The aim was to prepare mayonnaises with natural preservatives and improved protein content to verify their structural and nutritional properties. Three formulations were developed (70% fat + variation in protein), F1 (powdered whey) did not reach the structural standards of commercial mayonnaise; F2 (skimmed milk) reached standards equivalent to commercialized products; F3 (powdered whey + skimmed milk) presented light mayonnaise pattern; F0 (Control). Protein content was higher than market products (more than 1.0 %). The evaluation of 30 days showed variations: AW (0.934-0.941); extrusion values F1 (1.035 N ±0.026 – 0.566 N ±0.024), F2(4.255 N ±0.160 – 3.218 N ±0.060), F3 (3.198 N ±0.086 – 1.700 N ±0.044). The preservatives favored the color ∆E: F1 (11.31 ±0.04), F2 (2.65 ±0.14), F3 (1.65 ± 0.22). DPPH analysis showed the difference of products with added natural preservatives and whey in relation to the F0; F3 formulation was favored. Thixotropy appeared in all samples. The exothermic peak occurred F1 (6˚C - 7˚C), F2 (5˚C - 7˚C) and F3 (3˚C - 4˚C), indicating faster crystallization of the F3 (lipid-protein bond). The use of whey and powdered milk as emulsifying agent for mayonnaise emulsions, garlic and mustard, increased shelf life and protein content were demonstrated.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Soares et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: