| Literature DB >> 35877538 |
Xiao Kong1, Ziqun Xiao1,2, Mengdi Du1, Kuaitian Wang1, Wei Yu1,2, Yuhang Chen1,2, Zhili Liu1, Yongqiang Cheng2, Jing Gan1.
Abstract
Soy yogurt is plant-based dairy of great nutritional interest that is widely accepted in developing countries as a milk alternative. Poor stability has been an urgent problem to solve of soy yogurt products over past several years. The present study aimed to construct multiple network composite gel by adding low acyl gellan gum (LAG) to improve the stability. The effect of addition of LAG on property of soy yogurt was investigated by determining water holding capacity, texture, rheology, particle size, and zeta potential. The results showed that water holding capacity was significantly higher than control. The soy yogurt with 0.1% LAG had a stable gel network with much gel strength and viscosity, and strengthened interaction between complex gel. The addition of LAG increased the particle size and decreased zeta potential. Furthermore, sensory properties were acceptable. Therefore, during industrial production, LAG could act as an appropriate stabilizer to inhibit poor body and bring more desirable sensory characteristics of soy yogurt.Entities:
Keywords: low acyl gellan gum; sensorial property; soy yogurt; stability; texture
Year: 2022 PMID: 35877538 PMCID: PMC9318443 DOI: 10.3390/gels8070453
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gels ISSN: 2310-2861
Figure 1Water holding capacity of soy yogurt with different LAG contents. Different letters indicate that the values are significantly different (p < 0.001).
Parameters of texture profile analysis (TPA) of soy yogurt with different LAG levels.
| Level | Textural Parameters | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hardness 1 (N) | Hardness 2 (N) | Adhesiveness (N.s) | Cohesiveness (N.s) | Springiness (mm) | Gumminess (N) | Chewiness (mJ) | |
| 0 | 0.27 ± 0.04 c | 0.25 ± 0.04 c | 0.45 ± 0.17 a | 0.68 ± 0.06 a | 7.40 ± 4.48 a | 0.19 ± 0.03 c | 1.30 ± 0.72 c |
| 0.01 | 0.33 ± 0.05 c | 0.26 ± 0.05 c | 0.48 ± 0.25 a | 0.61 ± 0.26 a | 6.27 ± 5.21 a | 0.20 ± 0.06 c | 1.39 ± 1.38 c |
| 0.025 | 0.59 ± 0.07 c | 0.47 ± 0.11 c | 0.47 ± 0.22 a | 0.47 ± 0.18 a | 9.55 ± 0.76 a | 0.28 ± 0.12 c | 2.67 ± 1.17 bc |
| 0.05 | 1.11 ± 0.34 b | 0.87 ± 0.09 b | 0.48 ± 0.31 a | 0.59 ± 0.21 a | 9.04 ± 1.62 a | 0.62 ± 0.14 b | 5.66 ± 1.99 b |
| 0.075 | 2.11 ± 0.37 a | 1.81 ± 0.26 a | 0.54 ± 0.23 a | 0.63 ± 0.14 a | 9.72 ± 0.44 a | 1.30 ± 0.20 a | 12.69 ± 2.43 a |
| 0.1 | 2.34 ± 0.16 a | 1.95 ± 0.08 a | 0.62 ± 0.11 a | 0.60 ± 0.01 a | 9.97 ± 0.03 a | 1.41 ± 0.10 a | 14.00 ± 1.01 a |
Means with different superscripts in each column are significantly different (p < 0.001). All values are the means ± standard deviations of three replicates.
Figure 2Images of soy yogurt with different LAG contents.
Figure 3Frequency dependence of storage modulus G′ and loss modulus G″ for soy yogurt with different LAG contents.
Figure 4Effect of LAG on particle size distribution (a) and zeta potential (b) of soy yogurt. Different letters indicate that the values are significantly different (p < 0.05).
Figure 5PCA plot showing the attribution of soy yogurt groups over LAG addition with respect to sensorial characteristics. (SY1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 with 0%, 0.01%, 0.025%, 0.05%, 0.075% and 0.1% LAG concentration, respectively).