Non-dairy plant-based milk products as alternatives to conventional dairy products for delivering probiotics

SHORI, Amal Bakr; AL ZAHRANI, Ashwag Jaman

doi:10.1590/fst.101321

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Food Science and Technology

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Review Article • Food Sci. Technol 42 • 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/fst.101321 copy

Non-dairy plant-based milk products as alternatives to conventional dairy products for delivering probiotics

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Dairy products are important to the human diet and are one of the four essential food groups. Conventional fermented cow milk products possessed a variation of bioactive components that enhance the human body's physiological processes. However, traditional milk products can be replaced by non-dairy plant-based milk which is produced mainly from fruits and seeds such as soy, coconut, almond, rice, peanut, lupin, cashew, and hemp. Fermented plant-based milk is the outcome of intense bacterial activity of the starter cultures, leading to the production of lactic acid and biologically active compounds that adding nutritional and physiological value. In addition, the growth and viability of probiotics in plant-based milk are depended on several factors such as milk composition, fermentation process, type of probiotics, storage time and temperature, acidity, and packages. Therefore, this review focuses on the growth and viability of probiotics in fermented plant-based milk products during fermentation and refrigerated storage.

Keywords:
viability; probiotics; plant-based milk; fermentation; soy milk; coconut milk

Type of products	Probiotic bacteria	PH	Titratable acidity (TA)	VCC (Log cfu/mL)	Temperature	Time	P- value	References
Fermented soy milk (control)	Lactobacillus casei PLA5	6.79 - 4.13 4.1 – 3.81	0.01 - 0.09% -	4.21 - 9.42 8.11 - 7.6
	Lactobacillus casei PLA5	6.79 - 4.13 4.1 – 3.81	0.01 - 0.09% -	4.21 - 9.42 8.11 - 7.6	30 °C 4 °C	0 - 48 h 4 - 14 d
	Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota	6.80 - 4.64 4.6 – 4.12	0.01 - 0.07% -	4.13 - 9.19 7.83 - 7.2			p < 0.05	(Kumari et al., 2018Kumari, A., Angmo, K., Monika, S., & Bhalla, T. (2018). Functional and technological application of probiotic L. casei PLA5 in fermented soymilk. International Food Research Journal, 25(5), 2164-2172.)
Fermented soymilk with maltodextrin		6.75 - 4.23	0.01 - 0.12%	5.15 - 10.25
Fermented soymilk with fructooligosaccharides	Lactobacillus casei PLA5	6.71 - 4.32	0.01 - 0.09%	4.91 – 10.1	30 °C	24 h
Fermented soymilk + Fructooligosaccharides	Lactobacillus acidophilus	4.48 - 4.1	N. D	13.56 - 11.63
	Lactobacillus plantarum	4.49 - 4.09		13.64 - 12.08
	Lactobacillus rhamnosus	4.52 - 4.1		13.8 - 9.51
	Mixed culture Lactobacillus acidophilus and	4.42 - 4.0		13.21 - 11.53
	Lactobacillus plantarum	4.42 - 4.0		13.45 - 11.84	4 °C	1 - 28 d	P < 0.05	(Mishra & Mishra, 2013Mishra, S., & Mishra, H. (2013). Effect of synbiotic interaction of fructooligosaccharide and probiotics on the acidification profile, textural and rheological characteristics of fermented soy milk. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 6(11), 3166-3176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11947-012-1021-4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11947-012-102... )
	Mixed culture Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus rhamnosus	4.41 - 3.9		13.41 - 11.34
		4.41 - 3.9		13.08 - 10.01
	Mixed culture Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus rhamnosus	4.4 - 4.2		13.34 - 11.02
		4.4 - 4.2		12.89 - 10.14
	Mixed culture Lactobacillus acidophilus Lactobacillus plantarum and Lactobacillus rhamnosus	4.4 - 4.0		13.15 - 11.43
				13.31 - 11.12
				12.89 - 10.21
	Yogurt culture Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus bulgaricus	4.51 - 4.23		12.74 - 10.76
		4.51 - 4.23		12.69 - 11.23
Fermented soymilk drinks without any additives (control)		5.11 - 4.77	0.43 - 0.77%	6.32 - 5.41 6.01 - 4.68 6.44 - 5.13 6.02 - 5.01


Fermented soymilk drinks and 4% sucrose without the fruit pulp	Streptococcus salivarius spp. Thermophilus	4.92 - 4.63	0.53 - 0.93%	7.56 - 6.58 7.34 - 5.89 7.34 - 6.14 6.61 - 5.72
Fermented soymilk drinks with banana and 4% sucrose	Lactobacillus delbrueckii spp. Bulgaricus	4.81 - 4.33	0.8 - 1.24%	8.23 - 7.88 8.02 - 7.1 8.12 - 7.58 8.14 - 7.62
Fermented soymilk drinks with guava pulp and 4% sucrose	Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-5	4.82 - 4.41	0.75 - 1.15%	8.16 - 7.71 8.02 - 6.86 8.15 - 7.36 8.11 - 7.51	5 °C	Fresh - 21 d	p ≤ 0.05	(Ismaiel et al., 2018Ismaiel, M., El-Wahed, A., Khalifa, S., Baky, A., & Ashor, M. (2018). Growth and survival of probiotic bacteria in fermented flavoured soy milk drinks during storage. Zagazig Journal of Agricultural Research, 45(1), 281-292. http://dx.doi.org/10.21608/zjar.2018.49850. http://dx.doi.org/10.21608/zjar.2018.498... )
Fermented soymilk drinks with mango pulp and 4% sucrose	Bifidobacterium BB-12	4.84 - 4.46	0.72 - 1.05%	8.04 - 7.46 7.93 - 6.57 8.02 - 7.23 8.07 - 7.32
Soymilk (Control) Soymilk with okara	Lactobacillus plantarum 70810	6.5 - 4.5 6.5 - 4.2	N. D	8.1 - 9.2 8.02 - 9.3	37 °C	0 - 8 h	p < 0.05	(Xiudong et al., 2016Xiudong, X., Ying, W., Xiaoli, L., Ying, L., & Jianzhong, Z. (2016). Soymilk residue (okara) as a natural immobilization carrier for Lactobacillus plantarum cells enhances soymilk fermentation, glucosidic isoflavone bioconversion, and cell survival under simulated gastric and intestinal conditions. PeerJ, 4, e2701. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2701. PMid:27867770. http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2701... )
Soymilk kefir-based functional beverage with peach-flavor	Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophiles	4.5 - 4.3	N. D	7.3 - 7.0	5 °C	0 – 28 d
Soymilk kefir-based functional beverages with soymilk kefir	Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophiles	4.5 - 4.6	0.5 - 0.6%	7.5 - 8.2	37 °C	16 h	P < 0.05	(Silva et al., 2018Silva, C. F. G. D., Santos, F. L., Santana, L. R. R. D., Silva, M. V. L., & Conceicao, T. D. A. (2018). Development and characterization of a soymilk Kefir-based functional beverage. Food Science and Technology, 38(3), 543-550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-457x.10617. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1678-457x.1061... )
Fermented soymilk without kefir grains		6.70	-	N.D
Fermented soymilk without kefir grains		6.64	-	N.D
Fermented soymilk with kefir grains		6.18	-	5.83	15 °C 20 °C	24 h	P < 0.05	(Lim et al., 2019Lim, X., Koh, W., Uthumporn, U., Maizura, M. & Rosli, W. I. W. (2019). The development of legume-based yogurt by using water kefir as starter culture. International Food Research Journal, 26(4), 1219-1228.)
Fermented soymilk with kefir grains	Lactobacilli	5.97	-	5.88
Fermented black bean milk without kefir grains		6.79	-	N.D
Fermented black bean milk without kefir grains		5.77	-	N.D
Fermented black bean milk with kefir grains		6.15	-	5.00
Fermented black bean milk with kefir grains		5.68	-	5.91
Chocolate mousse using soy milk		6.90 - 5.35 6.04 - 5.05 6.92 - 5.74	0.13 - 0.24% 0.18 - 0.35% 0.10 - 0.23%	7.54 - 9.34 8.02 - 9.47 7.00 - 9.17
Chocolate mousse using soy milk	Lactobacillus acidophilus Lactobacillus parabases Bifidobacterium lactis	6.90 - 5.35 6.04 - 5.05 6.92 - 5.74	0.13 - 0.24% 0.18 - 0.35% 0.10 - 0.23%	7.54 - 9.34 8.02 - 9.47 7.00 - 9.17
Chocolate mousse using milk and soy milk		6.94 - 4.48 6.67 - 3.98 6.85 - 5.07	0.07 - 0.89% 0.13 - 1.27% 0.08 - 0.43%	7.17 - 9.36 8.10 - 9.62 7.62 - 8.69	4 °C	1 - 21 d	p ≤ 0.05	(Taghizadeh et al., 2018Taghizadeh, G., Jahadi, M., & Abbasi, H. (2018). Physicochemical properties of probiotic soy milk chocolate mousse during refrigerated storage. Applied Food Biotechnology, 5(2), 79-86.)
		5.51 5.50 5.49 5.50	0.27% 0.27% 0.36% 0.27%	7.78 - 6.75 7.55 - 5.26 7.84 - 5.38 8.20 - 6.26
Frozen fermented desserts 100% soymilk 75% soymilk + 25% bovine milk 50% soymilk + 50% bovine milk 25% soymilk + 75% bovine milk	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La-05)
					-20 °C	After 90 days	P < 0.05	(Aboulfazli et al., 2016aAboulfazli, F., Baba, A. S., & Misran, M. (2016a). Replacement of bovine milk with vegetable milk: effects on the survival of probiotics and rheological and physicochemical properties of frozen fermented dessert. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 69(1), 71-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0307.12219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0307.1221... )
		5.51 5.50 5.49 5.50	0.27% 0.27% 0.27% 0.27%	8.21 - 7.76 8.19 - 7.43 8.46 - 7.63 8.04 - 7.16
	Bifidobacterium bifidum (Bb-12)	5.51 5.50 5.49 5.50	0.27% 0.27% 0.27% 0.27%	8.21 - 7.76 8.19 - 7.43 8.46 - 7.63 8.04 - 7.16
Fermented soymilk	LAB strain Lactobacillus fermentum BM-325	6.5 - 3.9	N. D	6.2 - 12.6	37 ºC	20 h	p < 0.05	(Myagmardorj et al., 2018Myagmardorj, B., Purev, M., & Batdorj, B. (2018). Functional properties of fermented soymilk by Lactobacillus fermentum BM-325. Mongolian Journal of Chemistry, 19(45), 32-37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5564/mjc.v19i45.1087. http://dx.doi.org/10.5564/mjc.v19i45.108... )
Fermented soymilk	Lactobacillus bulgaricus	7.18 - 4.87	N.D. - 1.57%	N.D. - 8.29
	Lactobacillus plantarum	7.18 - 4.73	N.D. - 1.64%	N.D. - 8.33	37 °C	0 - 12 h	P < 0.05	(Yi et al., 2020Yi, R., Tan, F., & Zhao, X. (2020). Physicochemical and functional properties of lactobacillus fermented soybean milk. E3S Web of Conferences, 145, 01034.)
	Mixed Lactobacillus bulgaricus	7.18 - 4.70	N.D. - 1.79%	N.D. - 8.36
	and Lactobacillus plantarum
	Streptococcus thermophilus MD2 Lactobacillus helveticus V3 Lactobacillus rhamnosus NS6 Lactobacillus rhamnosus NS4 Lactobacillus bulgaricus NCDC 09 Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC 15 Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC 298 Lactobacillus helveticus NCDC 292	6.4 - 4.43	0.17 - 0.34%	7.40 - 9.1
		6.8 - 4.8	0.13 - 0.47%	6.7 - 9.25
		6.9 - 4.5	0.09 - 0.35%	7 - 8.8	37 °C	0 - 24 h	P < 0.05	(Hati et al., 2018Hati, S., Patel, N., & Mandal, S. (2018). Comparative growth behaviour and biofunctionality of lactic acid bacteria during fermentation of soy milk and bovine milk. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins, 10(2), 277-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9279-5 PMid:28455690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-927... )
Fermented soymilk		6.7 - 4.43	0.1 - 0.33%	7.1 - 8.9
		6.93 - 4.6	0.12 - 0.36%	7.2 - 8.8
		6.93 - 5.2	0.16 - 0.33%	6.25 - 7.70
		6.8 - 5	0.09 - 0.33%	7.1 - 8.5
		6.93 - 4.9	0.1 - 0.28%	6.4 - 9.1





Fermented soymilk by solid-state		5.31 - 5.27	N. D	6.77
	Pediococcus pentosaceus KTU05-9	5.57 - 5.34		8.34	35 °C 32 °C 30 °C	0 - 24 h	p ≤ 0.05	(Slapkauskaite et al., 2019Slapkauskaite, J., Kabasinskiene, A., & Sekmokiene, D. (2019). Application of fermented soya as a bacterial starter for production of fermented milk. Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 37(6), 403-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.17221/194/2018-CJFS. http://dx.doi.org/10.17221/194/2018-CJFS... )
	Pediococcus acidilactici KTU05-7	5.09 - 4.93		8.34
Fermented soymilk by submerged state	Lactobacillus sakei KTU05-6	6.19 - 5.10	N. D	7.04
		5.78 - 5.28		9.41
		5.94 - 4.62		9.3
	Streptococcus thermophilus Lactobacillus acidophilus Bifidobacterium sp.			8.94 - 7.9 7.3 - 4.1 7.53 - 6.5	N. M.	0 - 28 d	N. M.	(Niamah et al., 2017Niamah, A. K., Sahi, A. A., & Al-Sharifi, A. S. (2017). Chemical and microbial composition of fermented soy milk by probiotic starter. In 1st Scientific Conference of Agricultural Sciences. Iraq: Thi Qar University/Sumer University.)
Fermented soymilk		4.95 - 4.6	0.61 - 0.81%	8.94 - 7.9 7.3 - 4.1 7.53 - 6.5	N. M.	0 - 28 d	N. M.
Fermented soymilk	Bifidobacterium longum	5.72 - 4.47	0.17 - 0.51%	5.5 - 13.9	28 ± 2 °C 4 ± 1 °C	0 - 3 w	P < 0.05	(Ebhodaghe et al., 2012Ebhodaghe, S., Abiose, S., & Adeniran, H. (2012). Assessment of physico-chemical characteristics, viability and inhibitory effect of Bifidobacteria in soymilk. Journal of Food Research, 1(2), 159-170. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jfr.v1n2p159. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jfr.v1n2p159... )
Fermented soymilk	Bifidobacterium longum	5.72 - 5.64	0.17 - 0.21%	5.5 - 10.0	28 ± 2 °C 4 ± 1 °C	0 - 3 w	P < 0.05
Fermented soymilk	Bifidobacterium. bifidum	1.21	17.5 mmol H+ kg	7.08
Fermented soymilk	Bifidobacterium. animalis subsp. lactis	1.52	22.8 mmol H+ kg	7.08				(Horáčková et al., 2015Horáčková, Š., Mühlhansová, A., Sluková, M., Schulzová, V., & Plocková, M. (2015). Fermentation of soymilk by yoghurt and bifidobacteria strains. Czech Journal of Food Sciences, 33(4), 313-319. http://dx.doi.org/10.17221/115/2015-CJFS. http://dx.doi.org/10.17221/115/2015-CJFS... )
Fermented soymilk by yogurt culture	Streptococcus thermophilus	2.20	39.0 mmol H+ kg	8.08	37 °C	16 h
Fermented soymilk by yogurt culture	Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus	2.20	39.0 mmol H+ kg	6.46
Fermented soymilk	Streptococcus thermophilus		46.3 mmol H+ kg	8.15
	Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus	2.27		6.73
	Bifidobacterium. bifidum			7.00
Fermented soymilk	Streptococcus thermophilus		46.8 mmol H+ kg	8.15
	Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus	2.25		6.38
	Bifidobacterium. animalis subsp. lactis			8.11
Soymilk yogurt inoculated with a concentrations of		4.47 - 4.11 4.41 - 4.07 4.42 - 3.98 4.54 - 3.91		8.49 - 7.93 7.72 - 7.23 7.74 - 7.59 7.78 - 7.92
2×10⁶ cfu/mL	Lactobacillus helveticus isolate H9		N. D		4 °C	0 - 28 d	p < 0.05	(Wang et al., 2015Wang, J., Li, C., Xue, J., Yang, J., Zhang, Q., Zhang, H., & Chen, Y. (2015). Fermentation characteristics and angiotensin I-converting enzyme–inhibitory activity of Lactobacillus helveticus isolate H9 in cow milk, soy milk, and mare milk. Journal of Dairy Science, 98(6), 3655-3664. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9336. PMid:25892687. http://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2015-9336... )
5 ×10⁶ cfu/mL
1 ×10⁷ cfu/mL
2 ×10⁷ cfu/mL
	Lactobacillus acidophilus			5.4 - 7.1
Soymilk yogurt	Lactobacillus acidophilus		1.31 - 1.32%	5.4 - 7.1	10 °C	0 - 1 w	p < 0.05	(Joel et al., 2019Joel, N., Samaila, J., & Blessing, O. (2019). Development and comparative evaluation of storage changes in probiotic soy-yoghurt. Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Food Sciences, 9(2), 298-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.15414/jmbfs.2019.9.2.298-301. http://dx.doi.org/10.15414/jmbfs.2019.9.... )
	Bifidobacterium lactis	N. D		5.1 - 6.3
Fermented white rose flavored with soy yoghurt	Mixed Lactobacillus rhamnosus K4E (KX950834) and
	Lactobacillus helveticus K14 (KU644578)	5.65 - 4.20	0.33 - 0.51%	6.81 - 8.69	6 - 8 °C	1 - 10 d	p < 0.05	(Mishra et al., 2019Mishra, B. K., Hati, S., Das, S., & Prajapati, J. B. (2019). Biofunctional attributes and storage study of soy milk fermented by Lactobacillus rhamnosus and Lactobacillus helveticus. Food Technology and Biotechnology, 57(3), 399-407. http://dx.doi.org/10.17113/ftb.57.03.19.6103. PMid:31866753. http://dx.doi.org/10.17113/ftb.57.03.19.... )

Yogurt 75% cow’s milk + 25% soymilk		4.49	0.67%			Until pH reached a value of 4.6
Yogurt 50% cow’s milk + 50% soymilk		4.47	0.58%	N. D	43 °C			(Šertović et al., 2020Šertović, E., Sarić, Z., Božanić, R., Barać, M., Barukčić, I., & Kostić, A. (2020). Fermentation of cow’s milk and soy milk mixture with L. acidophilus probiotic bacteria with yoghurt culture. Scientific-Experts Conference of Agriculture and Food Industry, 78, 251-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40049-1_32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-4004... )
Yogurt 25% cow’s milk + 75% soymilk Yogurt 100% soymilk		4.57	0.53%				P < 0.05
		4.59	0.47%
	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La5)	4.62 - 4.3	0.81 - 0.89%	7.64 - 6.53
		4.7 - 4.3	0.55 - 0.82%	8.41 - 7.11	4 °C	0 -21 d
		4.65 - 4.39	0.41 - 0.7%	8.03 - N.D
		4.63 - 4.51	0.43 - 0.54%	7.97 - 8.49
Soymilk ice cream	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La - 05) Bifidobacterium bifidum (Bb-12)	7.14 7.15	0.072% 0.072%	7.857 - 7.847 7.858 - 7.767	-20 °C	after 30 days	P < 0.05	(Aboulfazli et al., 2014Aboulfazli, F., Baba, A., & Misran, M. (2014). Effects of vegetable milk on survival of probiotics and rheological and physicochemical properties of bio-ice cream. In International Conference on Biological and Medical Sciences (15-16). Bali: ICBMS.)
Fermented ice cream 100% soy milk Fermented ice cream 75% soymilk 25%cow milk Fermented ice cream 50% soy milk 50% cow milk Fermented ice cream 25% soymilk 75%cow milk	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La-05)	5.51 5.50 5.49 5.50	0.27% 0.27% 0.36% 0.27%	8.40 8.33 8.04 8.13
	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La-05)	5.51 5.50 5.49 5.50	0.27% 0.27% 0.36% 0.27%	8.40 8.33 8.04 8.13		until pH reduced to 5.5
	Bifidobacterium bifidum (Bb-12)	5.51 5.50 5.49 5.50	0.27% 0.27% 0.27% 0.27%	8.76 8.32 8.19 8.05	42 °C		P < 0.05	(Aboulfazli et al., 2016bAboulfazli, F., Shori, A. B., & Baba, A. S. (2016b). Effects of the replacement of cow milk with vegetable milk on probiotics and nutritional profile of fermented ice cream. LWT, 70, 261-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.02.056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.02.... )
Fermented ice cream with 100% soy milk Fermented ice cream with 75% Soy‏ 25% cow milk Fermented ice cream with 50% Soy ‏ 50% cow milk Fermented ice cream with 25% Soy ‏ 75% cow milk	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La-05)	-	-	70% 68% 66% 63%
	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La-05)	-	-	70% 68% 66% 63%
	Bifidobacterium bifidum (Bb-12)	-	-	85% 78% 70% 65%	-20 °C	after 90 days	p < 0.05	(Aboulfazli et al., 2015Aboulfazli, F., Baba, A. S., & Misran, M. (2015). The rheology and physical properties of fermented probiotic ice creams made with dairy alternatives. International Journal of Food Engineering, 11(4), 493-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijfe-2014-0343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijfe-2014-0343... )
Fermented soymilk ice cream	Lactobacillus casei ssp. casei CRL-431	5.81	N. D	6.49 - 6	-24C	180 d	p < 0.05	(Homayouni & Norouzi, 2016Homayouni, A., & Norouzi, S. (2016). Evaluation of physicochemical traits, sensory properties and survival of lactobacillus casei in fermented soy‐based ice cream. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 40(4), 681-687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.12648. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.12648... )

Type of products	Probiotic bacteria	PH	Titratable acidity (TA)	VCC (Log cfu/mL)	Temperature	Time	P- value	References
Coconut milk yogurt (CY) with raisin puree	Mixed culture	4.33		6.04
CY 0%	Lactobacillus acidophilus Lactobacillus salivarius Bifidobacterium bifidum and Streptococcus thermophiles		N. D	6.11
CY17%		4.24		6.23	4 °C	15 h	P < 0.05	(Amirah et al., 2020Amirah, A., Syazwani, S., Radhiah, S., Shobirin, M., Nor-Khaizura, M. A. R., Zunairah, W. I. W., & Shazini, R. N. (2020). Influence of raisins puree on the physicochemical properties, resistant starch, probiotic viability and sensory attributes of coconut milk yogurt. Food Research, 4(1), 77-84.)
CY 23%				6.38
CY 29%		4.19

		4.20
Fermented coconut milk drink	Lactobacillus acidophilus	6.1 - 4	0.1 - 0.6%	4.32 - 9.89	37 °C	0 - 20 h	P < 0.05
Fermented coconut milk drink	Lactobacillus acidophilus	3.79 - 3.58	0.524 - 0.742%	8.347 - 10.201	5 °C.	0 - 16 d	P < 0.05	(Yuliana and Rangga, 2010Yuliana, N., & Rangga, A. (2010). Manufacture of fermented coco milk-drink containing lactic acid bacteria cultures. African Journal of Food Science, 4(9), 558-562.)
Coconut milk	Lactobacillus casei subsp. rhamnosus	6.12 - 5.66		11.72 - 13.26	37 °C	6 h	p ≤ 0.05
Coconut milk	Lactobacillus casei subsp. rhamnosus	5.61 - 4.81	N. D	13.26 - 9.41	4 °C	1 - 21 d	p < 0.05	(Szparaga et al., 2019Szparaga, A., Tabor, S., Kocira, S., Czerwińska, E., Kuboń, M., Płóciennik, B., & Findura, P. (2019). Survivability of probiotic bacteria in model systems of non-fermented and fermented coconut and hemp milks. Sustainability, 11(21), 6093. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11216093. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11216093... )
Cow milk +10% - 50% coconut milk		4.1 - 3.8	0.9 - 1%	9.07 - 9.30	30 °C	14 h
100% Coconut milk	Lactococcus lactis MTCC 3041	4.6	1.1%	9.20	30 °C	14 h	p < 0.05
Coconut milk with cow milk supplemented	Lactobacillus lactis MTCC 3041 and Lactobacillus plantarum MTCC 5422	6.2 - 4.8	0.9 - 1.2%	10 - 9.11				(Sridhar et al., 2015Sridhar, R., Roopa, B., Varadaraj, M., & Vijayendra, S. (2015). Optimization of a novel coconut milk supplemented dahi-a fermented milk product of Indian subcontinent. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 52(11), 7486-7492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-1825-0. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-015-182... )
Dahi (curd)		6.2 - 4.8	0.9 - 1.2%	10 - 9.11	37 °C	0 - 16 h	p < 0.05
	Lactobacillus lactis MTCC 3041 and Leuconostoc sp. MTCC 10508	6.3 - 4.6	0.5 - 1.3%	10 - 9.61
		6.36 - 4.28	0.14 – 0.33 g/100 mL	6.21 - 8.2	37 °C	0 - 48 h	p < 0.05
Coconut milk beverage	Lactobacillus reuteri LR 92	6.45 - 3.32	0.15 – 0.32 g/100 mL	6.24 - 9.3	34 °C	0 - 48 h		(Mauro & Garcia, 2019Mauro, C. S. I., & Garcia, S. (2019). Coconut milk beverage fermented by Lactobacillus reuteri: optimization process and stability during refrigerated storage. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 56(2), 854-864. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-018-3545-8. PMid:30906043. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13197-018-354... )
	Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938	4.59 - 4.33	0.13 - 0.16 g/100 mL	8.04 - 7.55	4 °C	0 - 30 d
		4.53 - 3.60	0.15 - 0.46 g/100 mL	8.64 - 8.57	4 °C	0 - 30 d
		5.50	0.27%	8.07 - 7.3
Frozen fermented dessert	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La-05)	5.50	0.27%	7.61 - 6.74
		5.51	0.27%	8.02 - 6.32	-20 °C	after 90 days	P < 0.05	(Aboulfazli et al., 2016aAboulfazli, F., Baba, A. S., & Misran, M. (2016a). Replacement of bovine milk with vegetable milk: effects on the survival of probiotics and rheological and physicochemical properties of frozen fermented dessert. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 69(1), 71-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0307.12219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1471-0307.1221... )
100% coconut milk		5.50	0.27%	8.42 - 6.87
75% Soymilk + 25% Coconut milk
50% Soymilk + 50% Coconut milk
25% Soymilk + 75% Coconut milk		5.50	0.27%	8.42 - 7.91
		5.52	0.27%	8.51 - 7.82
	Bifidobacterium bifidum (Bb-12)	5.50	0.27%	8.56 - 7.94
		5.51	0.27%	8.59 - 8.04
Fermented ice cream with 100% coconut milk	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La-05)	5.50	0.27%	8.30
Fermented ice cream with 75% soy milk ‏and 25% coconut milk		5.50	0.27%	8.76
Fermented ice cream with 50% soymilk and 50% coconut milk		5.51	0.27%	8.18
Fermented ice cream with 25% soy milk and 75% coconut milk		5.5	0.27%	7.73	42 °C	until pH reduced to 5.5	p < 0.05
								(Aboulfazli et al., 2016bAboulfazli, F., Shori, A. B., & Baba, A. S. (2016b). Effects of the replacement of cow milk with vegetable milk on probiotics and nutritional profile of fermented ice cream. LWT, 70, 261-270. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.02.056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.02.... )


	Bifidobacterium bifidum (Bb-12)	5.50	0.27%	8.70
		5.52	0.27%	8.57
		5.50	0.27%	8.57
		5.51	0.27%	8.59
Fermented ice cream with 100% coconut milk	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La-05)	N. D	N. D	64%
Fermented ice cream with 75% soy milk ‏and 25% coconut milk				69%
Fermented ice cream with 50% soymilk and 50% coconut milk				67%
Fermented ice cream with 25% soy milk and 75% coconut milk				64%	-20 °C	after 90 days	p < 0.05	(Aboulfazli et al., 2015Aboulfazli, F., Baba, A. S., & Misran, M. (2015). The rheology and physical properties of fermented probiotic ice creams made with dairy alternatives. International Journal of Food Engineering, 11(4), 493-504. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijfe-2014-0343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijfe-2014-0343... )
	Bifidobacterium bifidum (Bb-12)	N. D	N. D	86%
				89%
				82%
				81%
Coconut milk ice cream	Lactobacillus acidophilus (La - 05)	6.71	0.117%	7.121 - 6.870
Coconut milk ice cream	Bifidobacterium bifidum (Bb-12)	6.72	0.126%	7.745 - 7.371	-20 °C	after 30 days	p < 0.05	(Aboulfazli et al., 2014Aboulfazli, F., Baba, A., & Misran, M. (2014). Effects of vegetable milk on survival of probiotics and rheological and physicochemical properties of bio-ice cream. In International Conference on Biological and Medical Sciences (15-16). Bali: ICBMS.)

Type of products	Probiotic bacteria	PH	Titratable acidity (TA)	VCC (Log cfu/ml)	Temperature	Time	P- value	References
Fermented almond milk	Lactic acid bacteria strain (F3)	7 - 5.6	N. D	6.2 - 8.97
	Lactic acid bacteria strain (M47)	7 - 4.7		6 - 9.12	37 °C	0 - 24 h	N. D	(Wansutha et al., 2018Wansutha, S., Yuenyaow, L., Jantama, K., & Jantama, S. S. (2018). Antioxidant activities of almond milk fermented with lactic acid bacteria. Thaiphesatchasan, 42, 115-119.)
	Lactic acid bacteria strain (A62)	7 - 4.7		6.1 - 8.97
Almond milk yogurt	Lactobacillus reuteri	4.657 - 4.650	N. D	7.9 - 7.3	4 °C	0 - 28 d	P < 0.0
Almond milk yogurt	Streptococcus thermophilus	4.657 - 4.650	N. D	7.9 - 6.6	4 °C	0 - 28 d	P < 0.0	(Bernat et al., 2015Bernat, N., Cháfer, M., Chiralt, A., & González-Martínez, C. (2015). Probiotic fermented almond “milk” as an alternative to cow-milk yoghurt. International Journal of Food Studies, 4(2), 201-211. http://dx.doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/4.2.2015.a8. http://dx.doi.org/10.7455/ijfs/4.2.2015.... )
				9.66 - 9.24
Rice milk in glass bottles	Lactobacillus casei			9.75 - 9.12	4 °C	0 - 21 d	N. D.
	Bifidobacterium longum	↑ 4	↓1	8.77 - 8.12				(Padma et al., 2019Padma, E. M., Rao, P. J., Edukondalu, L., Aparna, K., & Babu, G. R. (2019). Storage studies of probiotic rice milk during refrigerated conditions. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 7(6), 1114-1117.)
	Lactobacillus bulgaricus			7.71 - 4.23 9.77 - 7.3
	Streptococcus thermophilus			9.66 - 8.01
Rice milk in HDPE bottles	Lactobacillus acidophilus			9.75 - 7.54
				8.77 - 7.01
				7.71 - 8.45
				9.77 - 6.5
				9.66 - 6.78
Rice milk in LDPE bottles				9.75 - 6.5
				8.77 - 6.53
				7.71 - 9.02
				9.77 - 6.3
Peanut milk	Bifidobacterium pseudoatenulatum G4	6.51 - 4.97	0 – 5.275 mmol/ml	4.74 - 7.12	37 °C	0 - 24 h	-
Peanut milk+ fructooligosaccharides		6.53 - 4.80	0 – 7.765 mmol/ml	4.97 - 8.31				(Kabier et al., 2014Kabier, B. M., Yazid, A. M., & Mustafa, S. (2014). Growth of Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum G4 and changes in organic acid profile in peanut milk and skim milk supplemented with fructooligosaccharides. Sudan Journal of Science and Technology, 15(2), 12-21.)
Peanut milk + fructooligosaccharides + yeast extract		6.44 - 4.64	0 – 6.377 mmol/ml	4.66 - 8.04

Peanut milk	Bifidobacterium longum BB536	6.24 - 5.83	0.25 - 0.29%	8.83 - 6.75
85% Peanut milk and 15% millet thin porridge.		6.20 - 5.89	0.26 - 0.28%	7.94 - 6.51
70% Peanut milk and 15% millet thin porridge.		6.17 - 5.98	0.24 - 0.28%	7.60 - 5.90	4 °C	0 -1 week	p < 0.05	(Ibraheem et al., 2015Ibraheem, S. E., Kabeir, B. M., & Mohammed, L. H. (2015). Survival of Bifidobacterium longum BB536 and physicochemical changes during refrigeration storage of fermented roasted peanuts milk partially substituted with millet thin porridge. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 4(9), 380-389.)
55% Peanut milk and 15% millet thin porridge.		6.11 - 5.87	0.24 - 0.36%	7.63 - 4.79
Ice creams made using lupine milk	Lactobacillus acidophilus	7.11	0.72%	8.87 - 7.25	-20 °C	0 - 30 d	P < 0.01
Ice creams made using lupine milk	Bifidobacterium bifidum	7.15	0.70%	8.59 - 7.27				(Elsamani, 2016Elsamani, M. O. (2016). Probiotics, organoleptic and physicochemical properties of vegetable milk based bio-ice cream supplemented with skimmed milk powder. International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences, 5(5), 361-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnfs.20160505.17. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijnfs.20160... )
Ice creams made using peanut milk	Lactobacillus acidophilus	6.71	0.12%	9.58 - 7.53
Ice creams made using peanut milk	Bifidobacterium bifidum	6.74	0.11%	9.87 - 7.65
Hemp milk	Lactobacillus casei subsp. rhamnosus	6.79 - 6.39	N. D	8.41 - 10.92	37 °C	6 h	p ≤ 0.05	(Szparaga et al., 2019Szparaga, A., Tabor, S., Kocira, S., Czerwińska, E., Kuboń, M., Płóciennik, B., & Findura, P. (2019). Survivability of probiotic bacteria in model systems of non-fermented and fermented coconut and hemp milks. Sustainability, 11(21), 6093. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11216093. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11216093... )
Hemp milk	Lactobacillus casei subsp. rhamnosus	6.47 - 5.78	N. D	10.92 - 7.35	4 °C	1 - 21 d	p < 0.05
	Bifidobacterium animalis BB-12			8.72 - 8.49
Cashew nut milk		6.45 - 5.65	N. D	8.17 - 8.89	4 °C	0 - 30 d	P < 0.05	(Bruno et al., 2019Bruno, L. M., Lima, J. R., Wurlitzer, N. J., & Rodrigues, T. C. (2019). Non-dairy cashew nut milk as a matrix to deliver probiotic bacteria. Food Science and Technology, 40(3), 604-607. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/fst.14219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/fst.14219... )
	Lactobacillus acidophilus (Howaru® Dophilus)			8.17 - 8.89
				8.04 - 8.38
	Lactobacillus plantarum Lyofast SP-1			8.04 - 8.38

Sociedade Brasileira de Ciência e Tecnologia de Alimentos Av. Brasil, 2880, Caixa Postal 271, 13001-970 Campinas SP - Brazil, Tel.: +55 19 3241.5793, Tel./Fax.: +55 19 3241.0527 - Campinas - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@sbcta.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author: ashouri@kau.edu.sa