Viability of Microencapsulated Probiotics in Cross-Linked Alginate Matrices and Chia Seed or Flaxseed Mucilage During Spray-Drying and Storage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in probiotics has not diminished, and techniques to protect them from the environment in which they are found are constantly being innovated. Spray-drying is the most studied and industrially used technique to encapsulate probiotics. Recently, a new process has been developed in which particle formation, alginate cross-linking, and drying are carried out in a single step. In this study, Bifidobacterium infantis, Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus plantarum, and Lactobacillus rhamnosus were microencapsulated by spray-drying using a cross-linked alginate matrix supplemented with chia seed mucilage (CM) or flaxseed mucilage (FM) as the coating material. All formulations evaluated, supplemented with 0.4% (w/v) of CM or FM, including the control formulation showed high survival rates, varying between 87% and 97%. The viability of microencapsulated probiotics was affected by storage temperature. At 4 °C, viability decreased slightly, and after 90 days, the viable probiotic count ranged from 7 to 11 Log CFU/g of dry powder. Meanwhile, viability did not exceed 4 Log CFU/g of dry powder at 37 °C. Probiotic microencapsulation in cross-linked alginate matrices and chia or flaxseed mucilage by spray-drying is presented as a promising alternative for their protection, potentially improving the long-term stability and efficacy of the probiotic product.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".