Journal of Food Bioactives, ISSN 2637-8752 print, 2637-8779 online
Journal website www.isnff-jfb.com

Original Research

Volume 27, September 2024, pages 58-69

Encapsulating Salmo salar byproduct-derived protein hydrolysate in chitosan/alginate nanoparticles

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Interaction plot (a) and contour plot (b) for the effect of AL/CH (alginate/chitosan) (w/w) versus AL/SPH (alginate/ S. salar by-product-derived protein hydrolysates) (w/w) on particle size.
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Interaction plot and contour plot for the effect of (a), (b) AL/CaCl2 (w/w) versus AL/CH (w/w): (c), (d) AL/SPH (w/w) versus AL/CH (w/w): (c), (d) AL/SPH (w/w) versus AL/CaCl2 (w/w) on encapsulation efficiency. AL = alginate, CH = chitosan, SPH = S. salar by-product-derived protein hydrolysates.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Transmission electron microscopic images for optimized SPH (S. salar by-product-derived protein hydrolysates) encapsulated CH/AL (chitosan/alginate) nanoparticles at two resolutions (500 nm and 200 nm).
Figure 4.
Figure 4. FTIR spectra for chitosan, SPH, alginate, SPH CS/AL NPs, and blank CS/AL NPs. SPH = S. salar by-product-derived protein hydrolysates, CS = chitosan, AL = alginate, NPs = nanoparticles.
Figure 5.
Figure 5. XRD spectra for chitosan (a), alginate (b), SPH (c), SPH-CS/AL NPs (d), and blank CS/AL NPs (e). SPH = S. salar by-product-derived protein hydrolysates, CS = chitosan, AL = alginate, NPs = nanoparticles.
Figure 6.
Figure 6. Release % of SPH (S. salar by-product-derived protein hydrolysates) from chitosan/alginate nanoparticles. Mean values with different letters are significantly different (p < 0.05).

Tables

Table 1. Codes and levels of independent variables used for the optimization
 
CodesIndependent variablesLevels
Low (−1)Medium (0)High (+1)
X1Alginate/Chitosan (w/w) (AL/CH)258
X2Alginate/CaCl2 (w/w) (AL/CaCl2)456
X3Alginate/peptides (w/w) (AL/SPH)123

 

Table 2. Composition of simulated gastrointestinal fluids (Flores et al., 2014)
 
Saliva stock solutionGastric stock solutionDuodenal stock solutionBile stock solution
200 mL of milliQ water200 mL of milliQ water200 mL of milliQ water250 mL of milliQ water
23.4 mg NaCl1.10 g NaCl2.80 g NaCl2.10 g NaCl
29.8 mg KCl0.33 g KCl0.23 g KCl0.15 g KCl
0.42 g NaHCO30.11 g NaHPO41.36 g NaHCO32.31 g NaHCO3
0.08 g of Urea0.16 g CaCl2·2H2O32 mg KH2PO40.10 g Urea
0.12 g NH4Cl20 mg MgCl20.06 mL Conc. HCl
0.03 g Urea0.04 g Urea
2.6 mL Conc. HCl0.0 mL Conc. HCl
0.4 g Amylase1 g Pepsin3.6 g Pancreatin12 g Bile extract
pH 6.8 ± 0.2pH 1.3 ± 0.02pH 8.1 ± 0.2pH 8.2 ± 0.2

 

Table 3. Summary of the ANOVA table
 
ResponseSignificanceR2Adjusted R2Predicted R2
Particle size0.0000.83010.79790.7267
Zeta potential0.0000.78070.75260.6925
Encapsulation efficiency (EE)0.0000.89810.87180.8205

 

Table 4. Predicted and experimental values for responses: particle size, zeta potential, and Encapsulation efficiency
 
Response variablePredicted valueExperimented value95% Confidence Interval
Particle size (nm)417536.70 ± 21.20(87, 748)
Zeta potential (mV)−32.4−30.22 ± 0.88(−36.621, −28.179)
EE (%)29.6329.80 ± 4.5(19.49, 39.78)