| Literature DB >> 35012149 |
Nirmala Tamang1, Pooja Shrestha2, Binita Khadka2, Monohar Hossain Mondal3, Bidyut Saha4, Ajaya Bhattarai1.
Abstract
Polysaccharides, polynucleotides, and polypeptides are basic natural polymers. They have various applications based on their properties. This review mostly discusses the application of natural polymers as emulsion stabilizers. Natural emulsion stabilizers are polymers of amino acid, nucleic acid, carbohydrate, etc., which are derived from microorganisms, bacteria, and other organic materials. Plant and animal proteins are basic sources of natural emulsion stabilizers. Pea protein-maltodextrin and lentil protein feature entrapment capacity up to 88%, (1-10% concentrated), zein proteins feature 74-89% entrapment efficiency, soy proteins in various concentrations increase dissolution, retention, and stability to the emulsion and whey proteins, egg proteins, and proteins from all other animals are applicable in membrane formation and encapsulation to stabilize emulsion/nanoemulsion. In pharmaceutical industries, phospholipids, phosphatidyl choline (PC), phosphatidyl ethanol-amine (PE), and phosphatidyl glycerol (PG)-based stabilizers are very effective as emulsion stabilizers. Lecithin (a combination of phospholipids) is used in the cosmetics and food industries. Various factors such as temperature, pH, droplets size, etc. destabilize the emulsion. Therefore, the emulsion stabilizers are used to stabilize, preserve and safely deliver the formulated drugs, also as a preservative in food and stabilizer in cosmetic products. Natural emulsion stabilizers offer great advantages because they are naturally degradable, ecologically effective, non-toxic, easily available in nature, non-carcinogenic, and not harmful to health.Entities:
Keywords: biopolymer; emulsion stabilizer; emulsion technology; nanoemulsion
Year: 2021 PMID: 35012149 PMCID: PMC8747219 DOI: 10.3390/polym14010127
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Figure 1Overall classification of natural polymers [4].
Figure 2Classification of biopolymers based on sources [5].
Biopolymers and biopolymer degradation [11].
| S. N | Biopolymers | Degradation | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Polysaccharides | Degradation by enzymes | Starch (wheat, potato, maize), Ligno-cellulosic products (wood, straw), Chitosan/Chitin. |
| 2 | Proteins and Lipids | Degradation by enzymes | Animals (casein, whey, gelation, collagen), Plants (zein, soy, etc.) |
| 3 | Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) | Degradation by hydrolysis | Polyhydroxybutanoate (PHB), Polyhydroxy butyrate |
| 4 | Polylactic Acid | Degradation by hydrolysis | Polylactic Acid |
| 5 | Petrochemical Polymers | Degradation by hydrolysis | Polycaprolactone (PCL), Polyester Amides (PEA) |
Figure 3Stabilization of emulsion by using biopolymer stabilizer [5].
Differences between emulsion and nanoemulsion.
| Properties | Emulsions | Nanoemulsions | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Droplet size | Lager than nanoemulsions | 20–200 nm | [ |
| Stability | Thermodynamically unstable | Thermodynamically stable | [ |
| Formation | By high shear homogenization methods | Micro-fluidization of emulsions | [ |
| Viscosity | Higher viscosity than nanoemulsions | Lower viscosity than emulsions | [ |
Figure 4Overall views of instability emulsion [24].
Comparison of nanoemulsion with droplet size.
| Sources | Emulsification Techniques | Droplet Size | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluids | Ultrasonic emulsification | 24.21 ± 0.11 nm | [ |
| Pastes | Emulsion inversion point method | <300 nm | [ |
| Fogs | High-pressure homogenization | 200–600 nm | [ |
| Gels | Microfluidization | <100 nm | [ |
| Fine liquid and solid particles in the air | Vertex mixing | 282 nm | [ |
| Topical | High-pressure homogenization | 50–100 nm | [ |
| Oral | Microfluidization | 22 ± 4.0 nm | [ |
| Intravenous | High-pressure homogenization | 89.23 ± 7.2 nm | [ |
| Intranasal, pulmonary, and ocular | High-pressure homogenization | 8.4 ± 12.7 nm | [ |
| Cosmetic industry | Ultrasonic emulsification | 6–10 nm | [ |
| Pesticide industry | Low-energy emulsification | ~30 nm | [ |
Comparative analysis of biopolymers and synthetic polymers.
| Polymer | Type | Lifespan/Degradation Time | Mechanism of Degradation | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collagen types I, II, III | Bio/ Semi-synthetic | 12 h | Enzymatic: collagenase | [ |
| Cross-linked collagen | Semi-synthetic | >6 weeks | Enzymatic: collagenase | [ |
| Alginate | Semi-synthetic | ~80 days | Hydrolytic disintegration | [ |
| Cross-linked chitosan | Semi-synthetic | >20 weeks | Enzymatic: chitosanase and lysosome | [ |
| Hyaluronan films | Biopolymer | 1 week to 4 months | Enzymatic: hyaluronidase | [ |
| Braided silk | Biopolymer | 6 weeks | Proteolysis | [ |
| Polycaprolactone (PCL) | Synthetic | >24 months | Hydrolytic | [ |
| PLA | Synthetic | >24 months | Hydrolytic | [ |
| PHA/PHB | Synthetic | >24 months | Bacterial fermentation | [ |