Catherine N. Mulligan

Encapsulation in the food industry: A review

Encapsulation involves the incorporation of food ingredients, enzymes, cells or other materials in small capsules. Applications for this technique have increased in the food industry since the encapsulated materials can be protected from moisture, heat or other extreme conditions, thus enhancing their stability and maintaining viability. Encapsulation in foods is also utilized to mask odours or tastes. Various techniques are employed to form the capsules, including spray drying, spray chilling or spray cooling, extrusion coating, fluidized bed coating, liposome entrapment, coacervation, inclusion complexation, centrifugal extrusion and rotational suspension separation. Each of these techniques is discussed in this review. A wide variety of foods is encapsulated--flavouring agents, acids bases, artificial sweeteners, colourants, preservatives, leavening agents, antioxidants, agents with undesirable flavours, odours and nutrients, among others. The use of encapsulation for sweeteners such as aspartame and flavours in chewing gum is well known. Fats, starches, dextrins, alginates, protein and lipid materials can be employed as encapsulating materials. Various methods exist to release the ingredients from the capsules. Release can be site-specific, stage-specific or signalled by changes in pH, temperature, irradiation or osmotic shock. In the food industry, the most common method is by solvent-activated release. The addition of water to dry beverages or cake mixes is an example. Liposomes have been applied in cheese-making, and its use in the preparation of food emulsions such as spreads, margarine and mayonnaise is a developing area. Most recent developments include the encapsulation of foods in the areas of controlled release, carrier materials, preparation methods and sweetener immobilization. New markets are being developed and current research is underway to reduce the high production costs and lack of food-grade materials.

SURFACTANT ENHANCED REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL: A REVIEW

Abstract Extracting aqueous solutions with or without additives are employed to solubilize contaminants in soil. Since water solubility is the controlling removing mechanism, additives are used to enhance efficiencies. These additives can reduce the time to treat a site compared to the use of water alone. Additives must be of low toxicity and biodegradable. The research in this area has focussed mainly on halogenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and is still quite limited for metal removal. Additives include surfactants, organic and inorganic acids, sodium hydroxide, which can dissolve organic soil matter, water-soluble solvents such as methanol, displacement of cations with nontoxic ones, complexing agents such as EDTA, acids in combination with complexing agents or oxidizing/reducing agents. Cationic, anionic and nonionic surfactants are particularly used for soil washing or flushing. They contain both hydrophobic and hydrophilic portions, making them ideal for solubilization of hydrophobic compounds. Numerous studies have indicated that surfactants enhance recoveries of non-aqueous phase liquids (NAPLs). There have also been indications that pretreatment of soil with surfactant washing to solubilize hydrophobic compounds such as PAHs enhances biodegradation of these contaminants. A few in situ field studies have been performed with surfactants. Large-scale treatment has been done mostly for organic removal. Soil pH, soil type, cation exchange capacity (CEC), particle size, permeabilities and contaminants all affect removal efficiencies. High clay and organic matter contents are particularly detrimental. Understanding the chemistry of the binding of the contaminant and the hydrogeology of the site are very important. Once the water is pumped from the soil, it must be extracted and then treated to remove the hydrocarbons and metals. Several technologies exist such as sodium hydroxide or sodium sulfide precipitation, ion exchange, activated carbon adsorption, ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, electrodialysis and biological processes. Recycling of the surfactants is desired to decrease treatment costs. This paper will provide an overview of the laboratory research, field demonstration and full-scale application of surfactants for the remediation of contaminated soil. The majority of pilot scale in situ flushing tests, particularly in the United States, have involved the use of surfactants and co-solvents. There are only a few full-scale projects however. Recent laboratory scale efforts by the authors concerning the use of biosurfactants, biologically produced surfactants, to enhance the removal of copper, cadmium and zinc from contaminated soils and sediments are discussed. Three types of biosurfactants were evaluated for their effectiveness. They included a lipopeptide called surfactin from Bacillus subtilis , a rhamnolipid from Pseudomonas aeruginosa and a sophorolipid from Torulopsis bombicola . The results indicated the feasibility of removing the metals with the anionic biosurfactants even though the exchangeable fractions were not significant.

Heavy metal removal from sediments by biosurfactants

Batch washing experiments were used to evaluate the feasibility of using biosurfactants for the removal of heavy metals from sediments. Surfactin from Bacillus subtilis, rhamnolipids from Pseudomonas aeruginosa and sophorolipid from Torulopsis bombicola were evaluated using a metal-contaminated sediment (110mg/kg copper and 3300mg/kg zinc). A single washing with 0.5% rhamnolipid removed 65% of the copper and 18% of the zinc, whereas 4% sophorolipid removed 25% of the copper and 60% of the zinc. Surfactin was less effective, removing 15% of the copper and 6% of the zinc. The technique of ultrafiltration and zeta potential measurements were used to determine the mechanism of metal removal by the surfactants. It was then postulated that metal removal by the biosurfactants occurs through sorption of the surfactant on to the soil surface and complexation with the metal, detachment of the metal from the soil into the soil solution and hence association with surfactant micelles. Sequential extraction procedures were used on the sediment to determine the speciation of the heavy metals before and after surfactant washing. The carbonate and oxide fractions accounted for over 90% of the zinc present in the sediments. The organic fraction constituted over 70% of the copper. Sequential extraction of the sediments after washing with the various surfactants indicated that the biosurfactants, rhamnolipid and surfactin could remove the organically-bound copper and that the sophorolipid could remove the carbonate and oxide-bound zinc. Therefore, heavy metal removal from sediments is feasible and further research will be conducted.

An evaluation of technologies for the heavy metal remediation of dredged sediments.

Sediments dewatering is frequently necessary after dredging to remediate and treat contaminants. Methods include draining of the water in lagoons with or without coagulants and flocculants, or using presses or centrifuges. Treatment methods are similar to those used for soil and include pretreatment, physical separation, thermal processes, biological decontamination, stabilization/solidification and washing. However, compared to soil treatment, few remediation techniques have been commercially used for sediments. In this paper, a review of the methods that have been used and an evaluation of developed and developing technologies is made. Sequential extraction technique can be a useful tool for determining metal speciation before and after washing. Solidification/stabilization techniques are successful but significant monitoring is required, since the solidification process can be reversible. In addition, the presence of organics can reduce treatment efficiency. Vitrification is applicable for sediments but expensive. Only if a useful glass product can be sold will this process be economically viable. Thermal processes are only applicable for removal of volatile metals, such as mercury and costs are high. Biological processes are under development and have the potential to be low cost. Since few low cost metal treatment processes for sediments are available, there exists significant demand for further development. Pretreatment may be one of the methods that can reduce costs by reducing the volumes of sediments that need to be treated.

Remediation with surfactant foam of PCP-contaminated soil

Abstract An investigation was made into evaluating the capability of surfactants in the form of foam for removing the contaminant pentachlorophenol (PCP), a highly toxic, wood preservative, from soil. Several surfactants were investigated for their ability to make foam. Two of them, Triton X-100 and JBR425 (a rhamnolipid biosurfactant), generated foam with higher quality (99%) and higher stability than other surfactants. Triton X-100 and JBR425 were then used to investigate the removal efficiency in soils contaminated with pentachlorophenol (PCP). Triton X-100 showed better results in terms of final removal efficiency. Triton X-100 (1%) removed 85% and 84% of PCP from fine sand soil and sandy-silt, respectively, contaminated with 1000 mg/kg PCP. These values were 60% and 61% for JBR425 (1%). Of this, 66% and 57% of the PCP was removed by volatilization by Triton X-100 and 36% and 44% by JBR425. Further experiments with Triton X-100 indicated that 1% Triton X-100 removed more than 0.5% and that PCP removal was approximately the same for 1% Triton X-100 for a higher contaminant level (3000 mg/kg) but more pore volumes of foam were required for fine sand (23 pore volumes compared to 12). For the sandy-silt soil, PCP removal was higher for the higher contaminant level, 84% compared to 76%. More pore volumes were required (35 compared to 21). Comparison of liquid and foam injection of 1% Triton X-100 indicated that the foam removed more than twice as much PCP in all cases than the liquid surfactant solution. The results of this study on a sandy and sandy-silt media, thus, found that the foam can be used as a fluid to enhance soil remediation under low pressures compared to other fluids such as liquid surfactant solutions.

Speciation and surface structure of inorganic arsenic in solid phases: A review

Accurate determination of individual arsenic species is critical because the toxicology, mobility, and adsorptivity of arsenic vary substantially with its chemical forms and oxidation states. Separation techniques together with techniques for chemical identification make it possible to determine the combinational forms and oxidation states of arsenic in solid phases. Selective sequential extraction is often employed to determine operationally defined fractions, but it has a poor precision and selectivity. Direct methods, based on X-ray techniques and vibrational spectroscopy, have been developed to analyze the valence, local coordination, protonation, and other properties of arsenic in solid phases. Extensive research studies in the literature have been performed to elucidate the interfacial reactions between inorganic arsenic and solid surfaces of sulfides, and Fe, Al, and Mn (hydro)oxides. Outer-sphere and inner-sphere complex (monodentate mononuclear, bidentate mononuclear, and bidentate binuclear complex) models have been proposed to interpret the sorption mechanisms. The nature of the surface complexes has been inspected by spectroscopic methods but remains controversial. This paper focuses on the recent advancement in arsenic speciation in solid phases and covers relevant methodological, analytical and modeling aspects. The identification of arsenic species in natural materials, however, is complicated by the presence of multiple species, and the applications of instrumental methods are usually limited due to their comparatively high detection limits. Development of advanced in-situ methods with high sensitivity, therefore, is required.

The production of surfactin by Bacillus subtilis grown on peat hydrolysate

SummaryHorticultural grade sphagnum peat was subjected to acid hydrolysis under various conditions. The hydrolysis was accomplished with concentrations of sulphuric acid between 0.5 and 2% for either 1 or 2 h at 124°C. Six monosaccharides in the hydrolysate were identified by HPLC analysis. A maximum sugar concentration of 7.7g/l was obtained with glucose accounting for 46% of the total. Bacillus subtilis was able to fully utilize all six sugars when the hydrolysate was supplemented with sufficient diammonium phosphate. The production of surfactin seemed to depend on the carbon-nitrogens balance and was inversely correlated to biomass production. With the selection of the proper hydrolysis conditions and nutrient levels the quantity of surfactin produced was as high as with a conventional glucose and mineral salts medium. The surfactin could be used in a peat dewatering process or sold as a co-product from a peat production facility.

Enhanced mobilization of arsenic and heavy metals from mine tailings by humic acid.

Arsenic and heavy metal mobilization from mine tailings is an issue of concern as it might pose potential groundwater or ecological risks. Increasing attention recently has been focused on the effects of natural organic matter on the mobility behavior of the toxicants in the environment. Column experiments were carried out in this research study to evaluate the feasibility of using humic acid (HA) to mobilize arsenic and heavy metals (i.e., Cu, Pb and Zn) from an oxidized Pb-Zn mine tailings sample collected from Bathurst, New Brunswick, Canada. Capillary electrophoresis analyses indicated that arsenate [As(V)] was the only extractable arsenic species in the mine tailings and the addition of HA at pH 11 did not incur the oxidation-reduction or methylation reactions of arsenic. A 0.1% HA solution with an initial pH adjusted to 11 was selected as the flushing solution, while distilled water (initial pH adjusted to 11) was used as the control to account for the mobilization of arsenic and the heavy metals by physical mixing and the effect of pH. It was found that the HA could significantly enhance the mobilization of arsenic and heavy metals simultaneously from the mine tailings. After a 70-pore-volume-flushing, the mobilization of arsenic, copper, lead and zinc reached 97, 35, 838 and 224 mg kg(-1), respectively. The mobilization of arsenic and the heavy metals was found to be positively correlated with the mobilization of Fe in the presence of the HA. Moreover, the mobilization of arsenic was also correlated well with that of the heavy metals. The mobilization of co-existing metals to some extent might enhance arsenic mobilization in the presence of the HA by helping incorporate it into soluble aqueous organic complexes through metal-bridging mechanisms. Use of HA in arsenic and heavy metal remediation may be developed as an environmentally benign and possible effective remedial option to reduce and avoid further contamination.

Removal of Heavy Metals from Contaminated Soil and Sediments Using the Biosurfactant Surfactin

The feasibility of using a biodegradable surfactant, surfactin from Bacillus subtilis, for the removal of heavy metals from a contaminated soil (890 mg/kg zinc, 420 mg/kg copper, 12.6% oil and grease) and sediments (110 mg/kg copper, 3300 mg/kg zinc) was evaluated. Results showed that after one and five batch washings of the soil, 25 and 70% of the copper, 6 and 25% of the zinc, and 5 and 15% of the cadmium could be removed by 0.1% surfactin with 1% NaOH, respectively. From the sediment, 15% of the copper and 6% of the zinc could be removed after a single washing with 0.25% surfactin/1% NaOH. The geochemical speciation of the heavy metals among the exchangeable, oxide, carbonate, organic, and residual fractions was determined by selective sequential extraction procedure. For both matrices, the exchangeable fractions were minimal, while the carbonate and the oxide fractions accounted for over 90% of the zinc present and the organic fraction constituted over 70% of the copper. Results after washing indicate...

Enhanced biosurfactant production by a mutant Bacillus subtilis strain

SummaryUltraviolet mutation of Bacillus subtilis ATCC 21332 yielded a stable mutant that produced over three times more of the biosurfactant, surfactin, than the parent strain. By protoplast fusing the mutant (Suf-1) with the marker strain, B. subtilis BGSC strain IA28, the mutation was located between argC4 and hisA1 on the genetic map.