Laboratory evaluation reveals improved probiotic survival and altered rheology in acid-whey orange beverages, suggesting a viable route for dairy byproduct valorization.
This study aimed to develop and characterize an acid-whey–orange beverage containing Limosilactobacillus fermentum 4–17, with emphasis on physicochemical, rheological, microbiological, and temporal sensory properties during refrigerated storage. Five formulations were evaluated: an orange-juice control (A), three formulations containing 10, 20, or 30% (v/v) of a reconstituted acid-whey preparation together with microencapsulated cells (B–D; W10:P90, W20:P80, and W30:P70), and an orange-juice formulation containing non-encapsulated cells (E). Whey-containing formulations showed higher pH, estimated protein content, dry matter, and apparent viscosity than the control at several sampling points ( p < 0.05). All formulations showed an apparent shear-thinning pattern across the instrument-reported shear conditions, while the magnitude of storage-related viscosity changes depended on formulation and shear condition. After 21 days at 4 ± 1 °C, culturable lactic acid bacterial counts in the whey-containing encapsulated formulations ranged from 7.71 to 8.50 log₁₀ CFU/mL, compared with 6.81 log₁₀ CFU/mL in the non-encapsulated orange-juice formulation. Because whey level and probiotic incorporation mode were not varied independently, these differences should be interpreted as formulation-associated and do not establish an isolated effect of microencapsulation. Temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) showed formulation-dependent changes from fruity/sweet toward sour dominance during storage; formulations B and C retained a comparatively more balanced temporal sensory profile. TDS was performed with trained panelists and therefore does not constitute consumer-acceptability testing. Overall, the study supports the feasibility of acid-whey valorization in a probiotic fruit-based beverage while identifying matrix composition, probiotic recovery, and consumer validation as priorities for further work.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Falah et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: