Applications of the INFOGEST In Vitro Digestion Model to Foods: A Review

Literature Cited

1. Akça SN, Sargın HS, Mızrak ÖF, Yaman M. 2019. Determination and assessment of the bioaccessibility of vitamins B1, B2, and B3 in commercially available cereal-based baby foods. Microchem. J. 150:104192
   [Google Scholar]
2. Alminger M, Aura AM, Bohn T, Dufour C, El SN et al. 2014. In vitro models for studying secondary plant metabolite digestion and bioaccessibility. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 13:413–36
   [Google Scholar]
3. Alvebratt C, Keemink J, Edueng K, Cheung O, Stromme M, Bergstrom CAS. 2020. An in vitro dissolution-digestion-permeation assay for the study of advanced drug delivery systems. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 149:21–29
   [Google Scholar]
4. Asensio-Grau A, Peinado I, Heredia A, Andrés A. 2018. Effect of cooking methods and intestinal conditions on lipolysis, proteolysis and xanthophylls bioaccessibility of eggs. J. Funct. Foods 46:579–86
   [Google Scholar]
5. Asensio-Grau A, Peinado I, Heredia A, Andrés A. 2019. In vitro study of cheese digestion: effect of type of cheese and intestinal conditions on macronutrients digestibility. LWT 113:108278
   [Google Scholar]
6. Atallah N, Deracinois B, Boulier A, Baniel A, Jouan-Rimbaud Bouveresse D et al. 2020. In vitro assessment of the impact of industrial processes on the gastrointestinal digestion of milk protein matrices using the INFOGEST protocol. Foods 9:111580
   [Google Scholar]
7. Baugreet S, Gomez C, Auty MAE, Kerry JP, Hamill RM, Brodkorb A. 2019. In vitro digestion of protein-enriched restructured beef steaks with pea protein isolate, rice protein and lentil flour following sous vide processing. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 54:152–61
   [Google Scholar]
8. Bohn T, Carriere F, Day L, Deglaire A, Egger L et al. 2018. Correlation between in vitro and in vivo data on food digestion. What can we predict with static in vitro digestion models?. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58:2239–61
   [Google Scholar]
9. Brodkorb A, Egger L, Alminger M, Alvito P, Assunção R et al. 2019. INFOGEST static in vitro simulation of gastrointestinal food digestion. Nat. Protoc. 14:991–1014
   [Google Scholar]
10. Bustos MC, Vignola MB, Pérez GT, León AE. 2017. In vitro digestion kinetics and bioaccessibility of starch in cereal food products. J. Cereal Sci. 77:243–50
    [Google Scholar]
11. Christian P, Smith ER, Lee SE, Vargas AJ, Bremer AA, Raiten DJ. 2021. The need to study human milk as a biological system. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 113:1063–72
    [Google Scholar]
12. Colombo R, Ferron L, Frosi I, Papetti A. 2021. Advances in static in vitro digestion models after the COST action INFOGEST consensus protocol. Food Funct. 12:7619–36
    [Google Scholar]
13. Comunian TA, Drusch S, Brodkorb A. 2021. Advances of plant-based structured food delivery systems on the in vitro digestibility of bioactive compounds. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 62:236485–504
    [Google Scholar]
14. David L, Danciu V, Moldovan B, Filip A 2019. Effects of in vitro gastrointestinal digestion on the antioxidant capacity and anthocyanin content of Cornelian cherry fruit extract. Antioxidants 8:5114
    [Google Scholar]
15. DeLoid GM, Wang Y, Kapronezai K, Lorente LR, Zhang R et al. 2017. An integrated methodology for assessing the impact of food matrix and gastrointestinal effects on the biokinetics and cellular toxicity of ingested engineered nanomaterials. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 14:40
    [Google Scholar]
16. Dupont D, Alric M, Blanquet-Diot S, Bornhorst G, Cueva C et al. 2019. Can dynamic in vitro digestion systems mimic the physiological reality?. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 59:1546–62
    [Google Scholar]
17. Egger L, Ménard O, Abbühl L, Duerr D, Stoffers H et al. 2021. Higher microbial diversity in raw than in pasteurized milk Raclette-type cheese enhances peptide and metabolite diversity after in vitro digestion. Food Chem. 340:128154
    [Google Scholar]
18. Egger L, Ménard O, Baumann C, Duerr D, Schlegel P et al. 2019. Digestion of milk proteins: comparing static and dynamic in vitro digestion systems with in vivo data. Food Res. Int. 118:32–39
    [Google Scholar]
19. Egger L, Ménard O, Delgado-Andrade C, Alvito P, Assunção R et al. 2016. The harmonized INFOGEST in vitro digestion method: from knowledge to action. Food Res. Int. 88:217–25
    [Google Scholar]
20. Egger L, Schlegel P, Baumann C, Stoffers H, Guggisberg D et al. 2017. Physiological comparability of the harmonized INFOGEST in vitro digestion method to in vivo pig digestion. Food Res. Int. 102:567–74
    [Google Scholar]
21. El SN, Karakaya S, Simsek S, Dupont D, Menfaatli E, Eker AT. 2015. In vitro digestibility of goat milk and kefir with a new standardised static digestion method (INFOGEST cost action) and bioactivities of the resultant peptides. Food Funct. 6:2322–30
    [Google Scholar]
22. Evenepoel P, Geypens B, Luypaerts A, Hiele M, Ghoos Y, Rutgeerts P. 1998. Digestibility of cooked and raw egg protein in humans as assessed by stable isotope techniques. J. Nutr. 128:1716–22
    [Google Scholar]
23. Ferreira-Lazarte A, Montilla A, Mulet-Cabero A-I, Rigby N, Olano A et al. 2017. Study on the digestion of milk with prebiotic carbohydrates in a simulated gastrointestinal model. J. Funct. Foods 33:149–54
    [Google Scholar]
24. Fricker LD. 2015. Limitations of mass spectrometry-based peptidomic approaches. J. Am. Soc. Mass. Spectrom. 26:1981–91
    [Google Scholar]
25. Frontela C, Ros G, Martínez C 2009. Iron and calcium availability from digestion of infant cereals by Caco-2 cells. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 228:789–97
    [Google Scholar]
26. Galanakis CM. 2021. Functionality of food components and emerging technologies. Foods 10:1128
    [Google Scholar]
27. Gong X, Hui X, Wu G, Morton JD, Brennan MA, Brennan CS. 2022. In vitro digestion characteristics of cereal protein concentrates as assessed using a pepsin-pancreatin digestion model. Food Res. Int. 152:110715
    [Google Scholar]
28. Gouseti O, Lovegrove A, Kosik O, Fryer PJ, Mills C et al. 2019. Exploring the role of cereal dietary fiber in digestion. J. Agric. Food Chem. 67:8419–24
    [Google Scholar]
29. Grundy MML, Abrahamse E, Almgren A, Alminger M, Andres A et al. 2021. INFOGEST inter-laboratory recommendations for assaying gastric and pancreatic lipases activities prior to in vitro digestion studies. J. Funct. Foods 82:104497
    [Google Scholar]
30. Guinot L, Rioux L-E, Labrie S, Britten M, Turgeon SL. 2019. Identification of texture parameters influencing commercial cheese matrix disintegration and lipid digestion using an in vitro static digestion model. Food Res. Int. 121:269–77
    [Google Scholar]
31. Hotz C, Gibson RS. 2007. Traditional food-processing and preparation practices to enhance the bioavailability of micronutrients in plant-based diets. J. Nutr. 137:1097–100
    [Google Scholar]
32. Iqbal S, Wu P, Kirk TV, Chen XD. 2021. Amylose content modulates maize starch hydrolysis, rheology, and microstructure during simulated gastrointestinal digestion. Food Hydrocoll. 110:106171
    [Google Scholar]
33. Jiménez-Munoz L, Brodkorb A, Gómez-Mascaraque LG, Corredig M 2021. Effect of heat treatment on the digestion behavior of pea and rice protein dispersions and their blends, studied using the semi-dynamic INFOGEST digestion method. Food Funct. 12:8747–59
    [Google Scholar]
34. Le Feunteun S, Al-Razaz A, Dekker M, George E, Laroche B, van Aken G 2021. Physiologically based modeling of food digestion and intestinal microbiota: state of the art and future challenges. An INFOGEST review. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 12:149–67
    [Google Scholar]
35. Lemmens E, De Brier N, Goos P, Smolders E, Delcour JA. 2019. Steeping and germination of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). I. Unlocking the impact of phytate and cell wall hydrolysis on bio-accessibility of iron and zinc elements. J. Cereal Sci. 90:102847
    [Google Scholar]
36. Li C, Yu W, Wu P, Chen XD. 2020. Current in vitro digestion systems for understanding food digestion in human upper gastrointestinal tract. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 96:114–26
    [Google Scholar]
37. Li H, Gilbert RG, Gidley MJ. 2021. Molecular-structure evolution during in vitro fermentation of granular high-amylose wheat starch is different to in vitro digestion. Food Chem. 362:130188
    [Google Scholar]
38. Lu X, Zhao C, Shi H, Liao Y, Xu F et al. 2021. Nutrients and bioactives in citrus fruits: different citrus varieties, fruit parts, and growth stages. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2021.1969891
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
39. Lucas-González R, Viuda-Martos M, Pérez-Alvarez JA, Fernández-López J. 2018. In vitro digestion models suitable for foods: opportunities for new fields of application and challenges. Food Res. Int. 107:423–36
    [Google Scholar]
40. Luo H, Li Z, Straight CR, Wang Q, Zhou J et al. 2022. Black pepper and vegetable oil-based emulsion synergistically enhance carotenoid bioavailability of raw vegetables in humans. Food Chem. 373:131277
    [Google Scholar]
41. Magallanes-Cruz PA, Flores-Silva PC, Bello-Perez LA. 2017. Starch structure influences its digestibility: a review. J. Food Sci. 82:2016–23
    [Google Scholar]
42. Marques MC, Perina NP, Mosquera EMB, Tome TM, Lazarini T, Mariutti LRB. 2021. DHA bioaccessibility in infant formulas and preschool children milks. Food Res. Int. 149:110698
    [Google Scholar]
43. Martin-Rubio AS, Sopelana P, Guillen MD. 2019. The key role of ovalbumin in lipid bioaccessibility and oxidation product profile during the in vitro digestion of slightly oxidized soybean oil. Food Funct. 10:4440–51
    [Google Scholar]
44. Martini S, Conte A, Tagliazucchi D. 2019. Comparative peptidomic profile and bioactivities of cooked beef, pork, chicken and turkey meat after in vitro gastro-intestinal digestion. J. Proteom. 208:103500
    [Google Scholar]
45. Mat DJL, Cattenoz T, Souchon I, Michon C, Le Feunteun S 2018. Monitoring protein hydrolysis by pepsin using pH-stat: in vitro gastric digestions in static and dynamic pH conditions. Food Chem. 239:268–75
    [Google Scholar]
46. Mat DJL, Le Feunteun S, Michon C, Souchon I 2016. In vitro digestion of foods using pH-stat and the INFOGEST protocol: impact of matrix structure on digestion kinetics of macronutrients, proteins and lipids. Food Res. Int. 88:226–33
    [Google Scholar]
47. Mat DJL, Souchon I, Michon C, Le Feunteun S 2020. Gastro-intestinal in vitro digestions of protein emulsions monitored by pH-stat: influence of structural properties and interplay between proteolysis and lipolysis. Food Chem. 311:125946
    [Google Scholar]
48. McClements DJ. 2015. Food Emulsions: Principles, Practices, and Techniques Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press
    [Google Scholar]
49. McClements DJ. 2018. The biophysics of digestion: lipids. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 21:1–6
    [Google Scholar]
50. McClements DJ, Grossmann L. 2021. The science of plant-based foods: constructing next-generation meat, fish, milk, and egg analogs. Comp. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 20:4049–100
    [Google Scholar]
51. McClements DJ, Grossmann L. 2022. Next-Generation Plant-based Foods: Design, Production, and Properties New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
52. McClements DJ, Xiao H 2014. Excipient foods: designing food matrices that improve the oral bioavailability of pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals. Food Funct. 5:1320–33
    [Google Scholar]
53. Mesquita LMD, Neves BV, Pisani LP, de Rosso VV. 2020. Mayonnaise as a model food for improving the bioaccessibility of carotenoids from Bactris gasipaes fruits. LWT 122:109022
    [Google Scholar]
54. Miao M, Jiang B, Jiang H, Zhang T, Li X. 2015. Interaction mechanism between green tea extract and human α-amylase for reducing starch digestion. Food Chem. 186:20–25
    [Google Scholar]
55. Minekus M, Alminger M, Alvito P, Ballance S, Bohn T et al. 2014. A standardised static in vitro digestion method suitable for food: an international consensus. Food Funct. 5:1113–24
    [Google Scholar]
56. Miralles B, del Barrio R, Cueva C, Recio I, Amigo L. 2018. Dynamic gastric digestion of a commercial whey protein concentrate. J. Sci. Food Agric. 98:1873–79
    [Google Scholar]
57. Miralles B, Sanchón J, Sánchez-Rivera L, Martínez-Maqueda D, Le Gouar Y et al. 2021. Digestion of micellar casein in duodenum cannulated pigs. Correlation between in vitro simulated gastric digestion and in vivo data. Food Chem. 343:128424
    [Google Scholar]
58. Mulet-Cabero AI, Egger L, Portmann R, Ménard O, Marze S et al. 2020a. A standardised semi-dynamic in vitro digestion method suitable for food: an international consensus. Food Funct. 11:1702–20
    [Google Scholar]
59. Mulet-Cabero AI, Torcello-Gomez A, Saha S, Mackie AR, Wilde PJ, Brodkorb A. 2020b. Impact of caseins and whey proteins ratio and lipid content on in vitro digestion and ex vivo absorption. Food Chem. 319:126514
    [Google Scholar]
60. Muleya M, Young SD, Bailey EH. 2021. A stable isotope approach to accurately determine iron and zinc bioaccessibility in cereals and legumes based on a modified INFOGEST static in vitro digestion method. Food Res. Int. 139:109948
    [Google Scholar]
61. Nemli E, Ozakdogan S, Tomas M, McClements DJ, Capanoglu E. 2021. Increasing the bioaccessibility of antioxidants in tomato pomace using excipient emulsions. Food Biophys. 16:355–64
    [Google Scholar]
62. Ogawa Y, Donlao N, Thuengtung S, Tian J, Cai Y et al. 2018. Impact of food structure and cell matrix on digestibility of plant-based food. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 19:36–41
    [Google Scholar]
63. Onwezen MC, Bouwman EP, Reinders MJ, Dagevos H. 2021. A systematic review on consumer acceptance of alternative proteins: pulses, algae, insects, plant-based meat alternatives, and cultured meat. Appetite 159:105058
    [Google Scholar]
64. Ozel B, Zhang Z, He L, McClements DJ. 2020. Digestion of animal- and plant-based proteins encapsulated in kappa-carrageenan/protein beads under simulated gastrointestinal conditions. Food Res. Int. 137:109662
    [Google Scholar]
65. Panagopoulou EA, Chiou A, Bismpikis M, Mouraka P, Mangiorou E, Karathanos VT. 2021. Dried fruits: phytochemicals and their fate during in vitro digestion. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 56:4506–15
    [Google Scholar]
66. Pimentel-Moral S, Teixeira MC, Fernandes AR, Arráez-Román D, Martínez-Férez A et al. 2018. Lipid nanocarriers for the loading of polyphenols: a comprehensive review. Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. 260:85–94
    [Google Scholar]
67. Pu HB, Lin L, Sun DW 2019. Principles of hyperspectral microscope imaging techniques and their applications in food quality and safety detection: a review. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 18:853–66
    [Google Scholar]
68. Quan W, Tao Y, Lu M, Yuan B, Chen J et al. 2018. Stability of the phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity of five fruit (apple, orange, grape, pomelo and kiwi) juices during in vitro-simulated gastrointestinal digestion. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 53:1131–39
    [Google Scholar]
69. Rao PS, Nolasco E, Handa A, Naldrett MJ, Alvarez S, Majumder K. 2020. Effect of pH and heat treatment on the antioxidant activity of egg white protein-derived peptides after simulated in-vitro gastrointestinal digestion. Antioxidants 9:111114
    [Google Scholar]
70. Rebellato AP, Grazielle Siqueira Silva J, Probio de Moraes P, Trajano B, Azevedo Lima Pallone J. 2022. Static in vitro digestion methods for assessing essential minerals in processed meat products. Food Res. Int. 155:111121
    [Google Scholar]
71. Réhault-Godbert S, Guyot N, Nys Y. 2019. The golden egg: nutritional value, bioactivities, and emerging benefits for human health. Nutrients 11:3684
    [Google Scholar]
72. Ribas-Agustí A, Martín-Belloso O, Soliva-Fortuny R, Elez-Martínez P. 2018. Food processing strategies to enhance phenolic compounds bioaccessibility and bioavailability in plant-based foods. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 58:2531–48
    [Google Scholar]
73. Sá AGA, Moreno YMF, Carciofi BAM. 2020. Food processing for the improvement of plant proteins digestibility. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 60:3367–86
    [Google Scholar]
74. Salvia-Trujillo L, Verkempinck SHE, Zhang X, Van Loey AM, Grauwet T, Hendrickx ME. 2019. Comparative study on lipid digestion and carotenoid bioaccessibility of emulsions, nanoemulsions and vegetable-based in situ emulsions. Food Hydrocoll. 87:119–28
    [Google Scholar]
75. Santos-Hernández M, Alfieri F, Gallo V, Miralles B, Masi P et al. 2020a. Compared digestibility of plant protein isolates by using the INFOGEST digestion protocol. Food Res. Int. 137:109708
    [Google Scholar]
76. Santos-Hernández M, Miralles B, Amigo L, Recio I. 2020b. Peptidomic data of egg white gastrointestinal digests prepared using the Infogest Harmonized Protocol. Data Brief 31:105932
    [Google Scholar]
77. Sensoy I. 2021. A review on the food digestion in the digestive tract and the used in vitro models. Curr. Res. Food Sci. 4:308–19
    [Google Scholar]
78. Smeets PAM, Deng R, van Eijnatten EJM, Mayar M. 2021. Monitoring food digestion with magnetic resonance techniques. Proc. Nutr. Soc. 80:148–58
    [Google Scholar]
79. Sousa R, Portmann R, Dubois S, Recio I, Egger L. 2020. Protein digestion of different protein sources using the INFOGEST static digestion model. Food Res. Int. 130:108996
    [Google Scholar]
80. Sulaiman N, Givens DI, Anitha S. 2021. A narrative review: in-vitro methods for assessing bio-accessibility/bioavailability of iron in plant-based foods. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. https:doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2021.727533
    [Google Scholar]
81. Sun Y, Tao W, Huang H, Ye X, Sun P. 2019. Flavonoids, phenolic acids, carotenoids and antioxidant activity of fresh eating citrus fruits, using the coupled in vitro digestion and human intestinal HepG2 cells model. Food Chem. 279:321–27
    [Google Scholar]
82. Tagliazucchi D, Martini S, Shamsia S, Helal A, Conte A. 2018. Biological activities and peptidomic profile of in vitro-digested cow, camel, goat and sheep milk. Int. Dairy J. 81:19–27
    [Google Scholar]
83. Tan Y, Li R, Zhou H, Liu J, Mundo JLM et al. 2020a. Impact of calcium levels on lipid digestion and nutraceutical bioaccessibility in nanoemulsion delivery systems studied using standardized INFOGEST digestion protocol. Food Funct. 11:174–86
    [Google Scholar]
84. Tan Y, Liu J, Zhou H, Muriel Mundo J, McClements DJ 2019. Impact of an indigestible oil phase (mineral oil) on the bioaccessibility of vitamin D₃ encapsulated in whey protein-stabilized nanoemulsions. Food Res. Int. 120:264–74
    [Google Scholar]
85. Tan Y, McClements DJ. 2021. Improving the bioavailability of oil-soluble vitamins by optimizing food matrix effects: a review. Food Chem. 348:129148
    [Google Scholar]
86. Tan Y, Zhang Z, Liu J, Xiao H, McClements DJ. 2020b. Factors impacting lipid digestion and nutraceutical bioaccessibility assessed by standardized gastrointestinal model (INFOGEST): oil droplet size. Food Funct. 11:9936–46
    [Google Scholar]
87. Tan Y, Zhang Z, Muriel Mundo J, McClements DJ 2020c. Factors impacting lipid digestion and nutraceutical bioaccessibility assessed by standardized gastrointestinal model (INFOGEST): emulsifier type. Food Res. Int. 137:109739
    [Google Scholar]
88. Tan Y, Zhang Z, Zhou H, Xiao H, McClements DJ. 2020d. Factors impacting lipid digestion and β-carotene bioaccessibility assessed by standardized gastrointestinal model (INFOGEST): oil droplet concentration. Food Funct. 11:7126–37
    [Google Scholar]
89. Tan Y, Zhou H, McClements DJ. 2022. Application of static in vitro digestion models for assessing the bioaccessibility of hydrophobic bioactives: a review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 122:314–27
    [Google Scholar]
90. Thuenemann EC 2015. Dynamic digestion models: general introduction. The Impact of Food Bioactives on Health: In Vitro and Ex Vivo Models K Verhoeckx, P Cotter, I López-Expósito, C Kleiveland, T Lea, et al. 33–36. Cham, Switz.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
91. Tormási J, Abrankó L. 2021. Assessment of fatty acid-specific lipolysis by in vitro digestion and GC-FID. Nutrients 13:113889
    [Google Scholar]
92. Tso R, Forde CG. 2021. Unintended consequences: nutritional impact and potential pitfalls of switching from animal- to plant-based foods. Nutrients 13:82527
    [Google Scholar]
93. Ugur H, Catak J, Mizrak OF, Cebi N, Yaman M. 2020. Determination and evaluation of in vitro bioaccessibility of added vitamin C in commercially available fruit-, vegetable-, and cereal-based baby foods. Food Chem. 330:127166
    [Google Scholar]
94. Verkempinck SHE, Guevara-Zambrano JM, Infantes-Garcia MR, Naranjo MC, Soliva-Fortuny R et al. 2022. Gastric and small intestinal lipid digestion kinetics as affected by the gradual addition of lipases and bile salts. Food Biosci. 46:101595
    [Google Scholar]
95. Williams P. 2007. Nutritional composition of red meat. Nutr. Diet. 64:S113–19
    [Google Scholar]
96. Wulff-Perez M, Barrajon-Catalan E, Micol V, Martin-Rodriguez A, de Vicente J, Galvez-Ruiz MJ. 2014. In vitro duodenal lipolysis of lipid-based drug delivery systems studied by HPLC-UV and HPLC-MS. Int. J. Pharm. 465:396–404
    [Google Scholar]
97. Xavier AAO, Mariutti LRB. 2021. Static and semi-dynamic in vitro digestion methods: state of the art and recent achievements towards standardization. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 41:260–73
    [Google Scholar]
98. Yao KF, McClements DJ, Yan C, Xiao J, Liu H et al. 2021. In vitro and in vivo study of the enhancement of carotenoid bioavailability in vegetables using excipient nanoemulsions: impact of lipid content. Food Res. Int. 141:110162
    [Google Scholar]
99. Yao Y, Xu F, Ju X, Li Z, Wang L 2020. Lipid-lowering effects and intestinal transport of polyphenol extract from digested buckwheat in Caco-2/HepG2 coculture models. J. Agric. Food Chem. 68:4205–14
    [Google Scholar]
100. Zhang R, Zhang Z, Zhang H, Decker EA, McClements DJ. 2015. Influence of lipid type on gastrointestinal fate of oil-in-water emulsions: in vitro digestion study. Food Res. Int. 75:71–78
     [Google Scholar]
101. Zhang R, Zhang Z, Zou L, Xiao H, Zhang G et al. 2016. Impact of lipid content on the ability of excipient emulsions to increase carotenoid bioaccessibility from natural sources (raw and cooked carrots). Food Biophys. 11:71–80
     [Google Scholar]
102. Zhang ZP, Jung KJ, Zhang RJ, Mundo JLM, McClements DJ. 2019. In situ monitoring of lipid droplet release from biopolymer microgels under simulated gastric conditions using magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Food Res. Int. 123:181–88
     [Google Scholar]
103. Zhou H, Dai T, Liu J, Tan Y, Bai L et al. 2021a. Chitin nanocrystals reduce lipid digestion and β-carotene bioaccessibility: an in-vitro INFOGEST gastrointestinal study. Food Hydrocoll. 113:106494
     [Google Scholar]
104. Zhou H, Hu Y, Tan Y, Zhang Z, McClements DJ. 2021b. Digestibility and gastrointestinal fate of meat versus plant-based meat analogs: an in vitro comparison. Food Chem. 364:130439
     [Google Scholar]
105. Zhou H, Zheng B, McClements DJ. 2021c. Encapsulation of lipophilic polyphenols in plant-based nanoemulsions: impact of carrier oil on lipid digestion and curcumin, resveratrol and quercetin bioaccessibility. Food Funct. 12:3420–32
     [Google Scholar]
106. Zhou H, Zheng B, Zhang Z, Zhang R, He L, McClements DJ. 2021d. Fortification of plant-based milk with calcium may reduce vitamin D bioaccessibility: an in vitro digestion study. J. Agric. Food Chem. 69:4223–33
     [Google Scholar]
107. Zhu S, Liu B, Wang F, Huang D, Zhong F, Li Y. 2021. Characterization and in vitro digestion properties of cassava starch and epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) blend. LWT 137:110398
     [Google Scholar]