Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39867216›Full record

ReviewFood chemistry: X2025

Selection strategy for encapsulation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic ingredients with food-grade materials: A systematic review and analysis.

Ruihan Huang, Hongdong Song, Sen Li, Xiao Guan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Food chemistry: X, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ruihan HuangSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China.
Hongdong SongSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China.
Sen LiSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China.
Xiao GuanSchool of Health Science and Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and Technology, Shanghai 200093, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various lipid and biopolymer-based nanocarriers have been developed to encapsulate food ingredients. The selection of nanocarrier type, preparation techniques, and loading methods should consider the compatibility of nutrient properties, nanocarrier composition, and product requirements. This review focuses on the loading methods for hydrophilic and hydrophobic substances, along with a detailed exploration of nanocarrier categorization, composition, and preparation methods. Both lipid-based and biopolymer-based nanoparticles exhibit the capability to encapsulate hydrophilic or hydrophobic substances. Liposomes and nanoemulsions allow simultaneous encapsulation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic ingredients, while solid lipid nanoparticles and nanostructured lipid carriers are suited for hydrophobic ingredients. The three-dimensional network structure of nanogels can efficiently load hydrophilic substances, while the functional groups in polysaccharides improve the loading capacity of hydrophobic substances through intermolecular interactions. As for protein nanoparticles, the selection of proteins with solubility characteristics analogous to the bioactives is crucial to achieve high encapsulation efficiency.

Indexed as

Bioactive ingredientsControlled releaseLipidNanocarrierPolysaccharidesProtein

Identifiers

PMID39867216
PMCPMC11758843

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.