Biopolymers Research
Open Access

Emulsion; Biopolymers; Bioactive compounds

Introduction

The incorporation of bioactive compounds extracted from various edible bio resources into food, pharmaceutical, and nutraceutical products has recently gained a lot of attention. The majority of these bioactive substances, such as carotenoids, phytosterols, unsaturated fatty acids, fat-soluble vitamins, and so on, are lipophilic in nature. These food-derived bioactive ingredients are said to improve human health and lower the risk of certain noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) like cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, and cancer. Nonetheless, the majority of lipophilic bioactive compounds (LBC) have low solubility and are susceptible to degradation in harsh environments such as high temperatures, the presence of oxygen, light, and so on during food processing, storage, and extreme pH changes throughout the gastrointestinal tract (GIT). These significantly limit their dissolution in food and absorption in the small intestine. [1].

Lipophilic bioactive compound encapsulated emulsion delivery systems’ bio accessibility and bioavailability

Three major parameters influence the overall bioavailability of lipophilic bioactive compounds: bio accessibility, absorption, and transformation. The fraction of LBC released from the delivery system and dissolved into the GI fluids in a form suitable for absorption is referred to as bio accessibility. The bio accessibility of an LBC-loaded emulsion is commonly defined as the amount that is solubilized within the mixed micelle particles composed of hydrophobic cores [2, 3].

These barriers can be overcome by colloidal delivery systems that have emerged as a novel delivery method for LBC, such as emulsion, liposome, and micro-/ Nano capsules. Emulsion-based delivery systems, in particular, have received a lot of attention due to their ease of production, wide range of applications, and effective performance delivery. Emulsifiers are necessary for the formulation of stable emulsions with appropriate shelf-life and the ability to withstand environmental stresses. Food biopolymers such as proteins and polysaccharides are now widely used as natural emulsifiers in the food industry to replace synthetic surfactants. When used alone for emulsion stabilisation, these biopolymers have some limitations [4, 5].

Their synergistic effects are recognised as a promising approach to developing potent colloidal delivery systems. The addition of one or more polysaccharides to cover the interfacial layer of proteincoated droplets can improve emulsion stability against aggregation.

Polysaccharides are widely used in food emulsions due to their functions as thickening and gelling agents. The stability of a proteinstabilized emulsion, on the other hand, can be improved by forming an interfacial protein-polysaccharide complex, which results in a decrease in van der Waals attraction and an increase in electrostatic and steric repulsions between droplets. Furthermore, surface modification of emulsified droplets with various biopolymers has a significant impact on the bio accessibility and bioavailability of entrapped bioactive compounds via a variety of mechanisms. [6, 7, 8].

Conclusion

The lipophilic natural antioxidants are difficult to use because of their poor solubility, chemical instability, low bioavailability, and other factors. Emulsion systems are commonly used to deliver lipophilic bioactive compounds. Emulsion-based delivery systems significantly improve oral bioavailability by improving aqueous solubility, preventing physiological and physiochemical degradation, and encouraging the formation of mixed micelles. [9, 10].

Acknowledgement

The National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER)-Ahmedabad has the authors’ deepest gratitude for providing support in the form of fellowships for the academics. In addition, the Department of Biotechnology at the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, is acknowledged for its financial support of the author SP.

Conflict of Interest

The authors affirm that they have no known financial or interpersonal conflicts that would have appeared to have an impact on the research presented in this study.

1. Nowlin WH, Vanni MJ, Yang H (2008) Comparing resource pulses in aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Ecology by the Ecological Society of America 89: 647-659.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Kautza A, Sullivan SMP (2016) The energetic contributions of aquatic primary producers to terrestrial food webs in a mid- size river system. Ecology by the Ecological Society of America 97: 694-705.

Google Scholar, Crossref

3. Beasley JC, Olson ZH, De Vault TL (2012) Carrion cycling in food webs: comparisons among terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Nordic Society Oikos 121: 1021-1026.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Cheng-Di D, Chih-Feng C, Chiu-Wen C (2012) Determination of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Industrial Harbor Sediments by GC-MS. Int J Environ Res Public Health 9: 2175-2188.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

5. Nasher E, Heng LY, Zakaria Z, Salmijah S (2013) Assessing the Ecological Risk of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Sediments at Langkawi Island, Malaysia. The Scientific World Journal 13.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

6. López GI (2017) Grain size analysis. Encyclopedia of Earth Science Series Encyclopedia of Geoarchaeology, Allan S Gilbert Springer 341-348.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

7. Bhatta LD, Sunita CH, Anju P, Himlal B, Partha JD, et al. (2016) Ecosystem Service Changes and Livelihood Impacts in the Maguri-Motapung Wetlands of Assam, India. Land 5: 15.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Google Scholar

9. Dechasa F, Feyera S, Dawit D (2019) Determinants of Household Wetland Resources Use and Management Behavior in the Central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Environ Sustain 2: 355-368.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Deka S, Om PT, Ashish P (2019) Perception-Based Assessment of Ecosystem Services of Ghagra Pahar Forest of Assam, Northeast India. Geol Ecol Landsc 3: 197-209.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref