# Potential applications of biosurfactants in animal production and meat research

Cerine Yasmine Boulahlib, Moufida Aggoun, Rabah Arhab, Mohammed Gagaoua

► To cite this version:

Cerine Yasmine Boulahlib, Moufida Aggoun, Rabah Arhab, Mohammed Gagaoua. Potential applications of biosurfactants in animal production and meat research. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9 (1), pp.237-253. 10.3934/agrfood.2024014. hal-04437975

HAL Id: hal-04437975

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04437975

Submitted on 5 Feb 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Potential applications of biosurfactants in animal production and meat research

Cerine Yasmine Boulahlib, Moufida Aggoun, Rabah Arhab, Mohammed Gagaoua

► To cite this version:

Cerine Yasmine Boulahlib, Moufida Aggoun, Rabah Arhab, Mohammed Gagaoua. Potential applications of biosurfactants in animal production and meat research. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9 (1), pp.237-253. 10.3934/agrfood.2024014. hal-04437975

HAL Id: hal-04437975

https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04437975v1

Submitted on 5 Feb 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Review

# Potential applications of biosurfactants in animal production and meat research

Cerine Yasmine Boulahlib<fnref n="1" />, Moufida Aggoun<fnref n="1" />, Rabah Arhab<fnref n="2" /> and Mohammed Gagaoua<fnref n="3" />,*

**Abstract:** Muscle foods are perishable products that are subject to several contaminations such as microbial and/or chemical (lipid and protein oxidation) alterations, which result in their deterioration and quality loss. Several processing strategies are used to preserve and improve the stability, shelf-life and quality of meat and meat products, from which natural preservative agents are gaining interest from both industrials and consumers as green and eco-friendly strategies. Among these natural preservatives, biosurfactants are emerging molecules. Their natural origin and biodegradability make them appealing for use in the food industry. In meat research, biosurfactants are of great interest as antimicrobial and antioxidant agents to reduce meat spoilage and wastage as well as for improving the shelf-life of the products. We aimed to discuss the potential applications of biosurfactants with a focus on their antimicrobial and antioxidant activity within the objectives of reducing meat quality deterioration and improving the image quality (acceptability by consumers) of meat and meat products. Additionally, further perspectives under the context of practical applications of biosurfactants in meat emulsification have been discussed, serving as a reference to feed knowledge gaps in this emerging topic of research. Further studies and evaluations of biosurfactants in meat research are needed to establish more evidence of their potential benefits, applicability and feasibility at a larger scale.

**Keywords:** meat quality; meat preservation; biosurfactants; amphiphilic agents; biological activities; antimicrobial and antioxidant agents

<footnote n="1">¹ INATAA, Université Constantine 1 Frères Mentouri, Route de Ain El Bey, Constantine 25000, Algeria</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Laboratory of natural substances, biomolecules and biotechnological applications, Faculty of Nature and Life Sciences, Université Oum El Bouaghi, Algeria</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ PEGASE, INRAE, Institut Agro, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: Email: mohammed.gagaoua@inrae.fr.</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Review

# Potential applications of biosurfactants in animal production and meat research

Cerine Yasmine Boulahlib<fnref n="1" />, Moufida Aggoun<fnref n="1" />, Rabah Arhab<fnref n="2" /> and Mohammed Gagaoua<fnref n="3" />,*

**Abstract:** Muscle foods are perishable products that are subject to several contaminations such as microbial and/or chemical (lipid and protein oxidation) alterations, which result in their deterioration and quality loss. Several processing strategies are used to preserve and improve the stability, shelf-life and quality of meat and meat products, from which natural preservative agents are gaining interest from both industrials and consumers as green and eco-friendly strategies. Among these natural preservatives, biosurfactants are emerging molecules. Their natural origin and biodegradability make them appealing for use in the food industry. In meat research, biosurfactants are of great interest as antimicrobial and antioxidant agents to reduce meat spoilage and wastage as well as for improving the shelf-life of the products. We aimed to discuss the potential applications of biosurfactants with a focus on their antimicrobial and antioxidant activity within the objectives of reducing meat quality deterioration and improving the image quality (acceptability by consumers) of meat and meat products. Additionally, further perspectives under the context of practical applications of biosurfactants in meat emulsification have been discussed, serving as a reference to feed knowledge gaps in this emerging topic of research. Further studies and evaluations of biosurfactants in meat research are needed to establish more evidence of their potential benefits, applicability and feasibility at a larger scale.

**Keywords:** meat quality; meat preservation; biosurfactants; amphiphilic agents; biological activities; antimicrobial and antioxidant agents

<footnote n="1">¹ INATAA, Université Constantine 1 Frères Mentouri, Route de Ain El Bey, Constantine 25000, Algeria</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Laboratory of natural substances, biomolecules and biotechnological applications, Faculty of Nature and Life Sciences, Université Oum El Bouaghi, Algeria</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ PEGASE, INRAE, Institut Agro, 35590 Saint-Gilles, France</footnote>

<footnote>* Correspondence: Email: mohammed.gagaoua@inrae.fr.</footnote>
# 1. Introduction

Animal-derived foods, particularly meat and meat products, have a diverse array of nutrient compositions, characterized by significant contents of high-quality proteins, essential amino acids, B-group vitamins, minerals, and various other nutrients [1,2], making them important constituents of human nutrition worldwide. However, muscle foods (proteins of animal origin) are perishable products that are subject to several microbial contaminations (growth of pathogens and several microorganisms), resulting in their deterioration and quality loss [3–5]. In fact, meat quality deterioration can be driven by multiple mechanisms, namely microbial proliferation and lipid and protein oxidation, which all together impact the different properties of meat and meat products such color, flavor, texture, and nutritional value [4,6–11]. Besides the internal factors impacting the rate and extent of meat quality deterioration, numerous external factors such as oxygen, temperature, light exposition, preservative compounds, and processing techniques are key in the stability and final quality preservation [4,8]. Lipid and protein oxidation are the major non-microbial issues causing meat deterioration [4]. For example, oxidative reactions occurring during the manufacturing, distribution and storage of meat and meat products induce multiple physicochemical transformations and/or alterations, which consequently generate undesirable aromas that have detrimental impacts on the final quality, leading to consumer dissatisfaction and economic losses [12]. Several strategies are used to preserve and improve the stability, shelf-life, and quality of meat and meat products, namely, cold chain logistics, heat treatments, packaging innovations, and chemical preservatives [2]. However, the increasing concerns on food safety and the potential risks associated with the application of chemical and synthetic preservative agents/molecules [13,14], have resulted in a notable shift towards natural preservatives that seemed to have interesting properties to maintain or improve the stability of muscle foods. Overall, these natural molecules aim to inhibit or delay microbial growth, oxidative reactions, and enzymatic degradation, thereby extending the shelf-life of meat products and ensuring their safer consumption, resulting in consumer satisfaction [15]. For this purpose, numerous bio-preservatives have been explored, among which certain studies demonstrated antioxidant and antimicrobial effects of biosurfactants to preserve and extend the shelf-life of meat and meat-based products (Table 1). We aimed to review the applications of biosurfactants, a class of microorganism-formed compounds, in animal production and meat research, with specific emphasis on their antimicrobial and antioxidant activities, as compounds enabling extended shelf-life of meat products.

# 2. Biosurfactants

Surface-active agents, commonly named surfactants, have versatile properties and occupy a significant position in the field of colloid and interfacial science due to their inherent amphiphilic nature. This characteristic facilitates the reduction of interfacial tension between disparate phases, including air-water, liquid-liquid (oil-water or water-oil), and liquid-solid interfaces [16]. For their production, two approaches can be distinguished. In the chemical approach, the organic chemistry serves as a founder of the covalent linkage of the amphiphilic (hydrophilic and hydrophobic) molecules, and ensures their structural integrity and functionality. In the biological approach, the biosurfactants may be produced by two primary pathways, either through direct extraction from plants or synthesized by an enzymatic or microbial process. It is worthy to mention that the scientific community refer to the term “biosurfactants” to the amphiphilic surface active agents that are obtained *via* fermentation
# 1. Introduction

Animal-derived foods, particularly meat and meat products, have a diverse array of nutrient compositions, characterized by significant contents of high-quality proteins, essential amino acids, B-group vitamins, minerals, and various other nutrients [1,2], making them important constituents of human nutrition worldwide. However, muscle foods (proteins of animal origin) are perishable products that are subject to several microbial contaminations (growth of pathogens and several microorganisms), resulting in their deterioration and quality loss [3–5]. In fact, meat quality deterioration can be driven by multiple mechanisms, namely microbial proliferation and lipid and protein oxidation, which all together impact the different properties of meat and meat products such color, flavor, texture, and nutritional value [4,6–11]. Besides the internal factors impacting the rate and extent of meat quality deterioration, numerous external factors such as oxygen, temperature, light exposition, preservative compounds, and processing techniques are key in the stability and final quality preservation [4,8]. Lipid and protein oxidation are the major non-microbial issues causing meat deterioration [4]. For example, oxidative reactions occurring during the manufacturing, distribution and storage of meat and meat products induce multiple physicochemical transformations and/or alterations, which consequently generate undesirable aromas that have detrimental impacts on the final quality, leading to consumer dissatisfaction and economic losses [12]. Several strategies are used to preserve and improve the stability, shelf-life, and quality of meat and meat products, namely, cold chain logistics, heat treatments, packaging innovations, and chemical preservatives [2]. However, the increasing concerns on food safety and the potential risks associated with the application of chemical and synthetic preservative agents/molecules [13,14], have resulted in a notable shift towards natural preservatives that seemed to have interesting properties to maintain or improve the stability of muscle foods. Overall, these natural molecules aim to inhibit or delay microbial growth, oxidative reactions, and enzymatic degradation, thereby extending the shelf-life of meat products and ensuring their safer consumption, resulting in consumer satisfaction [15]. For this purpose, numerous bio-preservatives have been explored, among which certain studies demonstrated antioxidant and antimicrobial effects of biosurfactants to preserve and extend the shelf-life of meat and meat-based products (Table 1). We aimed to review the applications of biosurfactants, a class of microorganism-formed compounds, in animal production and meat research, with specific emphasis on their antimicrobial and antioxidant activities, as compounds enabling extended shelf-life of meat products.

# 2. Biosurfactants

Surface-active agents, commonly named surfactants, have versatile properties and occupy a significant position in the field of colloid and interfacial science due to their inherent amphiphilic nature. This characteristic facilitates the reduction of interfacial tension between disparate phases, including air-water, liquid-liquid (oil-water or water-oil), and liquid-solid interfaces [16]. For their production, two approaches can be distinguished. In the chemical approach, the organic chemistry serves as a founder of the covalent linkage of the amphiphilic (hydrophilic and hydrophobic) molecules, and ensures their structural integrity and functionality. In the biological approach, the biosurfactants may be produced by two primary pathways, either through direct extraction from plants or synthesized by an enzymatic or microbial process. It is worthy to mention that the scientific community refer to the term “biosurfactants” to the amphiphilic surface active agents that are obtained *via* fermentation
process (microbial biosurfactants) [17]. Biosurfactants possess a hydrophilic moiety that can include carbohydrates, amino acids, cyclic peptides, phosphates, carboxylic acids, or alcohols, and a hydrophobic moiety that is mostly composed of long-chain fatty acids, hydroxyl fatty acids, or α-alkyl β-hydroxy fatty acids. This combination of hydrophilic and hydrophobic moieties provides to biosurfactants their amphiphilic property and contributes to their surfactant and antimicrobial activities [18].

## 2.1. Biosurfactants sources

The production of biosurfactants depends on some factors that play a crucial role in the efficiency of the production yield, mostly the source of carbon and nitrogen, the carbon/nitrogen ratio, the content of salts and trace elements, and fermentation conditions [19]. The valorization of renewable wastes generated by food industry can be used to produce biosurfactants including bagasse, press mud, vegetables and fruits wastes, oil processing wastes, spent coffee ground, dairy products, fat, tallow, and lard [20,21]. Since the production of biosurfactants depends on carbon presence in the growth medium; lignocellulosic molecules (cellulose, lignin, hemicellulose) are selected for this purpose [20]. Accordingly, recent studies that used different renewable substrates for the production of microbial biosurfactants reported interesting yields (40.5 g/L) using *Pseudomonas* sp. Cultivated, for example, in canola waste frying oil [20,22]. Furthermore, rhamnolipid was produced by *Burkholderia kururiensis* KP23T isolated from an aquifer and glycolipoprotein by *Lactobacillus paracasei* subsp. *tolerans* N2 using sugar cane molasses as substrate [23]. However, the pathogenicity of strains and safety of produced biosurfactants should be assessed before any application.

## 2.2. Production of biosurfactants from microorganisms

With the growing demand for surface-active agents to mitigate the environmental concerns associated with the use of chemical surfactants, microbial-derived surfactants are receiving increasing attention. In fact, they are regarded as eco-friendly alternatives because of their low toxicity, better biodegradability, high selectivity, and versatile activity/use under extreme conditions [19]. Moreover, microbial-derived surfactants, from both bacteria and yeast [24], present important advantage due to the ability of their production using agri-food wastes and/or renewable sources [21].

Several studies on biosurfactants used lactic acid bacteria (LAB) for their production [25]. The use of LAB is mostly related to their GRAS status, their ability to promote human health, and strengthening the immune system. Thus, they have been proposed and evaluated for food preservation, food fermentation, improvement of the nutritional and sensory properties of food products. LAB have also interesting abilities to produce numerous functional metabolites that possess biopreservative potentials, such as enzymes, bacteriocins, biosurfactants, etc... [26]. The production of biosurfactants (glycolipoproteins biosurfactant) from LAB have been reported from several strains such as *Lactobacillus paracasei* subsp. *tolerans* N2 isolated from fermented cow milk [27]. Another study successfully isolated low-cost glycolipoprotein biosurfactant that is produced by *Lactobacillus plantarum* 60 FHE from cheese samples using food wastes [28]. Likewise, Kachrimanidou et al. [29] investigated the production of proteinaceous-based biosurfactants by several LAB strains, namely *Lactobacillus rhamnosus*, *Lactobacillus casei*, *Lactobacillus pentosus*, *Lactobacillus coryniformis*, *Lactobacillus paracasei*, and *Lactobacillus plantarum* using Cheese whey permeate as a low-cost fermentation feedstock for biosurfactant production. Our findings presented in this study indicate
process (microbial biosurfactants) [17]. Biosurfactants possess a hydrophilic moiety that can include carbohydrates, amino acids, cyclic peptides, phosphates, carboxylic acids, or alcohols, and a hydrophobic moiety that is mostly composed of long-chain fatty acids, hydroxyl fatty acids, or α-alkyl β-hydroxy fatty acids. This combination of hydrophilic and hydrophobic moieties provides to biosurfactants their amphiphilic property and contributes to their surfactant and antimicrobial activities [18].

## 2.1. Biosurfactants sources

The production of biosurfactants depends on some factors that play a crucial role in the efficiency of the production yield, mostly the source of carbon and nitrogen, the carbon/nitrogen ratio, the content of salts and trace elements, and fermentation conditions [19]. The valorization of renewable wastes generated by food industry can be used to produce biosurfactants including bagasse, press mud, vegetables and fruits wastes, oil processing wastes, spent coffee ground, dairy products, fat, tallow, and lard [20,21]. Since the production of biosurfactants depends on carbon presence in the growth medium; lignocellulosic molecules (cellulose, lignin, hemicellulose) are selected for this purpose [20]. Accordingly, recent studies that used different renewable substrates for the production of microbial biosurfactants reported interesting yields (40.5 g/L) using *Pseudomonas* sp. Cultivated, for example, in canola waste frying oil [20,22]. Furthermore, rhamnolipid was produced by *Burkholderia kururiensis* KP23T isolated from an aquifer and glycolipoprotein by *Lactobacillus paracasei* subsp. *tolerans* N2 using sugar cane molasses as substrate [23]. However, the pathogenicity of strains and safety of produced biosurfactants should be assessed before any application.

## 2.2. Production of biosurfactants from microorganisms

With the growing demand for surface-active agents to mitigate the environmental concerns associated with the use of chemical surfactants, microbial-derived surfactants are receiving increasing attention. In fact, they are regarded as eco-friendly alternatives because of their low toxicity, better biodegradability, high selectivity, and versatile activity/use under extreme conditions [19]. Moreover, microbial-derived surfactants, from both bacteria and yeast [24], present important advantage due to the ability of their production using agri-food wastes and/or renewable sources [21].

Several studies on biosurfactants used lactic acid bacteria (LAB) for their production [25]. The use of LAB is mostly related to their GRAS status, their ability to promote human health, and strengthening the immune system. Thus, they have been proposed and evaluated for food preservation, food fermentation, improvement of the nutritional and sensory properties of food products. LAB have also interesting abilities to produce numerous functional metabolites that possess biopreservative potentials, such as enzymes, bacteriocins, biosurfactants, etc... [26]. The production of biosurfactants (glycolipoproteins biosurfactant) from LAB have been reported from several strains such as *Lactobacillus paracasei* subsp. *tolerans* N2 isolated from fermented cow milk [27]. Another study successfully isolated low-cost glycolipoprotein biosurfactant that is produced by *Lactobacillus plantarum* 60 FHE from cheese samples using food wastes [28]. Likewise, Kachrimanidou et al. [29] investigated the production of proteinaceous-based biosurfactants by several LAB strains, namely *Lactobacillus rhamnosus*, *Lactobacillus casei*, *Lactobacillus pentosus*, *Lactobacillus coryniformis*, *Lactobacillus paracasei*, and *Lactobacillus plantarum* using Cheese whey permeate as a low-cost fermentation feedstock for biosurfactant production. Our findings presented in this study indicate
promising results for reducing the expenses related to biosurfactant production. Moreover, they support the advancement of refining food industry by-products to bolster the circularity and sustainability of food systems. Other types of biosurfactants were further produced by LAB strains: Cell-bound biosurfactants Phosphoglycoprotein (Lactobacillus rhamnosus CCM 1825), cell-bound lipoprotein biosurfactants (Lactobacillus pentosus CECT-4023T and cell-bound glycoprotein (Lactococcus lactis 53, Pediococcus acidilactici F70 [30]. Glycolipid and cell-bound glycolipid biosurfactants have been further produced by several other strains such as *Weissella cibaria* PN3 and *Streptococcus thermophilus* [30]. LAB and many other mesophilic species are positive amphiphilic agents' producers, likely *Brukholederia kururiensis* KP23 that produces rhamnolipid [27].

Different recent studies evidenced the potential of extremophilic bacteria such as thermophilic microorganisms, to produce microbial surface tension agents [31]. For example, *Bacillus subtilis*, a thermophilic strain, was found as a good producer of surfactin that is a cyclic lipopeptide group of biosurfactants, possessing promoting properties such as high surface tension activity, high foaming capacity and stability, and antimicrobial activity [32]. Several other thermophilic bacteria strains are of interest: *Bacillus licheniformis* F2.2 [33], *Bacillus safensis* YKS2 [34] and *Bacillus tequilensis* [35].

Biosurfactants compounds have also been produced from yeasts. For example, *Candida bombicola* produces acidic sophorolipid, acidic glucolipid and alcoholic glucoside [36]. The marine yeast *Cyberlindnera saturnus* SBPN-27 produces the glycolipid cybersan (trigalactomargarate) biosurfactant [37]. Furthermore, anionic biosurfactants with possible glycolipid structure were isolated from *Geotrichum candidum*, *Galactomyces pseudocandidum* and *Candida tropicalis* [38], glycolipid bio-emulsifiers were produced by high-salt-tolerant halophilic *Cryptococcus* sp. YLF [39], and a high-titer liamocin was produced by yeast-like fungus *Aureobasidium pullulans* [40]. Several fungal species have also been identified as promising sources, such as *Mucor circinelloides* UBOCC-A-109190, *Mucor plumbeus* UBOCC-A-111133, and *Mucor mucedo* UBOCC-A-101353 as glycolipid producers [41].

### 3. Use of biosurfactants in the processing of meat and meat products

Owing to their multiple functional characteristics, mostly emulsifying capacity, stabilization, and antimicrobial and antioxidant activities, biosurfactants are widely used in food industry, however, their utilization in meat research is very limited.

#### 3.1. Antimicrobial activity of biosurfactants

The spoilage of meat products depends on the presence of various bacteria, mostly *Salmonella* spp., *Campylobacter jejuni*, *Escherichia coli* O157:H7, *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Clostridium* spp., *Pseudomonas*, *Acinetobacter*, *Brochothrix thermosphacta*, *Lactobacillus* spp., *Enterobacter*, molds, and yeasts. These spoilage microorganisms have the potential to cause outbreaks that can severely impact both public health and economy [2,42]. Therefore, effective preservation methods and strict quality control measures are crucial to mitigate meat spoilage and ensure food safety. For this purpose, some studies have focused on the use of biosurfactants as antimicrobial, fungicidal, fungistatic, and antibiofilm using different compounds produced from myriad microorganism [25,43–45]. Table 1 represents a few studies that evaluated the potential of biosurfactants as antimicrobial agents against microorganisms commonly present in meat and meat products. In Table 2 are summarized the available studies on the different applications of biosurfactants in meat research to preserve the quality or extend the shelf-life of meat and meat products.
promising results for reducing the expenses related to biosurfactant production. Moreover, they support the advancement of refining food industry by-products to bolster the circularity and sustainability of food systems. Other types of biosurfactants were further produced by LAB strains: Cell-bound biosurfactants Phosphoglycoprotein (Lactobacillus rhamnosus CCM 1825), cell-bound lipoprotein biosurfactants (Lactobacillus pentosus CECT-4023T and cell-bound glycoprotein (Lactococcus lactis 53, Pediococcus acidilactici F70 [30]. Glycolipid and cell-bound glycolipid biosurfactants have been further produced by several other strains such as *Weissella cibaria* PN3 and *Streptococcus thermophilus* [30]. LAB and many other mesophilic species are positive amphiphilic agents' producers, likely *Brukholederia kururiensis* KP23 that produces rhamnolipid [27].

Different recent studies evidenced the potential of extremophilic bacteria such as thermophilic microorganisms, to produce microbial surface tension agents [31]. For example, *Bacillus subtilis*, a thermophilic strain, was found as a good producer of surfactin that is a cyclic lipopeptide group of biosurfactants, possessing promoting properties such as high surface tension activity, high foaming capacity and stability, and antimicrobial activity [32]. Several other thermophilic bacteria strains are of interest: *Bacillus licheniformis* F2.2 [33], *Bacillus safensis* YKS2 [34] and *Bacillus tequilensis* [35].

Biosurfactants compounds have also been produced from yeasts. For example, *Candida bombicola* produces acidic sophorolipid, acidic glucolipid and alcoholic glucoside [36]. The marine yeast *Cyberlindnera saturnus* SBPN-27 produces the glycolipid cybersan (trigalactomargarate) biosurfactant [37]. Furthermore, anionic biosurfactants with possible glycolipid structure were isolated from *Geotrichum candidum*, *Galactomyces pseudocandidum* and *Candida tropicalis* [38], glycolipid bio-emulsifiers were produced by high-salt-tolerant halophilic *Cryptococcus* sp. YLF [39], and a high-titer liamocin was produced by yeast-like fungus *Aureobasidium pullulans* [40]. Several fungal species have also been identified as promising sources, such as *Mucor circinelloides* UBOCC-A-109190, *Mucor plumbeus* UBOCC-A-111133, and *Mucor mucedo* UBOCC-A-101353 as glycolipid producers [41].

### 3. Use of biosurfactants in the processing of meat and meat products

Owing to their multiple functional characteristics, mostly emulsifying capacity, stabilization, and antimicrobial and antioxidant activities, biosurfactants are widely used in food industry, however, their utilization in meat research is very limited.

#### 3.1. Antimicrobial activity of biosurfactants

The spoilage of meat products depends on the presence of various bacteria, mostly *Salmonella* spp., *Campylobacter jejuni*, *Escherichia coli* O157:H7, *Listeria monocytogenes*, *Clostridium* spp., *Pseudomonas*, *Acinetobacter*, *Brochothrix thermosphacta*, *Lactobacillus* spp., *Enterobacter*, molds, and yeasts. These spoilage microorganisms have the potential to cause outbreaks that can severely impact both public health and economy [2,42]. Therefore, effective preservation methods and strict quality control measures are crucial to mitigate meat spoilage and ensure food safety. For this purpose, some studies have focused on the use of biosurfactants as antimicrobial, fungicidal, fungistatic, and antibiofilm using different compounds produced from myriad microorganism [25,43–45]. Table 1 represents a few studies that evaluated the potential of biosurfactants as antimicrobial agents against microorganisms commonly present in meat and meat products. In Table 2 are summarized the available studies on the different applications of biosurfactants in meat research to preserve the quality or extend the shelf-life of meat and meat products.
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Biosurfactants as antimicrobial agents against pathogens commonly tested in food industry with emphasis on meat and meat products.</caption><thead><tr><th>Source (origin)</th><th>Biosurfactant tested</th><th>Targeted microorganisms</th><th>Refs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pseudomonas fragi NMC25</td><td>Undefined</td><td>Psychrophilic bacteria:<br>Acinetobacter<br>Shewanella<br>Serratia</td><td>[46]</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus subtilis</td><td>Lipopeptides: surfactin, fengycin, mycosubtilin and their mixtures</td><td>Paecilomyces variotti<br>Byssochlamys fulv<br>Candida krusei</td><td>[43]</td></tr><tr><td>Aneurinibacillus<br>aneurinilyticus</td><td>Lipopeptides</td><td>Pseudomonas aeruginosa<br>Escherichia coli<br>Aspergillus brasiliensis<br>Candida albicans</td><td>[47–49]</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Rhamnolipid<br>S. bombicola</td><td>Rhamnolipid<br>Sophorolipid</td><td>Bacillus cereus<br>Staphylococcus aureus<br>Listeria monocytogenes<br>Salmonella enterica<br>Escherichia coli</td><td>[50]<br>[51]</td></tr><tr><td>Rhodococcus fascians</td><td>Trehalose lipid (glycolipid)</td><td>Candida albican<br>Escherichia coli</td><td>[52]</td></tr><tr><td>Pediococcus pentosaceus</td><td>Lipoprotein</td><td>Bacillus subtilis<br>Pseudomonas aeruginosa<br>Staphylococcus aureus<br>Escherichia coli</td><td>[53]</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus cereus</td><td>Lipopeptide</td><td>Aspergillus niger<br>Penicillium fellutanum<br>Cladosporium cladosporioides</td><td>[54]</td></tr><tr><td>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</td><td>Glycolipid</td><td>Bacillus subtilis<br>Pseudomonas aeruginosa<br>Staphylococcus aureus<br>Escherichia coli</td><td>[55]</td></tr><tr><td>Lactobacillus paracasei<br>subsp. tolerans N2</td><td>Glycolipoprotein</td><td>Pseudomonas aeruginosa<br>Pseudomonas putida<br>Salmonella enteritidis<br>Yersinia enterolitica<br>Escherichia coli<br>Bacillus sp.<br>Staphylococcus aureus<br>Proteus mirabilis<br>Klebsiella pneumoniae</td><td>[27,56]</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Rhamnolipid</td><td>Rhamnolipid</td><td>Escherichia coli<br>Bacillus cereus</td><td>[57]</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Continued on the next page*
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Biosurfactants as antimicrobial agents against pathogens commonly tested in food industry with emphasis on meat and meat products.</caption><thead><tr><th>Source (origin)</th><th>Biosurfactant tested</th><th>Targeted microorganisms</th><th>Refs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Pseudomonas fragi NMC25</td><td>Undefined</td><td>Psychrophilic bacteria:<br>Acinetobacter<br>Shewanella<br>Serratia</td><td>[46]</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus subtilis</td><td>Lipopeptides: surfactin, fengycin, mycosubtilin and their mixtures</td><td>Paecilomyces variotti<br>Byssochlamys fulv<br>Candida krusei</td><td>[43]</td></tr><tr><td>Aneurinibacillus<br>aneurinilyticus</td><td>Lipopeptides</td><td>Pseudomonas aeruginosa<br>Escherichia coli<br>Aspergillus brasiliensis<br>Candida albicans</td><td>[47–49]</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Rhamnolipid<br>S. bombicola</td><td>Rhamnolipid<br>Sophorolipid</td><td>Bacillus cereus<br>Staphylococcus aureus<br>Listeria monocytogenes<br>Salmonella enterica<br>Escherichia coli</td><td>[50]<br>[51]</td></tr><tr><td>Rhodococcus fascians</td><td>Trehalose lipid (glycolipid)</td><td>Candida albican<br>Escherichia coli</td><td>[52]</td></tr><tr><td>Pediococcus pentosaceus</td><td>Lipoprotein</td><td>Bacillus subtilis<br>Pseudomonas aeruginosa<br>Staphylococcus aureus<br>Escherichia coli</td><td>[53]</td></tr><tr><td>Bacillus cereus</td><td>Lipopeptide</td><td>Aspergillus niger<br>Penicillium fellutanum<br>Cladosporium cladosporioides</td><td>[54]</td></tr><tr><td>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</td><td>Glycolipid</td><td>Bacillus subtilis<br>Pseudomonas aeruginosa<br>Staphylococcus aureus<br>Escherichia coli</td><td>[55]</td></tr><tr><td>Lactobacillus paracasei<br>subsp. tolerans N2</td><td>Glycolipoprotein</td><td>Pseudomonas aeruginosa<br>Pseudomonas putida<br>Salmonella enteritidis<br>Yersinia enterolitica<br>Escherichia coli<br>Bacillus sp.<br>Staphylococcus aureus<br>Proteus mirabilis<br>Klebsiella pneumoniae</td><td>[27,56]</td></tr><tr><td>Commercial Rhamnolipid</td><td>Rhamnolipid</td><td>Escherichia coli<br>Bacillus cereus</td><td>[57]</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Continued on the next page*
<table><thead><tr><th>Source (origin)</th><th>Biosurfactant tested</th><th>Targeted microorganisms</th><th>Refs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>Pseudozyma aphidis</i> DSM 70,725</td><td>Mannosylerythritol Lipids-A</td><td><i>Listeria monocytogenes</i></td><td>[57]</td></tr><tr><td><i>Wickerhamomyces anomalus</i></td><td>Glycolipid</td><td><i>Escherichia coli</i><br><i>Staphylococcus aureus</i><br><i>Salmonella</i></td><td>[58]</td></tr><tr><td><i>Candida parapsilosis</i></td><td>13-Docosenamide</td><td><i>Escherichia coli</i><br><i>Staphylococcus aureus</i></td><td>[59]</td></tr></tbody></table>

The antimicrobial action of biosurfactants is widely explored for food safety purposes, which can act through several mechanisms: i) Modification of the surface charge, wettability and reduction of the interaction of bacterial population with the surface [60,61]; ii) interaction with intracellular constituents and perturbation of the normal functioning of microorganisms, thereby hindering crucial cellular processes, consequently, inhibiting the microbial growth, survival, and proliferation [61,62]; iii) induction at high concentration of necrosis and at low concentration fungal apoptosis [61,63]; and iv) binding to the phospholipid surface of the microbial cytoplasmic membrane through electrostatic forces, which can lead to the diffusion into the inner hydrophobic part of the membrane, consequently, weakening its lipid structure (Figure 1) and leaking its essential molecules [64].

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Schematic antibacterial mechanism of surfactant micelles against *E. coli*. (Reprinted with permission from [65]).</figcaption></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th>Source (origin)</th><th>Biosurfactant tested</th><th>Targeted microorganisms</th><th>Refs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><i>Pseudozyma aphidis</i> DSM 70,725</td><td>Mannosylerythritol Lipids-A</td><td><i>Listeria monocytogenes</i></td><td>[57]</td></tr><tr><td><i>Wickerhamomyces anomalus</i></td><td>Glycolipid</td><td><i>Escherichia coli</i><br><i>Staphylococcus aureus</i><br><i>Salmonella</i></td><td>[58]</td></tr><tr><td><i>Candida parapsilosis</i></td><td>13-Docosenamide</td><td><i>Escherichia coli</i><br><i>Staphylococcus aureus</i></td><td>[59]</td></tr></tbody></table>

The antimicrobial action of biosurfactants is widely explored for food safety purposes, which can act through several mechanisms: i) Modification of the surface charge, wettability and reduction of the interaction of bacterial population with the surface [60,61]; ii) interaction with intracellular constituents and perturbation of the normal functioning of microorganisms, thereby hindering crucial cellular processes, consequently, inhibiting the microbial growth, survival, and proliferation [61,62]; iii) induction at high concentration of necrosis and at low concentration fungal apoptosis [61,63]; and iv) binding to the phospholipid surface of the microbial cytoplasmic membrane through electrostatic forces, which can lead to the diffusion into the inner hydrophobic part of the membrane, consequently, weakening its lipid structure (Figure 1) and leaking its essential molecules [64].

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Schematic antibacterial mechanism of surfactant micelles against *E. coli*. (Reprinted with permission from [65]).</figcaption></figure>
<table><caption>**Table 2.** A non-exhaustive list of the various applications of biosurfactants in meat research.</caption><thead><tr><th>Biosurfactant(s)</th><th>Sources</th><th>Objective of the trials</th><th>Type of meat matrix and procedure</th><th>Main results</th><th>Refs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Glycolipoprotein</td><td>-Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. Tolerans N2<br/>-Lactobacillus casei subsp. casei TM1B</td><td>In-situ effects of biosurfactants on the microbiological and physicochemical stabilities of raw ground goat meat stored at 4 °C</td><td>Raw ground goat meat mixed with the glycolipid biosurfactant in sterile polyethylene bags</td><td><ul><li>Decrease of the total aerobic counts, E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, leading to increased shelf-life (up to 15 days)</li><li>Better color stability</li><li>Inhibition of lipid oxidation</li><li>Inhibition of the production of basic volatile nitrogen</li></ul></td><td>[25,56]</td></tr><tr><td>-Acetylated starch<br/>-Octenyl succinic<br/>-Anhydride starch<br/>-Ethyl (hydroxyethyl) cellulose<br/>-Dodecenyl succinylated inulin</td><td>Commercial</td><td>Formulation and development of a low-fat, printable, acceptable texture and fibrous sensation of plant-based meat analogue ink for potential utilization in 3D printing technology, focusing on exploring the biosurfactants and their functional properties</td><td>Oil partially or entirely replaced with hydrophobically modified biosurfactants in a soy protein-based emulsion, in order to develop a reduced-fat meat analogue</td><td><ul><li>Improvements of the pseudoplastic behavior with viscoelastic properties due to reduced-fat inks</li><li>Increase of consistency index recovery, frequency crossover point, and storage modulus</li></ul></td><td>[66,67]</td></tr><tr><td>Undefined</td><td>Bacillus subtilis DS03</td><td>Evaluate the biological activity of the biosurfactants against pathogenic strains and its potential sanitizer in open cleaning systems in the meat processing laboratory</td><td>Designing an open cleaning system in the meat processing (after sausage production) where 3 products of the cleaning out-of-place system were formulated using biosurfactants</td><td><ul><li>The cleaning of the equipment and utensils with biosurfactants led to a significant decrease of E. coli, S. aureus and L. monocytogenes</li></ul></td><td>[68]</td></tr><tr><td>Sophorolipid</td><td>Starmerella bombicola</td><td>Develop a green packaging for the control of foodborne pathogens against poultry spoilage</td><td>Formulated bioactive film incorporating polylactic acid and sophorolipid biosurfactant</td><td><ul><li>Total inhibition of L. monocytogenes, S. aureus and reduction of 50% of Salmonella spp bacterial population</li></ul></td><td>[69]</td></tr><tr><td>Lipopeptide</td><td>Enterobacter cloacae</td><td>Investigate the antioxidant activity, emulsion stability and the conservation stability of raw beef patties using a biosurfactant</td><td>Determination of the antioxidant activity of the lipopeptide biosurfactant</td><td><ul><li>Significant oxidative stability of raw beef patties in the presence of the lipopeptide</li></ul></td><td>[70]</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Continued on the next page*
<table><caption>**Table 2.** A non-exhaustive list of the various applications of biosurfactants in meat research.</caption><thead><tr><th>Biosurfactant(s)</th><th>Sources</th><th>Objective of the trials</th><th>Type of meat matrix and procedure</th><th>Main results</th><th>Refs.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Glycolipoprotein</td><td>-Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. Tolerans N2<br/>-Lactobacillus casei subsp. casei TM1B</td><td>In-situ effects of biosurfactants on the microbiological and physicochemical stabilities of raw ground goat meat stored at 4 °C</td><td>Raw ground goat meat mixed with the glycolipid biosurfactant in sterile polyethylene bags</td><td><ul><li>Decrease of the total aerobic counts, E. coli and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, leading to increased shelf-life (up to 15 days)</li><li>Better color stability</li><li>Inhibition of lipid oxidation</li><li>Inhibition of the production of basic volatile nitrogen</li></ul></td><td>[25,56]</td></tr><tr><td>-Acetylated starch<br/>-Octenyl succinic<br/>-Anhydride starch<br/>-Ethyl (hydroxyethyl) cellulose<br/>-Dodecenyl succinylated inulin</td><td>Commercial</td><td>Formulation and development of a low-fat, printable, acceptable texture and fibrous sensation of plant-based meat analogue ink for potential utilization in 3D printing technology, focusing on exploring the biosurfactants and their functional properties</td><td>Oil partially or entirely replaced with hydrophobically modified biosurfactants in a soy protein-based emulsion, in order to develop a reduced-fat meat analogue</td><td><ul><li>Improvements of the pseudoplastic behavior with viscoelastic properties due to reduced-fat inks</li><li>Increase of consistency index recovery, frequency crossover point, and storage modulus</li></ul></td><td>[66,67]</td></tr><tr><td>Undefined</td><td>Bacillus subtilis DS03</td><td>Evaluate the biological activity of the biosurfactants against pathogenic strains and its potential sanitizer in open cleaning systems in the meat processing laboratory</td><td>Designing an open cleaning system in the meat processing (after sausage production) where 3 products of the cleaning out-of-place system were formulated using biosurfactants</td><td><ul><li>The cleaning of the equipment and utensils with biosurfactants led to a significant decrease of E. coli, S. aureus and L. monocytogenes</li></ul></td><td>[68]</td></tr><tr><td>Sophorolipid</td><td>Starmerella bombicola</td><td>Develop a green packaging for the control of foodborne pathogens against poultry spoilage</td><td>Formulated bioactive film incorporating polylactic acid and sophorolipid biosurfactant</td><td><ul><li>Total inhibition of L. monocytogenes, S. aureus and reduction of 50% of Salmonella spp bacterial population</li></ul></td><td>[69]</td></tr><tr><td>Lipopeptide</td><td>Enterobacter cloacae</td><td>Investigate the antioxidant activity, emulsion stability and the conservation stability of raw beef patties using a biosurfactant</td><td>Determination of the antioxidant activity of the lipopeptide biosurfactant</td><td><ul><li>Significant oxidative stability of raw beef patties in the presence of the lipopeptide</li></ul></td><td>[70]</td></tr></tbody></table>

*Continued on the next page*
<table><thead><tr><td>Biosurfactant(s)</td><td>Sources</td><td>Objective of the trials</td><td>Type of meat matrix and procedure</td><td>Main results</td><td>Refs.</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Undefined</td><td>Pseudomonas fragi</td><td>Evaluate the effect of the biosurfactant on the spoilage ability and community dynamics of bacteria on the surface of chilled meat</td><td>The biosurfactant was spread onto the surface of chicken breast. Several meat quality parameters have been evacuated including the microbiological counts, TVB-N, pH and meat color</td><td>• Significant changes of the microbial diversity of the meat matrix, with a dominance of Pseudomonas in the population and effective reduction of spoilage state of meat</td><td>[46]</td></tr><tr><td>Lipopeptides</td><td>Bacillus methylotrophicus</td><td>Determine the antioxidant properties of the biosurfactant in raw beef patties during conservation; develop a novel type of beef patties coating: biosurfactant-gelatin-film for lipid oxidation prevention and shelf-life extension</td><td>Ground beef meat used for patty formulations was treated with lipopeptide biosurfactant through two ways: patty formulation including the biosurfactant, and standard beef patty covered with the biosurfactant coating</td><td>• Inhibition of lipid oxidation<br>• Significant efficiency of the direct use of biosurfactant in lipid oxidation than coating</td><td>[71]</td></tr><tr><td>Sophorolipids</td><td>Starmerella bombicola</td><td>Develop chicken sausage with biosurfactant and exploring their antimicrobial, antioxidant and emulsifying properties.</td><td>Formulation of the sausage prepared by mixing chicken ground meat, non-meat ingredients and additives, enriched with different concentrations of sophorolipid biosurfactants</td><td>• Improvement of the sausage structural integrity: less porous mass, low cracks and better emulsion stability<br>• Impact on color<br>• Antimicrobial activity against C. perfringens and better antioxidant activity</td><td>[72]</td></tr><tr><td>Quillaja Saponin</td><td>Commercial purchased</td><td>Develop a natural and edible antioxidant agent via a formulation of a thymol nanoemulsion applied on raw chicken breast meat using biosurfactant.</td><td>Formulation of a nanoemulsion using Quillaja Saponin biosurfactant in addition to other green solvents, where the meat samples were dipped during 14 days of storage in 4 °C</td><td>• Effective green nanoemulsion<br>• Antioxidant capability against lipid oxidation</td><td>[73]</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><thead><tr><td>Biosurfactant(s)</td><td>Sources</td><td>Objective of the trials</td><td>Type of meat matrix and procedure</td><td>Main results</td><td>Refs.</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Undefined</td><td>Pseudomonas fragi</td><td>Evaluate the effect of the biosurfactant on the spoilage ability and community dynamics of bacteria on the surface of chilled meat</td><td>The biosurfactant was spread onto the surface of chicken breast. Several meat quality parameters have been evacuated including the microbiological counts, TVB-N, pH and meat color</td><td>• Significant changes of the microbial diversity of the meat matrix, with a dominance of Pseudomonas in the population and effective reduction of spoilage state of meat</td><td>[46]</td></tr><tr><td>Lipopeptides</td><td>Bacillus methylotrophicus</td><td>Determine the antioxidant properties of the biosurfactant in raw beef patties during conservation; develop a novel type of beef patties coating: biosurfactant-gelatin-film for lipid oxidation prevention and shelf-life extension</td><td>Ground beef meat used for patty formulations was treated with lipopeptide biosurfactant through two ways: patty formulation including the biosurfactant, and standard beef patty covered with the biosurfactant coating</td><td>• Inhibition of lipid oxidation<br>• Significant efficiency of the direct use of biosurfactant in lipid oxidation than coating</td><td>[71]</td></tr><tr><td>Sophorolipids</td><td>Starmerella bombicola</td><td>Develop chicken sausage with biosurfactant and exploring their antimicrobial, antioxidant and emulsifying properties.</td><td>Formulation of the sausage prepared by mixing chicken ground meat, non-meat ingredients and additives, enriched with different concentrations of sophorolipid biosurfactants</td><td>• Improvement of the sausage structural integrity: less porous mass, low cracks and better emulsion stability<br>• Impact on color<br>• Antimicrobial activity against C. perfringens and better antioxidant activity</td><td>[72]</td></tr><tr><td>Quillaja Saponin</td><td>Commercial purchased</td><td>Develop a natural and edible antioxidant agent via a formulation of a thymol nanoemulsion applied on raw chicken breast meat using biosurfactant.</td><td>Formulation of a nanoemulsion using Quillaja Saponin biosurfactant in addition to other green solvents, where the meat samples were dipped during 14 days of storage in 4 °C</td><td>• Effective green nanoemulsion<br>• Antioxidant capability against lipid oxidation</td><td>[73]</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 3.2. Antibiofilm activity

Biosurfactants were evidenced in several studies as a sustainable alternative to chemical compounds thanks to their antiadhesive and antibiofilm properties. Studies demonstrated that biosurfactants from two *L. casei* strains exhibited antibiofilm activities against *S. aureus* [74]. Other studies confirmed the biofilm inhibition of *S. aureus* by rhamnolipid produced by *Enterobacter* sp. UJS-RC [75] and others observed a reduction of 60% of *Salmonella* biofilm cells [76]. A study conducted by Mouafo and co-workers [56] reported that the glycolipoprotein biosurfactant from *Lactobacillus paracasei* was able to inhibit biofilm formation of six pathogen strains isolated from braised fish, namely *Escherichia coli*, *Staphylococcus aureus*, *Salmonella enteritidis*, *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*, *Yersinia enterolitica*, *Proteus mirabilis*, and *Klebsiella pneumonia*. It has been shown that biosurfactants are capable of modifying the physio-chemical properties of surfaces, subsequently reducing adhesion and biofilm formation [77].

## 3.3. Antioxidant activity

In order to mitigate the oxidation of proteins and lipids in muscle foods, natural compounds with antioxidant activity are widely used [1], from which biosurfactants are good candidates [25]. Some, as evidenced in Table 2, have demonstrated significant effects, such as the application of glycoprotein biosurfactant in inhibiting both lipid oxidation and the production of total volatile basic nitrogen in fresh ground goat meat [25]. Antioxidant activity of a lipopeptide biosurfactant was investigated by several mechanisms using several lipid oxidation tests, and it showed a significant impact on the inhibition of lipid oxidation in beef samples [70]. Furthermore, another earlier study confirmed the effective antioxidant activity of lipopeptides in ground beef patties up to 14 days, suggesting that the direct use of biosurfactants is more effective than using gelatin-based antioxidant packaging[71]. Kaiser et al. [72] carried out research to investigate the inhibition of lipid peroxidation of chicken sausages, and their findings revealed promising results using sophorolipid biosurfactant as a potential natural preservative. Quillaja Saponin biosurfactant also seemed to have a significant antioxidant activity on raw chicken breast meat through thymol nanoemulsion formulation [73]. Authors have explained the mechanisms behind this potency via ferric reducing antioxidant power of surfactin and rhamnolipid and further demonstrated that this might be due to hydroxyl groups in the lipopeptide molecular structure, hydrophobic amino acids (valine and leucine), acidic amino acids (aspartic acid and glutamic acid), and sulfur-containing amino acids such as methionine acids [78]. Moreover, biosurfactants exhibit a DPPH scavenging activity in which free radicals are neutralized by transferring either protons to electrons [78] or a hydrogen atom [77]. The results demonstrated the unsaturated lipids' ability to scavenge the reactive oxygen species and to prevent lipid peroxidation. Thus, this scavenging effect might be attributed to the presence of several active residues and to the hydrocarbon fatty acid chain in the peptide ring of the lipopeptide biosurfactant, which can react with the free radicals of DPPH. However, the lipid peroxidation inhibition could be attributed to the presence of both hydrophobic amino acids in the peptide ring and the acyl chain of beta-hydroxy fatty acids, thus improving the solubility of the peptide in the hydrophobic medium [77,78].
## 3.2. Antibiofilm activity

Biosurfactants were evidenced in several studies as a sustainable alternative to chemical compounds thanks to their antiadhesive and antibiofilm properties. Studies demonstrated that biosurfactants from two *L. casei* strains exhibited antibiofilm activities against *S. aureus* [74]. Other studies confirmed the biofilm inhibition of *S. aureus* by rhamnolipid produced by *Enterobacter* sp. UJS-RC [75] and others observed a reduction of 60% of *Salmonella* biofilm cells [76]. A study conducted by Mouafo and co-workers [56] reported that the glycolipoprotein biosurfactant from *Lactobacillus paracasei* was able to inhibit biofilm formation of six pathogen strains isolated from braised fish, namely *Escherichia coli*, *Staphylococcus aureus*, *Salmonella enteritidis*, *Pseudomonas aeruginosa*, *Yersinia enterolitica*, *Proteus mirabilis*, and *Klebsiella pneumonia*. It has been shown that biosurfactants are capable of modifying the physio-chemical properties of surfaces, subsequently reducing adhesion and biofilm formation [77].

## 3.3. Antioxidant activity

In order to mitigate the oxidation of proteins and lipids in muscle foods, natural compounds with antioxidant activity are widely used [1], from which biosurfactants are good candidates [25]. Some, as evidenced in Table 2, have demonstrated significant effects, such as the application of glycoprotein biosurfactant in inhibiting both lipid oxidation and the production of total volatile basic nitrogen in fresh ground goat meat [25]. Antioxidant activity of a lipopeptide biosurfactant was investigated by several mechanisms using several lipid oxidation tests, and it showed a significant impact on the inhibition of lipid oxidation in beef samples [70]. Furthermore, another earlier study confirmed the effective antioxidant activity of lipopeptides in ground beef patties up to 14 days, suggesting that the direct use of biosurfactants is more effective than using gelatin-based antioxidant packaging[71]. Kaiser et al. [72] carried out research to investigate the inhibition of lipid peroxidation of chicken sausages, and their findings revealed promising results using sophorolipid biosurfactant as a potential natural preservative. Quillaja Saponin biosurfactant also seemed to have a significant antioxidant activity on raw chicken breast meat through thymol nanoemulsion formulation [73]. Authors have explained the mechanisms behind this potency via ferric reducing antioxidant power of surfactin and rhamnolipid and further demonstrated that this might be due to hydroxyl groups in the lipopeptide molecular structure, hydrophobic amino acids (valine and leucine), acidic amino acids (aspartic acid and glutamic acid), and sulfur-containing amino acids such as methionine acids [78]. Moreover, biosurfactants exhibit a DPPH scavenging activity in which free radicals are neutralized by transferring either protons to electrons [78] or a hydrogen atom [77]. The results demonstrated the unsaturated lipids' ability to scavenge the reactive oxygen species and to prevent lipid peroxidation. Thus, this scavenging effect might be attributed to the presence of several active residues and to the hydrocarbon fatty acid chain in the peptide ring of the lipopeptide biosurfactant, which can react with the free radicals of DPPH. However, the lipid peroxidation inhibition could be attributed to the presence of both hydrophobic amino acids in the peptide ring and the acyl chain of beta-hydroxy fatty acids, thus improving the solubility of the peptide in the hydrophobic medium [77,78].
### 3.4. Potential use of biosurfactants in meat emulsification

Several meat products, such as sausages, frankfurters, bologna, and mortadella under the name of emulsion-type meat products, are produced [79]. These emulsion-type products are prepared by finely chopping meat from various sources (pork, beef, mutton, etc.), creating a stable mixture that effectively binds water and entraps fat. This unique emulsion imparts the textural properties to the product when cooked [80], which are considered as oil-in-water emulsions [81]. The quantity of fat plays a crucial role of the enhancement of flavor, texture, hardness, juiciness, mouth feel, moisture, and technological properties of these products such as pork backfat in sausages, meat batters, frankfurters, beef fat in beef burgers, and so on. However, the current concerns of consumers about various aspects of food quality and health is getting significant attention. Consequently, the reformulation of meat derivatives and especially emulsion based ones to enhance their health profile has become a vital strategy, particularly because consumers often perceive them as unhealthy because of the considerable quantity of fat that they contain [80]. Therefore, several studies have been performed to address the reduction of fat content, enhancement of fat profile, and transformation of liquid oil into a semi-solid system through various approaches such as hydrogenation, interesterification, oil bulking systems, and structured emulsions [82]. Accordingly, numerous emulsifying agents have been investigated, encompassing proteins, amphiphilic polysaccharides, protein-polysaccharide complexes, and low molecular weight surfactants. These agents play a crucial role in stabilizing emulsions, leading to improve product quality and functionality in various meat emulsion [83]. In the context of evaluating surfactants and among the very few studies, Serdaroğlu and co-workers [84] investigated the effect of partial beef fat replacement with gelled emulsion on functional and quality properties of model system meat emulsion supplemented with polyglyserol polyricinoleate surfactant. The findings indicated that partial replacement of beef fat with gelled emulsion could enhance cooking yield. Although the inclusion of gelled emulsion significantly influenced the textural properties of the samples, it did not have any adverse effects on water holding capacity and emulsion stability, concluding the potential benefits of using gelled emulsion in meat product formulations for the development of healthier meat products.

The preparation of meat emulsion gels typically involves the production of a protein-stabilized emulsion, but it can be further supplemented with a hydrocolloid stabilizer or other ingredients, such as proteins, polysaccharides, and surfactants, after the formation of the emulsion [85]. This approach ensures the stability and functionality of the resulting emulsion gel [83,86]. For example, soybean protein serves as a source of surfactant molecules, effectively reducing the interfacial tension between oil and water in emulsion gels, which enhances the stability of the emulsion gels and contributes to their overall quality and functionality [83]. However, these surfactants are considered toxic agents causing environmental damage due to their chemical production process [87]. Therefore, as discussed earlier, biosurfactants gained recently a significant interest, including their use as emulsifying agents [88]. Even though many researchers investigated the use of biosurfactants as a green alternative of chemical surfactants in many fields globally and in the food industry, there is a lack of studies exploring biosurfactants in emulsion-based meat products. Thus, we believe that exploring the use of biosurfactants in fat meat replacers and emulsion-based meat formulations could yield noteworthy and valuable outcomes. Such investigations may open up new avenues for developing healthier and more sustainable meat products as well as satisfying the consumers' expectations.
### 3.4. Potential use of biosurfactants in meat emulsification

Several meat products, such as sausages, frankfurters, bologna, and mortadella under the name of emulsion-type meat products, are produced [79]. These emulsion-type products are prepared by finely chopping meat from various sources (pork, beef, mutton, etc.), creating a stable mixture that effectively binds water and entraps fat. This unique emulsion imparts the textural properties to the product when cooked [80], which are considered as oil-in-water emulsions [81]. The quantity of fat plays a crucial role of the enhancement of flavor, texture, hardness, juiciness, mouth feel, moisture, and technological properties of these products such as pork backfat in sausages, meat batters, frankfurters, beef fat in beef burgers, and so on. However, the current concerns of consumers about various aspects of food quality and health is getting significant attention. Consequently, the reformulation of meat derivatives and especially emulsion based ones to enhance their health profile has become a vital strategy, particularly because consumers often perceive them as unhealthy because of the considerable quantity of fat that they contain [80]. Therefore, several studies have been performed to address the reduction of fat content, enhancement of fat profile, and transformation of liquid oil into a semi-solid system through various approaches such as hydrogenation, interesterification, oil bulking systems, and structured emulsions [82]. Accordingly, numerous emulsifying agents have been investigated, encompassing proteins, amphiphilic polysaccharides, protein-polysaccharide complexes, and low molecular weight surfactants. These agents play a crucial role in stabilizing emulsions, leading to improve product quality and functionality in various meat emulsion [83]. In the context of evaluating surfactants and among the very few studies, Serdaroğlu and co-workers [84] investigated the effect of partial beef fat replacement with gelled emulsion on functional and quality properties of model system meat emulsion supplemented with polyglyserol polyricinoleate surfactant. The findings indicated that partial replacement of beef fat with gelled emulsion could enhance cooking yield. Although the inclusion of gelled emulsion significantly influenced the textural properties of the samples, it did not have any adverse effects on water holding capacity and emulsion stability, concluding the potential benefits of using gelled emulsion in meat product formulations for the development of healthier meat products.

The preparation of meat emulsion gels typically involves the production of a protein-stabilized emulsion, but it can be further supplemented with a hydrocolloid stabilizer or other ingredients, such as proteins, polysaccharides, and surfactants, after the formation of the emulsion [85]. This approach ensures the stability and functionality of the resulting emulsion gel [83,86]. For example, soybean protein serves as a source of surfactant molecules, effectively reducing the interfacial tension between oil and water in emulsion gels, which enhances the stability of the emulsion gels and contributes to their overall quality and functionality [83]. However, these surfactants are considered toxic agents causing environmental damage due to their chemical production process [87]. Therefore, as discussed earlier, biosurfactants gained recently a significant interest, including their use as emulsifying agents [88]. Even though many researchers investigated the use of biosurfactants as a green alternative of chemical surfactants in many fields globally and in the food industry, there is a lack of studies exploring biosurfactants in emulsion-based meat products. Thus, we believe that exploring the use of biosurfactants in fat meat replacers and emulsion-based meat formulations could yield noteworthy and valuable outcomes. Such investigations may open up new avenues for developing healthier and more sustainable meat products as well as satisfying the consumers' expectations.
## 4. Conclusions

Green biopreservatives are receiving a huge interest worldwide due to their low toxicity and ecological purposes. In this sense, biosurfactants, which are amphiphilic molecules, are showing advantageous features that can be considered sustainable and biological alternatives to chemical and harmful surfactants, owing to their multiple and functional properties such as emulsification, stabilization, and bacterial and fungal inhibition, consequently enhancing food quality and extending the shelf-life of the products. These characteristics are widely demanded in the meat industry to reduce waste and prevent the perishability of meat products. In this article, we discussed the utilization of biosurfactants in food science with an emphasis on meat and meat products. We highlighted the multiple potential applications of biosurfactants as antimicrobial, antibiofilm, and/or antioxidant agents to tackle the problem of different types of meat products' spoilage and their stability. The effectiveness of the biosurfactants is not confirmed, but all the available data are promising, especially in extending the shelf-life of the products. Notwithstanding, they seemed to have interesting properties to be applied as stabilizers in meat-based emulsions. Further studies and evaluations of biosurfactants in meat research are needed to establish more evidence of their applications' potential and feasibility of use at larger scale.

### Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare that they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

### Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with the work presented here.

### References

1. Manessis G, Kalogianni AI, Lazou T, et al. (2020) Plant-derived natural antioxidants in meat and meat products. *Antioxidants* 9: 1215. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9121215

2. Ji J, Shankar S, Royon F, et al. (2023) Essential oils as natural antimicrobials applied in meat and meat products—A review. *Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr* 63: 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1957766

3. Mouafo HT, Baomog AMB, Adjele JJB, et al. (2020) Microbial profile of fresh beef sold in the markets of Ngaoundéré, Cameroon, and Antiadhesive activity of a biosurfactant against selected bacterial pathogens. *J Food Qual* 2020: 5989428. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5989428

4. Falowo AB, Fayemi PO, Muchenje V (2014) Natural antioxidants against lipid-protein oxidative deterioration in meat and meat products: A review. *Food Res Int* 64: 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.06.022

5. Feknous I, Saada D, Boulahlib C, et al. (2023) Poultry meat quality preservation by plant extracts: An overview. *Meat Technol* 64: 80–101. https://doi.org/10.18485/meattech.2023.64.3.2

6. Kalogianni AI, Lazou T, Bossis I, et al. (2020) Natural phenolic compounds for the control of oxidation, bacterial spoilage, and foodborne pathogens in meat. *Foods* 9: 794. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9060794
## 4. Conclusions

Green biopreservatives are receiving a huge interest worldwide due to their low toxicity and ecological purposes. In this sense, biosurfactants, which are amphiphilic molecules, are showing advantageous features that can be considered sustainable and biological alternatives to chemical and harmful surfactants, owing to their multiple and functional properties such as emulsification, stabilization, and bacterial and fungal inhibition, consequently enhancing food quality and extending the shelf-life of the products. These characteristics are widely demanded in the meat industry to reduce waste and prevent the perishability of meat products. In this article, we discussed the utilization of biosurfactants in food science with an emphasis on meat and meat products. We highlighted the multiple potential applications of biosurfactants as antimicrobial, antibiofilm, and/or antioxidant agents to tackle the problem of different types of meat products' spoilage and their stability. The effectiveness of the biosurfactants is not confirmed, but all the available data are promising, especially in extending the shelf-life of the products. Notwithstanding, they seemed to have interesting properties to be applied as stabilizers in meat-based emulsions. Further studies and evaluations of biosurfactants in meat research are needed to establish more evidence of their applications' potential and feasibility of use at larger scale.

### Use of AI tools declaration

The authors declare that they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

### Conflict of interest

All the authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest with the work presented here.

### References

1. Manessis G, Kalogianni AI, Lazou T, et al. (2020) Plant-derived natural antioxidants in meat and meat products. *Antioxidants* 9: 1215. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9121215

2. Ji J, Shankar S, Royon F, et al. (2023) Essential oils as natural antimicrobials applied in meat and meat products—A review. *Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr* 63: 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1957766

3. Mouafo HT, Baomog AMB, Adjele JJB, et al. (2020) Microbial profile of fresh beef sold in the markets of Ngaoundéré, Cameroon, and Antiadhesive activity of a biosurfactant against selected bacterial pathogens. *J Food Qual* 2020: 5989428. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5989428

4. Falowo AB, Fayemi PO, Muchenje V (2014) Natural antioxidants against lipid-protein oxidative deterioration in meat and meat products: A review. *Food Res Int* 64: 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.06.022

5. Feknous I, Saada D, Boulahlib C, et al. (2023) Poultry meat quality preservation by plant extracts: An overview. *Meat Technol* 64: 80–101. https://doi.org/10.18485/meattech.2023.64.3.2

6. Kalogianni AI, Lazou T, Bossis I, et al. (2020) Natural phenolic compounds for the control of oxidation, bacterial spoilage, and foodborne pathogens in meat. *Foods* 9: 794. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9060794
7. Domínguez R, Pateiro M, Munekata PES, et al. (2022) Protein oxidation in muscle foods: A comprehensive review. *Antioxidants* 11: 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11010060

8. Gagaoua M, Pinto VZ, Göksen G, et al. (2022) Electrospinning as a promising process to preserve the quality and safety of meat and meat products. *Coatings* 12: 644. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12050644

9. Lamri M, Bhattacharya T, Boukid F, et al. (2021) Nanotechnology as a processing and packaging tool to improve meat quality and safety. *Foods* 10: 2633. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112633

10. Gagaoua M, Alessandroni L, Das A, et al. (2023) Intrinsic and extrinsic factors impacting fresh goat meat quality: An overview. *Sci J Meat Technol* 64: 20–40. https://doi.org/10.18485/meattech.2023.64.1.3

11. Wang J, Ren B, Bak KH, et al. (2023) Preservative effects of composite biopreservatives on goat meat during chilled storage: Insights into meat quality, high-throughput sequencing and molecular docking. *LWT* 184: 115033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115033

12. Pateiro M, Barba FJ, Domínguez R, et al. (2018) Essential oils as natural additives to prevent oxidation reactions in meat and meat products: A review. *Food Res Int* 113: 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.07.014

13. Ji J, Shankar S, Royon F, et al. (2023) Essential oils as natural antimicrobials applied in meat and meat products—A review. *Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr* 63: 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1957766

14. Zhang F, Zhang M, Chen Y, et al. (2021) Antimicrobial, anti-biofilm properties of three naturally occurring antimicrobial peptides against spoilage bacteria, and their synergistic effect with chemical preservatives in food storage. *Food Control* 123: 107729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107729

15. Feknous I, Saada D, Boulahlib C, et al. (2023) Poultry meat quality preservation by plant extracts: an overview. *Meat Technol* 64: 80–101. https://doi.org/10.18485/meattech.2023.64.3.2

16. Padma Ishwarya S, Nisha P (2022) Insights into the composition, structure-function relationship, and molecular organization of surfactants from spent coffee grounds. *Food Hydrocolloids* 124: 107204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.107204

17. Baccile N, Poirier A (2023) Chapter 1—Microbial bio-based amphiphiles (biosurfactants): General aspects on critical micelle concentration, surface tension, and phase behavior. In: Soberón-Chávez G (Ed.), *Biosurfactants*, Academic Press, 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91697-4.00001-6

18. Plaza GA, Chojniak J, Banat IM (2014) Biosurfactant Mediated Biosynthesis of Selected Metallic Nanoparticles. *Int J Mol Sci* 15: 13720–13737. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms150813720

19. Aslam R, Mobin M, Zehra S, et al. (2023) Biosurfactants: Types, Sources, and Production. In: Aslam R, Mobin M, Aslam J et al. (Eds.), *Advancements in Biosurfactants Research*, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21682-4_1

20. Gunjal A (2023) Biosurfactants from renewable sources—A review. *Nepal J Environ Sci* 10: 15–23. https://doi.org/10.3126/njes.v10i2.48538

21. Domínguez Rivera Á, Martínez Urbina MÁ, López y López VE (2019) Advances on research in the use of agro-industrial waste in biosurfactant production. *World J Microbiol Biotechnol* 35: 155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-019-2729-3

22. Soares da Silva RdCF, de Almeida DG, Brasileiro PPF, et al. (2019) Production, formulation and cost estimation of a commercial biosurfactant. *Biodegradation* 30: 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-018-9830-4
7. Domínguez R, Pateiro M, Munekata PES, et al. (2022) Protein oxidation in muscle foods: A comprehensive review. *Antioxidants* 11: 60. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox11010060

8. Gagaoua M, Pinto VZ, Göksen G, et al. (2022) Electrospinning as a promising process to preserve the quality and safety of meat and meat products. *Coatings* 12: 644. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings12050644

9. Lamri M, Bhattacharya T, Boukid F, et al. (2021) Nanotechnology as a processing and packaging tool to improve meat quality and safety. *Foods* 10: 2633. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10112633

10. Gagaoua M, Alessandroni L, Das A, et al. (2023) Intrinsic and extrinsic factors impacting fresh goat meat quality: An overview. *Sci J Meat Technol* 64: 20–40. https://doi.org/10.18485/meattech.2023.64.1.3

11. Wang J, Ren B, Bak KH, et al. (2023) Preservative effects of composite biopreservatives on goat meat during chilled storage: Insights into meat quality, high-throughput sequencing and molecular docking. *LWT* 184: 115033. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115033

12. Pateiro M, Barba FJ, Domínguez R, et al. (2018) Essential oils as natural additives to prevent oxidation reactions in meat and meat products: A review. *Food Res Int* 113: 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.07.014

13. Ji J, Shankar S, Royon F, et al. (2023) Essential oils as natural antimicrobials applied in meat and meat products—A review. *Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr* 63: 993–1009. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1957766

14. Zhang F, Zhang M, Chen Y, et al. (2021) Antimicrobial, anti-biofilm properties of three naturally occurring antimicrobial peptides against spoilage bacteria, and their synergistic effect with chemical preservatives in food storage. *Food Control* 123: 107729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107729

15. Feknous I, Saada D, Boulahlib C, et al. (2023) Poultry meat quality preservation by plant extracts: an overview. *Meat Technol* 64: 80–101. https://doi.org/10.18485/meattech.2023.64.3.2

16. Padma Ishwarya S, Nisha P (2022) Insights into the composition, structure-function relationship, and molecular organization of surfactants from spent coffee grounds. *Food Hydrocolloids* 124: 107204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.107204

17. Baccile N, Poirier A (2023) Chapter 1—Microbial bio-based amphiphiles (biosurfactants): General aspects on critical micelle concentration, surface tension, and phase behavior. In: Soberón-Chávez G (Ed.), *Biosurfactants*, Academic Press, 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-91697-4.00001-6

18. Plaza GA, Chojniak J, Banat IM (2014) Biosurfactant Mediated Biosynthesis of Selected Metallic Nanoparticles. *Int J Mol Sci* 15: 13720–13737. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms150813720

19. Aslam R, Mobin M, Zehra S, et al. (2023) Biosurfactants: Types, Sources, and Production. In: Aslam R, Mobin M, Aslam J et al. (Eds.), *Advancements in Biosurfactants Research*, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21682-4_1

20. Gunjal A (2023) Biosurfactants from renewable sources—A review. *Nepal J Environ Sci* 10: 15–23. https://doi.org/10.3126/njes.v10i2.48538

21. Domínguez Rivera Á, Martínez Urbina MÁ, López y López VE (2019) Advances on research in the use of agro-industrial waste in biosurfactant production. *World J Microbiol Biotechnol* 35: 155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-019-2729-3

22. Soares da Silva RdCF, de Almeida DG, Brasileiro PPF, et al. (2019) Production, formulation and cost estimation of a commercial biosurfactant. *Biodegradation* 30: 191–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10532-018-9830-4
23. Tavares LFD, Silva PM, Junqueira M, et al. (2013) Characterization of rhamnolipids produced by wild-type and engineered Burkholderia kururiensis. *Appl Microbiol Biotechnol* 97: 1909–1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-4454-9

24. Fernandes NdAT, Simões LA, Dias DR (2023) Biosurfactants produced by yeasts: Fermentation, screening, recovery, purification, characterization, and applications. *Fermentation* 9: 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9030207

25. Mouafo HT, Mbawala A, Tanaji K, et al. (2020) Improvement of the shelf life of raw ground goat meat by using biosurfactants produced by lactobacilli strains as biopreservatives. *LWT* 133: 110071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110071

26. Sharma D, Saharan BS, Kapil S (2016) Biosurfactants of Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria. In: Sharma D, Saharan BS, Kapil S (Eds.), *Biosurfactants of Lactic Acid Bacteria*, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26215-4_2

27. Hippolyte MT, Augustin M, Hervé TM, et al. (2018) Application of response surface methodology to improve the production of antimicrobial biosurfactants by Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. tolerans N2 using sugar cane molasses as substrate. *Bioresour Bioprocess* 5: 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-018-0234-4

28. Sakr EAE, Ahmed HAE, Abo Saif FAA (2021) Characterization of low-cost glycolipoprotein biosurfactant produced by Lactobacillus plantarum 60 FHE isolated from cheese samples using food wastes through response surface methodology and its potential as antimicrobial, antiviral, and anticancer activities. *Int J Biol Macromol* 170: 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.12.140

29. Kachrimanidou V, Alimpoumpa D, Papadaki A, et al. (2022) Cheese whey utilization for biosurfactant production: Evaluation of bioprocessing strategies using novel Lactobacillus strains. *Biomass Convers Biorefin* 12: 4621–4635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02767-9

30. Mouafo HT, Sokamte AT, Mbawala A, et al. (2022) Biosurfactants from lactic acid bacteria: A critical review on production, extraction, structural characterization and food application. *Food Biosci* 46: 101598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2022.101598

31. Eswari JS, Dhagat S, Sen R (2019) Biosurfactants, Bioemulsifiers, and Biopolymers from Thermophilic Microorganisms. In: Eswari JS, Dhagat S, Sen R (Eds.), *Thermophiles for Biotech Industry: A Bioprocess Technology Perspective*, Singapore: Springer Singapore, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9919-1_5

32. Sakthipriya N, Doble M, Sangwai JS (2015) Action of biosurfactant producing thermophilic Bacillus subtilis on waxy crude oil and long chain paraffins. *Int Biodeterior Biodegrad* 105: 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.09.004

33. Thaniyavarn J, Roongsawang N, Kameyama T, et al. (2003) Production and characterization of biosurfactants from Bacillus licheniformis F2.2. *Biosci Biotechnol Biochem* 67: 1239–1244. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.67.1239

34. Kalaimurugan D, Balamuralikrishnan B, Govindarajan RK, et al. (2022) Production and characterization of a novel biosurfactant molecule from Bacillus safensis YKS2 and assessment of its efficiencies in wastewater treatment by a directed metagenomic approach. *Sustainability* 14: 2142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042142

35. Nayarisseri A (2019) Screening, isolation and characterization of biosurfactant-producing Bacillus tequilensis strain ANSKLAB04 from brackish river water. *Int J Environ Sci Technol* 16: 7103–7112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-2089-9
23. Tavares LFD, Silva PM, Junqueira M, et al. (2013) Characterization of rhamnolipids produced by wild-type and engineered Burkholderia kururiensis. *Appl Microbiol Biotechnol* 97: 1909–1921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-012-4454-9

24. Fernandes NdAT, Simões LA, Dias DR (2023) Biosurfactants produced by yeasts: Fermentation, screening, recovery, purification, characterization, and applications. *Fermentation* 9: 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9030207

25. Mouafo HT, Mbawala A, Tanaji K, et al. (2020) Improvement of the shelf life of raw ground goat meat by using biosurfactants produced by lactobacilli strains as biopreservatives. *LWT* 133: 110071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110071

26. Sharma D, Saharan BS, Kapil S (2016) Biosurfactants of Probiotic Lactic Acid Bacteria. In: Sharma D, Saharan BS, Kapil S (Eds.), *Biosurfactants of Lactic Acid Bacteria*, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26215-4_2

27. Hippolyte MT, Augustin M, Hervé TM, et al. (2018) Application of response surface methodology to improve the production of antimicrobial biosurfactants by Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. tolerans N2 using sugar cane molasses as substrate. *Bioresour Bioprocess* 5: 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40643-018-0234-4

28. Sakr EAE, Ahmed HAE, Abo Saif FAA (2021) Characterization of low-cost glycolipoprotein biosurfactant produced by Lactobacillus plantarum 60 FHE isolated from cheese samples using food wastes through response surface methodology and its potential as antimicrobial, antiviral, and anticancer activities. *Int J Biol Macromol* 170: 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.12.140

29. Kachrimanidou V, Alimpoumpa D, Papadaki A, et al. (2022) Cheese whey utilization for biosurfactant production: Evaluation of bioprocessing strategies using novel Lactobacillus strains. *Biomass Convers Biorefin* 12: 4621–4635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02767-9

30. Mouafo HT, Sokamte AT, Mbawala A, et al. (2022) Biosurfactants from lactic acid bacteria: A critical review on production, extraction, structural characterization and food application. *Food Biosci* 46: 101598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2022.101598

31. Eswari JS, Dhagat S, Sen R (2019) Biosurfactants, Bioemulsifiers, and Biopolymers from Thermophilic Microorganisms. In: Eswari JS, Dhagat S, Sen R (Eds.), *Thermophiles for Biotech Industry: A Bioprocess Technology Perspective*, Singapore: Springer Singapore, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-32-9919-1_5

32. Sakthipriya N, Doble M, Sangwai JS (2015) Action of biosurfactant producing thermophilic Bacillus subtilis on waxy crude oil and long chain paraffins. *Int Biodeterior Biodegrad* 105: 168–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibiod.2015.09.004

33. Thaniyavarn J, Roongsawang N, Kameyama T, et al. (2003) Production and characterization of biosurfactants from Bacillus licheniformis F2.2. *Biosci Biotechnol Biochem* 67: 1239–1244. https://doi.org/10.1271/bbb.67.1239

34. Kalaimurugan D, Balamuralikrishnan B, Govindarajan RK, et al. (2022) Production and characterization of a novel biosurfactant molecule from Bacillus safensis YKS2 and assessment of its efficiencies in wastewater treatment by a directed metagenomic approach. *Sustainability* 14: 2142. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14042142

35. Nayarisseri A (2019) Screening, isolation and characterization of biosurfactant-producing Bacillus tequilensis strain ANSKLAB04 from brackish river water. *Int J Environ Sci Technol* 16: 7103–7112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-018-2089-9
36. Dhar P, Thornhill M, Roelants S, et al. (2021) Linking molecular structures of yeast-derived biosurfactants with their foaming, interfacial, and flotation properties. *Miner Eng* 174: 107270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2021.107270

37. Senthil Balan S, Ganesh Kumar C, Jayalakshmi S (2019) Physicochemical, structural and biological evaluation of Cybersan (trigalactomargarate), a new glycolipid biosurfactant produced by a marine yeast, Cyberlindnera saturnus strain SBPN-27. *Proc Biochem* 80: 171–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2019.02.005

38. Eldin AM, Kamel Z, Hossam N (2019) Isolation and genetic identification of yeast producing biosurfactants, evaluated by different screening methods. *Microchem J* 146: 309–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2019.01.020

39. Derguine-Mecheri L, Kebbouche-Gana S, Khemili-Talbi S, et al. (2018) Screening and biosurfactant/bioemulsifier production from a high-salt-tolerant halophilic Cryptococcus strain YLF isolated from crude oil. *J Pet Sci Eng* 162: 712–724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.10.088

40. Saur KM, Brumhard O, Scholz K, et al. (2019) A pH shift induces high-titer liamocin production in Aureobasidium pullulans. *Appl Microbiol Biotechnol* 103: 4741–4752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-09677-3

41. Chotard M, Mounier J, Meye R, et al. (2022) Biosurfactant-producing Mucor strains: Selection, screening, and chemical characterization. *Appl Microbiol* 2: 248–259. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol2010018

42. Gautam S, Lapčík L, Lapčíková B, et al. (2023) Emulsion-based coatings for preservation of meat and related products. *Foods* 12: 832. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040832

43. Kourmentza K, Gromada X, Michael N, et al. (2021) Antimicrobial activity of lipopeptide biosurfactants against foodborne pathogen and food spoilage microorganisms and their cytotoxicity. *Front Microbiol* 11: 561060. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.561060

44. Shao L, Chen S, Wang H, et al. (2021) Advances in understanding the predominance, phenotypes, and mechanisms of bacteria related to meat spoilage. *Trends Food Sci Technol* 118: 822–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.11.007

45. Liu Q, Dong P, Fengou LC, et al. (2023) Preliminary investigation into the prediction of indicators of beef spoilage using Raman and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. *Meat Sci* 200: 109168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109168

46. Chen Y, Ma F, Wu Y, et al. (2023) Biosurfactant from Pseudomonas fragi enhances the competitive advantage of Pseudomonas but reduces the overall spoilage ability of the microbial community in chilled meat. *Food Microbiol* 115: 104311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2023.104311

47. López-Prieto A, Vecino X, Rodríguez-López L, et al. (2019) A multifunctional biosurfactant extract obtained from corn steep water as bactericide for agrifood industry. *Foods* 8: 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8090410

48. López-Prieto A, Vecino X, Rodríguez-López L, et al. (2020) Fungistatic and fungicidal capacity of a biosurfactant extract obtained from corn steep water. *Foods* 9: 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9050662

49. López-Prieto A, Rodríguez-López L, Rincón-Fontán M, et al. (2021) Characterization of extracellular and cell bound biosurfactants produced by Aneurinibacillus aneurinilyticus isolated from commercial corn steep liquor. *Microbiol Res* 242: 126614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2020.126614
36. Dhar P, Thornhill M, Roelants S, et al. (2021) Linking molecular structures of yeast-derived biosurfactants with their foaming, interfacial, and flotation properties. *Miner Eng* 174: 107270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2021.107270

37. Senthil Balan S, Ganesh Kumar C, Jayalakshmi S (2019) Physicochemical, structural and biological evaluation of Cybersan (trigalactomargarate), a new glycolipid biosurfactant produced by a marine yeast, Cyberlindnera saturnus strain SBPN-27. *Proc Biochem* 80: 171-180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2019.02.005

38. Eldin AM, Kamel Z, Hossam N (2019) Isolation and genetic identification of yeast producing biosurfactants, evaluated by different screening methods. *Microchem J* 146: 309-314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.microc.2019.01.020

39. Derguine-Mecheri L, Kebbouche-Gana S, Khemili-Talbi S, et al. (2018) Screening and biosurfactant/bioemulsifier production from a high-salt-tolerant halophilic Cryptococcus strain YLF isolated from crude oil. *J Pet Sci Eng* 162: 712-724. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.petrol.2017.10.088

40. Saur KM, Brumhard O, Scholz K, et al. (2019) A pH shift induces high-titer liamocin production in Aureobasidium pullulans. *Appl Microbiol Biotechnol* 103: 4741-4752. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-019-09677-3

41. Chotard M, Mounier J, Meye R, et al. (2022) Biosurfactant-producing Mucor strains: Selection, screening, and chemical characterization. *Appl Microbiol* 2: 248-259. https://doi.org/10.3390/applmicrobiol2010018

42. Gautam S, Lapčík L, Lapčíková B, et al. (2023) Emulsion-based coatings for preservation of meat and related products. *Foods* 12: 832. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12040832

43. Kourmentza K, Gromada X, Michael N, et al. (2021) Antimicrobial activity of lipopeptide biosurfactants against foodborne pathogen and food spoilage microorganisms and their cytotoxicity. *Front Microbiol* 11: 561060. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.561060

44. Shao L, Chen S, Wang H, et al. (2021) Advances in understanding the predominance, phenotypes, and mechanisms of bacteria related to meat spoilage. *Trends Food Sci Technol* 118: 822-832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.11.007

45. Liu Q, Dong P, Fengou LC, et al. (2023) Preliminary investigation into the prediction of indicators of beef spoilage using Raman and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. *Meat Sci* 200: 109168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109168

46. Chen Y, Ma F, Wu Y, et al. (2023) Biosurfactant from Pseudomonas fragi enhances the competitive advantage of Pseudomonas but reduces the overall spoilage ability of the microbial community in chilled meat. *Food Microbiol* 115: 104311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2023.104311

47. López-Prieto A, Vecino X, Rodríguez-López L, et al. (2019) A multifunctional biosurfactant extract obtained from corn steep water as bactericide for agrifood industry. *Foods* 8: 410. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8090410

48. López-Prieto A, Vecino X, Rodríguez-López L, et al. (2020) Fungistatic and fungicidal capacity of a biosurfactant extract obtained from corn steep water. *Foods* 9: 662. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9050662

49. López-Prieto A, Rodríguez-López L, Rincón-Fontán M, et al. (2021) Characterization of extracellular and cell bound biosurfactants produced by Aneurinibacillus aneurinilyticus isolated from commercial corn steep liquor. *Microbiol Res* 242: 126614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2020.126614
50. Bertuso PdC, Mayer DMD, Nitschke M (2021) Combining celery oleoresin, limonene and rhamnolipid as new strategy to control endospore-forming Bacillus cereus. *Foods* 10: 455. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020455

51. Silveira VAI, Kobayashi RKT, de Oliveira Junior AG, et al. (2021) Antimicrobial effects of sophorolipid in combination with lactic acid against poultry-relevant isolates. *Braz J Microbiol* 52: 1769-1778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-021-00545-9

52. Janek T, Krasowska A, Czyżnikowska Ż, et al. (2018) Trehalose lipid biosurfactant reduces adhesion of microbial pathogens to polystyrene and silicone surfaces: An experimental and computational approach. *Front Microbiol* 9: 02441. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02441

53. Adnan M, Siddiqui AJ, Hamadou WS, et al. (2021) Functional and structural characterization of Pediococcus pentosaceus-derived biosurfactant and its biomedical potential against bacterial adhesion, quorum sensing, and biofilm formation. *Antibiotics* (Basel) 10: 1371. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10111371

54. Durval IJB, Meira HM, de Veras BO, et al. (2021) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using a biosurfactant from Bacillus cereus UCP 1615 as stabilizing agent and its application as an antifungal agent. *Fermentation* 7: 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7040233

55. Patel M, Siddiqui AJ, Hamadou WS, et al. (2021) Inhibition of bacterial adhesion and antibiofilm activities of a glycolipid biosurfactant from Lactobacillus rhamnosus with its physicochemical and functional properties. *Antibiotics (Basel)* 10: 1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10121546

56. Mouafo HT, Sokamte AT, Manet L, et al. (2023) Biofilm inhibition, antibacterial and antiadhesive properties of a novel biosurfactant from Lactobacillus paracasei N2 against multi-antibiotics-resistant pathogens isolated from braised fish. *Fermentation* 9: 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9070646

57. Fatima F, Singh V (2022) Assessment of antibacterial properties of electrospun fish collagen/poly (vinyl) alcohol nanofibers with biosurfactant rhamnolipid. *Mater Today: Proc* 67: 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.286

58. Dejwatthanakomol C, Anuntagool J, Morikawa M, et al. (2016) Production of biosurfactant by Wickerhamomyces anomalus PY189 and its application in lemongrass oil encapsulation. *J Qual Res* 42: 252-258. https://doi.org/10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2016.42.252

59. Garg M, Priyanka, Chatterjee M (2018) Isolation, characterization and antibacterial effect of biosurfactant from Candida parapsilosis. *Biotechnol Rep* 18: e00251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2018.e00251

60. Ashraf A, Ahmed AA, Fatma I, et al. (2019) Characterization and bioactivities of Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici isolated from meat and meat products. *Nature Sci* 17: 187-193.

61. Kaveh S, Hashemi SMB, Abedi E, et al. (2023) Bio-preservation of meat and fermented meat products by lactic acid bacteria strains and their antibacterial metabolites. *Sustainability* 15: 10154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310154

62. Barrantes K, Araya JJ, Chacón L, et al. (2021) Chapter 11—Antiviral, antimicrobial, and antibiofilm properties of biosurfactants. In: Sarma H, Prasad MNV (Eds.), *Biosurfactants for a Sustainable Future: Production and Applications in the Environment and Biomedicine*, 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119671022.ch11

63. Qi G, Zhu F, Du P, et al. (2010) Lipopeptide induces apoptosis in fungal cells by a mitochondria-dependent pathway. *Peptides* 31: 1978-1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2010.08.003
50. Bertuso PdC, Mayer DMD, Nitschke M (2021) Combining celery oleoresin, limonene and rhamnolipid as new strategy to control endospore-forming Bacillus cereus. *Foods* 10: 455. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10020455

51. Silveira VAI, Kobayashi RKT, de Oliveira Junior AG, et al. (2021) Antimicrobial effects of sophorolipid in combination with lactic acid against poultry-relevant isolates. *Braz J Microbiol* 52: 1769-1778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42770-021-00545-9

52. Janek T, Krasowska A, Czyżnikowska Ż, et al. (2018) Trehalose lipid biosurfactant reduces adhesion of microbial pathogens to polystyrene and silicone surfaces: An experimental and computational approach. *Front Microbiol* 9: 02441. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02441

53. Adnan M, Siddiqui AJ, Hamadou WS, et al. (2021) Functional and structural characterization of Pediococcus pentosaceus-derived biosurfactant and its biomedical potential against bacterial adhesion, quorum sensing, and biofilm formation. *Antibiotics* (Basel) 10: 1371. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10111371

54. Durval IJB, Meira HM, de Veras BO, et al. (2021) Green synthesis of silver nanoparticles using a biosurfactant from Bacillus cereus UCP 1615 as stabilizing agent and its application as an antifungal agent. *Fermentation* 7: 233. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation7040233

55. Patel M, Siddiqui AJ, Hamadou WS, et al. (2021) Inhibition of bacterial adhesion and antibiofilm activities of a glycolipid biosurfactant from Lactobacillus rhamnosus with its physicochemical and functional properties. *Antibiotics (Basel)* 10: 1546. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics10121546

56. Mouafo HT, Sokamte AT, Manet L, et al. (2023) Biofilm inhibition, antibacterial and antiadhesive properties of a novel biosurfactant from Lactobacillus paracasei N2 against multi-antibiotics-resistant pathogens isolated from braised fish. *Fermentation* 9: 646. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation9070646

57. Fatima F, Singh V (2022) Assessment of antibacterial properties of electrospun fish collagen/poly (vinyl) alcohol nanofibers with biosurfactant rhamnolipid. *Mater Today: Proc* 67: 187-194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.06.286

58. Dejwatthanakomol C, Anuntagool J, Morikawa M, et al. (2016) Production of biosurfactant by Wickerhamomyces anomalus PY189 and its application in lemongrass oil encapsulation. *J Qual Res* 42: 252-258. https://doi.org/10.2306/scienceasia1513-1874.2016.42.252

59. Garg M, Priyanka, Chatterjee M (2018) Isolation, characterization and antibacterial effect of biosurfactant from Candida parapsilosis. *Biotechnol Rep* 18: e00251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.btre.2018.e00251

60. Ashraf A, Ahmed AA, Fatma I, et al. (2019) Characterization and bioactivities of Lactobacillus plantarum and Pediococcus acidilactici isolated from meat and meat products. *Nature Sci* 17: 187-193.

61. Kaveh S, Hashemi SMB, Abedi E, et al. (2023) Bio-preservation of meat and fermented meat products by lactic acid bacteria strains and their antibacterial metabolites. *Sustainability* 15: 10154. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310154

62. Barrantes K, Araya JJ, Chacón L, et al. (2021) Chapter 11—Antiviral, antimicrobial, and antibiofilm properties of biosurfactants. In: Sarma H, Prasad MNV (Eds.), *Biosurfactants for a Sustainable Future: Production and Applications in the Environment and Biomedicine*, 245-268. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119671022.ch11

63. Qi G, Zhu F, Du P, et al. (2010) Lipopeptide induces apoptosis in fungal cells by a mitochondria-dependent pathway. *Peptides* 31: 1978-1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peptides.2010.08.003
64. Ekprasert J, Kanakai S, Yosprasong S (3920) Improved biosurfactant production by B14, stability studies, and its antimicrobial activity. *Pol J Microbiol* 69: 273–282. https://doi.org/10.33073/pjm-2020-030

65. Zhou C, Wang F, Chen H, et al. (2016) Selective Antimicrobial Activities and Action Mechanism of Micelles Self-Assembled by Cationic Oligomeric Surfactants. *ACS Appl Mater Interfaces* 8: 4242–4249. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b12688

66. Shahbazi M, Jäger H, Ettelaie R, et al. (2021) Construction of 3D printed reduced-fat meat analogue by emulsion gels. Part I: Flow behavior, thixotropic feature, and network structure of soy protein-based inks. *Food Hydrocolloids* 120: 106967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106967

67. Wen Y, Chao C, Che QT, et al. (2023) Development of plant-based meat analogs using 3D printing: Status and opportunities. *Trends Food Sci Technol* 132: 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.12.010

68. Cruz Mendoza I, Villavicencio-Vasquez M, Aguayo P, et al. (2022) Biosurfactant from Bacillus subtilis DS03: Properties and application in cleaning out place system in a pilot sausages processing. *Microorganisms* 10: 1518. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10081518

69. Silveira VAI, Marim BM, Hipólito A, et al. (2020) Characterization and antimicrobial properties of bioactive packaging films based on polylactic acid-sophorolipid for the control of foodborne pathogens. *Food Packaging Shelf* 26: 100591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2020.100591

70. Hmidet N, Jemil N, Ouerfelli M, et al. (2020) Antioxidant properties of Enterobacter cloacae C3 lipopeptides in vitro and in model food emulsion. *J Food Proc Preserv* 44: e14337. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14337

71. Jemil N, Ouerfelli M, Almajano MP, et al. (2020) The conservative effects of lipopeptides from Bacillus methylotrophicus DCS1 on sunflower oil-in-water emulsion and raw beef patties quality. *Food Chem* 303: 125364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125364

72. Kaiser TR, Agonilha DB, de Araújo Rocha R, et al. (2023) Effects of incorporation of sophorolipids on the texture profile, microbiological quality and oxidative stability of chicken sausages. *Int J Food Sci Technol* 58: 4397–4403. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.16545

73. Sedaghat Doost A, Van Camp J, Dewettinck K, et al. (2019) Production of thymol nanoemulsions stabilized using Quillaja Saponin as a biosurfactant: Antioxidant activity enhancement. *Food Chem* 293: 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.04.090

74. Merghni A, Dallel I, Noumi E, et al. (2017) Antioxidant and antiproliferative potential of biosurfactants isolated from Lactobacillus casei and their anti-biofilm effect in oral Staphylococcus aureus strains. *Microb Pathog* 104: 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2017.01.017

75. Chandankere R, Ravikumar Y, Zabed HM, et al. (2020) Conversion of agroindustrial wastes to rhamnolipid by Enterobacter sp. UJS-RC and its role against biofilm-forming foodborne pathogens. *J Agric Food Chem* 68: 15478–15489. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.0c05028

76. Wang H, Wang H, Xing T, et al. (2016) Removal of Salmonella biofilm formed under meat processing environment by surfactant in combination with bio-enzyme. *LWT-Food Sci Technol* 66: 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.10.049

77. Ben Ayed H, Bardaa S, Moalla D, et al. (2015) Wound healing and in vitro antioxidant activities of lipopeptides mixture produced by Bacillus mojavensis A21. *Proc Biochem* 50: 1023–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2015.02.019
64. Ekprasert J, Kanakai S, Yosprasong S (3920) Improved biosurfactant production by B14, stability studies, and its antimicrobial activity. *Pol J Microbiol* 69: 273–282. https://doi.org/10.33073/pjm-2020-030

65. Zhou C, Wang F, Chen H, et al. (2016) Selective Antimicrobial Activities and Action Mechanism of Micelles Self-Assembled by Cationic Oligomeric Surfactants. *ACS Appl Mater Interfaces* 8: 4242–4249. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.5b12688

66. Shahbazi M, Jäger H, Ettelaie R, et al. (2021) Construction of 3D printed reduced-fat meat analogue by emulsion gels. Part I: Flow behavior, thixotropic feature, and network structure of soy protein-based inks. *Food Hydrocolloids* 120: 106967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106967

67. Wen Y, Chao C, Che QT, et al. (2023) Development of plant-based meat analogs using 3D printing: Status and opportunities. *Trends Food Sci Technol* 132: 76–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.12.010

68. Cruz Mendoza I, Villavicencio-Vasquez M, Aguayo P, et al. (2022) Biosurfactant from Bacillus subtilis DS03: Properties and application in cleaning out place system in a pilot sausages processing. *Microorganisms* 10: 1518. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10081518

69. Silveira VAI, Marim BM, Hipólito A, et al. (2020) Characterization and antimicrobial properties of bioactive packaging films based on polylactic acid-sophorolipid for the control of foodborne pathogens. *Food Packaging Shelf* 26: 100591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2020.100591

70. Hmidet N, Jemil N, Ouerfelli M, et al. (2020) Antioxidant properties of Enterobacter cloacae C3 lipopeptides in vitro and in model food emulsion. *J Food Proc Preserv* 44: e14337. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.14337

71. Jemil N, Ouerfelli M, Almajano MP, et al. (2020) The conservative effects of lipopeptides from Bacillus methylotrophicus DCS1 on sunflower oil-in-water emulsion and raw beef patties quality. *Food Chem* 303: 125364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.125364

72. Kaiser TR, Agonilha DB, de Araújo Rocha R, et al. (2023) Effects of incorporation of sophorolipids on the texture profile, microbiological quality and oxidative stability of chicken sausages. *Int J Food Sci Technol* 58: 4397–4403. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.16545

73. Sedaghat Doost A, Van Camp J, Dewettinck K, et al. (2019) Production of thymol nanoemulsions stabilized using Quillaja Saponin as a biosurfactant: Antioxidant activity enhancement. *Food Chem* 293: 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.04.090

74. Merghni A, Dallel I, Noumi E, et al. (2017) Antioxidant and antiproliferative potential of biosurfactants isolated from Lactobacillus casei and their anti-biofilm effect in oral Staphylococcus aureus strains. *Microb Pathog* 104: 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2017.01.017

75. Chandankere R, Ravikumar Y, Zabed HM, et al. (2020) Conversion of agroindustrial wastes to rhamnolipid by Enterobacter sp. UJS-RC and its role against biofilm-forming foodborne pathogens. *J Agric Food Chem* 68: 15478–15489. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jafc.0c05028

76. Wang H, Wang H, Xing T, et al. (2016) Removal of Salmonella biofilm formed under meat processing environment by surfactant in combination with bio-enzyme. *LWT-Food Sci Technol* 66: 298–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.10.049

77. Ben Ayed H, Bardaa S, Moalla D, et al. (2015) Wound healing and in vitro antioxidant activities of lipopeptides mixture produced by Bacillus mojavensis A21. *Proc Biochem* 50: 1023–1030. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procbio.2015.02.019
78. Abdollahi S, Tofighi Z, Babaee T, et al. (2020) Evaluation of anti-oxidant and anti-biofilm activities of biogenic surfactants derived from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. *Iran J Pharm Res* 19: 115-126.

79. Kyriakopoulou K, Keppler JK, van der Goot AJ (2021) Functionality of ingredients and additives in plant-based meat analogues. *Foods* 10: 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030600

80. de Souza Paglarini C, de Figueiredo Furtado G, Biachi JP, et al. (2018) Functional emulsion gels with potential application in meat products. *J Food Eng* 222: 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.10.026

81. Santhi D, Kalaikannan A, Sureshkumar S (2017) Factors influencing meat emulsion properties and product texture: A review. *Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr* 57: 2021-2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.858027

82. Guo J, Cui L, Meng Z (2023) Oleogels/emulsion gels as novel saturated fat replacers in meat products: A review. *Food Hydrocolloids* 137: 108313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2022.108313

83. Ren Y, Huang L, Zhang Y, et al. (2022) Application of emulsion gels as fat substitutes in meat products. *Foods* 11: 1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131950

84. Serdaroğlu M, Nacak B, Karabıyıkoğlu M, et al. (2016) Effects of partial beef fat replacement with gelled emulsion on functional and quality properties of model system meat emulsions. *Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour* 36: 744-751. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.6.744

85. Ren Y, Huang L, Zhang Y, et al. (2022) Application of emulsion gels as fat substitutes in meat products. *Foods* 11: 1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131950

86. Utama DT, Jeong H, Kim J, et al. (2018) Formula optimization of a Perilla-canola oil (O/W) emulsion and its potential application as an animal fat replacer in meat emulsion. *Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour* 38: 580-592.

87. Zanutto TCN, Lourenço LA, Maass D (2023) Innovative and sustainable production processes for biosurfactants. In: Aslam R, Mobin M, Aslam J, et al. (Eds.), *Advancements in Biosurfactants Research*, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 25-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21682-4_2

88. Alara OR, Abdurahman NH, Alara JA, et al. (2023) Biosurfactants as emulsifying agents in food formulation. In: Aslam R, Mobin M, Aslam J, et al. (Eds.), *Advancements in Biosurfactants Research*, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21682-4_8

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
78. Abdollahi S, Tofighi Z, Babaee T, et al. (2020) Evaluation of anti-oxidant and anti-biofilm activities of biogenic surfactants derived from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa. *Iran J Pharm Res* 19: 115-126.

79. Kyriakopoulou K, Keppler JK, van der Goot AJ (2021) Functionality of ingredients and additives in plant-based meat analogues. *Foods* 10: 600. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10030600

80. de Souza Paglarini C, de Figueiredo Furtado G, Biachi JP, et al. (2018) Functional emulsion gels with potential application in meat products. *J Food Eng* 222: 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2017.10.026

81. Santhi D, Kalaikannan A, Sureshkumar S (2017) Factors influencing meat emulsion properties and product texture: A review. *Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr* 57: 2021-2027. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2017.858027

82. Guo J, Cui L, Meng Z (2023) Oleogels/emulsion gels as novel saturated fat replacers in meat products: A review. *Food Hydrocolloids* 137: 108313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2022.108313

83. Ren Y, Huang L, Zhang Y, et al. (2022) Application of emulsion gels as fat substitutes in meat products. *Foods* 11: 1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131950

84. Serdaroğlu M, Nacak B, Karabıyıkoğlu M, et al. (2016) Effects of partial beef fat replacement with gelled emulsion on functional and quality properties of model system meat emulsions. *Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour* 36: 744-751. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.6.744

85. Ren Y, Huang L, Zhang Y, et al. (2022) Application of emulsion gels as fat substitutes in meat products. *Foods* 11: 1950. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11131950

86. Utama DT, Jeong H, Kim J, et al. (2018) Formula optimization of a Perilla-canola oil (O/W) emulsion and its potential application as an animal fat replacer in meat emulsion. *Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour* 38: 580-592.

87. Zanutto TCN, Lourenço LA, Maass D (2023) Innovative and sustainable production processes for biosurfactants. In: Aslam R, Mobin M, Aslam J, et al. (Eds.), *Advancements in Biosurfactants Research*, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 25-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21682-4_2

88. Alara OR, Abdurahman NH, Alara JA, et al. (2023) Biosurfactants as emulsifying agents in food formulation. In: Aslam R, Mobin M, Aslam J, et al. (Eds.), *Advancements in Biosurfactants Research*, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 157-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-21682-4_8

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>