| Literature DB >> 35745953 |
Dareen M Youssef1, Fawzia A Alshubaily2, Ahmed A Tayel1, Mousa A Alghuthaymi3, Mahmoud A Al-Saman4.
Abstract
Bee products, e.g., chitosan and propolis (Pro), have extraordinary importance in many disciplines including food biopreservation. Fish meat is highly susceptible to vast spoilage, especially catfish (Clarias gariepinus) products. The current work involved the extraction of bees' chitosan nanoparticles (BCht), Pro, Pro-mediated SeNPs and their composites, to evaluate them as potential antimicrobial and preservative nano-compounds, for the preservation of catfish fillets and augment their quality. BCht was extracted from bees (Apis mellifera) corpses and had a 151.9 nm mean particle diameter. The Pro was used for biosynthesis of SeNPs, which had 11.2 nm mean diameters. The entire compounds/composites exhibited powerful antibacterial acts against Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella typhimurium, where S aureus had the uppermost resistance. BCht/Pro/SeNPs were the most forceful toward all bacterial strains. The constructed edible coatings (ECs) from produced compounds/composites (BCht, Pro, Pro/SeNPs, Pro/BCht and BCht/Pro/SeNPs) had elevated efficiency for preserving catfish fillets during cold storages for 7 days. The microbiological (total counts, psychrophilic bacteria, yeast and molds), spoilage chemical parameters (TVB-N, TBARS) and sensorial attributes (appearance, odor, color, overall quality) of ECs-treated fillets indicated the nanocomposite's efficiency for protecting the fish from microbial growth, the progress of chemical spoilage indicators and maintaining the sensorial quality of treated stored fillets. The most effective nanocomposite for maintaining the entire fillet's quality was the BCht/Pro/SeNP. The based ECs on BNCt, Pro/SeNPs and their nanocomposites could be endorsed for prospective employment in the biopreservation of various seafoods.Entities:
Keywords: antimicrobial; biosynthesis; chitosan; nanomaterials; propolis; seafood quality
Year: 2022 PMID: 35745953 PMCID: PMC9229794 DOI: 10.3390/polym14122378
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.967
Figure 1The applied protocol for bees’ chitosan extraction.
Figure 2Visual appearance and UV-Vis spectrum of biosynthesized SeNPs using propolis extract.
Figure 3FTIR spectra of bee chitosan nanoparticles (BCht), propolis (Pro), Pro with synthesized SeNPs (Pro/SeNPs) and BCht/Pro/SeNPs nanocomposite.
Figure 4Ultrastructure of synthesized nanoparticles, including (A): transmission image of propolis-synthesized SeNPs and (B): scanning image of bee chitosan nanoparticles.
Nanoparticles’ size and charges of fabricated bee nanochitosan (BNCt), propolis-synthesized SeNPs (Pro-SeNPs) and their nanocomposites (BNCt/Pro/SeNPs).
| Nanoparticles | Particle Size Range (nm) | Particle Size Mean (nm) | Zeta Potential (mV) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BNCt | 43.19–242.56 | 151.85 | +37.6 |
| Pro-SeNPs | 4.72–31.73 | 11.21 | −23.4 |
| BNCt/Pro/SeNPs | 59.51–304.63 | 169.28 | +32.2 |
Antimicrobial activity of bee chitosan nanoparticles (BCht), propolis (Pro), Pro/SeNPs and BCht/Pro/SeNPs.
| Antimicrobial Agents | Antimicrobial Assay * | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| ZOI ** | MIC *** | ZOI | MIC | ZOI | MIC | |
| BCht | 18.3 ± 1.3 a | 50.0 | 16.4 ± 0.8 a | 57.5 | 17.6 ± 1.2 a | 52.5 |
| Pro | 23.1 ± 1.6 b | 35.0 | 19.1 ± 1.3 b | 45.0 | 22.4 ± 1.8 b | 35.0 |
| Pro/SeNPs | 26.6 ± 1.9 b | 32.5 | 24.2 ± 1.8 c | 37.5 | 27.1 ± 2.2 c | 30.0 |
| BCht/Pro/SeNPs | 33.4 ± 2.4 c | 27.5 | 28.9 ± 2.1 d | 30.0 | 32.9 ± 2.6 d | 25.0 |
| Ampicillin | 25.8 ± 1.7 b | 37.5 | 23.5 ± 3.7 c | 47.5 | 24.4 ± 2.1 b | 40.0 |
* Different superscript letters in one column indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05, ** ZOI: Mean diameter of inhibition zones in mm ± standard deviation, *** MIC: minimal inhibitory concentrations (mg/L).
Figure 5SEM (1) and EDS (2) of treated Staphylococcus aureus with BCht/Pro/SeNPs for 5 h (1-B) and 10 h (1-C) compared with control cells (1-A).
Microbial and chemical attributes of coated fillets with antimicrobial compounds, after cold storage for 7 days at 4 °C.
| Coating Material * | Assessment Attributes ** | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microbial Quality (log CFU/g) | Chemical Quality (mg/kg) | ||||
| Total Count | Psychrophilic Bacterial | Yeast and Molds | TVB-N | TBARS | |
| Control (zero day) | 4.72 ± 0.65 a | 3.24 ± 0.62 a | 2.26 ± 0.63 a | 110.07 ± 2.17 a | 0.41 ± 0.04 a |
| BCht | 2.89 ± 0.37 b | 1.95 ± 0.48 b | 1.38 ± 0.44 b | 169.94 ± 2.81 b | 0.95 ± 0.13 b |
| Pro | 2.07 ± 0.43 bc | 1.62 ± 0.53 b | 1.16 ± 0.55 b | 173.26 ± 3.54 b | 1.21 ± 0.10 b |
| Pro/SeNPs | 1.51 ± 0.29 c | 1.08 ± 0.46 b | ND *** | 164.51 ± 1.68 b | 0.86 ± 0.09 bc |
| Pro/BCht | 1.86 ± 0.42 c | 1.29 ± 0.61 b | ND | 132.15 ± 3.21 c | 0.78 ± 0.08 c |
| BCht/Pro/SeNPs | 1.05 ± 0.19 c | ND | ND | 118.47 ± 2.43 d | 0.65 ± 0.07 c |
| Control | 8.68 ± 1.34 d | 6.06 ± 1.03 c | 4.94 ± 0.94 c | 258.51 ± 4.37 e | 2.18 ± 0.16 d |
* The coating materials contained 1% (w/v) from bee chitosan nanoparticles (BCht), propolis extract (Pro), Pro/SeNPs and BCht/Pro/SeNPs composite, whereas the control samples were dipped in sterilized water, ** Different superscript letters in one column indicate significant difference at p ≤ 0.05, *** ND: not detectable.
Sensory evaluation of preserved fish fillets with coated fillets with antimicrobial compounds, after cold storage for 7 days at 4 °C (Scores/9).
| Agents | Appearance | Odor | Color | Overall Quality |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 3.6 | 2.4 | 3.9 | 3.3 |
| BCht | 6.3 | 6.9 | 6.4 | 6.5 |
| Pro | 6.6 | 7.9 | 7.1 | 7.3 |
| Pro/SeNPs | 7.5 | 8.2 | 8.1 | 7.8 |
| Pro/BCht | 7.1 | 7.4 | 8.3 | 7.9 |
| BCht/Pro/SeNPs | 8.7 | 8.5 | 8.3 | 8.8 |
Figure 6Manifestations of coated catfish fillets with bee chitosan nanoparticles (BCht), propolis (Pro), Pro with BCht, Pro with synthesized SeNPs (Pro/SeNPs) and BCht/Pro/SeNPs nanocomposite, compared to water-dipped (Control) samples, during cold storage for 7 days at 4 °C.