4.7 Article

A novel perspective with characterized nanoliposomes: Limitation of lipid oxidation in fish oil

期刊

LWT-FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 152, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112387

关键词

Nanoliposomes; Encapsulation; Fish oil; Algae extract; Oxidative deterioration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fish oil-loaded nanoliposomes based on brown and green macroalgae effectively slowed down the oxidation process in fish oil stored at 30 degrees Celsius, with the samples showing higher stability compared to the control group. This novel methodology utilizing nanoliposomes could potentially guide future food treatments in the food industry.
Fish oil-loaded brown and green macroalgae-based nanoliposomes (NS: Sargassum boveanum, NP: Padina distromatica, and NC: Caulerpa sertularioides) were successfully obtained. Release profile (<35%), zeta particles size (130.3-266.3 nm), encapsulation efficiency (99.9%) were revealed besides morphological characterizations (NS: 157.55, NP: 129.02, NC: 335.304 nm) of nanoliposomes (p < 0.05). Oxidation tests demonstrated that the use of NS more successfully limited the rapid increase in peroxide value of fish oil stored at 30 degrees C. FFA value of control group samples reached 6.8 from 3.4% (change: 100%) while NS (change: 12.5%) and NP (change: 12.5%) had better stability during 42 days' storage (p < 0.05). The anisidine values of control group samples were in the range of 8.8 and 22.8. But, NS, NP, and NC samples possessed 11.0, 9.9, and 10.0, respectively. Totox value in the control group fish oil samples reached 85.2. Yet, the highest values for NS, NP, and NC samples were found to be 33.1, 54.5, and 67.3 (p < 0.05). Also, color values in the samples treated with nanoliposomes had higher stability. The use of nanolioposme technique effectively retarded the oxidation in fish oil stored at 30 degrees C. Thus, this applied novel methodology provided with a nanoliposomal approach can guide further food treatments in the food industry.

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