Current Scenario and New Approaches for the Chemical, Technological, and Sensory Qualities of Plant-Based Milk and Fermented Milk Substitutes

Abstract

Interest in plant-based milk is rapidly growing worldwide. However, several challenges remain, such as low consumer acceptance, difficulty in matching cow milk’s nutritional profile, and poor stability. Since various groups benefit from consuming plant-based options, addressing these challenges is crucial. This study aimed to analyze plant sources used in plant-based milk, evaluating their chemical, technological, and sensory characteristics, as well as processing methods and emerging trends. A literature search was conducted for studies published in English over the last ten years in Embase, Scopus, Lilacs, Fsta, Pubmed, and Google Scholar, selecting those best fitting the inclusion criteria. Legumes, cereals, pseudo-cereals, nuts, fruits, and seeds have been used as plant matrices, each contributing distinct attributes to the plant-based milk. Thus, using plant proteins —i.e., mixing different plant-based foods into a single formulation has proven effective in overcoming certain limitations. Additionally, germination and fermentation have improved the stability, nutritional quality, and sensory properties of plant-based milk, reinforcing their potential for future advancements in this field.

1. Introduction

Cow milk is widely consumed worldwide due to cultural factors, its sensory quality, and its nutritional profile, which is rich in essential amino acids, lipids, calcium, riboflavin, and vitamin B12, all of which contribute to a healthy diet [1]. However, new trends and dietary patterns focused on health, sustainability, and lifestyle have driven the development of milk alternatives [2]. In this context, plant-based milk has emerged as a promising substitute, meeting a wide range of nutritional needs and personal preferences [3].

The growth of the plant-based market is driven by factors such as the high prevalence of lactose intolerance (65–70% globally) [4], cow milk protein allergy (3% of population), [5] and the rise in veganism and flexitarianism. Besides, the dairy sector is expanding globally, generating high gas emissions with significant environmental impacts [6].

Plant-based milk is obtained through the processing of different plant foods, such as cereals [7], pseudo-cereals [8], legumes [9], nuts [10], seeds [11], and fruits [12]. These foods, after being reduced to smaller particles, are homogenized with water to obtain a water-based extract. In addition, factors such as the type of raw material and their processing, the addition of more ingredients, and the type and duration of storage can alter the final presentation of the product [13]. Since each plant has a distinct nutritional profile, some studies have focused on combining different plant sources to develop more balanced plant-based milks, both nutritionally and sensorially [14].

In this context, non-dairy milks stand out as alternatives that offer lower ecological impact while providing nutritious and inclusive products. Generally, plant-based milks show lower greenhouse gas emissions, reduced land use, and lower overall water consumption compared with dairy milk [15]. Plant-based milks are consistently considered to be more eco-friendly options than dairy milk across most environmental indicators [16].

The main motivations driving the consumption of plant-based milk include nutritional factors, dietary restrictions (such as lactose intolerance and allergies), environmental concerns, and the search for sustainable alternatives, showing the growing preference for plant-based milk analogs, obtained from cereals, pseudo-cereals, legumes, nuts, fruits, and seeds (Figure 1).

Another growing trend is the production of fermented milk substitutes, which expands the potential for innovation in this market. The use of probiotics and microorganisms in plant-based milk leads to what are known as symbiotic products, which have shown remarkable nutritional, technological, and sensory properties, making them a viable alternative to cow milk analogs. For example, the fermentation of plant-based milk can improve the aroma and flavor of products, which consequently increases consumer acceptance. In addition, they have been shown to reduce antinutritional factors, increase the bioavailability of macro- and micronutrients, and, when mixing different fermentation cultures, the results are even more positive [17].

Given all these aspects, the objective of the present research is to identify in the literature current options, new approaches, the plant matrices used in the development of plant-based milk and fermented milk substitutes, and their influence on the chemical, technological, and sensory characteristics of the products.

2. Methodology

This is an integrative review with a systematic search, which was conducted in the Embase, Lilacs, Fsta, Scopus, and Pubmed databases, as well as Google Scholar. All included studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: be written in English, be original research articles, be published between 2018 and 2025 and focused on plant-based milk development, and have assessed chemical, technological, and/or sensory properties. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) websites, editorials, theses, dissertations, studies involving animals, duplicated studies, patents, letters to the editor, conference abstracts, case reports, papers unavailable in full text, as well as articles not published during the chosen period; (2) review studies that did not evaluate plant-based milk or fermented milk substitutes; (3) studies published in languages other than English; (4) studies that developed plant-based milk for consuming, but did not analyze its chemical, technological, and/or sensory properties; and (5) studies lacking a clear methodology, which limits reproducibility.

The descriptors were established based on the structured vocabulary DeCS/MeSH and combined using Boolean operators “AND” and “OR.” The selection of studies occurred in four stages (Figure 2). In the identification phase, keywords were used to search for relevant studies in databases, and the titles were analyzed. The selected records were organized in Zotero 6.0.36, and duplicates were excluded by the software. In this stage, the abstracts of the studies were assessed, and those meeting the exclusion criteria were removed.

In the eligibility phase, full texts were evaluated, and those unavailable or outside of the review scope were excluded. Finally, thirty-nine studies were included.

3. Results and Discussion

A total of 39 studies were included. Of these, 30.8% (n = 12) focused on legumes, 10.3% (n = 4) on cereals and pseudo-cereals, 15.4% (n = 6) on seeds and nuts, 2.6% (n = 1) on fruits, 20.5% (n = 8) on association of plant matrices in plant-based milk, and 28.2% (n = 11) on fermented milk substitutes.

In relation to the analysis performed, 43.6% of the studies (n = 17) carried out technological, chemical, (Table 1) and sensory evaluation on the products (Table 2), 35.9% (n = 14) performed two of these analyses, and 20.5% (n = 8) carried out only one of them. In some cases, a single study investigated more than one plant matrix.

3.1. Legumes

Legumes, originating from the Fabaceae or Leguminosae family, are rich in proteins, complex carbohydrates, essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals [18].

Several factors influence the physicochemical and sensory characteristics of legume-based milk. Among them are the type of chosen cultivar, the size, and the nutritional composition of the grains. Jin et al. [19] highlighted that plant-based milk derived from larger seeds tend to have a higher percentage of cotyledons, which significantly contribute to the nutritional profile of the product by increasing its total soluble solids (TSSs).

Tang et al. [9] found a more promising cultivar, resulting in a more stable plant-based milk. The authors attributed its stability to the higher protein content of the grain, which enhances solubility and emulsification, and to its high amylose content, which promotes viscosity and stability in plant-based milk [20,21].

Beyond these factors, the processing method also affects the physicochemical properties of plant-based milk, as noted by Joshi et al. [22], who tested different processing methods on mung bean milk and found that each had a distinct impact.

Table 1 summarizes the studies conducted with different plant matrices, showing that the interaction between the selected species, the intrinsic composition of the grains, and the processing approaches results in plant-based products with distinguished technological and chemical profiles. The analysis highlights relevant trends, such as improved stability, including parameters such as solubility, viscosity, and reduced phase separation, attributed to specific treatments and the structural characteristics of each raw material.

The data presented in Table 1 provides an overview of how different technological variables influence the functionality of legume plant-based products. These data provided the bases for further discussion on strategies capable of optimizing their nutritional and sensory values. The evidence presented reinforces that methods such as germination, which are recurrent among the compiled studies, play a relevant role in improving the quality of plant-based milk.

Table 1. Ingredients, technological parameters, and chemical value indicators of plant-based milk.

Author/ Country	Plant Matrices	Formulation/ Processing	Main Technological Parameters	Chemical Value Indicators
LEGUMES
Tuncel et al. [23] India	Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.), and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) seeds.	T1—Dry milling (control) T2—Soaking and wet milling T3—Blanching T4—Blanching and dehulling T5—Vacuum treatment T6—Germination	Extraction yield: 68–86%; lowest in T2; highest in T1 and T4. Viscosity: 1.75–3.69 cP; lowest in T2, T3, and T4; highest in chickpea-based milks. Color: higher luminosity and whiteness in T4; lowest whiteness in T2. pH: 5.9–6.9 (near-neutral). Titratable acidity: 0.05–0.13% (similar to cow milk).	pH: 5.9–6.9 (near-neutral). Titratable acidity: 0.05–0.13% (lactic acid). Viscosity: 1.75–3.69 cP. Extraction yield: 68–86%. Lipoxygenase activity: reduced in T1 and T6; increased in T2 and T4; inactivated by T3.
Meghrabi et al. [24] Jordan	White kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).	Cleaning, removal of impurities, prolonged soaking (overnight) in boiled water, blanching for 20 min, grinding, adjusting water for desired total solids, adjusting pH (6.8–7.2) with HCl/NaOH, heating to 82–83 °C for 5 min, homogenization, cooling, and storage < 5 °C.	Final pH 6.65; titratable acidity 2.18 mg/g; total solids 12.20%; viscosity lower than that of soy milk (control).	The milk-based product from white kidney beans had 23.61% protein, 4.57% ash, 1.23% fat, 47.8% carbohydrates, 9.2% moisture, and 90.78% total solids. When compared with soymilk, it showed 12.19–8.06% total solids, 3.71–3.05% protein, 0.79–1.69% fat, 6.41–2.51% carbohydrate, 1.19–0.5% ash, 0.8–0.54% fiber, 87.78–92% moisture, pH of 6.64–6.87, acidity at 2.19–2.34%, and 47.4 kcal total energy.
Tang et al. [9] China	Red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)—four cultivars: [Jizhangyun-2 (JZY-2), Pinjinyun-4 (PJY-4), Anbo (AB), and Yingguohong (YGH)].	Flour (0.5 mm) + hot water (1:12, 95 °C), gelatinization at 90 °C for 10 min with amylase (0.1%), cooling (55 °C), enzymatic treatment (protease 0.0045%; glucosidase 0.4%; cellulase 0.1%; 1 h), filtration (200 mesh sieve), addition of rice bran oil (0.2%), dispersion + high-pressure homogenization, packaging and sterilization at 100 °C for 30 min, storage at 4 °C.	JZY-2 produced a product with better stability: lower centrifugal sedimentation rate (8.04% vs. 18.99–24.93%), smaller average particle diameter D3.2 (2.54 µm vs. 6.51–8.46 µm), higher zeta potential (−23.03 mV vs. −16.66 to −20.10 mV), lower instability index (0.13 vs. 0.41–0.54), and lower separation rate (4.44 vs. 5.55–12.76). It also showed higher viscosity and better particle distribution, while AB and YGH exhibited strong phase separation.	Red bean grains showed protein 24.02–29.13%, lipids 1.00–1.73%, ash 3.82–4.53%, total carbohydrates 56.59–60.50%, starch 40.39–47.46%, and amylose 32.39–36.97%, with higher levels of protein and starch in the JZY-2 cultivar.
Joshi et al. [22]. India	Mung bean (Vigna radiata L.).	Four methods: T1: soaking; T2: soaking and blanching; T3: germination; T4: germination and blanching.	T4 had the highest viscosity (4.43) and b* (1.76) values. T3 had the highest L* (48.61) values.	The germination method showed higher protein (4.39%), carbohydrates (5.52%), and energy (39.93 kcal). The fat content ranged from 0.02 to 0.06%, the ash content from 0.45 to 0.49%, and no fiber was detected.
Ladokun et al. [25] Nigeria	Cowpea, sugar, water, and cinnamon.	Cowpea grains were processed by soaking, dehulling, wet milling, sieving, and cooking.	Stable final product, suitable for consumption; simple and domestic processing.	Moisture content (85.24%), crude protein (12.47%), crude fat (9.33%), crude fiber (0.062%), and total ash (2.73%).
Winarsi et al. [26] Indonesia	Cowpea, water, and sugar.	Not specified	Not specified	Longer germination improved nutritional profile: phenolic content (4.67 mg GAE/g), vitamin C (75.8 mg/100 g), fiber (1.28%), and soluble proteins (33%).
Comak Gocer and Koptagel [27] Turkey	Peanut and water.	Not specified	Not specified	Low carbohydrate (0.28 g/100 mL), high fat (more unsaturated fatty acid, less saturated fatty acid), and higher energy than cow milk.
Duarte et al. [28]. Portugal	Lupin-based milk (LBM): sweet lupin and water. Chickpea-based milk (CBM): chickpea and water.	Not specified	Not specified	LBM had the highest protein (4.05%) and both matched cow milk protein levels. CBM had more starch (1.391 g/mL) and total carbohydrate (9.01 g/100 mL) than LBM (3.27 g/mL). Both were fat-free and rich in manganese (7.94 mg/100 mL–10.64 mg/100 mL).
Sakthi et al. [29] India	Peanut cultivars, water, and sugar.	Peanut milk samples were prepared by five different processing methods: T1: Fresh; T2: Blanching; T3: Soaking; T4: Roasting; T5: Germination.	T4 had the highest viscosity value (4.98–4.92) and T2 the highest L* (85.24) levels.	T4 had the highest antioxidant activity: 64% radical-scavenging activity (RSA). Total soluble solids (TSSs): 11–12.
Veber et al. [30] Russia	Different cultivars of pea and water. Oat milk. Soybean milk. Pea milk.	Hulling was determined using the hot water immersion method, followed by peeling and drying. Plant-based production: washing; germination at 21 °C for 13–15 h (humidity 40–90%); grinding to 1 mm; ratio 1:5 (grain/water); and extraction at 35–40 °C for 20–30 min.	Recommended higher essential amino acid content. Plant-based milk presented a homogeneous consistency (particles < 50 µm), a mild aroma, and a slight pea flavor. Technological composition depended on grain characteristics (size, husk, uniformity, protein and starch content).	Protein 2.8% (pea milk) vs. 2.0% (soy) and 1.0% (oat). fat 1.0%. total solids 10% (pea milk) vs. 8.8% (soy) and 8.7% (oat). Protein content of the pea cultivars between 20.2% and 24.85%; and starch between 37.83% and 39.11%. Pea cultivar “Chishminsky 229” was considered the main resource for plant-based milk production
Jin et al. [19] China	Soybean and distilled water. First class: 19 cultivars; Second class: 16 cultivars.	The process involves washing, soaking for 15 h at 4 °C, grinding (700 mL water/100 g grain) in a domestic blender for 2 min, filtering through cotton, heating to 95 °C for 5 min, and rapid cooling.	Soymilk from the second class showed higher viscosity (3.18–4.66).	High-protein, high-fat, large-grain soybeans enhance soymilk nutrition, while smaller grains reduce SS. Protein content: 3.18–4.17 g/100 mL; total solids content: 6.21–8.35 g/100 mL.
Ianchyk and Atanasova [31] Ukraine	Lentil seeds and water. T1: Ungerminated; T2: Germinated.	Not specified	T2: good protein digestibility (63.31%), high biological value, presence of B vitamins, minerals, monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). T1 was less nutritious.	Not specified
CEREALS AND PSEUDO-CEREALS
Silva et al. [7] Brazil	Rice (white; red; black) and distilled water.	T1: Unheated; T2: Sterilization; T3: Pasteurization.	T2—showed solid texture. T3—increased viscosity but caused darkening in black (L* = 28.11) and red (L* = 51.40) rice milk. Compared to commercial soy milk, black rice milk had the highest ΔE (52.42).	Black rice milk had the highest levels of phenolic compounds (122.05 mg GAE/100 g), antioxidant activity, and protein (1.75%). T3 increased carbohydrate content (4.43–10.92%) and total energy (24.21–56.04 kcal/100 g) but decreased lipid levels (0.15–0.72%).
Bendezu-Ccanto et al. [32] Peru	Sprouted quinoa: white (SWQ), red (SRQ), and black (SBQ).	Ten formulations using simplex lattice mixture design; plant-based milk processed by germination (48 h), grinding, filtration, mixing, homogenization, and pasteurization (80 °C/20 min).	Germination increased antioxidants: activity rose from 5.99–9.64 µM TE/mL (ungerminated) to 15.91–21.60 µM TE/mL in the germinated options.	T9: Best antioxidant capacity (21.60 µM TE/mL). The optimal drink (81.67% SBQ; 18.33% SWQ) contained 1.93 g/100 g of protein, 4.63 g/100 g of carbohydrates, and 0.59 g/100 g of fat.
Ben Jemaa [8] Tunisie	Oat and water.	Soaking for 12 h at 4 °C; grinding 1:5 (water: raw material) for 5 min; filtering with a plant-based milk bag; and refrigerated storage.	Oat and water. WI = 9.48; L* = 9.56; b* = 3.51. Quinoa and water. WI = 0.1; L* = 0.19; b* = 3.98.	Oat and water: Higher carbohydrate (23 g/100 g), protein (5 g/100 g), fiber (3 g/100 g), and calcium (360 mg/100 g) than milk. Notable antioxidant capacity (63.14%) and phenolic compounds (0.310 mg EAG/g DM). Quinoa and water: Higher fiber (1.5 g/100 g) and calcium (341 mg/100 g) than milk, but lower protein (1.5 g/100 g), fat (1.8 g/100 g), and carbohydrate (3.7 g/100 g). Strong antioxidant capacity (78.34%) and phenols value (0.836 mg EAG/g DM).
Sangkam et al. [33] Thailand	Super-sweet corn (Zea mays convar. Saccharata).	The separated seeds were blanched at 1:7 (w/v) with drinking water in a water bath for 10 min at either 70–72 °C (BC70) or 80–82 °C (BC80).	L* = 62–65. BC80 at 500 MPa/30 min had more corn starch gelatinization and increased viscosity (9.3) than BC70.	BC70 retained more volatile compounds from control than BC80, but some volatiles from BC80 were absent in control.
NUTS, OIL SEEDS AND FRUITS
Mertdinç et al. [34] Turkey	Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.)—Antep and Siirt varieties.	Antep and Siirt pistachios crushed in a multifunction processor in a 1:6 ratio (pistachio/distilled water, 20 °C) for 1 min, filtered through cloth, and optionally stored at 4 °C for up to two weeks.	L: 56.62–59.22; WI: 55.58–57.38 for products made from Antep and Siirt pistachios, respectively.	Protein: 3.78–3.09%; Fat: 3.2–3.1% (oleic and linoleic acids, especially). TSS: 5–6.75%. Main phenolic compound: catechin (19.37–80.19).
Comak Gocer and Koptagel [27] Turkey	Cashew, hazelnut, peanut, walnut, and almond were used to make nut milk.	Soaking for 12 h; peeling; grinding with water 1:5 for 10 min; filtering with cloth; pasteurization at 90 °C for 5 min; kefir production with starter culture (0.015 g/L) incubated at 25 °C until pH 4.6; and storage for 30 days at 4 °C.	All the products had higher energy than cow milk due to the higher fat content. pH varied between 4.76–5.32 (milks) and increased during storage.	Protein: 0.8–3.0%. Fats: 2.0–8.0% (higher in walnut milk). Carbohydrates: 0.2–2.4%. Predominant fatty acids: oleic (hazelnut 61.5 mg/100 g), linoleic (walnut 46.9 mg/100 g), and α-linolenic, detected only in plant-based kefirs. Energy: 55–75 kcal/100 g, higher in hazelnut milk (73.7 kcal).
Tulashie et al. [12] Ghana	Coconut and deionized water.	Wet extraction: dehulling, testa removal, fragmentation, grinding at 55 °C, tissue filtration, re-extraction with hot water (3×), and pasteurization at 62.8 °C for 30–60 min.	FTIR revealed functional groups of proteins (Amide I), lipids (CH2 and C=O), and carbohydrates (O–H). Neutral pH (7.0)—uncommon for plant milks—improving stability and potential acceptance. Higher energy content (135.94 kcal/100 g) compared to cow milk.	Higher fat (14.12 g/100 g) and energy (135.94 kcal/100 g) than milk. Vitamin C (18.59 mg/100 g) and antioxidants (412.5–437.5 mg vitamin C EQ/L) similar to fruit juices. Low sugar (0.7 g/100 g), less protein (2.22 g/100 g), and comparable calcium (92.5 mg/100 g) to milk. Total phenols: 295.83–312.5 mg GAE/L.
Lima et al. [10] Brazil	Cashew, water, and sugar.	A ranking test was initially performed to verify the preference among three formulations with different kernel to water proportions (1:8, 1:10, and 1:12 by weight).	pH was 6.49	Total solids 11.49%, ashes: 0.26%, proteins: 1.83%, lipids 3.97% and total carbohydrates: 5.43%
Ben Jemaa et al. [8] Tunisie	Almond Hemp.	Almond (made from nuts) and water. hemp (made from grains) and water. 200 gr of each vegetable material were rinsed and mixed for 5 min in a mixer with mineral water in a 1:5 ratio.	Withening Index (WI) Almond: WI = 21.46; L* = 21.54. Hemp: WI = 34.97; L* = 34.99. pH: Almond: 6.72 Hemp: 6.90	Almond: Higher carbohydrate (6 g/100 g), fibers (1 g/100 g) and calcium (225 mg/100 g) content than milk, but lower proteins (2 g/100 g) and lipids (2.7 g/100 g). Hemp: Higher carbohydrate, lipids (7 g/100 g), total phenolic compounds (0.605 mg EAG/g DM), and calcium (375 mg/100 g) content than milk, with similar protein (3 g/100 g) and fiber (0 g/100 g) values.
Wang et al. [11] China/ United States	Hemp and water. T1: High-pressure homogeniza tion (HPH); T2: pH shift + HPH.	Not specified	T1: smaller particle diameter; less interface formation and oil–protein interaction than T2. Higher viscosity than untreated samples. T2: larger particle diameter; strong interface formation, intense oil–protein interaction, and higher viscosity than T1.	Not specified
ASSOCIATION OF PLANT MATRICES IN PLANT-BASED MILK
Oduro et al. [14] Ghana	Melon seeds + bromelain, roasted peanuts, coconut, tiger nut, xanthan gum, KH2PO4, K2HPO4, cane sugar, and water.	Not specified	High L* values: 75.91–85.54. Coconut increased L*, while tiger nut decreased it. a*: 0.52–1.87; b*: 12.74–15.36.	Melon raised protein (3.51%), while coconut lowered it (1.65%). Coconut increased fat (4.09–6.54%), peanut reduced ash (0.25–0.51%), and tiger nut elevated carbohydrates (4.28–7.26%).
Rincon et al. [35] Brazil	Chickpea, coconut, water, and vanilla extract (VE). Different proportions.	Different proportions; thermal processing and homogenization	Coconut increased L* values (62.13–73.94) but decreased C* values (26.35–18.31). All h* values exceeded 84. Coconut (>40%) caused phase separation.	Chickpea raised protein (1.54 g/100 g–2.1 g/100 g), while coconut increased fat (1.08 g/100 g–3.43 g/100 g). Potassium (167.8–231.6 mg/100 g) was high, sodium (1.6–5.58 mg/100 g) low, and calcium (138.78–110.53 mg/100 g) similar to milk.
Lopes et al. [36] Portugal/ Sweden	Sweet lupin, chickpea, and water.	T1: cooked seeds without husks + cooking water; T2: germination with dehulling + fresh water; T3: whole seeds, colloidal milling + replaced cooking water.	T1: Higher initial viscosity and less shear-thinning behavior than T2.	T1 showed higher protein (1.8%) than T2 (1.6%). T3: carbohydrates (5.36 g/100 mL); starch (0.20 g/100 mL); and glucose (0.28 g/100 mL).
Sunny et al. [37] India	Millet, coconut, and water	Mixtures in different proportions T0–cow milk; T01–100%; T02–100%; T1–60% millet and 40% coconut; T2–50% millet and 50% coconut.	The emulsifying agent in coconut milk provided more stability for the product.	The 50% millet + 50% coconut formulation had the best nutrient profile. Millet increased moisture (80.13–84.24%) and ash (0.86–1.10%) but decreased protein (1.06–1.43%). Coconut increased fat (7.73–11.46%), calcium (13.2 mg/100 mL–16.42 mg/100 g), and iron (0.27 mg/100 g–0.39 mg/100 g), as well as total solids (15.76–20.13%), which were higher than milk.
Olagunju and Oyewumi [38] Nigeria	Tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus), cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale), and coconut (Cocos nucifera).	Variable proportions among the three extracts. TCCo1 (1:1:1) TCCo2 (3:2:1) TCCo3 (1:3:2) TCCo4 (2:1:3)	The formulation with the highest proportion of tiger nut (TCCo2) showed higher soluble solids (21.6 °Brix) and better antioxidant capacity. TCCo4 (more coconut) exhibited better appearance and visual stability.	Physicochemical values: pH: 4.53–4.63 (acidic range). Titratable acidity: 0.38–0.44% lactic acid. °Brix: 12.00–21.60. Proximate composition: Moisture: 70.13–72.97%. Fat: 5.15–10.96%. Ash: 1.63–2.98%. Crude fiber: 0.13–0.33%. Protein: 8.64–12.60%. Carbohydrates: 3.39–9.93%.
Bolarinwa et al. [39] Nigeria	Walnut, soybean, sugar, and distilled water. Malted and un-malted soy–walnut milk in different proportions.	Mixtures with malted and un-malted soybeans in different proportions.	Malting reduced total solids and increased pH and minerals. Mixtures with a higher proportion of nuts showed better texture and viscosity, as well as less sedimentation.	Maltation reduced total solids but increased pH, ash, and minerals. Total titratable acidity (TTA) matched milk (0.25–0.42%). Soybean raised protein (2.87–1.96%). Carbohydrates: 2.18–6.89%. Fats: 3.08–5.09%; no fiber. 70% walnut + 30% un-malted soymilk had higher protein and minerals.
Kundu et al. [40] India	Almond, soy, 0.5% NaHCO3, and water.	Mixtures of almond/soy 40:60, 50:50, 60:40	The use of NaHCO3 improved extraction, reduced acidity, and diminished the “beany flavor” of soybeans. A higher proportion of almond increased viscosity, shine, and emulsion stability.	Almond reduced moisture and protein (S3: 2.43%; S1: 2.93%) and increased fat (S1: 5.65%; S3: 7.1%). All samples had higher ash contents (1.06–2.36%) than milk.

Source: Study data. The * marks for L*, a*, and b* are special transformed color-coordinates created by CIELAB—International Commission on Illumination.

Table 1. Ingredients, technological parameters, and chemical value indicators of plant-based milk.

Author/ Country	Plant Matrices	Formulation/ Processing	Main Technological Parameters	Chemical Value Indicators
LEGUMES
Tuncel et al. [23] India	Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.), and faba bean (Vicia faba L.) seeds.	T1—Dry milling (control) T2—Soaking and wet milling T3—Blanching T4—Blanching and dehulling T5—Vacuum treatment T6—Germination	Extraction yield: 68–86%; lowest in T2; highest in T1 and T4. Viscosity: 1.75–3.69 cP; lowest in T2, T3, and T4; highest in chickpea-based milks. Color: higher luminosity and whiteness in T4; lowest whiteness in T2. pH: 5.9–6.9 (near-neutral). Titratable acidity: 0.05–0.13% (similar to cow milk).	pH: 5.9–6.9 (near-neutral). Titratable acidity: 0.05–0.13% (lactic acid). Viscosity: 1.75–3.69 cP. Extraction yield: 68–86%. Lipoxygenase activity: reduced in T1 and T6; increased in T2 and T4; inactivated by T3.
Meghrabi et al. [24] Jordan	White kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).	Cleaning, removal of impurities, prolonged soaking (overnight) in boiled water, blanching for 20 min, grinding, adjusting water for desired total solids, adjusting pH (6.8–7.2) with HCl/NaOH, heating to 82–83 °C for 5 min, homogenization, cooling, and storage < 5 °C.	Final pH 6.65; titratable acidity 2.18 mg/g; total solids 12.20%; viscosity lower than that of soy milk (control).	The milk-based product from white kidney beans had 23.61% protein, 4.57% ash, 1.23% fat, 47.8% carbohydrates, 9.2% moisture, and 90.78% total solids. When compared with soymilk, it showed 12.19–8.06% total solids, 3.71–3.05% protein, 0.79–1.69% fat, 6.41–2.51% carbohydrate, 1.19–0.5% ash, 0.8–0.54% fiber, 87.78–92% moisture, pH of 6.64–6.87, acidity at 2.19–2.34%, and 47.4 kcal total energy.
Tang et al. [9] China	Red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)—four cultivars: [Jizhangyun-2 (JZY-2), Pinjinyun-4 (PJY-4), Anbo (AB), and Yingguohong (YGH)].	Flour (0.5 mm) + hot water (1:12, 95 °C), gelatinization at 90 °C for 10 min with amylase (0.1%), cooling (55 °C), enzymatic treatment (protease 0.0045%; glucosidase 0.4%; cellulase 0.1%; 1 h), filtration (200 mesh sieve), addition of rice bran oil (0.2%), dispersion + high-pressure homogenization, packaging and sterilization at 100 °C for 30 min, storage at 4 °C.	JZY-2 produced a product with better stability: lower centrifugal sedimentation rate (8.04% vs. 18.99–24.93%), smaller average particle diameter D3.2 (2.54 µm vs. 6.51–8.46 µm), higher zeta potential (−23.03 mV vs. −16.66 to −20.10 mV), lower instability index (0.13 vs. 0.41–0.54), and lower separation rate (4.44 vs. 5.55–12.76). It also showed higher viscosity and better particle distribution, while AB and YGH exhibited strong phase separation.	Red bean grains showed protein 24.02–29.13%, lipids 1.00–1.73%, ash 3.82–4.53%, total carbohydrates 56.59–60.50%, starch 40.39–47.46%, and amylose 32.39–36.97%, with higher levels of protein and starch in the JZY-2 cultivar.
Joshi et al. [22]. India	Mung bean (Vigna radiata L.).	Four methods: T1: soaking; T2: soaking and blanching; T3: germination; T4: germination and blanching.	T4 had the highest viscosity (4.43) and b* (1.76) values. T3 had the highest L* (48.61) values.	The germination method showed higher protein (4.39%), carbohydrates (5.52%), and energy (39.93 kcal). The fat content ranged from 0.02 to 0.06%, the ash content from 0.45 to 0.49%, and no fiber was detected.
Ladokun et al. [25] Nigeria	Cowpea, sugar, water, and cinnamon.	Cowpea grains were processed by soaking, dehulling, wet milling, sieving, and cooking.	Stable final product, suitable for consumption; simple and domestic processing.	Moisture content (85.24%), crude protein (12.47%), crude fat (9.33%), crude fiber (0.062%), and total ash (2.73%).
Winarsi et al. [26] Indonesia	Cowpea, water, and sugar.	Not specified	Not specified	Longer germination improved nutritional profile: phenolic content (4.67 mg GAE/g), vitamin C (75.8 mg/100 g), fiber (1.28%), and soluble proteins (33%).
Comak Gocer and Koptagel [27] Turkey	Peanut and water.	Not specified	Not specified	Low carbohydrate (0.28 g/100 mL), high fat (more unsaturated fatty acid, less saturated fatty acid), and higher energy than cow milk.
Duarte et al. [28]. Portugal	Lupin-based milk (LBM): sweet lupin and water. Chickpea-based milk (CBM): chickpea and water.	Not specified	Not specified	LBM had the highest protein (4.05%) and both matched cow milk protein levels. CBM had more starch (1.391 g/mL) and total carbohydrate (9.01 g/100 mL) than LBM (3.27 g/mL). Both were fat-free and rich in manganese (7.94 mg/100 mL–10.64 mg/100 mL).
Sakthi et al. [29] India	Peanut cultivars, water, and sugar.	Peanut milk samples were prepared by five different processing methods: T1: Fresh; T2: Blanching; T3: Soaking; T4: Roasting; T5: Germination.	T4 had the highest viscosity value (4.98–4.92) and T2 the highest L* (85.24) levels.	T4 had the highest antioxidant activity: 64% radical-scavenging activity (RSA). Total soluble solids (TSSs): 11–12.
Veber et al. [30] Russia	Different cultivars of pea and water. Oat milk. Soybean milk. Pea milk.	Hulling was determined using the hot water immersion method, followed by peeling and drying. Plant-based production: washing; germination at 21 °C for 13–15 h (humidity 40–90%); grinding to 1 mm; ratio 1:5 (grain/water); and extraction at 35–40 °C for 20–30 min.	Recommended higher essential amino acid content. Plant-based milk presented a homogeneous consistency (particles < 50 µm), a mild aroma, and a slight pea flavor. Technological composition depended on grain characteristics (size, husk, uniformity, protein and starch content).	Protein 2.8% (pea milk) vs. 2.0% (soy) and 1.0% (oat). fat 1.0%. total solids 10% (pea milk) vs. 8.8% (soy) and 8.7% (oat). Protein content of the pea cultivars between 20.2% and 24.85%; and starch between 37.83% and 39.11%. Pea cultivar “Chishminsky 229” was considered the main resource for plant-based milk production
Jin et al. [19] China	Soybean and distilled water. First class: 19 cultivars; Second class: 16 cultivars.	The process involves washing, soaking for 15 h at 4 °C, grinding (700 mL water/100 g grain) in a domestic blender for 2 min, filtering through cotton, heating to 95 °C for 5 min, and rapid cooling.	Soymilk from the second class showed higher viscosity (3.18–4.66).	High-protein, high-fat, large-grain soybeans enhance soymilk nutrition, while smaller grains reduce SS. Protein content: 3.18–4.17 g/100 mL; total solids content: 6.21–8.35 g/100 mL.
Ianchyk and Atanasova [31] Ukraine	Lentil seeds and water. T1: Ungerminated; T2: Germinated.	Not specified	T2: good protein digestibility (63.31%), high biological value, presence of B vitamins, minerals, monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs), and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). T1 was less nutritious.	Not specified
CEREALS AND PSEUDO-CEREALS
Silva et al. [7] Brazil	Rice (white; red; black) and distilled water.	T1: Unheated; T2: Sterilization; T3: Pasteurization.	T2—showed solid texture. T3—increased viscosity but caused darkening in black (L* = 28.11) and red (L* = 51.40) rice milk. Compared to commercial soy milk, black rice milk had the highest ΔE (52.42).	Black rice milk had the highest levels of phenolic compounds (122.05 mg GAE/100 g), antioxidant activity, and protein (1.75%). T3 increased carbohydrate content (4.43–10.92%) and total energy (24.21–56.04 kcal/100 g) but decreased lipid levels (0.15–0.72%).
Bendezu-Ccanto et al. [32] Peru	Sprouted quinoa: white (SWQ), red (SRQ), and black (SBQ).	Ten formulations using simplex lattice mixture design; plant-based milk processed by germination (48 h), grinding, filtration, mixing, homogenization, and pasteurization (80 °C/20 min).	Germination increased antioxidants: activity rose from 5.99–9.64 µM TE/mL (ungerminated) to 15.91–21.60 µM TE/mL in the germinated options.	T9: Best antioxidant capacity (21.60 µM TE/mL). The optimal drink (81.67% SBQ; 18.33% SWQ) contained 1.93 g/100 g of protein, 4.63 g/100 g of carbohydrates, and 0.59 g/100 g of fat.
Ben Jemaa [8] Tunisie	Oat and water.	Soaking for 12 h at 4 °C; grinding 1:5 (water: raw material) for 5 min; filtering with a plant-based milk bag; and refrigerated storage.	Oat and water. WI = 9.48; L* = 9.56; b* = 3.51. Quinoa and water. WI = 0.1; L* = 0.19; b* = 3.98.	Oat and water: Higher carbohydrate (23 g/100 g), protein (5 g/100 g), fiber (3 g/100 g), and calcium (360 mg/100 g) than milk. Notable antioxidant capacity (63.14%) and phenolic compounds (0.310 mg EAG/g DM). Quinoa and water: Higher fiber (1.5 g/100 g) and calcium (341 mg/100 g) than milk, but lower protein (1.5 g/100 g), fat (1.8 g/100 g), and carbohydrate (3.7 g/100 g). Strong antioxidant capacity (78.34%) and phenols value (0.836 mg EAG/g DM).
Sangkam et al. [33] Thailand	Super-sweet corn (Zea mays convar. Saccharata).	The separated seeds were blanched at 1:7 (w/v) with drinking water in a water bath for 10 min at either 70–72 °C (BC70) or 80–82 °C (BC80).	L* = 62–65. BC80 at 500 MPa/30 min had more corn starch gelatinization and increased viscosity (9.3) than BC70.	BC70 retained more volatile compounds from control than BC80, but some volatiles from BC80 were absent in control.
NUTS, OIL SEEDS AND FRUITS
Mertdinç et al. [34] Turkey	Pistachio (Pistacia vera L.)—Antep and Siirt varieties.	Antep and Siirt pistachios crushed in a multifunction processor in a 1:6 ratio (pistachio/distilled water, 20 °C) for 1 min, filtered through cloth, and optionally stored at 4 °C for up to two weeks.	L: 56.62–59.22; WI: 55.58–57.38 for products made from Antep and Siirt pistachios, respectively.	Protein: 3.78–3.09%; Fat: 3.2–3.1% (oleic and linoleic acids, especially). TSS: 5–6.75%. Main phenolic compound: catechin (19.37–80.19).
Comak Gocer and Koptagel [27] Turkey	Cashew, hazelnut, peanut, walnut, and almond were used to make nut milk.	Soaking for 12 h; peeling; grinding with water 1:5 for 10 min; filtering with cloth; pasteurization at 90 °C for 5 min; kefir production with starter culture (0.015 g/L) incubated at 25 °C until pH 4.6; and storage for 30 days at 4 °C.	All the products had higher energy than cow milk due to the higher fat content. pH varied between 4.76–5.32 (milks) and increased during storage.	Protein: 0.8–3.0%. Fats: 2.0–8.0% (higher in walnut milk). Carbohydrates: 0.2–2.4%. Predominant fatty acids: oleic (hazelnut 61.5 mg/100 g), linoleic (walnut 46.9 mg/100 g), and α-linolenic, detected only in plant-based kefirs. Energy: 55–75 kcal/100 g, higher in hazelnut milk (73.7 kcal).
Tulashie et al. [12] Ghana	Coconut and deionized water.	Wet extraction: dehulling, testa removal, fragmentation, grinding at 55 °C, tissue filtration, re-extraction with hot water (3×), and pasteurization at 62.8 °C for 30–60 min.	FTIR revealed functional groups of proteins (Amide I), lipids (CH2 and C=O), and carbohydrates (O–H). Neutral pH (7.0)—uncommon for plant milks—improving stability and potential acceptance. Higher energy content (135.94 kcal/100 g) compared to cow milk.	Higher fat (14.12 g/100 g) and energy (135.94 kcal/100 g) than milk. Vitamin C (18.59 mg/100 g) and antioxidants (412.5–437.5 mg vitamin C EQ/L) similar to fruit juices. Low sugar (0.7 g/100 g), less protein (2.22 g/100 g), and comparable calcium (92.5 mg/100 g) to milk. Total phenols: 295.83–312.5 mg GAE/L.
Lima et al. [10] Brazil	Cashew, water, and sugar.	A ranking test was initially performed to verify the preference among three formulations with different kernel to water proportions (1:8, 1:10, and 1:12 by weight).	pH was 6.49	Total solids 11.49%, ashes: 0.26%, proteins: 1.83%, lipids 3.97% and total carbohydrates: 5.43%
Ben Jemaa et al. [8] Tunisie	Almond Hemp.	Almond (made from nuts) and water. hemp (made from grains) and water. 200 gr of each vegetable material were rinsed and mixed for 5 min in a mixer with mineral water in a 1:5 ratio.	Withening Index (WI) Almond: WI = 21.46; L* = 21.54. Hemp: WI = 34.97; L* = 34.99. pH: Almond: 6.72 Hemp: 6.90	Almond: Higher carbohydrate (6 g/100 g), fibers (1 g/100 g) and calcium (225 mg/100 g) content than milk, but lower proteins (2 g/100 g) and lipids (2.7 g/100 g). Hemp: Higher carbohydrate, lipids (7 g/100 g), total phenolic compounds (0.605 mg EAG/g DM), and calcium (375 mg/100 g) content than milk, with similar protein (3 g/100 g) and fiber (0 g/100 g) values.
Wang et al. [11] China/ United States	Hemp and water. T1: High-pressure homogeniza tion (HPH); T2: pH shift + HPH.	Not specified	T1: smaller particle diameter; less interface formation and oil–protein interaction than T2. Higher viscosity than untreated samples. T2: larger particle diameter; strong interface formation, intense oil–protein interaction, and higher viscosity than T1.	Not specified
ASSOCIATION OF PLANT MATRICES IN PLANT-BASED MILK
Oduro et al. [14] Ghana	Melon seeds + bromelain, roasted peanuts, coconut, tiger nut, xanthan gum, KH2PO4, K2HPO4, cane sugar, and water.	Not specified	High L* values: 75.91–85.54. Coconut increased L*, while tiger nut decreased it. a*: 0.52–1.87; b*: 12.74–15.36.	Melon raised protein (3.51%), while coconut lowered it (1.65%). Coconut increased fat (4.09–6.54%), peanut reduced ash (0.25–0.51%), and tiger nut elevated carbohydrates (4.28–7.26%).
Rincon et al. [35] Brazil	Chickpea, coconut, water, and vanilla extract (VE). Different proportions.	Different proportions; thermal processing and homogenization	Coconut increased L* values (62.13–73.94) but decreased C* values (26.35–18.31). All h* values exceeded 84. Coconut (>40%) caused phase separation.	Chickpea raised protein (1.54 g/100 g–2.1 g/100 g), while coconut increased fat (1.08 g/100 g–3.43 g/100 g). Potassium (167.8–231.6 mg/100 g) was high, sodium (1.6–5.58 mg/100 g) low, and calcium (138.78–110.53 mg/100 g) similar to milk.
Lopes et al. [36] Portugal/ Sweden	Sweet lupin, chickpea, and water.	T1: cooked seeds without husks + cooking water; T2: germination with dehulling + fresh water; T3: whole seeds, colloidal milling + replaced cooking water.	T1: Higher initial viscosity and less shear-thinning behavior than T2.	T1 showed higher protein (1.8%) than T2 (1.6%). T3: carbohydrates (5.36 g/100 mL); starch (0.20 g/100 mL); and glucose (0.28 g/100 mL).
Sunny et al. [37] India	Millet, coconut, and water	Mixtures in different proportions T0–cow milk; T01–100%; T02–100%; T1–60% millet and 40% coconut; T2–50% millet and 50% coconut.	The emulsifying agent in coconut milk provided more stability for the product.	The 50% millet + 50% coconut formulation had the best nutrient profile. Millet increased moisture (80.13–84.24%) and ash (0.86–1.10%) but decreased protein (1.06–1.43%). Coconut increased fat (7.73–11.46%), calcium (13.2 mg/100 mL–16.42 mg/100 g), and iron (0.27 mg/100 g–0.39 mg/100 g), as well as total solids (15.76–20.13%), which were higher than milk.
Olagunju and Oyewumi [38] Nigeria	Tiger nut (Cyperus esculentus), cashew nut (Anacardium occidentale), and coconut (Cocos nucifera).	Variable proportions among the three extracts. TCCo1 (1:1:1) TCCo2 (3:2:1) TCCo3 (1:3:2) TCCo4 (2:1:3)	The formulation with the highest proportion of tiger nut (TCCo2) showed higher soluble solids (21.6 °Brix) and better antioxidant capacity. TCCo4 (more coconut) exhibited better appearance and visual stability.	Physicochemical values: pH: 4.53–4.63 (acidic range). Titratable acidity: 0.38–0.44% lactic acid. °Brix: 12.00–21.60. Proximate composition: Moisture: 70.13–72.97%. Fat: 5.15–10.96%. Ash: 1.63–2.98%. Crude fiber: 0.13–0.33%. Protein: 8.64–12.60%. Carbohydrates: 3.39–9.93%.
Bolarinwa et al. [39] Nigeria	Walnut, soybean, sugar, and distilled water. Malted and un-malted soy–walnut milk in different proportions.	Mixtures with malted and un-malted soybeans in different proportions.	Malting reduced total solids and increased pH and minerals. Mixtures with a higher proportion of nuts showed better texture and viscosity, as well as less sedimentation.	Maltation reduced total solids but increased pH, ash, and minerals. Total titratable acidity (TTA) matched milk (0.25–0.42%). Soybean raised protein (2.87–1.96%). Carbohydrates: 2.18–6.89%. Fats: 3.08–5.09%; no fiber. 70% walnut + 30% un-malted soymilk had higher protein and minerals.
Kundu et al. [40] India	Almond, soy, 0.5% NaHCO3, and water.	Mixtures of almond/soy 40:60, 50:50, 60:40	The use of NaHCO3 improved extraction, reduced acidity, and diminished the “beany flavor” of soybeans. A higher proportion of almond increased viscosity, shine, and emulsion stability.	Almond reduced moisture and protein (S3: 2.43%; S1: 2.93%) and increased fat (S1: 5.65%; S3: 7.1%). All samples had higher ash contents (1.06–2.36%) than milk.

Source: Study data. The * marks for L*, a*, and b* are special transformed color-coordinates created by CIELAB—International Commission on Illumination.

Germination is known to enhance the nutritional composition of foods due to its high enzymatic activity [41]. Ianchyk and Atanasova [31] reported improved nutritional outcomes using this processing method, while Winarsi et al. [26] concluded that a longer germination time (12 h) led to a significant improvement in the nutritional profile of cowpea milk, whereas a shorter germination period (8 h) resulted in the least nutritious sample.

Germination is also known for improving sensory acceptance, roasting increased viscosity, while blanching improved the luminosity of peanut milk, as reported by Sakthi et al. [29]. Tuncel et al. [23] examined the characteristics in chickpea-, faba bean-, and cowpea-based milk, demonstrating that processing conditions significantly affected physicochemical behavior. Viscosity, for example, was influenced not only by starch characteristics but also by the pre-treatments employed: blanching, blanching in conjunction with dehulling, and soaking markedly diminished viscosity, primarily attributable to starch gelatinization during blanching and the dissolution of solids into soaking water. The authors attributed chickpea milk’s consistently higher viscosity compared to faba bean and cowpea analogs to its higher starch content.

In general, legume-based milk exhibited high levels of carbohydrates, protein, and minerals, but low lipid and fiber contents. Furthermore, a healthier lipid profile was observed in these milk substitutes, with the presence of unsaturated fats [27,31]. Sensorially, the products received successful scores, though overall acceptability was moderate, and the beany flavor remained present. The beany flavor can be minimized through some thermal and chemical processing strategies, such as high-temperature vacuum treatment, which removes most of the volatile compounds responsible for the unwanted flavor, such as short-chain fatty acids, sterols, and sulfur compounds. The Cornell method with hot grinding can be performed, in which the grain is crushed with boiling water or steam to form a paste heated to 80 °C, maintained for 10 min to inactivate lipoxygenase. There is also the Illinois pre-scalding method, in which pre-soaked grains are blanched in boiling water. In addition to these heat treatments, alkaline immersion and the use of defatted flour, isolates, and protein concentrates have also been used [42].

3.2. Cereals and Pseudo-Cereals

Cereals belong to the Poaceae family and are widely consumed worldwide, while pseudo-cereals are dicotyledonous that differ from cereals in function, structure, and chemical composition. Generally, they have a considerable energy value per serving, containing 50–80% of carbohydrates, 7–12% protein, 2–6% fat, 10–25% of fibers, and a varied profile of vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants. Moreover, being naturally gluten-free, they are safe for celiac consumers, making them valuable ingredients in gluten-free products and an active area of research in food science [43].

Color is a key attribute for improving sensory acceptance in plant-based milk, and it should resemble milk’s high luminosity as closely as possible. Sangkam et al. [33] evaluated the effect of blanching at 70 °C and 80 °C, varying pressure and time in corn milk, and concluded that different pressures did not affect the color of the samples, whereas heat significantly altered the luminosity of the corn milk.

Silva et al. [7] also applied heat in their study through pasteurization and sterilization. The authors demonstrated that sterilization resulted in a solid texture, making it unsuitable for plant-based milk. This finding is valuable to the literature, as it excludes this processing method from those that can be used to improve the characteristics of milk substitutes.

It is important to compare plant matrices within the same food group to determine which are most or least promising for this market. Ben Jemaa [8] evaluated oat and quinoa milk and found that oat milk was superior in chemical, technological, and sensory analyses, as it exhibited a lighter color, a nutrient profile similar to cow milk, and better sensory acceptance.

Bendezu-Ccanto et al. [32] also analyzed quinoa milk, using germinated white, red, and black quinoa. Again, quinoa presented challenges as a plant-based milk matrix, exhibiting phase separation, precipitation, and lumps, undesirable characteristics for plant-based milk. Even though germination increased the nutritional value of the samples, there was a loss of antioxidants in the final product, attributed to the thermal pasteurization (80 °C for 20 min) treatment applied during quinoa milk processing.

Findings regarding cereal- and pseudo-cereal-based milk aim to identify methods of improving the stability and characteristics of the final product as well as to determine the most suitable plant matrix for producing a milk analog with high nutritional and sensory qualities. Although technological challenges remain, the nutritional outcomes are encouraging, with the goal of achieving consumer sensory acceptance.

3.3. Nuts, Seeds, and Fruit

Nuts and seeds belong to different botanical families; however, they are closely related due to their high caloric density and rich nutritional composition, including MUFAs, PUFAs, essential fatty acids, high protein content, and important vitamins [44,45].

Coconut, derived from Cocos nucifera L., has diverse dietary, medicinal, and cosmetic applications. The different parts of the fruit vary widely in nutritional composition but generally contain a moderate amount of proteins and fibers and are rich in fat, which places coconut closer to the nut and seed group [46,47].

Mertdinç et al. [34] observed that pistachios from Antep, Turkey, were nutritionally and sensorially superior, while those from Siirt, Turkey, excelled in color. This highlights how variety influences the technological, chemical, and sensory properties of plant-based milk, beyond just the plant matrix itself.

Analyzing purchase intention for a new food is essential to understanding its compatibility with market demand. Lima et al. [10] evaluated cashew-based milk and found that most panelists would be willing to buy the product. In general, nuts are well accepted, making this food group a promising choice for developing plant-based milk.

From a nutritional perspective, nuts have shown great potential for plant-based milk production. For example, almond milk had a protein content comparable to cow milk [27] and contained higher amounts of carbohydrates, fiber, and calcium [8]. Hemp was also analyzed and exhibited a nutritional similarity to cow milk but encountered technological difficulties [8,11].

Coconut is known for imparting appealing sensory notes to food products, mainly due to its volatile compounds [48]. Coconut milk differs from cow milk in nutritional profile, as it has a high fat content as well as a high caloric value [12] and a lower protein content than expected for a milk analog. However, due to its valuable mineral and vitamin profile and generally high sensory acceptability, incorporating coconut into mixed plant-based milk formulations may help mitigate its limitations as a milk substitute, by combining diverse chemical compositions in a single product.

3.4. Association of Plant Matrices in Plant-Based Milk Production

Combining different food groups in plant-based milk has proven to be a promising practice in the plant-based milk market [49,50]. Blending diverse plant sources allows for a nutritional profile more similar to cow milk, as well as greater sensory acceptance. Besides selecting the plant matrix, other factors must be considered to achieve better plant-based milk formulation, such as the processing method applied, the proportion of each ingredient used, and the addition of flavor-enhancing ingredients.

For instance, coconut [37] and almonds [40] contributed to higher energy values in plant-based milk due to their high fat content, while ingredients such as melon seeds [13], chickpeas [35], and soy [39] increased the protein content in plant-based milk blends. Additionally, coconut improved the luminosity of the product, while oats, when used in the right proportion, enhanced the sensory scores of plant-based milks [49].

The plant matrices’ diversity and the technological findings observed in the studies indicate that the performance of plant-based milk directly depends on the interaction between the botanical matrix, processing conditions, and their resulting physicochemical properties. Legumes such as chickpeas, red beans, and mung beans showed strong sensitivity to thermal treatments, germination, and disintegration processes, with significant impacts on viscosity, yield, and stability, as reported by Tuncel et al. [23], Tang et al. [9], and Joshi et al. [22].

Lipid-rich matrices such as coconut, pistachio, walnut, and almond have shown a greater influence on creaminess, shine, solid content, and fat composition, as described by Mertdinç et al. [34], Tulashie et al. [12], and Kundu et al. [40]. Pseudo-cereals and sprouted cereals, such as quinoa and rice, stood out for the increase in antioxidants, carbohydrates, and phenolic compounds, especially under specific thermal conditions, according to Silva et al. [7] and Bendezu-Ccanto et al. [32]. Moreover, protein combinations and multicomponent mixtures revealed that the proportion between ingredients is relevant for characteristics such as color, stability, and macronutrient content, as observed by Oduro et al. [13] and Lopes et al. [36].

These results make it evident that each matrix responds uniquely to technological interventions, creating products with widely distinct chemical and functional profiles. Given this complexity, understanding how these transformations are reflected in consumer acceptance also becomes important, a topic further explored in the results and discussions on the sensory application of the plant extracts presented in Table 2.

When analyzing the studies presented in Table 2, it is observed that the sensory acceptance of plant-based milk strongly depends on both the raw materials used and the processing techniques adopted. Tuncel et al. [23] demonstrated that combined thermal treatments, such as blanching and peeling, considerably improve the consistency and appearance of legume milks, while Meghrabi et al. [24] indicated that white bean milk, despite its attractive appearance, exhibited a grainy texture and lower creaminess compared to commercial soy milk.

Among the red beans, Tang et al. [9] identified the JZY-2 cultivar as the most stable and sensorially accepted, reinforcing the importance of genetic variety. Processes such as germination and aromatic seasoning were also decisive. Joshi et al. [22] demonstrated that the combination of germination and cardamom elevated all attributes of mung bean milk, while Ladokun et al. [25] highlighted the predominance of a sweet flavor and mild aroma in cowpea milk. In soy-based milk, Jin et al. [32] found that grains with lower protein and higher lipid contents produce better-rated products, while Bendezu-Ccanto et al. [32] demonstrated that mixtures of quinoa of different colors can directly impact acceptance, regardless of antioxidant content.

Other matrices, such as almond, pistachio, and cashew nut, also showed a strong influence of the lipid profile and varietal composition on consumer acceptance, as demonstrated by Ben Jemaa [8], Mertdinç et al. [34], and Lima et al. [10]. Additional evidence shows that technological processes, such as the use of cooking water in chickpea milk [36] or optimized combinations of coconut, peanut, and tiger nut [13], can enhance desirable attributes such as consistency, appearance, and flavor. This rich sensory landscape is the perfect place to start looking into how fermentation can change the taste and usefulness of plant-based drinks even more.

Table 2. Sensory evaluation indicators of plant-based milk.

Author/ Country	Plant Matrices/Evaluated Formulations	Sensory Test/Attributes Evaluated	Formulation Characteristics	Most Accepted Formulation	Main Findings
Tuncel et al. [23] India	Chickpea-based milk (CHBM), faba bean milk (FBM), and cowpea-based milk (CPBM) processed under six treatments (T1–T6: dry milling, soaking/wet milling, blanching, blanching + dehulling, vacuum, and germination).	9-point hedonic scale. Attributes: appearance, flavor, consistency, and overall acceptance (OA).	CHBM showed the highest appearance scores (3.82–6.41) in all treatments. T4 had the highest consistency score (5.24–5.89). T6 had the lowest flavor score (2.29–3.60) and overall acceptance (3.06–4.09).	T4 (blanching + dehulling)	Germination (T6) decreased flavor and overall acceptance (OA); appearance was consistently better in CHBM.
Meghrabi et al. [24] Jordan	Plant-based milk is produced from white kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), and compared with commercial soy milk (control).	9-point hedonic scale, with 41 assessors. Attributes: appearance, viscosity, flavor, aroma, and overall acceptance.	White bean milk scored lower in flavor and viscosity compared to soy milk. Appearance was moderately accepted. The product exhibited a more granular texture due to the higher fiber content and lower fat content.	Soy milk (control) was the most accepted.	White bean milk was rated lower than the control, mainly for its less appealing taste and reduced creaminess. Its higher solids (12.2% vs. 8%) resulted in a grainier texture; the authors recommend process changes and flavoring to boost acceptance.
Tang et al. [9] China	Red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Four cultivars: Jizhangyun-2 (JZY-2), Pinjinyun-4 (PJY-4), Anbo (AB), and Yingguohong (YGH)—“milk” substitutes or red kidney bean milk (RKBM).	9-point hedonic scale with 15 trained judges. Attributes: appearance, texture, flavor, odor, and overall acceptance.	Plant-based milk from the JZY-2 cultivar showed better appearance scores (lighter, slightly pink, without visible sediment), texture (less grainy, viscous, and smoother), and overall acceptance.	JZY-2 (Jizhangyun-2).	RKBM was the most sensorially accepted, combining better physical stability (without visible separation) with better texture and taste; AB and YGH showed a darker color and greater phase separation, which reduced appearance and overall acceptance.
Joshi et al. [22] India	Mung bean, water, sugar, and cardamom: T1: soaking; T2: soaking and blanching; T3: germination; T4: germination and blanching.	9-point hedonic scale. Attributes: color, mouthfeel, flavor, taste, and overall acceptance.	T4 with and without cardamom was superior. Color (8.50); Appearance; (8.50); Mouthfeel (8.25); Taste (8.40); Flavor (8.30); and Overall Acceptance (8.30).	Germination and blanching	Cardamom improved all the scores. Germination reduced off-flavors and improved the sensory profile.
Ladokun et al. [25] Nigeria	Cowpea, sugar, water, and cinnamon.	Frequency of preference. Consumer acceptability for sweet or beany taste; aroma in terms of strong beany flavor; mild beany flavor; or neutral.	The acceptability for sweet taste was 80%, while bean flavor was 20%, and the aroma was described as a strong bean aroma (10%), mild beany flavor (70%), and neutral (20%).	Cowpea milk (single formulation)	Good overall acceptance, with a predominant sweet flavor and mild beany aroma.
Jin et al. [19] China	Soybean and distilled water. First class: 19 cultivars; Second class: 16 cultivars.	Sensory evaluation using fuzzy logic; 10 trained assessors. Attributes: flavor, odor, appearance, and mouthfeel.	Soymilk from lower-protein, higher-fat seeds had better sensory scores. Flavor: 65.83–40.00; Appearance: 65.83–40.00; Odor: 64.17–46.00; Mouthfeel: 62.50–46.25; Overall acceptance: 56.24–45.43.	Dongsheng-4 (ya = 56.24)	Soymilk made with grains of lower protein and higher fat contents had superior sensory acceptance.
Bendezu-Ccanto et al. [32] Peru	Sprouted quinoa: white (SWQ), red (SRQ), black (SBQ) T1—Dry milling (Control); T2—Soaking and wet milling; T3—Blanching; T4—Blanching and dehulling; T5—Vacuum treatment; T6—Germination.	3-point verbal hedonic scale (“I dislike”, “neutral”, “I like”); 60 judges. Attributes not mentioned.	Significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). Highest acceptance: T5 (50% SWQ: 50% SBQ) with an average of 3.0 (“like”). Lower acceptance: T4 (SWQ: SRQ 50:50) average 2.0 (“indifferent”).	T5 (SWQ: SBQ = 50%: 50%)	The optimal formulation according to the model did not match the most accepted one. Optimal = 81.67% SBQ + 18.33% SWQ (greater antioxidant); however, sensorially, T5 was superior. The sedimentation phase can be reduced with the use of hydrocolloids.
Ben Jemaa [8] Tunisie	Almond, oat, hemp, and quinoa milks.	5-point hedonic scale. Attributes: Color, flavor, and odor.	Almond milk had higher acceptance in color (3.76) and flavor (3.86). Oat had the worst color (3.02). Quinoa had a better odor (3.86) but a worse taste (2.47). Hemp had moderate ratings (2.62–3.68).	Almond milk	Oat and hemp showed lower sensory acceptance and quinoa had a good odor but a less accepted taste.
Mertdinç et al. [34] Turkey	Plant-based pistachio milk from the Antep (APM) and Siirt (SPM) varieties.	With 11 trained panelists; scale of 1 to 10. Attributes: sweetness, bitterness, oily sensation, flavor, odor, appearance, and texture.	SPM was described as greasier, while APM felt lighter. Pistachio flavor was strong in both (ratings: 8.0–8.2). Color scored lower than cow milk or soymilk: 6.5 for APM, 5.6 for SPM. Overall acceptance was about 7.0 for APM, 5.6 for SPM.	APM (Antep pistachio milk)	The strong pistachio flavor was seen as positive. Authors suggest using pistachio milk in combination with other plant-based milks and adding ingredients such as cocoa or vanilla to further enhance flavor, aroma, and color.
Lima et al. [10] Brazil	The cashew nut milk is prepared using cashew nuts, water, and sugar in a 1:10 ratio, with 3% sugar content, no roasting was involved and subjected to thermal treatment at 140 °C for 4 s.	Ranking test, paired preference, just about right (JAR), and acceptance (9-point hedonic scale).	Average final acceptance: 6.5 (between “I slightly liked” and “I moderately liked”). 75% of the ratings were within the positive range. Ideal sweetness: 3%. White color, low perception of particles (2.5), and good homogeneity. There was no preference between roasted and unroasted nuts.	1:10 + 3% sugar; no roast.	Slight darkening over time, but acceptance remained between 6.9 and 7.3. Products are considered sensorially accepted and stable.
Oduro et al. [13] Ghana	Plant-based dairy alternatives formulated from coconut milk, peanut milk, tiger nut milk, and melon seed milk. Evaluated formulations (3-blends): A, E, H, N, P, R: A = 50% coconut, 25% tiger nut, and 25% melon seed E = 25% coconut, 37.5% peanut, and 37.5% tiger nut H = 25% coconut, 37.5% peanut, and 37.5% melon seed N = 50% coconut, 25% peanut, and 25% melon seed P = 50% coconut, 25% tiger nut, and 25% peanut R = 25% coconut, 37.5% tiger nut, and 37.5% melon seed	Mapping (RPM) with 90 consumers; acceptance test with a 9-point hedonic scale using Balanced Incomplete Block Design (BIBD) (19 consumers). Attributes: appearance, flavor, mouthfeel, consistency, aftertaste, and overall liking.	Coconut and peanut increased overall acceptance (7.22–7.44), while over 50% tiger nut and high melon reduced it (2.77–4.11). Acceptance: E = (6.2–6.5); P = (6.0–6.4); and H = lower acceptance (4.5–5.0).	hedonic test: E = (C25%, P37.5%, T37.5%) and P = (C50%, P25%, T25%).	Coconut and peanut improved consistency; melon and tiger nut did not.
Rincon et al. [35] Brazil	Chickpea, coconut, and water. Chickpea, coconut, water, and vanilla extract (VE). Different proportions.	1st stage: 128 consumers, 9-point hedonic scale. Attributes: overall, color, odor, taste, and texture. 2nd stage: 28 regular consumers, 4 formulations (90:10; 70:30; both with/without 0.3% vanilla).	1st stage: 100% chickpea extract (CPE) showed low acceptance (4.4 overall). The 50:50 mixture performed the best (5.6 overall), although no formulation reached ≥70% acceptance. 2nd stage: Among the consumers, 70:30 + vanilla achieved an overall score of 6.4 and was the only formulation to reach ≥70% acceptance, including 71% for flavor.	50% CPE: 50% coconut extract (CNE) (1st stage, highest score among general consumers). 70% CPE: 30% CNE + 0.3% VE (vanilla) (2nd stage, the only one to achieve acceptance ≥ 70%).	Increase in CNE improves color, odor, taste, and overall acceptance. 100% CPE received the worst sensory acceptance. 50:50, 60:40, and 70:30 mixtures showed better sensory balance. Vanilla improved odor and taste, especially in 90:10 and 70:30. Acceptance ≥ 70% only for 70:30 + vanilla (habitual consumers).
Lopes et al. [36] Portugal/ Sweden	Pulses options from chickpea, lupin, and chickpea–lupin blends (50:50). Different processing procedures were tested: soaking, cooking, milling, sieving, germination (sprouts), dehulling, and processing with cooking water vs. fresh water. Includes Procedure A (sprouts) and Procedure B (seeds).	29 consumers, hedonic scale 1–5. Attributes: color, appearance, flavor, aroma, consistency, and overall acceptance; evaluation up to 6 days of storage.	Comparing lupin- and chickpea-based milk, the best color and appearance results were evidenced in both lupin-based milks. On the other hand, the best flavor was attributed to the chickpea milk produced with new water and the best appreciation for taste and consistency was obtained for chickpea-based milk produced with cooking water.	Sensory results show that chickpea milk with cooking water has the best taste.	Blends scored higher (≈3) in appearance, flavor, and consistency than chickpea or lupin milk alone.
Sunny et al. [37] India	Plant-based drinks of millet milk, coconut milk, and blends. T1 = 60% millet + 40% coconut T2 = 50% millet + 50% coconut T3 = 40% millet + 60% coconut Cow milk (T0) as control; T01 (100% millet), T02 (100% coconut).	9-point hedonic scale, n = 10 semi-trained panelists. Attributes: color, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall acceptance (OA).	Color: 7.32–8.35; flavor: 7.42–8.14; mouthfeel: 7.54–8.37; and OA: 7.34–8.21. The presence of coconut reduced the astringency of the millet, improving creaminess and masking bitter notes. The increase in coconut intensified the shine of the emulsion.	Samples were well accepted, but cow milk was preferred. T2 (50% millet: 50% coconut) had the best combination between palatability and reduction of astringent taste.	The astringency of the millet was masked by the fat and creaminess of the coconut milk. T2 was the best blend sensorially (except for pure coconut milk). T01 (pure millet) was the least accepted. The addition of coconut significantly improves the sensory acceptance of millet products.
Olagunju and Oyewumi [38] Nigeria	Four milk substitutes formulated from tiger nut milk, cashew, and coconut, in different proportions: TCCo1 (1:1:1) TCCo2 (1:2:3) TCCo3 (2:3:1) TCCo4 (3:1:2)	20 panelists, hedonic scale 1–9. Attributes: taste, appearance, flavor (aroma + flavor), mouthfeel, consistency, and overall acceptance.	Samples had high OA (highest: 6.47). 3 tiger nut: 1 cashew: 2 coconut formulations similar to milk in appearance (6.53), consistency (6.27), and OA (6.27), with a higher taste score (6.73).	TCCo4 (3:1:2), highest global acceptance (6.47) and best flavor (6.67).	The formulation with the highest proportion of coconut + tiger nut (TCCo4) showed the best overall sensory performance. Milk substitutes with higher cashew content were rated worse. TCCo1 (1:1:1) showed good sensory balance, with better flavor, but did not surpass TCCo4 in acceptance.
Kumar et al. [49] India	Functional milk developed from finger millet and oats, in proportions from 90:10 to 50:50 for initial formulation. Optimized final product: malt-drink (finger millet/oat = 60:40) combined with double-skimmed milk (40:60–60:40).	9-point hedonic scale. Direct comparison with sweetened cow milk. Attributes: appearance; consistency; flavor; and overall acceptability.	Oat improved acceptance, enhancing color, consistency, and reducing millet bitterness. The 60:40 association was the best, while 50% oat lowered scores.	Optimized formulation based on 60:40 malt/drink (millet:oat) combined with double-skimmed milk.	The combination of finger millet + oats did not compromise sensory acceptance, remaining close to cow milk. The optimized formulation presented an adequate balance between flavor, texture, and sweetness, justifying the high acceptance.
Bolarinwa et al. [39] Nigeria	Walnut, soybean, sugar, and distilled water. Malted and un-malted soy–walnut milk in different proportions. 10% non-malted soy: 90% walnut 30% malted soy: 70% walnut.	9-point hedonic scale. Attributes: taste, appearance, flavor, texture, and overall acceptance (OA).	Maltation decreased sensory acceptance. 90% walnut; 10% un-malted soybean had the highest OA: 7.43–4.81.	Results of the sensory attributes indicated that soy–walnut milk produced from 10% un-malted and 30% malted soymilk substitution were most preferred to consumers.	Higher proportions of soy reduced sensory acceptance.
Kundu et al. [40] India	Blends of almond milk and soy milk in different proportions: T0 = cow milk (control) T01 = 100% soy T02 = 100% almond T1 = 40% almond/60% soy T2 = 50%: 50% T3 = 60%: 40%	9-point Hedonic scale; 10 semi-trained judges. Attributes: color, mouthfeel, taste, flavor, and overall acceptability.	T3 had the highest scores of color: 8.34; flavor: 8.14; mouthfeel: 8.36; and OA: 8.20, followed by T2. All samples were accepted (OA: >8.0).	T02 (100% almond), best overall sensory performance. T3 (60:40 almond/soy), best overall acceptance among the blends.	The addition of almond significantly improved color, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall acceptance. Blends with a higher proportion of almond (T02, T3, and T2) were consistently superior. T01 had the worst sensory performance. The overall acceptance followed the trend: T02 > T3 > T2 > T0 > T1 > T01.

Source: Study data.

Table 2. Sensory evaluation indicators of plant-based milk.

Author/ Country	Plant Matrices/Evaluated Formulations	Sensory Test/Attributes Evaluated	Formulation Characteristics	Most Accepted Formulation	Main Findings
Tuncel et al. [23] India	Chickpea-based milk (CHBM), faba bean milk (FBM), and cowpea-based milk (CPBM) processed under six treatments (T1–T6: dry milling, soaking/wet milling, blanching, blanching + dehulling, vacuum, and germination).	9-point hedonic scale. Attributes: appearance, flavor, consistency, and overall acceptance (OA).	CHBM showed the highest appearance scores (3.82–6.41) in all treatments. T4 had the highest consistency score (5.24–5.89). T6 had the lowest flavor score (2.29–3.60) and overall acceptance (3.06–4.09).	T4 (blanching + dehulling)	Germination (T6) decreased flavor and overall acceptance (OA); appearance was consistently better in CHBM.
Meghrabi et al. [24] Jordan	Plant-based milk is produced from white kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), and compared with commercial soy milk (control).	9-point hedonic scale, with 41 assessors. Attributes: appearance, viscosity, flavor, aroma, and overall acceptance.	White bean milk scored lower in flavor and viscosity compared to soy milk. Appearance was moderately accepted. The product exhibited a more granular texture due to the higher fiber content and lower fat content.	Soy milk (control) was the most accepted.	White bean milk was rated lower than the control, mainly for its less appealing taste and reduced creaminess. Its higher solids (12.2% vs. 8%) resulted in a grainier texture; the authors recommend process changes and flavoring to boost acceptance.
Tang et al. [9] China	Red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Four cultivars: Jizhangyun-2 (JZY-2), Pinjinyun-4 (PJY-4), Anbo (AB), and Yingguohong (YGH)—“milk” substitutes or red kidney bean milk (RKBM).	9-point hedonic scale with 15 trained judges. Attributes: appearance, texture, flavor, odor, and overall acceptance.	Plant-based milk from the JZY-2 cultivar showed better appearance scores (lighter, slightly pink, without visible sediment), texture (less grainy, viscous, and smoother), and overall acceptance.	JZY-2 (Jizhangyun-2).	RKBM was the most sensorially accepted, combining better physical stability (without visible separation) with better texture and taste; AB and YGH showed a darker color and greater phase separation, which reduced appearance and overall acceptance.
Joshi et al. [22] India	Mung bean, water, sugar, and cardamom: T1: soaking; T2: soaking and blanching; T3: germination; T4: germination and blanching.	9-point hedonic scale. Attributes: color, mouthfeel, flavor, taste, and overall acceptance.	T4 with and without cardamom was superior. Color (8.50); Appearance; (8.50); Mouthfeel (8.25); Taste (8.40); Flavor (8.30); and Overall Acceptance (8.30).	Germination and blanching	Cardamom improved all the scores. Germination reduced off-flavors and improved the sensory profile.
Ladokun et al. [25] Nigeria	Cowpea, sugar, water, and cinnamon.	Frequency of preference. Consumer acceptability for sweet or beany taste; aroma in terms of strong beany flavor; mild beany flavor; or neutral.	The acceptability for sweet taste was 80%, while bean flavor was 20%, and the aroma was described as a strong bean aroma (10%), mild beany flavor (70%), and neutral (20%).	Cowpea milk (single formulation)	Good overall acceptance, with a predominant sweet flavor and mild beany aroma.
Jin et al. [19] China	Soybean and distilled water. First class: 19 cultivars; Second class: 16 cultivars.	Sensory evaluation using fuzzy logic; 10 trained assessors. Attributes: flavor, odor, appearance, and mouthfeel.	Soymilk from lower-protein, higher-fat seeds had better sensory scores. Flavor: 65.83–40.00; Appearance: 65.83–40.00; Odor: 64.17–46.00; Mouthfeel: 62.50–46.25; Overall acceptance: 56.24–45.43.	Dongsheng-4 (ya = 56.24)	Soymilk made with grains of lower protein and higher fat contents had superior sensory acceptance.
Bendezu-Ccanto et al. [32] Peru	Sprouted quinoa: white (SWQ), red (SRQ), black (SBQ) T1—Dry milling (Control); T2—Soaking and wet milling; T3—Blanching; T4—Blanching and dehulling; T5—Vacuum treatment; T6—Germination.	3-point verbal hedonic scale (“I dislike”, “neutral”, “I like”); 60 judges. Attributes not mentioned.	Significant differences between treatments (p < 0.05). Highest acceptance: T5 (50% SWQ: 50% SBQ) with an average of 3.0 (“like”). Lower acceptance: T4 (SWQ: SRQ 50:50) average 2.0 (“indifferent”).	T5 (SWQ: SBQ = 50%: 50%)	The optimal formulation according to the model did not match the most accepted one. Optimal = 81.67% SBQ + 18.33% SWQ (greater antioxidant); however, sensorially, T5 was superior. The sedimentation phase can be reduced with the use of hydrocolloids.
Ben Jemaa [8] Tunisie	Almond, oat, hemp, and quinoa milks.	5-point hedonic scale. Attributes: Color, flavor, and odor.	Almond milk had higher acceptance in color (3.76) and flavor (3.86). Oat had the worst color (3.02). Quinoa had a better odor (3.86) but a worse taste (2.47). Hemp had moderate ratings (2.62–3.68).	Almond milk	Oat and hemp showed lower sensory acceptance and quinoa had a good odor but a less accepted taste.
Mertdinç et al. [34] Turkey	Plant-based pistachio milk from the Antep (APM) and Siirt (SPM) varieties.	With 11 trained panelists; scale of 1 to 10. Attributes: sweetness, bitterness, oily sensation, flavor, odor, appearance, and texture.	SPM was described as greasier, while APM felt lighter. Pistachio flavor was strong in both (ratings: 8.0–8.2). Color scored lower than cow milk or soymilk: 6.5 for APM, 5.6 for SPM. Overall acceptance was about 7.0 for APM, 5.6 for SPM.	APM (Antep pistachio milk)	The strong pistachio flavor was seen as positive. Authors suggest using pistachio milk in combination with other plant-based milks and adding ingredients such as cocoa or vanilla to further enhance flavor, aroma, and color.
Lima et al. [10] Brazil	The cashew nut milk is prepared using cashew nuts, water, and sugar in a 1:10 ratio, with 3% sugar content, no roasting was involved and subjected to thermal treatment at 140 °C for 4 s.	Ranking test, paired preference, just about right (JAR), and acceptance (9-point hedonic scale).	Average final acceptance: 6.5 (between “I slightly liked” and “I moderately liked”). 75% of the ratings were within the positive range. Ideal sweetness: 3%. White color, low perception of particles (2.5), and good homogeneity. There was no preference between roasted and unroasted nuts.	1:10 + 3% sugar; no roast.	Slight darkening over time, but acceptance remained between 6.9 and 7.3. Products are considered sensorially accepted and stable.
Oduro et al. [13] Ghana	Plant-based dairy alternatives formulated from coconut milk, peanut milk, tiger nut milk, and melon seed milk. Evaluated formulations (3-blends): A, E, H, N, P, R: A = 50% coconut, 25% tiger nut, and 25% melon seed E = 25% coconut, 37.5% peanut, and 37.5% tiger nut H = 25% coconut, 37.5% peanut, and 37.5% melon seed N = 50% coconut, 25% peanut, and 25% melon seed P = 50% coconut, 25% tiger nut, and 25% peanut R = 25% coconut, 37.5% tiger nut, and 37.5% melon seed	Mapping (RPM) with 90 consumers; acceptance test with a 9-point hedonic scale using Balanced Incomplete Block Design (BIBD) (19 consumers). Attributes: appearance, flavor, mouthfeel, consistency, aftertaste, and overall liking.	Coconut and peanut increased overall acceptance (7.22–7.44), while over 50% tiger nut and high melon reduced it (2.77–4.11). Acceptance: E = (6.2–6.5); P = (6.0–6.4); and H = lower acceptance (4.5–5.0).	hedonic test: E = (C25%, P37.5%, T37.5%) and P = (C50%, P25%, T25%).	Coconut and peanut improved consistency; melon and tiger nut did not.
Rincon et al. [35] Brazil	Chickpea, coconut, and water. Chickpea, coconut, water, and vanilla extract (VE). Different proportions.	1st stage: 128 consumers, 9-point hedonic scale. Attributes: overall, color, odor, taste, and texture. 2nd stage: 28 regular consumers, 4 formulations (90:10; 70:30; both with/without 0.3% vanilla).	1st stage: 100% chickpea extract (CPE) showed low acceptance (4.4 overall). The 50:50 mixture performed the best (5.6 overall), although no formulation reached ≥70% acceptance. 2nd stage: Among the consumers, 70:30 + vanilla achieved an overall score of 6.4 and was the only formulation to reach ≥70% acceptance, including 71% for flavor.	50% CPE: 50% coconut extract (CNE) (1st stage, highest score among general consumers). 70% CPE: 30% CNE + 0.3% VE (vanilla) (2nd stage, the only one to achieve acceptance ≥ 70%).	Increase in CNE improves color, odor, taste, and overall acceptance. 100% CPE received the worst sensory acceptance. 50:50, 60:40, and 70:30 mixtures showed better sensory balance. Vanilla improved odor and taste, especially in 90:10 and 70:30. Acceptance ≥ 70% only for 70:30 + vanilla (habitual consumers).
Lopes et al. [36] Portugal/ Sweden	Pulses options from chickpea, lupin, and chickpea–lupin blends (50:50). Different processing procedures were tested: soaking, cooking, milling, sieving, germination (sprouts), dehulling, and processing with cooking water vs. fresh water. Includes Procedure A (sprouts) and Procedure B (seeds).	29 consumers, hedonic scale 1–5. Attributes: color, appearance, flavor, aroma, consistency, and overall acceptance; evaluation up to 6 days of storage.	Comparing lupin- and chickpea-based milk, the best color and appearance results were evidenced in both lupin-based milks. On the other hand, the best flavor was attributed to the chickpea milk produced with new water and the best appreciation for taste and consistency was obtained for chickpea-based milk produced with cooking water.	Sensory results show that chickpea milk with cooking water has the best taste.	Blends scored higher (≈3) in appearance, flavor, and consistency than chickpea or lupin milk alone.
Sunny et al. [37] India	Plant-based drinks of millet milk, coconut milk, and blends. T1 = 60% millet + 40% coconut T2 = 50% millet + 50% coconut T3 = 40% millet + 60% coconut Cow milk (T0) as control; T01 (100% millet), T02 (100% coconut).	9-point hedonic scale, n = 10 semi-trained panelists. Attributes: color, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall acceptance (OA).	Color: 7.32–8.35; flavor: 7.42–8.14; mouthfeel: 7.54–8.37; and OA: 7.34–8.21. The presence of coconut reduced the astringency of the millet, improving creaminess and masking bitter notes. The increase in coconut intensified the shine of the emulsion.	Samples were well accepted, but cow milk was preferred. T2 (50% millet: 50% coconut) had the best combination between palatability and reduction of astringent taste.	The astringency of the millet was masked by the fat and creaminess of the coconut milk. T2 was the best blend sensorially (except for pure coconut milk). T01 (pure millet) was the least accepted. The addition of coconut significantly improves the sensory acceptance of millet products.
Olagunju and Oyewumi [38] Nigeria	Four milk substitutes formulated from tiger nut milk, cashew, and coconut, in different proportions: TCCo1 (1:1:1) TCCo2 (1:2:3) TCCo3 (2:3:1) TCCo4 (3:1:2)	20 panelists, hedonic scale 1–9. Attributes: taste, appearance, flavor (aroma + flavor), mouthfeel, consistency, and overall acceptance.	Samples had high OA (highest: 6.47). 3 tiger nut: 1 cashew: 2 coconut formulations similar to milk in appearance (6.53), consistency (6.27), and OA (6.27), with a higher taste score (6.73).	TCCo4 (3:1:2), highest global acceptance (6.47) and best flavor (6.67).	The formulation with the highest proportion of coconut + tiger nut (TCCo4) showed the best overall sensory performance. Milk substitutes with higher cashew content were rated worse. TCCo1 (1:1:1) showed good sensory balance, with better flavor, but did not surpass TCCo4 in acceptance.
Kumar et al. [49] India	Functional milk developed from finger millet and oats, in proportions from 90:10 to 50:50 for initial formulation. Optimized final product: malt-drink (finger millet/oat = 60:40) combined with double-skimmed milk (40:60–60:40).	9-point hedonic scale. Direct comparison with sweetened cow milk. Attributes: appearance; consistency; flavor; and overall acceptability.	Oat improved acceptance, enhancing color, consistency, and reducing millet bitterness. The 60:40 association was the best, while 50% oat lowered scores.	Optimized formulation based on 60:40 malt/drink (millet:oat) combined with double-skimmed milk.	The combination of finger millet + oats did not compromise sensory acceptance, remaining close to cow milk. The optimized formulation presented an adequate balance between flavor, texture, and sweetness, justifying the high acceptance.
Bolarinwa et al. [39] Nigeria	Walnut, soybean, sugar, and distilled water. Malted and un-malted soy–walnut milk in different proportions. 10% non-malted soy: 90% walnut 30% malted soy: 70% walnut.	9-point hedonic scale. Attributes: taste, appearance, flavor, texture, and overall acceptance (OA).	Maltation decreased sensory acceptance. 90% walnut; 10% un-malted soybean had the highest OA: 7.43–4.81.	Results of the sensory attributes indicated that soy–walnut milk produced from 10% un-malted and 30% malted soymilk substitution were most preferred to consumers.	Higher proportions of soy reduced sensory acceptance.
Kundu et al. [40] India	Blends of almond milk and soy milk in different proportions: T0 = cow milk (control) T01 = 100% soy T02 = 100% almond T1 = 40% almond/60% soy T2 = 50%: 50% T3 = 60%: 40%	9-point Hedonic scale; 10 semi-trained judges. Attributes: color, mouthfeel, taste, flavor, and overall acceptability.	T3 had the highest scores of color: 8.34; flavor: 8.14; mouthfeel: 8.36; and OA: 8.20, followed by T2. All samples were accepted (OA: >8.0).	T02 (100% almond), best overall sensory performance. T3 (60:40 almond/soy), best overall acceptance among the blends.	The addition of almond significantly improved color, flavor, mouthfeel, and overall acceptance. Blends with a higher proportion of almond (T02, T3, and T2) were consistently superior. T01 had the worst sensory performance. The overall acceptance followed the trend: T02 > T3 > T2 > T0 > T1 > T01.

Source: Study data.

3.5. Fermented Milk Substitutes

The genera Streptococcus and Lactobacillus, recognized for their ability to survive and thrive in adverse conditions, are the most commonly used in the fermentation of plant-based substitutes. In the case of Lactobacillus spp., species such as L. casei, L. helveticus, L. fermentum, L. reuteri, L. acidophilus, L. rhamnosus, and L. johnsonii have been frequently applied as probiotic cultures in soy-based options, providing various health benefits associated with their consumption [51,52,53].

Table 3. Ingredients, treatments, and main findings on microbiological information, chemical value indicators, and sensory quality of fermented milk substitutes.

Author/Year and Country	Ingredients/Treatments/ Probiotics	Overall Microbiological Information	Chemical Value Indicators	Sensory Quality
Scarpelin et al. [54] India	Peanut extract, water kefir, xanthan gum (WSP-WK). WSP-WK + inulin. Brazil nut extract, water kefir, xanthan gum (WSBN-WK). WSBN-WK + inulin.	Microbial count (log CFU/mL) after 24 h fermentation— Lactobacilli: 7.09 (WSP-WK)–8.13 (WSBN-WK). Yeasts (4.46–6.28), Lactococci (8.85–9.10), and total aerobic mesophilic bacteria (8.47–8.80) showed no significant differences.	Protein: 0.86% (WSBN-WK)–1.46% (WSP-WK). Lipids: 3.97% (WSBN-WK)–4.74% (WSP-WK). Carbohydrates: 0.20% (WSP-WK)–1.41% (WSBN-WK). Inulin decreased pH and rase TSS.	-
Gomes et al. [55] Brazil	Red rice and water. Fermented product with free probiotic strains (FBF). Fermented milk substitute encapsulated (in 2% alginate) with probiotic strains (FBE). Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. Lactis and Lactobacillus acidophilus.	FBF: Significant loss of probiotic viability (52% in 15 days, >75% by day 40). FBE: Encapsulation maintained probiotic levels (>7 log CFU/mL).	Low fat (0.4 g/100 g). High protein (4.3 g/100 g). Total carbs: 11.51 g/100 g. Bioactive compounds reduced after fermentation, but antioxidant and antimicrobial potential retained.	-
Huo et al. [56] China	Soy, water, and 0.3% NaHCO3. Lactobacillus acidophilus and delbrueckii, Lacticaseibacillus plantarum, paracasei, rhamnosus, and paracasei, Leuconostoc mesenteroides, Lactococcus lactis and Streptococcus thermophilus.	S. thermophilus-S had the smallest average particle size, indicating good stability (as well as L. paracasei-S and L. plantarum-S), while L. acidophilus-S had the largest average particle size, indicating low stability.	TSS did not vary significantly between microorganisms (≈10 g/100 mL). Fat content: 0.77 g/100 mL (L. plantarum)–1.46 g/100 mL (S. thermophilus). L. delbrueckii had the highest average protein content (23.01 mg/mL) and L. acidophilus the lowest (9.14 mg/mL).	Appearance: 8.75 (L. lactis)–9.12 (L. rhamnosus) (>0.05). L. delbrueckii (26.00) and L. paracasei (25.75) received the highest texture scores. L.mesenteroides-S tasted the worst (31.25).
Mousavi et al. [57] Iran	Lentils, buckwheat, and water. Buckwheat milk (BM), lentil milk (LM), and buckwheat–lentil milk (BLM). L. plantarum (ATCC 14917) and B. bifidum (ATCC 29521).	The ideal conditions for the formulation of plant-based fermented milk were buckwheat—51.96%, lentil—48.04%, and the lactic acid bacterium B. bifidum.	Ash content (% d.w)—Before fermentation: LM 0.11%; BM 3.4%. After fermentation (L. plantarum and B. bifidum with 5% high fructose corn syrup): LM 2.0 ± 0.1; BM 3.8 ± 0.2.	9-point hedonic scale. Probiotic plant-based products can change due to interactions between probiotics and the food matrices, since the metabolic compounds produced can modify the texture, flavor, aroma, and color of the product. Average panel score was 4.8.
Cunha Júnior et al. [58] Brazil	Dried coconut (pulp), hot water, fructooligosaccharides, pectin, and demerara sugar. Lactobacillus casei.	The fermented plant-based milk remained stable for 28 days stored at 4 °C, without the development of quality indicator microorganisms.	Moisture, lipids, proteins, total carbohydrates, fibers, and ashes differed significantly (p < 0.05) after fermentation. Ash content decreased by 41% after 12 h of fermentation (0.39–0.23%).	-
Chaturvedi and Chakraborty [59] India	Red kidney beans and water (RKB). Green mung beans and water (GMB). Lactobacillus casei.	Fermentation in RKB reduced phytic acid, tannin, and saponin by approximately 71%, 42%, and 72%, respectively. Probiotic content decreased by 71%.	RKB: moisture: 85.6%. Fat: 2.4%. pH: 6.35. Acidity: 0.2025%. GMB: moisture: 89.5%. Fat: 0.01%. pH: 4.3.	Overall acceptability of fermented milk substitutes ranged from 6.51 to 6.72 for RKB and from 6.49 to 6.79 for GMB.
Laaksonen et al. [60] Finland	Lupin (liquid fraction) and 4% w/v barley starch. Lactic acid bacteria starters: Lactobacillus, Leuconostoc, Streptococcus, and Bifidobacterium.	All samples reached bacterial counts above 1 × 108 CFU/g, with low levels of Enterobacteriaceae (<10 CFU/g) and yeasts/molds (<100 CFU/g), ensuring good microbiological quality.	Liquid fraction presented citric and malic acids before fermentation, which increased lactic acid and reduced sucrose.	9-point hedonic scale: color and appearance were considered more pleasant than odor or taste. Samples were classified as ‘unpleasant’ or ‘neither unpleasant nor pleasant’ (<6.0).
Verni et al. [53] Italy	Lentil grains and distilled water. L. acidophilus ATCC 4356, L. fermentum DSM 20052, L. gasseri ITEM 13541, L. helveticus ATCC 15009, L. johnsonii NCC533, L. paracasei DSM 20312, and L. rhamnosus ATCC 53103.	Evaluation of thermal treatments: heating at 90 °C (5 and 10 min) and 110 °C (5 min) resulted in colonies (~3 log CFU/mL), while heating at 110 °C for 10 min eliminated Bacillus cereus, with no growth after 24 h at 37 °C.	Traces of lactic and acetic acids were detected before fermentation. Afterwards, levels reached 6.21–9.68 mM and 0.77–1.25 mM, respectively.	-
Bruno et al. [61] Brazil	Cashew nut. Bifidobacterium animalis; Lactobacillus acidophilus; and Lactobacillus plantarum Lyofast.	Microbial counts after 30 days remained below 3 MPN mL−1 for total and fecal coliforms, 102 CFU mL−1 for Staphylococcus aureus, yeasts, and molds, with no Salmonella in 25 mL.	pH (6.45–5.65) and a* (−0.95–−0.36) decreased, while whiteness index increased (79.37–81.30) during storage. L*: 81.66–83.95; b*: 9.39–9.95.	9-point hedonic scale: sensory analysis scored 6.92 (I liked it moderately). 5-point hedonic scale: purchase intention scored 3.73 (Probably I would buy).
Chavan et al. [51] India	Soy and water. Almond and water. Coconut and water. All samples were formulated with a blend of barley, millet, and butterfly pea + sugar and cardamom. T1 (ungerminated), T2 (germinated). Lactobacillus acidophilus.	T2 at higher concentrations had greater probiotic counts (8.1–11.07 log CFU/mL).	Fermentation increased acidity (0.1–3.5%), polyphenols (1.94–4.77 mM GAE), and antioxidant activity (0.60–9.71% PSC).	Flavor of coconut milk (T2) scored 8.9 and aroma 8.2, while T1 received 7.9. Consistency of almond milk: 7.7 (T2) and 7.4 (T1).
Ermiş et al. [52] Turkey	Hazelnut, distilled water, and 1.5% w/w glycose. Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. strains Bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus.	Hazelnut milk showed non-Newtonian pseudoplastic flow behavior and a structure more elastic than viscous.	Total titratable acidity: 1.25 g of lactic acid/100 mL. pH: 4.95. Serum separation: 28%. Protein content: 2.60%. Fat: 7.03%. Ash: 0.66%.	Acidity and mouthfeel scores resembled ayran (type of yogurt), but hazelnut milk was less aromatic, thinner, and had a less typical yogurt odor. General acceptability was slightly lower.

Source: Study data. The * marks for L*, a*, and b* are special transformed color-coordinates created by CIELAB—International Commission on Illumination.

presents the findings of non-dairy products produced through fermentation.

The preparation of fermented milk substitutes can be conducted with a variety of raw materials, such as cereals, legumes, fruits, nuts, and vegetables [51]. Among the ingredients used are hazelnut [52]; lentil [53,57]; barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) [51]; cashew nut [61]; ragi (Eleusine coracana) [51]; pea [30]; moth bean (Vigna aconitifolia) [51]; lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.) [60]; soy [51,56]; almond [51]; coconut [51]; red bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) [59]; green mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) [59]; and buckwheat [57].

Table 3 shows data from studies that highlighted advances in the development of fermented milk substitutes, emphasizing stability and quality, such as the whiteness index in cashew nut milk and the pseudoplastic behavior of hazelnut milk. Chemically, there were reductions in antinutrients and preservation of microbiological and protein composition. Bean- and soy-based options exhibited high protein levels, comparable to or exceeding those of traditional products.

In the sensory analyses, coconut and sprouted almond milk were well accepted, and strains such as L. delbrueckii and L. paracasei stood out in texture and flavor in soy milk. However, hazelnut milk showed lower acceptance.

4. Final Considerations

Plant-based milk has been emerging as an exciting milk analog, offering a wide range of chemical and sensory properties. The present study revealed that legumes, cereals, pseudo-cereals, nuts, fruits, and seeds have distinct potential to be added in plant-based milk; therefore, combining different plant sources is an effective strategy to optimize their nutritional and technological characteristics. Furthermore, the comparative analysis of these foods and their respective processing methods demonstrated that each plant matrix presents specific strengths and limitations, which realistically differentiates their technological, chemical, and sensory potentials.

Additionally, processing methods such as germination and fermentation have shown a positive impact on the final quality of milk substitutes, enhancing stability and sensory acceptance. Further research is needed to address the potential challenges of these techniques, but the future of plant-based milk aligns with microorganisms and mixed plant proteins.

Based on the main findings, it can be inferred that fermented plant-based products have good technological, chemical, and sensory potential as well, but improvements in stability and taste are necessary for greater consumer acceptance.

Among some challenges are the standardization of technological characteristics and the mitigation of undesirable flavors caused by antinutrients in plant matrices. Stabilizers, colorings, and flavorings are being used to minimize these effects, yielding promising results.

A limitation of this study is that some included authors did not conduct all the analyses of interest: chemical, technological, sensory, and, for fermented milk substitutes, microbiological. Moreover, restricting the inclusion criteria to studies published in English may have been a methodological limitation. However, this paper offers substantial information about the current plant-based milk scenario, highlighting emerging trends in this rapidly growing market.