Cited by 203Seaweed-derived Bioactive CompoundsFood Nutrient Composition and Product DevelopmentSeed and Plant Biochemistry

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 61 of the 61 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access

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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/foods8120611

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

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.CC BY · PubMed Central
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).CC BY · PubMed Central
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).CC BY · PubMed Central
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.CC BY · PubMed Central
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).CC BY · PubMed Central
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).CC BY · PubMed Central
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.CC BY · PubMed Central
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.CC BY · PubMed Central
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.CC BY · PubMed Central
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.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Zarrouk, C. (1966). 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].
  2. Bolanho, 2014, Antioxidant and nutritional potential of cookies enriched with Spirulina platensis and sources of fibre, J. Food Nutr. Res., 53, 171
  3. Abraços, L.M.C. (2017). 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].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 203

Metadata

Authors
Batista, A. P., Niccolai, A., Bursic, I., Sousa, I., Raymundo, A., Rodolfi, L., Biondi, N., & Tredici, M. R.
Affiliations
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • University of Florence (IT)
  • LEAF—Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
Corresponding author
Niccolai, Alberto
Venue
Foods
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2019-11-23
Volume
8
Issue
12
Pages
611
ISSN
2304-8158 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2989853209
Cited by
203
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 16
FWCI
12.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Foods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UID/AGR/04129/2013)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Aquatic Science › Seaweed-derived Bioactive Compounds
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Nutrient Composition and Product Development
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Seed and Plant Biochemistry
Keywords
microalgae, functional food ingredients, Spirulina platensis, Chlorella vulgaris, Tetraselmis suecica, Phaeodactylum tricornutum, protein content, antioxidant activity, phenolic compounds, in vitro digestibility, sensory evaluation, off-flavor, storage stability

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review