Cargando…

Comparison of Electrostatic Spray Drying, Spray Drying, and Freeze Drying for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Dehydration

Spray drying (SD) is extensively used to encapsulate lactic acid bacteria in large-scale industrial applications; however, bacteria combat several harms that reduce their viability. In this study, a novel technique called electrostatic spray drying (ESD) was used to explore the benefits and disadvan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jayaprakash, Preethi, Gaiani, Claire, Edorh, Jean-Maxime, Borges, Frédéric, Beaupeux, Elodie, Maudhuit, Audrey, Desobry, Stéphane
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10453923/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37628116
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12163117
_version_ 1785096063180341248
author Jayaprakash, Preethi
Gaiani, Claire
Edorh, Jean-Maxime
Borges, Frédéric
Beaupeux, Elodie
Maudhuit, Audrey
Desobry, Stéphane
author_facet Jayaprakash, Preethi
Gaiani, Claire
Edorh, Jean-Maxime
Borges, Frédéric
Beaupeux, Elodie
Maudhuit, Audrey
Desobry, Stéphane
author_sort Jayaprakash, Preethi
collection PubMed
description Spray drying (SD) is extensively used to encapsulate lactic acid bacteria in large-scale industrial applications; however, bacteria combat several harms that reduce their viability. In this study, a novel technique called electrostatic spray drying (ESD) was used to explore the benefits and disadvantages of using electrostatic charge and lower temperatures in the system. Freeze drying (FD) was used as a reference. The effect of different encapsulation agents, like maltodextrin, arabic gum, and skim milk, on the viability of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) was investigated. The initial cell concentration, particle size distribution, aspect ratio, sphericity, scanning-electron-microscopy images, moisture content, water activity, glass transition, rehydration abilities, and survival during storage were compared. Skim milk was proven to be the best protectant for LGG, regardless of the drying process or storage time. A huge reduction in cell numbers (4.49 ± 0.06 log CFU/g) was observed with maltodextrin using SD; meanwhile, it was protected with minimum loss (8.64 ± 0.62 log CFU/g) with ESD. In general, ESD preserved more LGG cells during processing compared to SD, and provided better stability than FD and SD during storage, regardless of the applied voltage. The ESD product analysis demonstrated an efficient LGG preservation, close to FD; therefore, ESD presented to be a promising and scalable substitute for SD and FD.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10453923
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-104539232023-08-26 Comparison of Electrostatic Spray Drying, Spray Drying, and Freeze Drying for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Dehydration Jayaprakash, Preethi Gaiani, Claire Edorh, Jean-Maxime Borges, Frédéric Beaupeux, Elodie Maudhuit, Audrey Desobry, Stéphane Foods Article Spray drying (SD) is extensively used to encapsulate lactic acid bacteria in large-scale industrial applications; however, bacteria combat several harms that reduce their viability. In this study, a novel technique called electrostatic spray drying (ESD) was used to explore the benefits and disadvantages of using electrostatic charge and lower temperatures in the system. Freeze drying (FD) was used as a reference. The effect of different encapsulation agents, like maltodextrin, arabic gum, and skim milk, on the viability of Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) was investigated. The initial cell concentration, particle size distribution, aspect ratio, sphericity, scanning-electron-microscopy images, moisture content, water activity, glass transition, rehydration abilities, and survival during storage were compared. Skim milk was proven to be the best protectant for LGG, regardless of the drying process or storage time. A huge reduction in cell numbers (4.49 ± 0.06 log CFU/g) was observed with maltodextrin using SD; meanwhile, it was protected with minimum loss (8.64 ± 0.62 log CFU/g) with ESD. In general, ESD preserved more LGG cells during processing compared to SD, and provided better stability than FD and SD during storage, regardless of the applied voltage. The ESD product analysis demonstrated an efficient LGG preservation, close to FD; therefore, ESD presented to be a promising and scalable substitute for SD and FD. MDPI 2023-08-19 /pmc/articles/PMC10453923/ /pubmed/37628116 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12163117 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Jayaprakash, Preethi
Gaiani, Claire
Edorh, Jean-Maxime
Borges, Frédéric
Beaupeux, Elodie
Maudhuit, Audrey
Desobry, Stéphane
Comparison of Electrostatic Spray Drying, Spray Drying, and Freeze Drying for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Dehydration
title Comparison of Electrostatic Spray Drying, Spray Drying, and Freeze Drying for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Dehydration
title_full Comparison of Electrostatic Spray Drying, Spray Drying, and Freeze Drying for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Dehydration
title_fullStr Comparison of Electrostatic Spray Drying, Spray Drying, and Freeze Drying for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Dehydration
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Electrostatic Spray Drying, Spray Drying, and Freeze Drying for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Dehydration
title_short Comparison of Electrostatic Spray Drying, Spray Drying, and Freeze Drying for Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus GG Dehydration
title_sort comparison of electrostatic spray drying, spray drying, and freeze drying for lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus gg dehydration
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10453923/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37628116
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12163117
work_keys_str_mv AT jayaprakashpreethi comparisonofelectrostaticspraydryingspraydryingandfreezedryingforlacticaseibacillusrhamnosusggdehydration
AT gaianiclaire comparisonofelectrostaticspraydryingspraydryingandfreezedryingforlacticaseibacillusrhamnosusggdehydration
AT edorhjeanmaxime comparisonofelectrostaticspraydryingspraydryingandfreezedryingforlacticaseibacillusrhamnosusggdehydration
AT borgesfrederic comparisonofelectrostaticspraydryingspraydryingandfreezedryingforlacticaseibacillusrhamnosusggdehydration
AT beaupeuxelodie comparisonofelectrostaticspraydryingspraydryingandfreezedryingforlacticaseibacillusrhamnosusggdehydration
AT maudhuitaudrey comparisonofelectrostaticspraydryingspraydryingandfreezedryingforlacticaseibacillusrhamnosusggdehydration
AT desobrystephane comparisonofelectrostaticspraydryingspraydryingandfreezedryingforlacticaseibacillusrhamnosusggdehydration