Pea dispersion as a basis for the production of fermented products

Introduction. Plant-based products, including fermented products, are becoming increasingly popular. This is due to the fact that an increasing number of people adhere to vegetarianism for ethical, environmental, religious or medical reasons. The goal. The goal of the research was to determine the possibility of using pea dispersion as a basis for the production of fermented products with antioxidant properties. The Methods. The research was conducted in the laboratories of the Faculty of Biotechnology of ITMO University. The fermentation process of pea dispersion with Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. shermani, Streptococcus thermophilus, Bacillus coagulans cultures was studied in terms of acid accumulation dynamics and changes in active acidity, biomass increase, changes in organoleptic properties after fermentation, as well as changes in antioxidant activity after fermentation and during storage. The Results. The fermentation efficiency of pea dispersion varies significantly depending on the culture used. The longest fermentation time of 15 hours was found in Bacillus coagulans strain, the shortest – 7 hours in Streptococcus thermophilus. Most samples showed an increase in biomass during fermentation of pea dispersion, with the highest values in samples fermented by B. bifidum - with an increase of 23.64% to 9.25 lg (CFU / ml) and B. coagulans MTCC 5856 - with an increase of 14.68% to 7.26 lg (CFU / ml). On the first day after fermentation, most samples showed an increase in antioxidant activity, which decreases during the shelf life. Fermentation leads to a significant improvement in the organoleptic properties of the product, improving homogeneity and reducing bitterness. Conclusion. Thus, pea dispersion is a promising basis for the production of both independent fermented products and as a fermented component of desserts, including frozen ones. 

1. Medici E., Craig W.J., Rowland I.A Comprehensive Analysis of the Nutritional Composition of Plant-Based Drinks and Yogurt Alternatives in Europe // Nutrients. 2023. Vol. 15, No.15. P. 3415. DOI: 10.3390/nu15153415.

2. Plant-Based Milk Alternatives: Types, Processes, Benefits, and Characteristics / ReyesJurado F. [et al.] // Food Reviews International. 2021. Vol. 16, No. 39(4). P. 1-32. DOI: 10.1080/87559129.2021.1952421.

3. Catanzaro R., Sciuto M., Marotta F. Lactose intolerance: an update on its pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment // Nutrition Research. 2021. Vol. 89. P. 23-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.nutres.2021.02.003.

4. Lactase deficiency in Russia: multiethnic genetic study / Kovalenko E. [et al.] // European Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2023. Vol. 77, No. 8. P. 803-810. DOI: 10.1038/s41430-023-01294-8.

5. Cow’s milk protein allergy, quality of life and parental style / Korz V. [et al.] // Journal of Human Growth and Development. 2021. Vol. 31, No. 1. P. 28-36. DOI: 10.36311/jhgd.v31.11077.

6. The natural history of IgE-mediated cow’s milk allergy / Skripak J.M. [et al.] Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2007. Vol. 120, No. 5. P. 1172-1177. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.023

7. National prevalence and risk factors for food allergy and relationship to asthma: Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2005-2006 / Liu A.H. [et al.] // Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology. 2010. Vol. 126, No. 4. P. 798-806.e14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jaci.2010.07.026.

8. Senaratne-Lenagala L., Stube A., Brackenridge A. Protein demand: review of plant and animal proteins used in alternative protein product development and production / Ismail B.P. // Animal Frontiers. 2020. Vol. 10, No. 4. P. 53-63. DOI: 10.1093/af/vfaa040.

9. Cheng M., McCarl B., Fei C. Climate Change and Livestock Production: A Literature Review. Atmosphere. 2022. Vol. 13, No. 1. P. 140. DOI: 10.3390/atmos13010140.

10. Park Y.W. The impact of plant-based non-dairy alternative milk on the dairy industry. Food Science of Animal Resources. 2020. Vol. 41, No. 1. DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2020.e82

11. Etter B., Michel F., Siegrist M. Consumers’ Categorizations of Dairy Products and PlantBased Milk, Yogurt, and Cheese Alternatives. Appetite. 2024. Vol. 203, No. 1. P. 107658-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.appet.2024.107658

12. Sethi S., Tyagi S.K., Anurag R.K. Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging segment of functional beverages: a review. Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2016. Vol. 53, No. 9. P. 3408-23. DOI: 10.1007/s13197-016-2328-3

13. Llobell F., Giacalone D., Roigard C.M., Jaeger S.R. Plant-based alternatives vs. dairy milk: Consumer segments and their sensory, emotional, cognitive and situational use responses to tasted products / Cardello A.V. [et al.] // Food Quality and Preference. 2022. Vol. 100. P. 104599. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2022.104599

14. Paderina E.E. Evaluation of the efficiency of plant milk fermentation to reduce antinutritional factors // Environmental problems of the region and ways to resolve them: Proceedings of the XVIII International Scientific and Practical Conference (Omsk, May 16-18, 2024). Omsk: Omsk State Technical University, 2024. P. 119-125. [In Russ.]

15. Dhankhar J.A Perspective on the Pros and Cons, Manufacturing Aspects, and Recent Advances in Nondairy Milk Alternatives. Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology & Food Sciences. 2023. Vol. 12, No. 5. P. 1-11. DOI: 10.55251/jmbfs.9543.

16. Application of legumes in plant-based milk alternatives: a review of limitations and solutions / Xiong X. [et al.] // Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2024. P. 1-17. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2024.2365353.

17. Silva A.R.A., Silva M.M.N., Ribeiro B.D. Health issues and technological aspects of plant-based alternative milk. Food Research International. 2020. Vol. 131. P. 108972. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108972.

18. Aydar E.F., Tutuncu S., Ozcelik B. Plant-based milk substitutes: Bioactive compounds, conventional and novel processes, bioavailability studies, and health effects // Journal of Functional Foods. 2020. Vol. 70. P. 103975. DOI: 10.1016/j.jff.2020.103975.

19. Aydar A.Y., Mataracı C.E., Sağlam T.B. Development and modeling of a novel plantbased yoghurt produced by Jerusalem artichoke and almond milk using l-optimal mixture design // Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization. 2021. Vol. 15, No. 4. P. 3079-87. DOI: 10.1007/s11694-021-00884-z.

20. Agriculture in Russia. 2021: statistical collection / Rosstat. M., 2021. 100 p. [In Russ.]

21. Kumari T., Deka S.C. Potential health benefits of garden pea seeds and pods: A review // Legume Science. 2021. Vol. 3, No. 2. DOI: 10.1002/leg3.82.

22. The Current Situation of Pea Protein and Its Application in the Food Industry / Shanthakumar P. [et al.] // Molecules. 2022. Vol. 27, No. 16. P. 5354. DOI: 10.3390/molecules27165354.

23. A Comprehensive Review of Pea (Pisum sativum L.): Chemical Composition, Processing, Health Benefits, and Food Applications / W u D [et al.] // Foods. 2023. Vol. 12, No. 13. P. 2527-7. DOI: 10.3390/foods12132527.

24. A review on nutritional composition, health benefits and potential applications of byproducts from pea processing / Nasir G. // Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery. 2022. No. 6(14). P. 10829-10842. DOI: 10.1007/s13399-022-03324-0.

25. Ability of (extruded) pea protein products to partially replace pork meat in emulsified cooked sausages / Broucke K. [et al.] // Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies. 2022. Vol. 7. P. 102992. DOI: 10.1016/j.ifset.2022.102992.

26. Boukid F., Rosell C.M., Castellari M. Pea protein ingredients: A mainstream ingredient to (re)formulate innovative foods and beverages. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2021. Vol. 110. P. 729-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2021.02.040.

27. Fermentation of plant-based milk alternatives for improved flavor and nutritional value / Tangyu M. [et al.] // Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2019. Vol. 103(23/24). P. 9263-75. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-019-10175-9.

28. Transformation of technological properties and organoleptic characteristics of plant materials in the production of fermented analogues of dairy products / Galochkina N.A. [et al.] // Technologies of the food and processing industry of the agro-industrial complex - healthy food products. 2023. No. 4. P. 92-99. DOI: 10.24412/2311-6447-2023-4-92-99. [In Russ.]

29. Stobiecka M., Król J., Brodziak A. Antioxidant Activity of Milk and Dairy Products. Animals. 2022. No. 12(3). P. 245. DOI: 10.3390/ani12030245.

30. Fermentation Affects the Antioxidant Activity of Plant-Based Food Material through the Release and Production of Bioactive Components / Zhao Y.S. [et al.] // Antioxidants. 2021. No. 10(12). P. 2004. DOI: 10.3390/antiox10122004.

31. The Impact of Fermentation on the Antioxidant Activity of Food Products / Sümeyye S. [et al.] // Molecules. 2024. Vol. 29, No. 16. P. 3941-1. DOI: 10.3390/molecules29163941.

32. The role of probiotics on animal health and nutrition / Anee I.J. [et al.] // The Journal of Basic and Applied Zoology. 2021. Vol. 82, No. 1. DOI: 10.1186/s41936-021-00250-x.

33. In-Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Probiotic Against Human Multidrug Resistant Pathogens / Saud B. [et al.] // Archives of Veterinary Science and Medicine. 2020. No. 03(01). DOI: 10.26502/avsm.013.

34. Zahrani A.J., Shori A.B. Viability of probiotics and antioxidant activity of soy and almond milk fermented with selected strains of probiotic Lactobacillus.spp. L.W.T. 2023. Vol. 176. P. 114531. DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.114531.

35. Batch Fermentation Model of Propionic Acid Production by Propionibacterium acidipropionici in Different Carbon Sources / Coral J. [et al.] // Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology. 2008. Vol. 151, No. 2/3. P. 333-41. DOI: 10.1007/s12010-008-8196-1.

36. Antioxidant activity of raw milk and dairy products commonly consumed in Fars province, Iran / Jafari M. [et al.] // J Food Safe & Hyg. 2017. No. 3(1/2).

37. Huo C., Yang X., Li L. Non-beany flavor soymilk fermented by lactic acid bacteria: Characterization, stability, antioxidant capacity and in vitro digestion. Food Chemistry X. 2023. No. 17. P. 100578-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.fochx.2023.100578.

38. Yakovchenko N.V., Antsyperova M.A. Prospects for the use of probiotic microorganisms in the production of fermented soybean-based products // Agrarian science. 2024. No. 3. P. 149-156. DOI: 10.32634/0869-8155-2024-380-3-149-156. [In Russ.]

39. Prospects for the use of probiotic microorganisms in the production of fermented buckwheat-based products / Gelazov R.Kh. [et al.] // Agrarian science. 2024. No. 4. P. 138-145. DOI: 10.32634/0869-8155-2024-381-4-138-145. [In Russ.]

40. Developments in the isolation, composition, and physicochemical properties of legume starches / Ashogbon A.O. [et al.] // Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2020. P. 1-22. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2020.1791048.

41. Egorova E.Yu. «Non-dairy milk»: a review of raw materials and technologies // Polzunovsky Vestnik. 2018. No. 3. P. 25-34. [In Russ.]

42. Comparative study on the chemical composition, anthocyanins, tocopherols and carotenoids of selected legumes / Kan L. [et al.] // Food Chemistry. 2018. Vol. 260. P. 317-26. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2018.03.148.

43. Impact of molecular structure on the physicochemical properties of starches isolated from different field pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars grown in Saskatchewan, Canada / Raghunathan R [et al.] // Food Chemistry. 2017. Vol. 221. P. 1514-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.10.142.