This serving portion also would supply at least 4% and 6% of the requirements of Zn for adult males 14 years or older (11 mg per day) and females 19 year or older (8 mg per day), respectively ( IOM, 2001). Regarding protein content, analytical results are in agreement to inherent protein content from milk components, ranging from 4.40 g/100 g (mousse MF–I) to 7.97 g/100 g (mousse WPC). As expected, significant difference MK0683 (P < 0.05) observed for this nutrient derived from the addition of whey protein concentrate in samples WPC, MF–WPC, I–WPC, and MF–I–WPC, in different proportions. The DFotf content was very similar for the

different mousses, without significant differences (P < 0.05), as expected, once the guava pulp (the main source of DFotf) was added in the same proportion for all trials (12.5 g/100 g). Regarding the fructan content, FOS was added in the same proportion for all mousses (6 g/100 g) and inulin was present in samples I, MF–I, I–WPC and MF–I–WPC. Considering the

lack of ability of probiotic cultures, particularly of lactobacilli, to ferment fructans during refrigerated storage, as observed in previous studies with milk-based products ( Buriti et al., 2007 and Cardarelli et al., 2008), the information given by the supplier for the composition of the ingredients oligofructose and inulin used in the manufacturing process was taken to estimate the fructan content of mousses in the present study. This content ranged from 5.71 g/100 g (for MF, WPC, MF–WPC) up to 9.63 g/100 g (for mousse I). For total fat content, samples showed significant Selleckchem MAPK Inhibitor Library differences (P < 0.05) following the changes concerning the ingredients added ( Table 2). A higher fat recovery by Folch method was obtained for mousse MF (4.63 g/100 g). Samples I, WPC, and I–WPC showed lower means, 0.798 g/100 g, 1.38 g/100 g, and 0.839 g/100 g for total 3-mercaptopyruvate sulfurtransferase fat, respectively. Beside the milk fat added, the residual fat content

present in the ingredients skimmed milk, emulsifier, and whey protein concentrate probably also contributed for the total fat content present in the mousses studied. Available carbohydrate content (excluding TDF) was near 20 g/100 g for all samples. The proportions of all FAs found in mousse trials are presented in Table 4. Milk fat is mainly composed by palmitic (C16:0), oleic (C18:1), myristic (C14:0), and stearic (C18:0) FAs (Rodrigues, Torres, Mancini Filho, & Gioielli, 2007), which were the most prevailing ones in the mousses studied. Usually, palmitic acid content is found in higher proportions considering milk and milk-derived products (Rodrigues & Gioielli, 2003). The proportion of palmitic acid in mousses MF, MF–I, MF–WPC, and M–I–WPC ranged from 29 to 33 g/100 g of total FA (data not shown), which is in accordance with the proportion of this FA in milk fat reported by Jensen, 2002 and Rodrigues and Gioielli, 2003, and Rodrigues et al. (2007).