Encapsulated Probiotics for Non-Dairy Food Applications
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/app121910005

The incorporation of probiotics in non-dairy matrices is challenging, and probiotics tend to have a low survival rate in these matrices and subsequently perform poorly in the gastrointestinal system. Encapsulation of probiotics with a physical barrier could preserve the survivability of probiotics and subsequently improve delivery efficiency to the host.

encapsulation non-dairy probiotics stability storage

1. Introduction

The growing awareness among consumers regarding healthy lifestyles has increased the demand for food that could provide additional specific health benefits beyond nutrition. Functional food is one of the leading trends in today’s food industry. The term “functional food” refers to foods containing (either present naturally or added by manufacturers) ingredients or bioactive compounds that provide extra health benefits over its adequate nutritional effects, which can beneficially affect one or more physiological mechanisms in the body, resulting in an enhancement in health and reduction in risk for disease, in the amount consumed in a diet [1]. For example, probiotics are one of the dominant groups of functional foods [2].
Probiotics, from the Greek word, “for life”, are defined as “live microorganisms that, when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit to the host” by a joint United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization/World Health Organization working group in 2001 and The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP). Probiotics have also been considered functional foods due to their health-promoting abilities [3]. Among probiotic strains in use today, strains from genera of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium are the most frequently used. In addition, other non-pathogenic microorganisms that occur within the host gut or tissues have also been developed as probiotics. These include strains from genera Propionibacterium, Pediococcus, Bacteroides, Bacillus, Streptococcus, Escherichia, Enterococcus, and Saccharomyces. Lately, Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Akkermansia muciniphila, and Eubacterium hallii have also been identified as potential next-generation probiotics with promising health-promoting functionalities [1][4].
By regulating the natural balance of gut bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract, probiotics have been shown to promote a wide range of health benefits such as improving intestinal health, improving lactose digestion, enhancing the host’s immune response, reducing serum cholesterol, diarrhea diseases, and inflammatory bowel disease, counteracting allergies, and lowering the risk of certain cancers [5]. For a potential probiotic strain to exert therapeutic effects on the host, the viability of probiotics in food should be at least 6 to 7 log CFU/mL (or CFU/g) when reaching the small intestine and colon. In this regard, the viability of at least 8 to 9 log CFU/mL (or CFU/g) of probiotics in food before ingestion is necessary [3][6].
Probiotics must be stable throughout the digestive tract and able to adhere to human epithelial cells when they reach the intestine. However, the survival of probiotics is greatly affected by the harsh conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, including the acidic pH of the gastric environment and bile acids (a loss of around 2 log CFU/mL or CFU/g during digestion) [7]. Several intrinsic (e.g., pH, water activity, molecular oxygen, the composition of the food, food additives added, and oxidation-reduction potential) and extrinsic factors (e.g., temperature, relative humidity, and gas composition) have also been observed to negatively affect the viability and stability of probiotics during food preparation and food processing, as well as over a prolonged storage period [5][7][8].
Traditionally, dairy products have been recognized as the best carriers of probiotics. Current probiotics have been formulated into numerous dairy products, such as fermented milk, yogurt, cheese, and ice cream. However, consumers’ preferences today lie more with non-dairy-based probiotic products because of the ongoing trend of vegetarianism and awareness of drawbacks associated with the intake of dairy products, such as lactose intolerance, high cholesterol content, and milk protein allergy [2][9]. In recent years, non-dairy matrices, such as fruits [10][11][12], fruit and vegetable juices [7][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26], fermented rice beverages [27], tea [28][29], jelly-like desserts [30], bakery products [31][32][33], cereal bars [34], sauces [35], gum products [36], and powdered functional drink [37] have been explored as vehicles to deliver probiotics. Although non-dairy food matrices are more versatile (absent of lactose, dairy allergens, and cholesterol) than dairy food matrices, the delivery of probiotics using non-dairy food matrices is more challenging. As an example of a dairy food matrix, milk, which is rich in proteins and fats, could effectively act as a protective matrix to protect the probiotics throughout the digestive tract [38]. In contrast, non-dairy food matrices, such as fruit and vegetable juices, have considerable amounts of organic acids, dissolved oxygen, and inherently low pH values that could negatively affect the viability of inoculated probiotics [9]. Dairy food matrices are usually stored at refrigerated temperature (4 °C), and therefore, the viability of probiotics can be well-maintained throughout the product’s shelf life. In contrast to dairy food matrices, non-dairy food matrices are often stored at ambient temperature, which could adversely affect the viability of probiotics [2]. The sensory qualities of non-dairy food matrices could also be enhanced or deteriorated by the metabolic compounds produced through the interaction between the probiotics and food matrices [2][9].

2. Encapsulation

To date, encapsulation is one of the most promising techniques in protecting active compounds against adverse environments. Encapsulation technology has been widely used in the pharmaceutical, medicine, nutritional, food science, biological, agriculture, toiletries, and cosmetics industries for over 50 years. The goal of encapsulation is to protect the encapsulated active compound (core material) against unfavorable or adverse environments (such as light, moisture, temperature, and oxygen). In food industries, a broad range of products (including probiotics, antioxidants, antimicrobials, flavors, enzymes, and nucleic acids) are encapsulated to (a) prevent the core material from degradation, (b) slow down the evaporation rate of volatile core material, (c) separate the components that would otherwise react with each other, (d) modify the nature of the core material for easier handling, (e) increase the stability, (f) to mask undesired tastes, colors, and odors, (g) enable sustained and controlled release (release slowly over time at a constant rate), (h) control oxidative reactions, (i) use with bacteriophages to control foodborne pathogens, and (j) extend the shelf life. Indeed, encapsulation is one of the new and effective methods to protect probiotics from the harsh conditions they encounter throughout food processing, shelf storage, and gastrointestinal transit [1][39][40][41].

3. Probiotic Encapsulation Techniques

Numerous encapsulation technologies have been developed and adopted to protect probiotics. All the techniques aim to protect the viability and stability of probiotics. However, their concepts, operation methods, and properties of produced capsules are different. Each technique also has its own strengths and drawbacks. Figure 1 illustrates different types of probiotics encapsulation techniques and the morphologies of corresponding microcapsules obtained. Various aspects must be taken into consideration before the selection of encapsulation techniques. Selecting a suitable encapsulation technique depends on several parameters, such as the nature of the probiotics, the operational conditions of the encapsulation technique, the properties of the biomaterials used, the particle size needed to deliver the adequate probiotics load without affecting the sensory properties, the release mechanism and release rate, the composition of the target food application, the storage conditions of the food products before consumption, and lastly, the cost limitation of production [42][43].
Figure 1. Different types of probiotics encapsulation techniques and the morphologies of corresponding microcapsules obtained: (a) ionic gelation (emulsion, extrusion); (b) coacervation; (c) fluidized bed coating; (d) freeze-drying; (e) spray-drying; (f) spray chilling; (g) layer-by-layer method; (h) co-encapsulation.
Table 1 shows the main properties, advantages, and disadvantages of encapsulation techniques that can be applied in multilayer and co-encapsulation techniques of probiotics.
Table 1. Overview of common probiotic encapsulation techniques.
Table

Methods

Properties of Encapsulation

Advantages

Disadvantages

References

Extrusion (external ionic gelation)

Produces capsules with sizes of 100 μm to 3 mm.

Can encapsulate hydrophilic and hydrophobic/lipophilic compounds.

Monodispersity.

Simple and mild process.Can be conducted under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions.

Low operation cost.

High survival rate of probiotics.

Produces relatively large beads.Slow solidification process.

Not suitable for mass production.

Additional drying process is required.

[39][40][42][44]

Emulsion (internal ionic gelation)

Produces capsules with sizes of 200 nm to 1 mm.

Can encapsulate hydrophilic and hydrophobic compounds.

Simple process.

Produces relatively small beads.

Suitable for mass production.

High survival rate of bacteria.

Polydispersity.

High operation cost.

Conventional emulsions are thermodynamically unstable.

Not suitable for low-fat food matrices.

Additional drying process is required.

[39][42][44][45]

Coacervation (complex coacervation)

Produces capsules with sizes of 1 μm to 1 mm.

Encapsulates hydrophobic compounds.

Simple and mild process.

Suitable for the food industry.

High encapsulation efficiency.

Controlled release potential.

High operational cost.

Not suitable for mass production.Animal-based protein is commonly used.

Only stable at a narrow pH, ionic strength, and temperature range.

[42][46]

Spray-drying

Produces capsules with sizes of 5–150 μm.

Encapsulateshydrophilic and hydrophobic compounds.

Monodispersity.

Fast, continuous process.L

ow operation cost.

Suitable for mass production.

Produces dry beads with low bulk density, water activity, and high stability.

Low cell viability.

Produces beads with low uniformity.Biomaterials used have to be water-soluble.

[1][39][42][43]

Freeze-drying

Produces capsules with sizes of 1–1.5 mm.

Encapsulates hydrophilic and hydrophobic/lipophilic compounds.

Suitable for temperature-sensitive probiotics.

Dried end product is suitable for most food applications.

High operation cost.

Not suitable for mass production.

Cryoprotectants are needed.

[39][47]

Spray chilling

Produces capsules with sizes of 20–200 µm.

Encapsulates hydrophobic compounds.

Monodispersity.

Fast, continuous, mild process.

Low operation cost.

Suitable for mass production.Promising in controlled release of probiotics.

Low encapsulation efficiency.

Rapid release of the encapsulated probiotics.

Special storage conditions can be required.

[42][43][48][49]

Fluidized bed coating

Produces capsules with sizes of 5–5000 μm. Encapsulateshydrophilic and hydrophobic compounds.

Mild process.Low operation cost.

Suitable for mass production.

Can provide multi-coating layers.

Suitable for temperature-sensitive probiotics.

Slow process.

Probiotics have to be pre-encapsulated and dried.

[42][43][50][51]

4. Biomaterials Utilized for Probiotics Encapsulation

To be an effective encapsulation material (core or wall material), the biomaterial used must be able to protect the encapsulated probiotics along the gastrointestinal tract until reaching the target site (small intestine/large intestine), where they can exert their health-promoting effects. The encapsulation material should only release the encapsulated probiotics when it is exposed and triggered by certain environmental conditions (such as temperature, pH, and enzyme activity). In other words, the capsules containing probiotics should remain protected inside the encapsulation material during the passage through the stomach and only decompose after reaching the target site to release the probiotics. The commonly used biomaterials in probiotic encapsulation include carbohydrates, proteins, and lipids, which will be discussed in detail in the coming subsections. Their specific advantages and limitations in probiotic encapsulation are also summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Common biomaterials for encapsulating probiotics.
Table

Category

Biomaterial

Characteristics and Advantages

Limitations

Remarks

References

Carbohydrate

Alginates

Anionic character, non-toxic, biocompatibility, biocompostability, cell affinity, strong bioadhesion, absorption characteristics, antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, and low in cost.

Stable (shrink) in the low acidic stomach gastric solution and gradually dissolve (swell and release encapsulated probiotics) under alkaline conditions in the small intestine.

Sensitive to heat treatment, highly porous, poor stability and barrier properties.

Technique: extrusion, emulsion.Could form a strong gel network by interacting with cationic material (e.g., chitosan).

Combination: pectin, starch, chitosan.

[52][53]
 

Chitosan

Cationic character, non-toxic, biodegradability, bioadhesiveness, antimicrobial, antifungal, low in cost, high film-forming properties, great probiotics biocompatibility, resistance to the damaging effects of calcium chelating and anti-gelling agent, generate strong beads.

Degrade easily in low pH conditions, water-insoluble at pH > 5.4. Pose inhibitory effect against lactic acid bacteria.

Technique: extrusion, layer-by-layer (LbL), emulsion.Normally used as a coating rather than as a capsule.

Combination: alginate, pectin.

[53][54]
 

Starch and starch derivatives

GRAS is abundant, low in cost, non-allergenic, and biodegradable. Could produce gels with strong but flexible structure, transparent, colorless, flavorless, and odorless gel that is semi-permeable to water, carbon dioxide, and oxygen. Resistant to pancreatic enzymes. Pose prebiotic properties.

Exhibit high viscosity in solution.

Technique: extrusion, emulsion.

Combination: alginate.

[54][55]
 

Cellulose and cellulose derivatives

Abundant, low in cost, biodegradability, biocompatibility, tunable surface properties. Insoluble at pH ≤ 5 but soluble at pH ≥ 6, effective in delivering probiotics to the colon.

Cannot form gel beads by extrusion technique.

Technique: emulsion, spray-drying.

Combination: alginate, protein.

[56]
 

Maltodextrin

Non-toxic, bland in taste, abundant, low in cost, good solubility, low viscosity even at high solid content. Excellent thermal stability. Pose (moderate) prebiotic properties.

Low emulsifying capacity.

Technique: spray-drying.

Combination: gum Arabic, sodium caseinate.

[40][57]
 

Carrageenan (κ-carrageenan)

Pose thermosensitive and thermoreversible characteristics, the probiotic release can be controlled with temperature.

The gel beads produced are irregular in shape, brittle and weak, and their probiotic release rate is much slower than alginate beads.

Technique: extrusion, emulsion.

Dissolves at 80–90 °C. Addition of probiotics at 40–50 °C. Gelation at room temperature.

Combination: milk protein, alginate, locust bean gum (LBG), carboxymethyl cellulose.

[40][58]
 

Pectin

Anionic character, abundant, non-toxic, water-soluble, biocompatibility, biodegradability, bioadhesiveness, antimicrobial, antiviral, good gelling, emulsifying, thickening and water binding properties, prebiotic effect.

Low in thermal stability, poor mechanical properties. High water solubility. High concentration of sucrose contents.

Technique: spray-drying.

Combination: a variety of carbohydrate-based biomaterials.

[53][59][60]

Gums

Xanthan gum

Anionic character, non-toxic, biodegradable, biocompatible, excellent gelling properties, highly soluble in both cold and hot water. Excellent heat and acid stability. Resistant to gastrointestinal digestion and enzymatic decomposition. Could also act as a source prebiotic.

High susceptibility to microbial contamination, unstable viscosity, and uncontrollable hydration rate. Gels produced solely using xanthan gum are relatively weak.

Technique: spray and freeze-drying.

Combination: alginate, chitosan, gellan, and β-cyclodextrin.

[40][61][62]
 

Gellan gum

Anionic character, non-toxic, biocompatible, biodegradable, water-soluble, and low in cost. High resistance against heat, acidic environments, and enzymatic degradation. Swell at high pH.

High gel-setting temperatures (80–90 °C) cause heat injuries to probiotics.

Technique: spray-drying.

Combination: gelatin, sodium caseinate, and alginate.

[40][43][63]
 

Gum Arabic

Anionic character, acid stability, highly water soluble, low in viscosity. Exhibit surface activity, foaming, and emulsifying abilities. Could prevent complete dehydration of probiotics during the drying process and storage.

Restricted availability and high cost. Show only partial protection against oxygen.

Technique: spray-drying.

Combination: maltodextrin, gelatin, whey protein isolates.

[40][57][63]

Animal-based proteins

Gelatin

Amphoteric character, could form complexes with anionic polymers. Could produce beads with strong structure and impermeable to oxygen.

High solubility.

Technique: extrusion, complex coacervation, spray chilling, spray-drying, lyophilization.

Combination: alginate, pectin.

[1][40][64]
 

Whey protein

Amphoteric character, highly nutritious, high resistance and stability against pepsin digestion, great gelation properties, thermal stability, hydration, and emulsification properties.

The gel beads or matrices produced are weak.

Technique: extrusion.

Combination: gum Arabic, pectin, maltodextrin.

[40][65][66]
 

Milk protein (casein)

Amphiphilic character, abundant, low in cost, possess excellent gelling and emulsifying properties, self-assembling properties, biocompatibility, biodegradability, produce gel beads with varying sizes (range from 1 to 1000 µm), higher density and better protection, high resistance to thermal denaturation (sodium caseinate).

Immunogenicity and allergenicity.

Technique: extrusion, emulsification, spray-drying, enzyme-induced gelation.

Combination: a variety of carbohydrate-based biomaterials.

[40][67][68]

Plant-based proteins

Zein protein

Amphiphilic character, biocompatible, biodegradable, water-insoluble, high resistance against gastric juice.

Highly unstable, aggregate in aqueous solutions.

Technique: electro-spinning, electro-spraying, spray-drying.

Combination: sodium caseinate, alginate, pectin.

[68]
 

Soy protein

High nutritional value, less allergenic, surface active, good emulsifying, absorbing, film forming properties, high resistance against gastric juice.

Heat-induced gel formation.

Technique: extrusion, spray-drying, coacervation.

Combination: carrageenan, pectin.

[40][68][69]

Lipids

Natural waxes, vegetable oils, diglycerides, monoglycerides, fatty acids, resins

Low in polarity, excellent water barrier properties, thermally stable, and could encapsulate hydrophilic substances.

Weak mechanical properties, chemically unstable, might negatively affect the sensory characteristics of food products due to lipid oxidation.

Technique: spray chilling, spray coating.Have melting points ranging from 50–85 °C.

Combination: polysaccharides or proteins.

[70]

5. Application of Probiotics Encapsulation in Non-Dairy-Based Food and Beverage Products

The growing demand for non-dairy probiotic food products has encouraged scientists and researchers to explore more new non-dairy food matrices (Table 3). Recent studies have proved that non-dairy food matrices (known to be free of lactose, dairy allergens, and cholesterol and rich in nutrients) are promising vehicles for probiotic delivery. Furthermore, the probiotics were also observed to adapt well to encapsulation using non-dairy food matrices owing to their richness in nutrients. However, researchers still face some challenges, such as the maintenance of probiotic viability and sensory properties of probiotic food products [2][9]. For instance, the composition, pH value, and storage condition of the non-dairy food substrate could negatively affect the viability of inoculated probiotics. Under certain conditions, the metabolic compounds produced through the interaction between the probiotics and food matrices could negatively affect the sensory qualities of non-dairy food products. While probiotics do not usually replicate in non-dairy matrices, it is necessary to keep the viability of probiotics at an adequate level. In addition, components such as carbohydrates, proteins, and flavoring agents in the food matrix could also negatively affect the viability of probiotics. Encapsulated probiotics with bigger particle sizes were also reported to be adverse to the mouthfeel sensation.
Table 3. Examples of recent application of probiotics encapsulation in non-dairy-based products.
Table

Category

Technology

Probiotic/LAB Strain

Encapsulating Agent

Food Product

Results

Reference

Fruit and vegetable-based

Emulsion

Bifidobacterium bifidum

60 mL sodium alginate, κ-carrageenan, 5 g Tween 80

Grape juice

The viability of B. bifidum was enhanced from 6.58 log CFU/mL (free) to 8.51 log CFU/mL (sodium alginate-encapsulated) and 7.09 log CFU/mL (κ-carrageenan-encapsulated) after 35 days of storage.

[7]
 

Extrusion

Enterococcus faecium

2% (w/w) sodium alginate

Cherry juice

Encapsulated probiotics had higher viability during storage (4 and 25 °C) and stronger tolerance against heat, acid, and digestion treatments than free probiotics.

[13]
 

Emulsion

Lactobacillus salivarius spp. salivarius CECT 4063

100 mL of sodium alginate (3%), 1 mL Tween 80

Apple matrix

Encapsulated L. salivarius spp. Salivarius had higher survivability (3%) than those non-encapsulated (19%) after 30 days of storage.

[10]
 

Complex coacervation

Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis

6% whey protein concentrate, 1% gum Arabic, 5% (w/w) proanthocyanidin-rich cinnamon extract (bioactive compound)

Sugar cane juice

Co-encapsulation of compounds was effective in protecting the viability of B. animalis and the stability of proanthocyanidins during storage and allowing simultaneous delivery.

[14]
 

Emulsion

Lactobacillus acidophilus PTCC1643, Bifidobacterium bifidum PTCC 1644

2% (v/w) sodium alginate, 5 g/L Span 80 emulsifier

Grape juice

The survivability of L. acidophilus and B. Bifidum in the encapsulated samples (8.67 and 8.27 log CFU/mL) was higher than free probiotics (7.57 and 7.53 log CFU/mL) after 60 days of storage at 4 °C.

[15]
 

Emulsion followed by coating

Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus casei, Lysinibacillus sphaericus, Saccharomyces boulardii

Emulsion: 20 mL of sodium alginate (2%), 0.1% Tween 80

Coating: 0.4% chitosan in acidified distilled water

Tomato and carrot juices

Encapsulated probiotics had higher viability than free probiotics during storage of 5–6 weeks at 4 °C. Lys. sphaericus was observed to have higher viability and stability than other probiotics.

[16]
 

Co-encapsulation (extrusion)

Lactococcus lactis ABRIINW-N19

1.5, 2% alginate-0.5% Persian gum (hydrogels), 1, 1.5, 2% fructooligosaccharides (FOS; prebiotic), and 1, 1.5, 2% inulin (prebiotic)

Orange juice

All formulations used were able to retain the viability of L. lactis during 6 weeks of storage at 4 °C. Encapsulated L. lactis were only released after 2 h and remained stable for up to 12 h in colonic conditions.

[17]
 

Vibrating nozzle method (evolved extrusion)

Lactobacillus casei DSM 20011

2% sodium alginate

Pineapple, raspberry, and orange juices

After 28 days of storage at 4 °C, some microcapsules were observed as broken in pineapple juice, but the viability was 100% (2.3 × 107 CFU/g spheres). 91% viability (5.5 × 106 CFU/g spheres) was observed in orange juice. Raspberry juice was not a suitable medium for L. casei.

[18]
 

Co-encapsulation (spray-drying)

Lactobacillus reuteri

60 g maltodextrin, 0−2% gelatin

Passion fruit juice powder

The use of gelatin in combination with maltodextrin was more efficient in maintaining the cellular viability and retention of phenolic compounds than maltodextrin alone.

[19]
 

Spray-drying

Lactobacillus plantarum

0.5% (w/w) magnesium carbonate, 12% (w/w) maltodextrin

Sohiong (Prunus nepalensis L.) juice powder

The quality of probiotic Sohiong juice powder and viability of L. plantarum (6.12 log CFU/g) could be maintained for 36 days without refrigeration (25 °C and 50% relative humidity).

[20]
 

Fluidized bed drying

Bacillus coagulans

Mixture of 0.0125 g/mL hydroxyethyl cellulose and 1.17 µL/mL polyethylene glycol

Dried apple snack

Encapsulated Bacillus coag-ulans in dried apple snacks had high viability (>8 log CFU/portion) after 90 days of storage at 25 °C.

[11]
 

Extrusion

Lactobacillus plantarum

Mixtures (1:2, 1:4, 1:8, 1:12) of 4% (w/v) sodium alginate and 20% (w/v) soy protein isolate

Mango juice

Homogenous aqueous solutions of alginate and soy protein isolate (1:8) increased the thermal resistance of L. plantarum against pasteurization process. The viability of L. plantarum remained high after the pasteurization process (8.11 log CFU/mL; reduced 0.99 log CFU/mL).

[21]
 

Layer-by-layer (Coating)

Lactobacillus plantarum 299v

First layer: 1% (w/v) carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and 50% w/w (based on CMC weight) glycerol; Second layer: 5% (w/v) zein protein

Apple slices

The viability of CMC-zein protein-coated L. plantarum 299v was higher than CMC-coated L. plantarum 299v in apple slices under simulated gastrointestinal conditions (120 min digestion; CMC-zein protein-coated: 1.00 log CFU/g reduction, CMC-coated: 2.18 log CFU/g reduction).

[12]
 

Complex coacervation (associated with enzymatic crosslinking)

Lactobacillus acidophilus LA-02

Complex co-acervation: 2.5% gelatin, 2.5% gum Arabic; Crosslinking: 2.5, 5.0 U/g transglutaminase

Apple and orange juices

Encapsulated L. acidophilus LA-02 incorporated in fruit juices was able to survive throughout the storage period of 63 days (4 °C).

[22]
 

Freeze-drying, spray-drying

Enterococcus faecalis (K13)

Gum Arabic and maltodextrin

Carrot juice powder

Heat injuries to the probiotics are lower in the freeze-drying technique compared to spray-drying. After being stored for 1 month, the viability of freeze-dried E. faecalis remained high (6–7 log CFU/g).

[23]
 

Spray-drying

Lactobacillus casei Shirota, Lactobacillus casei Immunitas, and Lactobacillus acidophilus Johnsonii

Maltodextrin and pectin at weight ratio of 10:1

Orange juice powder

The combination of pectin and maltodextrins effectively protected the probiotics during the spray-drying process and storage (4 °C)

[24]
 

Freeze-drying

Lactobacillus acidophilus, Lactobacillus casei

Whey protein isolate, fructooligosaccharides, and combination of whey protein isolate, fructooligosaccharides (1:1)

Banana powder

L. acidophilus and L. casei encapsulated with the combination of whey protein isolate and fructooligosaccharides had higher survivability after being stored for 30 days at 4 °C and more resistant to the simulated gastric fluid intestinal fluid than free probiotics.

[25]
 

Fluidized bed drying

Lactobacillus plantarum TISTR 2075

3% (w/w) gelatin and 5% (w/w) of monosodium glutamate, maltodextrin, inulin, and fructooligosaccharide

Carrot tablet

Encapsulated L. plantarum TISTR 2075 in carrot tablet (survivability: 77.68–87.30%) had higher tolerance against heat digestion treatments than free cells (39.52%).

[26]

Other beverages

Spray-drying

Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG)

Mixtures (1:1.6 (w/w)) of 7.5% (w/v) whey protein isolate and 20% (w/v) modified huauzontle’s starch (acid hydrolysis-extrusion), supplemented with ascorbic acid

Green tea beverage

The viability of LGG remained above the recommended 7 log CFU/mL after 5 weeks of storage at 4 °C.

[28]
 

Co-encapsulation (extrusion)

Lactobacillus acidophilus TISTR 2365

Alginate, egg (0, 0.8, 1, and 3%, w/v), and fruiting body of bamboo mushroom (prebiotic)

Sweet fermented rice (Khoa-Mak) sap beverage

All formulations used were able to provide high encapsulation yields (95.72−98.86%) and high viability of L. acidophilus (>8 log CFU/g) in Khoa-Mak sap beverages for 35 days of storage at 4 °C. Encapsulation with involvement of 3% egg of bamboo mushroom increased the survival of L. acidophilus the most.

[27]
 

Co-encapsulation (extrusion)

Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM (L-NCFM)

Co-extrusion: 0–2% (w/v) LBG, 0–5% (w/v) mannitol (prebiotic)

Coating: sodium alginate

Mulberry tea

L-NCFM encapsulated with LBG and mannitol (0.5% (w/v) and 3% (w/v), respectively) showed microencapsulation efficiency and viability of 96.81% and 8.92 log CFU/mL, respectively.

Among other samples, L-NCFM microencapsulated with mannitol showed the highest survivability (78.89%) and viable count (6.80 log CFU/mL) after 4 weeks of storage at 4 and 25 °C.

[29]

Bakery products

Double-layered microencapsulation, combination of spray chilling and spray-drying

Saccharomyces boulardii, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium bifidum

Spray chilling: 5% (v/w) blend of gum Arabic and β-cyclodextrin solution (9:1 (w/w), 20 g in total), 1% lecithin

Spray-drying: 5% (v/w) blend of gum Arabic and β-cyclodextrin solution, 20 g hydrogenated palm oil, 2% Tween 80 emulsifier

Cake

The survivability of probiotics

during the cake baking process was improved by double-layered microencapsulation.

[31]
 

Fluidized bed drying

Lactobacillus sporogenes

First layer: 10 g microcrystalline cellulose powder and alginate or xanthan

gum

Second layer: gellan or chitosan

Bread

Encapsulated L. sporogenes in alginate (1%) capsule tolerated the simulated gastric

acid condition the best. The incorporation of chitosan (0.5%) as an outer layer improved the heat tolerance of L. sporogenes. Encapsulated L. sporogenes with an outer layer coated with 1.5% gellan showed the highest survivability 24 h after baking.

[32]
 

Emulsion

Lactobacillus acidophilus ATCC 4356

1. Alginate 2%; 2. Alginate 2% + maltodextrin 1%; 3. Alginate 2% + xanthan gum 0.1%; 4. Alginate 2% + maltodextrin 1% + 0.1% xanthan gum

Bread

Among the encapsulation agents, probiotics encapsulated using the combination of maltodextrin, xanthan gum, and alginate (4) had the highest survivability under storage (7.7 log CFU/bread) and simulated gastrointestinal conditions.

[33]

Sauce

Co-encapsulation (extrusion)

Lactobacillus casei Lc-01, Lactobacillus acidophilus La5

4% (w/v) sodium alginate and 2% alginate mixture in distilled watercontaining 2% high amylose maize starch (prebiotic), 0.2% Tween 80

Mayonnaise

The viability of L. casei and L. acidophilus encapsulated with high amylose maize starch (7.204 and 8.45 log CFU/mL, respectively) was higher than free probiotics (6.23 and 6.039 log CFU/mL, respectively) and those without high amylose maize starch (7.1 and 7.94 log CFU/mL, respectively) after 91 days of storage at 4°C.

[35]

Others

Extrusion followed by freeze-drying

Lactobacillus casei (L. casei 431)

3% (w/v) quince seed gum, sodium alginate, quince seed gum-sodium alginate

Powdered functional drink

Quince seed gum-alginate microcapsules provided encapsulation efficiency of 95.20% and increased the survival rate of L. casei to 87.56%. The powdered functional drink was shelf stable for 2 months.

[37]
 

Spray chilling

Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis

Vegetable fat (Tri-HS-48)

Savory cereal bars

The viabilities of spray-chilled probiotics were higher than freeze-dried and free probiotics in the savory cereal bars after being stored for 90 days at 4 °C.

[34]
 

Co-encapsulation (extrusion)

Lactobacillus reuteri

2% (w/v) sodium alginate, 5 mL of inulin and lecithin solution (0, 0.5, and 1%)

Chewing gum

After storing for 21 days with encapsulation, L. reuteri remained viable. The viability of the probiotic increased with the concentration of inulin and lecithin.

[36]

References

  1. Sarao, L.K.; Arora, M. Probiotics, prebiotics, and microencapsulation: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2017, 57, 344–371.
  2. Min, M.; Bunt, C.R.; Mason, S.L.; Hussain, M.A. Non-dairy probiotic food products: An emerging group of functional foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 2626–2641.
  3. FAO/WHO. FAO/WHO Joint Working Group Report on Drafting Guidelines for the Evaluation of Probiotics in Food (30 April 2002 and 1 May 2002); Scientific Research Publishing: London, ON, Canada, 2002.
  4. Sanders, M.E.; Goh, Y.J.; Klaenhammer, T.R. Probiotics and Prebiotics. In Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers; ASM Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2019; pp. 831–854.
  5. Murua-Pagola, B.; Castro-Becerra, A.L.; Abadia-Garcia, L.; Castano-Tostado, E.; Amaya-Llano, S.L. Protective effect of a cross-linked starch by extrusion on the survival of Bifidobacterium breve ATCC 15700 in yogurt. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2021, 45, e15097.
  6. da Silva, M.N.; Tagliapietra, B.L.; dos Santos Richards, N.S.P. Encapsulation, storage viability, and consumer acceptance of probiotic butter. LWT 2021, 139, 110536.
  7. Afzaal, M.; Saeed, F.; Saeed, M.; Ahmed, A.; Ateeq, H.; Nadeem, M.T.; Tufail, T. Survival and stability of free and encapsulated probiotic bacteria under simulated gastrointestinal conditions and in pasteurized grape juice. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14346.
  8. Thamacharoensuk, T.; Boonsom, T.; Tanasupawat, S.; Dumkliang, E. Optimization of microencapsulated Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG from whey protein and glutinous rice starch by spray drying. Key Eng. Mater. 2020, 859, 265–270.
  9. Aspri, M.; Papademas, P.; Tsaltas, D. Review on non-dairy probiotics and their use in non-dairy based products. Fermentation 2020, 6, 30.
  10. Ester, B.; Noelia, B.; Laura, C.-J.; Francesca, P.; Cristina, B.; Rosalba, L. Probiotic survival and in vitro digestion of L. salivarius spp. salivarius encapsulated by high homogenization pressures and incorporated into a fruit matrix. LWT 2019, 111, 883–888.
  11. Galvão, A.M.; Rodrigues, S.; Fernandes, F.A. Probiotic dried apple snacks: Development of probiotic coating and shelf-life studies. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14974.
  12. Wong, C.H.; Mak, I.E.K.; Li, D. Bilayer edible coating with stabilized Lactobacillus plantarum 299v improved the shelf life and safety quality of fresh-cut apple slices. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2021, 30, 100746.
  13. Azarkhavarani, P.R.; Ziaee, E.; Hosseini, S.M.H. Effect of encapsulation on the stability and survivability of Enterococcus faecium in a non-dairy probiotic beverage. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 25, 233–242.
  14. Holkem, A.T.; Neto, E.J.S.; Nakayama, M.; Souza, C.J.; Thomazini, M.; Gallo, F.A.; Favaro-Trindade, C.S. Sugarcane juice with co-encapsulated Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis BLC1 and proanthocyanidin-rich cinnamon extract. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2020, 12, 1179–1192.
  15. Mokhtari, S.; Jafari, S.M.; Khomeiri, M. Survival of encapsulated probiotics in pasteurized grape juice and evaluation of their properties during storage. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 25, 120–129.
  16. Naga Sivudu, S.; Ramesh, B.; Umamahesh, K.; Vijaya Sarathi Reddy, O. Probiotication of tomato and carrot juices for shelf-life enhancement using micro-encapsulation. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 6, 13–22.
  17. Nami, Y.; Lornezhad, G.; Kiani, A.; Abdullah, N.; Haghshenas, B. Alginate-persian gum-prebiotics microencapsulation impacts on the survival rate of Lactococcus lactis ABRIINW-N19 in orange juice. LWT 2020, 124, 109190.
  18. Olivares, A.; Soto, C.; Caballero, E.; Altamirano, C. Survival of microencapsulated Lactobacillus casei (prepared by vibration technology) in fruit juice during cold storage. Electron. J. Biotechnol. 2019, 42, 42–48.
  19. Santos Monteiro, S.; Albertina Silva Beserra, Y.; Miguel Lisboa Oliveira, H.; Pasquali, M.A.d.B. Production of probiotic passion fruit (Passiflora edulis Sims f. Flavicarpa Deg.) drink using Lactobacillus reuteri and microencapsulation via spray drying. Foods 2020, 9, 335.
  20. Vivek, K.; Mishra, S.; Pradhan, R.C. Characterization of spray dried probiotic Sohiong fruit powder with Lactobacillus plantarum. LWT 2020, 117, 108699.
  21. Praepanitchai, O.-A.; Noomhorm, A.; Anal, A.K. Survival and behavior of encapsulated probiotics (Lactobacillus plantarum) in calcium-alginate-soy protein isolate-based hydrogel beads in different processing conditions (pH and temperature) and in pasteurized mango juice. Biomed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 9768152.
  22. da Silva, T.M.; Pinto, V.S.; Soares, V.R.F.; Marotz, D.; Cichoski, A.J.; Zepka, L.Q.; Lopes, E.J.; da Silva, C.B.; de Menezes, C.R. Viability of microencapsulated Lactobacillus acidophilus by complex coacervation associated with enzymatic crosslinking under application in different fruit juices. Food Res. Int. 2021, 141, 110190.
  23. Rishabh, D.; Athira, A.; Preetha, R.; Nagamaniammai, G. Freeze dried probiotic carrot juice powder for better storage stability of probiotic. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 1–9.
  24. Gervasi, C.; Pellizzeri, V.; Vecchio, G.L.; Vadalà, R.; Foti, F.; Tardugno, R.; Cicero, N.; Gervasi, T. From by-product to functional food: The survival of L. casei shirota, L. casei immunitas and L. acidophilus johnsonii, during spray drying in orange juice using a maltodextrin/pectin mixture as carrier. Nat. Prod. Res. 2022, 36, 1–8.
  25. Massounga Bora, A.F.; Li, X.; Zhu, Y.; Du, L. Improved viability of microencapsulated probiotics in a freeze-dried banana powder during storage and under simulated gastrointestinal tract. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 11, 1330–1339.
  26. Nilubol, S.; Wanchaitanawong, P. Viability of Lactobacillus plantarum TISTR 2075 in carrot tablet after fluidized bed drying. In Proceedings of the The National and International Graduate Research Conference, Khon Kaen, Thailand, 10 March 2017; pp. 155–165.
  27. Srisuk, N.; Nopharatana, M.; Jirasatid, S. Co-encapsulation of Dictyophora indusiata to improve Lactobacillus acidophilus survival and its effect on quality of sweet fermented rice (Khoa-Mak) sap beverage. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 58, 3598–3610.
  28. Hernández-Barrueta, T.; Martínez-Bustos, F.; Castaño-Tostado, E.; Lee, Y.; Miller, M.J.; Amaya-Llano, S.L. Encapsulation of probiotics in whey protein isolate and modified huauzontle’s starch: An approach to avoid fermentation and stabilize polyphenol compounds in a ready-to-drink probiotic green tea. LWT 2020, 124, 109131.
  29. Yee, W.L.; Yee, C.L.; Lin, N.K.; Phing, P.L. Microencapsulation of Lactobacillus acidophilus NCFM incorporated with mannitol and its storage stability in mulberry tea. Cienc. Agrotecnologia 2019, 43, 1–11.
  30. Wulandari, N.; Suharna, N.; Yulinery, T.; Nurhidayat, N. Probiotication of black grass jelly by encapsulated Lactobacillus plantarum Mar8 for a ready to drink (RTD) beverages. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2019, 15, 375–386.
  31. Arslan-Tontul, S.; Erbas, M.; Gorgulu, A. The use of probiotic-loaded single-and double-layered microcapsules in cake production. Probiotics Antimicrob. Proteins 2019, 11, 840–849.
  32. Mirzamani, S.; Bassiri, A.; Tavakolipour, H.; Azizi, M.; Kargozari, M. Fluidized bed microencapsulation of Lactobacillus sporogenes with some selected hydrocolloids for probiotic bread production. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 11, 23–34.
  33. Thang, T.D.; Hang, H.T.T.; Luan, N.T.; KimThuy, D.T.; Lieu, D.M. Survival survey of Lactobacillus acidophilus in additional probiotic bread. TURJAF 2019, 7, 588–592.
  34. Bampi, G.B.; Backes, G.T.; Cansian, R.L.; de Matos, F.E.; Ansolin, I.M.A.; Poleto, B.C.; Corezzolla, L.R.; Favaro-Trindade, C.S. Spray chilling microencapsulation of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis and its use in the preparation of savory probiotic cereal bars. Food Bioproc. Technol. 2016, 9, 1422–1428.
  35. Bigdelian, E.; Razavi, S. Evaluation of survival rate and physicochemical properties of encapsulated bacteria in alginate and resistant starch in mayonnaise sauce. Biotechnol. Bioprocess Eng. 2014, 4, 1.
  36. Qaziyani, S.D.; Pourfarzad, A.; Gheibi, S.; Nasiraie, L.R. Effect of encapsulation and wall material on the probiotic survival and physicochemical properties of synbiotic chewing gum: Study with univariate and multivariate analyses. Heliyon 2019, 5, e02144.
  37. Jouki, M.; Khazaei, N.; Rashidi-Alavijeh, S.; Ahmadi, S. Encapsulation of Lactobacillus casei in quince seed gum-alginate beads to produce a functional synbiotic drink powder by agro-industrial by-products and freeze-drying. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 120, 106895.
  38. Kumar, B.V.; Vijayendra, S.V.N.; Reddy, O.V.S. Trends in dairy and non-dairy probiotic products-a review. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 52, 6112–6124.
  39. Oberoi, K.; Tolun, A.; Sharma, K.; Sharma, S. Microencapsulation: An overview for the survival of probiotic bacteria. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2021, 2021, 280–287.
  40. Pech-Canul, A.d.l.C.; Ortega, D.; García-Triana, A.; González-Silva, N.; Solis-Oviedo, R.L. A brief review of edible coating materials for the microencapsulation of probiotics. Coatings 2020, 10, 197.
  41. Yao, M.; Xie, J.; Du, H.; McClements, D.J.; Xiao, H.; Li, L. Progress in microencapsulation of probiotics: A review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 857–874.
  42. Frakolaki, G.; Giannou, V.; Kekos, D.; Tzia, C. A review of the microencapsulation techniques for the incorporation of probiotic bacteria in functional foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 61, 1515–1536.
  43. Rodrigues, F.; Cedran, M.; Bicas, J.; Sato, H. Encapsulated probiotic cells: Relevant techniques, natural sources as encapsulating materials and food applications-a narrative review. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 1016.
  44. Khalil, K.A. A review on microencapsulation in improving probiotic stability for beverages application. Sci. Lett. 2020, 14, 49–61.
  45. Maciel, M.I.S.; de Souza, M.M.B. Prebiotics and Probiotics-Potential Benefits in Human Nutrition and Health. In Prebiotics and Probiotics-Potential Benefits in Nutrition and Health; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020.
  46. Timilsena, Y.P.; Akanbi, T.O.; Khalid, N.; Adhikari, B.; Barrow, C.J. Complex coacervation: Principles, mechanisms and applications in microencapsulation. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2019, 121, 1276–1286.
  47. Halim, M.; Mustafa, N.A.M.; Othman, M.; Wasoh, H.; Kapri, M.R.; Ariff, A.B. Effect of encapsulant and cryoprotectant on the viability of probiotic Pediococcus acidilactici ATCC 8042 during freeze-drying and exposure to high acidity, bile salts and heat. LWT 2017, 81, 210–216.
  48. Singh, P.; Medronho, B.; Miguel, M.G.; Esquena, J. On the encapsulation and viability of probiotic bacteria in edible carboxymethyl cellulose-gelatin water-in-water emulsions. Food Hydrocoll. 2018, 75, 41–50.
  49. Haffner, F.B.; Diab, R.; Pasc, A. Encapsulation of probiotics: Insights into academic and industrial approaches. AIMS Mater. Sci. 2016, 3, 114–136.
  50. Liu, H.; Cui, S.W.; Chen, M.; Li, Y.; Liang, R.; Xu, F.; Zhong, F. Protective approaches and mechanisms of microencapsulation to the survival of probiotic bacteria during processing, storage and gastrointestinal digestion: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 2863–2878.
  51. Broeckx, G.; Vandenheuvel, D.; Claes, I.J.; Lebeer, S.; Kiekens, F. Drying techniques of probiotic bacteria as an important step towards the development of novel pharmabiotics. Int. J. Pharm. 2016, 505, 303–318.
  52. Gheorghita Puscaselu, R.; Lobiuc, A.; Dimian, M.; Covasa, M. Alginate: From food industry to biomedical applications and management of metabolic disorders. Polymers 2020, 12, 2417.
  53. Martău, G.A.; Mihai, M.; Vodnar, D.C. The use of chitosan, alginate, and pectin in the biomedical and food sector-biocompatibility, bioadhesiveness, and biodegradability. Polymers 2019, 11, 1837.
  54. Călinoiu, L.-F.; Ştefănescu, B.E.; Pop, I.D.; Muntean, L.; Vodnar, D.C. Chitosan coating applications in probiotic microencapsulation. Coatings 2019, 9, 194.
  55. Pavli, F.; Tassou, C.; Nychas, G.-J.E.; Chorianopoulos, N. Probiotic incorporation in edible films and coatings: Bioactive solution for functional foods. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 150.
  56. Mettu, S.; Hathi, Z.; Athukoralalage, S.; Priya, A.; Lam, T.N.; Ong, K.L.; Lin, C.S.K. Perspective on constructing cellulose-hydrogel-based gut-like bioreactors for growth and delivery of multiple-strain probiotic bacteria. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 69, 4946–4959.
  57. Arepally, D.; Goswami, T.K. Effect of inlet air temperature and gum Arabic concentration on encapsulation of probiotics by spray drying. LWT 2019, 99, 583–593.
  58. Kwiecień, I.; Kwiecień, M. Application of polysaccharide-based hydrogels as probiotic delivery systems. Gels 2018, 4, 47.
  59. Lara-Espinoza, C.; Carvajal-Millán, E.; Balandrán-Quintana, R.; López-Franco, Y.; Rascón-Chu, A. Pectin and pectin-based composite materials: Beyond food texture. Molecules 2018, 23, 942.
  60. Noreen, A.; Akram, J.; Rasul, I.; Mansha, A.; Yaqoob, N.; Iqbal, R.; Zia, K.M. Pectins functionalized biomaterials; a new viable approach for biomedical applications: A review. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2017, 101, 254–272.
  61. Zhu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Bai, L.; Deng, J.; Zhou, Q. Biomaterial-based encapsulated probiotics for biomedical applications: Current status and future perspectives. Mater. Des. 2021, 210, 110018.
  62. Patel, J.; Maji, B.; Moorthy, N.H.N.; Maiti, S. Xanthan gum derivatives: Review of synthesis, properties and diverse applications. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 27103–27136.
  63. Razavi, S.; Janfaza, S.; Tasnim, N.; Gibson, D.L.; Hoorfar, M. Microencapsulating polymers for probiotics delivery systems: Preparation, characterization, and applications. Food Hydrocoll. 2021, 120, 106882.
  64. Al-Hassan, A. Gelatin from camel skins: Extraction and characterizations. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 101, 105457.
  65. Li, X.; Chen, W.; Jiang, J.; Feng, Y.; Yin, Y.; Liu, Y. Functionality of dairy proteins and vegetable proteins in nutritional supplement powders: A review. Int. Food Res. J. 2019, 26, 1651–1664.
  66. Minj, S.; Anand, S. Whey proteins and its derivatives: Bioactivity, functionality, and current applications. Dairy 2020, 1, 233–258.
  67. Abd El-Salam, M.H.; El-Shibiny, S. Preparation and properties of milk proteins-based encapsulated probiotics: A review. Dairy Sci. Technol. 2015, 95, 393–412.
  68. Fathi, M.; Donsi, F.; McClements, D.J. Protein-based delivery systems for the nanoencapsulation of food ingredients. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2018, 17, 920–936.
  69. Dong, Q.Y.; Chen, M.Y.; Xin, Y.; Qin, X.Y.; Cheng, Z.; Shi, L.E.; Tang, Z.X. Alginate-based and protein-based materials for probiotics encapsulation: A review. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 48, 1339–1351.
  70. Nahum, V.; Domb, A.J. Recent developments in solid lipid microparticles for food ingredients delivery. Foods 2021, 10, 400.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Food Science & Technology
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Wee Yin Koh
,
Xiao Xian Lim
,
Thuan-Chew Tan
,
Rovina Kobun
,
Babak Rasti
View Times: 716
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 21 Oct 2022
Table of Contents
Video Production Service
Feedback