4.7 Article

Bacterial cellulose/cashew gum films as probiotic carriers

Journal

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Volume 130, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2020.109699

Keywords

Polysaccharides; Nanofibrillated cellulose; Komagataeibacter xylinus; Edible films

Funding

  1. Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA, Brazil) [23.14.04.007.00.00, 0114030010300]
  2. Research Support Foundation of Ceara State (FUNCAP/CNPq) [PR20101-00023.01.00/15]
  3. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) on a Brazil/Portugal Bilateral Agreement (CAPES/FCT) [99999.008530/2014-09]
  4. FUNCAP [BMD-0008-0026 3.01.08/17]
  5. CAPES [8887.138002/2017-00]
  6. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [302381/2016-3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study was carried out to obtain probiotic films with good stability by combining spore-forming, resistant bacteria (Bacillus coagulans) with a biopolymer mix (bacterial cellulose - BC and cashew gum - CG) as a carrier matrix. Fructooligosaccharides (FOS) were used as prebiotic. Four different films were produced, namely, Co (control), Pro (added with probiotic), Pre (containing the prebiotic FOS), and Syn (synbiotic films containing probiotic and FOS). Although the tensile and barrier properties of films have been undermined by probiotic and FOS, those properties have remained within the values needed for food applications. Most films (except Pre) exhibited hydrophobic character (contact angles > 90 degrees). FOS enhanced probiotic viability upon processing. The storage stability of probiotics was very good; even at 37 degrees C, the viability loss did not surpass 1 log cycle, due to the resistance of B. coagulans and the protective role of BC. Moreover, no cytotoxic effect of the films was observed on Caco-2 cells.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available