Effects of Tea (Camellia sinensis) Phytochemicals on the Yoghurt Cultures (Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus) During Development and Storage of Tea Fortified Yoghurts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Tea phytochemicals have been reported to exhibit potent antimicrobial activity. This current study reports the ability of <em>Streptococcus thermophilus</em> and <em>Lactobacillus</em> <em>bulgaricus</em> to grow, survive and multiply in the presence of tea phytochemicals during development and storage of tea fortified yoghurts. Two Kenyan tea varieties clone TRFK 6/8 (standard black quality tea) and clone TRFK 306/1 (newly developed purple leafed tea clone), were processed as aerated and non-aerated teas and used to develop tea fortified yoghurt. The teas were added at concentrations of 0, 1, 2 and 4 g in 250 mL volumes of milk (w/v) which was predetermined by sensory tests. The results showed that tea phytochemicals at the added ranges had no adverse effect on the growth of <em>Lactobacillus bulgaricus</em> and <em>Streptococcus thermophilus</em>; however, yoghurt setting time was prolonged at a mean time of 4.11, 5.22, 7.29 and 8.26 hrs respectively for tea concentrations of 0, 1, 2 and 4 g/250 mL milk. The mean microbial load for <em>Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus</em> in black, green and purple tea yoghurts were also inversely proportional to the concentration of the added teas. In the developmental stages of tea fortified yoghurts <em>Lactobacillus bulgaricus</em> range was 0.52-1.58 × 10<sup>7 </sup>CFU/mL while <em>Streptococcus thermophilus</em> range was 2.53-3.51 × 10<sup>9 </sup>CFU/mL, during storage the growth patterns were different between the cultures. The recorded mean values range for <em>Lactobacillus bulgaricus</em> was 2.79-4.35 × 10<sup>7 </sup>CFU/mL while <em>Streptococcus thermophilus</em> mean range was 2.57-3.47 × 10<sup>9</sup> CFU/mL Phytochemicals traced in the product had concentration values below 5 × 10<sup>2</sup><sup> </sup>µgmL<sup>-1</sup>. In conclusion, it was possible to develop probiotic tea fortified yoghurt containing tea phytochemicals with unlimited health benefits using different the different tea clones.</p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".