Optimization of Spray Drying Conditions for Developing Nondairy Based Probiotic Sohiong Fruit Powder

Figures & data

Figure 1. Fermented Sohiong juice

Table 1. Effects of spray-drying condition on response variables

Exp. No	Inlet Temperature (^oC)	Maltodextrin concentration (%, w/w)	Inlet Feed rate (ml/hr)	Drying yield (%)±S.D	Moisture content (%)±S.D	Encapsulation efficiency (%)±S.D	Color difference (∆E)±S.D
1	120.00	12.00	180.00	58.62 ± 0.01	3.98 ± 0.002	85.91 ± 0.10	60.98 ± 0.01
2	140.00	12.00	180.00	57.23 ± 0.02	3.56 ± 0.001	61.12 ± 0.09	49.85 ± 0.02
3	120.00	25.00	180.00	59.06 ± 0.01	4.17 ± 0.001	68.22 ± 0.10	48.32 ± 0.01
4	140.00	25.00	180.00	65.49 ± 0.04	3.15 ± 0.002	83.00 ± 0.07	49.89 ± 0.01
5	120.00	18.50	120.00	50.66 ± 0.01	4.33 ± 0.001	78.23 ± 0.11	49.11 ± 0.01
6	140.00	18.50	120.00	58.60 ± 0.01	3.41 ± 0.001	79.36 ± 0.07	46.52 ± 0.03
7	120.00	18.50	240.00	52.00 ± 0.07	4.45 ± 0.001	75.11 ± 0.13	52.09 ± 0.02
8	140.00	18.50	240.00	52.50 ± 0.04	3.91 ± 0.001	67.58 ± 0.05	40.85 ± 0.01
9	130.00	12.00	120.00	55.13 ± 0.01	4.20 ± 0.002	75.00 ± 0.01	55.91 ± 0.01
10	130.00	25.00	120.00	55.05 ± 0.02	3.90 ± 0.001	85.67 ± 0.10	52.96 ± 0.01
11	130.00	12.00	240.00	50.90 ± 0.04	4.14 ± 0.001	73.33 ± 0.02	56.00 ± 0.02
12	130.00	25.00	240.00	57.29 ± 0.02	4.48 ± 0.003	68.13 ± 0.08	46.72 ± 0.03
13	130.00	18.50	180.00	56.70 ± 0.01	3.93 ± 0.001	81.67 ± 0.13	49.27 ± 0.03
14	130.00	18.50	180.00	60.19 ± 0.01	3.71 ± 0.001	78.30 ± 0.14	52.26 ± 0.02
15	130.00	18.50	180.00	58.61 ± 0.01	3.86 ± 0.002	77.68 ± 0.04	54.63 ± 0.01
16	130.00	18.50	180.00	57.78 ± 0.04	3.93 ± 0.001	81.25 ± 0.08	52.53 ± 0.01
17	130.00	18.50	180.00	56.62 ± 0.01	3.86 ± 0.002	78.03 ± 0.12	49.45 ± 0.01

S.D indicate standard deviation.

Table 2. Regression coefficients for the prediction of response variables and their significance levels

Coefficients	Drying yield (%)	Moisture content (%)	Encapsulation efficiency (%)	Color difference (∆E)
β 0	57.98	3.86	79.39	51.63
X1(β1)	1.69*	−0.36*	−2.05*	−2.92*
X2(β2)	1.87*	−0.023	1.21	−3.11*
X3(β3)	−0.84	0.14*	−4.26*	−1.10
X1X2(β5)	1.94*	−0.15*	9.89*	3.18*
X1X3(β6)	−1.86*	0.0096*	−2.18*	−2.16*
X2X3(β8)	1.62*	0.16*	−3.97*	−1.58
X1^2(β11)	0.49	−0.15*	−2.64*	−2.56*
X2^2(β12)	1.64*	0.065	−2.18*	3.19
X3^2(β13)	−5.03*	0.32*	−1.67	−1.92
R^2	0.95	0.98	0.98	0.93
Adj R^2	0.88	0.95	0.94	0.83
Pred R^2	0.72	0.89	0.88	0.72
Adeq precision	15.39	21.17	19.02	14.34
Std dev.	1.30	0.079	1.64	1.87
C.V	2.30	2.00	2.15	3.66
RMSE	0.84	0.05	1.04	1.19
MAE	0.61	0.03	0.81	0.86
LoF	N.S	N.S	N.S	N.S

X₁ – Inlet temperature; X₂ – Maltodextrin concentration and X₃ – Inlet feed rate.

* P < 0.05.

Figure 2. Spray-dried Sohiong powder

Table 3. Optimized operating conditions of dependent variables

Variables	Optimized conditions	Validation results
Drying yield (%)	57.68	57.79
Moisture content (%)	03.95	3.98
Encapsulation efficiency (%)	85.75	85.55
Color difference (∆E)	62.15	62.10

Optimized conditions obtained at Inlet Temperature 120 °C, Maltodextrin concentration 12%, and Inlet feed rate 201 ml/hr.

Figure 3. FESEM images of spray-dried probiotic Sohiong powder at 10000 X magnification

Figure 4. Effect of storage on viability of L. plantarum.

Table 4. Sensory evaluation of reconstituted Sohiong juice

Sensory attributes	Control sample±S.D	Sample A ± S.D	Sample B ± S.D
Aroma	7.0 ± 0.03^a	8.7 ± 0.11^b	8.4 ± 0.30^b
Taste	5.9 ± 0.11^a	7.2 ± 0.17^b	7.0 ± 0.17^b
Color	7.7 ± 0.08^a	9.2 ± 0.18^b	8.8 ± 0.14^b
Consistency	5.0 ± 0.12^a	6.0 ± 0.21^b	6.1 ± 0.11^b
Overall likeness	7.3 ± 0.17^a	8.5 ± 0.27^b	8.3 ± 0.20^b

a, b represents the significant difference along the row at p < 0.05; S.D indicate standard deviation.