4.5 Article

In vitro test to evaluate survival in the gastrointestinal tract of commercial probiotics

Journal

CURRENT RESEARCH IN FOOD SCIENCE
Volume 4, Issue -, Pages 320-325

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.crfs.2021.04.006

Keywords

Functional foods; Gastrointestinal simulation; Symbiotic; Supplements; Viability

Funding

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel-Brazil (CAPES) [001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that most commercial probiotic products do not meet the standards of probiotic supplements, highlighting the need for increased inspection and control in this product niche.
Y The search for functional foods grows constantly, and in this demand, the supply of industries that seek to produce and sell supplements also grows, as is the case of probiotics freely sold in pharmacies and supermarkets. Given a large number of foods with probiotic appeal and supplements sold without the need for a nutritional or medical prescription, this study came up to evaluate the viability of commercial probiotic cells, through in vitro gastrointestinal simulation and analyzing the information present in their labeling. Eleven commercial probiotic samples were analyzed, and viable cell counts were performed before and after in vitro simulation. These products usually use appealing labeling and induce the consumer to purchase these probiotics, which often do not offer the benefits described on the packaging. The results showed that only two samples had the initial concentration indicated on their labeling and four samples offered a concentration of 3 log CFU g(-1) in the ileum portion. All samples had a reduction in concentration during the gastrointestinal simulation, which varied from 1 to 4 log CFU g(-1), but most do not fulfill the offer of a probiotic supplement, and there should be more inspection and control over the commercialization of this product niche.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available