Current Emulsifier Trends in Dressings and Sauces

  • Bruce Campbell


By the early twentieth century dressings and sauces were prepared by home cooks, chefs and local food suppliers for immediate use. To address subsequent consumer demand for already prepared sauces and dressings, the processed food industry responded with longer shelf-life products. This effort involved developments in processing technology as well as the inclusion of additives such as emulsifiers and preservation agents to extend shelf life in terms of product safety (microbiological growth and spoilage) and stability (phase separation). Prevention of phase separation is accomplished by decreasing droplet size, increasing aqueous phase viscosity, and packing oil droplets in close proximity by using high phase volumes of oil where appropriate. The use of food-grade synthetic emulsifiers have since peaked and given way to naturally occurring sources such as egg and plant protein systems due to consumer preferences for less “chemical” sounding names on product labels. Although egg yolks have proven to be robust emulsifiers for the dressing category, there are consumer segments that prefer egg alternatives to address allergic, vegan or other dietary needs. Some of these alternatives include polysorbate 60, a variety of plant sourced proteins as well as hydrophobically modified starch.


Egg yolks Modified egg yolks Polysorbate 60 Milk proteins Vegetable proteins Phospholipase A2 Mayonnaise Pourable dressings 


  1. Andres-Brull M (2016) The quest for natural emulsifiers, Leatherhead Food Research White Paper, pp 1–5.
  2. Anton M (2007) High-density lipoproteins (HDL) or lipovitellin fraction. In: Huopalahti R, López-Fandiño R, Anton M, Schade R (eds) Bioactive egg compound. Springer, Berlin, pp 13–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anton M (2013) Egg yolk: structures, functionalities and processes. J Agric Food Sci 93:2871–2880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anton M et al (2000) Adsorption at the oil–water interface and emulsifying properties of native granules from egg yolk: effect of aggregated state. Food Hydrocolloids 14:327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergenstahl B (2019) Physicochemical aspects of an emulsifier functionality, Chapter 6. In: Hasenhuettl GL, Hartel RW (eds) Food emulsifiers and their applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bao J et al (2003) Physical properties of octenyl succinic anhydride modified rice, wheat and potato starches. J Agric Food Sci 51:2283–2287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barać MB et al (2015) Techno-functional properties of pea (Pisum sativum) protein isolates—a review. Acta Period Technol (APTEFF) 46:1–18Google Scholar
  8. Billmers R, Mackewicz V (1995) Process for preparation of hydrophobic starch derivatives. US Patent US5672699AGoogle Scholar
  9. Buxmann W et al (2010a) Phospholipase D—part 1. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 76:186–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buxmann W et al (2010b) Phospholipase D—part 2. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 76:192–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chassaing B et al (2015) Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome. Nature 519:92–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cornec M, Wilde PJ, Gunning PA, Mackie AR, Husband FA, Parker ML, Clark DC (1998) Emulsion stability as affected by competitive adsorption between an oil-soluble emulsifier and milk proteins at the interface. J Food Sci 63:39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Courthaudon JL, Dickinson E, Dalgleish DG (1991) Competitive adsorption of β-casein and nonionic surfactants in oil-in-water emulsions. J Colloid Interface Sci 145:390–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daimer K, Kulozik U (2009) Effect of pla2 on emulsion properties. Food Hydrocolloids 23:1366–1373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dokic P et al (2008) Colloidal characteristics and emulsifying properties of OSA starches. Prog Colloid Polym Sci 135:48–56Google Scholar
  16. Federal Register (2011) 21 CFR Section 169 Part 150Google Scholar
  17. Ford L et al (1997) Dressings and sauces. In: Larsson K, Friberg S (eds) Food emulsion, 3rd edn. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 361–412Google Scholar
  18. Froning GW, Peters D, Muriana P, Eskridge K, Travnicek D, Sumner S (2002) International egg pasteurization manual. Prepared in cooperation with the United Egg Association and American Egg Board:; Annex G:
  19. Jin Y-G, Huang D, Ding T, Ma M-H, Oh D-H (2013) Effect of phospholipase A1 on the physicochemical and functional properties of hen’s egg yolk, plasma and granules. J Food Biochem 37:70–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim M et al (2009) Optimization of the enzymatic modification of egg yolk by phospholipase A2 to improve its functionality for mayonnaise production. LWT—Food Sci Technol 42:250–255. (PLA2 and mayo)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Laca A et al (2010) Rheological properties, stability and sensory evaluation of low-cholesterol mayonnaises prepared using egg yolk granules as emulsifying agent. J Food Eng 97:243–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Le Denmat M (1999) Protein denaturation and emulsifying properties of plasma and granules of egg yolk as related to heat treatment. J Food Sci 64:194–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Le Denmat M et al (2000) Characterisation of emulsion properties and of interface composition in o/w emulsions prepared with hen egg yolk, plasma and granule. Food Hydrocolloids 14:539–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mackie AR, Wilde PJ, Wilson DR, Clark DC (1993) Competitive effects in the adsorbed layer of oil-in-water emulsions stabilized by β-lactoglobulin–Tween 20 mixtures. J Chem Soc Faraday Trans 89:2755–2759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McClements J (2015) Food emulsions: principles, practices and techniques, 3rd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, p 295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Milani MA et al (2013) The physico-chemical influences of yellow mustard paste—comparison with the powder in mayonnaise. Food Process Technol 4:1–6Google Scholar
  27. Motta-Romero H, Zhang Z, Tien Nguyen A, Schlegel V, Zhang Y (2017) Isolation of egg yolk granules as low-cholesterol emulsifying agent in mayonnaise. J Food Sci 82:1588–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mustard 21 (2009) An evaluation of the potential for value addition to mustard protein and mucilage, June 2009Google Scholar
  29. Nilsson L, Bergenståhl B (2006) Adsorption of hydrophobically modified starch at oil/water interfaces during emulsification. Langmuir 22:8770–8776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patterson CA (2016) Mustard: proteins, mucilage and bioactives research communications final report. The Saskatchewan Mustard Development Commission, SaskatoonGoogle Scholar
  31. Sikora M et al (2008) Sauces and dressings: a review of properties and applications. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 48:50–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tadros T (2013) Emulsion formation, stability and rheology. In: Tadros T (ed) Emulsion formation and stability. Wiley, Weinheim, pp 1–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. White RR, Hall MB (2017) Nutritional and greenhouse gas impacts of removing animals from US agriculture. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114:E10301–E10308CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Campbell
    • 1
  1. 1.Independent ResearcherGlenviewUSA

Personalised recommendations