Baklagil bazlı yoğurt analoglarının besinsel profili, duyusal özellikleri ve antioksidan potansiyelinin araştırılması

Öz

Bu çalışma, nohut, acı bakla ve kuru fasulyeden elde edilen baklagil bazlı yoğurt analoglarının duyusal, makro besin ögesi, antioksidan ve fizikokimyasal özelliklerini analiz ederek fonksiyonel gıda potansiyelini araştırmakta ve hayvansal yoğurt ile karşılaştırmaktadır. Yapılan duyusal değerlendirmelerde en yüksek puan hayvansal yoğurtta, en düşük puan ise acı bakla bazlı yoğurt analoğunda gözlenmiştir. Nohut ve fasulye bazlı yoğurt analogları, duyusal açıdan acı bakla bazlı ürünlere kıyasla daha iyi kabul görmüştür (p<0.05). Fasulye bazlı yoğurt analogları hayvansal yoğurda göre yüksek protein içeriğine (sırasıyla %6.35 ±0.59 ve %3.87 ±0.21 g) sahipken (p=0.01), karbonhidrat içeriği tüm baklagil bazlı analoglarda daha yüksek bulunmuştur (p<0.001). Antioksidan analizlerde, fasulye bazlı yoğurt analoglarının en yüksek antioksidan kapasite değerine (0.91 ±0.06 mmol Trolox Eq/L) sahip olduğu; genel olarak baklagil bazlı analoglarının, antioksidan kapasite ve oksidan kapasite açısından hayvansal yoğurda kıyasla daha yüksek değerlere ulaştığı belirlenmiştir. En yüksek oksidatif stres indeksi değeri acı bakla bazlı analoglarda (0.56 ±0.02 AU, p<0.05) gözlenmiştir. Renk ölçümleri, parlaklık ve sarılıkta anlamlı farklılıklar gözlenmiş; hayvansal yoğurt daha yüksek parlaklığa, acı bakla bazlı analoglar ise daha yüksek sarılığa sahip olmuştur (p<0.001). Baklagil bazlı yoğurt analogları, özellikle fasulye ve nohuttan elde edilenler, yüksek protein içeriği ve antioksidan özellikleri sayesinde umut verici fonksiyonel gıda alternatifleri sunmaktadır. Ancak, tüketici kabulünü artırmak için duyusal ve fiziksel iyileştirmelere ihtiyaç vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yoğurt analoğu
• Baklagil bazlı yoğurt
• Fonksiyonel gıda

Investigation of nutritional profile, sensory properties and antioxidant potential of legume-based yoghurt analogues

Abstract

This study investigates the functional food potential of legume-based yoghurt analogues derived from chickpeas, lupins, and beans by analysing their sensory, macronutrient, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties, comparing them with conventional dairy yoghurt. Sensory evaluation showed that dairy yoghurt received the highest scores, while lupin-based yoghurt analogue had the lowest. Chickpea- and bean-based yoghurt analogues were better accepted than lupin-based products in terms of sensory attributes (p<0.05). Bean-based yoghurt analogue had a significantly higher protein content (6.35 ±0.59% vs. 3.87 ±0.21%, p=0.01) compared to dairy yoghurt, while all legume-based analogues exhibited higher carbohydrate content (p<0.001). Antioxidant analyses revealed that bean-based yoghurt analogues had the highest antioxidant capacity value (0.91 ±0.06 mmol Trolox Eq/L); overall, legume-based analogues exhibited higher antioxidant and oxidant capacity values compared to dairy yoghurt. However, the highest Oxidative Stress Index value was observed in lupin-based analogues (0.56 ±0.02 AU, p<0.05). Colour measurements showed significant differences in brightness and yellowness; dairy yoghurt had higher brightness, while lupin-based analogues exhibited greater yellowness (p<0.001). Legume-based yoghurt analogues, particularly those derived from beans and chickpeas, present promising functional food alternatives due to their high protein content and antioxidant properties. However, sensory and textural improvements are necessary to enhance consumer acceptance.

Keywords

• Yoghurt analogue
• Legume-based yoghurt
• Functional food

References

1. Angelino, D., Rosi, A., Vici, G., Russo, M., Pellegrini, N., Martini, D. (2020). Nutritional quality of plant-based drinks sold in italy: the food labelling of italian products (flip) study. Foods, 9(5), 682. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9050682
2. AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). (2000). Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists International, Association of Official Analytical Chemists (publisher), Washington, DC 0044, USA, pp 1018. ISBN: 0935584676
3. Aydar, E.F., Tutuncu, S., Ozcelik, B. (2020). Plant-based milk substitutes: Bioactive compounds, conventional and novel processes, bioavailability studies, and health effects. Journal of Functional Foods, 70, 103975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2020.103975
4. Bader, S., Oviedo, J.P., Pickardt, C., & Eisner, P. (2011). Influence of different organic solvents on the functional and sensory properties of lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.) proteins. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 44(6), 1396-1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.01.007
5. Bilici, R. (2022). Vegan mutfağı kapsamında geliştirilmiş yenilikçi bir ürün: Bitkisel bazlı pastacı kreması. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi.
6. Craig, W., Brothers, C. (2021). Nutritional content and health profile of non-dairy plant-based yogurt alternatives. Nutrients, 13(11), 4069. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13114069
7. D’Andrea, A. (2023). A comparison of the nutritional profile and nutrient density of commercially available plant-based and dairy yogurts in the united states. Frontiers in Nutrition, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2023.1195045
8. Dhakal, D., Younas, T., Bhusal, R. P., Devkota, L., Henry, C.J., Dhital, S. (2023). Design rules of plant-based yoghurt-mimic: Formulation, functionality, sensory profile and nutritional value. Food Hydrocolloids, 142, 108786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2023.108786

9. Diez-Ozaeta, I., Vázquez-Araújo, L., Estrada, O., Puente, T., Regefalk, J. (2024). Exploring the Role of Lactic Acid Bacteria Blends in Shaping the Volatile Composition of Fermented Dairy and Rice-Based Beverages: A Step towards Innovative Plant-Based Alternatives. Foods, 13(5), 664. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13050664
10. Clark, S., Costello, M., Drake, M., Bodyfelt, F. (Eds.). (2009). The sensory evaluation of dairy products (Vol. 571). New York: Springer. ISBN: 978-3-031-30019-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-77408-4
11. Farooq, K., Haque, Z.U. (1992). Effect of sugar esters on the textural properties of nonfat low calorie yogurt. Journal of Dairy Science, 75(10), 2676-2680. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(92)78029-1
12. FMI (Future Market Insights). (2023). Plantbased milk market by category, by form, by product type, by flavor type, by end-use, by sales channel, by region for 2023–2033. https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/ plant-based-milk-market. (Erişim Tarihi: 04.02.2025)
13. Grasso, N., Alonso-Miravalles, L., O’Mahony, J. A. (2020). Composition, physicochemical and sensorial properties of commercial plant-based yogurts. Foods, 9(3), 252. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9030252
14. Greis, M., Sainio, T., Katina, K., Nolden, A.A., Kinchla, A.J., Seppä, L., Partanen, R. (2022). Physicochemical properties and mouthfeel in commercial plant-based yogurts. Foods, 11(7), 941. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11070941
15. Gupta, M.K., Torrico, D.D., Ong, L., Gras, S.L., Dunshea, F.R., Cottrell, J.J. (2022). Plant and dairy-based yogurts: a comparison of consumer sensory acceptability linked to textural analysis. Foods, 11(3), 463. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11030463
16. Helal, A. (2023). Influence of using wheatgrass juice on the nutritional value and characteristics of set yogurt. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, 22(3), 263-285. https://doi.org/10.21608/jaesj.2024.235807.1110
17. Heymann, H., Machado, B., Torri, L., & Robinson, A. L. (2012). How many judges should one use for sensory descriptive analysis?. Journal of Sensory Studies, 27(2), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2012.00373.x
18. Hickisch, A., Beer, R., Vogel, R. F., Toelstede, S. (2016). Influence of lupin-based milk alternative heat treatment and exopolysaccharide-producing lactic acid bacteria on the physical characteristics of lupin-based yogurt alternatives. Food Research International, 84, 180-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.03.037
19. Laaksonen, O., Kahala, M., Marsol-Vall, A., Blasco, L., Järvenpää, E., Rosenvald, S., Yang, B. (2021). Impact of lactic acid fermentation on sensory and chemical quality of dairy analogues prepared from lupine (Lupinus angustifolius L.) seeds. Food chemistry, 346, 128852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128852
20. Malki, M.K.S., Pamunuwa, K.M.G.K., Wijesinghe, J.A.A.C. (2022). Development and quality evaluation of oat (Avena sativa) incorporated drinking yogurt. Journal of Science, 13(2). http://doi.org/10.4038/jsc.v13i2.48
21. Marlapati, L., Basha, R.F., Navarre, A., Kinchla, A.J., Nolden, A.A. (2024). Comparison of Physical and Compositional Attributes between Commercial Plant-Based and Dairy Yogurts. Foods, 13(7), 984. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods13070984
22. Pandey, S., Ritz, C., Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. (2021). An application of the theory of planned behaviour to predict intention to consume plant-based yogurt alternatives. Foods, 10(1), 148. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10010148
23. Paul, A.A., Kumar, S., Kumar, V., Sharma, R. (2020). Milk Analog: Plant based alternatives to conventional milk, production, potential and health concerns. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 60(18), 3005-3023. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1674243
24. Postolache, A. (2023). A clean-label formulation of fortified yogurt based on rhododendron flower powder as a functional ingredient. Foods, 12(23), 4365. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12234365
25. Pua, A., Tang, V.C.Y., Goh, R.M.V., Sun, J., Lassabliere, B., Liu, S. Q. (2022). Ingredients, processing, and fermentation: addressing the organoleptic boundaries of plant-based dairy analogues. Foods, 11(6), 875. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11060875
26. Rashwan, A.K., Osman, A.I., Chen, W. (2023). Natural nutraceuticals for enhancing yogurt properties: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 21(3), 1907-1931. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-023-01588-0
27. Runte, M., Guth, J.N., Ammann, J. (2024). Consumers’ perception of plant-based alternatives and changes over time. A linguistic analysis across three countries and ten years. Food Quality and Preference, 113, 105057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2023.105057
28. Silva, S., Fernandes, I., Barros, L., Fernandes, Â., Alves, M., Calhelha, R., Barreiro, M. (2019). Spray-dried spirulina platensis as an effective ingredient to improve yogurt formulations: testing different encapsulating solutions. Journal of Functional Foods, 60, 103427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2019.103427
29. Thorning, T.K., Raben, A., Tholstrup, T., Soedamah- Muthu, S.S., Givens, I., Astrup, A. (2016). Milk and dairy products: good or bad for human health? An assessment of the totality of scientific evidence. Food & nutrition research, 60(1), 32527. https://doi.org/10.3402/fnr.v60.32527
30. Uçurum, M. (2017). Fuzzy statistical process control of a calcite grinding plant using total color difference parameter (ΔE). IOSR Journal of Engineering, 7, 7-22. https://doi.org/10.9790/3021-0705010722
31. Wijesekara, A., Weerasingha, V., Jayarathna, S., Priyashantha, H. (2022). Quality parameters of natural phenolics and its impact on physicochemical, microbiological, and sensory quality attributes of probiotic stirred yogurt during the storage. Food Chemistry: X, 14, 100332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2022.100332