| Literature DB >> 33282231 |
Sining Xu1,2, Zhishu Tang1,2, Hongbo Liu1,2, Mei Wang3, Jing Sun1,2, Zhongxing Song1,4, Chunli Cui5, Chen Sun1,2, Shijun Liu1,2, Zheng Wang1,2, Jingao Yu1,2.
Abstract
The aim of this work was to encapsulate sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides L.) pulp oil (SBPO) by spray drying. Gum Arabic (GA) and maltodextrins (MD) were used as wall materials. The effects of several factors, including GA to MD ratio, total solids content of emulsion, wall to core ratio, and inlet air temperature, on the microencapsulation efficiency (ME) were investigated. The optimization of operation conditions was realized by response surface methodology (RSM). The optimal conditions were as follows: GA to MD ratio 2.38, total solids content 39%, wall to core ratio 5.33, and inlet air temperature 154°C. Under the optimal conditions, the ME of SBPO microcapsules was 94.96 ± 1.42%. The physicochemical properties of microcapsules were also invested. SBPO microcapsules obtained had low water activity, low moisture content, high water solubility, and high bulk density. For the morphological characteristics, cracks and pores were not observed in most microcapsules, which was beneficial for the protection of ingredients in microcapsules. The particle size of SBPO microcapsules ranged from 0.01 to 5 μm, and the mean diameter d 4,3 was 2.55 μm. The analysis results of fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) informed the presence of SBPO in microcapsules. There were no significant differences in the content of the main fatty acids in SBPO before and after spray drying. The results of oxidative stability showed that the microencapsulation by spray drying could effectively protect SBPO from oxidation and extend the shelf life of SBPO.Entities:
Keywords: gum arabic; maltodextrins; microencapsulation; sea buckthorn pulp oil; spray drying
Year: 2020 PMID: 33282231 PMCID: PMC7684620 DOI: 10.1002/fsn3.1828
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Sci Nutr ISSN: 2048-7177 Impact factor: 2.863
BBD and response values for ME
| Runs |
|
|
|
| ME (%) | Predicted value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 (2.3) | 0 (30) | 0 (4) | 0 (150) | 94.45 ± 1.11 | 93.01 |
| 2 | 0 (2.3) | 0 (30) | 1 (6) | 1 (160) | 94.32 ± 0.53 | 94.52 |
| 3 | 1 (4) | −1 (20) | 0 (4) | 0 (150) | 82.23 ± 1.87 | 81.43 |
| 4 | 0 (2.3) | 1 (40) | −1 (2) | 0 (150) | 64.00 ± 1.26 | 63.27 |
| 5 | 1 (4) | 0 (30) | 0 (4) | 1 (160) | 82.10 ± 1.89 | 81.49 |
| 6 | 0 (2.3) | 0 (30) | 0 (4) | 0 (150) | 92.66 ± 0.75 | 93.01 |
| 7 | 1 (4) | 0 (30) | 1 (6) | 0 (150) | 87.06 ± 1.58 | 86.35 |
| 8 | 0 (2.3) | −1 (20) | −1 (2) | 0 (150) | 37.72 ± 1.13 | 40.34 |
| 9 | 0 (2.3) | 1 (40) | 0 (4) | 1 (160) | 91.85 ± 1.53 | 90.76 |
| 10 | −1 (0.6) | 0 (30) | 1 (6) | 0 (150) | 90.12 ± 0.74 | 90.17 |
| 11 | 0 (2.3) | 1 (40) | 1 (6) | 0 (150) | 95.34 ± 1.77 | 95.12 |
| 12 | 0 (2.3) | 0 (30) | −1 (2) | 1 (160) | 52.40 ± 0.98 | 55.41 |
| 13 | 0 (2.3) | −1 (20) | 0 (4) | −1 (140) | 71.95 ± 1.36 | 70.08 |
| 14 | 0 (2.3) | 1 (40) | 0 (4) | −1 (140) | 88.70 ± 1.81 | 86.96 |
| 15 | 0 (2.3) | 0 (30) | −1 (2) | −1 (140) | 42.53 ± 1.06 | 42.89 |
| 16 | 0 (2.3) | −1 (20) | 0 (4) | 1 (160) | 85.02 ± 1.61 | 83.80 |
| 17 | −1 (0.6) | 0 (30) | −1 (2) | 0 (150) | 40.05 ± 0.25 | 37.80 |
| 18 | 0 (2.3) | 0 (30) | 0 (4) | 0 (150) | 93.15 ± 1.50 | 93.01 |
| 19 | 0 (2.3) | −1 (20) | 1 (6) | 0 (150) | 91.08 ± 1.54 | 94.21 |
| 20 | 0 (2.3) | 0 (30) | 0 (4) | 0 (150) | 91.03 ± 1.55 | 93.01 |
| 21 | −1 (0.6) | −1 (20) | 0 (4) | 0 (150) | 66.82 ± 1.24 | 64.95 |
| 22 | 1 (4) | 0 (30) | 0 (4) | −1 (140) | 74.50 ± 0.65 | 77.20 |
| 23 | −1 (0.6) | 1 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (150) | 86.30 ± 1.81 | 87.65 |
| 24 | −1 (0.6) | 0 (30) | 0 (4) | 1 (160) | 80.56 ± 0.57 | 80.27 |
| 25 | 1 (4) | 1 (40) | 0 (4) | 0 (150) | 80.15 ± 1.13 | 82.57 |
| 26 | 0 (2.3) | 0 (30) | 0 (4) | 0 (150) | 93.75 ± 1.33 | 93.01 |
| 27 | 1 (4) | 0 (30) | −1 (2) | 0 (150) | 56.02 ± 1.41 | 53.01 |
| 28 | −1 (0.6) | 0 (30) | 0 (4) | −1 (140) | 64.01 ± 1.53 | 67.02 |
| 29 | 0 (2.3) | 0 (30) | 1 (6) | −1 (140) | 91.95 ± 1.48 | 89.50 |
FIGURE 1Single‐factor experiments. (a) Effect of GA to MD ratio on ME. Total solids content 30%, wall to core ratio 4, inlet air temperature 160°C, outlet air temperature 80 ± 5°C; (b) effect of total solids content of emulsion on ME. GA to MD ratio 70:30, wall to core ratio 4, inlet air temperature 160°C, outlet air temperature 80 ± 5°C; (c) effect of wall to core ratio on ME. GA to MD ratio 60:40, total solids content 30%, inlet air temperature 160°C, and outlet air temperature 80 ± 5°C. (d) Effect of inlet air temperature on ME. GA to MD ratio 60:40, total solids content 30%, wall to core ratio 4, outlet air temperature 80 ± 5°C
ANOVA of the quadratic model for ME
| Source | Sum of squares | DF | Mean square |
|
| Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 8,698.11 | 14 | 621.29 | 94.89 | <.0001 | Significant |
| X1 | 97.47 | 1 | 97.47 | 14.89 | .0017 | Significant |
| X2 | 426.26 | 1 | 426.26 | 65.10 | <.0001 | Significant |
| X3 | 5,510.51 | 1 | 5,510.51 | 841.59 | <.0001 | Significant |
| X4 | 230.65 | 1 | 230.65 | 35.23 | <.0001 | Significant |
| X1X2 | 116.21 | 1 | 116.21 | 17.75 | .0009 | Significant |
| X1X3 | 90.54 | 1 | 90.54 | 13.83 | .0023 | Significant |
| X1X4 | 20.03 | 1 | 20.03 | 3.06 | .1022 | Not significant |
| X2X3 | 121.22 | 1 | 121.22 | 18.51 | .0007 | Significant |
| X2X4 | 24.60 | 1 | 24.60 | 3.76 | .0730 | Not significant |
| X3X4 | 14.06 | 1 | 14.06 | 2.15 | .1649 | Not significant |
| X1 2 | 665.60 | 1 | 665.60 | 101.65 | <.0001 | Significant |
| X2 2 | 90.00 | 1 | 90.00 | 13.74 | .0023 | Significant |
| X3 2 | 1,670.12 | 1 | 1,670.12 | 255.07 | <.0001 | Significant |
| X4 2 | 264.33 | 1 | 264.33 | 40.37 | <.0001 | Significant |
| Residual | 91.67 | 14 | 6.55 | |||
| Lake of fit | 84.99 | 10 | 8.50 | 5.09 | .0655 | Not significant |
| Pure error | 6.68 | 4 | 1.67 | |||
| Cor total | 8,789.78 | 28 | ||||
| C.V.% | 3.28 | |||||
| R2 | 0.9896 | |||||
| adj‐R2 | 0.9791 |
Degrees of freedom.
Test for comparing term variance with residual value.
p < .05 significant.
FIGURE 2The 3D response surface plots. (a) Wall to core ratio and inlet air temperature; (b) GA to MD ratio and wall to core ratio; (c) GA to MD ratio and inlet air temperature; (d) GA to MD ratio and total solids content; (e) total solids content and inlet air temperature; (f) total solids content and wall to core ratio
The physical properties of microcapsules
| Physical properties | |
|---|---|
| Water activity | 0.44 ± 0.02 |
| Moisture content (%) | 3.18 ± 0.18 |
| WSI (%) | 86.56 ± 0.91 |
| Hygroscopicity (%) | 26.67 ± 0.35 |
| Bulk density (g/cm3) | 0.48 ± 0.02 |
FIGURE 3Microphotograph of SBPO microcapsules
FIGURE 4Particle size distribution of SBPO microcapsules
The main fatty acids of unencapsulated and encapsulated SBPO
| Fatty acid composition | Fatty acid (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Unencapsulated SBPO | Encapsulated SBPO | |
| Palmitoleic acid | 10.62 ± 0.08 | 10.44 ± 0.09 |
| Palmitic acid | 12.77 ± 0.11 | 12.17 ± 0.13 |
| Linoleic acid | 5.67 ± 0.05 | 3.84 ± 0.04 |
| Oleic acid | 21.23 ± 0.24 | 18.40 ± 0.15 |
| Stearic acid | 2.76 ± 0.02 | 2.91 ± 0.03 |
| cis‐11‐Octadecenoic acid | 2.51 ± 0.01 | 3.25 ± 0.02 |
FIGURE 5Changes in PV of unencapsulated and encapsulated SBPO under 60°C