4.2 Article

Use of Fish Oil Nanoencapsulated with Gum Arabic Carrier in Low Fat Probiotic Fermented Milk

期刊

FOOD SCIENCE OF ANIMAL RESOURCES
卷 39, 期 2, 页码 309-323

出版社

KOREAN SOC FOOD SCIENCE ANIMAL RESOURCES
DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2019.e25

关键词

fermented milk; fish oil; nanoencapsulation; probiotic

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fish oil consists of omega-3 fatty acids which play an important role in human health. Its susceptibility to oxidation causes considerable degradation during the processing and storage of food products. Accordingly, encapsulation of this ingredient through freeze drying was studied with the aim of protecting it against environmental conditions. Gum arabic (GA) was used as the wall material for fish oil nanoencapsulation where tween 80 was applied as the emulsifier. A water-in-oil (W/O) emulsion was prepared by sonication, containing 6% fish oil dispersed in aqueous solutions including 20% and 25% total wall material. The emulsion was sonicated at 24 kHz for 120 s. The emulsion was then freeze-dried and the nanocapsules were incorporated into probiotic fermented milk, with the effects of nanocapsules examined on the milk. The results showed that the nanoparticles encapsulated with 25% gum arabic and 4% emulsifier had the highest encapsulation efficiency (EE) (87.17%) and the lowest surface oil (31.66 mg/100 kg). Using nanoencapsulated fish oil in fermented milk significantly (p< 0.05) increased the viability of Lactobacillus plantarum as well as eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) contents. The fermented milk sample containing fish oil nanoencapsulated with 25% wall material and 4% emulsifier yielded the greatest probiotic bacterial count (8.41 Log CFU/mL) and the lowest peroxide value (0.57 mEq/kg). Moreover, this sample had the highest EPA and DHA contents. Utilizing this nanoencapsulated fish oil did not adversely affect fermented milk overall acceptance. Therefore, it can be used for fortification of low fat probiotic fermented milk.

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

4.2
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