2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.08.039
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effect of resistant starch and chitosan on survival of Lactobacillus acidophilus microencapsulated with sodium alginate

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
39
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 105 publications
(41 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
2
39
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The encapsulating matrices have different chemical characteristics as well as physical properties. Thus, matrices may exert different effects on the protection of encapsulated cells (de Araújo Etchepare et al ., ). The presence of prebiotic inulin did not increase the LAB cells’ viability during storage of the microparticles.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The encapsulating matrices have different chemical characteristics as well as physical properties. Thus, matrices may exert different effects on the protection of encapsulated cells (de Araújo Etchepare et al ., ). The presence of prebiotic inulin did not increase the LAB cells’ viability during storage of the microparticles.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The microparticles diameter was measured by SEM micrographs at their original magnification using the AxionVision Microscopy Software – Zeiss. The diameter of 225 particles of each different formulation was registered (de Araújo Etchepare et al ., ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Despite the ability of Ca 2+ in the alginate system to protect the cell envelopes and secondary proteins of the probiotics after freeze-drying (33), this effect was probably hindered by the detrimental effect of freeze-drying on the constituents of the cell wall due to the ice crystal formation. This was evident for several probiotics when microencapsulation and freeze-drying were combined (34,35).…”
Section: +mentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Depending on which kinds of monosaccharides are connected into the polysaccharide chains, polysaccharides take on a variety of forms (Yang, Prasad, & Jiang, 2016). Regarding the area of probiotic microencapsulation, characteristic properties of polysaccharides include: (a) ion‐induced gelation property that enables the polysaccharide to form cross‐linked hydrogel structure through the interaction with several specific ions, such as Ca 2+ interacts with alginate and pectin (Yeung, Üçok, Tiani, McClements, & Sela, 2016) and K + interacts with carrageenan (Dafe, Etemadi, Zarredar, & Mahdavinia, 2017); (b) structure‐reinforcing agent property that enables the polysaccharide not to be easily degraded by the action of enzymes and resistant to acidic environments, such as gellan gum (Moghaddas Kia, 2018; Nag, Han, & Singh, 2011); (c) enteric dissolution property that enables the polysaccharide to only dissolve in the intestinal environment, such as cellulose acetate propionate (Fávaro‐Trindade & Grosso, 2002; Hanafi, Nograles, Abdullah, Shamsudin, & Rosli, 2013); (d) electrostatic interaction property that enables the polysaccharide to combine with other polysaccharide or protein with opposite charge, such as chitosan combines with alginate (de Araújo Etchepare et al., 2016) or pectin (Sandoval‐Castilla, Lobato‐Calleros, García‐Galindo, Alvarez‐Ramírez, & Vernon‐Carter, 2010); (e) prebiotic property that enable the polysaccharide to be selectively utilized by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit, such as resistant starch (RS) (Etchepare et al., 2016; Zanjani, Ehsani, Tarzi, & Sharifan, 2018) and inulin (Ahmed & Rashid, 2019; Valero‐Cases & Frutos, 2015). However, with the increasing demand and new application areas for probiotic microencapsulation, these traditional polysaccharides can barely satisfy such challenges (Ramos, Cerqueira, Teixeira, & Vicente, 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%