Next Article in Journal
The Importance of Cleaning and Sanitation in Homebrewing
Previous Article in Journal
Sensory Discrimination Tests for Low- and High-Strength Alcohol
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Beverages
Volume 10
Issue 4
10.3390/beverages10040096
beverages-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

Flash Vacuum Expansion of Maradol Papaya (Carica papaya L.) for Producing an Antioxidant-Potential Dairy Beverage Fermented by Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24

by
Jesús Ayala Zavala
1,
Teresita de Jesús Castillo Romero
2,
José Isidro Méndez Romero
1,
Lourdes Santiago López
1,
Aarón Fernando González Córdova
1,
Adrián Hernández Mendoza
1,
Belinda Vallejo Cordoba
1 and
Manuel Vargas Ortiz
3,*
1
Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, Coordinación de Tecnología de Alimentos de Origen Animal, Carretera Gustavo Enrique Astiazarán Rosas, No. 46, Col. La Victoria, Hermosillo CP. 83304, Mexico
2
Unidad de Investigación y Desarrollo de Alimentos, Instituto Tecnológico de Veracruz, Calz, Miguel Ángel Quevedo, No. 2779, Col. Formando Hogar, Veracruz CP. 91897, Mexico
3
CONAHCYT-Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo, Coordinación de Tecnología de Alimentos de Origen Animal, Carretera Gustavo Enrique Astiazarán Rosas, No. 46, Col. La Victoria, Hermosillo CP. 83304, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Beverages 2024, 10(4), 96; https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages10040096
Submission received: 31 August 2024 / Revised: 24 September 2024 / Accepted: 30 September 2024 / Published: 5 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Beverage Technology Fermentation and Microbiology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to evaluate the fermentative capacity of the strain Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 in a dairy beverage with papaya puree obtained through the flash vacuum expansion (FVE) process. Changes in phenolic content and antioxidant capacity during fermentation were investigated. Results showed that the dairy beverage with the control puree exhibited higher microbial growth than the FVE puree. Phenolic content increased during fermentation in both formulations. However, the antioxidant capacity was higher in the dairy beverage with control puree. A Pearson correlation analysis revealed a strong positive correlation between microbial load and antioxidant properties in the dairy beverage with control puree. In conclusion, the control puree promoted a higher growth of Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 and better antioxidant properties in the papaya dairy beverage. These findings lay the groundwork for developing a potential functional dairy beverage based on papaya, effectively utilizing the fruit, reducing pollution, and adding value. This study also opens avenues for further research and development in functional dairy beverages, particularly those incorporating fruit-based ingredients.

1. Introduction

Processing papaya fruits (Carica papaya L.) generates waste of peel and pulp residues rich in bioactive compounds such as flavonoids, phenolic acids, and carotenoids. These processes do not utilize the entire fruit because they are not consumed due to their taste, texture, and appearance being discarded. Therefore, producers of papaya juices and beverages focus on using papaya pulp [1]. However, significant losses can occur if proper techniques are not used to extract the pulp [2]. Mexico is one of the main papaya producers, predicting production of 1,115,000 tons by 2024, positioning it as the third-largest producer globally, contributing 7.6% of total global production. In addition, exports are estimated at 254,000 tons with a value of USD 140 million [3,4]. However, there are no studies that indicate a specific figure for peel and pulp discarded during postharvest. On average, it is estimated that 11% of the pulp goes unused, with only 8% of the total peel being recovered [5]. Although these figures may vary due to various factors, reports suggest that peel can account for up to 12% of the fruit’s total weight [6]. Based on production data published by SAGARPA [7], it is projected that approximately 123,096 tons of peel and 97,562 tons of pulp will be lost by 2024. These fruit parts possess remarkable antioxidant capacity, mainly attributed to phenolic acids, such as p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid, and caffeic acid, which are found in greater proportion in the peel [8]. Therefore, technology is needed to fully utilize papaya with minimal processing to harness its bioactive compounds.
The underutilization of peel and pulp in papaya juice and beverage production stems from a combination of factors; firstly, the demand for papaya has significantly increased in recent years [3,7], leading to an increase in cultivated papaya area and generated residues [1]. The lack of appropriate technology for efficient papaya processing and recovering valuable materials has also contributed to the waste biomass problem [2]. Papaya fruit is particularly susceptible to mechanical damage during harvesting, transport, and storage, which can favor the growth of fungi, bacteria, or yeasts that can ferment the peel and pulp. These microorganisms can negatively affect their use in juice and beverage production and can cause undesirable fermentation that alters the taste, texture, and stability of the final product. Lastly, lack of awareness about the importance of proper waste management and the absence of incentives to do so have also played a significant role in the emergence of the issue [9]. Therefore, the comprehensive utilization of papaya for functional food production can help reduce the leading causes of the problem.
A strategy for utilizing the entire papaya fruit is the flash vacuum expansion (FVE) process. The FVE process is a technology used to process plant matrices. It facilitates the disintegration of plant tissues by efficiently breaking down cellular structures, thereby releasing intracellular components (e.g., phenolic compounds). The FVE process harnesses temperature and pressure differences to achieve an ultra-rapid phase change of water in cellular vacuoles, transitioning from liquid to gas state. This transition significantly increases the volume of water (1000 times), promoting the disintegration of plant tissue and resulting in the obtainment of a puree [10,11,12,13]. Although the FVE process has been widely used to obtain purees and juices from various fruits, its specific application in papaya has not been documented in the literature. The puree obtained through this process could represent a valuable functional ingredient for producing various food products, including dairy beverages.
Milk is an excellent source of protein, vitamins (A and D), calcium, and fatty acids [14]. Combining milk with fruit can result in a more complete product, such as fruit-flavored dairy beverages, which can serve as a source of prebiotics due to their dietary fiber content and phytochemicals such as phenolic compounds [15]. However, this combination can become highly perishable as it provides nutrients for the microorganisms responsible for food decomposition. For this reason, lactic acid fermentation is presented as a preservation alternative [16,17]. Lactic acid fermentation can improve the nutritional profile of these products and enhance their antioxidant properties, as the lactic acid bacteria (LAB) present can influence phenolic compounds [16]. Fermented fruit beverages, especially those with probiotic bacteria, have demonstrated significant market growth, reaching USD 41.13 billion in 2024, with projections to grow to USD 65.69 billion by 2029 [18]. The development of fermented fruit-based dairy beverages offers great potential within the global functional food market, representing a promising opportunity to meet growing demand.
Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of lactic acid fermentation with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 on the total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity of a dairy beverage made with Maradol papaya puree (obtained through the FVE process).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Material

Twenty papaya fruits (Carica papaya L.) of the Maradol variety were sourced from the local market in Veracruz, Mexico. Total soluble solids and color hue were determined to select fruit that was at its consumption maturity [19]. The surface of the fruits was rinsed under regular water to remove surface dirt, then washed with a 2% v/v chlorine solution, rinsed again under regular water to remove any residual chlorine solution, and finally dried with a clean towel.

2.2. Preparation of Fruit Puree Using the Flash Vacuum Expansion Process

Two purees were prepared using papaya peel and pulp to prepare beverages and compare them with each other. The control puree was prepared using a conventional food processor (Braun® 160 W, GE). On the other hand, the puree prepared with FVE was prepared using pilot FVE equipment located at the facilities of the Unidad de Investigación y Desarrollo en Alimentos (UNIDA) of the Instituto Tecnológico de Veracruz. The equipment characteristics are described in the study by Salgado-Cervantes et al. [12]. Papaya fruits were cut longitudinally to remove the seeds. Then, the two halves of the fruit were placed in the heating chamber (pressure of 101.3 kPa) of the FVE equipment, where they were exposed to steam flow for 20 min. Subsequently, the plant material passed through the expansion chamber (pressure of 3 kPa), causing cell rupture. The resulting purees were collected and stored at −20 °C until use.

2.3. Strain Preparation

The Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 strain is part of the strain collection of the Laboratory of Chemistry and Biotechnology of Dairy Products, located at the Centro de Investigación en Alimentación y Desarrollo (CIAD, Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico). The strain was isolated from Mexican artisanal Cocido cheese. To reactivate the strain, passages were carried out in MRS broth (De Man, Rogosa and Sharpe, BD Difco, Sparks, MD, USA) and incubated at 37 °C. The first subculture was incubated for 24 h, the second for 18 h, and the last for 8 h. In all subcultures, the inoculum was 1% v/v. Biomass was recovered by centrifugation (4500 g, 15 min, 4 °C) using a conical tube centrifuge (Sorval ST 16R, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Osterode, Germany). Subsequently, the biomass was washed twice with sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS, pH = 7.00 ± 0.20, 0.2 M). Then, the biomass was resuspended to reach an optical density of 0.75 ± 0.02, corresponding to 8.00 log CFU/mL, at a wavelength of 600 nm, using a microplate reader (SpectraMax M3 microplate reader, Molecular Device, Sunnyvale, CA, USA).

2.4. Preparation and Fermentation of Dairy Beverages with Papaya Puree

Beverages were prepared using two types of puree: control puree and FVE puree, which were compared to each other. The dairy beverages were formulated by mixing 5% v/v of each puree with 95% v/v reconstituted skim milk powder (10% w/v). Additionally, beverages were prepared using only 5% v/v papaya puree mixed with 95% v/v sterile purified water, as well as reconstituted skim milk. The prepared beverages were dairy beverage with control puree (DBCP), dairy beverage with FVE puree (DBFP), beverage with control puree (BCP), beverage with FVE puree (BFP), and reconstituted skim milk (SM). Both the papaya puree and reconstituted milk were separately subjected to thermal treatment at 80 °C for 30 min and then cooled in an ice bath (4 °C). Subsequently, they were mixed in a sterile environment to prepare the dairy beverages. The same procedure was followed for the beverages with only puree and only skimmed milk. The beverages were inoculated (1% v/v) with previously purified Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 and incubated at 37 °C for 12 h.

2.5. Microbial Growth Curve

The growth curve of Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 was performed by plate counting, following the Mexican Standard NOM-110-SSA1-1194 [20] with modifications. MRS agar medium was used, and a serial dilution was carried out with peptone water (1 g/L of peptone, 8.5 g/L of NaCl). The plates were incubated at 37 °C, and the count was performed at 48 h, considering only those with 25 to 300 colony-forming units (CFU). The results were expressed in log CFU/mL. Microbial growth was evaluated every hour for 12 h, starting from 0 h.

2.6. Kinetic Parameters Determination

The kinetic parameters were calculated following the method described by Heredia-Castro et al. [21]. The data corresponding to the microbial growth curves of the treatments were used to determine the growth rate of the microorganisms during fermentation. Growth parameters derived from the Gompertz Equation (1) were employed:
Y = a ∗ e x p ⁡ ( − exp ⁡ ( b − c ∗ T ) )
where Y = log (N/No); N = initial microbial count (CFU/mL); No = microbial count (UFC/mL) at time (h); T = time (h); a= maximum population or the logarithm of asymptotic counts as time increases indefinitely (log CFU/ mL); b = relative growth rate; c = difference between the initial count and the maximum count.
The data obtained through the Gompertz equation were used to determine critical microbial growth parameters, including specific growth rate (µmax), duration of the lag phase (λ), and generation time (G):
µ m a x = a . c
λ = b − 1 c
G = ln ⁡ 2 µ m a x

2.7. Physicochemical Parameters

Titratable acidity was determined using 0.01 N NaOH and 1% w/v phenolphthalein, and the results were expressed in g/L of lactic acid according to NMX-F-102-NORMEX-2010 [22]. The pH was monitored with a digital potentiometer (HANNA® instruments, pH 211, IT) following the AOAC 981.12 [23] procedure. Both parameters were measured during the fermentation process.
A Konica Minolta CR 400 colorimeter was used to measure the °Hue of the papaya peel, and the total soluble solids content was quantified with a manual refractometer (ATAGO®, LHT-T20s). These analyses made it possible to select fruit at their optimum stage of ripeness for consumption.

2.8. Antioxidant Properties

2.8.1. Preparation of Extracts

The extraction method was carried out following the procedure of Chen et al. [24] with some modifications where 5 g of fermented product was weighed, mixed with 15 mL of 80% v/v ethanol, and agitated for 1 min on vortex. The sample was then shaken at 400 rpm for 5 h at room temperature (20 ± 5 °C) in a thermostatic bath with agitation (LAB-LINE Orbit Shaker Bath 3540). Subsequently, the sample was centrifuged at 7000 rpm for 15 min at 4 °C (Beckman Coulter ™ Allegra ™ 64 R) to recover the supernatant. 1 mL of the supernatant was transferred to a microtube. The extract was clarified by centrifugation at 10,000 rpm for 15 min (Eppendorf® Centrifuge 5415 C) and stored at 4 °C for use in the following determinations. Determinations were performed at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h of fermentation.

2.8.2. Total Phenolic Content

The total phenolic content in the beverages was determined using a modified version of the Folin–Ciocalteu method, as described by Valero et al. [25]. A calibration curve was constructed using a 0.01–0.080 mg/mL concentration range of gallic acid. For the assay, 30 µL of extract and standard solution were added to a transparent polystyrene microplate with 96 wells. Then, 150 µL of Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (0.2 N) was added, followed by 120 µL of a sodium carbonate solution (7.5% w/v). The mixture was incubated at 37 °C for 30 min in the dark, and the absorbance was measured at 765 nm using a microplate reader. The results were expressed as milligrams of gallic acid equivalents per 100 mL (mg EAG/100 mL).

2.8.3. ABTS Antioxidant Capacity

The antioxidant capacity of the beverages was determined following the method described by Cuevas-González et al. [26] using the ABTS assay (2,2’-azinobis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline)-6-sulfonic acid). Initially, the ABTS•+ was prepared by mixing 25 mL of ABTS (7 mM) with 440 µL of potassium persulfate (140 mM) and incubated at 30 °C for 16 h in the dark. A Trolox calibration curve was prepared in a 50–500 mM concentration range. The reaction was carried out by mixing 200 µL of adjusted radical (0.70 ± 0.02) with 5 µL of extracts and standard solution and incubating it at 37 °C for 7 min. Subsequently, the absorbance was recorded at 754 nm using a microplate reader. The results were expressed as millimoles of Trolox equivalents per 100 mL (m moles TE/100 mL).

2.8.4. DPHH Antioxidant Capacity

The antioxidant capacity of the beverages was assessed by the DPPH (2,2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl) assay using a modification of the method described by Valero et al. [25] for the DPPH assay. The DPPH (0.063 mM) free radical was used in a methanolic solution. A Trolox calibration curve was prepared in a 50–500 mM concentration range. The reaction was conducted by mixing 280 µL of DPPH solution (previously adjusted with pure methanol to 0.70 ± 0.02) with 20 µL of extracts and standard solution in a 96-well polystyrene microplate. It was incubated for 30 min at room temperature (20 ± 5 °C) in the dark, and the absorbance was measured at 515 nm. The results were expressed in m moles TE/100 mL.

2.9. Statistical and Correlation Analysis

All results are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation (SD), obtained from three independent experiments analyzed in triplicate. A completely randomized design was used, and the data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA with a confidence level of 5%. Mean comparisons were performed using the Tukey–Kramer test (p < 0.05). Additionally, Pearson correlation was conducted to assess the association between microbial growth, pH, acidity, total phenolic content, and antioxidant capacity. Statistical programs NCSS 2023 (Kaysville, UT, USA) and Minitab 18 (Pennsylvania, PA, USA) were employed for analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Microbial Growth and Kinetic Parameters

The growth of Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 was observed in different fermented beverages, revealing distinct biomass production patterns among some treatments (Figure 1). The highest biomass production (p < 0.05) was found in DBCP, with an increase of ca. 1.40 logarithmic cycles at the end of fermentation, followed by DBFP and BCP, which were similar to each other (p > 0.05), showing an increase of ca. 0.72 and 0.65 logarithmic cycles, respectively. Following this, it was observed that the biomass in BFP was lower than in DBCP, DBFP, and BCP but higher than in SM (p < 0.05); the latter showed an increase of ca. 0.32 logarithmic cycles. Finally, SM showed the lowest biomass production of all treatments, with a rise in ca. 0.15 logarithmic cycles (p < 0.05). These results suggest that adding papaya to milk may promote the microbial growth of Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 during fermentation.
Based on the growth curve data, kinetic parameters were calculated using the Gompertz model (Table 1). The specific growth rate (μmax), the lag phase (λ), and the generation time (G). It was observed that DBCP exhibited a higher μmax than the other treatments, followed by BCP (p < 0.05). The lowest value (p < 0.05) was found in SM. On the other hand, DBFP and BFP showed similar values (p > 0.05). A similar trend was observed in the opposite direction concerning λ, where DBCP exhibited the lowest value and SM showed the highest value (p < 0.05). BCP presented the second lowest value (p < 0.05). Likewise, DBFP and BFP showed similar values (p > 0.05). Furthermore, no differences (p > 0.05) were observed in G among treatments DBCP, DBFP, BCP, and BFP; however, it was higher in SM (p < 0.05). This suggests that the addition of papaya puree to milk may increase the specific growth rate and reduce the lag phase of bacteria in the medium composed of the milk–papaya mixture.
The enhanced growth performance of Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 in DBCP can be attributed to the addition of papaya to the milk, as this fruit provides carbohydrates that the bacteria can utilize as a carbon source, thereby increasing its viability. This phenomenon has been previously observed in the lactic acid fermentation of milk mixed with strawberry juice using the Abt5 consortium (Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5, Bifidobacterium BB-12, and Streptococcus thermophilus) [27]. As well as in the lactic fermentation of milk mixed with dragon fruit peel extract using a commercial culture (Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Bifidobacterium longum) [28]. In all treatments, the microbial concentration is higher than the suggested range for microorganisms with probiotic potential (6.0–7.0 CFU/mL) [29,30]. However, it has been observed that the optimal concentration of microorganisms may vary depending on the strain [31,32], highlighting the need for further studies to understand the specific probiotic effects of Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24.
The difference in microbial load between DBCP and DBFP, and BCP and BFP may be attributed to potential differences between the control papaya puree and the FVE papaya puree. It has been reported that the FVE process can alter the sugar composition of grape cell walls [33,34] since the combination of thermal and mechanical energy can disrupt their structure [35]. Simple processes like heating or soaking can modify the cell wall composition [36]. Therefore, the FVE process may have broken down the cellulose and hemicellulose of the papaya fruit into simple carbohydrates due to cell wall disruption and thermal treatment. However, further studies are needed to confirm these differences.
On the other hand, the presence of antinutritional factors and inhibitory compounds (released by the FVE process), such as tannins and phenolic compounds, has been described to affect the growth of some LAB [37]. However, it has also been reported that LAB may metabolize these compounds as an alternative carbon source [38,39]. Therefore, further studies on Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 are required to gather more information, as this effect is strain-dependent and cannot be extrapolated, even among species.

3.2. Titratable Acidity and pH Changes

In this study (Figure 2), titratable acidity was evaluated, representing the amount of organic acids present in free form in a food product. Lactic acid was the quantified acid, as Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 is a LAB that primarily converts sugars into lactic acid. Treatments DBCP, DBFP, and SM exhibited an initial titratable acidity between 1.59 and 1.75 g/L. Among these, DBCP showed the highest production with a value of 3.50 ± 0.53 g/L, followed by SM with 2.55 ± 0.08 g/L, and then DBFP with 2.25 ± 0.11 g/L (p < 0.05). In contrast, beverages with control papaya puree and FVE papaya puree (BCP and BFP) initially showed a lower acidity than the milk-based beverages, with values of 0.14 ± 0.00 and 0.07 ± 0.01, respectively (p < 0.05). BCP increased to 0.69 ± 0.00 and BFP to 0.30 ± 0.06 g/L (p < 0.05). These results indicate that control papaya puree generates a higher production of lactic acid, which is observed in DBCP (dairy beverage with 5% control puree) and BCP (beverage with 5% control puree).
pH is an important parameter for monitoring the progress of lactic acid fermentation, as it reflects the metabolic activity of the microorganism in the production of organic acids, mainly lactic acid. In Figure 3, treatments DBCP, DBFP, and SM showed an initial pH in the range of 6.68–6.90, while in BCP, it was 5.05 ± 0.02, and in BFP, it was 6.36 ± 0.04. In all cases, a decrease in pH was observed. In the case of DBCP, this reduction was ca. 0.92 pH units, which was greater than the decrease observed in DBFP (ca. 0.40 units) (p < 0.05). On the other hand, in SM, the pH reduction was lower (p < 0.05) than in treatments involving the mixture of milk and papaya (DBCP and DBFP). Regarding beverages containing only papaya puree (BCP and BFP), a more pronounced reduction (p < 0.05) in pH levels was recorded (ca. 1.22 and 1.61 pH units, respectively).
The initial titratable acidity values of DBCP, DBFP, and SM fall within the range established by NOM-F-420-S-1982 [40], which ranges from 1.4 to 1.7 g/L of lactic acid. The differences between DBCP and DBFP and BCP and BFP can be attributed to possible disparities in sugar composition between the control puree and the FVE puree, as explained earlier.
LAB of the species Limosilactobacillus fermentum are heterofermentative [41]. These bacteria typically metabolize glucose primarily into lactic acid, although they can also transform it into ethanol, acetic acid, and carbon dioxide through the phosphoketolase pathways. Thus, 1 mole of glucose produces 1 mole of lactic acid, unlike homofermentative bacteria, which generate only lactic acid, and 1 mole of glucose produces 2 moles of lactic acid [42,43]. Some strains of Limosilactibacillus fermentum can consume melibiose, raffinose, sucrose, galactose, lactose, maltose, mannose, and ribose [44], and they can also metabolize arabinose, glucose, and xylose [41]. Therefore, the production of organic acids and the decrease in pH will depend on the food matrix, the LAB strain, and the fermentation conditions.
The above is evidenced in some studies. For example, Martínez et al. [45] reported different values from those obtained in our research when fermenting a mixture of milk with orange and mango juice using strains of Levilactobacillus brevis and Fructobacillus tropaoli separately. In another study, Chen et al. [24] observed lower levels of lactic acid when fermenting a combination of milk with papaya juice using strains of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus acidophilus. However, more specific analyses are required in our study to determine the exact composition of the organic acids present in the dairy beverages with papaya.

3.3. Changes in Total Phenolic Content

Phenolic compounds are phytochemicals found in most plant tissues. These compounds possess aromatic rings with one or more hydroxyl groups that can act as inhibitors in forming free radicals [46]. Therefore, the presence of these compounds in the papaya dairy beverages and their impact on them by Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 was evaluated. Figure 4 presents the phenolic content of the five treatments evaluated at times 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h of fermentation. At the beginning of fermentation, it was observed that DBCP had a higher concentration (p < 0.05) than DBFP, with values of 12.10 ± 0.04 and 9.20 ± 0.04 mg GAE/100 mL, respectively. Additionally, DBFP was similar (p > 0.05) to SM, with a value of 8.55 ± 0.11 mg GAE/100 mL in the latter. On the other hand, both BCP and BFP showed the lowest total phenolic content (p < 0.05) and were similar to each other (p > 0.05), with values of 3.73 ± 0.57 and 3.09 ± 0.02 mg GAE/100 mL, respectively.
In the case of DBCP, a significant increase (p < 0.05) in the total phenolic content was observed during fermentation, reaching a concentration of 17.25 ± 0.85 mg GAE/100 mL. Regarding DBFP, an increase was also recorded, although it was notable (p < 0.05) from 6 h onwards (10.67 ± 0.12 mg GAE/100 mL) of fermentation, and at 12 h, it reached a concentration of 16.73 ± 0.17 mg GAE/100 mL, being similar (p > 0.05) to that of DBCP. On the other hand, in the case of BCP, BFP, and SM, the total phenolic content did not experience significant changes (p > 0.05) throughout fermentation, maintaining values at the end of 3.70 ± 0.04 for BCP, 3.41 ± 0.12 for BFP, and 8.47 ± 0.43 mg GAE/100 mL for SM. These results demonstrate the fermentation of papaya dairy beverages (DBCP and DBFP) with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 can increase the total phenolic content.
Surprisingly, it was observed that the total phenolic content in the beverages made with FVE puree was lower than that of the control puree. The degradation of phenolic compounds can occur at different temperatures and is influenced by various factors such as the type of phenolic compound, characteristics of the food matrix, and intrinsic properties of the food [47]. The compounds released by the FVE process were likely more exposed to the temperature of the thermal treatment (80 °C, 30 min), which could have led to their degradation, resulting in a higher presence of total phenols in the beverages with control puree.
On the other hand, skim milk (SM) showed a higher phenolic content than beverages containing only control puree (BCP) and FVE puree (BFP). This is attributed to phenolic compounds in milk, which the animals’ diet can influence. If animals consume forages, herbs, or foods rich in phenolic compounds, these can be transferred to the milk [15]. BCP and BFP show a lower phenolic content because of the low concentration of papaya in the beverage.
Several reasons contribute to the increase in total phenolic content in DBCP and DBFP. One of them is that some lactic acid bacteria can metabolize the carbohydrates present in the cell wall, facilitating the release of phenolic compounds bound to these sugars, thus increasing their bioactivity [48,49,50]. In the specific case of papaya, it has been observed that the main sugars of the cell wall are galactose, xylose, glucose, and rhamnose [51], which strains of Limosilactobacillus fermentum can metabolize [41].
Another factor to consider is that LAB can express enzymes capable of biotransforming high-molecular-weight phenolic compounds into simpler compounds with higher bioactivity [39,52]. Possible metabolic pathways have been described through which LAB metabolizes, especially caffeic acid, ferulic acid, and p-coumaric acid, mainly found in papaya’s pulp and peel. Three possible pathways are proposed: in the first, the end products of these acids are dihydrocaffeic acid, dihydroferulic acid, and phloretic acid, respectively. In the second pathway, the end product is p-vinyl phenol, vinyl catechol, and vinyl guaiacol. In the third pathway, the end products of the second pathway are absorbed by the bacteria and metabolized to produce ethylphenol, methyl catechol, and ethyl guaiacol [53,54]. In these cases, it has been observed that dihydrocaffeic acids exhibit an antioxidant capacity ca. 1.8 times higher than their precursor, caffeic acid [55,56]. Similarly, dihydroferulic acid demonstrates an antioxidant capacity ca. 1.7 times higher than its precursor, ferulic acid [55], indicating increased antioxidant activity. However, further studies are needed to understand these effects of the Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 strain during the fermentation of papaya dairy beverages.
pH is another factor that influences the structural transformation of some phytochemicals during lactic fermentation. An example is anthocyanins, which are stable at low pH (1–2), so acidic pH can increase antioxidant capacity [57,58]. In summary, establishing the exact route of lactic fermentation can be complicated.
Studies suggest that lactic fermentation can affect the phenolic content in papaya-containing foods. For example, Di-Cagno et al. [59] fermented green smoothies containing papaya using Lactiplantibacillus pentosus and Weissella cibaria strains and found no significant changes in phenolic content or antioxidant capacity. In contrast, Chen et al. [24] found that fermentation of a mixture of milk with papaya juice using Lactiplantibacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus acidophilus showed both increases and decreases in phenolic content during fermentation. In another study by Mashitoa et al. [60], fermentation with strains of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, Leuconostoc pseudomesenteroides, and Weisellia cibaria increased both total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity.

3.4. Changes in Antioxidant Capacity

Antioxidant capacity relies on the mechanism of electron and proton transfer, where an antioxidant molecule (e.g., phenolic compounds) donates an electron or proton to a free radical (DPPH or ABTS), resulting in observable reducing capacity through the decrease in radical color [61]. Regarding ABTS, Figure 5 illustrates the antioxidant capacity of the five treatments evaluated at 0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 h of fermentation. At the onset of fermentation, differences are observed among all treatments (p < 0.05). DBCP exhibits the highest capacity, with a value of 103.03 ± 11.93 mmol TE/100 mL. DBFP, BCP, BFP, and SM show values of 86.52 ± 1.49, 32.03 ± 4.14, 18.55 ± 0.36, and 76.38 ± 3.19 mmol TE/100 mL, respectively.
During fermentation, DBCP experiences a significant increase (p < 0.05) starting from 6 h, reaching 132.57 ± 7.41 mmol TE/100 mL, a value that remains similar (p > 0.05) at 9 h (145.55 ± 15.03 mmol TE/100 mL). At 12 h, DBCP shows another increase (p < 0.05) to 181.69 ± 3.43 mmol TE/100 mL. On the other hand, DBFP undergoes a decrease (p < 0.05) of ca. 1.05 times, followed by an increase (p < 0.05) at 9 h, reaching 104.82 ± 4.96 mmol TE/100 mL. By the end of fermentation, DBFP increases (p < 0.05) its antioxidant capacity to 177.75 ± 19.59 mmol TE/100 mL, a value similar (p > 0.05) to that observed earlier in DBCP.
Continuing with SM, at 3 h, a decrease (p < 0.05) of ca. 1.65 times was observed, showing a similar value (p > 0.05) to that of DBFP and BCP. Throughout the rest of the fermentation, SM did not experience significant changes (p > 0.05), maintaining a value of 50.43 ± 5.52 at the end. As for BCP and BFP (beverages solely with papaya puree), they did not show significant changes (p > 0.05) during fermentation, with final values of 34.17 ± 1.95 and 25.71 ± 2.46 mmol TE/100 mL, respectively.
The DPPH method is widely used to assess the antioxidant capacity of biological samples. In this study (Figure 6), at the beginning of fermentation, it is observed that DBCP, DBFP, and SM have similar values (p > 0.05), with 12.16 ± 0.24, 11.34 ± 0.12 and 11.42 ± 0.97 mmol TE/100 mL, respectively. On the other hand, BCP (4.81 ± 0.23 mmol TE/100 mL) and BFP (3.78 ± 0.51 mmol TE/100 mL) show lower initial values, being different from each other (p < 0.05).
During fermentation, DBCP increases (p < 0.05) its antioxidant capacity ca. 1.13 times at 6 h, remaining stable (p > 0.05) until 12 h (13.70 ± 0.41 mmol TE/100 mL). DBFP and SM do not change (p > 0.05) during fermentation, with values of 11.55 ± 1.23 and 11.70 ± 1.25 mmol TE/100 mL, respectively. In the case of BCP, an increase (p < 0.05) is observed at 3 h, remaining constant until 12 h, with a final value of 6.73 ± 0.28 mmol TE/100 mL. On the other hand, BFP shows an increase (p < 0.05) at 9 h, followed by a decrease (p < 0.05) at 12 h, with a final value of 2.93 ± 0.14 mmol TE/100 mL.
Although phenolic compounds have been observed to be closely correlated with antioxidant capacity measured by ABTS and DPPH [62,63], differences between them may exist. According to Platzer et al. [64], some compounds, such as dihydrochalcones and flavonoids, may not react with the DPPH radical, unlike the ABTS radical. Gayosso-García Sancho et al. [63] also indicate that phenolic acid may exhibit slightly higher bioactivity against the ABTS radical than against DPPH. Therefore, the antioxidant capacity exhibited by a molecule against a specific radical will depend on its chemical structure, dissociation energy, resonance, and steric hindrance derived from hydrogen substitution in the aromatic ring and its concentration in the food matrix [63,65]. Hence, it is important to identify the main phenolic compounds present in this study to draw more solid conclusions.
Similar cases have been observed in several studies. Chen et al. [24] found contrasting results between the antioxidant capacity measured by ABTS and DPPH in a milk beverage with papaya juice fermented with a Lactobacillus acidophilus strain. This phenomenon was also evidenced in the study by Mauro et al. [66] when fermenting a mixed beverage of cranberry and carrot with a strain of Limosilactobacillus reuteri. Pontonio et al. [67] observed differences between the ABTS and DPPH methods, showing that there were no changes in ABTS. At the same time, an increase was recorded in DPPH in pomegranate beverages fermented with the strain of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum. Therefore, differences may exist between the different antioxidant methods used in these studies.

3.5. Correlation between Microbial Load and Antioxidant Properties

The correlation of all the variables evaluated during fermentation was determined for each treatment. Figure 7 shows that at DBCP, cell viability showed a very strong positive correlation with titratable acidity, phenols, DPPH, and ABTS and a very strong negative correlation with the pH variable. Specifically, the pH variable showed a very strong negative correlation with the titratable acidity, phenols, and ABTS variables and a strong negative correlation with the DPPH variable. Titratable acidity showed a very strong positive correlation with phenols and ABTS and a strong positive correlation with DPPH. The concentration of total phenols showed a very strong positive correlation with DPPH and a strong positive correlation with ABTS. Finally, DPPH showed a strong positive correlation with ABTS. These correlations were statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Figure 8 shows that in DBFP, cell viability showed a very strong positive correlation with titratable acidity and phenols, a strong positive correlation with ABTS, and a moderate correlation with DPPH. The pH variable presented a very strong negative correlation with titratable acidity, phenols, and ABTS and a weak, non-significant negative correlation (p > 0.05) with pH. Titratable acidity showed a strong positive correlation with phenols and ABTS and a moderate non-significant positive correlation (p > 0.05) with DPPH. Phenols showed a very strong positive correlation with ABTS, while with DPPH, the correlation was low and not significant (p >0.05). Finally, the correlation of DPPH with ABTS was low and not significant (p > 0.05).
In Figure 9, in BCP, cell viability shows a very strong positive correlation with DPPH and a strong positive correlation with titratable acidity, while pH shows a strong negative correlation. However, cell viability exhibits a very weak positive correlation with ABTS and phenols, which is not significant (p > 0.05). Regarding pH, a very strong negative correlation is observed with titratable acidity and a strong negative correlation with DPPH. However, no significant correlations (p > 0.05) were found with phenols and ABTS, which were very weak positive and very weak negative, respectively. Titratable acidity shows a strong positive correlation with DPPH, while no significant correlations (p > 0.05) were found with phenols and ABTS. In the case of phenols, a strong positive correlation is only observed with ABTS, and a weak positive correlation with DPPH is not significant (p > 0.05). On the other hand, DPPH presents a weak non-significant correlation (p > 0.05) with ABTS.
About BFP (Figure 10), it is observed that cell viability has a strong positive correlation with titratable acidity and phenols. In addition, it presents a weak positive correlation with ABTS and a moderate correlation with DPPH; however, in both cases, it is not significant (p > 0.05); cell viability presented a very strong negative correlation with pH. Continuing with pH, it exhibited a very strong negative correlation with titratable acidity and a strong negative correlation with phenols; on the other hand, it was not significant (p > 0.05) with DPPH and ABTS, presenting a weak negative correlation and a moderate negative correlation, respectively. In the case of titratable acidity, no significant correlations (p > 0.05) were found with phenols, DPPH, and ABTS, showing a weak positive correlation, a very weak negative correlation, and a very weak positive correlation, respectively. On the other hand, phenols show a strong positive correlation with DPPH and a very strong one with ABTS. Finally, the correlation between DPPH and ABTS was weakly positive and not significant (p > 0.05).
Figure 11 shows the correlation between all variables in SM. Cell viability shows a very strong positive correlation with titratable acidity, while pH shows a strong negative correlation. However, the correlation of cell viability with phenols, DPPH, and ABTS is not significant (p > 0.05), showing a weak negative, very weak negative, and very weak positive correlation, respectively. Regarding pH, a very strong negative correlation is observed with titratable acidity. In contrast, no significant correlations (p > 0.05) were found with phenols (weakly positive), DPPH (very weak negative), and ABTS (very weak negative). In the case of titratable acidity, no significant correlations (p > 0.05) were found with phenols, DPPH, and ABTS, showing a moderate positive correlation, a very weak positive correlation, and a moderate negative correlation, respectively. A non-significant (p > 0.05) weak negative correlation with DPPH and a very weak positive correlation with ABTS was observed for phenols. Finally, the correlation between DPPH and ABTS was weak, negative, and not significant (p > 0.05).
Cell viability, titratable acidity, and pH correlate in all treatments. This behavior is consistent with previous lactic acid fermentation studies [68,69]. These correlations are crucial because they directly influence the stability and quality of the fermented product. Similarly, in some cases, phenols and the antioxidant capacity determined by ABTS and DPPH assays show a correlation with each other. This trend has been observed in other studies [61,63,70,71]. It has also been reported that titratable acidity and pH may be correlated with phenols and antioxidant capacity since the interaction between free radicals and antioxidants can be affected by pH changes [72,73]. This correlation suggests that changes in pH during fermentation can influence the release and activity of antioxidant compounds, which is critical to optimizing fermentation processes and improving the functional value of the products.
On the other hand, during lactic acid fermentation, the correlation between cell concentration and antioxidant properties has not been commonly studied but deserves to be investigated and considered. LAB can influence the final product’s phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity, and their growth can be affected by the presence of these compounds. Xylia et al. [74] observed in salads that the cell viability of pathogenic bacteria such as Staphylococcus spp., Pseudomonas spp., Escherichia coli, and Bacillus cereus showed a positive correlation with the total phenol content and the antioxidant capacity measured by DPPH, although this correlation was negative in the case of the antioxidant capacity measured by ABTS.
It is necessary to highlight that a trend observed in this research is that the greater the cell viability, the greater the number of correlated variables. Similarly, the greater the cell viability, the stronger the correlations and the greater the statistical significance. Treatments with the mixture of milk and fruit showed greater cell viability, which may suggest that in a more complex environment, the bacteria are forced to activate several metabolic pathways that allow them to increase their ability to adapt and ensure survival. It is possible that a greater number of metabolic pathways could affect a more significant number of variables and, therefore, a greater correlation with cell viability. These findings underline the complex interactions between microorganisms and bioactive compounds during fermentation, highlighting the need for further research. It has been reported that, in complex media such as food, lactic acid bacteria can establish metabolic pathways that allow them to adapt and use different food components of both animal and plant origin [75].

4. Conclusions

The present study revealed that lactic fermentation with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 of the dairy beverage with papaya puree obtained by flash vacuum expansion increased the total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity measured by ABTS. However, no significant differences were observed compared to the dairy beverage made with control papaya puree, except in the antioxidant capacity measured by the DPPH assay, which was lower in the FVE papaya puree beverage. It was determined that in the dairy beverage with control puree, there is a strong positive correlation between cell viability during fermentation and all antioxidant properties evaluated in this study. These findings suggest that Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 exhibits greater adaptation in the milk–papaya mixture than in milk alone, resulting in higher metabolic activity and cell viability at the end of fermentation. Therefore, it is a promising candidate as a starter culture for producing dairy beverages with fruits that have high antioxidant potential. However, further research is needed to understand the specific mechanisms driving the changes in the bioactivities evaluated in this study to suggest the beverage as a product with functional potential. In summary, this study highlights the importance of comprehensively harnessing fruit components as ingredients to produce functional foods, enhancing them with processes such as flash vacuum expansion and lactic acid fermentation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.Z. and M.V.O.; methodology, J.A.Z. and T.d.J.C.R.; validation, A.F.G.C., A.H.M., B.V.C. and M.V.O.; formal analysis, M.V.O.; investigation, J.A.Z., T.d.J.C.R., J.I.M.R. and L.S.L.; resources, A.F.G.C., A.H.M., B.V.C. and M.V.O.; data curation, J.A.Z. and T.d.J.C.R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.Z. and T.d.J.C.R.; writing—review and editing, A.F.G.C., A.H.M., B.V.C. and M.V.O.; visualization, J.I.M.R. and L.S.L.; supervision, M.V.O.; project administration, A.F.G.C., A.H.M., B.V.C. and M.V.O.; funding acquisition, A.F.G.C., A.H.M., B.V.C. and M.V.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors upon justified request.

Acknowledgments

The corresponding author Manuel Vargas Ortiz, thanks project number 372 “Frutos tropicales como fuente de fenoles y fibra, interacciones moleculares en digestión simulada” of the Investigadores por México program, supported by CONAHCYT. The authors Jesús Ayala Zavala and Teresita de Jesús Castillo Romero acknowledge the financial support provided by CONAHCYT.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Pathak, P.D.; Mandavgane, S.A.; Kulkarni, B.D. Waste to wealth: A case study of papaya peel. Waste Biomass Valor. 2019, 10, 1755–1766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Vázquez-Mata, N.; Acosta-Camacho, P.; Camacho-Parra, E.; Rocha-Mendoza, D.; Cano, I.G. Aprovechamiento de Subproductos y Residuos Generados en la Central de Abastos de la Ciudad de México. Biotecnol. Sustentabilidad 2022, 7, 119–140. [Google Scholar]
  3. SADER. México, Principal Exportador de Papaya en el Mundo; Crece Producción 3.2 por Ciento en 2020. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/agricultura/prensa/mexico-principal-exportador-de-papaya-en-el-mundo-crece-produccion-3-2-por-ciento-en-2020?idiom=es#:~:text=calcio%20y%20hierro.-,La%20producci%C3%B3n%20de%20papaya%20en%20M%C3%A9xico%20creci%C3%B3%203.2%20por%20ciento,de%20Agricultura%20y%20Desarrollo%20Rural (accessed on 9 April 2024).
  4. SENASICA. Recognition of the Productive, Economic and Historical-Cultural Value of Mexican Papaya. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/senasica/documentos/recognition-of-the-productive-economic-and-historical-cultural-value-of-mexican-papaya (accessed on 23 September 2024).
  5. Ovando-Martinez, M.; López-Teros, M.; Tortoledo-Ortiz, O.; Astiazarán-García, H.; Ayala-Zavala, J.; Villegas-Ochoa, M.; González-Aguilar, G. Effect of ripening on physico-chemical properties and bioactive compounds in papaya pulp, skin and seeds. Indian J. Nat. Prod. Resour. 2018, 9, 47–59. [Google Scholar]
  6. Romo-Zamarrón, K.F.; Pérez-Cabrera, L.E.; Tecante, A. Physicochemical and sensory properties of gummy candies enriched with pineapple and papaya peel powders. Food Nutr. Sci. 2019, 10, 1300–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. SAGARPA. Planeación Agrícola Nacional 2017–2030: Papaya Mexicana. Ciudad de México, MEX. Agricultura: Secretaria de Agricultura y Desarrollo Rural. Available online: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/257083/Potencial-Papaya.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2024).
  8. Leitão, M.; Ribeiro, T.; García, P.A.; Barreiros, L.; Correia, P. Benefits of Fermented Papaya in Human Health. Foods 2022, 11, 563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Barón-Arroyo, A.; Morales-Pablo, R.; Aguilar-Gutiérrez, G.; Ramírez Martínez, A. Estimación de las pérdidas de papaya y los factores que las causan en la zona Norte del estado de Veracruz. Investig. Desarro. Cienc. Tecnol. Aliment. 2022, 7, 261–266. [Google Scholar]
  10. Ayala-Zavala, J.; Castillo-Romero, T.d.J.; Salgado-Cervantes, M.; Marín-Castro, U.; Vargas-Ortiz, M.; Pallet, D.; Servent, A. Flash Vacuum Expansion: Effect on physicochemical, biochemical and sensory parameters in fruit processing. Food Rev. Int. 2023, 40, 833–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Vargas-Ortiz, M.; Servent, A.; Rodríguez-Jimenes, G.; Pallet, D.; Salgado-Cervantes, M. Effect of thermal stage in the processing avocado by flash vacuum expansion: Effect on the antioxidant capacity and the qualitaty of the mash. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2017, 41, e13118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Salgado-Cervantes, M.; Servent, A.; Maraval, I.; Vargas-Ortiz, M.; Pallet, D. Flash vacuum-expansion process: Effect on the sensory, color and texture attributes of avocado (Persea americana) Puree. Plant Food Hum. Nutr. 2019, 74, 370–375. [Google Scholar]
  13. Marin-Castro, U.R.; Garcia-Alvarado, M.; Vargas-Ortiz, M.; Pallet, D.; Salgado-Cervantes, M.; Servent, A. Sensory and nutritional qualities of ‘Manila’ mango ready-to-eat puree enhanced using mild flash vacuum expansion processing. Fruits 2021, 76, 248–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Goulding, D.A.; Fox, P.F.; O’Mahony, J.A. Milk proteins: An overview. In Milk Proteins; Boland, M., Singh, H., Eds.; Academic Press: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 21–98. [Google Scholar]
  15. Stobiecka, M.; Król, J.; Brodziak, A. Antioxidant activity of milk and dairy products. Animals 2022, 12, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Ruiz Rodríguez, L.G.; Mendoza, L.M.; Van Nieuwenhove, C.P.; Pescuma, M.; Mozzi, F.B. Fermentación de jugos y bebidas a base de frutas. In Alimentos Fermentados: Microbiología, Nutrición, Salud y Cultura; Ferrari, A., Vinderola, G., Weill, R., Eds.; Instituto Danonde: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2020; pp. 273–296. [Google Scholar]
  17. Swain, M.R.; Anandharaj, M.; Ray, R.C.; Parveen Rani, R. Fermented fruits and vegetables of Asia: A potential source of probiotics. Biotechnol. Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 250424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Mennu, M.; Kaur, S.; Kaur, M.; Mradula, M.; Khandare, K.; Xu, B.; Pati, P.K. The golden era of fruit juices-based probiotic beverages: Recent advancements and future possibilities. Process Biochem. 2024, 142, 113–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Santamaría-Basulto, F.; Díaz-Plaza, R.; Sauir-Duch, E.; Espadas y Gil, F.; Santamaría-Fernández, J.M.; Larqué-Saavedra, A. Característica de calidad de frutos de papaya Maradol en la madurez de consumo. Agric. Téc. Méx. 2009, 35, 347–353. [Google Scholar]
  20. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). Norma Oficial Méxicana NOM-110-SSA1-1994. Goods and Services. Preparation and Dilution of Food Samples for Microbiological Analysis. Secretaria de Economía. Available online: https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=4883170&fecha=16/10/1995#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 2 April 2024).
  21. Heredia-Castro, P.Y.; Méndez-Romero, J.I.; Hernández-Méndoza, A.; Acedo-Felix, E.; González-Córdova, A.F.; Vallejo-Cordoba, B. Antimicrobial activity and partial characterization of bacteriocin-like inhibitory substances produced by Lactobacillus spp. isolated from artisanal Mexican cheese. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 8285–8293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). NMX-F-102-NORMEX-2010. Alimentos—Determinación de Acidez Titulable en Alimentos—Métodos de Ensayo (Prueba). Secretaria de Economía. 2010. Available online: https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5150634&fecha=05/07/2010#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 24 May 2024).
  23. Association of Oficial Analytica Chemists International (AOAC). Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL, 18th ed.; AOAC International: Gaithersburg, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  24. Chen, R.; Chen, W.; Chen, H.; Zhang, G.; Chen, W. Comparative Evaluation of the Antioxidant Capacities, Organic Acids, and Volatiles of Papaya Juices Fermented by Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus plantarum. J. Food Qual. 2018, 2018, 9490435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Valero, Y.; Colima, J.; Ineichen, E. Effect of processing on the antioxidant capacity of creole plum (Prunus domestica). Arch. Latinoam. Nutr. 2012, 62, 363–369. [Google Scholar]
  26. Cuevas-González, P.F.; Aguilar-Toalá, J.E.; García, H.S.; González-Córdova, A.F.; Vallejo-Cordoba, B.; Hernández-Mendoza, A. Protective Effect of the Intracellular Content from Potential Probiotic Bacteria against Oxidative Damage Induced by Acryla-mide in Human Erythrocytes. Probiotics Antimicrob. Prot. 2020, 12, 1459–1470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Haron, E.; Ayad, E.H.; Bakrey, A.; Darwesh, M.S. Biochemical Properties of Bio-Fermented Strawberry Milk Beverage Supplemented with Probiotic Bacteria. J. Adv. Agric. Res. 2019, 24, 518–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dianasari, U.; Malaka, R.; Maruddin, F. Physicochemical quality of fermented milk with additional red dragon fruit (Hylocereus polyrhizus) skin. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth. Environ. 2020, 492, 012050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Colombo-Pimentel, T.; Karoline-Almeida da Costa, W.; Eduardo-Barão, C.; Rosset, M.; Magnani, M. Vegan probiotic products: A modern tendency or the newest challenge in functional foods. Food Res. Int. 2021, 140, 110033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Shah, N.P. Functional cultures and health benefits. Int. Dairy J. 2007, 17, 1262–1277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Murti, T.W. Fermentation of Bovine, Non-Bovine and Vegetable Milk. In Fermentation—Processes, Benefits and Risks; Laranjo, M., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; pp. 83–97. [Google Scholar]
  32. Almada-Corral, A.; Santiago-López, L.; Vallejo-Cordoba, B.; González-Córdova, A.F.; Hernández-Mendoza, A. Development of a Functional Fermented Milk by using Single or Multistrain Potential Probiotic Cultures. ACS Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 3, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Doco, T.; Williamns, P.; Cheynier, V. Effect of Flash Release and Pectinolytic Enzyme Treatments on Wine Polysaccharide Composition. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 6643–6649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Ntuli, R.G.; Ponangi, R.; Jeffery, D.W.; Wilkinson, K.L. Color Extraction and Stability of Rubired Juice Concentrate Produced via Conventional Must Heating or Flash Détente Processing. ACS Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 1, 829–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dhingra, D.; Michael, M.; Rajput, H.; Patil, R.T. Dietary fibre in foods: A review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Benítez, V.; Mollá, E.; Martín-Cabrejas, M.A.; Aguilera, Y.; López-Andréu, F.J.; Esteban, R.M. Effect of sterilisation on dietary fibre and physicochemical properties of onion by-products. Food Chem. 2011, 127, 501–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. García-Ruiz, A.; Moreno-Arribas, M.V.; Martín-Álvarez, P.J.; Bartolomé, B. Comparative study of the inhibitory effects of wine polyphenols on the growth of enological lactic acid bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 145, 426–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mantzourani, I.; Kazakos, S.; Terpou, A.; Alexopoulos, A.; Bezirtzoglou, E.; Bekatorou, A.; Plessas, S. Potential of the probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum ATCC 14917 strain to produce functional fermented pomegranate juice. Foods 2018, 8, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Carrasco, J.A.; Lucena-Padrós, H.; Brenes, M.; Ruiz-Barba, J.L. Expression of genes involved in metabolism of phenolic compounds by Lactobacillus pentosus and its relevance for table-olive fermentations. Food Microbiol. 2018, 76, 382–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF). NOM-F-420-S-1982. Productos Alimenticios para su Uso Humano—Determinación de Acidez en Leche Fluida. Secretaria de Economía. 1982. Available online: https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=4761014&fecha=02/09/1982#gsc.tab=0 (accessed on 30 May 2024).
  41. Zhao, Y.; Yu, L.; Tian, F.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W.; Zhai, Q. Environment-Related Genes Analysis of Limosilactobacillus fermentum Isolated from Food and Human Gut: Genetic Diversity and Adaption Evolution. Foods 2022, 11, 3135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ayseli, M.T.; İpek-Ayseli, Y. Flavors of the future: Health benefits of flavor precursors and volatile compounds in plant foods. Trends Food Sci. 2016, 48, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bourdichon, F.; Casaregola, S.; Farrokh, C.; Frisvad, J.C.; Gerds, M.L.; Hammes, W.P.; Harnett, J.; Huys, G.; Laulund, S.; Ouwehand, A. Food fermentations: Microorganisms with technological beneficial use. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 154, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Pot, B.; Felis, G.; De Bruyne, K.; Tsakalidou, E.; Papadimitriou, K.; Leisner, J.; Vandamme, P. The genus Lactobacillus. In Lactic Acid Bacteria: Biodiversity and Taxonomy; Holzapfel, W.H., Wood, B.J.B., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: West Sussex, UK, 2014; pp. 249–353. [Google Scholar]
  45. Martínez, F.G.; Cuencas Barrientos, M.E.; Mozzi, F.; Pescuma, M. Survival of selenium-enriched lactic acid bacteria in a fermented drink under storage and simulated gastro-intestinal digestion. Food Res. Int. 2019, 123, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. De la Rosa, L.A.; Moreno-Escamilla, J.O.; Rodrigo-García, J.; Álvarez-Parrilla, E. Phenolic Compounds. In Postharvest Physiology and Biochemistry of Fruits and Vegetables; Yahia, E.M., Ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2019; pp. 253–271. [Google Scholar]
  47. Patras, A.; Brunton, N.P.; O´Donnell, C.; Tiwari, B.K. Effect of thermal processing on anthocyanin stability in foods; Mechanisms and kinetics of degradation. Trends Food Sci. 2010, 21, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, L.; Zhang, H.; Lei, H. Phenolics profile, antioxidant activity and flavor volatiles of pear juice: Influence of lactic acid fermentation using three Lactobacillus strains in monoculture and binary mixture. Foods 2021, 11, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ricci, A.; Cirlini, M.; Levante, A.; Dall´Asta, C.; Galaverna, G.; Lazzi, C. Volatile profile of elderberry juice: Effect of lactic acid fermentation using L. plantarum, L. rhamnosus and L. casei strains. Food Res. Int. 2018, 105, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Kaprasob, R.; Kerdchoechuen, O.; Laohakunjit, N.; Sarkar, D.; Shetty, K. Fermentation-based biotransformation of bioactive phenolics and volatile compounds from cashew apple juice by select lactic acid bacteria. Process Biochem. 2017, 59, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sañudo-Barajas, J.A.; Labavitch, J.; Greve, C.; Osuna-Enciso, T.; Muy-Rangel, D.; Siller-Cepeda, J. Cell wall disassembly during papaya softening: Role of ethylene in changes in composition, pectin-derived oligomers (PDOs) production and wall hydrolases. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2009, 51, 158–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhou, Y.; Wang, R.; Zhang, Y.; Yang, Y.; Sun, X.; Zhang, Q.; Yang, N. Biotransformation of phenolics and metabolites and the change in antioxidant activity in kiwifruit induced by Lactobacillus plantarum fermentation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 3283–3290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Filannino, P.; Di Cagno, R.; Gobbetti, M. Metabolic and functional paths of lactic acid bacteria in plant foods: Get out of the labyrinth. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2018, 49, 64–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Leonard, W.; Zhang, P.; Ying, D.; Adhikari, B.; Fang, Z. Fermentation transforms the phenolic profiles and bioactivities of plant-based foods. Biotechnol. Adv. 2021, 49, 107763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Rogozinska, M.; Lisiecki, K.; Czarnocki, Z.; Biesaga, M. Antioxidant Activity of Sulfate Metabolites of Chlorogenic Acid. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 2192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Filannino, P.; Bai, Y.; Di Cagno, R.; Gobbetti, M.; Gänzle, M.G. Metabolism of phenolic compounds by Lactobacillus spp. during fermentation of cherry juice and broccoli puree. Food Microbiol. 2015, 46, 272–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hur, S.J.; Lee, S.Y.; Kim, Y.C.; Choi, I.; Kim, G.B. Effect of fermentation on the antioxidant activity in plant-based foods. Food Chem. 2014, 160, 346–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Borkowski, T.; Szymusiak, H.; Gliszczyńska-Świgło, A.; Rietjens, I.M.; Tyrakowska, B. Radical scavenging capacity of wine anthocyanins is strongly pH-dependent. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2005, 53, 5526–5534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Di-Cagno, R.; Minervini, G.; Rizzello, C.G.; De Angelis, M.; Gobbetti, M. Effect of lactic acid fermentation on antioxidant, texture, color and sensory properties of red and green smoothies. Food Microbiol. 2011, 28, 1062–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mashitoa, F.M.; Akinola, S.A.; Manhevi, V.E.; Garcia, C.; Remize, F.; Slabbert, R.M.; Sivakumar, D. Influence of Fermentation of Pasteurised Papaya Puree with Different Lactic Acid Bacterial Strains on Quality and bioaccessibility of phenolic compounds during in vitro digestion. Foods 2021, 10, 962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Rumpf, J.; Burger, R.; Schulze, M. Statistical evaluation of DPPH, ABTS, FRAP, and Folin-Ciocalteu assays to assess the antioxidant capacity of lignins. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 233, 123470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Corral-Aguayo, R.D.; Yahia, E.M.; Carrillo-Lopez, A.; Gonzalez-Aguilar, G. Correlation between some nutritional components and the total antioxidant capacity measured with six different assays in eight horticultural crops. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 10498–10504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gayosso-García Sancho, L.E.; Yahia, E.M.; González-Aguilar, G.A. Contribution of major hydrophilic and lipophilic antioxidants from papaya fruit to total antioxidant capacity. Food Nutr. Sci. 2013, 4, 93–100. [Google Scholar]
  64. Platzer, M.; Kiese, S.; Herfellner, T.; Schweiggert-Weisz, U.; Miesbauer, O.; Eisner, P. Common trends and differences in antioxidant activity analysis of phenolic substances using single electron transfer based assays. Molecules 2021, 26, 1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Heo, H.J.; Kim, Y.J.; Chung, D.; Kim, D.O. Antioxidant capacities of individual and combined phenolics in a model system. Food Chem. 2007, 104, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mauro, C.S.I.; Guergoletto, K.B.; Garcia, S. Development of blueberry and carrot juice blend fermented by Lactobacillus reuteri LR92. Beverages 2016, 2, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pontonio, E.; Montemurro, M.; Pinto, D.; Trani, A.; Mazzeo, A.; Gobbetti, M.; Rizzello, C.G. Lactic acid fermentation of pomegranate juice as a tool to improve antioxidant activity. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 460471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. González-Alonso, V.; Pradal, I.; Wardhana, Y.R.; Cnockaert, M.; Wieme, A.D.; Vandamme, P.; De Vuyst, L. Microbial ecology and metabolite dynamics of backslopped triticale sourdough productions and the impact of scale. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2024, 408, 110445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Panda, S.H.; Parmanick, M.; Ray, R.C. Lactic acid fermentation of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) into pickles. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2007, 31, 83–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Coulibaly, W.H.; Camara, F.; Tohoyessou, M.G.; Konan, P.A.K.; Coulibaly, K.; Yapo, E.G.A.S.; Wiafe, M.A. Nutritional profile and functional properties of coconut water marketed in the streets of Abidjan (Côte d’Ivoire). Sci. Afr. 2023, 20, e01616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gayosso-García, S.L.E.; Yahia, E.M.; González-Aguilar, G.A. Identification and quantification of phenols, carotenoids, and vitamin C from papaya (Carica papaya L., cv. Maradol) fruit determined by HPLC-DAD-MS/MS-ESI. Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 1284–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Panda, S.K.; Behera, S.K.; Witness, Q.X.; Sekar, S.; Ndinteh, D.T.; Nanjundaswamy, H.M.; Ray, R.C.; Kayitesi, E. Quality enhancement of prickly pears (Opuntia sp.) juice through probiotic fermentation using Lactobacillus fermentum—ATCC 9338. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 75, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Martínez-Flores, H.E.; Garnica-Romo, M.G.; Bermúdez-Aguirre, D.; Pokhrel, P.R.; Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V. Physico-chemical parameters, bioactive compounds and microbial quality of thermo-sonicated carrot juice during storage. Food Chem. 2015, 172, 650–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Xylia, P.; Botsaris, G.; Chrysargyris, A.; Skandamis, P.; Tzortzakis, N. Variation of microbial load and biochemical activity of ready-to-eat salads in Cyprus as affected by vegetable type, season, and producer. Food microbiol. 2019, 83, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Wang, Y.; Wu, J.; Lv, M.; Shao, Z.; Hungwe, M.; Wang, J.; Bai, X.; Xie, J.; Wang, Y.; Geng, W. Metabolism characteristics of lactic acid bacteria and the expanding applications in food industry. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2021, 9, 612285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Beverages 10 00096 g001
Figure 1. Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 growth during fermentation of different beverages. DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 growth during fermentation of different beverages. DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Beverages 10 00096 g001
Beverages 10 00096 g002
Figure 2. Titratable acidity (g of Lactic acid/ L) of different beverages with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24. DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Titratable acidity (g of Lactic acid/ L) of different beverages with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24. DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Beverages 10 00096 g002
Beverages 10 00096 g003
Figure 3. pH changes in different beverages fermented with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24. DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. pH changes in different beverages fermented with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24. DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Beverages 10 00096 g003
Beverages 10 00096 g004
Figure 4. Total phenol content (mg GAE/100 mL) of different beverages fermented with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 (37 °C, 12 h). DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Total phenol content (mg GAE/100 mL) of different beverages fermented with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 (37 °C, 12 h). DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Beverages 10 00096 g004
Beverages 10 00096 g005
Figure 5. Antioxidant capacity evaluated by ABTS (m moles TE/100 mL) of different beverages fermented with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 (37 °C, 12 h). DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Antioxidant capacity evaluated by ABTS (m moles TE/100 mL) of different beverages fermented with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 (37 °C, 12 h). DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Beverages 10 00096 g005
Beverages 10 00096 g006
Figure 6. Antioxidant capacity evaluated by DPPH (m moles TE/100 mL) of different beverages fermented with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24. DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Antioxidant capacity evaluated by DPPH (m moles TE/100 mL) of different beverages fermented with Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24. DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results plotted represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Different letters indicate significant differences at the end of fermentation (p < 0.05).
Beverages 10 00096 g006
Beverages 10 00096 g007
Figure 7. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at DBCP. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Figure 7. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at DBCP. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Beverages 10 00096 g007
Beverages 10 00096 g008
Figure 8. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at DBFP. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Figure 8. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at DBFP. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Beverages 10 00096 g008
Beverages 10 00096 g009
Figure 9. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at BCP. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Figure 9. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at BCP. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Beverages 10 00096 g009
Beverages 10 00096 g010
Figure 10. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at BFP. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Figure 10. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at BFP. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Beverages 10 00096 g010
Beverages 10 00096 g011
Figure 11. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at SM. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Figure 11. Correlogram with Pearson correlation coefficients between fermentation variables, antioxidant, and physicochemical properties at SM. Each rectangle indicates the r-value (Pearson correlation coefficient for a pair of variables) and the p-value.
Beverages 10 00096 g011
Table 1. Kinetic parameters of growth of Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 during the fermentation of beverages.
Table 1. Kinetic parameters of growth of Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24 during the fermentation of beverages.
Treatmentsµmax (h−1)λ (h)G (h)
DBCP1.15 ± 0.36 a3.49 ± 0.74 c0.64 ± 0.17 b
DBFP0.45 ± 0.09 bc4.01 ± 0.42 bc1.59 ± 0.36 b
BCP0.64 ± 0.11 b4.79 ± 0.37 b1.10 ± 0.37 b
BFP0.45 ± 0.05 bc4.23 ± 0.05 bc1.56 ± 0.20 b
SM0.11 ± 0.03 c6.26 ± 1.58 a6.38 ± 1.58 a
DBCP = dairy beverage with 5% control puree, DBFP = dairy beverage with 5% FVE puree, BCP = beverage with 5% control puree, BFP = beverage with 5% FVE puree, SM = reconstituted skim milk. The results represent the mean ± SD of three independent experiments with triplicate analysis. Within the same column, different letters indicate significant differences (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

Ayala Zavala, J.; Castillo Romero, T.d.J.; Méndez Romero, J.I.; Santiago López, L.; González Córdova, A.F.; Hernández Mendoza, A.; Vallejo Cordoba, B.; Vargas Ortiz, M. Flash Vacuum Expansion of Maradol Papaya (Carica papaya L.) for Producing an Antioxidant-Potential Dairy Beverage Fermented by Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24. Beverages 2024, 10, 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages10040096

AMA Style

Ayala Zavala J, Castillo Romero TdJ, Méndez Romero JI, Santiago López L, González Córdova AF, Hernández Mendoza A, Vallejo Cordoba B, Vargas Ortiz M. Flash Vacuum Expansion of Maradol Papaya (Carica papaya L.) for Producing an Antioxidant-Potential Dairy Beverage Fermented by Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24. Beverages. 2024; 10(4):96. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages10040096

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ayala Zavala, Jesús, Teresita de Jesús Castillo Romero, José Isidro Méndez Romero, Lourdes Santiago López, Aarón Fernando González Córdova, Adrián Hernández Mendoza, Belinda Vallejo Cordoba, and Manuel Vargas Ortiz. 2024. "Flash Vacuum Expansion of Maradol Papaya (Carica papaya L.) for Producing an Antioxidant-Potential Dairy Beverage Fermented by Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24" Beverages 10, no. 4: 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages10040096

APA Style

Ayala Zavala, J., Castillo Romero, T. d. J., Méndez Romero, J. I., Santiago López, L., González Córdova, A. F., Hernández Mendoza, A., Vallejo Cordoba, B., & Vargas Ortiz, M. (2024). Flash Vacuum Expansion of Maradol Papaya (Carica papaya L.) for Producing an Antioxidant-Potential Dairy Beverage Fermented by Limosilactobacillus fermentum J24. Beverages, 10(4), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/beverages10040096

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