J. Dairy Sci.
104:1484–1493
https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2020-18842
© 2021 American Dairy Science Association®. Published by Elsevier Inc. and Fass Inc. All rights reserved.
Physicochemical and microbiological characteristics of camel
milk yogurt as influenced by monk fruit sweetener
Alina Buchilina and Kayanush Aryana*
School of Nutrition and Food Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge 70803
ABSTRACT
Camel milk, similar to cow milk, contains all of the es-
sential nutrients as well as potentially health-beneficial
compounds with anticarcinogenic, antihypertensive,
and antioxidant properties. Camel milk has been used
for the treatment of allergies to cow milk, diabetes, and
autism. Camel milk helps decrease cholesterol levels in
blood and improves metabolism. One of the most desir-
able food tastes is sweetness. However, the excessive in-
gestion of sugar negatively affects human health. Monk
fruit sweetener is a natural, 0-calorie sweetener with
many health-beneficial functions. Monk fruit sweetener
helps decrease symptoms of asthma and diabetes, pre-
vents oxidation and cancer, protects the liver, regulates
immune function, and lowers glucose levels. Monk fruit
sweetener is 100 to 250 times sweeter than sucrose. The
objective of this study was to examine the influence of
different concentrations of monk fruit sweetener on the
physicochemical properties and microbiological counts
of drinking yogurt made from camel milk. Camel milk
drinking yogurt was produced with 0, 0.42, 1.27, and
2.54 g/L of monk fruit sweetener and stored for 42 d.
The physicochemical characteristics and microbiologi-
cal counts of yogurts were measured at d 1, 7, 14, 21,
28, 35, and 42. For the physicochemical characteristics,
pH, titratable acidity, viscosity, and color [lightness-
darkness (L*), red-green axis (a*), yellow-blue axis
(b*), chroma (C*), and hue angle (h*)] values were
evaluated. The counts of Streptococcus thermophilus,
Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, co-
liforms, and yeast and mold were determined. Three
replications were conducted. The sweetener addition
significantly influenced pH, viscosity, and color (a*,
b*, C*, and h*) values. Control samples had signifi-
cantly higher pH values, lower viscosity, lower b* and
C* values, and higher h* values than the samples with
1.27 and 2.54 g/L of monk fruit sweetener. Growth of
S. thermophilus, L. bulgaricus, and probiotic culture
Received May 4, 2020.
Accepted September 12, 2020.
*Corresponding author: karyana@​agcenter​.lsu​.edu
1484
L. acidophilus was not affected by the incorporation
of monk fruit sweetener. Monk fruit sweetener can
be added in camel milk yogurts as a health-beneficial
0-calorie sweetener.
Key words: camel milk, fermented, culture bacteria,
probiotic bacteria, monk fruit sweetener
INTRODUCTION
Camel milk is a good source of health-beneficial
compounds in the human diet (Kaskous, 2016). The
presence of bioactive peptides, lactoferrin, l-lactate,
bifidobacteria, insulin, and mono- and polyunsaturated
fatty acids in camel milk help treat human diseases
such as tuberculosis, asthma, diabetes, and food aller-
gies. Camel milk also contains substances with anti-
carcinogenic, antihypertensive, and healing properties
as well as bacteriostatic activity against gram-positive
and gram-negative microorganisms (Devendra et al.,
2016; Kaskous, 2016).
The main difference between the composition of cow
and camel milk is the protein content. The camel milk
ratio of casein to whey protein is lower than in cow milk,
affecting the firmness of coagulum, which results in the
formation of soft gel during camel milk fermentation
(Devendra et al., 2016). Camel milk has more β-casein
than cow milk, with about 65 and 36%, respectively, of
total casein (Devendra et al., 2016). β-Casein is more
digestible and hypoallergenic. The higher percentage of
β-casein, along with the decreased amount of α-casein
and the absence of β-lactoglobulin, in camel milk low-
ers its allergenicity and makes camel milk beneficial
for human health. Fermented camel milk, due to the
increased content of β-casein, has more antioxidant
peptides (Izadi et al., 2019). The main whey protein
of camel milk is α-lactalbumin. The α-lactalbumin
of camel milk is more susceptible to a break-down by
pancreatic proteases and has higher antioxidant activ-
ity than cow α-lactalbumin (Park and Haenlein, 2013).
β-Lactoglobulin is lacking in camel milk, but other
whey proteins such as lactoferrin and immunoglobulins
are present in concentrations higher than in cow milk
(Devendra et al., 2016).
 Buchilina and Aryana: CAMEL MILK YOGURT WITH MONK FRUIT SWEETENER
Camel milk has a higher concentration of l-lactate,
and cow milk is rich in d-lactate. l-Lactate decreases
milk allergenicity, which makes camel milk beneficial
for the individuals with lactose intolerance. (Kaskous,
2016). Camel milk has a potential positive effect on
people with autism. In the intestines of autistic indi-
viduals, the break-down of caseins in cow milk leads
to the formation of casomorphin, which is a strong
opioid responsible for brain damage. The absence of
β-lactoglobulin in camel milk may solve this problem
(Al-Ayadhi and Elamin, 2013). Moreover, camel milk
has protective proteins (lactoferrin, lysozyme, and im-
munoglobulins) that may improve the development
of the brain (Devendra et al., 2016). Consumption of
camel milk also helps increase the number of genera
Allobaculum, Akkermansia, and Bifidobacterium in a
human intestine. These genera have a positive effect
on the physiological functions of the organism, help
prevent obesity, and decrease inflammation (Wang et
al., 2018).
In the human diet, sweetness is one of the most de-
sirable tastes (McCain et al., 2018). The main source
of sweetness is table sugar or sucrose (Carocho et al.,
2017). However, the excessive consumption of sugar
has a negative effect on human well-being, possibly
resulting in obesity, glycemic spike and diabetes, dental
decay, cardiovascular diseases, hypertriglyceridemia,
cancer, and kidney diseases (O’Donnell and Kearsley,
2012; Carocho et al., 2017). With the growth of ill-
nesses related to sugar intake, alternative sweeteners
are becoming increasingly used in food products.
Sugar is an important component of dairy products.
Sugar acts as a bulking agent, affects texture and vis-
cosity, improves taste and color, and can be used as
a preservative (McCain et al., 2018). Therefore, when
sugar is replaced with sweeteners, properties of yogurt
may change. According to Yang et al. (2014), addition of
rebaudioside A decreased the hardness and consistency
of yogurt with an increasing dosage of the sweetener,
but the increasing dosages of erythritol and isomalto-
oligosaccharide improved these yogurt characteristics.
Viscosity was also affected by these 3 sweeteners.
Addition of rebaudioside A, erythritol, and isomalto-
oligosaccharide increased yogurt viscosity; however,
concentrations of the sweeteners played an important
role (Yang et al., 2014). On the other hand, addition
of sweeteners may not have a considerable effect on the
rheological properties of yogurt. Miele et al. (2017) con-
cluded that addition of aspartame and monellin did not
affect the storage modulus (G′) value of yogurt because
these sweeteners were incorporated in a small amount.
Some sweeteners are not significantly different from
sucrose. Yogurts with d-tagatose had similar viscosity
values to yogurts with sucrose, and viscosity in both
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 104 No. 2, 2021
1485
yogurts significantly decreased during storage for 28 d
(Torrico et al., 2019).
Monk fruit is also known as Luo Han Guo or Sir-
aitia grosvenorii. Monk fruit sweetener helps prevent
asthma, diabetes, and cancers. Monk fruit sweetener
has liver protection properties, regulates immune func-
tion, and lowers the level of glucose in blood (Li et
al., 2014). Also, monk fruit sweetener is a 0-calorie
sweetener, and its sweetness ranges from 100 to 250
times that of sucrose (Baotang, 2018). Mogrosides are
the main substances responsible for the sweet taste of
S. grosvenorii fruit. Mogroside V is the main compo-
nent, with a content of 0.5 to 1.4% in the dried fruit of
S. grosvenorii (Li et al., 2014). Mogrosides present in
monk fruit sweetener have antioxidant effects, making
the sweetener health-beneficial (Zhang et al., 2011).
Microorganisms may convert mogrosides to other mole-
cules during fermentation. Wang et al. (2019) and Chiu
et al. (2020) showed that fungal cultures and yeast
strains can metabolize mogroside. Saccharomyces cere-
visiae and Dekkera bruxellensis converted mogroside V
into mogroside III E and siamenoside I, respectively,
during the 4-d fermentation. Also, mogroside IV was
detected as a byproduct of mogroside fermentation by
other yeast strains (Wang et al., 2019). Consumption
of mogroside V from water extracts of S. grosvenorii by
Ganoderma lucidum mycelium led to the formation of
mogroside III E as well as mogroside IV, mogroside II
A, and siamenoside I through deglycosylation reaction
(Chiu et al., 2020).
However, the incorporation of monk fruit sweetener
in camel milk drinking yogurt has not been studied yet.
The objective of this paper was to study the influence
of different concentrations of monk fruit sweetener on
the microbiological and physicochemical properties of
drinking yogurt made with camel milk.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Yogurt Preparation
Vanilla-flavored drinking yogurt made from camel
milk was manufactured at the Louisiana State Univer-
sity Dairy Processing Plant (Baton Rouge, LA). Camel
milk was reconstituted from powder (Drome Dairy,
Centennial, CO) by dispensing 500 g of camel milk
powder in 3.785 L of distilled water. Each sample had
7.57 L of camel milk for each of the 4 treatments. The
first sample was the control with 0 g/L of monk fruit
sweetener (Julian Bakery Pure Monk, Oceanside, CA),
the second sample contained 0.42 g/L of monk fruit
sweetener, the third contained 1.27 g/L, and the forth
contained 2.54 g/L. Reconstituted camel milk with
monk fruit sweetener was pasteurized at 82.2°C for 30
 Buchilina and Aryana: CAMEL MILK YOGURT WITH MONK FRUIT SWEETENER
min, tempered to 40°C, and then 50 mL of colorless
vanilla flavor (Watkins, Winona, MN) was added to
each pail of 7.57 L of camel milk. Then, each sample
pail of 7.57 L of camel milk was inoculated with 2.4 mL
of each of the following freshly thawed cultures: Strep-
tococcus thermophilus STI-06 (Chr. Hansen’s Labora-
tory, Copenhagen, Denmark), Lactobacillus bulgaricus
LB-12 (Chr. Hansen’s Laboratory), and Lactobacil-
lus acidophilus LYO 50 (Danisco, Dairy Connection,
Madison, WI). Obtained mixtures were poured into the
cups of 946.3 mL and 147.9 mL volume capacity until
filled. These cups were transferred to an incubator and
fermented at 40°C until the pH dropped to 4.7 ± 0.1,
measured with a calibrated pH meter (Thermo Scien-
tific, Orion Star A111, Dawsonville, GA). Change of
yogurt pH during fermentation is presented in Table 1.
Cups were then placed into a cooler at 4 ± 1°C until
needed. The experiment was carried out in 3 replica-
tions. Each replication was stored in the cooler for 42 d
and analyzed for microbiological and physicochemical
characteristics at d 1, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42. Control
and treatments were randomized to minimize any pos-
sible biases during the experiment.
Physicochemical Characteristics
pH and Titratable Acidity. The pH and titratable
acidity (TA) of the vanilla-flavored drinking yogurts
made with camel milk were measured at d 1, 7, 14,
21, 28, 35, and 42. The pH meter (The Lab Depot,
Dawsonville, GA) was calibrated with pH buffers 7.00
and 4.00 (Fisher Chemical, Pittsburgh. PA). Titratable
acidity, expressed as percent of lactic acid, was deter-
mined by titration of 9 mL of yogurt sample with 0.1
N sodium hydroxide solution with phenolphthalein as
an indicator.
Viscosity. Viscosity was measured at d 1, 7, 14, 21,
28, 35, and 42. Measurements were carried out using
a Brookfield DV-II viscometer (Brookfield Engineering
Laboratories, Stoughton, MA) and a helipath stand
set in downward motion with an RV-1 spindle at 5
Table 1. The pH during the camel yogurt manufacturing process as influenced by various concentrations of
monk fruit sweetener
0 g/L
Hours of fermentation monk fruit
0 (initial) 5.90 ± 0.06A,a
1 5.71 ± 0.08A,a
2 5.35 ± 0.26B,a
3 4.88 ± 0.08C,a
A–C
Means with different uppercase letters within a column are significantly different (P < 0.05).
a
Means with same lowercase letter within a row are not significantly different.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 104 No. 2, 2021
1486
rpm. The readings were collected with the Wingather
software (Brookfield Engineering Laboratories). The
viscosity was determined in a 946.3-mL container at 6
± 2°C. Yogurt samples were not stirred before analysis.
Average of 100 data points were recorded per sample.
Three replications were conducted.
Color. Color of yogurt samples was measured at d
1, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 using a calibrated Mini
Scan XE Plus colorimeter (Hunter Lab, Reston, VA).
The following characteristics of yogurt were analyzed:
L* (lightness-darkness), a* (red-green axis), b* (yellow-
blue axis), C* (chroma), and h* (hue angle). Readings
were taken under D 65 illumination, 10° observer, and
in the reflected mode. Before readings, each sample was
stirred 5 times clockwise and counterclockwise to incor-
porate the separated whey. Each sample was measured
5 times, and 3 replications were conducted.
Microbial Analyses
The pour plate technique was used to analyze culture
growth. Streptococcus thermophilus agar for Strep. ther-
mophilus enumeration was prepared according to Dave
and Shah (1996). Difco Lactobacillus de Man, Rogosa,
and Sharpe (MRS) agar for L. bulgaricus enumeration
was prepared according to the manufacturer’s direc-
tions (Difco, Becton, Dickinson and Company, Sparks,
MD), and the procedure was carried out according to
Tharmaraj and Shah (2003). The MRS-sorbitol agar
for L. acidophilus counts was prepared according to
Dave and Shah (1996) and Tharmaraj and Shah (2003).
Serial yogurt dilutions in peptone water from 10−1 to
10−6 were prepared. Dilutions from 10−2 to 10−6 were
plated on Strep. thermophilus agar, MRS-sorbitol agar,
and Lactobacillus MRS agar in duplicate. Pour plates
with MRS-sorbitol agar were incubated anaerobically
at 37°C for 48 h in an anaerobic jar for L. acidophi-
lus enumeration. Pour plates with Strep. thermophilus
agar were incubated aerobically at 37°C for 24 h for
Strep. thermophilus enumeration. The growth of L. bul-
garicus was determined using Lactobacilli MRS agar;
pH
0.42 g/L 1.27 g/L 2.54 g/L
monk fruit monk fruit monk fruit
5.91 ± 0.06A,a 5.82 ± 0.16A,a 5.88 ± 0.16A,a
5.69 ± 0.05A,a 5.59 ± 0.14A,a 5.61 ± 0.18A,a
5.32 ± 0.06B,a 5.17 ± 0.30B,a 5.19 ± 0.30B,a
4.83 ± 0.18C,a 4.76 ± 0.17C,a 4.75 ± 0.15C,a
 Buchilina and Aryana: CAMEL MILK YOGURT WITH MONK FRUIT SWEETENER
plates were incubated anaerobically at 43°C for 72 h
in anaerobic jars. Quebec Darkfield colony (Leica Inc.,
Buffalo, NY) counter was used to count the colonies
grown. The counts of cultures in each of the 4 samples
were enumerated in duplicate. Also, samples of yogurt
were plated on coliforms Petrifilms (3M, St. Paul, MN)
with violet red bile agar and Petrifilms (3M) for rapid
yeast and mold count.
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using Proc Mixed of the SAS 9.3
program (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). The Strep. ther-
mophilus, L. bulgaricus, and L. acidophilus counts were
converted to a log10 scale before analysis in SAS. Bon-
ferroni (Dunn) t-test was used to determine significant
differences at P < 0.05 for main effects (treatment and
day) and interaction effect (treatment × day).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Physicochemical Characteristics of Yogurt
pH. The pH during camel yogurt manufacture as
influenced by various concentrations of monk fruit
sweetener is shown in Table 1. At any given time point
(0, 1, 2, 3 h) the pH values of the control and yogurts
with all amounts of monk fruit sweetener were not sig-
nificantly different from each other. Over the yogurt
manufacture time of 3 h, the yogurts with all studied
concentrations of monk fruit sweetener were similar to
the control, significantly (P < 0.05) dropping in pH
at h 2 and 3 of manufacture. The pH values of yogurt
samples over 42 d of storage are shown in Figure 1.
The amount of added monk fruit sweetener influenced
the pH of yogurt during storage (P < 0.05). The con-
trol had a significantly (P < 0.05) higher pH than the
yogurts with 1.27 and 2.54 g/L of monk fruit sweet-
ener. Storage time was a significant factor (P < 0.05).
Overall pH decreased during the storage period of 42
d. The pH values noticeably decreased by the seventh
day compared with the first day and remained stable
for the rest period of storage. According to Kalicka et
al. (2017) and Kim et al. (2016), addition of stevia (a
natural nonnutritive sweetener, similar to monk fruit
sweetener) decreased the value of yogurt pH, especially
with the increasing dosage of stevia. According to our
data, incorporation of monk fruit sweetener enhanced
yogurt fermentation and significantly (P < 0.05) de-
creased pH values. Abdel-Hamid et al. (2020) reported
that the addition of water extract of S. grosvenorii fruits
in buffalo milk yogurt accelerated fermentation and
decreased yogurt pH after cold storage for 24 h. Signifi-
cant (P < 0.05) reduction of pH was reported in buffalo
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 104 No. 2, 2021
1487
Figure 1. The pH of yogurt as affected by monk fruit sweetener
over 42 d of storage. Concentrations of monk fruit sweetener in the
yogurt were 0 (control), 0.42, 1.27, or 2.54 g/L. Error bars indicate SD.
yogurt samples with 1% and 2% S. grosvenorii fruit
extract, while samples with 0.5% extract were similar
to control samples without the extract (Abdel-Hamid
et al., 2020). The authors suggested that incorporation
of S. grosvenorii fruit extract could enhance the bacte-
rial growth, and the increased fermentation could be
attributed to the addition of fruit byproducts (Abdel-
Hamid et al., 2020). As it was mentioned above, mo-
grosides may undergo conversions to other components
during fermentation, but the mechanism of mogroside
bioconversion by lactic acid bacteria is not known yet.
Thus, more data is needed on how these components
affect yogurt fermentation. Continued growth of starter
cultures was the reason for the decrease of pH during
the storage (Kailasapathy et al., 2008).
Titratable Acidity. The TA values of yogurt sam-
ples are shown in Figure 2. The dosage of monk fruit
sweetener and the storage period did not significantly
affect TA of yogurts (P > 0.05). A similar pattern was
found for the nutritive sweetener erythritol (Costa et
al., 2019). Erythritol, similar to monk fruit sweetener,
lowered the pH of yogurts without changing the TA. In
yogurt, TA measures lactic acid as a result of lactose
fermentation by lactic acid bacteria (Bouteille et al.,
2013). As the pathway of mogroside metabolization by
bacteria is still unknown, it is possible that end prod-
ucts other than lactic acid were produced in yogurt
samples, and TA did not change.
Viscosity
Changes of viscosity in yogurt are shown in Figure
3. The treatment effect was an important factor (P <
0.05) influencing the viscosity of yogurts. The viscosity
of yogurts increased with the increased amount of monk
 Buchilina and Aryana: CAMEL MILK YOGURT WITH MONK FRUIT SWEETENER 1488

viscosity occurred at d 21, 28, 35, and 42 compared

with d 1. Also, in the second week, a slight whey
separation occurred in all yogurt samples, which slowly
continued throughout the rest of the storage period.
Therefore, the increase in viscosity during storage could
occur because of the postacidification in yogurts, which
resulted in whey separation and an increase in protein
cross-linking. (Hernández-Rodríguez et al., 2017).

Color

The L* Value (Lightness–Darkness). The L*

characteristic of color of yogurt is shown in Figure 4.
The incorporation of the sweetener did not affect the L*
values (P > 0.05), and the control samples and samples
with any amount of the sweetener were not different
from each other. According to Costa et al. (2019), ad-
dition of sweeteners such as sucralose, xylitol, stevia,
Figure 2. The titratable acidity of yogurt as affected by monk erythritol, erythritol with oligofructose, and erythritol
fruit sweetener over 42 d of storage. Concentrations of monk fruit
sweetener in the yogurt were 0 (control), 0.42, 1.27, or 2.54 g/L. Error with polydextrose did not affect the L* value.
bars indicate SD. The increase of storage days was significant (P <
0.05), and the L* values of yogurt samples at d 14
were lower than the L* values at d 21, 28, 35, and 42.
fruit sweetener. Viscosity values of the samples with Because the samples were stirred to incorporate slightly
1.27 and 2.54 g/L of the sweetener were significantly (P separated whey before color measurements, the curd
< 0.05) higher than the viscosity of the control sample. concentration or whey separation did not influence
Mogrosides and steviosides belong to the same type of the L* values. The noticeable decrease of lightness in
sweetener; they are terpenoids. Hernández-Rodríguez samples on d 14 of storage may be explained by the
et al. (2017) studied the microstructures of full-fat and increased number of L. acidophilus in all treatments
reduced-fat yogurts with stevia. The authors observed (Olson and Aryana, 2008).
that yogurts with stevia formed larger casein micelle The a* Value (Red–Green Axis). The a* charac-
clusters, and the porosity of the gel was decreased teristic of color of yogurt is shown in Figure 5. Addition
compared with yogurt samples with sucrose. Such a
structure could be formed through the interaction of
stevioside present in stevia with milk proteins that are
bound by hydrophobic interactions (Hernández-Rodrí-
guez et al., 2017). Rheology of yogurts with stevia was
improved, as the storage (G') and the loss parameters
(G'') were higher than that of yogurts with sucrose
(Hernández-Rodríguez et al., 2017). Aryana and Olson
(2017) reported that the formation of hydrophobic in-
teractions between sweeteners and milk proteins may
enhance yogurt viscosity. Therefore, we hypothesized
that a similar reaction may occur between mogrosides
present in monk fruit sweetener and proteins of camel
milk. Also, increased dosage of monk fruit sweetener
could increase initial total solids of the yogurt mixtures
that improved initial viscosity and strengthened the gel
network (Lee and Lucey, 2010). Therefore, samples with
higher dosage of the sweetener had increased values of
viscosity throughout the storage period.
The day effect was significant (P < 0.05), and viscos-
Figure 3. Viscosity of yogurt as affected by monk fruit sweetener
ity of all yogurt samples increased with the increased over 42 d of storage. Concentrations of monk fruit sweetener in the
storage time. Significant (P < 0.05) difference in yogurt yogurt were 0 (control), 0.42, 1.27, or 2.54 g/L. Error bars indicate SD.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 104 No. 2, 2021

 Buchilina and Aryana: CAMEL MILK YOGURT WITH MONK FRUIT SWEETENER 1489

of monk fruit sweetener significantly increased (P <

0.05) the a* value of yogurts. Control yogurt and yo-
gurt with 0.42 g/L of the sweetener had significantly (P
< 0.05) lower a* values than the sample with 2.54 g/L.
The increase of the a* value can be explained by the
addition of monk fruit sweetener, which was added as
powder of light-brown color. Consequently, the addition
of monk fruit sweetener could result in color change to
red in yogurt samples. Only samples at d 14 and 28 of
storage were significantly different from each other (P
< 0.05). Over 42 d of storage, the greenness in yogurts
decreased. The increase of the a* value occurred be-
cause of the alteration of yogurt structure caused by
gel stirring and the decrease in pH. Changes in yogurt
structure resulted in the possible leakage of natural pig-
ments to the yogurt matrix (Costa et al., 2015). Figure 5. The red-green axis (a*) characteristic of color of yogurt as
The b* Value (Yellow–Blue Axis). The b* char- affected by monk fruit sweetener over 42 d of storage. Concentrations
acteristic of color of yogurt is shown in Figure 6. The of monk fruit sweetener in the yogurt were 0 (control), 0.42, 1.27, or
2.54 g/L. Error bars indicate SD.
treatment effect was significant (P < 0.05); therefore,
the control and 0.42 g/L had the lowest b* values, and
yogurts with 2.54 g/L of sweetener had the highest b* milk, which had a yellowish color (Popov-Raljić et al.,
values. Also, samples with 1.27 g/L of the sweetener 2008).
had values higher than the control and 0.42 g/L of The C* Value (Chroma). Changes of the C* pa-
sweetener, but lower than 2.54 g/L of sweetener. The rameter in yogurt are shown in Figure 7. Monk fruit
increase of the b* value and the color change toward sweetener affected the C* value (P < 0.05). The control
yellowness is also associated with the light-brown color and 0.42 g/L of sweetener samples had similar values
of the sweetener (Costa et al., 2015). Storage time af- that were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than of sam-
fected the b* values of yogurts (P < 0.05). Samples at ples with 1.27 g/L of the sweetener, but the 2.54 g/L of
the first day had higher b* values than the samples at sweetener samples had the highest C* values. Increase
d 42 of storage. A continuous decrease of the b* value of chroma values occurred with the increased amount
during storage was explained by the deterioration of of sweetener. The changes of the C* value could happen
the riboflavin, β-carotene, and vitamin A present in because of the different solubilities of the sweetener and
light scattering effect (Rad et al., 2019). At d 42 of
storage, the C* values significantly decreased compared

Figure 4. The lightness-darkness (L*) characteristic of color Figure 6. The yellow-blue axis (b*) characteristic of color of
of yogurt as affected by monk fruit sweetener over 42 d of storage. yogurt as affected by monk fruit sweetener over 42 d of storage.
Concentrations of monk fruit sweetener in the yogurt were 0 (control), Concentrations of monk fruit sweetener in the yogurt were 0 (control),
0.42, 1.27, or 2.54 g/L. Error bars indicate SD. 0.42, 1.27, or 2.54 g/L. Error bars indicate SD.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 104 No. 2, 2021

 Buchilina and Aryana: CAMEL MILK YOGURT WITH MONK FRUIT SWEETENER 1490

Figure 7. The chroma (C*) characteristic of color of yogurt as af-

Figure 8. The hue angle (h*) characteristic of color of yogurt as
fected by monk fruit sweetener over 42 d of storage. Concentrations of
affected by monk fruit sweetener over 42 d of storage. Concentrations
monk fruit sweetener in the yogurt were 0 (control), 0.42, 1.27, or 2.54
of monk fruit sweetener in the yogurt were 0 (control), 0.42, 1.27, or
g/L. Error bars indicate SD.
2.54 g/L. Error bars indicate SD.

with the first day of storage (P < 0.05). The decrease in
the C* value could be attributed to the different levels
of gel opacity (Vargas et al., 2008).
The h* Value (Hue Angle). Changes of the h*
parameter in yogurt are shown in Figure 8. The incor-
poration of monk fruit sweetener affected the h* value
of yogurts (P < 0.05). Control yogurts had significantly
(P < 0.05) higher h* values than 1.27 and 2.54 g/L
of sweetener. Yogurt with 2.54 g/L of sweetener had
significantly (P < 0.05) lower h* values. To obtain the
h* value, the ratio of the b* value to the a* value needs
to be calculated; therefore, with the decrease of the b*
value and the increase of the a* value, the overall h*
value of the samples decreased. Sample values at d 14
were significantly higher than values at d 28 (P < 05).
Whey separation of yogurts could cause these results.
counts of Strep. thermophilus at d 28. Lactobacillus bul-
garicus species are more proteolytic and produce essen-
tial compounds for the growth of Strep. thermophilus
(Shihata and Shah, 2002). Also, the incorporation of
the dominant Strep. thermophilus culture could result
in the increase of the log10 counts at the end of storage
(Birollo et al., 2000).
Lactobacillus bulgaricus. The growth of L. bul-
garicus is shown in Figure 10. The addition of monk
fruit sweetener did not influence the growth of L. bul-
garicus (P > 0.05). The presence of sweeteners in foods
can decrease L. bulgaricus counts by the increasing of
osmotic pressure (Birollo et al., 2000). Apparently, it
was not the case for monk fruit sweetener.

Bacterial Growth

Streptococcus thermophilus. The log10 counts of

Strep. thermophilus are shown in Figure 9. The addition
of monk fruit sweetener in any concentration did not
have an influence on the growth of Strep. thermophilus
(P > 0.05). Cultures of Strep. thermophilus can survive
in the presence of various concentrations of different
sugars (Vinderola et al., 2002). Also, Abdel-Hamid et
al. (2020) did not observe the influence of water extract
of monk fruit on the growth of Strep. thermophilus in
buffalo yogurt.
Storage time had important influence on log10 counts
(P < 0.05) of Strep. thermophilus. Log10 counts signifi-
cantly (P < 0.05) increased at d 28 and remained stable Figure 9. Growth of Streptococcus thermophilus in yogurt as af-
fected by monk fruit sweetener over 42 of d storage. Concentrations of
until d 42. Symbiotic growth of Strep. thermophilus monk fruit sweetener in the yogurt were 0 (control), 0.42, 1.27, or 2.54
with L. bulgaricus could lead to the increase in the g/L. Error bars indicate SD.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 104 No. 2, 2021

 Buchilina and Aryana: CAMEL MILK YOGURT WITH MONK FRUIT SWEETENER 1491

may have had a synergistic effect with the inhibitory

factors. Also, L. acidophilus counts could decrease be-
cause of the formation of hydrogen peroxide by L. bul-
garicus that caused disruption of the bacterial cell walls
(Mani-López et al., 2014).
Coliform, Yeast, and Mold. During the storage
for 42 d, coliforms, yeast, and mold were not observed
in any of the yogurt samples. This suggested that the
heat treatment and storage conditions were carried
out properly and that there was no postpasteurization
contamination.

CONCLUSIONS

Incorporation of monk fruit sweetener into camel milk

yogurts significantly decreased the pH and increased
Figure 10. Growth of Lactobacillus bulgaricus in yogurt as affected
by monk fruit sweetener over 42 d of storage. Concentrations of monk the viscosity of yogurts. The color characteristics a*,
fruit sweetener in the yogurt were 0 (control), 0.42, 1.27, or 2.54 g/L. b*, C*, and h* were also significantly affected by the
Error bars indicate SD. addition of the sweetener. Titratable acidity and the
L* value of camel milk yogurts were not affected by
the addition of monk fruit sweetener. Increase in the
The day effect was significant (P < 0.05), and the amount of the sweetener did not significantly influence
log10 of L. bulgaricus decreased by the end of storage counts of Strep. thermophilus, L. bulgaricus, and L. aci-
compared with the first day. Because of the presence dophilus; however, increase in storage days significantly
of lactoferrin, IgG, and lysozyme in the concentrations affected log10 counts of the added cultures. The counts
higher than in cow milk, camel milk can be a less suit- of Strep. thermophilus had the highest number at d 28 of
able medium for the growth of the Lactobacillus species storage, but were not significantly different. The counts
(Attia et al., 2001). Lactoferrin, IgG, and lysozyme of L. bulgaricus and L. acidophilus lowered significantly
could perform as growth inhibitors, causing noticeable over the storage period. Monk fruit sweetener can be
decline in the bacterial growth during fermentation. used as a zero caloric health-beneficial sweetener in the
Lactobacillus acidophilus. The growth of L. aci- production of yogurt made with camel milk.
dophilus is shown in Figure 11. The addition of monk
fruit sweetener did not affect the growth of L. acidophi-
lus (P > 0.05). The presence of different sugars in dif-
ferent concentrations is not critical for the growth of
probiotic bacteria (Vinderola et al., 2002). Davoodi et
al. (2016) studied the growth of probiotic species from
the Lactobacillus genera influenced by the addition
of glucose, sucrose, stevia leaf, and stevioside in vari-
ous concentrations. Probiotics grew in the presence of
these sweeteners and metabolized natural zero caloric
sweeteners such as stevia and stevioside (Davoodi et
al., 2016).
The increase in days in storage was significant (P <
0.05), and the counts increased at d 14 compared with
d 1, and then significantly (P < 0.05) decreased at d 35
and 42. Initial log counts of L. acidophilus were lower
than expected based on culture growth in cow milk.
The dramatic decrease in growth of L. acidophilus in
camel milk was attributed to the inhibitory factors such
as lysozyme, lactoferrin, lactoperoxidase, IgG, and IgA Figure 11. Growth of Lactobacillus acidophilus in yogurt as af-
fected by monk fruit sweetener over 42 d of storage. Concentrations of
that affected bacterial growth during the storage period monk fruit sweetener in the yogurt were 0 (control), 0.42, 1.27, or 2.54
(Attia et al., 2001). The pH drop over storage period g/L. Error bars indicate SD.

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 104 No. 2, 2021

 Buchilina and Aryana: CAMEL MILK YOGURT WITH MONK FRUIT SWEETENER
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by USDA Hatch funds
and Fulbright Scholarship (US Department of State,
Washington, DC) for first author. The authors have not
stated any conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
Abdel-Hamid, M., E. Romeih, Z. Huang, T. Enomoto, L. Huang, and L.
Li. 2020. Bioactive properties of probiotic set-yogurt supplemented
with Siraitia grosvenorii fruit extract. Food Chem. 303:125400.
https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.foodchem​.2019​.125400.
Al-Ayadhi, L. Y., and N. E. Elamin. 2013. Camel milk as a potential
therapy as an antioxidant in autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
Evidence-Based Complement. Altern. Med. 2013. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​
10​.1155/​2013/​602834.
Aryana, K. J., and D. Olson. 2017. A 100-Year Review: Yogurt and
other cultured dairy products. J. Dairy Sci. 100:9987–10013. https:​
/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3168/​jds​.2017​-12981.
Attia, H., N. Kherouatou, and A. Dhouib. 2001. Dromedary milk lac-
tic acid fermentation: Microbiological and rheological characteris-
tics. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 26:263–270. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​
.1038/​sj​.jim​.7000111.
Baotang, Z. 2018. Monk fruit extract: A new sweetener. Nutraceuticals
Now 201:70–71.
Birollo, G. A., J. A. Reinheimer, and C. G. Vinderola. 2000. Viability
of lactic acid microflora in different types of yoghurt. Food Res.
Int. 33:799–805. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​S0963​-9969(00)00101​-0.
Bouteille, R., M. Gaudet, B. Lecanu, and H. This. 2013. Monitoring
lactic acid production during milk fermentation by in situ quan-
titative proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J. Dairy
Sci. 96:2071–2080. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3168/​jds​.2012​-6092.
Carocho, M., P. Morales, and I. C F R. Ferreira. 2017. Sweeteners as
food additives in the XXI century: A review of what is known, and
what is to come. Food Chem. Toxicol. 107:302–317. https:​/​/​doi​
.org/​10​.1016/​j​.fct​.2017​.06​.046.
Chiu, C. H., R. Wang, S. Zhuang, P. Y. Lin, Y. C. Lo, and T. J. Lu.
2020. Biotransformation of mogrosides from Siraitia grosvenorii by
Ganoderma lucidum mycelium and the purification of mogroside
III E by macroporous resins. J. Food Drug Anal. 28:74–83. https:​
/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jfda​.2019​.05​.001.
Costa, G. M., M. M. Paula, C. E. Barão, S. J. Klososki, E. G. Bonafé,
J. V. Visentainer, A. G. Cruz, and T. C. Pimentel. 2019. Yoghurt
added with Lactobacillus casei and sweetened with natural sweet-
eners and/or prebiotics: Implications on quality parameters and
probiotic survival. Int. Dairy J. 97:139–148. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​
.1016/​j​.idairyj​.2019​.05​.007.
Costa, M. P., B. S. Frasao, A. C. O. Silva, M. Q. Freitas, R. M. Franco,
and C. A. Conte-Junior. 2015. Cupuassu (Theobroma grandiflo-
rum) pulp, probiotic, and prebiotic: Influence on color, apparent
viscosity, and texture of goat milk yogurts. J. Dairy Sci. 98:5995–
6003. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3168/​jds​.2015​-9738.
Dave, R. I., and N. P. Shah. 1996. Evaluation of media for selec-
tive enumeration of Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacillus del-
brueckii ssp. bulgaricus, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Bifidobacte-
ria. J. Dairy Sci. 79:1529–1536. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3168/​jds​.S0022​
-0302(96)76513​-X.
Davoodi, S., M. Behbahani, E. Shirani, and H. Mohabatkar. 2016. In-
fluence of sucrose, glucose, stevia leaf and stevioside on the growth
and lactic acid production by Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacil-
lus brevis and Lactobacillus casei. Iran. J. Sci. and Technol. Trans-
actions A. Sci. 40:275–279.
Kumar, D., A. K. Verma, M. K. Chatli, R. Singh, P. Kumar, N. Meh-
ta, and O. P. Malav. 2016. Camel milk: Alternative milk for human
consumption and its health benefits. Nutr. Food Sci. 46:217–227.
https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1108/​NFS​-07​-2015​-0085.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 104 No. 2, 2021
1492
Hernández-Rodríguez, L., C. Lobato-Calleros, C. Ramírez-Santiago,
M. Rodríguez-Huezo, and M. Meraz. 2017. Microstructure and
rheology of yogurt added with protein-L. plantarum-polysaccha-
ride coacervate and stevia in substitution of milk-fat and sucrose.
Rev. Mex. Ing. Quim. 16:77–89.
Izadi, A., L. Khedmat, and S. Y. Mojtahedi. 2019. Nutritional and
therapeutic perspectives of camel milk and its protein hydroly-
sates: A review on versatile biofunctional properties. J. Funct.
Foods 60:103441. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.jff​.2019​.103441.
Kailasapathy, K., I. Harmstorf, and M. Phillips. 2008. Survival of
Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. lactis
in stirred fruit yogurts. Lebensm. Wiss. Technol. 41:1317–1322.
https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.lwt​.2007​.08​.009.
Kalicka, D., A. Znamirowska, M. Buniowska, M. J. Esteve Más, and
A. Frigola Canoves. 2017. Effect of stevia addition on selected
properties of yoghurt during refrigerated storage. Pol. J. Nat. Sci.
32:323–334.
Kaskous, S. 2016. Importance of camel milk for human health. Emir.
J. Food Agric. 28:158–163. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.9755/​ejfa​.2015​-05​
-296.
Kim, H. N., J. W. Yoon, S. A. Moon, S. B. Choi, Y. M. Seo, J.
Park, J. W. Jhoo, S. I. Ahn, and G. Y. Ki. 2016. Fermentation
and quality characteristics during the storage of greek-style yogurt
supplemented with stevia leaf extract. J. Milk Sci. and Biotechnol.
34:51–57. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.22424/​jmsb​.2016​.34​.1​.51.
Lee, W. J., and J. A. Lucey. 2010. Formation and physical properties
of yogurt. Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 23:1127–1136. https:​/​/​
doi​.org/​10​.5713/​a jas​.2010​.r​.05.
Li, C., L. M. Lin, F. Sui, Z. M. Wang, H. R. Huo, L. Dai, and T. L.
Jiang. 2014. Chemistry and pharmacology of Siraitia grosvenorii:
A review. Chin. J. Nat. Med. 12:89–102. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​
S1875​-5364(14)60015​-7.
Mani-López, E., E. Palou, and A. López-Malo. 2014. Probiotic vi-
ability and storage stability of yogurts and fermented milks pre-
pared with several mixtures of lactic acid bacteria. J. Dairy Sci.
97:2578–2590. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3168/​jds​.2013​-7551.
McCain, H. R., S. Kaliappan, and M. A. Drake. 2018. Invited review:
Sugar reduction in dairy products. J. Dairy Sci. 101:8619–8640.
https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3168/​jds​.2017​-14347.
Miele, N. A., E. K. Cabisidan, G. Blaiotta, S. Leone, P. Masi, R. Di
Monaco, and S. Cavella. 2017. Rheological and sensory perfor-
mance of a protein-based sweetener (MNEI), sucrose, and aspar-
tame in yogurt. J. Dairy Sci. 100:9539–9550. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​
.3168/​jds​.2017​-12894.
O’Donnell, K., and M. Kearsley. (2012) Pages 63–88 in Sweeteners
and Sugar Alternatives in Food Technology. John Wiley and Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
Olson, D. W., and K. J. Aryana. 2008. An excessively high Lactobacil-
lus acidophilus inoculation level in yogurt lowers product quality
during storage. Lebensm. Wiss. Technol. 41:911–918. https:​/​/​doi​
.org/​10​.1016/​j​.lwt​.2007​.05​.017.
Park, Y. W., and G F W. Haenlein. (2013) Pages 578–593 in Milk
and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition. John Wiley and Sons,
Hoboken, NJ.
Popov-Raljić, J. V., N. S. Lakić, J. G. Laličić-Petronijević, M. B.
Barać, and V. M. Sikimić. 2008. Color changes of UHT milk dur-
ing storage. Sensors (Basel) 8:5961–5974. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​
s8095961.
Rad, A. H., H. Rasouli Pirouzian, N. Konar, O. S. Toker, and D. G.
Polat . 2019. Effects of polyols on the quality characteristics of
sucrose-free milk chocolate produced in a ball mill. RSC Advances
9:29676–29688. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1039/​C9RA04486H.
Shihata, A., and N. P. Shah. 2002. Influence of addition of proteolytic
strains of Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus to commercial
ABT starter cultures on texture of yoghurt, exopolysaccharide
production and survival of bacteria. Int. Dairy J. 12:765–772.
https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​S0958​-6946(02)00071​-7.
Tharmaraj, N., and N. P. Shah. 2003. Selective enumeration of Lac-
tobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus,
Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacteria, Lactobacillus casei, Lac-
 Buchilina and Aryana: CAMEL MILK YOGURT WITH MONK FRUIT SWEETENER
tobacillus rhamnosus, and Propionibacteria. J. Dairy Sci. 86:2288–
2296. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3168/​jds​.S0022​-0302(03)73821​-1.
Torrico, D. D., J. Tam, S. Fuentes, C. Gonzalez Viejo, and F. R. Dun-
shea. 2019. D-tagatose as a sucrose substitute and its effect on the
physico-chemical properties and acceptability of strawberry-fla-
vored yogurt. Foods 8:256. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​foods8070256.
Vargas, M., M. Cháfer, A. Albors, A. Chiralt, and C. González-Mar-
tínez. 2008. Physicochemical and sensory characteristics of yoghurt
produced from mixtures of cows’ and goats’ milk. Int. Dairy J.
18:1146–1152. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​.idairyj​.2008​.06​.007.
Vinderola, C. G., G. A. Costa, S. Regenhardt, and J. A. Reinheimer.
2002. Influence of compounds associated with fermented dairy
products on the growth of lactic acid starter and probiotic bac-
teria. Int. Dairy J. 12:579–589. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​S0958​
-6946(02)00046​-8.
Wang, R., Y. C. Chen, Y. J. Lai, T. J. Lu, S. T. Huang, and Y.
C. Lo. 2019. Dekkera bruxellensis, a beer yeast that specifically
bioconverts mogroside extracts into the intense natural sweetener
siamenoside I. Food Chem. 276:43–49. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1016/​j​
.foodchem​.2018​.09​.163.
Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 104 No. 2, 2021
1493
Wang, Z., W. Zhang, B. Wang, F. Zhang, and Y. Shao. 2018. Influ-
ence of Bactrian camel milk on the gut microbiota. J. Dairy Sci.
101:5758–5769. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3168/​jds​.2017​-13860.
Yang, X., Y. Lu, and G. Hu. 2014. Optimization of sweetener for-
mulation in sugar-free yoghurt using response surface methodol-
ogy. CYTA J. Food 12:121–126. https:​/​/​doi​.org/​10​.1080/​19476337​
.2013​.804123.
Zhang, M., H. Yang, H. Zhang, Y. Wang, and P. Hu. 2011. Devel-
opment of a process for separation of mogroside V from Siraitia
grosvenorii by macroporous resins. Molecules 16:7288–7301. https:​
/​/​doi​.org/​10​.3390/​molecules16097288.
ORCIDS
Alina Buchilina https:​/​/​orcid​.org/​0000​-0002​-4804​-047X
Kayanush Aryana https:​/​/​orcid​.org/​0000​-0001​-7733​-9529