journal article·2024-10-02Open access

Effect of Encapsulation ofLactobacillus caseiin Alginate–Tapioca Flour Microspheres Coated with Different Biopolymers on the Viability of Probiotic Bacteria

Anna Łętocha, Alicja Michalczyk, Małgorzata Miastkowska, Elżbieta Sikora

ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces· Volume 16· Issue 39

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide To realize the health benefits of probiotic bacteria, they must withstand processing and storage conditions and remain viable after use. The encapsulation of these probiotics in the form of microspheres containing tapioca flour as a prebiotic and vehicle component in their structure or shell affords symbiotic effects that improve the survival of probiotics under unfavorable conditions. Microencapsulation is one such method that has proven to be effective in protecting probiotics from adverse conditions while maintaining their viability and functionality. The aim of the work was to obtain high-quality microspheres that can act as carriers of Lactobacillus casei bacteria and to assess the impact of encapsulation on the viability of probiotic microorganisms in alginate microspheres enriched with a prebiotic (tapioca flour) and additionally coated with hyaluronic acid, chitosan, or gelatin. The influence of the composition of microparticles on the physicochemical properties and the viability of probiotic bacteria during storage was examined. The optimal composition of microspheres was selected using the design of experiments using statistical methods. Subsequently, the size, morphology, and cross-section of the obtained microspheres, as well as the effectiveness of the microsphere coating with biopolymers, were analyzed. The chemical structure of the microspheres was identified by using Fourier-transform infrared spectrophotometry. Raman spectroscopy was used to confirm the success of coating the microspheres with the selected biopolymers. The obtained results showed that the addition of tapioca flour had a positive effect on the surface modification of the microspheres, causing the porous structure of the alginate microparticles to become smaller and more sealed. Moreover, the addition of prebiotic and biopolymer coatings of the microspheres, particularly using hyaluronic acid and chitosan, significantly improved the survival and viability of the probiotic strain during long-term storage. The highest survival rate of the probiotic strain was recorded for alginate–tapioca flour microspheres coated with hyaluronic acid, at 5.48 log CFU g –1 . The survival rate of L. casei in that vehicle system was 89% after storage for 30 days of storage.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Probiotics and Fermented Foods · Microbial Metabolites in Food Biotechnology · Food composition and properties

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Cracow University of Technology, 31-155 Cracow, Poland

Lukasiewicz Research Network─Institute of Industrial Organic Chemistry, 03-236 Warsaw, Poland

References (75)

Show source-provided references
1. Łętocha, A.; Sikora, E. InPre- and Probiotics as Raw Materials for Cosmetic Products, EYEC Monograph: 9th European Young Engineers Conference, 2021, pp 47–51.
2. 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.6610.1038/nrgastro.2014.66 ↗
3. Ouwehand A. C. · 2017 · 129910.1007/978-3-662-47398-6_77 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.11.03910.1016/j.ijbiomac.2015.11.039 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.foodres.2007.11.00210.1016/j.foodres.2007.11.002 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2006.10.01110.1016/j.foodhyd.2006.10.011 ↗
7. 10.1016/S0378-5173(01)00708-610.1016/S0378-5173(01)00708-6 ↗
8. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2005.10.05910.1016/j.vaccine.2005.10.059 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.10.06310.1016/j.carbpol.2014.10.063 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.tifs.2018.11.02210.1016/j.tifs.2018.11.022 ↗
11. 10.3390/polym1418383410.3390/polym14183834 ↗
12. Sikora E. · 2020
13. 10.24425/cpe.2023.14672210.24425/cpe.2023.146722 ↗
14. 10.1186/s12866-022-02458-510.1186/s12866-022-02458-5 ↗
15. 10.15199/62.2022.9.1110.15199/62.2022.9.11 ↗
16. Paques J. P. · 201410.18174/287134 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.05.11810.1016/j.lwt.2019.05.118 ↗
18. 10.1007/s11694-020-00437-w10.1007/s11694-020-00437-w ↗
19. Łętocha, A.; Miastkowska, M.; Sikora, E. Sposób Otrzymywania Mikrokapsułek Zawierających Bakterie Probiotyczne. Patent 443812, 2023.
20. 10.1016/j.idairyj.2004.01.00410.1016/j.idairyj.2004.01.004 ↗
21. Zanjani M. A. K. · Iran. J. Pharm. Res. · 2014 · 13 · 843
22. 10.1080/10717544.2019.168272010.1080/10717544.2019.1682720 ↗
23. 10.1088/1748-605X/ab19fe10.1088/1748-605X/ab19fe ↗
24. 10.3390/pr811141610.3390/pr8111416 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.lwt.2016.05.03210.1016/j.lwt.2016.05.032 ↗
26. 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.02.01710.1016/j.lwt.2015.02.017 ↗
27. 10.3390/foods1111162810.3390/foods11111628 ↗
28. Onet N. B. · 2012
29. 10.1007/BF0156952410.1007/BF01569524 ↗
30. 10.3389/fmicb.2012.0034010.3389/fmicb.2012.00340 ↗
31. Luca L. · AgroLife Sci. J. · 2019 · 8 · 153
32. 10.1038/s41598-021-00077-010.1038/s41598-021-00077-0 ↗
33. 10.1016/j.lwt.2018.12.05810.1016/j.lwt.2018.12.058 ↗
34. 10.1023/A:101584153137210.1023/A:1015841531372 ↗
35. 10.1590/0103-8478cr2018072910.1590/0103-8478cr20180729 ↗
36. 10.3109/02652048.2011.59943510.3109/02652048.2011.599435 ↗
37. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.10.05410.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.10.054 ↗
38. 10.1007/s12010-019-03071-510.1007/s12010-019-03071-5 ↗
39. 10.1016/j.supflu.2019.04.01310.1016/j.supflu.2019.04.013 ↗
40. 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.10738010.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.107380 ↗
41. 10.3390/polym1011118710.3390/polym10111187 ↗
42. 10.1088/0256-307X/30/1/01810310.1088/0256-307X/30/1/018103 ↗
43. 10.1016/j.lwt.2017.04.03610.1016/j.lwt.2017.04.036 ↗
44. 10.1016/j.mimet.2011.01.00910.1016/j.mimet.2011.01.009 ↗
45. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03824.x10.1111/j.1749-6632.2001.tb03824.x ↗
46. 10.1016/j.foodres.2007.11.00110.1016/j.foodres.2007.11.001 ↗
47. Koo S. M. · J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. · 2001 · 376
48. 10.5897/AJMR12.124010.5897/AJMR12.1240 ↗
49. 10.5897/ajmr12.97210.5897/ajmr12.972 ↗
50. 10.3891/acta.chem.scand.26-007110.3891/acta.chem.scand.26-0071 ↗
51. 10.1002/cjce.545069020610.1002/cjce.5450690206 ↗
52. 10.1016/j.matpr.2017.06.11110.1016/j.matpr.2017.06.111 ↗
53. 10.1046/j.1365-2672.1998.00348.x10.1046/j.1365-2672.1998.00348.x ↗
54. 10.1007/s42770-021-00484-510.1007/s42770-021-00484-5 ↗
55. 10.1590/0001-376520172017007110.1590/0001-3765201720170071 ↗
56. 10.1002/app.4689310.1002/app.46893 ↗
57. 10.1016/j.lwt.2019.10850110.1016/j.lwt.2019.108501 ↗
58. 10.1002/fsn3.432810.1002/fsn3.4328 ↗
59. 10.17113/ftb.55.02.17.499110.17113/ftb.55.02.17.4991 ↗
60. 10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.06.00310.1016/j.jconrel.2012.06.003 ↗
61. 10.3390/polym1409166410.3390/polym14091664 ↗
62. 10.1016/j.xphs.2021.01.00610.1016/j.xphs.2021.01.006 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.11941410.1016/j.ijpharm.2020.119414 ↗
64. 10.1007/s11947-012-0938-y10.1007/s11947-012-0938-y ↗
65. 10.18063/ijb.v5i2.1.19410.18063/ijb.v5i2.1.194 ↗
66. 10.1590/0103-8478cr2014093810.1590/0103-8478cr20140938 ↗
67. 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.11.03110.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.11.031 ↗
68. 10.1021/bm400853d10.1021/bm400853d ↗
69. 10.1166/jnn.2013.704210.1166/jnn.2013.7042 ↗
70. Morales M. E. · 2016
71. 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.06.02210.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.06.022 ↗
72. 10.1080/10837450.2021.188897910.1080/10837450.2021.1888979 ↗
73. 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.12.06210.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.12.062 ↗
74. 10.3390/molecules2623713610.3390/molecules26237136 ↗
75. 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00717-610.1016/S0168-1605(01)00717-6 ↗