该研究选择两种配方（配方1：酪蛋白酸钠/麦芽糊精配方；配方2：乳清蛋白/乳糖配方）对结构脂进行包埋处理，测定其氧化稳定性与体外消化特性相关指标并进行比较分析。结果表明：在氧化稳定性方面，结构脂原油经氧化后其过氧化值（Peroxide Value，POV）、硫代巴比妥酸反应物（Thiobarbituric Acid Reactivesubstances，TBARS）值与酸价分别增加了55.199 meq/kg、4.532 mg/kg和0.280 mg/g，总单不饱和脂肪酸（Monounsaturated Fatty Acid，MUFA）与多不饱和脂肪酸（Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid，PUFA）的含量分别减少了9.621%和15.664%；配方1的POV值、TBARS值与酸价增加了16.438 meq/kg、1.348 mg/kg和0.124 mg/g，总MUFA与PUFA减少了5.630%和9.368%；配方2的POV值、TBARS值与酸价增加了13.255 meq/kg、1.176 mg/kg和0.127 mg/g，总MUFA与PUFA减少了5.163%和8.551%。在体外消化特性方面，结构脂原油在消化过程中的最大粒径、电位与脂肪酸释放率分别为907.6 nm、-20.45 mV和69.366%；配方1分别为2 355.5 nm、-10.15 mV和59.986%；配方2则为1 449.65 nm、-18.75 mV和65.365%。综上所述，两种配方都显著提高了结构脂的氧化稳定性，但配方1在消化过程中的粒径增大导致其脂肪酸释放率下降，因此选择配方2作为结构脂的包埋壁材。

Two different wall material formulations (formulation 1: sodium caseinate/maltodextrin; formulation 2: whey protein/lactose) were selected for the microencapsulation of structural lipids, and their oxidative stability and in vitro digestive properties were determined and compared. After oxidation, the peroxide value (POV), thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), and acid value of unencapsulated structural lipids increased by 55.199 meq/kg, 4.532 mg/kg, and 0.280 mg/g, respectively, whereas their contents of total monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) decreased by 9.621% and 15.664%, respectively. Meanwhile, the POV, TBARS, and acid value of encapsulated structural lipids with formulation 1 increased by 16.438 meq/kg, 1.348 mg/kg, and 0.124 mg/g respectively, whereas their total MUFA and PUFA contents decreased by 5.630% and 9.368%, respectively. Furthermore, the POV, TBARS, and acid value of encapsulated structural lipids with formulation 2 increased by 13.255 meq/kg, 1.176 mg/kg, and 0.127 mg/g, respectively, whereas their total MUFA and PUFA contents decreased by 5.163% and 8.551%, respectively. Regarding in vitro digestive properties, the maximum particle size, electric potential, and fatty acid release rate of unencapsulated structural lipids during digestion were 907.6 nm, -20.45 mV, and 69.366%, respectively. Meanwhile, these values were 2 355.5 nm, -10.15 mV, and 59.986%, respectively, for encapsulated structural lipids with formulation 1, and 1 449.65 nm, -18.75 mV, and 65.365%, respectively, for encapsulated structural lipids with formulation 2. In conclusion, both formulations can significantly improve the oxidative stability of structural lipids, although the larger particle size of encapsulated structural lipids with formulation 1 during digestion can delay fatty acid release; therefore, formulation 2 is considered ideal as a capsule wall material for structural lipids.

湖南省科协科技人才托举工程（2022TJ-XH-047）；湖南省营养健康品工程技术研究中心创新平台与人才计划（2019TP2066）