Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0717 7518 Rchnut 49 02 0167
0717 7518 Rchnut 49 02 0167
http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-75182022000200167
1. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Departamento de Ciência y Tecnologia de Alimentos. Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
2. Universidade Estadual de Maranhão, Programa de Pós Graduação em Agroecologia, São Luís, Maranhão, Brasil.
3. Universidad de Carabobo, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias y Tecnología,
Centro de Biotecnología Aplicada, Valencia, Carabobo, Venezuela.
4. Inversiones Herrera-Alcano C.A, Guacara, Carabobo, Venezuela.
ABSTRACT
Greek yogurt (GY) has gained popularity in recent years for its marked texture, taste, and nutritional characteristics com-
pared to traditional yogurt (TY). The objective of this work was to analyze the physicochemical, sensory, and lipid profile
of GY and TY with blueberry flavor, both manufactured by a local industry in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Protein
and lipid content, as well as humidity, ash, and fatty acid profile were quantified and a sensory evaluation was completed
using the affective method. The physicochemical results showed 1.5% and 2.3% more proteins and lipids, respectively,
for GY compared to TY. The humidity in TY was 10% lower than in GY. Eighteen types of polyunsaturated, saturated,
monounsaturated fatty acids were identified, with a high proportion of C14, C16, and C18. Sensory analysis showed a
preference for GY over TY (64% versus 36%, p<0.05). However, body, appearance, and texture attributes did not present
better acceptance scores for GY (p>0.05). Both the protein and lipid content, associated with creaminess, likely influence
better acceptance of GY.
Keywords: Creaminess; Greek Yogurt; Protein; Sensory acceptability; Traditional Yogurt.
RESUMEN
El yogur griego (YG) ha ganado popularidad durante los últimos años por su marcada textura, sabor y características nutri-
cionales en comparación con el yogur tradicional (YT). El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar el perfil fisicoquímico, sen-
167
Escalona M, et al. Rev Chil Nutr 2022; 49(2): 167-172.
sorial y lipídico de YG y YT con sabor a arándano, ambos fabricados por una industria ubicada en el estado de Rio Grande
do Sul, Brasil. Fueron cuantificados el contenido de proteínas, lípidos, humedad y cenizas, así como también el perfil de
ácidos grasos y la evaluación sensorial por método afectivo. Los resultados fisicoquímicos mostraron que YG contiene 1,5%
y 2,3% más de proteínas y lípidos, respectivamente, en comparación con YT (p<0,05). La humedad en YT fue 1,1 veces
menor que en YG. Fueron identificados 18 tipos de ácidos grasos poliinsaturados, saturados, monoinsaturados, con mayor
proporción de C14, C16 y C18. El análisis sensorial mostró una preferencia por YG de 64% sobre YT 36% (p<0,05). Sin
embargo, no hubo diferencia significativa (p>0,05) en relación a la aceptación de los atributos color, olor, sabor y acidez.
Los atributos cuerpo, apariencia y textura presentaron mejores scores de aceptación para el YG. Tanto el contenido de
proteínas y lípidos, asociados a la cremosidad, probablemente hayan influenciado una mejor aceptación del YG.
Palabras clave: Aceptabilidad sensorial; Cremosidad; Proteína; Yogurt Griego; Yogurt Tradicional.
168
Greek vs traditional yogurts: Sensory and physicochemical comparison
220 °C remaining at that temperature for 21 minutes. The by calculating the acceptability index (AI), calculated from
entire process lasted a total of 73.5 minutes. Nitrogen was the expression: AI (%)= A x 100/B, where A= average grade
used as the carrier gas at 0.9 mL.min-1. The injected sample obtained for the product, and B= grade maximum given to
volume (split mode) was 1 µL. The temperature used for the product. Statistical tests were carried out in R studio
the detector (FID) was 280 °C. Fatty acids were identified v.4.1.0 (R Core Team 2021)19.
by comparison with reference pattern times (37 FAME mix
Supelco, Sigma, Bellefonte, USA). RESULTS
Sensory analysis. The panelists consisted of 45 untrained Table 1 shows the results corresponding to the
persons, aged between eighteen and fifty, of both genders, physicochemical parameters obtained in the GY and TY
recruited among students, professors, and administration samples. GY had 1.5 and 2.3 times higher protein and
workers of the Federal University of Santa Maria, UFSM, lipid content than TY, respectively. On the other hand, the
RS, Brazil. Sensory tests were carried out in sensory cabins moisture content of TY was 10% lower than GY (p<0.05).
of the Department of Foods Science and Technology of the GY was more caloric (calories /100g) than TY, which
UFSM. The affective-hedonic scale method was used, which was related to its highest content of lipids, proteins and
assumes that consumer preferences can be categorized carbohydrates (p<0,05).
by responses based on taste and dislike. Samples were Table 2 shows the lipid profile obtained in the GY and
present monadically in random order for each respondent, TY samples. There were 18 types of fatty acids including
accompanied by cookies and water between samples to saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated. Samples
cleanse the palate. Visual evaluation, olfactory, gustatory, did not differ in percentage (p>0,05). Both GY and TY were
and global impressions were recorded on 7-point scale. rich in saturated fatty acids (SFA), with a SFA content 2.5
The value one (1) was assigned to the expression “Like times higher than polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). A
Very Much” and the value of seven (7) was assigned to the greater proportion of C14, C16, and C18 fatty acids also
term “Dislike Very Much”. The respondents were asked was found in yogurt samples.
to indicate which sample was preferred. The results were The sensorial analysis showed that evaluators preferred
expressed as proportions and by attributes test of a queue GY (64.4%) compared to TY (35.5%), (p<0,05). However,
for the difference between preferences18. preference for color, odor, flavor, and acidity, did not differ
by yogurt type (p>0, 05). GY was preferred compared to
Statistical analysis TY for attributes such as body, appearance, and texture (p
Physicochemical parameters and fatty acid data for <0.05). Figure 1 shows the attributes of body, appearance,
Greek and traditional yogurts were analyzed using Student and texture, where the proportions for GY for “Liked Slightly”,
T-Test, with a p= 0,05 significance level. Sensory attribute “Liked Moderately”, “Liked Very Much” were 81.8%, 91.1%,
data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and 88.8%, respectively. On the other hand, for TY, the
and means were compared using Tukey’s post hoc test at a percentage of acceptability varied: 54.4%, 44.4%, and
p= 0,05 significance level. The acceptance was evaluated 77.7%, respectively.
Table 1. Physicochemical parameters analyzed in Greek yogurt (GY) and traditional yogurt (TY) samples.
Parameter Sample
GY TY
169
Escalona M, et al. Rev Chil Nutr 2022; 49(2): 167-172.
Table 2. Fatty acids identified for Greek yogurt (GY) and traditional yogurt (TY) samples.
170
Greek vs traditional yogurts: Sensory and physicochemical comparison
DISCUSSION Yogurts with higher fat content, regarding fibers, have more
The high proportion of proteins and lipids found in flavor and therefore better organoleptic characteristics29.
GY compared to TY is due to the ovine and caprine origin GY was, according to the respondents of the questionnaire,
of milk for GY production. The proportion of protein for creamier, with a more viscous consistency than TY. GY is
sheep’s milk is 1.7 times higher than that found in cow’s known as strained yogurt in the dairy category. The straining
milk. While the proportion of lipids is 2.1 and 1.19 times process is done to remove the excess watery whey, which
for sheep and goat milk respectively, relative to cow’s milk, gives the yogurt a creamier and thicker consistency30. The
this factor contributes to the proportional and nutritional introduction of GY changed American tastes in yogurt and
increase observed in the final product 20,21. its large consumer acceptance helped increase sales in the
On the other hand, the formulation of GY differs from yogurt category overall. As of 2018, over 300 million pints
TY due to the processing steps carried out during production, of Greek yogurt were sold in the United States, where the
where a concentration of proteins and lipids is carried out GY market represented 44% of total yogurt sales in 202031.
during the addition of cream and removal of the moisture While TYs have as their main attraction “probiotic
by eliminating whey using filtration and centrifugation cultures”, Greek yogurt mentions the word “delicious”
processes, which in turn improves the texture quality, indicating a product that causes the consumer’s sense of
making it creamier in addition to reducing the vulnerability well-being, so that dairy companies provide a superior
of yogurt to syneresis. This technological process also product on creaminess and flavor. Being a new product on
affects the percentages of moisture because it reduces the the market, the controversy revolves around the fact that it
water content and concentrates solids like proteins, lipids, contains a lot of calories32.
and ashes22. The technological scheme of GY production However, yogurt itself is a healthy product and contains
varies among companies, so products with subtle or marked Lactobacillus which maintains the balance of the intestinal
differences in their physicochemical composition may exist microbiota33. Consumers generally prefer GY because it is less
in the market. A physicochemical comparison among seven acidic than TY, “tastier” and with a pleasant texture, although
commercial GY made with cow’s milk showed an average it should be consumed in moderation. In yogurt preparation,
of 3.66 and 3.27% of protein and lipids respectively23. in addition to casein and whey protein aggregates, fat acts
These differences are difficult to determine given the lack as a body-providing agent and induces interaction with the
of knowledge in the formulations of both the commercial protein matrix. The gel is a firmness property, important in
yogurts analyzed and the yogurts evaluated in this research. the acceptance of the yogurt by the consumer34.
Milk fat content is a critical point, TY generally contains at
least 3.25% milk lipids, however, it can be lower in low-fat CONCLUSION
(0.5-3%) or fat-free (less than 0.5%) products. According In this study, fatty acid profiles showed no relevant
to Brazilian legislation, yogurt made from whole milk may differences between GY and TY, but a slightly higher UFA
contain between 3.0 and 5.9% fat and yogurt made with content was observed for GY. For both, eighteen types of
cream addition may be above 6.0%24. On the other hand, polyunsaturated, saturated, monounsaturated fatty acids
the minimum percent of protein that natural yogurt must were identified, with high proportions of C14, C16, and
present to be denominated as such is 2.7%25. C18. Protein and lipids were higher in GY, which likely
Although there was no significant difference between related to higher sensorial acceptance compared with TY,
SFA and unsaturated fatty acids (UFA), one can observe a highlighting the attributes of color, texture, and appearance
slight inclination in the content UFA for GY. This represents a
point of interest with respect to cholesterol levels. Different Founding Source. This research did not receive any
types of SFA exert different effects on plasma cholesterol. specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
Myristic acid (C14: 00), palmitic acid (C16: 00) and lauric or not-for-profit sectors.
acid (C12: 00) found in greater proportion in TY have the
highest levels of cholesterol, while stearic acid (C18: 00) REFERENCES
appears to have little effect on cholesterol26,27. In the context 1. Dias SS, De Souza Vergílio D, Pereira AM, Klososki SJ, Marcolino
of a diet rich in dairy fat (50 g/day), the substitution of fat VA, Da Cruz RMS, et al. Probiotic Greek yogurt: Effect of the
originating in TY (made from cow’s milk) by GY fat (made addition of prebiotic fat substitutes on the physicochemical
characteristics, probiotic survival, and sensory acceptance.
from sheep’s milk) lead to a small reduction in plasma
J Dairy Res. 2021; 88: 98-104.
cholesterol concentration, but not in the LDL / HDL ratio28. 2. Serhan M, Mattar J, Debs L. Concentrated yogurt (Labneh)
The acceptance attributes identified in the GY sample made of a mixture of goats’ and cows’ milk: Physicochemical,
are linked to the fat content, due to the characteristics of microbiological and sensory analysis. Small Rumin Res. 2016;
creaminess, consistency, and viscosity of the product. The 138: 46-52.
GY manufacturing process is not standardized, although 3. Aktar T. Physicochemical and sensory characterization of
the milk is generally not homogenized and starter cultures different yogurt production methods. Int Dairy J. 2022; 125:
are inoculated using yogurt from the previous day23. A diet 105245.
4. Suh SH, Kim MK. Microbial communities related to sensory
rich in GY may have beneficial effects on human health.
171
Escalona M, et al. Rev Chil Nutr 2022; 49(2): 167-172.
characteristics of commercial drinkable yogurt products in and relevance for functional food development. Compr Rev
Korea. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2021; 67: 102565. Food Sci Food Saf. 2017; 16: 247-262.
5. Esteves de Oliveira FC, Pontelo Pontes J, Vieira Queiroz VA, 21. Ribeiro AC, Ribeiro SDA. Specialty products made from
Silva Roncheti EF, Melo Dutra VL, da Veiga Correia VT, et goat milk. Small Rumin Res. 2010; 89: 225-233.
al. Greek yogurt with added sorghum flours: Antioxidant 22. Soukoulis, C. et al. Industrial yogurt manufacture: Monitoring
potential and sensory acceptance. Rev Chil Nutr. 2020; 47: of fermentation process and improvement of final product
272-280. quality. J Dairy Sci. 2007; 90: 2641-2654.
6. Bir C, Delgado MS, Widmar NO. U.S. consumer demand for 23. Mileib-Vasconcelos C, Rodrigues-Minim VP, Paes-Chaves JB.
traditional and Greek yogurt attributes, including livestock Low-calorie yogurt added with yacon flour: Development
management attributes. Agric Resour Econ Rev. 2021; 50: and physicochemical evaluation. Rev Chil Nutr. 2012; 39:
99-126. 65-71.
7. Johansen SMB, Laugesen JL, Janh T, Ipsen RH, Frost MB. 24. Serafeimidou A, Zlatanos S, Laskaridis K, Sagredos A. Chemical
Prediction of sensory properties of low-fat yogurt and cream characteristics, fatty acid composition and conjugated
cheese from surface images. Food Qual Prefer. 2008; 19: linoleic acid (CLA) content of traditional Greek yogurts.
232-246. Food Chem. 2012; 134: 1839-1846.
8. Smith L. ‘Greek yogurt’ gains protection. J Intellect Prop 25. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA).
Law Pract. 2013; 8: 688-689. Resolução nº 5, de 13 de novembro de 2000 (D.O.U. 02/01/01).
9. Xu Z, Emmanouelidou DG, Raphaelides SN, Antoniou Aprova os Padrões de Identidade e Qualidade (PIQ) de Leites
KD. Effects of heating temperature and fat content on the Fermentados. BRASIL. http://www.cidasc.sc.gov.br/inspecao/
structure development of set yogurt. J Food Eng. 2008; 85: files/2019/09/INSTRU%C3%87%C3%83O-NORMATIVA-
590-597. N-46-de-23-de-outubro-de-2007-Leites-Fermentados.pdf
10. Kyle CR, Amamcharla JK. Value addition of Greek yogurt 26. Codex Alimentarius. Milk and Dairy Products. Ed. Viale delle
whey using magnetic fluid and sepiolite treatments. Food Terme di Caracalla, 2ed, Roma, Italia. 2011. p. 6. https://
Bioprocess Technol. 2016; 30: 553-563. www.fao.org/3/i2085e/i2085e00.pdf
11. Desai NT, Shepard L, Drake MA. Sensory properties and 27. Terpstra, AHM. Effect of conjugated linoleic acid on body
drivers of liking for Greek yogurts. J Dairy Sci. 2013; 96: composition and plasma lipids in humans: An overview of
7454-7466. the literature. Am J Clin Nut. 2004; 79: 352-361.
12. Marette A, Picard-deland E. Yogurt consumption and impact 28. Jenkins B, West JA, Koulman A. A review of odd-chain fatty
on health: Focus on children and cardiometabolic risk. Am acid metabolism and the role of pentadecanoic Acid (c15:0)
J Clin Nutr. 2014; 99: 1243-1247. and heptadecanoic Acid (c17:0) in health and disease.
13. Serafeimidou A, Zlatanos S, Laskaridis K, Sagredos A. Chemical Molecules. 2015; 20: 2425-2444.
characteristics, fatty acid composition and conjugated 29. Skeaff CM, Williscroft K, Mann J, Chisholm A. Replacing
linoleic acid (CLA) content of traditional Greek yogurts. cows’ with sheep’s dairy fat lowers plasma cholesterol
Food Chem. 2012; 134: 1839-1846. concentration in participants consuming dairy fat-rich diets.
14. Association of Official AnalTYical Chemists (AOAC). Official Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004; 58:250-257.
methods of analysis of the Association of the AnalTYical 30. Díaz, B, Sosa ME, Velez JF. Effect of fiber addition and fat
Chemists 16th ed. Washington (USA), 1995. reduction on yogurt. Physicochemical Properties. Rev Mex
15. Bligh EG, Dyer WJ. A rapid method of total lipid extraction Ing Quím. 2004; 3: 287-305.
and purification. Can J Biochem Physiol. 1959; 27: 911-917. 31. Shahbandeh, M. U.S Greek Yogurt Market - Statistics &
16. Association of Official AnalTYical Chemists (AOAC). Official Facts. Statista. 2021. https://www.statista.com/topics/2351/
methods of analysis of the Association of the AnalTYical greek-yogurt/.
Chemists 18th ed. Maryland (USA), 2005. 32. Rabin G, Salam AI. Effects of hydrocolloids and processing
17. Hartman L, Lago RC. Rapid preparation of fatty acids methyl conditions on acid whey production with reference to Greek
esters. Lab Pract. 1973; 22: 475-476. yogurt. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2015; 56: 61-76.
18. Dutcosky SD. Sensory analysis of food, 4ed. Curitiba: 33. Mohammad RK, Rasoul S. Chapter 16 - Traditional Yogurt
Champagnat, 2013. as a source of Lactobacilli and other lactic acid bacteria
19. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical in Iran. Editor(s): Nagendra P. Shah, Yogurt in Health and
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Disease Prevention. Acad. Press. 2017; 285-294.
Austria. 2021. https://www.R-project.org/. 34. Isleten M, Karagul-Yuceer Y. Effects of dried dairy ingredients
20. Balthazar CF, Pimentel TC, Ferrão LL, Almada CN, Santillo A, on physical and sensory properties of nonfat yogurt. J Dairy
Albenzio M, et al. Sheep Milk: Physicochemical characteristics Sci. 2006; 89(8): 2865-2872.
172