4.7 Article

Characterization and Cell Viability of Probiotic/Prebiotics Film Based on Duck Feet Gelatin: A Novel Poultry Gelatin as a Suitable Matrix for Probiotics

期刊

FOODS
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods10081761

关键词

duck feet gelatin; synbiotic edible film; probiotic viability

资金

  1. Universiti Sains Malaysia [304PTEKIND/6315423]
  2. Universiti Malaysia Sabah

向作者/读者索取更多资源

By incorporating prebiotics into synbiotic edible films based on duck feet gelatin, the viability of probiotics can be increased, and the properties of the films are improved. Different types of prebiotics have varying effects on probiotic viability, with gum arabic showing the best performance.
The probiotic viability, physicochemical, mechanical, barrier, and microstructure properties of synbiotic edible films (SEFs) based on duck feet gelatin (DFG) were evaluated. Four synbiotic systems were obtained by mixing four types of prebiotics, namely, dextrin, polydextrose, gum Arabic, and sago starch, with DFG to immobilize of probiotic (Lactobacillus casei ATCC). The ability of DFG to create a suitable matrix to increase probiotic viability was compared with those of other commercial gelatins in a preliminary evaluation. The DFG showed proper probiotic viability compared with other gelatins. The addition of prebiotics reduced the transparency of SEFs and increased color differentiation, uniformity, and complete coverage of probiotic cells. The estimated shelf-life of surviving bacteria in the SEFs stored at 4 and 25 degrees C showed that gum arabic showed the best performance and enhanced the viability of L. casei by 42% and 45%, respectively. Dextrin, polydextrose, and sago starch enhanced the viability of L. casei at 4 and 25 degrees C by 26% and 35%, 26% and 5%, and 20% and 5%, respectively. The prebiotics improved the physicochemical, mechanical, and barrier properties of all SEFs, except polydextrose film. The viability of L. casei can be increased with the proper selection of gelatin and prebiotics.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据