A request for “sunflower protein powder” can lead to quite different ingredients. All Organic Treasures describes mechanically pressed Heliaflor powders, including a grade with additional CO₂ extraction; Sunbloom distinguishes a general-purpose PRO grade from a finer BEV grade for lower-viscosity applications.[1][3] A published materials study, meanwhile, compared commercially supplied yellowish and greenish sunflower protein concentrates with different chlorogenic acid contents.[4] These are three different selection questions—not three ways of asking for the highest protein percentage.
For a food developer, the useful starting point is the job the ingredient must do. A savoury spread can accommodate a different flavour, colour and texture from a pale, pourable drink. The commercial comparison below separates what the named suppliers say from what a laboratory study actually measured. It is a basis for choosing samples, not a ranking of brands.
The same seed, different processing decisions
All Organic Treasures describes making Heliaflor from hulled sunflower seeds by partial cold pressing, followed by fine grinding under oxygen exclusion in a temperature-controlled process.[1] Within that family, it describes Heliaflor 45 as having more residual fat, a more intensive taste and a brownish colour, while Heliaflor 55 receives additional CO₂ extraction and is described as beige and relatively neutral in taste.[1] The comparison page calls 45 beige rather than brownish, so assess colour on a current sample rather than relying on either description.[2]
The additional extraction is described as reducing fat and increasing the protein proportion.[1] That does not establish a chlorogenic acid removal specification. A buyer should not translate “more defatted” into “de-phenolized” without separate evidence.
Sunbloom makes a different distinction: its product page positions PRO for medium- to high-viscosity applications such as spreads, sauces, dressings and desserts, while BEV is described as finer and intended to improve mouthfeel in lower-viscosity products, including milk alternatives and ready-to-drink applications.[3] Here the published reason to consider the second grade is the physical form and application fit, rather than a stated jump in protein content.
| Named material | What the primary supplier page actually says | What that tells a sample buyer |
|---|---|---|
| Named materialHeliaflor 45 | What the primary supplier page actually saysMechanically partially defatted, finely ground; minimum 45% protein on a dry-mass basis in the comparison table.[2] | What that tells a sample buyerA candidate to examine when seed character and the remaining non-protein fraction can be part of the product concept. |
| Named materialHeliaflor 55 | What the primary supplier page actually saysAdditional CO₂ extraction; minimum 55% protein on a dry-mass basis; process page describes a relatively neutral taste.[1][2] | What that tells a sample buyerA distinct defatting option—not proof of complete solubility or low chlorogenic acid. |
| Named materialSUNBLOOM PRO | What the primary supplier page actually saysPositioned for medium/high viscosity and emulsifying applications.[3] | What that tells a sample buyerA supplier-positioned starting point for spreads, dressings and desserts. |
| Named materialSUNBLOOM BEV | What the primary supplier page actually saysDescribed as finer, with a focus on low-viscosity mouthfeel and protein/fibre enrichment.[3] | What that tells a sample buyerA reason to request beverage-relevant particle-size and sensory evidence, not to assume a clear solution. |
The information above comes from the suppliers’ public materials. Confirm the specific grade and current specification with the relevant supplier.
Why a higher protein number is not the whole comparison
The Heliaflor comparison table gives approximate fat contents of 10% for 45 and “max. approx. 2%” for 55, alongside their different dry-mass protein minimums.[2] These are supplier specifications and approximate composition figures, not batch measurements. The dry-mass basis is explicit for protein, but is not separately stated for fat.
Those differences matter when planning a replacement. The two protein minimums do not tell you the actual protein difference between batches. To compare equal protein contributions, use each sample’s measured protein content on an as-supplied basis, or account for moisture when converting a dry-basis result. The required powder dose and accompanying non-protein material may then differ. Neither comparison establishes equivalent texture. For an initial development brief, choose explicitly between comparing equal powder additions and comparing equal verified protein contributions. They answer different questions.
There is also a useful warning in the supplier’s own documentation. The process page describes Heliaflor 45 as having stronger water binding and describes 55 as slightly weaker; the comparison table lists water-binding thresholds above 160% for 45 and above 200% for 55.[1][2] These are not a sound basis for a measured performance ranking. Lower-bound thresholds do not reveal actual values, and the public pages do not provide a shared assay protocol that resolves the apparent tension.
The practical response is to ask for the current grade-specific method and result, rather than repeat whichever statement suits the proposed formulation. It also avoids mistaking water binding for dissolution: a supplier’s capacity to bind water does not, by itself, document the fraction of protein remaining in a centrifuged supernatant.
Phenolic removal is a separate material choice
A 2025 primary study provides a useful comparison beyond supplier descriptions. Its materials were SUNPROTEIN sunflower protein concentrates supplied by “Bio Technologies” LLC: a low-chlorogenic-acid yellowish material, YSF, and a higher-chlorogenic-acid greenish material, GSF.[4] The paper says the yellowish material had undergone a clarification process to remove phenolic compounds; it does not identify either material as Heliaflor or Sunbloom.[4] The commercial materials also differed in processing, so this is not a controlled test of chlorogenic acid alone.
The authors measured solubility using a 2% w/w protein solution, adjusted to pH 3, 5, 7, 9 or 11, stirred for one hour at room temperature, then centrifuged at 3,000 rpm for 20 minutes; protein in the supernatant was determined by Kjeldahl analysis.[4] Both materials showed reduced solubility near pH 5 and their maximum at pH 11.[4]
That method matters more to a buyer than an isolated “solubility” percentage. It is not a cold-water dispersibility test, a mouthfeel test, or a shelf-life trial in a finished drink. A result after pH adjustment and centrifugation cannot establish that powder poured into a neutral beverage will disappear, remain suspended or survive the intended heat process.
The study supports treating phenolic content as an additional material variable. It does not support estimating chlorogenic acid from the shade of a powder or assuming that every pale commercial sunflower protein has been made by the same clarification process.
A thicker emulsion was not simply a better-emulsified one
The same researchers prepared oil-in-water emulsions as precursors for films. Their formulation work used pH 11, sunflower protein, glycerol, sunflower oil and eugenol, with additional treatments containing cellulose nanoparticles; emulsification used a 20 kHz ultrasonic probe at a nominal 525 W for two minutes.[4] These were laboratory packaging-material experiments, not beverage recipes or evidence of food-grade or food-contact compliance. A commercial source does not by itself establish that a research material is suitable for food use.
In the two emulsion treatments without added cellulose nanoparticles, Table 2 reports the following:[4]
| Reported result | Yellowish-protein emulsion, E-YSF | Greenish-protein emulsion, E-GSF |
|---|---|---|
| Reported resultVolume–surface mean droplet diameter, D₃₂ | Yellowish-protein emulsion, E-YSF0.90 ± 0.01 µm, group d | Greenish-protein emulsion, E-GSF1.34 ± 0.02 µm, group c |
| Reported resultApparent viscosity at 10 s⁻¹, measured at 25 °C | Yellowish-protein emulsion, E-YSF29.6 ± 1.8 mPa·s, group e | Greenish-protein emulsion, E-GSF135.2 ± 12.6 mPa·s, group c |
Compare the letters across each row: the two materials differ significantly for each reported metric under the authors’ ANOVA/Tukey analysis (p < 0.05). The experiments were performed in duplicate with at least three measurements per sample.[4] Multiple readings are not the same as multiple independent production batches.
The higher-phenolic material produced the thicker emulsion but also the larger mean droplets in this particular comparison.[4] The authors discuss greater aggregation and flocculation as an explanation for the higher viscosity.[4] That is the commercially useful counterexample: selecting a grade because it makes a mixture thicker can select a different structure, not necessarily finer emulsification.
There is a unit inconsistency worth preserving. The paper’s Table 2 labels viscosity in mPa·s, whereas the nearby discussion prints Pa·s for the ranges.[4] The values above retain the table’s units; the absolute viscosity values need clarification before quantitative reuse. They are not specification targets for sunflower-protein foods.
How this changes the shortlist
For a savoury spread, Heliaflor’s own process description makes the more intensive-tasting 45 grade relevant to consider, while Sunbloom explicitly positions PRO for spreads and similar textures.[1][3] Those are useful starting points for samples. The development decision remains whether the actual flavour and texture work in your product—not which brochure uses the strongest binding claim.
For a pale, low-viscosity drink, Sunbloom’s finer BEV positioning and Heliaflor 55’s relatively neutral sensory description raise different questions.[1][3] One concerns physical form and mouthfeel; the other concerns the effect of a different defatting route. A sensible brief would ask each candidate supplier for the actual sample’s particle-size information, colour in the intended base, and behaviour after the real heat and storage sequence. These are proposed selection criteria, not results already established for those grades.
For a project where colour and protein functionality are both important, the yellowish/greenish study is a reason to discuss phenolic management explicitly.[4] Ask whether the supplier’s grade is simply mechanically concentrated, additionally defatted, or made with a stated phenolic-removal step. Do not let the research material’s pH 11 performance stand in for a food trial.
The most useful purchasing request therefore names the application before the percentage: “sunflower protein for a pale pourable product,” or “sunflower protein for a savoury spread,” followed by the intended protein contribution, acceptable seed flavour, processing conditions and target market. Request the available grade, current specification and matching sample. Named commercial examples help frame that conversation; they are not a promise of stock, brand equivalence or finished-product performance.
Related reading
Compare other seed-derived materials in flaxseed processing and cyanogenic specifications and fenugreek flavour and processing.
For a retail-label comparison, see pumpkin seed protein: cold pressing, milling and mixing.
Sources
[3] Sunbloom: PRO and BEV products
[4] Foods 2025, 14:824: sunflower-protein emulsions and films