Next Article in Journal
Statement of Peer Review
Previous Article in Journal
Comparing the Effect of Chemical and Biol Fertilization on the Fruit Yield and Selected Traits of Greenhouse-Grown Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Microbial Growth Kinetics of Fermenting Botanicals Used as Gluten-Free Flour Blends †

by
Peace Omoikhudu Oleghe
1,2,*,
Fred Coolborn Akharaiyi
1 and
Chioma Bertha Ehis-Eriakha
3
1
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Edo State University, Iyamho 312102, Edo, Nigeria
2
Department of Pharmaceutical Technology, School of Applied Sciences and Technology, Auchi Polytechnic, P.M.B, 13, Auchi 312101, Edo, Nigeria
3
Department of Conservation and Environmental Biology, Faculty of Science, Admiralty University of Nigeria, Ibusa 320103, Delta, Nigeria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 4th International Electronic Conference on Agronomy (IECAG), 2–5 December 2024; Available online: https://sciforum.net/event/IECAG2024.
Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2025, 41(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/blsf2025041009
Published: 23 May 2025

Abstract

:
The fragmentary and whole substitution of wheat flour with flour blends is an alternative approach for producing cheaper, nutrient-rich, and comparatively advantageous gluten-free foods through fermentation. Dry samples of sweet potato, pigeon pea, and maize botanicals were purchased from local vendors, authenticated and processed before spontaneous fermentation at room temperature. The pH and microbiological growth patterns of the fermenting botanicals were evaluated every 12 h for 72 h, using standard test protocols. It revealed that the rates of growth of isolated microorganisms were affected by pH; all the botanicals fermented had a reduction in their pH values. Acids were produced during fermentation, leading to a reduction in pH. Bacteria growth on the fermenting samples on nutrient agar reveals that the bacterial load increased with fermentation time, from 7.52 Log10 CFU/g to 10.6 Log10 CFU/g (sweet potato); 6.3 Log10 CFU/g to 10.54 Log10 CFU/g (pigeon pea), and 6.3 Log10 CFU/g to 10.54 Log10 CFU/g (maize). On MacConkey agar, the bacterial load on all samples started after 24 h of fermentation, peaked at 48 h, and gradually reduced towards 72 h of fermentation. There was increase in fungal growth with time from 0 to 36 h across all samples. The microorganisms isolated can be categorized into lactic acid bacteria, spore formers, Enterobacteriaceae, Staphylococcace, yeast, and molds. Fermentation of botanicals over 72 h results in organic acid formation, which lowers pH; this attribute helps in checkmating undesirable microorganisms capable of affecting the production of gluten-free flours with good keeping qualities.

1. Introduction

Food, whether in liquid or solid form, is essential for maintaining metabolic activities in humans [1,2]. Various food processing methods, such as germination, roasting, boiling, and fermentation, enhance the nutritional quality of foods by reducing anti-nutritional factors like tannins, phytic acid, polyphenols, and enzyme inhibitors [3,4,5]. However, each method has limitations. For example, while germination improves nutrient bioavailability and enzyme activity, it can be labor-intensive [6,7]. Roasting enhances sensory attributes but may degrade heat-sensitive vitamins [8]. Boiling, though simple, leads to significant nutrient loss, particularly water-soluble vitamins like Vitamin C (up to 50%) and minerals (60–70%) [9].
Fermentation, a well-established food processing method, enhances the digestibility, safety, and shelf life of foods by promoting the growth of beneficial microorganisms [10,11]. It produces natural bio-preservatives that inhibit spoilage microbes while enriching the food with probiotics and essential nutrients [12,13,14]. Fermentation remains a cornerstone of food preservation, widely used in the production of dairy, beverages, and other fermented foods [15].
Wheat (Triticum spp.) is the predominant grain used in flour-based products due to its gluten content, which provides desirable baking properties [4]. However, global wheat shortages, exacerbated by geopolitical conflicts, and increasing cases of gluten intolerance (e.g., celiac disease), necessitate the development of gluten-free alternatives [16,17,18,19]. Composite flour blends derived from tubers, cereals, and legumes offer a potential substitute [20,21]. Fermentation plays a crucial role in improving the physicochemical and techno-functional properties of such flours [14].
pH regulation during fermentation is critical, as microbial enzymes require specific pH levels for optimal growth and metabolic activity [22]. The enzymatic breakdown of phytates enhances the bioavailability of proteins and minerals such as iron, zinc, calcium, and magnesium [23]. Additionally, organic acids (e.g., lactic and acetic acids) contribute to flavor development and microbial stability [24,25]. Maintaining a pH of ≤4.6 throughout fermentation is essential for food safety, as it inhibits most pathogenic microorganisms [26].
Microorganisms involved in fermentation include lactic acid bacteria (LAB), yeasts (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), molds (Amylomyces rouxii, Endomycopsis fibuligera), and bacteria such as Zymomonas mobilis [14,25,27]. These microbes break down complex macromolecules (e.g., starches, lipids, proteins) into simpler, bioavailable components [28]. The production of organic acids and ethanol during fermentation creates a hostile environment for spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms [29].
With increasing consumer demand for affordable, nutrient-rich, and functional foods [30], there is a need to explore underutilized botanical resources for gluten-free flour development [31,32]. This study examines the 12-hourly changes in pH and microbial growth during the spontaneous fermentation of sweet potato, pigeon pea, and maize over 72 h. The findings will help determine their suitability for use in composite gluten-free flour formulations.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sourcing and Preparation of Samples

The methods, as previously reported by [16], were followed in sourcing, authenticating, and preparation of the raw botanicals samples (yellow-fleshed sweet potato cultivar, yellow maize grain variety and pigeon peas).

2.2. Fermentation of Samples

The botanical samples were steeped in water and allowed to spontaneously ferment in a closed system for 72 h at 28 ± 2 °C. Temperature, moisture, and oxygen levels were held constant, following the procedures described by [16].

2.3. Determination of pH Variation with Fermentation Time

A Pye Unicam pH meter (Model PW9409) was used to determine the pH variation of each homogenate 12-hourly during fermentation. Two (2) microliters of each sample was mixed with 100 mL of distilled water and homogenized before the meter was used for pH determination.

2.4. Microbiological Analysis

Microbiological analysis was also carried out 12-hourly on the fermenting botanical samples to determine the total microbial counts for the viable bacteria and fungi as described by [33], and modified by [34].
At the onset of fermentation, 1 mL was aseptically obtained from each sample and introduced into 9 mL of peptone water, after which a chronological 10-fold serial dilution was carried out. An aliquot from each diluted sample was taken and plated in triplicates using the pour plate method into the following agar mediums: nutrient agar (NA), MacConkey agar (MCA) for bacteria, and potato dextrose agar (PDA) for fungi. They were later incubated at 37 °C for 24–48 h and at room temperature (25 ± 2 °C) for bacteria and fungi, respectively. The entire process was repeated 12-hourly for 72 h.

Isolation and Enumeration of Bacteria and Fungi

All colonies with different morphologies were enumerated and expressed as colony forming units per gram (cfu/g) of samples, isolated as pure cultures and stored at 4 °C and at room temperature as agar slants for further characterization. The identification of the various bacterial and fungal species was confirmed, using standard morphological, biochemical, and molecular methods [34,35,36].

2.5. Determination of Microbial Kinetics Equation

The kinetic equation was determined using the simple regression equation by [37]
Y = a + bX + ∈
where the following definitions hold:
Y is the dependent variable (pH/microbial growth readings);
X is the independent variable (time);
a is the intercept;
b is the slope;
∈ and is the residual (error).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The pH and microbiological analysis of all samples were carried out in triplicates and the results are presented as means. Statistical differences between the means were determined by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) using IBM SPSS Statistics 24.

3. Results and Discussion

In this study, we investigated the pH dynamics and microbial growth kinetics during the fermentation of sweet potato, maize, and pigeon pea flours over a 72 h period, with evaluations every 12 h. The pH of all fermenting samples showed a consistent decline, indicating acid production during fermentation (Figure 1). Sweet potato had the highest initial pH, dropping from 8.6 to 5.1, followed by maize flour, which declined from 6.5 to 3.4. Pigeon pea had the lowest pH, further decreasing as fermentation progressed. Our findings align with studies on the fermentation of cereal and legume flours. For instance, in ref. [38], during the fermentation of maize-pigeon pea blends, a gradual decrease in pH from 6.52 to 5.34 was observed over a 48 h steeping period, followed by a further decrease to 3.74 after 48 h of souring. Similarly, in maize flour fermentation, the pH declined from 6.30 to 3.89 over 120 h, indicating significant acidification [39].
The rates of growth of microorganisms isolated from this study were affected by pH relative to time. The initial pH may be suitable, but because of competitive flora or the growth of the organism itself, the pH may become unfavorable. Conversely, the initial pH may be restrictive, but the growth of a limited number of microorganisms (such as the neutrophilic bacteria) may alter the pH to a range that is more favorable for the growth of many other microorganisms [40]. All the samples fermented had a reduction in their pH values. These findings agree with the reports of [39,40,41] who observed a reduction in pH for fermenting pigeon pea, sweet potato, and maize flours, respectively. However, ref. [39] also observed an increase in pH at the 96th hour of fermentation. During fermentation, the swift formation of organic acids such as lactic acid and the reduction in pH of the medium is a frequent feature, which helps in preventing substandard fermentation by undesirable microbes [41].
Since the time and pH readings are going in opposite directions, this means that the longer the time, the lower the pH readings. This show that time has a negative effect on the pH readings. The reduction in pH significantly influenced the microbial ecology of the fermenting flours. Lactic acid bacteria (LAB), known for their acid tolerance, thrived under these conditions, leading to an increase in their populations. This proliferation of LAB not only contributes to the desirable characteristics of fermented foods but also suppresses the growth of less acid-tolerant microorganisms, including certain spoilage bacteria and pathogens [38]. The dominance of LAB during fermentation has been linked to improved nutritional profiles and the enhanced safety of the final product.
The kinetic equation specific for this pH process is as follows
Y = a − bX + ∈
where the following definitions hold:
Y is the dependent variable (pH readings);
X is the independent variable (time);
a is the intercept;
b is the slope;
∈ and is the residual (error).
The heterophilic bacteria growth of the fermenting flour samples on nutrient agar is displayed in Figure 2. It reveals that the bacteria load increased with fermentation time. Bacteria growth in sweet potato increased from 7.52 Log10 CFU/g to 10.6 Log10 CFU/g. Pigeon pea flour bacterial growth increased from 6.3 Log10 CFU/g to 10.54 Log10 CFU/g. Maize flour had a bacteria count from 6.3 Log10 CFU/g to 10.54 Log10 CFU/g.
These findings are in agreement with that of [42,43] who observed an increase in microbial load in the fermentation of tempeh and pigeon peas. However, it differs from that of [44] whose study was on the fermentation of water yam. They explained that the decrease in microbial population may be due to an increase in acidic values (reduced pH values) of the sample as fermentation progressed. The gradual increase in bacterial load on nutrient agar from 0 h to 72 h of fermentation might be due to the increase in the number of lactic acid bacteria (LAB). LAB are dominant in the fermentation of cereals and legumes, as they occur in environments rich in amino acids, vitamins, purines, and pyrimidines contributing specifically to the advancement of flavor in diverse fermented food commodities [45,46]. The presence of a high number of LAB during fermentation suggested that there was interaction with fungi as they may obtain nutrients from mold or yeast metabolism [42].
Bacteria growth on MacConkey agar for the fermenting botanicals is shown in Figure 3. The bacteria load for all samples only started after 24 h of fermentation, peaked at 48 h, and reduced gradually towards 72 h of fermentation. After 24 h, growth in sweet potato ranged between 3.70 Log10 CFU/g (36 h) to 4.40 Log10 CFU/g (48 h). For maize, bacterial growth ranged between 4.16 Log10 CFU/g (60 h) to 8.91 Log10 CFU/g (48 h). Growth on pigeon pea ranged between 4.57 Log10 CFU/g (60 h) and 5.59 Log10 CFU/g (36 and 48 h). Similar findings were reported by [38,42].
Natural fermentation that occurs during soaking has a risk of being overgrown by spoilage bacteria [38,47]. However, their inhibition at the initial 24 h of fermentation time may be due to an increase in the number of desirable bacteria like LAB, whose action affected the growth of undesired bacteria [42].
The fungal growth of the fermenting flour samples (Figure 4) revealed that there was an increase in fungal growth with time from 0 h to 36 h across all samples, but there was no fungal growth seen at 72 h for pigeon pea flour. From 48 h, growth was not as linear as the first 36 h. Fungal growth on sweet potato flour ranged from 1.6 Log10 CFU/g (0 h) to 3.93 Log10 CFU/g (48 h), in maize flour, it was from 1.48 Log10 CFU/g (0 h) to 4.38 Log10 CFU/g (60 h) and for pigeon pea flour, from 0 Log10 CFU/g (72 h) to 3.85 Log10 CFU/g (36 h). Molds play important roles in the fermentation of foods and they are most common in acidic foods [48]. These findings are in line with those of [40,44,49,50].
From Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4, it can be seen that the time and microbial load are going in same directions. This shows that time has a positive effect on microbial growth. This means that the longer the time, the higher the microbial growth readings.
The general formula for the time and microbial growth is
Y = a + bX + ∈
where the following definitions hold:
Y is the dependent variable (microbial readings/growth);
X is the independent variable (time);
a is the intercept;
b is the slope;
∈ and is the residual (error).
The microbial profile of fermented flours in this study can be categorized into lactic acid bacteria, spore formers, enterobacteriaceae, Staphylococcus, yeast, and molds, as reported by [35]. Since the sources of these microorganisms could either be from the human skin, cooking utensils, processing equipment, the environment, and water, or from the seeds, there is the need for a microbiological quality control guideline for composite flour blends, which should help distinguish between unacceptable and acceptable fermented foodstuffs because various microbes have been transmitted through food products [37].

4. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that the fermentation of sweet potato, maize, and pigeon pea flours over 72 h resulted in significant biochemical and microbiological changes, with a notable reduction in pH and an increase in microbial load. The pH decrease was primarily due to the production of organic acids, which created an environment favorable for lactic acid bacteria (LAB) while inhibiting the growth of spoilage microorganisms and potential pathogens. This acidification played a crucial role in enhancing food safety, prolonging shelf-life, and improving the sensory attributes of the fermented flours.
Microbial growth dynamics showed that LAB dominated the fermentation process, contributing to the development of desirable functional and probiotic properties. However, the growth trends of bacteria and fungi varied across the different flour types, influenced by pH fluctuations and competitive microbial interactions. The presence of Enterobacteriaceae and other potentially harmful bacteria on MacConkey agar highlights the need for controlled fermentation practices to ensure microbial safety.
The findings from this study support the use of controlled fermentation as an effective method for improving the nutritional value, digestibility, and safety of botanical flours. These results have practical applications in food industries, particularly in developing countries where fermented foods serve as dietary staples. The dominance of LAB suggests potential probiotic applications, while the reduction in pH can be leveraged for natural food preservation. Future research should explore optimizing fermentation conditions, evaluating the bioavailability of nutrients, and assessing the potential of these flours in functional food formulations. Additionally, further studies using metagenomic approaches could provide deeper insights into microbial succession and metabolic activities during fermentation.

Author Contributions

P.O.O. contributed in designing the work, the literature search, and writing of the manuscript; F.C.A. designed the work and writing of the manuscript. C.B.E.-E. managed the analyses of data and the manuscript writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that this work was funded in its entirety by Auchi Polytechnic, Auchi, Edo State, Nigeria, through the Nigerian Tertiary Education Trust Fund (TETFUND) Batch #10 2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study can be made available upon request to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no conflicts of interest from any of the authors concerning the conceptualization, research design, and publication of this work.

References

  1. Chen, G.; Li, Y.; Li, X.; Zhou, D.; Wang, Y.; Wen, X.; Wang, C.; Liu, X.; Feng, Y.; Li, B.; et al. Functional foods and intestinal homeostasis: The perspective of in vivo evidence. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 111, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. John, R.; Singla, A. Functional Foods: Components, health benefits, challenges, and major projects. DRC Sustainable Future. J. Environ. Agric. Energy 2021, 2, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nergiz, C.; Gokgoz, E. Effects of traditional cooking methods on some anti-nutrients and In-vitro protein digestibility of Dry Bean varieties (Phaseolus vulgancus L.) grown in Turkey. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 42, 868–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Oleghe, P.O.; Akharaiyi, F.C.; Ehis-Eriakha, C.B. Harnessing indigenous agro-processed flour blends as composite bioresources in functional food development. Food Res. 2024, 8, 235–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Setta, M.C.; Matemu, A.; Mbega, E.R. Potential of probiotics from fermented cereal-based beverages in improving health of poor people in Africa. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 57, 3935–3946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Anaemene, D.I.; Fadupin, G.T. Effect of Fermentation, Germination and Combined Germination-Fermentation Processing Methods on the Nutrient and Anti-nutrient Contents of Quality Protein Maize (QPM) Seeds. J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 2020, 24, 1625–1630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Al-Ansi, W.; Zhang, Y.; Alkawry, T.A.A.; Al-Adeeb, A.; Mahdi, A.A.; Al-Maqtari, Q.A.; Ahmed, A.; Mushtaq, B.S.; Fan, M.; Li, Y.; et al. Influence of germination on bread-making behaviors, functional and shelf-life properties, and overall quality of highland barley bread. LWT 2022, 159, 113200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Schlörmann, W.; Zetzmann, S.; Wiege, B.; Haase, N.U.; Greiling, A.; Lorkowski, S.; Dawczynski, C.; Glei, M. Impact of different roasting conditions on sensory properties and health-related compounds of oat products. Food Chem. 2020, 307, 125548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lee, S.; Choi, Y.; Jeong, H.S.; Lee, J.; Sung, J. Effect of different cooking methods on the content of vitamins and true retention in selected vegetables. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2018, 27, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Liu, W.; Zhang, Y.; Huang, Q.; Lu, L.; Guo, Y.; Xu, H.; Zhou, J. Microbial diversity and community structure of traditional Chinese fermented foods. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 1226–1233. [Google Scholar]
  11. Hasmadi, M.; Noorfarahzilah, M.; Noraidah, H.; Zainol, M.K.; Jahurul, M.H.A. Functional properties of composite flour: A review. Food Res. 2020, 4, 1820–1831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shah, A.M.; Tarfeen, N.; Mohamed, H.; Song, Y. Fermented foods: Their health-promoting components and potential effects on gut microbiota. Fermentation 2023, 9, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kumari, M.; Platel, K. Impact of soaking, germination, fermentation, and thermal processing on the bioaccessibility of trace minerals from food grains. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Voidarou, C.; Antoniadou, M.; Rozos, G.; Tzora, A.; Skoufos, I.; Varzakas, T.; Lagiou, A.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Fermentative Foods: Microbiology, Biochemistry, Potential Human Health Benefits and Public Health Issues. Foods 2021, 10, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gopikrishna, T.; Suresh-Kumar, H.K.; Perumal, K.; Elangovan, E. Impact of Bacillus in fermented soybean foods on human health. Ann. Microbiol. 2021, 71, 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Oleghe, P.O.; Akharaiyi, F.C.; Ehis-Eriakha, C.B.; Oladebeye, A.A.; Johnson, D.O. Microbiological and Techno-functional Assessment of Unfermented and Fermented Gluten-Free Flour Mixes. Int. J. Life Sci. Res. 2023, 11, 33–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Siddiqi, R.A.; Singh, T.P.; Rani, M.; Sogi, D.S.; Bhat, M.A. Diversity in grain, flour, amino acid composition, protein profiling, and proportion of total flour proteins of different wheat cultivars of North India. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Poutanen, K.S.; Kårlund, A.O.; Gómez-Gallego, C.; Johansson, D.P.; Scheers, N.M.; Marklinder, I.M.; Eriksen, A.K.; Silventoinen, P.C.; Nordlund, E.; Sozer, N.; et al. Grains—A major source of sustainable protein for health. Nutr. Rev. 2022, 80, 1648–1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kiin-Kabari, D.B.; Giami, S.Y. Physicochemical properties and in-vitro protein digestibility of non-wheat cookies prepared from plantain flour and bambara groundnut protein concentrate. J. Food Res. 2015, 4, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bennetau-Pelissero, C. Plant proteins from legumes. In Bioactive Molecules in Food; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tufan, B.; Sahin, S.; Sumnu, G. Utilization of legume flours in wafer sheets. Legume Sci. 2019, 2, e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Arif, A.R.; Natsir, H.; Rohani, H.; Karim, A. Effect of pH fermentation on production bioethanol from jackfruit seeds (Artocarpus heterophyllus) through separate fermentation hydrolysis method. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 979, 012015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Blandino, A.; Al-Aseeri, M.E.; Pandiella, S.S.; Cantero, D.; Webb, C. Cereal-based fermented foods and beverages. Food Res. Int. 2003, 36, 527–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Terefe, S.N.; Augustin, M.A. Fermentation for tailoring the technological and health related functionality of food products. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 2887–2913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Petrova, P.; Arsov, A.; Petrov, K. Cereal fermentation by LAB: From ancient to modern alimentation biotechnologies. In Lactic Acid Bacteria in Food Biotechnology: Innovations and Functional Aspects. Applied Biotechnology Reviews; Ray, R.C., Paramithiotis, S., Azevedo, V.A.C., Montet, D., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hernández, A.; Larsson, C.U.; Sawicki, R.; van Niel, E.-W.J.; Roos, S.; Håkansson, S. Impact of the fermentation parameters pH and temperature on stress resilience of Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938. AMB Express 2019, 9, 66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sharma, R.; Garg, P.; Kumar, P.; Bhatia, S.K.; Kulshrestha, S. Microbial Fermentation and Its Role in Quality Improvement of Fermented Foods. Fermentation 2020, 6, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Anal, A. Quality Ingredients and Safety Concerns for Traditional Fermented Foods and Beverages from Asia: A Review. Fermentation 2019, 5, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Samtiya, M.; Aluko, R.E.; Dhewa, T. Plant food anti-nutritional factors and their reduction strategies: An overview. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2020, 2, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Galanakis, C.M.; Aldawoud, T.M.S.; Rizou, M.; Rowan, N.; Ibrahim, S. Food Ingredients and Active Compounds against the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Comprehensive Review. Foods 2020, 9, 1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Galanakis, C.M. Functionality of Food Components and Emerging Technologies. Foods 2021, 10, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Friman, A.; Hyytiä, N. The Economic and Welfare Effects of Food Waste Reduction on a Food-Production-Driven Rural Region. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Salfinger, Y.; Tortorello, M.L. Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological Examination of Foods; American Public Health Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Oleghe, P.O.; Akharaiyi, F.C.; Ehis-Eriakha, C.B. Phylogenetic identification of microbes from fermented botanicals used in gluten-free composite flour mixes. Foods Raw Mater. 2025, 13, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Abdalla, M.O.M.; Omer, H.E.A. Microbiological characteristics of white cheese (Gibna bayda) manufactured under traditional conditions. J. Adv. Microbiol. 2017, 2, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alsohaili, S.A.; Bani-Hasan, B.M. Morphological and Molecular Identification of Fungi Isolated from Different Environmental Sources in the Northern Eastern Desert of Jordan. Jordan J. Biol. Sci. 2018, 11, 329–337. [Google Scholar]
  37. Viccini, G.; Mitchell, D.A.; Boit, S.D.; Gern, J.C.; da Rosa, A.S.; Costa, R.M.; Dalsenter, F.D.H.; von Meien, O.F.; Krieger, N. Analysis of growth kinetic profilesin solid-state fermentation. Food Technol. Biotechnol. 2001, 39, 271–294. [Google Scholar]
  38. Omemu, A.M.; Okafor, U.I.; Obadina, A.O.; Bankole, M.O.; Adeyeye, S.A.O. Microbiological assessment of maize ogi co-fermented with pigeon pea. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 6, 1238–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Adebo, O.A.; Oyedeji, A.B.; Adebiyi, J.A.; Chinma, C.E.; Oyeyinka, S.A.; Olatunde, O.O.; Green, E.; Njobeh, P.B.; Kondiah, K. Kinetics of phenolic compounds modification during maize flour fermentation. Molecules 2021, 26, 6702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Oleghe, P.O.; Oshoma, C.; Agholor, K. Growth kinetics of bacteria isolated from laboratory prepared cheese made from different milk sources. Saudi J. Pathol. Microbiol. 2023, 8, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Oyarekua, M.A. Biochemical and Microbiological changes during the production of fermented pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan) flour. Afr. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2011, 2, 223–231. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ajayi, O.I.; Ehiwuogu-Onyibe, J.; Oluwole, O.B.; Jegede, A.A.; Salami, T.A.; Asieba, G.O.; Chiedu, I.E.; Suberu, Y.L.; Aba, E.M.; Dike, E.N.; et al. Production of fermented sweet potato flour using indigenous starter cultures. Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 2016, 10, 1746–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nurdini, A.L.; Nuraida, L.; Suwanto, A.; Suliantari. Microbial growth dynamics during tempe fermentation in two different home industries. Int. Food Res. J. 2015, 22, 1668–1674. [Google Scholar]
  44. Yun-Ting, H.; Chung-Yi, W. Microbial Shelf-Life, Starch Physicochemical Properties, and in-vitro Digestibility of Pigeon Pea Milk Altered by High Pressure Processing. Molecules 2020, 25, 2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bello, B.K.; Ojokoh, A.O. Effect of fermentation on the microbial growth and proximate composition of water yam. Int. J. Biosci. Technol. 2013, 6, 9–13. [Google Scholar]
  46. Bintsis, T. Lactic acid bacteria: Their applications in foods (Review Article). J. Bacteriol. Mycol. Open Access 2018, 6, 89–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ziarno, M.; Cichońska, P. Lactic Acid Bacteria-Fermentable Cereal- and Pseudocereal-Based Beverages. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Botta, C.; Cocolin, L. Microbial dynamics and biodiversity in table olive fermentation: Culture-dependent and independent approaches. Front. Microbiol. 2012, 3, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yang, Q.; Yao, H.; Liu, S.; Mao, J. Interaction and Application of Molds and Yeasts in Chinese Fermented Foods. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 12, 664850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hippolyte, T.M.; Yadang, G.; Sibozo, O.G.; Kemadjou, R.E.; Kenfack, L.B.M. Development of Fermented Sweet Potato Flour (Ipomoea batatas L.) Supplemented with Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) Meal-Based Biscuits. Hindawi Int. J. Food Sci. 2022, 1, 8033978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. pH of the fermenting botanicals.
Figure 1. pH of the fermenting botanicals.
Blsf 41 00009 g001
Figure 2. Bacterial growth on nutrient agar.
Figure 2. Bacterial growth on nutrient agar.
Blsf 41 00009 g002
Figure 3. Bacterial growth on MacConkey agar.
Figure 3. Bacterial growth on MacConkey agar.
Blsf 41 00009 g003
Figure 4. Fungal growth on potato dextrose agar.
Figure 4. Fungal growth on potato dextrose agar.
Blsf 41 00009 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Oleghe, P.O.; Akharaiyi, F.C.; Ehis-Eriakha, C.B. Microbial Growth Kinetics of Fermenting Botanicals Used as Gluten-Free Flour Blends. Biol. Life Sci. Forum 2025, 41, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/blsf2025041009

AMA Style

Oleghe PO, Akharaiyi FC, Ehis-Eriakha CB. Microbial Growth Kinetics of Fermenting Botanicals Used as Gluten-Free Flour Blends. Biology and Life Sciences Forum. 2025; 41(1):9. https://doi.org/10.3390/blsf2025041009

Chicago/Turabian Style

Oleghe, Peace Omoikhudu, Fred Coolborn Akharaiyi, and Chioma Bertha Ehis-Eriakha. 2025. "Microbial Growth Kinetics of Fermenting Botanicals Used as Gluten-Free Flour Blends" Biology and Life Sciences Forum 41, no. 1: 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/blsf2025041009

APA Style

Oleghe, P. O., Akharaiyi, F. C., & Ehis-Eriakha, C. B. (2025). Microbial Growth Kinetics of Fermenting Botanicals Used as Gluten-Free Flour Blends. Biology and Life Sciences Forum, 41(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/blsf2025041009

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop