Skip to main page content

• HOME
• Current Issue
• Archive
• Alerts
• About ASM
• Contact us
• Tech Support
• Journals.ASM.org

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Crittenden, R. Articles by Augustin, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Crittenden, R. Articles by Augustin, M. Agricola Articles by Crittenden, R. Articles by Augustin, M.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, March 2006, p. 2280-2282, Vol. 72, No. 3
0099-2240/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AEM.72.3.2280-2282.2006
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

SHORT REPORT

Synbiotic Microcapsules That Enhance Microbial Viability during Nonrefrigerated Storage and Gastrointestinal Transit

Ross Crittenden,^* Rangika Weerakkody, Luz Sanguansri, and MaryAnn Augustin

Preventative Health National Research Flagship, Food Science Australia, Werribee, Victoria 3030, Australia

Received 19 July 2005/ Accepted 31 December 2005

Top Abstract Introduction References

 
A Bifidobacterium infantis strain was microencapsulated within a film-forming protein-carbohydrate-oil emulsion. This novel encapsulant incorporated prebiotics and substantially protected the bacterium during nonrefrigerated storage and gastrointestinal transit. The dried microcapsules were small (15 to 20 µm), had low water activity (0.2 to 0.3), and rapidly released the bacteria in simulated intestinal fluid.

Top Abstract Introduction References

 
Probiotics are live bacteria that are administered in order to provide a health benefit to the host (6). Bacterial strains selected as probiotics are predominantly from the genera Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, which are indigenous to the human gastrointestinal tract (21). The environmental sensitivities of many potential probiotic strains currently limit their practical use in nonrefrigerated foods and pharmaceutical-type supplements. Hence, technologies that can protect the viability of probiotics during manufacture, storage, and gastrointestinal transit are highly desired.

Numerous microencapsulation strategies have been examined for the ability to protect probiotic bacteria from environmental stresses (11, 13), but there remains considerable scope for the development of microencapsulants that fulfill the many demands of a successful probiotic encapsulant. These include protection against oxygen, heat, and other environmental stresses during drying, formulation, and storage; protection against low pH and proteases during gastric transit; efficient release of the bacteria within the gastrointestine; production of small capsules with suitable sensory properties; and the use of materials that are inexpensive, stable, and of food grade.

In the current investigation, a Bifidobacterium infantis strain was microencapsulated within a novel, film-forming protein-carbohydrate-lipid emulsion. Nondigestible prebiotic carbohydrates, which specifically stimulate the growth and/or activity of beneficial populations of bacteria within the gut (3, 12), formed part of the encapsulant formulation to produce a synbiotic (9) combination. The capacity of the encapsulant to protect the viability of the bacteria was evaluated during nonrefrigerated storage and during simulated gastrointestinal transit.

Bifidobacterium infantis Bb-02 was obtained from C. Hansen A/S (Hoersholm, Denmark) as a freeze-dried powder containing 3.2 x 10¹⁰ CFU/g. The freeze-dried bacteria were microencapsulated within a film-forming protein-carbohydrate-oil emulsion according to the rationale and methodologies described by Crittenden et al. (4). Briefly, oil-in-water emulsions were prepared, containing canola vegetable oil (Crisco; Goodman Fielder, Australia), caseinate (Alanate 180; New Zealand Milk Products, New Zealand), and prebiotic fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) (Raftilose P95; ORAFTI, Belgium) plus either dried glucose syrup (DGS) (Maltostar 30; Manildra, Australia) or microfluidized resistant starch (RS) (Hylon VII; National Starches). The emulsions were heated to 98°C for 30 min to promote Maillard reaction products, which improve film-forming and oxygen-scavenging properties (17). The mixture was then cooled to 10°C before the addition of the probiotic bacteria at 8% (wt/wt) prior to spray drying. Both encapsulated and nonencapsulated B. infantis cells were spray dried using a Drytec (Tonbridge, United Kingdom) laboratory-scale spray dryer with an inlet temperature of 160°C and an outlet temperature of 65°C. The final formulation (wt/wt) of the dried powders was as follows: 8% probiotic, 32% oil, 20% caseinate, 20% FOS, and either 20% DGS or 20% RS.

The water activities of powdered samples were measured after 2 months of storage in sealed aluminum foil pouches. Duplicate samples were measured using a Decagon CX-2 water activity meter (Decagon Devices, WA). The particle size distribution of the microcapsules was measured using a Malvern Mastersizer 2000 instrument (Malvern Instruments Ltd., United Kingdom).

The survival of encapsulated and nonencapsulated B. infantis cells was assessed during nonrefrigerated storage over a 5-week period. The bacterial samples were stored in open containers exposed to an ambient atmosphere maintained at 25°C and 50% relative humidity. The survival of the bacteria was assessed after 2 and 5 weeks in four repeat experiments.

The ability of the encapsulant to protect B. infantis during gastrointestinal transit was assessed using a two-stage in vitro model simulating conditions in the human stomach and small intestine (22). Details of the model are described by Crittenden et al. (4), but briefly, 1.0-g samples of encapsulated or nonencapsulated bacteria were mixed with 10 ml of simulated gastric fluid (SGF) at pH 1.2 and incubated for 2 h at 37°C. Following incubation in SGF, the pH of the samples was adjusted to 6.8, and the bacteria were diluted 10-fold in simulated intestinal fluid (SIF) at pH 6.8 and incubated for a further 3 h at 37°C. Viable counts of the bacteria were compared before and after passage through both stages of the in vitro model. Survival was assessed in four repeat experiments.

Viable bacteria were enumerated in duplicate samples cultured anaerobically on reinforced clostridial agar for 48 h at 37°C. In cases where bacteria had to first be released from the microcapsules, the capsules were dissolved by incubation in SIF for 1 h at 37°C. The detection limit of the analysis was 3 x 10² CFU/g of encapsulated material. The statistical significance of differences between treatments was assessed using one-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test.

The spray-dried microcapsules produced were small (15 to 20 µm in diameter), with low water activities (0.2 to 0.3). Scanning electron micrographs of unwashed microencapsulated bacterial powders showed that no free, nonencapsulated bacteria were present, indicating that the encapsulation efficiency was high (Fig. 1).

View larger version (140K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 1. Scanning electron micrograph (magnification, x1,000) of spray-dried encapsulated Bifidobacterium infantis.

Microencapsulation significantly protected the viability of bacteria when they were stored in an open container at 25°C and 50% relative humidity (Fig. 2). Similarly, microencapsulation significantly protected the bacteria during simulated gastrointestinal transit (Fig. 3). The addition of the encapsulant materials to nonencapsulated bacteria increased survival in the gastrointestinal model but afforded substantially less protection than the formulated microcapsules. Microscopic examination of the microcapsules showed that the bacteria remained entrapped within the capsule material in SGF and were released when transferred to SIF (Fig. 4).

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 2. Survival of Bifidobacterium infantis Bb-02 during storage for 5 weeks at 25°C and 50% relative humidity. •, nonencapsulated bacteria; , bacteria encapsulated in caseinate-FOS-oil-DGS emulsion; , bacteria encapsulated in caseinate-FOS-oil-RS emulsion. The data represent the means of four experiments. Error bars represent 1 standard deviation. The survival rates of the encapsulated bacteria (both formulations) were significantly higher than that of the nonencapsulated bacteria (P < 0.05) after both 2 and 5 weeks.

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 3. Effect of microencapsulation on survival of Bifidobacterium infantis in an in vitro model simulating gastrointestinal transit. The encapsulant used was the caseinate-FOS-oil-DGS emulsion. The data represent the means of four experiments. Error bars represent 1 standard deviation. All mean survival rates were significantly different (P < 0.01).

View larger version (103K): [in this window] [in a new window]

FIG. 4. Light micrographs (magnification, x1,000) of Gram-stained microcapsules (caseinate-FOS-oil-DGS emulsion) containing Bifidobacterium infantis after 2 h in SGF at pH 1.2 (A) and following subsequent transfer to SIF at pH 6.8 for 3 h (B).

The small diameters of the microcapsules produced in the current study (<20 µm) were comparable to those of microcapsules produced to protect probiotics using cellulose acetate phthalate (8) or starch (15). These microcapsules are much smaller than those produced using gelling materials such as alginate (7, 13, 19) or gellan and xanthan gums (20) (typically >100 µm) and provide advantages with regard to minimizing adverse impacts on texture and mouth feel when incorporated into foods (1).

Numerous microencapsulation strategies have been evaluated for the ability to protect probiotic viability during storage and intestinal transit (11, 13). Unfortunately, it is difficult to directly compare the degrees of effectiveness of different approaches due to substantial variations in the durabilities of the probiotic strains tested and differences in the methods used to challenge the probiotics with environmental conditions. A strain of B. infantis was selected for the current study since it is a species that is autochthonous to the human gastrointestinal tract and is relatively sensitive to environmental conditions such as low pH, temperature, and oxygen in comparison to many commercial probiotics (2, 16). Encapsulation with alginate, carrageenan, and modified starch has generally failed to substantially improve the survival of acid-sensitive bifidobacteria in models simulating the acidic conditions in the stomach (5, 7, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19). However, the encapsulant tested in the current study was highly effective in protecting B. infantis during simulated gastrointestinal transit. Additionally, the capsules remained intact in SGF and dissolved rapidly in SIF, suggesting that the bacteria would be released in the small intestine. The fact that encapsulated B. infantis was also protected during nonrefrigerated storage with exposure to oxygen and humidity is particularly encouraging, as it demonstrates the potential of this technology to extend the application of environmentally sensitive probiotics to nonrefrigerated, long-shelf-life food and pharmaceutical products.

 
We gratefully acknowledge the advice provided by Martin Playne of Melbourne Biotechnology, Australia, and technical support from Sieh Ng and Jenny Rusli of Food Science Australia. We thank Christine Coombs of CSIRO Textile and Fiber Technology, Australia, for producing the scanning electron micrograph of the encapsulated bacteria.

 
* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Preventative Health National Research Flagship, Food Science Australia, Private Bag 16, Werribee, VIC 3030, Australia. Phone: 61-3-9731 3200. Fax: 61-3-9731 3201. E-mail: ross.crittenden{at}csiro.au.

Top Abstract Introduction References

 

1
1. Brazel, C. S. 1999. Microencapsulation: offering solutions for the food industry. Cereal Foods World 44:388-393.
2
2. Crittenden, R. 2004. An update on probiotic bifidobacteria, p. 125-157. In S. Salminen, A. Von Wright, and A. Ouwehand (ed.), Lactic acid bacteria: microbiological and functional aspects. Marcel Dekker, New York, N.Y.
3
3. Crittenden, R., A. R. Bird, P. Gopal, A. Henriksson, Y. K. Lee, and M. J. Playne. 2005. Probiotic research in Australia, New Zealand and the Asia-Pacific region. Curr. Pharm. Des. 11:37-53.[Medline]
4
4. Crittenden, R., L. Sanguansri, and M. A. Augustin. April 2005. Probiotic storage and delivery. Patent WO2005030229-A1.
5
5. Cui, J. H., J. S. Goh, P. H. Kim, S. H. Choi, and B. J. Lee. 2000. Survival and stability of bifidobacteria loaded in alginate poly-L-lysine microparticles. Int. J. Pharm. 210:51-59.[Medline]
6
6. FAO/WHO. 2002. Guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. Report of a joint FAO/WHO working group on drafting guidelines for the evaluation of probiotics in food. [Online.] http://www.who.int/foodsafety/fs_management/en/probiotic_guidelines.pdf.
7
7. Fávaro Trindale, C. S., and C. R. F. Grosso. 2000. The effect of the immobilisation of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Bifidobacterium lactis in alginate on their tolerance to gastrointestinal secretions. Milchwissenschaft 55:496-499.
8
8. Fávaro Trindale, C. S., and C. R. F. Grosso. 2002. Microencapsulation of L. acidophilus (La-05) and B. lactis (Bb-12) and evaluation of their survival at the pH values of the stomach and in bile. J. Microencapsul. 19:485-494.[Medline]
9
9. Gibson, G. R., and M. B. Roberfroid. 1995. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J. Nutr. 125:1401-1412.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10
10. Hansen, L. T., P. M. Allan-Wojtas, Y. L. Jin, and A. T. Paulson. 2002. Survival of Ca-alginate microencapsulated Bifidobacterium spp. in milk and simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Food Microbiol. 19:35-45.[CrossRef]
11
11. Kailasapathy, K. 2002. Microencapsulation of probiotic bacteria: technology and potential applications. Curr. Issues Intest. Microbiol. 3:39-48.[Medline]
12
12. Kolida, S., K. Tuohy, and G. R. Gibson. 2002. Prebiotic effects of inulin and oligofructose. Br. J. Nutr. 87(Suppl. 2):S193-S197.
13
13. Krasaekoopt, W., B. Bhandari, and H. Deeth. 2003. Evaluation of encapsulation techniques of probiotics for yoghurt. Int. Dairy J. 13:3-13.[CrossRef]
14
14. Lee, K. Y., and T. R. Heo. 2000. Survival of Bifidobacterium longum immobilized in calcium alginate beads in simulated gastric juices and bile salt solution. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66:869-873.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15
15. O'Riordan, K., D. Andrews, K. Buckle, and P. Conway. 2001. Evaluation of microencapsulation of a Bifidobacterium strain with starch as an approach to prolonging viability during storage. J. Appl. Microbiol. 91:1059-1066.[CrossRef][Medline]
16
16. Reuter, G. 2001. The Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium microflora of the human intestine: composition and succession. Curr. Issues Intest. Microbiol. 2:43-53.[Medline]
17
17. Sanguansri, L., and M. A. Augustin. October 2001. Encapsulation of food ingredients. Patent WO01/74175 A1.
18
18. Shah, N. P., and R. R. Ravula. 2000. Microencapsulation of probiotic bacteria and their survival in frozen fermented dairy desserts. Aust. J. Dairy Technol. 55:139-144.
19
19. Sultana, K., G. Godward, N. Reynolds, R. Arumugaswamy, P. Peiris, and K. Kailasapathy. 2000. Encapsulation of probiotic bacteria with alginate-starch and evaluation of survival in simulated gastrointestinal conditions and in yoghurt. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 62:47-55.[Medline]
20
20. Sun, W. R., and M. W. Griffiths. 2000. Survival of bifidobacteria in yogurt and simulated gastric juice following immobilization in gellan-xanthan beads. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 61:17-25.[Medline]
21
21. Tannock, G. W. 2001. Molecular assessment of intestinal microflora. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 73(Suppl. 2):410S-414S.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22
22. U.S. Pharmacopoeia and National Formulary. 2000. USP 24NF19. U.S. Pharmacopoeia and National Formulary, Rockville, Md.

---

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, March 2006, p. 2280-2282, Vol. 72, No. 3
0099-2240/06/$08.00+0     doi:10.1128/AEM.72.3.2280-2282.2006
Copyright © 2006, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints and Permissions Copyright Information Books from ASM Press MicrobeWorld Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Crittenden, R. Articles by Augustin, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Crittenden, R. Articles by Augustin, M. Agricola Articles by Crittenden, R. Articles by Augustin, M.