Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Wettability of Probiotic Powders: Fundamentals, Methodologies, and Applications

Written By

Mohamed Amin Ali, Joël De Coninck and Hary L. Razafindralambo

Submitted: 10 June 2022 Reviewed: 07 July 2022 Published: 27 October 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.106403

From the Edited Volume

New Advances in Powder Technology

Edited by Shashanka Rajendrachari, Volodymyr Shatokha and Baris Avar

Chapter metrics overview

131 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

Wettability is a macroscopic consequence of microscopic phenomena occurring at the fluid-solid interfaces. This functional property is crucial for the formulation of wettable powders in food and non-food sectors. Basically, powder wettability is mostly assessed through the contact angle measurements of solid particles reacting with dispersing media, by either the sessile drop method or the capillary rise technique. Among the most popular bioactive agents nowadays are probiotics and their metabolites, which are receiving a growing interest for their beneficial effects on our ecosystem health. As live functional ingredients, probiotics are mainly available in a powder form that is sensitive to the environmental stress factors during processing and storage steps. It is therefore crucial to understand and control their wettability, regarding their performance, dispersibility, and stability when probiotic particles come into contact with dispersing media and body fluids. The proposal chapter aims to review: (1) the theoretical aspects of powder wettability by considering compact and porous materials; (2) the analytical tools and methodologies of measurement, including sessile drop and capillary rise methods using models Lucas-Washburn equation and Darcy\'s law; and (3) the applications to probiotic powders as functional ingredients in food and agricultural sectors.

Keywords

  • wettability
  • probiotic powders
  • contact angle measurement
  • capillary rise method
  • porosity
  • cell surface hydrophobicity
  • cell viability

1. Introduction

Wettability is a functional property that represents the wetting degree of a solid. Among the macroscopic consequences of nano- and microscopic phenomena occurring at fluid-solid interfaces, it is governed by the balance between adhesive and cohesive forces, representing the assembly strength of different and identical surfaces, respectively [1]. Such phenomena are naturally encountered in our daily life, or technologically shaped for our necessities [2]. The common examples of solid wettability are observed with drops of water standing out on lotus leaves or repelling on waterproof materials, as well as with agrochemical dispersion preparations spreading on plant surfaces [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. Adhesives, anti-icing, bio-mimicking, boiling, coatings, fibers, freeze-casting, inks, micro/nanoelectromechanical systems, paper, and petrochemicals also take part of a non-exhaustive list of applications involving wettability [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].

When an amount of liquid (e.g. drop of water) comes into contact with a porous or nonporous solid surface (e.g. flat or granular solid), its displacement until an equilibrium position depends on the force resulting from the interfacial tensions at the contact line of three immiscible phases (solid/liquid/gas) (Figure 1). The changes in the resulting interfacial tension or free energy define the contact angle (CA), which expresses the wetting degree of the solid surface by the liquid phase [16]. When the CA is lower than an arbitrary value (e.g. θ < 90°C), the surface is qualified as hydrophilic whereas it is known as hydrophobic for high CA (e.g. θ > 90°C). A value superior to 150°C is a characteristic of a superhydrophobic surface [17].

Figure 1.

Illustration of liquid drop formed between three immiscible phases with different contact angles θ: (a) hydrophilic θ <90°C, (b) hydrophobic θ = 90°C, and (c) superhydrophobic surfaces.

For powder materials, the wettability is often quantified by the contact angle (θ) of compressed disc- or packed bed-prepared particles, which depends on the surface and bulk properties, composition of particles, wetting liquid characteristics, and physicochemical conditions such as the temperature, pH, ionic strength, and so on [18]. The powder wettability plays a crucial role in coating, dispersion as a precursor step to dissolution, and powder processing such as granulation and other practical usages. Several techniques are available for powder wettability determination through the contact angle measurement of solid particles reacting with dispersing media by the static and dynamic sessile drop method or by the capillary rise technique [19].

Most food and non-food (e.g. pharmaceuticals, detergents, minerals) ingredients and products are in powder form, which is constituted by numerous particles and granules, in pure or mixture form of multiple components [20, 21].

There are many powder wettability case studies of either organic or inorganic-based compounds reported in the scientific literature over the last five years (Table 1). However, less investigations have been conducted on powders that contain microorganisms such as probiotics and derivative products.

MaterialsReferences
Coffee powder[22]
Wheat/cereal flours[23]
Detergent granules[24]
Pectin agglomerates[25]
Cocoa beverage powder[26]
Milk powder[27]
Excipients[28]
Drugs[29]
Silica particles[30]
Limestone[31]
Talc[32]

Table 1.

Examples of wettability studies on various organic and inorganic powders.

Probiotics are live microorganisms, when administered in adequate doses and under appropriate conditions, and can be benefits for the host through different action mechanisms [33]. In fact, they can act as (1) competitors for nutrients and adhesion sites with intestinal or plant pathogens; (2) metabolite producers, including bacteriocins, organic acids, antioxidants, enzymes, and biosurfactants; and (3) immunomodulators [34]. Often used as functional ingredients, probiotics find their potential applications in foods, feeds, cosmetics, pharmaceutics, and agriculture sectors [35, 36, 37, 38, 39]. Belonging mainly to lactic acid bacteria (LAB) such as Lactobacilli and Bifidobacteria, or yeasts, probiotics are among the most investigated research topics today, owing to their beneficial effects on our overall ecosystem, involving activities and interactions among human, animal, and plant species, soils and the environment [40].

Their external surfaces are surrounded of components with different molecular classes (e.g. proteins, polysaccharides, peptidoglycans, etc.) and specific structures (e.g. pili), which are responsible for their most surface properties and functionalities such as hydrophobicity, adhesion, and aggregation capacities. Microbial cell surfaces are vital to their survival for interacting with the environment. It is assumed that microbial cells adhere to surfaces through the interactions between extracellular compounds biosynthesized by cells or from external (e.g. coatings) and surfaces [41]. It is generally recognized that there exists a correlation between cell adhesion capacity and surface hydrophobicity, which can be indirectly measured by the water contact angle [42]. Microorganisms are considered hydrophilic for values less than 20° and hydrophobic for values superior to 50° [43, 44].

Moreover, probiotic-based products are industrially manufactured and commercially available in powder particles, in most cases under various solid states rather than dispersed in liquid forms, by successive fermentation, liquid–solid phase separation, and drying processes [45]. It is therefore important to focus scientifically and technologically on the probiotic powder wettability, which is a performance indicator, directly or indirectly in terms of (1) cell capacity in adhering to surfaces; (2) product dispersibility in a fluid for some preparations before use in formulations or uptake as diet supplementation; (3) cell viability and product stability for limiting the contact with humidity and air through the powder porosity or permeability; and (4) coating material compatibility and processing efficiency for cell protection.

The current chapter deals successively with (1) the theoretical aspects of powder wettability; (2) the practical methods and techniques of wettability determination; and (3) the applications to probiotic powder wettability for food and agricultural products.

Advertisement

2. Theoretical aspects on powder wettability

2.1 Basics on contact angle

When a water drop enters in contact with a surface, or a liquid comes in contact with a vertical and infinitely wide plate or porous solid and powders, and rises by capillary effect, the contact angle gives an insight of these wetting phenomena. With a macroscopic view, the contact angle represents the angle formed at the intersection of the interfaces liquid-solid and liquid-vapor by applying a tangent line at a point from the so-called “three-phase contact line”, where the solid, liquid, and vapor phases co-exist (see Figure 1a). Contact angles are not only limited to the liquid-vapor interface on a solid but also applicable to the liquid-liquid interface on a solid. Depending on the media (surface or porous structure), the contact angle measurement and the tool to be used are different.

2.2 Flat surface (Young’s equation)

On an ideal flat surface (partial wetting), Young’s equation allows the determination of the liquid contact angle in equilibrium θe. It represents the static contact angle value based on the interfacial energy balance between the solid, liquid, and gas surrounding the liquid at the triple line contact (Figure 2). Young described first the entire phenomenon in 1805, which was mathematically formalized by Dupré while also discovered elsewhere by Laplace. Thus, this Young-Dupré law is commonly called “Young-Laplace equation” [46, 47, 48, 49].

Figure 2.

Flat solid surface cases: (a) Young’s equation; (b) liquid drop with an equilibrium contact angle (θe).

2.3 Rough surfaces (Wenzel model & Cassie-Baxter model)

In the case of non-ideal flat surfaces (roughness added), two contact angle measurements are involved. On the one hand, the Wenzel model adds roughness to complete Young equation (Eq. (1)), and on the other hand, the Cassie-Baxter model depicts surfaces with chemical heterogeneities.

2.3.1 Wenzel model

The Wenzel model illustrates how the drop is in contact through the roughness of surfaces that Young’s equation does not take into account. Thus, the drop is pinned on the surface, forming an apparent value of contact angle, which is different to the equilibrium one (Figure 3). This angle is modified by a factor called the Wenzel roughness Rw [50, 51, 52, 53, 54].

Figure 3.

Rough surfaces described by the Wenzel model: (a) apparent contact angle θw determination, θe being the equilibrium value used in Eq. (1), and RW ≥ 1 represents the ratio between the real surface area over the projected area; (b) drop in Wenzel state.

Such phenomenon appears when the solid surface is completely in contact with liquid under the droplet. However, air can be trapped below the drop that tends to lower its energy (e.g. fakir and nails board). In this situation, the drop contact angle is described by the Cassie-Baxter model.

2.3.2 Cassie-Baxter model

The Cassie-Baxter model describes the rough surface as a succession of two different surfaces SA and SB with a resulting wettability that depends on two contact angles θA and θB [53, 55, 56]. In this case, the contact angle θCB is a function of the fractions of surfaces A, a first-level roughness feature with solid width and air spacing structure, and surfaces B, a second level roughness at the base of a second-level capillary bridge (Figure 4), as defined in Eq. (2).

Figure 4.

Rough surfaces described by the Cassie-Baxter model: (a) Cassie-Baxter contact angle θCB determination, ƒA and ƒB being the fractions of surfaces A and B; (b) drop in Cassie-Baxter state.

Theoretical studies show the importance of roughness and its impact on the Wenzel to Cassie-Baxter transition. In fact, the double scale roughness is not always the key parameter to enhance the transition. This also depends on RW factor and the decrease of ƒA [57, 58, 59].

2.4 Capillary rise phenomenon (Washburn & Darcy models)

Trees, oil extracting, ink absorption, liquids and sponge, sugar and coffee are among common applications where one can witness a capillary rise phenomenon. It has been described many years, even centuries, ago. When a both-side opened tube is approached to a liquid reservoir surface, the liquid tends to fill the tube. The thinner the tube, the higher the liquid rises inside. The height or height square (or the equivalent mass) versus time is always monitored. This curve has two parts, a dynamic component (rising) and a steady state component. At certain time, the liquid reaches a limit height (h) represented by Jurin’s law (Steady state) represented by Eq. (3) [48, 60].

h=2γcosθeρgRE1

where θe is the contact angle, R the radius of the tube, ρ the density of the liquid, γ the surface tension, and g the gravity.

2.4.1 Lucas-Washburn model

The dynamic part of the capillary rise is driven by the Lucas-Washburn equation (LWE). As it is a time-dependent phenomenon [5, 48, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66], the equation analytical expression including the gravity and inertia parts is:

2Rγ.cosθe=ρgh+8R2ηh.dhdt+ρ.hd2hdt2+dhdt2E2

where R represents the radius of the tube, ρ the density of the liquid, γ the surface tension, g the gravity, and η: viscosity.

By neglecting the gravity and inertia and assuming h to 0 when time equals 0, and using the Taylor’s expansion [67], the LWE is obtained from the above equation:

h=2tbE3

where

b=8/R2/LRcose

By replacing the height h with the mass m of the liquid through the relation m=ρ.πR2h [68, 69], the following equation can be obtained:

mt2=ρ2π2R5γcosθ2ηtE4

This Lucas-Washburn’s equation possesses limitation because the inertial forces are neglected.

2.4.2 Darcy model

The capillary rise previously presented does not take into account the permeability, even though there is a capillary constant in the LWE (geometry of the porous material). However, the approximation done with the critical radius is not enough to determine the permeability of materials (porosity). Darcy’s law describes thus the wicking in porous media.

Darcy’s discovery in 1856 was based on the study of the Dijon fountains, the ground water, and permeability by defining through theoretical and experimental works a universal formula related to the flux of water in sand [48, 70, 71, 72]. By changing the pressure (height of the reservoir), a linear relation between the flux and the pressure was observed, which was at the origin of Darcy’s law, as follows:

ht.dhtdt=kη.γRE5

where k being the porous material permeability (can be related to viscosity), R: radius of the section, η: viscosity, and γ: surface tension.

By integrating the Darcy equation, it is easy by using the previous arguments to write

h=2.tbeffE6

where

beff=ηRk.γ=8R2η2Rγ.cosθe=4ηγ.R.cosθeE7

From Eqs. (8) and (9), we can deduce

h=2.k.γ.t.ReffE8

This equation indicates that the permeability k is proportional to h2 and Reff represents the effective radius. From the kinematics of the imbibition in a porous media, the effective radius can thus be extracted, characterizing its permeability or equivalently its porosity.

Advertisement

3. Practical methods for powder wettability determination

The wettability of powders can be determined by various techniques described in detail by Alghunaim et al. [19]. These include the sessile drop, Wilhelmy plate, and liquid penetration methods. In this section, only two practical methods of contact angle measurements based on the sessile drop and capillary rise are briefly described for their possible application to probiotic powders (Section 4).

3.1 Sessile drop method

The sessile drop method can be applied to solid surface prepared after compacting powder in a disc or pellet under well-defined conditions of high pressure (70–700 MPa). It is the most common technique for determining the wettability of powders. The static contact angle measurement is performed by depositing a small amount of liquid drop on the disc or pellet while recording its spreading. A software is always used for analyzing the contact angles (edge detection) with the programmed functions (i.e. straight line, circle or Laplace fitting). In this way the contact angle is extracted by fitting the baseline between the drop/the substrate (interface liquid/solid) and the shape of the drop as represented in Figure 5. The method provides the right and left contact angles θR and θL.

Figure 5.

Drop of water fitted by a software.

For hydrophobic and superhydrophobic surfaces, other methods like Johnson and Dettre [73] and the sliding method can be used, respectively [74, 75, 76, 77, 78]. A hysteresis representing the difference between the advancing and the receding contact angle can be deduced in dynamic measurements [79].

3.2 Capillary rise method

Powder samples are introduced into a glass tube for preparing a packed-bed column with support at the bottom (e.g. filter paper). The tube is then put in contact to a liquid surface, and the liquid penetration front is monitored as a function of time. The change in mass of the sample attached to a microbalance is recorded and plotted against time to obtain the contact angle information. In practice, the packed-bed column is first tested with a completely wettable solvent (cos θ = 1) for determining the capillary constant RC from the equation in Section 2.4.1. Once RC is known, the desired liquid can be used to evaluate the contact angle θ. This method has a limitation because one assumes that the porous material is comparable to a succession of fine tube each one having a critical radius RC (Figure 6). Assuming this fact is not representative for all porous materials [80, 81, 82, 83, 84]. Indeed, powder and fiber bundles are more complicated because the pores are not always vertical. The porous material possesses its own distribution inside the tube. Therefore, the way how the powder and the fibers are compact plays a key role in the robustness and the repeatability of the results.

Figure 6.

Analogy between real porous material and capillary succession approximation.

Advertisement

4. Applications to probiotic powders

The wettability of probiotic powders is first a good indicator of surface cell hydrophobicity, and therefore the cell adhesion capacity through liquid contact angle measurements. Such a functional property is also important for powder product dispersibility and compatibility with coating materials.

Probiotic powders are heterogeneous and complex solid materials that generate high variability data of water contact angle measurements. Therefore, the determination of their wettability is a difficult task and needs a judicious choice of available techniques and methods. In this section, we first describe and discuss the different methodologies used for probiotic powders before illustrating their practical importance in food and agricultural areas.

4.1 Surface wettability

A first approach is to prepare a compact surface by compressing the probiotic powder sample under high pressure conditions for making pellets, and then measuring the liquid contact angle by the sessile drop method. This method has been used for the first time for determining the water angle contact of the cell surface of the probiotic multistrain sample [85]. Neither visible cracks nor chemical alteration has been observed before and during the measurement of the static contact angle. This method has provided similar results compared to the static advancing water contact angle technique used for the same sample [45]. The combination of the sessile drop method with the compressed disc preparation under well-defined press conditions provides reproducible data and appears as a very practical methodology for determining the probiotic surface contact angles.

A second approach is to prepare a multilayer or lawn of probiotics by passing through an appropriate filter a liquid dispersion of powder particles under vacuum. The filter on which the probiotic lawn adheres is then treated by a first step of moisture equilibration time for several minutes, followed by a second one of air drying. This is the most commonly used method for determining the liquid contact angle, and distinguishing hydrophobic microorganisms to hydrophilic ones [43]. It has some advantages in preparing smooth and homogenous microorganism layers, and is more convenient for fragile cells [86]. Such a procedure has been optimized to lower the variability in the results of contact angles by searching the best moisture equilibrium time and moisturizing medium [43]. Through this method, it has, for instance, recently been shown the contribution of two main probiotic components (L. bulgaricus and S. thermophilus) of a multistrain sample (vivomixx) for their respective surface hydrophilicity [45]. Some water contact angle data measured by this technique are available in the literature for some bacterial probiotics such as L. acidophilus (66–80°), L. rhamnosus (33–86°), L. plantarum (25–79°), and S. thermophilus (23°).

4.2 Bulk wettability

A third approach to assess the wettability of probiotic powder is the use of the capillary rise technique measuring the amount of liquid penetrating a bed column of sample over time, and applying a mathematical model that fits the penetrating rate profile of a liquid up a tube packed. Even though the capillary rise technique is by far the popular method for determining contact angles of powders or porous materials [69], it has rarely been applied to probiotic powders. Such a method has, for instance, been used for characterizing the wettability of a multistrain powder sample of probiotics, showing two regimes of the liquid penetrating rate profile [85]. The first one is a power law regime for the first few moments while the second one can be described using Darcy’s law. The use of this modeling approach has led to the possibility of assessing the particle-packed bed permeability and porosity through an effective radius determined by the semi-empirical Kozeny-Carman approach [85]. These physical properties are interesting for predicting some performance of probiotic strain such as product stability and cell viability during the powder storage. In fact, high powder porosity or permeability promotes the presence of air (oxygen) and/or moisture in inter- and intra-particle pores, accelerates the oxidative process of cell membranes, and reduces rapidly the cell viability rate.

4.3 Practical use in food and agricultural areas

Most ingredients used in product formulations are available in a powder form, owing to many practical advantages in transportation, handling, processing, formulation, packaging, and stability [20].

The wettability of powders plays important roles in product preparation, engineering, stability, and performance, since it is the first step of powder dispersion that is of crucial importance for the process of making a dispersion [87].

4.3.1 Food applications

For probiotic-based food products and ingredients used in the preparation of fermented foods and diet supplements, the degree of wetting needs to be at the right value for ensuring both good preparation during the hydration and high stability during the storage. Some examples of commercialized products are listed in Table 2. Probiotic powders are currently formulated with a mixture of components, including mono- or multistrain microorganisms and other active and functional ingredients and excipients (e.g. prebiotics, antioxidants, cryoprotectors, anti-agglomerates, diluents, lubricant, colorant, binder, coating agent, sweetening agent, anti-caking agent, binders, etc.) (Table 3). Binders are, for instance, adhesives that provide the cohesiveness essential for the bonding of solid particles during the process of agglomeration [88]. Consequently, their wettability is an important criterion for the powder dispersibility when rehydrate or reconstituted, and powder stability related to porosity during the storage. This also impacts the viability of probiotic strains, which are sensitive to the environmental conditions such as humidity and temperature.

ProductsMicrobial probiotics
Infant milk formulationLactobacillus rhamnosus Bifidobacterium longum
Oat and rice powderBifidus BL
Baking mixBacillus coagulans
Passion fruit juice powderLactobacillus plantarum S20
Synbiotic goji berry powderBifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (Bb12), B. longum (Bb46), and Lactobacillus casei
Spray-dried raisin powderB. coagulans
Almond milk powderL. plantarum ATCC 8014
Tubers-CassavaSaccharomyces cerevisiae, L. bulgaricus
VSL#3Lactobacillus acidophilus, L. plantarum, L. casei, Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus, B. breve, B. longum, and B. infantis, Streptococcus salivarius subsp. Thermophilus

Table 2.

Some examples of commercialized products of probiotic powders.

Excipients in probiotic powdersFunctions
Microcrystalline celluloseBinder/diluent
Rice maltodextrinBinder/diluent
Silicon dioxideGliding/anti-caking agent
Magnesium stearateLubricant
Hydroxy propyl methyl celluloseSuspending/viscosity agent

Table 3.

Some excipients in probiotic powder formulations.

The wettability of probiotic powders may vary as a function of other components within their formulations. When the latter contain prebiotics, mainly carbohydrate-based compounds, the products are called synbiotics. It has been demonstrated that prebiotics can change the probiotic surface properties, and therefore would impact the wettability of whole products [89]. It is also well known that free fats in the surface reduce wettability whereas some surface-active agents, especially those exhibiting dispersing capacity commonly improve wettability in dried containing fat products [88].

4.3.2 Agricultural applications

Agricultural applications of probiotic powders include animal and plant health and growth, as illustrated with some examples in Table 4. Probiotics have been recognized to be benefits to the host animal as feed supplements and animal products (e.g. poultry, ruminant, pig, and aquaculture) in improving food safety. Their use aims at reducing, even substituting antibiotics to control pathogens in poultry production [90].

MicroorganismName of productPlant pathogens/photosystem
Ampelomyces quisqualis M-10AQ10 BiofungicidePowdery mildew on fruits
Azospirillum spp.BiopromoterPaddy, millets, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables
Bacillus subtilis GB03KodiakGrowth promotion; Rhizoctonia
Bacillus pumilusYiedShieldSoil-born fungal pathogens
Delftia acidovoransBioboostCanola
Pseudomonas chlororaphisCedomonLeaf strip, net blotch
Streptomyces griseoviridis K61MycostopPhomopsis spp., Botrytis spp.
Trichoderma harzianum T22RootShieldPythium spp., Rhizoctonia solani
Pseudomonas spp.ProradixRhizoctonia solani

Table 4.

Applications of probiotic powders in agriculture (adapted from [39]).

For probiotic-based agriproducts such as microbial feed supplements, pesticides, and anti-weeds, an optimum powder wettability is required for ensuring high dispersibility in the liquid media preparation, but also for maximizing the spreading and penetrating properties with regards to the target materials (e.g. plant leaves).

In aquaculture, probiotic activities mainly result from the production of antimicrobial metabolites and the attachment or adhesion to intestinal mucus for competing with pathogens.

Plant health benefits and growths in using probiotics involve direct mechanisms through beneficial microbes-host plant interactions, including adherence and colonization steps, or indirect ones due to the antagonistic activity against plant pathogens. Probiotic plant antagonism includes inhibition, competition for nutrients, and degradation of pathogenicity factors [91].

4.3.3 Probiotic viability and survival applications

Probiotics can provide health benefits when they reach the targets with a high number of viable cells. In fact, many microbial probiotic strains are sensitive to external environmental conditions such as high acidity, moisture, temperature, and oxygen level. Two main strategies can be employed in maintaining the viability, or reducing the mortality of probiotic strains: (1) using additional ingredients such as prebiotics in a synbiotic formulation for supporting cell viability throughout processing, storage, distribution, gastrointestinal, and environmental stress conditions; (2) protecting cells by using encapsulation technology or coating processes.

4.3.3.1 Synbiotic formulations

It is recognized that combining prebiotics and probiotics together in synbiotic powder formulations may boost the viability of probiotic strains [89]. Prebiotics are substrates that serve as probiotic nutrients, and mainly consist of carbohydrate compounds such as inulin, oligosaccharides (e.g. GOS, XOS), and fructooligosaccharides [92]. Thus, the wettability of their mixture is an important indicator for ensuring the synbiotic performance, either in synergism or in complementary [93], dispersibility in a fluid, and stability during storage.

4.3.3.2 Encapsulation and coating processes

Encapsulation and coating processes are often used for protecting the probiotics and synbiotics against environmental stress conditions in order to maintain a high level of viability, stability, and performance [94]. It uses various food-grade biopolymers, mostly derived from polysaccharides (e.g. gum Arabic, alginate, chitosan, resistant starch, etc.) and proteins (e.g. milk and soy proteins), and different technologies, including the bulk or microscale matrix encapsulation systems and the individual cell encapsulation via nanocoatings [95]. The first method is based on the immobilization of probiotics into a gel matrix (e.g. hydrogel systems) whereas the second one is based on the formation of nanofilms around individual probiotic cells (e.g. cytoprotective approaches based on silica, graphene, metal-polyphenol nanoshells, etc.).

In both cases, the wettability of probiotic powders before and after encapsulation or coating processes appears important for operating convenient choices of coating agents and processes but also for the final product performance. In fact, the microbial probiotic surface properties such as hydrophobicity and polarity as well as the permeability/porosity of the powder have an impact on the compatibility and interactions with the coating or encapsulation materials for ensuring an appropriate stability and permeability of the formulated products. Based on several investigations, the survival rate of probiotic strains may vary between 68 and 94% during the storage and digestion, depending on the coating or encapsulating materials and methodologies used [94]. Nevertheless, such protective processes are not necessary for the spore-forming bacteria such as Bacillus strains which convert from vegetative into resistant spore forms by naturally producing a protective shell under harsh conditions, including high temperature, pressure, and acidity, as well as heat, desiccation, radiation, and oxidation conditions [95]. It might also be the case of Lactobacillus strains through self-encapsulation mechanisms by producing a thicker layer of EPS, when the environmental factors and stress conditions of fermentation are modified [96].

Advertisement

5. Conclusion

The wettability of probiotic powders deserves a great scientific and technological attention, as for other food and non-food ingredients and products in various sectors. Beyond its evident importance in the dispersibility and stability of the powder containing live microorganisms and other components in contact with fluids, it is a crucial indicator of the cell adhesion capacity and cell viability improvement through encapsulation and coating processes. Its accurate determination with the appropriate techniques and data processing models is the key to progress in getting insight into the probiotic action mechanisms, and in improving the probiotic containing product qualities and performance. However, there are only a few available scientific data from probiotic powder wettability studies in the literature compared to contact angle measurements with various techniques. Three sample preparation and measurement techniques such as powder compact discs and microbial lawns by sessile drop, and a packed-bed column using rise capillary, can be distinguished. Subsequently, two fitting models based on Washburn equation and Darcy’s law may be used based on the experimental recorded data. In particular, Darcy’s law combined with the semi-empirical Kozeny-Carman approach provides a potential prediction of powder porosity or permeability. This methodology will open a new research route on the impact of the microbial powder particle size, shape, aggregation, adhesion, biofilm formation on the formulation performance and product stability, as well as on the cell viability and activities for human, animal, plant, and environment, in short, on our ecosystem health.

Advertisement

Acknowledgments

This work has received funding by the European Union’s Horizon Europe Research, innovation programme through URBANE under the grant Agreement 101059232.

References

  1. 1. Ravera F. The contact angle as an analytical tool. In: Colloid and Interface Chemistry for Nanotechnology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2016. pp. 271-286
  2. 2. Dhyani A, Wang J, Halvey AK, Macdonald B, Mehta G, Tuteja A. Design and applications of surfaces that control the accretion of matter. Science. 2021;373:eaba5010. DOI: 10.1126/science.aba5010
  3. 3. Blossey R. Self-cleaning surfaces—Virtual realities. Nature Materials. 2003;2:301-306. DOI: 10.1038/nmat856
  4. 4. Cassie ABD, Baxter S. Large contact angles of plant and animal surfaces. Nature. 1945;155:21-22. DOI: 10.1038/155021a0
  5. 5. Liu M, Wang S, Jiang L. Nature-inspired superwettability systems. Nature Reviews Materials. 2017;2:1-17. DOI: 10.1038/natrevmats.2017.36
  6. 6. Lm SJ, Kim D, Kim Y, Jeong S, Pang C, Ryu S, et al. Hydrophobicity evolution on rough surfaces. Langmuir. 2020;36:689-696. DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.9b02292
  7. 7. Tian X, Verho T, Ras RHA. Moving superhydrophobic surfaces toward real-world applications. Science. 2016;352:142-143. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf2073
  8. 8. Bertrand E, Coninck TB. Dynamics of dewetting. Colloids and Surfaces A: Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects. 2010;369:141-147
  9. 9. Bharathidasan T, Kumar V, Bobji M, Basu BJ, Chakradhar R. Effect of wettability and surface roughness on ice-adhesion strength of hydrophilic, hydrophobic and superhydrophobic surfaces. Applied Surface Science. 2014;314:241-250
  10. 10. Bourdon B, Rioboo R, Marengo M, Gosselin E, De Coninck J. Influence of the wettability on the boiling onset. Langmuir. 2012;28:1618-1624
  11. 11. Davarpanah A, Zarei M, Nassabeh M. An overview of wettability measurements in fractured carbonated reservoir and investigate the effects of wettability changes in the optimization of enhanced oil recovery techniques. International Journal of Petroleum and Petrochemical Engineering. 2017;3:54-59
  12. 12. Bernard-Granger G, Deville S. Influence of surface tension, osmotic pressure and pores morphology on the densification of ice-templated ceramic. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, Elsevier. 2011;6:983-987
  13. 13. Kubiak K, Wilson M, Mathia T. Methodology for metrology of wettability versus roughness of engineering surfaces. Wear. 2011;271:523-528
  14. 14. Phan HT, Caney N, Marty P, Gavillet J, Colasson S. Surface wettability control by nanocoating: The effects on pool boiling heat transfer and nucleation mechanism. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2009;52:5459-5471
  15. 15. Schneider M. Wettability Patterning in Microfluidic Systems and Applications in the Petroleum Industry. Diss. Université Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris VI. 2011
  16. 16. Lazghab M, Saleh K, Pezron I, Guigon P, Komunjer L. Wettability assessment of finely divided solids. Powder Technology. 2005;157:79-91
  17. 17. Yamamoto M, Nishikawa N, Mayama H, Nonomura Y, Yokojima S, Nakamura S, et al. Theoretical explanation of the lotus effect: Superhydrophobic property changes by removal of nanostructures from the surface of a lotus leaf. Langmuir. 2015;31:7355-7363. DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.5b00670
  18. 18. Xue C, Lott JT, Kolachalama VB. Estimation of size and contact angle of evaporating sessile liquid drops using texture analysis. Langmuir. 2019;35:3672-3679. DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.8b04043
  19. 19. Alghunaim A, Kirdponpattara S, Newby BZ. Techniques for determining contact angle and wettability of powders. Powder Technology. 2016;287:201-215
  20. 20. Bhandari BR. Introduction to food powders. In: Handbook of Powders. Woodhead Publishing; 2013. pp. 1-25
  21. 21. Buckton G. Solid-state properties. In: Aulton ME, editor. Aulton’s Pharmaceutics: The Design and Manufacture of Medicines, 3rd ed. Edinburgh, New York: Churchill Livingstone; 2007
  22. 22. Vimercati WC, Araújo C d S, Macedo LL, Correa JLG, Pimenta CJ. Encapsulation of coffee silverskin extracts by foam mat drying and comparison with powders obtained by spray drying and freeze-drying. Journal of Food Science. 2022;87:1767-1779. DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.16102
  23. 23. Roman-Gutierrez A, Sabathier J, Guilbert S, Galet L, Cuq B. Characterization of the surface hydration properties of wheat flours and flour components by the measurement of contact angle. Powder Technology. 2003;129:37-45
  24. 24. Germaná S, Simons S, Bonsall J, Carroll B. LAS acid reactive binder: Wettability and adhesion behaviour in detergent granulation. Powder Technology. 2009;189:385-393
  25. 25. Hirata TAM, Dacanal GC, Menegalli FC. Effect of operational conditions on the properties of pectin powder agglomerated in pulsed fluid bed. Powder Technology. 2013;245:174-181
  26. 26. Abdelaziz IB, Sahli A, Bornaz S, Scher J, Gaiani C. Dynamic method to characterize rehydration of powdered cocoa beverage: Influence of sugar nature, quantity and size. Powder Technology. 2014;264:184-189
  27. 27. Hammes MV, Englert AH, Noreña CPZ, Cardozo NSM. Study of the influence of soy lecithin addition on the wettability of buffalo milk powder obtained by spray drying. Powder Technology. 2015;277:237-243
  28. 28. Oka S, Emady H, Kašpar O, Tokárová V, Muzzio F, Štěpánek F, et al. The effects of improper mixing and preferential wetting of active and excipient ingredients on content uniformity in high shear wet granulation. Powder Technology. 2015;278:266-277
  29. 29. Puri V, Dantuluri AK, Kumar M, Karar N, Bansal AK. Wettability and surface chemistry of crystalline and amorphous forms of a poorly water soluble drug. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2010;40:84-93
  30. 30. Ouabbas Y, Chamayou A, Galet L, Baron M, Thomas G, Grosseau P, et al. Surface modification of silica particles by dry coating: Characterization and powder ageing. Powder Technology. 2009;190:200-209
  31. 31. Diederich P, Mouret M, de Ryck A, Ponchon F, Escadeillas G. The nature of limestone filler and self-consolidating feasibility—Relationships between physical, chemical and mineralogical properties of fillers and the flow at different states, from powder to cement-based suspension. Powder Technology. 2012;218:90-101
  32. 32. Lefebvre G, Galet L, Chamayou A. Dry coating of talc particles with fumed silica: Influence of the silica concentration on the wettability and dispersibility of the composite particles. Powder Technology. 2011;208:372-377
  33. 33. Hill C, Guarner F, Reid G, Gibson GR, Merenstein DJ, Pot B, et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2014;11:506
  34. 34. Oelschlaeger TA. Mechanisms of probiotic actions—A review. International Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2010;300:57-62
  35. 35. Chaucheyras-Durand F, Durand H. Probiotics in animal nutrition and health. Beneficial Microbes. 2009;1:3-9. DOI: 10.3920/BM2008.1002
  36. 36. Puebla-Barragan S, Reid G. Probiotics in cosmetic and personal care products: Trends and challenges. Molecules. 2021;26:1249. DOI: 10.3390/molecules26051249
  37. 37. Razafindralambo H, editor. Trends in Probiotic Applications. Studium Press LLC; 2018
  38. 38. Schisler DA, Slininger PJ, Behle RW, Jackson MA. Formulation of Bacillus Spp. for biological control of plant diseases. Phytopathology. 2004;94:1267-1271. DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO.2004.94.11.1267
  39. 39. Song D, Ibrahim S, Hayek S. Recent application of probiotics in food and agricultural science. In: Probiotics. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2012. pp. 3-36
  40. 40. Ebenso B, Otu A, Giusti A, Cousin P, Adetimirin V, Razafindralambo H, et al. Nature-based One Health approaches to urban agriculture can deliver food and nutrition security. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2022;9:1-9
  41. 41. Dubiel EA, Martin Y, Vermette P. Bridging the gap between physicochemistry and interpretation prevalent in cell-surface interactions. Chemical Reviews. 2011;111:2900-2936
  42. 42. Busscher HJ, Weerkamp AH, van der Mei HC, Van Pelt AW, de Jong HP, Arends J. Measurement of the surface free energy of bacterial cell surfaces and its relevance for adhesion. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1984;48:980-983
  43. 43. Eschlbeck E, Kulozik U. Effect of moisture equilibration time and medium on contact angles of bacterial spores. Journal of Microbiological Methods. 2017;135:1-7
  44. 44. Rijnaarts HH, Norde W, Bouwer EJ, Lyklema J, Zehnder AJ. Bacterial adhesion under static and dynamic conditions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 1993;59:3255-3265
  45. 45. Razafindralambo H, Delvigne F, Blecker C. Physico-chemical approach for characterizing probiotics at the solid and dispersed states. Food Research International. 2019;116:897-904
  46. 46. Laplace PS. Mécanique Céleste, Suppl. au X. Livre, Coureier: Paris; 1805
  47. 47. Makkonen L. Young’s equation revisited. Journal of Physics. Condensed Matter. 2016;28:4
  48. 48. Martic G. Dynamique de la Montée Capillaire. Diss. Faculté Polytechnique de Mons. 2006
  49. 49. Young T. An essay on the cohesion of fluids. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 1805;95:65-87
  50. 50. Quéré D, Lafuma A. Superhydrophobic states. Nature Materials. 2003;2:457-460
  51. 51. Eral HB, ‘t Mannetje DJCM, Oh JM. Contact angle hysteresis: A review of fundamentals and applications. Colloid and Polymer Science. 2013;291:247-260
  52. 52. Okumura K, Ishino C. Wetting transitions on textured hydrophilic surfaces. The European Physical Journal E. 2008;25:415-424
  53. 53. Shin S, Seo J, Han H, Kang S, Kim H, Lee T. Bio-inspired extreme wetting surfaces for biomedical applications. Materials. 2016;9:1-26
  54. 54. Wenzel R. Resistance of solid surfaces to wetting by water. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry. 1936;28:988-994
  55. 55. Cassie A. Contact angles. Discussions of the Faraday Society. 1948;3:11-16
  56. 56. Baxter S, Cassie ABD. Wettability of porous surfaces. Transactions of the Faraday Society. 1944;40:546-551
  57. 57. Coninck J, Huillet T, Dunlop F. Wetting in 1+1 dimensions with two-scale roughness. Physica A. 2015;438:398-415
  58. 58. Nicola F, Castrucci P, Scarselli M, Nanni F, Crescenzi IC. Multi-fractal hierarchy of single-walled carbon nanotube hydrophobic coatings. Scientific Reports. 2015;5:1-9
  59. 59. Thévenin R. Superhydrophobie Active. PhD Thesis, Ecole Polytechnique, Université Paris-Saclay. 2014
  60. 60. Jurin J. Disquisitio Physicae de Tubulis Capillaribus. Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitana. 1728;3:281-292
  61. 61. Fries N, Dreyer M. An analytic solution of capillary rise restrained by gravity. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2008;320:259-263. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2008.01.009
  62. 62. Hamraoui A, Nylander T. Analytical approach for the Lucas–Washburn equation. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2002;250:415-421. DOI: 10.1006/jcis.2002.8288
  63. 63. Lucas R. The time law of the capillary rise of liquids. Kolloid-Zeitschrift. 1918;23:15-22
  64. 64. Washburn EW. The dynamics of capillary flow. Physical Review. 1921;17:273-283. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRev.17.273
  65. 65. Zaccardi YV, Belie NA. Lucas-Washburn vs Richards equation for the modelling of water absorption in cementitious materials. In: MATEC Web of Conferences. Les Ulis, France: EDP Sciences; 2018
  66. 66. Zhmud BV, Tiberg F, Hallstensson K. Dynamics of capillary rise. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2000;228:263-269. DOI: 10.1006/jcis.2000.6951
  67. 67. Terzaghi K. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. New York: Wiley; 1943
  68. 68. Dang-Vu T, Hupka J. Characterization of porous materials by capillary rise method. Physicochemical Problems of Mineral Processing. 2005;39:47-65
  69. 69. Kirdponpattara S, Phisalaphong M, Newby BMZ. Applicability of Washburn capillary rise for determining contact angles of powders/porous materials. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science. 2013;397:169-176. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcis.2013.01.033
  70. 70. Darcy H. Les fontaines publiques de la ville de Dijon. Paris: Victor Dalmont éditeur; 1856
  71. 71. Marle CM. Henry Darcy et les écoulements de fluides en milieu poreux. Oil & Gas Science and Technology—Revue d'IFP Energies Nouvelles. 2006;61:599-609
  72. 72. Zerner M. Aux origines de la loi de Darcy. Documents pour l’histoire des Techniques. 1856;20:29-40
  73. 73. Rioboo R, Delattre B, Vaillant A, De Cononck J. Superhydrophobicity and liquid repellency of solutions on polypropylene. Advances in Colloid and Interface Science. 2012;175:1-10
  74. 74. He H-M, Gao L, Yang X-J, Guo W-H, Li H, Xie T, et al. Studies on the superhydrophobic properties of polypropylene/polydimethylsiloxane/graphite fluoride composites. Journal of Fluorine Chemistry. 2013;156:158-163
  75. 75. Jeong D-W, Shin U-H, Kim JH, Kim S-H, Kim J-M, Lee HW. Stable hierarchical superhydrophobic surfaces based on vertically aligned carbon nanotube forests modified with conformal silicone coating. Carbon. 2014;79:442-449
  76. 76. Kim J, Ha J, Kim HY. Capillary rise of non-aqueous liquids in cellulose sponges. Journal of Fluid Mechanics. 2017;818:2. DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2017.165
  77. 77. Rioboo R, Voué M, Vaillant A, Seveno D, Conti J, Bondar A, et al. Superhydrophobic surfaces from various polypropylenes. Langmuir. 2008;24:9508-9514
  78. 78. Schellenberger F, Encinas N, Butt H-J, D.V. How water advances on superhydrophobic surfaces. Physical Review Letters. 2016;116:096101-096106
  79. 79. Gao L, McCarthy TJ. Contact angle hysteresis explained. Langmuir. 2006;22:6234-6237
  80. 80. Ahadian S, Moradian S, Sharif F, Amani TM, Mohseni M. Prediction of time of capillary rise in porous media using artificial neural network (ANN). Iranian Journal of Chemistry & Chemical Engineering. 2007;26:71-83
  81. 81. Alim K, Parsa S, Weitz DA, Brenner MP. Local pore size correlations determine flow distributions in porous media. Physical Review Letters. 2017;119:144501. DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.144501
  82. 82. Brakel JV. 1975a. Capillary Liquid Transport in Porous Media. Ph.D. Dissertation, TH Delft
  83. 83. Brakel JV. Pore space models for transport phenomena in porous media review and evaluation with special emphasis on capillary liquid transport. Powder Technology. 1975b;11:205-236. DOI: 10.1016/0032-5910(75)80049-0
  84. 84. Scheidegger A. The Physics of Flow through Porous Media. Toronto: University of Toronto Press; 1974
  85. 85. Ali MA, Razafindralambo HL, Conti G, De Coninck J. Bulk and surface wettability characteristics of probiotic powders in their compressed disc and packed-bed column forms. ACS Omega. 2020;5:22348-22355. DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.0c02728
  86. 86. Van Oss SJ, Gillman CF, Newman AW. Phagocytic Engulfment and Adhesiveness as Cellular Surface Phenomena. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1975
  87. 87. Freudig B, Hogekamp S, Schubert H. Dispersion of powders in liquids in a stirred vessel. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification. 1999;38:525-532. DOI: 10.1016/S0255-2701(99)00049-5
  88. 88. Dhanalakshmi K, Ghosal S, Bhattacharya S. Agglomeration of food powder and applications. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2011;51:432-441
  89. 89. Pan M, Kumaree KK, Shah NP. Physiological changes of surface membrane in Lactobacillus with prebiotics. Journal of Food Science. 2017;82:744-750. DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.13608
  90. 90. Botsoglou NA, Fletouris DJ. Drug Residues in Foods. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2000
  91. 91. Berg G. Plant–microbe interactions promoting plant growth and health: Perspectives for controlled use of microorganisms in agriculture. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology. 2009;84:11-18. DOI: 10.1007/s00253-009-2092-7
  92. 92. Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Sanders ME, Prescott SL, Reimer RA, Salminen SJ, et al. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2017;14:491-502
  93. 93. Swanson KS, Gibson GR, Hutkins R, Reimer RA, Reid G, Verbeke K, et al. The international scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics. Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2020;17:687-701
  94. 94. Rajam R, Subramanian P. Encapsulation of probiotics: Past, present and future. Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. 2022;11:46. DOI: 10.1186/s43088-022-00228-w
  95. 95. Centurion F, Basit AW, Liu J, Gaisford S, Rahim MA, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Nanoencapsulation for probiotic delivery. ACS Nano. 2021;15:18653-18660. DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.1c09951
  96. 96. Nguyen T-T, Nguyen P-T, Pham M-N, Razafindralambo H, Hoang Q-K, Nguyen HT. Synbiotics: A new route of self-production and applications to human and animal health. Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins. 2022;14:1-14. DOI: 10.1007/s12602-022-09960-2

Written By

Mohamed Amin Ali, Joël De Coninck and Hary L. Razafindralambo

Submitted: 10 June 2022 Reviewed: 07 July 2022 Published: 27 October 2022