| Literature DB >> 35267388 |
Héctor Hernández1, Maria Cristiana Nunes1, Catarina Prista1, Anabela Raymundo1.
Abstract
In recent years, the development of healthier foods, richer in nutraceutical or functional compounds, has been in great demand. Microalgae are attracting increasing attention, as their incorporation in foods and beverages can be a promising strategy to develop sustainable foods with improved nutritional profiles and a strong positive impacts on health. Despite the increasing market demand in plant-based foods, the popularity of fermented dairy foods has increased in the recent years since they are a source of microorganisms with health-promoting effects. In this context, the incorporation of microalgae in cheeses, fermented milks and other dairy products represents an interesting approach towards the development of innovative and added-value hybrid products based on animal proteins and enriched with vegetable origin ingredients recognized as extremely valuable sources of bioactive compounds. The effect of the addition of microalgal biomass (Chlorella vulgaris, Arthrospira platensis, Pavlova lutheri, and Diacronema vlkianum, among others) and its derivates on the physicochemical composition, colorimetric and antioxidant properties, texture and rheology behavior, sensory profile, and viability of starter cultures and probiotics in yogurt, cheese and ice cream is discussed in the current work. This review of the literature on the incorporation of microalgae in dairy products aims to contribute to a better understanding of the potential use of these unique food ingredients in the development of new sustainable products and of their beneficial effects on health. Considering the importance of commercialization, regulatory issues about the use of microalgae in dairy products are also discussed.Entities:
Keywords: bioactive compounds; dairy products; legislation; microalgae
Year: 2022 PMID: 35267388 PMCID: PMC8909392 DOI: 10.3390/foods11050755
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Physicochemical composition of the most studied species of microalgae.
| Physicochemical Composition | Species | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Protein (% dry matter) | 12–44 | 18–50 | 50–70 | 6–43 | 41–47 | 29–31 | 11–46 |
| Lipid (% dry matter) | 22–46 | 10–17 | 8–9.3 | 7–59 | 13–23 | 10–19 | 0.3–23 |
| Carbohydrate (% dry matter) | 24–39 | 15–31 | 13–48 | 15–35 | 34–43 | 11–12 | 30–54 |
| Pigments | |||||||
| Lutein (mg/kg) | 0.2–5 | n.r | n.r | n.r | n.r | 4.2–6.7 | 624 |
| Chlorophyll (mg/L) | 6–18 | 0.3–2.3 | 5–14 | 0.1–4 | 1–5.3 | 7.9–9.1 | 353–400 |
| Phycocyanin (mg/mL) | n.r | n.r | 0.5–2.3 | n.r | n.r | n.r | n.r |
| Beta-carotene (mg/g) | n.r | 0.1–2.9 | n.r | 0.1–1.1 | 0.1–52 | 0.8–1.5 | 0.1–1 |
| Vitamins (mg/kg) | |||||||
| B2 | 20–34 | 25–62 | 34–81 | n.r | n.r | n.r | 5.3 |
| B3 | 0.2–0.3 | 51–70 | 0.1–55 | n.r | n.r | n.r | 80 |
| B9 | 0.7–1 | 17–26 | 2.6–7.9 | n.r | n.r | n.r | 200 |
| B12 | 0.3–2.4 | 0.9–1.7 | 1.6 –3.2 | n.r | n.r | 0.42 | 78–195 |
| E | n.r | n.r | n.r | n.r | 0.2–1.6 | 1.5–2 | 0.2 |
| C | n.r | n.r | n.r | n.r | 0.9–1.3 | 1.8–2.2 | 0.8 |
| Fatty acids (% total fatty acids) | |||||||
| C16:0 (palmitic) | 20–30 | 13–41 | 43–57 | 11–25 | 14–16 | 15–17 | 19–36 |
| C18:3 n-3 (alpha-linolenic) | 22–24 | 0.9–3 | 1.3–23 | 2.4–30 | 0.1–0.3 | 22–31 | 22–28 |
| C18:3 (linolenic) | 26–28 | 0.3–7.4 | 14–19 | 22–35 | n.r | 3.2–3.7 | n.r |
| C16:2 (hexadecadienoic) | 12–23 | 0.1–2 | 2.2–6 | 0.4–3.5 | 1–2.5 | 12–14 | 1.8–5 |
| C18:1 (oleic) | 29–33 | 1.6–7.3 | 1–19 | 7.6–50 | 3.7–6.4 | 5.3–8.9 | 12.5–20 |
Information adapted from: 1 Ran et al. [12]; Mehariya et al. [13]; Rodrigues-Sousa et al. [14]; 2 Ran et al. [15]; Fattore et al. [16]; Nogueira et al. [17]; 3 Shanthi et al. [18]; Batista de Oliveira et al. [19]; Morais et al. [20]; 4 Xing et al. [21]; Polat et al. [22]; Bohutskyi et al. [23]; 5 Jung et al. [24]; Zhu et al. [25]; Kottuparambil et al. [26]; 6 Kumudha and Sarada [27]; Mixson Byrd and Burkholder [28]; Torres-Tiji et al. [7]; 7 Pereira et al. [29]; Schulze et al. [30]; Qazi et al. [31]. n.r—not reported.
Studies on the application of microalgal biomass or derivates in yogurt. BFP—before the fermentation process; AFP—after the fermentation process.
| Microalgae or Derivate | Addition Rate | Physicochemical, Sensory, Rheology, Textural or Functional Characteristics | References |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.25, 0.50 and 1% ( | Final acidity (°D) and final redox potential (mv) were higher than the controls, pH and acetic acid (%) values were not different compared to the controls. Oral texture and feel in the mouth, appearance and nonoral texture were lower than the control. | Beheshtipour et al. [ |
|
| 2% ( | Protein and ash percentages were higher than the controls, lipid content (%) was not different compared to the control. Levels of ω3-fatty acids were higher than the control. | Matos et al. [ |
|
| 0.25 and 0.5% ( | Moisture, carbohydrate, protein and fat contents were not different compared to the control. pH values during storage (28 days) were similar to the control. Addition rate in the treatments was negatively correlated with color, liking of flavor, liking of texture and overall acceptability. | Robertson et al. [ |
| Phycocyanin from | 2, 4 and 8% ( | Treatments showed pH values higher than the control during 21 days of storage. Supplemented yogurts showed a lower viscosity compared to the control during 21 days of storage. Treatment with 4% of phycocyanin was the most accepted by the panelists. | Mohammadi et al. [ |
|
| 0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1% ( | Total solids, protein, ash and fat contents were higher than the control. There was a reduction in pH values of the treatments compared to the control. Fortified samples exhibited lower firmness compared to the control. Yogurts containing 2% of | Barkallah et al. [ |
|
| 1.% ( | Moisture, fat, protein, lactose, and ash levels were higher compared to the control. pH values in fortified samples were greater than the control as well. | Da Silva et al. [ |
|
| 0.13, 0.25, 0.38 and 0.5% ( | Acidity levels in fortified yogurt were greater than the control during 16 days of storage. Overall acceptability decreased with higher amounts of | Alizadeh et al. [ |
|
| 1% ( | Ash, total solid, fat, and protein contents had an increase compared to the control. There were no significative changes in the acidity and pH values. Total phenolic content and total antioxidant activity were increased in treatments with | Atallah et al. [ |
|
| 0.1, 0.3 and 0.5% ( | Solid content, protein, fat, ash, carbohydrate and acidity levels in supplemented yogurts were higher than the control. There was a reduction in the pH values compared to the control. There was an increase in hardness and viscosity values of fortified samples compared to the control. | Bchir et al. [ |
Studies on the application of microalgal biomass or derivates in ice cream.
| Microalgae or Derivate | Addition Rate | Physicochemical, Sensory, Rheological, Textural or Functional Characteristics | References |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3% ( | Fortified samples were greenish in color. There were no changes in the melting behavior of fortified samples. Consistency index ( | Durmaz et al. [ |
|
| 0.075, 0.15, 0.23 and 0.3% ( | Acidity in supplemented ice cream was increased compared to the control. pH values of fortified samples were lower than the control sample. Higher amounts of microalgae resulted in a decrease of the viscosity. Overrun in supplemented samples was enhanced compared to control. | Malik et al. [ |
|
| Pure and microencapsulated with maltodextrin or Arabic gum | Protein, fat and total solid were increased in ice cream with microencapsulated or pure | Balensiefer et al. [ |
|
| 0.6 and 1.2% | Total solid, protein and fat content were increased in enriched ice cream compared to control. Ice cream overrun and melting point were higher in fortified samples. Sensory analysis showed that the panelists preferred ice cream without microalgae. | Agustini et al. [ |
|
| 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3% ( | Supplemented ice cream was greenish in color. The panelists found a bitter taste in enriched samples. Ice cream with microalgae showed lower | Durmaz et al. [ |
| Phycocyanin from | 0.025% | Fortified ice cream was bluish in color (negative values of | Campos et al. [ |
|
| 0.1, 0.2 and 0.3% ( | Protein, fat and total solid were increased in ice cream with microencapsulated or pure | Durmaz et al. [ |
| Phycocyanin from | 0.013% | There was no difference in the fat content of supplemented samples compared to control. Melting time in samples with phycocyanin was lower compared to control. Overall acceptability was higher in non-fortified samples. | Rodrigues et al. [ |
Studies on the application of microalgal biomass in cheeses.
| Microalgae | Addition Rate | Physicochemical, Sensory, Rheology, Textural or Functional Characteristics | References |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 1, 2 and 3% ( | There were significant differences between the control and cheese analogue enhanced by 3% | Mohamed et al. [ |
|
| 2, 4 and 6% ( | The pH of the cheeses increased with the percentage of microalgae added. The addition of microalgae to the processed cheese increased the degree of meltability compared with the control sample before and after storage. | Tohamy et al. [ |
|
| 0.5, 1 and 1.5% ( | The increase in the amount of microalgae led to a reduction in moisture and an increase in protein and fat content in soft cheese. Cheeses fortified with | Agustini et al. [ |
|
| 0.25, 0.5 and 1% ( | There was an increase in the protein and fat content in supplemented samples compared to control. Cheeses with 0.25% and 0.5% incorporated | Bosnea et al. [ |
|
| 1, 2 and 3% ( | pH of fortified samples decreased slightly compared to the control. Fat, protein and solid total content were increased in samples with 3% of microalgae. Antioxidant capacity was enhanced in supplemented samples at storage compared to the control. Overall acceptability had high scores for all treatments and control. | Mohamed et al. [ |
|
| 0.5, 1 and 1.5% ( | Protein and ash content of enriched cheeses were not affected by microalgae addition. The | Golmakani et al. [ |
|
| 0.5, 1 and 1.5% ( | Fat and protein content of the supplemented cheeses was improved by microalgae addition compared to the control. The addition of microalgae to the cheese increased the phenolic compound and flavonoid content and also the antioxidant capacity. | Mohamed [ |
Microalgae or derivates approved for adding in milk and dairy products.
| Food Authority | Microalgae or Derivate | Food Category | Maximum Levels or Maximum Daily Intake | Additional Specific Labelling Requirements | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EFSA (EU) |
| Milk and dairy products | Unlimited a | - | EC 258/97 [ |
|
| Milk and dairy products | Unlimited a | - | EC 258/97 [ | |
|
| Milk and dairy products | Unlimited a | - | EC 258/97 [ | |
|
| Milk and dairy products | Unlimited a | - | EC 258/97 [ | |
|
| Yogurt and yogurt beverages | 0.15 g/100 g | Labelling must content the term “dried biomass of | EC 2017/2470 [ | |
| Dairy products except milk-based beverages | 0.6 g/100 g for cheese; 0.2 g/100 g for milk products (including milk, fromage frais and yogurt products) | Labelling must content the term “oil from the microalgae | EC 2017/2470 [ | ||
| Milk-based beverages | 0.06 g/100 mL of DHA | Labelling must content the term “oil from the micro-algae | EC 2017/2470 [ | ||
| FDA (USA) |
| Low-fat cheese, spreadable cheese and cottage cheese | 0.01 g/100 g | - | GNR 276 [ |
|
| Milk and dairy products | 3 g per serving b | - | GNR 417 [ | |
|
| Milk and dairy products | 0.208 g/100 g for prebiotic and yogurt beverages; 0.222 g/100 g for yogurt | - | GNR 697 [ | |
|
| Milk and dairy products | 1 g/100 g for milk; 1.35 g/100 g for yogurt, cheese and ice cream | - | GNR 519 [ | |
|
| Milk | 1.5 g/100 g | - | GNR 396 [ | |
| Milk and dairy products | 20 g/100 g for butter; 2 g/100 g for milk products | - | GNR 673 [ | ||
| FSSAI (India) |
| Milk and dairy products | 4 g per day | - | FSSAI [ |
|
| Milk and dairy products | 3 g per day | - | FSSAI [ | |
| Phycocyanin from | Milk and dairy products | 50 mg per day | - | FSSAI [ | |
| Astaxanthin powder from | Milk and dairy products | 4 mg per day | - | FSSAI [ | |
| ANZFA (Australia and New Zealand) | Milk products | 0.075 g/100 g | - | A428 [ | |
| Milk products | 260 mg of DHA per day in Australia; 280 mg of DHA per day in New Zealand | - | A428 [ |
a Used prior to May 1997 in EU Novel Food catalog; b serving sizes based on the USA FDA Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed per Eating Occasion (RACCs) [119].