ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Encapsulation of Lutein via Microfluidic Technology: Evaluation of Stability and In Vitro Bioaccessibility.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Food-Grade Microgels for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Design, Fabrication, and Targeted Delivery.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Oral Toxicity Profile of a Novel Silk Lutein Extract and Assessment of Its Cardiovascular Benefits in Rodents.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Lutein and Zeaxanthin: Source, Extraction, Stability, Bioactivity, and Functional Food Applications.Current pharmaceutical biotechnology · 2026Review
- Preparation and Characterization of Lutein Co-Amorphous Formulation with Enhanced Solubility and Dissolution.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Nanoscale Delivery Systems of Lutein: An Updated Review from a Pharmaceutical Perspective.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Preparation of Novel Nanomaterial and Its Application in Food Industry.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inadequate intake of lutein is relevant to a higher risk of age-related eye diseases. However, lutein has been barely incorporated into foods efficiently because it is prone to degradation and is poorly bioaccessible in the gastrointestinal tract. Microfluidics, a novel food processing technology that can control fluid flows at the microscale, can enable the efficient encapsulation of bioactive compounds by fabricating suitable delivery structures. Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate the stability and the bioaccessibility of lutein that is encapsulated in a new noodle-like product made via microfluidic technology. Two types of oils (safflower oil (SO) and olive oil (OL)) were selected as a delivery vehicle for lutein, and two customized microfluidic devices (co-flow and combination-flow) were used. Lutein encapsulation was created by the following: (i) co-flow + SO, (ii) co-flow + OL, (iii) combination-flow + SO, and (iv) combination-flow + OL. The initial encapsulation of lutein in the noodle-like product was achieved at 86.0 ± 2.7%. Although lutein's stability experienced a decreasing trend, the retention of lutein was maintained above 60% for up to seven days of storage. The two types of device did not result in a difference in lutein bioaccessibility (co-flow: 3.1 ± 0.5%; combination-flow: 3.6 ± 0.6%) and SO and OL also showed no difference in lutein bioaccessibility (SO: 3.4 ± 0.8%; OL: 3.3 ± 0.4%). These results suggest that the types of oil and device do not affect the lutein bioaccessibility. Findings from this study may provide scientific insights into emulsion-based delivery systems that employ microfluidics for the encapsulation of bioactive compounds into foods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.