Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Science & Nutrition logoLink to Food Science & Nutrition
. 2023 Oct 12;12(1):192–203. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.3762

Quality specification of ice creams produced with different homofermentative lactic acid bacteria

Gökhan Akarca 1,✉, Mehmet Kilinç 1, Ayşe Janseli Denizkara 1
PMCID: PMC10804104  PMID: 38268905

Abstract

This study investigated the changes in the physicochemical, microbiological, textural, and nutritional values of ice cream produced by various methods with the addition of different lactic acid bacteria. Adding lactic acid bacteria to the ice cream mix caused a decrease in firmness, consistency, cohesiveness, index of viscosity, pH, aw, first drop, complete melting, and overrun values (p < .05). These decreases were more pronounced in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added before mix maturation (p < .05). Firmness and consistency values varied between 15.11–16.26 (g) and 374.58–404.91 (g s), respectively, in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added before maturation. No significant effect of the addition of lactic acid bacteria to the ice cream mix on the L*, a*, and b* values of the bacteria before or after mix maturation was detected (p > .05). The L* values of the samples varied between 88.91 and 83.36, a* values between 0.76 and 1.32, and b* values between 6.57 and 8.38. An increase was detected in the amount of organic acid (excluding formic acid) in the samples produced with the addition of different lactic acid bacteria (p < .05). The number of fatty acids in the samples varied depending on the lactic acid addition and the production method; the rate of this change was generally higher in the samples with added lactic acid bacteria after mix maturation (p < .05). In particular, the amounts of short‐ and medium‐chain fatty acids increased in the samples with lactic acid bacteria added after mix ripening, compared to the control sample.

Keywords: fatty acids, fermentation, functional properties, ice cream, Lactobacillus spp.

Ice cream, not typically considered a fermented dairy product, can be converted into one thanks to the lactic acid bacteria added to it, improving and altering its textural, sensory, and microbiological properties. The addition of lactic acid bacteria can also raise ice cream's functional and nutritional values. This study highlighted and examined the characteristics of ice cream made in various methods by adding various lactic acid bacteria.

graphic file with name FSN3-12-192-g003.jpg

1. INTRODUCTION

Due to its distinctive flavor qualities, cooling impact, and high nutritional content, people of all ages consume ice cream, a significant dairy product, all throughout the world (Durmaz et al., 2020; Goktas et al., 2022). The main ingredients in an ice cream mixture include milk, stabilizers, emulsifiers, flavorings, vegetable oils, and fruit. Moreover, ice cream occasionally contains ingredients including probiotic bacteria, pulp, dietary fibred, food colors, and artificial sweeteners (Iahtisham‐Ul‐Hag et al., 2023; Marshall et al., 2003; Senanayake et al., 2013).

Ice cream is a food product with extremely rich nutritional value. The nutritional value of ice cream directly depends on the nutritional values of the ingredients that make up the ice cream. Ice cream also contains all the nutrients that milk has. In addition, ice cream contains 3–4 times more fat and 12%–16% more protein than milk. In addition to these, it is a product richer than milk due to the addition of additives such as fruit, nuts, and eggs (Arbuckle, 2011; Mohammed et al., 2020).

In recent years, consumer perception of nutritious, functional, and natural foods has led ice cream manufacturers to develop newer and healthier products (Batista et al., 2019; Cruz et al., 2009).

Functional foods are those whose ingredients improve the health of the consumers. The demand for functional foods and additives has dramatically expanded globally during the past 15–20 years (Goktas et al., 2022; Halsted, 2003). Today, functional properties can be improved with additives added to many foods product. Milk and foods produced using milk are the most used foods in terms of containing functional properties. One of these products is ice cream; it has excellent potential as a functional food because it allows adding additives with many functional properties (Ozturk et al., 2018).

Fermented products are the first processed foods in human history. Many products, such as milk, meat, and fruit/vegetables, are still widely produced and consumed (Sozeri Atik et al., 2021; Yilmaz et al., 2022). Fermented milk products, which have an important place among fermented products, are highly nutritious, traditional, and/or universal foods consumed with pleasure around the world (Petrova et al., 2021). Depending on the type of milk used during their manufacturing, they are categorized into variants; moreover, the physicochemical, microbiological, and/or production technologies used to produce them cheeses, fermented beverages, yogurt, kefir, ayran, sour cream, and acidofil milk can be counted among the main products made from fermented milk (Shiby & Mishra, 2013).

Today, apart from the products obtained by freezing yoghurts obtained with the addition of different bacteria, there is no real fermented ice cream production. These products are in demand by the consumer due to the presence of probiotic bacteria and aroma difference they contain (Alamprese et al., 2002; Davidson et al., 2000).

In addition, in recent years, ice creams produced by using soy or sesame milk instead of cow's milk enriched with probiotic bacteria are also finding buyers in the market (Ghaderi et al., 2021). There are also studies on the adaptation of compounds obtained from some plants and their roots to the ice cream industry by using different processing methods (Shadordizadeh et al., 2023; Shahi et al., 2021). However, today, there is no real ice cream produced using dairy animal's milk and fermented with lactic acid bacteria.

Ice cream, which is not typically thought of as a fermented dairy product, can be converted into one thanks to the lactic acid bacteria added to it, improving and altering its textural, sensory, and microbiological properties. The addition of lactic acid bacteria can also raise ice cream's functional and nutritional values. The characteristics of ice cream made in various methods by adding various lactic acid bacteria were highlighted and examined in this study.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1. Materials

The study's ingredients, including the cream, salep, granulated sugar (beet sugar), emulsifier (E 471), and cow's milk, were purchased at a local shop in the province of Afyonkarahisar.

2.2. Lactic acid bacteria

In this research; Lactobacillus casei (ATCC 393), Lactobacillus rhamnosus (ATCC 53103), and Lactobacillus delbrueckii spp. lactis (ATCC 12315) strains were used.

2.3. Preparation of lactic acid bacteria strains

MRS broth (Merck, 110,661, Germany) was used to inoculate the lactic acid bacteria (L. casei, L. rhamnosus, and L. lactis) that were employed in the production process before they were cultured at 37°C for 48 h. All strains had a 10‐min incubation at 22°C following the incubation time. The mix was centrifuged at 16424 g, and the residue (pellet) at the bottom was separated (Goktas et al., 2022).

2.4. Ice cream production

Procedures used to make ice cream in the study (Figure 1) were modified from those Kilinc et al. (2022) and Goktas et al. (2022) had previously employed. Two different production methods were carried out: in the first one, adding lactic acid bacteria to the mixture the mixture was then matured. In the second, lactic acid bacteria were added to the mix after maturation. In this way, a total of seven different samples were produced. Subsequently, the prepared mixtures were processed into ice cream in an ice cream machine (CRM‐GEL 25C, Italy) at −5°C. Exactly 250 g of each mixture was placed into sterile glass containers and hardened at −24°C. The acquired samples were kept at −18°C until the analysis was finished (Kilinc et al., 2022).

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Ice cream production.

2.5. Ice cream mix texture

Ice cream mix firmness, consistency, cohesiveness, and viscosity index values were tested using back extrusion equipment and a TA.XT Plus Texture Analyzer (Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, Surrey, UK) (Sert et al., 2017).

2.6. pH value

A homogenizer was used to combine ice cream samples with 1/10 sterilized distilled water (Daihan Wisestir, HS‐30 T, South Korea). A pH meter was then used to measure the pH values (Hanna, HI 2215 pH/ORP).

2.7. Water activity (aw)

Using a water activity analyzer, the water activity values of the ice cream samples were determined (Novasina LabTouch‐aw, Lachen, Switzerland) (AOAC, 2016).

2.8. Color values (L*, a*, b*)

According to the hunter color measurement system, the color values of the samples were assessed using a colorimeter (Minolta Co.) (Akalın et al., 2008).

2.9. Lactic acid bacteria count

Lactic acid bacteria counts added to ice cream mixes were performed on man rogosa sharpe agar (110,660, Merck, Germany) (MRS‐Cys‐BPB) (Ngamsomchat et al., 2022) altered with 50 mg of L. casei/L Vancomycin and 50 mg of cysteine bromophenol blue for L. plantarum (LabM, UK) was added to man rogosa sharpe agar (MRS‐VanC) (Hatakka et al., 2008), L. delbrueckii spp. For lactis, Man Rogosa Sharpe agar (110,660, Merck, Germany) was used (Shori et al., 2022). Before analysis, serial dilutions were prepared from the samples using 0.1% buffered peptone water (107,228, Merck, Germany) using spread plate methods Anaerocult A (113,829, Merck, Germany) was added to planted petri dishes in anaerobic conditions, jars (116,387, Merck, Germany) were incubated in an oven at 37°C for 72 h (Mena & Aryana, 2012).

2.10. First dripping time

The wire strainer on the tared glass containers was used to catch a sample of ice cream (10 g), which was then allowed to melt at 20°C. As the ice cream began to melt, the first drops began to fall, the stopwatch was turned on (Shahi et al., 2021).

2.11. Complete melting time

A 500 mL glass beaker containing hard ice cream samples from the freezer (−18°C) was placed to thaw at 20°C for the time required for the ice cream to completely thaw. The exact time (minutes) the melting was complete was recorded (Guven & Karaca, 2002).

2.12. Overrun

Ice cream samples were poured into a tared glass measuring tape of appropriate size. A beaker was used to defrost the same sample amount of ice cream that had been put in the other container. A clean measuring cylinder was used to transfer the molten mixture to the same volume, and it was then weighed once more (Jimenez‐Florez et al., 1993).

2.13. Organic acid

An HPLC was used to calculate the organic acid levels of the ice cream samples (Shimadzu Prominence). Subsequently, 4‐g samples were taken from the samples, 20 mL of 0.01 N H2SO4 was added. Following a 0.45‐μm filter and vortexing, it was introduced into the system (Guzel Seydim et al., 2000). System features used were the following: CBM: 20ACBM; Detector: DAD (SPD‐M20A); Column Furnace: CTO‐10ASVp; Pump: LC20 AT; Autosampler: SIL 20ACHT; Computer Program: LC Solution; Column: ODS 4 (250 mm*4.6 mm, 5 μm) (GP Sciences, Inertsil ODS‐4, Japan); and Mobile phase: orthophosphoric acid was used to bring the pH of ultrapure water to 3 (Aktas et al., 2005).

2.14. Free fatty acids

A GC/MS was used to analyze the fatty acids of the samples (AGILENT 5975 C AGILENT 7890A GC). An MSDCHEM program and DB WAX (50*0.20 mm, 0.20 μm) column were used in the device. The initial temperature of the furnace was determined as 80°C; after a 4‐min waiting period, at a rate of 13°C per minute, it was raised to 175°C. It was kept at this temperature for 27 min. Later, 215°C was reached with an increase of 4°C per minute. It was held there for 5 min. After that with an increase of 4°C each minute, 240°C was reached, and this temperature was maintained for 15 min. Detector and injector temperature was 240°C. The injector and detector temperatures were set to 240°C and the injection volume to 1 L. HCl at a concentration of 1.5 M was used as the derivatizer in the analyses, the derivatization temperature was 80°C, and the derivatization time was 2 h (Bardakcı & Secilmis, 2006).

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Ice cream mix texture

Firmness, consistency, cohesiveness and index of viscosity values of ice cream mix samples differed significantly among all samples (p < .05). Interaction between samples diversity was very significant on firmness, consistency, cohesiveness, and index of viscosity values; additionally, the consistency value was negative, and the cohesiveness and index of viscosity values were positively correlated on the sample type. In addition, the firmness value on the sample type revealed a negative and highly correlated effect (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Physical analysis results of ice cream samples.

Samples First drip (s.) Meltdown (s.) Overrun
Control 24.25 ± 1.06ab 103.50 ± 2.12ab 33.82 ± 0.48e
Lb. casei A. Ag. 25.25 ± 1.06a 107.00 ± 1.41a 34.47 ± 0.59de
Lb. rhamnosus A. Ag. 23.75 ± 1.06abc 102.50 ± 0.71bc 34.83 ± 0.26de
Lb. lactis A. Ag. 22.75 ± 0.35bc 99.00 ± 1.41cd 35.83 ± 0.37cd
Lb. rhamnosus B. Ag. 22.25 ± 0.35cd 98.50 ± 0.71de 36.93 ± 0.52c
Lb. lactis B. Ag. 19.75 ± 0.35e 93.50 ± 2.12f 40.88 ± 0.32a
Lb. casei B. Ag. 20.50 ± 0.71de 95.00 ± 1.41ef 38.76 ± 0.64b
p Value .02 <.0001 <.0001
r −.883** −.884** .885**
Open in a new tab

Note: a–f (↓): Values with the same capital letters in the same column for each analysis differ significantly (p < .05). p < .0001: Statistically too much significant, p < .01: Statistically too significant. **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed).

Abbreviations: A. Mat, After Maturation; B. Mat, Before Maturation.

The structural characteristics of ice cream are connected to the firmness value. After the addition of lactic acid bacteria, the results for the mixed samples' firmness and consistency fell (p < .05). The degree of this decrease was more significant in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added before mix ripening compared to the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added after the mix matured (p < .05). The samples that had L. lactis introduced during either production procedure had the greatest decline. Firmness and consistency values varied between 15.11–16.26 (g) and 374.58–404.91 (g s), respectively, in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added before maturation; however, from the ice cream samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added after the mix matures, it varied in the ranges of 16.96–17.58 (g) and 421.48–438.89 (g s) (Table 1). Sucrose and lactose, two common sugars, have a positive impact on the mixture's ability to hold water. The environment's carbohydrates were partially digested by the lactic acid bacteria introduced to the mixture, which reduced the mixture's ability to hold water and, as a result, the hardness and consistency values. The inclusion of lactic acid bacteria reduced the cohesiveness and index of viscosity values of ice cream mixtures made in two different ways (p < .05). This decline was more pronounced in samples where lactic acid bacteria had been added before the mixture had fully matured (p < .05).

Honey and sugar increased the ice cream's stickiness and viscosity. Carbohydrates also resulted in an increasing effect (Ozdemir et al., 2008). Parallel to our research results, Alamprese et al. (2005) and Zhang et al. (2017) displayed that L. plantarum GG strains added to ice cream production changed all textural ice cream's characteristics.

The pH, aw, and lactic acid bacteria counts of the samples are shown in Table 1. It was determined that the interaction of sample diversity was very significant on pH and lactic acid bacteria number and water activity value. Also, it was shown that the sample interaction had very negative and highly correlative effect impact on water activity (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Textural analysis results of ice cream samples.

Samples Firmness (g) Consistency (g s) Cohesiveness (g) Index of viscosity (g s)
Control 17.91 ± 0.03a 445.44 ± 2.81a −18.56 ± 0.24d −29.37 ± 0.72e
Lb. casei A. Ag. 16.26 ± 0.21cd 404.91 ± 2.69c −16.41 ± 0.45b −20.44 ± 0.91b
Lb. rhamnosus A. Ag. 15.11 ± 0.40e 374.58 ± 7.48d −14.99 ± 0.43a −15.59 ± 1.91a
Lb. lactis A. Ag. 15.63 ± 0.66de 396.23 ± 13.76c −15.34 ± 0.66a −14.99 ± 0.98a
Lb. rhamnosus B. Ag. 17.58 ± 0.18ab 438.89 ± 7.14a −17.92 ± 0.21cd −27.06 ± 0.50de
Lb. lactis B. Ag. 16.96 ± 0.07bc 421.48 ± 2.51b −17.29 ± 0.26bc −24.43 ± 0.60c
Lb. casei B. Ag. 17.46 ± 0.23ab 433.20 ± 3.05ab −17.63 ± 0.16cd −26.15 ± 1.10cd
p Value <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
r −.920* −.898** .940** .958**
Open in a new tab

Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed), a–e (↓): Values with the same capital letters in the same column for each analysis differ significantly (p < .05). p < .0001: Statistically too much significant, p < .01: Statistically too significant; p < .05: Statistically significant; p > .05: Not statistically significant; *p < .05; **p < .01.

Abbreviations: A. Mat, After Maturation, B. Mat, Before Maturation; ns, Not statistically significant.

3.2. pH and aW values

The pH value within the sample reduced according to the added lactic acid bacteria species (p < .05). It was determined that the pH values of the samples inoculated with lactic acid bacteria before mixing maturation from two different production methods decreased more than the method in which lactic acid bacteria were added after musk maturation (p < .05). The samples with lactic acid bacteria introduced before mix maturation had pH values ranging from 6.39 to 6.46, while those with lactic acid bacteria added after mix maturation had pH values ranging from 6.51 to 6.54. The samples created by adding three distinct lactic acid bacteria had pH values that were lower than the control sample. This difference is caused by the organic acids formed due to the metabolization of the hexose sugars in the mix by the added lactic acid bacteria. It was determined that the pH values of the samples inoculated with lactic acid bacteria before the ripening of the mix from two different production methods decreased more compared to the method in which lactic acid bacteria was added after the musk ripening. Similar to our research results, Zhang et al. (2014), Sarwar et al. (2021), and Goktas et al. (2022) declared that the pH levels of their samples were lowered by the addition of probiotic bacteria. According to the added lactic acid bacteria species in the current investigation, the water activity values of the samples altered (p < .05). The water activity value in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added before musk maturation was less than those in which lactic acid bacteria were added after mix maturation (p < .05). Although the aw values in the specimens after maturation varied between 0.726 and 0.730 (p > .05), it showed a change in the range of 0.717–0.722 in the samples to which bacteria were added before maturation (p < .05). The lactic acid bacteria numbers in the samples varied according to the added lactic acid bacteria (p < .05). In comparison to samples added after mix maturation, the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were introduced had a greater lactic acid bacteria count (p < .05). It was determined that samples containing L. lactis had the highest bacterial count in both production methods.

3.3. Lactic acid bacteria count

The optimum temperatures in order for lactic acid bacteria to develop belonging to the genus Lactobacillus are between 30 and 40°C. Its growth temperature range is 2–53°C (Idler et al., 2015). In addition, the medium's pH, aw, O/R potential, and viscosity. The bacteria can also develop at lower temperatures if the conditions are suitable (Novak et al., 1997). The generation time increases as the ambient temperature moves away from the optimum temperature (Adams & Moss, 2015). At lower temperatures, the bacteria can survive even if they cannot thrive (Idler et al., 2015). According to studies, it has been observed that L. lactis can grow at lower temperatures than other lactic acid bacteria (Novak et al., 1997). The findings presented by the researchers agree with our research results. In ice cream production, lactic acid bacteria were inoculated into the mixes at an average of 108–109 log cfu/g.

Before maturation, the mixture was cooled to 37°C and infected with lactic acid bacteria. The mixtures were then allowed to mature at 4°C for 24 h. The number of lactic acid bacteria increased until the mix temperature dropped below the minimum limit at which lactic acid bacteria could grow. In the other production method, bacteria were added to the mix after the maturation process, and the mixture was then converted into ice cream. Since the time elapsed was not very long, we did not find enough time to increase the number of bacteria in this type of production. In both production methods, some of the bacteria were not affected by the very low temperature during the ice cream production stage and could not survive.

3.4. Color (L*, a*, and b*) values

One of the most crucial food quality parameters in the eyes of the consumer is color values (L*: Brightness, a*: Redness, and b*: Yellowness) (Chranioti et al., 2015). The a* value of the ice cream sample is positively and significantly correlated with the sample type.

No significant effect of the addition of lactic acid bacteria to the mix or the addition of bacteria before or after the maturation of the mixture on the L*, a*, and b* values was detected (p > .05). Although the a* values of the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added after maturation were found to be higher than the samples added before maturation, this distinction is not statistically noteworthy (p > .05). The L* values of the samples varied between 88.91 and 83.36 (Figure 2), a* values between 0.76 and 1.32 (Figure 3), and b* values between 6.57 and 8.38 (Figure 4). In parallel with our findings, Kilinc and Sevik (2021) found that the L* value of samples was found to be 91.11, means a*; 1.39 and b*. The authors stated that they determined it as 8.07.

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

L* values of the samples. A. Mat, After Maturation; B. Mat, Before Maturation.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

a* Values of the samples. A. Mat, After Maturation; B. Mat, Before Maturation. *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed).

FIGURE 4.

FIGURE 4

Open in a new tab

b* Values of the Samples. A. Mat, After Maturation; B. Mat, Before Maturation.

3.5. Overrun, first dripping, and complete melting time

The relationship between the sample types was extremely important on the total melting and overrun values, as well as on the first drop, according to the findings of the variation analysis performed on the physical values of the samples. Moreover, it was revealed that the sample type had a negative effect on the first drip and complete melting and a positive and very highly correlative effect on the overrun (Table 3). Ice cream's melting behavior is described as an empirical attribute that reflects how resistant it is to melt in warm environments and is observed to be highly correlated with the material's thermal conductivity, heat capacity, and microstructure (Sun‐Waterhouse et al., 2013). The first dripping and full melting times of the ice cream were shortened by adding lactic acid bacteria to the mixture (p < .05). This decrease was more pronounced in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added before the mix was matured compared to the samples added after the mix was matured (p < .05). In both production processes for the two analyses, the samples with additional L. lactis showed the greatest decrease. Each starter culture may have different effects on the melting characteristics of ice cream and the degree of this effect may differ. However, starter and non‐starter cultures cannot affect ice cream's melting properties (Alamprese et al., 2005). The amount of air in the mixture, the makeup of the mixture, the network of fat globules, and the ice crystal structure generated during ice cream production are just a few of the many variables that affect how quickly ice cream melts. Due to their ability to store more water and their ability to create micro‐viscosity, sugars and lactose added to the mixture increase the melting resistance of ice cream (Bahram Parvar & Tehrani, 2011; Muse & Hartel, 2004). In this investigation, lactic acid bacteria were added to the ice cream mixture, and they digested the carbs, breaking down the milk proteins and releasing lactic acid. Organic acid production increased, which led to a decline in melting resistance. Since adding bacteria before mix maturation increased the amount of metabolized sugar, dissolution resistance decreased in these samples.

TABLE 3.

Physicochemical and microbiological properties of ice cream samples.

Samples pH aw Bacteria count (log cfu/g)
Control 6.56 ± 0.01a 0.729 ± 0.001a 0.00 ± 0.00f
Lb. casei A. Ag. 6.44 ± 0.01d 0.726 ± 0.001a 10.13 ± 0.03b
Lb. rhamnosus A. Ag. 6.46 ± 0.01d 0.728 ± 0.001a 9.82 ± 0.04c
Lb. lactis A. Ag. 6.39 ± 0.01e 0.730 ± 0.001a 11.35 ± 0.04a
Lb. rhamnosus B. Ag. 6.54 ± 0.01ab 0.717 ± 0.003c 8.44 ± 0.08d
Lb. lactis B. Ag. 6.51 ± 0.01b 0.719 ± 0.002bc 8.89 ± 0.02c
Lb. casei B. Ag. 6.52 ± 0.00bc 0.722 ± 0.001b 7.63 ± 0.02d
p Value <.0001 .01 <.0001
r .189 −.686** .004
Open in a new tab

Note: a–f (↓): Values with the same capital letters in the same column for each analysis differ significantly (p < .05). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed), p < .0001: Statistically too much significant; p < .01: Statistically too significant; p < .05: Statistically significant; p > .05: Not statistically significant.

Abbreviations: A. Ag, After Aging; B. Ag, Before Aging; ns, Not statistically significant.

Overrun is the quantity of air added to the mixture during the process of turning it into ice cream (Cruz et al., 2009). In the current investigation, lactic acid bacteria were added to the ice cream mixtures to reduce overflow (p < .05). This decrease occurred more in the samples to which bacteria were added before maturation than those added after maturation (p < .05). It was shown that among the samples, those made with the inclusion of L. lactis had the greatest drop in overrun value.

In previous studies, Abghari et al. (2011), Sarwar et al. (2021), and Goktas et al. (2022) reported that they found similar results. In our study, the lactic acid bacteria added to the mixes metabolized the sugars in the medium, causing a decrease in the mix viscosity and, accordingly, a decrease in the amount of overrun. There are also negative effects of the decrease in pH on overrun (Allen et al., 2006).

3.6. Organic acid amount of samples

The organic acid amounts of the samples are shown in Table 4. It was determined that the interaction of sample diversity was very significant on lactic, citric, succinic, malic, oxalic, tartaric, and formic acids, which were organic acids in the ice cream samples and very significant on fumaric acid. Moreover, sample diversity had a favorable and highly correlated influence on succinic acid and a detrimental and correlated effect on citric and formic acids (Table 4). The addition of lactic acid bacteria enhanced the samples' levels of organic acids (apart from formic acid) (p < .05). This rise was much higher in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added before mix maturation compared to the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added after maturation (p < .05). The organic acids with the highest increase were determined as tartaric, succinic, and lactic acids, while the highest gains were determined in the samples created after L. lactis was added. In addition, although malic acid was detected only in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added before ripening, formic acid was detected only in the control sample. The main products of lactic acid bacteria's metabolism of carbohydrates are organic acids. They occur when glucose in the environment is metabolized by lactic acid bacteria in homo‐ and heterofermentative ways (Sun et al., 2014).

TABLE 4.

Organic acid content of ice cream samples (mg/kg).

Samples Ascorbic acid Lactic acid Citric acid Succinic acid Malic acid
Control 30.45 ± 0.17ab 942.68 ± 6.02e 127.83 ± 6.34a 1885.70 ± 74.88e 0.00 ± 0.00c
Lb. casei A. Ag. 33.05 ± 8.76a 564.40 ± 14.06f 83.371 ± 5.73b 3357.23 ± 21.35cd 8.47 ± 0.17b
Lb. rhamnosus A. Ag. 27.92 ± 5.11abc 3950.78 ± 71.48b 84.827 ± 6.50b 2273.74 ± 17.68e 8.28 ± 0.18b
Lb. lactis A. Ag. 21.17 ± 0.57bc 4610.02 ± 63.36a 88.018 ± 4.25b 2843.28 ± 84.80d 10.42 ± 0.04a
Lb. rhamnosus B. Ag. 20.25 ± 0.33bc 1138.35 ± 43.81d 41.646 ± 5.10e 3627.29 ± 371.86c 0.00 ± 0.00c
Lb. lactis B. Ag. 29.87 ± 5.02abc 1328.28 ± 38.13c 34.897 ± 4.15e 6150.31 ± 205.70b 0.00 ± 0.00c
Lb. casei B. Ag. 18.83 ± 3.84c 1259.29 ± 21.13c 67.393 ± 7.85c 12737.32 ± 388.90a 0.00 ± 00c
p Value .78 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
r −.388 −.016 −.783* .800** −.398
Samples Oxalic acid Fumaric acid Tartaric acid Formic acid
Control 0.53 ± 0.04g 2.06 ± 0.04d 175.09 ± 6.44g 455.995 ± 6.30a
Lb. casei A. Ag. 3.04 ± 0.10b 2.48 ± 0.14a 16589.74 ± 20.36a 0.00 ± 0.00b
Lb. rhamnosus A. Ag. 1.18 ± 0.06e 2.27 ± 0.06bc 2497.21 ± 20.41c 0.00 ± 0.00b
Lb. lactis A. Ag. 8.33 ± 0.03a 2.53 ± 0.02a 1823.76 ± 19.96e 0.00 ± 0.00b
Lb. rhamnosus B. Ag. 0.76 ± 0.02f 2.11 ± 0.07cd 2066.37 ± 18.94d 0.00 ± 0.00b
Lb. lactis B. Ag. 1.51 ± 0.02c 2.39 ± 0.08ab 758.56 ± 7.88f 0.00 ± 0.00b
Lb. casei B. Ag. 1.33 ± 0.01d 2.12 ± 0.04cd 4394.27 ± 121.08b 0.00 ± 0.00b
p Value <.0001 .02 <.0001 <.0001
r −.031 −.063 −.263 −.612*
Open in a new tab

Note: a–f (↓): Values with the same capital letters in the same column for each analysis differ significantly (p < .05). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed), p < .0001: Statistically too much significant; p < .01: Statistically too significant; p < .05: Statistically significant; p > 0.05: Not statistically significant; *p < .05; **p < .01.

Abbreviations: A. Ag, After Aging, B. Ag, Before Aging; ns, Not statistically significant.

3.7. Fatty acid distributions of ice cream samples

Table 5 displays the ice cream sample fatty acid distributions. The conclusion was made that the interaction of sample type was very significant on the amounts of all other fatty acids, except for capric, tridecanoic, eicosanoic, docosanoic, and linolenic acids. In addition, the sample type lauric, palmitic, oleic, and linoleic acids were positively correlated—excessively with respect to palmitoleic and γ‐linolenic acids and negatively correlated with capric acid (Table 5). The amounts of fatty acids varied depending on the addition of lactic acid and the production method (p < .05). Amount of this change was generally higher in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added after mix maturation. When the distribution of detected fatty acids was examined, it was revealed that the amount of saturated fatty acid was higher than the amount of unsaturated fatty acid and the amount of medium‐chain fatty acid was higher than the amount of short and long‐chain fatty acids in all samples. The highest amount of saturated fatty acid in both production forms was 66.308% and 66.984%, respectively, the samples created using the addition of L. rhamnosus. The highest amount of saturated fatty acids were detected in samples produced with the addition of L. rhamnosus, with 66.308% and 66.984%, respectively, in both production methods. The least saturated fatty acid is; Again, in both production methods, it was detected in samples produced with the addition of L. casei at 63.623% and 66.167%, respectively. The highest medium chain fatty acid was determined at 48.882% in the product produced with the addition of L. lactis after mix ripening.

TABLE 5.

Distribution of % fatty acids of ice cream samples.

Saturated fatty acids
Butanoic acid (C4.0) Caproic acid (C6.0) Caprylic acid (C8.0) Capric acid (C10.0) Lauric acid (C12.0)
RT (s.) 6.211 10.517 18.017 28.085 38.832
Control 0.518 ± 0.006c 0.886 ± 0.005bc 0.728 ± 0.007ab 1.77 ± 0.006 cd 2.329 ± 0.04d
Lb. casei A. Mat. 0.405 ± 0.006d 0.721 ± 0.007f 0.603 ± 0.007d 1.57 ± 0.007e 2.495 ± 0.03b
Lb. rhamnosus A. Mat. 0.568 ± 0.004b 0.867 ± 0.011c 0.709 ± 0.016bc 1.80 ± 0.028bc 2.463 ± 0.02b
Lb. lactis A. Mat. 0.334 ± 0.003e 0.847 ± 0.007d 0.708 ± 0.011bc 1.75 ± 0.008d 2.394 ± 0.02c
Lb. rhamnosus B. Mat. 0.582 ± 0.003a 0.896 ± 0.006b 0.725 ± 0.007ab 1.84 ± 0.008a 2.486 ± 0.02b
Lb. lactis B. Mat. 0.558 ± 0.007b 0.952 ± 0.011a 0.753 ± 0.018a 1.81 ± 0.012ab 2.469 ± 0.02b
Lb. casei B. Mat. 0.409 ± 0.007d 0.813 ± 0.007e 0.693 ± 0.010c 1.82 ± 0.011ab 2.647 ± 0.02a
p Value <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 .038 <.0001
r −.006 −.198 .334 −.623* .717**
Saturated fatty acids
Tridecanoic acid (C13.0) Myristic acid (C14.0) Pentadecanoic acid (C15.0) Pentadecanoic acid. 14‐methyl Palmitic acid (C16.0)
RT (s.) 44.044 46.749 51.735 56.531 59.031
Control 0.076 ± 0.007a 10.107 ± 0.05f 1489 ± 0.009a 0.374 ± 0.005a 35.115 ± 0.03e
Lb. casei A. Mat. 0.063 ± 0.005a 10.327 ± 0.01c 1287 ± 0.004d 0.302 ± 0.008d 35.134 ± 0.06e
Lb. rhamnosus A. Mat. 0.068 ± 0.003a 10.444 ± 0.02b 1470 ± 0.012ab 0.352 ± 0.006b 35.331 ± 0.06d
Lb. lactis A. Mat. 0.068 ± 0.008a 10.026 ± 0.02e 1409 ± 0.013c 0.332 ± 0.007c 35.186 ± 0.10e
Lb. rhamnosus B. Mat. 0.071 ± 0.008a 10.488 ± 0.01b 1472 ± 0.008ab 0.352 ± 0.003b 35.693 ± 0.02c
Lb. lactis B. Mat. 0.069 ± 0.006a 10.159 ± 0.01d 1466 ± 0.005ab 0.343 ± 0.010bc 36.145 ± 0.04a
Lb. casei B. Mat. 0.070 ± 0.007a 10.498 ± 0.01a 1415 ± 0.009b 0.344 ± 0.006bc 35.798 ± 0.03b
p Value .676 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001
r −.036 .517 .295 −.027 .819**
Saturated fatty acids Monounsaturated fatty acids
Heptadecanoic acid (C17.0) Stearic acid (C18.0) Eicosanoic acid (C20.0) Docosanoic acid (C22.0) Palmitoleic acid (C16.1)
RT (s.) 59.905 67.858 75.882 83.54 59.904
Control 0.767 ± 0.007a 11.304 ± 0.007a 0.207 ± 0.010a 0.096 ± 0.003ab 2476 ± 0.006cd
Lb. casei A. Mat. 0.644 ± 0.003d 9816 ± 0.014f 0.180 ± 0.028a 0.076 ± 0.006c 2484 ± 0.006c
Lb. rhamnosus A. Mat. 0.746 ± 0.004b 11.197 ± 0.015b 0.199 ± 0.007a 0.094 ± 0.011ab 2480 ± 0.007c
Lb. lactis A. Mat. 0.729 ± 0.006c 10.537 ± 0.011e 0.181 ± 0.006a 0.074 ± 0.006c 2449 ± 0.011e
Lb. rhamnosus B. Mat. 0.753 ± 0.004b 11.301 ± 0.020a 0.217 ± 0.004a 0.108 ± 0.004a 2493 ± 0.004b
Lb. lactis B. Mat. 0.730 ± 0.006c 10.761 ± 0.005c 0.187 ± 0.004a 0.082 ± 0.004bc 2455 ± 0.008de
Lb. casei B. Mat. 0.721 ± 0.007c 10.677 ± 0.011d 0.184 ± 0.065a 0.078 ± 0.003c 2647 ± 0.016a
p Value <.0001 <.0001 .759 .05 <.0001
r .079 .089 −.113 −.160 .614*
RT (s.) Monounsaturated fatty acids Polyunsaturated fatty acids
Oleic acid (C18.1) Myristoleic acid (C14.2) Linoleic acid (C18.2) γ‐Linolenic acid (C18.3) Linolenic acid (C18.3)
Control 68.61 50.878 70.344 71.845 73.985
Lb. casei A. Mat. 24.854 ± 0.008e 1982 ± 0.009a 2152 ± 0.006d 0.433 ± 0.006e 0.581 ± 0.007a
Lb. rhamnosus A. Mat. 25.227 ± 0.014c 1803 ± 0.014c 2105 ± 0.011e 0.510 ± 0.019c 0.547 ± 0.006b
Lb. lactis A. Mat. 24.888 ± 0.017e 1845 ± 0.017b 2056 ± 0.011f 0.450 ± 0.005d 0.591 ± 0.008a
Lb. rhamnosus B. Mat. 25.018 ± 0.013d 1288 ± 0.011d 1979 ± 0.011g 0.424 ± 0.007e 0.583 ± 0.010a
Lb. lactis B. Mat. 25.026 ± 0.007d 1852 ± 0.014b 2357 ± 0.013b 0.555 ± 0.010b 0.592 ± 0.004a
Lb. casei B. Mat. 26.02 ± 0.008a 1795 ± 0.013c 2177 ± 0.016c 0.452 ± 0.003d 0.591 ± 0.007a
p Value 25.335 ± 0.32b 1865 ± 0.024b 2544 ± 0.024a 0.852 ± 0.004a 0.587 ± 0.010a
r <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 .006
.691** −.120 .669** .635* .491
Samples SFA USFA SCFA MCFA LCFA
Control 65.766 32.478 6.23 47.161 39.627
Lb. casei A. Mat. 63.623 32.676 5.79 47.113 38.461
Lb. rhamnosus A. Mat. 66.308 32.31 6.41 47.664 39.475
Lb. lactis A. Mat. 64.575 31.741 6.03 47.021 38.796
Lb. rhamnosus B. Mat. 66.984 32.875 6.53 48.076 40.361
Lb. lactis B. Mat. 66.484 33.49 6.54 48.882 41.022
Lb. casei B. Mat. 66.167 33.83 6.38 48.576 42.357
Open in a new tab

Note: a–f (↓): Values with the same capital letters in the same column for each analysis differ significantly (p < .05). **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2‐tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2‐tailed), p < .0001: Statistically too much significant, p < .01: Statistically too significant; p < .05: Statistically significant; p > .05: Not statistically significant; *p < .05; **p < 0.01.

Abbreviations: A. Mat, After Maturation; B. Mat, Before Maturation; A. Ag, After Aging; B. Ag, Before Aging; CLA, Conjugated linolenic acid; LCFA, Long chain fatty acids (≥C:18); MCFA, Medium chain fatty acids (C:14–C:16); ns, Not statistically significant; RT, Retention Time; SCFA, Short chain fatty acids (C:4–C:12); SFA, Saturated fatty acids; USFA, Unsaturated fatty acids.

4. CONCLUSION

This study investigated ice cream's physicochemical and technological properties by adding different lactic acid bacteria using two different production methods. Adding lactic acid bacteria to the mix caused a decrease in firmness, consistency, cohesiveness, index of viscosity, pH, aw first drop, complete melting, and overrun values. These decreases were especially higher in the samples to which lactic acid bacteria were added before mix maturation. In addition, it was found that samples created by incorporating lactic acid bacteria had more organic acid (apart from formic acid). Also, the addition of lactic acid and the technique of manufacture affected the amount of fatty acids in the ice cream samples; the rate of change was often larger in the samples that included lactic acid bacteria following mix ripening. Particularly, in the samples with lactic acid bacteria introduced after mix maturation as compared to the control sample, the levels of short‐ and medium‐chain fatty acids increased. Consumer demand for foods with better functional qualities is increasing today. The results of this study suggest that, because of fermenting the ice cream mix with lactic acid bacteria, it becomes a product richer in terms of physicochemical properties and nutritional values. It has been demonstrated that incorporating lactic acid bacteria into two distinct industrial processes, especially after mix maturation, is more effective on the results.

The findings from this study reveal that many different combinations of bacteria and milk varieties can be used in the production of ice cream in the future. By this means, it is obvious that it will enable to obtain more functional, nutritionally rich, and useful products. In addition, it is thought that a new page will be opened in the ice cream industry with the production of these products.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Gokhan Akarca: Conceptualization (lead); data curation (equal); investigation (equal); methodology (lead); project administration (lead); resources (equal); writing – original draft (lead); writing – review and editing (equal). Mehmet Kılınç: Formal analysis (equal); investigation (equal); resources (equal); writing – review and editing (equal). Ayşe Janseli Denizkara: Data curation (equal); formal analysis (equal); resources (equal); writing – review and editing (equal).

FUNDING INFORMATION

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this manuscript.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

The corresponding author and all the co‐authors participated in the preparation of this manuscript.

INFORMED CONSENT

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Akarca, G. , Kilinç, M. , & Denizkara, A. J. (2024). Quality specification of ice creams produced with different homofermentative lactic acid bacteria. Food Science & Nutrition, 12, 192–203. 10.1002/fsn3.3762

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The original data with the respective analysis corresponding to the results shown in this work are available up to reasonable requirements.

REFERENCES

  1. Abghari, A. , Sheikh‐Zeinoddin, M. , & Soleimanian‐Zad, S. (2011). Nonfermented ice cream as a carrier for lactobacillus acidophilus and lactobacillus rhamnosus . International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 46, 84–92. [Google Scholar]
  2. Adams, M. R. , & Moss, M. O. (2015). Food microbiology. New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  3. Akalın, A. S. , Karagözlü, C. , & Ünal, G. (2008). Rheological properties of reduced‐fat and low‐fat ice cream containing whey protein isolate and inulin. European Food Research and Technology, 227(3), 889–895. [Google Scholar]
  4. Aktas, A. H. , Sen, S. , Yılmazer, M. , & Cubuk, E. (2005). Determination of carboxylic acids in apple juice by RP HPLC. Iran Journal of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering, 24, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  5. Alamprese, C. , Foschino, R. , Rossi, M. , Pompei, C. , & Corti, S. (2005). Effects of lactobacillus rhamnosus GG addition in ice cream. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 58, 200–206. [Google Scholar]
  6. Alamprese, C. , Foschino, R. , Rossi, M. , Pompei, C. , & Savani, L. (2002). Survival of lactobacillus johnsonii La1 and influence of its addition in retail‐manufactured ice cream produced with different sugar and fat concentrations. International Dairy Journal, 12, 201–220. [Google Scholar]
  7. Allen, K. F. , Dickinson, F. , & Murray, B. (2006). Acidified sodium caseinate emulsion foams containing liquid fat: A comparison with whipped cream. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 39, 225–234. [Google Scholar]
  8. AOAC . (2016). Water activity of food (978.18) (20th ed.). AOAC International. [Google Scholar]
  9. Arbuckle, W. S. (2011). Ice cream (5th ed., p. 357). Springer science and business media. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bahram Parvar, M. , & Tehrani, M. M. (2011). Application and functions of stabilizers in ice cream. Food Review International, 27, 389–407. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bardakcı, S. , & Secilmis, H. (2006). Investigation of the chemical content of rose oil in Isparta region by GC‐MS and FTIR spectroscopy technique. SDU Faculty of Arts and Sciences Journal of Science, 1, 64–69. [Google Scholar]
  12. Batista, N. N. , Ramos, C. L. , Pires, J. F. , Moreira, S. I. , Alves, E. , Dias, D. R. , & Schwan, R. F. (2019). Nondairy ice cream based on fermented yam (Dioscorea sp.). Food Science & Nutrition, 7(5), 1899–1907. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chranioti, C. , Nikoloudaki, A. , & Tzia, C. (2015). Saffron and beetroot extracts encapsulated in maltodextrin, gum Arabic, modified starch and chitosan: Incorporation in a chewing gum system. Carbohydrate Polymers, 127, 252–263. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cruz, A. G. , Antunes, A. E. C. , Sousa, A. L. O. P. , Faria, J. A. F. , & Saad, S. M. I. (2009). Ice‐cream as a probiotic food carrier. Food Research International, 42, 1233–1239. [Google Scholar]
  15. Davidson, R. H. , Duncan, S. E. , Hackney, C. R. , Eigel, W. N. , & Boling, J. W. (2000). Probiotic culture survival and implications in fermented frozen yogurt characteristics. Journal of Dairy Science, 83, 666–673. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Durmaz, Y. , Kilicli, M. , Toker, O. S. , Konar, N. , Palabiyik, I. , & Tamturk, F. (2020). Using spray‐dried microalgae in ice cream formulation as a natural colorant: Effect on physicochemical and functional properties. Algal Research, 47, 101811. [Google Scholar]
  17. Ghaderi, S. , Tehrani, M. M. , & Hesarinejad, M. (2021). Qualitative analysis of the structural, thermal and rheological properties of a plant ice cream based on soy and sesame milks. Food Science & Nutrition, 9(3), 1289–1298. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Goktas, H. , Dikmen, H. , Bekiroglu, H. , Cebi, N. , Dertli, E. , & Sagdıc, O. (2022). Characteristics of functional ice cream produced with probiotic saccharomyces boulardii in combination with lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. LWT – Food Science and Technology, 153, 112489. [Google Scholar]
  19. Guven, M. , & Karaca, O. B. (2002). The effects of changing sugar content and fruit concentration on the physical properties of vanilla and fruit ice cream type frozen yoghurt. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 55, 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  20. Guzel Seydim, Z. B. , Seydim, A. C. , Greene, A. K. , & Bodine, A. B. (2000). Determination of organic acids and volatile flavor substances in kefir during fermentation. Journal of Food Composition Analysis, 13, 35–43. [Google Scholar]
  21. Halsted, C. H. (2003). Dietary supplements and functional foods: 2 sides of a coin? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 77, 1001–1007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hatakka, K. , Holma, R. , El‐Nezami, H. , Suomalainen, T. , Kuisma, M. , Saxelin, M. , Poussa, T. , Mykkanen, H. , & Korpela, R. (2008). The influence of lactobacillus rhamnosus LC705 together with Propionibacterium freudenreichii ssp. shermanii JS on potentially carcinogenic bacterial activity in human colon. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 128, 406–410. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Iahtisham‐Ul‐Hag, A. S. , Butt, M. S. , Nayik, A. , Al Obaid, S. , Ansari, J. A. , Karabagias, I. K. , Sarwar, N. , & Ramniwas, S. (2023). Effect of storage on physicochemical attributes of ice cream enriched with microencapsulated anthocyanins from black carrot. Food Science & Nutrition, 11(7), 3976–3988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Idler, C. , Venus, J. , & Kamm, B. (2015). Microorganisms for the production of lactic acid and organic lactate. In Kamm B. (Ed.), Microorganisms in biorefineries. Microbiology monographs (Vol. 26, pp. 225–273). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jimenez‐Florez, R. , Klipfel, N. J. , & Tobias, J. (1993). Ice cream and frozen desserts. In Hui Y. H. (Ed.), Dairy science and technology manual, 2. Product manufacturing (p. 57). VCH Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kilinc, M. , Denizkara, A. J. , & Akarca, G. (2022). The effects of two lyophilized sweet potato varieties on physiochemical, textural and nutritional properties of ice cream. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 46(11), e16982. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kilinc, M. , & Sevik, R. (2021). The effect of hawthorn fruit (Crataegus tanacetifolia) dried with geothermal energy on some physicochemical properties of ice cream. KSU Journal of Agriculture Natural, 24, 963–968. [Google Scholar]
  28. Marshall, R. T. , Goff, H. D. , & Hartel, R. W. (2003). Composition and properties. In Ice cream Boston (pp. 55–87). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  29. Mena, B. , & Aryana, K. J. (2012). Influence of ethanol on probiotic and culture bacteria lactobacillus bulgaricus and streptococcus thermophilus within a therapeutic product. Open Journal of Medical Microbiology, 2, 70–76. [Google Scholar]
  30. Mohammed, N. K. , Muhialdin, B. J. , & Hussin, A. S. M. (2020). Characterization of nanoemulsion of Nigella sativa oil and its application in ice cream. Food Science & Nutrition, 8(6), 2608–2618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Muse, M. R. , & Hartel, R. W. (2004). Ice cream structural elements that affect melting rate and hardness. Journal of Dairy Science, 87, 1–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ngamsomchat, A. , Kaewkod, T. , Konkit, M. , Tragoolpua, Y. , Bovonsombut, S. , & Chitov, T. (2022). Characterisation of lactobacillus plantarum of dairy‐product origin for probiotic chèvre cheese production. Food, 11, 934. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Novak, L. , Cocaign‐Bousquet, M. , Lindley, N. D. , & Loubiere, P. (1997). Metabolism and energetics of Lactococcus lactis during growth in complex or synthetic media. Applied Environmental Microbiology, 63, 2665–2670. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ozdemir, C. , Dagdemir, E. , Ozdemir, S. , & Sagdic, O. (2008). The effects of using alternative sweeteners to sucrose on ice cream quality. Journal of Food Quality, 31, 415–428. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ozturk, H. I. , Demirci, T. , & Akın, N. (2018). Production of functional probiotic ice creams with white and dark blue fruits of Myrtus communis: The comparison of the prebiotic potentials on lactobacillus casei and functional characteristics. LWT‐Food Science and Technology, 90, 339–345. [Google Scholar]
  36. Petrova, P. , Ivanov, I. , Tsigoriyna, L. , Valcheva, N. , Vasileva, E. , Parvanova‐Mancheva, T. , Arsov, A. , & Petrov, K. (2021). Traditional Bulgarian dairy products: Ethnic foods with health benefits. Microorganisms, 9, 480. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Sarwar, A. , Aziz, T. , Al‐Dalali, S. , Zhang, J. , ud Din, J. , Chen, C. , & Yang, Z. (2021). Characterization of symbiotic ice cream made with probiotic yeast saccharomyces boulardii CNCM I‐745 in combination with inulin. Lebensmittel‐Wissenschaft Technologie, 141, 110910. [Google Scholar]
  38. Senanayake, S. A. , Fernando, S. , Bamunuarachchi, A. , & Arsekularatne, M. (2013). Application of lactobacillus acidophilus (LA 5) strain in fruit‐based ice cream. Food Science & Nutrition, 1(6), 428–431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Sert, D. , Mercan, E. , & Dertli, E. (2017). Characterization of lactic acid bacteria from yogurt‐like product fermented with pinecone and determination of their role on physicochemical, textural and microbiological properties of product. LWT‐Food Science and Technology, 78, 70–76. [Google Scholar]
  40. Shadordizadeh, T. , Mahdian, E. , & Hesarinejad, M. A. (2023). Application of encapsulated Indigofera tinctoria extract as a natural antioxidant and colorant in ice cream. Food Science and Nutrition, 11(4), 1940–1951. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Shahi, S. K. , Didar, Z. , Hesainejad, M. A. , & Vazifedoost, M. (2021). Optimized pulsed electric field‐assisted extraction of biosurfactants from Chubak (Acanthophyllum squarrosum) root and application in ice cream. Journal of the Science of the Food and Agriculture, 101(9), 3693–3706. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Shiby, V. K. , & Mishra, H. N. (2013). Fermented milks and milk products as functional foods‐a review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 53, 482–496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Shori, A. B. , Albalawi, A. , Al Zahrani, A. J. , Al‐Sulbi, O. S. , & Baba, A. S. (2022). Microbial analysis, antioxidant activity, and sensory properties of yoghurt with different starter cultures during storage. International Dairy Journal, 126, 105267. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sozeri Atik, D. , Gurbuz, B. , Boluk, E. , & Palabiyik, I. (2021). Development of vegan kefir fortified with Spirulina platensis . Food Bioscience, 42, 101050. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sun, Z. , Yu, J. , Dan, T. , Zhang, W. , & Zhang, H. (2014). In Zhang H. & Cai Y. (Eds.), Phylogenesis and evolution of lactic acid bacteria: Lactic acid bacteria fundamentals and practice (pp. 1–101). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sun‐Waterhouse, D. , Edmonds, L. , Wadhwa, S. S. , & Wibisono, R. (2013). Producing ice cream using a substantial amount of juice from kiwifruit with green, gold or red flesh. Food Research International, 50, 647–656. [Google Scholar]
  47. Yilmaz, B. , Sharma, H. , Malakoglu, E. , & Ozogul, F. (2022). Recent developments in dairy kefir‐derived lactic acid bacteria and their health benefits. Food Bioscience, 46, 101592. [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhang, J. , Zhang, X. , Zhang, L. , Zhao, Y. , Niu, C. , Yang, Z. , & Li, S. (2014). Potential probiotic characterization of lactobacillus plantarum strains isolated from Inner Mongolia “hurood” cheese. Journal of Microbiology Biotechnology and Food Science, 24, 225–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhang, J. , Zhao, W. , Guo, X. , Guo, T. , Zheng, Y. , Wang, Y. , Hao, Y. , & Yang, Z. (2017). Survival and effect of exopolysaccharide‐producing lactobacillus plantarum YW11 on the physicochemical properties of ice cream. Polish Journal of Food Nutrition Science, 67, 191–200. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The original data with the respective analysis corresponding to the results shown in this work are available up to reasonable requirements.

Articles from Food Science & Nutrition are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES