| Literature DB >> 35954096 |
Jakub Kiepś1, Radosław Dembczyński1.
Abstract
Preparations containing probiotic strains of bacteria have a beneficial effect on human and animal health. The benefits of probiotics translate into an increased interest in techniques for the preservation of microorganisms. This review compares different drying methods and their improvements, with specific reference to processing conditions, microorganisms, and protective substances. It also highlights some factors that may influence the quality and stability of the final probiotic preparations, including thermal, osmotic, oxidative, and acidic stresses, as well as dehydration and shear forces. Processing and storage result in the loss of viability and stability in probiotic formulations. Herein, the addition of protective substances, the optimization of process parameters, and the adaptation of cells to stress factors before drying are described as countermeasures to these challenges. The latest trends and developments in the fields of drying technologies and probiotic production are also discussed. These developments include novel application methods, controlled release, the use of food matrices, and the use of analytical methods to determine the viability of probiotic bacteria.Entities:
Keywords: fluid bed drying; freeze drying; lactic acid bacteria; protectants; shelf-life; spray drying; stress factors; vacuum drying; viability
Year: 2022 PMID: 35954096 PMCID: PMC9368262 DOI: 10.3390/foods11152330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Summary of the basic principles for the most commonly applied drying techniques. Created with Biorender.com (accessed on 27 July 2022).
Comparison of cell concentrations after different drying methods.
| Reduction [log cfu/g] | Microorganism | Growth Parameters | Cell Concentration before Drying [log cfu/g] | Cell Concentration after Drying [log cfu/g] | Drying Method | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1 |
| MRS broth, | 10.3 | 11.3 | Freeze drying | [ |
|
| MRS broth, | 10.5 | 11.2 | Freeze drying | [ | |
| <1 |
| MRS broth, | 9.4 | 9.5 | Spray drying | [ |
|
| MRS broth, | 9.0 | 9.4 | Spray drying | [ | |
| MRS broth, | 8.8 | 8.2 | Spray drying | [ | ||
| MRS broth, | 9.9 | 9.8 | Spray drying | [ | ||
| MRS broth, | 8.4 | 8.1 | Spray drying | [ | ||
|
| MRS broth, | 11.0 | 10.2 | Spray drying | [ | |
|
| MRS broth, | 11.0 | 10.3 | Spray drying | [ | |
| >1 | MRS broth, | 11.2 | 10.0 | Spray drying | [ | |
| TSB, 30 °C | 10.7–10.9 | 7.9 | Spray drying | [ | ||
| >1 | MRS broth, 37 °C | 8.7–9.7 | 7.7 | Fluidized bed drying | [ |
Protective effects of different materials.
| Reduction Post-Drying [log cfu/g] | Microorganism | Drying Method | Protective Substances | Cell Concentration before Drying [log cfu/g] | Cell Concentration after Drying [log cfu/g] | Survivability [%] | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| <1 |
| Spray drying (double layered) | Gum arabic 9%, 1% β-cyclodextrin, 1% lecithin | 6.93 | 6.18 | 89.22 | [ |
|
| Spray chilling (double layered) | Hydrogenated palm oil, 2% Tween 80 | 6.12 | 6.01 | 98.25 | [ | |
| Spray drying | Gelatin 10% | 9.95 | 9.06 | 91.55 | [ | ||
| Spray drying | Whey protein concentrate 20% | 9.65 | 8.86 | 91.81 | [ | ||
|
| Spray drying | Native rice starch 10% | 9.26 | 8.98 | 53.24 | [ | |
|
| Spray drying | Inulin 15% | 9.18 | 8.91 | 53.55 | [ | |
| <1 | Freeze drying | Soy powder solution 10% | 11.30 | 11.26 | 90.00 | [ | |
| Freeze drying | Soy powder solution 10% | 11.30 | 11.27 | 94.00 | [ | ||
| >1 |
| Spray drying | Gum arabic 9%, 1% β-cyclodextrin | 10.12 | 7.57 | 74.81 | [ |
|
| Spray chilling | Hydrogenated palm oil, 2% Tween 80 | 9.51 | 8.25 | 86.79 | [ | |
| Spray drying | Modified starch 20% | 9.65 | 8.64 | 89.53 | [ | ||
| Spray drying | Maltodextrin 20% | 9.65 | 8.61 | 89.24 | [ | ||
| Spray drying | Pea protein isolate 10% | 9.95 | 8.55 | 86.52 | [ | ||
| Spray drying | Gum Arabic 20% | 9.65 | 8.17 | 84.69 | [ |
Figure 2Principal elements of nanofiber fabrication by electrospinning. Created with Biorender.com (accessed on 1 June 2022).
Figure 3Stress factors affecting probiotics during different stages of their preparation and administration. Created with Biorender.com (accessed on 27 July 2022).
Shelf-life and viability of probiotics.
| Microorganism | Preparation Method and Matrix | Storage Conditions | Initial Cell Concentration [log cfu/g] | Cell Concentration after Storage [log cfu/g] | Monitored Parameters | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Fluid-bed-dried apple snacks | 90 days at 25 °C | 7.89 | 6.78 | viable cell counts, | [ |
| Spray drying in orange juice | 12 months, 25 °C, aw = 0.03 hermetic glass flasks with silica gel | 7.90 | 6.30 | viable cell counts, | [ | |
| Spray drying in orange juice | 12 months, 25 °C, aw = 0.03 hermetic glass flasks with silica gel | 8.70 | 8.00 | viable cell counts, | [ | |
| coconut water oatmeal with inulin (1 g/100 mL) | 4 °C, 49 days | 7.06 (9.12 at day 7) | 7.23 | viable cell counts, | [ | |
| coconut water oatmeal | 4 °C, 49 days | 6.99 (9.01 at day 7) | 6.41 | viable cell counts, | [ |
Methods for the assessment of probiotics.
| Method | Key Applications | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Plate counting | viable cell enumeration | [ |
| Flow cytometry | cell integrity, membrane damage | [ |
| Scanning electron microscopy | cell morphology, | [ |
| Laser diffraction | particle size | [ |
| Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis (2-DE) | protein pattern analysis (proteins involved in biofilm formation, quorum sensing, volatile compounds production, stress response) | [ |
| Mass spectrometry | peptide mass fingerprinting | [ |
| Bioinformatics | protein identification, prediction of protein interaction, subcellular localization | [ |
| RT-qPCR | gene expression | [ |