| Literature DB >> 28911651 |
Fahim Tamzeedul Karim1, Kashif Ghafoor2, Sahena Ferdosh3, Fahad Al-Juhaimi2, Eaqub Ali4, Kamaruzzaman Bin Yunus3, Mir Hoseini Hamed5, Ashraful Islam6, Mohammad Asif7, Mohammed Zaidul Islam Sarker1.
Abstract
In order to improve the encapsulation process, a newly supercritical antisolvent process was developed to encapsulate fish oil using hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose as a polymer. Three factors, namely, temperature, pressure, and feed emulsion rate were optimized using response surface methodology. The suitability of the model for predicting the optimum response value was evaluated at the conditions of temperature at 60°C, pressure at 150 bar, and feed rate at 1.36 mL/min. At the optimum conditions, particle size of 58.35 μm was obtained. The surface morphology of the micronized fish oil was also evaluated using field emission scanning electron microscopy where it showed that particles formed spherical structures with no internal voids. Moreover, in vitro release of oil showed that there are significant differences of release percentage of oil between the formulations and the results proved that there was a significant decrease in the in vitro release of oil from the powder when the polymer concentration was high.Entities:
Keywords: HPMC; microencapsulation; omega 3; supercritical antisolvent
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28911651 PMCID: PMC9328829 DOI: 10.1016/j.jfda.2016.11.017
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Food Drug Anal Impact factor: 6.157
Figure 1Schematic diagram of supercritical antisolvent (SAS) process (adapted from Ref. [5]).
Figure 2Schematic diagram of supercritical antisolvent (SAS) system (adapted from Ref. [19]).
Figure 3Particle collector used in supercritical antisolvent (SAS) system (Adapted from Ref. [19]).
Coded and uncoded factors for the design experiments.
| Independent variables | Coded factor | Level | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Low (−1) | High (+1) | ||
| Temperature | X1 | 40 | 60 |
| Pressure | X2 | 140 | 160 |
| Feed flow rate | X3 | 1 | 4 |
Experimental design recommended by MINITAB software version 16.
| Run order | Temperature (X1) | Pressure (X2) | Feed flow rate (X3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60 | 160 | 2.5 |
| 2 | 60 | 140 | 2.5 |
| 3 | 40 | 150 | 1.0 |
| 4 | 40 | 140 | 2.5 |
| 5 | 50 | 160 | 4.0 |
| 6 | 50 | 150 | 2.5 |
| 7 | 40 | 160 | 2.5 |
| 8 | 40 | 150 | 4.0 |
| 9 | 50 | 150 | 2.5 |
| 10 | 60 | 150 | 1.0 |
| 11 | 50 | 160 | 1.0 |
| 12 | 50 | 140 | 1.0 |
| 13 | 50 | 140 | 4.0 |
| 14 | 50 | 150 | 2.5 |
| 15 | 60 | 150 | 4.0 |
Scale of flowability and cohesiveness of powder.
| Carr Index (%) | Flow character | Hausner ratio |
|---|---|---|
| ≤ 10 | Excellent | 1.00–1.11 |
| 11–15 | Good | 1.12–1.18 |
| 16–20 | Fair | 1.19–1.25 |
| 21–25 | Passable | 1.26–1.34 |
| 26–31 | Poor | 1.35–1.45 |
| 32–37 | Very poor | 1.46–1.59 |
| > 38 | Very, very poor | > 1.60 |
Factors and comparison between actual (Y) and predicted (FIT) responses.
| Run order | Temperature (X1) | Pressure (X2) | Feed flow rate (X3) | Responses Particle size (μm) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Y | FIT | ||||
| 1 | 60 | 160 | 2.5 | 90.930 | 88.855 |
| 2 | 60 | 140 | 2.5 | 37.670 | 37.780 |
| 3 | 40 | 150 | 1.0 | 24.580 | 23.025 |
| 4 | 40 | 140 | 2.5 | 28.620 | 30.695 |
| 5 | 50 | 160 | 4.0 | 54.640 | 55.160 |
| 6 | 50 | 150 | 2.5 | 37.670 | 37.670 |
| 7 | 40 | 160 | 2.5 | 33.910 | 33.800 |
| 8 | 40 | 150 | 4.0 | 26.490 | 26.080 |
| 9 | 50 | 150 | 2.5 | 37.670 | 37.670 |
| 10 | 60 | 150 | 1.0 | 54.640 | 55.050 |
| 11 | 50 | 160 | 1.0 | 54.640 | 56.305 |
| 12 | 50 | 140 | 1.0 | 26.490 | 25.970 |
| 13 | 50 | 140 | 4.0 | 32.980 | 31.315 |
| 14 | 50 | 150 | 2.5 | 37.670 | 37.670 |
| 15 | 60 | 150 | 4.0 | 54.640 | 56.195 |
Estimated regression coefficients of second-order polynomial model for optimization of encapsulation efficiency of fish oil powder.
| Term | Coefficient | SE coefficient |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constant | 2079.62 | 249.714 | 8.328 | 0.000 |
| X1 | −20.36 | 1.830 | −11.128 | 0.000 |
| X2 | −22.69 | 3.159 | −7.183 | 0.001 |
| X3 | 22.05 | 10.773 | 2.047 | 0.096 |
| X1X1 | 0.04 | 0.010 | 3.859 | 0.012 |
| X2X2 | 0.06 | 0.010 | 5.882 | 0.002 |
| X3X3 | −0.71 | 0.461 | −1.531 | 0.186 |
| X1X2 | 0.12 | 0.010 | 12.025 | 0.000 |
| X1X3 | −0.03 | 0.066 | −0.479 | 0.652 |
| X2X3 | −0.11 | 0.066 | −1.627 | 0.165 |
R = 99.53% R(adj) = 98.68%.
X1 = temperature, X2 = pressure and X3 = feed flow rate.
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for optimization of encapsulation efficiency of fish oil powder.
| Source | DF | Seq SS | Adj SS | Adj MS | F |
| Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regression | 9 | 4198.04 | 4198.04 | 466.448 | 117.24 | 0.000 | Significant |
| Linear | 3 | 3407.25 | 637.36 | 212.454 | 53.40 | 0.000 | Significant |
| Square | 3 | 204.07 | 204.07 | 68.022 | 17.10 | 0.005 | Significant |
| Interaction | 3 | 586.72 | 586.72 | 195.574 | 49.16 | 0.000 | Significant |
| Residual error | 5 | 19.89 | 19.89 | 3.979 | — | — | — |
| Lack-of-fit | 3 | 19.89 | 19.89 | 6.631 | — | — | — |
| Pure error | 2 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.000 | — | — | — |
| Total | 14 | 4217.93 | — | — | — | — | — |
Adj MS = adjusted mean square; Adj SS = adjusted sum of square; DF = degree of freedom; F = fischer; Seq SS = sequential sum of square.
Figure 4Response optimizer at the optimum condition for target goal.
Figure 5Response contour plot of particle size (μm) at a feasible optimum condition.
Figure 6Response surface plot of particle size (μm) at a feasible optimum condition.
Characteristics of encapsulated powder of different formulations.
| Formulation | Moisture (wt. %) | Microencapsulation efficiency (%) | SGF digestion | Oil release (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| SGF and SIF digestion | ||||
| AF1 | 3.6 ± 0.06 | 81.75 ± 0.15 | 18.35 ± 0.97 | 28.99 ± 0.67 |
| AF2 | 3.56 ± 0.03 | 75.31 ± 0.15 | 28.33 ± 0.63 | 40.63 ± 0.78 |
| AF3 | 4.43 ± 0.07 | 71.21 ± 1.23 | 37.54 ± 0.79 | 54.49 ± 1.41 |
| AF4 | 4.91 ± 0.07 | 69.55 ± 1.55 | 45.69 ± 0.58 | 74.98 ± 1.71 |
Values are average of triplicate (n = 3) analyses ± standard deviation. SGF = simulated gastric fluid; SIF = simulated intestinal fluid.
Different letters within each column are significantly different at p < 0.05 when compared to AF1 with AF2, AF3 and AF4 values using Tukey’s HSD post hoc test.
Figure 7Effect of total solid content on encapsulation efficiency.
Viscosity and droplet size of emulsions with different solid content.
| Formulations | Total solid content (wt. %) | Viscosity (mPa. s) | Droplet size, D4,3 (μm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AF1 | 10.25 | 63.27 ± 0.15 | 3.75 ± 0.04 |
| AF2 | 9.0 | 42.90 ± 0.10 | 7.24 ± 0.05 |
| AF3 | 7.75 | 29.30 ± 0.10 | 12.77 ± 0.06 |
| AF4 | 6.5 | 11.83 ± 0.06 | 13.7 ± 0.06 |
Values are average of triplicate (n = 3) analyses ± standard deviation.
Different letters within each column are significantly different at p < 0.05 when compared to AF1 with AF2, AF3 and AF4 values using Tukey’s HSD post hoc test.
Figure 8Morphology of fish oil powder (AF1, AF2, AF3, and AF4) at different concentration.
Characteristics of encapsulated powder of different formulations.
| Formulation | Bulk density (g mL−1) | Tapped density (g mL−1) | Flowability & | cohesiveness | Particle density (g mL−1) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| Carr index (%) | Hausner ratio | ||||
| AF1 | 0.221 ± 0.002 | 0.260 ± 0.002 | 10.90 ± 1.23 | 1.18 ± 0.02 | 0.833 ± 0.006 |
| AF2 | 0.191 ± 0.003 | 0.217 ± 0.004 | 11.84 ± 0.77 | 1.13 ± 0.01 | 0.873 ± 0.012 |
| AF3 | 0.164 ± 0.003 | 0.193 ± 0.001 | 15.05 ± 1.41 | 1.18 ± 0.02 | 0.917 ± 0.006 |
| AF4 | 0.141 ± 0.002 | 0.166 ± 0.002 | 15.06 ± 0.62 | 1.18 ± 0.01 | 0.950 ± 0.010 |
Values are average of triplicate (n = 3) analyses ± standard deviation.
Different letters within each column are significantly different at p < 0.05 when compared to AF1 with AF2, AF3 and AF4 values using Tukey’s HSD post hoc test.
Figure 9Effect of storage time on the peroxide value of formulation AF1, AF2, AF3, AF4.