# Encapsulation of Fennel Essential Oil in Calcium Alginate Microbeads via Electrostatic Extrusion
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Process Yield  
The process yield is an important factor during the production of alginate microbeads since it reflects the cost-effectiveness of the process and is vital for industrial-scale production and ensuring product quality. A higher yield indicates that more beads are produced per unit of alginate, and a consistent yield from batch to batch ensures a stable and well-controlled process. The yield in this study ranged from 37.75% to 56.97% with a mean of 49.43%, which was similar to the range reported by [PERSON] et al. [20] during the encapsulation of grapefruit oil in alginate hydrogel by ionic gelation, as well as slightly lower than the average 62% that [PERSON] et al. [15] achieved during encapsulation of thyme EO in alginate microbeads. The relatively low values can be explained by the loss of emulsion during transfer as well as the loss of water during cross-linking [20]. Statistical analysis (Table 2) showed that only the content of alginate had a significant effect on the yield, which can be explained by its effect on the water loss, as lower content of alginate means less hydrophilic groups responsible for the water-adsorbing capacity of alginate during gel formation [21].  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Source of Variation**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**N**} & **Yield** & **Encapsulation** & **Loading** \\  & & **(\%)** & **Efficiency** & **Capacity** \\  & & & **(\%)** & **(\%)** \\ \hline Alginate (\%, \(w/v\)) & & \(p\) \textless{} 0.01 * & \(p\) \textless{} 0.17 & \(p\) \textless{} 0.14 \\
**1** & 24 & 45.03 \(\pm\) 1.64 * & \(17.78\) \textless{} 3.63 * & \(58.55\) \textless{} 4.63 * \\
**1.5** & 24 & 48.93 \(\pm\) 0.62 * & \(27.17\) \textless{} 3.84 * & \(62.02\) \textless{} 2.79 * \\
**2** & 24 & 54.32 \(\pm\) 0.67 * & \(23.09\) \textless{} 2.77 * & \(52.13\) \textless{} 2.93 * \\ \hline Whey protein (\%, \(w/v\)) & & \(p\) \textless{} 0.83 & \(p\) \textless{} 0.29 & \(p\) \textless{} 0.18 \\
0 & 24 & 48.64 \(\pm\) 1.07 * & \(18.69\) \textless{} 2.62 * & \(53.47\) \textless{} 3.22 * \\
0.75 & 24 & 49.76 \(\pm\) 1.83 * & \(22.70\) \textless{} 4.46 * & \(56.52\) \textless{} 3.96 * \\
1.5 & 24 & 49.87 \(\pm\) 1.70 * & \(26.65\) \textless{} 3.17 * & \(62.90\) \textless{} 3.50 * \\ \hline Alginate (\%, \(w/v\))/ & & & & \\ Whey protein (\%, \(w/v\)) & & \(p\) \textless{} 0.87 & \(p\) \textless{} 0.04 * & \(p\) \textless{} 0.03 * \\
1/0 & 8 & 45.81 \(\pm\) 1.48 * & \(10.90\) \textless{} 2.69 * & \(49.81\) \textless{} 6.72 * \\
1/0.75 & 8 & 43.71 \(\pm\) 3.48 * & \(12.52\) \textless{} 3.42 * & \(52.66\) \textless{} 7.28 * \\
1/1.5 & 8 & 45.58 \(\pm\) 3.78 * & \(29.91\) \textless{} 7.19 * & \(73.19\) \textless{} 5.42 * \\  & & \(p\) \textless{} 0.11 & \(p\) \textless{} 0.04 * & \(p\) \textless{} 0.03 * \\
1.5/0 & 8 & 47.14 \(\pm\) 0.56 * & \(22.47\) \textless{} 3.09 * & \(59.48\) \textless{} 2.47 * \\
1.5/0.75 & 8 & 50.00 \(\pm\) 0.70 * & \(36.34\) \textless{} 4.84 * & \(67.86\) \textless{} 4.32 * \\
1.5/1.5 & 8 & 49.65 \(\pm\) 1.33 * & \(22.70\) \textless{} 3.77 * & \(59.26\) \textless{} 2.21 * \\  & & \(p\) \textless{} 0.30 & \(p\) \textless{} 0.53 & \(p\) \textless{} 0.63 * \\
2/0 & 8 & 52.97 \(\pm\) 0.61 * & \(22.69\) \textless{} 5.34 * & \(51.11\) \textless{} 6.23 * \\
2/0.75 & 8 & 55.59 \(\pm\) 0.90 * & \(19.25\) \textless{} 3.09 * & \(49.03\) \textless{} 3.62 * \\
2/1.5 & 8 & 54.39 \(\pm\) 1.61 * & \(27.33\) \textless{} 5.96 * & \(56.25\) \textless{} 5.78 * \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Influence of the applied encapsulation parameters on yield, encapsulation efficiency, and loading capacity of fennel EO microbeads.