determined by texture profile analysis (TPA), which is a compression technique established in 1963 that mimics the chewing action of eating. The TPA device is typically a flat circular disc that is mounted to the texture analyzer’s arm. TPA uses a twofold compression test software to simulate “two bites” and uses the generated force-time curves to determine a variety of sensory-relevant characteristics such as chewiness, springiness, hardness, cohesiveness, and gumminess [7, 15]. In addition to these textural properties, water holding capacity, syneresis are also important parameters for plant-based dairy alternatives [16]. In addition, the stress-strain relationship and the viscosity and flow parameters of a fluid can be measured with a rheometer and viscometer, respectively, to get insight into how a material moves and modifies its own shape [17, 18].

1.2.1 Textural Properties of Plant-Based Meat Alternatives (PBMAs) The texture is one of the most important factors in determining the overall quality of the meat and whether or not it will be accepted by customers. The hardness, juiciness, springiness, and cohesion of meat analogs are considered to be the most essential textural features of these alternatives [20]. The incorporation of a wide variety of components into plant-based meat products can have a significant impact on their textural characteristics. Sensorial and instrumental (quantitative) approaches can be used to evaluate the texture of PBMAs [12]. Imitating the consistency of traditional meat products is the step that presents the greatest challenge in the process of creating a meat substitute. In order to produce a plant-based meat product, one must first carefully choose and then formulate the various ingredients so that they can completely imitate the fibrous structure of meat. When it comes to the processing of plant-based meat products, the top-down and bottom-up approaches are the two types of structural procedures that are utilized most frequently [21]. There are three main types of meat products: ground, comminuted, and whole muscle. Meat substitutes try to imitate the texture, flavor, and appearance of ground, minced, and muscular meat [22]. Although the texturization of PBMAs depends on the type of meat product that is being imitated, meat alternatives contain 50–80% water, 14–45% protein (plant-based texturized and non-texturized proteins), 3–10% flavoring agents, 0–15% plant lipids, 1–5% binding and 0–0.5 coloring agents [19]. Differences in equipment, raw materials, and process parameters have some impact on the texture of manufactured plant-based (meat) products. The operational factors (high moisture >40%, extrusion temperature, feeding rate, screw speed) and system

1  An Overview of Plant-Based Food Alternatives (PBFAs): Classification, Textural…

7

characteristics are the main focus of current research on the impact of high moisture extrusion on the texture of PBMAs [23]. The goal of developing plant-based foods that resemble pulverized and bound flesh from animals is to replicate their distinctive bite, chewiness, succulence, and firmness. Burgers, patties, and nuggets made from animal products are mostly composed of proteins and fats, with smaller amounts of seasoning, salt, and binding agents (such as wheat crumbs, starches, and fibers). Although in lesser amounts, salt alters the structure of proteins and toughens products, whereas binders help products retain water and fat while also enhancing their texture and appearance [19]. In a study, methylcellulose (MC) was tested at various concentrations on plant-­ based meat analog patties, which were made mostly of textured isolate soy protein (T-ISP) and commercial texture vegetable protein (C-TVP). When compared to C-TVP and T-ISP, the control had considerably greater levels of hardness, chewiness, and gumminess. The increased hardness observed in the control group was predicted as a result of the phenomena of muscle protein denaturation, which caused hardness in the meat system [24]. In order to create plant-based meat substitutes with distinctive texture characteristics, various plant-based composites were studied using freeze structuring. The composite was made up of five distinct ratios of pea protein (PP) and wheat protein (WP), including 17:0, 13:4, 8.5:8.5, 4:13, and 0:17. The PPN analog’s hardness, chewiness, and springiness generally showed a declining tendency with a reduction in the amount of pea protein used in the formulation. When the textural characteristics of PPNs were compared to those of a commercial chicken nugget, it was found that there was no appreciable difference in the formulation of PP4 (4%w/w PP) (p