4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Formulation and characterization of food-grade microemulsions as carriers of natural phenolic antioxidants

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.colsurfa.2015.03.060

关键词

W/O microemulsion; Gallic acid; Antioxidant; EPR; DLS; Cryo-TEM

资金

  1. National Strategic Reference Framework, Action Developmental Projects of Research Organisations-Kripis
  2. STSM grant of the COST CM1101 action

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Food-grade W/O microemulsions based on lecithin, caprylic/capric triglycerides, isopropyl myristate, alcohols and water were formulated and structurally characterized to be used as potential carriers of natural food antioxidants. Different well-known food antioxidants including gallic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, protocatechuic acid and tyrosol were successfully encapsulated in the aqueous cores of the microemulsions. A pseudo-ternary phase diagram was constructed to determine the extent of the monophasic area that corresponds to an inverted type microemulsion. Apparent hydrodynamic diameter measurements of empty and loaded microemulsions were performed using dynamic light scattering (DLS) and swollen micelles with diameters smaller than 10 nm were detected. Interfacial properties of the microemulsions were studied by electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) spectroscopy employing the nitroxide spin probe 5-doxylstearic acid (5-DSA). A small increase in spin probe mobility upon addition of the antioxidants was observed; whereas the rigidity of the surfactants was not affected. Cryogenic transmission electron microscopy (Cryo-TEM) indicated the existence of entangled thread-like reversed micelles. Finally, the investigated phenolics were assessed and compared for their radical scavenging activity using an EPR approach based on free radicals. The encapsulated gallic acid showed the highest antioxidant activity (0.93 mM trolox equivalents) as compared to other antioxidants assessed within the frame of this study. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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