Evaluates the effectiveness of flaxseed mucilage as a natural thickener in chocolate whey beverages, suggesting its commercial viability.
Background Growing consumer demand for healthier food products has intensified the search for natural additives. Due to its functional properties, flaxseed mucilage has significant commercial potential when it comes to enhancing desirable characteristics in food formulations. Aim This study evaluated the potential of flaxseed mucilage as a natural thickening agent to replace conventional thickeners in chocolate whey beverages. Methods Mucilage was extracted from flaxseeds using a water‐based method, and its technological properties (solubility, water and oil absorption capacities) were characterised. Four chocolate whey beverage formulations were prepared: control beverage without thickener, beverage with carboxymethyl cellulose, beverage with flaxseed mucilage and beverage with carboxymethyl cellulose and flaxseed mucilage. Physicochemical parameters (pH, titratable acidity, moisture, ash, protein and fat) were analysed. Rheological behaviour was evaluated by rotational rheometry. Consistency, colour intensity and sensory acceptance (consumer testing using a 9‐point hedonic scale) were also assessed. All experiments were conducted in triplicate. Data were analysed using the software R, with ANOVA, Friedman's test or Kruskal–Wallis test to identify significant differences between sample mean values ( P < 0.05), followed by post hoc Nemenyi's test for multiple comparisons. Major Findings The addition of flaxseed mucilage did not cause adverse changes to physicochemical parameters, but significantly improved beverage consistency and colour intensity ( P < 0.05). Rheological profiles were consistent with commercial standards, displaying pseudoplastic behaviour. Consumer tests demonstrated high sensory acceptance. Industrial Implications Flaxseed mucilage is a viable natural thickening agent for dairy beverages. Its industrial adoption could reduce reliance on synthetic additives while meeting clean‐label consumer demands.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
DANTAS et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: