Next Article in Journal
Preliminary Study and Observation of “Kalamata PDO” Extra Virgin Olive Oil, in the Messinia Region, Southwest of Peloponnese (Greece)
Next Article in Special Issue
High Fibre Gluten-Free Fresh Pasta with Tiger Nut, Chickpea and Fenugreek: Technofunctional, Sensory and Nutritional Properties
Previous Article in Journal
Purification and Characterization of Pathogenesis Related Class 10 Panallergens
Previous Article in Special Issue
Novel Ingredients Based on Grapefruit Freeze-Dried Formulations: Nutritional and Bioactive Value
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 8
Issue 12
10.3390/foods8120611
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Microalgae as Functional Ingredients in Savory Food Products: Application to Wheat Crackers

by
Ana Paula Batista
1,
Alberto Niccolai
2,*,
Ivana Bursic
1,
Isabel Sousa
1,
Anabela Raymundo
1,
Liliana Rodolfi
2,3,
Natascia Biondi
2 and
Mario R. Tredici
2
1
LEAF—Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
2
Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry (DAGRI), University of Florence, Piazzale delle Cascine 24, 50144 Florence, Italy
3
Fotosintetica & Microbiologica S.r.l., Via dei Della Robbia 54, 50132 Florence, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2019, 8(12), 611; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8120611
Submission received: 1 October 2019 / Revised: 17 November 2019 / Accepted: 20 November 2019 / Published: 23 November 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Novel Foods and Nutritional Function)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Crackers are widely consumed snack foods and there is an increasing trend in adding functional ingredients to their composition. In the present work, the dried biomasses of four microalgae strains—Arthrospira platensis F&M-C256, Chlorella vulgaris Allma, Tetraselmis suecica F&M-M33, and Phaeodactylum tricornutum F&M-M40—were used as a source of proteins, antioxidants, and other bioactive molecules in artisanal wheat crackers. Two incorporation levels were tested: 2% (w/w) and 6% (w/w). The impact of microalgae addition was evaluated in terms of physical properties, biochemical composition, antioxidant activity, in vitro digestibility, and sensory characteristics. Microalgae crackers presented stable color and texture throughout eight weeks of storage. Microalgae crackers were slightly thinner and lighter than the control but presented a similar density in agreement with scanning electron microscope images, indicating that gas retention was not greatly affected by microalgae addition. Regarding biochemical composition, 6% A. platensis and C. vulgaris crackers presented a significantly higher protein content (13.2–13.5%), for which they could be claimed to be a “source of protein” according to the Regulation (EC) No. 1924/2006. A. platensis crackers showed the highest antioxidant activity and attained better sensory analysis scores. T. suecica and P. tricornutum crackers showed high phenolic content and antioxidant activity but attained low sensory scores mainly because of their unattractive fishy off-flavor.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The world snack food market has been projected to reach USD 639 billion by 2023, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.8% from 2018 to 2023 [1]. In recent years, a major market trend has been the introduction of new products containing health-promoting ingredients associated with a growing demand for healthy snacks due to the consumer mind set changing taste and preference. In particular, savory snacks, namely, salted crackers, are growing at a greater rate than sweet snacks [2]. Crackers are considered popular snack products which have appreciable demand amongst consumers [3,4]. Crackers are generally defined as dry, thin, and crisp bakery products [5] usually made of wheat flour, fat (or shortening), salt, and leavening agents (yeast, chemical leaveners, or a combination of both). In general, there are three major types of crackers: saltine (soda crackers), savory, and chemically leavened crackers [6]. While saltine and savory crackers typically involve a “sponge-and-dough” fermentation (~24 h) using a sourdough starter and yeast, chemically leavened crackers do not require this step, and their processing is easier to manage [6]. In addition to leavening agents, enzymes (proteinases) can be incorporated into the formulation of “enzyme crackers” [7]. These snacks are available in different varieties and flavors, which subsequently has fueled their popularity in the global market [8]. Moreover, as baked products, crackers are perceived to be healthy snack option in relation to oil-fried or sugar-filled alternatives [9]. Increased consumer focus on healthy and functional foods has led to the development of low-fat, low-salt, and gluten-free crackers [5]. In response to the growing demand for nutraceutical bakery products, several natural feedstocks, namely, food industry by-products, have also been studied as a source of bioactive molecules (e.g., phenolics, carotenoids, fibers, and minerals) to fortify crackers (e.g., [8,10,11]).
As documented by numerous studies, microalgae are one type of the potential ingredients that can be used to enhance the nutritional value of food [12,13,14], in particular of cereal-based products such as cookies [15,16,17], bread [18,19], pasta [20,21,22], and extruded snacks [23]. To our knowledge, no study with microalgae-enriched crackers has been published so far.
The high potential of microalgae (including cyanobacteria) as a food ingredient is due to their high nutritional value and potential health benefits [24,25]. Microalgae can have high protein content with a balanced amino acid composition [26] and good content of vitamins, minerals, short- and long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, carotenoids, enzymes, and fiber [27,28]. According to a Markets & Markets Report [29], the algae products market, estimated at USD 3.98 billion in 2018, is projected to grow at a CAGR of 5.4% in the period 2018–2023, driven by growing consumer awareness regarding the health benefits of algae-based products and increased preference for vegetarian and vegan foods.
The present work was undertaken to formulate and study the influence of the introduction of microalgae on the physical aspects, biochemical composition, in vitro digestibility, and antioxidant and sensory properties of wheat-based crackers. A considerably higher concentration of microalgae biomass (up to 6% w/w) than that found in commercial algal products (generally < 1% w/w) was used in order to provide significantly higher levels of bioactive compounds. Four microalgal strains—Arthrospira platensis F&M-C256, Chlorella vulgaris Allma, Tetraselmis suecica F&M-M33, and Phaeodactylum tricornutum F&M-M40—were selected as potential food ingredients due to their nutritional quality. A. platensis (commonly known as “spirulina”), which has been consumed by human populations since ancient times [30,31], and C. vulgaris are widely utilized as nutritional supplements [32] and have already been approved as foods, considering that they have been used to a significant degree for human consumption within the European Union before 15 May 1997 [33]. A. platensis, which is particularly rich in proteins, iron, γ-linolenic acid, bioactive sulphated polysaccharides, and phycocyanin [34], represents a promising source for the development of functional foods and beverages (e.g., [35]). Bigagli et al. [36] have shown that A. platensis F&M-C256 could be used to prevent and manage dyslipidemias. C. vulgaris is also rich in proteins, vitamin B-12, pigments, and glucans, which can boost the immune system [37]. Interest in Tetraselmis strains, namely, Tetraselmis chuii, which has recently been authorized for commercialization as a food supplement and to prepare T. chuii-based sauces and condiments, is also increasing [38]. T. suecica, which is used in the present study, has been reported to have a high content of polyunsaturated fatty acids and α-tocopherol [39]. P. tricornutum contains a high content of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA 20:5 ω3), fucoxanthin, and other carotenoids, which are associated with antioxidant, anti-diabetes, and anti-obesity effects [40,41]. Currently, there is an ongoing novel food application of the Swedish company Simris Alg AB for EPA-rich oil from P. tricornutum [42], for which extensive toxicological data are required. In a work by Niccolai et al. [43], where the general objective was to evaluate the toxicity of microalgal and cyanobacterial strains on human dermal fibroblasts and Artemia salina, the four strains used in this work were tested. A. platensis F&M-C256, T. suecica F&M-M33, and C. vulgaris Allma showed no toxicity, while P. tricornutum F&M-M40 exhibited toxicity towards fibroblasts.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Microalgae Strains and Biomass Origin

Arthrospira platensis F&M-C256 and Tetraselmis suecica F&M-M33 biomasses were provided by Archimede Ricerche S.r.l. (Camporosso, Imperia, Italy) and Phaeodactylum tricornutum F&M-M40 was produced at the facility of Fotosintetica & Microbiologica S.r.l. (Sesto Fiorentino, Florence, Italy). Chlorella vulgaris (Allma) biomass was obtained from Allma Microalgae (Lisbon, Portugal). A. platensis F&M-C256, T. suecica F&M-M33, and P. tricornutum F&M-M40 were cultivated in GWP®-II photobioreactors [44] in semi-batch mode, and then the biomasses were harvested by filtration or centrifugation, frozen, lyophilized, and stored at −20 °C until being analyzed. A. platensis F&M-C256 biomass was washed with tap water to remove excess bicarbonate before being frozen. The two marine strains (T. suecica F&M-M33 and P. tricornutum F&M-M40) were cultivated in F medium [45], while A. platensis F&M-C256 was cultivated in Zarrouk medium [46] and C. vulgaris Allma was cultivated in a freshwater medium. The biochemical composition of the different biomasses, which were determined as reported in Abiusi et al. [47], is presented in Table 1.

2.2. Cracker Preparation

Cracker samples were prepared according to the following control formulation (w/w): 60.5% commercial all-purpose wheat flour T55 (76.7% carbohydrates, 7.8% protein, 2.9% fiber, and 1% lipids), 1.5% baking powder (corn starch, sodium diphosphate, and sodium bicarbonate), 1% salt (NaCl), 1% sugar (sucrose), 7.5% vegetable oil, and 28.5% distilled water. Microalgae biomass was added to the same formulation at 2% and at 6% (w/w) incorporation levels by replacing a corresponding amount of wheat flour. The ingredients were weighed based on a 150 g batch and kneaded for 1 minute at speed 4 in a food processor (Bimby, Vorwerk, Germany) to obtain a homogeneous cohesive dough. For replications, three separate batches of each cracker formulation were made. The dough was further laminated into thin sheets which were passed through a pasta roller machine under three different gauge positions (the dough was passed through three times for each position). A square mold (56 × 56 mm) was used to cut the laminated dough into pieces, which were then slightly perforated. The shaped cracker dough was left to proof for 10 min at room temperature. The crackers were then baked in a forced-air convection oven (Unox, Italy) at 180 °C for 10 min. Baked samples were dried at 60 °C for 30 min, cooled at ambient temperature for 30 min, and stored in non-transparent closed plastic containers. Physical analyses were performed after 24 h (“week 0”) and after four- and eight-week storage (color, texture, and aw). Part of the cracker batches were immediately crushed to powder (using an electric mill) and frozen to be used for biochemical composition, antioxidant capacity, and in vitro digestibility analyses.

2.3. Cracker Analyses

2.3.1. Dimensions

The characteristic dimensions of the crackers were measured using a digital caliper model 684132 (Lee Tools, Houston, TX, USA). The individual width (W) and thickness (T) of 20 crackers from each formulation type were measured; spread ratio (W/T) was calculated accordingly. The weight of the cracker samples was also measured and the corresponding densities calculated (weight (g)/volume (cm3)). All these analyses were carried out 24 h after cracker preparation.

2.3.2. Color Analysis

The color of the cracker samples was measured instrumentally using a Minolta CR-400 (Japan) colorimeter with standard illuminant D65 and a visual angle of 2°. The results were expressed in terms of L*, lightness (values increasing from 0% to 100%); a*, redness to greenness (60 to −60 positive to negative values, respectively); and b*, yellowness to blueness (60 to −60 positive to negative values, respectively) according to the CIELab system. Chroma, C*ab (saturation) and hue angle, hºab, were also calculated as defined by C*ab = [(a*2 + b*2)]1/2; hºab = arctan(b*/a*). The total color difference between sample crackers throughout the storage time (up to eight weeks) was determined using average L*a*b* values according to ΔE* = [(ΔL*)2 + (Δa*)2 + (Δb*)2]1/2. The measurements were conducted under the same light conditions using a white standard (L* = 94.61, a* = −0.53, and b* = 3.62) under artificial fluorescent light at room temperature, and measurements were replicated ten times for each formulation sample (one measurement per cracker) as well as for the control 24 h, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks after preparation.

2.3.3. Texture analysis

Instrumental texture analysis was carried out in a TA.XTplus (Stable Micro Systems, Godalming, UK) texturometer. Crackers were submitted to a “three-point bending” or “snap” test, at 3 mm/s probe speed, with a 5 kg load cell, and at a controlled (20 ± 2 °C) room temperature. Hardness was calculated as the force peak (N) in the force versus time texturogram; N corresponds to the maximum force that is needed to break or “snap” the cracker. Measurements were repeated ten times for each formulation sample (one measurement per cracker) as well as for the control 24 h, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks after preparation.

2.3.4. Microscopy Analysis

Crackers with 2% (w/w) microalgae biomass (and the control) were analyzed using a table top scanning electron microscope (TM3000, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) under low vacuum (30–50 Pa) conditions and Secondary Electrons/Back-Scattered Electrons (SE/BSE) dual signal mode (combined topography/morphology) with 40×, 100×, and 250× magnification. Cracker samples were cut into small pieces (approximately 2 × 4 × 4 mm) and placed in a sample holding chamber in a cross-sectional position.

2.3.5. Total Water Content and Water Activity (aw) Determination

Crackers samples were analyzed for total water content and water activity. Water content was determined gravimetrically using an automatic moisture analyzer (PMB 202, aeADAM, UK) at 130 °C until a constant weight was achieved. Water activity (aw) was determined using a thermohygrometer (HygroPalm HP23-AW, Rotronic AG, Bassersdorf, Switzerland) at 20 ± 1 °C. Measurements were performed during storage time (24 h, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks after preparation) by crushing the samples to powder and using an electric mill immediately before analysis (in triplicate).

2.3.6. Proximate Biochemical Composition Determination

The crackers’ proximate biochemical composition was analyzed on powdered samples in terms of total ash content, crude protein [48], crude fat [49], and total dietary fiber [50] by standard methods, as detailed in Batista et al. [17]. Chemical analyses were performed in triplicate, except for total dietary fiber, where a single test was carried out according to the AOAC 991.43 [50] Standard Method. Carbohydrates were calculated by difference and energy value was calculated using the conversion factors designated in Annex XIV of Regulation (EU) No. 1169/2011 [51]. Sodium content was also analyzed, in triplicate, by atomic absorption spectrometry in a certified external laboratory [52].

2.3.7. Phenolics and Antioxidant Capacity Determination

A total phenolic content assay was carried out according to Ganesan, Kumar, and Bhaskar, [53] using the Folin Ciocalteu assay. Samples of 0.1 g of lyophilized crackers were dissolved in 6 mL deionized water and sonicated (MicrosonTM XL2000, Misonix Inc., Farmingdale, NY, USA) for 30 min at maximum power (frequency 20 kHz and power 130 W) while maintaining the temperature below 30 °C by immersing the sample flask in an ice bath. To 100 µL aliquots of each sample was added 2 mL of 2% sodium carbonate (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) in water. After 2 min, 100 μL of 50% Folin Ciocalteu reagent (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) was added. The reaction mixture was incubated in darkness at 25 °C for 30 min. The absorbance of each sample was measured at 720 nm. Results were expressed in gallic acid equivalents (mg GAE g−1) through a calibration curve (gallic acid: 0 to 150 μg mL−1, R2 = 0.9907) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA).
To evaluate the radical scavenging capacity of the cracker samples, a DPPH radical scavenging assay was carried out according to Rajauria et al. [54]. Sample extracts were prepared by adding 0.2 g of lyophilized crackers to 20 mL of a 1:5 methanol:water solution and sonicating for 30 min (the same conditions as described above for total phenols extracts). The DPPH assay was performed by mixing 100 µL of DPPH radical solution (165 µM in methanol, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) and 100 µL of sample extract. The reaction mixtures were incubated in darkness at 30 °C for 30 min and the absorbance was measured at 517 nm. The antioxidant capacity of the samples was expressed in terms of µg of vitamin C equivalent antioxidant capacity (VCEAC) per milligram of sample (ascorbic acid calibration curve: 0 to 10 µg mL−1, R2 = 0.9918) and corresponding radical scavenging activity (RSA). Two blank assays, one without samples and another without reagents, were also performed.
Analyses were repeated in triplicate and performed on powdered cracker samples.

2.3.8. In Vitro Digestibility Tests

The in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) of the microalgae samples was assessed by the method described in Niccolai et al. [55]. This method reproduces the chemical-enzymatic digestion (by gastric and pancreatic juices) which occurs in the proximal tract of the monogastric digestive system. After a two-step enzymatic digestion with porcine pepsin and pancreatin (AppliChem GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany), the IVDMD (%) was calculated from the difference between the initial sample biomass (1 g) and the undigested biomass residue (after correction for the blank assay). A control assay with casein standard (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA), used as reference material with 100% digestibility, was also carried out in order to assess the validity of the method (IVDMD = 97.2 ± 0.8%).
The protein content of the undigested biomass residue was analyzed using Lowry’s [56] method to calculate the in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD, % = total protein content − protein content after digestion) ÷ total protein × 100).
The same procedure was applied to analyze the IVDM and IVPD of the cracker samples produced in this work and of six commercial cracker samples (Table 2) in order to assess the range of variation of these parameters in commercial products.
All analyses were repeated in triplicate and performed on powdered samples.

2.3.9. Sensory Analysis

Cracker samples with 2% microalgal biomass, as well as the control sample, were tested by an untrained sensory analysis panel (n = 30, age: 19–38, gender: 8 M, 22 F). The cracker samples were evaluated in terms of color, smell, taste, texture, and global appreciation (six levels from “very pleasant” to “very unpleasant”), as well as salt perception (five levels from “very unsalted” to “very salty”). The buying intention was also assessed, from “would certainly buy” to “certainly wouldn’t buy” (five levels). The assays were conducted in a standardized sensory analysis room according to the standard EN ISO 8589 [57].

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis of the experimental data was performed using STATISTICA from StatSoft (version 8.0, Dell, Round Rock, TX, USA), through variance analysis (one-way ANOVA), and by the Scheffé test—post hoc comparison at a significance level of 95% (p < 0.05). All results have been presented as average ± standard deviation.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Cracker Colour

Microalgae crackers presented unusual and visually attractive colors, as can be observed from the photos shown in Figure 1. The evolution of color parameters throughout storage time (0, 4, and 8 weeks) in terms of lightness (L*), greenness (a*), yellowness (b*), chroma (C*), and hue (hº) is represented in Figure 2.
In terms of lightness, it is evident that the addition of microalgae biomass resulted in much darker crackers in relation to the control (L* 77.7), with 2% microalga samples showing values around 39–49 and 6% microalga samples values around 30–37.
Regarding a*, microalgae samples showed negative values in the green domain. However, when increasing microalgae concentration to 6% the green chromaticity decreased, reaching a* values which were close to zero or even positive in some cases (Figure 2). Similar behavior was observed in terms of yellow chromaticity, with b* and C* values decreasing when algae concentration increased from 2% to 6%. Similar effects have been reported in the literature for microalgae cookies [15,16,17] and other baked products. These results suggest that the reaction kinetics of pigment degradation, namely green chlorophylls, upon high temperature baking might be dependent on the initial pigment concentration. Additionally, the formation of brown-colored chlorophyll degradation products such as pheophorbides and pyropheophorbide can also impact the visual color perception and consequently the positioning of the sample within the L*a*b* tridimensional space. Besides this, moisture loss and volume changes occurring upon baking can also greatly influence the crackers’ color appearance [58]. As will be discussed later, 6% microalgae samples presented lower dimensions (Table 3) and lower water contents (Table 4), which can influence color perception and accelerate surface browning [58]. Similarly, the formation of brown-colored Maillard reaction compounds can also be favored for 6% microalgae samples which have higher protein contents (Table 5).
Nevertheless, hue angle remained relatively constant for each microalgae sample, independently of the concentration, and was very stable throughout the eight-week storage time. This means that the crackers’ color was deeply related to the microalgae’s pigment profile while its intensity or chromaticity might have been affected by the baking procedure.
P. tricornutum samples showed the highest b* values (up to 26) and hue angle close to pure yellow (90–96°), which should be related to the presence of fucoxanthin [59]. On the other hand, C. vulgaris and T. suecica showed the highest a* values (in modulus) and hue angles closer to pure green (116–118°), which is in agreement with the high chlorophyll content of these chlorophytes [60].
All cracker samples showed good color stability throughout the eight-week storage period, with variations being barely detected by the human eye and with ΔE* values being lower than 5except for the A. platensis crackers, which showed an ΔE* of 9.3 (for 2% alga).

3.2. Cracker Dimensions

Characteristic dimensions of the microalgae crackers are presented in Table 3.
In general, crackers with 2% algal biomass did not show significant differences (p > 0.05) in terms of dimensions (width, thickness, and spread ratio) in relation to the control. However, for the higher microalgae incorporation level (6%) it was observed that there was a significant (p < 0.05) reduction in the crackers’ width and particularly thickness (3.5–3.8 versus 4.5 mm) when compared to the control. These differences led to higher spread ratios for the microalgae crackers which were statistically significant (p < 0.05) for 6% T. suecica and 6% P. tricornutum. The average weight of the crackers was also significantly lower for the 6% algae samples (3.8–4.7 g) in relation to the control (5.8 g), which might also be related to lower moisture retention upon baking. Nevertheless, the crackers’ density remained statistically (p > 0.05) constant upon microalgae addition (Table 3), even if smaller values were reported for the 6% samples. This is a very important quality parameter, since low-weight and less dense crackers are usually desired by consumers [61]. This seems to indicate that gas retention in puffed crisp crackers is not hindered by the presence of microalgae.

3.3. Cracker Texture and Microstructure

Texture is one of the most important quality attributes in crackers since consumers highly appreciate a crisp and crunchy texture [62]. One of the most suitable instrumental analysis tests for assessing the texture of these types of brittle food samples is the “three-point bending” or “snap” test, in which the cracker is placed upon two support beams while a third moves down (parallel) into the sample’s middle point causing the sample to fracture into two pieces [63].
Figure 3 presents the hardness results of the cracker samples as determined by the snap test.
Due to the extremely brittle nature of these samples, the response to breakage was highly variable, and, consequently, the hardness results had relatively high experimental errors (5–13%).
For all the samples, a significant variation in cracker hardness throughout the eight-week study was not observed (p > 0.05), which means that the texture properties remained stable, a relevant quality in terms of sensory acceptance by the consumer.
The crackers with A. platensis, C. vulgaris, and T. suecica did not show significant (p > 0.05) hardness differences in relation to the control crackers, although there seemed to be a tendency for hardness to increase with microalgae addition, especially for the 6% samples. These results are also in agreement with previous studies with microalgae cookies in which structural reinforcement has been observed upon microalgae addition (e.g., [15,16,17,64]).
In the case of the P. tricornutum crackers the inverse behavior was observed, i.e., there was a tendency for hardness to decrease, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05) for the 6% sample. In fact, P. tricornutum 6% dough samples were more difficult to manipulate since the dough was very elastic. As a result, these crackers became much thinner and lighter (showing a higher spread ratio) (Table 3) as well as less resistant to breakage.
The samples with 2% microalga incorporation, as well as the control, were also analyzed by SEM. From the microscope images (Figure 4) it seems that the control sample presents a denser and more continuous structure, while crackers with microalgae seem to have a slightly more porous and heterogeneous microstructure.
It seems reasonable to admit that the addition of microalgae might have influenced gluten matrix formation and/or starch gelatinization mechanisms, although to a limited extent. Batista et al. [65] have reported that Spirulina biomass impairs starch gelatinization in model gel systems, namely by increasing the gelatinization temperature, which is probably due to competition for water binding zones during the hydration of starch granules. In fact, during dough mixing, the available free water is partitioned between microalgae and wheat flour hydrophilic sites, which might also impair gluten protein network development. It is possible that the formation of a weaker gluten network might result in the collapse of small gas cells into larger cavities, which might influence gas and water trapping during baking.

3.4. Cracker Water Content and Water Activity

Water content and/or water activity (aw) are critical quality parameters in low moisture foods which strongly influence their crispiness and sensory acceptance. Above a critical aw value, typically around 0.5, the food materials get softer and stale, losing their crispiness [66,67].
Table 4 presents the microalgae crackers’ water content and aw value evolution throughout the storage period (at 24 h, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks), and, as expected, these results seem well correlated.
The control cracker presented an initial aw of 0.128 and adding 2% microalgae biomass caused an increase (p < 0.05) of up to 0.15–0.16 (except for C. vulgaris), which still corresponds to highly crispy products [67]. On the other hand, higher microalgae biomass incorporations (6%) led to significantly (p < 0.05) lower aw values of 0.07–0.08 (except for T. suecica). The same behavior was observed in terms of water content, although the differences detected were not statistically significant (p > 0.05); samples with 2% microalga had initial moisture content (3.3–4.3%) similar to the control (3.7%), while 6% microalgae crackers had lower initial moisture content (2.1–2.9%). A similar behavior in terms of aw was observed by Batista et al. [17] in short-dough biscuits with the addition of 2% and 6% biomass of the same microalgae. As discussed in the previous sections, it is possible that the addition of high concentrations of microalgae biomass could lead to a weaker gluten network which is unable to efficiently trap gas bubbles and water molecules. Hence, a higher moisture loss for the 6% microalgae crackers could have led to a lower moisture content (Table 4) and lower weight (Table 3) for these samples. There was a tendency for total moisture and aw to increase (p < 0.05) with time, which was the same pattern undergone by the control (Table 4). This means that, in general, the addition of microalgae biomass does not seem to have a negative impact on the crackers’ shelf life with respect to aw evolution (and consequent crispness loss). In fact, after 8 weeks’ storage, the majority of the samples showed lower aw than the control, with the lowest values observed for P. tricornutum (0.10–0.12). For T. suecica 2%, a pronounced increase was observed with time with moisture values increasing from 3.3% up to 7.7% and aw values from 0.15 to 0.52.

3.5. Cracker Proximate Biochemical Composition

Table 5 presents the proximate biochemical composition of the crackers prepared with microalgae biomass incorporation.
Regarding mineral content, no significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in terms of total ash content (except for C. vulgaris 6%) and sodium contents. Nevertheless, it should be noted that there seems to be a tendency for mineral content to increase for higher microalgae biomass incorporations. In terms of sodium content, the highest value was found in T. suecica 6% crackers, which presented 1.1% Na, corresponding to 2.6% NaCl (control: 1.9% NaCl). This is in agreement with the higher sodium content in the biomass of this marine microalga (Table 1). These values are comparable to those of commercial wheat crackers (Table 2, 1.8–2.2 g salt/100 g).
In terms of fat content, there were also no significant (p > 0.05) differences between the control and microalgae crackers, with crude fat contents ranging from 11.5% to 13.2% (Table 5), similarly to commercial wheat crackers (Table 2, 6.3–18.0%).
Microalgae-enriched cracker samples showed significantly higher (p < 0.05) protein contents than the control (9.8%) (Table 5). Crackers with 2% microalgae ranged from 10.4 to 11.4% protein while 6% microalgae crackers ranged from 12.1 to 14.6% protein, with the highest values obtained for A. platensis and C. vulgaris samples. This is in agreement with the high protein content of these microalgae (Table 1) and to previous studies in the literature for microalgae-enriched bakery food products (e.g., [17,20,21,23,64]). In fact, these microalgae-enriched crackers can be regarded as a very interesting protein-fortified bakery product. For 6% A. platensis and 6% C. vulgaris crackers, the protein content was found to correspond to 13.2 and 13.5%, respectively, of the total energy content of the sample, so these products can be claimed as “source of protein” according to Regulation (EC) 1924/2006 [68].
Regarding the total dietary fiber content, microalgae cracker samples presented average values ranging from 4.4 to 6.7% in the same order of magnitude as the control crackers (5%) (commercial wheat crackers: 2.5–5.0%, Table 2). The highest value was reported for the A. platensis 6% sample. Previous studies have also reported higher fiber content in A. platensis–enriched biscuits [64,69]. The total carbohydrate value was always lower than the control, while the energy values remained relatively constant (430–442 kcal/100 g) and similar to those of commercial wheat crackers (Table 2, 410–461 kcal/100 g).

3.6. Cracker Phenolic Content and Antioxidant Capacity

Figure 5 represents the total phenolic content of the cracker samples. The addition of 2% microalgae biomass did not promote significant (p > 0.05) differences in phenolic content in relation to the control (1.4 mg GAE g−1). However, when increasing microalgae biomass content to 6%, phenolic content significantly (p < 0.05) increased to 1.6–1.7 mg GAE g−1 for A. platensis and C. vulgaris and to 2.3–2.5 mg GAE g−1 for T. suecica and P. tricornutum, which corresponds to a net total phenolics increase of about 0.3 and 1 mg GAE g−1 compared to the control, respectively.
Other authors have highlighted the high phenolic compound content of Phaeodactylum and Tetraselmis [70,71].
The results obtained for T. suecica crackers are higher than those attained by Batista et al. [17] in sweet cookies prepared with the same microalgae strain. Similar behavior has been reported by Abraços [72] in Salvia sclaeroides-enriched sweet cookies and crackers (ten times higher phenolic content in the crackers) which were prepared exactly under the same thermal processing conditions as the microalgae crackers and biscuits studied in this work.
The antioxidant capacity of microalgae-enriched crackers was tested by the DPPH method (Figure 6).
Similarly to the total phenolic results (Figure 5) for the 2% microalgae crackers, there were no significant (p > 0.05) improvements in the antioxidant capacity (0.55–0.60 µg VCEAC mg−1) in relation to the control sample (0.54 µg VCEAC mg−1, 53% RSA). The addition of 6% microalgae led to a significant (p < 0.05) antioxidant capacity increase (up to 0.62–0.65 µg VCEAC mg−1) for the T. suecica and P. tricornutum samples. Moreover, 6% A. platensis crackers showed the highest antioxidant capacity value of 0.70 µg VCEAC mg−1, which corresponds to 68% RSA. Other authors [17,64,73] have also reported high antioxidant activity for A. platensis-enriched biscuits, which might be related to the presence of phycocyanin.

3.7. In Vitro Digestibility

Figure 7 presents the in vitro digestibility of microalgae crackers, in terms of total dry matter (IVDMD) (Figure 7a) and protein (IVPD) (Figure 7b) digestibility. The lower and upper limits for these parameters, determined for six commercial crackers, are also represented in Figure 7.
Microalgae crackers showed IVDMD values ranging from 82% to 86%, values which were slightly lower than that of the control sample (87.7%). This reduction was only statistically different (p < 0.05) for the 6% C. vulgaris and 6% P. tricornutum samples. It is worth nothing that all the values fall within the range of values for the commercial crackers analyzed (78–93%).
Regarding IVPD, there was a wider dispersion of results, with commercial crackers’ values ranging from 26% to 78% and the control sample having 75% IVPD. Crackers with 2% microalgae biomass showed IVPD values ranging from 50 to 66%, i.e., a bit lower than that of the control but still within the commercial samples range. However, the samples with 6% microalgal biomass showed higher IVPD values, particularly A. platensis (83%). On the other hand, 6% C. vulgaris sample showed the lowest IVPD (42%); the value was still within the range of that of the commercial samples, however. By comparing IVPD values with the initial protein content of the samples (Table 5), it can be observed that, for example, the 6% A. platensis sample, which has 14.3% protein content and 83% IVPD, yields 11.9 g digestible protein per 100 g cracker, which is considerably higher than that of the control (7.3 g digestible protein per 100 g cracker). This high protein availability reinforces the interest of this sample as a “protein source” food.
Several authors have previously reported that A. platensis biomass shows 10% to 20% higher IVDMD [17,74] and up to 50% higher IVPD [32] than C. vulgaris biomass. The different IVDMD and IVPD values between A. platensis and C. vulgaris biomass are probably related to differences in cell wall structure, considering that while cyanobacteria have thin cell walls composed by peptidoglycan, green algae such as C. vulgaris have thick and rigid cellulosic cell walls [75].

3.8. Sensory Evaluation

Sensory analysis trials were carried out on samples with 2% microalgae biomass. Figure 8 represents the average scores of the sensorial parameters as evaluated by the panel.
The control sample showed high sensory scores (>4) and was preferred over the microalgae crackers, which was as expected for this type of highly innovative product. The texture of the microalgae crackers presented good sensorial scores which were similar to the control, which can be related to the instrumental texture, density, and aw/water content results, indicating a crisp and aerated texture. The A. platensis sample was preferred in terms of taste, smell, and global appreciation, while crackers with marine microalgae (T. suecica and P. tricornutum) showed the lowest scores for these parameters, as well as for color.
Interestingly, the addition of microalgae seems to affect the perception of saltiness, with a higher frequency of “unsalted” classification ascribed to algae crackers (20–33%) in relation to the control (10%) (Figure 9).
Regarding intent to buy (Figure 10), 40% of the panelists declared that they would certainly or probably buy the A. platensis samples.
The lower sensory scores attributed to T. suecica and P. tricornutum crackers was agreed upon by more than 60% of the panelists, who declared that they would probably or certainly not buy this product. Batista et al. [17] have also reported a preference for A. platensis-enriched cookies in relation to C. vulgaris. Fradique et al. [76] have also reported lower sensory scores, including “strange flavor” detection for pasta enriched with the marine microalgae Isochrysis galbana and Diacronema vlkianum.

4. Conclusions

In this work, microalgae biomass was successfully used as an ingredient in artisanal wheat crackers. The microalgae crackers presented a stable and attractive crispy and aerated texture that was similar to the control and appreciated by sensory analysis panelists. Crackers with 6% A. platensis biomass seem particularly interesting due to their high protein content (making them eligible for a “source of protein” claim) and high antioxidant activity, while the 2% formulation presented high digestibility and attained high sensory analysis scores. The use of marine microalgae strains such as T. suecica and P. tricornutum is interesting due to the high phenolic content and antioxidant activity of the crackers, but low sensory scores and novel food regulation constraints postpone their utilization.

Author Contributions

A.P.B., A.N., I.S., A.R., and M.R.T. oversaw conception and design. A.P.B. and I.B. oversaw cracker formulation and preparation and physical stability analyses throughout the storage period. A.P.B. and A.N. investigated the crackers’ biochemical composition, phenolics, antioxidant and in vitro digestibility determination. A.P.B. oversaw microscopy, sensory analysis, and statistical analysis. A.P.B, A.N., I.B., I.S., A.R., L.R., N.B., and M.R.T. participated in data analysis, discussion of the results, and revision of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by national funds from the Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (Portugal) through the research unit UID/AGR/04129/2013 (LEAF).

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Graziella Chini Zittelli from the Institute of Ecosystem Study of the CNR in Sesto Fiorentino (Italy) as well as Archimede Ricerche S.r.l. (Italy) and Allma (Portugal) for providing some of the biomasses used in this work. Ana Paula Batista acknowledges the COST Action ES1408 European Network for Algal Bioproducts (EUALGAE) STSM grant. Ivana Bursic acknowledges the Erasmus grant. The authors also thank students’ support for chemical analysis (Patrícia Fradinho, Marta Gonçalves, Rita Teixeira, and Helder Fernandes) as well as Cristiana Alves for assistance with the SEM analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

Arthrospira platensis F&M-C256, Tetraselmis suecica F&M-M33, and Phaeodactylum tricornutum F&M-M40 belong to the Microalgae Culture Collection of Fotosintetica & Microbiologica S.r.l., in which M.R. Tredici and L. Rodolfi have a financial interest; all the other authors have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Mordor Intelligence. Global Snack Food Market—Growth, Trends and Forecasts (2018–2023). 2017. Available online: https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/snack-food-market (accessed on 18 January 2019).
  2. Technavio. Global Crackers Market 2017-SKU: IRTNTR14438. 2017. Available online: https://www.technavio.com/report/global-crackers-market (accessed on 19 April 2019).
  3. Maneerote, J.; Noomhorm, A.; Takhar, P.S. Optimization of processing conditions to reduce oil uptake and enhance physicochemical properties of deep fried rice crackers. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 42, 805–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sedej, I.; Sakač, M.; Mandić, A.; Mišan, A.; Pestorić, M.; Šimurina, O.; Čanadanović-Brunet, J. Quality assessment of gluten-free crackers based on buckwheat flour. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 44, 694–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Han, J.; Janz, J.A.M.; Gerlat, M. Development of gluten-free cracker snacks using pulse flours and fractions. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 627–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kweon, M.; Slade, L.; Levine, H.; Gannon, D. Cookie-versus Cracker-Baking—What’s the difference? Flour functionality requirements explored by SRC and alveography. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. 2014, 54, 115–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Li, J.; Hou, G.G.; Chen, Z. Whole grain saltine crackers: Formulation, processing, and quality improvements. Cereals Food World 2013, 58, 180–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Benjakul, S.; Karnjanapratum, S. Characteristics and nutritional value of whole wheat cracker fortified with tuna bone bio-calcium powder. Food Chem. 2018, 259, 181–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Howard, B.M.; McWatters, K.H.; Saalia, F.; Hashim, I. Formulation and evaluation of snack crackers made with peanut flour. Cereals Food World 2009, 54, 166–171. [Google Scholar]
  10. Wang, Y.; Zhang, M.; Mujumdar, A.S. Influence of green banana flour substitution for cassava starch on the nutrition, color, texture and sensory quality in two types of snacks. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 47, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Schmidt, C.; Geweke, I.; Struck, S.; Zahn, S.; Rohm, H. Blackcurrant pomace from juice processing as partial flour substitute in savoury crackers: Dough characteristics and product properties. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 2018, 53, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gouveia, L.; Batista, A.P.; Sousa, I.; Raymundo, A.; Bandarra, N. Food Chemistry Research Developments; Nova Science Publishers, Inc.: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; pp. 75–111. [Google Scholar]
  13. Batista, A.P.; Gouveia, L.; Bandarra, N.M.; Franco, J.M.; Raymundo, A. Comparison of microalgal biomass profiles as novel functional ingredient for food products. Algal Res. 2013, 2, 164–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Caporgno, M.P.; Mathys, A. Trends in microalgae incorporation into innovative food products with potential health benefits. Front. Nutr. 2018, 5, 58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Gouveia, L.; Batista, A.P.; Miranda, A.; Empis, J.; Raymundo, A. Chlorella vulgaris biomass used as coloring source in traditional butter cookies. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. 2007, 8, 433–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Gouveia, L.; Coutinho, C.; Mendonça, E.; Batista, A.P.; Sousa, I.; Bandarra, N.M.; Raymundo, A. Functional biscuits with PUFA-ω3 from Isochrysis galbana. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2008, 88, 891–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Batista, A.P.; Niccolai, A.; Fradinho, P.; Fragoso, S.; Bursic, I.; Rodolfi, L.; Biondi, N.; Tredici, M.R.; Sousa, I.; Raymundo, A. Microalgae biomass as an alternative ingredient in cookies: Sensory, physical and chemical properties, antioxidant activity and in vitro digestibility. Algal Res. 2017, 26, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. García-Segovia, P.; Pagan-Moreno, M.J.; Lara, I.F.; Martinez-Monzo, J. Effect of microalgae incorporation on physicochemical and textural properties in wheat bread formulation. Food Sci. Tech. Int. 2017, 23, 437–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Graça, C.; Fradinho, P.; Sousa, I.; Raymundo, A. Impact of Chlorella vulgaris on the rheology of wheat flour dough and bread texture. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 89, 466–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fradique, M.; Batista, A.P.; Nunes, M.C.; Gouveia, L.; Bandarra, N.M.; Raymundo, A. Chlorella vulgaris and Spirulina maxima biomass incorporation in pasta products. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 1656–1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. De Marco, E.R.; Steffolani, M.E.; Martínez, C.S.; León, A.E. Effects of Spirulina biomass on the technological and nutritional quality of bread wheat pasta. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 58, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. De Marco, E.R.; Steffolani, M.E.; Martinez, M.; Leon, A.E. The use of Nannochloropsis sp. as a source of omega-3 fatty acids in dry pasta: Chemical, technological and sensory evaluation. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 53, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lucas, B.F.; de Morais, M.G.; Santos, T.D.; Costa, J.A.V. Spirulina for snack enrichment: Nutritional, physical and sensory evaluations. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 90, 270–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Matos, J.; Cardoso, C.; Bandarra, N.M.; Afonso, C. Microalgae as healthy ingredients for functional food: A review. Food Funct. 2017, 8, 2672–2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Wells, M.L.; Potin, P.; Craigie, J.S.; Raven, J.A.; Merchant, S.S.; Helliwell, K.E.; Smith, A.G.; Camire, M.E.; Brawley, S.H. Algae as nutritional and functional food sources: Revisiting our understanding. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 949–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Becker, E.W. Microalgae as a source of protein. Biotechnol. Adv. 2007, 25, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Del Campo, J.A.; García-González, M.; Guerrero, M.G. Outdoor cultivation of microalgae for carotenoid production: Current state and perspectives. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 74, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Tredici, M.R.; Biondi, N.; Ponis, E.; Rodolfi, L.; Chini Zittelli, G. New Technologies in Aquaculture: Improving Production Efficiency, Quality and Environmental Management; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2009; pp. 610–676. [Google Scholar]
  29. Markets & Markets. Algae Products Market by Type, Application, Source, Form, and Region—Global Forecast to Report ID: 4521311. 2018. Available online: https://www.researchandmarkets.com/publication/me4to4g/ (accessed on 14 January 2019).
  30. Abdulqader, G.; Barsanti, L.; Tredici, M.R. Harvest of Arthrospira platensis from Lake Kossorom (Chad) and its household usage among the Kanembu. J. Appl. Phycol. 2000, 12, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Carcea, M.; Sorto, M.; Batello, C.; Narducci, V.; Aguzzi, A.; Azzini, E.; Fantauzzi, P.; Finotti, E.; Gabrielli, P.; Galli, V.; et al. Nutritional characterization of traditional and improved dihé, alimentary blue-green algae from the lake Chad region in Africa. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 62, 753–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Kose, A.; Ozen, M.O.; Elibol, M.; Oncel, S.S. Investigation of in vitro digestibility of dietary microalga Chlorella vulgaris and cyanobacterium Spirulina platensis as a nutritional supplement. 3 Biotech 2017, 7, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. European Union. Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. Off. J. Eur. Union 1997, 43, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kulshreshtha, A.; Jarouliya, U.; Bhadauriya, P.; Prasad, G.B.K.S.; Bisen, P.S. Spirulina in health care management. Curr. Pharm. Biotechnol. 2008, 9, 400–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Niccolai, A.; Shannon, E.; Abu-Ghannam, N.; Biondi, N.; Rodolfi, A.; Tredici, M.R. Lactic acid fermentation of Arthrospira platensis (spirulina) biomass for probiotic-based products. J. Appl. Phycol. 2019, 31, 1077–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bigagli, E.; Cinci, L.; Niccolai, A.; Tredici, M.R.; Biondi, N.; Rodolfi, L.; Lodovici, M.; D’ambrosio, M.; Mori, G.; Luceri, C. Safety evaluations and lipid-lowering activity of an Arthrospira platensis enriched diet: A 1-month study in rats. Food Res. Int. 2017, 102, 380–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Tabarsa, M.; Shin, I.S.; Lee, J.H.; Surayot, U.; Park, W.; You, S. An immune-enhancing water-soluble α-glucan from Chlorella vulgaris and structural characteristics. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2015, 24, 1933–1941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. European Commission. 2014. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/novel-food_authorisation_2014_auth-letter_tetraselmis_chuii_en.pdf (accessed on 26 July 2018).
  39. Pérez-López, P.; González-García, S.; Ulloa, R.G.; Sineiro, J.; Feijoo, G.; Moreira, M.T. Life cycle assessment of the production of bioactive compounds from Tetraselmis suecica at pilot scale. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 64, 323–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, S.M.; Jung, Y.H.; Kwon, O.; Cha, K.H.; Um, B.H. A potential commercial source of fucoxanthin extracted from the microalga Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Appl. Biochem. Biotech. 2012, 166, 1843–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Gammone, M.A.; D’Orazio, N. Anti-obesity activity of the marine carotenoid fucoxanthin. Mar. Drugs 2015, 13, 2196–2214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. European Commission. 2018. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/novel-food_sum_ongoing-app_epa-rich-oil.pdf (accessed on 11 February 2019).
  43. Niccolai, A.; Bigagli, E.; Biondi, N.; Rodolfi, L.; Cinci, L.; Luceri, C.; Tredici, M.R. In vitro toxicity of microalgal and cyanobacterial strains of interest as food source. J. Appl. Phycol. 2017, 29, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Tredici, M.R.; Bassi, N.; Prussi, M.; Biondi, N.; Rodolfi, L.; Zittelli, G.C.; Sampietro, G. Energy balance of algal biomass production in a 1-ha “Green Wall Panel” plant: How to produce algal biomass in a closed reactor achieving a high net energy ratio. Appl. Energy. 2015, 154, 1103–1111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Guillard, R.R.L.; Ryther, J.H. Studies of marine planktonic diatoms. I. Cyclotella nana Hustedt and Detonula confervacea Cleve. Can. J. Microbiol. 1962, 8, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zarrouk, C. Contribution à l’étude d’une cyanophycée. Influence de divers facteurs physiques et chimiques sur la croissance et la photosynthèse de Spirulina maxima (Setch et Gardner) Geitler. Ph.D. Thesis, Université de Paris, Paris, France, 1966. [Google Scholar]
  47. Abiusi, F.; Sampietro, G.; Marturano, G.; Biondi, N.; Rodolfi, L.; D’Ottavio, M.; Tredici, M.R. Growth, photosynthetic efficiency, and biochemical composition of Tetraselmis suecica F&M-M33 grown with LEDs of different colors. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 2014, 111, 956–964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. AOAC. Protein in Bread; AOAC Official Method 991; AOAC: Rockville, MD, USA, 1950. [Google Scholar]
  49. NP 4168. Cereais e derivados—Determinação do teor de matéria gorda total; Instituto Português da Qualidade: Lisboa, Portugal, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  50. AOAC. AOAC. AOAC Official Method 991.Total, Soluble and Insoluble Dietary Fiber in Foods. In Enzymatic-Gravymetric Method, MES-Tris Buffer; AOAC: Rockville, MD, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  51. European Union. Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on the provision of food information to consumers. Off. J. Eur. Union 2011, 54, 18–61. [Google Scholar]
  52. He, F.J.; Brinsden, H.C.; MacGregor, G.A. Salt reduction in the United Kingdom: A successful experiment in public health. J. Hum. Hypertens. 2014, 28, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ganesan, P.; Kumar, C.S.; Bhaskar, N. Antioxidant properties of methanol extract and its solvent fractions obtained from selected Indian red seaweeds. Bioresour. Technol. 2008, 99, 2717–2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Rajauria, G.; Jaiswal, A.K.; Abu-Ghannam, N.; Gupta, S. Antimicrobial, antioxidant and free radical-scavenging capacity of brown seaweed Himanthalia Elongata from western coast of Ireland. J. Food Biochem. 2013, 37, 322–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Niccolai, A.; Zittelli, G.C.; Rodolfi, L.; Biondi, N.; Tredici, M.R. Microalgae of interest as food source: Biochemical composition and digestibility. Algal Res. 2019, 42, 101617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lowry, O.H.; Rosebrough, N.J.; Farr, L.; Randall, R.J. Protein measurement with the folin phenol reagent. J. Biol. Chem. 1951, 193, 265–275. [Google Scholar]
  57. ISO. EN ISO Sensory Analysis; General Guidance for the Design of Test Rooms: Geneva, Switzerland, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  58. Davidson, I. Biscuit Baking Technology: Processing and Engineering Manual, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; pp. 37–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Gilbert-López, B.; Barranco, A.; Herrero, M.; Cifuentes, A.; Ibáñez, E. Development of new green processes for the recovery of bioactives from Phaeodactylum tricornutum. Food Res. Int. 2017, 99, 1056–1065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Plaza, M.; Herrero, M.; Cifuentes, A.; Ibáñez, E. Innovative natural functional ingredients from microalgae. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 7159–7170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Manohar, R.S.; Rao, P.H. Interrelationship between rheological characteristics of dough and quality of biscuits; use of elastic recovery of dough to predict biscuit quality. Food Res. Int. 2002, 35, 807–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tunick, M.H.; Onwulata, C.I.; Thomas, A.E.; Phillips, J.G.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Sheen, S.; Liu, C.K.; Latona, N.; Pimentel, M.R.; Cooke, P.H. Critical Evaluation of Crispy and Crunchy Textures: A Review. Int. J. Food Prop. 2013, 16, 949–963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Bourne, M.C. Food Texture and Viscosity: Concept and Measurement, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 2002; pp. 107–291. [Google Scholar]
  64. Singh, P.; Singh, R.; Jha, A.; Rasane, P.; Gautam, A.K. Optimization of a process for high fibre and high protein biscuit. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 1394–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Batista, A.P.; Nunes, M.C.; Gouveia, L.; Sousa, I.; Raymundo, A.; Cordobés, F.; Guerrero, A.; Franco, J.M. Microalgae biomass interaction in biopolymer gelled systems. Food Hydrocoll. 2011, 25, 817–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Peleg, M. A mathematical-model of crunchiness/crispness loss in breakfast cereals. J. Texture Stud. 1994, 25, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Arimi, J.M.; Duggan, E.; O’Sullivan, M.; Lyng, J.G.; O’Riordan, E.D. Effect of water activity on the crispiness of a biscuit (Crackerbread): Mechanical and acoustic evaluation. Food Res. Int. 2010, 43, 1650–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. European Commission. Regulation (EC) N° 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutritions and health claims made on foods. Off. J. Eur. Union 2007, 12, 3–18. [Google Scholar]
  69. Bolanho, B.C.; Egea, M.B.; Jácome, A.L.M.; Campos, I.; Carvalho, J.C.M.; Danesia, E.D.G. Antioxidant and nutritional potential of cookies enriched with Spirulina platensis and sources of fibre. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2014, 53, 171–179. [Google Scholar]
  70. Santana-Casiano, J.M.; González-Dávila, M.; González, A.G.; Rico, M.; López, A.; Martel, A. Characterization of phenolic exudates from Phaeodactylum tricornutum and their effects on the chemistry of Fe(II)–Fe(III). Mar. Chem. 2014, 158, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Banskota, A.H.; Sperker, S.; Stefanova, R.; McGinn, P.J.; O’Leary, S.J.B. Antioxidant properties and lipid composition of selected microalgae. J. Appl. Phycol. 2019, 31, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Abraços, L.M.C. Estudo de ingredientes da Salvia sclareoides—Um contributo para o desenvolvimento de um novo suplemento alimentar. Master’s Thesis, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  73. El-Baky, H.H.A.; El-Baroty, G.S.; Ibrahem, E.A. Functional characters evaluation of biscuits sublimated with pure phycocyanin isolated from Spirulina and Spirulina biomass. Nutr. Hosp. 2015, 32, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Muys, M.; Sui, Y.; Schwaiger, B.; Lesueur, C.; Vandenheuvel, D.; Vermeir, P.; Vlaeminck, S.E. High variability in nutritional value and safety of commercially available Chlorella and Spirulina biomass indicates the need for smart production strategies. Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 275, 247–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Andersen, R.A. Handbook of Microalgal Culture: Applied Phycology and Biotechnology, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Oxford, UK, 2013; pp. 3–20. [Google Scholar]
  76. Fradique, M.; Batista, A.P.; Nunes, M.C.; Gouveia, L.; Bandarra, N.M.; Raymundo, A. Isochrysis galbana and Diacronema vlkianum biomass incorporation in pasta products as PUFA’s source. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 50, 312–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Foods 08 00611 g001 550
Figure 1. Control cracker and crackers with 2% (w/w) and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass. Legend: Ap, A. platensis; Cv, C. vulgaris; Ts, T. suecica; Pt, P. tricornutum.
Figure 1. Control cracker and crackers with 2% (w/w) and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass. Legend: Ap, A. platensis; Cv, C. vulgaris; Ts, T. suecica; Pt, P. tricornutum.
Foods 08 00611 g001
Foods 08 00611 g002 550
Figure 2. Color parameters lightness (L*) (a), yellowness (a*) (b), greenness (b*) (c), chroma (C*) (d), and hue (hº) (e) of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation at weeks 0, 4, and 8 Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 10).
Figure 2. Color parameters lightness (L*) (a), yellowness (a*) (b), greenness (b*) (c), chroma (C*) (d), and hue (hº) (e) of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation at weeks 0, 4, and 8 Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 10).
Foods 08 00611 g002
Foods 08 00611 g003 550
Figure 3. Hardness of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation at weeks 0, 4, and 8 Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 10).
Figure 3. Hardness of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation at weeks 0, 4, and 8 Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 10).
Foods 08 00611 g003
Foods 08 00611 g004 550
Figure 4. SEM images of crackers with 2% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation.
Figure 4. SEM images of crackers with 2% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation.
Foods 08 00611 g004
Foods 08 00611 g005 550
Figure 5. Total phenolic content (expressed as gallic acid equivalents mg g−1 dry weight) of crackers enriched with different levels of microalgae incorporation. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 5. Total phenolic content (expressed as gallic acid equivalents mg g−1 dry weight) of crackers enriched with different levels of microalgae incorporation. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Foods 08 00611 g005
Foods 08 00611 g006 550
Figure 6. Antioxidant capacity (expressed as µg of vitamin C equivalent antioxidant capacity (VCEAC) per g) of crackers enriched with different levels of microalgae. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Figure 6. Antioxidant capacity (expressed as µg of vitamin C equivalent antioxidant capacity (VCEAC) per g) of crackers enriched with different levels of microalgae. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Foods 08 00611 g006
Foods 08 00611 g007 550
Figure 7. In vitro digestibility (a) and in vitro protein digestibility (b) of crackers enriched with different levels of microalgae. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3). Red lines correspond to the range of variation of six commercial crackers samples tested under the same conditions.
Figure 7. In vitro digestibility (a) and in vitro protein digestibility (b) of crackers enriched with different levels of microalgae. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3). Red lines correspond to the range of variation of six commercial crackers samples tested under the same conditions.
Foods 08 00611 g007
Foods 08 00611 g008 550
Figure 8. Responses of the sensory analysis panel tasters (n = 30) regarding crackers enriched with 2% microalgal biomass, as well as the control sample. Sensory attributes were classified as: 0—very unpleasant; 1—unpleasant; 2—slightly unpleasant; 3—slightly pleasant; 4—pleasant; and 5—very pleasant.
Figure 8. Responses of the sensory analysis panel tasters (n = 30) regarding crackers enriched with 2% microalgal biomass, as well as the control sample. Sensory attributes were classified as: 0—very unpleasant; 1—unpleasant; 2—slightly unpleasant; 3—slightly pleasant; 4—pleasant; and 5—very pleasant.
Foods 08 00611 g008
Foods 08 00611 g009 550
Figure 9. Responses of the sensory analysis panel tasters (n = 30) in terms of salt perception of crackers enriched with 2% microalgal biomass, as well as the control sample.
Figure 9. Responses of the sensory analysis panel tasters (n = 30) in terms of salt perception of crackers enriched with 2% microalgal biomass, as well as the control sample.
Foods 08 00611 g009
Foods 08 00611 g010 550
Figure 10. Responses of the sensory analysis panel tasters (n = 30) in terms of buying intention for crackers enriched with 2% microalgal biomass, as well as the control sample.
Figure 10. Responses of the sensory analysis panel tasters (n = 30) in terms of buying intention for crackers enriched with 2% microalgal biomass, as well as the control sample.
Foods 08 00611 g010
Table
Table 1. Biochemical composition of the four microalgae biomasses used in the experiments (%, dry weight). Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Table 1. Biochemical composition of the four microalgae biomasses used in the experiments (%, dry weight). Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3).
Biochemical ComponentA. platensis F&M-C256C. vulgaris AllmaT. suecica F&M-M33P. tricornutum F&M-M40
Protein (%)68.9 ± 1.056.8 ± 2.740.2 ± 0.538.8 ± 0.1
Lipid (%)10.7 ± 0. 616.9 ± 2.828.5 ± 1.219.3 ± 1.7
Carbohydrate (%)12.8 ± 0.25.9 ± 0.310.2 ± 0.211.0 ± 0.7
Ash (%)6.1 ± 0.19.3 ± 1.515.7 ± 0.214.8 ± 0.1
Sodium (%)0.6 ± 0.10.3 ± 0.22.1 ± 0.11.4 ± 0.2
Table
Table 2. Description, ingredients, and average nutritional values of commercial cracker samples analyzed for in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) (%) and in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD) (%).
Table 2. Description, ingredients, and average nutritional values of commercial cracker samples analyzed for in vitro dry matter digestibility (IVDMD) (%) and in vitro protein digestibility (IVPD) (%).
Product DesignationBrand GBrand CBrand IBrand WBrand TBrand F
Product DescriptionCrackers with olive oil (6.6%) and sea saltCrackers with extra virgin olive oil (5.4%)Cracker italiani bio artigianaliFette croccanti (crunchy slices)Crackers with wheat flour and caramelized cereals on the surface (rice, wheat, and barley)Rice crackers
IngredientsWheat flour, potato flour, olive oil (6.6%), sunflower oil, skimmed milk powder, potato starch, modified corn starch, glucose syrup, milk proteins, sea salt (2%), salt, and raising agent (ammonium hydrogen carbonate)Wheat flour, extra virgin olive oil (5.4%), salt, brewer’s yeast, malt extract (wheat and barley), barley flour, malted barley flour, and acidity corrector (sodium acid carbonate)Durum wheat semolina flour, extra virgin olive oil (13.5%), organic tomato extract, organic chili pepper extract, organic garlic extract, organic origan essential oil, and organic basil essential oilWholemeal rye flour (111g/100g), saltWheat flour (80.4%), palm fat, sugar, leveaning agents (amonium bicarbonate, calcium phosphates, and sodium bicarbonate), puffed rice (1.73%), salt, puffed wheat (0.23%), puffed barley (0.74%), crushed rice grains (0.51%), crushed integral wheat grains (0.23%), rice flour (0.04%), wheat gluten, wheat germen, powdered skimmed milk, wheat starch, and barley malt extractRice flour (91%), sugar, sunflower oil, antioxidant E320 (BHA), salt, powdered soy sauce (without gluten) (hydrolyzed grain), flavor enhancer E635 (disodium ribonucleotides), palm oil
Average nutritional values (100 g)
Energy1822 kJ1732 kJ1940 kJ1405 kJ1850 kJ1707 kJ
433 kcal410 kcal461 kcal334 kcal440 kcal408 kcal
Fat13.0 g6.3 g14.8 g1.5 g18.0 g3.8 g
(of which: saturated)2.3 g0.9 g1.9 g0.3 g8.4 g1.3 g
Carbohydrate67.5 g76.0 g69.0 g60.0 g60.0 g85.0 g
(of which: sugars)11.0 g2.0 g1.4 g2.0 g6.9 g4.9 g
Fiber5.0 g2.5 g3.6 g22.0 g3.3 g-
Protein9.0 g11.0 g12.4 g9.0 g8.6 g7.1 g
Salt2.2 g1.8 g1.9 g1.0 g2.2 g1.2 g
Table
Table 3. Characteristic dimensions of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 20). Different letters in the same column correspond to significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Characteristic dimensions of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 20). Different letters in the same column correspond to significant differences (p < 0.05).
Cracker FormulationWidth (W) (mm)Thickness (T) (mm)Spread Ratio (W/T)Weight (g)Density (g/cm3)
Control52.9 ± 0.6 de4.5 ± 0.5 c11.9 ± 1.4 a5.8 ± 0.6 e0.48 ± 0.06 ab
A. platensis2%52.5 ± 0.5 cde3.7 ± 0.2 ab14.2 ± 1.1 abc5.3 ± 0.3 de0.51 ± 0.05 a
6%51.9 ± 0.6 abc3.8 ± 0.4 ab13.7 ± 1.6 abc4.7 ± 0.3 bcd0.47 ± 0.05 ab
C. vulgaris2%52.7 ± 0.7 de4.0 ± 0.4 bc13.4 ± 1.3 ab5.2 ± 0.5 de0.48 ± 0.05 ab
6%51.3 ± 0.7 a3.7 ± 0.3 ab13.7 ± 1.1 abc4.4 ± 0.4 ab0.45 ± 0.04 ab
T. suecica2%52.5 ± 0.8 de3.8 ± 0.5 bc13.7 ± 1.7 ab5.0 ± 1.0 cde0.46 ± 0.05 ab
6%51.8 ± 1.1 bcd3.6 ± 0.6 ab14.4 ± 2.0 bc4.3 ± 0.9 abc0.45 ± 0.03 b
P. tricornutum2%53.3 ± 0.5 e4.2 ± 0.5 bc12.8 ± 1.6 ab5.5 ± 0.7 e0.47 ± 0.04 ab
6%51.5 ± 0.9 ab3.5 ± 0.5 a15.0 ± 2.3 c3.8 ± 0.5 a0.43 ± 0.05 b
Table
Table 4. Evolution of total water content and water activity (aw) of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation across time. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters (a to h) in the same column correspond to significant differences (p < 0.05) between samples. Samples marked with x, y, or z in the same line correspond to significant (p < 0.05) differences from week 0 to week 8.
Table 4. Evolution of total water content and water activity (aw) of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation across time. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters (a to h) in the same column correspond to significant differences (p < 0.05) between samples. Samples marked with x, y, or z in the same line correspond to significant (p < 0.05) differences from week 0 to week 8.
Water Content (%, w/w)Water Activity (aw)
Week 0Week 4Week 8Week 0Week 4Week 8
Control3.7 ± 0.1 bc,x4.7 ± 0.2 c,y5.4 ± 0.3 cd,z0.128 ± 0.002 b,x0.206 ± 0.007 c,y0.362 ± 0.005 a,z
A. platensis2%4.1 ± 0.1 bc,x5.1 ± 0.1 c,y6.0 ± 0.2 d,z0.155 ± 0.005 cd,x0.282 ± 0.001 d,y0.385 ± 0.004 b,z
6%2.9 ± 0.8 abc,x3.7 ± 0.1 b,xy4.5 ± 0.1 bc,y0.081 ± 0.002 a,x0.176 ± 0.005 b,y0.270 ± 0.005 c,z
C. vulgaris2%3.4 ± 0.5 abc,x4.8 ± 0.1 c,y4.5 ± 0.1 bc,y0.126 ± 0.001 b,x0.207 ± 0.013 c,y0.289 ± 0.005 d,z
6%2.8 ± 0.2 ab,x4.9 ± 0.2 c,y5.9 ± 0.2 d,z0.081 ± 0.003 a,x0.259 ± 0.010 d,y0.385 ± 0.003 b,z
T. suecica2%3.3 ± 0.6 abc,x6.2 ± 0.2 d,y7.7 ± 0.7 e,y0.145 ± 0.003 c,x0.385 ± 0.004 e,y0.516 ± 0.005 e,z
6%2.9 ± 0.1 abc,x3.4 ± 0.2 b,x3.3 ± 0.3 ab,x0.121 ± 0.007 b,x0.162 ± 0.004 b,y0.171 ± 0.002 f,y
P. tricornutum2%4.3 ± 0.1 c,x3.6 ± 0.1 b,y3.3 ± 0.2 ab,y0.159 ± 0.005 d,x0.127 ± 0.008 a,y0.120 ± 0.005 g,y
6%2.1 ± 0.2 a,x2.6 ± 0.2 a,x2.5 ± 0.1 a,x0.069 ± 0.003 a,x0.106 ± 0.002 a,y0.100 ± 0.008 h,y
Table
Table 5. Proximate biochemical composition (g/100g) of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3) except for total dietary fiber (n = 1). Different letters in the same column correspond to significant differences (p < 0.05).
Table 5. Proximate biochemical composition (g/100g) of crackers with 2% and 6% (w/w) microalgae biomass incorporation. Results are expressed as average ± standard deviation (n = 3) except for total dietary fiber (n = 1). Different letters in the same column correspond to significant differences (p < 0.05).
Total Ash
(g/100g dw)		Sodium
(g/100g dw)		Crude Fat
(g/100g dw)		Crude Protein
(g/100g dw)		Total Dietary Fiber
(g/100g dw)		Carbohydrates *
(g/100g dw)		Energy Value
(kcal/100g dw)
Control3.3 ± 0.5 a0.78 ± 0.07 a12.1 ± 0.8 a 9.8 ± 0.4 a5.069.8437
A. platensis2%3.4 ± 0.5 a0.73 ± 0.17 a12.5 ± 1.1 a11.0 ± 0.1 bc5.667.5438
6%4.6 ± 0.5 ab0.86 ± 0.12 a12.9 ± 0.8 a14.3 ± 0.1 e6.761.5433
C. vulgaris2%4.4 ± 0.3 ab0.80 ± 0.07 a11.5 ± 1.4 a11.4 ± 0.3 c5.167.6430
6%4.8 ± 1.0 b0.82 ± 0.04 a12.3 ± 1.4 a14.6 ± 0.1 e5.762.6431
T. suecica2%3.4 ± 0.1 ab0.78 ± 0.06 a13.1 ± 0.1 a10.4 ± 0.1 ab4.768.5442
6%4.6 ± 0.1 ab1.06 ± 0.09 a12.6 ± 0.4 a12.8 ± 0.4 d4.465.6436
P. tricornutum2%3.3 ± 0.1 a0.81 ± 0.11 a13.2 ± 0.2 a10.7 ± 0.1 bc5.867.1441
6%4.3 ± 0.1 ab0.89 ± 0.08 a12.7 ± 0.4 a12.1 ± 0.1 d6.364.6434
* Carbohydrates were calculated by difference from average ash, fat, protein, and fiber contents.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Batista, A.P.; Niccolai, A.; Bursic, I.; Sousa, I.; Raymundo, A.; Rodolfi, L.; Biondi, N.; Tredici, M.R. Microalgae as Functional Ingredients in Savory Food Products: Application to Wheat Crackers. Foods 2019, 8, 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8120611

AMA Style

Batista AP, Niccolai A, Bursic I, Sousa I, Raymundo A, Rodolfi L, Biondi N, Tredici MR. Microalgae as Functional Ingredients in Savory Food Products: Application to Wheat Crackers. Foods. 2019; 8(12):611. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8120611

Chicago/Turabian Style

Batista, Ana Paula, Alberto Niccolai, Ivana Bursic, Isabel Sousa, Anabela Raymundo, Liliana Rodolfi, Natascia Biondi, and Mario R. Tredici. 2019. "Microalgae as Functional Ingredients in Savory Food Products: Application to Wheat Crackers" Foods 8, no. 12: 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8120611

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop