Microencapsulation of ferrous sulfate by spray drying for ...
20
Microencapsulation of ferrous sulfate by spray drying for further incorporation into a plant protein - based structured food 30 th EFFoST - 2016 Vienna Food Process Engineering Group- WUR/Netherland 1 Laboratory of Food Development for Specific Health Purposes-UFRJ/Brazil 2 Patrícia Duque Estrada Ralf de Meij 1 , Anna Paola T. R. Pierucci 2 , Claire C. Berton-Carabin 1 , Atze-Jan van der Goot 1
Transcript of Microencapsulation of ferrous sulfate by spray drying for ...
Microencapsulation of ferrous sulfate by spray drying for further incorporation into a plant
protein-based structured food
30th EFFoST - 2016 Vienna
Food Process Engineering Group- WUR/Netherland1
Laboratory of Food Development for Specific Health
Purposes-UFRJ/Brazil2
Patrícia Duque Estrada
Ralf de Meij1, Anna Paola T. R. Pierucci2, Claire C. Berton-Carabin1, Atze-Jan van der Goot1
2 www.fao.org/gleam
Environment Animal welfare Human health
Transition towards a more plant-based diet
3 Hoek et al. Appetite, 56, 3, 662-673, 2011.
Frequency
A realistic option Meat Plant-based meat replacer
Meat replacer consumption
Desir
ed s
imilarity
to m
eat
4
Meat replacers: what is missing?
Structure
Nutritional quality
Price Taste
Production/Sustainable
Consumer acceptance
Shear-induced fibrous structure formation
5 Grabowska et al. Journal of Food Engineering, 188, 2016.
Dekkers et al. Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies, 36, 2016.
SPC (44 wt%)
140 °C/30 rpm/15 min
6
Meat replacers: what is missing?
Structure
Nutritional quality
Price Taste
Production/Sustainable
Consumer acceptance
Nutritional quality: adding nutrients
7
1. Choice of nutrient
2. Type of iron
WHO/FAO, 2006.
Compound Solubility in
gastric juice
Relative bioavailability
Order of preference for
fortification
Stability in a product
Water soluble
Ferrous sulfate
Ferrous gluconate
Poorly water soluble
Ferrous fumarate
Ferrous succinate
Water insoluble
Ferric pyrophosphate
Elemental iron
Ferrous sulfate
Encapsulated ferrous sulfate
Protein oxidation
Sensory defects: off-flavors, texture modification
Loss in nutritional quality
Encapsulation
3. Consequences of adding iron in a product
Metallic taste
Side effects
8
Nutritional quality: adding nutrients
Liposomes
Phase separation
coacervation
Encapsulation techniques
9 Adapted from General process comparison (James Orley, 2014).
Com
ple
xity
Capacity
Batch
(g/L)
Continuous
(tons/h)
Emulsification
Polymerization
Coextrusion
Solvent
evaporation
Spray drying
Coating
Challenges
10
Microparticles
Improving nutritional
quality
Iron Encapsulation
Fortification
Stability
Protein oxidation
11
Heated air
FeSO4.7H2O ( ) 0 Iron encapsulated PPC: Pea Protein Concentrate
Feed solution: PPC + iron
Spray drying
Iron encapsulation
180 °C
90 °C
Aspirator: 90%
1. Ferreira. MSc thesis, 2014. 2. Bittencourt et al. Plant Foods Hum Nutr, v. 68, n. 4, 2013.
12
Heated air
FeSO4.7H2O ( ) 0 Iron encapsulated PPC: Pea Protein Concentrate
Feed solution: PPC + iron
Spray drying
Iron encapsulation
180 °C
90 °C
Aspirator: 90%
1. Ferreira. MSc thesis, 2014. 2. Bittencourt et al. Plant Foods Hum Nutr, v. 68, n. 4, 2013.
Why PPC as a matrix?
13
Heated air
FeSO4.7H2O ( ) 0 Iron encapsulated PPC: Pea Protein Concentrate
Feed solution: PPC + iron
Spray drying
Iron encapsulation
180 °C
90 °C
Aspirator: 90%
1. Ferreira. MSc thesis, 2014. 2. Bittencourt et al. Plant Foods Hum Nutr, v. 68, n. 4, 2013.
Why PPC as a matrix?
14
Heated air
FeSO4.7H2O ( ) 0 Iron encapsulated PPC: Pea Protein Concentrate
Feed solution: PPC + iron
Spray drying
Iron encapsulation
180 °C
90 °C
Aspirator: 90%
1. Ferreira. MSc thesis, 2014. 2. Bittencourt et al. Plant Foods Hum Nutr, v. 68, n. 4, 2013.
Why PPC as a matrix?
Banana candy
(5,5 mg/100g)2
Fortification: Cooked black beans (5,8 mg/100g)1
Acceptability > 70%
Masked the metallic taste
15
Spray drying
Iron encapsulation
Moisture content: 3,8 ± 0,4%
Yield: 38,8 ± 7,9%
Process efficiency
Yield (%): Total solids in the microparticles x 100
Total solids in the feed solution
16
Spray drying
Iron encapsulation
Physical/Chemical
Characterization
Particle size (Matersizer):
D4,3: 16,4 ± 0,1 µm
after 1 day
after 30 days
Process efficiency
Morphology (SEM)
17
Spray drying
Iron encapsulation
Physical/Chemical
Characterization Process efficiency
Iron retention (ICP-OES):
45 ± 1,3%
Iron retention (%): Iron content in the microparticles (g per 100 g solids) x 100
Iron content in feed solution (g per 100 g solids)
18
Spray drying
Iron encapsulation
Physical/Chemical
Characterization Process efficiency
Protein oxidation?
Stability during meat replacer
process/storage
19
Improving nutritional
quality
Iron Encapsulation
Fortification
Structure Nutritional
quality
Sustainable
Product design
Microparticles
Thank you!
Any questions?
Acknowledgements
CNPq/Brazil
Jos Sewalt
Ralf Meij
Birgit Dekkers
