| Literature DB >> 30744376 |
Festus A Adejoro1, Abubeker Hassen1, Mapitsi S Thantsha2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The use of tannin extract and other phytochemicals as dietary additives in ruminants is becoming more popular due to their wide biological actions such as in methane mitigation, bypass of dietary protein, intestinal nematode control, among other uses. Unfortunately, some have strong astringency, low stability and bioavailability, and negatively affecting dry matter intake and digestibility. To circumvent these drawbacks, an effective delivery system may offer a promising approach to administer these extracts to the site where they are required. The objectives of this study were to encapsulate acacia tannin extract (ATE) with native starch and maltodextrin-gum arabic and to test the effect of encapsulation parameters on encapsulation efficiency, yield and morphology of the microparticles obtained as well as the effect on rumen in vitro gas production.Entities:
Keywords: Encapsulation; Gum Arabic; Maltodextrin; Rumen Fermentation; Starch; Tannin Extract
Year: 2018 PMID: 30744376 PMCID: PMC6601063 DOI: 10.5713/ajas.18.0632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Asian-Australas J Anim Sci ISSN: 1011-2367 Impact factor: 2.509
Figure 1Electron micrographs showing the external morphological characteristics of un-encapsulated acacia tannin extract (A), encapsulated with native starch (B), and maltodextrin-gum-arabic (C) as viewed under field emission scanning electron microscope. At a scale bar at 20 μm, unencapsulated tannin extract revealed irregular shaped particles while starch encapsulated microparticles were bigger and most spherical in shape. On the other hand, maltodextrin-gum Arabic encapsulated microparticles showed flake-like structures.
Effect of variation in processing parameters on encapsulation efficiency and recovery of acacia tannin extract in starch and maltodextrin-gum arabic microparticles
| Sample | Wall material (g/100 g solution) | Core material (g/100 g wall material) | Surface tannin (g/100 g) | Total tannin recovery (g/100 g) | Encapsulation efficiency (g/100 g) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| GA | MD | NS | |||||
| MG-TE25 | 30 | 45 | - | 25 | 8.43 | 70.7 | 64.8 |
| MG-TE30 | 28 | 42 | - | 30 | 10.7 | 66.4 | 60.5 |
| MG-TE35 | 26 | 39 | - | 35 | 11.2 | 63.2 | 56.1 |
| S-TE15 | - | - | 85 | 15 | 35.0 | 75.1 | 48.8 |
| S-TE20 | - | - | 80 | 20 | 53.4 | 70.9 | 33.4 |
| S-TE25 | - | - | 75 | 25 | 63.9 | 75.6 | 27.7 |
| S-TE30 | - | - | 70 | 30 | 58.8 | 75.8 | 31.1 |
| SEM | - | - | - | - | 4.21 | 1.30 | 2.67 |
| p-value | - | - | - | - | <0.0001 | 0.03 | <0.0001 |
GA, gum arabic; MD, maltodextrin; NS, native starch; SEM, standard error of mean.
MG-TE, maltodextrin+gum arabic encapsulating acacia tannin extract (at 25%, 30%, 35% w/w); S-TE, native starch encapsulating acacia tannin extract (at 15%, 20%, 25%, 30% w/w).
Means with different superscripts across a column are significantly different (p<0.05); treatments are expressed as mean and values are calculated from a minimum of four repeat batches.
Figure 2In vitro release profile of acacia tannin extract microparticles in (A) acetate buffer, pH 5.6; (B) phosphate buffer, pH 7.4; (C) HCl buffer, pH 2.2, at 39°C. ATE, unencapsulated tannin extract; S-TE, ATE encapsulated in starch (S-TE); MG-TE, ATE encapsulated in maltodextrin/gun-arabic.
In vitro release kinetic parameters in acetate buffer media (pH, 5.6), of acacia tannin extract encapsulated with maltodextrin/gum-arabic and native starch (n = 3)
| Items | Zero order, Q vs | First order, ln (Q0-Q) vs | Higuchi, Q vs | R2 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Zero order | First order | Higuchi | ||||
| ATE | Y = 2.861x+47.9 | Y = −0.106x+1.78 | Y = 27.1x+17.9 | 0.439 | 0.874 | 0.836 |
| MG-TE | Y = 3.073x+39.4 | Y = −0.090x+1.87 | Y = 26.9x+10.5 | 0.543 | 0.952 | 0.924 |
| S-TE | Y = 3.090x+37.8 | Y = −0.080x+1.85 | Y = 27.8x+7.6 | 0.491 | 0.819 | 0.865 |
Q0, Tannin to be released at zero time (mg); Q, amount of drug released at time t; t, time in hours; ATE, acacia tannin extract; MG-TE, acacia tannin extract encapsulated with maltodextrin+gum arabic; S-TE, acacia tannin extract encapsulated with native starch.
In vitro gas production and fermentation parameters due to the addition of acacia tannin extract encapsulated with native starch or maltodextrin/gum arabic on Eragrostis curvula hay and total mixed ration feeds
| Treatment | Gas production (mL/g DM) | Methane (mL/g DM) | 24 h methane (%) | Gas production kinetics | pH | NH3-N (mM) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
| 2 h | 4 h | 12 h | 24 h | 2 h | 4 h | 12 h | 24 h | b | c | ||||
| Eragrostis hay substrate | |||||||||||||
| Control (C) | 12.0 | 19.0 | 27.5 | 50.2 | 1.06 | 1.81 | 2.77 | 5.4 | 10.6 | 125.8 | 0.02 | 6.93 | 11.5 |
| C+starch | 17.0 | 27.5 | 75.4 | 167.7 | 1.76 | 3.04 | 7.90 | 19.6 | 11.5 | 184.2 | 0.13 | 6.84 | 10.5 |
| C+S-TE | 14.8 | 21.9 | 66.5 | 162.5 | 1.49 | 2.32fg | 7.26 | 18.8 | 11.3 | 191.5 | 0.13 | 6.85 | 9.6 |
| C+maltodextrin-gum arabic | 25.1 | 38.6 | 62.5 | 99.6 | 2.85 | 4.09 | 6.51 | 10.7 | 10.5 | 225.5 | 0.02 | 6.72 | 10.5 |
| C+MG-TE | 23.6 | 35.7 | 54.8 | 87.1 | 2.64 | 3.95 | 5.97 | 9.5 | 10.4 | 207.7 | 0.02 | 6.85 | 10.0 |
| C+ATE | 9.9 | 14.1d | 18.8 | 36.8 | 0.90 | 1.32 | 1.86 | 3.5 | 10.7 | 100.7 | 0.01 | 6.91 | 10.1 |
| SEM | 1.75 | 2.65 | 6.21 | 14.91 | 0.23 | 0.31 | 0.69 | 1.81 | 0.18 | 9.64 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.7 |
| p-value | 0.005 | 0.002 | 0.001 | <0.0001 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.002 | <0.0001 | 0.38 | 0.0002 | <0.0001 | 0.15 | 0.04 |
| Total mixed ration substrate | |||||||||||||
| Control (C) | 24.1 | 42.1 | 89.0 | 154.2 | 2.82 | 4.30 | 9.41 | 17.0 | 11.2 | 341.2 | 0.06 | 6.60 | 20.0 |
| C+starch | 25.5 | 45.9 | 129.4 | 256.1 | 2.88 | 4.85 | 14.3 | 31.0 | 12.1 | 336.5 | 0.06 | 6.34 | 19.8 |
| C+S-TE | 22.6 | 39.5 | 115.7 | 236.7 | 2.1 | 3.97 | 12.7 | 28.7 | 12.0 | 288.3 | 0.05 | 6.68 | 18.4 |
| C+maltodextrin-gum arabic | 33.5 | 59.2 | 124.2 | 193.6 | 3.47 | 5.82 | 13.0 | 22.3 | 11.4 | 298.22 | 0.04 | 6.78 | 19.4 |
| C+MG-TE | 38.6 | 63.2 | 123.4 | 184.4 | 4.66 | 7.12 | 135 | 21.4 | 11.4 | 250.3 | 0.05 | 6.72 | 18.6 |
| C+ATE | 28.3 | 45.8 | 90.1 | 146.7 | 3.13 | 5.34 | 10.7 | 18.0 | 11.9 | 199.5 | 0.12 | 6.85 | 18.8 |
| SEM | 1.92 | 2.96 | 5.49 | 12.1 | 0.28 | 0.37 | 0.61 | 1.59 | 0.12 | 26.8 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.8 |
| p-value | 0.007 | 0.004 | 0.001 | <0.0001 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.007 | <0.0001 | 0.13 | 0.53 | 0.68 | 0.11 | 0.11 |
DM, dry matter; SEM, standard error of mean.
S-TE, acacia tannin extract encapsulated with native starch; MG-TE, acacia tannin extract encapsulated with maltodextrin+gum arabic; ATE, acacia tannin extract.
b, gas production (GP) from the insoluble but slowly fermentable fraction of substrate (mL); c, the rate of gp from insoluble fraction per hour.
Means with different superscripts across same column are significantly different (p<0.05).