Mal J Nutr 23(1):107 - 115, 2017

Comparative Study of in vivo Gastrointestinal Absorption of Mustard Oil Emulsions Prepared with Different Types of Medium Chain Fatty Acids
Susmita Roy1, Sohini Mukherjee1, Avery Sengupta1*, Tanmoy Kumar Dey2, Pubali Dhar2 & Mahua Ghosh1


Introduction: Absorption of dietary fats is generally in the form of emulsions. The present study assessed the preparation and gastrointestinal absorption efficiency of three emulsions of mustard oil containing three types of medium chain fatty acids (MCFAs) in a rat model.
Methods: Caprylic acid (C8:0), capric acid (C10:0) and lauric acid (C12:0) were chosen as the MCFAs. Mustard oil emulsions were formulated using each of the MCFAs and lecithin as an emulsifier. The characteristics of the formulations including optical microscopy, particle size, zeta potential analysis and viscosity studies were assessed. Thereafter the intestinal digestion patterns of the three MCFA rich mustard oil emulsions were compared using a single pass perfusion test.
Results: The particle size of the emulsions varied between 212.70 nm and 312.70 nm. Physical characterisation such as a zeta potential study confirmed that all emulsions were thermodynamically stable. The absorption study was monitored at 30 min intervals of up to 2 h The absorption of C8:0 emulsion was found to be maximum (27.78%) followed by C10:0 emulsion (24.81%) and C12:0 emulsion (22.50%). The differences in absorption efficiency of the emulsions could be attributed to the smaller chain length of C8:0 which was more rapidly absorbed by the intestine.
Conclusion: In vivo gastrointestinal absorption of MCFA rich mustard oil emulsions was compared; caprylic acid-rich mustard oil showed the highest absorption rate in comparison to the other two emulsions. Further in vivo studies are required to establish the mechanism of absorption of structured lipids containing MCFAs.

Keywords: Intestinal absorption, medium chain fatty acids, oil-in-water emulsion

Download full article

March 1995, Vol1 No.1
September 1995, Vol1 No.2
March 1996, Vol2 No.1
September 1996, Vol2 No.2
March 1997, Vol3 No.1
September 1997, Vol3 No.2
December 1998, Vol4 No.1&2
December 1999, Vol5 No.1&2
March 2000, Vol6 No.1
September 2000, Vol6 No.2
Mar/Sept 2001, Vol7 No.1&2
March 2002, Vol8, No.1
September 2002, Vol8, No.2
March 2003, Vol9 No.1
September 2003, Vol9 No.2
March 2004, Vol10 No.1
September 2004, Vol10 No. 2
2005, Vol 11 No.1
2005, Vo l11 No.2
2006, Vol 12 No.1
2006, Vol 12 No.2
2007, Vol 13 No.1
2007, Vol 13 No.2
March 2008, Vol 14 No.1
2008, Vol 14 No.2
2009, Vol 15 No.1
2009, Vol 15 No.2
2010, Vol 16(1)

2010, Vol 16(2)

2010, Vol 16(3)

2011, Vol 17(1)

2011, Vol 17(2)

2011, Vol 17(3)

2012, Vol 18(1)

2012, Vol 18(2)

2012, Vol 18(3)

2013, Vol 19(1)

2013, Vol 19(2)

2013, Vol 19(3)

2014, Vol 20(1)

2014, Vol 20(2)

2014, Vol 20(3)

2015, Vol 21(1)

2015, Vol 21(2)

2015, Vol 21(3)

2016, Vol 22(1)

2016, Vol 22(2)

2016, Vol 22 Supplement

2016, Vol 22(3)

2017, Vol 23(1)