4.7 Article

Pickering emulsion stabilized by gliadin nanoparticles for astaxanthin delivery

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD ENGINEERING
卷 345, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2023.111417

关键词

Gliadin; Konjac glucomannan; Pickering emulsion; Astaxanthin; Delivery system

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Konjac glucomannan was introduced to improve the wettability of gliadin and fabricate oil-in-water Pickering emulsions stabilized by konjac glucomannan/gliadin colloidal particles (GKPs) with algal oil as internal oil phase. The major force between konjac glucomannan and gliadin was hydrogen bonding and GKPs appeared as independently dispersed spheres. The Pickering emulsion stabilized by GKPs showed high stability and increased bioaccessibility of astaxanthin.
Gliadin, a plant-based amphiphilic protein, has hydrophilic deficiencies in preparing Pickering emulsions. Herein, konjac glucomannan was introduced to improve the wettability of gliadin, and oil-in-water Pickering emulsions stabilized by konjac glucomannan/gliadin colloidal particles (GKPs) with algal oil as internal oil phase were fabricated. The major force between konjac glucomannan and gliadin was hydrogen bonding and the morphology of GKPs appeared as independently dispersed spheres. The presence of konjac glucomannan changed the conformation of gliadin and improved the wettability of GKPs. When the mass ratio of gliadin to konjac glucomannan was 1:1, the three-phase contact angle (theta) of GKPs reached 91.6 +/- 0.6 degrees. The Pickering emulsion stabilized by GKPs showed high storage, centrifugation, pH and ionic strength stability. Meanwhile, konjac glucomannan increased the viscosity of the Pickering emulsion. When the mass ratio of gliadin to konjac glu-comannan was 1:1, the bioaccessibility of astaxanthin reached 22.37 +/- 0.62%, which was 4.5 times higher than that of astaxanthin in pure oil. Thus, Pickering emulsion stabilized by GKPs is a promising delivery system for astaxanthin 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