Comparative antioxidant potential of kefir and yogurt of bovine and non-bovine origins

The aim of this study was to compare the antioxidant potential of the yogurt and kefir produced from ewe, camel, goat, and cow milk. The antioxidant activity of the samples was assessed by measuring total phenolic content (TPC), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging activity,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of food science and technology 2022-04, Vol.59 (4), p.1307-1316
Main Authors: Baniasadi, Mehdi, Azizkhani, Maryam, Saris, Per Erik Joakim, Tooryan, Fahimeh
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Antioxidants
Cattle
Chemistry
Chemistry and Materials Science
Chemistry/Food Science
Cow's milk
Food Science
Free radicals
Goats
Kefir
Milk
Nutrition
Original
Original Article
Phenolic compounds
Phenols
Scavenging
Sulfonic acid
Yogurt
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-127fc4409fe01224f26d42eb28cfb6a3d3098af26594d92f5b6343b62d18811b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-127fc4409fe01224f26d42eb28cfb6a3d3098af26594d92f5b6343b62d18811b3
container_end_page 1316
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1307
container_title Journal of food science and technology
container_volume 59
creator Baniasadi, Mehdi
Azizkhani, Maryam
Saris, Per Erik Joakim
Tooryan, Fahimeh
description The aim of this study was to compare the antioxidant potential of the yogurt and kefir produced from ewe, camel, goat, and cow milk. The antioxidant activity of the samples was assessed by measuring total phenolic content (TPC), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging activity, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical reducing capacity during 20-day storage at 4 ºC. Kefir and yogurt prepared from ewe and camel milk had significantly higher antioxidative potential than samples made from goat and cow milk (P 
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s13197-021-05139-9
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8882549</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2636888202</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-127fc4409fe01224f26d42eb28cfb6a3d3098af26594d92f5b6343b62d18811b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU2PFCEQhonRuJt1_4AH04kXL2hRQDdcTMzEr2QTL-qV0N0wsvbACN2T3X8vvTOuHwe5FFX18FKVl5CnDF4ygO5VYZzpjgIyCpJxTfUDcg66k1QJwIf1DoiUMSnPyGUp11APx04hPCZnXKIEkO05-bpJu73Ndg4H19g4h3QTxhqbfZpdTe3UJN98dz7k2h6b27Rd8rzW-nQI0d0VY4r0lKYctiGWJ-SRt1Nxl6d4Qb68e_t584FefXr_cfPmig6iEzNl2PlBCNDeAUMUHttRoOtRDb5vLR85aGVrVWoxavSyb7ngfYsjU4qxnl-Q10fd_dLv3DjUkbOdzD6Hnc23Jtlg_u7E8M1s08EopVAKXQVenARy-rG4MptdKIObJhtdWorBlrcrC1jR5_-g12nJsa63Ulx2UrGVwiM15FRKdv5-GAZmdc4cnTPVOXPnnFmnePbnGvdPfvlUAX4ESm3Frcu___6P7E_6GKQf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2633575812</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparative antioxidant potential of kefir and yogurt of bovine and non-bovine origins</title><source>ABI/INFORM global</source><source>Springer Link</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Baniasadi, Mehdi ; Azizkhani, Maryam ; Saris, Per Erik Joakim ; Tooryan, Fahimeh</creator><creatorcontrib>Baniasadi, Mehdi ; Azizkhani, Maryam ; Saris, Per Erik Joakim ; Tooryan, Fahimeh</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this study was to compare the antioxidant potential of the yogurt and kefir produced from ewe, camel, goat, and cow milk. The antioxidant activity of the samples was assessed by measuring total phenolic content (TPC), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging activity, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical reducing capacity during 20-day storage at 4 ºC. Kefir and yogurt prepared from ewe and camel milk had significantly higher antioxidative potential than samples made from goat and cow milk (P &lt; 0.05). Ewe kefir (74.55–80.11 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) showed the highest TPC followed by cow kefir (65–73.15 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ), camel kefir (61.2–69.91 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) and goat kefir (58.31–73.5 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) ( P  &lt; 0.05). Camel yogurt possesses the highest TPC (56.5–68.25 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) followed by ewe (40.32–46.5 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ), cow (29.5–35.5 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) and goat (20.03–26.85 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) yogurt ( P  &lt; 0.05). According to DPPH, FRAP, and ABTS results, the antioxidant activity of samples was as follows in descending order: ewe kefir, camel kefir, ewe yogurt, camel yogurt, cow kefir, goat kefir, goat yogurt, cow yogurt.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-1155</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 0975-8402</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s13197-021-05139-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35250056</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New Delhi: Springer India</publisher><subject>Antioxidants ; Cattle ; Chemistry ; Chemistry and Materials Science ; Chemistry/Food Science ; Cow's milk ; Food Science ; Free radicals ; Goats ; Kefir ; Milk ; Nutrition ; Original ; Original Article ; Phenolic compounds ; Phenols ; Scavenging ; Sulfonic acid ; Yogurt</subject><ispartof>Journal of food science and technology, 2022-04, Vol.59 (4), p.1307-1316</ispartof><rights>Association of Food Scientists &amp; Technologists (India) 2021</rights><rights>Association of Food Scientists &amp; Technologists (India) 2021.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-127fc4409fe01224f26d42eb28cfb6a3d3098af26594d92f5b6343b62d18811b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-127fc4409fe01224f26d42eb28cfb6a3d3098af26594d92f5b6343b62d18811b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5366-1660</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2633575812/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2633575812?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,11688,27924,27925,36060,36061,44363,53791,53793,74895</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35250056$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baniasadi, Mehdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azizkhani, Maryam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saris, Per Erik Joakim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tooryan, Fahimeh</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative antioxidant potential of kefir and yogurt of bovine and non-bovine origins</title><title>Journal of food science and technology</title><addtitle>J Food Sci Technol</addtitle><addtitle>J Food Sci Technol</addtitle><description>The aim of this study was to compare the antioxidant potential of the yogurt and kefir produced from ewe, camel, goat, and cow milk. The antioxidant activity of the samples was assessed by measuring total phenolic content (TPC), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging activity, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical reducing capacity during 20-day storage at 4 ºC. Kefir and yogurt prepared from ewe and camel milk had significantly higher antioxidative potential than samples made from goat and cow milk (P &lt; 0.05). Ewe kefir (74.55–80.11 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) showed the highest TPC followed by cow kefir (65–73.15 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ), camel kefir (61.2–69.91 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) and goat kefir (58.31–73.5 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) ( P  &lt; 0.05). Camel yogurt possesses the highest TPC (56.5–68.25 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) followed by ewe (40.32–46.5 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ), cow (29.5–35.5 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) and goat (20.03–26.85 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) yogurt ( P  &lt; 0.05). According to DPPH, FRAP, and ABTS results, the antioxidant activity of samples was as follows in descending order: ewe kefir, camel kefir, ewe yogurt, camel yogurt, cow kefir, goat kefir, goat yogurt, cow yogurt.</description><subject>Antioxidants</subject><subject>Cattle</subject><subject>Chemistry</subject><subject>Chemistry and Materials Science</subject><subject>Chemistry/Food Science</subject><subject>Cow's milk</subject><subject>Food Science</subject><subject>Free radicals</subject><subject>Goats</subject><subject>Kefir</subject><subject>Milk</subject><subject>Nutrition</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Phenolic compounds</subject><subject>Phenols</subject><subject>Scavenging</subject><subject>Sulfonic acid</subject><subject>Yogurt</subject><issn>0022-1155</issn><issn>0975-8402</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU2PFCEQhonRuJt1_4AH04kXL2hRQDdcTMzEr2QTL-qV0N0wsvbACN2T3X8vvTOuHwe5FFX18FKVl5CnDF4ygO5VYZzpjgIyCpJxTfUDcg66k1QJwIf1DoiUMSnPyGUp11APx04hPCZnXKIEkO05-bpJu73Ndg4H19g4h3QTxhqbfZpdTe3UJN98dz7k2h6b27Rd8rzW-nQI0d0VY4r0lKYctiGWJ-SRt1Nxl6d4Qb68e_t584FefXr_cfPmig6iEzNl2PlBCNDeAUMUHttRoOtRDb5vLR85aGVrVWoxavSyb7ngfYsjU4qxnl-Q10fd_dLv3DjUkbOdzD6Hnc23Jtlg_u7E8M1s08EopVAKXQVenARy-rG4MptdKIObJhtdWorBlrcrC1jR5_-g12nJsa63Ulx2UrGVwiM15FRKdv5-GAZmdc4cnTPVOXPnnFmnePbnGvdPfvlUAX4ESm3Frcu___6P7E_6GKQf</recordid><startdate>20220401</startdate><enddate>20220401</enddate><creator>Baniasadi, Mehdi</creator><creator>Azizkhani, Maryam</creator><creator>Saris, Per Erik Joakim</creator><creator>Tooryan, Fahimeh</creator><general>Springer India</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>04Q</scope><scope>04S</scope><scope>04W</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5366-1660</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220401</creationdate><title>Comparative antioxidant potential of kefir and yogurt of bovine and non-bovine origins</title><author>Baniasadi, Mehdi ; Azizkhani, Maryam ; Saris, Per Erik Joakim ; Tooryan, Fahimeh</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-127fc4409fe01224f26d42eb28cfb6a3d3098af26594d92f5b6343b62d18811b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Antioxidants</topic><topic>Cattle</topic><topic>Chemistry</topic><topic>Chemistry and Materials Science</topic><topic>Chemistry/Food Science</topic><topic>Cow's milk</topic><topic>Food Science</topic><topic>Free radicals</topic><topic>Goats</topic><topic>Kefir</topic><topic>Milk</topic><topic>Nutrition</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Phenolic compounds</topic><topic>Phenols</topic><topic>Scavenging</topic><topic>Sulfonic acid</topic><topic>Yogurt</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baniasadi, Mehdi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Azizkhani, Maryam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saris, Per Erik Joakim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tooryan, Fahimeh</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest India Database</collection><collection>India Database: Business</collection><collection>India Database: Science &amp; Technology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Career &amp; Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI商业信息数据库</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM global</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Journal of food science and technology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baniasadi, Mehdi</au><au>Azizkhani, Maryam</au><au>Saris, Per Erik Joakim</au><au>Tooryan, Fahimeh</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative antioxidant potential of kefir and yogurt of bovine and non-bovine origins</atitle><jtitle>Journal of food science and technology</jtitle><stitle>J Food Sci Technol</stitle><addtitle>J Food Sci Technol</addtitle><date>2022-04-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>59</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1307</spage><epage>1316</epage><pages>1307-1316</pages><issn>0022-1155</issn><eissn>0975-8402</eissn><abstract>The aim of this study was to compare the antioxidant potential of the yogurt and kefir produced from ewe, camel, goat, and cow milk. The antioxidant activity of the samples was assessed by measuring total phenolic content (TPC), 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) free radical scavenging activity, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) and 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzthiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) (ABTS) radical reducing capacity during 20-day storage at 4 ºC. Kefir and yogurt prepared from ewe and camel milk had significantly higher antioxidative potential than samples made from goat and cow milk (P &lt; 0.05). Ewe kefir (74.55–80.11 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) showed the highest TPC followed by cow kefir (65–73.15 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ), camel kefir (61.2–69.91 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) and goat kefir (58.31–73.5 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) ( P  &lt; 0.05). Camel yogurt possesses the highest TPC (56.5–68.25 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) followed by ewe (40.32–46.5 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ), cow (29.5–35.5 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) and goat (20.03–26.85 mg GAE 100 mL −1 ) yogurt ( P  &lt; 0.05). According to DPPH, FRAP, and ABTS results, the antioxidant activity of samples was as follows in descending order: ewe kefir, camel kefir, ewe yogurt, camel yogurt, cow kefir, goat kefir, goat yogurt, cow yogurt.</abstract><cop>New Delhi</cop><pub>Springer India</pub><pmid>35250056</pmid><doi>10.1007/s13197-021-05139-9</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5366-1660</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-1155
ispartof Journal of food science and technology, 2022-04, Vol.59 (4), p.1307-1316
issn 0022-1155
0975-8402
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8882549
source ABI/INFORM global; Springer Link; PubMed Central
subjects Antioxidants
Cattle
Chemistry
Chemistry and Materials Science
Chemistry/Food Science
Cow's milk
Food Science
Free radicals
Goats
Kefir
Milk
Nutrition
Original
Original Article
Phenolic compounds
Phenols
Scavenging
Sulfonic acid
Yogurt
title Comparative antioxidant potential of kefir and yogurt of bovine and non-bovine origins
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T08%3A55%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20antioxidant%20potential%20of%20kefir%20and%20yogurt%20of%20bovine%20and%20non-bovine%20origins&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20food%20science%20and%20technology&rft.au=Baniasadi,%20Mehdi&rft.date=2022-04-01&rft.volume=59&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1307&rft.epage=1316&rft.pages=1307-1316&rft.issn=0022-1155&rft.eissn=0975-8402&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s13197-021-05139-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2636888202%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-127fc4409fe01224f26d42eb28cfb6a3d3098af26594d92f5b6343b62d18811b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2633575812&rft_id=info:pmid/35250056&rfr_iscdi=true