Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Delivery and Bioavailability of Encapsulated Caffeic Acid
Previous Article in Journal
Qualitative and Quantitative Assessments of Apple Quality Using Vis Spectroscopy Combined with Improved Particle-Swarm-Optimized Neural Networks
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 10
10.3390/foods12101994
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Potentially Synbiotic Yellow Mombin Beverages: Stability during Refrigerated Storage, Physicochemical Characteristics, and Sensory Properties

by
Luis Eduardo Guieu Galvao Telles Ribeiro
1,
Leonam da Silva Pereira Batista
2,
Cristiane Fernandes de Assis
1,3,
Karla Suzanne Florentino Silva Chaves Damasceno
1,2 and
Francisco Canindé de Sousa Júnior
1,3,*
1
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Nutrição, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Av. Senador Salgado Filho, 3000, Natal 59078-970, RN, Brazil
2
Departamento de Nutrição, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Av. Senador Salgado Filho, 3000, Natal 59078-970, RN, Brazil
3
Departamento de Farmácia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, R. Gal. Gustavo Cordeiro de Faria, s/n, Petrópolis, Natal 59012-570, RN, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(10), 1994; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101994
Submission received: 11 April 2023 / Revised: 3 May 2023 / Accepted: 10 May 2023 / Published: 15 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Nutraceuticals, Functional Foods, and Novel Foods)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to develop potentially synbiotic yellow mombin (Spondias mombin L.) beverages added with fructooligosaccharides and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NRRL B-4496. Six formulations of yellow mombin beverages were prepared to measure the influence of fermentation and pH, which was adjustment to 4.5 for stability and quality parameters. Formulations were evaluated for probiotic survival, pH, titratable acidity, total phenolic compounds (TPC), and antioxidant activity for 28 days at 4 °C. Additionally, the proximate composition, color, sensory aspects, and survival to simulated gastrointestinal conditions were studied. At 21 days of storage, the viability of L. plantarum was 9 CFU/mL for the fermented symbiotic (SYNf) and non-fermented symbiotic with adjusted pH (SYNa) formulations. In addition, the fermented synbiotic with an adjusted pH beverage (SYNfA) showed a count of 8.2 log CFU/mL at 28 days. The formulations showed a high TPC (234–431 mg GAE/L), antioxidant activity (48–75 µM trolox), and a potential use as low-calorie beverages. The SYNf formulation showed an acceptability index higher than 70% and a high purchase intent. The SYNf and SYNa formulations maintained suitable probiotic counts after exposure to the simulated gastrointestinal digestion. Therefore, it was possible to develop a new potentially synbiotic yellow mombin beverage with a high sensory acceptance, supplying the market with a new functional food alternative.

1. Introduction

Probiotics are living microorganisms that provide beneficial effects to consumers when administered in adequate amounts [1]. Probiotics can generate a great variety of positive health effects, such as the regulation of gastrointestinal microbiota, immune system modulation, improvement in lipid profile, insulin sensibility, and a protective effect against symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease, irritable bowel syndrome, atopic dermatitis, type 1 diabetes, COVID-19, and others [2,3,4,5,6].
Studies observed a rising growth in the search for probiotic products with yogurts and fermented milks as the main probiotic products available in the market nowadays [7]. However, it is estimated that around 65% of the world population will develop lactose intolerance at some point in life, and in addition to that, an increase in the search for a plant-based diet is a growing reality for many individuals, leading to an estimated market value of 14.5 billion dollars by 2050 [8].
Fruit juices added with probiotics showed promising results [9]. Fruit juices are rich in nutrients, vitamins, and antioxidant compounds, and have high amounts of fermentable sugars, providing suitable conditions for probiotic growth [10,11], in addition to having a refreshing flavor and being able to be consumed by individuals of all ages [10]. Different probiotic strains have been successfully inoculated in a wide variety of fruit juices, such as orange [12,13], pineapple and juçara (Euterpe edulis Martius) [14], jujube (Zizyphus jujuba Mill.) [2], and apple [11,15].
However, the maintenance in the viability of probiotics in fruit juices is difficult since these beverages have a low pH [16]. The viability can be also influenced by the storage temperature, the nutritional composition of food, and the probiotic strain used [17]. Furthermore, probiotic cultures can alter sensory characteristics of the product and can impair the acceptance of the product [18], which is essential to obtain a pleasing sensory profile for market success [10].
Fructooligosaccharides (FOS) are prebiotic fibers that can be fermented by intestinal bacteria, conferring positive effects to the host and being considered as a product with functional allegations [19]. FOS do not induce big changes in taste and texture profiles, enabling the formulation of products with high amounts of dietary and no significant changes on sensory acceptance in comparison to non-prebiotic beverages [16]. The simultaneous use of probiotics and prebiotics leads to the development of a synbiotic product, which may be able to improve probiotic stability, viability, and intestinal colonization [7,10,20]. Therefore, prebiotics (such as FOS) could be used to improve the stability of probiotic cultures in fruit juices.
Yellow mombin (Spondias mombin L.) is an elliptical-shaped fruit, 3–4 cm in length, and belongs to the Anacardiaceae family [21]. This fruit exhibits high tannin, vitamin C, and carotenoid contents [21,22]. This composition has shown both gastroprotective and ulcer healing capabilities [23], protective effects against ovarian cancer cells [24], and reduced ventricular remodeling post-myocardial infarction [25]. Yellow mombin fruit is mostly found in domestic orchards in the North and Northeast regions of Brazil and is considered a part of the socio-biodiversity of these regions [26,27]. Yellow mombin juice can be a suitable matrix for the development of novel probiotic and synbiotic foods. However, it is essential to evaluate the influence of adding any substance in a food matrix, since any change can compromise the physicochemical, microbiological, and sensory aspects of new foods [17].
Therefore, this study aimed to develop a potentially synbiotic yellow-mombin beverages, using FOS and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NRRL B-4496. The stability of the fermented and non-fermented formulations was evaluated during the refrigerated storage. In addition, proximate composition, color, sensorial evaluation, and probiotic survival under simulated gastrointestinal conditions were studied.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Chemicals

The FOS were purchased from NewNutrition (Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil). The frozen yellow mombin pulp was obtained from Ster Bom (Macaíba, RN, Brazil). The De Man, Rogosa and Sharpe (MRS) broth was purchased from Becton, Dickinson and Co. (Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA). The gallic acid, Folin–Ciocalteu phenol reagent, DPPH (2,2-diphenyl-1-picrilhidrazil), trolox (6-Hydroxy-2,5,7,8-tetramethylchroman-2-carboxylic acid), pepsin, bile salts, and pancreatin were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Saint Louis, MO, USA). All other reagents used were of analytical grade.

2.2. Probiotic Strain

Lactiplantibacillus plantarum NRRL B-4496 was provided by the ARS Culture Collection—NRRL (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Peoria, IL, USA). The strain was stored at −20 °C in microtubes containing the MRS broth and 15% glycerol (w/v).

2.3. Inoculum Preparation

For the inoculum preparation, 1 mL of the glycerol stock culture was transferred to 50 mL of the MRS broth and incubated (model Q816M20, Quimis, Diadema, SP, Brazil) at 37 °C for 24 h. Then, 5 mL of the initial culture was transferred to 50 mL of the MRS broth and incubated at 37 °C for 18 h [28]. The cells were centrifuged at 2000 rpm (model 206 BL II, Fanem, Guarulhos, SP, Brazil) for 10 min, washed with NaCl 0.9% (w/v), and subjected to a second centrifugation. The inoculum was obtained by the addition of 5 mL of NaCl 0.9% to the pellet and was used for both the fermented and unfermented beverages [17].

2.4. Obtaining Potentially Synbiotic Yellow Mombin Beverages

The six formulations were prepared: CON (control), PREB (prebiotic beverage), SYN (unfermented synbiotic beverage), SYNf (fermented synbiotic beverage), SYNa (unfermented synbiotic beverage with a pH adjusted to 4.5), and SYNfa (fermented synbiotic beverage with a pH adjusted to 4.5) as shown in Table 1.
The yellow mombin formulations were prepared using 100 g of frozen pulp for 200 mL of beverage. The pH of the SYNa and SYNfa formulations was adjusted to a pH 4.5 using NaOH 1.0 M. The formulations were pasteurized at 80 °C for 15 min with a subsequent thermal shock using an ice bath for 5 min. The inoculum (10% v/v) (Section 2.3) was aseptically added to the pasteurized juice to obtain the non-fermented beverages (SYN and SYNa). After adding the inoculum (10% v/v) for the fermented beverages (SYNf and SYNfa), the formulations were incubated at 30 °C for 18 h [18]. The fructooligosaccharides powder was added for a final concentration of 25 g/L.

2.5. Stability of Potentially Synbiotic Beverages during Refrigerated Storage

All the beverage formulations obtained were dispersed in sterile tubes at 4 °C. The viable count, pH, titratable acidity, total soluble solids (TSS), total phenolic compounds (TPC), and antioxidant activity were recorded before storage and at intervals of 7 days for 28 days. Next, a L. plantarum count was performed in the MRS agar for serial dilutions up to 10−10 and incubated at 37 °C for 72 h [18]. The pH was determined using a digital potentiometer (model Luca-210, Lucadema, São José do Rio Preto, SP, Brazil). The titratable acidity was determined by titration with phenolphthalein and 0.01 mol/L NaOH. The level of TSS (°Brix) was obtained using a refractometer (model Q767BD, Quimis). The TPC was determined by the Folin–Ciocalteu method adapted to 96 well microplates [29]. The absorbance was read at 750 nm (model EPOCHH, BioTek, Campinas, SP, Brazil), and the results were expressed as milligrams of gallic acid equivalent per liter (mg GAE/L). The antioxidant activity was evaluated by the DPPH radical scavenging, according to Nóbrega et al. [30].

2.6. Proximate Composition

The proximate composition was evaluated on the potentially synbiotic beverages with a probiotic survival for at least 21 storage days and controls (CON and PREB). The measurements of the moisture, ash, lipids (adapted to liquid samples with the addition of 5 g of sample weighed in a cotton ball inside a Soxhlet cartridge), and protein (using 6.25 as a conversion factor) were carried out according to the AOAC methods [31]. The fiber content was estimated based on the nutritional information of the ingredients (Frozen yellow mombin pulp and FOS), and the carbohydrates were obtained by the difference. The caloric value (Kcal) was calculated using the Atwater conversion factors (protein × 4, carbohydrate × 4, and lipid × 9).

2.7. Color Determination

The L*, a*, and b* coordinates were obtained using a digital colorimeter (model WR10, Shenzhen Wave Optoelectronics Technology Co. Ltd., Shenzhen, Guangdong, China). The color difference (ΔE) between CON and the other formulations was calculated according to Equation (1):
Δ E = ( Δ L * ) 2 + ( Δ a * ) 2 + ( Δ b * ) 2

2.8. Sensory Evaluation

The sensory evaluation was carried out using 91 untrained panelists, including students and staff of UFRN (74% female, 71% with an age range of 20–26 years). The beverages were coded with random three-digit numbers and presented in a sequential monadic way in individual plastic cups. Water and salty biscuits were provided for palate cleansing. The overall acceptance of the beverages was evaluated using the nine-point hedonic scale, ranging from “extremely disliked” (score 1) to “extremely liked” (score 9) [32]. The acceptability index (AI) was calculated using Equation (2):
A I % = A v e r a g e   g r a d e   g i v e n   t o   t h e   f o r m u l a t i o n 9 × 100
The sensory attributes of acidity, sweetness, viscosity, and color were evaluated using a just about right (JAR) scale, ranging from “less intense than I like” (score 1) to “more intense than I like” (score 5), with a score of 3 being “ideal, the way I like”. In addition, the consumer attitude concerning the purchase intent was evaluated with a five-point scale ranging from “I would certainly not buy” (score 1) to “I would certainly buy” (score 5) [33]. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the UFRN (Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Assessment—CAAE no. 07811118.9.0000.5292). All volunteers signed an informed consent form to participate in the study.

2.9. Simulated Gastrointestinal Conditions

The survival of L. plantarum under simulated gastrointestinal conditions was evaluated in vitro according to Matias et al. [34] with adaptations. The SYNf and SYNa formulations were submitted to the gastric and intestinal simulated conditions. Sodium chloride 0.9% inoculated with a probiotic culture was used as a control. The gastric phase fluid consisted of pepsin (2500 U/mL) was diluted in 9 mL of NaCl 0.9% with the pH adjusted to 3.0. The intestinal fluid consisted of pancreatin (800 U/mL) and bile salts (625 μL at 4% w/v) was diluted in 9 mL of NaCL 0.9% with the pH adjusted to 7.0. For the gastric phase (GP) 1 mL of each formulation was added to the gastric fluid and incubated at 37 °C and 200 rpm for 2 h. For the intestinal phase (IP), 1 mL of each GP fluid was added to the intestinal fluid and incubated in the same conditions. The enumeration of the viable counts was performed before the simulation and after each simulated gastrointestinal phase.

2.10. Statistical Analysis

The experiments and measurements were performed in triplicate and the results were expressed as arithmetic mean ± standard deviation. The statistical analysis of the beverage characterizations and the simulated gastrointestinal conditions was performed using the one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-test using the Statistica 7.0 software program (StatSoft Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA). The sensory analysis results were expressed as median, and the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test with the Dunn test was performed for multiple comparisons along with Bonferroni. The data obtained by the JAR test were compared to the overall acceptance data with a penalty test to determine which attributes significantly impacted acceptance. The sensory analysis data statistics were carried out using the XLSTAT statistical package (Addionsoft, Paris, France). All the statistical analyses considered a significance level of 95% (p < 0.05).

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Stability of Potentially Synbiotic Beverages during Refrigerated Storage

The viability of L. plantarum NRRL B-4496 in potentially synbiotic yellow mombin beverages showed a count above 8 log CFU/mL for SYNf and SYNa at 21 days and 28 days, respectively, (Table 2). The literature has shown that a reduction in probiotic viability in refrigerated fruit juices occurs due to a low pH [16]. The cell count decay in the SYNf and SYNa formulations after 21 days could have been caused by a drop in the L. plantarum metabolic activity, as well as the production of metabolites and bacteriocins, impairing the viability of the probiotics [35].
The results indicated that the presence of the FOS as an additional carbon source and the pH adjustments in both the SYNa and SYNfa were possibly positive determinants for the probiotic survival in the yellow mombin beverages during the refrigerated storage, as we could observe the beneficial influence of both adaptations individually and simultaneously [36,37]. A study with cornelian cherry juice (Cornus mas L.) showed an increase in viability for Lacticaseibacillus casei T4 after pH adjustments for 28 days [38].
After 28 days of storage, the SYNfa formulation showed probiotic counts higher than those previously described [39,40]. For example, Lactobacillus acidophilus La5 in fermented yacon beverages with 5.97 log CFU/mL at 4 °C for 27 days of storage [39] and Limosilactobacillus reuteri ATCC 55730 in fermented almond beverages with 7.06 log CFU/mL after 28 days of storage [40]. In comparison to studies using vegetable beverages, both SYNf and SYNa showed similar or higher viable counts in comparison to the 21 day storage time [36,39,40]. Therefore, the fermented and/or pH-adjusted yellow mombin juice added with FOS could be considered a suitable vehicle for inoculation and maintenance of L. plantarum viability.
The SYN formulation presented low probiotic stability, losing its viability on storage day 7. The probiotic possibly did not adapt to the unfermented food matrix, as well as the very acidic pH. The adaptability of the microorganism to the medium is of fundamental importance for its development [37].
The physicochemical and antioxidant stability results are described in Table 3. The SYNf formulation was able to keep a stable pH during the whole storage period while the remaining formulations showed a slight increase from day 7 to day 21, followed by a decrease at day 28. Khezri et al. [37] observed a decrease in the pH in fig juice formulations added with inulin and Lactobacillus delbrueckii DSMZ 15996, while no significant difference was observed in orange juice with added FOS and L. paracasei throughout its storage. The differences found in this study could be caused by the different organic acid profiles, soluble solids content, nutritional availability, and the original matrix pH [37].
The titratable acidity for all the formulations showed a slight decrease at day 28, which could be related to the natural degradation of the citric acid or the decrease in the production of lactic acid related to the loss of viability in SYNf and SYNa [37]. However, the decrease in titratable acidity was not reflected in the pH of the formulations on day 28. This could have occurred because of the right buffering of the organic acids in the beverage, avoiding pH altering even with acid profile changes [41,42].
The TSS results demonstrated similar variations within all the formulations with an increase at day 7, possibly due to the acid hydrolysis of the complex sugars, which could relate to the increase in TSS and pH at the same time [36,43,44]. A similar pattern could be observed in an orange juice and hibiscus tea mixed beverage with added L. casei 01 and FOS [44]. A continuous acid hydrolysis can lead to the breaking down of sugars into acids, reducing both the TSS and pH values [44]. As the presence of FOS lead to an increase in the TSS, the results for the CON were significantly lower (p < 0.05).
The TPC showed different variations for each formulation, but the results from days 0 and 28 were statistically equal in all the formulations except SYN. The formulations fermented by LAB are expected to present higher TPC values, since those bacteria can produce enzymes, such as β-glucosidase, amylase, and cellulase, leading to the hydrolysis of vegetable wall cells and favoring the release of free phenolics [45,46]. It has been observed that an extract produced from the peel and seed of yellow mombin has around 1149 mg GAE/L [47]. Since the peel and seed are rich in phenolic compounds and represent about 50% of the total fruit content, the industrial frozen pulp may suffer from enzymatic and/or chemical oxidation due to the exposure to industrial processing and lingering storage periods; therefore, some decrease in TPC can be expected in comparison to the values obtained from fresh fruit (260.2 mg GAE/100 g) [18,48,49,50]. Nonetheless, all the values obtained in this study are at least twofold the values obtained for the yellow mombin fermented beverage with a pH adjusted to 6.4 (94.9 mg GAE/L) [18], similar to apple (339 mg GAE/L) and pineapple (358 mg GAE/L) juices [49]. Furthermore, phenolic compounds are secondary metabolites produced by plants, which can be found in most fruits and have high antioxidant and disease-prevention potential [51]. Since animal products do not exhibit polyphenol content, the obtained formulations showed a commercial advantage over dairy beverages [41,46,51,52].
The values obtained for the antioxidant activity for PREB, SYNf, SYNa, and SYNfa at days 0 and 28 can be related to TPC values, as phenolics acids are mainly responsible for the DPPH scavenging activity [53]. A higher reduction in antioxidant activity could be observed in the control sample in comparison to the synbiotic beverage of yacon, which can be due to the production of antioxidant compounds, such as polyphenols, flavonoids, and β-carotenes through lactic fermentation [39]. Different probiotic strains may have different behaviors and strains from the same species may have different metabolisms in the same matrix [41,54]. Thus, the obtained results from this study may be specific to the strain and matrix used. In turn, the results may indicate possible protection and even increased production of antioxidant compounds by the action of lactic fermentation metabolites, as well as mechanical protection provided by the prebiotics [39,45].

3.2. Proximate Composition

The formulations of potentially synbiotic beverages with probiotic survival for at least 21 storage days and controls (CON and PREB) were evaluated for proximate composition. The results can be observed in Table 4.
The moisture value for CON was higher than the other formulations. As expected, the addition of the FOS led to an increase in TSS and a decrease in moisture [49]. Lipids were not detected only in control formulations. This can be due to the presence of cellular components of probiotics, as well as a possible production of fatty acids through lactic fermentation [55,56]. The energetic value of a 200 mL portion ranged from 33 to 56 Kcal (PREB and SYNfa, respectively), representing from 1.65% to 2.8% of the daily consumption of 2000 Kcal [57]. Thus, these formulations can be considered low-calorie beverages and of interest to individuals with caloric restrictions [16]. The results were similar to a cajuí (Anacardium othonianum Rizz.) beverage added with Saccharomyces boulardii-17, with about 32 Kcal in 200 mL of unsweetened beverage [58].
The estimated value for fiber in the formulations with the addition of FOS (3 g/100 g) represented about 12% of the recommended 25 g of the daily consumption of 2000 Kcal [59], as well as being at least twofold higher than the values obtained for an almond milk synbiotic beverage (1.2 g/100 g) [40].
The values obtained for sugars ranged from 1.8 to 2.7 g/100 g for the SYNfa and SYNf formulations, respectively, being similar to values found in unsweetened cajuí beverages (2.9 g/100 g) [58], and lower values in comparison to an orange juice and hibiscus tea mixed beverage (4.6 g/100 g) [44]. The low sugar content added to the antioxidant effect of the phenolic compounds, the presence of the FOS as a bioactive fiber, and a possible hypoglycemic effect by the probiotics make the obtained formulations viable for consumption for diabetic individuals [15,37,52,58].

3.3. Color

All color coordinates (L*, a*, and b*) of the formulations with an adjusted pH (SYNa and SYNfa) showed significant differences in comparison to the unadjusted ones (Table 5). The color difference observed for the adjusted pH formulations may have been due to the addition of NaOH as observed by Ribeiro et al. [18], since it led to lower L* values and higher a* and b* values.
The results for the ΔE showed that the SYNf showed the closest color coordinates to CON among the other formulations. Moreover, the SYNa and SYNfa values did not show significant difference between them but both showed higher values than the SYNf.
Color is a fundamental parameter for the acceptance of beverages. Thus, PREB, SYNf, and SYNa were selected for the sensory analysis. The PREB was used as a standard formulation, hence its similar characteristics to CON and the functional difference of the addition of the FOS. The SYNf exhibited a low ΔE value, being a good synbiotic alternative for the sensory tests. Both the SYNf and SYNa kept a high viable cell count for 21 days and each presented a different method used for the probiotic adaptation to the beverage, being of interest to compare the acceptance of each method.

3.4. Sensory Evaluation

The averages of the overall acceptance scores provided by the panelists were 7.03 ± 1.73, 6.79 ± 1.83, and 4.74 ± 2.14 for PREB, SYNf, and SYNa formulations, respectively, (Table 6). The PREB and SYNf formulations were well accepted [59] with an AI of 78.14% and 75.46%, respectively, with a statistical difference between both medians (p < 0.05). On the other hand, the AI of SYNa was considered low (<70.0%) [59].
The results obtained from the JAR test showed that over 50% of the panelists considered all the sensory attributes evaluated as ideal for the PREB and SYNf formulations (Tables S1–S3—Supplementary Material). Meanwhile, the only attribute for the SYNa formulation, with over 50% of the panelists considering it ideal, was the color. The results, according to the overall acceptance results, show the SYNa formulation had the lowest results, with a high percentage of the panelists considering it “too weak” or “too strong” as one the attributes.
The Supplementary Material (Tables S1–S3) presents the penalties obtained for each formulation. All the attributes were considered significant for the overall acceptance of the three formulations. The attributes for the PREB and SYNf formulations which negatively impacted the acceptance were too strong in acidity (29.67% and 30.77%, respectively) and too weak in sweetness (36.26% and 39.56%, respectively). The viscosity and color of both the formulations were considered ideal by most of the panelists.
On the other hand, SYNa was severely penalized by all the sensory attributes: too weak acidity (75.82%), too weak in sweetness (27.47%), too strong in sweetness (47.25%), too strong in viscosity (41.76%), and a too strong darker color (41.76%). All these attribute penalties could be related to the pH adjustment. Adjusting the pH of the yellow mombin juice to 4.5 may have caused changes in color, viscosity, and flavor by adding NaOH [19]. The low acidity was perceived by panelists who related it to be too strong in sweetness.
The PREB and SYNf formulations exhibited high mean values of purchase intent (3.99 ± 1.04 and 3.77 ± 1.16, respectively), with 74% and 63% of the panelists reporting in the acceptance region (Figure 1). On the other hand, the SYNa formulation exhibited a mean purchase intent of 2.43 ± 1.12, with 58% of the panelists reporting in the rejection region.
The sensory evaluation results indicated that the potentially symbiotic formulation SYNf presented higher acceptance values than other non-dairy probiotic or symbiotic beverages, such as Brazil nut [36], okara [7], sugarcane [49], guava (Psidium guajava L.) [17], and yellow mombin with the pH adjusted to 6.4 [18]. Therefore, SYNf exhibited a good overall acceptance and could be viable for commercialization.

3.5. Simulated Gastrointestinal Conditions

Table 7 presents the viability of L. plantarum in potentially symbiotic beverages before and after each simulated gastrointestinal phase. Both the SYNf and SYNa formulations showed no significant differences along the simulation process, maintaining counts above 8 log CFU/mL, while the control formulation (NaCl 0.9% with probiotic) decreased its count, showing a possible protective effect from the matrix. Similar results were obtained by Ribeiro et al. [18] who did not observe significant changes in L. acidophilus NRRL B-4495 viability after exposure to simulated gastrointestinal conditions. The presence of the FOS may also have a mechanical protective effect on the bacteria similar to cricket protein hydrolysates as found by Dridi et al. [35] in a commercial beverage with L. acidophilus CL1285, L. casei LBC80R and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus CLR2, maintaining a survival rate above 97% for both gastric and intestinal phases.
The probiotic survival observed was higher than that found for L. rhamnosus ATCC 7469 in guava juice [17] and L. reuteri ATCC 55730 in a fermented almond beverage [40], with survival rates of 55% and 51%, respectively. The specific conditions of fermentation and food matrix employed in beverage formulation can also affect the maintenance of the probiotic stability [34]. Another possible factor is the naturally low pH of yellow mombin juice, providing conditions for adaptive stress, enhancing the strain tolerance to acidic environments, and to gastrointestinal conditions by stimulating the development of resistance mechanisms, such as the maintenance of cell membrane functionality and intracellular pH [17,35,36].

4. Conclusions

Yellow mombin juice is a suitable matrix for incorporating L. plantarum NRRL B-4496 as a probiotic and FOS as a prebiotic, resulting in potentially synbiotic formulations with high probiotic survival during refrigerated storage. The formulations also showed stable antioxidant activity and potential use as a low-calorie beverage, which confers nutritional benefits to this functional food. The SYNf formulation showed a higher acceptability index of 70% in the sensory evaluation, meaning that SYNf had a better acceptance among the synbiotic formulations. The SYNf formulation also showed high purchase intent, suggesting good perspectives for possible commercialization, as well as high survival in the simulated gastrointestinal conditions alongside SYNa. Therefore, it was possible to develop a potentially synbiotic yellow mombin beverage, supplying the market with a new functional food alternative using a Brazilian socio-biodiversity fruit.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/foods12101994/s1, Table S1: Results of the penalty analysis of formulation PREB; Table S2: Results of the penalty analysis of formulation SYNf.; Table S3: Results of the penalty analysis of formulation SYNa.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C.d.S.J.; resources, F.C.d.S.J.; methodology, F.C.d.S.J. and C.F.d.A.; investigation, L.E.G.G.T.R., L.d.S.P.B. and K.S.F.S.C.D.; formal analysis, L.E.G.G.T.R., K.S.F.S.C.D. and F.C.d.S.J.; Data curation, L.E.G.G.T.R.; writing—original draft, L.E.G.G.T.R.; writing—review and editing, F.C.d.S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brazil (CAPES) (Finance Code 001), the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) (Process number 309130/2021-2), and the Pró-Reitoria de Pesquisa of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (Edital no. 03/2020—Novos pesquisadores).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the UFRN (Certificate of Presentation for Ethical Assessment—CAAE no. 07811118.9.0000.5292). All volunteers signed an informed consent form to participate in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article or Supplementary Material.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO/WHO. Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Working Group on Drafting Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food, Ontario, Canada. 2002. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/a0512e/a0512e.pdf (accessed on 14 July 2022).
  2. Li, T.; Jiang, T.; Liu, N.; Wu, C.; Xu, H.; Lei, H. Biotransformation of Phenolic Profiles and Improvement of Antioxidant Capacities in Jujube Juice by Select Lactic Acid Bacteria. Food Chem. 2021, 339, 127859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Costabile, A.; Buttarazzi, I.; Kolida, S.; Quercia, S.; Baldini, J.; Swann, J.R.; Brigidi, P.; Gibson, G.R. An In Vivo Assessment of the Cholesterol-Lowering Efficacy of Lactobacillus plantarum ECGC 13110402 in Normal to Mildly Hypercholesterolaemic Adults. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0187964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Toshimitsu, T.; Gotou, A.; Furuichi, K.; Hachimura, S.; Asami, Y. Effects of 12-Wk Lactobacillus plantarum OLL2712 Treatment on Glucose Metabolism and Chronic Inflammation in Prediabetic Individuals: A Single-Arm Pilot Study. Nutrition 2019, 58, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fidanza, M.; Panigrahi, P.; Kollmann, T.R. Lactiplantibacillus plantarum—Nomad and Ideal Probiotic. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 712236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Neag, M.A.; Vulturar, D.M.; Gherman, D.; Burlacu, C.C.; Todea, D.A.; Buzoianu, A.D. Gastrointestinal Microbiota: A Predictor of COVID-19 Severity? World J. Gastroenterol. 2022, 28, 6328–6344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Voss, G.B.; Monteiro, M.J.P.; Jauregi, P.; Valente, L.M.P.; Pintado, M.E. Functional Characterisation and Sensory Evaluation of a Novel Synbiotic Okara Beverage. Food Chem. 2021, 340, 127793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Katoch, G.K.; Nain, N.; Kaur, S.; Rasane, P. Lactose Intolerance and Its Dietary Management: An Update. J. Am. Nutr. Assoc. 2022, 41, 424–434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pereira, A.L.F.; Feitosa, W.S.C.; Abreu, V.K.G.; Lemos, T.O.; Gomes, W.F.; Narain, N.; Rodrigues, S. Impact of Fermentation Conditions on the Quality and Sensory Properties of a Probiotic Cupuassu (Theobroma grandiflorum) Beverage. Food Res. Int. 2017, 100, 603–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Kumar, B.V.; Vijayendra, S.V.N.; Reddy, O.V.S. Trends in Dairy and Non-Dairy Probiotic Products—A Review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 6112–6124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Peng, W.; Meng, D.; Yue, T.; Wang, Z.; Gao, Z. Effect of the Apple Cultivar on Cloudy Apple Juice Fermented by a Mixture of Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Lactobacillus fermentum. Food Chem. 2021, 340, 127922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Miranda, R.F.; de Paula, M.M.; da Costa, G.M.; Barão, C.E.; da Silva, A.C.R.; Raices, R.S.L.; Gomes, R.G.; Pimentel, T.C. Orange Juice Added with L. casei: Is There an Impact of the Probiotic Addition Methodology on the Quality Parameters? LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 106, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Yuasa, M.; Shimada, A.; Matsuzaki, A.; Eguchi, A.; Tominaga, M. Chemical Composition and Sensory Properties of Fermented Citrus Juice Using Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria. Food Biosci. 2021, 39, 100810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Pires, B.A.; Campos, R.C.A.B.; Canuto, J.W.; Dias, T.M.C.; Martins, E.M.F.; Licursi, L.; Leite Júnior, B.R.D.C.; Martins, M.L. Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in a Mixed Pineapple (Ananas comosus L. Merril) and Jussara (Euterpe edulis Martius) Beverage and Its Survival in the Human Gastrointestinal Tract. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 134, 110028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, X.; Han, M.; Zhang, M.; Wang, Y.; Ren, Y.; Yue, T.; Gao, Z. In Vitro Evaluation of the Hypoglycemic Properties of Lactic Acid Bacteria and Its Fermentation Adaptability in Apple Juice. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 136, 110363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chaturvedi, S.; Chakraborty, S. Review on Potential Non-Dairy Synbiotic Beverages: A Preliminary Approach Using Legumes. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 56, 2068–2077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Andrade, R.; Santos, E.; Azoubel, P.; Ribeiro, E. Increased Survival of Lactobacillus rhamnosus ATCC 7469 in Guava Juices with Simulated Gastrointestinal Conditions during Refrigerated Storage. Food Biosci. 2019, 32, 100470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ribeiro, E.S.S.; Damasceno, K.S.F.S.C.; da Costa Dantas, L.M.; de Azevedo, W.M.; Leite, P.I.P.; de Assis, C.F.; de Sousa Junior, F.C. Fermented Yellow Mombin Juice Using Lactobacillus acidophilus NRRL B-4495: Chemical Composition, Bioactive Properties and Survival in Simulated Gastrointestinal Conditions. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. ANVISA—Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Alimentos Com Alegações de Propriedades Funcionais e Ou de Saúde: Lista de Alegações de Propriedade Funcional Aprovadas. 2016. Available online: https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/inspecao/produtos-vegetal/legislacao-1/biblioteca-de-normas-vinhos-e-bebidas/alegacoes-de-propriedade-funcional-aprovadas_anvisa.pdf/view (accessed on 15 November 2022).
  20. Swanson, K.S.; Gibson, G.R.; Hutkins, R.; Reimer, R.A.; Reid, G.; Verbeke, K.; Scott, K.P.; Holscher, H.D.; Azad, M.B.; Delzenne, N.M.; et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) Consensus Statement on the Definition and Scope of Synbiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 17, 687–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tiburski, J.H.; Rosenthal, A.; Deliza, R.; de Oliveira Godoy, R.L.; Pacheco, S. Nutritional Properties of Yellow Mombin (Spondias mombin L.) Pulp. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 2326–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Janick, J.; Paull, R.E. The Encyclopedia of Fruit & Nuts; CABI International: Wallingford, UK, 2008; ISBN 978-08-5199-638-7. [Google Scholar]
  23. Brito, S.A.; Barbosa, I.S.; de Almeida, C.L.F.; de Medeiros, J.W.; Silva Neto, J.C.; Rolim, L.A.; da Silva, T.G.; Ximenes, R.M.; de Menezes, I.R.A.; Caldas, G.F.R.; et al. Evaluation of Gastroprotective and Ulcer Healing Activities of Yellow Mombin Juice from Spondias mombin L. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0201561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. de Souza, V.R.; Brum, M.C.M.; Guimarães, I.S.; dos Santos, P.F.; do Amaral, T.O.; Abreu, J.P.; Passos, T.; Freitas-Silva, O.; Gimba, E.R.P.; Teodoro, A.J. Amazon Fruits Inhibit Growth and Promote Pro-Apoptotic Effects on Human Ovarian Carcinoma Cell Lines. Biomolecules 2019, 9, 707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Pereira, B.L.B.; Rodrigue, A.; Arruda, F.C.O.; Bachiega, T.F.; Lourenço, M.A.M.; Correa, C.R.; Azevedo, P.S.; Polegato, B.F.; Okoshi, K.; Fernandes, A.A.H.; et al. Spondias mombin L. Attenuates Ventricular Remodelling after Myocardial Infarction Associated with Oxidative Stress and Inflammatory Modulation. J. Cell. Mol. Med. 2020, 24, 7862–7872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Brasil. Portaria Interministerial MAPA/MMA No 10, de 21 de Julho de 2021. Institui Lista de Espécies Nativas Da Sociobiodiversidade de Valor Alimentício, Para Fins de Comercialização in Natura Ou de Seus Produtos Derivados. In Diário Oficial da União; Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento; Ministério do Meio Ambiente: Brasília, DF, Brazil, 2021; Volume 137, p. 4.
  27. Silvino, R.; Silva, G.; dos Santos, O.V. Qualidade Nutricional e Parâmetros Morfológicos Do Fruto Cajá (Spondias mombin L.). Rev. Desafios 2017, 4, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fonteles, T.V.; Costa, M.G.M.; de Jesus, A.L.T.; Rodrigues, S. Optimization of the Fermentation of Cantaloupe Juice by Lactobacillus casei NRRL B-442. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2011, 5, 2819–2826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fujita, A.; Borges, K.; Correia, R.; Franco, B.D.G.M.; Genovese, M.I. Impact of Spouted Bed Drying on Bioactive Compounds, Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities of Commercial Frozen Pulp of Camu-Camu (Myrciaria dubia Mc. Vaugh). Food Res. Int. 2013, 54, 495–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Nóbrega, E.M.; Oliveira, E.L.; Genovese, M.I.; Correia, R.T.P. The Impact of Hot Air Drying on the Physical-Chemical Characteristics, Bioactive Compounds and Antioxidant Activity of Acerola (Malphigia emarginata) Residue. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2015, 39, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. AOAC. Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International, 21st ed.; Association of Official Analytical Chemists: Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2019; ISBN 978-09-3558-489-9. [Google Scholar]
  32. ABNT. NBR ISO 11136:2014; Sensory Analysis—Methodology: General Guidance for Conducting Hedonic Tests with Consumers in a Controlled Area. 2014. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/50125.html (accessed on 10 August 2022).
  33. ABNT. NBR ISO 4121:2003; Sensory Analysis: Guidelines for the Use of Quantitative Response Scales. 2003. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/33817.html (accessed on 14 August 2022).
  34. Matias, L.L.R.; Costa, R.O.A.; Passos, T.S.; Queiroz, J.L.C.; Serquiz, A.C.; Maciel, B.L.L.; Santos, P.P.A.; Camillo, C.S.; Gonçalves, C.; Amado, I.R.; et al. Tamarind Trypsin Inhibitor in Chitosan-Whey Protein Nanoparticles Reduces Fasting Blood Glucose Levels without Compromising Insulinemia: A Preclinical Study. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dridi, C.; Millette, M.; Aguilar, B.; Salmieri, S.; Lacroix, M. Storage Stability of a Fermented Probiotic Beverage Enriched with Cricket Protein Hydrolysates. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2022, 15, 2587–2600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. da Cunha Júnior, P.C.; de Oliveira, L.S.; Gouvêa, L.P.; de Alcantara, M.; Rosenthal, A.; Ferreira, E.H.R. Symbiotic Drink Based on Brazil Nuts (Bertholletia excelsa H.B.K): Production, Characterization, Probiotic Viability and Sensory Acceptance. Cienc. Rural 2020, 51, e20200361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Khezri, S.; Mahmoudi, R.; Dehghan, P. Fig Juice Fortified with Inulin and Lactobacillus delbrueckii: A Promising Functional Food. Appl. Food Biotechnol. 2018, 5, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nematollahi, A.; Sohrabvandi, S.; Mortazavian, A.M.; Jazaeri, S. Viability of Probiotic Bacteria and Some Chemical and Sensory Characteristics in Cornelian Cherry Juice during Cold Storage. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2016, 21, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dahal, S.; Ojha, P.; Karki, T.B. Functional Quality Evaluation and Shelf Life Study of Synbiotic Yacon Juice. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 1546–1553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bernat, N.; Cháfer, M.; Chiralt, A.; González-Martínez, C. Development of a Non-Dairy Probiotic Fermented Product Based on Almond Milk and Inulin. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2015, 21, 440–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Gumus, S.; Demirci, A.S. Survivability of Probiotic Strains, Lactobacillus fermentum CECT 5716 and Lactobacillus acidophilus DSM 20079 in Grape Juice and Physico-Chemical Properties of the Juice during Refrigerated Storage. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 42, e08122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. White, J.; Hekmat, S. Development of Probiotic Fruit Juices Using Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 Fortified with Short Chain and Long Chain Inulin Fiber. Fermentation 2018, 4, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Amanda, E.; Choo, W.S. Effect of Refrigerated Storage on the Physicochemical Characteristics and Viability of Lactobacillus plantarum in Fermented Watermelon Juice with or without Supplementation with Inulin or Fructooligosaccharide. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2018, 42, e13831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Miranda, R.F.; Silva, J.P.; Machado, A.R.F.; Silva, E.C.; Souza, R.C.; Marcolino, V.A.; Klososki, S.J.; Pimentel, T.C.; Barão, C.E. Impact of the Addition of Lactobacillus casei and Oligofructose on the Quality Parameters of Orange Juice and Hibiscus Tea Mixed Beverage. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2019, 43, e14249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Marnpae, M.; Chusak, C.; Balmori, V.; Kamonsuwan, K.; Dahlan, W.; Nhujak, T.; Hamid, N.; Adisakwattana, S. Probiotic Gac Fruit Beverage Fermented with Lactobacillus paracasei: Physiochemical Properties, Phytochemicals, Antioxidant Activities, Functional Properties, and Volatile Flavor Compounds. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 169, 113986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mantzourani, I.; Terpou, A.; Alexopoulos, A.; Kimbaris, A.; Bezirtzoglou, E.; Koutinas, A.A.; Plessas, S. Production of a Potentially Synbiotic Pomegranate Beverage by Fermentation with Lactobacillus plantarum ATCC 14917 Adsorbed on a Prebiotic Carrier. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2019, 188, 1096–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. de Santana Neto, D.C.; Cordeiro, A.M.T.M.; Meireles, B.R.L.A.; Araújo, I.B.S.; Estévez, M.; Ferreira, V.C.S.; Silva, F.A.P. Inhibition of Protein and Lipid Oxidation in Ready-to-Eat Chicken Aatties by a Spondias mombin L. Bagasse Phenolic-Rich Extract. Foods 2021, 10, 1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. de Carvalho, J.M.; Maia, G.A.; da Fonseca, A.V.V.; de Sousa, P.H.M.; Rodrigues, S. Effect of Processing on Physicochemical Composition, Bioactive Compounds and Enzymatic Activity of Yellow Mombin (Spondias mombin L.) Tropical Juice. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 1182–1187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Santos, M.A.; Costa, G.M.; Dias, S.S.; Klososki, S.J.; Barão, C.E.; Gomes, R.G.; Pimentel, T.C. Pasteurised Sugarcane Juice Supplemented with Lactobacillus casei and Prebiotics: Physicochemical Stability, Sensory Acceptance and Probiotic Survival. Int. Food Res. J. 2019, 26, 1315–1325. [Google Scholar]
  50. Villacís-Chiriboga, J.; Elst, K.; Van Camp, J.; Vera, E.; Ruales, J. Valorization of Byproducts from Tropical Fruits: Extraction Methodologies, Applications, Environmental, and Economic Assessment: A Review (Part 1: General Overview of the Byproducts, Traditional Biorefinery Practices, and Possible Applications). Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 405–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Santos, E.; Andrade, R.; Gouveia, E. Utilization of the Pectin and Pulp of the Passion Fruit from Caatinga as Probiotic Food Carriers. Food Biosci. 2017, 20, 56–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kehinde, B.A.; Panghal, A.; Garg, M.K.; Sharma, P.; Chhikara, N. Vegetable Milk as Probiotic and Prebiotic Foods. In Advances in Food and Nutrition Research; Elsevier Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 94, pp. 115–160. ISBN 978-01-2820-218-0. [Google Scholar]
  53. Freitas, H.V.; dos Santos Filho, A.L.; Rodrigues, S.; Abreu, V.K.G.; Narain, N.; Lemos, T.D.O.; Gomes, W.F.; Pereira, A.L.F. Synbiotic Açaí Juice (Euterpe oleracea) Containing Sucralose as Noncaloric Sweetener: Processing Optimization, Bioactive Compounds, and Acceptance during Storage. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 730–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yilmaz, B.; Bangar, S.P.; Echegaray, N.; Suri, S.; Tomasevic, I.; Manuel Lorenzo, J.; Melekoglu, E.; Rocha, J.M.; Ozogul, F. The Impacts of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum on the Functional Properties of Fermented Foods: A Review of Current Knowledge. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Mousavi, Z.E.; Mousavi, S.M.; Razavi, S.H.; Hadinejad, M.; Emam-Djomeh, Z.; Mirzapour, M. Effect of Fermentation of Pomegranate Juice by Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus acidophilus on the Antioxidant Activity and Metabolism of Sugars, Organic Acids and Phenolic Compounds. Food Biotechnol. 2013, 27, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pinto, T.; Vilela, A.; Cosme, F. Chemical and Sensory Characteristics of Fruit Juice and Fruit Fermented Beverages and Their Consumer Acceptance. Beverages 2022, 8, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. FDA—Food and Drug Administration. Appendix F: Calculate the Percent Daily Value (DV) for the Appropriate Nutrients. In A Food Labeling Guide; 2013. Available online: https://www.fda.gov/media/81606/download (accessed on 5 July 2022).
  58. Santana, R.V.; dos Santos, D.C.; Santana, A.C.A.; de Oliveira Filho, J.G.; de Almeida, A.B.; de Lima, T.M.; Silva, F.G.; Egea, M.B. Quality Parameters and Sensorial Profile of Clarified “Cerrado” Cashew Juice Supplemented with Sacharomyces boulardii and Different Sweeteners. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 128, 109319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Ribeiro, P.P.C.; Xavier Junior, F.H.; Silva, C.G.N.; da Silva, T.M.B.; Corrêa, B.B.M.; de Veras, B.O.; Cordeiro, A.M.T.M.; Vieira, É.A.; de Sousa Júnior, F.C.; Damasceno, K.S.F.S.C.; et al. Faveleira (Cnidoscolus quercifolius Pohl) Seed Press Cake Flour: Production, Characterization and Application for Use in Cookies. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2023, 103, 627–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foods 12 01994 g001 550
Figure 1. Purchase intention for prebiotic (PREB), fermented symbiotic (SYNf), and unfermented symbiotic with adjusted pH (SYNa) yellow mombin beverages.
Figure 1. Purchase intention for prebiotic (PREB), fermented symbiotic (SYNf), and unfermented symbiotic with adjusted pH (SYNa) yellow mombin beverages.
Foods 12 01994 g001
Table
Table 1. Composition and probiotic adaptation strategies used in yellow-mombin beverage formulations.
Table 1. Composition and probiotic adaptation strategies used in yellow-mombin beverage formulations.
FormulationFOS
(25 g/L)		L. plantarum
(10% v/v)		Fermentation
(30 °C, 18 h)		pH Adjustment
(4.5)
CON----
PREBX---
SYNXX--
SYNfXXX-
SYNaXX-X
SYNfaXXXX
Notes: CON—control juice; PREB—prebiotic beverage; SYN—unfermented symbiotic; SYNf—fermented symbiotic; SYNa—unfermented synbiotic with adjusted pH; SYNfA—fermented synbiotic with adjusted pH.
Table
Table 2. L. plantarum viability in potentially symbiotic beverages stored at 4 °C for 28 days.
Table 2. L. plantarum viability in potentially symbiotic beverages stored at 4 °C for 28 days.
ParameterStorage Time (Days)Formulation
SYNSYNfSYNaSYNfA
Viability
(log CFU/mL)		09.0 ± 0.4 Aa9.2 ± 0.2 Aa9.1 ± 0.9 Aa9.6 ± 1.6 Aa
7<2 Bb9.8 ± 1.3 Aa8.7 ± 0.0 Aa9.7 ± 0.1 Aa
14<2 Bb8.2 ± 0.9 Aa9.5 ± 0.3 Aa10.1 ± 1.7 Aa
21<2 Bb9.0 ± 1.0 Aa9.0 ± 2.3 Aa11.5 ± 0.1 Aa
28<2 Bb<2 Bb<2 Bb8.2 ± 0.1 Aa
Notes: SYN—unfermented symbiotic; SYNf—fermented symbiotic; SYNa—unfermented synbiotic with adjusted pH; SYNfA—fermented synbiotic with adjusted pH. A,B Values with the same uppercase letter in a row denotes that the formulations do not differ significantly at the same storage time (p < 0.05). a,b Values with the same lowercase letter in a column denotes that the same formulation does not differ significantly over storage time (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 3. Physicochemical and antioxidant stability of yellow mombin beverages during 28 days of storage.
Table 3. Physicochemical and antioxidant stability of yellow mombin beverages during 28 days of storage.
ParameterStorage Time (Days)Formulation
CONPREBSYNSYNfSYNaSYNfA
pH02.4 ± 0.0 Bb2.4 ± 0.0 Bb2.4 ± 0.1 Bb2.3 ± 0.1 Ba4.5 ± 0.0 Ab4.4 ± 0.1 Abc
72.5 ± 0.0 Bab2.4 ± 0.0 Bab2.5 ± 0.0 Ba2.4 ± 0.1 Ba4.6 ± 0.0 Aa4.7 ± 0.1 Aa
142.5 ± 0.1 Ba2.5 ± 0.1 Ba2.5 ± 0.0 Ba2.5 ± 0.1 Ba4.7 ± 0.1 Aa4.8 ± 0.1 Aa
212.4 ± 0.0 Cb2.4 ± 0.0 BCab2.5 ± 0.0 Ba2.5 ± 0.1 BCa4.6 ± 0.1 Aa4.6 ± 0.0 Aab
282.2 ± 0.1 Cc2.2 ± 0.1 BCc2.3 ± 0.1 Bb2.4 ± 0.0 Ba4.3 ± 0.0 Ac4.3 ± 0.0 Ac
Titratable acidity
(mg citric acid/mL)		00.79 ± 0.01 Aab0.77 ± 0.01 Aab0.78 ± 0.02 Aab0.79 ± 0.01 Aab0.25 ± 0.01 Ba0.20 ± 0.01 Ca
70.80 ± 0.01 Aa0.78 ± 0.01 Aa0.81 ± 0.03 Aa0.80 ± 0.02 Aa0.24 ± 0.00 Bab0.20 ± 0.01 Ba
140.81 ± 0.02 Aa0.79 ± 0.02 ABa0.76 ± 0.02 ABb0.73 ± 0.04 Bb0.23 ± 0.00 Cbc0.19 ± 0.01 Ca
210.75 ± 0.01 Ac0.75 ± 0.00 Aab0.76 ± 0.01 Ab0.76 ± 0.00 Aab0.22 ± 0.01 Bc0.19 ± 0.01 Ca
280.75 ± 0.01 Abc0.74 ± 0.02 Ab0.75 ± 0.01 Ab0.76 ± 0.02 Aab0.22 ± 0.01 Bc0.17 ± 0.01 Cb
Total soluble solids (°Brix)05.13 ± 0.12 Cc7.13 ± 0.25 Bc7.60 ± 0.17 ABb7.73 ± 0.06 Ab7.80 ± 0.26 Ac7.83 ± 0.21 Ab
76.23 ± 0.40 Ba8.30 ± 0.17 Aa8.37 ± 0.12 Aa8.63 ± 0.42 Aa8.47 ± 0.06 Ab8.63 ± 0.12 Aa
146.17 ± 0.21 Ca8.40 ± 0.44 ABa8.23 ± 0.32 Bab8.77 ± 0.06 ABa8.83 ± 0.06 ABa9.13 ± 0.31 Aa
216.13 ± 0.06 Cab8.20 ± 0.36 Bab8.60 ± 0.36 ABa8.80 ± 0.26 ABa8.90 ± 0.00 Aa9.10 ± 0.17 Aa
285.53 ± 0.23 Cbc7.47 ± 0.23 Bbc7.70 ± 0.10 ABb7.80 ± 0.00 ABb7.80 ± 0.10 ABc8.00 ± 0.00 Ab
Total phenolic compounds
(mg GAE/L)		0315.2 ± 24.8 ABCa259.6 ± 36.4 Cc322.0 ± 16.8 ABCb271.7 ± 29.9 BCa337.9 ± 32.2 ABb349.2 ± 36.6 Aa
7322.7 ± 34.5 BCa397.0 ± 36.7 Aa234.3 ± 7.6 Dc309.8 ± 32.2 BCa378.8 ± 15.1 ABab265.9 ± 26.9 CDb
14297.0 ± 13.9 Ca373.7 ± 12.2 Aab348.5 ± 4.2 ABab296.2 ± 16.8 Ca323.2 ± 19.5 BCb348.5 ± 12.3 ABa
21273.7 ± 14.3 Ca301.0 ± 47.0 Cbc375.8 ± 26.8 ABa337.9 ± 17.8 BCa421.2 ± 26.2 Aa285.6 ± 18.4 Cb
28270.7 ± 12.2 BCa305.3 ± 22.0 ABbc237.1 ± 22.0 Cc320.5 ± 32.2 ABa336.4 ± 8.0 Ab303.8 ± 26.7 ABab
Antioxidant activity
(µM trolox)		077.4 ± 7.3 Aa66.3 ± 4.8 ABCa57.3 ± 1.0 CDb61.9 ± 3.0 BCDa74.3 ± 4.8 ABa48.3 ± 4.7 Db
774.9 ± 5.1 Aa64.0 ± 5.9 ABa72.9 ± 7.6 Aa50.6 ± 3.4 Cb73.3 ± 3.6 Aa58.2 ± 0.3 BCab
1474.0 ± 8.2 Aab56.3 ± 3.7 Ba75.0 ± 7.2 Aa53.4 ± 2.1 Bab65.4 ± 4.3 ABa65.2 ± 3.7 ABa
2177.6 ± 4.7 Aa61.4 ± 4.1 Ba67.9 ± 8.1 ABab58.6 ± 5.1 Bab67.2 ± 5.8 ABa52.2 ± 6.2 Bab
2858.6 ± 1.7 BCb62.8 ± 5.3 ABa72.8 ± 3.7 Aa61.4 ± 4.5 ABab70.3 ± 4.7 Aa47.7 ± 4.9 Cb
Notes: CON—control juice; PREB—prebiotic; SYN: unfermented symbiotic; SYNf—fermented symbiotic; SYNa—unfermented synbiotic with adjusted pH; SYNfA—fermented synbiotic with adjusted pH. A,B,C,D Values with the same uppercase letter in a row denotes that the formulations do not differ significantly at the same storage time (p < 0.05). a,b,c Values with the same lowercase letter in a column denotes that the same formulation does not differ significantly over storage time (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 4. Proximate composition of the yellow mombin beverages.
Table 4. Proximate composition of the yellow mombin beverages.
ParameterFormulation
CONPREBSYNfSYNaSYNfA
Moisture (g/100 g)94.7 ± 0.3 a92.7 ± 0.4 b92.3 ± 0.6 b92.8 ± 0.2 b92.1 ± 0.2 b
Lipid (g/100 g)NDND1.3 ± 0.6 a0.6 ± 0.3 a2.0 ± 0.5 a
Protein (g/100 g)0.4 ± 0.0 a0.4 ± 0.2 a0.4 ± 0.2 a0.7 ± 0.3 a0.7 ± 0.1 a
Ash (g/100 g)0.2 ± 0.0 c0.2 ± 0.0 c0.3 ± 0.0 b0.4 ± 0.0 a0.4 ± 0.0 a
Fiber (g/100 g) *0.73.03.03.03.0
Carbohydrates (g/100 g) **4.03.72.72.51.8
Caloric value (Kcal/200 mL)3533493756
Notes: CON—control juice; PREB—prebiotic; SYNf—fermented symbiotic; SYNa—unfermented synbiotic with adjusted pH; SYNfA—fermented synbiotic with adjusted pH; ND—not detected. a,b,c Values with the same lowercase letter in a row denotes that the formulations does not differ significantly (p < 0.05). * Fiber value estimated based on the nutritional information of the ingredients. ** Carbohydrate value obtained by difference.
Table
Table 5. Color parameters of the yellow mombin beverages.
Table 5. Color parameters of the yellow mombin beverages.
ParameterFormulation
CONPREBSYNfSYNaSYNfA
L*23.95 ± 0.72 a26.75 ± 2.03 a24.15 ± 0.67 a19.29 ± 0.82 b19.78 ± 0.75 b
a*−3.84 ± 0.01 c−4.03 ± 0.22 c−4.05 ± 0.27 c−3.06 ± 0.39 b−2.30 ± 0.15 a
b*19.20 ± 0.44 b15.02 ± 1.93 c17.57 ± 0.98 bc25.03 ± 1.46 a26.90 ± 0.46 a
ΔE-5.11 ± 3.46 ab1.84 ± 0.58 b7.54 ± 1.81 a8.91 ± 0.69 a
Notes: CON—control juice; PREB—prebiotic; SYNf—fermented symbiotic; SYNa—unfermented synbiotic with adjusted pH; SYNfA—fermented synbiotic with adjusted pH. a,b,c Values with the same lowercase letter in a row denotes that the formulations does not differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 6. Overall acceptance of selected yellow mombin beverages.
Table 6. Overall acceptance of selected yellow mombin beverages.
ParameterFormulation
PREBSYNfSYNa
Mean acceptance7.03 ± 1.736.79 ± 1.834.74 ± 2.14
Median8.00 a7.00 a5.00 b
Acceptability index (%)78.1475.4659.20
Notes: PREB—prebiotic; SYNf—fermented symbiotic; SYNa—unfermented synbiotic with adjusted pH. a,b Values with the same lowercase letter in a row denotes that the formulations does not differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 7. L. plantarum viability (log CFU/mL) in potentially symbiotic beverages before and after simulated gastrointestinal conditions.
Table 7. L. plantarum viability (log CFU/mL) in potentially symbiotic beverages before and after simulated gastrointestinal conditions.
PhaseFormulation
ControlSYNfSYNa
Before simulation8.3 ± 0.0 Aab9.2 ± 0.2 Aa8.5 ± 0.6 Aa
Gastric phase9.0 ± 0.0 Aa9.4 ± 0.6 Aa8.8 ± 0.4 Aa
Intestinal phase7.7 ± 0.1 Ab8.8 ± 0.7 Aa8.5 ± 0.6 Aa
Notes: Control—10% inoculum in NaCl 0.9%; SYNf—fermented symbiotic; SYNa—unfermented synbiotic with adjusted pH. A Values with the same uppercase letter in a row denotes that the formulations do not differ significantly at the digestion phase (p < 0.05). a,b Values with the same lowercase letter in a column denotes that the same formulation does not differ significantly at different digestion phases (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ribeiro, L.E.G.G.T.; Batista, L.d.S.P.; Assis, C.F.d.; Damasceno, K.S.F.S.C.; Sousa Júnior, F.C.d. Potentially Synbiotic Yellow Mombin Beverages: Stability during Refrigerated Storage, Physicochemical Characteristics, and Sensory Properties. Foods 2023, 12, 1994. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101994

AMA Style

Ribeiro LEGGT, Batista LdSP, Assis CFd, Damasceno KSFSC, Sousa Júnior FCd. Potentially Synbiotic Yellow Mombin Beverages: Stability during Refrigerated Storage, Physicochemical Characteristics, and Sensory Properties. Foods. 2023; 12(10):1994. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101994

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ribeiro, Luis Eduardo Guieu Galvao Telles, Leonam da Silva Pereira Batista, Cristiane Fernandes de Assis, Karla Suzanne Florentino Silva Chaves Damasceno, and Francisco Canindé de Sousa Júnior. 2023. "Potentially Synbiotic Yellow Mombin Beverages: Stability during Refrigerated Storage, Physicochemical Characteristics, and Sensory Properties" Foods 12, no. 10: 1994. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101994

APA Style

Ribeiro, L. E. G. G. T., Batista, L. d. S. P., Assis, C. F. d., Damasceno, K. S. F. S. C., & Sousa Júnior, F. C. d. (2023). Potentially Synbiotic Yellow Mombin Beverages: Stability during Refrigerated Storage, Physicochemical Characteristics, and Sensory Properties. Foods, 12(10), 1994. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12101994

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop