| Literature DB >> 32365717 |
Iara Baldim1,2, Débora M Rosa1, Claudia R F Souza1, Raquel da Ana3, Alessandra Durazzo4, Massimo Lucarini4, Antonello Santini5, Eliana B Souto2,3, Wanderley P Oliveira1.
Abstract
Essential oils (EOs) are widely used in various industrial sectors but can present several instability problems when exposed to environmental factors. Encapsulation technologies are effective solutions to improve EOs properties and stability. Currently, the encapsulation in lipid nanoparticles has received significant attention, due to the several recognized advantages over conventional systems. The study aimed to investigate the influence of the lipid matrix composition and spray-drying process on the physicochemical properties of the lipid-based nanoparticles loaded with Lippia sidoides EO and their retention efficiency for the oil. The obtained spray-dried products were characterized by determination of flow properties (Carr Index: from 25.0% to 47.93%, and Hausner ratio: from 1.25 to 1.38), moisture (from 3.78% to 5.20%), water activity (<0.5), and powder morphology. Zeta potential, mean particle size and polydispersity index, of the redispersed dried product, fell between -25.9 mV and -30.9 mV, 525.3 nm and 1143 nm, and 0.425 and 0.652, respectively; showing slight differences with the results obtained prior to spray-drying (from -16.4 mV to -31.6 mV; 147 nm to 1531 nm; and 0.459 to 0.729). Thymol retention in the dried products was significantly lower than the values determined for the liquid formulations and was affected by the drying of nanoparticles.Entities:
Keywords: Lippia sidoides; essential oil; lipid nanoparticles; nanostructured lipid carriers; pepper rosemary; spray-drying
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32365717 PMCID: PMC7277518 DOI: 10.3390/biom10050693
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomolecules ISSN: 2218-273X
Constituents of nanostructured lipid carriers (NLCs) (%, w/w).
| Components | Function | Formulations | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F5A1 | F6A1 | F7A1 | F8A1 | F5A2 | F6A2 | F7A2 | F8A2 | ||
| Bioactive | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | |
| Gelucire 50/13 | Amphiphilic solid lipid | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
| Oleic acid | Liquid lipid | 1.0 | 1.0 | - | - | 1.0 | 1.0 | - | - |
| Labrasol | Liquid lipid | - | - | 1.0 | 1.0 | - | - | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Tween® 80 | Surfactant | 0.35 | - | 0.35 | - | 0.35 | - | 0.35 | - |
| Span® 80 | Surfactant | 0.35 | - | 0.35 | - | 0.35 | - | 0.35 | - |
| Poloxamer 188 | Surfactant | - | 0.7 | - | 0.7 | - | 0.7 | - | 0.7 |
| Arabic gum | Carrier | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.6 | 8.6 |
| Whey protein | Carrier | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 3.0 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Aerosil 200 | Carrier | - | - | - | - | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Water | Solvent | 83.3 | 83.3 | 83.3 | 83.3 | 121.5 | 121.5 | 121.5 | 121.5 |
Constitution of Lippia sidoides essential oil (EO) identified by gas chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry (GC-MS).
| Compounds a | Relative Abundance (%) b | KI (-) c |
|---|---|---|
| α-thujene | 0.95 | 928 |
| Bicyclo[3.1.1]hept-2-ene, 2,6,6-trimethyl | 0.56 | 937 |
| 2-β-pinene | 0.16 | 980 |
| β-myrcene | 2.84 | 989 |
| 1-phellandrene | 0.07 | 1007 |
| 0.16 | 1011 | |
| α-terpinene | 1.16 | 1018 |
| Benzene, 1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)- | 9.43 | 1025 |
| Bornylene | 0.64 | 1032 |
| 1.8-cineole | 0.53 | 1033 |
| 1,3,6-octatriene, 3,7-dimethyl-, ( | 0.11 | 1037 |
| 1,3,6-octatriene, 3,7-dimethyl-, ( | 0.16 | 1048 |
| γ-terpinene | 2.71 | 1060 |
| Linalyl acetate | 0.35 | 1099 |
| 2-(chloromethyl)tetrahydropyran | 0.15 | 1145 |
| Bicyclo[3.1.0]hex-3-en-2-one, 4-methyl- | 0.26 | 1170 |
| 3-cyclohexen-1-ol, 4-methyl-1-(1-methylethyl) | 0.68 | 1180 |
| Thymol methyl ether | 0.97 | 1231 |
| Thymol | 68.22 | 1297 |
| α-copaene | 0.34 | 1377 |
| trans-caryophyllene | 7.72 | 1420 |
| Aromadendrene | 0.46 | 1440 |
| α- Caryophyllene | 0.34 | 1455 |
| Ledene | 0.44 | 1493 |
| δ-cadinene | 0.10 | 1520 |
| Caryophyllene oxide | 0.43 | 1580 |
a Compounds are listed in order of elution. b Relative abundance were calculated based on normalized MS peak areas, between the identified compounds. c KI: Kovats Index, a retention index relative to a series of alkanes (C10–C22).
Figure 1Comparison between the experimental results of zeta potential (Z), emulsion size (dp), and polydispersity index (PI) of the liquid and redispersed dried lipid systems, (a–c), respectively. Same letters/numbers indicate a statistically significant difference (Tukey’s post-test, p ≤ 0.05).
Properties of the spray-dried powders.
| Form | Moisture Content | Water Activity | ρb | ρt,1250 | IHausner | ICarr |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F5A1 | 3.78 ± 0.05 | - | 0.13 | 0.17 | 1.32 | 32.00 |
| F6A1 | 4.05 ± 0.03 | - | 0.13 | 0.17 | 1.31 | 30.77 |
| F7A1 | 4.21 ± 0.08 | - | 0.13 | 0.18 | 1.35 | 34.62 |
| F8A1 | 4.42 ± 0.07 | - | 0.15 | 0.19 | 1.27 | 26.67 |
| F5A2 | 4.45 ± 0.27 | 0.366 ± 0.011 | 0.17 | 0.22 | 1.33 | 33.33 |
| F6A2 | 5.20 ± 0.08 | 0.421 ± 0.002 | 0.15 | 0.21 | 1.38 | 37.93 |
| F7A2 | 4.40 ± 0.27 | 0.353 ± 0.011 | 0.17 | 0.23 | 1.34 | 33.93 |
| F8A2 | 4.73 ± 0.02 | 0.353 ± 0.008 | 0.19 | 0.24 | 1.25 | 25.00 |
Figure 2Retention of thymol in the spray dried product. Percentage relative to the initial concentration of thymol in essential oil.
Figure 3Typical morphology of spray-dried lipid-based formulations: F7A1 (A); F7A2 (B).