4.3 Article

Microencapsulation of L-acidophilus (La-05) and B-lactis (Bb-12) and evaluation of their survival at the pH values of the stomach and in bile

期刊

JOURNAL OF MICROENCAPSULATION
卷 19, 期 4, 页码 485-494

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02652040210140715

关键词

probiotics; Lactobacillus acidophilus; Bifidobacterium lactis; microencapsulation; spray drying; cellulose acetate phthalate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microcapsules were prepared using the probiotic microorganisms Lactobacillus acidophilus (La-05) and Bifidobacterium lactis (Bb-12) and the spray drying technique and cellulose acetate phthalate as the wall material. This study evaluated the resistance of these microorganisms to drying at three temperatures and also the in vitro tolerance of the free and microencapsulated form to pH values and bile concentrations similar to those found in the human stomach and intestine. With an air entry temperature of 130 degreesC and exit temperature of 75 degreesC, the number of viable cells of B. lactis was practically unaltered, whereas the population of L. acidophilus was reduced by two logarithmic cycles. B. lactis was more resistant to the drying process than L. acidophilus under all conditions tested. The morphology of the microcapsules was determined by scanning electron microscopy and the microcapsules presented a rounded external surface containing concavities, a continuous wall with no apparent porosity, average size of 22 mum, moisture content varying from 5.3 to 3.2% and water activity between 0.230 and 0.204. After inoculation into HCl solutions with pH values adjusted to 1 and 2, incubated anaerobically at 37 degreesC, and plated after 0, 1 and 2 h of incubation, microcapsules were effective in protecting the microorganisms, while the populations of both free microorganisms were eliminated after only 1 h at the acidic conditions. Microencapsulated B. lactis and L. acidophilus, both free and microencapsulated, were also resistant after 12 h to bile solutions.

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

4.3
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