4.7 Article

Preparation and characterization of microparticles of β-cyclodextrin/glutathione and chitosan/glutathione obtained by spray-drying

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 105, 期 -, 页码 432-439

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2017.11.035

关键词

Microparticles; Chitosan; Cyclodextrin; Glutathione; Wine

资金

  1. National Counsel of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) [480846/2011-1]
  2. Foundation for Research of Rio Grande do Sul State (FAPERGS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reduced glutathione (GSH) is an efficient antioxidant on limitation of browning, of the loss of aromas and off-flavor formation in white wines. The encapsulation of GSH in a polymer system to be added in white wines may prolong its antioxidant action. The aim of this work was to prepare and characterize spray-dried microparticles using beta-cydodextrin (beta-CD) or chitosan as polymers for encapsulation of GSH for its addition to wine to prevent oxidation. The microparticles obtained after the drying process were characterized regarding morphology, chemical interaction between GSH and polymers, thermal stability, microstructure, encapsulation efficiency and in vitro GSH release. SEM showed spherical microparticles, with wrinkled surfaces for beta-CD/GSH and smooth surfaces for chitosan/GSH. A wide distribution of particle size was observed. In general, beta-CD/GSH showed an average diameter smaller than the chitosan/GSH microparticles. FT-IR showed a possible interaction between GSH and both polymers. DSC and DRX showed that encapsulation process produced a marked decrease in GSH crystallinity. The encapsulation efficiency was 25.0% for chitosan/GSH and 62.4% for beta-CD/GSH microparticles. The GSH release profiles from microparticles showed that beta-CD can control the release behaviors of GSH better than chitosan in a model wine. Cumulative release data were fitted to an empirical equation to compute diffusional exponent (n), which indicates a trend the non-Fickian release of GSH.

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