The aim was to prepare mayonnaises with natural preservatives and improved protein content to verify their structural and nutritional properties. Three formulations were developed (70% fat + variation in protein), F1 (powdered whey) did not reach the structural standards of commercial mayonnaise; F2 (skimmed milk) reached standards equivalent to commercialized products; F3 (powdered whey + skimmed milk) presented light mayonnaise pattern; F0 (Control). Protein content was higher than market products (more than 1.0 %). The evaluation of 30 days showed variations:  AW (0.934-0.941); extrusion values F1 (1.035 N ±0.026 – 0.566 N ±0.024), F2(4.255 N ±0.160 – 3.218 N ±0.060), F3 (3.198 N ±0.086 – 1.700 N ±0.044). The preservatives favored the color ∆E: F1 (11.31 ±0.04), F2 (2.65 ±0.14), F3 (1.65 ± 0.22). DPPH analysis showed the difference of products with added natural ...

The aim was to prepare mayonnaises with natural preservatives and improved protein content to verify their structural and nutritional properties. Three formulations were developed (70% fat + variation in protein), F1 (powdered whey) did not reach the structural standards of commercial mayonnaise; F2 (skimmed milk) reached standards equivalent to commercialized products; F3 (powdered whey + skimmed milk) presented light mayonnaise pattern; F0 (Control). Protein content was higher than market products (more than 1.0 %). The evaluation of 30 days showed variations:  AW (0.934-0.941); extrusion values F1 (1.035 N ±0.026 – 0.566 N ±0.024), F2(4.255 N ±0.160 – 3.218 N ±0.060), F3 (3.198 N ±0.086 – 1.700 N ±0.044). The preservatives favored the color ∆E: F1 (11.31 ±0.04), F2 (2.65 ±0.14), F3 (1.65 ± 0.22). DPPH analysis showed the difference of products with added natural ...