4.5 Article

Effect of psyllium and gum Arabic biopolymers on the survival rate and storage stability in yogurt of Enterococcus durans IW3 encapsulated in alginate

期刊

FOOD SCIENCE & NUTRITION
卷 5, 期 3, 页码 554-563

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.430

关键词

alginate; encapsulation; Enterococcus durans; gum Arabic; psyllium

资金

  1. University Putra Malaysia, Putra Grant research [9443200]
  2. Faculty of Pharmacy, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Islamic Republic of Iran

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different herbal biopolymers were used to encapsulate Enterococcus durans IW3 to enhance its storage stability in yogurt and subsequently its endurance in gastrointestinal condition. Nine formulations of encapsulation were performed using alginate (ALG), ALG-psyllium (PSY), and ALG-gum Arabic (GA) blends. The encapsulation efficiency of all formulations, tolerance of encapsulated E. durans IW3 against low pH/high bile salt concentration, storage lifetime, and release profile of cells in natural condition of yogurt were evaluated. Result revealed 98.6% encapsulation efficiency and 76% survival rate for all formulation compared with the unencapsulated formulation cells (43%). The ALG-PSY and ALG-GA formulations have slightly higher survival rates at low pH and bile salt condition (i.e., 76-93% and 81-95%, respectively) compared with the ALG formulation. All encapsulated E. durans IW3 was released from the prepared beads of ALG after 90 min, whereas both probiotics encapsulated in ALG-GA and ALG-PSY were released after 60 min. Enterococcus durans IW3 was successfully encapsulated in ALG, ALG-GA, and ALG-PSY beads prepared by extrusion method. ALG-GA and ALG-PSY beads are suitable delivery carriers for the oral administration of bioactive compounds like probiotics. The GA and PSY gels exhibited better potential for encapsulation of probiotic bacteria cells because of the amendment of ALG difficulties and utilization of therapeutic and prebiotic potentials of these herbal biopolymers.

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

4.5
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