| Literature DB >> 35563959 |
Chunwei Li1,2, Xiankang Fan1,2, Yangying Sun2, Changyu Zhou2, Daodong Pan1,2.
Abstract
Goose liver oil (GLO) microcapsules were prepared by konjac glucomannan (KGM) and soybean protein isolate (SPI) for the first time as wall materials. The GLO could be effectively encapsulated, with an encapsulation efficiency of 83.37%, when the ratio of KGM to SPI was 2.9:1, the concentration of the KGM-SPI composite gel layer was 6.28% and the ratio of the GLO to KGM-SPI composite gel layer was 1:6. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction methods showed electrostatic interactions between KGM and SPI molecules and the formation of hydrogen bonds between the GLO and KGM-SPI wall components. The results of scanning electron microscopy showed a smooth spherical surface morphology of the microcapsules with a dense surface and no cracks. The confocal laser scanning microscopy showed that the microcapsules were homogeneous inside and no coalescence occurred. The encapsulated GLO has a significantly higher thermal and oxidative stability compared to free GLO. In the in vitro digestion experiment, 85.2% of the microcapsules could travel through gastric juice, and 75.2% could be released in the intestinal region. These results suggested that microcapsules prepared by KGM-SPI might be used as a carrier for the controlled release of GLO and could microencapsulate various oil-soluble nutrients in food products.Entities:
Keywords: Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; X-ray; goose liver oil; microcapsules; scanning electron microscopy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35563959 PMCID: PMC9103811 DOI: 10.3390/foods11091236
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Box–Behnken experimental design and results.
| Run | A | B (%) | C | EE (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 54.3 ± 0.4 |
| 2 | 2 | 6 | 4 | 65.4 ± 0.6 |
| 3 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 70.8 ± 1.2 |
| 4 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 81.9 ± 0.4 |
| 5 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 55.1 ± 0.9 |
| 6 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 58.0 ± 0.5 |
| 7 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 59.2 ± 0.9 |
| 8 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 50.2 ± 0.3 |
| 9 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 78.3 ± 1.0 |
| 10 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 81.7 ± 0.7 |
| 11 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 77.0 ± 0.8 |
| 12 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 63.6 ± 0.6 |
| 13 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 69.0 ± 0.6 |
| 14 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 62.8 ± 0.7 |
| 15 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 79.2 ± 0.5 |
| 16 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 77.4 ± 0.3 |
| 17 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 79.8 ± 0.6 |
Note: A means the ratio of KGM to SPI, B means the wall materials concentration (%), C means the ratio of wall materials to core materials.
ANOVA for the response surface Box–Behnken quadratic model.
| Source | Sum of | df | Mean | F Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Squares | Square | Prob > F | ||||
| Model | 1812.22 | 9 | 201.36 | 89.77 | <0.0001 | ** |
| A: ratio of KGM to SPI | 18.61 | 1 | 18.61 | 8.29 | 0.0237 | ** |
| B: wall material content | 46.08 | 1 | 46.08 | 20.54 | 0.0027 | ** |
| C: ratio of wall material to core material | 266.81 | 1 | 266.81 | 118.94 | <0.0001 | ** |
| AB | 82.81 | 1 | 82.81 | 36.92 | 0.0005 | ** |
| AC | 7.84 | 1 | 7.84 | 3.5 | 0.1038 | ns |
| BC | 20.25 | 1 | 20.25 | 9.03 | 0.0198 | ** |
| A2 | 18.04 | 1 | 18.04 | 8.04 | 0.0252 | ** |
| B2 | 1307.22 | 1 | 1307.22 | 582.76 | <0.0001 | ** |
| C2 | 7.34 | 1 | 7.34 | 3.27 | 0.1135 | ns |
| Residual | 15.7 | 7 | 2.24 | |||
| Lack of fit | 10.15 | 3 | 3.38 | 2.44 | 0.2046 | ns |
| Pure error | 5.55 | 4 | 1.39 | |||
| Cor total | 1827.92 | 16 |
Note: ** means significant, ns means not significant.
Figure 1Three-dimensional response surface of encapsulation efficiency affected by the ratio of KGM to SPI (A), wall material content (B) and the ratio of wall material to core material (C).
Figure 2Fourier transformed infrared spectrometer spectra (A) of KGM (a), GLO (b), KGM/SPI wall (c) SPI (d) and GLOM (e), and X-ray diffraction patterns (B) of KGM (a), SPI (b), KGM/SPI wall (c) and GLOM (d).
Figure 3Confocal laser scanning microscopy images of KGM/SPI solution (A-I), SPI/GLO emulsion (A-II) and KGM/SPI/GLO emulsion (the intermediary emulsion prior to freeze-drying) (A-III), and scanning electron microscopy images of dried KGM/SPI wall (×100) (B-I), GLOM (×100) (B-II) and GLOM (×10 k) (B-III).
Physicochemical properties of GLO microcapsules.
| Items | Index |
|---|---|
| Moisture content (%) | 3.09 ± 0.08 |
| Solubility (%) | 46.84 ± 0.79 |
| Wettability (s) | 290 ± 8.22 |
| Bulk density (g/cm3) | 0.43 ± 0.01 |
| Tapped density (g/cm3) | 0.64 ± 0.02 |
| Compressibility index (%) | 33.34 ± 1.17 |
| Hausner ratio | 1.50 ± 0.02 |
Figure 4Thermogravimetric spectra (A) and differential scanning calorimetry spectra (B) of GLOM (a), the mixture of GLO and dried KGM/SPI wall (b) and GLO (c).
Figure 5Peroxide value (POV) (A) and TBARS value (B) of encapsulated GLO and free GLO at 60 °C for 7 days.
Figure 6Cumulative release of GLOM in simulated gastric juice and simulated intestinal juice.
Kinetic release parameters of GLO microcapsules in SGF and SIF.
| Mathematical | SGF | SIF |
|---|---|---|
| Zero order | Q = 0.04348t + 6.48855 (R2 = 0.61047) | Q = 0.6294t + 9.702 (R2 = 0.87654) |
| First order | ln (100 − Q) = −4.79832 × 10−4t + 4.53661 (R2 = 0.62185) | ln (100 − Q) = −0.01186t + 4.53157 (R2 = 0.91876) |
| Higuchi | Q = 0.9196t1/2 + 2.63486 (R2 = 0.85244) | Q = 7.27531t1/2 − 1.51793 (R2 = 0.95439) |
| Peppas | lnQ = 1.10912 + 0.30834lnt (R2 = 0.81587; | lnQ = 1.20442 + 0.67192lnt (R2 = 0.89131; |