| Literature DB >> 30359451 |
Festus A Adejoro1, Abubeker Hassen1, Mapitsi S Thantsha2.
Abstract
Tannin extracts have wide biological activity in ruminant nutrition. The possibility of masking their bitter taste and enhancing sustained release in the rumen can be achieved through encapsulation. The objectives of this study were to prepare an encapsulated Acacia tannin extract (ATE) suitable for ruminants using the solid-in-oil-in-water (S/O/W) method, and to evaluate the microparticles in terms of morphology, encapsulation efficiency and in vitro release under varying pH. Subsequently, the effect of the microparticles on rumen in vitro gas and methane production would be evaluated. Lipid microparticles were prepared using the double emulsion process with palm oil and lard, dichloromethane, and Tween80/Span80 emulsifiers. The microparticles produced by S/O/W emulsion tended to be smaller (P = 0.06), and had greater encapsulation efficiency compared with those produced by the melt dispersion method. Scanning electron micrographs showed microparticles had stable cylindrical and spherical shapes, with mean size of 34± 10.2 μm. Maximum encapsulation efficiencies of 78.6% and 80.1% were obtained with lard and palm oil as lipid wall materials, respectively, even under high core material loading percentage of 80%. Wall material type did not affect the characteristics of microparticles. In acetate buffer, only about 20% of tannin was released from the lipid-encapsulated microparticles into buffer media after 24 hours. In contrast, about 90% of the tannin had been released into solution before eight hours in the crude extract. Lipid-encapsulated ATE reduced rumen gas and methane production in vitro (P ˂0.05) in both Eragrostis and total mixed ration (TMR) diet substrates, but the magnitude of reduction was lower than that obtained when unencapsulated ATE was the additive (10% vs 20% for total gas and 17% vs 24% for methane). Crude ATE and palm oil encapsulated ATE reduced the concentration of methane in sampled gas (P = 0.054) when fermenting the TMR substrate, but this effect was not observed in the Eragrostis substrate. Ammonia nitrogen concentration was greater in encapsulated ATE compared with the crude ATE (P ˂0.001). These results show that the lipid-encapsulated ATE produced small-sized and more uniform microparticles, with high encapsulation efficiency compared with microparticles prepared by melt dispersion. Encapsulation of ATE enhanced the sustained release of tannin in the rumen, and with the potential to improve gas production and reduce methane production.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30359451 PMCID: PMC6201938 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206241
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Schematic diagram showing the preparation of solid-in-oil-in-water microparticles.
Fig 2Scanning electron microscopy images of freeze-dried Acacia tannin extract lipid microparticles prepared by solid-in-oil-in-water encapsulation method using (a) lard and (b) palm oil.
Encapsulation efficiency and particle size of Acacia tannin extract-lipid microparticles prepared using melt dispersion and solid-in-oil-water encapsulation techniques.
| Yield (%) | Encapsulation efficiency (%) | Mean particle diameter (μm) | |||
| [A] Melt dispersion | 94.5a | 46.0c | 58.0a | ||
| [B] Solid-in-oil-in-water | |||||
| Batch | ATE conc. (g) | External aqueous phase (mL) | Yield (%) | Encapsulation efficiency (%) | Mean particle diameter (μm) |
| L1 | 8.5 | 300 | 57.3d | 78.6a | 33.9bc |
| L2 | 9.0 | 300 | 65.7c | 75.1ab | 39.5bc |
| L3 | 8.5 | 500 | 71.4bc | 68.6b | 44.7abc |
| L4 | 9.0 | 500 | 73.2b | 74.6ab | 48.6ab |
| P1 | 8.5 | 300 | 63.1cd | 80.1a | 26.8c |
| P2 | 9.0 | 300 | 65.8c | 77.8a | 32.7bc |
| P3 | 8.5 | 500 | 72.5b | 74.3ab | 30.4bc |
| P4 | 9.0 | 500 | 74.5b | 68.8b | 36.5bc |
| SEM | 2.03 | 2.05 | 2.55 | ||
| P-value | ˂0.0001 | ˂0.0001 | 0.057 | ||
1L: batches 1–4 of S/O/W microparticles prepared using lard as wall material; P: batches 1–4 of S/O/W microparticles prepared using palm oil as wall material. Mean values with different superscript within the same column are significantly different (P ˂ 0.05). Mean values are calculated from a minimum of three repeat batches.
Fig 3Release profiles of Acacia tannin extract and tannin extract microparticles encapsulated with lard and palm oil prepared by solid-in-oil-in-water encapsulation method in (A) acetate (0.1M, pH 5.5), (B) phosphate buffer (0. I M, pH 7.4) and (C) HCl buffer (0.1M, pH 2.2).
In vitro release kinetic parameters in acetate buffer media (pH, 5.6), of Acacia tannin extract, or encapsulated Acacia tannin extract prepared with lard and palm oil using the solid-in-water-oil method (n = 3).
| Zero Order, Q vs. t | First Order, ln (Q0-Q) vs. t | Higuchi, Q vs √ t | R2 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zero Order | First order | Higuchi | ||||
| ETEL | Y = 0.7988X+5.8823 | Y = -0.0079X+1.9854 | Y = 6.2174X-0.4151 | 0.6814 | 0.9177 | 0.9854 |
| ETEP | Y = 0.7504X+4.6174 | Y = -0.0072X+1.9899 | Y = 5.6666X-1.0398 | 0.7042 | 0.9292 | 0.979 |
| ATE | Y = 2.2159X+53.925 | Y = -0.0658X+1.6814 | Y = 21.702X+29.357 | 0.3537 | 0.7366 | 0.7082 |
Q0, tannin to be released at zero time (mg); Q, amount of tannin released at time t: time in hours
Influence of Acacia tannin extract and lipid-encapsulated Acacia tannin extract (ETEL, ETEP) on in vitro gas production, methane, and fermentation parameters of Eragrostis curvula hay and total mixed ration feeds.
| Total gas (ml/g DM) | Methane (ml/g DM) | pH | NH3-N | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 h | 4 h | 12 h | 24 h | 2 h | 4 h | 12 h | 24 h | a | b | c | |||||
| EC | |||||||||||||||
| Control | 11.3 | 18.2 | 27.7 | 47.1a | 1.04 | 1.72a | 2.61 | 4.92a | 10.7 | 10.3a | 149.8b | 0.011 | 6.94 | 11.9 | |
| Lard | 10.7 | 17.2 | 28.2 | 50.1a | 0.90 | 1.50ab | 2.50 | 4.81a | 9.61 | 8.38a | 155.3ab | 0.012 | 6.92 | 11.7 | |
| ETEL | 10.1 | 15.6 | 24.5 | 43.9ab | 0.86 | 1.47ab | 2.33 | 4.12ab | 9.79 | 7.29ab | 203.3a | 0.009 | 6.76 | 9.5 | |
| Palm oil | 8.90 | 16.0 | 26.8 | 47.2ab | 0.81 | 1.49ab | 2.49 | 4.65a | 9.86 | 6.17b | 231.3a | 0.010 | 6.89 | 12.0 | |
| ETEP | 9.13 | 15.7 | 25.3 | 43.7ab | 0.80 | 1.45ab | 2.37 | 4.31ab | 9.86 | 6.90b | 200.9ab | 0.009 | 6.92 | 9.0 | |
| ATE | 6.50 | 13.0 | 21.1 | 37.9b | 0.58 | 1.20b | 1.93 | 3.75b | 9.91 | 5.42b | 176.3ab | 0.008 | 6.87 | 9.0 | |
| TMR | |||||||||||||||
| Control | 29.2a | 50.9a | 97.6a | 157.1a | 1.97 | 3.79a | 8.29a | 16.8a | 10.7 | -42.7a | 189.6 | 0.178a | 6.66 | 22.0a | |
| Lard | 27.1a | 49.0a | 92.2a | 152.2a | 1.89 | 3.78a | 8.10a | 15.7b | 10.3 | -41.3a | 186.2 | 0.176a | 6.67 | 21.7a | |
| ETEL | 20.9b | 39.3b | 79.0b | 136.1b | 1.70 | 3.30ab | 7.26b | 14.0c | 10.3 | -32.5b | 173.7 | 0.163b | 6.65 | 16.8b | |
| PalmOil | 27.2a | 49.1a | 93.3a | 155.7b | 2.38 | 4.24a | 8.67a | 16.1ab | 10.4 | -39.6a | 187.9 | 0.177a | 6.59 | 21.6a | |
| ETEP | 20.8b | 41.0b | 78.4b | 136.4b | 1.63 | 2.43b | 6.09b | 13.2c | 9.7 | -33.0b | 172.9 | 0.162b | 6.59 | 16.4bc | |
| ATE | 19.9b | 37.8b | 75.1b | 127.5b | 1.55 | 2.89b | 6.64b | 12.8c | 10.0 | -34.6b | 191.3 | 0.148c | 6.78 | 15.5c | |
| SEM | 1.36 | 2.52 | 5.23 | 8.55 | 0.11 | 0.19 | 0.45 | 0.90 | 0.09 | 4.71 | 4.92 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.99 | |
| S | < .0001 | < .0001 | < .0001 | < .0001 | < .0001 | < .0001 | < .0001 | < .0001 | 0.059 | < .0001 | 0.718 | < .0001 | < .0001 | < .0001 | |
| T | < .0001 | < .0001 | < .0001 | < .0001 | 0.148 | 0.003 | < .0001 | < .0001 | 0.086 | 0.001 | 0.016 | < .0001 | 0.197 | < .0001 | |
| S*T | 0.004 | 0.001 | < .0001 | 0.001 | 0.426 | 0.027 | 0.001 | < .0001 | 0.625 | < .0001 | 0.004 | 0.0001 | 0.088 | < .0001 | |
1ETEL, lard encapsulated Acacia tannin extract; ETEP, palm oil encapsulated Acacia tannin extract; ATE, Acacia tannin extract. SEM, standard error of mean.
2Methane, ‘% of methane in the gas sample.
3a, gas production from soluble fraction (ml g-1 DM); b, gas production from slowly fermentable fraction (mL g-1 DM); c, rate of fermentation of fraction ‘b’(mL h-1). 124 h methane, mL methane per 100 mL total gas.
4P-values: S: effect of substrate, T: effect of treatment/additives, S*T: effect of substrate and treatment interaction. For each substrate, mean values within the same column followed by different superscripts differ significantly at P ˂ 0.05.