Authors :
Adithyan R.; Athira Anilkumar; Kalyani Vijayan; Krishnapriya K. Nair; Devika Lal; Dr. Jubi Jacob
Volume/Issue :
Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 5 - May
Google Scholar :
https://tinyurl.com/42p9a84c
Scribd :
https://tinyurl.com/5ysbh6c6
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26May041
Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.
Abstract :
Yogurt is a nutrient-rich probiotic dairy product produced by fermenting milk with Lactobacillus delbrueckii
subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus [8]. This study compared the microbiological safety and physicochemical
properties of commercial yogurt (Sample A) and locally produced yogurt (Sample B) over four weeks. Sample A maintained
acceptable microbial quality, with no detectable coliforms or Escherichia coli, indicating proper hygiene and processing. In
contrast, Sample B showed higher microbial loads, including coliforms and E. coli, suggesting inadequate sanitation.
Proximate analysis revealed that Sample A had stable composition, with protein (7.5–7.6%), fat (~2.14%), and ash (0.90–
0.98%). Sample B showed lower protein (6.6–6.7%), higher fat (~3.0%), and lower ash (0.71–0.78%). Carbohydrate content
decreased in both samples due to fermentation, more significantly in Sample B. Moisture increased and solids-not-fat
decreased during storage, especially in Sample B, indicating instability. Sample A showed controlled fermentation, with pH
decreasing slightly (4.32–4.25) and acidity rising marginally (1.11–1.15%). Sample B exhibited greater changes (pH 4.10–
3.60; acidity 1.70–3.17%), reflecting uncontrolled fermentation. Structural analysis showed better gel quality in Sample A,
with lower syneresis (10.76%) and higher water-holding capacity (78.5%). Overall, commercial yogurt demonstrated
superior safety and quality.
Keywords :
Yogurt; Commercial Yogurt; Probiotic; Microbial Quality; Escherichia Coli; Proximate Composition; Syneresis; Titratable Acidity; Water-Holding Capacity.
References :
- AOAC International. Official methods of analysis. 22nd ed. Rockville (MD): AOAC International; 2023.
- Banerjee M and Sarkar PK (2003). Microbiological quality of some retail spices in India. Food Research International, 36(5): 469-474.
- Caballero, B. (2003). Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition. Academic Press, London, UK.
- Cais-Sokolinska, D., Pikul, J. (2001). The effect of refrigeration ´ storage temperatures on the quality and durability of natural yoghurt ´ 8–9, 84–88 [in Polish].
- Coppuccino, J. G. and N. Sherman (1996). Microbiology a Laboratory Manual. The Benjamin/Cummings Pub. Co. Inc. New York, USA.
- Crank, J. (1975). The Mathematics of Diffusion (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
- Dairy Microbiology Handbook: Richard K. Robinson, 3rd edition - 2002–2005 range, Publisher: Wiley-Interscience (John Wiley & Sons).
- Dairy Science and Technology — Walstra, P., Wouters, J.T.M., & Geurts, T.J. (2006). Dairy Science and Technology, 2nd ed., CRC Press.
- David R. Peryam and Francis J. Pilgrim (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology, 11(9), 9–14.
- Donmez, O., Mogol, B. A., & Gokmen, V. (2017). Syneresis and rheological properties of yoghurt: Effect of processing conditions.
- Estrada, J.D. et al., 2011. Syneresis in fermented dairy products.
- Harrigan, W. F. and M. E. McCance (1976). Laboratory Methods in Food and Dairy Microbiology. Academic Press, London, UK
- Izadi, Z. et al., 2015. Studies on gel stability and whey separation in yoghurt.
- Journal of Dairy Science Volume 100, Issue 2, February 2017, Pages 901-907 Syneresis and rheological behaviors of set yogurt containing green tea and green coffee powders Author links open overlay panelÖzge Dönmez, Burçe Ataç Mogol, Vural Gökmen
- Lim, K. S., Huh, C. S., Baek, Y. J., & Kim, H. U. (1995). Aselective enumeration medium for bifidobacteria in fermented dairy products. Journal of Dairy Science, 78(10), 2108–2112.
- Lopez., M, C, L, M, Medina, M,G,Cordoba and R.Jordano, 1997., Evaluvation of the microbiological quality of yoghurt ice-cream. ALIMENTARIA. 35:39-45 CAB Abst (1996-1998/07).
- Lucrări ştiințifice Zootehnie şi Biotehnologii, vol, 41 (1) (2008), Timişoara COMPARATIVE STUDY ON MILK CASEIN ASSAY METHODS.
- Marth E H (1978): “Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products”. 14th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C
- Mojka, K. (2013). Charakterystyka mlecznych napojów fermentowanych. Characteristics of fermented milk drinks. Probl. Hig. Epidemiol., 94(4), 722–729 [in Polish].
- Naeem K and Rizvi A-u-R (1986). Studies on the physical and bacterial quality of dahi with special reference to public health. The Journal of Pakistan Medical Association, 36(4): 87-9.
- P. F., & McSweeney, P. L. H. (1998). Dairy Chemistry and Biochemistry. Springer, Boston, MA.
- P. F., & McSweeney, P. L. H. (2003). Fundamentals of Dairy Chemistry (3rd ed.). Springer.
- Peryam, D. R., & Pilgrim, F. J. (1957). Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology, 11, 9–14.
- Pluta, A., Kazimierczak, A. and Wąsowska ,D. 1999. “Wpływ wybranych hydrokoloidów na jakość jogurtu”. In [Influence of selected hydrocolloids on quality of yoghurt]. Przemysł Spożywczy [Food Industry] Vol. 3, 41 – 43. [In Polish]
- Robinson, R. K. (Ed.). (2002). Dairy Microbiology Handbook: The Microbiology of Milk and Milk Products (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
- Tamime, A. Y., Robinson, R. K., & others (2007). Yoghurt: Science and Technology (3rd ed.). Woodhead Publishing.
- Walstra, P., Wouters, J. T. M., & Geurts, T. J. (2006). Dairy Science and Technology (2nd ed.). CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA.
- Wojtczak, A., Ziarno, M., Czarniak, K. (2018). The influence of technological factors on the survivability Lb. acidophilus and Lb. casei. Przem. Spoz., 72(8), 42–45 [in Polish].
- www.pyiephyomaung.yolasite.com.
- https://www.britannica.com.Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2026). Yogurt: Definition, production, and uses. Retrieved from
- Zaręba, D., & Ziarno, M. (2013).The role of probiotic bacteria in yoghurt production and their impact on quality and health benefits. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Technologia Alimentaria, 12(3), 279–289.
Yogurt is a nutrient-rich probiotic dairy product produced by fermenting milk with Lactobacillus delbrueckii
subsp. bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus [8]. This study compared the microbiological safety and physicochemical
properties of commercial yogurt (Sample A) and locally produced yogurt (Sample B) over four weeks. Sample A maintained
acceptable microbial quality, with no detectable coliforms or Escherichia coli, indicating proper hygiene and processing. In
contrast, Sample B showed higher microbial loads, including coliforms and E. coli, suggesting inadequate sanitation.
Proximate analysis revealed that Sample A had stable composition, with protein (7.5–7.6%), fat (~2.14%), and ash (0.90–
0.98%). Sample B showed lower protein (6.6–6.7%), higher fat (~3.0%), and lower ash (0.71–0.78%). Carbohydrate content
decreased in both samples due to fermentation, more significantly in Sample B. Moisture increased and solids-not-fat
decreased during storage, especially in Sample B, indicating instability. Sample A showed controlled fermentation, with pH
decreasing slightly (4.32–4.25) and acidity rising marginally (1.11–1.15%). Sample B exhibited greater changes (pH 4.10–
3.60; acidity 1.70–3.17%), reflecting uncontrolled fermentation. Structural analysis showed better gel quality in Sample A,
with lower syneresis (10.76%) and higher water-holding capacity (78.5%). Overall, commercial yogurt demonstrated
superior safety and quality.
Keywords :
Yogurt; Commercial Yogurt; Probiotic; Microbial Quality; Escherichia Coli; Proximate Composition; Syneresis; Titratable Acidity; Water-Holding Capacity.