4.7 Article

Selection of EPS-producing Lactobacillus strains isolated from kefir grains and rheological characterization of the fermented milks

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 129-135

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.03.097

关键词

Exopolysaccharide; Kefir; Lactobacillus; Rheological properties; Fermented milk

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET) of Argentina, Universidad de La Plata (UNLP)
  2. Agencia Nacional de Promocion Cientifica y Tecnologica [PICT 2012 0910]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study the ability to produce exopolysaccharides during growth in milk of 28 Lactobacillus, previously isolated from kefir grain, was investigated and the theological properties of the obtained fermented milks were also studied. During fermentation all microorganisms were able to produce polysaccharide with final concentration ranging from 20 mg L-1 to 370 mg L-1. Lactobacillus kefiranofaciens and Lactobacillus plantarum strains produced oligosaccharide with low degree of polymerization. The exopolysaccharides produced by the five Lactobacillus paracasei strains presented also a high molecular weight fraction. In consequence the acid milk gels obtained by fermentation with all the L. paracasei strains were the ones that presented the highest viscosities. Nevertheless the viscolestic characteristics of the resulting acid gels were different. L. paracasei CIDCA 83123 produces a milk having a viscous behavior whereas fermented milks with L. paracasei CIDCA 8339, CIDCA 83120, CIDCA 83121 and CIDCA 83124 has gel structure. The five L. paracasei strains isolated from kefir studied in the present work were the first described that produce high molecular weight exopolysaccharides. Since production of high molecular weight exopolysaccharides affects the viscosity of fermented milk these strains could have a successful application improving texture of fermented dairy product. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据