4.7 Article

Production of Arthrospira platensis BEA 005B: Biomass characterisation and use as a colouring additive in macarons

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 182, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2023.114843

关键词

Spirulina; Biomass; Algae; Illumina sequencing; Natural pigments; Colorants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study aimed to produce the microalga Arthrospira platensis BEA 005B using 80 m2 raceway reactors and evaluate its potential use as a food color in macarons. The productivity of the system ranged between 8 and 10 g m- 2.day- 1 depending on the culture depth. The produced biomass mainly consisted of protein and contained valuable pigments.
The present study aimed at (i) producing the microalga Arthrospira platensis BEA 005B using 80 m2 raceway reactors and (ii) to assess the potential use of the produced biomass as a food colour in macarons. The biomass production was carried out during winter and the productivity of the system ranged between 8 and 10 g m- 2.day- 1 depending on the depth of the culture (0.10-0.20 m). Illumina sequencing revealed that A. platensis represented over 85% of the prokaryotic populations; other alkaliphile strains were also identified. The produced biomass was mainly composed of protein (57.0 g.100 g-1) and contained natural and valuable pigments including chlorophylls (6.7 mg.100 g-1), carotenoids (1.8 mg.100 g-1), phycocyanins (115.4 mg.100 g-1), and allophycocyanins (36.9 mg.100 g-1). The effect of pH variations and thermal processing (121 degrees C, 15 min) on the colour of the biomass and on the stability of the main pigments was studied. The produced biomass was used to mimic the colour of two synthetic pigments used in green macarons. The lowest colour difference between the commercial and the microalgae-containing macarons was around 5 at a concentration of 3.5 mg g-1. The pigmentation capacity of the biomass was so high that the small quantities added did not affect the nutritional value of the macarons.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据