Mechanistic study of the differences in lactic acid bacteria resistance to freeze- or spray-drying and storage

Abstract

Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum are two lactic acid bacteria (LAB) widely used in the food industry. The objective of this work was to assess the resistance of these bacteria to freeze- and spray-drying and study the mechanisms involved in their loss of activity. The culturability and acidifying activity were measured to determine the specific acidifying activity, while membrane integrity was studied by flow cytometry. The glass transitions temperature and the water activity of the dried bacterial suspensions were also determined. Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) micro-spectroscopy was used to study the biochemical composition of cells in an aqueous environment. All experiments were performed after freezing, drying and storage at 4, 23 and 37 °C. The results showed that Lb. bulgaricus CFL1 was sensitive to osmotic, mechanical, and thermal stresses, while Lpb. plantarum WCFS1 tolerated better the first two types of stress but was more sensitive to thermal stress. Moreover, FTIR results suggested that the sensitivity of Lb. bulgaricus CFL1 to freeze-drying could be attributed to membrane and cell wall degradation, whereas changes in nucleic acids and proteins would be responsible of heat inactivation of both strains associated with spray-drying. According to the activation energy values (47–85 kJ/mol), the functionality loss during storage is a chemically limited reaction. Still, the physical properties of the glassy matrix played a fundamental role in the rates of loss of activity and showed that a glass transition temperature 40 °C above the storage temperature is needed to reach good preservation during storage. Key points: • Specific FTIR bands are proposed as markers of osmotic, mechanic and thermal stress • Lb. bulgaricus CFL1 was sensitive to all three stresses, Lpb. plantarum WCFS1 to thermal stress only • Activation energy revealed chemically limited reactions ruled the activity loss in storage Graphical abstract: (Figure presented.)