1

1 TIME-INDEPENDENT FLOW MODELING OF LASSI, THE INDIAN DRINKING

2
YOGHURT
3
4
H.A. PUSHPADASS*, R.N. SARASWAT, F.M.E. EMERALD and
5
B.V. BALASUBRAMANYAM
6
7
8
9This study was conducted at National Dairy Research Institute, Southern Regional Station, Bangalore 560 030, India.
10*Corresponding author: E-mail: heartwin1@gmail.com; Ph: 0091-80-25710661; Fax: 0091-80-25710161

11
12
13
14

ABSTRACT
The rheological behaviour of lassi was studied by using a computer-controlled

15rotational viscometer over a range of total solids (TS), sugar contents and stabilizers. The
16stabilizers tested were carrageenan, pectin and locust bean gum (LBG) at 0, 0.05, 0.10 and
170.15% concentrations (w/w). The RVDV-II+Pro viscometric data were converted into the
18basic shear stress vs. shear rate form using Mitschka method. From the shear rate-shear
19stress data, the flow nature of lassi was evaluated. The apparent viscosities of the systems
20were found to decrease with increasing shear rate, indicating pseudoplastic behaviour with
21yield stress. The flow behaviour of lassi was adequately described by the Herschel-Bulkley
22and Casson models with a high coefficient of determination (R2) and low root mean square
23error (RMSE) value. The Herschel-Bulkley yield stress (0), consistency coefficient (K)
24and the flow behaviour index (n) ranged from 0.638-7.725 Pa, 0.330-0.834 Pa.sn and 0.514250.701, respectively. The main and most interaction effects of the selected factors on the
26apparent viscosity, yield stress, Any increase in the concentration of milk solids in lassi was
27accompanied by an increase in the pseudoplasticity, consistency coefficient and yield stress
28while the effect of sugar on flow behaviour was quite opposite. The flow parameters of

3
4
29lassi were positively influenced by carrageenan and pectin in some cases. Carrageenan at
300.15% concentration was found to be the most suitable stabilizer for lassi when added
31before fermentation of milk. On the other hand, lassi stabilized with LBG showed visible
32whey separation owing to precipitation of milk proteins.
33
34

KEYWORDS

35Lassi, fermented milk, flow models, rheology, stabilizer, viscometer.

36
37
38
39

INTRODUCTION
Fermented milk products are popular because of their therapeutic and nutritional

40qualities. Lassi is one such popular fermented ready-to-serve milk beverage in India,
41resembling the stirred yoghurt drink. It is the viscous liquid obtained after churning of dahi
42(Indian yoghurt) and adding sugar into it. The major quality characteristics of lassi include
43thick uniform body, smooth texture and a good blend of acid and diacetyl flavours
44(Vedamuthu 1985). It is estimated that about 7.0% of milk produced in India is converted
45into dahi and lassi (Aneja et al. 2002). Dahi and fermented milks have been one of the
46strongest growth areas of the Indian dairy industry in recent years. Several brands of dahi
47and lassi have flooded the market to meet the consumer demand.
48
49

In order to make lassi, dahi is prepared by inoculating mixed cultures of lactic acid

50bacteria into milk that ferment lactose to lactic acid. The fermentation time is about 12 h.
51The final quality of lassi depends on the composition of milk, type of inoculating

6
7
52microorganisms and processing conditions. The key quality attributes of lassi, considered
53essential by consumers, are its rheological properties such as body and consistency.
54
55

Lassi, which is normally diluted with water, may have low fat and milk solids

56content as compared to dahi. Hence, it may show sedimentation on storage as the

57aggregated milk proteins are heavy and possess the tendency to sediment, causing syneresis
58or wheying off. As a consequence, the mouth-feel and consumer appeal may be poor,
59particularly when stored. This problem could be circumvented by different methods that are
60permitted under the legal standards. Labropoulos et al. (1984) postulated three approaches
61for improving the body and texture of yoghurt, which will also be applicable to lassi, as (i)
62increasing the total solids, (ii) addition of hydrocolloids and (iii) control of heating
63temperature and time of milk. On the other hand, Tamine and Robinson (1999) reported
64that it was essential to add stabilizer(s) at suitable concentrations to improve the quality of
65fermented milk products and, simultaneously, to standardize the total solids content.
66
67

The most common stabilizers in fermented milks are starch, carrageenan, pectin,

68sodium carboxy methyl cellulose, agar, guar gum, xanthan gum, locust bean gum (LBG)
69and gelatin. These stabilizers could be added as a single compound or as a blend (Chandan
70et al. 2006). The addition of stabilizers is expected to give the fermented milks a more full71bodied taste or mouth-feel. This is because the swelling action of the stabilizer binds free
72water into bound water, thereby concentrating the solids in the mixture and imparting
73higher viscosity.

9
10
74
75

The knowledge of rheological properties is of importance in processing, handling,

76process design, product development and quality control. Also, it is essential to understand
77the relationships between the rheological behaviour of lassi and the compositional factors
78and processing conditions that influence such behaviour. For example, the rheological
79behaviour of lassi could be affected by milk solids and sugar content and the type of
80stabilizer used and its concentration.
81
82

The flow behaviour of fermented milks could be described by different time-

83independent and time-dependent rheological models depending on the nature of the

84product. Ostwald de Waele (power law), Herschel-Bulkley, Cassons and Cross equations
85are commonly reported in literature (Holdsworth 1993) to describe the non-Newtonian
86behaviour of many dairy products, particularly that of yoghurt (Benezech and Maingonnat,
871994; Rao 1999; Lee and Lucey 2006). In these models, the stress-strain relationship of the
88product is determined without studying the time-dependent effects. Sometimes, more than
89one rheological model may be required to characterize the rheological properties of a non90Newtonian food when a broad range of shear rates was encountered.
91
92

Although there is extensive literature on the rheological characterization of

93fermented milk products like yoghurt and yoghurt drinks, literally no work has been done
94on dahi and lassi with viscometers capable of yielding rheological data. The rheological
95behaviour of lassi is expected to be different from that of yoghurt because the water and

11

12
13
96sugar contents of lassi are considerably more than that of yoghurt and the fermentation
97conditions are quite different. Therefore, this study was undertaken with the objectives of
98analyzing the effects of milk solids, sugar and type of stabilizer and its concentration on the
99apparent viscosity of lassi, and to model the rheological behaviour of lassi using time100independent flow models.
101
102

MATERIALS AND METHODS

103Preparation of Lassi
104

Fresh raw milk and LF-40 dahi culture were obtained respectively from the

105experimental dairy plant and dairy bacteriology section of the Southern Regional Station of
106National Dairy Research Institute. The raw milk was standardized to 3.0% fat and 8.5%
107SNF, and it was homogenized in a triple-action homogenizer (Model APV, Crepaco,
108Chicago, IL) operating at 13.79 MPa pressure in the first stage.
109
110

The homogenized milk was subjected to heat treatment at 85C for 10 min by

111indirect heating, and subsequently cooled to 30C. This time-temperature combination of

112heat treatment was selected based on earlier findings of Das (1991) and Bienvenue et al.
113(2003), who reported that a desirable body and texture of cultured milk products was
114obtained when milk was heated to 85-90C for 10-30 min. The heat treatment, closer to the
115boiling point of milk, was expected to cause more denaturation of whey proteins, thereby
116improving the textural and rheological properties of products like yoghurts and cultured

14

15
16
117milks (Lee and Lucey 2003; Kessler 1998; Walstra et al. 1999; Chandan et al. 2006;
118Nilsson et al. 2006).
119
120

After heat treatment and cooling, LF-40 dahi culture at 1.5% (w/w) was added to

121500 mL samples of milk taken in 600 mL glass beakers. Carrageenan, pectin and LBG (Hi122Media Laboratories Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai, India) were tested independently as stabilizers to
123improve the consistency of lassi. These stabilizers, at concentrations of 0, 0.05, 0.10 and
1240.15% (w/v of milk), were dissolved in small quantity of warm milk before addition to
125inoculated milk at 30C.
126
127

The cultured milk was then incubated at 30C for 20 h to make dahi/curd. The

128incubation temperature was closely related to the LF-40 strains used. After fermentation,
129sugar at concentrations of 10, 15 and 20% (w/v) was added to the curd. Also, calculated
130quantities of water were added to the curd to achieve 11.50, 10.35 and 9.20% milk solids in
131lassi. The addition of water was about 0, 10 and 20% on weight basis of curd. The curd132sugar mixture was then gently stirred 30 times using a hand-held stainless steel vertical
133agitator to blend the water and to dissolve the added sugar.
134
135Determination of Apparent Viscosity of Lassi
136

The apparent viscosities of lassi samples were determined using a rotational

137viscometer (Model RVDV-II+Pro, Brookfield Engineering laboratory, Stoughton, MA) at

138spindle speeds of 10-100 rpm (in steps of 10 rpm) in a continuous run mode. The viscosity

17

18
19
139measurements were carried out at 30C. The RV3 spindle was used for viscosity
140measurements, except for samples stabilized with LBG at 0.15% where RV2 was used. The
141spindles were selected such that the measurement range of torque in the viscometer was
142maintained within the range of 10 to 95%. The disc spindle was inserted into the sample at
143a depth indicated by the notch on the spindle, and the depth was kept constant throughout
144the study. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the samples for viscosity measurement
145were taken in 600 mL beakers having a diameter of 90 mm.
146
147

The viscometer was operated in an external mode using a computer loaded with

148Rheocalc v. 3.1.1 software supplied by Brookfield Engineering Laboratory. At each rpm,

149shearing of the sample was done for 30 s before the speed was ramped up to the next level.
150The torque and apparent viscosity data were collected at 10 s interval for each rpm. The
151data were acquired using the same software.
152
153Conversion of Viscometric Data and Time-independent Flow Modeling of Lassi
154

The RVDV viscometric data were converted into shear stress and shear rate form by

155Mitschka method (Briggs and Steffe 1997). The flow behaviour index n was determined
156as the slope of the log10 of shear stress vs. log10 of rpm plot as shown in the equation below:
157 n

d (log10 )
d (log10 N )

158The shear stress, , was given by the equation:

159 = k .(C*dial reading)

20

21
22
160where n was the flow behaviour index (dimensionless), k was shear stress conversion
161factor (Pa), N was the rotational speed in rpm and C was the spring constant (C=1 for
162the RV model). The parameter k was a function of spindle number. The dial reading
163represented the percent torque displayed on the Brookfield viscometer.
164
165

The average shear rate,

&a , was computed using the equation:

166 & K NY * N
167where KNY was the shear rate conversion factor. Values of KNY as a function of the spindle
168number and flow behaviour index were obtained from Briggs and Steffe (1997). The
169Ostwald De Waele (Power law), Casson and Herschel-Bulkley constitutive
170models shown below were fitted to the shear stress-shear rate data.
171

172 K .&n

(Ostwald De Waele model)

n
173 0 K .&

(Herschel-Bulkley model)

174 0 a . &

(Cassons model)

175where was the shear stress (Pa), 0 was the yield stress (Pa), & was the shear rate (s1761), a was the apparent viscosity (Pa.s) (Casson viscosity) and K was the consistency
177coefficient (Pa.sn). The constant n is a measure of the extent of departure from Newtonian
178behaviour while K is a measure of viscosity or consistency. These models relate the shear
179stress of lassi to the shear rate, thus enabling the apparent viscosity to be calculated.
180

23

24
25
181

The Ostwald De Waele model was fitted by plotting ln against ln &. The slope of

182this straight line relationship yielded the flow behaviour index n while the intercept
183directly gave the consistency coefficient K. For Cassons relationship, the linear
184regression of over

& resulted in a straight line with intercept 0 . The yield stress

185thus obtained was substituted into the Herschel-Bulkley model, and the parameter ln
186 0 was plotted against ln &to determine the model parameters.
187
188Analytical Methods
189

The solids content in milk was determined by adding the SNF and fat percentages.

190However, for lassi, about 5 g of sample was weighed accurately on to a dried and cooled
191petri dish. The dish was transferred to an oven being maintained at 1051C. After 4 h, the
192samples were taken out, cooled in a desiccator and the weights were recorded. The pH of
193milk and lassi samples was measured directly using a glass electrode pH meter (Model pH
194Tutor, Eutech Instruments, Singapore). The titratable acidity (TA) of lassi was determined
195according to Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS 1980). In each analysis, 10 mL of the sample
196was diluted with 2 parts of water and the solution was titrated against 0.1N NaOH using
197two drops of phenolphthalein as indicator. The acidity was expressed as percent lactic acid.
198
199Syneresis Test
200

Whey separation (expressed in terms of whey volume) was determined by taking 10

201mL of sample in graduated tubes, and centrifuging (Model SBV, International Centrifuge,

26

27
28
202Boston, MA) them at 3500 rpm for 10 min. After centrifugation, the volume of the
203supernatant liquid was read from the tube, and the values were expressed in percentage.
204
205Experimental Design and Statistical Analyses
206

The effects of all four factors namely sugar content (0, 10 and 20%), milk solids

207content (9.20, 10.35 and 11.50%), stabilizer type (carrageenan, LBG and pectin) and
208stabilizer concentration (0, 0.05, 0.1 and 0.15%) were studied using a factorial
209experimental design, which resulted in 81 formulations (3 x 3 x 3 x 4 levels). Each
210formulation was made 3 times and tested in the viscometer, and the results were averaged.
211The root mean square error (RMSE), defined below, was used to decide the model that
212provided the best fit of the experimental data.
213

RMSE

1
exp pred
n

214where n was the number of measurements, exp was the experimental shear stress (Pa)
215and pred was the predicted shear stress (Pa) corresponding to each fitted model. The data
216on apparent viscosity and Herschel-Bulkley model parameters were analyzed using Proc
217Mixed procedure of SAS (V. 9.1, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC), with the significance level
218of 0.05. The differences between the treatment means were compared using lsmeans
219statement.
220
221

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

222pH and Titratable Acidity

29

10

30
31
223

The pH of lassi varied from 4.14 to 4.32 while the titratable acidity ranged from

2240.99 to 1.32% (lactic acid). With increase in milk solids content, the pH decreased while
225the titratable acidity increased marginally. This could be reasoned to the simple dilution
226effect of water that was added to reduce the milk solids content from 11.50 to 9.20%. Sugar
227did not significantly affect the pH and titratable acidity of lassi because it was added after
228fermentation, and thus, it did not interfere with the fermentation process to change the pH.
229
230Conversion of Viscometric Data by Mitschka Method
231

The data obtained from the RVDV-II+Pro rotational viscometer were converted into

232basic shear stress vs. shear rate form by the method outlined by Briggs and Steffe (1997). A
233typical plot of log10 of shear stress vs. log10 of rpm that was used to compute the flow
234behaviour index and shear rate is presented in Fig. 1. The typical rheograms for lassi at
235different milk solids content are presented in Fig. 2. The flow curves were plotted in linear
236scales so as to estimate the possible shear sensitivity of the system. From Fig. 2, it is
237evident that the shear stress increased linearly with shear rate. This trend was observed at
238all sugar concentrations and in the presence of all stabilizers. The shape of the upward flow
239curve in Fig. 2 indicated the presence of yield stress in lassi. The effects of yield stresses on
240flow behaviour curves were evident at low shear rates because the flow behaviour at low
241shear rates was strongly influenced by yield phenomena and wall effects.
242
243
TABLE 1
244 RANGES OF FLOW BEHAVIOUR INDEX, SHEAR STRESS AND SHEAR RATE FOR
245

LASSI

32

11

33
34
Flow behaviour
index, n

Shear stress, Pa

Shear rate, s-1

Carrageenan
10% Sugar
15% Sugar
20% Sugar

0.234-0.272
0.276-0.326
0.267-0.333

8.35-17.02
3.54-12.03
3.17-11.82

7.23-85.48
6.23-72.10
6.15-61.46

Pectin
10% Sugar
15% Sugar
20% Sugar

0.245-0.319
0.321-0.373
0.315-0.386

3.61-14.89
3.17-13.72
2.45-10.63

6.37-77.88
5.70-63.37
5.40-63.95

LBG
10% Sugar
15% Sugar
20% Sugar

0.310-0.508
0.337-0.543
0.346-0.575

1.61-14.97
1.88-11.64
1.86-10.41

4.46-64.37
4.27-63.37
4.73-59.76

Sample

246
247

The calculated flow behaviour index and shear stress and shear rate values of lassi

248depended on the sugar content and type of stabilizer (Table 1). The flow behaviour index at
24930C ranged from 0.234 and 0.333 for carrageenan, 0.245 to 0.386 for pectin and from
2500.310 and 0.575 for LBG. From the flow behaviour indices, it could be stated that the lassi
251exhibited strong pseudoplastic (shear thinning) behaviour. This type of non-Newtonian
252flow behaviour in lassi was expected as it was commonly reported in yoghurts and in some
253fermented milks (Parnell-Clunies et al. 1986b; Keogh and OKennedy 1998; Schmidt et al.
2541980 and Lee and Lucey 2006). The pseudoplastic behaviour was reasoned to the fact that
255the increased shear rate deformed and/or rearranged particles, resulting in lower flow
256resistance and viscosity. Morris et al. (1981) explained that shear thinning was observed
257when the rate of shear exceeded the rate at which new entanglements could be formed in
258the product. The authors also added that the depletion in the concentration of non-specific
259crosslinks led to the observed reduction in viscosity at high shear rates.

35

12

36
37
260
261

262
263 FIG. 1. Plot of log10 shear stress (Pa) vs. log10 spindle speed (rpm) for computation of flow
264

behaviour index and shear rate under Mitschka method.

265

266
267 FIG. 2. Rheograms of lassi containing 10% sugar and 11.50% milk solids and different
268

stabilizers

38

13

39
40
269
270Mathematical Modeling of Time-independent Flow Behaviour of Lassi
271

In this study, three time-independent rheological models namelythe Ostwald De

272Waele, Cassons and Herschel-Bulkley models were used as tools for calculation of the
273relationship between the shear stress and shear rate of lassi. The fitted rheological
274parameters of the various flow models are presented in Tables 2-4.
275
276
277Applicability of Ostwald De Waele Model
278

The ln-ln plot of shear stress vs. shear rate was done to obtain the model

279coefficients. The applicability of Ostwald De Waele model to one set of data is illustrated
280in Fig. 3. The slope of the fit was the flow behaviour index while the exponential value of
281the model intercept yielded the consistency coefficient. The magnitudes of the coefficient
282of determination (R2) were between 0.930 and 0.996 for all samples while the root mean
283squared error (RMSE) ranged from 0.108 to 0.496 (Tables 2 to 4). In general, higher values
284of RMSE were observed at 11.50% milk solids content, at which the lassi samples
285exhibited relatively intense shear-thinning. Though the Ostwald De Waele model is was
286reported to be good for pseudoplastic fluids, from the R2 and RMSE data, it could be
287concluded that this model did not fit the rheological data of lassi adequately.
288

41

14

42
43

289
290 FIG. 3. Ostwald De Waele plot of lassi containing 10% sugar, 9.20% TS milk solids and
291
LBG as stabilizer
292
293Applicability of Cassons Model
294

The Casson model is a straight-forwarddirect linear relationship between the square

295root of shear stress and shear rates. The applicability of Cassons model to one set of data is
296illustrated in Fig. 4. In general, Tthe experimental data of lassi were in better agreement
297with the Cassons model than with Ostwald De Waele and Herschel-Bulkely models
298(Tables 2-4). The R2 values of R2 of the model fits ranged from 0.951 to 0.999 while the
299RMSE varied from as low as 0.037 to a high of 0.246. The applicability of Cassons model
300to one set of data is illustrated in Fig. The yield stress was calculated from the intercept of
301the model by linear regression. The magnitude of the Cassons viscosity ranged from 0.016
302to 0.102 Pa.s for all samples while the yield stress varied from 0.638 to 7.725 Pa.
303
304

The Cassons viscosity increased with increasing milk solids content and with

305increasing concentrations of LBG stabilizer. The highest Casson viscosities were observed

44

15

45
46
306in lassi containing LBG as stabilizer. This could be due to the precipitation of the hard milk
307proteins in solution, which encountered the moving spindle to result in higher values.
308Similarly, the Cassons yield stress increased with increasing concentrations of milk solids
309and carrageenan and pectin stabilizers. On the other hand, the Cassons yield stress
310decreased with increasing concentrations of sugar and LBG stabilizer.
311
312Applicability of Herschel-Bulkley Model
313

In this model, the values of yield stress determined from the Cassons model were

314subtracted from the shear stress values. The magnitudes of the parameters K and n were
315determined from the linear regression analysis analysis of ln ( 0 ) vs. ln &. The
316applicability of Herschel-Bulkley model to one set of data is shown in Fig. 5. The
317Herschel-Bulkley flow behaviour index varied widely from 0.514 to 0.701 while the
318consistency coefficient ranged from 0.330 to 0.834 Pa.sn for all samples. The R2 values
319ranged from 0.954 to 0.999 while the RMSE ranged from 0.061 to 0.313. The applicability
320of Herschel-Bulkley model to one set of data is shown in Fig. Such wide variation in the
321magnitude of flow behaviour index and consistency coefficient suggested that the lassi
322samples widely varied in their viscosity and mouthfeel when added with watersugar, sugar
323water and different hydrocolloids.
324
325

It could be concluded from the R2 and RMSE data that the Cassons model was the

326best one for lassi. The Ostwald De Waele model did not fit very well because of the yield
327stress. In foods exhibiting yield stress, Pelegrine et alet al. (2002) reported that the

47

16

48
49
328experimental data might not fit well to the Ostwald De Waele model with greater precision.
329On the other hand, bBoth Casson and Herschel-Bulkley models accounted for the yield
330stress value, and hence, they gave superior fit. Charm (1963) postulated that the Casson
331model adequately described the flow behaviour of tomato purees possessing yield stress.
332The author also found that the yield stress estimated from Casson model and that measured
333with a narrow gap concentric cylinder were closely related.
334
335

Though Cassons was the best model for lassi, further discussions in this paper

336would be focused on Herschel-Bulkley model because it was not only closely matched with
337Casson model in terms of R2 and RMSE but also in some cases it gave a marginally
338superior fit of the lassi data in some cases. Also, the Herschel-Bulkley model yields three
339useful parameters namely, yield stress, consistency coefficient and flow behaviour index as
340compared to the two-parameter Casson model.
341
342
343

50

17

51
52

344
345
346
347

FIG. 4. Cassons plot of lassi containing 10% sugar, 9.20% milk solids and LBG as
stabilizer

348

349
350 FIG. 5. Herschel-Bulkley plot of lassi containing 10% sugar, 9.20% milk solids and LBG
351
as stabilizer
352
353
354Effects of Various Factors on Rheological Behaviour of Lassi
355

53

18

54
55
356

Statistical analysis showed that the main effects of sugar and milk solids, as well as,

357contents and stabilizer type and its concentration, on the initial apparent viscosity of lassi
358and the Herschel-Bulkley model parameters (Table 5s) were highly significant (<0.0001).
359Furthermore, most of the two-way and three-way interaction effects of the independent
360factors were significant, suggesting that the effect of one factor on the apparent viscosity
361and Herschel-Bulkley model parameters was greatly dependent on the levels of the other
362factors. Among the factors tested, concentration of milk solids content seemed to be the
363most significant factor affecting the apparent viscosity, yield stress and the consistency
364coefficient of lassi while the stabilizer type was the most important factor influencing the
365flow behaviour index..
366

56

19

57
58
367
368

TABLE 2
RHEOLOGICAL MODEL COEFFICIENTS OF LASSI AT 10% SUGAR CONTENT
Total
solids, %

Stabilizer
type

Stabilizer
concn., %

11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50

CA
CA
CA
CA
P
P
P
P
LBG
LBG
LBG
LBG

0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

K
5.340
5.558
5.004
5.193
5.340
4.894
4.051
3.687
5.340
3.458
1.603
2.573

10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35

CA
CA
CA
CA
P
P
P
P
LBG
LBG
LBG
LBG

0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

2.821
3.507
3.785
3.799
2.821
3.570
3.314
2.738
2.821
2.931
1.139
0.820

0.254
0.248
0.247
0.235
0.254
0.264
0.286
0.312
0.254
0.288
0.464
0.505

9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20

CA
CA
CA
CA
P
P
P
P
LBG
LBG
LBG
LBG

0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

1.978
2.894
2.642
2.692
1.978
2.526
2.210
1.929
1.978
2.046
0.876
0.697

0.283
0.258
0.264
0.256
0.283
0.269
0.312
0.296
0.283
0.327
0.445
0.479

RMSE
0.390
0.496
0.321
0.310
0.390
0.341
0.337
0.304
0.390
0.424
0.280
0.356

0
6.557
6.833
7.506
7.725
6.557
6.065
4.941
4.462
6.557
4.079
1.679
1.665

Model parameters
Herschel-Bulkley
K
n
R2
0.735
0.550
0.985
0.811
0.547
0.985
0.781
0.537
0.993
0.834
0.514
0.987
0.735
0.550
0.985
0.732
0.562
0.993
0.759
0.572
0.994
0.752
0.585
0.997
0.735
0.550
0.985
0.743
0.569
0.980
0.647
0.629
0.993
0.565
0.647
0.995

0.974
0.964
0.959
0.950
0.974
0.981
0.975
0.982
0.974
0.956
0.991
0.971

0.188
0.277
0.303
0.289
0.188
0.228
0.286
0.221
0.188
0.332
0.150
0.212

3.450
4.299
4.638
4.606
3.450
4.414
4.024
3.285
3.450
3.455
1.118
0.711

0.469
0.558
0.583
0.633
0.469
0.589
0.643
0.581
0.469
0.588
0.517
0.420

0.569
0.555
0.552
0.544
0.569
0.575
0.577
0.590
0.569
0.596
0.654
0.651

0.975
0.953
0.945
0.957
0.975
0.959
0.967
0.955
0.975
0.971
0.981
0.959

0.156
0.258
0.270
0.225
0.156
0.252
0.264
0.234
0.156
0.254
0.123
0.174

2.386
3.539
3.615
3.742
2.386
3.041
2.607
2.253
2.386
2.439
0.914
0.638

0.390
0.501
0.521
0.527
0.390
0.474
0.563
0.473
0.390
0.468
0.351
0.330

0.577
0.574
0.569
0.554
0.577
0.568
0.591
0.586
0.577
0.626
0.651
0.664

Ostwald De Waele
n
R2
0.228
0.957
0.245
0.954
0.242
0.970
0.235
0.961
0.228
0.957
0.245
0.972
0.280
0.973
0.295
0.981
0.228
0.957
0.309
0.959
0.457
0.980
0.444
0.988

369

59

20

RMSE
0.243
0.256
0.140
0.152
0.243
0.170
0.170
0.151
0.243
0.313
0.171
0.250

0
6.557
6.833
7.506
7.725
6.557
6.065
4.940
4.462
6.557
4.079
1.679
1.665

Casson
a
R2
0.021
0.987
0.028
0.990
0.024
0.994
0.024
0.990
0.021
0.987
0.024
0.995
0.032
0.996
0.037
0.997
0.021
0.987
0.039
0.992
0.065
0.997
0.102
0.995

0.992
0.991
0.988
0.982
0.992
0.997
0.994
0.997
0.992
0.984
0.997
0.984

0.097
0.148
0.170
0.162
0.097
0.094
0.148
0.100
0.097
0.212
0.071
0.159

3.450
4.299
4.638
4.606
3.450
4.414
4.024
3.285
3.450
3.455
1.112
0.711

0.018
0.018
0.019
0.018
0.018
0.023
0.028
0.033
0.018
0.027
0.062
0.057

0.996
0.994
0.992
0.988
0.996
0.998
0.996
0.998
0.996
0.989
0.999
0.991

0.076
0.104
0.119
0.113
0.076
0.076
0.112
0.077
0.076
0.151
0.044
0.102

0.994
0.982
0.976
0.985
0.994
0.987
0.988
0.983
0.994
0.993
0.993
0.972

0.084
0.154
0.179
0.128
0.084
0.157
0.172
0.153
0.084
0.171
0.071
0.137

2.386
3.539
3.615
3.742
2.386
3.041
2.607
2.253
2.386
2.439
0.914
0.638

0.016
0.017
0.017
0.017
0.016
0.019
0.028
0.021
0.016
0.027
0.030
0.039

0.995
0.990
0.986
0.991
0.995
0.991
0.993
0.990
0.995
0.997
0.997
0.984

0.067
0.107
0.126
0.091
0.067
0.113
0.115
0.105
0.067
0.161
0.043
0.101

RMSE
0.205
0.246
0.142
0.152
0.205
0.129
0.121
0.124
0.205
0.184
0.095
0.177

60
61
370
371

TABLE 3
RHEOLOGICAL MODEL COEFFICIENTS OF LASSI AT 15% SUGAR CONTENT
Total
solids, %

Stabilizer
type

Stabilizer
concn., %

Ostwald De Waele
n
R2
0.304
0.973
0.301
0.973
0.313
0.990
0.276
0.970
0.304
0.973
0.340
0.986
0.329
0.975
0.355
0.977
0.304
0.973
0.337
0.977
0.424
0.996
0.438
0.981

RMSE
0.234
0.300
0.187
0.309
0.234
0.264
0.304
0.322
0.234
0.274
0.148
0.278

0
3.312
3.741
3.911
4.283
3.312
3.947
3.478
3.252
3.312
3.145
2.893
1.961

Model parameters
Herschel-Bulkley
K
n
R2
0.580
0.561
0.992
0.705
0.571
0.994
0.735
0.550
0.999
0.733
0.546
0.992
0.580
0.561
0.992
0.670
0.591
0.997
0.656
0.588
0.994
0.661
0.597
0.994
0.580
0.561
0.992
0.579
0.592
0.994
0.588
0.654
0.996
0.578
0.634
0.992

0
3.312
3.741
3.911
4.283
3.312
3.947
3.478
3.252
3.312
3.145
2.893
1.968

Casson
a
R2
0.028
0.995
0.030
0.996
0.035
0.999
0.026
0.994
0.028
0.995
0.049
0.998
0.040
0.998
0.049
0.998
0.028
0.995
0.040
0.997
0.074
0.996
0.067
0.996

11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50

CA
CA
CA
CA
P
P
P
P
LBG
LBG
LBG
LBG

0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35

CA
CA
CA
CA
P
P
P
P
LBG
LBG
LBG
LBG

0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

2.037
2.449
3.260
2.787
2.037
2.763
1.724
2.304
2.037
2.082
1.495
1.061

0.317
0.300
0.275
0.270
0.317
0.317
0.316
0.362
0.317
0.356
0.457
0.420

0.963
0.970
0.977
0.960
0.963
0.970
0.958
0.968
0.963
0.980
0.988
0.930

0.236
0.245
0.212
0.254
0.236
0.305
0.303
0.339
0.236
0.228
0.165
0.246

2.371
2.933
3.102
3.363
2.371
3.248
2.806
2.594
2.371
2.404
1.550
1.100

0.459
0.513
0.531
0.559
0.459
0.577
0.565
0.592
0.459
0.554
0.459
0.401

0.576
0.575
0.565
0.561
0.576
0.579
0.582
0.593
0.576
0.608
0.655
0.656

0.988
0.993
0.996
0.985
0.988
0.992
0.984
0.989
0.988
0.995
0.993
0.954

0.141
0.137
0.092
0.157
0.141
0.175
0.196
0.222
0.141
0.109
0.122
0.226

2.371
2.933
3.102
3.363
2.371
3.248
2.806
2.594
2.371
2.404
1.550
1.100

0.027
0.024
0.025
0.024
0.027
0.035
0.029
0.045
0.027
0.037
0.068
0.037

0.993
0.995
0.998
0.990
0.993
0.996
0.991
0.994
0.993
0.997
0.996
0.951

0.091
0.094
0.053
0.118
0.091
0.110
0.133
0.146
0.091
0.073
0.099
0.206

9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20

CA
CA
CA
CA
P
P
P
P
LBG
LBG
LBG
LBG

0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

1.640
1.973
1.879
2.153
1.640
2.023
1.721
1.577
1.640
1.626
0.941
0.794

0.308
0.317
0.313
0.274
0.308
0.316
0.339
0.360
0.308
0.355
0.496
0.543

0.966
0.971
0.970
0.975
0.966
0.967
0.958
0.962
0.966
0.974
0.989
0.987

0.175
0.204
0.192
0.152
0.175
0.235
0.239
0.222
0.175
0.182
0.150
0.185

1.867
2.335
2.549
2.764
1.867
2.362
1.981
1.793
1.867
1.855
0.872
0.648

0.379
0.445
0.445
0.464
0.379
0.451
0.463
0.446
0.379
0.410
0.377
0.433

0.574
0.581
0.579
0.573
0.574
0.576
0.580
0.589
0.574
0.624
0.663
0.697

0.990
0.993
0.991
0.994
0.990
0.991
0.982
0.982
0.990
0.992
0.997
0.994

0.107
0.112
0.107
0.083
0.107
0.133
0.158
0.143
0.107
0.097
0.080
0.129

1.867
2.335
2.549
2.764
1.867
2.362
1.981
1.793
1.867
1.854
0.872
0.648

0.019
0.023
0.022
0.016
0.019
0.026
0.026
0.029
0.019
0.029
0.060
0.073

0.994
0.996
0.995
0.996
0.994
0.995
0.991
0.992
0.994
0.995
0.999
0.998

0.071
0.070
0.073
0.066
0.071
0.090
0.104
0.094
0.071
0.069
0.042
0.075

372

62

RMSE
0.118
0.165
0.067
0.157
0.118
0.116
0.152
0.169
0.118
0.130
0.122
0.184

K
2.745
3.103
3.220
3.502
2.745
3.312
2.947
2.816
2.745
2.679
2.286
1.857

21

RMSE
0.093
0.116
0.072
0.123
0.093
0.108
0.089
0.098
0.093
0.078
0.103
0.127

63
64
373
374

TABLE 4
RHEOLOGICAL MODEL COEFFICIENTS OF LASSI AT 20% SUGAR CONTENT
Total
solids, %

65

Stabilizer
type

Stabilizer
concn., %

Ostwald De Waele
n
R2
0.268
0.966
0.312
0.962
0.295
0.973
0.244
0.967
0.268
0.966
0.315
0.972
0.344
0.970
0.331
0.965
0.268
0.966
0.346
0.981
0.400
0.982
0.469
0.991

RMSE
0.181
0.297
0.254
0.284
0.181
0.278
0.271
0.223
0.181
0.255
0.211
0.176

0
3.109
3.255
3.646
4.214
3.109
3.290
2.587
2.113
3.109
2.841
1.941
1.814

Model parameters
Herschel-Bulkley
K
n
R2
0.421
0.568
0.986
0.656
0.576
0.986
0.722
0.570
0.993
0.759
0.542
0.990
0.421
0.568
0.986
0.628
0.581
0.992
0.583
0.590
0.991
0.439
0.581
0.986
0.421
0.568
0.986
0.536
0.599
0.996
0.483
0.624
0.994
0.424
0.671
0.994

RMSE
0.114
0.169
0.124
0.138
0.114
0.147
0.151
0.141
0.114
0.129
0.121
0.195

0
3.109
3.255
3.646
4.214
3.109
3.290
2.587
2.113
3.109
2.864
1.941
1.818

Casson
a
R2
0.017
0.990
0.039
0.991
0.028
0.996
0.023
0.996
0.017
0.990
0.032
0.996
0.039
0.995
0.025
0.993
0.017
0.990
0.039
0.996
0.049
0.997
0.079
0.991

11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50
11.50

CA
CA
CA
CA
P
P
P
P
LBG
LBG
LBG
LBG

0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

K
2.536
2.793
3.013
4.237
2.536
2.761
2.247
1.805
2.536
2.447
1.758
1.738

10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35
10.35

CA
CA
CA
CA
P
P
P
P
LBG
LBG
LBG
LBG

0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

1.824
2.257
2.446
2.829
1.824
2.244
1.918
1.323
1.824
1.630
1.205
1.003

0.305
0.310
0.296
0.259
0.305
0.323
0.344
0.396
0.305
0.364
0.429
0.439

0.946
0.965
0.978
0.973
0.946
0.969
0.960
0.968
0.946
0.989
0.982
0.956

0.223
0.242
0.195
0.190
0.223
0.258
0.286
0.230
0.223
0.136
0.171
0.216

2.142
2.684
2.952
3.459
2.142
2.632
2.186
1.434
2.142
1.808
1.266
1.024

0.415
0.513
0.490
0.463
0.415
0.553
0.531
0.449
0.415
0.484
0.445
0.389

0.577
0.577
0.571
0.566
0.577
0.581
0.584
0.606
0.577
0.624
0.630
0.665

0.973
0.988
0.995
0.990
0.973
0.991
0.982
0.986
0.973
0.998
0.995
0.968

0.145
0.146
0.091
0.123
0.145
0.148
0.194
0.157
0.145
0.063
0.093
0.205

2.142
2.684
2.952
3.459
2.142
2.632
2.186
1.434
2.142
1.808
1.266
1.024

0.020
0.027
0.023
0.019
0.020
0.030
0.032
0.035
0.020
0.039
0.044
0.041

0.985
0.992
0.997
0.991
0.985
0.996
0.989
0.993
0.985
0.999
0.998
0.969

0.097
0.111
0.071
0.111
0.097
0.093
0.139
0.103
0.097
0.055
0.053
0.166

9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20
9.20

CA
CA
CA
CA
P
P
P
P
LBG
LBG
LBG
LBG

0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

1.425
1.635
1.749
1.453
1.425
1.640
1.438
1.184
1.425
1.227
0.869
0.837

0.315
0.328
0.297
0.362
0.315
0.339
0.343
0.379
0.315
0.386
0.466
0.452

0.950
0.971
0.977
0.978
0.950
0.971
0.954
0.963
0.950
0.988
0.983
0.960

0.175
0.156
0.143
0.155
0.175
0.201
0.217
0.213
0.175
0.108
0.128
0.192

1.703
1.916
2.112
2.199
1.703
1.909
1.613
1.294
1.703
1.391
0.857
0.798

0.323
0.441
0.461
0.465
0.323
0.432
0.398
0.386
0.323
0.367
0.342
0.339

0.565
0.588
0.579
0.569
0.565
0.587
0.590
0.595
0.565
0.631
0.666
0.701

0.984
0.989
0.996
0.994
0.984
0.991
0.978
0.984
0.984
0.997
0.993
0.978

0.114
0.070
0.061
0.069
0.114
0.116
0.150
0.150
0.114
0.061
0.070
0.141

1.703
1.916
2.112
2.199
1.703
1.909
1.613
1.294
1.703
1.391
0.857
0.798

0.016
0.025
0.018
0.026
0.016
0.025
0.024
0.028
0.016
0.029
0.045
0.041

0.979
0.994
0.998
0.998
0.979
0.996
0.989
0.991
0.979
0.997
0.997
0.986

0.080
0.043
0.037
0.041
0.080
0.072
0.099
0.101
0.080
0.055
0.051
0.091

22

RMSE
0.103
0.116
0.081
0.093
0.103
0.094
0.096
0.095
0.103
0.088
0.076
0.217

66
67
375Effect of Sugar Content on Flow Behaviour of Lassi
376

Regardless of the milk solids content, the apparent viscosity and Herschel-

377Bulkley model parameters were significantly affected by the concentration of sugar.

378The apparent viscosities of lassi decreased markedly ( <0.0001) with increasing shear
379rate and sugar content from 10 to 15% (Figs. 6-8). However, there was little difference
380in the corresponding apparent viscosities between 15 and 20% sugar contents ( >0.05)
381at levels of milk solids. Most of the factor interactions involving sugar also had
382significant effects (Table 5) on the apparent viscosity, yield stress and consistency
383coefficient (except flow behaviour index), suggesting that the effects of other factors
384on flow behaviour were dependent on the sugar content. From the significant
385interactive effects of sugar with other factors, it could be hypothesized that at least
386some interaction among sugar, stabilizer and milk proteins would have occurred either
387during shearing or in the few minutes before shearing of the sample.
388
389

Similarly, the interaction between sucrose and stabilizer concentration was

390significant for all the flow parameters, including yield stress. Also, all the factor
391interactions involving sugar were significant or close to significance, indicating that
392the effect of stabilizer type and its concentration on apparent viscosity depended on the
393sugar content (Table 4.5). Sugar is known to affect the large-deformation rheology,
394promoting strain-weakening behaviour. The effect of sugar on the rheological
395behaviour of lassi was consistent with those of Yanes et al (2002) reported that the
396presence of sucrose in the aqueous phase of liquid food systems containing stabilizers

68

23

69
70
397could change their flow behaviour. Yanes et al. (2002), who observed a reduction in
398pseudoplasticity and consistency coefficient of sucrose-added milk beverages
399stabilized with sodium alginate. Also, the flow behaviour index was reported to
400increase from 0.70 to 0.80 when sucrose was added. Similarly, Hingmire et al. (2009)
401reported that the apparent viscosity of lassi decreased with increasing sugar content
402from 8 to 12%.
403

The results on effect of sugar on the rheological behaviour of lassi was

404consistent with those of Hingmire et al (2008) who reported that the apparent viscosity
405of lassi decreased with increasing sugar content from 8 to 12%. Similarly, Yanes et al
406(2002) observed a reduction in pseudoplasticity and consistency coefficient of sucrose407added milk beverages stabilized with sodium alginate, particularly at stabilizer
408concentrations of 0.2-0.4%. The flow behaviour index was reported to increase from
4090.70 to 0.80 when sucrose was added to the beverages. However, these results differed
410with those of Farooq and Haque (1992) for yoghurt, Gven and Karaca (2002) for ice
411cream-type frozen yoghurts and Abu-Jdayil et al (2004) for wheat starchmilksugar
412systems. The major reason for this disagreement could be that the lassi samples were
413tested immediately after the addition of sugar and not much time was allowed for
414hydrocolloid-protein-sugar interactions to occur. From the significant interactive
415effects of sugar with other factors, it could be hypothesized that at least some
416interaction among sugar, stabilizer and milk proteins would have taken place either
417during shearing or in the few minutes before shearing of the sample.
418
419

71

24

72
73

420
421FIG. 6. Effect of sugar content on the apparent viscosity of lassi with 11.50% TSmilk
422solids
423
424

425
426FIG. 7. Effect of sugar content on the apparent viscosity of lassi with 10.35% TS milk
427solids

74

25

75
76

428
429FIG. 8. Effect of sugar content on the apparent viscosity of lassi with 9.20% TS milk
430solids
431
432

TABLE 5

433

MAIN AND INTERACTION EFFECTS ON APPARENT VISCOSITY AND

434

HERSCHEL-BULKLEY MODEL PARAMETERS

Effect

435

77

Apparent viscosity

Consistency
Flow behaviour
coefficient
index
Pr> F
Pr> F
Pr> F
Pr> F
F Value Value F Value Value F Value Value F Value Value
MS
287.99 <0.0001 258.25 <0.0001 223.51 <0.0001 18.10 <0.0001
SUGAR
141.72 <0.0001 180.51 <0.0001 71.55 <0.0001 11.75 <0.0001
MS*SUGAR
12.95 <0.0001
20.88 <0.0001 6.82 <0.0001
1.68 0.1558
STAB
114.44 <0.0001 168.92 <0.0001 32.78 <0.0001 219.58 <0.0001
MS*STAB
1.85 0.1199
3.90 0.0045 5.07 0.0006
2.97 0.0205
SUGAR*STAB
10.37 <0.0001 18.02 <0.0001 1.36 0.2494
0.49 0.7467
MS*SUGAR*STAB
0.86 0.5481
3.07
0.0027 0.82 0.5818
0.29 0.9700
CONCN
22.03 <0.0001 17.18 <0.0001 20.95 <0.0001 37.49 <0.0001
MS*CONCN
1.71 0.1196
2.26
0.0389 0.42 0.8631
0.49 0.8172
SUGAR*CONCN
3.48 0.0027
3.69
0.0016
0.9 0.4964
0.91 0.4866
MS*SUGAR*CONCN
1.66 0.0774
1.88
0.0386 1.85 0.0416
0.53 0.8916
STAB*CONCN
20.51 <0.0001 31.43 <0.0001 7.53 <0.0001 40.06 <0.0001
MS*STAB*CONCN
0.38 0.9682
0.94
0.5123 0.99 0.4610
0.81 0.6361
SUGAR*STAB*CONCN
2.13 0.0161
3.39
0.0001 1.07 0.3873
0.57 0.8622
MS*SUGAR*STAB*CONCN
0.21 1.0000
0.51
0.9725 0.44 0.9897
0.44 0.9898
* MS- milk solids; Stab- stabilizer type; Concn- concentration of stabilizer

26

Yield stress

78
79
436
437
438Effect of Milk Solids Content on Flow Behaviour of Lassi
439
440

As seen with sugar content, the apparent viscosity and Herschel-Bulkley model

441parameters of lassi were significantly influenced by milk solids content (Table 5), but
442positively. The apparent viscosity of lassi as a function of shear rate and milk solids
443levels are presented for different sugar contents in Figs. 9-11 at all sugar contents. At
444all sugar contents, Tthe apparent viscosity and pseudoplasticity of lassi increased with
445increasing concentrations of milk solids. The greatest influence of milk solids on the
446Herschel-Bulkley model parametersyield stress and consistency coefficient (
447<0.0001) indicated that these particles were greatly responsible for the viscosity of
448lassi. At 10% sugar content, the initial apparent viscosity of lassi containing 11.50,
44910.35 and 9.20% milk solids were 2976.7, 1906.7 and 1000 Pa.s, respectively. The
450corresponding initial viscosities at 15 and 20% sugar contents decreased to 2243.3,
4511560.0 and 1210.1 Pa.s and 2053.3, 1300.0 and 1273.3 Pa.s, respectively.
452
453
454
455
456

80

27

81
82

457
458 FIG. 9. Effect of milk solids on the apparent viscosity of lassi containing 10% sugar
459

and no stabilizer

460
461

462
463 FIG. 10. Effect of total milk solids of milk on the apparent viscosity of lassi containing
464

15% sugar and no stabilizer

465

83

28

84
85
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473

474
475 FIG. 11. Effect of total milk solids of milk on the apparent viscosity of lassi containing
476

20% sugar and no stabilizer

477
478

At 10% sugar content, and without stabilizer, increase in milk solids from 9.20

479to 11.50% increased the consistency coefficient of lassi from 0.390 to 0.735 Pa.sn,
480(Table 2). The corresponding increases at 15 and 20% sugar contents were from 0.379
481to 0.580 Pa.sn and from 0.359 to 0.421 Pa.sn, respectively (Tables 3 and 4). These

86

29

87
88
482results are consistency in agreement with those of Tamime and Robinson (1999), who
483reported that the consistency of yoghurt was improved when the milk solids content
484increased from 12 to 20%. Similarly, with increasinge in milk solids content from 9.20
485to 11.50%, the yield stress increased from 2.386 to 6.557 Pa, 1.867 to 3.312 Pa and
4861.703 to 3.109 Pa at 10, 15 and 20% sugar content, respectively.
487
488

From the results, it could be stated that the addition of water to curd had a great

489influence on the yield stress, and consequently, the initial resistance to initiate flow in
490the curd. Also, the yield stress is a key quality control parameter in process industries,
491particularly for comparing the overall characteristics of products made on different
492production lines (Ahmed 2004). Rao et al. (1981) emphasized that yield stress could be
493used as a quality control parameter because it did not approach a limiting value at high
494concentrations of total solids.
495

It is well-known that yield stress is the resistance to be overcome to initiate

496flow in the curd. From the results, it could be stated that the addition of water to curd
497had a great influence on the initial resistance to flow of the matrix.
498
499

Concomitant to the increase in apparent viscosity with increase in milk solids

500content, the values of Herschel-Bulkley flow behaviour index decreased, signifying the
501increase in the pseudoplasticity of lassi. At 10% sugar content and in the absence of
502any stabilizer, the flow behaviour indices of lassi with 9.20, 10.35 and 11.50% TS milk
503solids were 0.577, 0.569 and 0.550, respectively. The corresponding n at 15 and 20%

89

30

90
91
504sugar contents, and in the absence of stabilizers, in lassi were 0.561, 0.576 and 0.581
505and 0.580, 0.577 and 0.565, respectively. It could be stated that the rheological
506behaviour of lassi changed phenomenally when 10% water was added to reduce its
507milk solids content from 11.50 to 10.35%. However, when the milk solids content in
508lassi decreased further to 9.20%, further changes in the rheological flow properties of
509characteristics of lassi did not change were not drastically. when the milk solids
510content decreased from 10.35 to 9.20%
511
512

Tamime and Deeth (1980) pointed out that increasing the milk solids content

513including yogurt improved the textural characteristics of fermented milks, thereby

514preventing whey separation (Lucey and Singh 1998). Modler et alet al. (1983) and
515Doreau (1998) also reported that the apparent viscosity of yoghurt increased when it
516was fortified with milk proteins. As observed in this study, Novakovi et alet al.
517(1998) also showed that an increase in dry solids of goat and cow acidophilus milks
518contributed to increase in rheological property (shear stress) at same values of shear
519rates.
520
521Effect of Stabilizer Type and Its Concentration on Flow Behaviour of Lassi
522
523

The effects of stabilizers on the apparent viscosity of lassi at different shear

524rates are presented in Figs. 12-14. Keeping the levels of sugar and milk solids constant,

92

31

93
94
525the apparent viscosities of carrageenan-stabilized lassi were highest while those of
526LBG-added lassi were the lowest at all concentrations of stabilizers.
527

528
529 FIG. 12. Effect of stabilizer type on the apparent viscosity of lassi at 10% sugar and
530

11.50% TS milk solids contents

531
532
533

95

32

96
97

534
535 FIG. 13. Effect of stabilizer type on the apparent viscosity of lassi at 10% sugar and
536

10.35% TS milk solids contents

537
538
539

540
541 FIG. 14. Effect of stabilizer type on the apparent viscosity of lassi at 10% sugar and
542

9.20% TS milk solids contents

543
544

98

33

99
100
545
546Carrageenan
547

As expected, the apparent viscosity (not shown), yield stress, consistency

548coefficient and pseudoplasticity increased significantly (<0.0001) with increase in

549carrageenan concentration from 0 to 0.15%. For example, at 10% sugar and 11.50%
550milk solids contents, the yield stress and consistency coefficient of lassi increased
551ranged from 6.83-7.725 Pa and 0.811-0.834 Pa.sn, respectively. The samples made with
552carrageenan had the highest shear consistency, which again increased with increase in
553concentration. The shear stress values at different shear rates were much higher while
554the flow behaviour indices were much lower in carrageenan stabilized samples
555corresponding to those containing pectin and LBG (Figs. 12-14). Similar effects of
556carrageenan were reported by Yanes et al. (2002) on the flow properties of milk
557beverage and
558

Penna et alet al. (2003) on lactic beverage systems. Doublier and Durand

559(2008) also observed that semi-solid dairy systems containing starch, carrageenan and
560sucrose additives exhibited a significant increase in viscosity when low amount of 561carrageenan were added.
562

Similarly, ernkov et al (2008) observed that carrageenan addition in the

563range of 0.01-0.05% could stabilise emulsions in whipped products, pasteurised milks,

564chocolate milks and evaporated milks.
565

101

34

102
103
566

Though carrageenan works well near neutral pH, Also it gave positive effects

567in acidic lassi presumably because the stabilizers were added prior to fermentation of
568milk, when the pH was near the neutral range. The apparent viscosity, consistency and
569yield stress increased with increasing concentration of carrageenan from 0.05 to
5700.15%. Therefore, carrageenan at 0.15% concentration is recommended for
571stabilization of lassi. As reported by previous authors (Chandan et al 2006), it was
572confirmed that LBG alone may not a good stabilizer for fermented milks like lassi. It
573may have to be used in combination with other stabilizers for synergistic effects
574(Spagnuolo et al 2005). The increase in apparent viscosity, consistency coefficient and
575pseudoplasticity were due to the well-known carrageenan-casein molecular interaction,
576leading to the formation of carrageenan-casein miscelles aggregates (Imeson 2000).
577For this reason, carrageenan was the most commonly used stabilizer in milk beverage
578systems (Langendorff et alet al. 2000). De Vries (2002) reported that carrageenan
579interacted synergistically with milk proteins, primarily casein micelles, to produce
580viscosity and gelation enhancement.
581
582

The type of interaction between carrageenans and casein micelles is dependent

583on whether the temperature is above or below the coilhelix transition temperature.
584ernkov et al (2008) mentioned that above the coilhelix transition temperature no
585measurable adsorption onto casein micelles for -carrageenan and i-carrageenan
586occurred. However, they got adsorbed onto the casein micelles at temperatures where
587they exist in a helical form (below the coilhelix transition temperature). In this study,

104

35

105
106
588carrageenan was added to milk at 30C, which probably favoured the adsorption of
589carrageenan onto casein miscelles. Thus, the functionality of carrageenan in milk
590systems has been well documented.
591
592Pectin
593

In general, In this study, the apparent viscosity and Herschel-Bulkley flow

594parameters were affected by the concentration of pectin. Ssignificant differences

595increases were observed in the yield stress and consistency coefficient of lassi were
596observed n and K values of lassi made with increase in pectin concentration from 0
597to 0.05%. with pectin to those made with carrageenan. In general, the yield stress and
598consistency coefficient increased with increase in pectin concentration from 0.05 to
5990.10%. FFurther increase in the pectin concentration to 0.15% generally decreased the
600yield stress and consistency coefficients. On the other hand, the flow behaviour index
601decreased consistently with increasing pectin concentration. Consequently, the flow
602behavior index increased with increase in pectin content. At 10% sugar and 11.50%
603milk solids, the yield stress decreased from 6.065 to 4.462 Pa when the concentration
604of pectin increased from 0.05 to 0.15%. Concomitantly, the flow behaviour index
605increased from 0.562 to 0.585. Similar trends on flow parameters were observed at
606other combinations of sugar and TS contents. The mixed effect of pectin on the
607rheological behaviour of lassi was not quite expected. Hence, it could be stated that the
608effect of pectin on the flow properties of lassi was rather mixed: positive at 0.05%
609concentration and negative above 0.05%. The mixed response of pectin on the flow

107

36

108
109
610behaviour of yoghurt and other fermented milks has been reported. Doreau (1998)
611observed that use of 0.2% pectin at 0.2% in yoghurt did not prevent syneresis, but
612resulted in graininess. However, the authorand hence, recommended the use of pectin
613at 0.1% level with lower milk solids to alleviate this problem. Chandan et alet al.
614(2006) also suggested that the maximum amount of pectin in yoghurt should be less
615than 0.20%, as higher concentrations imparted a chalky or sandy texture and decreased
616viscosity in stirred yoghurt. Similarly,
617
618

Lucey et alet al. (1999) reported that pectin increased the flow behaviour index

619of acidic milk beverages rather than increasing the pseudoplasticity. Stabilization of
620lassi using pectin is obtained by absorption of pectin onto the surface of the protein
621particles with the proper application of shear force. From the rheological data, it could
622be inferred that pectin was effective as a stabilizer only at concentrations less than
6230.10%. Shukla and Jain (1991) reported that pectin was useful as a stabilizer to
624prevent whey separation in yoghurt made from buffalo milk.
625
626
627Locust Bean Gum
628

Visual observation of lassi stabilized with LBG, particularly at higher

629concentrations of 0.10 and 0.15%, suggested noticeably weak body, poor texture and
630whey separation. While the lassi containing both carrageenan and pectin were thicker,
631whiter and more homogeneous, the LBG containing added samples were thinner,

110

37

111
112
632slightly yellowish, had large amounts of aggregated protein and displayed whey
633separation, particularly at 0.10 and 0.15% concentrations. The visual observations
634were corroborated by rheological data, where the flow behaviour index was
635considerably higher and the consistency coefficient markedly lower than the values of
636lassi stabilized with carrageenan and pectin.
637
638

It was presumed that the flow behaviour index of lassi containing LBG would

639have been much higher had the aggregated protein not interfered with the rotational
640movement of the spindle, thereby spiking the values to a certain extent.
641
642

The Lassi made stabilized with LBG also demonstrated the least amount of

643shear thinning., which was expected since the proteins in these samples aggregated and
644the yogurt matrix was disturbed. These results were in line with those of Koksoy and
645Kilic (2004), who observed that LBG at low concentrations increased the flow
646behaviour index of yoghurt drink from non-Newtonian to Newtonian behaviour.
647
648

Precipitation and poor consistency in LBG containing samples were reasoned

649to the formation of complexes between LBG and milk proteins, that which precipitated
650out of solution. Schorsch et alet al. (1999) postulated that the incompatibility between
651skimmed milk and LBG was largely attributed to the incompatibility of micellar casein
652and LBG. The authors also added added that the addition of sucrose led to a
653concentration effect on the protein phase and dilution of the LBG phase, leading to

113

38

114
115
654severe phase separation of the systems. Thaiudom and Goff (2003) also observed
655incompatibility and phase separation between milk proteins and LBG.
656
657

From the viscometric data, it could be concluded that magnitude of flow

658behaviour index was the lowest for carrageenan, intermediate for pectin and the
659highest for LBG. Lassi stabilized with carrageenan at 0.15% had the highest apparent
660viscosity, consistency coefficient, yield stress and pseudoplasticity. From the absence
661of visible whey separation in lassi made with carrageenan and pectin, it is could be
662hypothesized that there was sufficient amount of negatively-charged particles in these
663hydrocolloids to provide repulsion on the positively-charged protein molecules of the
664lassi, thereby stabilizing the gel matrix. As reported by previous authors (Spagnuolo et
665al. 2005; Chandan et al. 2006), it was confirmed that LBG alone may not a good
666stabilizer for fermented milks like lassi. It may have to be used in combination with
667other stabilizers for synergistic effects.
668
669
670Whey SeparationSyneresis in Lassi
671

The sSyneresis test was conducted only on lassi -stabilized with pectin and

672carrageenan at different sugar contents. The results are summarized in Table 6.. Lassi
673stabilized with LBG-added samples were was not evaluated because of the visible
674whey separation of the samples. The wWhey separation in lassi reduced significantly
675considerably in lassi stabilized with carrageenan when as compared to control (0%

116

39

117
118
676carrageenan) (Table 4.10). As explained discussed before, in section 4.5.3.1, the
677considerable the reduction in whey separation of lassi stabilized with carrageenan was
678attributed to the well-known milk protein-polysaccharide interaction between casein
679and carrageenan. Though, addition of pectin alleviated whey separation at 0.05%
680concentrations, its effect was not as pronounced as that of carrageenan. Also, it could
681be inferred from the data Table 4.10 that sugar markedly had a reduced the significant
682effect on whey separation, particularly, particularly in carrageenan-stabilized samples,
683due to the interaction effect. However, such interactions were not very evident between
684sugar and pectin (Table 4.11).
685
686
TABLE 6
687 WHEY SEPARATION RESULTS OF LASSI STABILIZED WITH CARRAGEENAN
688

AND PECTIN
Stabilizer
Carrageenan

Pectin
Pectin

Concentration
of stabilizer, %
0
0.05
0.10
0.15

10
50.5%
36.2%
33.1%
37.4%

0
0.05
0.10
0.15

50.5%
37.2%
38.4%
42.2%

Sugar content, %
15
49.1%
33.3%
28.9%
32.7%
49.1%
36.3%
37.2%
44.0%

20
49.0%
30.0%
23.3%
27.4%
49.0%
36.1%
36.1%
43.3%

689
690
691
692

CONCLUSIONS
The apparent viscosity, consistency and yield stress increased with increasing

693concentration of carrageenan from 0 to 0.15%. Carrageenan at 0.15% concentration

119

40

120
121
694was recommended for stabilization of lassi. LBG was not an acceptable stabilizer for
695lassi, regardless of the concentrations of milk solids.
696
697
698
699

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research work is a contribution of the National Dairy Research Institute,

700Bangalore, supported by funds provided through the Indian Council of Agricultural

701Research. Mention of a trade name, proprietary products, or company name is for
702presentation clarity and does not imply endorsement by the authors or by the National
703Dairy Research Institute.
704
705
706
REFERENCES
707
708AHMED, J. (2004.) Rheological behaviour and colour changes of ginger paste during
709
storage. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 39(3), 325-330.
710
711ANEJA, R.P., MATHUR, B.N., CHANDAN, R.C. and BANERJEE, A.K. 2002) .
712
Cultured/fermented products. In: Technology of Indian Milk Products. (P.R.
713
Gupta (eded.) p.p 159, Dairy India Publication, Priyadarshini Vihar, New
714
Delhi.
715
716BASAK, S. and, RAMASWAMY, H.S. (1994) . Simultaneous evaluation of shear rate
717
and time dependency of stirred yogurt rheology as influenced by added pectin
718
and strawberry concentrate. J. Food Eng. 21(3),: 385-393.
719
720BENEZECH, T. and MAINGONNAT, J.F. 1994. Characterization of the rheological
721
properties of yoghurt A review. J. Food Eng. 21(4), 447-472.
722
723BIENVENUE, A., JIMENEZ-FLORES, R. and SINGH, H. 2003. Rheological
724
properties of concentrated skim milk: influence of heat treatment and genetic
725
variants on the changes in viscosity during storage. J. Agric. Food Chem.
726
51(22), 6488-6494.
727

122

41

123
124
728BRIGGS, J.L. and STEFFE, J.F. 1997. Using Brookfield data and the Mitschka
729
method to evaluate power law foods. J Texture Studies 28(5), 517-522.
730
731ERNKOV, M., BUNKA, F., PAVLINEK, V., BREZINA, P., HRABE, J. and
732
VALASEK, P. 2008. Effect of carrageenan type on viscoelastic properties of
733
processed cheese. Food Hydrocoll. 22(6), 1054-1061.
734
735CHANDAN, R.C. and ORELL, K.R. 2006. Ingredients for yogurt manufacture. In
736
Manufacturing Yogurt and Fermented Milks, (R.C. Chandan, C.H. White, A.
737
Kilara and Y.H. Hui eds.) pp. 151-285, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, UK.
738
739CHARM, S.E. 1963. The direct determination of shear stress-shear rate behavior of
740
foods in the presence of a yield stress. J. Food Sci. 28(1), 107-113.
741
742DAS, G.K. 1991. Evaluation of performance of selected strains of Streptococcus
743
salivarius subsp thermophilus as starter for manufacture of dahi from cow
744
milk. M.Sc. thesis, Gujarat Agri. University, Gujarat.
745
746De VRIES, J. 2002. Interaction of carrageenan with other ingredients in dairy dessert
747
gels. In Gums and Stabilisers For the Food Industry, (Vol. 11). (P.A. Williams
748
and G.O. Phillips, eds.) pp 200210 Royal Society of Chemistry, London.
749
750DOREAU, A. 1998. Advantages of specialty starches in the development of yoghurt751
type formulations. In Texture of Fermented Milk Products and Dairy Desserts,
752
pp. 154-164, Proceedings of the IDF Symposium held in Vicenza, Italy, 5-6
753
May 1997, International Dairy Federation, Belgium.
754
755DOUBLIER, J-L. and DURAND, S. 2008. A rheological characterization of semi-solid
756
dairy systems. Food Chem. 108(4), 1169-1175.
757
758
759HINGMIRE, S.R., LEMBHE, A.F., ZANJAD, P.N., PAWAR, V.D. and MACHEWAD,
760
G.M. 2009. Production and quality evaluation of instant lassi. Int. J. Dairy
761
Tech. 62(1), 80-84.
762
763HOLDSWORTH, S.D. 1993. Rheological models used for the prediction of the flow
764
properties of food products. A literature review. Transactions of the Institution
765
of Chemical Engineers, Part C, 71, 139-179.
766
767IMESON, A.P. 2000. Carrageenan. In Handbook of hydrocolloids, (G.O. Phillips and
768
P.A. Williams, eds.) pp. 87102, Woodhead Publishing Limited, CRC Press,
769
Boca Raton, FL.
770

125

42

126
127
771BIS: SP-18. 1980. Handbook of food analysis, Part I: Food Analysis. Indian Standards
772
Institution, New Delhi.
773
774KEOGH, M.K. and OKENNEDY, B.T. 1998. Rheology of stirred yoghurt as affected
775
by added milk fat, protein and hydrocolloids. J. Food Sci. 63(1), 108-112.
776
777KESSLER, H.G. 1998. The structure of fermented milk products as influenced by
778
technology and composition. In Texture of Fermented Milk Products and Dairy
779
Desserts, pp. 93-105, Proceedings of the IDF Symposium held in Vicenza,
780
Italy, 5-6 May 1997, International Dairy Federation, Belgium.
781
782KOKSOY, A. and KILIC, M. 2004. Use of hydrocolloids in textural stabilization of a
783
yoghurt drink, ayran. Food Hydrocoll. 18(4), 593-600.
784
785LABROPOULOS, A.E., COLLINS, W.F. and STONE, W.K. 1984. Effects of ultra786
high temperature and vat processes on heat-induced rheological properties of
787
yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 67(2), 405-409.
788
789LANGENDORFF, V., CUVELIER, G., MICHON, C., LAUNAY, B., PARKER, A. and
790
De KRUIF, C.G. 2000. Effects of carrageenan type on the behavior of
791
carrageenan/milk mixtures. Food Hydrocoll. 14(4), 273-280.
792
793LEE, W.J. and LUCEY, J.A. 2003. Rheological properties, whey separation, and
794
microstructure in set-style yogurt: effects of heating temperature and incubation
795
temperature. J. Texture Studies 34(5-6), 515-536.
796
797LUCEY, J.A., TAMEHANA, M., SINGH, H. and MUNRO, P.A. 1999. Stability of
798
model acid milk beverage: effect of pectin concentration, storage temperature
799
and milk heat treatment. J. Texture Studies 30(3), 305318.
800
801MODLER, H.W., LARMOND, M.E., LIN, C.S., FROEHLICH, D. and EMMONS,
802
D.B. 1983. Physical and sensory properties of yogurt stabilized with milk
803
proteins. J. Dairy Sci. 66(3), 422-429.
804
805MORRIS, E.R., CUTLER, A.N., ROSS-MURPHY, S.B., REES, D.A. and PRICE, J.
806
1981. Concentration and shear rate dependence of viscosity in random coil
807
polysaccharide solutions. Carbohydrate Polym. 1(1), 5-21.
808
809NOVAKOVI, P., KORDI, J., SLAEANAC, V. and MOSLAVAC, T. 1998.
810
Rheological properties of goat and cow acidophilus milk in relation to dry
811
matter. In Texture of Fermented Milk Products and Dairy Desserts, pp. 208812
212, Proceedings of the IDF Symposium held in Vicenza, Italy, 5-6 May 1997,
813
International Dairy Federation, Belgium.
814

128

43

129
130
815PARNELL-CLUNIES, E.M., KAKUDA, Y., MULLEN, K., ARNOTT, D.R. and de
816
MAN, J.M. 1986a. Physical properties of yogurt: A comparison of vat versus
817
continuous heating systems of milk. J. Dairy Sci. 69(10), 2593-2603.
818
819PARNELL-CLUNIES, E.M., KAKUDA, Y., and de MAN, J.M. 1986b. Influence of
820
heat treatment of milk on the flow properties of yoghurt. J. Food Sci.
821
51(6),1459-1462.
822
PELEGRINE, D.H., SILVA, F.C. and GASPARETTO, C.A. 2002. Rheological
behavior of Ppineapple and Mango mango Pulpspulps. Lebensm-Wiss uTechnol. 35, 645-648.
823
824PENNA, A.L.B., OLIVEIRA, M.N. and TAMIME, A.Y. 2003. Influence of
825
carrageenan and total solids content on the rheological properties of lactic
826
beverage made with yogurt and whey. J. Texture Studies 34(1), 95-113.
827
828RAMASWAMY, H.S. and BASAK, S. 1991. Rheology of stirred yoghurts. J. Texture
829
Studies 22(2), 231-241.
830
831
832RAO, M.A. 1999. Rheology of fluids and semisolid foods. Aspen Publishers Inc.,
833
Maryland.
834
835RAO, M.A., BOURNE, M.C. and COOLEY, H. J. 1981. Flow properties of tomato
836
concentrates. J. Texture Studies 12(4), 521-538.
837
838SAS Institute Inc. 2006. Statistical Analytical System Release 9.1. Cary, NC.
839SCHMIDT, R.H., SISTRUNK, C.P., RICHTER, R.I. and Cornell, J.A. 1980. Heat
840
treatment and storage effects on texture characteristics of milk and yogurt
841
systems fortified with oilseed proteins. J. Food Sci. 45(3), 471-475.
842
843SCHORSCH, C., JONES, M.G. and NORTON, I.T. 1999. Thermodynamic
844
incompatibility and microstructure of milk protein/locust bean gum/sucrose
845
systems. Food Hydrocoll. 13(2), 89-99.
846
847SKRIVER, A., ROEMER, H. and QVIST, K.B. 1993. Rheological characterization of
848
stirred yoghurt: viscometry. J. Texture Studies 24(2), 185-198.
849
850SPAGNUOLOA, P.A., DALGLEISH, D.G., GOFF, H.D. and MORRIS, E.R. 2005.
851
Kappa-carrageenan interactions in systems containing casein micelles and
852
polysaccharide stabilizers. Food Hydrocoll. 19(3), 371-377.
853

131

44

132
133
854STEFFE, J.F. 1992. Rheological methods in food process engineering, pp 9-30,
855
Freeman Press, Michigan, USA.
856
857TAMIME, A.Y. and DEETH, H.C. 1980. Yogurt: technology and biochemistry. J. Food
858
Prot. 43, 939-977.
859
860NILSSON, L.E., LYCK, S. and TAMIME, A.Y. 2006. Production of drinking yoghurts.
861
In Fermented Milks, (A.Y. Tamime, ed.) pp. 95-127, Blackwell Publishing,
862
Oxford, UK.
863
864TAMIME, A.Y. and ROBINSON, R.K. 1999. Yoghurt: Science and Technology, 2nd
865
edn., Woodhead Publishing, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
866.
867
868THAIUDOM, S. and HOFF, H.D. 2003. Effect of -carrageenan on milk protein
869
polysaccharide mixtures. Int. Dairy J. 13(9), 763-771.
870
871VEDAMUTHU, E.R. 1985. What is wrong with cultured buttermilk today? Dairy
872
Food Sanit. 5(1), 8-13.
873
874WALSTRA, P., GEURTS, J., NOOMEN, A., JELLEMA, A. and Van BOEKEL,
875
M.A.J.S. 1999. Dairy technology: principles of milk properties and processes.
876
Marcel Dekker, NY.
877
878YANES, M., DURAN, L. and COSTELL, E. 2002. Effect of hydrocolloid type and
879
concentration on flow behaviour and sensory properties of milk beverages
880
model systems. Food Hydrocoll. 16(6), 605-611.

134

45

135
136
881Check List
882
1. Check italics for lassi
883
2. Check and between two authors inside text
884
3. Check the accuracy of references
885
4. Make all text black
886
5. Check alphabetical order of references

137

46