Greek vs traditional yogurts: Sensory and physicochemical comparison

Abstract

Greek yogurt (GY) has gained popularity in recent years for its marked texture, taste, and nutritional characteristics compared to traditional yogurt (TY). The objective of this work was to analyze the physicochemical, sensory, and lipid profile of GY and TY with blueberry flavor, both manufactured by a local industry in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Protein and lipid content, as well as humidity, ash, and fatty acid profile were quantified and a sensory evaluation was completed using the affective method. The physicochemical results showed 1.5% and 2.3% more proteins and lipids, respectively, for GY compared to TY. The humidity in TY was 10% lower than in GY. Eighteen types of polyunsaturated, saturated, monounsaturated fatty acids were identified, with a high proportion of C14, C16, and C18. Sensory analysis showed a preference for GY over TY (64% versus 36%, p<0.05). However, body, appearance, and texture attributes did not present better acceptance scores for GY (p>0.05). Both the protein and lipid content, associated with creaminess, likely influence better acceptance of GY.

Full text

167
Rev Chil Nutr 2022; 49(2): 167-172.
Artículo Original / Original Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-7518202200020 0167
Este trabajo fue recibido el 11 de mayo de 2021.
Aceptado con modicaciones: 03 de noviembre de 2021.
Aceptado para ser publicado: 13 de diciembre de 2021.
Greek vs traditional yogurts: Sensory and physicochemical comparison
Yogurt griego vs yogurt tradicional: Comparación sicoquímica y sensorial
Maximiliano Escalona Jiménez1*. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2516-4330
Luis Manuel Hernández García2. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1478-4953
Luis Guillermo Ramírez Mérida3. https://orcid.org/ 0000-0003-0453-0466
María Alcano4. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1229-9498
Neila S.P.S. Richards1. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6610-5567
1. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Departamento de Ciência y Tecnologia de Alimentos. Santa Maria, RS, Brasil.
2. Universidade Estadual de Maranhão, Programa de Pós Graduação em Agroecologia, São Luís, Maranhão, Brasil.
3. Universidad de Carabobo, Departamento de Biología, Facultad de Ciencias y Tecnología,
Centro de Biotecnología Aplicada, Valencia, Carabobo, Venezuela.
4. Inversiones Herrera-Alcano C. A, Guacara, Carabobo, Venezuela.
*Corresponding author: Maximiliano Segundo Escalona Jiménez.
Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos. Universidade Federal de Santa Maria (UFSM),
Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.
E-mail: maximiliano.escalonaj@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Greek yogurt (GY) has gained popularity in recent years for its marked texture, taste, and nutritional characteristics com-
pared to traditional yogurt (TY). The objective of this work was to analyze the physicochemical, sensory, and lipid prole
of GY and TY with blueberry avor, both manufactured by a local industry in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Protein
and lipid content, as well as humidity, ash, and fatty acid prole were quantied and a sensory evaluation was completed
using the affective method. The physicochemical results showed 1.5% and 2.3% more proteins and lipids, respectively,
for GY compared to TY. The humidity in TY was 10% lower than in GY. Eighteen types of polyunsaturated, saturated,
monounsaturated fatty acids were identied, with a high proportion of C14, C16, and C18. Sensory analysis showed a
preference for GY over TY (64% versus 36%, p<0.05). However, body, appearance, and texture attributes did not present
better acceptance scores for GY (p>0.05). Both the protein and lipid content, associated with creaminess, likely inuence
better acceptance of GY.
Keywords: Creaminess; Greek Yogurt; Protein; Sensory acceptability; Traditional Yogurt.
RESUMEN
El yogur griego (YG) ha ganado popularidad durante los últimos años por su marcada textura, sabor y características nutri-
cionales en comparación con el yogur tradicional (YT). El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar el perl sicoquímico, sen-

168
Escalona M, et al. Rev Chil Nutr 2022; 49(2): 167-172.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the dairy industry has tried to innovate
and develop products with special characteristics, different
avors that promote health, in addition to satisfying the
palates and dietary habits of consumers
1
. Yogurt, as well as,
other fermented dairy products, is produced in almost all
countries of the world. Most yogurts are healthy, considering
nutrient content, as well as the presence of probiotic
bacteria and low lactose levels2. The nutrients available
in yogurt favorably complement the diet and provide vital
elements for growth and good health3. Yogurt results from
the fermentation of milk by incorporating the type cultures
Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus
thermophilus which act as lac tic star ters, transforming lact ose
into lactic acid
4
. Rapid milk acidication, together with
the proteolytic capacity of the starter cultures, generates a
sig nicant numbe r of volatile compounds and no n-volatile
metabolites which are desirable for a good organoleptic and
sensorial yogur t quality, thus achievin g be tter technological
performance for product quality5.
Yogurt is a product with good sensory characteristics
and acceptability
6
. The physicochemical, sensory and
organoleptic characteristics vary between different types
of yogurt, where the quantity and type of milk lipids are
critical7. Artisan Greek yogurt is highly oily because it is
made with sheep’s milk8.
Current industrialized methods use biological and
technological processes for mixtures with bovine milk to
provide greater consistency, lipids, and proteins
9,10
. The
production of Greek yogurt is currently the fastest growing
sector within the dairy industry. In 2008, this product was
launched in the United States and, in the second half of
2012, in Brazil by Nestlé and Vigor. However, there are no
standards for the elaboration of Greek yogurts in the United
States, so they can be produced by a variety of methods;
hence, a certain variability in sensorial characteristics is
expected11.
In recent years, Greek yogurt has gained popularity among
consumers because it is far superior in terms of avor and
nutritional value compared to traditional yogurt
6,12
. Currently,
besides the sensorial and physicochemical characteristics,
the analysis of the lipids prole specically of the presence
of conjugated linoleic acids (CLA) is included in yogurt
characterization, because this component has a protective
effect against some diseases including mammary cancer13.
Therefore, the objective of this study was to analyze the
physicochemical, sensory characteristics and lipid prole of
Gree k yogurt and traditional yogurt , both manufac tu re d by
an industry located in the state of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Samples
Samples of Greek (GY) and traditional (T Y ) yogurt were
supplied by a dairy industry located in Rio Grande do Sul,
Brazil, both with the same fabrication date, from the same
batch, packed in polyethylene plastic cups with an aluminum
seal. The ingredients listed on the product labels show that
the GY contained milk protein concentrate, skimmed milk
and/or reconstituted skimmed milk, milk cream, liquid sugar,
modied starch, dairy yeast, and gelatin stabilizer. On the
other hand, the TY contained the following ingredients:
whole pasteurized milk and/or reconstituted whole milk
and milk ferment.
Physicochemical analysis
Protein analysis was performed from the nitrogen
determination by the Kjeldahl method, using 6.38 as the factor
for dairy14. Lipids from sample s for Free Fatty Acids analysis
were extracted using water, chloroform and methanol (1:1:1) as
solvents
15
. Humidity was performed by gravimetric method
14
.
Mineral residues were quantied by calcination of samples
at 550 °C16. Carbohydrates were calculated by differences.
The total calor ic value was calculat ed by individual factors,
9 for lipids and 4 for protein and carbohydrates. Analyses
were performed in triplicate.
Prole of fatty acids. The est erication method developed
by Hartman et al.17 was used. Esters formed were analyzed
by Agilent Technologies 6.890N series gas chromatography
equipped with a fused silica capillary column (Supelco, Sigma-
Aldrich) (100 m long x 0.25 mm internal diameter x 0.2 mm
thick of lm) and ame ionization detector (FID). The column
was heated at 35 °C for 2 minutes and was increased to 10
°C every minute until 150 °C, remaining 2 minutes at that
temperature. It was then raised 2 °C per minute until reaching
200 °C and remained 2 minutes at that temperature. Again,
temperature was increased 2 °C per minute until reaching
sorial y lipídico de YG y YT con sabor a arándano, ambos fabricados por una industria ubicada en el estado de Rio Grande
do Sul, Brasil. Fueron cuanticados el contenido de proteínas, lípidos, humedad y cenizas, así como también el perl de
ácidos grasos y la evaluación sensorial por método afectivo. Los resultados sicoquímicos mostraron que YG contiene 1,5%
y 2,3% más de proteínas y lípidos, respectivamente, en comparación con YT (p<0,05). La humedad en YT fue 1,1 veces
menor que en YG. Fueron identicados 18 tipos de ácidos grasos poliinsaturados, saturados, monoinsaturados, con mayor
proporción de C14, C16 y C18. El análisis sensorial mostró una preferencia por YG de 64% sobre YT 36% (p<0,05). Sin
embargo, no hubo diferencia signicativa (p>0,05) en relación a la aceptación de los atributos color, olor, sabor y acidez.
Los atributos cuerpo, apariencia y textura presentaron mejores scores de aceptación para el YG. Tanto el contenido de
proteínas y lípidos, asociados a la cremosidad, probablemente hayan inuenciado una mejor aceptación del YG.
Palabras clave: Aceptabilidad sensorial; Cremosidad; Proteína; Yogurt Griego; Yogurt Tradicional.

169
Greek vs traditional yogurts: Sensory and physicochemical comparison
220 °C remaining at that temperature for 21 minutes. The
entire process lasted a total of 73.5 minutes. Nitrogen was
used as the carrier gas at 0.9 mL.min-1. The injected sample
volume (split mode) was 1 µL. The temperature used for
the detector (FID) was 280 °C. Fatty acids were identied
by comparison with reference pattern times (37 FAME mix
Supelco, Sigma, Bellefonte, USA).
Sensory analysis. The panelists consisted of 45 untrained
persons, aged between eighteen and fty, of both genders,
recruited among students, professors, and administration
workers of the Federal University of Santa Maria, UFSM,
RS, Brazil. Sensory tests were carried out in sensory cabins
of the Department of Foods Science and Technology of the
UFSM. The affect ive- hedonic scale method was used, which
assumes that consumer preferences can be categorized
by responses based on taste and dislike. Samples were
present monadically in random order for each respondent,
accompanied by cookies and water between samples to
cleanse the palate. Visual evaluation, olfactory, gustatory,
and global impressions were recorded on 7-point scale.
The value one (1) was assigned to the expression “Like
Very Much” and the value of seven (7) was assigned to the
term “Dislike Very Much”. The respondents were asked
to indicate which sample was preferred. The results were
expressed as proportions and by attributes test of a queue
for the difference between preferences18.
Statistical analysis
Physicochemical parameters and fatty acid data for
Gree k and traditional yogurts wer e analyzed using Stude nt
T-Test, with a p= 0,05 signicance level. Sensory attribute
data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
and means were compared using Tukey’s post hoc test at a
p= 0,05 signicance level. The acceptance was evaluated
by calculating the acceptability index (AI), calculated from
the expression: AI (%) = A x 100 /B, where A= average grade
obtained for the product, and B= grade maximum given to
the product. Statistical tests were carried out in R studio
v.4.1.0 (R Core Team 2021)19.
RESULTS
Table 1 shows the results corresponding to the
physicochemical parameters obtained in the GY and TY
samples. GY had 1.5 and 2.3 times higher protein and
lipid content than TY, respectively. On the other hand, the
moisture content of TY was 10% lower than GY (p<0.05).
GY was more caloric (calories /100g) than TY, which
was related to its highest content of lipids, proteins and
carbohydrates (p<0,05).
Table 2 shows the lipid prole obtained in the GY and
TY samples. There were 18 types of fatty acids including
saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated. Samples
did not differ in percentage (p>0,05). Both GY and TY were
rich in saturated fatty acids (SFA), with a SFA content 2.5
times higher than polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). A
greater proportion of C14, C16, and C18 fatty acids also
was found in yogurt samples.
The sensorial analysis showed that evaluators preferred
GY (64.4%) compared to TY (35.5%), (p<0,05). However,
preference for color, odor, avor, and acidity, did not differ
by yogurt type (p>0, 05). GY was preferred compared to
TY for attributes such as body, appearance, and texture (p
<0.05). Figure 1 shows the attributes of body, appearance,
and texture, where the proportions for GY for “Liked Slightly”,
“Liked Moderately”, “Liked Very Much” were 81.8%, 91.1%,
and 88.8%, respectively. On the other hand, for TY, the
percentage of acceptability varied: 54.4%, 44.4%, and
77.7%, respectively.
Table 1. Physicochemical parameters analyzed in Greek yogurt (GY) and traditional yogurt (TY) samples.
Parameter Sample
GY TY
Moisture 69.13 ± 0.11a 76.49 ± 0.05b
Ashes 0.67± 0.05a 0.69 ± 0.05b
Protein 4.08 ± 0.07a 2.71 ± 0.17b
Lipids 7.91 ± 0.05a 3.49 ± 0.23b
Carbohydrates 18.21 ± 0.28a 16.62 ± 0.49b
Calories (Kcal/100 g) 160.35 ± 1.01a 108.73 ± 4.71b
Lowercase letters represent signicant differences between samples.

170
Escalona M, et al. Rev Chil Nutr 2022; 49(2): 167-172.
Figure 1: Body, texture and
appearance graphs in percentage
attributes of Greek yogurt and
traditional yogurt, where LVM: liked
very much, LM: liked moderately,
LS: liked slightly, NLND: neither
like nor dislike, D: disliked slightly,
DM: disliked moderately, DVM:
disliked very much.
Table 2. Fatty acids identied for Greek yogurt (GY) and traditional yogurt (TY) samples.
Fatty acid Sample
GY TY
C4:00 0.91ª 0.98ª
C6:00 0.95ª 0.95ª
C8:00 0.73ª 0.74ª
C10:00 1.94ª 2.00a
C12:00 2.60ª 2.75ª
C14:00 10.97ª 11.35ª
C16:00 33.36ª 34.31ª
C16:1 1.40ª 1.51ª
C18:00 14.92ª 14.36ª
C18:1T11 2.76ª 2.47ª
C18:1N9T 0.52ª 0.50ª
C18:1N9C 24.91ª 23.23ª
C18:2N6T 0.20ª 0.19ª
C18:2N6C 3.81ª 3.12ª
C18:3N3 0.62ª 0.59ª
CLA 0.65ª 0.66ª
C22:00 0.11ª 0.13ª
C20:4N6 0.11ª 0.13ª
∑SFA 65.81ª 67.59ª
∑MUFA 28.84ª 27.71ª
∑PUFA 5.34ª 4.78ª
SFA/UFA 1.92ª 2.07ª
Lowercase letters represent signicant differences between samples.

171
Greek vs traditional yogurts: Sensory and physicochemical comparison
DISCUSSION
The high proportion of proteins and lipids found in
GY compared to TY is due to the ovine and caprine origin
of milk for GY production. The proportion of protein for
sheep’s milk is 1.7 times higher than that found in cow’s
milk. While the proportion of lipids is 2.1 and 1.19 times
for sheep and goat milk respectively, relative to cow’s milk,
this factor contributes to the proportional and nutritional
increase observed in the nal product20 ,21.
On the other hand, the formulation of GY differs from
TY due to the processing step s carried out during production,
where a concentration of proteins and lipids is carried out
during the addition of cream and removal of the moisture
by eliminating whey using ltration and centrifugation
processes, which in turn improves the texture quality,
making it creamier in addition to reducing the vulnerability
of yogurt to syneresis. This technological process also
affects the percentages of moisture because it reduces the
water content and concentrates solids like proteins, lipids,
and ashes22. The technological scheme of GY production
varies among companies, so products with subtle or marked
differences in their physicochemical composition may exist
in the market. A physicochemical comparison among seven
commercial GY made with cow’s milk showed an average
of 3.66 and 3.27% of protein and lipids respectively
23
.
These differences are difcult to determine given the lack
of knowledge in the formulations of both the commercial
yogurts analyzed and the yogurts evaluated in this research.
Milk fat content is a critical point, TY generally contains at
least 3.25% milk lipids, however, it can be lower in low-fat
(0.5-3%) or fat-free (less than 0.5%) products. According
to Brazilian legislation, yogurt made from whole milk may
contain between 3.0 and 5.9% fat and yogurt made with
cream addition may be above 6.0%24 . On the other hand,
the minimum percent of protein that natural yogurt must
present to be denominated as such is 2.7%25.
Although there was no signicant difference between
SFA and unsaturated fatty acids (UFA), one can observe a
slight inclination in the content UFA for GY. This represents a
point of interest with respect to cholesterol levels. Different
types of SFA exert different effects on plasma cholesterol.
Myristic acid (C14: 00), palmitic acid (C16: 00) and lauric
acid (C12: 00) found in greater proportion in TY have the
highest levels of cholesterol, while stearic acid (C18: 00)
appears to have little effect on cholesterol26,27. In the context
of a diet rich in dairy fat (50 g/day), the substitution of fat
originating in TY (made from cow’s milk) by GY fat (made
from sheep’s milk) lead to a small reduction in plasma
cholesterol concentration, but not in the LDL / HDL ratio
28
.
The acceptance attributes identied in the GY sample
are linked to the fat content, due to the characteristics of
creaminess, consistency, and viscosity of the product. The
GY manufacturing process is not standardized, although
the milk is generally not homogenized and starter cultures
are inoculated using yogurt from the previous day23. A diet
rich in GY may have benecial effects on human health.
Yogurts with higher fat content, regarding bers, have more
avor and therefore better organoleptic characteristics
29
.
GY was, according to the respondents of the questionnaire,
creamier, with a more viscous consistency than TY. GY is
known as strained yogurt in the dairy category. The straining
process is done to remove the excess watery whey, which
gives the yogurt a creamier and thicker consistency30. The
introduction of GY changed American tastes in yogurt and
its large consumer acceptance helped increase sales in the
yogurt category overall. As of 2018, over 300 million pints
of Greek yogurt were sold in the United States, where the
GY market represented 44% of total yogurt sales in 2020
31
.
While TYs have as their main attraction “probiotic
cultures”, Greek yogurt mentions the word “delicious”
indicating a product that causes the consumer’s sense of
well-being, so that dairy companies provide a superior
product on creaminess and avor. Being a new product on
the market, the controversy revolves around the fact that it
contains a lot of calories32.
However, yogurt itself is a healthy product and contains
Lactobacillus which maintains the balance of the intestinal
microbiota
33
. Consumers generally prefer GY because it is less
acidic than TY, “tastier” and with a pleasant texture, although
it should be consumed in moderation. In yogurt preparation,
in addition to casein and whey protein aggregates, fat acts
as a body-providing agent and induces interaction with the
protein matrix. The gel is a rmness property, important in
the acceptance of the yogurt by the consumer34.
CONCLUSION
In this study, fatty acid proles showed no relevant
differences between GY and TY, but a slightly higher UFA
content was observed for GY. For both, eighteen types of
polyunsaturated, saturated, monounsaturated fatty acids
were identied, with high proportions of C14, C16, and
C18. Protein and lipids were higher in GY, which likely
related to higher sensorial acceptance compared with TY,
highlighting the attributes of color, texture, and appearance
Founding Source. This research did not receive any
specic grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
or not-for-prot sectors.
REFERENCES
1. Dias SS, De Souza Vergílio D, Pereira AM, Klososki SJ, Marcolino
VA, Da Cruz RMS, et al. Probiotic Greek yogurt: Effect of the
addition of prebiotic fat substitutes on the physicochemical
characteristics, probiotic survival, and sensory acceptance.
J Dairy Res. 2021; 88: 98-104.
2. Serhan M, Mattar J, Debs L. Concentrated yogurt (Labneh)
made of a mixture of goats’ and cows’ milk: Physicochemical,
microbiological and sensory analysis. Small Rumin Res. 2016;
138: 46-52.
3. Aktar T. Physicochemical and sensory characterization of
different yogurt production methods. Int Dairy J. 2022; 125:
105245.
4. Suh SH, Kim MK. Microbial communities related to sensory

172
Escalona M, et al. Rev Chil Nutr 2022; 49(2): 167-172.
characteristics of commercial drinkable yogurt products in
Korea. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol. 2021; 67: 102565.
5. Esteves de Oliveira FC, Pontelo Pontes J, Vieira Queiroz VA,
Silva Roncheti EF, Melo Dutra VL, da Veiga Correia VT, et
al. Greek yogurt with added sorghum ours: Antioxidant
potential and sensory acceptance. Rev Chil Nutr. 2020; 47:
272-280.
6. Bir C, Delgado MS, Widmar NO. U.S. consumer demand for
traditional and Greek yogurt attributes, including livestock
management attributes. Agric Resour Econ Rev. 2021; 50:
99 -126.
7. Johansen SMB, Laugesen JL, Janh T, Ipsen RH, Frost MB.
Prediction of sensory properties of low-fat yogurt and cream
cheese from surface images. Food Qual Prefer. 2008; 19:
232-246.
8. Smith L. ‘Greek yogurt’ gains protection. J Intellect Prop
Law Pract. 2013; 8: 688-689.
9. Xu Z, Emmanouelidou DG, Raphaelides SN, Antoniou
KD. Effects of heating temperature and fat content on the
structure development of set yogurt. J Food Eng. 2008; 85:
590-597.
10. Kyle CR, Amamcharla JK. Value addition of Greek yogurt
whey using magnetic uid and sepiolite treatments. Food
Bioprocess Technol. 2016; 30: 553-563.
11. Desai NT, Shepard L, Drake MA. Sensory properties and
drivers of liking for Greek yogurts. J Dairy Sci. 2013; 96:
745 4-7466 .
12. Marette A, Picard-deland E. Yogurt consumption and impact
on health: Focus on children and cardiometabolic risk. Am
J Clin Nutr. 2014; 99: 1243-1247.
13. Serafeimidou A, Zlatanos S, Laskaridis K, Sagredos A. Chemical
characteristics, fatty acid composition and conjugated
linoleic acid (CLA) content of traditional Greek yogurts.
Food Chem. 2012; 134 : 1839-184 6.
14. Association of Ofcial AnalTYical Chemists (AOAC). Ofcial
methods of analysis of the Association of the AnalTYical
Chemists 16th ed. Washington (USA), 1995.
15. Bligh EG, Dyer WJ. A rapid method of total lipid extraction
and purication. Can J Biochem Physiol. 1959; 27: 911-917.
16. Association of Ofcial AnalTYical Chemists (AOAC). Ofcial
methods of analysis of the Association of the AnalTYical
Chemists 18th ed. Maryland (USA), 2005.
17. Hartman L, Lago RC. Rapid preparation of fatty acids methyl
esters. Lab Pract. 1973; 22: 475-476.
18. Dutcosky SD. Sensory analysis of food, 4ed. Curitiba:
Champagnat, 2013.
19. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna,
Austria. 2021. https://www.R-project.org/.
20. Balthazar CF, Pimentel TC, Ferrão LL, Almada CN, Santillo A,
Albenzio M, et al. Sheep Milk: Physicochemical characteristics
and relevance for functional food development. Compr Rev
Food Sci Food Saf. 2017; 16: 247-262.
21. Ribeiro AC, Ribeiro SDA. Specialty products made from
goat milk. Small Rumin Res. 2010; 89: 225-233.
22. Soukoulis, C. et al. Industrial yogurt manufacture: Monitoring
of fermentation process and improvement of nal product
quality. J Dairy Sci. 2007; 90: 2641-2654.
23. Mileib-Vasconcelos C, Rodrigues-Minim VP, Paes-Chaves JB.
Low-calorie yogurt added with yacon our: Development
and physicochemical evaluation. Rev Chil Nutr. 2012; 39:
65-71.
24. Serafeimidou A, Zlatanos S, Laskaridis K, Sagredos A. Chemical
characteristics, fatty acid composition and conjugated
linoleic acid (CLA) content of traditional Greek yogurts.
Food Chem. 2012; 134: 1839-1846.
25. Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento (MAPA).
Resolução nº 5, de 13 de novembro de 2000 (D.O.U. 02/01/01).
Aprova os Padrões de Identidade e Qualidade (PIQ) de Leites
Fermentados. BRASIL. http://www.cidasc.sc.gov.br/inspecao/
les/2019/09/INSTRU%C3%87%C3%83O-NORMATIVA-
N-46-de-23-de-outubro-de-2007-Leites-Fermentados.pdf
26. Codex Alimentarius. Milk and Dairy Products. Ed. Viale delle
Terme di Caracalla, 2ed, Roma, Italia. 2011. p. 6. https://
www.fao.org/3/i2085e/i2085e00.pdf
27. Terpstra, AHM. Effect of conjugated linoleic acid on body
composition and plasma lipids in humans: An overview of
the literature. Am J Clin Nut. 2004; 79: 352-361.
28. Jenkins B, West JA, Koulman A. A review of odd-chain fatty
acid metabolism and the role of pentadecanoic Acid (c15:0)
and heptadecanoic Acid (c17:0) in health and disease.
Molecules. 2015; 20: 2425-2444.
29. Skeaff CM, Williscroft K, Mann J, Chisholm A. Replacing
cows’ with sheep’s dairy fat lowers plasma cholesterol
concentration in participants consuming dairy fat-rich diets.
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004; 58:250-257.
30. Díaz, B, Sosa ME, Velez JF. Effect of ber addition and fat
reduction on yogurt. Physicochemical Properties. Rev Mex
Ing Quím. 2004; 3: 287-305.
31. Shahbandeh, M. U.S Greek Yogurt Market - Statistics &
Facts. Statista. 2021. https://www.statista.com/topics/2351/
greek-yogurt/.
32. Rabin G, Salam AI. Effects of hydrocolloids and processing
conditions on acid whey production with reference to Greek
yogurt. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2015; 56: 61-76.
33. Mohammad RK, Rasoul S. Chapter 16 - Traditional Yogurt
as a source of Lactobacilli and other lactic acid bacteria
in Iran. Editor(s): Nagendra P. Shah, Yogurt in Health and
Disease Prevention. Acad. Press. 2017; 285-294.
34. Isleten M, Karagul-Yuceer Y. Effects of dried dairy ingredients
on physical and sensory properties of nonfat yogurt. J Dairy
Sci. 2006; 89(8): 2865-2872.