Determination of Nutritional Value, Antioxidant Activities, Microbiological and Sensory Properties of Almond, Soy and Oat Based Fermented Beverages

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4196322/v1

Plant-based milks have become popular in recent years for vegan and vegetarian diets as well as sustainable nutrition choices. It was aimed to determine the survival rate of probiotic bacterial culture as a result of different storage periods of almond, soy and oat milk-based fermented beverages, to determine their nutritional values and total antioxidant activities, and to evaluate their sensory properties. Almond, soy and oat milk and one type of semi-skimmed cow's milk were used as the control group. Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, Lactobacillus acidophilus (NCFM®), Bifidobacterium lactis (HN019™) were used as microorganisms. The incubated samples were stored at 4 ± 1°C for 21 days. High viability levels (> 6 log cfu/ml) were maintained in all strains except for B. lactis throughout the storage period (p < 0.05). Fermented oat milk (FOM) had the highest values in terms of carbohydrates, fermented cow milk (FCM) and fermented soy milk (FSM) had the highest values in terms of protein and fat, and FCM and FOM had the highest values in terms of energy (p < 0.05). FSM and fermented almond milk (FAM) had the highest total antioxidant levels during the storage period (p > 0.05). Our data show that the ideal period for the survival of probiotic microorganisms in fermented plant based beverages is first 14 days. It is thought that plant milks are mostly preferred by vegan and vegetarian individuals, and FSM and FAM will be a good choice for these individuals, especially considering the risk of protein intake deficiency and total antioxidant activity.

Antioxidant activity

functional food

plant milks

probiotic

sensory properties

Vegetarian and vegan nutrition continues to gain momentum in today's postmodern world. Further, demands for vegetarian and vegan foods are increasing, and steps are being taken in the food industry to ensure healthy and sustainable nutrition [1]. At this point, the concept of functional nutrition comes to the fore, especially in providing healthy nutrition, preventing diseases and maintaining the body's well-being. The use of functional compounds, probiotics, in fermented food production is not new, but recently the production purposes in the food industry have moved towards animal protection, organoleptic improvements and health protection [2].

Some of the functional food examples have positive effects on the human gastrointestinal system and human health because they contain microorganisms that provide beneficial effects. By far, the largest portion of probiotic products is offered to consumers through fermented foods made from animal milk [3]. Plant-based fermented beverages represent a significant segment among dairy-free alternatives and meet the needs of many consumers with animal-derived milk allergies and ethical concerns [4]. In this context, herbal milk industries have gained importance recently. Since plant milks contain prebiotic compounds as well as nutritional and health benefits, these milks are important sources for producing synbiotic products [5]. Fermented beverages obtained from plant milks are generally obtained by fermenting aqueous extracts obtained from different raw materials (e.g. legumes, oilseeds, grains or pseudocereals) in a way that they have an appearance and consistency similar to cow's milk, resulting from the disintegration and homogenization of these materials [6]. In the light of all this information, this study aimed to determine the survival rate of probiotic bacterial culture as a result of different storage periods of fermented beverages obtained by fermentation of almond, soybean and oat extracts, to determine their nutritional values and total antioxidant activities (TAA) and to perform sensory analysis.

The materials and methods are presented as supplementary material. The flow chart of the method is shown in Fig. 1.

Statistical analysis results regarding all colonies in fermented beverage samples are shown in Table 1. It was determined that all fermented beverages analyzed in the study for S. thermophilus colonies complied with the targeted limits (p < 0.05). Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, colony numbers, it was determined that all fermented beverages analyzed in the study complied with the targeted limits (p < 0.05). In the pairwise comparisons made according to the storage days of the FCM the number of Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus colonies on the 1st day of the FCM was determined to be significantly higher than on the 21st day (p < 0.05). It was determined that all fermented beverages analyzed in the study for L. acidophilus colony numbers complied with the targeted limits (p < 0.05). When the general comparisons within the fermented beverages on the 1st, 7th, 14th and 21st storage days were examined, the number of L. acidophilus colonies on the 1st day of the FOM was determined to be the highest, and the number of L. acidophilus colonies on the 21st day was determined to be the lowest (p < 0.05). It was determined that B. lactis colony numbers did not comply with the targeted limits in all fermented beverages analyzed in the study (p < 0.05). When the general comparisons within the fermented beverages on the 1st, 7th, 14th and 21st storage days were examined, the number of B. lactis colonies on the 14th day of the FCM was determined to be the highest, and the number of B. lactis colonies on the 21st day was determined to be the lowest (p < 0.05). Change in the number of colonies of all species in fermented beverages during 21 days of storage showed in Fig. 2.

When the data obtained with the literature on microbiological analyzes of fermented beverages were compared, it was determined that the numbers of B. lactis were lower in all fermented beverage types in this study compared to the literatüre [7]. All studies were designed differently from each other and the microbiological analyzes of the studies and the viability of probiotic microorganisms; adding microbial growth-promoting components such as FOS, galactooligosaccharide (GOS), inulin, glucose, sucrose, etc. to the medium during the fermentation stage; Using different storage temperatures such as refrigerator temperature (4°C and around) or freezing (-80°C and around) during the storage stage, storage period, direct procurement of milk components to be used before the fermentation process from raw materials through production or commercially, before the fermentation process applied pasteurization stage and temperature degree and duration, single or multiple combination of bacteria used in the fermentation process, differences in the bacteria used in the fermentation process, different log number strains of the bacteria used in the fermentation process even if they are the same brand, high oxidation-reduction potential, high acidity, low temperature, substrate Many factors can be effective, such as limitation and/or formation of starter culture metabolites (such as hydrogen peroxide and lactic acid), and the use of different counting methods, direct or indirect, in the counting method of microorganisms [8–15]. It is thought that the low number of B. lactis in this study may be due to the suppression of B. lactis growth by other bacterial strains. In addition, when all fermented beverages were taken together, it was determined that the lowest bacterial counts were generally found in fermented almond beverages. It is possible to state that the reason for this may be due to the disadvantage that occurs as a result of filtering the almond milk industrially produced from almonds with its pulp and therefore the prebiotic components it contains.

Although there is generally no common acceptance regarding the number of probiotic microorganisms, many references such as 7 log cfu/ml, 6 to 8 log cfu/g > 7 log cfu/ml, 8 log cfu/portion have been reported for probiotic microorganisms [16–18].

Although there is no exact concentration for probiotic microorganisms, 6 to 8 log cfu/g is among the most recommended in the literature from past to present [14, 19–22]. Data from this study showed that high levels (> 6 log cfu/ml) could be maintained in all strains except B. lactis after 21 days of storage at 4°C. Additionally, when a general evaluation was made in this study, it was noted that although there were exceptions, the number of live probiotic microorganisms decreased, especially after the first 14 days of fermentation.

Chemical analysis in fermented beverages are shown in Table 2. In the carbohydrate analysis, it was determined that FOM had the highest values and fermented FAM had the lowest values (p < 0.05). In the protein analysis, it was determined that FCM and FSM had the highest values and fermented FAM and FOM had the lowest values (p < 0.05). In the fat analysis, it was determined that FCM and FSM had the highest values and fermented FAM and FOM had the lowest values (p < 0.05). In the energy analysis, it was determined that FOM had the highest values and fermented FAM had the lowest values (p < 0.05).

The results of this study are generally similar and different from the literature results [23–26] and it was determined that the storage period did not cause a change in carbohydrate, protein, fat and energy values. When the literature is evaluated, studies generally carried out fermentation and analysis processes on a single milk type. In addition, protein and fat ratios are generally discussed in the literature, but it has been observed that energy values, which are an important criterion in the evaluation of nutritional value and consumer selection, are not included in the studies in the literature. For this reason, it is thought that this study may be among the few studies that offer the opportunity to compare the literature with the combined use of many types of herbal milk and additional energy analysis. In addition, the highest carbohydrate content in fermented oat drinks may be due to the high fiber content of oats. In addition, in this study, the amount of protein contained in fermented soybean beverage is very close to that of fermented cow's milk beverage. Although no significant difference was observed depending on the storage period, there was an increase in the protein values of the fermented soy beverage during the first 14 days, and it is thought that LAB affects the soy milk protein by converting the soy protein into oligopeptides through the fermentation process. Considering this situation, it suggests that fermented soy beverage may be an important alternative to fermented cow's milk beverage in terms of meeting daily protein requirements for vegan and vegetarian individuals. However, when making these recommendations and choices, it should be questioned whether the individual has an allergy to soy and its products.

Total Antioxidant Activity and pH Analysis

TAA analysis in fermented beverages are shown in Table 3. Although there was no significant difference in the TAA analysis results of all fermented beverages, it was observed that FSM and FAM had the highest TAA values during 21 days of storage (p > 0.05). In the pH analysis, it was determined that FOM and FAM had the highest values and fermented FCM had the lowest values (p < 0.05).

The results of this study have similarities and differences with the literature in terms of total antioxidant activity analysis [27–29]. In this study, especially soy and almonds are foods rich in antioxidant content, and an increase in their antioxidant capacity was observed with fermentation. In addition, although there was no statistically significant difference in fermented oat and almond beverage compared to storage days and other fermented beverages, an increase in TAA values was observed with increasing storage time. There has been a significant increase in almond cultivation in the world recently. Although almonds are a food with high antioxidant levels in their raw form, the results of this study also showed that the total antioxidant levels of fermented beverages obtained from almond milk increased with storage time. It is thought that the data obtained in this study, especially on almond milk, will contribute to the literature as well as to almond cultivation and commercial fermented almond drink production. A temperature of 4°C during the storage phase causes an increase in the metabolism of LAB and causes high protein hydrolysis. With this mechanism, LABs cause the production of lactic acid, leading to acidification of milk contents [15, 26]. In this study, the increase in acidity level of fermented soy and cow milk beverage as storage time increases can be explained by this mechanism. Although almonds and oats are foods rich in fiber, unlike soy milk, large amounts of fiber may be lost when commercially producing almond and oat milk. Prebiotic content is very important in maintaining the viability of probiotics, and the commercial almond and oat milk used in this study may not have provided sufficient amounts of prebiotics for the growth of bacteria. Therefore, taking into account the fact that the pH decrease occurs with the acidity created by the organic components in the environment, which increases with the increase in bacterial viability, the pH values obtained in the fermented almond and oat drink in this study can be explained by this situation.

Sensory analysis results in fermented beverages are shown in Table 4. In the taste scores, it was determined that FOM was given the highest score and FSM was given the lowest score on the 1st day, (p < 0.05) when it was determined that FAM was given the highest score and FCM was given the lowest score on the 21st day (p < 0.05). In evaluations based on storage periods, it was determined that there was an increase in the taste points of FSM given as the day progressed (p < 0.05). In the color scores, it was determined that FSM was given the highest score and FOM was given the lowest score on the 1st day (p < 0.05), while it was determined that FCM was given the highest score and FOM was given the lowest score on the 14th day (p < 0.05). In the odor scores, it was determined that fermented cow's milk beverage was given the highest score and fermented almond beverage was given the lowest score on the 7th day (p = 0.002).

The results of this study have similarities and differences with the literature in terms of sensory analysis [23, 25, 30, 31]. Considering consumer comments in terms of appearance in this study, it is thought that the fact that the fermented soy beverage has a foamy and coffee-like appearance and the fermented cow's milk beverage has an appearance close to the preferences that individuals are accustomed to are effective in the appearance scoring. Considering consumer comments in terms of taste during the sensory analysis stage, the reason why fermented oat and almond drink is liked more is that it has a sweet taste, while the reason why fermented soy drink is least liked may be that it has a bitter taste. When consumer comments in terms of color are taken into account at the sensory analysis stage, the reason why fermented cow's milk and soy beverages are more appreciated is based on the same factors in appearance evaluation. It has been stated that the reason why fermented oat drink is least liked is that it generally has a cloudy appearance and color. Oats may have caused this appearance and color mainly due to the rich fiber and carbohydrate content it contains. Considering consumer comments in terms of smell during the sensory analysis stage, it was stated that the reason why fermented cow's milk drink was given the highest score was that consumers made this choice because they were familiar with this smell. Then, the reason why fermented soybean beverage received the highest score was stated as fermented soybean beverage having an aromatic sweetish odor. Each plant-based beverage has its own advantages and disadvantages. In addition, herbal product-based drinks, which have become increasingly popular in recent years, are quite foreign to some palate cultures, including the Turkish palate culture. Considering that there has been an increase in the trend towards sustainable nutrition around the world recently, it is thought that it would be beneficial to enrich herbal milks and fermented plant-based beverages with bacterial strains containing various flavors in order to appeal to consumers in different cultures. In addition, the storage period should not be kept too long due to the formation of sour taste and odor during storage.

Especially in recent years, with the trend towards plant milk preferences, these individuals are obtaining foods such as fermented drinks and yoghurt production from plant milk at home. These individuals state that they have produced an alternative, functional beverage for themselves in this way. However, they do not have enough information about the components that are very important for health, such as the nutritional contents of these fermented drinks, probiotic microorganism viability, and antioxidant properties, and there is also an insufficient number of literature they can access. It is thought that the results of this study will contribute to the literature in this sense. It should also be noted that not every food containing probiotic bacteria should be considered a probiotic food. One of the conditions for a food to be labeled as probiotic is the ability of probiotic microorganisms to survive in the human GI tract. Therefore, it should be taken into consideration that more than one factor plays a role in order for microorganisms to survive in a probiotic food.

Limitations of this study may include the combined use of probiotic microorganisms used in the fermentation phase in this study. For probiotic microorganisms, in multiple combinations, some bacterial species may be dominant, while other bacterial species may have difficulty in sustaining their survival and multiplying. The use of probiotic microorganisms individually and in combinations may provide a different perspective for future studies.

FOM: Fermented oat milk; FCM; fermented cow milk; FSM: fermented soy milk; FAM: fermented almond milk; TAA: Total antioxidant activity

Acknowledgments: There is no acknowledgments.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation: GEK; Methodology: GEK, AK, HBÖ; Investigation, GEK; Writing: GEK, Review and Editing, GEK, AK, HBÖ; Supervision, AK; Data Provision: GEK. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Financial support: No support was received from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or non-profit sectors during this study.

Data Availability: No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Ethics Approval: It was decided that it was appropriate to carry out the sensory analysis phase of the study as a result of the Ankara University Rectorate Ethics Committee meeting dated 25.04.2022, numbered 08, and decision numbered 87.

Author's Note: This study was produced from the doctoral thesis of Gül Eda KILINÇ, who completed her studentship at Ankara University Health Sciences Institute Nutrition and Dietetics PhD program.

Consent to Participate: The purpose and protocol of this study were explained to all participants, and written informed consent was obtained.

Consent for Publication: There is no conflict of interest between the authors.

Henchion, M., et al., Future protein supply and demand: strategies and factors influencing a sustainable equilibrium. Foods, 2017. 6(7): p. 53.
Saad, N., et al., An overview of the last advances in probiotic and prebiotic field. LWT-Food Science and Technology, 2013. 50(1): p. 1-16.
Mäkinen, O.E., et al., Foods for special dietary needs: Non-dairy plant-based milk substitutes and fermented dairy-type products. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 2016. 56(3): p. 339-349.
Phillips, G.O. and P.A. Williams, Handbook of food proteins. 2011: Elsevier.
De Souza Oliveira, R.P., et al., The effect of inulin as a prebiotic on the production of probiotic fibre‐enriched fermented milk. International Journal of Dairy Technology, 2009. 62(2): p. 195-203.
Sethi, S., S.K. Tyagi, and R.K. Anurag, Plant-based milk alternatives an emerging segment of functional beverages: a review. Journal of food science and technology, 2016. 53: p. 3408-3423.
Mohammadi, R., et al., Influence of commercial culture composition and cow milk to soy milk ratio on the biochemical, microbiological, and sensory characteristics of a probiotic fermented composite drink. Food science and biotechnology, 2017. 26: p. 749-757.
Altamirano‐Ríos, A.V., et al., Effect of encapsulation methods and materials on the survival and viability of Lactobacillus acidophilus: A review. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 2022. 57(7): p. 4027-4040.
Cui, L., S.K. Chang, and R. Nannapaneni, Comparative studies on the effect of probiotic additions on the physicochemical and microbiological properties of yoghurt made from soymilk and cow's milk during refrigeration storage (R2). Food Control, 2021. 119: p. 107474.
Joel, N., S. James, and B. Offia-Olua, Development and comparative evaluation of storage changes in probiotic soy-yoghurt. 2019.
Lahtinen, S.J., et al., Comparison of four methods to enumerate probiotic bifidobacteria in a fermented food product. Food microbiology, 2006. 23(6): p. 571-577.
Mituniewicz-Małek, A., et al., Properties of drinking yogurt obtained from cow’s and goat’s organic milk fermented by traditional yogurt cultures. Infrastruktura i Ekologia Terenów Wiejskich, 2017.
Raikos, V., et al., Physicochemical properties, texture, and probiotic survivability of oat‐based yogurt using aquafaba as a gelling agent. Food Science & Nutrition, 2020. 8(12): p. 6426-6432.
Sharma, S., et al., Impact of ultrafine bubbles on the survivability of probiotics in fermented milks. International Dairy Journal, 2023. 140: p. 105591.
Zong, L., et al., The quality and flavor changes of different soymilk and milk mixtures fermented products during storage. Fermentation, 2022. 8(12): p. 668.
Chavan, M., et al., Development of non-dairy fermented probiotic drink based on germinated and ungerminated cereals and legume. Lwt, 2018. 91: p. 339-344.
EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, N. and Allergies, Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to live yoghurt cultures and improved lactose digestion (ID 1143, 2976) pursuant to Article 13 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006. EFSA Journal, 2010. 8(10): p. 1763.
Mousavi, M., et al., Optimization of the viability of Lactobacillus acidophilus and physico-chemical, textural and sensorial characteristics of flaxseed-enriched stirred probiotic yogurt by using response surface methodology. Lwt, 2019. 102: p. 80-88.
Dave, R.I. and N.P. Shah, Viability of yoghurt and probiotic bacteria in yoghurts made from commercial starter cultures. International Dairy Journal, 1997. 7(1): p. 31-41.
Gueimonde, M., et al., Viability and diversity of probiotic Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium populations included in commercial fermented milks. Food Research International, 2004. 37(9): p. 839-850.
Michael, M., R.K. Phebus, and K.A. Schmidt, Impact of a plant extract on the viability of Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus in nonfat yogurt. International dairy journal, 2010. 20(10): p. 665-672.
Ross, R., et al., Overcoming the technological hurdles in the development of probiotic foods. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 2005. 98(6): p. 1410-1417.
Almghawesh, E., S. Slik, and H. Okkou, Processing of functional yoghurt-like product from soymilk supplemented by probiotics. International Journal of Food Science, 2022. 2022.
Topcuoglu, E. and L. Yilmaz‐Ersan, Effect of fortification with almond milk on quality characteristics of probiotic yoghurt. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 2020. 44(12): p. e14943.
Atwaa, E., M. Hassan, and M.F. Ramadan, Production of probiotic stirred yoghurt from camel milk and oat milk. Journal of Food and Dairy Sciences, 2020. 11(9): p. 259-264.
Šertović, E., et al. Fermentation of cow’s milk and soy milk mixture with L. acidophilus probiotic bacteria with yoghurt culture. in 30th Scientific-Experts Conference of Agriculture and Food Industry: Answers for Forthcoming Challenges in Modern Agriculture. 2020. Springer.
Zahrani, A.J.A. and A.B. Shori, Viability of probiotics and antioxidant activity of soy and almond milk fermented with selected strains of probiotic Lactobacillus spp. LWT, 2023. 176: p. 114531.
Alqahtani, N.K., et al., Textural and organoleptic attributes and antioxidant activity of goat milk yoghurt with added oat flour. International Journal of Food Properties, 2021. 24(1): p. 433-445.
Yilmaz-Ersan, L., et al., Comparison of antioxidant capacity of cow and ewe milk kefirs. Journal of dairy science, 2018. 101(5): p. 3788-3798.
Yilmaz-Ersan, L. and E. Topcuoglu, Evaluation of instrumental and sensory measurements using multivariate analysis in probiotic yogurt enriched with almond milk. Journal of food science and technology, 2022: p. 1-11.
Fatima, S.M. and S. Hekmat, Microbial and sensory analysis of soy and cow milk-based yogurt as a probiotic matrix for Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1. Fermentation, 2020. 6(3): p. 74.

Table 1. Statistical analysis results on all colony numbers in fermented beverages

Fermented Beverages		Storage Duration
		1 d	7 d	14 d	21 d	p	Targeted Limits
		log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	p	Targeted Limits
*S. thermophilus*	FCM	9.22±0.20^A	9.10±0.12^A	9.13±0.22^A	9.12±0.04^A	0.899	+
	FSM	8.41±0.39 ^AB	8.29±0.03^B	8.37±0.34^AB	8.19±0.18^AB	0.895	+
	FAM	7.57±0.32 ^B	7.57±0.06^C	7.69±0.37^B	7.48±0.25^B	0.895	+
	FOM	8.03±0.23 ^AB	7.91±0.13^BC	7.83±0.30^B	7.90±0.34^B	0.890	+
	p	0.021**	< 0.001**	0.033**	0.008**
*Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus*	FCM	7.34±0.39 ^Aa	7.07±0.02^Aab	6.83±0.34^ab	6.25±0.04^b	0.049*	+
	FSM	7.96±0.08^A	7.73±0.23^B	7.51±0.45	7.23±0.50	0.335	+
	FAM	6.28±0.26^B	6.32±0.15^C	6.28±0.31	6.03±0.31	0.714	+
	FOM	7.67±0.12^A	7.34±0.04^AB	7.24±0.15	7.18±0.16	0.060	+
	p	0.009**	0.002**	0.070	0.035**
*L. acidophilus*	FCM	7.29±0.25^A	7.05±0.09^A	6.87±0.46	6.56±0.16	0.202	+
	FSM	7.97±0.16^A	7.74±0.16^B	7.43±0.58	6.35±1.90	0.468	+
	FAM	6.11±0.36^B	6.33±0.17^C	6.30±0.38	6.12±0.25	0.840	+
	FOM	7.66±0.08^A	7.58±0.10^AB	7.27±0.14	7.14±0.19	0.045*	+
	p	0.005**	0.002**	0.166	0.755
*B. lactis*	FCM	5.84±0.00^Aac	5.94±0.08^Aa	6.37±0.00 ^Ab	5.57±0.12^Ac	0.002*	-
	FSM	4.98±0.00^A	5.07±0.57^AC	4.68±0.43^AB	4.49±0.01^AC	0.432	-
	FAM	1.68±0.03^B	1.81±0.15^B	1.58±0.14^B	1.67±0.06^B	0.356	-
	FOM	3.37±0.44^C	3.01±1.04^CB	3.02±1.49^B	2.97±1.01^BC	0.977	-
	p	<0.001**	0.007**	0.013**	0.006**

A,B,C: Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant difference between samples (p<0.05). **: Indicates a statistically significant difference in the comparison of all samples in the same column (p<0.05). FCM: Fermented cow's milk, FSM: Fermented soy milk, FAM: Fermented almond milk, FOM: Fermented oat milk

Table 2. Chemical Analysis of fermented beverages

Fermented Beverages		Storage Duration
		1 d	7 d	14 d	21 d	p
		log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	p
Carbohydrate	FCM	4.58±0.58^A	4.73±0.53^A	4.8±0.24^A	4.6±0.54^A	0.963
	FSM	3.48±0.37^A	3.59±0.24^A	3.58±0.05^B	3.31±0.19^AB	0.672
	FAM	3.17±0.13^A	2.83±0.63^B	2.89±0.15^C	2.91±0.24^B	0.779
	FOM	8.49±0.18^B	8.28±0.04^C	8.16±0.07^D	8.29±0.27^C	0.397
	p	<0.001**	0.001**	<0.001**	<0.001**
Protein	FCM	3.00±0.23^A	2.92±0.25^A	2.91±0.49^A	2.89±0.12^A	0.984
	FSM	2.86±0.06^A	2.91±0.20^A	2.93±0.00^A	2.86±0.02^A	0.854
	FAM	0.40±0.04^B	0.45±0.02^B	0.40±0.03^B	0.40±0.02^B	0.323
	FOM	0.30±0.06^B	0.32±0.03^B	0.25±0.03^B	0.25±0.06^B	0.429
	p	<0.001**	<0.001**	0.001**	<0.001**
Fat	FCM	1.70±0.14^AC	1.80±0.00^A	1.70±0.14	1.85±0.21^AB	0.686
	FSM	1.80±0.00^A	1.90±0.14^A	1.80±0.14	2.00±0.00^A	0.281
	FAM	1.05±0.07^B	1.20±0.00^B	1.35±0.21	1.45±0.07^B	0.091
	FOM	1.30±0.14^BC	1.45±0.07^B	1.60±0.00	1.45±0.07^B	0.107
	p	0.006**	0.003**	0.128	0.020**
Energy	FCM	45.61±4.51^A	46.79±3.11^A	46.13±4.23^A	46.6±4.55^A	0.991
	FSM	41.82±1.69^A	43.33±0.49^A	42.47±1.07^A	42.91±0.69^A	0.596
	FAM	23.77±1.32^B	23.96±2.44^B	25.35±2.38^B	26.30±1.67^B	0.592
	FOM	46.85±0.31^A	47.50±0.92^A	48.09±0.4^A	47.24±0.69^A	0.374
	p	0.002**	0.001**	0.003**	0.003**

A,B,C: Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant difference between samples (p<0.05). **: Indicates a statistically significant difference in the comparison of all samples in the same column (p<0.05). FCM: Fermented cow's milk, FSM: Fermented soy milk, FAM: Fermented almond milk, FOM: Fermented oat milk

Table 3. Total antioxidant activity (mmol Trolox equivalent/L) and pH analysis results in fermented beverages

Fermented Beverages		Storage Duration
		1 d	7 d	14 d	21 d	p
		log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	p
TAA	FCM	0.32±0.02	0.27±0.08	0.21±0.05	0.30±0.04	0.336
	FSM	0.72±0.22	0.55±0.22	0.61±0.26	0.40±0.34	0.701
	FAM	0.70±0.09	0.72±0.03	0.75±0.01	0.72±0.13	0.919
	FOM	0.34±0.11	0.34±0.00	0.38±0.06	0.42±0.05	0.673
	p	0.068	0.059	0.057	0.262
pH	FCM	4.28±0.06^A	4.24±0.08^A	4.18±0.01^A	4.17±0.07^A	0.353
	FSM	4.49±0.00^AB	4.49±0.04^AB	4.48±0.01^B	4.43±0.07^A	0.496
	FAM	4.66±0.03^B	4.73±0.02^B	4.76±0.08^C	4.76±0.01^B	0.249
	FOM	4.69±0.11^B	4.75±0.11^B	4.76±0.03^C	4.78±0.09^B	0.775
	p	0.008**	0.006**	0.001**	0.002**

A,B,C: Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant difference between samples (p<0.05). **: Indicates a statistically significant difference in the comparison of all samples in the same column (p<0.05). FCM: Fermented cow's milk, FSM: Fermented soy milk, FAM: Fermented almond milk, FOM: Fermented oat milk

Table 4. Sensory analysis results in fermented beverages

Fermented Beverages		Storage Duration
		1 d	7 d	14 d	21 d	p
		log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	log cfu/ml	p
Appearance	FCM	6.00± 2.06	5.81±2.23	6.19±1.79	5.81±2.26	0.895
	FSM	6.50±1.53	5.73±2.11	5.85±1.91	5.85±1.78	0.425
	FAM	5.31±2.02	5.50±1.75	5.35±1.92	5.38±2.16	0.987
	FOM	5.65±1.96	4.73±1.97	5.12±1.70	5.04±1.73	0.383
	p	0.141	0.209	0.147	0.417
Flavour	FCM	4.54±3.20^AB	5.69±2.20	5.77±2.55	4.38±2.43^A	0.112
	FSM	3.15±2.11^Ba	4.54±2.16^ab	4.92±2.21^b	4.96±1.91^ABb	0.007*
	FAM	5.08±2.38^A	5.77±2.57	5.65±2.15	5.96±2.29^B	0.566
	FOM	5.46±2.04^A	5.69±1.41	5.38±1.81	5.85±1.80^AB	0.777
	p	0.007**	0.118	0.518	0.025**
Color	FCM	6.35±2.23	5.88±2.30	6.23±2.08^A	6.23±2.21	0.887
	FSM	6.69±1.78	5.69±1.76	6.04±1.87^AB	5.92±1.67	0.213
	FAM	5.50±2.06	5.38±1.79	5.27±2.13^AB	5.50±2.20	0.973
	FOM	5.27±1.87	4.77±1.45	4.73±1.76^B	4.92±1.55	0.639
	p	0.034**	0.151	0.025**	0.088
Odour	FCM	5.31±2.05	5.96±1.97^A	5.85±2.24	4.96±1.93	0.261
	FSM	5.92±2.43	5.92±2.26^A	5.27±1.93	5.69±1.76	0.647
	FAM	4.46±2.14	4.31±1.83^B	4.81±1.94	4.65±1.55	0.787
	FOM	4.92±1.67	4.58±1.55^AB	4.85±1.59	4.73±1.78	0.885
	p	0.085	0.002**	0.190	0.137
Texture	FCM	5.65±1.81	5.73±2.11	6.00±1.88	5.88±1.70	0.912
	FSM	6.81±1.27	5.96±1.48	6.12±1.51	5.88±1.61	0.101
	FAM	5.62±2.17	5.23±1.84	5.46±1.79	5.88±1.86	0.663
	FOM	5.73±2.09	5.12±1.73	5.08±1.83	5.42±1.96	0.576
	p	0.069	0.280	0.123	0.730
Acidic Flavour	FCM	5.38±2.43	5.42±2.16	5.77±1.90	4.85±2.19	0.499
	FSM	4.65±1.92	5.04±1.78	5.15±1.59	5.50±1.27	0.332
	FAM	4.65±2.40	5.50±2.53	5.15±2.29	5.38±2.53	0.608
	FOM	5.31±2.15	5.27±1.80	4.88±2.05	5.04±2.20	0.865
	p	0.477	0.864	0.426	0.656
Overall Acceptability	FCM	5.15±2.52	6.04±1.84	6.12±1.75	5.15±1.71	0.138
	FSM	4.88±1.99	5.42±1.72	5.65±1.67	5.73±1.43	0.282
	FAM	5.35±2.00	5.88±2.12	5.73±1.59	5.92±1.79	0.678
	FOM	5.62±1.63	5.73±1.04	5.38±1.53	5.46±1.53	0.827
	p	0.627	0.616	0.452	0.350

A,B,C: Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant difference between samples (p<0.05). **: Indicates a statistically significant difference in the comparison of all samples in the same column (p<0.05). FCM: Fermented cow's milk, FSM: Fermented soy milk, FAM: Fermented almond milk, FOM: Fermented oat milk

No competing interests reported.

supplementarymaterial.docx

Determination of Nutritional Value, Antioxidant Activities, Microbiological and Sensory Properties of Almond, Soy and Oat Based Fermented Beverages

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Materials and Methods

Results and Discussion

Total Antioxidant Activity and pH Analysis

Conclusion and Recommendations

Limitations of the study

Abbreviations

Declarations

References

Tables

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1