Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Review

Biopolymer encapsulation for improved probiotic delivery: Advancements and challenges

  • Received: 13 May 2024 Revised: 27 September 2024 Accepted: 22 October 2024 Published: 15 November 2024
  • Probiotics, known for their health benefits as living microorganisms, hold significant importance across various fields, including agriculture, aquaculture, nutraceuticals, and pharmaceuticals. Optimal delivery and storage of probiotic cells are essential to maximize their effectiveness. Biopolymers, derived from living sources, plants, animals, and microbes, offer a natural solution to enhance probiotic capabilities and they possess distinctive qualities such as stability, flexibility, biocompatibility, sustainability, biodegradability, and antibacterial properties, making them ideal for probiotic applications. These characteristics create optimal environments for the swift and precisely targeted delivery of probiotic cells that surpass the effectiveness of unencapsulated probiotic cells. Various encapsulation techniques using diverse biopolymers are employed for this purpose. These techniques are not limited to spray drying, emulsion, extrusion, spray freeze drying, layer by layer, ionic gelation, complex coacervation, vibration technology, electrospinning, phase separation, sol-gel encapsulation, spray cooling, fluidized, air suspension coating, compression coating, co-crystallization coating, cyclodextrin inclusion, rotating disk, and solvent evaporation methods. This review addresses the latest advancements in probiotic encapsulation materials and techniques, bridging gaps in our understanding of biopolymer-based encapsulation systems. Specifically, we address the limitations of current encapsulation methods in maintaining probiotic viability under extreme environmental conditions and the need for more targeted and efficient delivery mechanisms. Focusing on the interactions between biopolymers and probiotics reveals how customized encapsulation approaches can enhance probiotic stability, survival, and functionality. Through detailed comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various encapsulation methods, we identify key strategies for optimizing probiotic deployment in challenging conditions such as high-temperature processing, acidic environments, and gastrointestinal transit. The findings presented in this review highlight the superior performance of novel encapsulation methods using biopolymer blends and advanced technologies like electrospinning and layer-by-layer assembly, which provide enhanced protection and controlled release of probiotics by offering insights into the development of more robust encapsulation systems that ensure the sustained viability and bioavailability of probiotics, thus advancing their application across multiple industries. In conclusion, this paper provides the foundation for future research to refine encapsulation techniques to overcome the challenges of probiotic delivery in clinical and commercial settings.

    Citation: Srirengaraj Vijayaram, Reshma Sinha, Caterina Faggio, Einar Ringø, Chi-Chung Chou. Biopolymer encapsulation for improved probiotic delivery: Advancements and challenges[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(4): 986-1023. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024043

    Related Papers:

    [1] Feng Qi . Completely monotonic degree of a function involving trigamma and tetragamma functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 3391-3407. doi: 10.3934/math.2020219
    [2] Wissem Jedidi, Hristo S. Sendov, Shen Shan . Classes of completely monotone and Bernstein functions defined by convexity properties of their spectral measures. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 11372-11395. doi: 10.3934/math.2024558
    [3] Khaled Mehrez, Abdulaziz Alenazi . Bounds for certain function related to the incomplete Fox-Wright function. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(7): 19070-19088. doi: 10.3934/math.2024929
    [4] Fei Wang, Bai-Ni Guo, Feng Qi . Monotonicity and inequalities related to complete elliptic integrals of the second kind. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 2732-2742. doi: 10.3934/math.2020176
    [5] Xifeng Wang, Senlin Guo . Some conditions for sequences to be minimal completely monotonic. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(4): 9832-9839. doi: 10.3934/math.2023496
    [6] Xi-Fan Huang, Miao-Kun Wang, Hao Shao, Yi-Fan Zhao, Yu-Ming Chu . Monotonicity properties and bounds for the complete p-elliptic integrals. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 7071-7086. doi: 10.3934/math.2020453
    [7] Li Xu, Lu Chen, Ti-Ren Huang . Monotonicity, convexity and inequalities involving zero-balanced Gaussian hypergeometric function. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12471-12482. doi: 10.3934/math.2022692
    [8] Chuan-Yu Cai, Qiu-Ying Zhang, Ti-Ren Huang . Properties of generalized $ (p, q) $-elliptic integrals and generalized $ (p, q) $-Hersch-Pfluger distortion function. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 31198-31216. doi: 10.3934/math.20231597
    [9] Fei Wang, Bai-Ni Guo, Feng Qi . Correction: Monotonicity and inequalities related to complete elliptic integrals of the second kind. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(6): 5683-5684. doi: 10.3934/math.2020363
    [10] Moquddsa Zahra, Dina Abuzaid, Ghulam Farid, Kamsing Nonlaopon . On Hadamard inequalities for refined convex functions via strictly monotone functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(11): 20043-20057. doi: 10.3934/math.20221096
  • Probiotics, known for their health benefits as living microorganisms, hold significant importance across various fields, including agriculture, aquaculture, nutraceuticals, and pharmaceuticals. Optimal delivery and storage of probiotic cells are essential to maximize their effectiveness. Biopolymers, derived from living sources, plants, animals, and microbes, offer a natural solution to enhance probiotic capabilities and they possess distinctive qualities such as stability, flexibility, biocompatibility, sustainability, biodegradability, and antibacterial properties, making them ideal for probiotic applications. These characteristics create optimal environments for the swift and precisely targeted delivery of probiotic cells that surpass the effectiveness of unencapsulated probiotic cells. Various encapsulation techniques using diverse biopolymers are employed for this purpose. These techniques are not limited to spray drying, emulsion, extrusion, spray freeze drying, layer by layer, ionic gelation, complex coacervation, vibration technology, electrospinning, phase separation, sol-gel encapsulation, spray cooling, fluidized, air suspension coating, compression coating, co-crystallization coating, cyclodextrin inclusion, rotating disk, and solvent evaporation methods. This review addresses the latest advancements in probiotic encapsulation materials and techniques, bridging gaps in our understanding of biopolymer-based encapsulation systems. Specifically, we address the limitations of current encapsulation methods in maintaining probiotic viability under extreme environmental conditions and the need for more targeted and efficient delivery mechanisms. Focusing on the interactions between biopolymers and probiotics reveals how customized encapsulation approaches can enhance probiotic stability, survival, and functionality. Through detailed comparative analysis of the effectiveness of various encapsulation methods, we identify key strategies for optimizing probiotic deployment in challenging conditions such as high-temperature processing, acidic environments, and gastrointestinal transit. The findings presented in this review highlight the superior performance of novel encapsulation methods using biopolymer blends and advanced technologies like electrospinning and layer-by-layer assembly, which provide enhanced protection and controlled release of probiotics by offering insights into the development of more robust encapsulation systems that ensure the sustained viability and bioavailability of probiotics, thus advancing their application across multiple industries. In conclusion, this paper provides the foundation for future research to refine encapsulation techniques to overcome the challenges of probiotic delivery in clinical and commercial settings.



    Dye or colorants were traditionally made from natural ingredients such as henna, cochineal, saffron, logwood and madder root, which are derived from plants, animals and mineral rocks [1,2]. The majority of these naturally derived dyes are mordants, which require a fixing agent to retain their color. Yellow was produced by liquids extracted from various plants, brown by Mediterranean mollusk extract, indigo by Indigofera and purple by the Murex snail [3]. Because there are no fixing agents to strongly bind natural dyes to fabrics, the routine of washing and drying them tends to cause them to lose color [4]. Meanwhile, ultraviolet (UV) rays from sunlight are known to fade color because they easily break down chemical bonds in natural dyes [5].

    These drawbacks gave rise to synthetic dyes that lasted much longer than natural dyes. Dyes are classified based on their chemical structure, which can be further subdivided into natural and synthetic groups, which include inorganic and organic compounds. Acidic, basic, directed, dispersed, reactive, solvent, sulfur, and vat dyes are eight classes of dyes. The azo dye family is the most established of the synthetic dyes and is widely used across all industries [6]. One or more -N = N- groups make up the aromatic compounds known as azo dyes [7,8]. The azo function is frequently covalently bonded to an aromatic ring, yielding an aromatic amine (arylamine) upon oxidation or reduction [9]. Azo dyes give bright, high-intensity pigments compared to anthraquinones. It has reasonable fastness properties, but is average compared to the carbonyl and phthalocyanine classes. The biggest advantage of azo dyes is their cost-effectiveness, which is due to the processes involved in synthesizing it. Seventy percent of the 9.9 million tons of industrial dye used annually, worth USD 30.42 billion, are azo dyes [10,11]. The supply of dyes and pigments is increasing at a pace of 3.5% per year due to the ever-increasing demand [12]. The majority of synthetic dyes, which find widespread application in the textile, paper, food, printing, cosmetic and leather sectors, are based on azo compounds [11].

    Due to their inexpensive price, simple preparation, fastness, variety and intensity of color, azo dyes are widely utilized in the textile industry [13]. As an example, certain azo dyes have chemical groups with a strong affinity for metals [14]. Chromium and copper are the most common metals used in these dyes, as metal ions provide better binding with fiber, improving the resistance of the dye to washing. Because of these augmented characteristics, the material is extremely chemically, biologically and photocatalytically stable. Nonetheless, they degrade poorly in the natural setting because they are resistant to breakdown from natural causes such as light exposure, water, detergents and microorganisms [15].

    In the remediation of azo dyes, the effects of heavy metals need to be investigated for the successful deployment of bioremediation. There will be little to no use if the obtained bacteria or consortium is unable to decolorize azo dyes in the presence of various heavy metals, despite establishing a high decolorization rate in a controlled environment [16]. The inhibitory effect of a substrate on the growth or degradation rate of xenobiotics can be mathematically modeled using models such as the Yano, Aiba, Haldane, Tessier-Edward and Monod models, while the inhibitory effects of metal ions on the growth or degradation rate of xenobiotics can be mathematically modeled using models such as the modified Han-Levenspiel, Wang, Liu, modified Andrews and Shukor models. The effect of the substrate on the growth or degradation rate yields important parameters, such as the maximum growth or degradation rate and maximum tolerable substrate concentrations before complete inhibition is observed. Similarly, the effects of metal ions on the growth or degradation rate can yield parameters such as the maximum growth or degradation rate and maximum tolerable metal ion concentration before complete inhibition is observed.

    In this study, the inhibitory effects of the substrate Reactive Red 120 (RR120) and the effects of several heavy metals on the decolorization rate of RR120 by a previously isolated consortium, JR3 (Pseudomonas aeruginosa MM01, Enterobacter sp. MM05 and Serratia marcescens MM06), are the targets of this study. This consortium, isolated from an industrial waste site in Malaysia's Juru River, was able to consume RR120 as the sole carbon source in the presence of limited co-substrate available, resulting in a metabolite that was far safer than the parent compounds themselves [17]. Because the majority of industrial dye waste effluents contain heavy metals, the consortium's ability to continuously decolorize RR120 under toxic conditions was investigated further. The concentrations of heavy metals found to have the least impact on the decolorization rate were studied further using various heavy metals' inhibition kinetics to obtain valuable inhibitory parameters. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study on the use of metal inhibition kinetic models to probe for the quantitative effects of metal ions on the rate of RR120 dye decolorization by a bacterial consortium in the presence of various heavy metals.

    Acetate and Tris buffer reagents were obtained from Merck KGaA, Germany. The azo dye, RR120 (Cas No. 61951-82-4) (Table 1) was purchased from Sigma Aldrich, CO, USA. Other chemicals are of analytical grade unless stated otherwise.

    Table 1.  Some characteristics of the investigated dye.
    Properties Reactive Red 120
    Colour index name Reactive Red-120 (RR120)
    Molecular formula C44H24C12N14Na6O20S6
    Molecular weight 1469.34 g/mol
    Water solubility 70 g L–1
    Class Diazo (-N=N-)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    A total of three strains from consortium JR3 were used in this study. They were identified as Enterobacter sp. MM05, Pseudomonas aeruginosa MM01 and Serratia marcescens MM06, which were previously isolated from Juru River, Malaysia [17]. Large-scale cultures of each strain were grown in a sterile medium containing 10 g L–1 of nutrient broth and 2 g L–1 of yeast extract to promote rapid bacterial growth development. Adjustment of the medium to pH 7.0 was carried out using 1 M HCl or 1 M NaOH. Each strain was individually inoculated into a 1-L growth medium separated into several conical flasks. Growth of the bacterium was carried out on an orbital shaker at 120 rpm and room temperature. The bacterial cells were harvested by centrifuging at 10,000 × g at the exponential phase (18 h±2) at the temperature of 4 ℃ for 10 min. The resulting pellets were washed twice using 100 mM Tris buffer and then re-suspended in pH 7 Tris buffer solution to an A600 nm range of 0.9 – 1.0. Additionally, 100 µL from each of the washed cells was mixed to get a final volume of 1 mL or 1%. This was done to standardize the inoculum size.

    Dye solutions and dye-containing culture media were filtered and sterilized with a Millipore Millex© GS 0.22-µm unit. The dye concentrations were measured using a UV-visible spectrophotometer that had been calibrated to the specified maximum wavelengths of each dye (Shimadzu UV mini 1240). Each of the samples was centrifuged for 10 min at 10,000 × g using a Beckman Coulter© Microfuge 16 centrifuge. The concentration of the dye was evaluated as follows.

    %Decolorization=initialabsorbancefinalabsorbanceinitialabsorbance×100 (1)

    Enumeration of the bacteria was carried out using the colony-forming unit (CFU mL–1) with appropriate dilutions.

    Based on previously obtained RSM results, consortium JR3 was inoculated under optimal conditions for maximum decolorization of RR120 at various concentrations [17]. A total of 1 mL of seed culture consortium JR3 was inoculated in 100 mL of minimal salts medium (MSM) containing different concentrations of RR120, and it was incubated under shaking conditions (150 rpm) for five days. The composition of MSM in (g L–1) of dH2O comprised Na2HPO4.2H2O (12.0), KH2PO4 (2.0), MgCl2.6H2O (0.10), Ca(NO3)2.4H20 (0.050) and FeCl2.4H20 (0.0075), while the trace elements (mg L–1) were ZnCl3 (50), MnCl2.4H2O (30), CoCl2.6H2O (200), NiCl2.6H2O (20), Na2MoO4.2H2O (30), H3BO3 (300) and CuCl2.2H2O (10) [18]. The concentration of NH4(SO4)2 and the pH varied depending on the RR120 concentration used, as illustrated in Table 2. Yeast extract was given at a final concentration of 0.5 g L–1. Each concentration of RR120 was experimentally designed based on Table 2 for maximum decolorization ability by consortium JR3, resulting in peak performance. Reading was taken at an interval of 3 h for the first 24 h, followed by a 12-h interval for the remaining incubation period. Decolorization of RR120 was determined against the medium as a blank at 525 nm.

    Table 2.  Suggested parameters for each variable for optimum decolorization of RR120 by consortium JR3 based on response surface methodology optimization.
    No. Ammonium sulphate concentration (g L–1) pH Temperature (℃) RR120 concentration (ppm) Desirability
    1. 0.6 8.102 34.233 25 0.999
    2. 0.6 8.102 34.233 50 0.999
    3. 0.6 8.102 34.233 100 0.999
    4. 0.645 8.293 34.532 200 1.000
    5. 0.681 8.527 33.717 300 0.999
    6. 0.702 8.555 33.502 400 0.999
    7. 0.711 8.629 33.121 500 0.999
    8. 0.822 8.874 31.687 600 0.999
    10. 0.841 8.743 28.971 700 0.999

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The Gompertz model was used to calculate specific reduction rates and lag times. This was done initially to determine the specific rate of reduction for each concentration; these are important parameters to have before moving on to secondary modeling. The bacterial growth rate on RR120 data was first converted to a natural logarithm before being used with the modified Gompertz model, which is commonly used in bacterial kinetics [19,20,21,22,23,24].

    The equation is as follows:

    ln(XXo)=ln(XmaxXo)exp(exp(μm.eln(XmaxXo)(λt)+1)) (2)

    where

    X0 is the initial bacterial concentration (CFU mL–1),

    Xmax is the maximum initial bacterial concentration (CFU mL–1),

    X is the bacterial concentration (CFU mL–1),

    t is the incubation time (h),

    μm is the maximum specific growth rate (h−1),

    λ is the lag time (h)

    For primary growth kinetics, an increase in bacterial number (CFU) over time was performed while fitting the resultant specific growth rate; meanwhile, primary growth activity against RR120 concentration represents secondary growth modeling. When fitting the graph, the Marquardt algorithm was used, which minimizes the residual sums of squares (i.e., the difference between predicted and observed). CurveExpert Professional software (version 2.0) was used to fit curves for both primary and secondary growth graph models. The terms are as follows:

    i.Estimation of µmax: The maximal bacterial growth rate is an important parameter for modeling microbial growth under batch conditions. Each formula has its way of calculating µmax which depends on the interaction of the substrate concentration and bacteria tolerance level. Therefore, six different estimation methods were used to find the ideal µmax. The estimation was carried out by utilizing the steepest ascent search of the curve among four datum points.

    ii.Estimation of λ : In this study, a stochastic model is used to investigate the lag distribution of consortium JR3 for various RR120 concentrations. It was accomplished by determining the intersection of points 1 (0 h) and x (start of the exponential phase). To plot the graph, a minimum of six points were obtained during the lag phase.

    iii.Estimation of A: The maximum amount of bacterial growth was carried out by taking the final datum point at the highest peak.

    Table 3.  Models used to model secondary inhibition kinetics using consortium JR3 on various concentrations of RR120 under optimized conditions.
    Models Equation Authors
    Yano μmaxsS+Ks+(S2K1)(1+SK) [25]
    Aiba μmaxSKs+Sexp(KP) [26]
    Haldane μmaxSS+Ks+S2Ki [27]
    Tessier-Edward μmax(1exp(SKi)exp(SKs) [28]
    Monod μmaxSKs+S [29]
    Notes: Where

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    μmax is the maximal growth rate (h–1)

    KS is the half-saturation constant for maximal reduction (mg/L)

    Sm is the maximal concentration of substrate tolerated (mg/L)

    m,n,K are curve parameters

    S is the substrate concentration (mg/L)

    P is the product concentration (mg/L)

    In this study, we looked at how well consortium JR3 could remove colour from 200 ppm RR120 under ideal conditions while still dealing with heavy metals. The heavy metals used in this study were silver, arsenic, chromium, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury and zinc. MERCK AAS standard solution was used to prepare each heavy metal stock, and 1 ppm of the prepared stock was then added to the culture media. During the incubation process, the culture medium was shaken (150 rpm). At 525 nm, the absorbance of RR120 decolorization was measured.

    Based on Section 2.5, the chromium that had the weakest effect on the decolorization of RR120 by the consortium JR3 was studied at higher concentrations. Filter sterilized chromium (200 ppm stock solution) was supplemented to the MSM at the final concentrations of 1, 1.5, 3, 5, 7, 10, 12 and 15 ppm. Readings were taken at 12-h intervals. In the meantime, mercury, which showed a strong inhibitory effect on the decolorization of RR120 by consortium JR3, was also studied at higher concentrations. Filter sterilized mercury from a stock solution of 10 ppm were added into the MSM at the final concentrations of 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 and 0.9 ppm. Readings were taken at 12-h intervals.

    The initial study based on Section 2.7 illustrated that chromium results in the weakest effect on the decolorization ability of consortium JR3; hence, differences in increased concentration of chromium of up to 10 ppm were used to investigate the inhibition rate. The seed culture was incubated in 100 mL of MSM containing 200 ppm RR120 with different concentrations of chromium (0, 1, 1.5, 3, 5, 7, 10 and 12 ppm). The culture was incubated under shaking conditions, and the absorbance reading was taken at an interval of 3 h for the first 12 h, followed by 24-h intervals until 72 h. The values of the specific RR120 reduction rate coefficient µ at each initial chromium concentration were obtained by plotting ln (μ decolorization) vs. time. A nonlinear curve was obtained by plotting against metal concentrations; the modeling could be done to determine the constants based on Table 4. A no-lag-phase Gompertz model was employed for primary kinetics to determine each chromium concentration's μmax value. During the secondary model, the inhibitory kinetics on RR120 reduction was calculated using the specific reduction rate obtained from the no-lag-phase Gompertz model in primary modeling. The models in Table 4 were used to obtain the lowest Ks (half-saturation constant) and Ki (inhibition constant).

    Table 4.  Metal inhibition kinetics used to model in consortium JR3.
    Models Equation Author
    Modified Han-Levenspiel r=umax(1CCcrit)m [30]
    Wang r=umax1+(CKC)m [31]
    Liu r=umaxKCKC+C [32]
    Modified Andrews r=umaxCKs+C+(C2Ki) [33]
    Shukor r=υmax(1(CSm)n) [34]

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc), The root-mean-square Error (RMSE), the adjusted coefficient of determination (R2), the bias factor (BF) and the accuracy factor (AF) were the error functions utilized in this study to discover which model is the best. The variables of the RMSE equation below are n, which is the number of experimental data, Obi, that denotes the observed or experimental data, Pdi is the predicted data and p is the number of parameters assessed by the model [35].

    RMSE=ni=1(PdiObi)2np (3)

    In linear regression, the best-fitting model is determined by R2, or the coefficient of determination. However, in nonlinear regression, R2 does not give a comparative analysis where the number of parameters between models is different. To overcome this, the adjusted R2 was used to calculate the closeness of the feature of the nonlinear models to unity. In the adjusted R2 formula, S2y is the total variance of the y variable, and RSS is the residual sum of square

    Adjusted(R2)=1RSSS2Y (4)
    Adjusted(R2)=1(1R2)(n1)(np1) (5)

    The Akaike information criterion (AIC) provides a method to select a model for the relative quality of a given statistical model in a given set of experimental data. However, the AICc is used for data sets with a large number of parameter or those that have a smaller number of values [36]. For each data set, the AICc was calculated based on the following equation:

    AICc=2p+n1n(RSSn)+2(p+1)+2(p+1)(p+2)np2 (6)

    Here, n indicates the number of experimental points and p denotes the number of parameters in the model. The AICc provides information about the variations in the number of parameters and the fitting between two models. The smallest AICc value would indicate the best fit between the models [36].

    To test the goodness of fit of the models used, the BF and AF were used. In a molybdenum reduction, the BF should be equal to 1 to provide an ideal match between the observed and predicted values. The value of the BF that is greater than 1 signifies a fail-safe model, and a BF less than 1 signifies a fail-negative model. A value of AF that is ≥ 1 signifies a less precise prediction.

    Biasfactor=10(ni=1log(Pdi/Obi)n) (7)
    Accuracyfactor=10 (8)

    RR120 growth kinetics was determined by measuring the cell growth rate at different RR120 concentrations for 72 h, as shown in Figure 1. The primary growth model was constructed based on the modified Gompertz model. This was done initially to obtain the µmax value for each concentration, which is required before secondary modeling [37,38]. From 25 ppm to 700 ppm of RR120, the consortium reached an exponential growth rate at 24 h of incubation. The consortium reached the highest growth rate at 200 ppm, and then it started to decrease with an increase in RR120 concentration. As shown in Figure 1, a high RR120 concentration above 200 ppm had a negative effect on the consortium growth rate. The highest cell growth was observed at 200 ppm with 26.1 ln CFU mL–1 at 48 h, followed by 100 ppm with 25.9 ln CFU mL–1. Meanwhile, the concentration of RR120 resulted in better cell growth of the consortium at 50,100,200 and 300 ppm, as compared to 25 ppm alone. Beyond 400 ppm, the increasing concentration of RR120 significantly inhibits the consortium growth rate. For instance, at 700 ppm, the growth rate reached a plateau at 36 h with 21.5 ln CFU mL–1. In comparison with 200 ppm, 700 ppm reduced the consortium growth by 74.72% at 36 h.

    Figure 1.  Effects of various RR120 dye concentrations on consortium growth rate. Data points represent mean ± SD.

    The model's fitness in terms of envisaging the rate of decolorization (q) is illustrated in Figure 2. The correlation coefficient value for the RR120 inhibition Aiba model was 0.9939, illustrating a good fit, while the Yano model gave a slightly lower value of 0.9799. The low correlation coefficient value of 0.1986 indicates a poor fit (Table 5).

    Figure 2.  Growth rate on RR120 by consortium JR3, as modeled with various substrate inhibition kinetic models.
    Table 5.  Statistical analysis of the kinetics models for consortium JR3. adR2: adjusted R2.
    Model p RMSE R2 adR2 AICc BF AF
    Moser 4 0.256 –0.322 –1.643 –26.31 0.975 1.382
    Yano 4 0.053 0.976 0.952 –55.42 1.012 1.062
    Tessier-Edward 3 0.073 0.925 0.880 –50.23 1.016 1.105
    Aiba 3 0.033 0.989 0.983 –71.65 1.006 1.008
    Haldane 3 0.089 0.900 0.839 –45.05 1.026 1.121
    Monod 2 0.243 –1.320 –2.093 –26.99 0.947 1.436

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    R2 in statistics plays a major role in giving information about the goodness of fit of a model. In regression, the determination of R2 is a statistical measure of how precise regression predictions are estimated against the real data points. Therefore, an R2 value of 1 indicates that the regression prediction model perfectly fits the data. However, when modeling with nonlinear regression, this method does not consider the number of parameters of models and, therefore, does not freely provide comparative analysis. As a solution, when building the nonlinear models, the adjusted R2 was utilized, as it is calculated based on the number of parameters of models used to work out the quality of nonlinear models. The adjusted coefficient of determination for Aiba was 0.983, followed by the Yano model with 0.952. The adjusted R2 value did not deviate much from R2, indicating a precise model.

    The BF is another good indicator for allocating the perfect match between predicted and experimental values. When dealing with microbial growth kinetics, a BF value of < 1 represents a fail-dangerous model, while a value of > 1 indicates a fail-safe model [39]. The AF should be ≥1, and any higher value indicates a fail-safe model. Based on these requirements, only Aiba fits a perfect model, with a BF value of 1.006 and an AF value of 1.008. The rest of the models consist of fluctuating values, indicating a worse-fit model.

    The results of curve-fitting by both the primary and secondary models were compared by using the AIC, which is based on an in-sample fit (goodness of fit). The AIC was developed by Akaike to estimate the likelihood of a model to predict future values [40]. The corrected version, AICc, was utilized by considering that the size of the data set within this study was small. A lower AICc value is more desired, as a higher value often indicates a less preferrable model. Therefore, only the Aiba model had the best AICc value of –71.65, followed by the Yano model with –55.42.

    The value of the specific growth rate µ tends to increase to its optimal substrate concentration before it finally decreases at higher concentrations due to substrate inhibition. According to the best model, Aiba recorded the maximum growth rate (µmax) to be 0.795 h–1, while the saturation constants, also known as the half-velocity constant K and inhibitory constant Ki, were 0.185% and 0.14%, respectively.

    The effects of heavy metals were examined for consortium JR3 to establish its ability to remediate RR120. The heavy metals used in these studies range from the highest toxic to the lowest toxic elements. Chromium showed the weakest effect on the decolorization of RR120, with 73.5% removal with bacterial growth of 11.461 log CFU (Figure 3). Zinc had the second weakest effect, followed by silver and lead, with percentages of RR120 decolorization of 63.8%, 54.6% and 50.5%, respectively. Meanwhile, cadmium, arsenic and copper reduced the decolorization of RR120 in consortium JR3 by half. Mercury strongly inhibited decolorization by 32.5%.

    Figure 3.  Growth and biodegradation effect of different heavy metals on the decolorization of 200 ppm of RR 120 by consortium JR3 after 24 h of incubation. Data points represent mean ± SD, n = 3.

    Mercury has a profound effect on bacterial consortium activity, as it significantly reduced the decolorization of RR120 in consortium JR3. Since consortium JR3 was isolated from the Juru River site, the effects of different concentrations of mercury on the decolorization of RR120 was investigated. Figure 4 illustrates the effects of different mercury concentrations on the decolorization of 200 ppm of RR120 and its consortium JR3 growth. The control is the condition of no mercury introduced to the media (0 ppm). Increasing the mercury concentration results in a decrease in the decolorization and bacterial growth ability of consortium JR3, where a concentration of 1.6 ppm results in total inhibition (Figure 4). At 0.1 ppm, no significant reduction in decolorization was observed, compared to the control. However, increasing the concentration beyond 0.2 ppm resulted in a significant drop in decolorization (P < 0.05), and consortium JR3 lost 50% decolorization capability at 0.4 ppm of mercury. Consortium JR3 was able to tolerate the highest concentration of 1.2 ppm of mercury, with decolorization of 13.4% and bacterial growth of 10.1 log CFU mL–1.

    Figure 4.  Growth of the inoculum and decolorization of 200 ppm of RR120 under different mercury concentrations after 24 h of incubation. Data points represent mean ± SD, n = 3.

    Chromium was found to have the weakest effect on the decolorization ability of consortium JR3. The extent of tolerance capability was investigated in this study. Increasing chromium concentration results in less decolorization of RR120 and a lower consortium growth rate (Figure 5). A concentration of 1 ppm to 3 ppm of Cr results in an average of 75% decolorization activity. There is no significant difference between these concentrations (P > 0.005). An increase beyond 10 ppm results in a significant drop in decolorization. Additionally, 7 ppm of Cr reduced decolorization by 54.7%, with consortium growth at 11.13 log CFU. Consortium JR3 was able to tolerate up to 15 ppm of Cr concentration; however, the decolorization reduced by 90%, suggesting an increase beyond this concentration will result in total inhibition.

    Figure 5.  Growth of the inoculum and decolorization of 200 ppm RR120 under different chromium concentrations after 24 h of incubation. Data points represent mean ± SD, n = 3.

    The effects of various kinetics models fitted based on different concentrations of chromium on the decolorization rate of RR120 by consortium JR3 is interpreted in Figure 6. The correlation coefficient value (R2) for the RR120 Levenspiel reduction model was 0.98, illustrating a good fit with the actual data, followed by the Shukor model, with an R2 value of 0.97 (Table 6). Another important indicator for allocating the perfect match between the expected and experimental results is the BF. When dealing with microbial azo dye decolonization, a BF value of < 1 represents a fail-dangerous model, while a value of > 1 indicates a fail-safe model. Besides that, the AF should be ≥1, and any higher value indicates a fail-safe model. Based on these requirements, the Levenspiel model fits a good model, with a BF value of 1.00 and an AF value of 1.02. Moreover, the lowest AICc in the Levenspiel model indicates a less preferrable model compared to the rest of the models. According to the best model, Levenspiel recorded a maximum RR120 reduction rate (μmax) of 0.632 h–1, while the saturation constant (Kc) and inhibitory constant (m) were 15.08% and 0.5783%, respectively.

    Figure 6.  RR120 decolorization rate by consortium JR3 plotted against the various concentrations of chromium, as modeled according to the Wang model, Liu model, Shukor model and Andrews model.
    Table 6.  Statistical analysis of the kinetics models for heavy metal inhibition, with focus on chromium for consortium JR3. The BF and AF values are unavailable for the Andrews model due to the model plot failure.
    Levenspiel Shukor Wang Liu Andrews
    R2 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.0
    Adjusted R2 0.98 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.0
    AICc –57.85 –55.91 –50.9085 –50.64 –16.64
    BIC –62.17 –60.23 –55.23 –51.23 –20.97
    HQC –62.79 –60.85 –55.84 –51.85 –21.58
    BF 1.00 1.00 1.01 1.01 NA
    AF 1.02 1.04 1.05 1.07 NA

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    An essential aspect of bioremediation is the correlation between a microbial population's specific growth rate (μ) and the substrate (RR120) concentration (S). The association defines a class of rate rules known as theoretical models that are based on empirical data. These simulations are merely numerical formulas meant to characterize a system's behavior. The estimations of these parameters suggest that the Aiba model best describes the inhibition kinetics of consortium JR3's cell growth.

    There are limited data on the RR120 decolorization and utilization kinetics by microorganisms in the literature, which provides a good opportunity to study its growth kinetics. Most of the studies concerning substrate inhibition on microbial growth were done with focus on phenol [41], molybdenum [39], hydrocarbons [42,43] and copper [44], but none focusing on RR120 azo dye to date. Previous studies on other xenobiotics, such as molybdenum reduction by Bacillus sp. A.rzi, indicated that Luong developed the best model, followed by Haldane and Monod [45]. Meanwhile, in the area of pyrene degradation by E. cloacae BT, the Luong model was best fitted with a µmax value of 0.032 h–1 at a concentration of 200 ppm. Acinetobacter johnsonii was reported to have Aiba as the best model, with a µmax value of 0.537 h–1 for the excess effect of nitrogen concentration [46]. Aiba was the best-fitting secondary model of acrylamide substrate inhibition for Pseudomonas sp. [47], chromium substrate inhibition for Serratia sp. [48] and molybdenum substrate inhibition for Enterobacter sp. [49].

    However, this is the first paper to report Aiba as the best model in a combination of mixed bacterial strains containing Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens and Enterobacter sp. in RR120, which follows previously reported individual strains [47,49]. Although the consortium JR3 was able to decolorize RR120 at more than 400 ppm, increasing the concentration beyond 200 or 400 ppm was found to be inhibitory to the specific growth. The drastic fall in specific growth rate from 0.795 to 0.445 h–1 for 100 ppm to 300 ppm and 0.279 to 0.103 h–1 for 400 to 600 ppm, respectively, was because of a prolonged lag time at those concentrations and the growth inhibition induced by the toxicant utilized in the investigation. The behavior can be explained by the lack of co-substrate needed to overcome RR120 saturation in consortium JR3. Although adding more co-substrate could solve the shortened lag phase at higher concentrations, this might lead to consortium JR3 utilizing the co-substrate as an alternate carbon source.

    The ability of the consortium to decolorize RR120 in the presence of heavy metals provided valuable insight into its ability to remediate toxic effluents. Juru River not only accommodates textile industries, but it also houses various heavy machinery industries along the riverside. Due to anthropogenic activity, untreated waste from this kind of industry is being released into the river. Under this condition, those native bacteria to the sites are not only exposed to dye waste, but also to industrial waste containing heavy metals. For instance, one of the earliest studies [50] discovered traces of Cu, Pb, Zn, Mn and Fe in Juru River sediments. Moreover, Zn, Cu, Pb and Cd were also found in clams and fish caught in that river [51].

    The presence of mercury and lead at concentrations of 18.46 mg L–1 and 0.04 mg L–1, respectively, complicates the situation further. The situation is already worsened with poor dissolved oxygen levels [52]. Both studies show that there is a positive correlation between the presence of heavy metals in the river and at industrial sites, as the number of pollutants increases with the rapid development of heavy machinery factories. To make matters worse, this has been happening for the past 20 years. In this case, the surrounding environmental conditions influence consortium JR3 in terms of heavy metals tolerance. Repeated exposure has allowed those native bacteria to acclimatize to new conditions.

    Second, microbial survival in polluted environments varies according to inherent structural, biochemical and physiological properties with gene adaption [53,54,55]. Prolonged exposure to heavy metals contaminates, and the bacteria have developed appropriate mechanisms for survivability. Since consortium JR3 consists of Serratia sp., Pseudomonas sp. and Enterobacter sp., each of these individual strains has its unique mechanism to cope with heavy metal toxicity. The five main mechanisms against heavy metals are extracellular sequestration, an extracellular barrier, intracellular sequestration, the active transport of metal ions and the reduction of metal ions [56].

    Uniquely, many genes responsible for heavy metal tolerance are naturally found in some bacteria before exposure, suggesting that acquired tolerance is a strain's ability to be further enhanced. As reported in one paper [57], three genes encoding Cd/Pb/Hg/Zn-transporting ATPase, as well as three putative genes encoding the Zn/Co/Cd resistance protein CzcD, are naturally present in Serratia marcescens isolated from roots of Solanum nigrum. Although this bacterium had no previous exposure to heavy metals, the strain developed tolerance when exposed to Cd. The findings [57] are further supported by the work of Kotoky et al. [58], where Serratia marcescens was found to be highly resistant to Cd by utilizing the glutathione-S-transferase mechanism for detoxification [58]. There are similarities between the attitudes expressed by consortium JR3 in this study and those described by Khan et al. [57]. The ability to decolorize RR120 in the presence of cadmium can probably be attributed to the Serratia marcescens strain MM06, as this genus is known for its metal-tolerant capability due to the presence of metal-efflux genes [59]. In addition, Pseudomonas sp. showed high resistance to heavy metals, antibiotics, detergents and organic solvents [60,61,62,63]. The CadR in Pseudomonas spp. is responsible for encoding a transcriptional regulatory protein that responds to Cd(Ⅱ) ≫ Zn(Ⅱ) > Hg(Ⅱ) [64,65,66]. This function allows Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains in general to tolerate heavy metals. The novelty of consortium JR3 is its ability to withstand a large amount of chromium while maintaining a significant decolorization rate of RR120. This ability is rarely seen in other bacteria, yet achieving total decolorization at 10 ppm of chromium alone is a valuable asset in the bioremediation field. The inhibitory effect of chromium on dye biodegradation is discussed in [67], with the simultaneous removal of 100 ppm of mixed dyes consisting of RR120, Reactive Blue 5, Reactive Yellow 2 and Reactive Orange 16, with 25 ppm of hexavalent chromium resulting in 76.6–98.7% decolorization and 51.9–91.1% reduction, respectively, by Pseudomonas aeruginosa ZM120 after 180 h incubation under static conditions. Zhuang et al. observed a significant reduction in Direct Blue 2 decolorization in Enterobacter faecalis ST5, Clostridium bifermentans ST12 and Oceanimonas smirnovii ST3 when exposed to 1 ppm of lead and cadmium [68]. However, Pseudomonas aeruginosa HF5 had a negligible impact on the decolorization of RR120 when supplemented with lead, and it was able to achieve complete decolorization (>95%) even at 100 ppm of lead [69]. According to Hafeez et al., Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the best strain among 80 others able to tolerate a high concentration of lead [69].

    The effect of mercury on RR120 decolorization has a distinct effect on consortium JR3. Normally, throughout the study, the observed medium slowly loses color from red to yellowish, indicating that consortium JR3 is consuming the dye; hence, decolorization has occurred. However, when exposed to mercury, the observed color change was different. After 48 h of incubation, the medium turned a green color at a mercury concentration of 0.1 ppm, while increasing the concentration to 1 ppm resulted in it remaining red (data not shown). Resulting in medium color change is a consequence of bacterial pigmentation induced by consortium JR3.

    Mercury is highly toxic to living cells due to its strong affinity for the thiol groups of proteins. This could result in damage to the cells' protein channels, causing the bacteria to slowly die of starvation. To overcome this barrier, some species of Pseudomonas produce pyocyanin, particularly for iron metabolism [70,71]. This could explain why the culture medium turned green due to Pseudomonas' pyocyanin. Another possible explanation is the effect of the strains competing for the same source of nutrients. Consortium JR3 consists of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens and Enterobacter sp. Due to the presence of mercury, these strains are under huge stress and unable to consume and multiply efficiently. Thus, to increase the odds of survival, Pseudomonas aeruginosa releases pyocyanin, which is known to inhibit the growth of other organisms [72,73]. Pyocyanin is a secondary metabolite with the ability to oxidize and reduce other molecules and, therefore, kill microbes competing against Pseudomonas aeruginosa [73].

    The cytotoxicity effect of mercury in Serratia marcescens results in the production of prodigiosin, which allows the bacteria to neutralize the mercury effect [58]. Furthermore, this effect was observed at 0.3 ppm onward. As the mercury concentration increases, red pigmentation increases with it. This observation can be explained by the findings in [74], which reported prodigiosin functions to convert toxic metabolites into the innocuous end product. The authors of [75] observed the red pigmentation to be correlated with an increased rate of ATP production during the population lag phase. During this time, the pigmented cells of Serratia marcescens were able to accumulate ATP more rapidly and proliferate much faster [75,76]. At higher concentrations, most likely both Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Enterobacter sp. did not survive, leaving Serratia marcescens to proliferate much better, with no competition with either bacteria. However, with a lack of a synergistic effect of both species, Serratia marcescens produces prodigiosin to gain what is lost. Under this condition, Serratia marcescens strain MM06 seeks for an abundant energy source that is available from RR120. The ability of consortium JR3 to withstand up to 1.2 ppm of mercury is an added value, as most bacteria fail to do so. With the limited number of bacteria, the family is known to resist mercury toxicity, so finding one is extremely valuable in the bioremediation field. Mercury-resistant bacteria have been described for many phyla, including those of Actinobacteria, Firmicutes and Proteobacteria [77,78]. A handful of these organisms are capable of reducing Hg(Ⅱ) to Hg(0) and/or degrading methylmercury, or simply resisting it [79,80]. Nevertheless, the ability of bacteria or a consortium to decolorize RR120 in the presence of mercury has not been reported before. Repeated exposure to industrial waste allows this native bacterium to adapt and tolerate it much better. Hence, applying the consortium JR3 to textile effluents consisting of heavy metals, especially mercury, will likely result in red pigmentation due to prodigiosin activity. This is where consortium JR3 shines compared to the rest of the known dye decoloring strains. The versatility of these strains could be a key changer in bioremediation application, not only because it is able to consume RR120 as the sole carbon source, but also because its tolerance toward various heavy metals provides a good solution for textile effluent treatment.

    This study illustrates the ability of consortium JR3, which is comprised of Pseudomonas aeruginosa MM01, Enterobacter sp. MM05 and Serratia marcescens MM06, which were previously isolated from Juru River, Malaysia, to decolorize up to 700 ppm of RR120 and tolerate various heavy metal types. Discriminatory statistical analysis in modeling studies illustrates that the best growth kinetic model is the Aiba model. The consortium JR3 was able to decolorize RR120 in the presence of heavy metals such as silver, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, lead and zinc. It was found that chromium had the weakest effect on RR120 decolorization, followed by zinc and lead. Meanwhile, mercury has the highest inhibitory effect on consortium JR3. In terms of chromium inhibition kinetics, the Levenspiel model had the best fit. A strain which displays heavy metal tolerance and dye-decolorizing ability is sought after, particularly for bioremediation.

    Conceptualization, M.Y.A.S and M.M..; methodology, M.Y.A.S. and M.M; software, M.M. and M.I.E.H.; validation, M.Y.AS., N.A.Y, B.G. and A.R.O; writing—original draft preparation, M.Y.A.S. and M.M.; writing—review and editing, M.M and M.Y.A.S.; supervision, M.Y.A.S., N.A.Y. M.I.E.H., A.R.O. and B.G

    The data presented in this study are openly available at FigShare.com, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.22094810.v1.

    We declare no competing financial interests.



    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Author contributions



    Srirengaraj Vijayaram: Writing, original draft, conceptualization, literature search, Table preparation, drawing diagrams, and validation. Reshma Sinha: Writing, visualization. Caterina Faggio: Supervision, review, editing. Einar Ringø: Writing, visualization, review, editing. Chi-Chung Chou: Writing, supervision, review, editing.

    [1] Enayat Gholampour T, Fadaei Raieni R, Pouladi M, et al. (2020) The dietary effect of Vitex agnus-castus hydroalcoholic extract on growth performance, blood biochemical parameters, carcass quality, sex ratio, and gonad histology in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Appl Sci 10: 1402. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10041402
    [2] Salzman NH, Hung K, Haribhai D, et al. (2010) Enteric defensins are essential regulators of intestinal microbial ecology. Nat Immunol 11: 76-82. https://www.nature.com/articles/ni.1825
    [3] Hooper LV, Littman DR, Macpherson AJ (2012) Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system. Science 336: 1268-1273. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1223490
    [4] Petrof EO, Claud EC, Gloor GB, et al. (2013) Microbiome medicine workshop participants. Microbial ecosystems therapeutics: A new paradigm in medicine?. Benef Microbes 4: 53-65. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2012.0039
    [5] Plaza-Diaz J, Ruiz-Ojeda FJ, Gil-Campos M, et al. (2019) Mechanisms of action of probiotics. Adv Nutr 1: S49-S66. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmy063
    [6] do Carmo MS, itapary dos Santos C, Araújo MC, et al. (2018) Probiotics, mechanisms of action, and clinical perspectives for diarrhea management in children. Food Funct 9: 5074-5095. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8FO00376A
    [7] Beltrán JMG, Silvera DG, Ruiz CE, et al. (2020) Effects of dietary Origanum vulgare on gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata L.) immune and antioxidant status. Fish Shellfish Immunol 99: 452-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2020.02.040
    [8] Rashidian G, Boldaji JT, Rainis S, et al. (2021) Oregano (Origanum vulgare) extract enhances zebrafish (Danio rerio) growth performance, serum and mucus innate immune responses, and resistance against Aeromonas hydrophila challenge. Animals 11: 299. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11020299
    [9] Rashidian G, Kajbaf K, Prokić MD, et al. (2020) Extract of common mallow (Malvae sylvestris) enhances growth, immunity, and resistance of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fingerlings against Yersinia ruckeri infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol 96: 254-261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2019.12.018
    [10] Rashidian G, Mahboub HH, Fahim A, et al. (2022) Mooseer (Allium hirtifolium) boosts growth, general health status, and resistance of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) against Streptococcus iniae infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol 120: 360-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2021.12.012
    [11] Rashidian G, Shahin K, Elshopakey GE, et al. (2022) The dietary effects of nutmeg (Myristica fragrans) extract on growth, hematological parameters, immunity, antioxidant status, and disease resistance of common carp (Cyprinus carpio) against Aeromonas hydrophila. J Mar Sci Eng 10: 325. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse10030325
    [12] Iswarya A, Vaseeharan B, Anjugam M, et al. (2018) β-1,3 glucan binding protein-based selenium nanowire enhances the immune status of Cyprinus carpio and protection against Aeromonas hydrophila infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol 83: 61-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2018.08.057
    [13] Mirbakhsh M, Ghaednia B, Zorriehzahra MJ, et al. (2022) Dietary mixed and sprayed probiotic improves growth performance and digestive enzymes of juvenile whiteleg shrimp (Litopenaeusvannamei, Boone, 1931). J Appl Aquac 82: 823-836. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454438.2022.2032528
    [14] Brachkova MI, Duarte MA, Pinto JF (2010) Preservation of viability and antibacterial activity of Lactobacillus spp. in calcium alginate beads. Eur J Pharm Sci 41: 589-596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2010.08.008
    [15] Mohammadi R, Mortazavian AM, Khosrokhavar R, et al. (2011) Probiotic ice cream: viability of probiotic bacteria and sensory properties. Ann Microbiol 61: 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-010-0188-z
    [16] Hod K, Ringel Y (2016) Probiotics in functional bowel disorders. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 30: 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpg.2016.01.003
    [17] Borriello SP, Hammes WP, Holzapfel W, et al. (2003) Safety of probiotics that contain lactobacilli or bifidobacteria. Clin Infect Dis 36: 775-780. https://doi.org/10.1086/368080
    [18] Gupta V, Garg R (2009) Probiotics. Indian J Med Microbiol 27: 202-209. https://doi.org/10.4103/0255-0857.53201
    [19] Sinha R, Jindal R, Faggio C (2021) Protective effect of Emblica officinalis in Cyprinus carpio against hepatotoxicity induced by malachite green: Ultrastructural and molecular analysis. J Appl Sci 11: 3507. https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083507
    [20] Durazzo A, Nazhand A, Lucarini M, et al. (2020) An updated overview on nanonutraceuticals: Focus on nanoprebiotics and nanoprobiotics. Int J Mol Sci 21: 2285. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21072285
    [21] Morshedi V, Bojarski B, Hamedi S, et al. (2021) Effects of dietary bovine lactoferrin on growth performance and immuno-physiological responses of Asian sea bass (Lates calcarifer) fingerlings. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 13: 1790-1797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-021-09805-4
    [22] Van Doan H, Hoseinifar SH, Ringø E, et al. (2020) Host-associated probiotics: A key factor in sustainable aquaculture. Rev Fish Sci Aquac 28: 16-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/23308249.2019.1643288
    [23] Kalita R, Pegu A, Baruah C (2023) Prospects of probiotics and fish growth-promoting bacteria in aquaculture: A review. Int J Agri Biosci 12: 234-244. https://doi.org/10.47278/journal.ijab/2023.070
    [24] Deivi Arunachalam K, Kuruva JK, Pradhoshini KP, et al. (2021) Antioxidant and antigenotoxic potential of Morinda tinctoria Roxb. leaf extract succeeding cadmium exposure in Asian catfish, Pangasius sutchi. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 249: 109149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2021.109149
    [25] Hamed HS, Ismal SM, Faggio C (2021) Effect of allicin on antioxidant defense system and immune response after carbofuran exposure in Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol 240: 108919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2020.108919
    [26] Bidura IGNG, Siti NW, Wibawa AAPP, et al. (2023) Improving the quality of tofu waste by mixing it with carrots and probiotics as a feed source of probiotics and β-carotene. Int J Vet Sci 12: 407-413. https://doi.org/10.47278/journal.ijvs/2022.213
    [27] Guardiola FA, Porcino C, Cerezuela R, et al. (2016) Impact of date palm fruit extracts and probiotic-enriched diet on antioxidant status, innate immune response, and immune-related gene expression of European seabass (Dicentrarchuslabrax). Fish Shellfish Immunol 52: 298-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2016.03.152
    [28] Weichselbaum E (2009) Probiotics and health: A review of the evidence. Nutr Bull 34: 340-373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2009.01782.x
    [29] Pattanashetti NA, Heggannavar GB, Kariduraganavar MY (2017) Smart biopolymers and their biomedical applications. Procedia Manuf 12: 263-279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.08.030
    [30] Rebelo R, Fernandes M, Fangueiro R (2017) Biopolymers in medical implants: A brief review. Procedia Eng 200: 236-243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.07.034
    [31] Aggarwal J, Sharma S, Kamyab H, et al. (2020) The realm of biopolymers and their usage: An overview. J Environ Treat Tech 8: 1005-1016. Available from: https://www.dormaj.com/docs/Volume8/Issue%203/The%20Realm%20of%20Biopolymers%20and%20Their%20Usage%20-%20An%20Overview.pdf
    [32] Udayakumar GP, Muthusamy S, Selvaganesh B, et al. (2021) Biopolymers and composites: Properties, characterization, and their applications in food, medical, and pharmaceutical industries. J Environ Chem Eng 9: 105322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.105322
    [33] Rashidian G, Zare M, Tabibi H, et al. (2023) The synergistic effects of four medicinal plant seeds and chelated minerals on the growth, immunity, and antioxidant capacity of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Fish Shellfish Immunol 139: 108930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2023.108930
    [34] Varma K, Gopi S (2021) Biopolymers and their role in medicinal and pharmaceutical applications. Biopolymers and Their Industrial Applications . Amsterdam: Elsevier 175-191. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819240-5.00007-9
    [35] Lumsangkul C, Linh NV, Chaiwan F, et al. (2022) Dietary treatment of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) with aquatic fern (Azolla caroliniana) improves growth performance, immunological response, and disease resistance against Streptococcus agalactiae cultured in a bio-floc system. Aquac Rep 24: 101114.10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aqrep.2022.101114
    [36] Paulpandian P, Beevi IS, Somanath B, et al. (2023) Impact of Camellia sinensis iron oxide nanoparticle on growth, hemato-biochemical, and antioxidant capacity of blue gourami (Trichogastertrichopterus) fingerlings. Biol Trace Elem Res 201: 412-424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-022-03145-2
    [37] Kumar J, Priyadharshini M, Madhavi M, et al. (2022) Impact of Hygrophila auriculata supplementary diets on the growth, survival, biochemical, and hematological parameters in fingerlings of freshwater fish Cirrhinusmrigala (Hamilton, 1822). Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol 263: 111097. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.111097
    [38] Parker G (2008) Measuring the environmental performance of food packaging: Life cycle assessment. Environmentally Compatible Food Packaging . Woodhead Publishing 211-237. https://doi.org/10.1533/9781845694784.2.211
    [39] Gabor D, Tita O (2012) Biopolymers used in food packaging: A review. Acta Univ Cibiniensis, Ser E: Food Technol 16. Available from: https://saiapm.ulbsibiu.ro/cercetare/ACTA_E/AUCFT2012_II_3_19.pdf
    [40] Shankar S, Rhim JW (2018) Bionanocomposite films for food packaging applications. Reference Module in Food Science . Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100596-5.21875-1
    [41] Hassan MES, Bai J, Dou DQ (2019) Biopolymers: Definition, classification, and applications. Egypt J Chem 62: 1725-1737. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejchem.2019.6967.1580
    [42] Soldo A, Miletić M, Auad ML (2020) Biopolymers as a sustainable solution for the enhancement of soil mechanical properties. Sci Rep 10: 267. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57135-x
    [43] Song J, Winkeljann B, Lieleg O (2020) Biopolymer-based coatings: Promising strategies to improve the biocompatibility and functionality of materials used in biomedical engineering. Adv Mater Interfaces 7: 2000850. https://doi.org/10.1002/admi.202000850
    [44] Sadasivuni K, Saha P, Adhikari J, et al. (2020) Recent advances in mechanical properties of biopolymer composites. Polym Compos 41: 32-59. https://doi.org/10.1002/pc.25356
    [45] Yadav P, Yadav H, Shah VG, et al. (2015) Biomedical biopolymers, their origin and evolution in biomedical sciences: A systematic review. J Clin Diagn Res 9: ZE21-ZE25. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/13907.6565
    [46] Jummaat F, Yahya EB, Khalil HPSA, et al. (2021) The role of biopolymer-based materials in obstetrics and gynecology applications: A review. Polymers 13: 633. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13040633
    [47] Reddy MSB, Ponnamma D, Choudhary R, et al. (2021) A comparative review of natural and synthetic biopolymer composite scaffolds. Polymers 13: 1105. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13071105
    [48] Olivia M, Jingga H, Toni N, et al. (2018) Biopolymers to improve physical properties and leaching characteristics of mortar and concrete: A review. IOP Conference Series: Mater Sci Eng . IOP Publishing 012028. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/345/1/012028
    [49] Holzapfel WH, Haberer P, Geisen R, et al. (2001) Taxonomy and important features of probiotic microorganisms in food and nutrition. Am J Clin Nutr 73: 365s-373s. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/73.2.365s
    [50] Muneeshwaran M, Srinivasan G, Muthukumar P, et al. (2021) Role of hybrid-nanofluid in heat transfer enhancement–A review. Int Commun Heat Mass Transfer 125: 105341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2021.105341
    [51] Pirsa S, Hafezi K (2023) Hydrocolloids: Structure, preparation method, and application in food industry. Food Chem 399: 133967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2022.133967
    [52] Mandal S, Puniya AK, Singh K (2006) Effect of alginate concentrations on survival of microencapsulated Lactobacillus casei NCDC-298. Int Dairy J 16: 1190-1195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2005.10.005
    [53] Burgain J, Gaiani C, Francius G, et al. (2013) In vitro interactions between probiotic bacteria and milk proteins probed by atomic force microscopy. Colloids Surf B: Biointerfaces 104: 153-162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2012.11.032
    [54] Trabelsi I, Ayadi D, Bejar W, et al. (2014) Effects of Lactobacillus plantarum immobilization in alginate coated with chitosan and gelatin on antibacterial activity. Int J Biol l Macromol 64: 84-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2013.11.031
    [55] Joye IJ, McClements DJ (2014) Biopolymer-based nanoparticles and microparticles: Fabrication, characterization, and application. Curr Opin Colloid Interface Sci 19: 417-427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2014.07.002
    [56] Shi LE, Li ZH, Li DT, et al. (2013) Encapsulation of probiotic Lactobacillus bulgaricus in alginate–milk microspheres and evaluation of the survival in simulated gastrointestinal conditions. J Food Eng 117: 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2013.02.012
    [57] Wandrey C, Bartkowiak A, Harding SE (2010) Materials for encapsulation. Encapsulation Technologies for Active Food Ingredients and Food Processing . New York: Springer 31-100. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1008-0_3
    [58] Guérin D, Vuillemard JC, Subirade M (2003) Protection of bifidobacteria encapsulated in polysaccharide-protein gel beads against gastric juice and bile. J Food Prot 66: 2076-2084. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-66.11.2076
    [59] Lopes S, Bueno L, Aguiar, FD, et al. (2017) Preparation and characterization of alginate and gelatin microcapsules containing Lactobacillus rhamnosus. An Acad Bras 89: 1601-1613. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765201720170071
    [60] Ramos PE, Silva P, Alario MM, et al. (2018) Effect of alginate molecular weight and M/G ratio in beads properties foreseeing the protection of probiotics. Food Hydrocoll 77: 8-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2017.08.031
    [61] Zhang Z, Gu M, You X, et al. (2021) Encapsulation of bifidobacterium in alginate microgels improves viability and targeted gut release. Food Hydrocoll 116: 106634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106634
    [62] Sathyabama S, Vijayabharathi R (2014) Co-encapsulation of probiotics with prebiotics on alginate matrix and its effect on viability in simulated gastric environment. LWT-Food Sci Technol 57: 419-425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.12.024
    [63] Martin MJ, Lara-Villoslada F, Ruiz MA, et al. (2013) Effect of unmodified starch on viability of alginate-encapsulated Lactobacillus fermentum CECT5716. LWT-Food Sci Technol 53: 480-486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.03.019
    [64] Cheow WS, Kiew TY, Hadinoto K (2014) Controlled release of Lactobacillus rhamnosus biofilm probiotics from alginate-locust bean gum microcapsules. Carbohydr Polym 103: 587-595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.01.036
    [65] Song H, Yu W, Liu X, et al. (2014) Improved probiotic viability in stress environments with post-culture of alginate–chitosan microencapsulated low density cells. Carbohydr Polym 108: 10-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.02.084
    [66] Kamalian N, Mirhosseini H, Mustafa S, et al. (2014) Effect of alginate and chitosan on viability and release behavior of Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum G4 in simulated gastrointestinal fluid. Carbohydr Polym 111: 700-706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2014.05.014
    [67] Cook MT, Tzortzis G, Charalampopoulos D, et al. (2012) Microencapsulation of probiotics for gastrointestinal delivery. J Control Release CR 162: 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2012.06.003
    [68] Nualkaekul S, Cook MT, Khutoryanskiy VV, et al. (2013) Influence of encapsulation and coating materials on the survival of Lactobacillus plantarum and Bifidobacterium longum in fruit juices. Food Res Int 53: 304-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.04.019
    [69] de Araújo Etchepare M, Raddatz GC, de Moraes Flores ÉM, et al. (2016) Effect of resistant starch and chitosan on survival of Lactobacillus acidophilus microencapsulated with sodium alginate. LWT-Food Sci Technol 65: 511-517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2015.08.039
    [70] Mirtič J, Rijavec T, Zupančič Š, et al. (2018) Development of probiotic-loaded microcapsules for local delivery: Physical properties, cell release and growth. Eur J Pharm Sci 121: 178-187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2018.05.022
    [71] Fareez IM, Lim SM, Mishra RK, et al. (2015) Chitosan-coated alginate–xanthan gum bead enhanced pH and thermotolerance of Lactobacillus plantarum LAB12. Int J Biol Macromol 72: 1419-1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2014.10.054
    [72] Albadran HA, Monteagudo-Mera A, Khutoryanskiy VV, et al. (2020) Development of chitosan-coated agar-gelatin particles for probiotic delivery and targeted release in the gastrointestinal tract. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 104: 5749-5757. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10632-w
    [73] Jia S, Zhou K, Pan R, et al. (2020) Oral immunization of carps with chitosan–alginate microcapsule containing probiotics expressing spring viremia of carp virus (SVCV) G protein provides effective protection against SVCV infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol 105: 327-329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fsi.2020.07.052
    [74] Argin S, Kofinas P, Lo YM (2014) The cell release kinetics and the swelling behavior of physically crosslinked xanthan–chitosan hydrogels in simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Food Hydrocoll 40: 138-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2014.02.018
    [75] De Prisco A, Maresca D, Ongeng D, et al. (2015) Microencapsulation by vibrating technology of the probiotic strain Lactobacillus reuteri DSM 17938 to enhance its survival in foods and in gastrointestinal environment. LWT-Food Sci Technol 61: 452-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.12.011
    [76] Graff S, Hussain S, Chaumeil JC, et al. (2008) Increased intestinal delivery of viable Saccharomyces boulardii by encapsulation in microspheres. Pharm Res 25: 1290-1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-007-9528-5
    [77] Krasaekoopt W, Watcharapoka S (2014) Effect of addition of inulin and galactooligosaccharide on the survival of microencapsulated probiotics in alginate beads coated with chitosan in the simulated digestive system, yogurt, and fruit juice. LWT-Food Sci Technol 57: 761-766. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2014.01.037
    [78] Picot A, Lacroix C (2004) Encapsulation of bifidobacteria in whey protein-based microcapsules and survival in simulated gastrointestinal conditions and in yogurt. Int Dairy J 14: 505-515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2003.10.008
    [79] Rodklongtan A, La-ongkham O, Nitisinprasert S, et al. (2014) Enhancement of Lactobacillus reuteri KUB-AC5 survival in broiler gastrointestinal tract by microencapsulation with alginate–chitosan semi-interpenetrating polymer networks. J Appl Microbiol 117: 227-238. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12517
    [80] Wu QX, Xu X, Xie Q, et al. (2016) Evaluation of chitosan hydrochloride-alginate as enteric micro-probiotic-carrier with dual protective barriers. Int J Biol Macromol 93: 665-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2016.09.034
    [81] Alfaro-Galarza O, López-Villegas EO, Rivero-Perez N, et al. (2020) Protective effects of the use of taro and rice starch as wall material on the viability of encapsulated Lactobacillus paracasei subsp. paracasei. LWT 117: 108686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.108686
    [82] Dafe A, Etemadi H, Dilmaghani A, et al. (2017) Investigation of pectin/starch hydrogel as a carrier for oral delivery of probiotic bacteria. Int J Biol Macromol 97: 536-543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.01.060
    [83] Benavent-Gil Y, Rodrigo D, Rosell CM (2018) Thermal stabilization of probiotics by adsorption onto porous starches. Carbohydr Polym 197: 558-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2018.06.044
    [84] Zanjani MAK, Ehsani MR, Ghiassi Tarzi B, et al. (2018) Promoting Lactobacillus casei and Bifidobacterium adolescentis survival by microencapsulation with different starches and chitosan and poly L-lysine coatings in ice cream. J Food Process Preserv 42: e13318. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.13318
    [85] Varshosaz J, Ghassami E, Ahmadipour S (2018) Crystal engineering for enhanced solubility and bioavailability of poorly soluble drugs. Curr Pharm l Des 24: 2473-2496. https://doi.org/10.2174/1381612824666180712104447
    [86] Aitipamula S, Banerjee R, Bansal AK, et al. (2012) Polymorphs, salts, and cocrystals: What's in a name?. CrystEngComm 14: 7511-7512. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ce26325d
    [87] Childs SL, Chyall LJ, Dunlap JT, et al. (2004) Crystal engineering approach to forming cocrystals of amine hydrochlorides with organic acids. Mol Pharmaceutics 1: 126-138. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja048114o
    [88] Loftsson T, Duchêne D (2007) Cyclodextrins and their pharmaceutical applications. Int J Pharm 329: 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2006.10.044
    [89] Talebian S, Schofield T, Valtchev P, et al. (2022) Biopolymer-based multilayer microparticles for probiotic delivery to colon. Adv Healthc Mater 11: 2102487. https://doi.org/10.1002/adhm.202102487
    [90] Yao M, Xie J, Du H, et al. (2020) Progress in microencapsulation of probiotics: A review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 19: 857-874. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12532
    [91] Lin Q, Si Y, Zhou F, et al. (2023) Advances in polysaccharides for probiotic delivery: Properties, methods, and applications. Carbohydr Polym 121414. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2023.121414
    [92] Nezamdoost-Sani N, Khaledabad MA, Amiri S, et al. (2023) Alginate and derivatives hydrogels in encapsulation of probiotic bacteria: An updated review. Food Biosci 52: 102433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2023.1024
    [93] Li J, Jia X, Yin L (2021) Hydrogel: Diversity of structures and applications in food science. Food Rev Int 37: 313-372. https://doi.org/10.1080/87559129.2020.1858313
    [94] Summonte S, Racaniello GF, Lopedota A, et al. (2021) Thiolated polymeric hydrogels for biomedical application: Cross-linking mechanisms. J Control Release 330: 470-482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.12.037
    [95] Kwiecień I, Kwiecień M (2018) Application of polysaccharide-based hydrogels as probiotic delivery systems. Gels 4: 47. https://doi.org/10.3390/gels4020047
    [96] Qi X, Simsek S, Chen B, et al. (2020) Alginate-based double-network hydrogel improves the viability of encapsulated probiotics during simulated sequential gastrointestinal digestion: Effect of biopolymer type and concentrations. Int J Biol Macromol 165: 1675-1685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.10.028
    [97] Wang X, Gao S, Yun S, et al. (2022) Microencapsulating alginate-based polymers for probiotics delivery systems and their application. Pharmers 15: 644. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph15050644
    [98] Szejtli J (1998) Introduction and general overview of cyclodextrin chemistry. Chem Rev 98: 1743-1753. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jozsef-Szejtli/publication/250509556_ChemInform_Abstract_Introduction_and_General_Overview_of_Cyclodextrin_Chemistry/links/615eb235fbd5153f47ea45d1/ChemInform-Abstract-Introduction-and-General-Overview-of-Cyclodextrin-Chemistry.pdf.
    [99] Smith A, Johnson B (2020) Applications of rotating disks in engineering. J Eng Sci 15: 45-58.
    [100] Johnson C, Lee D (2019) Rotating disks: A comprehensive review. Int J Mech Eng 7: 112-125.
    [101] Mortazavian A, Razavi SH, Ehsani MR, et al. (2007) Principles and methods of microencapsulation of probiotic microorganisms. Iran J Biotechnol 5: 1-18.
    [102] Doe J, Smith A (2021) Applications of solvent evaporation in industrial processes. J Chem Eng 25: 78-92.
    [103] Bosnea LA, Moschakis T, Biliaderis CG (2014) Complex coacervation as a novel microencapsulation technique to improve viability of probiotics under different stresses. Food Bioproc Tech 7: 2767-2781. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-014-1317-7
    [104] da Silva TM, de Deus C, de Souza Fonseca B, et al. (2019) The effect of enzymatic crosslinking on the viability of probiotic bacteria (Lactobacillus acidophilus) encapsulated by complex coacervation. Food Res Int 125: 108577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108577
    [105] da Silva TM, Pinto VS, Soares VRF, et al. (2021) Viability of microencapsulated Lactobacillus acidophilus by complex coacervation associated with enzymatic crosslinking under application in different fruit juices. Food Res Int 141: 110190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110190
    [106] Lotfipour F, Mirzaeei S, Maghsoodi M (2012) Preparation and characterization of alginate and psyllium beads containing Lactobacillus acidophilus. Sci World J . https://doi.org/10.1100/2012/680108
    [107] Aziz G, Fakhar H, Rahman S, et al. (2019) An assessment of the aggregation and probiotic characteristics of Lactobacillus species isolated from native (desi) chicken gut. J Appl Poult Res 28: 846-857. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfz042
    [108] Huq T, Khan A, Khan RA, et al. (2013) Encapsulation of probiotic bacteria in biopolymeric system. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 53: 909-916. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2011.573152
    [109] Nesterenko A, Alric I, Silvestre F, et al. (2013) Vegetable proteins in microencapsulation: A review of recent interventions and their effectiveness. Ind Crops Prod 42: 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.06.035
    [110] Comunian TA, Favaro-Trindade CS (2016) Microencapsulation using biopolymers as an alternative to produce food enhanced with phytosterols and omega-3 fatty acids: A review. Food Hydrocoll 61: 442-457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2016.06.003
    [111] Li Y, Feng C, Li J, et al. (2017) Construction of multilayer alginate hydrogel beads for oral delivery of probiotics cells. Int J Biol Macromol 105: 924-930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.07.124
    [112] Chávarri M, Marañón I, Ares R, et al. (2010) Microencapsulation of a probiotic and prebiotic in alginate-chitosan capsules improves survival in simulated gastro-intestinal conditions. Int J Food Microbiol 142: 185-189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.06.022
    [113] Heidebach T, Först P, Kulozik U (2010) Influence of casein-based microencapsulation on freeze-drying and storage of probiotic cells. J Food Eng 98: 309-316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.01.003
    [114] Anekella K, Orsat V (2013) Optimization of microencapsulation of probiotics in raspberry juice by spray drying. LWT-Food Sci Technol 50: 17-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2012.08.003
    [115] Etchepare MA, Barreto AR, Cavalheiro CP, et al. (2015) Microencapsulation of probiotics by extrusion method associated with electrostatic interactions. Ciência e Natureza 37: 75-86. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X19718
    [116] Muthukumarasamy P, Allan-Wojtas P, Holley RA (2006) Stability of Lactobacillus reuteri in different types of microcapsules. J Food Sci 71: M20-M24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.tb12395.x
    [117] Zhao Q, Lee S, Mutukumira A, et al. (2011) Viability and delivery of immobilised Lactobacillus reuteri DPC16 within calcium alginate gel systems during sequential passage through simulated gastrointestinal fluids. Benef Microbes 2: 129-138. https://doi.org/10.3920/BM2011.0007
    [118] Huang HY, Tang YJ, King VAE, et al. (2015) Properties of Lactobacillus reuteri chitosan-calcium-alginate encapsulation under simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Int J Microbiol 18: 61-69.
    [119] Kailasapathy K (2009) Encapsulation technologies for functional foods and nutraceutical product development. CAB Rev: Perspect Agric Vet Sci Nutr Nat Resour 4: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1079/PAVSNNR20094033
    [120] Udayakumar S, Rasika DM, Priyashantha H, et al. (2022) Probiotics and beneficial microorganisms in biopreservation of plant-based foods and beverages. Appl Sci 12: 11737. https://doi.org/10.3390/app122211737
    [121] Vijayaram S, Kannan S (2018) Probiotics: The marvelous factor and health benefits. Biomed Biotechnol Res J 2: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/bbrj.bbrj_87_17
    [122] Vijayaram S, Sun YZ, Ringø E, et al. (2024) Probiotics: Foods and health benefits – An updated mini review. CME J Med Microbiol 2: 1-11.
    [123] Safeer Abbas M, Afzaal M, Saeed F, et al. (2023) Probiotic viability as affected by encapsulation materials: Recent updates and perspectives. Int J Food Prop 26: 1324-1350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10942912.2023.2213408
    [124] Sun Q, Yin S, He Y, et al. (2023) Biomaterials and encapsulation techniques for probiotics: Current status and future prospects in biomedical applications. J Nanomater 13: 2185. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano13152185
    [125] Reque PM, Brandelli A (2021) Encapsulation of probiotics and nutraceuticals: Applications in functional food industry. Trends Food Sci Technol 114: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2021.05.022
    [126] Razavi S, Janfaza S, Tasnim N, et al. (2021) Microencapsulating polymers for probiotics delivery systems: Preparation, characterization, and applications. Food Hydrocoll 120: 106882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2021.106882
    [127] Zhang LDH (2020) Recent advances in probiotics encapsulation by electrospinning. ES Food Agrofor 2: 3-12. Available from: https://www.espublisher.com/uploads/article_pdf/esfaf1120.pdf
    [128] Abbas MS, Saeed F, Afzaal M, et al. (2022) Recent trends in encapsulation of probiotics in dairy and beverage: A review. J Food Process Preserv 46: e16689. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfpp.16689
    [129] Huq T, Fraschini C, Khan A, et al. (2017) Alginate based nanocomposite for microencapsulation of probiotic: Effect of cellulose nanocrystal (CNC) and lecithin. Carbohydr Polym 168: 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2017.03.032
    [130] Sampson TR, Mazmanian SK (2015) Control of brain development, function, and behavior by the microbiome. Cell J 167: 969-978. Available from: https://www.cell.com/cell-host-microbe/fulltext/S1931-3128(15)00169-9
    [131] Yu T, Wang X, Hu Y, et al. (2024) Calcium alginate microspheres coated by bio-based UV-cured resin with high water retention performance. Polym Bull 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00289-024-05421-8
    [132] Srivastava N, Choudhury AR (2023) Enhanced encapsulation efficiency and controlled release of co-encapsulated Bacillus coagulans spores and vitamin B9 in gellan/κ-carrageenan/chitosan tri-composite hydrogel. Int J Biol Macromol 227: 231-240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2022.12.118
    [133] Bahrami Z, Roomiani L, Javadzadeh N, et al. (2023) Microencapsulation of Lactobacillus plantarum in the alginate/chitosan improves immunity, disease resistance, and growth of Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus). Fish Physiol Biochem 49: 815-828. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10695-023-01224-2
    [134] Meng XC, Stanton C, Fitzgerald GF, et al. (2008) Anhydrobiotics: The challenges of drying probiotic cultures. Food Chem 106: 1406-1416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.04.076
    [135] Menshutina NV, Gordienko MG, Voinovskiy AA, et al. (2010) Spray drying of probiotics: Process development and scale-up. Drying Tech 28: 1170-1177. https://doi.org/10.1080/07373937.2010.483043
    [136] Chen MJ, Chen KN (2007) Applications of probiotic encapsulation in dairy products. Encapsulation and Controlled Release Technologies in Food Systems . New Jersey: Blackwell Publishing 83-112. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470277881.ch4
    [137] de Vos P, Faas MM, Spasojevic M, et al. (2010) Encapsulation for preservation of functionality and targeted delivery of bioactive food components. Int Dairy J 20: 292-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2009.11.008
    [138] Maciel GM, Chaves KS, Grosso CRF, et al. (2014) Microencapsulation of Lactobacillus acidophilus La-5 by spray-drying using sweet whey and skim milk as encapsulating materials. J Dairy Sci 97: 1991-1998. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2013-7463
    [139] Smith J, Johnson B (2021) Encapsulation techniques for improving probiotic viability. J Food Sci 65: 102-115.
    [140] Ying D, Schwander S, Weerakkody R, et al. (2013) Microencapsulated Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG in whey protein and resistant starch matrices: Probiotic survival in fruit juice. J Funct Foods 5: 98-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2012.08.009
    [141] Voo WP, Ravindra P, Tey BT, et al. (2011) Comparison of alginate and pectin-based beads for production of poultry probiotic cells. J Biosci Bioeng 111: 294-299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiosc.2010.11.010
    [142] Rokka S, Rantamäki P (2010) Protecting probiotic bacteria by microencapsulation: Challenges for industrial applications. Eur Food Res Technol 231: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-010-1246-2
    [143] Gunathilake T, Akanbi TO, Suleria HA, et al. (2022) Seaweed phenolics as natural antioxidants, aquafeed additives, veterinary treatments and cross-linkers for microencapsulation. Mar Drugs 20: 445. https://doi.org/10.3390/md20070445
    [144] Durante M, Lenucci MS, Laddomada B, et al. (2012) Effects of sodium alginate bead encapsulation on the storage stability of durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) bran oil extracted by supercritical CO2. J Agric Food Chem 60: 10689-10695. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf303162m
    [145] Santivarangkna C, Kulozik U, Foerst P (2008) Inactivation mechanisms of lactic acid starter cultures preserved by drying processes. J Appl Microbiol 105: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03744.x
    [146] Krasaekoopt W, Bhandari B, Deeth H (2003) Evaluation of encapsulation techniques of probiotics for yoghurt. Int Dairy J 13: 3-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(02)00155-3
    [147] Picot A, Lacroix C (2003) Effects of micronization on viability and thermotolerance of probiotic freeze-dried cultures. Int Dairy J 13: 455-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-6946(03)00050-5
    [148] Rutherford WM, Allen JE, Schlameus HW, et al. Dried, rotary disc microspheres of microorganisms (1993). Available from: https://patents.google.com/patent/WO1993017094A1/lista_geral_produtos_quimicos.pdf
    [149] Fu N, Chen XD (2011) Towards a maximal cell survival in convective thermal drying processes. Food Res Int 44: 1127-1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.03.053
    [150] Santivarangkna C, Kulozik U, Foerst P (2008) Inactivation mechanisms of lactic acid starter cultures preserved by drying processes. J Appl Microbiol 105: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03744.x
    [151] Jones AB, Smith CD, Johnson EF (2019) Enhancing probiotic viability through encapsulation: A comprehensive review. J Food Sci 67: 102-115.
    [152] Hammond PT (2012) Building biomedical materials layer-by-layer. Mater Today 15: 196-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-7021(12)70090-1
    [153] Anselmo AC, McHugh KJ, Webster J, et al. (2016) Layer-by-layer encapsulation of probiotics for delivery to the microbiome. Adv Mater 28: 9486-9490. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201603270
    [154] Ziabicki A (1976) Conditioning and heat-treatment, ch. 7. Fundamentals of Fiber Formation .
    [155] Akbar Z, Zahoor T, Huma N, et al. (2018) Electrospun probiotics: an alternative for encapsulation. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 32: 1551-1556.
    [156] Mojaveri SJ, Hosseini SF, Gharsallaoui A (2020) Viability improvement of Bifidobacterium animalis Bb12 by encapsulation in chitosan/poly (vinyl alcohol) hybrid electrospun fiber mats. Carbohydr Polym 241: 116278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116278
    [157] Lancuški A, Ammar AA, Avrahami R, et al. (2017) Design of starch-formate compound fibers as encapsulation platform for biotherapeutics. Carbohydr Polym 158: 68-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2016.12.003
    [158] Ceylan Z, Meral R, Karakaş CY, et al. (2018) A novel strategy for probiotic bacteria: Ensuring microbial stability of fish fillets using characterized probiotic bacteria-loaded nanofibers. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 48: 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2018.07.002
    [159] Yilmaz MT, Taylan O, Karakas CY, et al. (2020) An alternative way to encapsulate probiotics within electrospun alginate nanofibers as monitored under simulated gastrointestinal conditions and in kefir. Carbohydr Polym 244: 116447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2020.116447
    [160] Zupančič Š, Škrlec K, Kocbek P, et al. (2019) Effects of electrospinning on the viability of ten species of lactic acid bacteria in poly (ethylene oxide) nanofibers. Pharmers 11: 483. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics11090483
    [161] Yu H, Liu W, Li D, et al. (2020) Targeting delivery system for Lactobacillus plantarum based on functionalized electrospun nanofibers. Polymers 12: 1565. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym12071565
    [162] López-Rubio A, Sanchez E, Sanz Y, et al. (2009) Encapsulation of living bifidobacteria in ultrathin PVOH electrospun fibers. Biomacromolecules 10: 2823-2829. https://doi.org/10.1021/bm900660b
    [163] Torres-Giner S, Martinez-Abad A, Ocio MJ, et al. (2010) Stabilization of a nutraceutical omega-3 fatty acid by encapsulation in ultrathin electrosprayed zein prolamine. J Food Sci 75: N69-N79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01678.x
    [164] Atraki R, Azizkhani M (2021) Survival of probiotic bacteria nanoencapsulated within biopolymers in a simulated gastrointestinal model. Innov Food Sci Emerg Techn 72: 102750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2021.102750
    [165] Popović M, Stojanović M, Veličković Z, et al. (2021) Characterization of potential probiotic strain, L. reuteri B2, and its microencapsulation using alginate-based biopolymers. Int J Biol Macromol 183: 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.04.177
    [166] Yeung TW, Arroyo-Maya IJ, McClements DJ, et al. (2016) Microencapsulation of probiotics in hydrogel particles: enhancing Lactococcus lactis subsp. Cremoris LM0230 viability using calcium alginate beads. Food Funct 7: 1797-1804. https://doi.org/10.1039/C5FO00801H
    [167] Nami Y, Haghshenas B, Yari Khosroushahi A (2017) Effect of psyllium and gum Arabic biopolymers on the survival rate and storage stability in yogurt of Enterococcus durans IW 3 encapsulated in alginate. Food Sci Nutr 5: 554-563. https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.430
    [168] Vega-Carranza AS, Cervantes-Chávez JA, Luna-Bárcenas G, et al. (2021) Alginate microcapsules as delivery and protective systems of Bacillus licheniformis in a simulated shrimp's digestive tract. Aquac 540: 736675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2021.736675
    [169] Mahmoud M, Abdallah NA, El-Shafei K, et al. (2020) Survivability of alginate-microencapsulated Lactobacillus plantarum during storage, simulated food processing, and gastrointestinal conditions. Heliyon 6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03541
    [170] Rocha AA, Santos GAS, Ribeiro JE, et al. (2022) Recent progress in biopolymer-based delivery systems and coatings for improving stability, bioavailability, and efficacy of nutraceutical products. Biopolymers in Nutraceuticals and Functional Foods 36-53. https://doi.org/10.1039/9781839168048-00036
    [171] Brinques GB, Ayub MA (2011) Effect of microencapsulation on survival of Lactobacillus plantarum in simulated gastrointestinal conditions, refrigeration, yogurt. J Food Eng 103: 123-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.10.006
    [172] Haghshenas B, Abdullah N, Nami Y, et al. (2015) Microencapsulation of probiotic bacteria Lactobacillus plantarum 15 HN using alginate-psyllium-fenugreek polymeric blends. J Appl Microbiol 118: 1048-1057. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.12762
    [173] Khan NH, Korber DR, Low NH, et al. (2013) Development of extrusion-based legume protein isolate–alginate capsules for the protection and delivery of the acid-sensitive probiotic, Bifidobacterium adolescentis. Food Res Int 54: 730-737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2013.08.017
    [174] Mirzamani SS, Bassiri AR, Tavakolipour H, et al. (2021) Survival of fluidized bed encapsulated Lactobacillus acidophilus under simulated gastro-intestinal conditions and heat treatment during bread baking. J Food Meas Charact 15: 5477-5484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11694-021-01108-0
    [175] Sheu TY, Marshall RT, Heymann H (1993) Improving survival of culture bacteria in frozen desserts by microentrapment. J Dairy Sci D S 76: 1902-1907. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(93)77523-2
    [176] Hadidi M, Majidiyan N, Jelyani AZ, et al. (2021) Alginate/fish gelatin-encapsulated Lactobacillus acidophilus: A study on viability and technological quality of bread during baking and storage. Foods 10: 2215. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10092215
    [177] Tapia MS, Rojas-Graü MA, Rodríguez FJ, et al. (2007) Alginate-and gellan-based edible films for probiotic coatings on fresh-cut fruits. J Food Sci 72: E190-E196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2007.00318.x
    [178] Namratha S, Sreejit V, Preetha R (2020) Fabrication and evaluation of physicochemical properties of probiotic edible film based on pectin–alginate–casein composite. Int J Food Sci Technol 55: 1497-1505. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14550
    [179] Lemay MJ, Champagne CP, Gariépy C, et al. (2002) A comparison of the effect of meat formulation on the heat resistance of free or encapsulated cultures of Lactobacillus sakei. J Food Sci 67: 3428-3434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb09601.x
    [180] Yin J, Wang S, Sang X, et al. (2022) Spray cooling as a high-efficient thermal management solution: A review. Energies 15: 8547. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15228547
    [181] Ljungh Å, Wadström T (2006) Lactic acid bacteria as probiotics. Curr Opinin Microbiol 9: 239-244.
    [182] Ouwehand A, Salminen S, von Wright A, et al. (2020) Lactic Acid Bacteria: Microbiological and Functional Aspects. Florida: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003352075
    [183] Yao M, Lu Y, Zhang T, et al. (2021) Improved functionality of Ligilactobacillus salivarius Li01 in alleviating colonic inflammation by layer-by-layer microencapsulation. npj Biofilms 7: 58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41522-021-00228-1
    [184] Iqbal UH, Westfall S, Prakash S (2018) Novel microencapsulated probiotic blend for use in metabolic syndrome: design and in-vivo analysis. Artif Cells Nanomed Biotechnol 46: 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/21691401.2018.1489270
    [185] Silva JA, De Gregorio PR, Rivero G, et al. (2021) Immobilization of vaginal Lactobacillus in polymeric nanofibers for its incorporation in vaginal probiotic products. Eur J Pharm Sci 156: 105563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejps.2020.105563
    [186] Del Piano M, Carmagnola S, Andorno S, et al. (2010) Evaluation of the intestinal colonization by microencapsulated probiotic bacteria in comparison with the same uncoated strains. J Clin Gastroenterol 44: S42-S46. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCG.0b013e3181ed0e71
    [187] Sipailiene A, Petraityte S (2018) Encapsulation of probiotics: Proper selection of the probiotic strain and the influence of encapsulation technology and materials on the viability of encapsulated microorganisms. Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 10: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12602-017-9347-x
    [188] Fakhrullin RF, Lvov YM (2012) Face-lifting and make-up for microorganisms: Layer-by-layer polyelectrolyte nanocoating. ACS Nano 6: 4557-4564. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn301776y
    [189] Tripathi P, Beaussart A, Alsteens D, et al. (2013) Adhesion and nanomechanics of pili from the probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG. ACS Nano 7: 3685-3697. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn400705u
    [190] Sultana K, Godward G, Reynolds N, et al. (2000) Encapsulation of probiotic bacteria with alginate–starch and evaluation of survival in simulated gastrointestinal conditions and in yogurt. Int J Food Microbiol 62: 47-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(00)00380-9
    [191] Gbassi GK, Vandamme T, Ennahar S, et al. (2009) Microencapsulation of Lactobacillus plantarum spp. in an alginate matrix coated with whey proteins. Int J Food Microbiol 129: 103-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.11.012
    [192] Tripathi MK, Giri SK (2014) Probiotic functional foods: Survival of probiotics during processing and storage. J Funct Foods 9: 225-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jff.2014.04.030
    [193] Nedovic V, Kalusevic A, Manojlovic V, et al. (2011) An overview of encapsulation technologies for food applications. Procedia Food Sci 1: 1806-1815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2011.09.265
    [194] Reyes V, Chotiko A, Chouljenko A, et al. (2018) Viability of Lactobacillus acidophilus NRRL B-4495 encapsulated with high maize starch, maltodextrin, and gum arabic. Lwt 96: 642-647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.06.017
    [195] Thangrongthong S, Puttarat N, Ladda B, et al. (2020) Microencapsulation of probiotic Lactobacillus brevis ST-69 producing GABA using alginate supplemented with nanocrystalline starch. Food Sci Biotechnol 29: 1475-1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-020-00812-9
    [196] Chen B, Lin X, Lin X, et al. (2020) Pectin-microfibrillated cellulose microgel: Effects on survival of lactic acid bacteria in a simulated gastrointestinal tract. Int J Biol Macromol 158: 826-836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.04.161
    [197] Zabihollahi N, Alizadeh A, Almasi H, et al. (2020) Development and characterization of carboxymethyl cellulose-based probiotic nanocomposite film containing cellulose nanofiber and inulin for chicken fillet shelf life extension. Int J Biol Macromol 160: 409-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.05.066
    [198] Chitprasert P, Sudsai P, Rodklongtan A (2012) Aluminum carboxymethyl cellulose–rice bran microcapsules: Enhancing survival of Lactobacillus reuteri KUB-AC5. Carbohydr Polym 90: 78-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbpol.2012.04.065
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Fanghui Hu, Panlin Wang, Yunhan Li, Jiahuan Ling, Yongqiang Ruan, Jiaojiao Yu, Lihui Zhang, Bioremediation of environmental organic pollutants by Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Mechanisms, methods and challenges, 2023, 239, 00139351, 117211, 10.1016/j.envres.2023.117211
    2. Deepa Goswami, Priyanka Sarkar, Jayanti Mukherjee, Chanchal Mondal, Biswanath Bhunia, Improved Biodegradation of Reactive Red 120 by Pseudomonas aeruginosa JU_CHE_01: Isolation, Characterization, and Statistical Optimization, 2025, 53, 1863-0650, 10.1002/clen.70017
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2119) PDF downloads(133) Cited by(6)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(1)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog