Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Food Chemistry: X logoLink to Food Chemistry: X
. 2025 Jan 22;25:102206. doi: 10.1016/j.fochx.2025.102206

Nutritional, physicochemical, and antioxidant characterization of pomegranate, beetroot, and carrot concentrates supplemented functional whey beverages

Muhammad Saleem a,b, Zulfiqar Ahmad b, Muhammad Waseem b, Tawfiq Alsulami c, Muhammad Rizwan Javed b, Muhammad Farhan b, Gulzar Ahmad Nayik d, Muhammad Faisal Manzoor a,e,∗, Gholamreza Abdi f,∗∗
PMCID: PMC11833339  PMID: 39968043

Abstract

The study aimed to investigate the nutritional, antioxidant, physicochemical, and sensorial properties of pomegranate concentrate (PC), beetroot concentrate (BC), and carrot concentrate (CC) and their supplemented whey beverages. Results revealed that PC exhibited the highest ash, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, and ascorbic acid concentration than BC and CC. Also, the highest total phenolic contents (TPC), total flavonoid contents (TFC), 2, 2-Diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), and ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) were recorded in PC, while maximum β-carotene and anthocyanin were found in CC and PC. In the case of prepared functional beverages, the pomegranate concentrate-whey beverage (PCWb) exhibited the maximum ash, Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Zn, and ascorbic acid contents that beetroot concentrate-whey beverage (BCWb) and carrot concentrate-whey beverage (CCWb). The highest TPC (27.3 mg GAE/100 mL), TFC (13.3 mg QE/100 mL), DPPH (41 %), and FRAP (101.3 μmol TE/100 mL) were found in PCWb than BCWb and CCWb. Sensory evaluation outcomes reported PCWb for better taste, color, and overall acceptability. Conclusively, the current study reported that PC is the best choice for value addition in ready-to-drink functional beverages, and future research is required to evaluate its storage stability and health-promoting activities.

Keywords: Punica granatum, Beetroot, Carrots, Concentrates, Value addition, Phenolics, Whey, Beverages

Highlights

  • •

    Pomegranate, beetroot and carrot concentrates are viable sources of ash and minerals.

  • •

    Fruit concentrates addition in whey beverages enhanced phenolics, flavonoids & antioxidants.

  • •

    The highest β-carotene & anthocyanins were recorded in carrot and pomegranate concentrates.

  • •

    Pomegranate concentrate whey beverage exhibited better acceptability & sensorial features.

1. Introduction

In recent times, there has been a notable increase in fruit and vegetable consumption, owing to the belief that their phytochemical compounds contribute significantly to improving human health (Abdo, El-Sohaimy, Shaltout, Abdalla, & Zeitoun, 2020). Whether fresh or processed, fruits and vegetables are abundant sources of bioactive components such as phenolic compounds, plant pigments, vitamins, and other antioxidant phytonutrients; these elements contribute to their exceptional antioxidant properties (Hooshyar, Hesari, & Azadmard-Damirchi, 2020). These bioactive phytonutrients safeguard against diseases like cancer, arthritis, coronary heart disease, diabetes, obesity, cataracts, and hypertension (Rahaman et al., 2023). Furthermore, fruit and vegetable concentrates in multiple forms, like concentrates, dehydrated powder, and extracts, are associated with reduced hypercholesterolemia and enhanced body detoxification. Therefore, daily dietary fruit and vegetable intake promotes a healthy, energetic, and high-quality lifestyle (Wallace et al., 2020).

Pomegranate (Punica granatum), Carrot (Daucus carota), and Beetroot (Beta vulgaris) are rich sources of antioxidant vitamins (A, C, and E), carotenoids (including α-carotene, β-carotene, lutein, zeaxanthin, β-cryptoxanthin, and astaxanthin), and polyphenolic compounds. These polyphenolic compounds can be further classified into flavonoids and non-flavonoids. The primary flavonoids in pomegranate, beetroot, and carrot include flavonols, flavan-3-ols, flavones, flavanones, anthocyanin, anthocyanidins, proanthocyanidins, dihydroflavanols, and isoflavones. On the other hand, the prominent non-flavonoids include simple phenols, hydrolyzable tannins, cinnamic acid, coumarins, xanthone, stilbenes, lignans, secoiroids, benzophenones, acetophenones, phenylacetic and benzoic acid (Jideani et al., 2021). All of these bioactive compounds possess marvelous antioxidant and functional properties which play a pivotal role in protecting against cancer, cardio- and cerebrovascular diseases, ocular and neurological disorders, diabetes, arthritis, atherosclerosis, strokes, hypertension, and blood-linked diseases (Poljsak, Kovač, & Milisav, 2021). Ever-increasing dietary requirements for vitamins, minerals, fiber, polyphenols, and other phytochemicals make pomegranate, beetroot, and carrot viable food fortificant of choice for value addition in the development of functional foods to overcome future health challenges. Earlier literature validates the diversified uses of pomegranate, beetroot, and carrot in different forms like concentrates, powders, juice, nectars, and extracts for value addition in beverages, jams, jellies, candies, baby foods, cookies, dairy products, sauces, and processed meats (Das et al., 2021; Mudgal, Singh, & Singh, 2022; Turturică & Bahrim, 2021).

In contemporary times, significant attention has been paid to producing functional beverages because of their recognized positive impact on human health and well-being. Whey, the predominant by-product of the dairy industry, is a translucent yellowish-green liquid obtained during cheese production. It contains numerous nutritionally significant components with exceptional functional properties. Regrettably, it is often regarded as surplus and consequently discarded by the dairy industry. This results in the loss of valuable nutrients and incurring costs for disposal treatment. Therefore, it is critical to utilize whey to recover these valuable nutrients and reduce disposal costs (Tanwar et al., 2022). Considering whey's nutritional and functional value, it has been utilized in producing beverages, ice creams, yogurt, bakery items, infant foods, and processed cheese (Tanwar et al., 2022). Incorporating fruits and vegetables into whey beverages can produce nutritious, delicious, and antioxidant-rich functional products. Therefore, the industry is paying critical attention to whey-fruit beverages (Joshi, Gururani, Vishnoi, & Srivastava, 2020; Vieira et al., 2020). A measurable amount of data is available from earlier studies elucidating the development of whey beverages based on multiple fruits such as pineapple, strawberry, blueberry, pear, apple, orange, mango, raspberry, lemon, beet, herbs, and watermelon (Ahmed et al., 2023; Ali, Aldarf, & Ibrahim, 2022; Kanchana, Veeranan Arun, & Vijayalakshmi, 2021; Merlet et al., 2024; Oliveira et al., 2022; Pandey, Mishra, Shukla, Dubey, & Vasant, 2019; Rizzolo & Cortellino, 2018; Zaman et al., 2023).

Despite the abundant phytonutrient profile of pomegranate, beetroot, carrots, and whey, a meager amount of data is available at hand reporting the synergistic use of these nutrient-carrying fruits for their potential use in formulation of functional whey beverage as a novel approach in mitigating the micronutrients, and health-related challenges and commercial applicability to boost beverage market. Considering plausible nutritional, sensorial, and functional attributes, the present research aimed at assessing the pomegranate, beetroot, and carrot concentrates and their synergistic use in the development of functional whey beverages upholding higher nutrients, micronutrients, and antioxidants, thereby addressing the micronutrient deficiencies and health challenges effectively.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Raw materials, chemicals, and reagents

Raw materials used in the study, including milk (6 L), pomegranates (10 kg), beetroots (10 kg), carrots (10 kg), and sugar (2 kg), were sourced from Imtiaz Pvt. Ltd., a local market in Bahawalpur, Pakistan. Likewise, all the chemicals and reagents used in the study, including sodium benzoate, citric acid, solvents (ethanol, methanol, and acetone), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picryl-hydroxyl, gallic acid, Folin ciocalteu reagent, quercetin, trichloroacetic acid, and di-nitro-phenyl hydrazine-thiourea‑copper, were all analytical grades and procured from Sigma-Aldrich Inc., USA. These were used for nutritional, physicochemical, and antioxidant analyses.

2.2. Preparation of whey

Whey preparation involved heating milk at 84 °C for 10 min and allowed to pre-cool at 72 °C. After that, 7 mL of 1.5 % citric acid was added to coagulate the milk. The raw whey was separated using a clean muslin cloth and stored under refrigeration at 4–6 ± 2 °C for further appraisal in the research (Pandey et al., 2019).

2.3. Preparation of pomegranate concentrate (PC), beetroot concentrate (BC) and carrot concentrate (CC)

The pomegranates, beetroots, and carrots were subjected to preliminary operations, including cleaning, washing, peeling, and cutting. Afterward, the pomegranate arils were manually crushed. However, the peeling of fewer slices of beetroot and carrots was blended to obtain juice. The concentrates were formed using a rotary evaporator (Heidolph, Schwabach, Germany) at a low temperature of 45 °C, 6.6 mbar vacuum, and 180 rpm. The juices were concentrated to 45 % solids, packed in airtight glass jars, and stored at freezing temperatures (−9 °C) for further use in the trials (Ismail et al., 2018).

2.4. Preparation of PC, BC, CC, and supplemented whey beverages (Wb)

The pomegranate concentrates, beetroot, and carrot, i.e., PC, BC, and CC, were incorporated into whey at a concentration of 3 % to prepare PCWb, BCWb, and CCWb, respectively. In the blend, the concentrates were added at 1 % each. Additionally, 10 g of sugar and 0.05 % w/v sodium benzoate were added to enhance flavor and inhibit microbial spoilage. The samples were pasteurized at 63 °C, bottled, and stored at 4 ± 1 °C for further analysis (Pandey et al., 2019).

2.5. Nutritional and mineral composition of PC, BC, and CC and supplemented Wb

Moisture (method no. 925.10), ash (method no. 923.03), fat (method no. 920.85), fiber (method no. 32–10), and protein (method no. 920.87) of all samples were determined by the standardized protocols as presented by Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Latimer Jr (2019). However, carbohydrate contents were calculated using the following formula:

Nitrogen free extractNFE=100−%moisture+ash+protein+fat+fiber (1)

Minerals, including micro minerals (Fe and Zn) and macro minerals (Na, K, Ca, and Mg) in the PC, BC, CC, and supplemented Wb, were assessed by following the method as outlined by Mabrouk and Gemiel (2020). Briefly, 0.5 g of each sample was dissolved in 5 mL of concentrated HCl (36 % Conc.), and the solution was then diluted using clean distilled water to a final volume of 50 mL. The contents of Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, and Zn were estimated using a spectrophotometer (UV–Visible 3000, ORI, Germany) and flame photometer (410, Sherwood Ltd. UK).

2.6. Physicochemical analysis of PC, BC, and CC and supplemented Wb

The PC, BC, CC, and Wb pH were measured following the procedure that Ahmed et al. (2023) delineated using a digital pH meter (Innolab pH). Total soluble solids (TSS) were calculated at room temperature using a digital refractometer (7000α Atago Company Ltd. Japan). The refractometer was initially calibrated with clean distilled water, and then a drop of each beverage sample was placed on its prism to measure TSS %. The results were expressed as °Brix. Titratable acidity (TA %) was determined using the following method of Tanwar et al. (2022). A beaker was filled with 10 mL of beverage sample and added 3 drops of 0.5 % phenolphthalein indicator. The mixture was titrated against 0.1 N, NaOH, with continual stirring until the pink color disappeared. TA values were calculated as follows:

TA%=0.064xNxVtVsx100 (2)

where

  • Vt: Volume of titrate.

  • N: Normality of base.

  • Vs: Sample volume.

2.7. Ascorbic acid determination

Ascorbic acid of PC, BC, CC, and Wb samples were estimated using a spectrophotometer (UV–Visible 3000, ORI, Germany) at 520 nm as reported by Grubišić et al. (2022). The beverage sample (0.3 mL) was extracted using distilled water. The sample concentrates were mixed in 13.3 % trichloro acetic acid and 2 % di-nitro-phenyl hydrazine-thiourea‑copper, and the resulting mixture was incubated at 37 °C for 3 h. During incubation, ascorbic acid was turned into a red bis-hydrazone. Afterward, 65 % sulfuric acid (H2SO4) was added, and the calibration curves were developed using the ascorbic acid standard. The ascorbic acid concentrations in all samples were expressed as mg/100 mL.

2.8. Physical color determination

The chromatic attributes, including L⁎ (lightness), a⁎ (redness/greenness), and b⁎ (yellowness/blueness) of all beverage samples, were analyzed using a colorimeter (Model 45/0-L, HAL) by following the protocol as outlined by Rodríguez et al. (2021).

2.9. β-carotene contents estimation

The β-carotene was extracted, as reported by Rios-Romero et al. (2021). Accurately measured, 3 mL of each sample was mixed in 0.2 g sodium carbonate and 20 mL of methanol and filtered. Afterward, the solids were washed twice using methanol (20 mL). Then, the residue was washed three times with 15 mL of acetone/hexane (1:1, v/v) and 0.1 % butylated hydroxyl toluene (BHT). The supernatant from these washings was placed in a separation funnel with 10 %, 20 mL sodium sulfate solution. Next, the distilled water was added until the total volume reached 400 mL, followed by 10 mL of petroleum ether. The organic phase was separated and evaporated (40 °C) employing a rotary evaporator (Heidolph, Schwabach, Germany). The residues of each sample were then interfused with acetonitrile and methanol (85:15, v/v), and β-carotene contents were calculated using ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).

2.10. Anthocyanin contents determination

The anthocyanin contents of all samples were carried out by adopting the protocol as documented by Alkuraieef and AlJahani (2022). Accurately measured, 1 mL of each sample was centrifuged at 3000g for 20 min, followed by filtration of the supernatant using a 0.45 μm millipore filter. About 20 μL of the filtrate was introduced to a column (100-PR 10 Li Chro Cart) and extracted with 5 % formic acid and 15 % methanol for 15 min. Subsequently, isocratic application to a total run time of 20 min was set, and the flow rate was adjusted at 1 mL/min. Anthocyanin peaks were detected at a wavelength of 510 nm. Anthocyanin contents were analyzed by comparing sample retention time with authentic standard anthocyanins quantified using standard curves, i.e., 10–100 mg/L. Anthocyanin mean concentrations were expressed in mg/100 mL.

2.11. Antioxidants determination of PC, BC, and CC and supplemented whey beverages Total phenolic contents

The method of Tanwar et al. (2022) was followed to estimate the total phenolics in PC, BC, and CC and whey beverages. Precisely measured, 1 mL of each sample was diluted in 25 mL of clean distilled water. A portion of the diluted sample was centrifuged at 15,000 rpm for 20 min at 4 °C. Each sample's resulting supernatant quantified phenolics at a spectrophotometer (UV–Visible 3000, ORI, Germany) using gallic acid as standard. For this purpose, 0.2 mL of diluted Folin-Ciocalteu reagent (FCR) was added to the supernatant. After 10 min, 0.8 mL of 7.5 % sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) solution was added. The mixture was incubated at ambient temperature for 30 min. Absorbance values of all samples were recorded at 743 nm against gallic acid as standard for developing standard curves. TPC was expressed as mg GAE/100 mL.

2.12. Total flavonoid contents

The total flavonoids were calculated spectrophotometrically (UV–Visible 3000, ORI, Germany) as Farhan et al. (2024) described. Accurately measured 0.3 mL, 5 % sodium nitrate, and 0.6 mL, 10 % aluminum chloride were taken in a flask and later placed in a dark place at an ambient temperature. Afterward, using deionized water, 1 mL and 2 M sodium hydroxide were mixed to adjust to a final volume of up to 100 mL. Finally, 1 mL of the reaction mixture was mixed with 9 mL deionized water, and the absorbance was measured at 510 nm using QE (quercetin equivalents) as standard, and the results were expressed as mg QE/100 mL.

2.13. DPPH determination

DPPH radical scavenging activities were assessed according to the method described by Tanwar et al. (2022). Initially, a fresh DPPH solution was prepared by addition of 5 mL of each sample in 20 mL ethanol and methanol (1:1) and rested for 2 min. The mixture was then transferred into a beaker and filtered using Whatman filter paper No. 42. Subsequently, 3.9 mL of 0.25 mM DPPH reagent was combined with 1 mL of 0.1 M Tris-HCl buffer (pH ∼ 7.4) and 0.1 mL of each extracted sample was poured in test tubes. After gentle mixing, the initial absorbance (At0) was measured at a wavelength of 517 nm using a spectrophotometer (UV–Visible 3000, ORI, Germany). The tubes were then incubated in the dark at ambient temperature for 20 min to determine absorbance (At20) at 20 min, employing ethanol as a reagent blank. The scavenging activities were calculated as follows:

DPPH%inhibition=At20At0x100 (3)

2.14. FRAP estimation

FRAP contents in PC BC and CC and supplemented whey beverage samples were estimated by adopting the method described by Bo et al. (2023). Precisely measured 0.1 mL of each sample was blended in 2.5 mL of 1 % potassium ferricyanide and 2.5 mL of 0.2 M phosphate buffer (pH ∼ 6.6). The mixture was incubated at 50 °C for 20 min in a water bath (WNB-29, Memmert, Schwabach, Germany). After incubation, 2.5 mL of 10 % trichloroacetic acid was added to the mixture and centrifuged at 3500 rpm for 10 min. About 2.5 mL of the supernatant was mixed with 2.5 mL of clean distilled water and 2.5 mL of 0.1 % freshly prepared ferric chloride reagent. The absorbance of each sample, along with the reagent blank and standards, was recorded at 700 nm and calculated in μmol TE/100 mL.

2.15. Sensory evaluation

Color, flavor, taste, appearance, and overall acceptability of all whey beverage samples were evaluated by a panel of sensory experts (n = 10) having good product discriminating abilities after a thorough briefing about the objectives of the study using the 9-point hedonic scale. On this scale, ‘liked extremely’ was assigned with the highest sensory score of” and “disliked extremely’ was assigned the lowest sensory score of” (Ahmed et al., 2023). The organoleptic evaluation was conducted in a controlled sensory trial room in the Department of Food Science and Technology, FA & E, Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Pakistan. The room was designed to minimize distractions, featuring ample light, odor, and a noise-free environment.

2.16. Statistical analysis

All analyses were duplicates, and results were reported as mean values ± standard deviation (S.D.). The statistical analysis of the nutritional composition, mineral profile, physicochemical characters, color and antioxidant analysis, and sensory evaluation of concentrates and supplemented beverages were carried out using analysis of variance (ANOVA) at Statistics 8.1 software (Tallahassee, FL, USA). Mean values were tested for the least significant difference (LSD) at p < 0.05.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Nutritional composition of PC, BC, CC, and supplemented whey beverages

The proximate composition of fruit concentrates elucidated the presence of ash contents in PC and the lowest in BC at 2.3 and 1.5 g/100 mL, respectively. However, the highest proteins were recorded in BC, i.e., 1.5, followed by PC and CC, i.e., 1.3 and 0.8 g/100 mL, respectively (Table 1). Abdo et al. (2020) revealed that ash and protein contents in PC were 0.9 and 1.2 %, respectively. An earlier investigation on CC reported similar ash and protein contents as in our study, 0.9 and 0.7 %, respectively (Sarker, Begum, Hasan, & Akter, 2022). The presence of appreciable concentrations of plant proteins and inorganic residues in natural fruits and vegetables indicates a better amino acid profile and micronutrients beneficial for human health.

Table 1.

Nutritional composition of pomegranate concentrate (PC), beetroot concentrate (BC), concentrate carrot (CC) and supplemented whey beverages (Wb) (g/100 mL).

Fruit Concentrates Moisture Ash Fat Fiber Protein NFE†
PC 49.00 ± 1.41a 2.30 ± 0.14a 0.11 ± 0.01b 0.50 ± 0.01b 1.30 ± 0.01b 46.80 ± 1.24a
BC 51.50 ± 2.12a 1.53 ± 0.04c 0.25 ± 0.01a 0.35 ± 0.00c 1.55 ± 0.01a 44.83 ± 2.06a
CC 50.00 ± 1.41a 1.90 ± 0.14b 0.30 ± 0.07a 1.20 ± 0.01a 0.80 ± 0.01c 45.80 ± 1.34a
Treatments Moisture Ash Fat Fiber Protein NFE†
W0 93.90 ± 1.27a 0.64 ± 0.04c 0.42 ± 0.03b 0.00 ± 0.00a 0.46 ± 0.03c 4.58 ± 1.37b
PCWb 92.10 ± 0.14b 0.76 ± 0.01a 0.45 ± 0.01ab 0.02 ± 0.00 a 0.52 ± 0.01b 6.17 ± 0.13ab
BCWb 92.65 ± 0.21ab 0.72 ± 0.01ab 0.47 ± 0.01a 0.01 ± 0.00 a 0.56 ± 0.01a 5.60 ± 0.21ab
CCWb 92.20 ± 0.28b 0.74 ± 0.01ab 0.46 ± 0.01ab 0.04 ± 0.00 a 0.52 ± 0.01b 6.06 ± 0.30ab
Blend 91.75 ± 0.21b 0.70 ± 0.01b 0.43 ± 0.01b 0.02 ± 0.00 a 0.50 ± 0.01bc 6.62 ± 0.21a
Open in a new tab

Mean values are mentioned as means ± S.D. (n = 2). Values having identical letters in a column portraying non-significance at p < 0.05.

NFE = Nitrogen free extract; PC = Pomegranate concentrate, BC = Beetroot concentrate, CC = Carrot concentrate.

W0 = Control (Normal whey), PCWb = 3 % PC supplemented Wb, BCWb = 3 % BC supplemented Wb, CCWb = 3 % CC supplemented Wb and Blend = 1 % PC, 1 % BC and 1 % CC supplemented Wb.

Results for the nutritional composition among the PC, BC, and CC-supplemented whey beverages portrayed significantly (p < 0.05) higher contents of ash and proteins in PC and BC-supplemented whey beverages, 0.76 and 0.56 g/100 mL, respectively, when compared with the control, 0.64 and 0.46 g/100 mL (Table 1). Data also indicated non-significant (p < 0.05) differences in moisture, fat, and carbohydrate content concentrations. On comparing the nutritional contents of all concentrates supplemented whey beverages with control ash and proteins, it was found that the amounts were increased by 11 % and 12.5 %, respectively. Mabrouk and Gemiel (2020) reported ash (0.42–0.54 %) and protein contents (1.31–1.34 %) in fruits and herbs concentrate-supplemented (2.5–6 %) carbonated whey beverages. Another study revealed that beetroot juice addition at 10 % supplementation in the development of functional whey beverages reported measurable concentrations of ash (0.4 %) (Michiu et al., 2024). The notable increase in ash contents in PC, BC, and CC-supplemented whey beverages could be linked with the higher presence of inorganic residues in concentrates, which consequently enhanced the nutritional profile of whey beverages (Ahmed et al., 2023).

3.2. Mineral composition of PC, BC, CC, and supplemented whey beverages

The PC, BC, and CC mineral composition results depicted the highest Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, and Zn concentrations in PC, i.e., 66, 294, 96, 50, 4, and 1 mg/100 mL, respectively (Table 2). Higher magnitudes of mineral elements in fruit concentrates could be viable for the health of vulnerable populations like children and older people. Statistical data on daily dietary intake of Na, Ca, Mg, Fe, and Zn for children are 300, 650, 130, 10, and 3 mg/100 mL, respectively (Mackie, 2015). The results obtained align with those of Aderinola and Abaire (2019), wherein the concentrations of Ca and Mg were reported as 3.2 and 1.1 mg/100 mL, respectively, in CC. Likewise, Akan, Tuna Gunes, and Erkan (2021) also revealed similar contents of Fe and Zn in BC, 0.8 and 0.35 mg/100 mL, respectively.

Table 2.

Mineral composition of PC, BC, CC and supplemented Wb (mg/100 mL).

Fruit Concentrates Na K Ca Mg Fe Zn
PC 66.00 ± 1.41a 294.00 ± 1.41a 96.00 ± 1.41a 49.50 ± 0.71a 3.95 ± 0.07a 0.95 ± 0.07a
BC 52.50 ± 2.12b 241.00 ± 1.41b 7.51 ± 0.01b 8.14 ± 0.01b 0.57 ± 0.04b 0.40 ± 0.03b
CC 40.50 ± 0.71c 254 ± 1.41c 3.29 ± 0.01c 7.26 ± 0.02c 0.22 ± 0.02c 0.13 ± 0.01c
Treatments Na K Ca Mg Fe Zn
W0 46.50 ± 0.71d 129.81 ± 0.28d 40.50 ± 0.71c 8.05 ± 0.07d 0.14 ± 0.01b 0.02 ± 0.01c
PCWb 52.30 ± 0.42a 138.50 ± 0.71a 46.75 ± 1.06a 9.00 ± 0.00a 0.35 ± 0.07a 0.06 ± 0.01a
BCWb 48.05 ± 0.07bc 136.10 ± 0.14c 42.25 ± 0.35b 8.75 ± 0.07b 0.16 ± 0.01b 0.03 ± 0.01b
CCWb 47.10 ± 0.14cd 137.30 ± 0.42b 41.25 ± 0.35bc 8.31 ± 0.01c 0.15 ± 0.01b 0.03 ± 0.01bc
Blend 48.17 ± 0.05b 137.35 ± 0.49ab 41.55 ± 0.07bc 8.30 ± 0.14c 0.20 ± 0.01b 0.03 ± 0.00b
Open in a new tab

Mean values are mentioned as means ± S.D. (n = 2). Values having identical letters in a column portraying non-significance at p < 0.05.

PC = Pomegranate concentrate, BC = Beetroot concentrate, CC = Carrot concentrate.

W0 = Control (Normal whey), PCWb = 3 % PC supplemented Wb, BCWb = 3 % BC supplemented Wb, CCWb = 3 % CC supplemented Wb and Blend = 1 % PC, 1 % BC and 1 % CC supplemented Wb.

Results for inorganic elements among all supplemented whey beverages prepared with the addition of PC, BC, and CC anticipated the highest contents of Na, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, and Zn in PCWb, 52, 139, 47, 9, 0.4 and 0.06 mg/100 mL, respectively. In line with our study, Ahmed et al. (2023) also reported comparable results for Ca and Fe wherein these mineral elements increased form from 37 to 41 and 0.1–0.2 mg/100 mL, respectively, in addition to mango fruit concentrate in whey to develop whey beverage. Similarly, in a recent study by Mabrouk and Gemiel (2020), the researchers found a noticeable increment in Mg, Fe, and Zn contents from 5.1 to 6, 1.7–2.1, and 0.6–1.2 mg/100 mL, respectively, in carbonated whey beverages fortified with fruits and herbal concentrates. An increase in the mineral contents of the supplemented whey beverages indicates the nutrient potential of whey itself, and it could also be associated with higher levels of inorganic residues in fruit concentrates (Mabrouk & Gemiel, 2020).

3.3. pH, titratable acidity (TA), and ascorbic acid contents of PC, BC, CC, and supplemented whey beverages

The results for physicochemical attributes of PC, BC, and CC revealed the highest values for pH in CC, i.e., 6.1, while the lowest mean values were observed in PC, i.e., 3.8. However, as pH and titratable acidity are antagonist parameters, the data on titratable acidity elucidated the maximum values in PC 0.48 %, whereas the minimum values were recorded in CC, i.e., 0.05 %. Our results align with Abdulrahman, Mhamad, Talb, & Aljabary (2021), where a comparative analysis of PC for pH and TA revealed 3.7 and 1.05 %, respectively. Similarly, Shahamirian et al. (2019) also reported comparable pH values of 3.4 for pomegranate juice used for beverage development. Salehi, Ghorbani, Sadeghi Mahoonk, and Khomeiri (2021) also showed comparable results for pH and TA mean values for CC, which were 6.2 and 0.14 %, respectively. However, the highest ascorbic acid contents were observed in PC, i.e., 109.5 mg/100 mL, followed by BC and CC at 62 and 51 mg/100 mL, respectively (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

pH, titratable acidity and ascorbic acid of PC, BC, CC (a) and supplemented whey beverages (b).

Data on the physicochemical attributes of PC, BC, and CC-supplemented whey beverages revealed the CCWb to exhibit the highest pH value (5.5), and PCWb displayed the lowest pH value (4.39) when compared to the control (W0) (Fig. 1). However, the findings on physicochemical attributes among the PCWb, BCWb, and CCWb anticipated the highest mean concentrations of TA in PCWb (0.34). In contrast, the lowest values were noted in CCWb (0.17). The blended whey beverage prepared with the supplementation of PC, BC, and CC showed mean values of pH and TA as 5.1 and 0.22 % (Fig. 1). Variations in pH and TA of whey beverages may be prominently linked with the degradation of polysaccharides, leading to acid formation and oxidation of reducing sugars (Farhan et al., 2024). Our findings align with Ahmed et al. (2023), which evaluated the effect of mango and carrot concentrate (1:1) in whey-fruit beverages. The mean values of pH and TA of the fruit-whey beverage revealed 4.6 and 0.27 %, respectively. Also, Purkiewicz and Pietrzak-Fiećko (2021) also demonstrated pH and TA values of 6.6 and 0.2 % in fruit-whey beverages on supplementation of banana peel powder at 5 % supplementation levels. Earlier, Mohamed, Magied, Abd El-Kader, and Bakry (2023) reported comparable findings for the pH of the pomegranate juice-based yogurt prepared at 10 % supplementation levels, i.e., 4.2. In another study by Michiu et al. (2024), results for the beetroot juice fortified ready-to-drink whey beverage elucidated comparable pH and acidity results in the final product as 6.2 and 0.11 %, respectively, at 10 % incorporation levels. Also, Adjei et al. (2024) developed beetroot puree-based yogurt at 2 % supplementation levels and elucidated the pH of the final product as 4.4. However, the results for ascorbic acid among the supplemented whey beverages prepared with the incorporation of PC, BC, and CC showcased significantly (p < 0.05) the highest concentration in PCWb 3.5 mg/100 mL. At the same time, the CCWb elucidated the lowest ascorbic acid contents, 2.2 mg/100 mL. Our results for ascorbic acid are in close harmony with an earlier investigation by Srivastava, Hossain, Bharti, and Dixit (2018), wherein the mean values for ascorbic acid in beetroot juice-supplemented whey beverage were recorded as 0.97 mg/100 mL. Naeem (2023) also revealed notable concentrations of ascorbic acid contents (5.4 mg/100) in a pomegranate juice (at 20 % supplementation level) based functional drink. Earlier, Farmani, Bodbodak, and Yerlikaya (2024) elucidated the measurable amounts of ascorbic acid with 3.3 mg/100 g in carrot juice-supplemented novel milk functional drink. Moreover, Basiony, Saleh, Hassabo, and Al-Fargah (2023) also documented a significant amount of ascorbic acid (3.2 mg/100 g) in pomegranate juice, strawberry juice, and red beet puree-based formulated yogurt.

3.4. Physical color parameters of PC, BC, CC, and supplemented whey beverages

Results for physical color indices, i.e., lightness (L⁎), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*), varied among PC, BC, and CC with the highest values of L⁎, a⁎, and b⁎ were recorded in PC, i.e., 35.4, 17.8 and 4.3, respectively. On the contrary, the lowest values of L, a⁎, and b were observed in BC, i.e., 4.5, 6.7, and 0.8, respectively (Table 3). Our results for physical color are in close harmony with the findings of (Prieto-Santiago, Cavia, Alonso-Torre, & Carrillo, 2020); (Umair et al., 2019); (Yikmiş, 2019) wherein the authors portrayed similar mean values for L⁎, a⁎ and b⁎ in PC, BC and CC, i.e., 35, 18, 11, and 0.7, 4, 0.9, and 35, 20.0 and 27.0, respectively (El-Gendy & Abdeen, 2020) delineated the L⁎, a⁎ and b⁎ values for the pomegranate syrup as 23, 16 and 5, respectively. Another study by Sobota, Wirkijowska, and Zarzycki (2020) also exhibited similar L⁎, a⁎, and b⁎ values in CC as 72, 12, and 23, respectively. The results for β-carotene and anthocyanins showed the highest concentrations in CC (10.4 mg/100 mL) and PC (25.5 mg/100 mL), while the lowest values in BC (1.05 mg/100 mL) and CC (0.4 mg/100 mL) (Table 3). Sarker et al. (2022) reported comparative findings of β-carotene in carrot concentrate (9.8 mg/100 mL). Earlier studies also reported comparable anthocyanin contents in PC, BC, and BC of 21–31, 7.5 and 0.4 mg/100 mL, respectively (Abdulrahman et al., 2021; Hooshyar et al., 2020).

Table 3.

Physical color attributes of PC, BC, and CC and supplemented Wb.

Fruit Concentrates L⁎ a⁎ b⁎ β-Carotene (mg/100 mL) Anthocyanin (mg/100 mL)
PC 35.40 ± 1.97a 17.82 ± 0.15b 4.32 ± 0.16b 2.21 ± 0.13b 25.50 ± 0.71a
BC 4.48 ± 0.11c 6.68 ± 0.21c 0.78 ± 0.05c 1.05 ± 0.07c 7.49 ± 0.41b
CC 30.10 ± 1.56b 26.78 ± 1.10a 23.46 ± 0.65a 10.36 ± 0.21a 0.42 ± 0.03c
Treatments L⁎ a⁎ b⁎ β-Carotene (mg/100 mL) Anthocyanin (mg/100 mL)
W0 61.50 ± 2.12a 0.62 ± 0.03d 1.81 ± 0.10d 0.00 ± 0.00e 0.00 ± 0.00d
PCWb 66.02 ± 1.39a 2.51 ± 0.15b 2.34 ± 0.13c 0.07 ± 0.01c 0.78 ± 0.04a
BCWb 63.98 ± 2.86a 1.33 ± 0.05c 1.98 ± 0.13cd 0.03 ± 0.00d 0.26 ± 0.01c
CCWb 66.26 ± 2.47a 3.38 ± 0.11a 4.32 ± 0.22a 0.31 ± 0.01a 0.01 ± 0.00d
Blend 66.41 ± 3.67a 2.40 ± 0.12b 2.83 ± 0.11b 0.14 ± 0.01b 0.32 ± 0.02b
Open in a new tab

Mean values are mentioned as means ± S.D. (n = 2). Values having identical letters in a column portraying non-significance at p < 0.05.

PC = Pomegranate concentrate, BC = Beetroot concentrate, CC = Carrot concentrate.

W0 = Control (Normal whey), PCWb = 3 % PC supplemented Wb, BCWb = 3 % BC supplemented Wb, CCWb = 3 % CC supplemented Wb and Blend = 1 % PC, 1 % BC and 1 % CC supplemented Wb.

The results for a chromatic color profile of PCWb, BCWb, and CCWb showed significant (p < 0.05) variation on supplementation of PC, BC, and CC in whey beverages and elucidated the highest L⁎, a⁎, and b⁎ mean values in a blend, CCWb, and CCWb, i.e., 66.4, 3.4 and 4.3, respectively (Table 3). The addition of carrot puree in the development of whey beverage at 10 % supplementation levels resulted in similar L⁎, a⁎, and b⁎ mean values for the beverage, i.e., 58, 6, and 19, respectively (Farmani et al., 2024). Abdo, Allam, Gomaa, Shaltout, and Mansour (2022) reported that L⁎, a⁎, and b⁎ values of 80, 39, and 4, respectively, in the supplemented whey beverages prepared at 5 % supplementation of beetroot. Our results align with Basiony et al. (2023) and Naeem (2023), who reported that mean L⁎, a⁎, and b⁎ values of 85.3, 32.7, and 2.6 in pomegranate juice, strawberry juice, and red beet puree supplemented products. Adjei et al. (2024) also reported the addition of beetroot in yogurt at 2 % supplementation to exhibit a comparable L⁎ value.

Results for the coloring pigments of PC, BC, and CC-supplemented whey beverages exhibited the maximum contents of β-carotene (0.31 mg/100 mL) and anthocyanins (0.8 mg/100 mL) in CCWb and PCWb. Our findings for β-carotene are in line with Purkiewicz and Pietrzak-Fiećko (2021), who reported that 4.36 mg/100 mL of β-carotene value in 25 % carrot puree supplementation whey beverage. Sarker et al. (2022) stated the 0.94 mg/100 mL of β-carotene values in yogurt fortified with a carrot at 10–50 % supplementation levels. Earlier studies reported the presence of 2.2–5.7 mg/100 mL of anthocyanins by the addition to pomegranate juice in functional whey beverages (El-Gendy & Abdeen, 2020; Hooshyar et al., 2020; Rios-Corripio & Guerrero-Beltrán, 2019).

3.5. Antioxidant activities of PC, BC, CC, and supplemented whey beverages

The results for antioxidant activities of PC, BC, and CC showed the highest level of TPC in PC as 678 mg GAE/100 mL with the lowest mean values in CC (121 mg GAE/100 mL) (Table 4). The presence of the highest phenolics in pomegranate could be attributed to the presence of a higher amount of phenolic compounds, including ferulic acid, gallic acid, quercetin, catechin epicatechin, gallocatechin, and isothiocyanates. Grubišić et al. (2022) stated the presence of higher concentrations of phenolics in beetroot (86.1 mg GAE/100 mL) and carrot (15.5 mg GAE/100 mL) concentrates. Likewise, Ramírez-Melo et al. (2022) reported that beetroot juice concentrates on upholding appreciable amounts of phenolics (90–104 mg GAE/100 mL). Results for the TFC portrayed the highest concentrations of flavonoids in PC as 453 mg QE/100 mL, whereas BC and CC showed values as 264 and 113 mg QE/100 mL, respectively (Table 4). Previous studies elucidated that the TFC in beetroot and carrot concentrated juices were 24–278 and 1.9 mg QE/100 mL, respectively (Farhan et al., 2024; Grubišić et al., 2022). For DPPH, the data on fruit concentrates depicted significantly (p < 0.05) higher concentrations of DPPH in PC, BC, and CC, 89, 78 and 63 %, respectively (Table 4). The antioxidant potential of pomegranate and red grapes juices showed slightly lower free radical scavenging activities ranging between 45 and 54 %. A lower % reduction in pomegranate and red grapes juices is attributed to the lower total soluble solids concentration of the juices (Hooshyar et al., 2020). Earlier, Mohamed et al. (2023) reported appreciable DPPH activities (94.1 %) in the pomegranate juice. Statistical data on FRAP contents of fruit concentrates portrayed the substantially highest contents of FRAP in PC (3355 μmol TE/100 mL), followed by BC and CC, 1320 and 648 μmol TE/100 mL, respectively (Table 4). Farhan et al. (2024) reported 1261 μmol/100 g of FRAP in beetroot. The higher antioxidants in all fruit concentrates could be attributed to the presence of bioactive compounds in these fruits, and the concentration of these fruits increased the mean concentrations to an appreciable level. Products' antioxidants analyses revealed the highest TPC in PCWb (27 mg GAE/100 mL), followed by BCWb, blend, CCWb, and control, 17, 16, 9, and 5.3 mg GAE /100 mL, respectively (Table 4). Purkiewicz and Pietrzak-Fiećko (2021) portrayed the highest TPC values of 428 mg GAE/100 g in homemade orange and carrot puree-based whey beverages. Similarly, Basiony et al. (2023) also stated significantly (p < 0.05) higher amounts of TPC from 52 to 68 mg GAE/100 mL in beetroot, strawberry, and pomegranate juice incorporated whey beverages. Earlier, a beetroot-based functional whey beverage developed by Michiu et al. (2024) was reported to uphold noticeable concentrations of TPC (38 mg GAE/100 mL). Also, Nawal Galal, Osman, and Abbas (2019) documented slightly lower concentrations of TPC (15 mg GAE/100 g) in a functional yogurt supplemented with carrot puree. The results for TFC of fruit concentrate-based supplemented whey beverages showed the maximum TFC in PCWb 13.3 mg QE/100 mL, while among the treatments, the minimum TFC was noticed in CCWb (4.1 mg QE/100 mL) (Table 4). Higher concentrations of flavonoids may play a pivotal role in infectious disorders, inflammation, and cancer. Abdo et al. (2022) exhibited the total flavonoids in beetroot peel-based ready-to-drink whey beverages at 1–5 % supplementation levels, revealing flavonoid contents in the range of 0.2–0.3 mg/100 mL. Also, Purkiewicz and Pietrzak-Fiećko (2021) reported comparable concentrations of flavonoids (63 mg/100 mL) in carrot puree-based whey beverages. Earlier, Abdo et al. (2022) on beetroot peel extract-based whey beverage showed negligible concentrations of flavonoids (0.24 mg/100 mL). The results for DPPH elaborated the highest % free radical reduction activities in PCWbn (41 %), followed by BCWb, CCWb, and blend-supplemented whey beverages of 27, 15, and 10 % as compared to W0 (8 %) (Table 4). Purkiewicz and Pietrzak-Fiećko (2021) revealed that blending carrot puree, rosehip puree, and sea buckthorn jam at a concentration of 25, 12.5, and 12.5 %, respectively, into the homemade whey beverage significantly (p < 0.05) elevated DPPH value as 78 μmol TE/100 mL. Recently, Basiony et al. (2023) stated that yogurt prepared with the addition of pomegranate juice, strawberry juice, and red beet puree offers remarkably higher DPPH activities, ranging from 36 to 100 %. Similarly, Farmani et al. (2024) recorded a noticeable DPPH activity (36 %) in carrot juice-based milk drinks. Findings on FRAP of fruit concentrate-supplemented whey beverages reported the maximum FRAP values in PCWb (101.3 μmol TE/100 mL), while the minimum mean concentrations were observed in CCWb of 20 μmol TE/100 mL. Blended whey beverage represented appreciable concentrations of FRAP values of 52.5 μmol TE/100 mL, as shown in Table 4. However, the highest FRAP values in PCWb could be attributed to the higher reducing properties of antioxidant bioactive compounds in pomegranate concentrates. Higher ferric-reducing antioxidant compounds are pivotal in neutralizing free radicals, resulting in the stability and enhanced shelf-life of food products. Farmani et al. (2024) reported FRAP values from 25 to 38 μmol TE/100 mL in whey beverage prepared with carrot at 10–50 % supplementation.

Table 4.

Antioxidant composition of PC, BC, CC, and supplemented Wb.

Fruit Concentrates TPC (mg GAE/100 mL) TFC (mg QE/100 mL) DPPH (%) FRAP (μmol TE/100 mL)
PC 678.00 ± 2.83a 452.50 ± 3.54a 89.00 ± 1.41a 3355.00 ± 7.07a
BC 391.00 ± 1.41b 264.00 ± 1.41b 77.50 ± 0.71b 1320.00 ± 2.83b
CC 120.50 ± 0.71c 112.50 ± 2.12c 62.50 ± 0.71c 647.50 ± 3.54c
Treatment TPC (mg GAE/100 mL) TFC (mg QE/100 mL) DPPH (%) FRAP (μmol TE/100 mL)
W0 5.25 ± 0.35e 0.00 ± 0.00e 8.10 ± 0.13e 0.00 ± 0.00e
PCWb 27.25 ± 0.35a 13.25 ± 0.35a 41.11 ± 0.15a 101.25 ± 0.35a
BCWb 17.10 ± 0.14b 9.10 ± 0.14b 27.40 ± 0.57b 40.77 ± 0.35c
CCWb 8.95 ± 0.07d 4.10 ± 0.14d 15.25 ± 0.35c 19.75 ± 0.33d
Blend 16.05 ± 0.07c 7.95 ± 0.08c 10.25 ± 0.35d 52.50 ± 0.71b
Open in a new tab

Mean values are mentioned as means ± S.D. (n = 2). Values having identical letters in a column portraying non-significance at p < 0.05.

PC = Pomegranate concentrate, BC = Beetroot concentrate, CC = Carrot concentrate.

W0 = Control (Normal whey), PCWb = 3 % PC supplemented Wb, BCWb = 3 % BC supplemented Wb, CCWb = 3 % CC supplemented Wb and Blend = 1 % PC, 1 % BC and 1 % CC supplemented Wb.

3.6. Sensory attributes of PC, BC, CC, and supplemented whey beverages

Sensory quality exhibits its pivotal role in the acceptability of any product. Among sensory parameters, the highest and lowest sensory scores for color among the whey and supplemented whey beverages were observed in PCWb and BCWb of 8.8 and 8.0, respectively (Fig. 2). Adjei et al. (2024) depicted comparable sensory scores for color (7.4) in the yogurt prepared with the addition of 2 % of beetroot puree. The attractive chromatic profile of PCWb and CCWb could be attributed to the presence of significant magnitudes of coloring pigments, including anthocyanins and β-carotenes, which oriented an attractive red color appeal to the supplemented whey beverages (Srivastava et al., 2018). Taste is a significant sensory parameter for accepting or rejecting food commodities after color. The results for a taste of the supplemented whey beverages revealed the highest sensory scores for PCWb as 8.7, followed by BCWb, CCWb, and blend as 8.0, 7.5, and 7.0, respectively. The better taste scores of supplemented whey beverages indicate the presence of taste-giving phytonutrients in fruit concentrates. Lowered taste sensory scores and preferences for the blend and CCWb could be linked with astringency-producing phytonutrients such as isothiocyanates, tannins, and geosmins (Naik et al., 2023). Earlier, Michiu et al. (2024) documented that the beetroot-based whey beverage anticipates comparable sensory scores for taste (7.2). Sensory experts revealed the highest overall acceptability for the PCWb, followed by BCWb, with the overall sensory scores varying between 8.03 and 7.6. Our outcomes of the sensory evaluation research closely align with El-Gendy and Abdeen (2020), wherein the authors rated the pomegranate-whey beverage prepared at 2.5 % supplementation levels, and the product revealed the highest overall acceptability scores of ∼8.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Sensory evaluation of pomegranate, beetroot and carrot concentrates supplemented whey beverages.

PCWb = 3 % Pomegranate concentrate supplemented whey beverage, BCWb = 3 % Beetroot concentrate supplemented whey beverage, CCWb = 3 % Carrot concentrate, supplemented whey beverage, Blend = 1 % pomegranate concentrate, 1 % beetroot concentrate, 1 % carrot concentrate supplemented whey beverage.

4. Conclusions

The study reveals PC, BC, and CC as viable carriers of ash, proteins, and key minerals such as Na, Ca, Mg, K, Fe, and Zn. The whey-supplemented fruit concentrates exhibited significant (p < 0.05) improvement in TFC, TPC, and antioxidants, which are known to promote health. Moreover, PC and CC oriented better color profiles in supplemented functional whey beverages owing to the higher concentrations of anthocyanins and β-carotenes. Sensory evaluation of whey beverages displayed the PCWb as the best among other formulated whey beverages. Moving forward, the investigation comprehensively highlights that PC not only augmented the nutritional and antioxidant contents but also enhanced the sensory acceptability of the supplemented whey beverages when compared to BC and CC and their supplemented whey beverages. Therefore, acknowledging the plausible nutritional and antioxidant potential of these fruit concentrates, future studies may be endorsed on their commercial applicability in developing nutrient-dense functional whey beverages with known therapeutic features. Conclusively, PC, BC, and CC may be used as novel food choices to ameliorate a number of rising health challenges associated with micronutrient deficiencies, malnutrition, and health disorders like cancer, cardiovascular disorders, and diabetes.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Muhammad Saleem: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. Zulfiqar Ahmad: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Data curation. Muhammad Waseem: Writing – original draft, Formal analysis, Data curation. Tawfiq Alsulami: Software, Resources, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis. Muhammad Rizwan Javed: Writing – original draft, Validation, Software. Muhammad Farhan: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation. Gulzar Ahmad Nayik: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Software. Muhammad Faisal Manzoor: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Supervision, Resources, Formal analysis. Gholamreza Abdi: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Supervision, Methodology, Conceptualization.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the Researchers Supporting Project number (RSPD2024R641), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Contributor Information

Muhammad Faisal Manzoor, Email: faisaluos26@gmail.com.

Gholamreza Abdi, Email: abdi@pgu.ac.ir.

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References

  1. Abdo E., El-Sohaimy S., Shaltout O., Abdalla A., Zeitoun A. Nutritional evaluation of beetroots (Beta vulgaris L.) and its potential application in a functional beverage. Plants. 2020;9(12):1752. doi: 10.3390/plants9121752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdo E.M., Allam M.G., Gomaa M.A., Shaltout O.E., Mansour H.M. Valorization of whey proteins and beetroot peels to develop a functional beverage high in proteins and antioxidants. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2022;9 doi: 10.3389/fnut.2022.984891. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Abdulrahman A.B.M., Mhamad H.J., Talb S.S., Aljabary A.M.A.O. Physicochemical properties and phenolic contents of fresh and concentrated juice of four pomegranate cultivars in Iraq. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2021;910(1) [Google Scholar]
  4. Aderinola T.A., Abaire K.E. Quality acceptability, nutritional composition and antioxidant properties of carrot-cucumber juice. Beverages. 2019;5(1):15. [Google Scholar]
  5. Adjei M.L., Boakye A., Deku G., Pepra-Ameyaw N.B., Jnr A.S.A., Oduro I.N., Ellis W.O. Development of yoghurt incorporated with beetroot puree and its effect on the physicochemical properties and consumer acceptance. Heliyon. 2024;10(3) doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25492. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Ahmed T., Sabuz A.A., Mohaldar A., Fardows H.S., Inbaraj B.S., Sharma M.…Sridhar K. Development of novel whey-mango based mixed beverage: Effect of storage on physicochemical, microbiological, and sensory analysis. Foods. 2023;12(2):237. doi: 10.3390/foods12020237. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Akan S., Tuna Gunes N., Erkan M. Red beetroot: Health benefits, production techniques, and quality maintaining for food industry. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2021;45(10) [Google Scholar]
  8. Ali A.M., Aldarf M., Ibrahim W. 2022. Prepare a functional drink of acid whey fortified with beet juice as a natural source of IRON and folic acid. [Google Scholar]
  9. Alkuraieef A.N., AlJahani A. Effect of extraction process and storage time on the quality attributes of pomegranate juice of two local pomegranate varieties. Italian Journal of Food Science. 2022;34(1):24–32. [Google Scholar]
  10. Basiony M., Saleh A., Hassabo R., Al-Fargah A. The effect of using pomegranate and strawberry juices with red beet puree on the physicochemical, microbial and sensory properties of yoghurt. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization. 2023;17(5):5024–5033. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bo L.-Y., Pan Z.-Q., Sun T.-Y., Du G.-J., Zhang D., Song Z.-Q.…Jian R. Effect of carrot juice on the texture properties, rheology, and microstructure of yoghurt. Journal of Food Quality. 2023;2023(1) [Google Scholar]
  12. Das A.K., Nanda P.K., Chowdhury N.R., Dandapat P., Gagaoua M., Chauhan P.…Lorenzo J.M. Application of pomegranate by-products in muscle foods: Oxidative indices, colour stability, shelf life and health benefits. Molecules. 2021;26(2):467. doi: 10.3390/molecules26020467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. El-Gendy M.H., Abdeen E. Nutritional evaluation of fermented Camels’ Milk permeate pomegranate beverage. Journal of Food and Dairy Sciences. 2020;11(12):355–362. [Google Scholar]
  14. Farhan M., Ahmad Z., Waseem M., Mehmood T., Javed M.R., Ali M.…Goksen G. Assessment of beetroot powder as nutritional, antioxidant, and sensory evaluation in candies. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research. 2024;15 [Google Scholar]
  15. Farmani B., Bodbodak S., Yerlikaya O. Development of a novel milk-based product fortified with carrot juice. Food Bioscience. 2024;58 [Google Scholar]
  16. Grubišić S., Kristić M., Lisjak M., Mišković Špoljarić K., Petrović S., Vila S., Rebekić A. Effect of wheatgrass juice on nutritional quality of apple, carrot, beet, orange and lemon juice. Foods. 2022;11(3):445. doi: 10.3390/foods11030445. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Hooshyar L., Hesari J., Azadmard-Damirchi S. Investigation of selected thermal and non-thermal preservative techniques to produce high quality and safe to drink sour cherry, red grape and pomegranate juices. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2020;57:1689–1697. doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-04202-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Ismail T., Ahmad Z., Sestili P., Hussain M., Akram K., Ismail A., Akhtar S. Camel's milk concentrate inhibits streptozotocin induced diabetes. Food Bioscience. 2018;26:73–79. [Google Scholar]
  19. Jideani A.I., Silungwe H., Takalani T., Omolola A.O., Udeh H.O., Anyasi T.A. Antioxidant-rich natural fruit and vegetable products and human health. International Journal of Food Properties. 2021;24(1):41–67. [Google Scholar]
  20. Joshi J., Gururani P., Vishnoi S., Srivastava A. Whey based beverages: A review. Octa Journal of Biosciences. 2020;8:30–37. [Google Scholar]
  21. Jr L. 19th ed. USA Version; Gaithersburg, MD: 2019. Official methods of analysis (Moisture–Protocol No. 925.10, Crude Ash–Protocol No. 923.03, Fat–Protocol No. 920.85, Fiber - Protocol No. 32–10, and Protein–Protocol No. 920.87) [Google Scholar]
  22. Kanchana N., Veeranan Arun G.V., Vijayalakshmi R. Development and evaluation of whey-based herbal beverages as health drink. The Madras Agricultural Journal. 2021;108 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mabrouk A., Gemiel D. Chemical characterizations of carbonated whey beverages fortified with fruit juice and some herbs extract. Egyptian Journal of Food Science. 2020;48(2):377–388. [Google Scholar]
  24. Mackie D. Ministry of Health; Wellington: 2015. Food and nutrition guidelines for healthy children and young people (aged 2–18 years) pp. 1–236. [Google Scholar]
  25. Merlet M., Flutto T., Pramotton R., Zenato S., Vernetti-Prot L., Valentini S. Formulation, biochemical characterization and shelf-life study of YoAlp® whey based beverage containing local fruits juices. Journal of Natural Products Traditional Medicines. 2024;3:001. [Google Scholar]
  26. Michiu D., Semeniuc C.A., Socaciu M.-I., Fogarasi M., Rotar A.M., Jimborean A.M., Cuibus L. Development of a ready-to-drink (RTD) beverage formulated with whey and beetroot juice. Dairy. 2024;5(3):576–589. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mohamed I.K.R., Magied S.S.A., Abd El-Kader Y., Bakry N.I. 2023. A comparative study the effect of mango (Mangifera India L.) and pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) juices on probiotic yogurt. [Google Scholar]
  28. Mudgal D., Singh S., Singh B. Nutritional composition and value added products of beetroot: A review. Journal of Current Research in Food Science. 2022;3(1):01–09. [Google Scholar]
  29. Naeem M.M. Health benefits of pomegranate (Peel & Juice) and preparation of functional pomegranate drink using probiotic lactobacillus Plantarum. Food Technology Research Journal. 2023;1(2):77–91. [Google Scholar]
  30. Naik B., Kohli D., Walter N., Gupta A.K., Mishra S., Khan J.M.…Kumar V. Whey-carrot based functional beverage: Development and storage study. Journal of King Saud University, Science. 2023;35(6) [Google Scholar]
  31. Nawal Galal K.B., Osman M., Abbas F. Functional low-fat frozen yoghurt with carrot (Dascus carota L.) puree. Ismailia Journal of Dairy Science & Technology. 2019;6(1):19–34. [Google Scholar]
  32. Oliveira G.A., Guimarães J.T., Ramos G.L.P., Esmerino E.A., Pimentel T.C., Neto R.P.…Freitas M.Q. Benefits of thermosonication in orange juice whey drink processing. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2022;75 [Google Scholar]
  33. Pandey A., Mishra A.A., Shukla R., Dubey P.K., Vasant R.K. Development of the process for whey based pineapple beverage. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(6):3212–3228. [Google Scholar]
  34. Poljsak B., Kovač V., Milisav I. Antioxidants, food processing and health. Antioxidants. 2021;10(3):433. doi: 10.3390/antiox10030433. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Prieto-Santiago V., Cavia M.M., Alonso-Torre S.R., Carrillo C. Relationship between color and betalain content in different thermally treated beetroot products. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2020;57:3305–3313. doi: 10.1007/s13197-020-04363-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Purkiewicz A., Pietrzak-Fiećko R. Antioxidant properties of fruit and vegetable whey beverages and fruit and vegetable mousses. Molecules. 2021;26(11):3126. doi: 10.3390/molecules26113126. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Rahaman M.M., Hossain R., Herrera-Bravo J., Islam M.T., Atolani O., Adeyemi O.S.…Calina D. Natural antioxidants from some fruits, seeds, foods, natural products, and associated health benefits: An update. Food Science & Nutrition. 2023;11(4):1657–1670. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.3217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Ramírez-Melo L.M., del Socorro Cruz-Cansino N., Delgado-Olivares L., Ramírez-Moreno E., Zafra-Rojas Q.Y., Hernandez-Traspena J.L., Suarez-Jacobo A. Optimization of antioxidant activity properties of a thermosonicated beetroot (Beta vulgaris L.) juice and further in vitro bioaccessibility comparison with thermal treatments. Lwt. 2022;154 [Google Scholar]
  39. Rios-Corripio G., Guerrero-Beltrán J.Á. Antioxidant and physicochemical characteristics of unfermented and fermented pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) beverages. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2019;56(1):132–139. doi: 10.1007/s13197-018-3466-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Rios-Romero E.A., Ochoa-Martínez L.A., Bello-Pérez L.A., Morales-Castro J., Quintero-Ramos A., Gallegos-Infante J.A. Effect of ultrasound and steam treatments on bioaccessibility of β-carotene and physicochemical parameters in orange-fleshed sweet potato juice. Heliyon. 2021;7(4) doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Rizzolo A., Cortellino G. Beverages based on ricotta cheese whey and fruit juices. Italian Journal of Food Science. 2018;30(2) [Google Scholar]
  42. Rodríguez L.M.N., Arias R., Soteras T., Sancho A., Pesquero N., Rossetti L.…Szerman N. Comparison of the quality attributes of carrot juice pasteurized by ohmic heating and conventional heat treatment. LWT. 2021;145 [Google Scholar]
  43. Salehi M., Ghorbani M., Sadeghi Mahoonk A., Khomeiri M. Physicochemical, antioxidant and sensory properties of yogurt fortified with common purslane (Portulaca oleracea) extract. Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization. 2021;15(5):4288–4296. [Google Scholar]
  44. Sarker P., Begum R., Hasan M., Akter S. Physicochemical, microbiological and sensory properties of carrot juice fortified set-style yoghurt. Food Research. 2022;6(5):215–222. [Google Scholar]
  45. Shahamirian M., Eskandari M.H., Niakousari M., Esteghlal S., Hashemi Gahruie H., Mousavi Khaneghah A. Incorporation of pomegranate rind powder extract and pomegranate juice into frozen burgers: Oxidative stability, sensorial and microbiological characteristics. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2019;56:1174–1183. doi: 10.1007/s13197-019-03580-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Sobota A., Wirkijowska A., Zarzycki P. Application of vegetable concentrates and powders in coloured pasta production. International Journal of Food Science & Technology. 2020;55(6):2677–2687. [Google Scholar]
  47. Srivastava S., Hossain S.A., Bharti B.K., Dixit N.K. Sensory evaluation of beverages by incorporation of aonla and beet root juice in paneer whey. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;7(5):2173–2178. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tanwar T., Wagh R., Mehta N., Malav O., Kour S., Kumar P. Preparation of functional beverage from whey-based mango juice. The Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation. 2022;11(7):4710–4716. [Google Scholar]
  49. Turturică M., Bahrim G.-E. Carrot–Application in food industry and health benefits–review. Innovative Romanian Food Biotechnology. 2021;21:1–21. [Google Scholar]
  50. Umair M., Jabbar S., Senan A.M., Sultana T., Nasiru M.M., Shah A.A.…Jianhao Z. Influence of combined effect of ultra-sonication and high-voltage cold plasma treatment on quality parameters of carrot juice. Foods. 2019;8(11):593. doi: 10.3390/foods8110593. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Vieira A.H., Balthazar C.F., Rocha R.S., Silva R., Guimaraes J.T., Pagani M.M.…Tonon R.V. The free listing task for describing the sensory profiling of dairy foods: A case study with microfiltered goat whey orange juice beverage. Journal of Sensory Studies. 2020;35(5) [Google Scholar]
  52. Wallace T.C., Bailey R.L., Blumberg J.B., Burton-Freeman B., Chen C.O., Crowe-White K.M.…Lewis R. Fruits, vegetables, and health: A comprehensive narrative, umbrella review of the science and recommendations for enhanced public policy to improve intake. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2020;60(13):2174–2211. doi: 10.1080/10408398.2019.1632258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Yikmiş S. Investigation of the effects of non-thermal, combined and thermal treatments on the physicochemical parameters of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) juice. Food Science and Technology Research. 2019;25(3):341–350. [Google Scholar]
  54. Zaman Q.U., Sahar A., Sameen A., Ahmad M.H., Muhammad N., Huma N.…Al-Farga A. Development and storage stability of whey sugarcane based functional beverage. International Journal of Food Properties. 2023;26(1):752–763. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Articles from Food Chemistry: X are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES