- Journal List
- ACS Omega
- v.7(30); 2022 Aug 2
- PMC9352330
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsem*nt of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
ACS Omega. 2022 Aug 2; 7(30): 26316–26327.
Published online 2022 Jul 20. doi:10.1021/acsomega.2c02149
PMCID: PMC9352330
PMID: 35936406
Alican Akcicek,
*†‡ Salih Karasu,† Fatih Bozkurt,†§ and Selma Kayacan†
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information PMC Disclaimer
Abstract
The yolk-free mayonnaise was formed by Pickering emulsionsstabilizedby free and encapsulated olive pomace extracts (OPEs) in rocket seed[rocket seed gum nanoparticle (RSGNP)] and chia seed gum nanoparticlesat different nanoparticle concentrations. The yolk-free mayonnaiseand the control mayonnaise samples were compared in terms of appearance,microstructural, droplet size, emulsion stability, rheological, oxidativestability, and sensory properties. The droplet size decreased by increasingthe nanoparticle concentration in yolk-free mayonnaise samples. Theyolk-free mayonnaise samples prepared with OPE-loaded gum nanoparticleshowed shear-thinning, solid-like and recoverable characteristics,which increased as the increase in the nanoparticle concentration.The emulsion stability and capacity increased by increasing the nanoparticleconcentration in the yolk-free mayonnaise samples. OPE-loaded gumnanoparticle-stabilized yolk-free mayonnaise samples exhibited higherIP (induction period) values than the control samples. OPE–RSGNP 1% mayonnaise was observedto be the closest sample to the control sample with its sensory properties,general acceptability, and similar microstructural and rheologicalproperties. The results of this study indicated that Pickering emulsionsstabilized by gum nanoparticles could be used as healthy alternativesto the egg yolk in conventional mayonnaise.
1. Introduction
Mayonnaise is an oil-in-wateremulsion and is composed of 65–80%oil, 6–20% egg yolk, and 3–5% vinegar.1 Egg yolk plays a critical role in the stability and structuralproperties of mayonnaise due to having emulsifying properties, reducingsurface tension, and increasing emulsion stability.2 Nevertheless, egg yolks have high cholesterol levels andsaturated fatty acids, which caused obesity3 and are open to microbial contamination by Salmonellaenteritidis.4,5 In this sense, studiesare focused on founding the potential novel emulsifier for mayonnaise.Adding novel emulsifiers to egg yolk-free mayonnaise formulation isgetting attracted by the customer due to consumer preference increasetoward veganism.2 Once the preparationof the mayonnaise formulation, the quality of the mayonnaise dependson the properties such as pH, emulsion stability, appearance, dropletsize, and rheological properties.6 It isthe challenge of the task to answer the consumer of the needs dueto an important difference of the quality between egg yolk-based mayonnaiseand mayonnaise-like emulsions. Therefore, quality properties of theegg yolk-free mayonnaise such as microstructure, rheology, textural,stability, and sensory should be considered providing characteristicsof egg-based mayonnaise. The forming of the balance of these propertiesensures the consumer of needs and admission of the mayonnaise insteadof the egg-based mayonnaise.3
Nowadays,Pickering emulsions are used for the enhancement of eggyolk-free mayonnaise, and some studies were reported in the literature.3,4,7 Pickering emulsion utilized solidparticles to provide stabilization contrary to the conventional surfactantsand emulsifiers. The mechanisms of stabilization are different forconventional and Pickering emulsions such as electrostatic stabilization,surface tension, and steric stabilization of reduction with the helpof surfactants or polymeric molecules in the conventional emulsion.8 Studies recommended that gums and plant-basedproteins could be utilized as an emulsifier and stabilizer sourcein conventional emulsion instead of egg yolk.2,9,10 While adsorption of traditional emulsifiersand macromolecules are mostly reversible in the conventional emulsions,adsorption of the solid particles in the interface is considered irreversiblefor Pickering emulsions.8 The solid particlesare settled to the oil–water interface creating obstacle barrier,to avoid aggregation between droplets, and prevent the probable flocculation,coalescence, and sedimentation.11 The Pickeringemulsions have higher stability, smaller size distribution than theconventional emulsions.7 In addition, Pickeringemulsions demonstrated better and higher stability against coalescenceand Ostwald deripening.12
The food-gradePickering emulsifiers are classified into four groups,inorganic particles, carbohydrate particles, lipid particles, andprotein particles.4 Inorganic and syntheticparticles have been utilized for stabilizing Pickering emulsion, whileorganic and natural food grade Pickering emulsifiers and stabilizerssuch as natural plant-based carbohydrate and protein particles gainedmuch more attention for food applications.13 Carbohydrate particles have limitations such as poor surface activityand emulsification work. However, to overcome these challenges, sometechniques improved such as surface coating with protein particles,surface modification, and physical modification like ultrasound andgrinding.8,14 Carbohydrate particles such as chitosan,cellulose, and starch nanoparticles are the most known and used particlesas Pickering stabilizers.15−17 Nanoparticles could be utilizedas an emulsifier for stabilizing the Pickering emulsions instead ofthe conventional emulsifiers. Nanoparticles are distributed in theoil or water phase and dissolve in one phase and act as an emulsifier.11 For instance, gum nanoparticles could be usedas a Pickering stabilizer due to the model emulsion system formed,and oxidative stability of emulsion increased when the olive pomaceextract (OPE)-loaded gum nanoparticles were incorporated into thePickering emulsion.18 Olive pomace is abyproduct that contains various bioactive compounds, especially phenoliccompounds that emerge during olive oil production.19 The OPE contains hydroxytyrosol tyrosol and luteolin, whichhave good antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and antimicrobial properties.20 The Pickering emulsion stabilizer of the blankand OPE-loaded gum nanoparticles in the mayonnaise not only providesa good source of olive pomace phenolic compounds but is also usefulfor human health and utilized for food applications.20 These added-value compounds are utilized to develop nutraceuticalsand functional food ingredients.21 However,there are no reports about rocket seed gum (RSG) and chia seed gumnanoparticles (CSGNPs), OPE-loaded RSG, and CSGNPs, which can be usedas a Pickering emulsion stabilizer in the egg yolk-free mayonnaise.Therefore, the aim of this study is evaluating the blank and OPE-loadedgum nanoparticles as a Pickering emulsion stabilizer instead of eggyolk in the mayonnaise. The physicochemical and rheological propertiesof the egg-yolk-free mayonnaise were evaluated contrary to controlmayonnaise. The results provide information about the importance ofpomace and plant-based natural gums for the food industry.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Materials
Olive pomace was suppliedfrom the Ekin Kocadağ Food Industry. Olive pomace was driedat 50 °C for 7 h. Then, kernels were removed from dried bulkand grounded to olive pomace powder by using mill flour. Rocket seedand chia seed were acquired from local producers. The sunflower oil,vinegar, salt, and sugar were acquired by local markets. All reagentsused were of analytical grade.
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Preparations of the Olive Pomace Extract
Before extraction, olive pomace powder was washed three times byutilizing hexane to remove olive oil. The OPE was prepared by using80% methanol/water. The method used in this study was given in ourprevious study.22
2.2.2. Preparations of Gum Solution
Thegum solutions with a concentration of 0.1% were prepared by our previousstudy.18 First, the gum dissolved in distilledwater for 2 h at 500 rpm at room temperature and then left overnightto complete hydration at 4 °C. After the dissolution of gum,centrifugation was applied to the solution to remove impurities. ThepH values of the gum solutions were adjusted to 8 and 7 for RSG andCSG, respectively (HI 2211, UK) by using 0.1 N NaOH.
2.2.3. Production of Nanoparticles
Thedesolvation technique was used to fabricate gum nanoparticles. Thegum nanoparticles were prepared through using a desolvation methodby dropwise addition of the desolvating agent (ethanol) continuously.The modified version of the method described by Taheri et al.23 was used in this study.22 The gum solutions (solvent) were blended at 800 rpm for 5 min. OPE(0.1%) and Tween 20 (0.5%) were added in optimized amounts of ethanol(antisolvent). Tween 20 was used for the better dissolving of OPEin ethanol. Ethanolic OPE (0.5 mL/min) was put dropwise to the gumsolution (solvent phase) using a syringe pump system (New Era, NE,USA). After adding the ethanol, the solution was stirred at 800 rpmfor 10 min. Then, ultrasonication (Hielscher UIP1000hdT, Germany)of 100 W was performed to the solutions for 1 min (every 30 s waitfor 10 s) in an ice bath. The nanoparticle suspensions were centrifugedat 9000 rpm for 30 min. Nanoparticles were redispersed with 5 mL ofdistilled water and then freeze-dried without using cryoprotectants.The same experimental analysis without OPE and Tween 20 was performedfor blank gum nanoparticle fabrication.
2.2.4. Preparation of the Egg Yolk-Free Mayonnaise
The egg yolk-free mayonnaise was prepared by using the method.4 Aqueous nanoparticle solutions were composedof xanthan gum (0.4%, m/v), sugar (4%, m/v), salt (2%, m/v), vinegar(10%, m/v), OPE, RSG nanoparticle (RSGNP), CSGNP, OPE–RSGNP,OPE–CSGNP (1, 2, 3%, m/v), and some deionized water. The oil-in-wateremulsion was acquired by blending aqueous nanoparticle solutions (10mL) and sunflower oil (10 mL). These Pickering emulsions were emulsifiedby using a high-speed shear hom*ogenizer at 10,000 rpm for 2 min. Theappearance image of Pickering emulsions was taken at 24 h and 30 days.The samples were kept closed and stored at temperature of 25 °C.Sodium benzoate was put in the Pickering emulsions to avoid microbialgrowth. At last, the nanoparticle concentrations in the mayonnaisedetermined 0.5, 1, 1.5%. The formulation of the mayonnaise samplesis given in Table 1.
Table 1
Formulation of the Mayonnaise Samplesa
| ingredients | control | RSGNP | CSGNP | OPE–RSGNP | OPE–CSGNP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| aqueous phase (%v) | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| sunflower oil (%v) | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
| aqueous phase (%m/v) | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| vinegar (m) | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| salt (m) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| sugar (m) | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| sodium benzoate (m) | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| xanthan gum (m) | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| NP concentrations (m) | 1–2–3 | 1–2–3 | 1–2–3 | 1–2–3 | |
| eggyolk powder (m) | 14 |
aRSGNP: rocket seed gum nanoparticle,CSGNP: chia seed gum nanoparticle, OPE–RSGNP: olive pomaceextract-loaded RSGNP, and OPE–CSGNP: olive pomace extract-loadedCSGNP.
2.2.5. Droplet Size Analysis and Microstructure
The droplet size of emulsions after 24 h and 30 days of storagewas determined. First, a drop of different emulsions was gently pouredonto a glass slide and then photographed using a light microscope(Olympus, JAPAN) equipped with a digital camera. To estimate the averagesize of emulsion droplets, three images were taken from each sample,and then, Olympus software was performed by counting at least 30 dropletsin different images. The optical image of the Pickering emulsionswas detected using a microscope (Olympus, JAPAN). The Pickering emulsionswere added to the middle of the glass slide and images obtained at10× magnification.
2.2.6. Rheological Properties
2.2.6.1. Steady Shear Properties
All rheologicalanalyses were performed by a stress and temperature-controlled rheometer(Anton Paar MCR 302, Graz, Austria). Rheological analysis was performedat 25 °C and 0.5 mm gap interval.
Steady shear analyseswere carried out in the range of shear rate 0.1–100 s–1. The acquired data were fitted to the power law model eq 1
1
where σ specifies shear stress (Pa), K indicates consistency index, γ indicates shear rate(s–1), and n indicates flow behaviorindex.
2.2.6.2. Dynamic Frequency Properties
Dynamic frequency analyses were performed in low shear stress atconstant strain to determine storage and loss modulus. The analysiswas performed at 0.1% strain with an angular frequency of 0.1–62.8rad/s. Dynamic frequency rheological parameters were specified usingthe power law model and nonlinear regression24
2
3
where G′ and G″ are storage and loss modulus, K′ and K″ specify consistency indexvalues, and n′ and n″are dependence degree of storage modulus and the loss modulus to frequency.
2.2.6.3. Three Interval Thixotropic Test (3-ITT)
The three interval thixotropic test (3-ITT) was provided to getinformation about the recovery of the samples after deformation wasapplied. In the first time interval, the emulsion samples in the linearviscoelastic region (LVR) were exposed to a low shear rate value (0.5s–1) for 50 s. In the second time interval, emulsionsamples in the non-LVR were exposed to a high shear rate value (150s–1) for 30 s. The third time interval in the LVRwas exposed to a low shear rate value (0.5 s–1)for 50 s. The alter of the viscoelastic matrix of the emulsion sampleswas observed.
The previous method25 used to evaluate the 3-ITT parameters about deformation (% DR) was performed using eq 4, and recovery percentage of the emulsionsamples at 30 s after the deformation applied was performed using eq 5 (% Rec30).
4
5
where Gi and G0 stated that G′ valuesof emulsion samples at the first state0 and after the deformationapplied, respectively. G30 indicated G′ values of emulsion samples at initial 30 s afterdeformation.
2.7. Emulsion Appearance, Capacity, and Stability
The bulk appearance of the emulsion was taken with the smartphonecamera (Xiaomi Note 8 Pro, CHINA). Emulsion capacity was determinedby the emulsion layer height of 24 h divided by the total height offresh emulsions, and emulsion stability was determined by the percentageof the emulsion layer after 30 days to 24 h.4
2.8. Oxidative Stability
Yolk-free mayonnaisesamples which stabilized OPE-loaded gum nanoparticles were analyzedby utilizing the oxidative tester (Velp Scientifica, Usmate, MB, Italy).A 20 g of Pickering emulsion was weighed into the sample cells hom*ogeneously.The temperature of the oxidative tester was adjusted to 90 °Cand the oxygen pressure to 6 bar. Oxidative stability values of themayonnaise samples were determined as the induction period. The inductionperiod was used to evaluate the oxidative stability of the mayonnaisesamples.
2.9. Sensory Analysis
The sensory propertiesof mayonnaise samples were evaluated based on a five-point hedonictest by 30 semi-trained panelists, which included academicians andstudents.26 The following sensory attributeswere assessed: appearance, color, taste, spreadability, texture, andoverall acceptability. Before analysis, the panelists were brieflyinformed about scales and sensory attributes. All mayonnaise sampleswere numbered by three-digit numbers randomly. The mayonnaise sampleswere randomly served to the panelists in white plastic dishes withteaspoons. The water was used for cleaning the mouth between differentmayonnaise samples. The ranking was defined as follows 1 = the lowestand 5 = the highest.
2.10. Statistical Analysis
All analyseswere carried out in triplicate, and data were given mean ± standarddeviation. Statistical analyzes were evaluated by one-way ANOVA (Tukeytest) using Minitab14. Statistical significance was determined as p < 0.05. The results of the rheological analysis werefitted to the power law model with the assistance of the non-linearregression and evaluated the model applicability by the coefficientof determination (R2). The model parametersof the steady shear rheological properties of Pickering emulsion anddynamic frequency nonlinear regression analyses were evaluated byusing the Statistica software program (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK).
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Droplet Size and Microstructure Propertiesof the Yolk-Free Mayonnaise
The droplet sizes of mayonnaisesamples are presented in Table 2. The droplet size decreased as increasing nanoparticle concentrationin yolk-free mayonnaise samples. With this result, it could be explainedthat higher concentration of gum nanoparticles in aqueous solutionshowed larger surface and interfacial area, hindering the coalescence.27,28 A similar result was given in references (29). (30), Blank and OPE-loaded RSGNPs of yolk-free mayonnaise samples at1.5% nanoparticle concentration and control samples showed no significantdifference (p < 0.05). In addition to the stability,mayonnaise or salad dressing with a lower droplet size displayed welldelicious taste and better mouthfeel.4,31 Also, OPE–RSGNPhad a lower droplet size than the OPE–CSGNP mayonnaise samples.This result could be explained by RSG having a lower molecular weightand high protein content.18 The microstructuralproperties of all mayonnaise samples are presented in Figure Figure11. All mayonnaise samples showedspherical droplets. As can be seen in Figure Figure11, an increase in the nanoparticle concentrationled to a decrease in the smaller droplet size, which is consistentwith droplet size results. In addition, mayonnaise samples with 1and 1.5% nanoparticle concentration and control mayonnaise showedsimilar structures and the highest hom*ogeneity in the droplet size.As the nanoparticle concentration in the emulsion increases, the dropletsize of the emulsion decreases. Therefore, these results suggestedthat the microstructural properties of the emulsion could be improvedby the addition of nanoparticles.
Microstructural properties of the mayonnaisesamples RSGNP: rocketseed gum nanoparticle, CSGNP: chia seed gum nanoparticle, OPE–RSGNP:olive pomace extract-loaded RSGNP, and OPE–CSGNP: olive pomaceextract-loaded CSGNP.
Table 2
Emulsion Capacity, Emulsion Stabilityand Droplet Diameter of the Mayonnaise Samplesa
| Run | NP concentration (%) | emulsioncapacity (%) | emulsion stability (%) | D1(μm) | D30(μm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSGNP | 0.5 | 89.64±0.50f | 92.03±0.04f | 31.3±1.15c | 33.53±1.87de |
| RSGNP | 1 | 91.11±0.52e | 94.67±1.13cde | 32.43±1.07c | 28.66±1.25f |
| RSGNP | 1.5 | 98.16±0.23b | 99.04±0.57ab | 22.16±2.33de | 25.23±0.98g |
| OPE–RSGNP | 0.5 | 96.55±0.12d | 97.31±0.34c | 36.53±2.95bc | 42.63±1.21c |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1 | 98.37±0.20b | 97.66±0.09c | 26.53±2.89d | 29.03±0.87f |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1.5 | 98.55±0.18b | 98.31±0.41b | 22.7±0.92e | 26.23±2.38fg |
| CSGNP | 0.5 | 91.53±0.28e | 95.26±0.52d | 53.9±3.15a | 58.6±4.59b |
| CSGNP | 1 | 91.62±0.53e | 95.87±0.02d | 37.23±2.50b | 36.43±3.21d |
| CSGNP | 1.5 | 97.57±0.29c | 99.34±0.14a | 33.5±1.19c | 38.93±4.18cd |
| OPE–CSGNP | 0.5 | 96.74±0.22d | 92.01±0.09f | 55.3±1.35a | 79.06±1.84a |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1 | 97.36±0.19c | 93.27±0.62e | 37.96±1.90b | 54.1±2.40b |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1.5 | 98.77±0.19b | 99.64±0.26a | 26.96±1.45d | 35.9±2.70d |
| Control | 0 | 99.55±0.07a | 99.71±0.10a | 20.63±2.80e | 25.2±4.35fg |
aRSGNP: rocket seed gum nanoparticle,CSGNP: chia seed gum nanoparticle, OPE–RSGNP: olive pomaceextract-loaded RSGNP, and OPE–CSGNP: olive pomace extract-loadedCSGNP. Lowercase letters indicate the relationship between all mayonnaises.Values that do not share the same letter differ significantly (p < 0.05).
3.2. Rheological Properties
3.2.1. Steady Shear Properties
The steadyshear properties of all mayonnaise are presented in Figure Figure22. As can be seen in Figure Figure22, the viscosity ofall mayonnaises decreased with an increase in the shear rate. Meaningthat control and yolk-free mayonnaise samples showed pseudoplasticflow character. Emulsion droplets were located on the flow layer inthe shear direction, and oil droplet agglomeration was separated intosmall droplets.3 The applied shear stressdeformed to the Pickering emulsion system and resulted in the acceleratedshear rate, and quicker deformation of the emulsion led to the reductionof the viscosity.4
The consistency index (K) andflow behavior index(n) values were calculated by using the power lawmodel and are given in Table 3. All mayonnaise samples displayed non-Newtonian and shearthinning behavior (n < 1). All mayonnaise showed n < 1, indicating the pseudoplastic nature of mayonnaise.2,3,29,32,33 The K value is the factorthat specified the viscous nature of the fluid, and the higher K value stated the strong emulsion structure.34,35 Generally, the lower K value stated that the emulsionhad low viscosity.4,31 The less value of n indicated the strongest shear thinning behavior.36
Table 3
Power Law Model Parameters of MayonnaiseSamplesa
| Run | NP concentration (%) | K(Pasn) | n | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSGNP | 0.5 | 4.85±0.62i | 0.25±0.008 | 0.99 |
| RSGNP | 1 | 7.00±1.02h | 0.22±0.0002 | 0.99 |
| RSGNP | 1.5 | 18.21±0.60e | 0.17±0.004 | 0.99 |
| OPE–RSGNP | 0.5 | 9.09±1.10h | 0.34±0.006 | 0.99 |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1 | 13.91±1.68g | 0.20±0.02 | 0.99 |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1.5 | 20.8±0.19d | 0.14±0.004 | 0.97 |
| CSGNP | 0.5 | 12.92±0.12g | 0.23±0.002 | 0.99 |
| CSGNP | 1 | 21.70±0.67d | 0.24±0.002 | 0.99 |
| CSGNP | 1.5 | 37.21±1.34b | 0.22±0.01 | 0.98 |
| OPE–CSGNP | 0.5 | 16.80±0.30f | 0.16±0,008 | 0.94 |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1 | 37.41±1.41b | 0.20±0,0002 | 0.99 |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1.5 | 51.99±0.09a | 0.16±0.009 | 0.98 |
| Control | 0 | 12.01±1.14g | 0.30±0.01 | 0.99 |
aRSGNP: rocket seed gum nanoparticle,CSGNP: chia seed gum nanoparticle, OPE–RSGNP: olive pomaceextract-loaded RSGNP, and OPE–CSGNP: olive pomace extract-loadedCSGNP. Lowercase letters indicate the relationship between all mayonnaises.Values that do not share the same letter differ significantly (p < 0.05).
The K values of the OPE–RSGNPand OPE–CSGNPwere higher than RSGNP and CSGNP mayonnaise samples, respectively,and differences were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05). A similar result was reported.37 In nature, plant polyphenols are often closelyassociated with polysaccharides as they both contain large amountsof hydrophilic groups and hydrophobic groups, so they can be complexedor cross-linked with polysaccharides.38−40 Due to the polysaccharidecomposition of dried olive pomace, pomace can be a potential sourcefor gelling pectic material.41 Rocket seedand CSGNPs can bind to olive pomace polyphenols due to hydrogen bondingand hydrophobic interactions.
Gums and olive pomace polyphenolsform hydrogen bonds very easilydue to the containing high amount of hydroxy groups. In addition,rocket seed and chia seed gum contain sugar rings and interact withthe hydrophobic groups of olive pomace such as luteolin. A strongnetwork is formed between them as a result of hydrogen bonds and hydrophobicinteractions. Therefore, as the concentration of OPE–RSGNPand CSGNP increases, the K values of the yolk-free-basedmayonnaise samples increase. The high amount of the phenolic contentcaused a further increase in viscosity. A similar result was obtained.40,42 OPE–CSGNP 1.5% displayed stronger shear thinning behavior(n < 1) with a higher K valueamong all mayonnaise samples (p < 0.05). In addition,an increase in the nanoparticles concentration in the mayonnaise ledto a higher K value. The high amount of gum nanoparticlesstabilized a larger surface area to provide the highest viscositywith high-molecular weight and long-chain branch structure.35,43 Also, the more gum nanoparticles provide excellent resistance todroplet movement, preventing the coalescence led to the smaller oildroplets.35 The results were consistentwith droplet size analysis. Moreover, the increasing OPE content forOPERSGNP and CSGNP-stabilized yolk-free mayonnaise with higher OPEled to the higher consistency index (K), suggestingthe creation of a stronger network structure between droplets (Zhanget al., 2020) which contributed to the high viscosity of the emulsion.40 The differences in the K valueof the control mayonnaise and yolk-free mayonnaise samples were relatedto the interaction of the emulsion droplets, the strength of the networkmatrix, and the droplet size of the emulsions.4 The K value of the control mayonnaise and OPE–RSGNP1% and CSGNP 0.5% mayonnaise samples showed no significant differences(p < 0.05). The other yolk-free mayonnaise samplesand control mayonnaise samples of K value showedsignificant differences (p < 0.05). However, thehigher K value does not mean a higher viscosity;also the n value and other parameters are consideredin this sense.4,36 The K valueand higher n value of the control mayonnaise sampleswere mainly related to the egg yolk, which acted as the thickeningagent as an emulsifier.44
3.2.2. Viscoelastic Properties
The viscoelasticproperties of all mayonnaise samples are illustrated in Figure Figure33. Mayonnaise could be considereda gel-like structure.6 For control andyolk-free mayonnaise samples, G′ values higherthan the G″ values whole frequency range indicatethat the behavior of the Pickering emulsion was a dominantly solidelastic character.3,30,32 In addition, the result recommended that control mayonnaise samplesand egg yolk-free mayonnaise samples produced at all nanoparticleconcentrations exhibited the viscoelastic structure expected fromthe desired mayonnaise. The result was associated with a three-dimensionalnetwork structure that occurred by the interaction between droplets.4,12 In the LVR, G′ and G″values increased with increasing nanoparticle concentrations, indicatingthat elastic dominant behavior with gel-like properties graduallyincreased at higher concentrations of gum nanoparticles. Also, gumnanoparticles that contained OPE have higher G′values than the RSGNP and CSGNP mayonnaise samples. Gum nanoparticlesbridged between oil droplets could improve the strongest interactionbetween the oil droplets.3 A similar gel-likestructure was reported in references (3). (4)(28), Both G′ and G′ increased progressivelywith the increase in the OPE content in the OPERSGNP and CSGNP, suggestingthat the network structure becomes more cohesive, compact, and strongerfor OPERSGNP and CSGNP-stabilized yolk-free mayonnaise.40 The OPE RSGNP and OPECSGNP with 1 and 1.5%,RSGNP with 1.5%, and CSGNP with 1 and 1.5% samples have higher G′ and G″ values than thecontrol samples, which indicated that higher particles led to an increasein the solid character. The results obtained from the frequency sweeptest suggested that the spreadability properties of mayonnaise samplescan be estimated. The improvement in solid-like structure with theincrease in the nanoparticle concentration shows that the spreadableproperties of mayonnaise samples can be improved without egg yolk.
The viscoelastic parameters of the mayonnaise sampleswere calculatedby using the power-law model (Table 4). The K′ value was found higherthan the K″ values for all mayonnaise samples,which indicated that the elastic solid character was dominant on theviscous character (R2 = 0.99). An increasein the nanoparticle concentration led to an increase in the higher K′ and K″ values due to moreparticles located on oil droplets and led to formed three-dimensionalnetwork structures with high gel strength. The OPE RSGNP, OPECSGNPwith 1 and 1.5%, RSGNP with 1.5%, and CSGNP with 1 and 1.5% sampleshave higher K′ and K″values than the control samples, and significant differences wereobserved (p < 0.05). The results were consistentwith the G′ and G″values of mayonnaise samples. n′ and n″ values showed frequency dependence of the G′ and G″ values. Their valuesaffected emulsion transportation and canning in the product applicationin the industry.3,4 The control sample of the n′ and n″ values showed nosignificant differences with that of OPE–RSGNP with 1% andOPE–CSGNP with 1.5%, respectively. This could be the interactionof droplets and the internal matrix of the mayonnaise.3,4
Table 4
Power Law Model Parameters for DynamicRheological Properties of Mayonnaise Samplesa
| run | NP concentration (%) | K′(Pasn) | n′ | R2 | K″(Pasn) | n″ | R2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSGNP | 0.5 | 9.20±0.22k | 0.475±0.02 | 0.99 | 4.83±0.72i | 0.43±0.05 | 0.95 |
| RSGNP | 1 | 15.66±1.06j | 0.36±0.01 | 0.99 | 7.60±1.08h | 0.31±0.02 | 0.99 |
| RSGNP | 1.5 | 52.16±1.18f | 0.24±0.007 | 0.99 | 19.40±0.41f | 0.21±0.003 | 0.98 |
| OPE–RSGNP | 0.5 | 18.25±2.63j | 0.29±0.01 | 0.97 | 5.98±1.31hi | 0.32±0.001 | 0.98 |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1 | 49.66±0.19g | 0.21±0.001 | 0.99 | 18.74±0.29f | 0.10±0.003 | 0.96 |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1.5 | 57.93±0.94e | 0.22±0.002 | 0.99 | 22.53±0.33e | 0.11±0.007 | 0.96 |
| CSGNP | 0.5 | 27.68±3.43i | 0.32±0.02 | 0.99 | 12.03±1.56g | 0.29±0.02 | 0.99 |
| CSGNP | 1 | 67.06±1.70d | 0.28±0.001 | 0.99 | 27.15±0.85d | 0.27±0.01 | 0.99 |
| CSGNP | 1.5 | 181.54±0.08b | 0.2±0.001 | 0.99 | 46.37±0.31b | 0.18±0.004 | 0.99 |
| OPE–CSGNP | 0.5 | 41.78±0.04h | 0.21±0.002 | 0.99 | 13.47±0.34g | 0.16±0.01 | 0.96 |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1 | 162.73±1.71c | 0.16±0.007 | 0.99 | 41.07±1.99c | 0.14±0.01 | 0.94 |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1.5 | 209.13±8.96a | 0.14±0.004 | 0.99 | 61.76±0.97a | 0.16±0.002 | 0.96 |
| control | 0 | 39.51±2.75h | 0.21±0.003 | 0.99 | 12.32±0.57g | 0.16±0.004 | 0.95 |
aRSGNP: rocket seed gum nanoparticle,CSGNP: chia seed gum nanoparticle, OPE–RSGNP: olive pomaceextract-loaded RSGNP, and OPE–CSGNP: olive pomace extract-loadedCSGNP. Lowercase letters indicate the relationship between all mayonnaises.Values that do not share the same letter differ significantly (p < 0.05).
3.2.3. 3-ITT Rheological Properties
Thedeformation of mayonnaise formed during the production process, aswell as handling, transportation, storage, and consumption. 3-ITTtests were used to simulate the conditions of the production processfor the food industry. The test provided information about the deformationand recovery of food materials to simulate and perform pumping andinstant stirring operations.4,25 The viscoelastic propertiesof the mayonnaise samples like G′ values werehigher than the G″ values, which means thatsolid-like property dominated mayonnaise properties. Therefore, thixotropicproperties of the mayonnaise samples were observed only in terms of G′ values. The 3-ITT results of the mayonnaises deformedwith different shear stress are presented in Figure Figure44, and the 3-ITT parameters are given in Table 5.
3-ITT of the storagemodulus (G′) of themayonnaise samples RSGNP: rocket seed gum nanoparticle, CSGNP: chiaseed gum nanoparticle, OPE–RSGNP: olive pomace extract-loadedRSGNP, and OPE–CSGNP: olive pomace extract-loaded CSGNP.
Table 5
Thixotropic Parameters of MayonnaiseSamplesa
| run | NP concentration (%) | Dr(%) | Rec30(%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| RSGNP | 0.5 | 57.29±1.34a | 48.36±2.11e |
| RSGNP | 1 | 56.52±1.87a | 52.13±1.25d |
| RSGNP | 1.5 | 49.46±1.82b | 58.78±3.37c |
| OPE–RSGNP | 0.5 | 54.21±2.37a | 60.98±0.75c |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1 | 41.16±2.03c | 65.84±0.58b |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1.5 | 43.92±0.94c | 66.29±1.24b |
| CSGNP | 0.5 | 41.10±2.25c | 58.97±1.55c |
| CSGNP | 1 | 43.38±3.42c | 66.37±0.47b |
| CSGNP | 1.5 | 40.91±2.13c | 67.86±1.30b |
| OPE–CSGNP | 0.5 | 41.48±1.18c | 65.29±1.48b |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1 | 35.08±1.81d | 73.34±2.48a |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1.5 | 35.25±1.25d | 73.56±1.48a |
| control | 0 | 33.81±1.93d | 70.60±2.15ab |
aRSGNP: rocket seed gum nanoparticle,CSGNP: chia seed gum nanoparticle, OPE–RSGNP: olive pomaceextract-loaded RSGNP, and OPE–CSGNP: olive pomace extract-loadedCSGNP. Lowercase letters indicate the relationship between all mayonnaises.Values that do not share the same letter differ significantly (p < 0.05).
The control sample of the recovery percentage wasfound 70.60 ±2.15%. The control mayonnaise of the recovery percentage was significantlyhigher than the RSGNP with all nanoparticle concentrations (OPE–RSGNPwith 0.5% and CSGNP with 0.5% mayonnaise sample). As can be seen fromthe table, all of the OPE–CSGNP samples and CSGNP and OPE–RSGNPsamples with 1 and 1.5% concentrations showed a similar recovery behaviorto the control sample (p < 0.05). The high recoveryproperties of products such as mayonnaise and salad dressing are vitalfor the use of these products in a food application such as hamburgersand French fries.4 In addition, at least70% of recovery percentage to have well thixotropic recovery mayonnaisesamples had well thixotropic characteristics and have similar rheologicalproperties, which are high viscoelasticity, consistency, and recoveryproperties. The consumption of the mayonnaise sample in the plasticbottle was imitated by 3-ITT parameters. The deformation of all mayonnaisesamples was significantly higher than the control samples except OPE–CSGNPwith 1 and 1.5% mayonnaise samples (p < 0.05).All emulsions exhibit thixotropic responses, which can confirm thatthe emulsions are shear-thinning pseudoplastic. A similar result wasreported from previously published study.45 It was reported that novel mayonnaise samples Pickering stabilizedby using apple pomace particles could be used as cholesterol-freemayonnaise.4 The thixotropic behavior wasmeasured by 3-ITT with the G′ values. Theirresults displayed that micro jet and ultrasound novel mayonnaisesexhibited a higher recovery rate than the control mayonnaise. Also,microjet novel mayonnaise displayed fast recovery than the ultrasoundand high-speed shear hom*ogenizer novel mayonnaise.
3.3. Emulsion Capacity and Stability
Emulsifyingcapacity and emulsion stability values are given in Table 2. As can be seen in Table 2, emulsifying capabilityincreased with an increase in the nanoparticle concentration. Thisresult could be related to more particles located into the oil dropletswith an increase in the concentration.30 Also, the higher K value of the yolk-free mayonnaisesamples led to increasing emulsion stability due to providing thehighest viscosity with high-molecular weight and long-chain branchstructure.35,43 Biopolymers stabilize dropletsagainst coalescence, especially a combination of physical and chemicalinteractions, such as electrostatic and polymeric steric interactions,hydrogen bonding, hydrophobic association, and cation-mediated cross-linking.1 Gums also improve the technical and functionalcharacteristics of emulsions such as aqueous solubility, thickening,gelling and gel stabilizing, and significantly sensory creation ability.46 Pickering emulsions which are stabilized byfood-grade particles such as starch,28 applepomace,4 and wheat gliadin3 implied the same order about particle size and concentration.
Emulsifying capacity was observed by using the creaming index asan indicator, and the emulsifying capacity values of the mayonnaiseshowed that an increase in the nanoparticle concentration with thesmaller oil droplet size led to an increase in emulsifying capacity.The creaming effect is a unique property of the Pickering emulsionsdue to their larger droplets.28,30 The increasing concentrationof nanoparticles caused the reduction in the creaming effect due toan increase in the surface coverage of the oil droplets. In addition,the association of the particles between droplets by aggregation ofparticles could inhibit the creaming effect.27,28 Similar results were reported in reference (28). (30),
3.4. Storage Stability
Emulsion appearanceand mean droplet size were significant parameters for storage stability.47 The droplet size of the yolk-free mayonnaisesamples with storage period time 1 day and 30 days is given in Table 2. The storage timeslightly affects the droplet size of the yolk-free mayonnaise samplesexcept for OPE–CSGNP at all concentrations. Our previous studyshowed that the particle size increased during the encapsulation ofOPE in CSGNP. The higher molecular weight of the CSG than the RSGcould also affect storage stability. In addition, the highest oildroplet size was seen at 0.5% concentrations of CSGNP. At these concentrations,lower viscosity was achieved, and oil droplets can easily move andcoalesce in the continuous phase. However, the droplet size of theemulsion had decreased with an increase in concentrations. An increasein the nanoparticle concentration led to a decrease in the dropletsize and approached the droplet size of the control mayonnaise. Thesmaller droplet size of the emulsion presented high stability. Thissituation could be explained with gel-like network which limited themovement of the oil droplets.46 Accordingto Figure Figure55, therewas no change in creaming behavior at 1 day and 30 day. This indicatedthat control and yolk-free mayonnaise samples had storage stabilitydue to high viscosity and a strong network.
3.5. Oxidative Stability
Table 6 shows the IP (h) values ofthe collection emulsions. The IP values of the samples varied from4.05 to 6.74 h and increased as increasing nanoparticle concentrations.As can be seen in Table 6, a significant difference was observed between the IP values ofthe samples. The IP value of OPE-loaded nanoparticles can be explainedby the more effective scavenging of free radicals by the controlledrelease of charged phenolic compounds. IP values of control mayonnaisewere found significantly higher than the blank gum nanoparticles.These results could be related to the antioxidant activity of eggyolk. Egg yolks are obtained from the light centrifugation of dilutedegg yolk and are composed of 70% high-density lipoproteins (HDLs),16% phosvitin, and 12% low-density lipoproteins (LDLs).48 The IP value of the control mayonnaise sampleis due to the antioxidant properties of many egg proteins such asovalbumin, ovotransferrin, phosvitin, and egg lipids such as phospholipids,as well as some micronutrients such as vitamin E, vitamin A, selenium,and carotenoids in the egg yolk.49 Hydroxylamines in the side chains of phospholipids play a role in radicalscavenging and show antioxidant properties.50 The unsaturated structure and aromatic carotenoid rings help neutralizesinglet oxygen and free radicals and protect against oxidative damage.51 Phosvitin can increase the oxidation stabilityof lipids and proteins through its iron-chelating activities.52
Table 6
IP Values of Mayonnaise Samplesa
| samples | NP concentration (%) | IP (h) |
|---|---|---|
| RSGNP | 0.5 | 4.05±0.05h |
| RSGNP | 1 | 4.35±0.11g |
| RSGNP | 1.5 | 4.55±0.41f |
| OPE–RSGNP | 0.5 | 5.58±0.32c |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1 | 6.18±0.10b |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1.5 | 6.74±0.25a |
| CSGNP | 0.5 | 4.12±0.51g |
| CSGNP | 1 | 4.52±0.07f |
| CSGNP | 1.5 | 4.85±0.09e |
| OPE–CSGNP | 0.5 | 5.75±0.10c |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1 | 6.05±0.12b |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1.5 | 6.53±0.37a |
| control | 0 | 5.05±0.11d |
aRSGNP: rocket seed gum nanoparticle,CSGNP: chia seed gum nanoparticle, OPE–RSGNP: olive pomaceextract-loaded RSGNP, and OPE–CSGNP: olive pomace extract-loadedCSGNP. Lowercase letters indicate the relationship between all mayonnaises.Values that do not share the same letter differ significantly (p < 0.05).
However, IP values of OPE-loaded RSGN and CSGNP-stabilizedeggyolk-free mayonnaise samples increased with increasing gum nanoparticleconcentrations. Also, IP values of these mayonnaise samples were foundsignificantly higher than the control mayonnaise sample due to theincreasing amount of OPE in egg yolk-free mayonnaise samples. Theresults show that OPE-loaded nanoparticles slow down the oxidationof egg yolk-free Pickering emulsions. This can be explained by thelocalization of OPE phenolic compounds instead of egg yolk powderat the oil-in-water interface of Pickering emulsions. The interactionof OPE phenolic compounds with other antioxidant compounds may haveenhanced antioxidant activity and led to higher IP values.19,21,53 Moreover, nano-encapsulated OPEcan be used as an alternative to providing oxidative stability ofPickering emulsions instead of egg yolk since the degradation of nanoencapsulationof OPE phenolic compounds is prevented by using natural gums as wallmaterials for nanoencapsulation. The combination of the emulsion-basedencapsulation technology and antioxidant enrichment can provide synergisticeffects of oxidative stability to many products.
3.6. Sensory Properties of the Mayonnaise Samples
The results of the statistical analysis of all mayonnaise applicationsfor appearance, taste, color, spreadability, texture, and overallacceptability are given in Table 7. According to the table, the sensory quality criteriaof the yolk-free mayonnaise samples, except for the color and appearancecharacteristics, showed a sensory score close to the control samples.While no statistical difference was observed in the appearance propertieswith the control mayonnaise sample at low nanoparticle concentrations(0.5–1%), the appearance scores of the samples containing 1.5%nanoparticles were lower than the control sample. The control mayonnaisesample has a yellowish color because it contains egg yolk. Egg yolk-freesamples are lighter in color than the control sample. The main reasonfor the decrease in the scores in the appearance quality criterionmay be the lightning of the colors of the samples by removing theegg yolk from the formulation. However, there is a dark greenish appearancein the color values of the samples prepared with high 1.5% OPE-loadednanoparticles. A statistical decrease was observed in the sensoryscores of the samples containing 1.5% OPE-loaded nanoparticles inthe taste properties of the samples. In this case, the bitter tasteof olive waste phenolic may have been perceived negatively by thepanelists. There was no negative difference in spreadability and texturevalues of the samples compared to the control sample. These resultsare in agreement with the rheology results. When we examined the generaltaste scores, no significant difference was observed between the sensoryscores of the samples prepared with OPE-loaded nanoparticles and thesensory scores of the control sample. These results indicated thatOPE-loaded nanoparticles would not pose a problem in terms of sensoryquality of the mayonnaise sample with the improvement in color properties.
Table 7
Sensory Properties of Mayonnaise Samplesa
| run | NP concentration (%) | appearance | taste | color | spreadability | texture | overallacceptability |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSGNP | 0.5 | 4.36±0.25a | 4.30±0.33a | 4.23±0.26a | 4.26±0.13a | 4.33±0.30a | 4.30±0.20a |
| RSGNP | 1 | 4.03±0.28ab | 4.06±0.13a | 4.13±0.17a | 4.03±0.15a | 4.40±0.16a | 4.23±0.18a |
| RSGNP | 1.5 | 4.36±0.31a | 4.16±0.24a | 3.96±0.15ab | 4.13±0.23a | 4.00±0.12ab | 4.33±0.31a |
| OPE–RSGNP | 0.5 | 3.90±0.16ab | 4.06±0.29a | 3.83±0.19a | 4.40±0.16a | 4.26±0.28a | 4.06±0.23ab |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1 | 4.23±0.12a | 4.10±0.18a | 4.26±0.18a | 4.30±0.25a | 3.96±0.21ab | 3.94±0.16ab |
| OPE–RSGNP | 1.5 | 3.49±0.23b | 3.76±0.14b | 4.17±0.23a | 3.53±0.37ab | 3.70±0.27ab | 3.93±0.12ab |
| CSGNP | 0.5 | 4.33±0.20a | 4.16±0.39a | 4.33±0.20a | 4.36±0.26a | 4.20±0.25a | 4.03±0.21ab |
| CSGNP | 1 | 3.86±0.22ab | 3.73±0.18ab | 3.96±0.14a | 4.02±0.16ab | 4.03±0.19ab | 3.90±0.20ab |
| CSGNP | 1.5 | 3.46±0.17b | 3.46±0.17b | 3.46±0.16b | 3.96±0.19ab | 3.80±0.23a | 4.13±0.25a |
| OPE–CSGNP | 0.5 | 3.63±0.15b | 4.16±0.30a | 4.03±0.18a | 3.93±0.18ab | 4.00±0.15a | 4.06±0.28ab |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1 | 3.86±0.24ab | 3.86±0.26ab | 3.93±0.15a | 3.76±0.24ab | 3.93±0.21ab | 3.80±0.16ab |
| OPE–CSGNP | 1.5 | 3.53±0.14b | 3.71±0.20ab | 3.46±0.13b | 3.23±0.57ab | 3.46±0.14b | 3.73±0.14ab |
| control | 0 | 4.20±0.15a | 4.10±0.24a | 4.30±0.26a | 4.33±0.29a | 4.26±0.22a | 4.35±0.18a |
aRSGNP: rocket seed gum nanoparticle,CSGNP: chia seed gum nanoparticle, OPE–RSGNP: olive pomaceextract-loaded RSGNP, and OPE–CSGNP: olive pomace extract-loadedCSGNP. Lowercase letters indicate the relationship between all mayonnaises.Values that do not share the same letter differ significantly (p < 0.05).
4. Conclusions
The yolk-free mayonnaisewas made by gum nanoparticles with orwithout loading OPEs. The results showed that the appearance of themayonnaise samples had no significant changes except the color. Thedroplet size of the yolk-free mayonnaise samples decreased by increasingthe nanoparticle concentration. OPE–RSGNP with 1.5% had thesmallest droplet size and was found lower than the control mayonnaise.The emulsion stability and capacity of the yolk-free mayonnaise sampleswere found similar to the control samples. The yolk-free mayonnaisesamples showed pseudoplastic behavior with solid-like properties.All mayonnaise samples of the G′ values werefound higher than the G″ values, which meansthat solid-like properties dominate the viscous properties of themayonnaise samples. In terms of recovery, no significant changes wereobserved between the OPE–RSGNP and CSGNP with 1 and 1.5%, andOPECSGNP with all concentrations of the mayonnaise samples and thecontrol mayonnaise (p < 0.05) and showed similarthixotropic properties. Thus, these findings showed that the gum nanoparticlescould be used as an alternative to the egg yolk in conventional mayonnaise.Further studies are recommended to decrease droplet diameter and showedtextural and tribological properties to optimize yolk-free mayonnaise.
Author Contributions
A.A.: investigation,data curation, and writing—original draft; F.B.: conceptualization,methodology, data curation, and writing—original draft; S.K.:data curation; and S.K.: supervision, investigation, conceptualization,methodology, and writing—review and editing.
Notes
The authors declare nocompeting financial interest.
References
- Ma Z.; Boye J. I.Advances in the Design and Production of Reduced-Fatand Reduced-Cholesterol Salad Dressing and Mayonnaise: A Review. Food Bioprocess Technol.2013, 6, 648–670. 10.1007/s11947-012-1000-9. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Kumar Y.; Roy S.; Devra A.; Dhiman A.; Prabhakar P. K.Ultrasonicationof mayonnaise formulated with xanthan and guar gums: Rheological modeling,effects on optical properties and emulsion stability. LWT2021, 149, 111632. 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.111632. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Liu X.; Guo J.; Wan Z.-L.; Liu Y.-Y.; Ruan Q.-J.; Yang X.-Q.Wheat gluten-stabilizedhigh internal phase emulsions as mayonnaise replacers. Food Hydrocolloids2018, 77, 168–175. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.09.032. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Lu Z.; Zhou S.; Ye F.; Zhou G.; Gao R.; Qin D.; Zhao G.A novel cholesterol-freemayonnaise made from Pickeringemulsion stabilized by apple pomace particles. Food Chem.2021, 353, 129418. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129418. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Xiong R.; Xie G.; Edmondson A. S.The fateof Salmonella enteritidis PT4 in home-mademayonnaise prepared with citric acid. Lett.Appl. Microbiol.1999, 28, 36–40. 10.1046/j.1365-2672.1999.00473.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Ma L.; Barbosa-Cánovas G. V.Rheologicalcharacterization of mayonnaise.Part I: Slippage at different oil and xanthan gum concentrations. J. Food Eng.1995, 25, 397–408. 10.1016/0260-8774(94)00011-w. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Hosseini R. S.; Rajaei A.Potential Pickeringemulsion stabilized with chitosan-stearicacid nanogels incorporating clove essential oil to produce fish-oil-enrichedmayonnaise. Carbohydr. Polym.2020, 241, 116340. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116340. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Xia T.; Xue C.; Wei Z.Physicochemical characteristics,applications and researchtrends of edible Pickering emulsions. TrendsFood Sci. Technol.2021, 107, 1–15. 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.11.019. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Alu’datt M. H.; Rababah T.; Alhamad M. N.; Ereifej K.; Gammoh S.; Kubow S.; Tawalbeh D.Preparationof mayonnaise from extractedplant protein isolates of chickpea, broad bean and lupin flour: chemical,physiochemical, nutritional and therapeutic properties. J. Food Sci. Technol.2017, 54, 1395–1405. 10.1007/s13197-017-2551-6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Chivero P.; Gohtani S.; Yoshii H.; Nakamura A.Assessment of soy solublepolysaccharide, gum arabic and OSA-Starch as emulsifiers for mayonnaise-likeemulsions. LWT–Food Sci. Technol.2016, 69, 59–66. 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.12.064. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Chevalier Y.; Bolzinger M.-A.Emulsionsstabilized with solid nanoparticles: Pickeringemulsions. Colloids Surf., A2013, 439, 23–34. 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2013.02.054. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Berton-Carabin C. C.; Schroën K.PickeringEmulsions for Food Applications: Background,Trends, and Challenges. Annu. Rev. Food Sci.Technol.2015, 6, 263–297. 10.1146/annurev-food-081114-110822. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Jafari S. M.; Sedaghat Doost A.; Nikbakht Nasrabadi M.; Boostani S.; Van derMeeren P.Phytoparticles for the stabilization of Pickering emulsions in theformulation of novel food colloidal dispersions. Trends Food Sci. Technol.2020, 98, 117–128. 10.1016/j.tifs.2020.02.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Yang T.; Liu T.-X.; Li X.-T.; Tang C.-H.Novel nanoparticlesfrom insoluble soybean polysaccharides of Okara as unique Pickeringstabilizers for oil-in-water emulsions. FoodHydrocolloids2019, 94, 255–267. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.03.035. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Li X.; Li J.; Gong J.; Kuang Y.; Mo L.; Song T.Cellulosenanocrystals (CNCs) with different crystalline allomorph for oil inwater Pickering emulsions. Carbohydr. Polym.2018, 183, 303–310. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.12.085. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Lu X.; Wang Y.; Li Y.; Huang Q.Assembly of Pickeringemulsions using milled starch particles with different amylose/amylopectinratios. Food Hydrocolloids2018, 84, 47–57. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.05.045. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Costa A. L. R.; Gomes A.; Cunha R. L.One-step ultrasoundproducing O/Wemulsions stabilized by chitosan particles. Food Res. Int.2018, 107, 717–725. 10.1016/j.foodres.2018.02.057. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Akcicek A.; Bozkurt F.; Akgül C.; Karasu S.Encapsulation of OlivePomace Extract in Rocket Seed Gum and Chia Seed Gum Nanoparticles:Characterization, Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stability. Foods2021, 10, 1735. 10.3390/foods10081735. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Delgado A.; Chammem N.; Issaoui M.; Ammar E.. Bioactive Phytochemicals fromOlive (Olea europaea) Processing By-products. Bioactive Phytochemicals from Vegetable Oil and Oilseed ProcessingBy-products; Ramadan Hassanien M. F., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, 2020; pp 1–37. [Google Scholar]
- Difonzo G.; Troilo M.; Squeo G.; Pasqualone A.; Caponio F.Functional compounds from olive pomace to obtain high-addedvalue foods—a review. J. Sci. Food Agric.2021, 101, 15–26. 10.1002/jsfa.10478. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Najla T.; Habibi M.; Ammar M.H.; Abazza L.; Mhamdi R.. Olive Fruit by-Products: FromWaste Streams into a Promising Source of Value-Added Products. Mediterranean Fruits Bio-wastes: Chemistry, Functionalityand Technological Applications; Ramadan M. F., Farag M. A., Eds.; SpringerInternational Publishing: Cham, 2022; pp 47–66. [Google Scholar]
- Akcicek A.; Bozkurt F.; Akgül C.; Karasu S.Encapsulation of OlivePomace Extract in Rocket Seed Gum and Chia Seed Gum Nanoparticles:Characterization, Antioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stability. Foods2021, 10, 1735. 10.3390/foods10081735. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Taheri A.; Razavi S.Fabrication of Cress Seed Gum Nanoparticles,an AnionicPolysaccharide, Using Desolvation Technique: an Optimization Study. Bionanoscience2015, 5, 104–116. 10.1007/s12668-015-0169-6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Yoo B.; Rao M. A.Creep and dynamicrheological behavior of tomato concentrates:effect of concentration and finisher screen size. J. Texture Stud.1996, 27, 451–459. 10.1111/j.1745-4603.1996.tb00087.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Toker O. S.; Karasu S.; Yilmaz M. T.; Karaman S.Three interval thixotropytest (3ITT) in food applications: A novel technique to determine structuralregeneration of mayonnaise under different shear conditions. Food Res. Int.2015, 70, 125–133. 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.02.002. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Nikzade V.; Tehrani M. M.; Saadatmand-Tarzjan M.Optimizationof low-cholesterol–low-fatmayonnaise formulation: Effect of using soy milk and some stabilizerby a mixture design approach. Food Hydrocolloids2012, 28, 344–352. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2011.12.023. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Rayner M.; Timgren A.; Sjöö M.; Dejmek P.Quinoa starch granules:a candidate for stabilising food-grade Pickering emulsions. J. Sci. Food Agric.2012, 92, 1841–1847. 10.1002/jsfa.5610. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Lu X.; Xiao J.; Huang Q.Pickeringemulsions stabilized bymedia-milled starch particles. Food Res. Int.2018, 105, 140–149. 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.11.006. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Sun C.; Wang C.; Xiong Z.; Fang Y.Properties of binarycomplexes of whey protein fibril and gum arabic and their functionsof stabilizing emulsions and simulating mayonnaise. Innovative Food Sci. Emerging Technol.2021, 68, 102609. 10.1016/j.ifset.2021.102609. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Lu Z.; Ye F.; Zhou G.; Gao R.; Qin D.; Zhao G.Micronizedapple pomace as a novel emulsifier for food O/W Pickering emulsion. Food Chem.2020, 330, 127325. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.127325. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Yildirim M.; Sumnu G.; Sahin S.Rheology,particle-size distribution,and stability of low-fat mayonnaise produced via double emulsions. Food Sci. Biotechnol.2016, 25, 1613–1618. 10.1007/s10068-016-0248-7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Felixda Silva D.; Bettera L.; Ipsen R.; Hougaard A. B.Cheesepowders as emulsifier in mayonnaise. LWT2021, 151, 112188. 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112188. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Hayati I. N.; Che Man Y. B.; Tan C. P.; Aini I. N.Stabilityand rheologyof concentrated O/W emulsions based on soybean oil/palm kernel oleinblends. Food Res. Int.2007, 40, 1051–1061. 10.1016/j.foodres.2007.05.008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Ng S. P.; Lai O. M.; Abas F.; Lim H. K.; Tan C. P.Stabilityof a concentrated oil-in-water emulsion model prepared using palmolein-based diacylglycerol/virgin coconut oil blends: Effects of therheological properties, droplet size distribution and microstructure. Food Res. Int.2014, 64, 919–930. 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.08.045. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Ozdemir N.; Bayrak A.; Tat T.; Yanık Z. N.; Altay F.; Halkman A. K.Fabrication andcharacterizationof basil essential oil microcapsule-enriched mayonnaise and its antimicrobialproperties against Escherichia coli and Salmonella Typhimurium. Food Chem.2021, 359, 129940. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129940. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Wang Y.; Ye F.; Liu J.; Zhou Y.; Lei L.; Zhao G.Rheologicalnature and dropping performance of sweet potato starch dough as influencedby the binder pastes. Food Hydrocolloids2018, 85, 39–50. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2018.07.001. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Jolayemi O. S.; Stranges N.; Flamminii F.; Casiraghi E.; Alamprese C.Influence of Free and EncapsulatedOlive Leaf PhenolicExtract on the Storage Stability of Single and Double Emulsion SaladDressings. Food Bioprocess Technol.2021, 14, 93–105. 10.1007/s11947-020-02574-y. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Pinelo M.; Arnous A.; Meyer A. S.Upgrading of grapeskins: Significanceof plant cell-wall structural components and extraction techniquesfor phenol release. Trends Food Sci. Technol.2006, 17, 579–590. 10.1016/j.tifs.2006.05.003. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Liu P.; Li W.; Hu Z.; Qin X.; Liu G.Isolation, purification,identification, and stability of anthocyanins from Lycium ruthenicumMurr. LWT2020, 126, 109334. 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109334. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Yang F.; Yang J.; Qiu S.; Xu W.; Wang Y.Tannic acidenhanced the physical and oxidative stability of chitin particlesstabilized oil in water emulsion. Food Chem.2021, 346, 128762. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128762. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Skaltsounis A.-L.; Argyropoulou A.; Aligiannis N.; Xynos N.. Recovery of HighAdded Value Compounds from Olive Tree Products and Olive ProcessingByproducts. Olive and Olive Oil BioactiveConstituents; AOCS Press, 2015; pp 333–356. [Google Scholar]
- Huang Z.; Liao L.; McClements D. J.; Li J.; Li R.; Zou Y.; Li M.; Zhou W.Utilizingprotein-polyphenol molecularinteractions to prepare moringa seed residue protein/tannic acid Pickeringstabilizers. LWT2022, 154, 112814. 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112814. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Carneiro H. C. F.; Tonon R. V.; Grosso C. R. F.; Hubinger M. D.Encapsulation efficiencyand oxidative stability of flaxseed oil microencapsulated by spraydrying using different combinations of wall materials. J. Food Eng.2013, 115, 443–451. 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2012.03.033. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- DehghanManshadi A.; Peighambardoust S. H.; Azadmard-Damirchi S.; Niakosari M.Oxidative and physical stability, rheological propertiesand sensory characteristics of “salad dressing” samplesformulated with flaxseed oil and n-OSA starch. J. Food Meas. Charact.2019, 13, 26–33. 10.1007/s11694-018-9915-0. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Li S.; Jiao B.; Meng S.; Fu W.; Faisal S.; Li X.; Liu H.; Wang Q.Edible mayonnaise-likePickeringemulsion stabilized by pea protein isolate microgels: Effect of foodingredients in commercial mayonnaise recipe. Food Chem.2022, 376, 131866. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.131866. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Sikora M.; Badrie N.; Deisingh A.; Kowalski S.Sauces and Dressings:A Review of Properties and Applications. Crit.Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.2008, 48, 50–77. 10.1080/10408390601079934. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Low L. E.; Siva S. P.; Ho Y. K.; Chan E. S.; Tey B. T.Recentadvances of characterization techniques for the formation, physicalproperties and stability of Pickering emulsion. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci.2020, 277, 102117. 10.1016/j.cis.2020.102117. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Li J.; Shen Y.; Zhai J.; Su Y.; Gu L.; Chang C.; Yang Y.Enhancing the oxidativestabilityof algal oil powders stabilized by egg yolk granules/lecithin composites. Food Chem.2021, 345, 128782. 10.1016/j.foodchem.2020.128782. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Nimalaratne C.; Wu J.Hen Egg as an AntioxidantFood Commodity: A Review. Nutrients2015, 7, 8274–8293. 10.3390/nu7105394. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Sugino H.; Ishikawa M.; Nitoda T.; Koketsu M.; Juneja L. R.; Kim M.; Yamamoto T.Antioxidative Activity of Egg Yolk Phospholipids. J. Agric. Food Chem.1997, 45, 551–554. 10.1021/jf960416p. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Stahl W.; Sies H.Antioxidant activityof carotenoids. Mol. AspectsMed.2003, 24, 345–351. 10.1016/s0098-2997(03)00030-x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Jung S.; Nam K. C.; Ahn D. U.; Kim H. J.; Jo C.Effect ofphosvitin on lipid and protein oxidation in ground beef treated withhigh hydrostatic pressure. Meat Sci.2013, 95, 8–13. 10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.005. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
- Aksoy F.; Tekin Z.; Karasu S.; Aksoy A.. Oxidative stabilityof the salad dressingenriched by microencapsulated phenolic extracts from cold-pressedgrape and pomegranate seed oil by-products evaluated using OXITEST. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 42, e57220. 10.1590/fst.57220 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from ACS Omega are provided here courtesy of American Chemical Society
